Soundness of a rule of a proof system with respect to the truth tables?

Multi tool use
Multi tool use

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
5
down vote

favorite












I have the following question:
"Explain the concept of the soundness of a rule of a proof system with respect to the truth tables"



Would it be correct to state the following:



"A rule of a proof system is sound with respect to the truth tables iff the conditions of the rules (requirements of the rule) ensure that the final formula will behave according to it's intended truth table."?



This is a question in a practice exam, and I can not find a specific mentioning so far, by scanning Google and Proof Wiki.



What would the correct answer be?



Thank you.






logic propositional-calculus predicate-logic







share|cite|improve this question





















  • Look up "soundness vs. completeness".
    – dfeuer
    Nov 2 '13 at 23:58














up vote
5
down vote

favorite












I have the following question:
"Explain the concept of the soundness of a rule of a proof system with respect to the truth tables"



Would it be correct to state the following:



"A rule of a proof system is sound with respect to the truth tables iff the conditions of the rules (requirements of the rule) ensure that the final formula will behave according to it's intended truth table."?



This is a question in a practice exam, and I can not find a specific mentioning so far, by scanning Google and Proof Wiki.



What would the correct answer be?



Thank you.






logic propositional-calculus predicate-logic







share|cite|improve this question





















  • Look up "soundness vs. completeness".
    – dfeuer
    Nov 2 '13 at 23:58












up vote
5
down vote

favorite









up vote
5
down vote

favorite











I have the following question:
"Explain the concept of the soundness of a rule of a proof system with respect to the truth tables"



Would it be correct to state the following:



"A rule of a proof system is sound with respect to the truth tables iff the conditions of the rules (requirements of the rule) ensure that the final formula will behave according to it's intended truth table."?



This is a question in a practice exam, and I can not find a specific mentioning so far, by scanning Google and Proof Wiki.



What would the correct answer be?



Thank you.






logic propositional-calculus predicate-logic







share|cite|improve this question













I have the following question:
"Explain the concept of the soundness of a rule of a proof system with respect to the truth tables"



Would it be correct to state the following:



"A rule of a proof system is sound with respect to the truth tables iff the conditions of the rules (requirements of the rule) ensure that the final formula will behave according to it's intended truth table."?



This is a question in a practice exam, and I can not find a specific mentioning so far, by scanning Google and Proof Wiki.



What would the correct answer be?



Thank you.






logic propositional-calculus predicate-logic




logic propositional-calculus predicate-logic






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Nov 2 '13 at 23:21









borg123

115210




115210











  • Look up "soundness vs. completeness".
    – dfeuer
    Nov 2 '13 at 23:58
















  • Look up "soundness vs. completeness".
    – dfeuer
    Nov 2 '13 at 23:58















Look up "soundness vs. completeness".
– dfeuer
Nov 2 '13 at 23:58




Look up "soundness vs. completeness".
– dfeuer
Nov 2 '13 at 23:58










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
4
down vote













Let's consider the following rule (modus ponens):



$$rmIf ~~~vdash P rightarrow Q ~~~~rmand~~~ vdash Prm, ~~~~then~~~~ vdash Q$$



To prove that it's sound with respect to truth-tables it will suffice to show that:



$$rmIf ~~~models P rightarrow Q ~~~~rmand~~~ models Prm, ~~~~then~~~~ models Q$$



Which says that every row of the truth-table that makes $(P rightarrow Q)$ and $P$ true, also makes $Q$ true.




Proof. Among the two rows that make $P$ true, only the $[P=Q=top]$-row makes $(P rightarrow Q)$ true. And since $Q$ is true on that row, we've shown that the rule is sound with respect to truth-tables.




What is true of this rule is true of the others. (In your particular context, of course.)




Note. Showing that all the rules are sound is not enough to establish the soundness of your proof system with respect to truth-tables, because you will also have to show that all the axioms of the system (say $P lor lnot P)$ are assigned the value $top$ on all rows of the truth-table.







share|cite|improve this answer






















    Your Answer




    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f549569%2fsoundness-of-a-rule-of-a-proof-system-with-respect-to-the-truth-tables%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest

















    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    4
    down vote













    Let's consider the following rule (modus ponens):



    $$rmIf ~~~vdash P rightarrow Q ~~~~rmand~~~ vdash Prm, ~~~~then~~~~ vdash Q$$



    To prove that it's sound with respect to truth-tables it will suffice to show that:



    $$rmIf ~~~models P rightarrow Q ~~~~rmand~~~ models Prm, ~~~~then~~~~ models Q$$



    Which says that every row of the truth-table that makes $(P rightarrow Q)$ and $P$ true, also makes $Q$ true.




    Proof. Among the two rows that make $P$ true, only the $[P=Q=top]$-row makes $(P rightarrow Q)$ true. And since $Q$ is true on that row, we've shown that the rule is sound with respect to truth-tables.




    What is true of this rule is true of the others. (In your particular context, of course.)




    Note. Showing that all the rules are sound is not enough to establish the soundness of your proof system with respect to truth-tables, because you will also have to show that all the axioms of the system (say $P lor lnot P)$ are assigned the value $top$ on all rows of the truth-table.







    share|cite|improve this answer


























      up vote
      4
      down vote













      Let's consider the following rule (modus ponens):



      $$rmIf ~~~vdash P rightarrow Q ~~~~rmand~~~ vdash Prm, ~~~~then~~~~ vdash Q$$



      To prove that it's sound with respect to truth-tables it will suffice to show that:



      $$rmIf ~~~models P rightarrow Q ~~~~rmand~~~ models Prm, ~~~~then~~~~ models Q$$



      Which says that every row of the truth-table that makes $(P rightarrow Q)$ and $P$ true, also makes $Q$ true.




      Proof. Among the two rows that make $P$ true, only the $[P=Q=top]$-row makes $(P rightarrow Q)$ true. And since $Q$ is true on that row, we've shown that the rule is sound with respect to truth-tables.




      What is true of this rule is true of the others. (In your particular context, of course.)




      Note. Showing that all the rules are sound is not enough to establish the soundness of your proof system with respect to truth-tables, because you will also have to show that all the axioms of the system (say $P lor lnot P)$ are assigned the value $top$ on all rows of the truth-table.







      share|cite|improve this answer
























        up vote
        4
        down vote










        up vote
        4
        down vote









        Let's consider the following rule (modus ponens):



        $$rmIf ~~~vdash P rightarrow Q ~~~~rmand~~~ vdash Prm, ~~~~then~~~~ vdash Q$$



        To prove that it's sound with respect to truth-tables it will suffice to show that:



        $$rmIf ~~~models P rightarrow Q ~~~~rmand~~~ models Prm, ~~~~then~~~~ models Q$$



        Which says that every row of the truth-table that makes $(P rightarrow Q)$ and $P$ true, also makes $Q$ true.




        Proof. Among the two rows that make $P$ true, only the $[P=Q=top]$-row makes $(P rightarrow Q)$ true. And since $Q$ is true on that row, we've shown that the rule is sound with respect to truth-tables.




        What is true of this rule is true of the others. (In your particular context, of course.)




        Note. Showing that all the rules are sound is not enough to establish the soundness of your proof system with respect to truth-tables, because you will also have to show that all the axioms of the system (say $P lor lnot P)$ are assigned the value $top$ on all rows of the truth-table.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        Let's consider the following rule (modus ponens):



        $$rmIf ~~~vdash P rightarrow Q ~~~~rmand~~~ vdash Prm, ~~~~then~~~~ vdash Q$$



        To prove that it's sound with respect to truth-tables it will suffice to show that:



        $$rmIf ~~~models P rightarrow Q ~~~~rmand~~~ models Prm, ~~~~then~~~~ models Q$$



        Which says that every row of the truth-table that makes $(P rightarrow Q)$ and $P$ true, also makes $Q$ true.




        Proof. Among the two rows that make $P$ true, only the $[P=Q=top]$-row makes $(P rightarrow Q)$ true. And since $Q$ is true on that row, we've shown that the rule is sound with respect to truth-tables.




        What is true of this rule is true of the others. (In your particular context, of course.)




        Note. Showing that all the rules are sound is not enough to establish the soundness of your proof system with respect to truth-tables, because you will also have to show that all the axioms of the system (say $P lor lnot P)$ are assigned the value $top$ on all rows of the truth-table.








        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Nov 3 '13 at 4:58

























        answered Nov 3 '13 at 3:54









        Hunan Rostomyan

        1,7661016




        1,7661016



























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f549569%2fsoundness-of-a-rule-of-a-proof-system-with-respect-to-the-truth-tables%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest
































































            v3uHWNxxnbKjNAcPcig3ZxNZcx qu4rPByAc,jL6UCK0piPlWwhgyIDu
            -
            0PV3HaQ,iL GDXkjnk5zPmOo uxHLNyrHoII7cD5ZQ1MB DMqQz9tV0

            這個網誌中的熱門文章

            How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

            圖片
            Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite My aim is to smooth the terrain in a video game. Therefore I contrived an algorithm that makes use of Bézier curves of different orders. But this algorithm is defined in a two dimensional space for now. To shift it into the third dimension I need to somehow combine the Bézier curves. Given two curves in each two dimensions, how can I combine them to build a surface? I thought about something like a curve of a curve. Or maybe I could multiply them somehow. How can I combine them to cause the wanted behavior? Is there a common approach? In the image you can see the input, on the left, and the output, on the right, of the algorithm that works in a two dimensional space. For the real application there is a three dimensional input. The algorithm relays only on the adjacent tiles. Given these it will define the control points of the mentioned Bézier cur...
            閱讀完整內容

            Propositional logic and tautologies

            圖片
            Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 0 down vote favorite Taken from P. Suppes "Introduction to logic" pp16 Starting from the sentence "If $P$ tautologically implies $Q$, then.." Question: Is it true that, at least within propositional logic, we are able to prove only tautologies or do I mis-understand something? If yes, is propositional logic special in some way? Is the notion of tautology meaningful only in propositional logic? logic propositional-calculus share | cite | improve this question edited Nov 29 '17 at 18:53 Mauro ALLEGRANZA 60.8k 4 46 105 asked Nov 29 '17 at 16:32 Alvin Lepik 2,448 9 20 add a comment  |  up vote 0 down vote favorite Taken from P. Suppes "Introduction to logic" pp16 Starting from the sentence "If $P$ tautologically implies $Q$, then.." Question: Is it true that, at least within propositional logic, we are able to prove only tautologi...
            閱讀完整內容

            Distribution of Stopped Wiener Process with Stochastic Volatility

            圖片
            Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 0 down vote favorite Let $(W_s)_s geq 0$ be a Wiener process and $tau$ be a random variable with an exponential distribution with parameter $lambda$. Suppose that $W$ and $tau$ are independent. In this question, we see that the distribution of the stopped Wiener process $W_tau$ corresponds to a Laplace distribution with scale parameter $fracsigmasqrt2lambda$ where $sigma$ is the instantaneous variance of the Wiener process. Suppose now, that the variance $sigma^2$ also follows a stochastic process such that we have: $$dS = sigma SdW_s \ dsigma^2 = alphasigma^2dt + xisigma^2dW_sigma$$ where $alpha$ and $xi$ are independent of $S$ and $dW_s$ and $dW_sigma$ are independent Wiener processes. My aim is to derive the distribution of $log S_tau$. First, if $barV_T$ denotes the mean variance over some time interval $[0,T]$ defined by $$barV_T = frac1T intlimits_0^Tsigma^2(t)dt,$$ it is easy to show (Lemma of Îto) that $$...
            閱讀完整內容