Jump to content

Universal generalization: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
SmackBot (talk | contribs)
m Date maintenance tags and general fixes: build 531:
→‎Example of a proof: more closely adhere to justification style
 
(41 intermediate revisions by 34 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Unreferenced|date=August 2009}}
{{more footnotes|date=March 2023}}
{{Infobox mathematical statement
{{Split-apart|date=September 2010}}
| name = Universal generalization
In [[mathematical logic]], '''generalization''' (also '''universal generalization''', '''GEN''') is an [[rule of inference|inference rule]] of [[predicate calculus]]. It states that if <math> \vdash P(x) </math> has been derived, then <math> \vdash \forall x \, P(x) </math> can be derived.
| type = [[Rule of inference]]
| field = [[Predicate logic]]
| statement = Suppose <math>P</math> is true of any arbitrarily selected <math>p</math>, then <math>P</math> is true of everything.
| symbolic statement = <math>\vdash \!P(x)</math>, <math>\vdash \!\forall x \, P(x)</math>
}}
{{Transformation rules}}

In [[predicate logic]], '''generalization''' (also '''universal generalization''', '''universal introduction''',<ref>Copi and Cohen</ref><ref>Hurley</ref><ref>Moore and Parker</ref> '''GEN''', '''UG''') is a [[Validity (logic)|valid]] [[rule of inference|inference rule]]. It states that if <math>\vdash \!P(x)</math> has been derived, then <math>\vdash \!\forall x \, P(x)</math> can be derived.


==Generalization with hypotheses==
==Generalization with hypotheses==
The full generalization rule allows for hypotheses to the left of the turnstile, but with restrictions. Assume Γ is a set of formulas, φ a formula, and <math>\Gamma \vdash \phi(y)</math> has been derived. The generalization rule states that <math>\Gamma \vdash \forall x \phi(x)</math> can be derived if ''x'' is not mentioned in &Gamma; and ''x'' does not occur in φ.
The full generalization rule allows for hypotheses to the left of the [[turnstile (symbol)|turnstile]], but with restrictions. Assume <math>\Gamma</math> is a set of formulas, <math>\varphi</math> a formula, and <math>\Gamma \vdash \varphi(y)</math> has been derived. The generalization rule states that <math>\Gamma \vdash \forall x \, \varphi(x)</math> can be derived if <math>y</math> is not mentioned in <math>\Gamma</math> and <math>x</math> does not occur in <math>\varphi</math>.


These restrictions are necessary for soundness. Without the first restriction, one could conclude <math>\forall x P(x)</math> from the hypothesis <math>P(y)</math>. Without the second restriction, one could make the following deduction:
These restrictions are necessary for soundness. Without the first restriction, one could conclude <math>\forall x P(x)</math> from the hypothesis <math>P(y)</math>. Without the second restriction, one could make the following deduction:
#<math>\exists z \exists w ( z \not = w) </math> (Hypothesis)
#<math>\exists z \, \exists w \, ( z \not = w) </math> (Hypothesis)
#<math>\exists w (y \not = w) </math> (Existential instantiation)
#<math>\exists w \, (y \not = w) </math> (Existential instantiation)
#<math>y \not = x</math> (Existential instantiation)
#<math>y \not = x</math> (Existential instantiation)
#<math>\forall x (x \not = x)</math> (Faulty universal generalization)
#<math>\forall x \, (x \not = x)</math> (Faulty universal generalization)

This purports to show that <math>\exists z \exists w ( z \not = w) \vdash \forall x (x \not = x),</math> which is an unsound deduction.
This purports to show that <math>\exists z \, \exists w \, ( z \not = w) \vdash \forall x \, (x \not = x),</math> which is an unsound deduction. Note that <math>\Gamma \vdash \forall y \, \varphi(y)</math> is permissible if <math>y</math> is not mentioned in <math>\Gamma</math> (the second restriction need not apply, as the semantic structure of <math>\varphi(y)</math> is not being changed by the substitution of any variables).


==Example of a proof==
==Example of a proof==
'''Prove:''' <math> \forall x \, (P(x) \rightarrow Q(x)) \rightarrow (\forall x \, P(x) \rightarrow \forall x \, Q(x)) </math>.
'''Prove:''' <math> \forall x \, (P(x) \rightarrow Q(x)) \rightarrow (\forall x \, P(x) \rightarrow \forall x \, Q(x)) </math> is derivable from <math> \forall x \, (P(x) \rightarrow Q(x)) </math> and <math> \forall x \, P(x) </math>.


'''Proof:'''
'''Proof:'''
{| border="1" cellpadding="3"
{| class="wikitable"
! Step
! style="background:#93D7AE;"| Number
! style="background:#93D7AE;"| Formula
! Formula
! style="background:#93D7AE;"| Justification
! Justification
|-
|-
| 1
| 1
Line 31: Line 40:
|-
|-
| 3
| 3
| <math> (\forall x \, (P(x) \rightarrow Q(x))) \rightarrow (P(y) \rightarrow Q(y))) </math>
| <math> (\forall x \, (P(x) \rightarrow Q(x))) \rightarrow (P(y) \rightarrow Q(y)) </math>
| From (1) by [[Universal instantiation]]
| Axiom PRED-1
|-
|-
| 4
| 4
| <math> P(y) \rightarrow Q(y) </math>
| <math> P(y) \rightarrow Q(y) </math>
| From (1) and (3) by Modus Ponens
| From (1) and (3) by [[Modus ponens]]
|-
|-
| 5
| 5
| <math> (\forall x \, P(x)) \rightarrow P(y) </math>
| <math> (\forall x \, P(x)) \rightarrow P(y) </math>
| From (2) by [[Universal instantiation]]
| Axiom PRED-1
|-
|-
| 6
| 6
| <math> P(y) \ </math>
| <math> P(y) \ </math>
| From (2) and (5) by Modus Ponens
| From (2) and (5) by [[Modus ponens]]
|-
|-
| 7
| 7
| <math> Q(y) \ </math>
| <math> Q(y) \ </math>
| From (6) and (4) by Modus Ponens
| From (6) and (4) by [[Modus ponens]]
|-
|-
| 8
| 8
Line 60: Line 69:
| 10
| 10
| <math> \forall x \, (P(x) \rightarrow Q(x)) \vdash \forall x \, P(x) \rightarrow \forall x \, Q(x) </math>
| <math> \forall x \, (P(x) \rightarrow Q(x)) \vdash \forall x \, P(x) \rightarrow \forall x \, Q(x) </math>
| From (9) by Deduction Theorem
| From (9) by [[Deduction theorem]]
|-
|-
| 11
| 11
| <math> \vdash \forall x \, (P(x) \rightarrow Q(x)) \rightarrow (\forall x \, P(x) \rightarrow \forall x \, Q(x)) </math>
| <math> \vdash \forall x \, (P(x) \rightarrow Q(x)) \rightarrow (\forall x \, P(x) \rightarrow \forall x \, Q(x)) </math>
| From (10) by Deduction Theorem
| From (10) by [[Deduction theorem]]
|}
|}


In this proof, the deduction theorem was applicable in steps 10 and 11 because the formulas being moved have no free variables.
In this proof, universal generalization was used in step 8. The [[deduction theorem]] was applicable in steps 10 and 11 because the formulas being moved have no free variables.


==See also==
==See also==
*[[First-order logic]]
*[[First-order logic]]
*[[Universal instantiation]]
*[[Hasty generalization]]
*[[Hasty generalization]]
*[[Universal instantiation]]
*[[Generalization error]]

*[[Categorical imperative]] redirected from "Generalization in Ethics"
== References ==
*[[Generalizations of Fibonacci numbers]]
{{reflist}}
*[[Generalizations of Pauli matrices]]
*[[Derivative (generalizations)]]


{{DEFAULTSORT:Generalization (Logic)}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Generalization (Logic)}}
[[Category:Rules of inference]]
[[Category:Rules of inference]]
[[Category:Predicate logic]]
[[Category:Predicate logic]]

[[zh:普遍化]]

Latest revision as of 23:13, 10 July 2024

Universal generalization
TypRule of inference
FieldPredicate logic
StatementSuppose is true of any arbitrarily selected , then is true of everything.
Symbolic statement,

In predicate logic, generalization (also universal generalization, universal introduction,[1][2][3] GEN, UG) is a valid inference rule. It states that if has been derived, then can be derived.

Generalization with hypotheses

[edit]

The full generalization rule allows for hypotheses to the left of the turnstile, but with restrictions. Assume is a set of formulas, a formula, and has been derived. The generalization rule states that can be derived if is not mentioned in and does not occur in .

These restrictions are necessary for soundness. Without the first restriction, one could conclude from the hypothesis . Without the second restriction, one could make the following deduction:

  1. (Hypothesis)
  2. (Existential instantiation)
  3. (Existential instantiation)
  4. (Faulty universal generalization)

This purports to show that which is an unsound deduction. Note that is permissible if is not mentioned in (the second restriction need not apply, as the semantic structure of is not being changed by the substitution of any variables).

Example of a proof

[edit]

Prove: is derivable from and .

Proof:

Step Formula Justification
1 Hypothesis
2 Hypothesis
3 From (1) by Universal instantiation
4 From (1) and (3) by Modus ponens
5 From (2) by Universal instantiation
6 From (2) and (5) by Modus ponens
7 From (6) and (4) by Modus ponens
8 From (7) by Generalization
9 Summary of (1) through (8)
10 From (9) by Deduction theorem
11 From (10) by Deduction theorem

In this proof, universal generalization was used in step 8. The deduction theorem was applicable in steps 10 and 11 because the formulas being moved have no free variables.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Copi and Cohen
  2. ^ Hurley
  3. ^ Moore and Parker