Courses / Philosophy I
Logic

Natural Deduction: The Rules

Philosophy I 401 words Free to read

Proving Instead of Checking

Truth tables decide everything and scale terribly. Natural deduction takes the other route: instead of surveying all assignments, it derives the conclusion from the premises by applying rules, one step at a time. Each step is justified by a rule and by the earlier lines it uses, so a proof is a checkable object rather than a survey.

The rules come in pairs. For each connective there is an introduction rule saying how to derive a sentence with that connective as its main operator, and an elimination rule saying what may be derived from one.

ConnectiveIntroductionElimination
∧\wedgeFrom PP and QQ, infer P∧QP \wedge QFrom P∧QP \wedge Q, infer PP (or QQ)
∨\veeFrom PP, infer P∨QP \vee QFrom P∨QP \vee Q and both cases giving RR, infer RR
→\rightarrowAssume PP, derive QQ, conclude P→QP \rightarrow QFrom P→QP \rightarrow Q and PP, infer QQ
¬\negAssume PP, derive a contradiction, conclude ¬P\neg PFrom ¬¬P\neg\neg P, infer PP

Conditional elimination is modus ponens under a formal name. Conjunction rules are trivial. The two that carry real weight are conditional introduction and negation introduction, because both work by making an assumption.

An assumption is a temporary supposition, opened for the sake of argument and later discharged. Its scope is marked by a subproof, and the crucial discipline is that nothing inside a subproof may be used after the assumption is discharged, the conclusion depends on the assumption, so it cannot escape its scope. Violating this is the commonest way to produce a proof of something false.

Conditional introduction is the formal counterpart of ordinary conditional reasoning: to establish "if P then Q", suppose P and get to Q. Negation introduction is reductio ad absurdum: to establish "not P", suppose P and derive a contradiction.

Natural deduction and truth tables agree exactly. The system is sound, everything provable is valid, and complete: everything valid is provable. Neither property is obvious, and both had to be proved.

Common pitfall: using a line from inside a closed subproof. Once an assumption is discharged, everything derived under it is off limits, those lines were only ever conditional on a supposition you have now withdrawn. This single restriction is what keeps the system sound.
Natural Deduction: The Rules

Practise this lesson

Try the questions below, free, answers included. The full set, with its interactive scenes, is in the Tryals app.

11practice questions
2interactive scenes

Logic