Case (a): i is a premise.

This means that either

i is or it is a member of . If i is , then
i is the same as , and hence an
instance of (Self-Imp), which can be introduced
into any proof. In that case, : i. If i is a
member of then clearly : i. We can
introduce the axiom i ( i) as an
instance of (A1), and so by MP we can conclude
: i.

IX. The Deduction Theorem

If you do your homework, youll be chugging
away at a number of interesting and worthwhile
new theorem schemata and derived rules. Today
we show something more radical: we show that
the natural deduction method of conditional
proof, while not strictly speaking allowed in
System L, is unnecessary in L, because there is
a rote procedure for transforming a would-be
conditional proof into a direct proof. To be more
precise, were going to prove the following
meta-theoretic result:

Case (b): i is an axiom. Hence we can

introduce i into any proof at any time. By (A1),
i ( i) is also an axiom. Hence by MP
we get : i, and a fortiori : i.

The Deduction Theorem: If {} : , then

: . Or, in other words, if we can
construct a proof for a certain result using a
set of premises along with an additional
premise or assumption, , then it is always
possible, using the original set alone, to
construct a proof for the conditional statement
.

Case (c): i followed from previous steps in the

proof by modus ponens. This is the hard case.
By the definition of modus ponens, there must
be two previous members of the sequence, j
and k from which it followed, with j taking
the form k i. By the inductive hypothesis, it
holds that : j and : k. Because
j takes the form k i, this means :
(k i). We can then introduce the axiom
( (k i)) (( k) ( i)) as an
instance of (A2). By two applications of MP, we
get : i.

Proof:
1. Assume that {} : . This means that
there is a proof, i.e., an ordered sequence of
wffs 1, 2, , n that satisfies the definition of
being a proof of from {}.

4. Hence, for every step i in the original proof,

we can push the assumption through to make
it an antecedent. This is true of the last step in
the proof, n, which must be , since was the
conclusion of the original proof. Hence,
: i means that : . QED.

2. Were going to use the technique of proof

induction (see page 6) to show that for every
step in this proof, i, where 1 b i b n, it holds
that : i.
3. An argument by proof induction works by
first making an inductive hypothesis. Let i be
an arbitrary step in the proof. Were allowed to
assume as an inductive hypothesis that for all
earlier steps in the proof j such that j < i it
holds that : j. We need to show that the
same holds for i given this assumption.

The above proof of the deduction theorem is

fairly hard to follow in the abstract, but the idea
behind it is actually very simple. What it means
is that for every proof making use of some
number of assumptions or premises, we can
eliminate one of the premises and make it an
antecedent on each line of the original proof.
There is a rote procedure for transforming each
line into a line with the eliminated assumption
or premise as an antecedent. We follow this
procedure for the example given on the next
page.
The deduction theorem works almost as a
substitute for conditional proof; more precisely,
however, it shows that conditional proof in the
object language is not needed.

4. Because i is a step in a proof of from

{}, i is either one of three things:
(a) i is a premise, i.e., it is a member of
{}.
(b) i is an axiom of L.
(c) i followed from previous steps in the
proof by modus ponens.
We will show for any of these cases, it holds
that : i.
18

9. : (( ) (( ) ))
( (( )
(( ) )))
A1
10. : (( )
(( ) ))
8, 9 MP

Applying the Deduction Theorem

Last class we covered this proof schema:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

:
Premise
: ( )
A1
:
1, 2 MP
: ( ) (( ) )
A3
: ( )
3, 4 MP
:
(Self-Imp)
:
5, 6 MP

Line 5 is gotten at by MP, so case (c) again:

11. : ( (( ) (( )
))) (( ( ))
( (( ) )))
A2
12. : ( ( ))
( (( ) )) 10,11 MP
13. : (( ) )
7, 12 MP

We used a premise to arrive at our conclusion;

the deduction theorem tells us that there is a
proof not making use of the premise, in which
the premise of the original argument becomes
an antecedent on the result, i.e.:
:
The proof of the deduction theorem provides us
with a way of transforming the above proof
schema into one for the result that : .

Line 6 appeals to a theorem schema. Strictly

speaking we should write out the intermediate
steps, but to save time we can treat it like an
axiom, and use the method for case (b):
14. :
(Self-Imp)
15. : ( ) ( ( )) A1
16. : ( )
14, 15 MP

We take the steps of the original proof one by

one, and depending on what kind of case it is,
we treat it appropriately. In transforming each
step, the goal is to push the discharged premise
to the other side of the turnstyle, and arrive at
: .

Line 7 is another MP step:

17. : ( (( ) ))
(( ( )) ( )) A2
18. : ( ( )) ( )
13, 17 MP
19. :
16, 18 MP

Line 1 is the discharged premise. It falls in

case (a) from the previous page. It becomes:
1. :
(Self-Imp)

Weve transformed our original 7 step proof

into a 19 step proof for the result we were after!
Notice that in the new proof, every single step is
a theorem; the hypothesis is removed entirely.
The final line shows that all wffs of the form
are theorems!

Line 2 appeals to an axiom. It falls in case (b).

So, it becomes:
2. : ( )
A1
3. : ( ( ))
( ( ( )))
A1
4. : ( ( )) 2,3 MP

This procedure can be lengthy, but it sure is

effective! The proofs that result from the
transformation procedure are not usually the
most elegant ones possible Notice, e.g., that
lines 2 and 7 are identical, so we could have
skipped lines 3-7! However, we followed the
recipe provided on the previous page blindly,
since we know that that procedure will work in
every case.

Line 3 is gotten by MP. It falls in case (c):

5. : ( ( ( )))
(( ) ( ( )))
A2
6. : ( )
( ( ))
4, 5 MP
7. : ( )
1, 6 MP

Since we know we can always transform the one

kind of proof into the other, from here on out
(well, except in tonights homework), whenever
you have a result of the form : , just go
ahead and conclude : ! (In effect, this
allows you to do conditional proofs in our
System L.)

Line 4 also appeals to an axiom. We treat it just

like we treated line 2:
8. : ( ) (( ) )
A3
19