Alternative Formulations of Propositional Logic

Curtis Brown November 16, 2007

Introduction

There are many equivalent ways to formulate systems of propositional logic that are sound and complete relative to the standard truth-table semantics for propositional logic. This handout provides three examples.

Mendelson 1979

Elliott Mendelson gives the following axiomatic system in his text Introduction to Mathematical Logic.1 The language has only two connectives, and . (Other connectives are treated as abbreviations, e.g. A B is treated as an abbreviation for (A B).) There is one rule of inference, modus ponens (i.e. what in our system is called Elim). And there are three axiom schemata. These are used in constructing proofs in the same way that our rule of =Intro works: at any point in the proof, you may write any instance of an axiom scheme. The axioms are: 1. A (B A) 2. (A (B C )) ((A B ) (A C )) 3. (B A) ((B A) B ) Let us consider a sample proof in this system. We wish to prove A A using no premises (i.e. to prove that A A is a theorem). In Barwise and Etchemendys system, of course, this is a three-line proof using the rules Reit and Intro. In Mendelsons system, we can prove it as follows: 1. (A ((A A) A)) ((A (A A)) (A A)) (this step is justied because it is an instance of Axiom 2, where A is substituted for A, A A is substituted for B , and A is substituted for C .)
Elliott Mendelson, Introduction to Mathematical Logic, Second Edition (New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1979), 31.
1

2. A ((A A) A) (instance of Axiom 1, same substitutions as for step 1) 3. ((A (A A)) (A A)) (from 1 and 2 by Elim) 4. A (A A) (instance of Axiom 1, substituting A for A and A for B ) 5. A A (from 3 and 4 by Elim)

Nicod 1917

The most extreme example I have seen of a minimal system is attributed to Nicod in 1917.2 This system uses only one connective, namely |. This is known as nand, or sometimes as the Sheer stroke or Sheer exclusion. The sentence A|B can be thought of meaning not both A and B. (However, we are not to think of nand as actually being dened in terms of negation and conjunction! Rather, its semantics is given by its truth table: A|B is true if A is false and B is false, true if A is true and B is false, true if A is false and B is true, and false if A is true and B is true. Negation, conjunction, and the other connectives are then dened in terms of |. For instance, A can be thought of as abbreviating A|A, and A B can be thought of as abbreviating (A|B)|(A|B).) We have one rule of inference: from A|(B|C) and A, we may infer C. This can be thought of as a kind of weakened Elim, since A|(B|C) is equivalent to A (B C). Finally, we have a single axiom schema: (A|(B|C ))|((D|(D|D))|((E|B )|((A|E )|(A|E )))) Its rather remarkable that this system, with one connective, one rule, and one axiom, is actually equivalent to our system of propositional logic! (Provided, that is, that we have conventions for translating sentences using any of our connectives into sentences using only |; Ive given two examples of such translations above, but we also need translations for , , and .)
J. G. Nicod, A Reduction in the Number of Primitive Propositions of Logic, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 19 (1917): 32-41, cited in Mendelson, p. 42.
2

Frege 1879

Continuing our trip backward through time, we arrive at what Tarski describes as the rst axiom system of the sentential calculus.3 Tarski gives Freges axiomatization in Polish notation. In this notation the six axioms are: CpCqp, CCpCqrCCpqCpr, CCpCqrCqCpr, CCpqCN qN p, CN N pp, CpN N p. In the notation we are more familiar with, we have: 1. P (Q P) 2. (P (Q R)) ((P Q) (P R)) 3. P (Q R) (Q (P R)) 4. (P Q) (Q P) 5. P P 6. P P Tarski points out that Axiom 3 can be derived from 1 and 2, and so is redundant, and that Axioms 4-6 can be replaced by the single axiom (P Q) (Q P).

J. Lukasiewicz and A. Tarski, Investigations into the Sentential Calculus, in Alfred Tarski, Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, Second Edition (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1983). Originally published in German in 1930.