Inlogic, more specificallyproof theory, aHilbert system, sometimes calledHilbert calculus,Hilbert-style system,Hilbert-style proof system,Hilbert-style deductive system orHilbert–Ackermann system, is a type offormal proofsystem attributed toGottlob Frege^[1] andDavid Hilbert.^[2] Thesedeductive systems are most often studied forfirst-order logic, but are of interest for other logics as well.

It is defined as a deductive system that generates theorems from axioms and inference rules,^[3][4][5] especially if the only inference rule ismodus ponens.^[6][7] Every Hilbert system is anaxiomatic system, which is used by many authors as a sole less specific term to declare their Hilbert systems,^[8][9][10] without mentioning any more specific terms. In this context, "Hilbert systems" are contrasted withnatural deduction systems,^[3] in which no axioms are used, only inference rules.

While all sources that refer to an "axiomatic" logical proof system characterize it simply as a logical proof system with axioms, sources that use variants of the term "Hilbert system" sometimes define it in different ways, which will not be used in this article. For instance,Troelstra defines a "Hilbert system" as a system with axiomsand with${\displaystyle \to E}$ and${\displaystyle \mathrm{\forall }I}$ as the only inference rules.^[11] A specific set of axioms is also sometimes called "the Hilbert system",^[12] or "the Hilbert-style calculus".^[13] Sometimes, "Hilbert-style" is used to convey the type of axiomatic system that has its axioms given inschematic form,^[2] as in the§ Schematic form of P2 below—but other sources use the term "Hilbert-style" as encompassing both systems with schematic axioms and systems with a rule of substitution,^[14] as this article does. The use of "Hilbert-style" and similar terms to describe axiomatic proof systems in logic is due to the influence of Hilbert andAckermann'sPrinciples of Mathematical Logic (1928).^[2]

Most variants of Hilbert systems take a characteristic tack in the way they balance atrade-off betweenlogical axioms andrules of inference.^{[1][6][15][11]} Hilbert systems can be characterised by the choice of a large number ofschemas of logical axioms and a small set ofrules of inference. Systems ofnatural deduction take the opposite tack, including many deduction rules but very few or no axiom schemas.^[3] The most commonly studied Hilbert systems have either just one rule of inference – modus ponens, forpropositional logics – or two – withgeneralisation, to handlepredicate logics, as well – and several infinite axiom schemas. Hilbert systems for alethicmodal logics, sometimes calledHilbert-Lewis systems, additionally require thenecessitation rule. Some systems use a finite list of concrete formulas as axioms instead of an infinite set of formulas via axiom schemas, in which case theuniform substitution rule is required.^[14]

A characteristic feature of the many variants of Hilbert systems is that thecontext is not changed in any of their rules of inference, while bothnatural deduction andsequent calculus contain some context-changing rules.^[16] Thus, if one is interested only in the derivability oftautologies, no hypothetical judgments, then one can formalize the Hilbert system in such a way that its rules of inference contain onlyjudgments of a rather simple form. The same cannot be done with the other two deductions systems:^{[citation needed]} 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.

This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(August 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

In a Hilbert system, aformal deduction (orproof) 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.

Suppose${\displaystyle \mathrm{\Gamma }}$ is a set of formulas, considered ashypotheses. For example,${\displaystyle \mathrm{\Gamma }}$ could be a set of axioms forgroup theory orset theory. The notation${\displaystyle \mathrm{\Gamma }⊢\varphi }$ means that there is a deduction that ends with${\displaystyle \varphi }$ using as axioms onlylogical axioms and elements of${\displaystyle \mathrm{\Gamma }}$. Thus, informally,${\displaystyle \mathrm{\Gamma }⊢\varphi }$ means that${\displaystyle \varphi }$ is provable assuming all the formulas in${\displaystyle \mathrm{\Gamma }}$.

Hilbert systems are characterized by the use of numerous schemas oflogical axioms. Anaxiom schema 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; for example${\displaystyle \mathrm{\forall }y(\mathrm{\forall }xPxy\to Pty)}$ is a generalization of${\displaystyle \mathrm{\forall }xPxy\to Pty}$.

The following are some Hilbert systems that have been used inpropositional logic. One of them, the§ Schematic form of P2, is also considered aFrege system.

Axiomatic proofs have been used in mathematics since the famousAncient Greek textbook,Euclid'sElements of Geometry,c. 300 BC. But the first knownfully formalized proof system that thereby qualifies as a Hilbert system dates back toGottlob Frege's1879Begriffsschrift.^[9][17] Frege's system used onlyimplication andnegation as connectives,^[18] and it had six axioms,^[17] which were these ones:^[19][20]

• Proposition 1:${\displaystyle a\supset (b\supset a)}$
• Proposition 2:${\displaystyle (c\supset (b\supset a))\supset ((c\supset b)\supset (c\supset a))}$
• Proposition 8:${\displaystyle (d\supset (b\supset a))\supset (b\supset (d\supset a))}$
• Proposition 28:${\displaystyle (b\supset a)\supset (\mathrm{\neg }a\supset \mathrm{\neg }b)}$
• Proposition 31:${\displaystyle \mathrm{\neg }\mathrm{\neg }a\supset a}$
• Proposition 41:${\displaystyle a\supset \mathrm{\neg }\mathrm{\neg }a}$

These were used by Frege together with modus ponens and a rule of substitution (which was used but never precisely stated) to yield a complete and consistent axiomatization of classical truth-functional propositional logic.^[19]

Jan Łukasiewicz showed that, in Frege's system, "the third axiom is superfluous since it can be derived from the preceding two axioms, and that the last three axioms can be replaced by the single sentence${\displaystyle CCNpNqCqp}$".^[20] Which, taken out of Łukasiewicz'sPolish notation into modern notation, means${\displaystyle (\mathrm{\neg }p\to \mathrm{\neg }q)\to (q\to p)}$. Hence, Łukasiewicz is credited^[17] with this system of three axioms:

• ${\displaystyle p\to (q\to p)}$
• ${\displaystyle (p\to (q\to r))\to ((p\to q)\to (p\to r))}$
• ${\displaystyle (\mathrm{\neg }p\to \mathrm{\neg }q)\to (q\to p)}$

Just like Frege's system, this system uses a substitution rule and uses modus ponens as an inference rule.^[17] The exact same system was given (with an explicit substitution rule) byAlonzo Church,^[21] who referred to it as the system P_2,^[21][22] and helped popularize it.^[22]

One may avoid using the rule of substitution by giving the axioms in schematic form, using them to generate an infinite set of axioms. Hence, using Greek letters to represent schemas (metalogical variables that may stand for anywell-formed formulas), the axioms are given as:^[9][22]

• ${\displaystyle \phi \to (\psi \to \phi )}$
• ${\displaystyle (\phi \to (\psi \to \chi ))\to ((\phi \to \psi )\to (\phi \to \chi ))}$
• ${\displaystyle (\mathrm{\neg }\phi \to \mathrm{\neg }\psi )\to (\psi \to \phi )}$

The schematic version of P₂ is attributed toJohn von Neumann,^[17] and is used in theMetamath "set.mm" formal proof database.^[22] In fact, the very idea of using axiom schemas to replace the rule of substitution is attributed to von Neumann.^[23] The schematic version of P₂ has also been attributed toHilbert, and named${\displaystyle \mathcal{H}}$ in this context.^[24]

Systems for propositional logic whose inference rules are schematic are also calledFrege systems; as the authors that originally defined the term "Frege system"^[25] note, this actually excludes Frege's own system, given above, since it had axioms instead of axiom schemas.^[23]

As an example, a proof of${\displaystyle A\to A}$ in P₂ is given below. First, the axioms are given names:

(A1)${\displaystyle (p\to (q\to p))}$

(A2)${\displaystyle ((p\to (q\to r))\to ((p\to q)\to (p\to r)))}$

(A3)${\displaystyle ((\mathrm{\neg }p\to \mathrm{\neg }q)\to (q\to p))}$

And the proof is as follows:

1. ${\displaystyle A\to ((B\to A)\to A)}$       (instance of (A1))
2. ${\displaystyle (A\to ((B\to A)\to A))\to ((A\to (B\to A))\to (A\to A))}$       (instance of (A2))
3. ${\displaystyle (A\to (B\to A))\to (A\to A)}$       (from (1) and (2) bymodus ponens)
4. ${\displaystyle A\to (B\to A)}$       (instance of (A1))
5. ${\displaystyle A\to A}$       (from (4) and (3) by modus ponens)

This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(August 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

There is an unlimited amount of 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${\displaystyle \mathrm{\neg }}$ and${\displaystyle \to }$ and only the quantifier${\displaystyle \mathrm{\forall }}$. Later we show how the system can be extended to include additional logical connectives, such as${\displaystyle \wedge }$ and${\displaystyle \vee }$, without enlarging the class of deducible formulas.

The first four logical axiom schemas allow (together with modus ponens) for the manipulation of logical connectives.

P1.${\displaystyle \varphi \to \varphi }$

P2.${\displaystyle \varphi \to \left(\psi \to \varphi \right)}$

P3.${\displaystyle \left(\varphi \to \left(\psi \to \xi \right)\right)\to \left(\left(\varphi \to \psi \right)\to \left(\varphi \to \xi \right)\right)}$

P4.${\displaystyle \left(\mathrm{\neg }\varphi \to \mathrm{\neg }\psi \right)\to \left(\psi \to \varphi \right)}$

The axiom P1 is redundant, as it follows from P3, P2 and modus ponens (seeproof). These axioms describeclassical propositional logic; without axiom P4 we getpositive implicational logic.Minimal logic is achieved either by adding instead the axiom P4m, or by defining${\displaystyle \mathrm{\neg }\varphi }$ as${\displaystyle \varphi \to \mathrm{\perp }}$.

P4m.${\displaystyle \left(\varphi \to \psi \right)\to \left(\left(\varphi \to \mathrm{\neg }\psi \right)\to \mathrm{\neg }\varphi \right)}$

Intuitionistic logic is achieved by adding axioms P4i and P5i to positive implicational logic, or by adding axiom P5i to minimal logic. Both P4i and P5i are theorems of classical propositional logic.

P4i.${\displaystyle \left(\varphi \to \mathrm{\neg }\varphi \right)\to \mathrm{\neg }\varphi }$

P5i.${\displaystyle \mathrm{\neg }\varphi \to \left(\varphi \to \psi \right)}$

Note that these are axiom schemas, which represent infinitely many specific instances of axioms. For example, P1 might represent the particular axiom instance${\displaystyle p\to p}$, or it might represent${\displaystyle \left(p\to q\right)\to \left(p\to q\right)}$: the${\displaystyle \varphi }$ is a place where any formula can be placed. A variable such as this that ranges over formulae is called a 'schematic variable'.

With a second rule ofuniform substitution (US), we can change each of these axiom schemas into a single axiom, replacing each schematic variable by some propositional variable that isn'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'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.

US. Let${\displaystyle \varphi (p)}$ be a formula with one or more instances of the propositional variable${\displaystyle p}$, and let${\displaystyle \psi }$ be another formula. Then from${\displaystyle \varphi (p)}$, infer${\displaystyle \varphi (\psi )}$.

The next three logical axiom schemas provide ways to add, manipulate, and remove universal quantifiers.

Q5.${\displaystyle \mathrm{\forall }x\left(\varphi \right)\to \varphi [x:=t]}$ wheret may be substituted forx in${\displaystyle \varphi }$

Q6.${\displaystyle \mathrm{\forall }x\left(\varphi \to \psi \right)\to \left(\mathrm{\forall }x\left(\varphi \right)\to \mathrm{\forall }x\left(\psi \right)\right)}$

Q7.${\displaystyle (\psi \to \varphi )\to (\psi \to \mathrm{\forall }x\left(\varphi \right))}$ wherex does not occur in${\displaystyle \psi }$.

These three additional rules extend the propositional system to axiomatiseclassical predicate logic. Likewise, these three rules extend system for intuitionstic propositional logic (with P1-3 and P4i and P5i) tointuitionistic predicate logic.

Universal quantification is often given an alternative axiomatisation using an extra rule of generalisation (see the section on Metatheorems), in which case the rules Q6 and Q7 are redundant.

The final axiom schemas are required to work with formulas involving the equality symbol.

I8.${\displaystyle x=x}$ for every variablex.

I9.${\displaystyle \left(x=y\right)\to \left(\varphi [z:=x]\to \varphi [z:=y]\right)}$

This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(March 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

It is common to include in a Hilbert system only axioms for the logical operators implication and negation towardsfunctional completeness. Given these axioms, it is possible to formconservative extensions of thededuction theorem that permit the use of additional connectives. These extensions are called conservative because if a formula φ involving new connectives is rewritten as alogically 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 system will resemble more closely a system ofnatural deduction.

• Introduction

${\displaystyle \mathrm{\forall }x(\varphi \to \mathrm{\exists }y(\varphi [x:=y]))}$

• Elimination

${\displaystyle \mathrm{\forall }x(\varphi \to \psi )\to \mathrm{\exists }x(\varphi )\to \psi }$ where${\displaystyle x}$ is not afree variable of${\displaystyle \psi }$.

• Conjunction introduction and elimination

introduction:${\displaystyle \alpha \to (\beta \to \alpha \wedge \beta )}$

elimination left:${\displaystyle \alpha \wedge \beta \to \alpha }$

elimination right:${\displaystyle \alpha \wedge \beta \to \beta }$

• Disjunction introduction and elimination

introduction left:${\displaystyle \alpha \to \alpha \vee \beta }$

introduction right:${\displaystyle \beta \to \alpha \vee \beta }$

elimination:${\displaystyle (\alpha \to \gamma )\to ((\beta \to \gamma )\to \alpha \vee \beta \to \gamma )}$

This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(March 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Because Hilbert systems have very few deduction rules, it is common to provemetatheorems that show that additionaldeduction 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.

• List of Hilbert systems
• Natural deduction
• Sequent calculus

• Curry, Haskell B.; Robert Feys (1958).Combinatory Logic Vol. I. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: North Holland.
• Monk, J. Donald (1976).Mathematical Logic. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Berlin, New York:Springer-Verlag.ISBN 978-0-387-90170-1.
• Ruzsa, Imre; Máté, András (1997).Bevezetés a modern logikába (in Hungarian). Budapest: Osiris Kiadó.
• Tarski, Alfred (1990).Bizonyítás és igazság (in Hungarian). Budapest: Gondolat. It is a Hungarian translation ofAlfred Tarski's selected papers onsemantic theory of truth.
• David Hilbert (1927) "The foundations of mathematics", translated by Stephan Bauer-Menglerberg and Dagfinn Føllesdal (pp. 464–479). in:
  • van Heijenoort, Jean (1967).From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931 (3rd printing 1976 ed.). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.ISBN 0-674-32449-8.
  • Hilbert's 1927, Based on an earlier 1925 "foundations" lecture (pp. 367–392), presents his 17 axioms—axioms of implication #1-4, axioms about & 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 "proof theory"—e.g. induction axioms, recursion axioms, etc.; he also offers up a spirited defense against L.E.J. Brouwer's Intuitionism. Also see Hermann Weyl's (1927) comments and rebuttal (pp. 480–484), Paul Bernay's (1927) appendix to Hilbert's lecture (pp. 485–489) and Luitzen Egbertus Jan Brouwer's (1927) response (pp. 490–495)
• Kleene, Stephen Cole (1952).Introduction to Metamathematics (10th impression with 1971 corrections ed.). Amsterdam NY: North Holland Publishing Company.ISBN 0-7204-2103-9.
  • See in particular Chapter IV Formal System (pp. 69–85) 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 "postulates"—18 axioms and 3 "immediate-consequence" 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.

• Gaifman, Haim."A Hilbert Type Deductive System for Sentential Logic, Completeness and Compactness"(PDF).
• Farmer, W. M."Propositional logic"(PDF). It describes (among others) a specific Hilbert-style proof system (that is restricted topropositional calculus).

• Proof theory
• Logical calculi
• Automated theorem proving

• Articles with short description
• Short description matches Wikidata
• All articles with unsourced statements
• Articles with unsourced statements from March 2014
• Articles needing additional references from August 2024
• All articles needing additional references
• Articles needing additional references from March 2024
• CS1 Hungarian-language sources (hu)