more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
A tableau proof is a proof by reduction ad absurdum. One begins with an assumption, and one develops the consequences of that assumption, seeking to derive an impossible consequence.
Gist of Idea
Tableau proofs use reduction - seeking an impossible consequence from an assumption
Source
David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 4.1)
Book Ref
Bostock,David: 'Intermediate Logic' [OUP 1997], p.141
| 13611 | Tableau proofs use reduction - seeking an impossible consequence from an assumption [Bostock] |
| 13612 | Non-branching rules add lines, and branching rules need a split; a branch with a contradiction is 'closed' [Bostock] |
| 13613 | A completed open branch gives an interpretation which verifies those formulae [Bostock] |
| 13756 | A tree proof becomes too broad if its only rule is Modus Ponens [Bostock] |
| 13757 | Unlike natural deduction, semantic tableaux have recipes for proving things [Bostock] |
| 13762 | Tableau rules are all elimination rules, gradually shortening formulae [Bostock] |
| 13761 | In a tableau proof no sequence is established until the final branch is closed; hypotheses are explored [Bostock] |
| 7790 | If an argument is invalid, a truth tree will indicate a counter-example [Girle] |