Proofs in Predicate Logic

A rule of inference applies only if the main operator of the line is the right main operator.

So if the line is a simple statement, with a quantifier as the main operator, no rule of inference can be applied (except AD).

New Rules:

For removing quantifiers or For introducing quantifiers

Free Variables
Px > Cx Here the x is called free, which means it is not bound or controlled by anything that determines its meaning. In a sense, you cant read this statement form; it doesnt really say anything.

Bound Variables
(x) (Px > Cx) Here the x in Px and in Cx is bound (governed/ regulated) by the quantifier out front. The quantifier tells you how to read the occurrences of x inside the parentheses.

The value of a statement form like this is: that the quantifier is gone, so the main operator is now the >. So now rules like MP and MT might be applied.

Free variables can only result from invoking the rule called Universal Instantiation. (UI). So only A and E statements can be rewritten with free variables. So whenever we see a free variable, we know it came from a universal statement before this is important because it means that adding a universal quantifier to such a statement form, and making it into a universal statement, will be justified.

Universal statements can be instantiated in two ways: To free variables Or to constants.

(x) (Rx > ~Bx)

Rx > ~Bx This is a free variable

No rabbits are bears Let a stand for Adam, b for Betty, etc.

Ra > ~Ba
If Adams a rabbit, hes not a bear

Rb > ~Bb If Bettys a rabbit, shes not a bear

Rc > ~Bc If Colberts a rabbit, hes not a bear.

How do we know which to instantiate to: the free variable or the constant?
It depends on where you are trying to go:
If your conclusion is a universal statement, chances are you want the free variable instantiation, so you can return to the universal level of predication. If your conclusion is about Adam, or Eve, or Colbert, youll want to instantiate quantified statements to their names, so you can spell out inferences about them.

Socrates must be mortal, because all men are, and hes a man.

1 (x) (Mx > Ox) 2 Ms / Os

3 Ms > Os UI 1
If Socrates is a man, hes mortal Socrates is mortal

4 Os

MP 3,2

Given the conclusion (not a universal statement) there is nothing to be gained by instantiation to a free variable; obviously, the instantiated sentence has to be about Aristotles teachers teacher.

Universal Instantiation
UI (x) Fx Fx or (x) Fx Fa

Since you cant encounter a statement that looks like this:

Cx > Bx

unless
Unless UI has been done to a universal that was already given or proven to be true

It will be legitimate to GENERALIZE from such a statement. To Generalize is to predicate at the level of the Universal

UG: Fx (x) Fx

But this would not be valid:

HG

Fa . Ga / (x) (Fx . Gx)

Instantiation and Generalization for Existential Statements

EI and EG
No comedians are viable candidates for president, but some comedians are running, so some people who are running for president are not viable candidates.

1 (x) (Cx > ~ Vx) 2 x (Cx . Rx) / (x) ~Vx

3 Cc . Rc 4 Cc > ~Vc
5 Cc

EI 2 UI 1
SM 3

Colberts a comedian, and hes running If Colberts a comedian, hes not viable Colberts a comedian Colberts not viable At least one candidate is not viable (some candidates are not viable)

6 ~Vc
7 (x) ~Vx

MP 4,5 EG 6

EI has an important restriction:

You cannot use a constant in an EI line if that constant has already been in play in the proof, even in the premises.

So the rule EI is:

(x) Fx ---------Fa (where a is new)
This means that if you have to instantiate twice (see previous slide) you must do the EI before you do the UI. There are no restrictions on UI.

There are no restrictions on EG: you can generalize to a Some statement from either a constant, or from a free variable.

Fa (x) Fx or

Fx (x) Fx

UI --Universal Instantiation (x) (Ax > Bx) --------------------Ax > Bx or Aa > Ba Instantiate to a free variable or to a name. UG --Universal Generalization Ax > Bx not allowed: Aa > Ba ------------------------(x) (Ax > Bx) (x) (Ax > Bx) Generalize to a universal only from a free variable.

EI

--Existential Instantiation
Not allowed: (x) (Ax . Bx) ------------------Ax . Bx

(x) (Ax . Bx) -----------------Aa . Ba Only instantiate to a name. Restriction: The name must be a new name EG --Existential Generalization Aa . Ba or Ax . Bx --------------------(x) (Ax . Bx) Generalize to a particular from a name or a free variable.

Apples and pears grow on trees, so pears grow on trees.

1 (x) [(Ax v Px) > Gx]

2 (Ax v Px) > Gx
3 Px 4 Ax v Px 5 Gx ACP AD, CM 3 MP 2, 4

/ (x) (Px > Gx)

UI 1

6 Px > Gx
7 (x) (Px > Gx)

CP 3-5
UG 6

Only philosophers are logicians, and anyone who's a philosopher is a thinker. Frege and Russell are logicians, so they're also thinkers.
1 (x) (Lx > Px) . (x) (Px > Tx) 2
3 4

Lf . Lr

/ Tf . Tr
10 Lr > Pr 11 Pr > Tr UI UI 3 4

(x) (Lx > Px) 1 SM (x) (Px > Tx) 1 CM, SM UI 3

5 Lf > Pf 6 Pf > Tf 7 Lf 8 Pf

12 Lr > Tr
13 Lr 14 Tr

HS 10, 11
CM, SM 2 MP 12, 13

UI 4 SM 2 MP 5, 7

9 Tf

MP 6, 8

15 Tf . Tr

CN 9, 14