Timeline for Does a finite procedure for demonstrating truth-functional unsatisfiability count as a deduction method?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 11, 2020 at 18:10 | comment | added | Mallik | Also, this would be a semantic procedure whereas Goldfarb has in mind something syntactic: 'Skolem seems to be groping for a more syntactical-but still not entirely formal-parsing of the notion "containing a contradiction", having in mind an informal deduction method.' (Goldfarb, 1979, p. 363) | |
| Jul 11, 2020 at 16:44 | comment | added | Mallik | @EmilJeřábek I.e., for the propositional formulas at each level, the "deduction'' would begin by listing the atomic components, systematically constructing the truth table, and the rule would be "If at least one row of the table assigns "T" to the whole formula, write the formula; otherwise , write its negation." | |
| Jul 11, 2020 at 6:38 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | The idea here is that checking propositional validity is so simple that it can be done by a single application of a rule. | |
| Jul 10, 2020 at 21:31 | comment | added | Mallik | @EmilJeřábek of course the truth table method can be used to establish that an argument is deductively valid, but the process described here of checking each level for truth-functional satisfiability does not fit the definition of a deduction as an argument going from premises to conclusion by validity-preserving inference rules. | |
| Jul 10, 2020 at 5:50 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | Why not? ------ | |
| Jul 9, 2020 at 23:22 | history | asked | Mallik | CC BY-SA 4.0 |