Difference between revisions of "Proof (logic)" - New World Encyclopedia

From New World Encyclopedia
 
(17 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{claimed}}
+
{{Copyedited}}{{Approved}}{{Images OK}}{{Submitted}}{{Paid}}
  
Editor note: Wiki article is '''Proof theory'''. Modify the article and add explanation about '''Proof.''' Wikipedia has separate articles on some subsections. If you used/copied from these articles, let me know which ones you used. I need to add credit tags for those articles. (delete this note when you start this article) Noda
+
In general, a '''proof''' is a demonstration that a specified statement follows from a set of assumed statements. The specified statement that follows from the assumed statements is called the ''conclusion'' of the proof and the assumed statements that the conclusion follows from are called the ''premises'' of the proof.
  
'''Proof theory''' is a branch of [[mathematical logic]] that represents [[Mathematical proof|proof]]s as formal mathematical objects, facilitating their analysis by mathematical techniques.  Proofs are typically presented as inductively-defined [[data structures]] such as plain lists, boxed lists, or trees, which are constructed according to the [[axiom]]s and [[rule of inference|rules of inference]] of the logical system. As such, proof theory is [[syntax (logic)|syntactic]] in nature, in contrast to [[model theory]], which is [[semantics of logic|semantic]] in nature. Together with model theory, [[axiomatic set theory]], and [[recursion theory]], proof theory is one of the so-called ''four pillars'' of the [[foundations of mathematics]].
+
Particularly, in [[mathematics]], a proof is a demonstration that the conclusion is a necessary consequence of the set of premises, i.e. the conclusion must be true if the premises are all true. Also, in [[formal logic|logic]], a proof is formally meant to be a sequence of formulas in some deductive system that shows the transformation from the set of premises (expressed as formulas) into the conclusion (also expressed as a formula) by the rules specified in the deductive system. The notion of proofs in this sense is a subject of the study in the field of ''proof theory''.
 +
{{toc}}
 +
There are various kinds of methods for proofs. The list of common methods are: direct proof, proof by induction, proof by transposition, proof by contradiction, nonconstructive proof, constructive proof, proof by exhaustion, probabilistic proof, combinatorial proof.
  
Proof theory can also be considered a branch of [[philosophical logic]], where the primary interest is in the idea of a [[proof-theoretic semantics]], an idea which depends upon technical ideas in [[structural proof theory]] to be feasible.
+
==Formal and Informal Proofs==
 +
In general, a proof is a demonstration that a specified statement follows from a set of assumed statements. The specified statement that follows from the assumed statements is called the conclusion of the proof and the assumed statements that the conclusion follows from are called the premises of the proof.
  
==History==
+
In mathematics, proofs are often expressed in natural language with some mathematical symbols. These type of proofs are called ''informal proof''. A proof in mathematics is thus an argument showing that the conclusion is a necessary consequence of the premises, i.e. the conclusion must be true if all the premises are true. When all the premises of proofs are statements that have been previously agreed on for the purpose of the study in a given mathematical field, which are called [[axiomatic system|axioms]], the conclusions of such proofs are called ''theorems''.
Although the formalisation of logic was much advanced by the work of such figures as [[Gottlob Frege]], [[Giuseppe Peano]], [[Bertrand Russell]], and [[Richard Dedekind]], the story of modern proof theory is often seen as being established by [[David Hilbert]], who initiated what is called [[Hilbert's program]] in the [[foundations of mathematics]]. [[Kurt Gödel]]'s seminal work on proof theory first advanced, then refuted this program: his [[Gödel's completeness theorem|completeness theorem]] initially seemed to bode well for Hilbert's aim of reducing all mathematics to a finitist formal system; then his [[Gödel's incompleteness theorem|incompleteness theorems]] showed that this is unattainable.  All of this work was carried out with the proof calculi called the [[Hilbert systems]].
 
  
In parallel with the proof theoretic work of Gödel, [[Gerhard Gentzen]] was laying the foundations of what is now known as structural proof theory.  In a few short years, Gentzen introduced the core formalisms of [[natural deduction]] (simultaneously with and independently of Jaskowski) and the [[sequent calculus]], made fundamental advances in the formalisation of intuitionistic logic, introduced the important idea of [[analytic proof]], and provided the first combinatorial proof of the consistency of [[Peano arithmetic]].
+
On the other hand, in logic, a proof is formally meant to be a sequence of [[formal logic|formulas]] in some deductive system that shows the transformation from the set of premises (expressed as formulas) into the conclusion (also expressed as a formula) by the rules specified in the deductive system (called ''the rules of inference''). When all the premises of proofs are axioms in the deductive system, i.e. the formulas [[syntax|syntactically]] specified in the deductive system, the conclusions of proofs are called theorems as in mathematics. ''Proof theory'' studies this notion of proof as its subject matter.  
  
==Formal and informal proof==
+
Although proofs can be written completely in a formal language, for practical reasons, proofs involves a natural language, such as [[English language|English]], and are often expressed as logically organized and clearly worded informal arguments intended to demonstrate that a formal symbolic proof can be constructed. Such arguments are typically easier to check than purely symbolic ones—indeed, many mathematicians would express a preference for a proof that not only demonstrates the validity of a theorem, but also explains in some way why it is obviously true. In some cases, a picture alone may be considered as sufficient to prove a theorem.
  
The ''informal'' proofs of everyday mathematical practice are unlike the ''formal'' proofs of proof theory. They are rather like high-level sketches that would allow an expert to reconstruct a formal proof at least in principle, given enough time and patience. For most mathematicians, writing a fully formal proof would have all the drawbacks of programming in [[machine code]].
+
==Methods of proof==
 +
===Direct proof===
 +
{{main|Direct proof}}
 +
In ''direct proof'', the conclusion is established by logically combining the axioms, definitions, and earlier theorems. For example, direct proof can be used to establish that the sum of two even [[integer|integers]] is always even:
  
Formal proofs are constructed with the help of computers in [[automated theorem proving]].
+
:For any two even integers <math>x</math> and <math>y</math> we can write <math>x=2a</math> and <math>y=2b</math> for some integers <math>a</math> and <math>b</math>, since both <math>x</math> and <math>y</math> are multiples of 2. But the sum <math>x+y = 2a + 2b = 2(a+b)</math> is also a multiple of two, so it is therefore even by definition.
Significantly, these proofs can be checked automatically, also by computer. (Checking formal proofs is usually trivial, whereas finding proofs is typically quite hard.) An informal proof in the mathematics literature, by contrast, requires weeks of [[peer review]] to be checked, and may still contain errors.
 
  
==Kinds of proof calculi==
+
This proof uses definition of even integers, as well as [[distributivity|distribution law]].
  
The three most well-known styles of proof calculi are:
+
===Proof by induction===
*The [[Hilbert systems|Hilbert calculi]]
+
{{main|Mathematical induction}}
*The [[natural deduction calculus|natural deduction calculi]]
+
A ''proof by induction'' is a method to prove that a given property holds every element of a countable set, which is often identified with the set of natural numbers. Let ''N'' = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ... } be the set of natural numbers and ''P(''n'')'' be a mathematical statement involving the natural number ''n'' belonging to ''N''. To prove by induction that ''P''(''n'') hold of every ''n'' in ''N'', we have only to prove the following two things:
*The [[sequent calculus|sequent calculi]]
 
  
Each of these can give a complete and axiomatic formalization of [[propositional logic|propositional]] or [[predicate logic|predicate]] logic of either the [[classical logic|classical]] or [[intuitionistic logic|intuitionistic]] flavour, almost any [[modal logic]], and many [[substructural logic]]s, such as [[relevance logic]] or
+
*'''''(i)''''' ''P''(1) is true, ie, ''P''(''n'') is true for ''n'' = 1
[[linear logic]].  Indeed it is unusual to find a logic that resists being represented in one of these calculi.
+
*'''''(ii)''''' ''P''(''m''&nbsp;+&nbsp;1) is true whenever ''P''(''m'') is true, ie, ''P''(''m'') is true implies that
 +
''P''(''m''&nbsp;+&nbsp;1) is true.
  
==Consistency proofs==
+
===Proof by transposition===
''Main article: [[Consistency proof]]''
+
{{main|Transposition (logic)}}
 +
''Proof by Transposition'' establishes the conclusion "if ''p'' then ''q''" by proving the equivalent ''contrapositive'' statement "if ''not q'' then ''not p''."
  
As previously mentioned, the spur for the mathematical investigation of proofs in formal theories was [[Hilbert's program]]. The central idea of this program was that if we could give finitary proofs of consistency for all the sophisticated formal theories needed by mathematicians, then we could ground these theories by means of a metamathematical argument, which shows that all of their purely universal assertions (more technically their provable [[arithmetical hierarchy|Π<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> sentences]]) are finitarily true; once so grounded we do not care about the non-finitary meaning of their existential theorems, regarding these as pseudo-meaningful stipulations of the existence of ideal entities.
+
===Proof by contradiction===
 +
{{main|Reductio ad absurdum}}
 +
In ''proof by contradiction'' (also known as ''reductio ad absurdum'', Latin for "reduction into the absurd"), it is shown that if some statement were false, a logical contradiction occurs, hence the statement must be true.
  
The failure of the program was induced by [[Kurt Gödel]]'s [[Gödel's incompleteness theorems|incompleteness theorems]], which showed that any [[ω-consistent theory]] that is sufficiently strong to express certain simple arithmetic truths, cannot prove its own consistency, which on Gödel's formulation is a <math>\Pi^0_1</math>  sentence.
+
===Nonconstructive proof===
 +
{{main|Nonconstructive proof}}
 +
A ''nonconstructive proof'' establishes that a certain mathematical object must exist (e.g. "Some X satisfies f(X)"), without explaining how such an object can be found. Often, this takes the form of a proof by contradiction in which the nonexistence of the object is proven to be impossible. In contrast, a constructive proof establishes that a particular object exists by providing a method of finding it.
  
Much investigation has been carried out on this topic since, which has in particular led to:
+
===Constructive Proof===
*Refinement of Gödel's result, particularly [[J. Barkley Rosser]]'s refinement, weakening the above requirement of ω-consistency to simple consistency;
+
{{main|Proof by construction}}
*Axiomatisation of the core of Gödel's result in terms of a modal language, [[provability logic]];
+
''Constructive proof'', or proof by example, is the construction of a concrete example with a property to show that something having that property exists. Joseph Liouville, for instance, proved the existence of transcendental numbers by constructing an explicit example. The field of mathematics which only allows constructive proofs is called ''constructive mathematics''.
*Transfinite iteration of theories, due to [[Alan Turing]] and [[Solomon Feferman]];
 
*The recent discovery of [[self-verifying theories]], systems strong enough to talk about themselves, but too weak to carry out the diagonal argument that is the key to Gödel's unprovability argument.
 
  
==Structural proof theory==
+
===Proof by exhaustion===
''Main article: [[Structural proof theory]]''
+
{{main|Proof by exhaustion}}
 +
In ''Proof by exhaustion'', the conclusion is established by dividing it into a finite number of cases and proving each one separately. The number of cases sometimes can become very large. For example, the first proof of the four color theorem was a proof by exhaustion with 1,936 cases. This proof was controversial because the majority of the cases were checked by a computer program, not by hand. The shortest known proof of the four color theorem today still has over 600 cases.
  
Structural proof theory is the subdiscipline of proof theory that studies proof calculi that support a notion of [[analytic proof]]. The notion of analytic proof was introduced by Gentzen for the sequent calculus; there the analytic proofs are those that are [[cut-elimination theorem|cut-free]]. His natural deduction calculus also supports a notion of analytic proof, as shown by [[Dag Prawitz]]. The definition is slightly more complex: we say the analytic proofs are the [[Natural deduction#normal form|normal forms]], which are related to the notion of normal form in term rewriting.  More exotic proof calculi such as [[Jean-Yves Girard]]'s [[proof net]]s also support a notion of analytic proof.
+
===Probabilistic proof===
 +
{{main|Probabilistic method}}
 +
A ''probabilistic proof'' is one in which an example is shown to exist by methods of probability theory&mdash;not an argument that a theorem is 'probably' true. The latter type of reasoning can be called a 'plausibility argument'; in the case of the Collatz conjecture it is clear how far that is from a genuine proof. Probabilistic proof, like proof by construction, is one of many ways to show existence theorems.
  
Structural proof theory is connected to [[type theory]] by means of the [[Curry-Howard correspondence]], which observes a structural analogy between the process of normalisation in the natural deduction calculus and beta reduction in the [[typed lambda calculus]]. This provides the foundation for the [[intuitionistic type theory]] developed by [[Per Martin-Löf]], and is often extended to a three way correspondence, the third leg of which are the [[cartesian closed category|cartesian closed categories]].
+
===Combinatorial proof===
 +
{{main|Combinatorial proof}}
 +
A ''combinatorial proof'' establishes the equivalence of different expressions by showing that they count the same object in different ways. Usually a bijection is used to show that the two interpretations give the same result.
  
In [[linguistics]], [[type-logical grammar]], [[categorial grammar]] and [[Montague grammar]] apply formalisms based on structural proof theory to give a formal [[natural language semantics]].
+
==End of a proof==
  
==Tableau systems==
+
{{main|Q.E.D.}} 
''Main article: [[Method of analytic tableaux|Tableau systems]]''
 
  
Tableau systems apply the central idea of analytic proof from structural proof theory to provide decision procedures and semi-decision procedures for a wide range of logics.
+
Sometimes, the abbreviation ''"Q.E.D."'' is written to indicate the end of a proof. This abbreviation stands for ''"Quod Erat Demonstrandum"'', which is [[Latin]] for ''"that which was to be demonstrated"''. An alternative is to use a small rectangle with its shorter side horizontal ({{Unicode|∎}}), known as a tombstone or halmos.
  
==Ordinal analysis==
+
== References ==
''Main article: [[Ordinal analysis]]''
+
*Enderton, H.B. 2000. ''A Mathematical Introduction to Logic'', Second edition. Academic Press. ISBN 0122384520
 +
*Solow, D. 2004. ''How to Read and Do Proofs: An Introduction to Mathematical Thought Processes''. Wiley. ISBN 0471680583
 +
* Troelstra, A. S. and H. Schwichtenberg. 2000. ''Basic Proof Theory'', Second edition. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521779111
 +
*Velleman, D. 2006. ''How to Prove It: A Structured Approach''. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521675995
  
Ordinal analysis is a powerful technique for providing combinatorial consistency proofs for theories formalising arithmetic and analysis.
+
==External links==
 +
All links retrieved December 1, 2022.
  
==Substructural logics==
+
* [http://www.math.uconn.edu/~hurley/math315/proofgoldberger.pdf What are mathematical proofs and why they are important?]
''Main article: [[Substructural logic]]''
+
* [http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~larryc/proofs/proofs.html How To Write Proofs] by Larry W. Cusick.
 +
* [http://research.microsoft.com/users/lamport/pubs/lamport-how-to-write.pdf How to Write a Proof] by Leslie Lamport.
 +
* [http://www.cut-the-knot.org/proofs/index.shtml Proofs in Mathematics: Simple, Charming and Fallacious]
 +
* ''[http://www.cs.ru.nl/~freek/comparison/comparison.pdf The Seventeen Provers of the World]'', ed. by Freek Wiedijk, foreword by Dana S. Scott, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3600, Springer, 2006. ISBN 3540307044
 +
* [http://www.cut-the-knot.org/WhatIs/WhatIsProof.shtml What is Proof?] Thoughts on proofs and proving.
  
==See also==
+
===General Philosophy Sources===
 +
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
 +
*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/ The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
 +
*[http://www.bu.edu/wcp/PaidArch.html Paideia Project Online]
 +
*[http://www.gutenberg.org/ Project Gutenberg]
  
*[[Proof techniques]]
+
[[category:Philosophy and religion]]
*[[Intermediate logics]]
+
[[Category:philosophy]]
*[[Proof-theoretic semantics]]
 
  
==References==
+
{{credits|Proof_theory|136451713|Mathematical_proof|153689776|Theorem|158823145}}
 
 
*J. Avigad, E.H. Reck, 2001 .[http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/avigad/Papers/infinite.pdf “Clarifying the nature of the infinite”: the development of metamathematics and proof theory].  Carnegie-Mellon Technical Report CMU-PHIL-120.
 
*A. S. Troelstra, H. Schwichtenberg. ''Basic Proof Theory'' (Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-77911-1
 
*G. Gentzen.  Investigations into logical deduction.  In M. E. Szabo, editor, ''Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen''. North-Holland, 1969.
 
 
 
[[Category:Logic]]
 
[[Category:Mathematical logic|*P]]
 
[[Category:Proof theory|*]]
 
 
 
{{credits|Proof_theory|136451713|Mathematical_proof|153689776}}
 

Latest revision as of 23:56, 1 December 2022


In general, a proof is a demonstration that a specified statement follows from a set of assumed statements. The specified statement that follows from the assumed statements is called the conclusion of the proof and the assumed statements that the conclusion follows from are called the premises of the proof.

Particularly, in mathematics, a proof is a demonstration that the conclusion is a necessary consequence of the set of premises, i.e. the conclusion must be true if the premises are all true. Also, in logic, a proof is formally meant to be a sequence of formulas in some deductive system that shows the transformation from the set of premises (expressed as formulas) into the conclusion (also expressed as a formula) by the rules specified in the deductive system. The notion of proofs in this sense is a subject of the study in the field of proof theory.

There are various kinds of methods for proofs. The list of common methods are: direct proof, proof by induction, proof by transposition, proof by contradiction, nonconstructive proof, constructive proof, proof by exhaustion, probabilistic proof, combinatorial proof.

Formal and Informal Proofs

In general, a proof is a demonstration that a specified statement follows from a set of assumed statements. The specified statement that follows from the assumed statements is called the conclusion of the proof and the assumed statements that the conclusion follows from are called the premises of the proof.

In mathematics, proofs are often expressed in natural language with some mathematical symbols. These type of proofs are called informal proof. A proof in mathematics is thus an argument showing that the conclusion is a necessary consequence of the premises, i.e. the conclusion must be true if all the premises are true. When all the premises of proofs are statements that have been previously agreed on for the purpose of the study in a given mathematical field, which are called axioms, the conclusions of such proofs are called theorems.

On the other hand, in logic, a proof is formally meant to be a sequence of formulas in some deductive system that shows the transformation from the set of premises (expressed as formulas) into the conclusion (also expressed as a formula) by the rules specified in the deductive system (called the rules of inference). When all the premises of proofs are axioms in the deductive system, i.e. the formulas syntactically specified in the deductive system, the conclusions of proofs are called theorems as in mathematics. Proof theory studies this notion of proof as its subject matter.

Although proofs can be written completely in a formal language, for practical reasons, proofs involves a natural language, such as English, and are often expressed as logically organized and clearly worded informal arguments intended to demonstrate that a formal symbolic proof can be constructed. Such arguments are typically easier to check than purely symbolic ones—indeed, many mathematicians would express a preference for a proof that not only demonstrates the validity of a theorem, but also explains in some way why it is obviously true. In some cases, a picture alone may be considered as sufficient to prove a theorem.

Methods of proof

Direct proof

In direct proof, the conclusion is established by logically combining the axioms, definitions, and earlier theorems. For example, direct proof can be used to establish that the sum of two even integers is always even:

For any two even integers and we can write and for some integers and , since both and are multiples of 2. But the sum is also a multiple of two, so it is therefore even by definition.

This proof uses definition of even integers, as well as distribution law.

Proof by induction

A proof by induction is a method to prove that a given property holds every element of a countable set, which is often identified with the set of natural numbers. Let N = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ... } be the set of natural numbers and P(n) be a mathematical statement involving the natural number n belonging to N. To prove by induction that P(n) hold of every n in N, we have only to prove the following two things:

  • (i) P(1) is true, ie, P(n) is true for n = 1
  • (ii) P(m + 1) is true whenever P(m) is true, ie, P(m) is true implies that

P(m + 1) is true.

Proof by transposition

Proof by Transposition establishes the conclusion "if p then q" by proving the equivalent contrapositive statement "if not q then not p."

Proof by contradiction

Main article: Reductio ad absurdum

In proof by contradiction (also known as reductio ad absurdum, Latin for "reduction into the absurd"), it is shown that if some statement were false, a logical contradiction occurs, hence the statement must be true.

Nonconstructive proof

A nonconstructive proof establishes that a certain mathematical object must exist (e.g. "Some X satisfies f(X)"), without explaining how such an object can be found. Often, this takes the form of a proof by contradiction in which the nonexistence of the object is proven to be impossible. In contrast, a constructive proof establishes that a particular object exists by providing a method of finding it.

Constructive Proof

Constructive proof, or proof by example, is the construction of a concrete example with a property to show that something having that property exists. Joseph Liouville, for instance, proved the existence of transcendental numbers by constructing an explicit example. The field of mathematics which only allows constructive proofs is called constructive mathematics.

Proof by exhaustion

In Proof by exhaustion, the conclusion is established by dividing it into a finite number of cases and proving each one separately. The number of cases sometimes can become very large. For example, the first proof of the four color theorem was a proof by exhaustion with 1,936 cases. This proof was controversial because the majority of the cases were checked by a computer program, not by hand. The shortest known proof of the four color theorem today still has over 600 cases.

Probabilistic proof

A probabilistic proof is one in which an example is shown to exist by methods of probability theory—not an argument that a theorem is 'probably' true. The latter type of reasoning can be called a 'plausibility argument'; in the case of the Collatz conjecture it is clear how far that is from a genuine proof. Probabilistic proof, like proof by construction, is one of many ways to show existence theorems.

Combinatorial proof

A combinatorial proof establishes the equivalence of different expressions by showing that they count the same object in different ways. Usually a bijection is used to show that the two interpretations give the same result.

End of a proof

Sometimes, the abbreviation "Q.E.D." is written to indicate the end of a proof. This abbreviation stands for "Quod Erat Demonstrandum", which is Latin for "that which was to be demonstrated". An alternative is to use a small rectangle with its shorter side horizontal (), known as a tombstone or halmos.

References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

  • Enderton, H.B. 2000. A Mathematical Introduction to Logic, Second edition. Academic Press. ISBN 0122384520
  • Solow, D. 2004. How to Read and Do Proofs: An Introduction to Mathematical Thought Processes. Wiley. ISBN 0471680583
  • Troelstra, A. S. and H. Schwichtenberg. 2000. Basic Proof Theory, Second edition. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521779111
  • Velleman, D. 2006. How to Prove It: A Structured Approach. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521675995

External links

All links retrieved December 1, 2022.

General Philosophy Sources

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.