consequence operator
1 Definition
Let be a set. A consequence operator on is a
mapping11Here, ββ denotes the power set and
denotes the finite power set.
which satisfies the following three properties:
-
1.
For all , it happens that .
-
2.
-
3.
For all , if , then
If, in addition, the following condition is satisfied, then a consequence operator is known as finitary . (Synonyms are βfinite consequence operatorβ and βalgebraic consequence operatorβ.)
-
β’
For all , it happens that .
It is worth noting that, if the above condition is satisfied, then the third condition of last paragraph becomes superfluous β as shown in http://planetmath.org/node/ 8678an attachment, it automatically follows from conitions 1 and 2 of last paragraph and the condition stated above.
A consequence operator such that is called axiomless. A consequence operator such that is called axiomatic.
2 Motivation
Alfred Tarksi introduced consequence operators as a way of discussing the
notion of conclusions following from premises in a general fashion. Suppose
that the set consists of statements in some language
. Then, given a
set of statements , let be the set of all statements which can be
inferred form statements of .
The defining properties of βconsequence operatorβ given above then express
some fundamental facts about the process of inferring conclusions from
premises: Any statement can be concluded from itself. If a statement
follows from a set of premises and is a superset of , then
also follows from . If one augments a set of premises by conclusions
derived from those premises, then one can only draw conclusions from the
larger set which could have been drawn from the original set of premises.
Note that these conditions hold for a large class of logics, not just
classical logic of Aristotle, Boole, and Frege. However, they do not hold
for all logics β in particular, there are the so-called nonmonotonic
logics in which it is not always the case that, if , then
.
In terms of this usage in logic, it is easy to understand the origin of the
terms βaxiomaticβ and βaxiomlessβ. An axiom in a logical theory is a
statement which is assumed true without having to prove it from any other
statement. Hence, an axiom is a consequence of the empty set, so we call
consequence operators which allow one to deduce conclusions from an empty
set of premises axiomatic.
The distinction of finitary consequence operators has to do with whether one
is permitted to draw a conclusion from an infinite set of premises which
could not be drawn from any finite subset thereof. As for why one might
want to do this, consider the following example. Suppose consists of
the following statements:
-
β’
-
β’
-
β’
-
β’
-
β’
-
β’
-
β’
-
β’
-
β’
-
β’
-
β’
-
β’
-
β’
-
β’
-
β’
From one would like to be able to draw the conclusion βAny positive
integer can be expressed as the sum of at most four squares.β. This
conclusion, however, cannot be inferred from any proper subset of , in
particular, from any finite subset of . To make this conclusion would
require a consequence operator which is not finitary.
3 Examples
-
1.
To begin, there are two trivial consequence operators defined on any set. One is the identity operator defined as . The other is the constant operator defined as . It is perfectly straightforward to check that these two operators satisfy the defining properties of consequence operator and, furthermore, that they are both finitary consequence operators and that is axiomless whilst is axiomatic. Trivial though they may be, these operators play an important role as exrtremal elements in the lattice
of all consequence operators over a given set.
-
2.
Next, we consider some less trivial consequence operators which can be defined over an arbitrary set. Let and be any two subsets of . Then we may define operators and as follows:
It is shown that these are indeed consequence operators in an attachment to this entry.
-
3.
A much larger class of consequence operators may be defined as follows. Let be a subset of which includes . Then, as shown in an http://planetmath.org/node/8671attachment, the map , defined as
is a consequence operator. As we shall see, all consequence operators can be obtained by this construction. In particular, the examples discussed above can be obtained as follows: To obtain , set ; to obtain , set ; to obtain , set
to obtain , set
-
4.
Turning to more specific examples, we have the example which inspired the definintion in the first place. Let be a set of logical expressions constructed from some set of sentence
letters and predicate
letters and the usual connectives
and quantifiers
. Given a subset , let be the set of all expressions for which there exists a finite set
of expressions such that is a tautology
. Note that this is a finitary consequence operator β it does not enable one to make the sort of deductions
from infinite sets of premises described above.
-
5.
This notion of consequence operator also applies to areas of mathematics other than logic. For instance, suppose that is a vector space
. Then the operator which assigns to a subset of the vector subspace which it spans is a consequence operator. This particular consequence operator is finitary because if a vector belongs to the span of a set , then can be expressed as a linear combination
of a finite number of elements of .
-
6.
The closure operator
in topology
is a consequence operator. It is worth pointing out that not every consequence operator can be expressed as the closure operator for some topology because the closure operator satisfies some extra conditions beyond those which define consequence operators. Typically, the closure operator is not finitary because infinite subsets of topological spaces may have limit points
.
4 Alternative Definition and Generalization
A consequence operator can be characterized by its fixed points. Given
a consequence operator ,
set . By the second defining
property of consequence operator, we have .
One can show that
Conversely, suppose that is a subset of with the following minimum property:
-
β’
For every , there exists a such that and if, for any , if , then .
Then the operator defined as
is a consequence operator with as its set of fixed points.
One may also define consequence operators in the more general context of
a partially ordered set which may not be the power set of any set. Suppose
that is a partially ordered set. Then we may define
a consequence operator on this ordered set to be a map
which satisfies the following three properties:
-
1.
For all , it happens that .
-
2.
-
3.
For all , if , then
Such more general consequence operators arise frequently when we restrict
attention to distinguished subsets of a set. As an example, we may consider
the following situation. Let be the set of linear subspaces of a Banach
space, ordered by inclusion. Then the operator which
assigns to each subspace its Cauchy completion is a consequence operator.
As an example which does not arise this way, let with the usual order. Then the ceiling function is a consequence operator.
For another example, let be the set of all fields
with a countable number of elements. This set may be ordered as follows:
if and only if there exists a non-trivial morphism of into . Then the operator which sends each field to its algebraic closure is a
consequence operator.
Title | consequence operator |
Canonical name | ConsequenceOperator |
Date of creation | 2013-03-22 16:28:48 |
Last modified on | 2013-03-22 16:28:48 |
Owner | rspuzio (6075) |
Last modified by | rspuzio (6075) |
Numerical id | 40 |
Author | rspuzio (6075) |
Entry type | Definition |
Classification | msc 03G25 |
Classification | msc 03G10 |
Classification | msc 03B22 |
Synonym | closure operator |
Defines | finitary consequence operator |
Defines | finite consequence operator |
Defines | algebraic consequence operator |
Defines | axiomatic consequence operator |
Defines | axiomless consequence operator |