Mixing
Implication arrows, turnstiles etc
$begingroup$
I would just like to clarify my ideas about a bunch of standard notations introduced in (elementary) mathematical logic.
1) $quad ato bquad$ material/internal/syntactical implication; it's a mere symbol denoting the proposition $lnot a vee b$.
2) $quad T vdash aquad$ "there's a proof of $a$ from the theory $T$".
2') $quad a vdash b$ (resp. $a vdash_T b$)$quad$ turnstile sign, "$b$ provably follows from $a$" i.e. there's a proof of $b$ from $a$ (resp. there's a proof of $b$ from the theory $T!+!a$).
2'') $quadvdash aquad$ "$a$ is a tautology" i.e. $a$ follows from the empty set of axioms.
3) $quadmathfrak M models a$ (resp. $mathfrak M models T$)$quad$ "the structure $mathfrak M$ is a model of/satisfies the sentence $a$" (resp., of the theory $T$)
3') $quadmodels aquad$ "the sentence $a$ is semantically a tautology" i.e. $a$ is satisfied in every structure (of signature given by the language).
3'') $quadmodels_T a$ (or $Tmodels a$)$quad$ "$a$ is a semantic consequence of the theory $T$", i.e. $a$ is satisfied in every model of $T$.
3''') $quad amodels bquad$ "$b$ is a semantic consequence of $a$"
3'''') $quad a models_T bquad$ "$b$ is a semantic consequence of $a$ in every model of $T$" i.e.: in every model of $T$ in which $a$ holds, also $b$ holds.
4) $quad aequiv bquad$ "$a$ and $b$ are logically equivalent", i.e. $a$ is true whenever $b$ is true and viceversa.
5) $quad a implies bquad$ blackboard implication symbol.
Q.1 Are the above definitions correct? ( except for 5), which I haven't defined or described )
Q.2 Is $avdash b$ the same as $vdash ato b$? Is $amodels b$ the same as $models ato b$?
Q.3 Is the notation $aequiv b$ of "logical equivalence" of sentences the same as something expressible by the above other standard notations? ( e.g. $vdash!(ato b; wedge; bto a)$ ? )
Q.4 As for 5), this is a notation usually used on the blackboard in an informal manner, when you don't really want to distinguish between theory and metatheory, syntax and semantics, or when you're in a specific context left as understood (e.g. ZFC, or when the completeness theorem holds). If one really wanted to pin down a meaning for "$aimplies b$", how should this notation be understood in terms of the above other more formal notations?
logic notation propositional-calculus model-theory
asked Sep 23 '18 at 14:36
QfwfqQfwfq
324112
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I would just like to clarify my ideas about a bunch of standard notations introduced in (elementary) mathematical logic.
1) $quad ato bquad$ material/internal/syntactical implication; it's a mere symbol denoting the proposition $lnot a vee b$.
2) $quad T vdash aquad$ "there's a proof of $a$ from the theory $T$".
2') $quad a vdash b$ (resp. $a vdash_T b$)$quad$ turnstile sign, "$b$ provably follows from $a$" i.e. there's a proof of $b$ from $a$ (resp. there's a proof of $b$ from the theory $T!+!a$).
2'') $quadvdash aquad$ "$a$ is a tautology" i.e. $a$ follows from the empty set of axioms.
3) $quadmathfrak M models a$ (resp. $mathfrak M models T$)$quad$ "the structure $mathfrak M$ is a model of/satisfies the sentence $a$" (resp., of the theory $T$)
3') $quadmodels aquad$ "the sentence $a$ is semantically a tautology" i.e. $a$ is satisfied in every structure (of signature given by the language).
3'') $quadmodels_T a$ (or $Tmodels a$)$quad$ "$a$ is a semantic consequence of the theory $T$", i.e. $a$ is satisfied in every model of $T$.
3''') $quad amodels bquad$ "$b$ is a semantic consequence of $a$"
3'''') $quad a models_T bquad$ "$b$ is a semantic consequence of $a$ in every model of $T$" i.e.: in every model of $T$ in which $a$ holds, also $b$ holds.
4) $quad aequiv bquad$ "$a$ and $b$ are logically equivalent", i.e. $a$ is true whenever $b$ is true and viceversa.
5) $quad a implies bquad$ blackboard implication symbol.
Q.1 Are the above definitions correct? ( except for 5), which I haven't defined or described )
Q.2 Is $avdash b$ the same as $vdash ato b$? Is $amodels b$ the same as $models ato b$?
Q.3 Is the notation $aequiv b$ of "logical equivalence" of sentences the same as something expressible by the above other standard notations? ( e.g. $vdash!(ato b; wedge; bto a)$ ? )
Q.4 As for 5), this is a notation usually used on the blackboard in an informal manner, when you don't really want to distinguish between theory and metatheory, syntax and semantics, or when you're in a specific context left as understood (e.g. ZFC, or when the completeness theorem holds). If one really wanted to pin down a meaning for "$aimplies b$", how should this notation be understood in terms of the above other more formal notations?
logic notation propositional-calculus model-theory
asked Sep 23 '18 at 14:36
QfwfqQfwfq
324112
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I would just like to clarify my ideas about a bunch of standard notations introduced in (elementary) mathematical logic.
1) $quad ato bquad$ material/internal/syntactical implication; it's a mere symbol denoting the proposition $lnot a vee b$.
2) $quad T vdash aquad$ "there's a proof of $a$ from the theory $T$".
2') $quad a vdash b$ (resp. $a vdash_T b$)$quad$ turnstile sign, "$b$ provably follows from $a$" i.e. there's a proof of $b$ from $a$ (resp. there's a proof of $b$ from the theory $T!+!a$).
2'') $quadvdash aquad$ "$a$ is a tautology" i.e. $a$ follows from the empty set of axioms.
3) $quadmathfrak M models a$ (resp. $mathfrak M models T$)$quad$ "the structure $mathfrak M$ is a model of/satisfies the sentence $a$" (resp., of the theory $T$)
3') $quadmodels aquad$ "the sentence $a$ is semantically a tautology" i.e. $a$ is satisfied in every structure (of signature given by the language).
3'') $quadmodels_T a$ (or $Tmodels a$)$quad$ "$a$ is a semantic consequence of the theory $T$", i.e. $a$ is satisfied in every model of $T$.
3''') $quad amodels bquad$ "$b$ is a semantic consequence of $a$"
3'''') $quad a models_T bquad$ "$b$ is a semantic consequence of $a$ in every model of $T$" i.e.: in every model of $T$ in which $a$ holds, also $b$ holds.
4) $quad aequiv bquad$ "$a$ and $b$ are logically equivalent", i.e. $a$ is true whenever $b$ is true and viceversa.
5) $quad a implies bquad$ blackboard implication symbol.
Q.1 Are the above definitions correct? ( except for 5), which I haven't defined or described )
Q.2 Is $avdash b$ the same as $vdash ato b$? Is $amodels b$ the same as $models ato b$?
Q.3 Is the notation $aequiv b$ of "logical equivalence" of sentences the same as something expressible by the above other standard notations? ( e.g. $vdash!(ato b; wedge; bto a)$ ? )
Q.4 As for 5), this is a notation usually used on the blackboard in an informal manner, when you don't really want to distinguish between theory and metatheory, syntax and semantics, or when you're in a specific context left as understood (e.g. ZFC, or when the completeness theorem holds). If one really wanted to pin down a meaning for "$aimplies b$", how should this notation be understood in terms of the above other more formal notations?
logic notation propositional-calculus model-theory
asked Sep 23 '18 at 14:36
QfwfqQfwfq
324112
$endgroup$
I would just like to clarify my ideas about a bunch of standard notations introduced in (elementary) mathematical logic.
1) $quad ato bquad$ material/internal/syntactical implication; it's a mere symbol denoting the proposition $lnot a vee b$.
2) $quad T vdash aquad$ "there's a proof of $a$ from the theory $T$".
2') $quad a vdash b$ (resp. $a vdash_T b$)$quad$ turnstile sign, "$b$ provably follows from $a$" i.e. there's a proof of $b$ from $a$ (resp. there's a proof of $b$ from the theory $T!+!a$).
2'') $quadvdash aquad$ "$a$ is a tautology" i.e. $a$ follows from the empty set of axioms.
3) $quadmathfrak M models a$ (resp. $mathfrak M models T$)$quad$ "the structure $mathfrak M$ is a model of/satisfies the sentence $a$" (resp., of the theory $T$)
3') $quadmodels aquad$ "the sentence $a$ is semantically a tautology" i.e. $a$ is satisfied in every structure (of signature given by the language).
3'') $quadmodels_T a$ (or $Tmodels a$)$quad$ "$a$ is a semantic consequence of the theory $T$", i.e. $a$ is satisfied in every model of $T$.
3''') $quad amodels bquad$ "$b$ is a semantic consequence of $a$"
3'''') $quad a models_T bquad$ "$b$ is a semantic consequence of $a$ in every model of $T$" i.e.: in every model of $T$ in which $a$ holds, also $b$ holds.
4) $quad aequiv bquad$ "$a$ and $b$ are logically equivalent", i.e. $a$ is true whenever $b$ is true and viceversa.
5) $quad a implies bquad$ blackboard implication symbol.
Q.1 Are the above definitions correct? ( except for 5), which I haven't defined or described )
Q.2 Is $avdash b$ the same as $vdash ato b$? Is $amodels b$ the same as $models ato b$?
Q.3 Is the notation $aequiv b$ of "logical equivalence" of sentences the same as something expressible by the above other standard notations? ( e.g. $vdash!(ato b; wedge; bto a)$ ? )
Q.4 As for 5), this is a notation usually used on the blackboard in an informal manner, when you don't really want to distinguish between theory and metatheory, syntax and semantics, or when you're in a specific context left as understood (e.g. ZFC, or when the completeness theorem holds). If one really wanted to pin down a meaning for "$aimplies b$", how should this notation be understood in terms of the above other more formal notations?
logic notation propositional-calculus model-theory
logic notation propositional-calculus model-theory
asked Sep 23 '18 at 14:36
QfwfqQfwfq
324112
asked Sep 23 '18 at 14:36
QfwfqQfwfq
324112
edited Sep 23 '18 at 16:23
Qfwfq
asked Sep 23 '18 at 14:36
QfwfqQfwfq
324112
asked Sep 23 '18 at 14:36
QfwfqQfwfq
324112
asked Sep 23 '18 at 14:36
QfwfqQfwfq
324112
324112
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
- Yes.
- Yes. Note that if the completeness theorem holds (this is the case in propositional or first-order logic), then $vdash$ and $models$ are essentially interchangeable, except that $mathfrak{M} vdash a$ and $mathfrak{M} vdash T$ make no sense.
- Yes, more precisely $a equiv b$ usually means $models (a to b) land (b to a)$ (which is the same as $vdash (a to b) land (b to a)$ if the completeness theorem holds). Sometimes you can also find the notations $a equiv_T b$ (which means $T models (a to b) land (b to a)$), and $a dashvvdash b$ (which means $vdash (a to b) land (b to a)$, and $a dashvvdash_T b$ (which means $T vdash (a to b) land (b to a)$).
- Often $a implies b$ stands for $T vdash a to b$ where the theory $T$ is clear from the context (and usually $T$ is a theory in a logic where the completeness theorem holds). But this notation is very informal (though useful and common), and it can have other meanings. So, be careful. For instance, sometimes it can mean that "Since $a$ holds (in a theory $T$) and $b$ follows from $a$, then $b$ holds" (i.e., also a modus ponens is left implicit); formally, in this case it stands for $T vdash a land (a to b)$ (and hence $T vdash b$).
answered Sep 23 '18 at 15:23
TaroccoesbroccoTaroccoesbrocco
5,86471840
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I would like to supplement the above answer with a couple of comments and note that Q2 needs more discussion.
Yes, this is a good list of "standard" notations, but because of equivalence theorems (especially the soundness and completeness theorems) some textbooks will deviate from these definitions. For example Boolos and Jeffrey use $vdash$ when introducing "semantic inference" and after the completeness theorem re-use it to mean deductibility also. Also "semantic inference" is sometimes called "logical inference". These issues become important as one moves on from elementary logic, to the endless variety of other logics: modal logic, 3-valued logic, etc, in which the completeness theorem might not hold.
The statement that $a vdash b$ implies $vdash a rightarrow b$ is actually the deduction theorem. Again primarily a propositional and first order logic (meta-)theorem, but it can be proven for other logics too, but again the given logic will need to establish this result. I see that a form of Quantum Logic is given as an example in which this meta-theorem fails.
As other answer.
In a formal logic textbook $implies$ will probably be introduced early on, probably in the propositional logic chapter. However in a Mathematical lecture or notes $implies$ is used to represent the steps in the mathematical proof being presented. E.g. in an Algebra class we might have some steps like : $x > 1 implies x^2 > 1$ with the range of the variables implicit, but defined by the algebra, and so the full logical formulation of the algebraic proofs (in terms of models, languages, inference rules, etc) left implicit.
answered Feb 1 at 16:30
Roy SimpsonRoy Simpson
338111
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2927733%2fimplication-arrows-turnstiles-etc%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
- Yes.
- Yes. Note that if the completeness theorem holds (this is the case in propositional or first-order logic), then $vdash$ and $models$ are essentially interchangeable, except that $mathfrak{M} vdash a$ and $mathfrak{M} vdash T$ make no sense.
- Yes, more precisely $a equiv b$ usually means $models (a to b) land (b to a)$ (which is the same as $vdash (a to b) land (b to a)$ if the completeness theorem holds). Sometimes you can also find the notations $a equiv_T b$ (which means $T models (a to b) land (b to a)$), and $a dashvvdash b$ (which means $vdash (a to b) land (b to a)$, and $a dashvvdash_T b$ (which means $T vdash (a to b) land (b to a)$).
- Often $a implies b$ stands for $T vdash a to b$ where the theory $T$ is clear from the context (and usually $T$ is a theory in a logic where the completeness theorem holds). But this notation is very informal (though useful and common), and it can have other meanings. So, be careful. For instance, sometimes it can mean that "Since $a$ holds (in a theory $T$) and $b$ follows from $a$, then $b$ holds" (i.e., also a modus ponens is left implicit); formally, in this case it stands for $T vdash a land (a to b)$ (and hence $T vdash b$).
answered Sep 23 '18 at 15:23
TaroccoesbroccoTaroccoesbrocco
5,86471840
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
- Yes.
- Yes. Note that if the completeness theorem holds (this is the case in propositional or first-order logic), then $vdash$ and $models$ are essentially interchangeable, except that $mathfrak{M} vdash a$ and $mathfrak{M} vdash T$ make no sense.
- Yes, more precisely $a equiv b$ usually means $models (a to b) land (b to a)$ (which is the same as $vdash (a to b) land (b to a)$ if the completeness theorem holds). Sometimes you can also find the notations $a equiv_T b$ (which means $T models (a to b) land (b to a)$), and $a dashvvdash b$ (which means $vdash (a to b) land (b to a)$, and $a dashvvdash_T b$ (which means $T vdash (a to b) land (b to a)$).
- Often $a implies b$ stands for $T vdash a to b$ where the theory $T$ is clear from the context (and usually $T$ is a theory in a logic where the completeness theorem holds). But this notation is very informal (though useful and common), and it can have other meanings. So, be careful. For instance, sometimes it can mean that "Since $a$ holds (in a theory $T$) and $b$ follows from $a$, then $b$ holds" (i.e., also a modus ponens is left implicit); formally, in this case it stands for $T vdash a land (a to b)$ (and hence $T vdash b$).
answered Sep 23 '18 at 15:23
TaroccoesbroccoTaroccoesbrocco
5,86471840
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
- Yes.
- Yes. Note that if the completeness theorem holds (this is the case in propositional or first-order logic), then $vdash$ and $models$ are essentially interchangeable, except that $mathfrak{M} vdash a$ and $mathfrak{M} vdash T$ make no sense.
- Yes, more precisely $a equiv b$ usually means $models (a to b) land (b to a)$ (which is the same as $vdash (a to b) land (b to a)$ if the completeness theorem holds). Sometimes you can also find the notations $a equiv_T b$ (which means $T models (a to b) land (b to a)$), and $a dashvvdash b$ (which means $vdash (a to b) land (b to a)$, and $a dashvvdash_T b$ (which means $T vdash (a to b) land (b to a)$).
- Often $a implies b$ stands for $T vdash a to b$ where the theory $T$ is clear from the context (and usually $T$ is a theory in a logic where the completeness theorem holds). But this notation is very informal (though useful and common), and it can have other meanings. So, be careful. For instance, sometimes it can mean that "Since $a$ holds (in a theory $T$) and $b$ follows from $a$, then $b$ holds" (i.e., also a modus ponens is left implicit); formally, in this case it stands for $T vdash a land (a to b)$ (and hence $T vdash b$).
answered Sep 23 '18 at 15:23
TaroccoesbroccoTaroccoesbrocco
5,86471840
$endgroup$
- Yes.
- Yes. Note that if the completeness theorem holds (this is the case in propositional or first-order logic), then $vdash$ and $models$ are essentially interchangeable, except that $mathfrak{M} vdash a$ and $mathfrak{M} vdash T$ make no sense.
- Yes, more precisely $a equiv b$ usually means $models (a to b) land (b to a)$ (which is the same as $vdash (a to b) land (b to a)$ if the completeness theorem holds). Sometimes you can also find the notations $a equiv_T b$ (which means $T models (a to b) land (b to a)$), and $a dashvvdash b$ (which means $vdash (a to b) land (b to a)$, and $a dashvvdash_T b$ (which means $T vdash (a to b) land (b to a)$).
- Often $a implies b$ stands for $T vdash a to b$ where the theory $T$ is clear from the context (and usually $T$ is a theory in a logic where the completeness theorem holds). But this notation is very informal (though useful and common), and it can have other meanings. So, be careful. For instance, sometimes it can mean that "Since $a$ holds (in a theory $T$) and $b$ follows from $a$, then $b$ holds" (i.e., also a modus ponens is left implicit); formally, in this case it stands for $T vdash a land (a to b)$ (and hence $T vdash b$).
answered Sep 23 '18 at 15:23
TaroccoesbroccoTaroccoesbrocco
5,86471840
edited Sep 23 '18 at 15:29
answered Sep 23 '18 at 15:23
TaroccoesbroccoTaroccoesbrocco
5,86471840
answered Sep 23 '18 at 15:23
TaroccoesbroccoTaroccoesbrocco
5,86471840
answered Sep 23 '18 at 15:23
TaroccoesbroccoTaroccoesbrocco
5,86471840
5,86471840
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I would like to supplement the above answer with a couple of comments and note that Q2 needs more discussion.
Yes, this is a good list of "standard" notations, but because of equivalence theorems (especially the soundness and completeness theorems) some textbooks will deviate from these definitions. For example Boolos and Jeffrey use $vdash$ when introducing "semantic inference" and after the completeness theorem re-use it to mean deductibility also. Also "semantic inference" is sometimes called "logical inference". These issues become important as one moves on from elementary logic, to the endless variety of other logics: modal logic, 3-valued logic, etc, in which the completeness theorem might not hold.
The statement that $a vdash b$ implies $vdash a rightarrow b$ is actually the deduction theorem. Again primarily a propositional and first order logic (meta-)theorem, but it can be proven for other logics too, but again the given logic will need to establish this result. I see that a form of Quantum Logic is given as an example in which this meta-theorem fails.
As other answer.
In a formal logic textbook $implies$ will probably be introduced early on, probably in the propositional logic chapter. However in a Mathematical lecture or notes $implies$ is used to represent the steps in the mathematical proof being presented. E.g. in an Algebra class we might have some steps like : $x > 1 implies x^2 > 1$ with the range of the variables implicit, but defined by the algebra, and so the full logical formulation of the algebraic proofs (in terms of models, languages, inference rules, etc) left implicit.
answered Feb 1 at 16:30
Roy SimpsonRoy Simpson
338111
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I would like to supplement the above answer with a couple of comments and note that Q2 needs more discussion.
Yes, this is a good list of "standard" notations, but because of equivalence theorems (especially the soundness and completeness theorems) some textbooks will deviate from these definitions. For example Boolos and Jeffrey use $vdash$ when introducing "semantic inference" and after the completeness theorem re-use it to mean deductibility also. Also "semantic inference" is sometimes called "logical inference". These issues become important as one moves on from elementary logic, to the endless variety of other logics: modal logic, 3-valued logic, etc, in which the completeness theorem might not hold.
The statement that $a vdash b$ implies $vdash a rightarrow b$ is actually the deduction theorem. Again primarily a propositional and first order logic (meta-)theorem, but it can be proven for other logics too, but again the given logic will need to establish this result. I see that a form of Quantum Logic is given as an example in which this meta-theorem fails.
As other answer.
In a formal logic textbook $implies$ will probably be introduced early on, probably in the propositional logic chapter. However in a Mathematical lecture or notes $implies$ is used to represent the steps in the mathematical proof being presented. E.g. in an Algebra class we might have some steps like : $x > 1 implies x^2 > 1$ with the range of the variables implicit, but defined by the algebra, and so the full logical formulation of the algebraic proofs (in terms of models, languages, inference rules, etc) left implicit.
answered Feb 1 at 16:30
Roy SimpsonRoy Simpson
338111
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I would like to supplement the above answer with a couple of comments and note that Q2 needs more discussion.
Yes, this is a good list of "standard" notations, but because of equivalence theorems (especially the soundness and completeness theorems) some textbooks will deviate from these definitions. For example Boolos and Jeffrey use $vdash$ when introducing "semantic inference" and after the completeness theorem re-use it to mean deductibility also. Also "semantic inference" is sometimes called "logical inference". These issues become important as one moves on from elementary logic, to the endless variety of other logics: modal logic, 3-valued logic, etc, in which the completeness theorem might not hold.
The statement that $a vdash b$ implies $vdash a rightarrow b$ is actually the deduction theorem. Again primarily a propositional and first order logic (meta-)theorem, but it can be proven for other logics too, but again the given logic will need to establish this result. I see that a form of Quantum Logic is given as an example in which this meta-theorem fails.
As other answer.
In a formal logic textbook $implies$ will probably be introduced early on, probably in the propositional logic chapter. However in a Mathematical lecture or notes $implies$ is used to represent the steps in the mathematical proof being presented. E.g. in an Algebra class we might have some steps like : $x > 1 implies x^2 > 1$ with the range of the variables implicit, but defined by the algebra, and so the full logical formulation of the algebraic proofs (in terms of models, languages, inference rules, etc) left implicit.
answered Feb 1 at 16:30
Roy SimpsonRoy Simpson
338111
$endgroup$
I would like to supplement the above answer with a couple of comments and note that Q2 needs more discussion.
Yes, this is a good list of "standard" notations, but because of equivalence theorems (especially the soundness and completeness theorems) some textbooks will deviate from these definitions. For example Boolos and Jeffrey use $vdash$ when introducing "semantic inference" and after the completeness theorem re-use it to mean deductibility also. Also "semantic inference" is sometimes called "logical inference". These issues become important as one moves on from elementary logic, to the endless variety of other logics: modal logic, 3-valued logic, etc, in which the completeness theorem might not hold.
The statement that $a vdash b$ implies $vdash a rightarrow b$ is actually the deduction theorem. Again primarily a propositional and first order logic (meta-)theorem, but it can be proven for other logics too, but again the given logic will need to establish this result. I see that a form of Quantum Logic is given as an example in which this meta-theorem fails.
As other answer.
In a formal logic textbook $implies$ will probably be introduced early on, probably in the propositional logic chapter. However in a Mathematical lecture or notes $implies$ is used to represent the steps in the mathematical proof being presented. E.g. in an Algebra class we might have some steps like : $x > 1 implies x^2 > 1$ with the range of the variables implicit, but defined by the algebra, and so the full logical formulation of the algebraic proofs (in terms of models, languages, inference rules, etc) left implicit.
answered Feb 1 at 16:30
Roy SimpsonRoy Simpson
338111
answered Feb 1 at 16:30
Roy SimpsonRoy Simpson
338111
answered Feb 1 at 16:30
Roy SimpsonRoy Simpson
338111
answered Feb 1 at 16:30
Roy SimpsonRoy Simpson
338111
338111
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2927733%2fimplication-arrows-turnstiles-etc%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
