Trouble with understanding section of FOL completeness proof

In summary, the Completeness Proof for First-Order Predicate Logic relies on the condition that if $\Phi$ is a set of consistent $\mathcal L$-formulas, then it is also satisfiable. The proof involves constructing a maximally consistent set $\Gamma^*$ from a consistent set $\Gamma$, and defining an interpretation $I$ based on $\Gamma^*$ where the domain is the set of all closed terms. Finally, it is proven that $I$ satisfies all formulas in $\Gamma^*$, and therefore also satisfies $\Gamma$, due to its inclusion in $\Gamma^*$. The recommended approach is to start with proving $I\models A\iff A\in\Gamma^*$ by induction on $A$,
  • #1
pooj4
4
0
The Completeness Proof for First-Order Predicate Logic depends on if $\Phi$ is a
set of consistent $\mathcal L$-formulas, then $\Phi$ is satisfiable.

How is that constructed? There are a large number of Lemmas working from Machover's text Set theory, Logic and Their Limitations but I'm having trouble with which are most relevant and how it comes together.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The first step is to turn a consistent set $\Gamma$ into maximally consistent set $\Gamma^*$, i.e.., for each formula $A$ add either $A$ or $\neg A$ to $\Gamma$ in a way that preserves consistency. Then one defines an interpretation $I$ where the domain is the set of all closed terms and $I\models P(t_1,\ldots,t_n)$ if $P(t_1,\ldots,t_n)\in\Gamma^*$. Finally one proves that $I\models A\iff A\in\Gamma^*$ for all formulas $A$, not just atomic. Therefore $I\models\Gamma^*$ and in particular $I\models\Gamma$ since $\Gamma\subseteq\Gamma^*$.

I recommend starting with the last step. Try proving $I\models A\iff A\in\Gamma^*$ by induction on $A$ and see what this requires of $\Gamma^*$. Some steps go through for an arbitrary $\Gamma^*$; others require properties like completeness or existential completeness, which are ensures by the lemmas you mentioned. Also the book "The Open Logic Text" (Complete Build) has an outline of the proof in section 19.2.
 

Related to Trouble with understanding section of FOL completeness proof

1. What is FOL completeness proof?

FOL completeness proof is a mathematical proof that shows that every valid formula in First-Order Logic (FOL) has a proof or derivation in a formal system. This means that if a statement is true in all possible interpretations, it can be proven using a set of logical rules and axioms.

2. What is the purpose of FOL completeness proof?

The purpose of FOL completeness proof is to ensure that the logical system of FOL is sound and complete. This means that it is both consistent (does not lead to contradictions) and complete (all valid statements can be proven).

3. What are the main steps in a FOL completeness proof?

The main steps in a FOL completeness proof include defining a formal system for FOL, proving that the system is sound (all provable statements are true), and proving that the system is complete (all true statements are provable).

4. What are some common challenges in understanding the section of FOL completeness proof?

Some common challenges in understanding the section of FOL completeness proof include the use of complex mathematical notation, the abstract nature of logical systems, and the need for a strong understanding of logic and formal proofs.

5. How can one improve their understanding of FOL completeness proof?

To improve understanding of FOL completeness proof, one can practice solving logical puzzles and problems, study formal logic and proof techniques, and seek out additional resources such as textbooks or online tutorials. It can also be helpful to work through examples and proofs step by step to gain a deeper understanding of the concepts involved.

Similar threads

  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
370
Replies
1
Views
251
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
986
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
0
Views
195
Back
Top