5

What does it mean that a theory admits constructive elimination of quantifiers?

A theory admits elimination of quantifiers when each formula of the theory is equivalent to a quanifier-free formula, right?

But what is meant when we use the term "constructive" ?

Mary Star
  • 14,186
  • 15
  • 91
  • 205

1 Answers1

6

I would interpret this to mean that there is a computable procedure to find for any given formula $\varphi$ a quantifier free formula $\varphi^*$ that is equivalent to it modulo the theory.

If the theory $T$ is c.e. axiomatizable, then this is equivalent to ordinary quantifier-elimination, because if a theory $T$ admits elimination of quantifiers, then given any $\varphi$ we can search through all proofs from $T$ until we find a quantifier-free $\varphi^*$ that is $T$-provably equivalent, and then output the first such $\varphi^*$ that we find. So if the theory $T$ is c.e., then QE is the same as constructive QE.

This fact is often important in proving the decidability of a theory. If a c.e. theory admits QE and the quantifier-free sentences have decidable truth values, then it is decidable, because for any sentence, we can search for a quantifier-free equivalent of it, by searching for proofs, and decide the truth of that (trivial) formulation, thereby deciding the theory.

But if the theory $T$ is not c.e., then it could be a stronger requirement that the QE is effective. If you want, I'll try to make an example of a theory that has QE, but not constructive QE.

JDH
  • 45,373
  • 1
    Surely, you don't need the word "complete" in your third paragraph and it weakens what you are claiming, because a r.e. (or c.e. as you call it) theory that is complete can be seen to be decidable, without worrying about quantifier elimination. (In a complete r.e. theory, a process that, given $\phi$, generates proofs until it finds one that proves $\phi$ or one that proves $\lnot\phi$ is guaranteed to terminate.) – Rob Arthan Dec 11 '15 at 23:41
  • 1
    You are right, and I have edited. Thanks! – JDH Dec 12 '15 at 00:20
  • I see... Thank you so much!! :-) – Mary Star Dec 17 '15 at 11:18