more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
With semantic tableaux there are recipes for proof-construction that we can operate, whereas with natural deduction there are not.
Gist of Idea
Unlike natural deduction, semantic tableaux have recipes for proving things
Source
David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 6.5)
Book Ref
Bostock,David: 'Intermediate Logic' [OUP 1997], p.269
Related Idea
Idea 13758 In natural deduction we work from the premisses and the conclusion, hoping to meet in the middle [Bostock]
| 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] |