Predicate
Calculus with Identity: Syntax and Proof Theory

*The
predicate calculus is more tricky that PC. I strongly urge you to study chapter
3 of Lemmon. None of the proofs or questions below are
provided in Lemmon.

__1.
Introduction__

The
job of logic is to codify valid inference. We have seen that PC is adequate to
this task where validity solely turns on the occurrence of coordinate
expressions, such as *and*, *not*, etc. Clearly, however, not every
valid inference turns on such expressions. That is, there is more to validity
than PC mandates.

Consider
the following arguments:

(1)
Every footballer is blonde.

__Pele____
is a foootballer__.

Pele is blonde.

(2)
__Pele____ is a footballer__.

Therefore, someone is a footballer.

(3)
No footballer is blonde.

__Pele____
is a footballer__.

Therefore, Pele
is not blonde.

Transparently,
each of these arguments is valid, but PC is unable to represent them as valid.
Because each sentence of the arguments is distinct, and none include constants,
the best PC can do is to notate each sentence with a distinct propositional
variable. Thus:

(4)
P

__Q__

R

(4)
is not a valid argument of PC.

The
essential problem is that PC abstracts away from all structure a given sentence
possesses. But some valid inferences depend upon such structure. The predicate
calculus (PredC) is designed to represent such
structure so as to capture the valid inferences which depend upon such
structure.

__2.
Syntax__

The
syntax of PredC is somewhat more complicated than
that of PC. Consider the arguments above. Whereas PC just has propositional
variables and constants, to represent the above arguments we appear to require
at least names (‘Pele’) and predicates (‘is a
footballer’, ‘is blonde’). Do we need more? Yes.

First off, note that the validity of the
arguments (1)-(3) do not depend on the fact that they are about footballers and
Pele, etc.
Witness, e.g.,

(5)
Every A is B

__a____ is A__

a is B

Whatever
we uniformly substitute for ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘a’, the result is a valid argument. But
note that we can’t substitute ‘every’ for another similar expression:

(6)
No A is B

__a____ is A__

a is B

Any
uniform substitution of the terms of (6) results in an invalid argument: e.g.,

(7)
No footballer is blonde.

__Pele____
is a footballer__.

Pele is blonde.

We
call expressions such as *every*, *some*, *no*, etc. *quantifiers*
(this will be explained). How, then, are we to treat expressions such as
‘Every/No footballer’? Can we treat them like names? No.

(i) As just seen, we can substitute into the positions of
names and retain validity. We can’t do that with quantifiers.

(ii)
The sentence, ‘Pele is a footballer’ attributes a
property - being a footballer - to a thing - Pele.
Something else appears to be going on with ‘Every footballer is blonde’. This
sentence does not attribute a property to a thing - every footballer is not a
thing, and even if we were to think it was, heaven knows what it would be for
it to be blonde. ‘Every footballer is blonde’ says ‘Everything which is a
footballer is also blonde’. Alternatively, ‘For all things, if it is a
footballer, then it is blonde’.

It
seems that not only do we need something more than names to represent quantifiers, we also require the logical constants of PC.
Let us introduce some symbols of the formal language of PredC.

*Symbols*

(i) Arbitrary Names

Since
PredC abstracts away from what particular names refer
to, we may use *arbitrary* *names* - a, b, c, d, etc. We call them
arbitrary for they stand for any given object, not a particular object. Thus,
‘a’ and ‘b’ do not necessarily ‘refer’ to distinct things.

(ii)
Predicates

Again, PredC
abstracts away from the properties expressed by particular predicates. Our
symbolism thus adopts *predicate letters*
- F, G, H, I, etc. So far, then, we can represent ‘Pele
is a footballer’ as ‘Fa’ (Note: ‘Ia’
would also do as well as ‘Fd’, etc.).

(iii)
PC Constants

We
adopt wholesale the logical constants of PC. Thus, the sentence ‘Pele is a
footballer and Tony Blair is a politician’ may be represented as
‘Fa & Gb’.

(iv) Quantifiers
(Constants)

In
English, quantifiers constitute a mixed and complex category of expression. Let
us just think about ‘every’ and ‘some’. We said above that we can think of a
sentence of the form ‘Every F is G’ as expressing a proposition of the form
‘For every thing, if it is F, then it is G’. Let us replace the conditional
here with the constant ‘→’ and substitute the variable *x* for the pronoun ‘it’ and the dummy generic
noun ‘thing’. This gives us

(6)
For every *x*, *x* is F → *x* is G.

We
can drop the copula (*is*) in line with
our convention of notating predication (i.e., putting the predicate letter
before its subject). This gives us:

(7)
For every *x*, F*x* → G*x*.

Finally,
let us notate the prefix ‘For every *x*’.
Here we employ a *variable binding
operator* (the *universal*
quantifier):

(8)
("*x*)(F*x* → G*x*)

‘Every *x* is such that if *x* is F
then *x* is G’

The
procedure is analogous for *something/someone*,
with one crucial difference. Consider, ‘Some footballers are blonde’. Could we
notate this as (9)?

(9)
For some x, F*x* → G*x*.

No.
(9) doesn’t say that any *x* at all *is* F (a
footballer). It simply says that there is something such that *if* that thing is F, then it is G. We get
the right reading if we substitute ‘&’ for ‘→’:

(10)
For some x, F*x* & G*x*.

We
fully formalize by introducing the *existential
quantifier*:

(11)
($*x*)(F*x* & G*x*).

‘There is an (at least one) *x* such that *x* is F and *x* is G’.

*Variables ≠ Names*

Variables
are not names. Names - a, b, etc. - are read as referring to arbitrary objects.
Variables do not refer at all. The difference may be seen in English between
proper names and pronouns. Compare:

(12)a. Bill is tall.

b. It/he/she is tall.

In
a sense, b. doesn’t say anything determinate, for we don’t know what *it* is. Pronouns can, however, be bound
by a preceding quantifier, e.g.,

(13)
The car skidded, then it hit a lamp-post.

Here,
‘it’ is bound by the preceding nominal phrase ‘The car’. We can’t bind names in
the same way. Imagine you have a car called Herbie:

(14)
The car skidded, then Herbie
hit a lamp-post.

Here,
it seems as if there are two cars.

Variables
substitute names in the formation of PredC formulae.
They allow us to generalise over the positions of
names. The following procedure gives an example:

(15)a. Fab

b. ($*x*)(F*x*b)

c. ("*y*)($*x*)(F*xy*)

Let
‘F’ = ‘loves’.

We
go from ‘a loves b’ to ‘Someone loves b’ to ‘Everyone is loved by someone’. Note, this is not valid. It is just an example of how
variables allow for generalisation.

*Differences Between the Quantifiers*.

(16)
¬($*x*)F*x*

‘Nothing is F’ (Here we are denying that
something is F, which means that nothing at

all is F.)

(17)
($*x*)
¬F*x*

‘Something is not F’ (Here we are saying
that there is something or other, but it is not

F.)

(18)
¬("*x*)F*x*

‘Something is not F’ (Here we are saying
that F-ness doesn’t hold universally, i.e.,

there is
something which lacks F.)

(19)
("x)
¬F*x*

‘Nothing is F’ (This is *not* consistent with something being F.
It doesn’t say

‘Not every thing is F, but something
might be’ - it denies F-ness, as it were, of

everything.)

The
differences of interpretation are here to do with the scope of ‘¬’. If another
reason were needed, this is why quantifier phrases are not names, for names are
insensitive to the scope of ‘¬’: ¬a is F ↔ a is
¬F.

It
may be noted from above that

(20)a. ("x)f
↔_{df} ¬($x)¬f

b. ($x)f
↔_{df} ¬("x)¬f

c. Everything is f
iff it is not the case that something is not f.

d. Something is f
iff it is not the case that everything is not f.

__2.1.
Recursive Definition__

As
with PC, we want a recursive definition of ‘formula of PredC’.

(PredC-Df)

(i) *x*, *y*, *z*,… are terms of PredC
(variables).

(ii) a, b, c, …. are terms of PredC (arbitrary
names).

(iii) F, G, H,… are
predicates letters of PC.

(iv) If F
is a predicate letter and <a_{1}, …,
a_{n}>
is a sequence of terms (where n ˜1),
then

‘Fa_{1}, …,
a_{n}’
is a formula of PredC.

(v) If ‘Fa_{1},…
*v*,…a_{n}’
is a formula is PredC, with at least every occurrence
of *v*

* * unbound, then

(a) ‘("*x*)Fa_{1},…
*x*,…a_{n}’* * and

(b) ‘($*x*)Fa_{1},…
*x*,…a_{n}’ are formulae of PredC.

(vi) If ’Fa_{1},… *t*,…a_{n}’ is a formula is PredC,
with *t*
as a name, then

(a) ‘("*x*)Fa_{1},…
*x*…a_{n}’
and

(b) ‘($*x*) Fa_{1},…
*x*…a_{n}’
are formulae of PredC.

(vii) If X is a formula of PredC,
then ¬X,

X & X,

X
v X,

X→X,

and X ↔ X are formulae of PredC.

(viii)
These are all the formulae of PredC.

**Q**:
From the definition, which of the following are formulae of PredC?

(i) Fa & ¬Fz

(ii) ($*x*)("*x*)Fa*xz*

(iii)
Fx → ("*y*)(F*x*
→ Gb)

(iv)
("*x*)F*xx*

__3.
Rules of Inference for PredC__

We
take over all the rules of PC and in addition have four new rules for,
respectively, the introduction and elimination of the universal and existential
quantifiers.

(i) *Universal
Elimination* (UE)

For
any formula, either derived or assumed, ‘("*x*)F*x*’, which contains
at least one occurrence of ‘*x*’ bound,
one can derive ‘Fa’,
which rests on all the assumptions upon which ‘("*x*)F*x*’ rests.

Justification:
If everything is F,
then any arbitrary object (a) will also be F.

(ii) *Universal
Introduction* (UI)

If one can derive ‘Fa’
resting upon no assumptions which feature ‘a’, then one can derive‘("*x*)F*x*’, which binds
every occurrence of ‘*x*’ substituting
‘a’, and rests upon all assumptions upon which ‘Fa’
rests.

Justification:
If F
holds of an arbitrary object (a) resting upon no assumptions about the object,
then F
holds of everything.

(iii)
Existential Introduction (EI)

For
any formula, either derived or assumed, ‘Fa’,
one can derive ‘($*x*)F*x*’, which binds
every occurrence of ‘x’ substituting ‘a’, and rests upon all assumptions upon
which ‘($*x*)F*x*’ rests.

Justification:
If an arbitrary object (a) is F,
then something or other is F.

(iv) Existential
Elimination (EE)

For
any formula, ‘($*x*)F*x*’, if, from
assumption ‘Fa’,
where ‘a’ substitutes every occurrence of *x*,
one can derive C, then one can conclude C, resting upon all assumptions upon
which ‘($*x*)F*x*’, ‘Fa’,
and C rest, minus any assumptions upon which two or more formulae rest (in
effect, this will mean that C follows from ‘($*x*)F*x*’ minus ‘Fa’.

Justification:
if C follows from an arbitrary object (a) being F,
then it follows from something or other being F.

*Examples*

We
saw above that ‘¬($*x*)F*x*’ says the same
thing as ‘("*x*)
¬F*x*’. We
should thus be able to prove one from the other.

(i) ¬($*x*)F*x* ┤├ ("*x*) ¬F*x** *

1 (1) ¬($*x*)F*x* A

2 (2)
Fa A

2 (3)
($*x*)F*x** * 2EI

1,2(4) ¬($*x*)F*x* & ($*x*)F*x* 1,3&I

1 (5)
¬Fa 2,4RAA

1 (6) ("*x*) ¬F*x* 5UI

The
second proof is quite complex; its elegance will repay scrutiny:

(ii)
("*x*)
¬F*x** *┤├ ¬($*x*)F*x*

1 (1)
("*x*)
¬F*x* A

2 (2)
($*x*)F*x* A

3 (3) Fa A

1 (4)
¬Fa 1UE

1,3(5) Fa & ¬Fa 3,4&I

3 (6) ¬("*x*) ¬F*x* 1,5RAA

2 (7) ¬("*x*) ¬F*x* 2,3,6EE

1,2(8) ("*x*) ¬F*x* & ¬("*x*) ¬F*x* 1,7&I

1 (9)
¬($*x*)F*x* 2,8RAA

We
also saw that ‘($*x*)
¬F*x*’ says
the same thing as ‘¬("*x*)F*x*’. We should thus be
able to prove one from the other.

(i) ($*x*)
¬F*x* ┤├
¬("*x*)F*x*

1 (1) ($*x*) ¬F*x* A

2 (2)
("*x*)F*x** * A

3 (3)
¬Fa
A

2 (4)
Fa
2UE

2,3(5) ¬Fa & Fa 3,4&I

3 (6) ¬("*x*)F*x* 2,5RAA

1 (7) ¬("*x*)F*x* 1,3,6EE

As before, the second proof is quite complex.
First, consider this putative proof:

*(ii)
¬("*x*)F*x* ┤├ ($*x*) ¬F*x*

1 (1) ¬("*x*)F*x* A

2 (2)
Fa
A

1 (3)
¬Fa
1UE

1,2(4) Fa & ¬Fa 2,3&I

1 (5)
¬Fa
2,4RAA

1 (6) ($*x*) ¬F*x* 5EI

**Q**:
What is wrong with this proof?

The
correct proof is complex, but exceedingly pretty:

(ii)
¬("*x*)F*x* ┤├ ($*x*) ¬F*x*

1 (1)
¬("*x*)
F*x* A

2 (2)
¬($*x*)¬F*x** * A

3 (3) ¬ Fa A

3 (4)
($*x*)¬F*x* 3EI

2,3(5) ¬($*x*)¬F*x* & ($*x*) ¬F*x* 2,4&I

2 (6) ¬¬Fa 3,5RAA

2 (7) Fa 6DN

2 (8)
("x)Fx 7UI

1,2(9) ("x)Fx & ¬("*x*)F*x* 1,8&I

1 (10)
¬¬($*x*)
¬F*x* 2,9RAA

1 (11) ($*x*) ¬F*x*
10DN

**Q**:
Prove the following:

(i) ("*x*)(F*x* → G*x*) ┤├
("*x*)
¬G*x* →
("*x*)
¬F*x*

(ii)
("*x*)(F*x* → G*x*) ┤├
($*x*)
¬G*x* →
($*x*)
¬F*x*

(iii)
("*x*)(F*x* → ¬G*x*) ┤├
¬($*x*)(F*x* & G*x*)

*Examples of relations*

So
far, we have just established results about monadic predication, i.e., of the
form ‘Fa’. The proof theory set out also deals with
relations, e.g., ‘Fab’, ‘Fabc’,
etc. One basically proceeds in the same way, with a few minor complications.
First, one is dealing with distinct variables - not just ‘*x*’: distinct arbitrary names must substitute distinct variables. It
doesn’t follow that one is talking about distinct things - see the section on
identity. Second, one has quantifiers in the scope of other quantifiers: always
proceed from the widest scope quantifier in - from left to right. The proof below gives an example:

(i) ("*x*)($*y*)("*z*)F*xyz** *┤├ ("*x*)("*z*)($*y*)F*xyz*

1(1) ("*x*)($*y*)("*z*)F*xyz* A

1(2) ($*y*)("*z*)Fa*yz* 1UE

3(3) ("*z*)Fab*z** *A

3(4) Fabc 3UE

3(5) ($*y*)Fa*y*c 4EI

3(6) ("*z*)($*y*)Fa*yz* 5UI

1(7) ("*z*)($*y*)Fa*yz* 1,3,6EE

1(8)
("*x*)("*z*)($*y*)F*xyz** *7UI

**Q1**:
We here apply EE at line (7) to eliminate assumption (3). Could we have first
derived ‘("*x*)("*z*)($*y*)F*xyz*’ at line (7)
from line (6), then applied EE?

**Q2**:
Prove the following:

(i) ("*x*)("*y*)("*z*)F*xyz* ┤├ ("*z*)("*y*)("*x*)F*xyz*

(ii)
($*x*)($*y*)("z)F*xyz* ┤├
("*z*)($*y*)($*x*)F*xyz*

__4.
Identity and Rules of Inference__

The
concept of identity adds great expressive power to our logic. Let us say that
we want to express the proposition that a given equation has a unique solution,
a case common in mathematics. How would we represent this in PredC? The best we could do so far would be (21), where ‘F’
= ‘is a solution to equation E’:

(21)
($*x*)F*x*

But
this just says that the equation has *some*
solution, not a unique one. We might try

(22)
($*x*)F*x*
& ¬($*y*)F*y*

But
this just says, in effect, that not everything is a solution to the equation.

With
identity, however, we can express the uniqueness claim:

(22)
($*x*)(F*x* & ("*y*)(F*y* → *x* = *y*))

This
says that the equation has a solution and ‘anything else’ which is a solution
is (in fact) identical with the given solution.

*Axioms for Identity*

Axioms
are logical truths which we take to be definitive of our logical concepts:

A1:
("x)x = x

‘Everything is identical with itself’.

A2:
("*x*)("*y*)((*x* = *y*
& F*x*) →
F*y*)

‘Identical things share all their
properties’.

It
follows from the axioms that everything is identical with itself and nothing
else. Why? Because identity itself is a property. One can use an indefinite number of variables
to range over a ‘universe of objects’, even if the universe contains just one
object.

From
the axioms, we may introduce two rules of inference.

(i) *Identity
introduction* (=I)

At
any stage of a proof, one introduce ‘a = a’ as a logical truth which rests upon
no assumptions.

Justification:
Everything is identical with itself as a matter of logic, so ‘a = a’ need rest
on no assumptions.

(ii)
*Identity elimination* (=E)

If,
as assumptions or derived formulae, ‘Fa’ and ‘a = b’, then one may derive ‘Fb’,
resting upon all assumptions upon which ‘Fa’
and ‘a = b’ rest.

Justification:
Since identities share all properties, if a = b, then b has any properties a
does.

Since
these rules simply encode our axioms, we should be able to derive the axioms as
theorems:

(i) ├ ("*x*)(*x *= *x*)

(1) a = a =I

(2)
("*x*)(*x *= *x*) 1UI

(Note:
Normally, we can apply UI to an arbitrary name formula only if it rests upon no
assumptions which include the arbitrary name; thus, we can’t apply it directly
to an underived formula. Yet since the formula on
line 1 has no assumptions, we have not derived it from any assumptions about a,
so the restriction on UI isn’t in play.)

(ii)
├ ("*x*)("*y*)((*x* = *y*
& F*x*) →
F*y*)

1(1) a = b & Fa
A

1(2) a = b 1&E

1(3) Fa
1&E

1(4) Fb 2,3=E

(5) (a = b & Fa) → Fb 1,4CP

(6)
("*y*)((a
= *y* & Fa)
→ F*y*) 5UI

(7) ("*x*)("*y*)((*x* = *y*
& F*x*) →
F*y*) 6UI

(Note: Again, we can apply UI without its
restriction being applicable.)

*Examples of other
proofs*

It
follows from our axioms that ("*x*)(*x *= a → F*x*) ↔ Fa. That is, if everything which is a is
F, then a is F, and if a is F, then everything which is a is F. Thus, we should
be able to establish: ("*x*)(*x *= a → F*x*) ┤├
Fa

(i) ("*x*)(*x *= a → F*x*) ┤├ Fa

1(1)
("*x*)(*x *= a → F*x*) A

1(2) a = a → Fa 1UI

(3)
a = a =I

1(4) Fa 2,3MPP

Consider
this putative proof of the reverse entailment:

*(ii)
Fa ┤├ ("*x*)(*x *=
a → F*x*)

1 (1) Fa A

2 (2) *x*
= a A

1,2(3) F*x*
2,2=E

1 (4) *x*
= a → Fx
2,3CP

1 (5) ("*x*)(*x *=
a → F*x*) 4UI

**Q**:
There are two fundamental errors in this ‘proof’- what are they? (Hint: Think
about the difference between names and variables and the restriction on UI.)

The
correct proof is

(ii)
Fa d
("*x*)(*x *= a → F*x*)

1 (1) Fa A

2 (2) b = a A

1,2(3) Fb 1,2=E

1 (4) b = a → Fb 2,3CP

1 (5) ("*x*)(*x *=
a → F*x*) 4UI

Study
the difference between the proofs -most enlightening on the application of UI.

**Q**:
Prove the following:

(i) b = c & c = a ┤├
b = c

(ii)
a = b ┤├ Fa ↔ Fb

(iii)
a = b ┤├ a =a ↔ c = b