Final answer:
The proof is incorrect because it fails to apply the implication introduction rule properly and makes an erroneous leap in logic from syntactic entailment to semantic entailment without justification.
Step-by-step explanation:
The proof presented has a fundamental misunderstanding of the implication introduction rule in logical calculus. The rule is typically stated as if Γ ∧ {A} ⊢ B then Γ ⊢ A → B. However, the proof attempts to expand this rule incorrectly by adding {B} to both sides of the inference which is not how the rule works. Furthermore, the transition from the syntactical entailment (⊢) to the semantic entailment (⊘), and the assumption that A → B follows from A and B being assumed true, skips several necessary steps. To be correct, the proof must demonstrate that given A and the truth of A → B, then B must also be true. However, this has not been correctly shown. The part “because if we assume A and B as true then A ∧ ~B can never happen which means A → B has to be true” confuses the nature of the implication, as implications are not justified solely by the truth of their antecedent and consequent.