We say that a set of formulas F₁, F₂, ..., F_n entails a formula G, written F₁ &and F₂ &and ... &and F_n ⊨ G, or that G is a logical consequence of the F_i, iff G is true in any interpretation where F₁ &and F₂ &and ... &and F_n is true. This is equivalent to saying that F₁ &and F₂ &and ... &and F_n &rarr G is valid.[The fact that &alpha ⊨ &beta iff &alpha &rarr &beta is valid is called the deduction theorem.]

F₁ &and F₂ &and ... &and F_n &rarr G is valid iff F₁ &and F₂ &and ... &and F_n &and ¬ G is inconsistent.

Proof: ¬ (F &rarr G) = ¬ (¬ F &or G) = (F &and ¬ G).

Note that anything is a logical consequence of □ (or an inconsistent set of clauses).

Proof: □ &rarr X = ¬ □ &or X = True &or X = True.

Thus, if the result that is derived from a set of clauses is to be meaningful, the set of clauses must be consistent.

We could prove that a formula G follows from formulas F_i by truth table, or by algebraically reducing one of the logical consequence formulas to true (false) as in the example above.

Contents    Page-10    Prev    Next    Page+10    Index