superfluity of the third defining property for finite consequence operator
In this entry, we demonstrate the claim made in section 1 of thehttp://planetmath.org/node/8646parent entry that the defining conditions forfinitary consequence operator given there are redundant becauseone of them may be derived from the other two.
Theorem.
Let be a set. Suppose that a mapping satisfies the following three properties:
- 1.
For all , it happens that .
- 2.
- 3.
For all , it happens that .
Then also satisfies the following property: For all , if , then .