MarketHilbert system
Company Profile

Hilbert system

In logic, more specifically proof theory, a Hilbert system, sometimes called Hilbert calculus, Hilbert-style system, Hilbert-style proof system, Hilbert-style deductive system or Hilbert–Ackermann system, is a type of formal proof system attributed to Gottlob Frege and David Hilbert. These deductive systems are most often studied for first-order logic, but are of interest for other logics as well.

Formal deductions
In a Hilbert system, a formal deduction (or proof) is a finite sequence of formulas in which each formula is either an axiom or is obtained from previous formulas by a rule of inference. These formal deductions are meant to mirror natural-language proofs, although they are far more detailed. Suppose \Gamma is a set of formulas, considered as hypotheses. For example, \Gamma could be a set of axioms for group theory or set theory. The notation \Gamma \vdash \phi means that there is a deduction that ends with \phi using as axioms only logical axioms and elements of \Gamma. Thus, informally, \Gamma \vdash \phi means that \phi is provable assuming all the formulas in \Gamma. Hilbert systems are characterized by the use of numerous schemas of logical axioms. An axiom schema is an infinite set of axioms obtained by substituting all formulas of some form into a specific pattern. The set of logical axioms includes not only those axioms generated from this pattern, but also any generalization of one of those axioms. A generalization of a formula is obtained by prefixing zero or more universal quantifiers on the formula; for example \forall y ( \forall x Pxy \to Pty) is a generalization of \forall x Pxy \to Pty. == Propositional logic ==
Propositional logic
The following are some Hilbert systems that have been used in propositional logic. One of them, the , is also considered a Frege system. Frege's Begriffsschrift Axiomatic proofs have been used in mathematics since the famous Ancient Greek textbook, Euclid's Elements of Geometry, 300 BC. But the first known fully formalized proof system that thereby qualifies as a Hilbert system dates back to Gottlob Frege's 1879 Begriffsschrift. Frege's system used only implication and negation as connectives, and it had six axioms, • Proposition 1: a \supset (b \supset a) • Proposition 2: (c \supset (b \supset a)) \supset ((c \supset b) \supset (c \supset a)) • Proposition 8: (d \supset (b \supset a)) \supset (b \supset (d \supset a)) • Proposition 28: (b \supset a) \supset (\neg a \supset \neg b) • Proposition 31: \neg \neg a \supset a • Proposition 41: a \supset \neg \neg a These were used by Frege together with modus ponens and a rule of substitution (which was used but never precisely stated) to yield a complete and consistent axiomatization of classical truth-functional propositional logic. who referred to it as the system P2, and helped popularize it. Systems for propositional logic whose inference rules are schematic are also called Frege systems; as the authors that originally defined the term "Frege system" note, this actually excludes Frege's own system, given above, since it had axioms instead of axiom schemas. Proof example in P2 As an example, a proof of A \to A in P2 is given below. First, the axioms are given names: :(A1) (p \to (q \to p)) :(A2) ((p \to (q \to r)) \to ((p \to q) \to (p \to r))) :(A3) ((\neg p \to \neg q) \to (q \to p)) And the proof is as follows: • A \to ((B \to A) \to A)       (instance of (A1)) • (A \to ((B \to A) \to A)) \to ((A \to (B \to A)) \to (A \to A))       (instance of (A2)) • (A \to (B \to A)) \to (A \to A)       (from (1) and (2) by modus ponens) • A \to (B \to A)       (instance of (A1)) • A \to A       (from (4) and (3) by modus ponens) == Predicate logic (example system) ==
Predicate logic (example system)
There is an unlimited amount of axiomatisations of predicate logic, since for any logic there is freedom in choosing axioms and rules that characterise that logic. We describe here a Hilbert system with nine axioms and just the rule modus ponens, which we call the one-rule axiomatisation and which describes classical equational logic. We deal with a minimal language for this logic, where formulas use only the connectives \lnot and \to and only the quantifier \forall. Later we show how the system can be extended to include additional logical connectives, such as \land and \lor, without enlarging the class of deducible formulas. The first four logical axiom schemas allow (together with modus ponens) for the manipulation of logical connectives. :P1. \phi \to \phi :P2. \phi \to \left( \psi \to \phi \right) :P3. \left( \phi \to \left( \psi \rightarrow \xi \right) \right) \to \left( \left( \phi \to \psi \right) \to \left( \phi \to \xi \right) \right) :P4. \left ( \lnot \phi \to \lnot \psi \right) \to \left( \psi \to \phi \right) The axiom P1 is redundant, as it follows from P3, P2 and modus ponens (see proof). These axioms describe classical propositional logic; without axiom P4 we get positive implicational logic. Minimal logic is achieved either by adding instead the axiom P4m, or by defining \lnot \phi as \phi \to \bot. :P4m. \left( \phi \to \psi \right) \to \left(\left(\phi \to \lnot \psi \right) \to \lnot \phi \right) Intuitionistic logic is achieved by adding axioms P4i and P5i to positive implicational logic, or by adding axiom P5i to minimal logic. Both P4i and P5i are theorems of classical propositional logic. :P4i. \left(\phi \to \lnot \phi\right) \to \lnot \phi :P5i. \lnot\phi \to \left( \phi \to \psi \right) Note that these are axiom schemas, which represent infinitely many specific instances of axioms. For example, P1 might represent the particular axiom instance p \to p , or it might represent \left( p \to q \right) \to \left( p \to q \right) : the \phi is a place where any formula can be placed. A variable such as this that ranges over formulae is called a 'schematic variable'. With a second rule of uniform substitution (US), we can change each of these axiom schemas into a single axiom, replacing each schematic variable by some propositional variable that isn't mentioned in any axiom to get what we call the substitutional axiomatisation. Both formalisations have variables, but where the one-rule axiomatisation has schematic variables that are outside the logic's language, the substitutional axiomatisation uses propositional variables that do the same work by expressing the idea of a variable ranging over formulae with a rule that uses substitution. :US. Let \phi(p) be a formula with one or more instances of the propositional variable p, and let \psi be another formula. Then from \phi(p), infer \phi(\psi). The next three logical axiom schemas provide ways to add, manipulate, and remove universal quantifiers. :Q5. \forall x \left( \phi \right) \to \phi[x:=t] where t may be substituted for x in \,\!\phi :Q6. \forall x \left( \phi \to \psi \right) \to \left( \forall x \left( \phi \right) \to \forall x \left( \psi \right) \right) :Q7. \phi \to \forall x \left( \phi \right) where x is not free in \phi. These three additional rules extend the propositional system to axiomatise classical predicate logic. Likewise, these three rules extend system for intuitionistic propositional logic (with P1-3 and P4i and P5i) to intuitionistic predicate logic. Universal quantification is often given an alternative axiomatisation using an extra rule of generalisation, in which case the rules Q6 and Q7 are redundant. • Generalization: If \Gamma \vdash \phi and x does not occur free in any formula of \Gamma then \Gamma \vdash \forall x \phi. The final axiom schemas are required to work with formulas involving the equality symbol. :I8. x = x for every variable x. :I9. \left( x = y \right) \to \left( \phi[z:=x] \to \phi[z:=y] \right) == Conservative extensions ==
Conservative extensions
It is common to include in a Hilbert system only axioms for the logical operators implication and negation towards functional completeness. Given these axioms, it is possible to form conservative extensions of the deduction theorem that permit the use of additional connectives. These extensions are called conservative because if a formula φ involving new connectives is rewritten as a logically equivalent formula θ involving only negation, implication, and universal quantification, then φ is derivable in the extended system if and only if θ is derivable in the original system. When fully extended, a Hilbert system will resemble more closely a system of natural deduction. Existential quantification • Introduction : \forall x(\phi \to \exists y(\phi[x:=y])) • Elimination : \forall x(\phi \to \psi) \to \exists x(\phi) \to \psi where x is not a free variable of \psi. Conjunction and disjunction • Conjunction introduction and elimination :introduction: \alpha\to(\beta\to\alpha\land\beta) :elimination left: \alpha\wedge\beta\to\alpha :elimination right: \alpha\wedge\beta\to\beta • Disjunction introduction and elimination :introduction left: \alpha\to\alpha\vee\beta :introduction right: \beta\to\alpha\vee\beta :elimination: (\alpha\to\gamma)\to ((\beta\to\gamma) \to \alpha\vee\beta \to \gamma) ==See also==
tickerdossier.comtickerdossier.substack.com