Tautological consequence
In propositional logic, tautological consequence is a strict form of logical consequence[1] in which the tautologousness of a proposition is preserved from one line of a proof to the next. Not all logical consequences are tautological consequences. A proposition is said to be a tautological consequence of one or more other propositions (, , ..., ) in a proof with respect to some logical system if one is validly able to introduce the proposition onto a line of the proof within the rules of the system; and in all cases when each of (, , ..., ) are true, the proposition also is true.
Another way to express this preservation of tautologousness is by using truth tables. A proposition is said to be a tautological consequence of one or more other propositions (, , ..., ) if and only if in every row of a joint truth table that assigns "T" to all propositions (, , ..., ) the truth table also assigns "T" to .
Example
[edit]a = "Socrates is a man." b = "All men are mortal." c = "Socrates is mortal."
- a
- b
The conclusion of this argument is a logical consequence of the premises because it is impossible for all the premises to be true while the conclusion false.
| a | b | c | a ∧ b | c |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T | T | T | T | T |
| T | T | F | T | F |
| T | F | T | F | T |
| T | F | F | F | F |
| F | T | T | F | T |
| F | T | F | F | F |
| F | F | T | F | T |
| F | F | F | F | F |
Reviewing the truth table, it turns out the conclusion of the argument is not a tautological consequence of the premise. Not every row that assigns T to the premise also assigns T to the conclusion. In particular, it is the second row that assigns T to a ∧ b, but does not assign T to c.
Denotation and properties
[edit]Tautological consequence can also be defined as ∧ ∧ ... ∧ → is a substitution instance of a tautology, with the same effect. [2]
It follows from the definition that if a proposition p is a contradiction then p tautologically implies every proposition, because there is no truth valuation that causes p to be true and so the definition of tautological implication is trivially satisfied. Similarly, if p is a tautology then p is tautologically implied by every proposition.
See also
[edit]Notes
[edit]- ^ Barwise and Etchemendy 1999, p. 110
- ^ Robert L. Causey (2006). Logic, Sets, and Recursion. Jones & Bartlett Learning. pp. 51–52. ISBN 978-0-7637-3784-9. OCLC 62093042.
References
[edit]- Barwise, Jon, and John Etchemendy. Language, Proof and Logic. Stanford: CSLI (Center for the Study of Language and Information) Publications, 1999. Print.
- Kleene, S. C. (1967) Mathematical Logic, reprinted 2002, Dover Publications, ISBN 0-486-42533-9.