Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Atomic formula

In , an is the most basic , constructed by applying an n-ary symbol to exactly n terms or by asserting between two terms. Terms themselves are either constant symbols, symbols, or function symbols applied to appropriate numbers of terms, allowing atomic formulas to express simple assertions about objects in a domain, such as P(c, x) where P is a , c a constant, and x a . These formulas form the foundational building blocks from which all complex formulas are recursively built using logical connectives (like , , and disjunction) and quantifiers ( and existential). Atomic formulas play a central role in the syntax and semantics of , enabling the precise formalization of mathematical and philosophical statements about relations and identities among entities. For instance, in languages with equality, atomic formulas include expressions like t_1 = t_2, which denote that two terms refer to the same object, a feature essential for theories involving , such as those in or arithmetic. Unlike compound formulas, atomic formulas contain no nested structure beyond their constituent terms and lack free logical operators, making their truth values directly interpretable in models via assignments to predicates and interpretations of terms. The concept of atomic formulas emerged in the development of modern logic during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, formalized by figures like and as part of efforts to rigorize , distinguishing from propositional logic where "atomic" simply refers to indivisible propositional variables without terms or predicates. This distinction underscores 's greater expressive power for quantifying over objects and relations, foundational to fields like , , and database query languages.

Fundamentals

Definition

In , an is a (WFF) that contains no logical connectives, quantifiers, or subformulas, rendering it indivisible and serving as the fundamental building block for constructing more complex logical expressions. This simplicity ensures that atomic formulas represent the most basic assertions or relations within a , without internal decomposition into simpler components. Unlike molecular or formulas, which arise from combining atomic formulas through operations such as (\wedge), disjunction (\vee), or (\neg), atomic formulas stand alone as primitive units. This distinction underscores their role as the irreducible elements from which all other formulas are recursively built in logical languages. The terminology "atomic" traces its origin to and Alfred North Whitehead's (1910–1913), where the authors employed the concept of "atomic propositions" to highlight their indecomposable in the foundations of mathematics and logic. In the general syntax of formal languages, an atomic formula takes the form of either a propositional variable, as in propositional logic, or a applied to terms, as in .

Role in Logical Formulas

Atomic formulas constitute the foundational building blocks of logical systems, serving as the primitive units from which all compound formulas are constructed through the application of logical connectives in propositional logic and quantifiers in extensions. This base-level role ensures that complex expressions, such as implications or statements, ultimately reduce to combinations of these indivisible atoms, providing a structured for . The construction of logical formulas is defined inductively, with atomic formulas forming the initial case of the recursion. For instance, atomic propositions like p or q qualify as formulas, and if A and B are formulas, then expressions such as (A \land B) or \neg A are also formulas, built by applying connectives to prior levels. This recursive process, often formalized through unique readability theorems, guarantees that every formula has a finite decomposition into atomic components, enabling precise syntactic and manipulation in formal derivations. In , atomic formulas are essential as the core propositions that are asserted, denied, or assumed in deductions, forming the basis for truth-functional composition via inference rules like . They represent the minimal units of assertion in axiomatic systems, where compound proofs emerge from applying connectives to these atoms, ensuring and in deriving theorems from premises. Unlike formulas, which exhibit internal logical structure amenable to through , atomic formulas have no deeper propositional content and cannot be further subdivided or examined for subcomponents. Their simplicity allows direct evaluation via truth assignments or model interpretations, without recourse to connective-based reasoning.

Propositional Logic

Syntax of Atomic Formulas

In propositional logic, atomic formulas serve as the fundamental units from which all more complex expressions are constructed. These atomic formulas are simply propositional variables, typically denoted by lowercase letters such as p, q, r, possibly with subscripts (e.g., p_1, q_2) to distinguish multiple instances, drawn from a of propositional symbols. Unlike predicates in higher-order logics, propositional atomic formulas possess no internal structure, arguments, or dependencies on terms or functions; they stand alone as indivisible assertions that represent basic propositions without further decomposition. This simplicity ensures that atomic formulas capture elementary statements, such as "it is raining" or "the switch is on," abstracted to symbolic form without embedding additional logical content. Regarding well-formedness, any single propositional variable qualifies as a well-formed formula (WFF) in propositional logic, requiring no additional syntactic elements like parentheses or operators at this atomic level. The syntax enforces this by defining the language's alphabet to include the set of propositional variables alongside logical connectives—such as negation (\neg), conjunction (\wedge), disjunction (\vee), implication (\rightarrow), and biconditional (\leftrightarrow)—and parentheses for delimiting compound expressions. These connectives enable the combination of atomic formulas into larger well-formed structures, bridging to the formation of complex logical expressions.

Semantics and Truth Values

In propositional logic, the semantics of atomic formulas centers on their assignment of truth values through valuations, which provide the interpretive framework for evaluating formulas. A valuation, also known as a truth assignment or , is a that maps each (atomic formula) to a from the set {T, F}, where T denotes true and F denotes false. This mapping ensures that the semantics of atomic formulas are fully determined by the valuation, with no additional structure required beyond the variable's identity. Classical propositional logic adheres to bivalent semantics, meaning every receives exactly one of two under any given valuation, establishing a foundation for logical evaluation. These assignments form the basis for assessing compound formulas, as the truth value of more complex expressions is computed recursively from the atomic components using the semantics of connectives like , disjunction, and . Atomic formulas carry no inherent semantic content; their truth values depend solely on the arbitrary assignment in the valuation, allowing for flexible interpretations across different contexts. The set of all possible valuations for a language with n distinct atomic formulas comprises 2n elements, each representing a unique combination of truth assignments and serving as the rows in a to exhaustively determine a formula's . For instance, with atomic formulas p and q, the four possible valuations are:
  • v(p) = T, v(q) = T
  • v(p) = T, v(q) = F
  • v(p) = F, v(q) = T
  • v(p) = F, v(q) = F
Under any such valuation, the truth value of a compound formula like pq would be T only in the first case, illustrating how atomic assignments dictate overall semantic outcomes.

First-Order Logic

Terms and Predicates

In first-order logic, the construction of atomic formulas relies on two fundamental components: terms and predicates, which together with the signature of the language define the basic expressive vocabulary. The signature is a collection of constant symbols, function symbols, and predicate symbols, where each non-constant symbol is assigned a fixed arity indicating the number of arguments it accepts. Terms represent objects or expressions denoting potential elements of the domain and are defined inductively. The base cases consist of constant symbols (e.g., a, b), which denote specific individuals, and variable symbols (e.g., x, y), which act as placeholders for arbitrary domain elements. More complex terms are formed by applying function symbols to sequences of existing terms; for an n-ary function symbol f, the expression f(t_1, \dots, t_n) qualifies as a term if each t_i is itself a term. This inductive process ensures that terms can nest arbitrarily to express composite denotations. Predicates, or relation symbols, capture properties of or relations among and are also specified by in the . An n-place predicate symbol P of n denotes an n-ary , such as a predicate for a of single or a predicate for a between pairs of . These symbols provide the relational structure essential for expressing factual assertions in the language. Within terms used in atomic formulas, all variables are free, meaning they are unbound and range over the entire domain without restriction from quantifiers at this syntactic level. Propositional atomic formulas represent a simplified case, akin to 0-ary predicates without terms.

Structure of Atomic Formulas

In , an atomic formula is formed by applying an n-ary predicate symbol P to a sequence of n terms t_1, \dots, t_n, denoted as P(t_1, \dots, t_n), where the terms are constructed from constants, variables, and function applications as detailed in the prior section on terms and s. is also considered an atomic formula in the form t_1 = t_2, treating = as a predicate. Atomic formulas contain no logical connectives or quantifiers, ensuring their simplicity as the basic propositional units from which complex formulas are built; for instance, Loves(John, Mary) asserts a binary relation where Loves is the predicate symbol and John, Mary are constant terms. All variable occurrences within an atomic formula are free, as there are no binding mechanisms like quantifiers to restrict their scope. The syntactic structure can be formalized using a BNF-like grammar:
atom ::= P(term_1, ..., term_n) | term_1 = term_2
where P is an n-ary predicate symbol and each term_i is a term.

Advanced Contexts

Equality and Relations

In first-order logic, equality is treated as a special binary predicate symbol, denoted by =, which forms atomic formulas of the form t_1 = t_2, where t_1 and t_2 are terms. This predicate asserts that the two terms denote the same object in a given interpretation. Unlike general predicate symbols, whose interpretations can vary across models, the equality predicate has a fixed semantic interpretation as the identity relation on the domain of discourse, ensuring it is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive in all standard models. For instance, reflexivity is captured by the axiom \forall x (x = x), which holds universally. Equality is distinguished from other predicates by its built-in status in many logical systems, where it is not merely an additional symbol but a requiring specific axioms and inference rules to preserve its properties. These axioms, such as reflexivity, substitution (e.g., if x = y then P(x) \leftrightarrow P(y)), and for functions, ensure that behaves as rather than an arbitrary relation. In languages without , such as certain variants of , the symbol = is omitted, and must be expressed indirectly through other predicates or axioms, though this does not alter the core expressiveness but affects proof efficiency. Beyond , atomic formulas in relational structures often involve general n-ary symbols applied to terms, expressing relationships among objects; for example, a <(x, y) might represent a strict ordering in arithmetic contexts. These relational formulas, like P(t_1, \dots, t_n), contrast with by allowing flexible interpretations as subsets of the domain's , without the rigid identity constraints. In with , such relations coexist with the equality , enabling precise distinctions between objects while leveraging for substitutions in complex formulas. While is standardly an in , non-standard treatments appear in alternative logics, such as equational varieties or , where = may function as a connective or derived rather than a primitive component, though it retains essential semantics.

Applications in Model Theory

In , the of an in a structure forms the foundational step for evaluating more complex formulas. Consider an \phi of the form P(t_1, \dots, t_n), where P is an n-ary and t_1, \dots, t_n are terms. This is satisfied in a model M with domain D under a variable assignment v if the (v(t_1)^M, \dots, v(t_n)^M) belongs to the P^M \subseteq D^n, denoted M \models P(t_1, \dots, t_n). Similarly, for atoms t_1 = t_2, holds if v(t_1)^M = v(t_2)^M. This recursive definition, rooted in Tarski's semantics, ensures that determines the truth of quantifier-free formulas and extends inductively to the full . Models, or structures, provide the interpretations that give meaning to atomic formulas. A model M = \langle D, I \rangle for a language consists of a nonempty D and an function I that assigns to each symbol an element of D, to each symbol f of n a function f^M: D^n \to D, and to each symbol P of n a P^M \subseteq D^n. Atomic formulas capture the basic relational facts of the structure: for instance, in the model of real numbers with \mathbb{R}, constants like 0 and 1, and as functions, and the order < as a , the atom x < y holds for elements a, b \in \mathbb{R} precisely when a < b. These interpretations allow atomic formulas to delineate the elementary properties of the model, serving as building blocks for theories and embeddings. Herbrand models represent a specialized application of atomic formulas in , particularly for clausal logic and theorem proving. In a Herbrand model, the domain is the Herbrand universe—the set of all terms constructed from the symbols—and functions are interpreted standardly as term constructors, while predicates are defined solely by a set S of atomic formulas (the Herbrand ) that are true. A atom P(t_1, \dots, t_n) is satisfied if it belongs to S, enabling the reduction of satisfiability to propositional problems over the Herbrand . This construction, originating from Herbrand's work on , facilitates automated deduction by grounding universal formulas and checking consistency via Herbrand interpretations. Atomic diagrams extend the role of atomic formulas in preserving structural information across models. The atomic diagram (or positive diagram) of a structure M, denoted \Delta_M, is the set of all atomic sentences true in the expanded structure M_A obtained by adjoining constants for each element of the domain of M. Formally, for elements a_1, \dots, a_n \in M, \Delta_M includes all P(c_{a_1}, \dots, c_{a_n}) such that M \models P(a_1, \dots, a_n), where c_a are the new constants. If a structure N (possibly expanded) satisfies \Delta_M, then there exists an of M into N that preserves all atomic relations. This tool is crucial for defining inductive embeddings and proving properties like homogeneity in Fraïssé limits.

References

  1. [1]
  2. [2]
    [PDF] First-Order Logic - Cornell: Computer Science
    (1) Atomic formulas are expressions of the form Pc1..cn where P is an n-ary predicate symbol and the ci are variables or parameters. Note that many accounts of ...
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
    [PDF] Lecture 14: First-Order Logic - Rice University
    1. If t1,t2, ..., tk ∈ T erms and Pk is a k-ary predicate symbol then Pk(t1,t2, ..., tk) is an atomic formula. (Note that if P is a 0-ary predicate symbol, then P ...
  5. [5]
    [PDF] CS 357: Advanced Topics in Formal Methods Fall 2019 Lecture 6
    Page 10. First-Order Logic: Formulas. Atomic Formulas. An atomic formula is an expression of the form: Pt1,..., tn where P is a predicate symbol of arity n and t ...
  6. [6]
    [PDF] 3 The semantics of pure first-order predicate logic - UCLA Mathematics
    The formulas given by (1) and (2) are called atomic formulas. An occurrence of a variable x in a formula A is free if the occurrence is not within any.
  7. [7]
    The Emergence of First-Order Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of ...
    Nov 17, 2018 · First-order logic has long been regarded as the “right” logic for investigations into the foundations of mathematics.
  8. [8]
    First-order Model Theory - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Nov 10, 2001 · ... atomic formula φ(v1,…,vn) and any n-tuple a = (a1,…,an) of elements of A,. A ⊨ φ [a] ⇒ B ⊨ φ [b]. where b is (f(a1),…,f(an)). If we have ...
  9. [9]
    Classical Logic - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Sep 16, 2000 · The following sections provide the basics of a typical logic, sometimes called “classical elementary logic” or “classical first-order logic”.Language · Deduction · Meta-theory · The One Right Logic?
  10. [10]
    Propositional Logic - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    May 18, 2023 · This recursive definition of the formulas of propositional logic justifies the use of the label “atomic” for the propositional variables ...
  11. [11]
    Principia Mathematica - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    May 21, 1996 · Principia Mathematica, the landmark work in formal logic written by Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, was first published in three volumes in 1910, ...Overview · History of and Significance of... · Contents of Principia... · Volume I
  12. [12]
    None
    Below is a merged summary of atomic formulas in Enderton's "A Mathematical Introduction to Logic" (1st and 2nd editions), consolidating all information from the provided segments into a dense, comprehensive response. To maximize detail and clarity, I will use a table in CSV format to organize the key aspects (Definition, Role in Syntax, Role in Semantics, Recursive Construction, Place in Proof Systems, Quotes, and URLs) across the different sections and editions. Following the table, I will provide a narrative summary to tie everything together and address any additional context not easily captured in the table.
  13. [13]
    [PDF] First-Order Logic
    In propositional logic the atomic formulas have no internal structure—they are propositional variables that are either true or false. In first-order logic ...
  14. [14]
    None
    ### Summary of Propositional Logic Syntax from the PDF
  15. [15]
    [PDF] syn.1 Propositional Formulas - Open Logic Project Builds
    The set Frm(L0) of formulas of propositional logic is defined inductively as follows: 1. ⊥ is an atomic formula. 2. ⊤ is an atomic formula. 3. Every ...
  16. [16]
    [PDF] The semantics of propositional logic
    An interpretation (or valuation or model) of a formula φ is a mapping Φ of each propositional atom of φ onto a truth value. Our example formula ((¬p) → (q ...
  17. [17]
    Propositional Logic: Semantics - CS208 Logic & Algorithms
    Each atom can only be assigned one truth value. · Every relevant atom must be assigned some truth value. · Two valuations are equal if they assign the same truth ...
  18. [18]
    [PDF] Lecture 3: Semantics of Propositional Logic
    Semantics adds meaning to language form. In propositional logic, it uses a truth assignment, a function assigning true/false to propositions, mapping formulas ...
  19. [19]
    [PDF] A Mathematical Introduction to Logic, 2nd Edition
    In terms of first-order logic we can describe all this as follows: The ... A Mathematical Introduction to Logic. This will hold if for all b, [[g(a)]]1 ...
  20. [20]
    [PDF] First-Order Logic: Syntax and Semantics
    Feb 28, 2020 · First-order logic allows direct talk about objects and generalizing statements, using constants, functions, and predicates to represent objects ...
  21. [21]
    [PDF] Encoding Mathematics in First-Order Logic
    Apr 14, 2005 · First-order logic with equality is an extension of first-order logic with such an equality predicate, where the interpretation of = is fixed as ...
  22. [22]
    [PDF] First-Order Logic - Syntax, Semantics, Resolution
    Whenever we admit equations as atomic formulas we are in the realm of first-order logic with equality. Admitting equality does not really increase the ...
  23. [23]
    [PDF] First-Order Logic with Equality
    Feb 27, 2017 · The binary predicates =, <, >,≤ and ≥ are written in infix notation for convenience. For example P(f(g(x),y), a, h(x)) is a atomic first-order.
  24. [24]
    [PDF] Fundamentals of Model Theory
    The lemma confirms that satisfaction of a formula depends only upon the values of its free variables. Proof. Let A and L be as above.
  25. [25]
    [PDF] Herbrand Models - Stony Brook Computer Science
    A literal is either an atomic formula, P(t1,...,tn), (a positive literal) or the negation thereof, ¬P(t1,...,tn), (a negative literal).
  26. [26]
    [PDF] Saturated models of universal theories∗ - andrew.cmu.ed
    Abstract. A notion called Herbrand saturation is shown to provide the model- theoretic analogue of a proof-theoretic method, Herbrand analysis, yield-.
  27. [27]
    [PDF] Model Theory - UC Berkeley math
    To show that T is exactly the set of atomic sentences that are satisfied by A ... An unnested formula is built from the unnested atomic formulae by the usual.
  28. [28]
    [PDF] Lecture 3 - Math 225A – Model Theory - UC Berkeley
    A sentence of the form ϕ or ¬(ϕ) where ϕ is atomic is called a literal. Definition. The diagram of A, written diag(A), is the set of literals that are true in ...