Semantic Tableux in Predicate Logic

Recall
Rules used in propositional semantic tableux are still valid, but well extend them. Semantic Tableux uses proof by contradiction. To prove p1 , . . . , pn S q We would show that p1 pn q is a contradiction. A branch is closed if A and A appear on the path from the root to the leaf.

1. P1 2. P2 3. P3 q q q

q CLOSED The branch containing only q and the one containing only q (the rst and last branches, respectively) cannot be closed. If all branches are closed, then the formulas at the root are in contradiction (as weve already seen in propositional logic).

Example:
Show that (P Q) R, R, P S Q. 1. (P Q) R (Premise) 2. R (Premise) 3. P (Premise) 4. Q (Negated Conlusion)

IM P LIES 1

5. (P Q)

6. R CLOSED 2, 6

N OT AN D 5

7. P CLOSED 3, 7

8. Q

N OT N OT 8

9. Q CLOSED 4,9

Example:
Show that xyP (x, y) S P (A, A). 1. xyP (x, y) (Premise) 2. P (A, A) (Negated Conclusion)
F OR ALL 1

3. yP (A, y)

F OR ALL 3

4. P (A, A) CLOSED 2, 4

Example:
Show that xP (x) S yP (y). 1. xP (x) (Premise) 2. yP (y) (Negated Conlusion)
N OT EXIST 2

3. yP (y)

F OR ALL 3

4. P (A)

F OR ALL 1

5. P (A) CLOSED 4, 5

Example:
Show that (xP (x) Q(x)) xP (x) is a tautology. S (xP (x) Q(x)) xP (x)

1. ((xP (x) Q(x)) xP (x)) (Negated Conclusion)

N OT IM P LIES 1

2. xP (x) Q(x) 3. xP (x)

N OT F OR ALL 3

4. xP (x)
EXIST S 4

5. P (A)
F OR ALL 2

6. P (A) Q(A)
AN D 6

7. P (A) 8. Q(A) CLOSED 5, 7

Alternate solution: 1. (x.P (x) Q(x)) (xP (x)) (Negated Conclusion)

N OT IM P LIES 1

2. x.P (x) Q(x) 3. xP (x)

N OT F OR ALL 3

4. xP (x)
F OR ALL 2

5. P (A) Q(A)
AN D 5

6. P (A) 7. Q(A)
EXIST S 4

8. P (B)
F OR ALL 2

9. P (B) Q(B)
AN D 9

10. P (B) 11. Q(B) CLOSED 8, 10 When B is introduced in 8, it is a new symbol that has not been used before in the tableux. Heuristic for generating a smaller tabeleux: Expand NOT and EXIST rules before the others.

Consider the EXISTS rule: xP (x)

EXIST S

P (t) Why is it that T has to be a brand new term, not used before in the tableux? The following (incorrect) example illustrates: Show that xyP (x, y) S P (A, A) e.g. xy sibling(x, y) S sibling(Alex, Alex) xy lessthan(x, y) S lessthan(5, 5) This is incorrect! 1. xyP (x, y) (Premise) 2. P (A, A) (Negated Conclusion)
EXIST S 1

3. yP (A, y)
EXIST S 3

4. P (A, A) CLOSED 2, 4

Without commiting the same mistakes as above, we can only go so far: 1. xyP (x, y) (Premise) 2. P (A, A) (Negated Conclusion)
EXIST S 1

3. yP (B, y)
EXIST S 3

4. P (B, C) 6

Since we couldnt close the tableux, we have to nd a counter example. I:- D = {A, B, C} P(B, C) True P(A, A) True Everything else is False According to this interpretation, the premises are true but the conclusion isnt, hence it is a counterexample.

Example:
Show that (xP (x)) (yQ(y)) d x P (x) Q(x) 1. (xP (x)) (yQ(y)) (Premise) 2. (x P (x) Q(x)) (Negated Conclusion)
N OT F OR ALL 2

3. x (P (x) Q(x))
EXIST S 3

4. (P (A) Q(A))
N OT OR 4

5. P (A) 6. Q(A)
OR 1

7. xP (x)
F OR ALL 7

8. yQ(y)
F OR ALL 8

9. P (A) CLOSED 5, 9

10. Q(A) CLOSED 6, 10

Example:
Show that x P (x) Q(x) S xP (x) yQ(y).

1. x P (x) Q(x) (Premise) 2. (xP (x) yQ(y)) (Negated Conclusion)

N OT OR 2

3. xP (x) 4. yQ(y)
N OT F OR ALL 3

5. xP (x)
N OT F OR ALL 4

6. yQ(y)
EXIST S 5

7. P (A)
EXIST S 6

8. Q(B)
F OR ALL 1

9. P (A) Q(A)
OR 9

10. P (A)

11. Q(A)
F OR ALL 1

12. P (B) Q(B)

OR 12

13. P (B)

14. Q(B) CLOSED 8, 14

Since we couldnt close all of the branches of the tableux, we have to nd a counterexample. I:- D = {A, B} P(A) True P(B) False Q(A) False Q(B) True Since, according to I, the premises are true but the conclusion isnt, I is a counterexample.

Example: Complicated terms

Show that x y P (x, y) S P (f (g(A)), B) 1. x y P (x, y) (Premise) 2. P (f (g(A)), B) (Negated Conclusion)
F OR ALL 1

3. y P (f (g(A)), y)
F OR ALL 3

4. P (f (g(A)), B) CLOSED 2, 4 In 3, term x is instantiated with f (g(A)), and in 4, term y is instantiated with B.