inconsistency-introduction-3 (python sample)

Tags: inconsistency-introduction-3 python sample

Usage

Call the infer_statement method from the inference-rule inclusion class listed in the i (unabridged inference_rules ) property of the theory-derivation :

u = pu.create_universe()
t = u.t()
...
# some theory derivation code
...
t.i.inconsistency_introduction_3.infer_statement(...)

Sample code

Code output

𝖫𝖾𝗍 ⌜𝒰₅₈⌝ 𝖻𝖾 𝖺 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑒-𝑜𝑓-𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠𝑒.

𝖫𝖾𝗍 ⌜𝒯₁⌝ 𝖻𝖾 𝖺 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦-𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝗂𝗇 𝒰₅₈.

𝗔𝘅𝗶𝗼𝗺 (𝒯₁.𝐴₁): 𝖫𝖾𝗍 𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑜𝑚 𝒜₁ ⌜𝘋𝘶𝘮𝘮𝘺 𝘢𝘹𝘪𝘰𝘮 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘴⌝ 𝖻𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗅𝗎𝖽𝖾𝖽 (𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗍𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗍𝖾𝖽) 𝗂𝗇 𝒯₁.

𝗜𝗻𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲 (𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑜𝑚-𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛): 𝖫𝖾𝗍 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒-𝑟𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑜𝑚-𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝖽𝖾𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖾𝖽 𝖺𝗌 ⌜(𝓐, 𝐏 ⊢ 𝐏)⌝ 𝖻𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗅𝗎𝖽𝖾𝖽 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗋𝖾𝖽 𝗏𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖽 𝗂𝗇 𝒯₁.

𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 (𝒯₁.𝑃₁): (𝑜₁ ≠ 𝑜₁). 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗳: ⌜𝘋𝘶𝘮𝘮𝘺 𝘢𝘹𝘪𝘰𝘮 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘴⌝ 𝗂𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗍𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗍𝖾𝖽 𝖻𝗒 𝗮𝘅𝗶𝗼𝗺 (𝐴₁). (𝑜₁ ≠ 𝑜₁) 𝗂𝗌 𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗂𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝗎𝗅𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗍𝖾𝖽 𝖿𝗋𝗈𝗆 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝖺𝗑𝗂𝗈𝗆. 𝖳𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾𝖿𝗈𝗋𝖾, 𝖻𝗒 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑜𝑚-𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖾 𝗋𝗎𝗅𝖾: (𝓐, 𝐏 ⊢ 𝐏), 𝗂𝗍 𝖿𝗈𝗅𝗅𝗈𝗐𝗌 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 (𝑜₁ ≠ 𝑜₁). ∎

𝖫𝖾𝗍 ⌜𝒯₂⌝ 𝖻𝖾 𝖺 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦-𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝗂𝗇 𝒰₅₈.

𝗜𝗻𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲 (𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦-𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛-3): 𝖫𝖾𝗍 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒-𝑟𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦-𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛-3 𝖽𝖾𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖾𝖽 𝖺𝗌 ⌜((𝐏₁ ≠ 𝐏₁) ⊢ 𝐼𝑛𝑐(𝒯₁))⌝ 𝖻𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗅𝗎𝖽𝖾𝖽 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗋𝖾𝖽 𝗏𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖽 𝗂𝗇 𝒯₂.

𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 (𝒯₂.𝑃₂) - The proposition of interest: 𝐼𝑛𝑐(𝒯₁). 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗳: 𝖫𝖾𝗍 (𝑷 ≠ 𝑷) := (𝑜₁ ≠ 𝑜₁), 𝗐𝗁𝗂𝖼𝗁 𝖿𝗈𝗅𝗅𝗈𝗐𝗌 𝖿𝗋𝗈𝗆 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽. (𝑃₁).  𝖳𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾𝖿𝗈𝗋𝖾, 𝖻𝗒 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦-𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛-3 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖾 𝗋𝗎𝗅𝖾: ((𝐏₁ ≠ 𝐏₁) ⊢ 𝐼𝑛𝑐(𝒯₁)), 𝗂𝗍 𝖿𝗈𝗅𝗅𝗈𝗐𝗌 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝐼𝑛𝑐(𝒯₁). ∎

import punctilious as pu

# Create a universe-of-discourse with basic objects for the sake of this example.
u = pu.UniverseOfDiscourse(echo=True)
o1 = u.o.declare()
t1 = u.t(echo=True)
axiom = u.a.declare(natural_language='Dummy axiom for demonstration purposes')

# Elaborate a dummy theory with inconsistent propositions
theory_axiom = t1.include_axiom(axiom)
x_unequal_x = t1.i.axiom_interpretation.infer_formula_statement(theory_axiom,
    (o1 | u.r.unequal | o1))
t1.stabilize()

# Use a distinct theory T2 to demonstrate the inconsistency of T1
# because T1 could not prove its own inconsistency because it is inconsistent!
t2 = u.t(echo=True)

# And finally, use the inconsistency-introduction-3 inference-rule:
proposition_of_interest = t2.i.inconsistency_introduction_3.infer_formula_statement(
    x_unequal_x=x_unequal_x, t=t1, subtitle='The proposition of interest')

Let "U57" be a universe-of-discourse.

Let "T1" be a theory-derivation in U57.

Axiom (T1.A1): Let axiom A1 "Dummy axiom for demonstration purposes" be included (postulated) in T1.

Inference rule (axiom-interpretation): Let inference-rule axiom-interpretation defined as "(A, P |- P)" be included and considered valid in T1.

Proposition (T1.P1): (o1 neq o1). Proof: "Dummy axiom for demonstration purposes" is postulated by axiom (A1). (o1 neq o1) is a propositional formula interpreted from that axiom. Therefore, by the axiom-interpretation inference rule: (A, P |- P), it follows that (o1 neq o1). QED

Let "T2" be a theory-derivation in U57.

Inference rule (inconsistency-introduction-3): Let inference-rule inconsistency-introduction-3 defined as "((P1 neq P1) |- Inc(T1))" be included and considered valid in T2.

Proposition (T2.P2) - The proposition of interest: Inc(T1). Proof: Let (P neq P) := (o1 neq o1), which follows from prop. (P1).  Therefore, by the inconsistency-introduction-3 inference rule: ((P1 neq P1) |- Inc(T1)), it follows that Inc(T1). QED