Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The second pattern of potentially globally redundant proofs appearing in global redundancy definition is related to the well-known [further explanation needed] notion of regularity [further explanation needed]. Informally, a proof is irregular if there is a path from a node to the root of the proof such that a literal is used more than once as ...
In Boolean algebra, the consensus theorem or rule of consensus [1] is the identity: ¯ = ¯ The consensus or resolvent of the terms and ¯ is . It is the conjunction of all the unique literals of the terms, excluding the literal that appears unnegated in one term and negated in the other.
In mathematical logic, a literal is an atomic formula (also known as an atom or prime formula) or its negation. [1] [2] The definition mostly appears in proof theory (of classical logic), e.g. in conjunctive normal form and the method of resolution. Literals can be divided into two types: [2] A positive literal is just an atom (e.g., ).
The definition of a formal proof is intended to capture the concept of proofs as written in the practice of mathematics. The soundness of this definition amounts to the belief that a published proof can, in principle, be converted into a formal proof.
The resolution rule in propositional logic is a single valid inference rule that produces a new clause implied by two clauses containing complementary literals. A literal is a propositional variable or the negation of a propositional variable.
Each logic operator can be used in an assertion about variables and operations, showing a basic rule of inference. Examples: The column-14 operator (OR), shows Addition rule: when p=T (the hypothesis selects the first two lines of the table), we see (at column-14) that p∨q=T.
A proof system is formed from a set of rules chained together to form proofs, also called derivations. Any derivation has only one final conclusion, which is the statement proved or derived. If premises are left unsatisfied in the derivation, then the derivation is a proof of a hypothetical statement: "if the premises hold, then the conclusion ...
The rule Γ/B is derivable in , if . It is admissible if for every instance of the rule, σB is a theorem whenever all formulas from σΓ are theorems. [3] In other words, a rule is admissible if it, when added to the logic, does not lead to new theorems. [4]