Craig interpolation: Difference between revisions
m →Proof of Craig's interpolation theorem: minus fix |
→Proof of Craig's interpolation theorem: Use proof template |
||
(24 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In [[mathematical logic]], '''Craig's interpolation theorem''' is a result about the relationship between different logical [[theory (mathematical logic)|theories]]. Roughly stated, the theorem says that if a [[well formed formula|formula]] |
In [[mathematical logic]], '''Craig's interpolation theorem''' is a result about the relationship between different logical [[theory (mathematical logic)|theories]]. Roughly stated, the theorem says that if a [[well formed formula|formula]] φ implies a formula ψ, and the two have at least one atomic variable symbol in common, then there is a formula ρ, called an interpolant, such that every [[non-logical symbol]] in ρ occurs both in φ and ψ, φ implies ρ, and ρ implies ψ. The theorem was first proved for [[first-order logic]] by [[William Craig (logician)|William Craig]] in 1957. Variants of the theorem hold for other logics, such as [[propositional logic]]. A stronger form of Craig's interpolation theorem for first-order logic was proved by [[Roger Lyndon]] in 1959;<ref>{{citation|title=An interpolation theorem in the predicate calculus|first=Roger|last=Lyndon|volume=9|journal=Pacific Journal of Mathematics|year=1959|pages=129–142|doi=10.2140/pjm.1959.9.129|doi-access=free}}.</ref><ref>{{citation|page=141|title=Basic Proof Theory|volume=43|series=Cambridge tracts in theoretical computer science|first1=Anne Sjerp|last1=Troelstra|author-link1=Anne Sjerp Troelstra|first2=Helmut|last2=Schwichtenberg|author-link2=Helmut Schwichtenberg|edition=2nd|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2000|isbn=978-0-521-77911-1}}.</ref> the overall result is sometimes called the '''Craig–Lyndon theorem'''. |
||
== Example == |
== Example == |
||
In [[propositional logic]], let |
In [[propositional logic]], let |
||
: |
:::<math> \varphi = \lnot(P \land Q) \to (\lnot R \land Q) </math> |
||
: |
:::<math> \psi = (S \to P) \lor (S \to \lnot R) </math>. |
||
Then |
Then <math>\varphi</math> [[tautological implication|tautologically implies]] <math>\psi</math>. This can be verified by writing <math>\varphi</math> in [[conjunctive normal form]]: |
||
: |
:::<math>\varphi \equiv (P \lor \lnot R) \land Q</math>. |
||
Thus, if |
Thus, if <math>\varphi</math> holds, then <math>P \lor \lnot R</math> holds. In turn, <math>P \lor \lnot R</math> tautologically implies <math>\psi</math>. Because the two propositional variables occurring in <math>P \lor \lnot R</math> occur in both <math>\varphi</math> and <math>\psi</math>, this means that <math>P \lor \lnot R</math> is an interpolant for the implication <math>\varphi \to \psi</math>. |
||
== Lyndon's interpolation theorem == |
== Lyndon's interpolation theorem == |
||
Suppose that ''S'' and ''T'' are two first-order theories. As notation, let ''S'' |
Suppose that ''S'' and ''T'' are two first-order theories. As notation, let ''S'' ∪ ''T'' denote the smallest theory including both ''S'' and ''T''; the [[signature (mathematical logic)|signature]] of ''S'' ∪ ''T'' is the smallest one containing the signatures of ''S'' and ''T''. Also let ''S'' ∩ ''T'' be the intersection of the languages of the two theories; the signature of ''S'' ∩ ''T'' is the intersection of the signatures of the two languages. |
||
Lyndon's theorem says that if ''S'' |
Lyndon's theorem says that if ''S'' ∪ ''T'' is unsatisfiable, then there is an interpolating sentence ρ in the language of ''S'' ∩ ''T'' that is true in all models of ''S'' and false in all models of ''T''. Moreover, ρ has the stronger property that every relation symbol that has a [[positive occurrence]] in ρ has a positive occurrence in some formula of ''S'' and a negative occurrence in some formula of ''T'', and every relation symbol with a negative occurrence in ρ has a negative occurrence in some formula of ''S'' and a positive occurrence in some formula of ''T''. |
||
==Proof of Craig's interpolation theorem== |
==Proof of Craig's interpolation theorem== |
||
We present here a [[constructive proof]] of the Craig interpolation theorem for [[propositional logic]].<ref>Harrison pgs. |
We present here a [[constructive proof]] of the Craig interpolation theorem for [[propositional logic]].<ref>Harrison pgs. 426–427</ref> |
||
{{Math theorem| If ⊨φ → ψ then there is a ρ (the ''interpolant'') such that ⊨φ → ρ and ⊨ρ → ψ, where ''atoms''(ρ) ⊆ ''atoms''(φ) ∩ ''atoms''(ψ). Here ''atoms''(φ) is the set of [[propositional variable]]s occurring in φ, and ⊨ is the [[Entailment|semantic entailment relation]] for propositional logic.}} |
|||
{{Math proof|{{pipe escape| |
|||
'''Proof.''' |
|||
Assume ⊨φ → ψ. The proof proceeds by induction on the number of propositional variables occurring in φ that do not occur in ψ, denoted |''atoms''(φ) − ''atoms''(ψ)|. |
Assume ⊨φ → ψ. The proof proceeds by induction on the number of propositional variables occurring in φ that do not occur in ψ, denoted |''atoms''(φ) − ''atoms''(ψ)|. |
||
Base case |''atoms''(φ) − ''atoms''(ψ)| = 0: |
Base case |''atoms''(φ) − ''atoms''(ψ)| {{=}} 0: Since |''atoms''(φ) − ''atoms''(ψ)| {{=}} 0, we have that ''atoms''(φ) ⊆ ''atoms''(φ) ∩ ''atoms''(ψ). Moreover we have that ⊨φ → φ and ⊨φ → ψ. This suffices to show that φ is a suitable interpolant in this case. |
||
Let’s assume for the inductive step that the result has been shown for all χ where |''atoms''(χ) − ''atoms''(ψ)| {{=}} ''n''. Now assume that |''atoms''(φ) − ''atoms''(ψ)| {{=}} ''n''+1. Pick a ''q'' ∈ ''atoms''(φ) but ''q'' ∉ ''atoms''(ψ). Now define: |
|||
φ' := φ[⊤/'' |
φ' :{{=}} φ[⊤/''q''] ∨ φ[⊥/''q''] |
||
Here φ[⊤/'' |
Here φ[⊤/''q''] is the same as φ with every occurrence of ''q'' replaced by ⊤ and φ[⊥/''q''] similarly replaces ''q'' with ⊥. We may observe three things from this definition: |
||
{{NumBlk|:|⊨φ' → ψ|{{EquationRef|1}}}} |
{{NumBlk|:|⊨φ' → ψ|{{EquationRef|1}}}} |
||
{{NumBlk|:|{{abs|''atoms''(φ') − ''atoms''(ψ)}} {{=}} n|{{EquationRef|2}}}} |
{{NumBlk|:|{{abs|''atoms''(φ') − ''atoms''(ψ)}} {{=}} ''n''|{{EquationRef|2}}}} |
||
{{NumBlk|:|⊨φ → φ'|{{EquationRef|3}}}} |
{{NumBlk|:|⊨φ → φ'|{{EquationRef|3}}}} |
||
Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
{{NumBlk|:|⊨ρ → ψ|{{EquationRef|5}}}} |
{{NumBlk|:|⊨ρ → ψ|{{EquationRef|5}}}} |
||
But from {{EqNote|3}} and {{EqNote|4}} we know that |
But from {{EqNote|3}} and {{EqNote|4}} we know that |
||
{{NumBlk|:|⊨φ → ρ|{{EquationRef|6}}}} |
{{NumBlk|:|⊨φ → ρ|{{EquationRef|6}}}} |
||
Hence, ρ is a suitable interpolant for φ and ψ. |
Hence, ρ is a suitable interpolant for φ and ψ. |
||
}}}} |
|||
⚫ | Since the above proof is [[Intuitionistic logic|constructive]], one may extract an [[algorithm]] for computing interpolants. Using this algorithm, if ''n'' = |''atoms''(φ') − ''atoms''(ψ)|, then the interpolant ρ has ''O''(exp(''n'')) more [[logical connective]]s than φ (see [[Big O Notation]] for details regarding this assertion). Similar constructive proofs may be provided for the basic [[modal logic]] K, [[intuitionistic logic]] and [[mu calculus|μ-calculus]], with similar complexity measures. |
||
'''QED''' |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | Since the above proof is constructive, one may extract an [[algorithm]] for computing interpolants. Using this algorithm, if ''n'' = |''atoms''(φ') − ''atoms''(ψ)|, then the interpolant ρ has ''O''( |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
* via translation to other logics enjoying Craig interpolation. |
* via translation to other logics enjoying Craig interpolation. |
||
==Applications== |
==Applications== |
||
Craig interpolation has many applications, among them [[consistency proof]]s, [[model checking]], proofs in [[Modularity (programming)|modular]] [[Specification language|specifications]], modular [[Ontology (computer science)|ontologies]]. |
Craig interpolation has many applications, among them [[consistency proof]]s, [[model checking]],<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Vizel | first1 = Y. | last2 = Weissenbacher | first2 = G. | last3 = Malik | first3 = S. | journal = Proceedings of the IEEE | volume = 103 | issue = 11 | year = 2015 | doi = 10.1109/JPROC.2015.2455034|title=Boolean Satisfiability Solvers and Their Applications in Model Checking| pages = 2021–2035 | s2cid = 10190144 }}</ref> proofs in [[Modularity (programming)|modular]] [[Specification language|specifications]], modular [[Ontology (computer science)|ontologies]]. |
||
==References== |
==References== |
||
<references /> |
<references /> |
||
⚫ | |||
==Further reading== |
|||
⚫ | |||
*{{cite book | author = Hinman, P. | title = Fundamentals of Mathematical Logic | publisher = A K Peters | year = 2005 | isbn = 1-56881-262-0}} |
*{{cite book | author = Hinman, P. | title = Fundamentals of Mathematical Logic | publisher = A K Peters | year = 2005 | isbn = 1-56881-262-0}} |
||
*{{cite book | author = Dov M. Gabbay |
*{{cite book | author = [[Dov M. Gabbay]] |author2= Larisa Maksimova | author2-link= Larisa Maksimova | title = Interpolation and Definability: Modal and Intuitionistic Logics (Oxford Logic Guides) | publisher = Oxford science publications, [[Clarendon Press]] | year = 2006 | isbn = 978-0-19-851174-8}} |
||
*Eva Hoogland, ''Definability and Interpolation. Model-theoretic investigations''. PhD thesis, Amsterdam 2001. |
*Eva Hoogland, ''Definability and Interpolation. Model-theoretic investigations''. PhD thesis, Amsterdam 2001. |
||
*W. Craig, ''Three uses of the Herbrand-Gentzen theorem in relating model theory and proof theory'', The Journal of Symbolic Logic 22 (1957), no. 3, 269–285. |
*W. Craig, ''Three uses of the Herbrand-Gentzen theorem in relating model theory and proof theory'', The Journal of Symbolic Logic 22 (1957), no. 3, 269–285. |
Latest revision as of 20:48, 24 July 2024
In mathematical logic, Craig's interpolation theorem is a result about the relationship between different logical theories. Roughly stated, the theorem says that if a formula φ implies a formula ψ, and the two have at least one atomic variable symbol in common, then there is a formula ρ, called an interpolant, such that every non-logical symbol in ρ occurs both in φ and ψ, φ implies ρ, and ρ implies ψ. The theorem was first proved for first-order logic by William Craig in 1957. Variants of the theorem hold for other logics, such as propositional logic. A stronger form of Craig's interpolation theorem for first-order logic was proved by Roger Lyndon in 1959;[1][2] the overall result is sometimes called the Craig–Lyndon theorem.
Example
[edit]In propositional logic, let
- .
Then tautologically implies . This can be verified by writing in conjunctive normal form:
- .
Thus, if holds, then holds. In turn, tautologically implies . Because the two propositional variables occurring in occur in both and , this means that is an interpolant for the implication .
Lyndon's interpolation theorem
[edit]Suppose that S and T are two first-order theories. As notation, let S ∪ T denote the smallest theory including both S and T; the signature of S ∪ T is the smallest one containing the signatures of S and T. Also let S ∩ T be the intersection of the languages of the two theories; the signature of S ∩ T is the intersection of the signatures of the two languages.
Lyndon's theorem says that if S ∪ T is unsatisfiable, then there is an interpolating sentence ρ in the language of S ∩ T that is true in all models of S and false in all models of T. Moreover, ρ has the stronger property that every relation symbol that has a positive occurrence in ρ has a positive occurrence in some formula of S and a negative occurrence in some formula of T, and every relation symbol with a negative occurrence in ρ has a negative occurrence in some formula of S and a positive occurrence in some formula of T.
Proof of Craig's interpolation theorem
[edit]We present here a constructive proof of the Craig interpolation theorem for propositional logic.[3]
Theorem — If ⊨φ → ψ then there is a ρ (the interpolant) such that ⊨φ → ρ and ⊨ρ → ψ, where atoms(ρ) ⊆ atoms(φ) ∩ atoms(ψ). Here atoms(φ) is the set of propositional variables occurring in φ, and ⊨ is the semantic entailment relation for propositional logic.
Assume ⊨φ → ψ. The proof proceeds by induction on the number of propositional variables occurring in φ that do not occur in ψ, denoted |atoms(φ) − atoms(ψ)|.
Base case |atoms(φ) − atoms(ψ)| = 0: Since |atoms(φ) − atoms(ψ)| = 0, we have that atoms(φ) ⊆ atoms(φ) ∩ atoms(ψ). Moreover we have that ⊨φ → φ and ⊨φ → ψ. This suffices to show that φ is a suitable interpolant in this case.
Let’s assume for the inductive step that the result has been shown for all χ where |atoms(χ) − atoms(ψ)| = n. Now assume that |atoms(φ) − atoms(ψ)| = n+1. Pick a q ∈ atoms(φ) but q ∉ atoms(ψ). Now define:
φ' := φ[⊤/q] ∨ φ[⊥/q]
Here φ[⊤/q] is the same as φ with every occurrence of q replaced by ⊤ and φ[⊥/q] similarly replaces q with ⊥. We may observe three things from this definition:
⊨φ' → ψ | (1) |
|atoms(φ') − atoms(ψ)| = n | (2) |
⊨φ → φ' | (3) |
From (1), (2) and the inductive step we have that there is an interpolant ρ such that:
⊨φ' → ρ | (4) |
⊨ρ → ψ | (5) |
But from (3) and (4) we know that
⊨φ → ρ | (6) |
Hence, ρ is a suitable interpolant for φ and ψ.
Since the above proof is constructive, one may extract an algorithm for computing interpolants. Using this algorithm, if n = |atoms(φ') − atoms(ψ)|, then the interpolant ρ has O(exp(n)) more logical connectives than φ (see Big O Notation for details regarding this assertion). Similar constructive proofs may be provided for the basic modal logic K, intuitionistic logic and μ-calculus, with similar complexity measures.
Craig interpolation can be proved by other methods as well. However, these proofs are generally non-constructive:
- model-theoretically, via Robinson's joint consistency theorem: in the presence of compactness, negation and conjunction, Robinson's joint consistency theorem and Craig interpolation are equivalent.
- proof-theoretically, via a sequent calculus. If cut elimination is possible and as a result the subformula property holds, then Craig interpolation is provable via induction over the derivations.
- algebraically, using amalgamation theorems for the variety of algebras representing the logic.
- via translation to other logics enjoying Craig interpolation.
Applications
[edit]Craig interpolation has many applications, among them consistency proofs, model checking,[4] proofs in modular specifications, modular ontologies.
References
[edit]- ^ Lyndon, Roger (1959), "An interpolation theorem in the predicate calculus", Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 9: 129–142, doi:10.2140/pjm.1959.9.129.
- ^ Troelstra, Anne Sjerp; Schwichtenberg, Helmut (2000), Basic Proof Theory, Cambridge tracts in theoretical computer science, vol. 43 (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press, p. 141, ISBN 978-0-521-77911-1.
- ^ Harrison pgs. 426–427
- ^ Vizel, Y.; Weissenbacher, G.; Malik, S. (2015). "Boolean Satisfiability Solvers and Their Applications in Model Checking". Proceedings of the IEEE. 103 (11): 2021–2035. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2015.2455034. S2CID 10190144.
Further reading
[edit]- John Harrison (2009). Handbook of Practical Logic and Automated Reasoning. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-89957-4.
- Hinman, P. (2005). Fundamentals of Mathematical Logic. A K Peters. ISBN 1-56881-262-0.
- Dov M. Gabbay; Larisa Maksimova (2006). Interpolation and Definability: Modal and Intuitionistic Logics (Oxford Logic Guides). Oxford science publications, Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-851174-8.
- Eva Hoogland, Definability and Interpolation. Model-theoretic investigations. PhD thesis, Amsterdam 2001.
- W. Craig, Three uses of the Herbrand-Gentzen theorem in relating model theory and proof theory, The Journal of Symbolic Logic 22 (1957), no. 3, 269–285.