SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 1503.01412

Herbrand's Fundamental Theorem - an encyclopedia article

Abstract

Herbrand's Fundamental Theorem provides a constructive characterization of derivability in first-order predicate logic by means of sentential logic. Sometimes it is simply called "Herbrand's Theorem", but the longer name is preferable as there are other important "Herbrand theorems" and Herbrand himself called it "Th\'eor\`eme fondamental". It was ranked by Bernays [1957] as follows: "In its proof-theoretic form, Herbrand's Theorem can be seen as the central theorem of predicate logic. It expresses the relation of predicate logic to propositional logic in a concise and felicitous form." And by Heijenoort [1967]: "Let me say simply, in conclusion, that Begriffsschrift [Frege, 1879], L\"owenheim's paper [1915], and Chapter 5 of Herbrand's thesis [1930] are the three cornerstones of modern logic." Herbrand's Fundamental Theorem occurs in Chapter 5 of his PhD thesis [1930] --- entitled Recherches sur la th\'eorie de la d\'emonstration --- submitted by Jacques Herbrand (1908-1931) in 1929 at the University of Paris. Herbrand's Fundamental Theorem is, together with G\"odel's incompleteness theorems and Gentzen's Hauptsatz, one of the most influential theorems of modern logic. Because of its complexity, Herbrand's Fundamental Theorem is typically fouled up in textbooks beyond all recognition. As we are convinced that there is still much more to learn for the future from this theorem than many logicians know, we will focus on the true message and its practical impact. This requires a certain amount of streamlining of Herbrand's work, which will be compensated by some remarks on the actual historical facts.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Claus-Peter Wirth. 2015-03-04. Herbrand's Fundamental Theorem - an encyclopedia article. https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.01412

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

There is no maximal $K$-degree

The Kolmogorov complexity of a string characterize how complex it is to describe the string. If every prefix of a real $x$ is more complex to describe than every prefix (of the same length) of real $y$, then it is seen as $x$ is more complex to describe than $y$. It is wondered if there is a real $x$ so that no other reals are strictly more complex (to describe) than $x$. The behavior of Kolmogorov complexity functions generated by reals (namely $n\mapsto$ the minimal description length of the real) is quite chaos. Therefore, it is widely believed that there are many reals that are maximally complex to describe. For instance, it is conjectured that all random enough reals have maximal $K$-degree. In this paper, it is shown that there is no real with maximal $K$-degree. Actually, for almost all real $x$, we can uniformly computably find another real whose $K$-degree is strictly above $x$.

math.LO

Quadruples and cubes

We prove, in $\mathsf{ZFC}$, that the $\lambda$-terraced cube relation fails whenever $\lambda$ is an uncountable cardinal. The corresponding terraced relation for quadruples fails for every $\lambda$. If $\lambda$ is $\aleph_0$ then the pretinent terraced relation has consistency strength of at least one Woodin cardinal. We prove positive polarized relations at a successor and a double successor from wondrous ideals. We show, however, that there are no such ideals over two consecutive cardinals simultaneously.

math.LO

Possibilistic Logic over a Logic of Formal Inconsistency

In this article, we have introduced a new possibilistic logic on a logic of formal inconsistency with the aim of developing a possibility theoretic framework to deal with uncertainty and inconsistency meaningfully without leading to a system collapse. We have discussed the syntax and semantics for this logic and have proved the soundness and completeness theorems. A set of new measures of consistency, contradictoriness, and triviality of a set of formulas have been defined. These have then been put to use in an example to show that this framework can provide better means of machine reasoning.

math.LO