Intuitive Semantics for First-Degree Entailment and ‘Coupled Trees’

Abstract

Classically, an argument A therefore B is ‘valid’ (or A is said to ‘entail’ B) if and only if (iff) each situation (model) is such that either A is false or B is true. This fits well with so-called ‘tableau’ methods for showing that A entails B by working out the mutual inconsistency of A and ~B. But both the classical notion of validity and the corresponding tableau methods allow that A may entail B because of some feature of A alone, irrespective of B, and vice versa. Thus if A is a contradiction, then each situation is such that A is false, and so a fortiori is such that A is false or B is true. And if A is a contradiction, then a tableau construction will show that A is inconsistent, and so a fortiori that A and ~B are inconsistent. Of course, the same points can be made dually when B is a logical truth.