Confussion about substitution use and free variables requirement for rules of inference in natural deduction

266 Views Asked by At

In our course of logic we've been given th following rules of inferences for introducing and eliminating quantifiers:

$$ \frac{\Gamma \vdash \phi} {\Gamma \vdash \forall x\phi} \; x\not\in FV(\Gamma) \qquad\qquad \frac{\Gamma \vdash \forall x \phi} {\Gamma \vdash \phi \lbrace t/x \rbrace}$$

$$ \frac{\Gamma \vdash \phi \lbrace t/x \rbrace} {\Gamma \vdash \exists x \phi} \qquad\qquad \frac{\Gamma \vdash \exists x \phi \quad \Gamma, \phi \vdash \psi} {\Gamma \vdash \psi} \; x \not\in FV(\Gamma,\psi)$$

Here $\phi \lbrace t/x \rbrace$ denotes the substitution of $x$ by $t$ in $\phi$ and $FV(\Gamma)$ is the collection of free variables in $\Gamma$

Now, according to theese rules I can't infere $\phi \vdash \forall x \phi$ directly from $\phi \vdash \phi$ if $x$ is free in $\phi$ but it seems to me that I should be able to do that inference so I thought that maybe I'm missing something about substitution. I think if I had an inference rule like this one:

$$ \frac{\Gamma \vdash \phi} {\Gamma \vdash \phi \lbrace y/x \rbrace} \;y\text{ is a variable that does not occur in }\Gamma,\phi $$

my problem would be solved, but that rule was not given to me and it is not explicit said, in the recursive definition of substitution, that I can do that, althought it seems coherent to me. So I don't really understand when I am allowed to do a substitution, can I simply decide to change a variable for a new one in a formula and assume it is still the same formula, or does that substitution require some special inference steps?

Thanks

1

There are 1 best solutions below

6
On

You shouldn't be able to infer $\phi\vdash\forall x\phi$ when $x$ is free in $\phi$.

If you could do that, you could let $\phi$ be $x=0$, and infer $$ x=0 \vdash \forall x(x=0) $$ and then immediately generalize with $t\equiv 1$ to $$ x=0 \vdash 1=0 $$ and then for good measure derive $$ \vdash x=0 \to 1=0 $$ and generalize to $$ \vdash \forall x\bigl[x=0 \to 1=0\bigr] $$ But this sentence is very much not logically valid -- it is certainly not the case that just because you can find some $x$ that equals $0$, you can conclude $1=0$.