Completeness
Named by 10 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
The tree that closes
To prove a formula, assume it false and take it apart. Every branch ends in a contradiction, or one of them describes exactly how it could have been false — and either way the tree is the answer, drawn.
A proof with one rule
Two clauses that disagree about exactly one variable can be combined into a third that forgets it; repeat, and if the clauses cannot all be true the empty clause eventually appears — a complete proof system with a single move.
Worlds built out of sentences
A Kripke model needs worlds, and nothing so far has said where worlds come from. They can be made of the syntax: a world is a set of formulas it commits to, one world sees another when the boxed commitments line up, and in the model that results every formula is true exactly where it was assumed.
How many worlds a formula can need
A modal formula can be true in a model with infinitely many worlds. It can also be true in a small one — and the small one is built from the large one by throwing away every distinction the formula was never able to make.
The assumption a proof pays back
A tableau assumes the opposite once and takes it apart. Natural deduction assumes things freely, uses them, and then withdraws them — and the withdrawal is what turns a derivation of a consequence into a proof of an implication.
A lemma, and the proof that never mentions one
Proving something by first proving a lemma is what makes mathematics readable, and it is exactly what makes a proof system impossible to search — because the lemma can be any formula at all. Gentzen proved the step can always be removed, and the removal is not free.
The instance that has to be guessed
Every rule of a propositional tableau replaces a formula by shorter ones, which is why it stops. The rule for a universal claim does not replace it — it keeps it and adds an instance — and one word changing turns a decision procedure into a search that may run forever.
A countable field that passes for the line
The real numbers are uncountable, and every first-order sentence about their addition, multiplication and order is also true of a countable field inside them — the real algebraic numbers. Löwenheim and Skolem showed this is no quirk of the reals: every theory with an infinite model has a countable one, including set theory, which then contains sets it calls uncountable.
Arithmetic with addition alone
Over the real numbers, a quantifier's shadow is described by inequalities. Over the whole numbers with addition and multiplication, a shadow can be any set a computer can list. In between lies arithmetic with addition and no multiplication, and there the shadows are always the same kind of thing: a finite exception, then a pattern that repeats. The whole numbers made from coins worth 6, 9 and 20 are every number from 44 on; the squares, which need multiplication, never repeat at all.
The zigzags a formula can draw
Let truth be any number from 0 to 1, and Łukasiewicz's connectives turn every formula in one variable into a graph. Every graph that appears is a zigzag of straight pieces with whole-number slopes, ending at 0 or 1 — and McNaughton proved in 1951 that every such zigzag appears. A logic of degrees of truth turns out to be a theory of piecewise-linear functions with integer coefficients.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Decision procedureProof systemSoundnessTableauQuantifierSatisfiabilityBranchingKripke modelLiteralModal logicModelNatural deduction