Formal Proof Systems - Core Definitions
A formal proof system provides precise rules for deriving conclusions from premises, making the notion of "proof" mathematically rigorous. Several equivalent systems exist, each with different advantages for theoretical analysis or practical application.
A Hilbert-style proof system consists of:
-
Axiom schemas: Infinite families of logical axioms, such as:
- (if is substitutable for )
- (if not free in )
-
Inference rule (typically just one):
- Modus Ponens: From and , infer
A proof of from is a sequence of formulas where each is either an axiom, a member of , or follows from earlier formulas by modus ponens.
Natural deduction uses inference rules without axioms, designed to mirror natural mathematical reasoning:
Introduction and elimination rules for each connective:
- -introduction: From and , infer
- -elimination: From , infer (or )
- -introduction: If can be derived assuming , then derive
- -elimination (modus ponens): From and , infer
- -introduction: From , infer (if not free in any assumption)
- -elimination: From , infer
- -introduction: From , infer
- -elimination: From and a derivation of from (with fresh ), infer
Natural deduction proofs are trees rather than sequences, with assumptions discharged by introduction rules.
The sequent calculus (Gentzen's LK) uses sequents of the form , where and are finite sets of formulas. The intuitive meaning is "if all formulas in are true, then at least one formula in is true."
Inference rules manipulate sequents, with separate left rules (introducing formulas on the left) and right rules (introducing formulas on the right) for each connective. For example:
Each proof system has unique strengths:
- Hilbert systems are simple to define and analyze theoretically (few axioms and rules)
- Natural deduction closely models human mathematical reasoning and is pedagogically valuable
- Sequent calculus has excellent structural properties (cut elimination, subformula property) and is ideal for automated theorem proving
All three are equivalent in the sense that they prove exactly the same theorems, but proofs in one system can look very different from proofs in another.