Navigation
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Most Active
  • Popular
  • Blog
  • Credits
  • RSS
  •   Interaction
  • Register
  • Statistics
  •   Help
  • Suggestions
  • Contact Us
  • How to Edit
  • Help



  • [Edit]


    Generalization is an inference rule of predicate calculus which states that:
    If vdash P(x) is true (valid) then so is vdash orall x , P(x) .

    "Generalization" can be abbreviated as GEN, and the inference rule can be summarized as the sequent
    P(x) vdash orall x , P(x) ,

    but this gives rise to an important restriction: the Deduction Theorem cannot be applied to it to derive
    vdash P(x)

    ightarrow orall x , P(x) qquad qquad hbox
    This formula is wrong because x has an unbound instance in its antecedent and a bound occurrence in its consequent, so that if the formula were instead correct, then its free instance of x could be replaced by any constant (element of the domain):
    vdash P(t)

    ightarrow orall x , P(x)
    but this is incorrect. E.g. if P(x) means "x is a prime number" and the domain is the set of natural numbers, then
    vdash P(7)

    ightarrow orall x , P(x)
    is clearly not true, because from it and
    vdash P(7) ,

    "7 is a prime number", can be deduced
    vdash orall x , P(x) ,

    "all natural numbers are prime numbers", a contradiction, by means of modus ponens, so the wrong formula is reduced to the absurd.

    This restriction applies to proofs: if GEN is applied to a formula in a proof, thereby binding its free variable x, then DT cannot be applied to the proof to move this formula to the right side of the turnstyle.

    Note that P(x) symbolizes an open statement with free variable x, whose truth is contingent on x, but vdash P(x) symbolizes a statement which is valid (for all values of x), even though its variable x is free. GEN applies to such valid statement, binding its free variable and yielding vdash orall x , P(x) .

    So the formula vdash orall x , P(x) is just a more explicit way of stating what was already implicitly meant by vdash P(x) .

    There is also an axiom of Pred.Calc. which states that
    vdash orall x , P(x)

    ightarrow P(x)
    which transforms by the converse of the Deduction Theorem into
    orall x , P(x) vdash P(x) ,

    meaning that from vdash orall x , P(x) can be deduced vdash P(x) . Putting GEN and the axiom together, one deduces that
    vdash P(x) equiv vdash orall x , P(x)

    which does not mean the same as
    P(x) leftrightarrow orall x , P(x) qquad qquad hbox

    which is wrong because here P(x) could be any contingent, invalid, open formula. In order to prevent such wrong formula from being at all provable, the restriction is added to DT in Pred.Calc.

    The turnstyle symbol vdash is not a part of a well-formed formula: strictly speaking it belongs neither to Prop.Calc. or Pred.Calc., but might be thought of as a "metasymbol". Therefore, ultimately vdash orall x , P(x) really does mean more than vdash P(x) , because the vdash symbol is not really a part of the formula P(x); it is just a "handle" used to "grab" the formula, figuratively speaking.


        Generalization (logic)
            Example of a proof
            See also

    top

    Example of a proof
    Prove: orall x , (P(x)
    ightarrow Q(x))
    ightarrow ( orall x , P(x)
    ightarrow orall x , Q(x)) .

    Proof:


    In this proof, DT was applicable in step (10) because the formula orall x , P(x) which was to be moved to the right of the turnstyle (by DT) did not contain any free variable. DT was also applicable in step (11) for the same reason.

    top

    See also




     
    Search more:
     

       
    Source Privacy License Download Contact Us Atlas
    Scientus.org Dictionary (Yet Another Wiki) RC : 1.39
    This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License [copyleft]. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Generalization (logic)". link