In propositional logic, tautology is either of two commonly used rules of replacement. [1] [2] [3] The rules are used to eliminate redundancy in disjunctions and conjunctions when they occur in logical proofs. They are:
The principle of idempotency of disjunction:
and the principle of idempotency of conjunction:
Where "" is a metalogical symbol representing "can be replaced in a logical proof with".
Theorems are those logical formulas where is the conclusion of a valid proof, [4] while the equivalent semantic consequence indicates a tautology.
The tautology rule may be expressed as a sequent:
and
where is a metalogical symbol meaning that is a syntactic consequence of , in the one case, in the other, in some logical system;
or as a rule of inference:
and
where the rule is that wherever an instance of "" or "" appears on a line of a proof, it can be replaced with "";
or as the statement of a truth-functional tautology or theorem of propositional logic. The principle was stated as a theorem of propositional logic by Russell and Whitehead in Principia Mathematica as:
and
where is a proposition expressed in some formal system.
In propositional logic, biconditional introduction is a valid rule of inference. It allows for one to infer a biconditional from two conditional statements. The rule makes it possible to introduce a biconditional statement into a logical proof. If is true, and if is true, then one may infer that is true. For example, from the statements "if I'm breathing, then I'm alive" and "if I'm alive, then I'm breathing", it can be inferred that "I'm breathing if and only if I'm alive". Biconditional introduction is the converse of biconditional elimination. The rule can be stated formally as:
Biconditional elimination is the name of two valid rules of inference of propositional logic. It allows for one to infer a conditional from a biconditional. If is true, then one may infer that is true, and also that is true. For example, if it's true that I'm breathing if and only if I'm alive, then it's true that if I'm breathing, I'm alive; likewise, it's true that if I'm alive, I'm breathing. The rules can be stated formally as:
In classical logic, disjunctive syllogism is a valid argument form which is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement for one of its premises.
Disjunction introduction or addition is a rule of inference of propositional logic and almost every other deduction system. The rule makes it possible to introduce disjunctions to logical proofs. It is the inference that if P is true, then P or Q must be true.
In propositional logic, disjunction elimination is the valid argument form and rule of inference that allows one to eliminate a disjunctive statement from a logical proof. It is the inference that if a statement implies a statement and a statement also implies , then if either or is true, then has to be true. The reasoning is simple: since at least one of the statements P and R is true, and since either of them would be sufficient to entail Q, Q is certainly true.
First-order logic—also called predicate logic, predicate calculus, quantificational logic—is a collection of formal systems used in mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, and computer science. First-order logic uses quantified variables over non-logical objects, and allows the use of sentences that contain variables, so that rather than propositions such as "Socrates is a man", one can have expressions in the form "there exists x such that x is Socrates and x is a man", where "there exists" is a quantifier, while x is a variable. This distinguishes it from propositional logic, which does not use quantifiers or relations; in this sense, propositional logic is the foundation of first-order logic.
The propositional calculus is a branch of logic. It is also called propositional logic, statement logic, sentential calculus, sentential logic, or sometimes zeroth-order logic. It deals with propositions and relations between propositions, including the construction of arguments based on them. Compound propositions are formed by connecting propositions by logical connectives representing the truth functions of conjunction, disjunction, implication, biconditional, and negation. Some sources include other connectives, as in the table below.
In propositional logic and Boolean algebra, De Morgan's laws, also known as De Morgan's theorem, are a pair of transformation rules that are both valid rules of inference. They are named after Augustus De Morgan, a 19th-century British mathematician. The rules allow the expression of conjunctions and disjunctions purely in terms of each other via negation.
In boolean logic, a disjunctive normal form (DNF) is a canonical normal form of a logical formula consisting of a disjunction of conjunctions; it can also be described as an OR of ANDs, a sum of products, or — in philosophical logic — a cluster concept. As a normal form, it is useful in automated theorem proving.
Intuitionistic logic, sometimes more generally called constructive logic, refers to systems of symbolic logic that differ from the systems used for classical logic by more closely mirroring the notion of constructive proof. In particular, systems of intuitionistic logic do not assume the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination, which are fundamental inference rules in classical logic.
In propositional logic, the double negation of a statement states that "it is not the case that the statement is not true". In classical logic, every statement is logically equivalent to its double negation, but this is not true in intuitionistic logic; this can be expressed by the formula A ≡ ~(~A) where the sign ≡ expresses logical equivalence and the sign ~ expresses negation.
In propositional logic, conjunction elimination is a valid immediate inference, argument form and rule of inference which makes the inference that, if the conjunction A and B is true, then A is true, and B is true. The rule makes it possible to shorten longer proofs by deriving one of the conjuncts of a conjunction on a line by itself.
Constructive dilemma is a valid rule of inference of propositional logic. It is the inference that, if P implies Q and R implies S and either P or R is true, then either Q or S has to be true. In sum, if two conditionals are true and at least one of their antecedents is, then at least one of their consequents must be too. Constructive dilemma is the disjunctive version of modus ponens, whereas, destructive dilemma is the disjunctive version of modus tollens. The constructive dilemma rule can be stated:
Destructive dilemma is the name of a valid rule of inference of propositional logic. It is the inference that, if P implies Q and R implies S and either Q is false or S is false, then either P or R must be false. In sum, if two conditionals are true, but one of their consequents is false, then one of their antecedents has to be false. Destructive dilemma is the disjunctive version of modus tollens. The disjunctive version of modus ponens is the constructive dilemma. The destructive dilemma rule can be stated:
In mathematical logic, Heyting arithmetic is an axiomatization of arithmetic in accordance with the philosophy of intuitionism. It is named after Arend Heyting, who first proposed it.
In propositional logic, the commutativity of conjunction is a valid argument form and truth-functional tautology. It is considered to be a law of classical logic. It is the principle that the conjuncts of a logical conjunction may switch places with each other, while preserving the truth-value of the resulting proposition.
Absorption is a valid argument form and rule of inference of propositional logic. The rule states that if implies , then implies and . The rule makes it possible to introduce conjunctions to proofs. It is called the law of absorption because the term is "absorbed" by the term in the consequent. The rule can be stated:
Exportation is a valid rule of replacement in propositional logic. The rule allows conditional statements having conjunctive antecedents to be replaced by statements having conditional consequents and vice versa in logical proofs. It is the rule that:
A non-normal modal logic is a variant of modal logic that deviates from the basic principles of normal modal logics.
