Craig interpolation: Difference between revisions
m →Proof of Craig's interpolation theorem: minus fix |
m WP:CHECKWIKI error fixes using AWB (10093) |
||
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 then there is a third formula ρ, called an interpolant, such that every nonlogical 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 theorem for first-order logic was proved by [[Roger Lyndon]] in 1959; the overall result is sometimes called the '''Craig–Lyndon theorem'''. |
||
== Example == |
== Example == |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:ψ = (T → P) ∨ (T → ~R). |
:ψ = (T → P) ∨ (T → ~R). |
||
Then |
Then φ [[tautological implication|tautologically implies]] ψ. This can be verified by writing φ in [[conjunctive normal form]]: |
||
:φ ≡ (P ∨ ~R) ∧ Q. |
:φ ≡ (P ∨ ~R) ∧ Q. |
||
Thus, if |
Thus, if φ holds, then (P ∨ ~R) holds. In turn, (P ∨ ~R) tautologically implies ψ. Because the two propositional variables occurring in (P ∨ ~R) occur in both φ and ψ, this means that (P ∨ ~R) is an interpolant for the implication φ → ψ. |
||
== 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 two theories; the signature of ''S'' ∩ ''T'' is the intersection of the signatures of the two theories. |
||
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== |
||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
Base case |''atoms''(φ) − ''atoms''(ψ)| = 0: In this case, φ is suitable. This is because since |''atoms''(φ) − ''atoms''(ψ)| = 0, we know 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. |
Base case |''atoms''(φ) − ''atoms''(ψ)| = 0: In this case, φ is suitable. This is because since |''atoms''(φ) − ''atoms''(ψ)| = 0, we know 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. |
||
Next assume for the inductive step that the result has been shown for all |
Next 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 ''p'' ∈ ''atoms''(φ) but ''p'' ∉ ''atoms''(ψ). Now define: |
||
φ' := φ[⊤/''p''] ∨ φ[⊥/''p''] |
φ' := φ[⊤/''p''] ∨ φ[⊥/''p''] |
||
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}}}} |
Revision as of 09:39, 5 May 2014
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 then there is a third formula ρ, called an interpolant, such that every nonlogical 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 theorem for first-order logic was proved by Roger Lyndon in 1959; the overall result is sometimes called the Craig–Lyndon theorem.
Example
In propositional logic, let
- φ = ~(P ∧ Q) → (~R ∧ Q)
- ψ = (T → P) ∨ (T → ~R).
Then φ tautologically implies ψ. This can be verified by writing φ in conjunctive normal form:
- φ ≡ (P ∨ ~R) ∧ Q.
Thus, if φ holds, then (P ∨ ~R) holds. In turn, (P ∨ ~R) tautologically implies ψ. Because the two propositional variables occurring in (P ∨ ~R) occur in both φ and ψ, this means that (P ∨ ~R) is an interpolant for the implication φ → ψ.
Lyndon's interpolation theorem
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 two theories; the signature of S ∩ T is the intersection of the signatures of the two theories.
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
We present here a constructive proof of the Craig interpolation theorem for propositional logic.[1] Formally, the theorem states:
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.
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)|.
Base case |atoms(φ) − atoms(ψ)| = 0: In this case, φ is suitable. This is because since |atoms(φ) − atoms(ψ)| = 0, we know 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.
Next 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 p ∈ atoms(φ) but p ∉ atoms(ψ). Now define:
φ' := φ[⊤/p] ∨ φ[⊥/p]
Here φ[⊤/p] is the same as φ with every occurrence of p replaced by ⊤ and φ[⊥/p] similarly replaces p 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.
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(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 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
Craig interpolation has many applications, among them consistency proofs, model checking, proofs in modular specifications, modular ontologies.
References
- ^ Harrison pgs. 426−427
- John Harrison (2009). Handbook of Practical Logic and Automated Reasoning. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-89957-5.
- Hinman, P. (2005). Fundamentals of Mathematical Logic. A K Peters. ISBN 1-56881-262-0.
- Dov M. Gabbay and 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.