The common features of the thinking used at each stage in the development of this derivation can be captured in a procedure that can be applied repeatedly to guide the development of any derivation. Restarting the procedure introduces a new stage in the derivation, and the procedure will be restarted one final time after the last stage in order to confirm that the derivation has reached its end.
rule | conditions for applying it |
QED | the goal is among the resources |
Nc | the goal is ⊥, and there are sentences φ and ¬φ among the resources |
ENV | the goal is ⊤ |
EFQ | ⊥ is a resource |
kind of sentence |
rule for this sentence as a resource |
as a goal |
||
conjunction | Ext | Cnj | ||
negated | { | non-atomic sent. | CR (when the goal is ⊥) | RAA |
atomic sentence | none | |||
atomic sentence | none | IP | ||
⊤ or ⊥ | none | none |
The choice of a gap or sentence to work on does not matter in the sense that whether a gap eventually closes or reaches a dead-end does not depend on the way such a choice is made. Of course, such a choice can make a difference for the length of the derivation; but the difference will often amount to only one stage or a line or two.
This procedure describes a way of applying the rules; and, even though it allows some choice, it is more restrictive than the rules alone. For example, it forces you to close a gap you are working one if that is possible even if the rules would also allow you to develop the gap further. In that case, it simply enforces good sense, but it is also restrictive in one way that can length a derivation: no allowance is made for the option of exploiting a resource in more than one gap at once (i.e., in the same stage of development). Consequently, you should regard this procedure as merely a rough guide that may be supplemented by shortcuts such as this one when you see that they are possible. Other such shortcuts are the use of available but inactive resources with rules like QED and the use of non-basic rules like Adj and LFR.