Inferentializing consequence


The proof of correctness and completeness of a logical calculus w.r.t. a given semantics can be read as telling us that the tautologies (or, more gen erally, the relation of consequence) specified in a model theoretic way can be equally well specified in a proof theoretic way, by means of the calculus (as the theorems, resp. the relation of inferability of the calculus). Thus we know that both for the classical propositional calculus and for the clas sical predicate calculus theorems and tautologies represent two sides of the same coin. We also know that the relation of inference as instituted by any of the common axiom systems of the classical propositional calculus coin cides with the relation of consequence defined in terms of the truth tables; whereas the situation is a little bit more complicated w.r.t. the classical predicate calculus (the coincidence occurs if we restrict ourselves to closed ∀xFx is inferable from Fx without being its conse formulas; otherwise..



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 86,441

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.


Added to PP

29 (#453,423)

6 months
1 (#869,379)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Structural Proof Theory.Sara Negri, Jan von Plato & Aarne Ranta - 2001 - New York: Cambridge University Press. Edited by Jan Von Plato.
Meaning as an inferential role.Jaroslav Peregrin - 2006 - Erkenntnis 64 (1):1-35.
Completeness and super-valuations.Gary M. Hardegree - 2005 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 34 (1):81 - 95.
Language and its Models: Is Model Theory a Theory of Semantics?Jaroslav Peregrin - 1997 - Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic 2 (1):1-23.

Add more references