Inference rules in the context of "Intuitionistic propositional calculus"

Play Trivia Questions online!

or

Skip to study material about Inference rules in the context of "Intuitionistic propositional calculus"




⭐ Core Definition: Inference rules

Rules of inference are ways of deriving conclusions from premises. They are integral parts of formal logic, serving as norms of the logical structure of valid arguments. If an argument with true premises follows a rule of inference then the conclusion cannot be false. Modus ponens, an influential rule of inference, connects two premises of the form "if then " and "" to the conclusion "", as in the argument "If it rains, then the ground is wet. It rains. Therefore, the ground is wet." There are many other rules of inference for different patterns of valid arguments, such as modus tollens, disjunctive syllogism, constructive dilemma, and existential generalization.

Rules of inference include rules of implication, which operate only in one direction from premises to conclusions, and rules of replacement, which state that two expressions are equivalent and can be freely swapped. Rules of inference contrast with formal fallacies—invalid argument forms involving logical errors.

↓ Menu

👉 Inference rules in the context of Intuitionistic propositional calculus

Intuitionistic logic, sometimes more generally called constructive logic, refers to systems of symbolic logic that differ from the systems used for classical logic by more closely mirroring the notion of constructive proof. In particular, systems of intuitionistic logic do not assume the law of excluded middle and double negation elimination, which are fundamental inference rules in classical logic.

Formalized intuitionistic logic was originally developed by Arend Heyting to provide a formal basis for L. E. J. Brouwer's programme of intuitionism. From a proof-theoretic perspective, Heyting’s calculus is a restriction of classical logic in which the law of excluded middle and double negation elimination have been removed. Excluded middle and double negation elimination can still be proved for some propositions on a case by case basis, however, but do not hold universally as they do with classical logic. The standard explanation of intuitionistic logic is the BHK interpretation.

↓ Explore More Topics
In this Dossier

Inference rules in the context of Natural deduction

In logic and proof theory, natural deduction is a kind of proof calculus in which logical reasoning is expressed by inference rules closely related to the "natural" way of reasoning. This contrasts with Hilbert-style systems, which instead use axioms as much as possible to express the logical laws of deductive reasoning.

↑ Return to Menu

Inference rules in the context of Frege system

In proof complexity, a Frege system is a propositional proof system whose proofs are sequences of formulas derived using a finite set of sound and implicationally complete inference rules. Frege systems (more often known as Hilbert systems in general proof theory) are named after Gottlob Frege.

The name "Frege system" was first defined by Stephen Cook and Robert Reckhow, and was intended to capture the properties of the most common propositional proof systems.

↑ Return to Menu

Inference rules in the context of Laws of thought

The laws of thought are an obsolete way to refer to three logical principles: the law of identity (LOI), the law of non-contradiction (LNC), and the law of excluded middle (LEM).

In modern logic these are simply some of the class of tautologies, and are not inference rules. There is no system of logic which uses the three "laws" as axioms, and the interpretations of even just the three "laws" varies widely.

↑ Return to Menu