Prenex normal form is a way of writing formulas in predicate logic such that all quantifiers appear at the beginning followed by a quantifier-free part. Every formula has a logically equivalent formula in prenex normal form. Formulas can be converted to prenex normal form through rules that move quantifiers past connectives like conjunction, disjunction, negation and implication. Not all formulas have an intuitionistically equivalent prenex form due to differences in how implication is interpreted. Prenex normal form is useful for proof calculi and developing logical hierarchies.
Prenex normal form is a way of writing formulas in predicate logic such that all quantifiers appear at the beginning followed by a quantifier-free part. Every formula has a logically equivalent formula in prenex normal form. Formulas can be converted to prenex normal form through rules that move quantifiers past connectives like conjunction, disjunction, negation and implication. Not all formulas have an intuitionistically equivalent prenex form due to differences in how implication is interpreted. Prenex normal form is useful for proof calculi and developing logical hierarchies.
Prenex normal form is a way of writing formulas in predicate logic such that all quantifiers appear at the beginning followed by a quantifier-free part. Every formula has a logically equivalent formula in prenex normal form. Formulas can be converted to prenex normal form through rules that move quantifiers past connectives like conjunction, disjunction, negation and implication. Not all formulas have an intuitionistically equivalent prenex form due to differences in how implication is interpreted. Prenex normal form is useful for proof calculi and developing logical hierarchies.
Prenex normal form is a way of writing formulas in predicate logic such that all quantifiers appear at the beginning followed by a quantifier-free part. Every formula has a logically equivalent formula in prenex normal form. Formulas can be converted to prenex normal form through rules that move quantifiers past connectives like conjunction, disjunction, negation and implication. Not all formulas have an intuitionistically equivalent prenex form due to differences in how implication is interpreted. Prenex normal form is useful for proof calculi and developing logical hierarchies.
A formula of the predicate calculus is in prenex[1] normal form if it is written as a string of quantiers (referred to as the prex) followed by a quantier-free part (referred to as the matrix). Every formula in classical logic is equivalent to a formula in prenex normal form. For example, if (y) , (z) , and (x) are quantier-free formulas with the free variables shown then
xyz((y) ((z) (x)))
is in prenex normal form with matrix (y) ((z) (x)) , while
x((y(y)) ((z(z)) (x)))
is logically equivalent but not in prenex normal form.
1 Conversion to prenex form
Every rst-order formula is logically equivalent (in classical logic) to some formula in prenex normal form. There are several conversion rules that can be recursively applied to convert a formula to prenex normal form. The rules depend on which logical connectives appear in the formula.
1.1 Conjunction and disjunction
The rules for conjunction and disjunction say that
(x) is equivalent to x( ) , (x) is equivalent to x( ) ;
and
(x) is equivalent to x( ) , (x) is equivalent to x( ) .
The equivalences are valid when x does not appear as a free variable of ; if x does appear free in , one can rename the bound x in (x) and obtain the equivalent (x [x/x ]) . For example, in the language of rings,
(x(x2 = 1)) (0 = y) is equivalent to x(x2 = 1 0 = y) ,
but
(x(x2 = 1)) (0 = x) is not equivalent to x(x2 = 1 0 = x)
because the formula on the left is true in any ring when the free variable x is equal to 0, while the formula on the right has no free variables and is false in any nontrivial ring. So (x(x2 = 1)) (0 = x) will be rst rewritten as (x (x2 = 1)) (0 = x) and then put in prenex normal form x (x2 = 1 0 = x) .
1 2 1 CONVERSION TO PRENEX FORM
1.2 Negation The rules for negation say that
x is equivalent to x
and
x is equivalent to x .
1.3 Implication There are four rules for implication: two that remove quantiers from the antecedent and two that remove quantiers from the consequent. These rules can be derived by rewriting the implication as and applying the rules for disjunction above. As with the rules for disjunction, these rules require that the variable quantied in one subformula does not appear free in the other subformula. The rules for removing quantiers from the antecedent are:
(x) is equivalent to x( ) , (x) is equivalent to x( ) .
The rules for removing quantiers from the consequent are:
(x) is equivalent to x( ) , (x) is equivalent to x( ) .
1.4 Example Suppose that , , and are quantier-free formulas and no two of these formulas share any free variable. Consider the formula
( x) z
By recursively applying the rules starting at the innermost subformulas, the following sequence of logically equivalent formulas can be obtained:
( x) z
(x( )) z (x( )) z (x( )) z x(( ) z) x(( ) z) x(z(( ) )) xz(( ) ) This is not the only prenex form equivalent to the original formula. For example, by dealing with the consequent before the antecedent in the example above, the prenex form
zx(( ) ) 1.5 Intuitionistic logic 3
can be obtained:
z(( x) ) z((x( )) ) z(x(( ) )) zx(( ) )
1.5 Intuitionistic logic
The rules for converting a formula to prenex form make heavy use of classical logic. In intuitionistic logic, it is not true that every formula is logically equivalent to a prenex formula. The negation connective is one obstacle, but not the only one. The implication operator is also treated dierently in intuitionistic logic than classical logic; in intuitionistic logic, it is not denable using disjunction and negation. The BHK interpretation illustrates why some formulas have no intuitionistically-equivalent prenex form. In this interpretation, a proof of
(x) y (1) is a function which, given a concrete x and a proof of (x) , produces a concrete y and a proof of (y). In this case it is allowable for the value of y to be computed from the given value of x. A proof of
y(x ), (2) on the other hand, produces a single concrete value of y and a function that converts any proof of x into a proof of (y). If each x satisfying can be used to construct a y satisfying but no such y can be constructed without knowledge of such an x then formula (1) will not be equivalent to formula (2). The rules for converting a formula to prenex form that do fail in intuitionistic logic are:
(x does not appear as a free variable of in (1) and (3); x does not appear as a free variable of in (2) and (4)).
2 Use of prenex form
Some proof calculi will only deal with a theory whose formulae are written in prenex normal form. The concept is essential for developing the arithmetical hierarchy and the analytical hierarchy. Gdel's proof of his completeness theorem for rst-order logic presupposes that all formulae have been recast in prenex normal form.
3 See also Herbrandization Skolemization Arithmetical hierarchy 4 5 REFERENCES
4 Notes [1] The term 'prenex' comes from the Latin praenexus tied or bound up in front, past participle of praenectere (archived as of May 27, 2011 at )
5 References Hinman, P. (2005), Fundamentals of Mathematical Logic, A K Peters, ISBN 978-1-56881-262-5 5
6 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses
6.1 Text Prenex normal form Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenex_normal_form?oldid=783966640 Contributors: The Anome, Michael Hardy, AugPi, Charles Matthews, Dysprosia, Greenrd, Pfortuny, Gandalf61, Lockeownzj00, 4pq1injbok, Fuxx, Oleg Alexandrov, Joriki, Linas, MattGiuca, BD2412, Reetep, Jayme, PhS, SmackBot, Mhss, Esoth~enwiki, CRGreathouse, CBM, Thijs!bot, Jakob.scholbach, Toobaz, AlleborgoBot, SieBot, IsleLaMotte, PixelBot, Addbot, SamatBot, Coreyoconnor, AnomieBOT, Omnipaedista, Epiglottisz, Wik- itanvirBot, Jimw338 and Anonymous: 22
