Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Modal System K
2.2
Boxed Subproofs
(Def )
(Def )
(Def )
A
(A B)
(A B)
abbreviates
abbreviates
abbreviates
A
(A B)
(A B) & (B A)
5.
2 (Out)
6.
AB
3 (Out)
7.
8.
B
B
5,6 (MP)
47 (In)
9.
A B
28 (CP)
The sign was introduced by C.I. Lewis in his
10.
(A B) (A B)
19 (CP)
pioneering work on modal logic, much of which was
motivated by the desire to define a logical notion
of if. . . then. . . that did not share the oddities of Using boxed subproofs and PL rules, it is possible to
the material conditional. (A B) can be read, A derive A in K for any truth-table tautology A. For
strictly implies B, or A entails B.
example, here is a proof of (p (q p)):
5
1.
2.
3.
4.
2 (Reit)
1.
5.
qp
34 (CP)
2.
25 (CP)
3.
16 (In)
4.
6.
7.
p (q p)
(p (q p))
A
A
A
1 (Reit)
5.
7.
46 (In)
8.
3, 7 (In)
6.
2 (Out)
5 (DN)
9.
A
28 (IP)
Indeed, the usual formulation of K is to take (Nec) as
10.
A
9 (Def )
a primitive inference rule along with every instance of
(Dist) as an axiom (i.e., something that can be written
into any line of a proof or subproof with no other line
Because such statements are actually negations of
as justification); these two together are equivalent to statements with , if occurs on both sides of a
having (In) and (Out).
conditional, it may be easier to prove the contraposThe rule of necessitation coheres with almost all itive of the result youre after.
conceptions of necessity: if something can be proven
using the rules of logic alone, then it must be neces(Dist) K (A B) (A B). Proof:
sary.
Do not confuse this rule with the untrue claim that
K A A.
1.
(A B)
Indeed, those conceptions of necessity that are con2.
B
sistent with the rules of System K can roughly be
characterized by two features: (i) what can be proven
3.
(A B)
1 (Reit)
true without assumptions is necessary (i.e, (Nec)),
4.
and (ii) that which necessarily follows from necessary truths is also necessary (i.e, (Dist)).
5.
B
2 (Out)
Youll notice that from here on out, Ill almost never
6.
AB
3 (Out)
give proofs involving lowercase statement letters like
p, q and r, but rather schematic letters like A, B
7.
A
5,6 (MT)
and C. This makes the results proven general so
8.
A
47 (In)
that they can be applied in other contexts. Moreover,
if all instances of a certain schema are shown to be
9.
B A
28 (CP)
theorems, we shall allow ourselves to introduce one
10.
A B
9 (CN)
into any proof at any time, rather than duplicate the
steps of the proof already given.
11.
A B
10 (Def )
2.3
12.
(A B) (A B)
111 (CP)
A
..
.
A, B, C
..
.
(Out)
A (B (C D))
(CP)
C
..
.
A
..
.
D
B (C D)
(CP)
AB
A (B (C D))
(In)
(A B)
(A B) (A B)
(CP)
CD
(Dist)
(CP)
(CP)
(MP)
, A
A
B
..
.
C
..
.
1 (&Out)
3.
1 (&Out)
4.
, B
5.
2 (Out), (Reit)
6.
A&B
4,5 (&In)
7.
8.
(A & B)
(A & B) (A & B)
3,46 (Out)
17 (CP)
(B): A A
p p
p p
(p q) (p q), etc.
(4): A A
(5): A A