84:
74:
53:
22:
163:
occur", or as "the system is closed under the additon of CUT" depending on whether you want to think of cuts as eliminable or admissible. Someone should re-do this page. In the meantime have a look at Goran
Sundholm article on Systems of Deduction in the Handbook of Philosophical Logic. He doesn't spend that much time on cut elimination, but the article is generally excellent.
396:
Calculus (Why does Boolos call this "cut"? I don't know!). Indeed, the point of the paper seems to be to compare refutation proofs (whereby you add the negation of the goal to the premises and derive BOTTOM) and
Natural Deduction proofs employing Modus Ponens. It seems to have nothing at all to do with the Cut-Elimination theorem.
222:
Well, yes. Cut could be called syllogism or transitivity of implication or by other names (which I do not remember). But doing so here would be misleading because this theorem applies only to the sequent calculi which are a specialized kind of logic different from those which use those other names.
167:
There is no doubt the article could be much improved, but I'm a bit surprised by the first part of this criticism: the article talks about three different systems. There is room for disagreement over whether there are many sequent calculi: one can say there are many proof systems formulated in the
184:
One reason for not changing it is that it seems to me to suffer from having been edited by lots of people (Yes, I know that's the whole point of a Wiki). I don't want to add to the confusion by adding yet another patch. There just seems to be a lack of consistency about the page. For example there
203:
If this observation is correct, perhaps the article could mention this connection and discuss its significance. Saying that cut-elimination is analogous to the principle of syllogism early on in the article would make understanding it easier for readers who are more familiar with the first order
162:
This page is very confused; for example there is not a sequent calculus there are very many, and there isn't a cut-elimination theorem there are very many, and of course one can frame the theorem as "every derivation can be replaced by a derivation with the same endsequent in which CUT does not
395:
I have checked that paper by George Boolos and I am mightily confused. In that article he is not talking about
Sequent Calculus at all (it's not even mentioned) but about Natural Deduction only. The "cut" he is talking about is the "Modus Ponens" of Natural Deducation, not the "cut" of Sequent
406:
Maybe more on this when I get the time to pore over said paper, Reading George Boolos is hard going as he takes a lot of context for granted and the reasoning is sometimes elided, as if he were entertaining a very bright student who knows what was hot at the time the paper was written.
299:
Side remark: Is that so? I always thought "Theorem" == "True sentence given a Model" (whether syntactically derived or otherwise) and "Tautology" == "True sentence for any
Interpretation"? So there are sentences that can be theorems but that are not tautologies.
455:
In fact, I'm not even sure it implies even the weak one as it's worded, since it's not stated that the equivalent cut-free proof is found by iterated single cut eliminations, but that is more of a pedantic remark since that is the case in general.
448:
For proof systems based on higher-order typed lambda calculus through a Curry–Howard isomorphism, cut elimination algorithms correspond to the strong normalization property (every proof term reduces in a finite number of steps into a normal form).
401:
In his essay "Don't
Eliminate Cut!" George Boolos demonstrated that there was a derivation that could be completed in a page using Natural Deduction, but whose proof via refutation could not be completed in the lifespan of the
168:
sequent calculus; calculus here would mean certain conventions about how you formulate a proof system. I've an idea this point has been discussed elsewhere on wikipedia, but I forget the outcome, and I don't recall where.
242:
which is a meta-logic theorem, not a logic theorem: (P→Q)^(Q→R)→(P→R) is simply true. Cut-theorem is very complicated and not simply true. The different is, that P,Q,R are logical formulars and the cut theorem is about
359:
is provable from no axioms, so it's more than a theorem, it's a validity. I renew my objection to saying it's necessarily a "tautology", which ought to mean that it's provable in a much weaker framework (for example,
199:
The only thing I know about cut-elimination and the sequent calculus is what I just read in this article, but it seems to me that cut-elimination is very similar to the principle of syllogism: (P→Q)^(Q→R)→(P→R)
390:
In his essay "Don't
Eliminate Cut!" George Boolos demonstrated that there was a derivation that could be completed in a page using cut, but whose analytic proof could not be completed in the lifespan of the
351:'s criticism, because I don't quite follow his/her remarks. But in first-order logic (or any logic satisfying completeness), being a validity is the same as being provable from no axioms. If ⊢
140:
185:
are two mentions of the subformula property (one implict) which are not really in harmony with each other. A more careful edit is required than the one I would do just now :-)
278:
The article says "T in case of ⊢ T" is a tautology. Do you know that tautology is a semantic category whereas ⊢ operates at syntax level? At syntax level, tautology is called
264:
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class.
314:
My understanding is, a theorem is a proposition that has a proof (from a given set of axioms). (Models are not directly relevant, though for logics that satisfy
325:, not necessarily a tautology. In logics satisfying completeness, a validity is a statement that can be proved without assuming any axioms at all (except the
318:, you can phrase it in terms of models if you want to — the rephrasing would be, a theorem is a sentence that is true in every model satisfying the axioms.)
452:
If the cut-elimination property states that for any proof *there is* an equivalent cut-free proof I don't see why that would imply *strong* normalization.
484:
130:
171:
Admissibility of cut is the formulation of the CE theorem I by far hear most, but it is worth putting both formulations. Why not add it yourself? ---
479:
412:
305:
106:
427:
97:
58:
340:, or to put it another way, it's a sentence that can be seen to be true without considering the quantifiers. (See my remarks at
315:
408:
301:
33:
208:
21:
431:
341:
337:
39:
83:
369:
287:
265:
105:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
461:
89:
73:
52:
175:
248:
186:
365:
348:
326:
283:
224:
213:
205:
473:
457:
465:
435:
416:
373:
309:
291:
268:
251:
232:
Two reasons why it is not similar to the principle of syllogism: (P→Q)^(Q→R)→(P→R):
227:
216:
235:((First: syllogism neads quantification, so P→Q)^(Q→R)→(P→R) is not a syllogism.))
361:
172:
102:
79:
426:
If cut elimination is so useful, why have a cut rule in the first place?
244:
15:
238:
Second: The Cut-elimination theorem is a theorem about the
344:, which unfortunately have not yet elicited a response.)
321:
A sentence that is true in every interpretation is a
384:
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
8:
342:talk:tautology (logic)#Tautology vs validity
19:
47:
347:I am not sure quite how this relates to
445:I'm pretty sure this sentence is wrong
49:
7:
95:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
14:
485:Mid-priority mathematics articles
115:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
480:Start-Class mathematics articles
118:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
82:
72:
51:
20:
409:There is a T101 in your kitchen
302:There is a T101 in your kitchen
135:This article has been rated as
1:
441:Strong or weak normalization?
269:03:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
252:16:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
228:07:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
217:17:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
109:and see a list of open tasks.
316:Gödel's completeness theorem
417:04:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
374:07:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
310:04:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
292:01:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
195:Similarity to the syllogism
176:02:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
501:
466:19:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
436:20:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
274:Tautology at syntax level
157:
134:
67:
46:
282:. Why wasn't it used? --
260:WikiProject class rating
141:project's priority scale
158:Neil Leslie's complaint
98:WikiProject Mathematics
338:propositional calculus
28:This article is rated
336:is a validity of the
204:logic, like me. --
121:mathematics articles
90:Mathematics portal
34:content assessment
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
492:
399:To reformulate:
211:
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
500:
499:
495:
494:
493:
491:
490:
489:
470:
469:
450:
443:
424:
386:
276:
262:
209:
197:
173:Charles Stewart
160:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
498:
496:
488:
487:
482:
472:
471:
447:
442:
439:
423:
420:
385:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
345:
330:
327:logical axioms
319:
275:
272:
266:BetacommandBot
261:
258:
257:
256:
255:
254:
236:
233:
196:
193:
192:
191:
190:
189:
179:
178:
169:
159:
156:
153:
152:
149:
148:
145:
144:
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
497:
486:
483:
481:
478:
477:
475:
468:
467:
463:
459:
453:
446:
440:
438:
437:
433:
429:
421:
419:
418:
414:
410:
404:
403:
397:
393:
392:
383:
375:
371:
367:
363:
358:
354:
350:
346:
343:
339:
335:
331:
329:, of course).
328:
324:
320:
317:
313:
312:
311:
307:
303:
298:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
289:
285:
281:
273:
271:
270:
267:
259:
253:
250:
246:
241:
237:
234:
231:
230:
229:
226:
221:
220:
219:
218:
215:
212:
207:
201:
194:
188:
183:
182:
181:
180:
177:
174:
170:
166:
165:
164:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
454:
451:
444:
428:31.52.252.40
425:
405:
400:
398:
394:
389:
387:
362:truth tables
356:
352:
333:
322:
279:
277:
263:
249:Paul Conradi
239:
202:
198:
161:
137:Mid-priority
136:
96:
62:Mid‑priority
40:WikiProjects
112:Mathematics
103:mathematics
59:Mathematics
30:Start-class
474:Categories
402:universe."
391:universe."
388:We read:
366:Trovatore
349:Javalenok
334:tautology
284:Javalenok
280:a theorem
225:JRSpriggs
458:Mtzguido
323:validity
245:Sequents
355:, then
139:on the
206:noosph
36:scale.
364:). --
462:talk
432:talk
422:Why?
413:talk
370:talk
306:talk
288:talk
187:Neil
247:.--
240:cut
131:Mid
476::
464:)
434:)
415:)
372:)
332:A
308:)
290:)
214:re
460:(
430:(
411:(
368:(
357:T
353:T
304:(
286:(
210:e
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
