DAO2011: Deducción natural proposicional con Isabelle/HOL

En la clase de hoy del curso de Demostración asistida por ordenador (DAO2011) se ha estudiado cómo escribir demostraciones mediante deducción natural en lógica proposicional usando Isabelle/HOL/Isar.

La teoría correspondiente a la clase es Tema_3.thy cuyo contenido se muestra a continuación

<source lang="isar">
header {* Deducción natural proposicional *}

theory Tema_3
imports Main 
begin

text {*
  En esta teoría se presentan los ejemplos del tema de deducción natural
  proposicional siguiendo la presentación de Huth y Ryan en su libro
  "Logic in Computer Science"
  http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/projects/lics/ y, más concretamente,
  a la forma como se explica en la asignatura de "Lógica informática" y
  que puede verse en  
  http://www.cs.us.es/~jalonso/cursos/li/temas/tema-2.pdf
 
  La página al lado de cada teorema indica la página de las anteriores
  transparencias donde se encuentra la demostración.
*}

section {* Reglas de la conjunción *}

text {*
  La regla de introducción de la conjunción es
  · conjI:      ⟦P; Q⟧ ⟹ P ∧ Q
  Las reglas de eliminación de la conjunción son
  · conjunct1:  P ∧ Q ⟹ P
  · conjunct2:  P ∧ Q ⟹ Q  
*}

lemma -- "p. 4" 
  assumes 1: "p ∧ q" and 
          2: "r" 
  shows "q ∧ r"     
proof -
  have 3: "q" using 1 by (rule conjunct2)
  show "q ∧ r" using 3 2 by (rule conjI)
qed

lemma 
  assumes 1: "(p ∧ q) ∧ r" and 
          2: "s ∧ t" 
  shows "q ∧ s"
proof -
  have 3: "p ∧ q" using 1 by (rule conjunct1)
  have 4: "q" using 3 by (rule conjunct2)
  have 5: "s" using 2 by (rule conjunct1)
  show "q ∧ s" using 4 5 by (rule conjI)
qed

section {* Reglas de la doble negación *}

text {*
  La regla de eliminación de la doble negación es
  · notnotD: ¬¬ P ⟹ P
  Para ajustarnos al tema de LI vamos a introducir la siguiente regla de
  introducción de la doble negación
  . notnotI: P ⟹ ¬¬ P
  que, de momento, no detallamos su demostración.
*}

lemma notnotI: "P ⟹ ¬¬ P"
by auto

lemma -- "p. 5" 
  assumes 1: "p" and 
          2: "¬¬(q ∧ r)" 
  shows "¬¬p ∧ r"
proof -
  have 3: "¬¬p" using 1 by (rule notnotI)
  have 4: "q ∧ r" using 2 by (rule notnotD)
  have 5: "r" using 4 by (rule conjunct2)
  show "¬¬p ∧ r" using 3 5 by (rule conjI)
qed        

section {* Regla de eliminación del condicional *}

text {*
  La regla de eliminación del condicional es la regla del modus ponens
  · mp: ⟦P ⟶ Q; P⟧ ⟹ Q 
*}

lemma -- "p. 6"
  assumes 1: "¬p ∧ q" and 
          2: "¬p ∧ q ⟶ r ∨ ¬p" 
  shows "r ∨ ¬p"
proof -
  show "r ∨ ¬p" using 2 1 by (rule mp)
qed    

lemma -- "p. 6"
  assumes 1: "p" and 
          2: "p ⟶ q" and 
          3: "p ⟶ (q ⟶ r)" 
  shows "r"
proof -
  have 4: "q" using 2 1 by (rule mp)
  have 5: "q ⟶ r" using 3 1 by (rule mp)
  show "r" using 5 4 by (rule mp)
qed

section {* Regla derivada del modus tollens *}

text {*
  Para ajustarnos al tema de LI vamos a introducir la regla del modus
  tollens
  · mt: ⟦F ⟶ G; ¬G⟧ ⟹ ¬F 
  sin, de momento, detallar su demostración.
*}

lemma mt: "⟦F ⟶ G; ¬G⟧ ⟹ ¬F"
by auto

lemma -- "p. 7"
  assumes 1: "p ⟶ (q ⟶ r)" and 
          2: "p" and 
          3: "¬r" 
  shows "¬q"
proof -
  have 4: "q ⟶ r" using 1 2 by (rule mp)
  show "¬q" using 4 3 by (rule mt)
qed    

lemma -- "p. 7"
  assumes 1: "¬p ⟶ q" and 
          2: "¬q" 
  shows "p"
proof -
  have 3: "¬¬p" using 1 2 by (rule mt)
  show "p" using 3 by (rule notnotD)
qed

lemma 
  assumes 1: "p ⟶ ¬q" and 
          2: "q" 
  shows "¬p"
proof -
  have 3: "¬¬q" using 2 by (rule notnotI)
  show "¬p" using 1 3 by (rule mt)
qed

section {* Regla de introducción del condicional *}

text {*
  La regla de introducción del condicional es
  · impI: (P ⟹ Q) ⟹ P ⟶ Q
*}

lemma -- "p. 8"
  assumes 1: "p ⟶ q" 
  shows "¬q ⟶ ¬p"
proof -
  { assume 3: "¬q"
    have "¬p" using 1 3 by (rule mt)
  } thus "¬q ⟶ ¬p" by (rule impI)
qed    

lemma -- "p. 8"
  assumes 1: "p ⟶ q" 
  shows "¬q ⟶ ¬p"
proof (rule impI)
  assume 3: "¬q"
  show "¬p" using 1 3 by (rule mt)
qed    

lemma -- "p. 8"
  assumes 1: "p ⟶ q" 
  shows "¬q ⟶ ¬p"
proof
  assume 3: "¬q"
  show "¬p" using 1 3 by (rule mt)
qed    

lemma -- "p. 9"
  assumes 1: "¬q ⟶ ¬p" 
  shows "p ⟶ ¬¬q"   
proof -
  { assume 2: "p"
    have 3: "¬¬p" using 2 by (rule notnotI)
    have "¬¬q" using 1 3 by (rule mt)
  } thus "p ⟶ ¬¬q" by (rule impI)
qed


lemma -- "p. 9"
  assumes 1: "¬q ⟶ ¬p" 
  shows "p ⟶ ¬¬q"   
proof (rule impI)
  assume 2: "p"
  have 3: "¬¬p" using 2 by (rule notnotI)
  show "¬¬q" using 1 3 by (rule mt)
qed

lemma -- "p. 9"
  "p ⟶ p"
proof (rule impI)
qed

lemma -- "p. 10"
  "(q ⟶ r) ⟶ ((¬q ⟶ ¬p) ⟶ (p ⟶ r))"
proof -
  { assume 1: "q ⟶ r"
    { assume 2: "¬q ⟶ ¬p"
      { assume 3: "p"
        have 4: "¬¬p" using 3 by (rule notnotI)
        have 5: "¬¬q" using 2 4 by (rule mt)
        have 6: "q" using 5 by (rule notnotD)
        have "r" using 1 6 by (rule mp) 
      } hence "p ⟶ r" by (rule impI)
    } hence "(¬q ⟶ ¬p) ⟶ p ⟶ r" by (rule impI)
  } thus "(q ⟶ r) ⟶ ((¬q ⟶ ¬p) ⟶ p ⟶ r)" by (rule impI)
qed

lemma -- "p. 10"
  "(q ⟶ r) ⟶ ((¬q ⟶ ¬p) ⟶ (p ⟶ r))"
proof (rule impI)
  assume 1: "q ⟶ r"
  show "(¬q ⟶ ¬p) ⟶ (p ⟶ r)"
    proof (rule impI)
      assume 2: "¬q ⟶ ¬p"
      show "p ⟶ r"
        proof (rule impI)
          assume 3: "p"
          have 4: "¬¬p" using 3 by (rule notnotI)
          have 5: "¬¬q" using 2 4 by (rule mt)
          have 6: "q" using 5 by (rule notnotD)
          show "r" using 1 6 by (rule mp)
        qed
    qed
qed

lemma 
  assumes 1: "p ∧ q ⟶ r" 
  shows "p ⟶ (q ⟶ r)"
proof (rule impI)
  assume 2: "p"
  show "q ⟶ r" 
    proof (rule impI)
      assume 3: "q"
      have 4: "p ∧ q" using 2 3 by (rule conjI)
      show "r" using 1 4 by (rule mp)
    qed
qed

lemma 
  assumes 1: "p ⟶ (q ⟶ r)" 
  shows "p ∧ q ⟶ r"
proof (rule impI)
  assume 2: "p ∧ q"
  have 3: "p" using 2 by (rule conjunct1)
  have 4: "q ⟶ r" using 1 3 by (rule mp)
  have 5: "q" using 2 by (rule conjunct2)
  show "r" using 4 5 by (rule mp)
qed    

lemma 
  assumes 1: "p ⟶ q" 
  shows "p ∧ r ⟶ q ∧ r"
proof (rule impI)
  assume 2: "p ∧ r"
  have 3: "p" using 2 by (rule conjunct1)
  have 4: "q" using 1 3 by (rule mp)
  have 5: "r" using 2 by (rule conjunct2)
  show "q ∧ r" using 4 5 by (rule conjI)
qed

section {* Reglas de la disyunción *}

text {*
  Las reglas de la introducción de la disyunción son
  · disjI1: P ⟹ P ∨ Q
  · disjI2: Q ⟹ P ∨ Q
  La regla de elimación de la disyunción es
  · disjE:  ⟦P ∨ Q; P ⟹ R; Q ⟹ R⟧ ⟹ R 
*}

lemma -- "p. 11"
  assumes 1: "p ∨ q" 
  shows "q ∨ p"
using 1
proof (rule disjE)
  { assume 2: "p"
    show "q ∨ p" using 2 by (rule disjI2) }
next
  { assume 3: "q"
    show "q ∨ p" using 3 by (rule disjI1) }
qed    

lemma -- "p. 12"
  assumes 1: "q ⟶ r"
  shows "p ∨ q ⟶ p ∨ r"
proof (rule impI)
  assume 2: "p ∨ q"
  thus "p ∨ r"
  proof (rule disjE)
    { assume 3: "p"
      show "p ∨ r" using 3 by (rule disjI1) }
  next
    { assume 4: "q"
      have 5: "r" using 1 4 by (rule mp)
      show "p ∨ r" using 5 by (rule disjI2) }
  qed
qed    

lemma 
  assumes 1: "(p ∨ q) ∨ r" 
  shows "p ∨ (q ∨ r)"
using 1
proof (rule disjE)
  { assume 2: "p ∨ q"
    thus "p ∨ (q ∨ r)"
    proof (rule disjE)
      { assume 3: "p"
        show "p ∨ (q ∨ r)" using 3 by (rule disjI1) }
    next
      { assume 4: "q"
        have 5: "q ∨ r" using 4 by (rule disjI1)
        show "p ∨ (q ∨ r)" using 5 by (rule disjI2) }
    qed }
next
  { assume 6: "r"
    have 7: "q ∨ r" using 6 by (rule disjI2)
    show "p ∨ (q ∨ r)" using 7 by (rule disjI2) }
qed    

lemma 
  assumes 1: "p ∧ (q ∨ r)" 
  shows "(p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r)"
proof -
  have 2: "p" using 1 ..
  have "q ∨ r" using 1 ..
  thus "(p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r)"
  proof (rule disjE)
    { assume 3: "q"
      have "p ∧ q" using 2 3 by (rule conjI)
      thus "(p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r)" by (rule disjI1) }
  next
    { assume 4: "r"
      have "p ∧ r" using 2 4 by (rule conjI)
      thus "(p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r)" by (rule disjI2) }
  qed
qed    

section {* Regla de copia *}

lemma -- "p. 13"
  "p ⟶ (q ⟶ p)"
proof (rule impI)
  assume 1: "p"
  show "q ⟶ p" 
  proof
    assume "q"
    show "p" using 1 by this
  qed
qed

lemma -- "p. 13"
  "p ⟶ (q ⟶ p)"
proof 
  assume "p"
  thus "q ⟶ p" by (rule impI)
qed

section {* Reglas de la negación *}

text {*
  La regla de eliminación de lo falso es
  · FalseE: False ⟹ P
  La regla de eliminación de la negación es
  · notE: ⟦¬P; P⟧ ⟹ R
  La regla de introducción de la negación es
  · notI: (P ⟹ False) ⟹ ¬P
*}

lemma -- "p. 15"
  assumes 1: "¬p ∨ q" 
  shows "p ⟶ q"
proof
  assume 2: "p"
  note 1
  thus "q"
  proof (rule disjE)
    { assume 3: "¬p"
      show "q" using 3 2 by (rule notE) }
  next
    { assume "q"
      thus "q" by this}
  qed
qed    

lemma -- "p. 16"
  assumes 1: "p ⟶ q" and 
          2: "p ⟶ ¬q" 
  shows "¬p"    
proof (rule notI)
  assume 3: "p"
  have 4: "q" using 1 3 by (rule mp)
  have 5: "¬q" using 2 3 by (rule mp)
  show False using 5 4 by (rule notE)
qed

lemma  
  assumes 1: "p ⟶ ¬p" 
  shows "¬p"
proof (rule notI)
  assume 2: "p"
  have 3: "¬p" using 1 2 by (rule mp)
  show False using 3 2 by (rule notE)
qed   

lemma 
  assumes 1: "p ∧ ¬q ⟶ r" and 
          2: "¬r" and 
          3: "p" 
  shows "q"    
proof -
  have "¬¬q"
  proof (rule notI)
    assume 4: "¬q"
    have 5: "p ∧ ¬q" using 3 4 by (rule conjI)
    have 6: "r" using 1 5 by (rule mp)
    show False using 2 6 by (rule notE)
  qed
  thus "q" by (rule notnotD)
qed

lemma 
  assumes 1: "p ⟶ (q ⟶ r)" and 
          2: "p" and 
          3: "¬r" 
  shows "¬q"
proof (rule notI)
  assume 4: "q"
  have 5: "q ⟶ r" using 1 2 by (rule mp)
  have 6: "r" using 5 4 by (rule mp)
  show False using 3 6 by (rule notE)
qed   

section {* Reglas del bicondicional *}

text {*
  La regla de introducción del bicondicional es
  · iffI: ⟦P ⟹ Q; Q ⟹ P⟧ ⟹ P = Q
  Las reglas de eliminación del bicondicional son
  · iffD1: ⟦Q = P; Q⟧ ⟹ P 
  · iffD2: ⟦P = Q; Q⟧ ⟹ P
*}

lemma -- "p. 17"
  "(p ∧ q) = (q ∧ p)"
proof (rule iffI)
  { assume 1: "p ∧ q"
    have 2: "p" using 1 by (rule conjunct1)
    have 3: "q" using 1 by (rule conjunct2)
    show "q ∧ p" using 3 2 by (rule conjI) }
next
  { assume 4: "q ∧ p"
    have 5: "q" using 4 by (rule conjunct1)
    have 6: "p" using 4 by (rule conjunct2)
    show "p ∧ q" using 6 5 by (rule conjI) }
qed

lemma -- "p. 18"
  assumes 1: "p = q" and 
          2: "p ∨ q"  
  shows "p ∧ q"
using 2
proof (rule disjE)
  { assume 3: "p"
    have 4: "q" using 1 3 by (rule iffD1)
    show "p ∧ q" using 3 4 by (rule conjI) }
next
  { assume 5: "q"
    have 6: "p" using 1 5 by (rule iffD2)
    show "p ∧ q" using 6 5 by (rule conjI) }
qed

section {* Reglas derivadas *}

subsection {* Regla del modus tollens *}

lemma -- "p. 20"
  assumes 1: "F ⟶ G" and 
          2: "¬G" 
  shows "¬F"
proof (rule notI)
  assume 3: "F"
  have 4: "G" using 1 3 by (rule mp)
  show False using 2 4 by (rule notE)
qed    

subsection {* Regla de la introducción de la doble negación *}

lemma -- "p. 21"
  assumes 1: "F" 
  shows "¬¬F"
proof (rule notI)
  assume 2: "¬F"
  show False using 2 1 by (rule notE)
qed    

subsection {* Regla de reducción al absurdo *}

lemma -- "p. 22" 
  assumes 1: "¬F ⟶ False" 
  shows "F"
proof -
  have 2: "¬¬F"
  proof (rule notI)
    assume 3: "¬F"
    show False using 1 3 by (rule mp)
  qed
  show "F" using 2 by (rule notnotD)
qed   

text {*
  La regla de reducción al absurdo en Isabelle se correponde con la
  regla de contradicción 
  · ccontr: (¬P ⟹ False) ⟹ P
*}

subsection {* Ley del tercio excluso *}

text {*
  La ley del tercio excluso es 
  · excluded_middle: ¬P ∨ P
  Puede demostrarse como se muestra a continuación.
*}

lemma -- "p. 23"
  "F ∨ ¬F"
proof (rule ccontr)
  assume 1: "¬(F ∨ ¬F)"
  thus False
  proof (rule notE)
    show "F ∨ ¬F"
    proof (rule disjI2)
      show "¬F"
      proof (rule notI)
        assume 2: "F"
        hence 3: "F ∨ ¬F" by (rule disjI1)
        show False using 1 3 by (rule notE)
      qed
    qed
  qed
qed
    
lemma -- "p. 24"
  assumes 1: "p ⟶ q" 
  shows "¬p ∨ q"
proof -
  have "¬p ∨ p" by (rule excluded_middle)
  thus "¬p ∨ q"
  proof (rule disjE)
    { assume "¬p"
      thus "¬p ∨ q" by (rule disjI1) }
  next
    { assume 2: "p"
      have "q" using 1 2 by (rule mp)
      thus "¬p ∨ q" by (rule disjI2) }
  qed
qed    

end
</source>

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

431

432

433

434

435

436

437

438

439

440

441

442

443

444

445

446

447

448

449

450

451

452

453

454

455

456

457

458

459

460

461

462

463

464

465

466

467

468

469

470

471

472

473

474

475

476

477

478

479

480

481

482

483

484

485

486

487

488

489

490

491

492

493

494

495

496

497

498

499

500

501

502

503

504

505

506

507

508

509

510

511

512

513

514

515

516

517

518

519

520

521

522

523

524

525

526

527

528

529

530

531

532

533

534

535

536

537

538

539

540

541

542

543

544

545

546

547

548

549

550

551

552

553

554

555

556

557

558

559

560

561

562

563

564

565

header {* Deducción natural proposicional *}

theory Tema_3

imports Main

begin

text {*

En esta teoría se presentan los ejemplos del tema de deducción natural

proposicional siguiendo la presentación de Huth y Ryan en su libro

"Logic in Computer Science"

http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/projects/lics/ y, más concretamente,

a la forma como se explica en la asignatura de "Lógica informática" y

que puede verse en

http://www.cs.us.es/~jalonso/cursos/li/temas/tema-2.pdf

La página al lado de cada teorema indica la página de las anteriores

transparencias donde se encuentra la demostración.

section {* Reglas de la conjunción *}

text {*

La regla de introducción de la conjunción es

· conjI: ⟦P; Q⟧ ⟹ P ∧ Q

Las reglas de eliminación de la conjunción son

· conjunct1: P ∧ Q ⟹ P

· conjunct2: P ∧ Q ⟹ Q

lemma -- "p. 4"

assumes 1: "p ∧ q" and

2: "r"

shows "q ∧ r"

proof -

have 3: "q" using 1 by (rule conjunct2)

show "q ∧ r" using 3 2 by (rule conjI)

qed

lemma

assumes 1: "(p ∧ q) ∧ r" and

2: "s ∧ t"

shows "q ∧ s"

proof -

have 3: "p ∧ q" using 1 by (rule conjunct1)

have 4: "q" using 3 by (rule conjunct2)

have 5: "s" using 2 by (rule conjunct1)

show "q ∧ s" using 4 5 by (rule conjI)

qed

section {* Reglas de la doble negación *}

text {*

La regla de eliminación de la doble negación es

· notnotD: ¬¬ P ⟹ P

Para ajustarnos al tema de LI vamos a introducir la siguiente regla de

introducción de la doble negación

. notnotI: P ⟹ ¬¬ P

que, de momento, no detallamos su demostración.

lemma notnotI: "P ⟹ ¬¬ P"

by auto

lemma -- "p. 5"

assumes 1: "p" and

2: "¬¬(q ∧ r)"

shows "¬¬p ∧ r"

proof -

have 3: "¬¬p" using 1 by (rule notnotI)

have 4: "q ∧ r" using 2 by (rule notnotD)

have 5: "r" using 4 by (rule conjunct2)

show "¬¬p ∧ r" using 3 5 by (rule conjI)

qed

section {* Regla de eliminación del condicional *}

text {*

La regla de eliminación del condicional es la regla del modus ponens

· mp: ⟦P ⟶ Q; P⟧ ⟹ Q

lemma -- "p. 6"

assumes 1: "¬p ∧ q" and

2: "¬p ∧ q ⟶ r ∨ ¬p"

shows "r ∨ ¬p"

proof -

show "r ∨ ¬p" using 2 1 by (rule mp)

qed

lemma -- "p. 6"

assumes 1: "p" and

2: "p ⟶ q" and

3: "p ⟶ (q ⟶ r)"

shows "r"

proof -

have 4: "q" using 2 1 by (rule mp)

have 5: "q ⟶ r" using 3 1 by (rule mp)

show "r" using 5 4 by (rule mp)

qed

section {* Regla derivada del modus tollens *}

text {*

Para ajustarnos al tema de LI vamos a introducir la regla del modus

tollens

· mt: ⟦F ⟶ G; ¬G⟧ ⟹ ¬F

sin, de momento, detallar su demostración.

lemma mt: "⟦F ⟶ G; ¬G⟧ ⟹ ¬F"

by auto

lemma -- "p. 7"

assumes 1: "p ⟶ (q ⟶ r)" and

2: "p" and

3: "¬r"

shows "¬q"

proof -

have 4: "q ⟶ r" using 1 2 by (rule mp)

show "¬q" using 4 3 by (rule mt)

qed

lemma -- "p. 7"

assumes 1: "¬p ⟶ q" and

2: "¬q"

shows "p"

proof -

have 3: "¬¬p" using 1 2 by (rule mt)

show "p" using 3 by (rule notnotD)

qed

lemma

assumes 1: "p ⟶ ¬q" and

2: "q"

shows "¬p"

proof -

have 3: "¬¬q" using 2 by (rule notnotI)

show "¬p" using 1 3 by (rule mt)

qed

section {* Regla de introducción del condicional *}

text {*

La regla de introducción del condicional es

· impI: (P ⟹ Q) ⟹ P ⟶ Q

lemma -- "p. 8"

assumes 1: "p ⟶ q"

shows "¬q ⟶ ¬p"

proof -

{ assume 3: "¬q"

have "¬p" using 1 3 by (rule mt)

} thus "¬q ⟶ ¬p" by (rule impI)

qed

lemma -- "p. 8"

assumes 1: "p ⟶ q"

shows "¬q ⟶ ¬p"

proof (rule impI)

assume 3: "¬q"

show "¬p" using 1 3 by (rule mt)

qed

lemma -- "p. 8"

assumes 1: "p ⟶ q"

shows "¬q ⟶ ¬p"

proof

assume 3: "¬q"

show "¬p" using 1 3 by (rule mt)

qed

lemma -- "p. 9"

assumes 1: "¬q ⟶ ¬p"

shows "p ⟶ ¬¬q"

proof -

{ assume 2: "p"

have 3: "¬¬p" using 2 by (rule notnotI)

have "¬¬q" using 1 3 by (rule mt)

} thus "p ⟶ ¬¬q" by (rule impI)

qed

lemma -- "p. 9"

assumes 1: "¬q ⟶ ¬p"

shows "p ⟶ ¬¬q"

proof (rule impI)

assume 2: "p"

have 3: "¬¬p" using 2 by (rule notnotI)

show "¬¬q" using 1 3 by (rule mt)

qed

lemma -- "p. 9"

"p ⟶ p"

proof (rule impI)

qed

lemma -- "p. 10"

"(q ⟶ r) ⟶ ((¬q ⟶ ¬p) ⟶ (p ⟶ r))"

proof -

{ assume 1: "q ⟶ r"

{ assume 2: "¬q ⟶ ¬p"

{ assume 3: "p"

have 4: "¬¬p" using 3 by (rule notnotI)

have 5: "¬¬q" using 2 4 by (rule mt)

have 6: "q" using 5 by (rule notnotD)

have "r" using 1 6 by (rule mp)

} hence "p ⟶ r" by (rule impI)

} hence "(¬q ⟶ ¬p) ⟶ p ⟶ r" by (rule impI)

} thus "(q ⟶ r) ⟶ ((¬q ⟶ ¬p) ⟶ p ⟶ r)" by (rule impI)

qed

lemma -- "p. 10"

"(q ⟶ r) ⟶ ((¬q ⟶ ¬p) ⟶ (p ⟶ r))"

proof (rule impI)

assume 1: "q ⟶ r"

show "(¬q ⟶ ¬p) ⟶ (p ⟶ r)"

proof (rule impI)

assume 2: "¬q ⟶ ¬p"

show "p ⟶ r"

proof (rule impI)

assume 3: "p"

have 4: "¬¬p" using 3 by (rule notnotI)

have 5: "¬¬q" using 2 4 by (rule mt)

have 6: "q" using 5 by (rule notnotD)

show "r" using 1 6 by (rule mp)

qed

lemma

assumes 1: "p ∧ q ⟶ r"

shows "p ⟶ (q ⟶ r)"

proof (rule impI)

assume 2: "p"

show "q ⟶ r"

proof (rule impI)

assume 3: "q"

have 4: "p ∧ q" using 2 3 by (rule conjI)

show "r" using 1 4 by (rule mp)

qed

lemma

assumes 1: "p ⟶ (q ⟶ r)"

shows "p ∧ q ⟶ r"

proof (rule impI)

assume 2: "p ∧ q"

have 3: "p" using 2 by (rule conjunct1)

have 4: "q ⟶ r" using 1 3 by (rule mp)

have 5: "q" using 2 by (rule conjunct2)

show "r" using 4 5 by (rule mp)

qed

lemma

assumes 1: "p ⟶ q"

shows "p ∧ r ⟶ q ∧ r"

proof (rule impI)

assume 2: "p ∧ r"

have 3: "p" using 2 by (rule conjunct1)

have 4: "q" using 1 3 by (rule mp)

have 5: "r" using 2 by (rule conjunct2)

show "q ∧ r" using 4 5 by (rule conjI)

qed

section {* Reglas de la disyunción *}

text {*

Las reglas de la introducción de la disyunción son

· disjI1: P ⟹ P ∨ Q

· disjI2: Q ⟹ P ∨ Q

La regla de elimación de la disyunción es

· disjE: ⟦P ∨ Q; P ⟹ R; Q ⟹ R⟧ ⟹ R

lemma -- "p. 11"

assumes 1: "p ∨ q"

shows "q ∨ p"

using 1

proof (rule disjE)

{ assume 2: "p"

show "q ∨ p" using 2 by (rule disjI2) }

{ assume 3: "q"

show "q ∨ p" using 3 by (rule disjI1) }

qed

lemma -- "p. 12"

assumes 1: "q ⟶ r"

shows "p ∨ q ⟶ p ∨ r"

proof (rule impI)

assume 2: "p ∨ q"

thus "p ∨ r"

proof (rule disjE)

{ assume 3: "p"

show "p ∨ r" using 3 by (rule disjI1) }

{ assume 4: "q"

have 5: "r" using 1 4 by (rule mp)

show "p ∨ r" using 5 by (rule disjI2) }

qed

lemma

assumes 1: "(p ∨ q) ∨ r"

shows "p ∨ (q ∨ r)"

using 1

proof (rule disjE)

{ assume 2: "p ∨ q"

thus "p ∨ (q ∨ r)"

proof (rule disjE)

{ assume 3: "p"

show "p ∨ (q ∨ r)" using 3 by (rule disjI1) }

{ assume 4: "q"

have 5: "q ∨ r" using 4 by (rule disjI1)

show "p ∨ (q ∨ r)" using 5 by (rule disjI2) }

qed }

{ assume 6: "r"

have 7: "q ∨ r" using 6 by (rule disjI2)

show "p ∨ (q ∨ r)" using 7 by (rule disjI2) }

qed

lemma

assumes 1: "p ∧ (q ∨ r)"

shows "(p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r)"

proof -

have 2: "p" using 1 ..

have "q ∨ r" using 1 ..

thus "(p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r)"

proof (rule disjE)

{ assume 3: "q"

have "p ∧ q" using 2 3 by (rule conjI)

thus "(p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r)" by (rule disjI1) }

{ assume 4: "r"

have "p ∧ r" using 2 4 by (rule conjI)

thus "(p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r)" by (rule disjI2) }

qed

section {* Regla de copia *}

lemma -- "p. 13"

"p ⟶ (q ⟶ p)"

proof (rule impI)

assume 1: "p"

show "q ⟶ p"

proof

assume "q"

show "p" using 1 by this

qed

lemma -- "p. 13"

"p ⟶ (q ⟶ p)"

proof

assume "p"

thus "q ⟶ p" by (rule impI)

qed

section {* Reglas de la negación *}

text {*

La regla de eliminación de lo falso es

· FalseE: False ⟹ P

La regla de eliminación de la negación es

· notE: ⟦¬P; P⟧ ⟹ R

La regla de introducción de la negación es

· notI: (P ⟹ False) ⟹ ¬P

lemma -- "p. 15"

assumes 1: "¬p ∨ q"

shows "p ⟶ q"

proof

assume 2: "p"

note 1

thus "q"

proof (rule disjE)

{ assume 3: "¬p"

show "q" using 3 2 by (rule notE) }

{ assume "q"

thus "q" by this}

qed

lemma -- "p. 16"

assumes 1: "p ⟶ q" and

2: "p ⟶ ¬q"

shows "¬p"

proof (rule notI)

assume 3: "p"

have 4: "q" using 1 3 by (rule mp)

have 5: "¬q" using 2 3 by (rule mp)

show False using 5 4 by (rule notE)

qed

lemma

assumes 1: "p ⟶ ¬p"

shows "¬p"

proof (rule notI)

assume 2: "p"

have 3: "¬p" using 1 2 by (rule mp)

show False using 3 2 by (rule notE)

qed

lemma

assumes 1: "p ∧ ¬q ⟶ r" and

2: "¬r" and

3: "p"

shows "q"

proof -

have "¬¬q"

proof (rule notI)

assume 4: "¬q"

have 5: "p ∧ ¬q" using 3 4 by (rule conjI)

have 6: "r" using 1 5 by (rule mp)

show False using 2 6 by (rule notE)

qed

thus "q" by (rule notnotD)

qed

lemma

assumes 1: "p ⟶ (q ⟶ r)" and

2: "p" and

3: "¬r"

shows "¬q"

proof (rule notI)

assume 4: "q"

have 5: "q ⟶ r" using 1 2 by (rule mp)

have 6: "r" using 5 4 by (rule mp)

show False using 3 6 by (rule notE)

qed

section {* Reglas del bicondicional *}

text {*

La regla de introducción del bicondicional es

· iffI: ⟦P ⟹ Q; Q ⟹ P⟧ ⟹ P = Q

Las reglas de eliminación del bicondicional son

· iffD1: ⟦Q = P; Q⟧ ⟹ P

· iffD2: ⟦P = Q; Q⟧ ⟹ P

lemma -- "p. 17"

"(p ∧ q) = (q ∧ p)"

proof (rule iffI)

{ assume 1: "p ∧ q"

have 2: "p" using 1 by (rule conjunct1)

have 3: "q" using 1 by (rule conjunct2)

show "q ∧ p" using 3 2 by (rule conjI) }

{ assume 4: "q ∧ p"

have 5: "q" using 4 by (rule conjunct1)

have 6: "p" using 4 by (rule conjunct2)

show "p ∧ q" using 6 5 by (rule conjI) }

qed

lemma -- "p. 18"

assumes 1: "p = q" and

2: "p ∨ q"

shows "p ∧ q"

using 2

proof (rule disjE)

{ assume 3: "p"

have 4: "q" using 1 3 by (rule iffD1)

show "p ∧ q" using 3 4 by (rule conjI) }

{ assume 5: "q"

have 6: "p" using 1 5 by (rule iffD2)

show "p ∧ q" using 6 5 by (rule conjI) }

qed

section {* Reglas derivadas *}

subsection {* Regla del modus tollens *}

lemma -- "p. 20"

assumes 1: "F ⟶ G" and

2: "¬G"

shows "¬F"

proof (rule notI)

assume 3: "F"

have 4: "G" using 1 3 by (rule mp)

show False using 2 4 by (rule notE)

qed

subsection {* Regla de la introducción de la doble negación *}

lemma -- "p. 21"

assumes 1: "F"

shows "¬¬F"

proof (rule notI)

assume 2: "¬F"

show False using 2 1 by (rule notE)

qed

subsection {* Regla de reducción al absurdo *}

lemma -- "p. 22"

assumes 1: "¬F ⟶ False"

shows "F"

proof -

have 2: "¬¬F"

proof (rule notI)

assume 3: "¬F"

show False using 1 3 by (rule mp)

qed

show "F" using 2 by (rule notnotD)

qed

text {*

La regla de reducción al absurdo en Isabelle se correponde con la

regla de contradicción

· ccontr: (¬P ⟹ False) ⟹ P

subsection {* Ley del tercio excluso *}

text {*

La ley del tercio excluso es

· excluded_middle: ¬P ∨ P

Puede demostrarse como se muestra a continuación.

lemma -- "p. 23"

"F ∨ ¬F"

proof (rule ccontr)

assume 1: "¬(F ∨ ¬F)"

thus False

proof (rule notE)

show "F ∨ ¬F"

proof (rule disjI2)

show "¬F"

proof (rule notI)

assume 2: "F"

hence 3: "F ∨ ¬F" by (rule disjI1)

show False using 1 3 by (rule notE)

qed

lemma -- "p. 24"

assumes 1: "p ⟶ q"

shows "¬p ∨ q"

proof -

have "¬p ∨ p" by (rule excluded_middle)

thus "¬p ∨ q"

proof (rule disjE)

{ assume "¬p"

thus "¬p ∨ q" by (rule disjI1) }

{ assume 2: "p"

have "q" using 1 2 by (rule mp)

thus "¬p ∨ q" by (rule disjI2) }

qed

end

</source>

Se puede imprimir o compartir con