<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://en.formulasearchengine.com/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=84.149.209.0%2F24</id>
	<title>formulasearchengine - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://en.formulasearchengine.com/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=84.149.209.0%2F24"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://en.formulasearchengine.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.149.209.0/24"/>
	<updated>2026-07-22T22:27:20Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.47.0-wmf.7</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://en.formulasearchengine.com/w/index.php?title=Enhanced_vegetation_index&amp;diff=15875</id>
		<title>Enhanced vegetation index</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://en.formulasearchengine.com/w/index.php?title=Enhanced_vegetation_index&amp;diff=15875"/>
		<updated>2014-01-05T07:49:21Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;84.149.209.142: /* Two-band EVI */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;:&#039;&#039;In [[mathematical physics]], &#039;&#039;Hilbert system&#039;&#039; is an infrequently used term for a physical system described by a [[C*-algebra]].&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Expert-subject|Mathematics|talk=Article is a mess...|date=March 2011}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In [[logic]], especially [[mathematical logic]], a &#039;&#039;&#039;Hilbert system&#039;&#039;&#039;, sometimes called &#039;&#039;&#039;Hilbert calculus&#039;&#039;&#039; or &#039;&#039;&#039;Hilbert&amp;amp;ndash;Ackermann system&#039;&#039;&#039;, is a type of system of [[Deductive reasoning|formal deduction]] attributed to [[Gottlob Frege]]&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Máté &amp;amp; Ruzsa 1997&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Máté &amp;amp; Ruzsa 1997:129&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and [[David Hilbert]]. These [[deductive system]]s are most often studied for [[first-order logic]], but are of interest for other logics as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most variants of Hilbert systems take a characteristic tack in the way they balance a [[trade-off]] between [[logical axiom]]s and [[Rule of inference|rules of inference]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Máté &amp;amp; Ruzsa 1997&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Hilbert systems can be characterised by the choice of a large number of [[axiom schema|schemes]] of logical axioms and a small set of [[Rule of inference|rules of inference]]. Systems of [[natural deduction]] take the opposite tack, including many deduction rules but very few or no axiom schemes. The most commonly studied Hilbert systems have either just one rule of inference &amp;amp;mdash; [[modus ponens]], for [[propositional logic]]s &amp;amp;mdash; or two &amp;amp;mdash; with [[generalization (logic)|generalisation]], to handle [[predicate logic]]s, as well &amp;amp;mdash; and several infinite axiom schemes.   Hilbert systems for propositional [[modal logic]]s, sometimes called [[Hilbert-Lewis system]]s, are generally axiomatised with two additional rules, the [[necessitation rule]] and the [[uniform substitution]] rule.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A characteristic feature of the many variants of Hilbert systems is that the &#039;&#039;context&#039;&#039; is not changed in any of their rules of inference, while both [[natural deduction]] and [[sequent calculus]] contain some context-changing rules. Thus, if we are interested only in the derivability of [[tautology (logic)|tautologies]], no hypothetical judgments, then we can formalize the Hilbert system in such a way that its rules of inference contain only [[Judgment (mathematical logic)|judgment]]s of a rather simple form. The same cannot be done with the other two deductions systems: as context is changed in some of their rules of inferences, they cannot be formalized so that hypothetical judgments could be avoided — not even if we want to use them just for proving derivability of tautologies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Formal deductions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Deduction architecture.png|right|300px|A graphic representation of the deduction system]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a Hilbert-style deduction system, a &#039;&#039;&#039;formal deduction&#039;&#039;&#039; is a finite sequence of formulas in which each formula is either an axiom or is obtained from previous formulas by a rule of inference. These formal deductions are meant to mirror natural-language proofs, although they are far more detailed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Suppose &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\Gamma&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a set of formulas, considered as &#039;&#039;&#039;hypotheses&#039;&#039;&#039;. For example &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\Gamma&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; could be a set of axioms for [[group theory]] or [[set theory]]. The notation &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\Gamma \vdash \phi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; means that there is a deduction that ends with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\phi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; using as axioms only &#039;&#039;&#039;logical axioms&#039;&#039;&#039; and elements of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\Gamma&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Thus, informally, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\Gamma \vdash \phi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; means that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\phi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is provable assuming all the formulas in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\Gamma&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hilbert-style deduction systems are characterized by the use of numerous schemes of &#039;&#039;&#039;logical axioms&#039;&#039;&#039;. An [[axiom scheme]] is an infinite set of axioms obtained by substituting all formulas of some form into a specific pattern. The set of logical axioms includes not only those axioms generated from this pattern, but also any generalization of one of those axioms.  A generalization of a formula is obtained by prefixing zero or more universal quantifiers on the formula; thus&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\forall y ( \forall x Pxy \to Pty)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
is a generalization of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\forall x Pxy \to Pty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Logical axioms ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are several variant axiomatisations of predicate logic, since for any logic there is freedom in choosing axioms and rules that characterise that logic.  We describe here a Hilbert system with nine axioms and just the rule modus ponens, which we call the one-rule axiomatisation and which describes classical equational logic.  We deal with a minimal language for this logic, where formulas use only the connectives &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\lnot&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\to&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and only the quantifier &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\forall&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Later we show how the system can be extended to include additional logical connectives, such as &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\land&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\lor&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, without enlarging the class of deducible formulas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first four logical axiom schemes allow (together with modus ponens) for the manipulation of logical connectives.&lt;br /&gt;
:P1. &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\phi \to \phi  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:P2. &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\phi \to \left( \psi \to \phi \right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:P3. &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\left ( \phi \to ( \psi \rightarrow \xi \right)) \to \left( \left( \phi \to \psi \right) \to  \left( \phi \to \xi \right) \right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:P4. &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\left ( \lnot \phi \to \lnot \psi \right) \to \left( \psi \to \phi \right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The axiom P1 is redundant, as it follows from P3, P2 and modus ponens.  These axioms describe [[classical propositional logic]]; without axiom P4 we get [[minimal logic]]. [[Intuitionistic logic]] is achieved by adding instead the axiom P4i for ex falso quodlibet, which is an axiom of classical propositional logic.&lt;br /&gt;
:P4i. &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\lnot\phi \to \left( \phi \to \psi \right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note that these are axiom schemes, which represent infinitely many specific instances of axioms.  For example, P1 might represent the particular axiom instance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p \to p  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, or it might represent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\left( p \to q \right) \to \left( p \to q \right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\phi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a place where any formula can be placed.  A variable such as this that ranges over formulae is called a &#039;schematic variable&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With a second rule of [[uniform substitution]] (US), we can change each of these axiom schemes into a single axiom, replacing each schematic variable by some propositional variable that isn&#039;t mentioned in any axiom to get what we call the substitutional axiomatisation.  Both formalisations have variables, but where the one-rule axiomatisation has schematic variables that are outside the logic&#039;s language, the substitutional axiomatisation uses propositional variables that do the same work by expressing the idea of a variable ranging over formulae with a rule that uses substitution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:US. Let &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\phi(p)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; be a formula with one or more instances of the propositional variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and let &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\psi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; be another formula.  Then from &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\phi(p)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, infer &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\phi(\psi)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next three logical axiom schemes provide ways to add, manipulate, and remove universal quantifiers.&lt;br /&gt;
:Q5. &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \forall x \left( \phi \right) \to \phi[x:=t]&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; where &#039;&#039;t&#039;&#039; may be substituted for &#039;&#039;x&#039;&#039; in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\,\!\phi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:Q6. &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\forall x \left( \phi \to \psi \right) \to \left( \forall x \left( \phi \right) \to \forall x \left( \psi \right) \right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:Q7. &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \phi \to \forall x \left( \phi \right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; where &#039;&#039;x&#039;&#039; is not a [[free variable]] of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\,\!\phi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These three additional rules extend the propositional system to axiomatise [[classical predicate logic]].  Likewise, these three rules extend system for intuitionstic propositional logic (with P1-3 and P4i)  to [[intuitionistic predicate logic]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Universal quantification is often given an alternative axiomatisation using an extra rule of generalisation (see the section on Metatheorems), in which case the rules Q5 and Q6 are redundant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The final axiom schemes are required to work with formulas involving the equality symbol.&lt;br /&gt;
:I8. &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x = x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; for every variable &#039;&#039;x&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
:I9. &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\left( x = y \right) \to \left( \phi[z:=x] \to \phi[z:=y] \right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Conservative extensions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is common to include in a Hilbert-style deduction system only axioms for implication and negation. Given these axioms, it is possible to form [[conservative extension]]s of the [[deduction theorem]] that permit the use of additional connectives. These extensions are called conservative because if a formula φ involving new connectives is rewritten as a [[Logical equivalence|logically equivalent]] formula θ involving only negation, implication, and universal quantification, then φ is derivable in the extended system if and only if θ is derivable in the original system. When fully extended, a Hilbert-style system will resemble more closely a system of [[natural deduction]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Existential quantification ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Introduction&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \forall x(\phi \to \exists y(\phi[x:=y])) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Elimination&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \forall x(\phi \to \psi) \to \exists x(\phi) \to \psi &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is not a [[free variable]] of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\psi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Conjunction and Disjunction ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Conjunction introduction and elimination&lt;br /&gt;
:introduction: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \alpha\to\beta\to\alpha\land\beta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:elimination left: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \alpha\wedge\beta\to\alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:elimination right: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \alpha\wedge\beta\to\beta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Disjunction introduction and elimination&lt;br /&gt;
:introduction left: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \alpha\to\alpha\vee\beta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:introduction right: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \beta\to\alpha\vee\beta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:elimination: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; (\alpha\to\gamma)\to (\beta\to\gamma) \to \alpha\vee\beta \to \gamma &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Metatheorems ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because Hilbert-style systems have very few deduction rules, it is common to prove &#039;&#039;&#039;metatheorems&#039;&#039;&#039; that show that additional deduction rules add no deductive power, in the sense that a deduction using the new deduction rules can be converted into a deduction using only the original deduction rules.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some common metatheorems of this form are:&lt;br /&gt;
* The &#039;&#039;&#039;deduction theorem&#039;&#039;&#039;: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\Gamma;\phi \vdash \psi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; if and only if &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\Gamma \vdash \phi \to \psi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\Gamma \vdash \phi \leftrightarrow \psi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; if and only if &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\Gamma \vdash \phi \to \psi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\Gamma \vdash \psi \to \phi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Contraposition: If &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\Gamma;\phi \vdash \psi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; then &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\Gamma;\lnot \psi \vdash \lnot \phi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Generalization: If &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\Gamma \vdash \phi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &#039;&#039;x&#039;&#039; does not occur free in any formula of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\Gamma&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; then &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\Gamma \vdash \forall x \phi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Alternative axiomatizations ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{see|List of logic systems}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The axiom 3 above is credited to [[Jan Łukasiewicz|Łukasiewicz]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tarski&amp;quot;&amp;gt;A. Tarski, Logic, semantics, metamathematics, Oxford, 1956&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The original system by [[Gottlob Frege|Frege]] had axioms P2 and P3 but four other axioms instead of axiom P4 (see [[Frege&#039;s propositional calculus]]).&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bertrand Russell|Russell]] and [[Alfred North Whitehead|Whitehead]] also suggested a system with five propositional axioms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Further connections ==&amp;lt;!-- This section is linked from [[Associativity]] --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Axioms P1, P2 and P3, with the deduction rule modus ponens (formalising [[intuitionistic propositional logic]]), correspond to [[combinatory logic]] base combinators &#039;&#039;&#039;I&#039;&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;&#039;K&#039;&#039;&#039; and &#039;&#039;&#039;S&#039;&#039;&#039; with the application operator. Proofs in the Hilbert system then correspond to combinator terms in combinatory logic.  See also [[Curry-Howard correspondence]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Notes ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{cite book&lt;br /&gt;
| last      = Curry&lt;br /&gt;
| first     = Haskell B.&lt;br /&gt;
| coauthors = Robert Feys&lt;br /&gt;
| title     = Combinatory Logic Vol. I&lt;br /&gt;
| volume    = 1&lt;br /&gt;
| year      = 1958&lt;br /&gt;
| publisher = North Holland&lt;br /&gt;
| location  = Amsterdam&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
* {{Cite book | last1=Monk | first1=J. Donald | title=Mathematical Logic | publisher=[[Springer-Verlag]] | location=Berlin, New York | series=Graduate Texts in Mathematics | isbn=978-0-387-90170-1 | year=1976 | postscript=.}}&lt;br /&gt;
* {{cite book |last=Ruzsa |first=Imre |coauthors=Máté, András |title=Bevezetés a modern logikába |publisher=Osiris Kiadó |location=Budapest |year=1997 |language=Hungarian}}&lt;br /&gt;
* {{cite book |last=Tarski |first=Alfred |title=Bizonyítás és igazság |publisher=Gondolat |location=Budapest |year=1990 |language=Hungarian}} It is a Hungarian translation of [[Alfred Tarski]]&#039;s selected papers on [[semantic theory of truth]].&lt;br /&gt;
*David Hilbert (1927) &amp;quot;The foundations of mathematics&amp;quot;, translated by Stephan Bauer-Menglerberg and Dagfinn Føllesdal (pp.&amp;amp;nbsp;464&amp;amp;ndash;479).  in:&lt;br /&gt;
** {{cite book&lt;br /&gt;
| last      = van Heijenoort&lt;br /&gt;
| first     = Jean&lt;br /&gt;
| title     = From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879&amp;amp;ndash;1931&lt;br /&gt;
| year      = 1967, 3rd printing 1976&lt;br /&gt;
| publisher = Harvard University Press&lt;br /&gt;
| location  = Cambridge MA&lt;br /&gt;
| isbn  = 0-674-32449-8 (pbk.)}}&lt;br /&gt;
:: Hilbert&#039;s 1927, Based on an earlier 1925 &amp;quot;foundations&amp;quot; lecture (pp. 367&amp;amp;ndash;392), presents his 17 axioms -- axioms of implication #1-4, axioms about &amp;amp; and V #5-10, axioms of negation #11-12, his logical ε-axiom #13, axioms of equality #14-15, and axioms of number #16-17 -- along with the other necessary elements of his Formalist &amp;quot;proof theory&amp;quot; -- e.g. induction axioms, recursion axioms, etc; he also offers up a spirited defense against L.E.J. Brouwer&#039;s Intuitionism. Also see  Hermann Weyl&#039;s (1927) comments and rebuttal (pp. 480&amp;amp;ndash;484), Paul Bernay&#039;s (1927) appendix to Hilbert&#039;s lecture (pp. 485&amp;amp;ndash;489) and Luitzen Egbertus Jan Brouwer&#039;s (1927) response (pp. 490&amp;amp;ndash;495)&lt;br /&gt;
* {{cite book&lt;br /&gt;
| last      = Kleene&lt;br /&gt;
| first     = Stephen Cole&lt;br /&gt;
| title     = Introduction to Metamathematics&lt;br /&gt;
| year      = 1952, 10th impression with 1971 corrections&lt;br /&gt;
| publisher = North Holland Publishing Company&lt;br /&gt;
| location  = Amsterdam NY&lt;br /&gt;
| isbn  = 0-7204-2103-9}}&lt;br /&gt;
::See in particular Chapter IV Formal System (pp. 69&amp;amp;ndash;85) wherein Kleene presents subchapters §16 Formal symbols, §17 Formation rules, §18 Free and bound variables (including substitution), §19 Transformation rules (e.g. modus ponens) -- and from these he presents 21 &amp;quot;postulates&amp;quot; -- 18 axioms and 3 &amp;quot;immediate-consequence&amp;quot; relations divided as follows: Postulates for the propostional calculus #1-8, Additional postulates for the predicate calculus #9-12, and Additional postulates for number theory #13-21.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== External links ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{cite web |last=Farmer |first=W. M |title=Propositional logic |url=http://imps.mcmaster.ca/courses/SE-2F03-05/slides/02-prop-logic.pdf |format=pdf}} It describes (among others) a part of the Hilbert-style deduction system (restricted to [[propositional calculus]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Hilbert System}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Proof theory]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Logical calculi]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Automated theorem proving]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>84.149.209.142</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>