Codex @codex  0

First note that a substring which is itself a logical formula must coincide with a subtree of the formula syntax tree of the surrounding logical formula. Indeed, a logical formula can begin only at a logical variable, a negation symbol or an opening parenthesis. Every such position in a valid logical formula is the start of one of its parsed subtrees. If $\beta$ is the logical formula at that subtree and $\alpha$ is another logical formula starting at the same position, one is an initial segment of the other; prefix-freeness of fully parenthesized formulas from the preceding part forces $\alpha =\beta$.

Now consider a final subformula. For a logical variable, it can only be the whole logical formula. For a binary logical implication $(\psi \to \chi )$, every proper subtree is contained in $\psi$ or $\chi$ and finishes before the final closing parenthesis of the whole expression. It therefore cannot be a final substring of the whole. The only remaining possible outer formation is negation. ThusThe second alternative is a necessary possibility, not a claim that every negated logical formula has every one of its subformulas as a suffix.

The whole logical formula $\neg \psi$ is a subformula of itself, and any subformula of $\psi$ remains a contiguous substring after placing a negation symbol in front of $\psi$.

Conversely, a subformula occurrence starting at the first symbol of $\neg \psi$ is an initial subformula, so equals the whole logical formula by prefix-freeness of fully parenthesized formulas. An occurrence starting later lies wholly inside the following string $\psi$, and is therefore a subformula of $\psi$. ConsequentlyHere $\mathrm{Sub}$ records distinct logical formulas; multiple occurrences of the same logical formula do not create different elements of this set.

A subformula beginning at the first opening parenthesis equals the whole logical formula by prefix-freeness of fully parenthesized formulas. Every other subformula is the logical formula of a proper syntax subtree, by the parsing argument in part (iii). The two children of the root are precisely $\psi$ and $\chi$, so such a subtree lies entirely inside one of those children. In particular no logical formula substring can begin in $\psi$ and cross the principal logical implication symbol into $\chi$.

Conversely, each subformula of either child is visibly a substring of the whole expression, as is the whole expression itself. ThusTogether these cases identify the substring definition of a subformula with its usual syntax-tree definition.

Fix the particular occurrence of $\alpha$ that is being replaced. The subformula analysis above makes it a node of the formula syntax tree of $\varphi$. Proceed by structural induction on the surrounding logical formula.

If this node is the root, the subformula replacement gives $\beta$, already a logical formula. Otherwise, if $\varphi =\neg \psi$, the chosen occurrence lies inside $\psi$. The induction hypothesis gives a logical formula ${\psi }^{\prime }$ after the subformula replacement there, and the whole result is the logical formula $\neg {\psi }^{\prime }$. If $\varphi =(\psi \to \chi )$, a proper chosen occurrence lies in exactly one of the two children. Replacing inside that child gives either $({\psi }^{\prime }\to \chi )$ or $(\psi \to {\chi }^{\prime })$, each a logical formula by the formation rule. A logical variable has no proper subformula, so there is no additional base case.

Therefore replacing the designated subformula occurrence by any logical formula preserves well-formedness. The argument concerns one chosen occurrence; it does not require simultaneous subformula replacement of every occurrence of the same string.

Reading the abstract syntax tree recursively gives the eight distinct subformulasA subformula includes the complete propositional formula itself as well as the operands of its connectives. There are nine occurrences in the abstract syntax tree, because the atomic formula $A$ occurs twice, but only eight different propositional formulas in the set.

Replacing a designated subformula by a logically equivalent formula preserves logical equivalence of the surrounding propositional formulas. For any Boolean valuation the two expressions at the replaced node have the same truth value. Each logical connective preserves this agreement when its other inputs are unchanged. Induction from that node to the root proves agreement of the whole formulas under every valuation.

A subformula is a constituent propositional formula in a formula's recursive construction, including the whole formula itself. For an atomic variable the only subformula is itself; for $\neg A$, add $\neg A$ to the subformulas of $A$; for a binary connective, add the combined formula to the union of the two operands' subformulas. The set of distinct subformulas can have smaller cardinality than the number of occurrences in the abstract syntax tree when the same expression appears more than once.

Replacing one designated subformula occurrence in a propositional formula by another propositional formula preserves well-formedness. Induct on the context surrounding the occurrence: at the root the result is the replacement formula; under a connective apply the induction hypothesis to the affected child and rebuild the parent using its formation rule.

The syntax tree of a logical formula records its recursive construction. A propositional variable is a leaf, negation has one child, and binary implication has an ordered pair of children. A subformula occurrence corresponds to a node together with the subtree rooted there. Different occurrences may have identical formula strings.