This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

Scribd Selects Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

P. 1

Symbolic Logic - A First Course|Views: 703|Likes: 8

Published by Norma Lacruz

See more

See less

https://www.scribd.com/doc/60157765/Symbolic-Logic-A-First-Course

09/22/2013

text

original

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

What Is Logic? ................................................................................................... 2 Inferences And Arguments ................................................................................ 2 Deductive Logic Versus Inductive Logic .......................................................... 5 Statements Versus Propositions......................................................................... 6 Form Versus Content ......................................................................................... 7 Preliminary Definitions...................................................................................... 9 Form And Content In Syllogistic Logic .......................................................... 11 Demonstrating Invalidity Using The Method Of Counterexamples ............... 13 Examples Of Valid Arguments In Syllogistic Logic....................................... 20 Exercises For Chapter 1 ................................................................................... 23 Answers To Exercises For Chapter 1 .............................................................. 27

2

Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

1.

WHAT IS LOGIC?

Logic may be defined as the science of reasoning. However, this is not to suggest that logic is an empirical (i.e., experimental or observational) science like physics, biology, or psychology. Rather, logic is a non-empirical science like mathematics. Also, in saying that logic is the science of reasoning, we do not mean that it is concerned with the actual mental (or physical) process employed by a thinking being when it is reasoning. The investigation of the actual reasoning process falls more appropriately within the province of psychology, neurophysiology, or cybernetics. Even if these empirical disciplines were considerably more advanced than they presently are, the most they could disclose is the exact process that goes on in a being's head when he or she (or it) is reasoning. They could not, however, tell us whether the being is reasoning correctly or incorrectly. Distinguishing correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning is the task of logic.

2.

INFERENCES AND ARGUMENTS

Reasoning is a special mental activity called inferring, what can also be called making (or performing) inferences. The following is a useful and simple definition of the word ‘infer’. To infer is to draw conclusions from premises. In place of word ‘premises’, you can also put: ‘data’, ‘information’, ‘facts’. Examples of Inferences: (1) (2) You see smoke and infer that there is a fire. You count 19 persons in a group that originally had 20, and you infer that someone is missing.

Note carefully the difference between ‘infer’ and ‘imply’, which are sometimes confused. We infer the fire on the basis of the smoke, but we do not imply the fire. On the other hand, the smoke implies the fire, but it does not infer the fire. The word ‘infer’ is not equivalent to the word ‘imply’, nor is it equivalent to ‘insinuate’. The reasoning process may be thought of as beginning with input (premises, data, etc.) and producing output (conclusions). In each specific case of drawing (inferring) a conclusion C from premises P1, P2, P3, ..., the details of the actual mental process (how the "gears" work) is not the proper concern of logic, but of psychology or neurophysiology. The proper concern of logic is whether the inference of C on the basis of P1, P2, P3, ... is warranted (correct). Inferences are made on the basis of various sorts of things – data, facts, information, states of affairs. In order to simplify the investigation of reasoning, logic

Chapter 1: Basic Concepts

3

treats all of these things in terms of a single sort of thing – statements. Logic correspondingly treats inferences in terms of collections of statements, which are called arguments. The word ‘argument’ has a number of meanings in ordinary English. The definition of ‘argument’ that is relevant to logic is given as follows. An argument is a collection of statements, one of which is designated as the conclusion, and the remainder of which are designated as the premises. Note that this is not a definition of a good argument. Also note that, in the context of ordinary discourse, an argument has an additional trait, described as follows. Usually, the premises of an argument are intended to support (justify) the conclusion of the argument. Before giving some concrete examples of arguments, it might be best to clarify a term in the definition. The word ‘statement’ is intended to mean declarative sentence. In addition to declarative sentences, there are also interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory sentences. The sentences that make up an argument are all declarative sentences; that is, they are all statements. The following may be taken as the official definition of ‘statement’. A statement is a declarative sentence, which is to say a sentence that is capable of being true or false. The following are examples of statements. it is raining I am hungry 2+2 = 4 God exists On the other hand the following are examples of sentences that are not statements. are you hungry? shut the door, please #$%@!!!

(replace ‘#$%@!!!’ by your favorite expletive)

Observe that whereas a statement is capable of being true or false, a question, or a command, or an exclamation is not capable of being true or false. Note that in saying that a statement is capable of being true or false, we are not saying that we know for sure which of the two (true, false) it is. Thus, for a sentence to be a statement, it is not necessary that humankind knows for sure whether it is true, or whether it is false. An example is the statement ‘God exists’. Now let us get back to inferences and arguments. Earlier, we discussed two examples of inferences. Let us see how these can be represented as arguments. In the case of the smoke-fire inference, the corresponding argument is given as follows.

4 (a1) there is smoke therefore, there is fire

Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

(premise) (conclusion)

Here the argument consists of two statements, ‘there is smoke’ and ‘there is fire’. The term ‘therefore’ is not strictly speaking part of the argument; it rather serves to designate the conclusion (‘there is fire’), setting it off from the premise (‘there is smoke’). In this argument, there is just one premise. In the case of the missing-person inference, the corresponding argument is given as follows. (a2) there were 20 persons originally there are 19 persons currently therefore, someone is missing (premise) (premise) (conclusion)

Here the argument consists of three statements – ‘there were 20 persons originally’, ‘there are 19 persons currently’, and ‘someone is missing’. Once again, ‘therefore’ sets off the conclusion from the premises. In principle, any collection of statements can be treated as an argument simply by designating which statement in particular is the conclusion. However, not every collection of statements is intended to be an argument. We accordingly need criteria by which to distinguish arguments from other collections of statements. There are no hard and fast rules for telling when a collection of statements is intended to be an argument, but there are a few rules of thumb. Often an argument can be identified as such because its conclusion is marked. We have already seen one conclusion-marker – the word ‘therefore’. Besides ‘therefore’, there are other words that are commonly used to mark conclusions of arguments, including ‘consequently’, ‘hence’, ‘thus’, ‘so’, and ‘ergo’. Usually, such words indicate that what follows is the conclusion of an argument. Other times an argument can be identified as such because its premises are marked. Words that are used for this purpose include: ‘for’, ‘because’, and ‘since’. For example, using the word ‘for’, the smoke-fire argument (a1) earlier can be rephrased as follows. (a1') there is fire for there is smoke Note that in (a1') the conclusion comes before the premise. Other times neither the conclusion nor the premises of an argument are marked, so it is harder to tell that the collection of statements is intended to be an argument. A general rule of thumb applies in this case, as well as in previous cases. In an argument, the premises are intended to support (justify) the conclusion. To state things somewhat differently, when a person (speaking or writing) advances an argument, he(she) expresses a statement he(she) believes to be true (the conclusion), and he(she) cites other statements as a reason for believing that statement (the premises).

Chapter 1: Basic Concepts

5

3.

**DEDUCTIVE LOGIC VERSUS INDUCTIVE LOGIC
**

Let us go back to the two arguments from the previous section. (a1) there is smoke; therefore, there is fire. (a2) there were 20 people originally; there are 19 persons currently; therefore, someone is missing.

There is an important difference between these two inferences, which corresponds to a division of logic into two branches. On the one hand, we know that the existence of smoke does not guarantee (ensure) the existence of fire; it only makes the existence of fire likely or probable. Thus, although inferring fire on the basis of smoke is reasonable, it is nevertheless fallible. Insofar as it is possible for there to be smoke without there being fire, we may be wrong in asserting that there is a fire. The investigation of inferences of this sort is traditionally called inductive logic. Inductive logic investigates the process of drawing probable (likely, plausible) though fallible conclusions from premises. Another way of stating this: inductive logic investigates arguments in which the truth of the premises makes likely the truth of the conclusion. Inductive logic is a very difficult and intricate subject, partly because the practitioners (experts) of this discipline are not in complete agreement concerning what constitutes correct inductive reasoning. Inductive logic is not the subject of this book. If you want to learn about inductive logic, it is probably best to take a course on probability and statistics. Inductive reasoning is often called statistical (or probabilistic) reasoning, and forms the basis of experimental science. Inductive reasoning is important to science, but so is deductive reasoning, which is the subject of this book. Consider argument (a2) above. In this argument, if the premises are in fact true, then the conclusion is certainly also true; or, to state things in the subjunctive mood, if the premises were true, then the conclusion would certainly also be true. Still another way of stating things: the truth of the premises necessitates the truth of the conclusion. The investigation of these sorts of arguments is called deductive logic. The following should be noted. suppose that you have an argument and suppose that the truth of the premises necessitates (guarantees) the truth of the conclusion. Then it follows (logically!) that the truth of the premises makes likely the truth of the conclusion. In other words, if an argument is judged to be deductively correct, then it is also judged to be inductively correct as well. The converse is not true: not every inductively correct argument is also deductively correct; the smokefire argument is an example of an inductively correct argument that is not deduc-

6

Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

tively correct. For whereas the existence of smoke makes likely the existence of fire it does not guarantee the existence of fire. In deductive logic, the task is to distinguish deductively correct arguments from deductively incorrect arguments. Nevertheless, we should keep in mind that, although an argument may be judged to be deductively incorrect, it may still be reasonable, that is, it may still be inductively correct. Some arguments are not inductively correct, and therefore are not deductively correct either; they are just plain unreasonable. Suppose you flunk intro logic, and suppose that on the basis of this you conclude that it will be a breeze to get into law school. Under these circumstances, it seems that your reasoning is faulty.

4.

**STATEMENTS VERSUS PROPOSITIONS
**

Henceforth, by ‘logic’ I mean deductive logic.

Logic investigates inferences in terms of the arguments that represent them. Recall that an argument is a collection of statements (declarative sentences), one of which is designated as the conclusion, and the remainder of which are designated as the premises. Also recall that usually in an argument the premises are offered to support or justify the conclusions. Statements, and sentences in general, are linguistic objects, like words. They consist of strings (sequences) of sounds (spoken language) or strings of symbols (written language). Statements must be carefully distinguished from the propositions they express (assert) when they are uttered. Intuitively, statements stand in the same relation to propositions as nouns stand to the objects they denote. Just as the word ‘water’ denotes a substance that is liquid under normal circumstances, the sentence (statement) ‘water is wet’ denotes the proposition that water is wet; equivalently, the sentence denotes the state of affairs the wetness of water. The difference between the five letter word ‘water’ in English and the liquid substance it denotes should be obvious enough, and no one is apt to confuse the word and the substance. Whereas ‘water’ consists of letters, water consists of molecules. The distinction between a statement and the proposition it expresses is very much like the distinction between the word ‘water’ and the substance water. There is another difference between statements and propositions. Whereas statements are always part of a particular language (e.g., English), propositions are not peculiar to any particular language in which they might be expressed. Thus, for example, the following are different statements in different languages, yet they all express the same proposition – namely, the whiteness of snow. snow is white der Schnee ist weiss la neige est blanche In this case, quite clearly different sentences may be used to express the same proposition. The opposite can also happen: the same sentence may be used in

Chapter 1: Basic Concepts

7

different contexts, or under different circumstances, to express different propositions, to denote different states of affairs. For example, the statement ‘I am hungry’ expresses a different proposition for each person who utters it. When I utter it, the proposition expressed pertains to my stomach; when you utter it, the proposition pertains to your stomach; when the president utters it, the proposition pertains to his(her) stomach.

5.

FORM VERSUS CONTENT

Although propositions (or the meanings of statements) are always lurking behind the scenes, logic is primarily concerned with statements. The reason is that statements are in some sense easier to point at, easier to work with; for example, we can write a statement on the blackboard and examine it. By contrast, since they are essentially abstract in nature, propositions cannot be brought into the classroom, or anywhere. Propositions are unwieldy and uncooperative. What is worse, no one quite knows exactly what they are! There is another important reason for concentrating on statements rather than propositions. Logic analyzes and classifies arguments according to their form, as opposed to their content (this distinction will be explained later). Whereas the form of a statement is fairly easily understood, the form of a proposition is not so easily understood. Whereas it is easy to say what a statement consists of, it is not so easy to say what a proposition consists of. A statement consists of words arranged in a particular order. Thus, the form of a statement may be analyzed in terms of the arrangement of its constituent words. To be more precise, a statement consists of terms, which include simple terms and compound terms. A simple term is just a single word together with a specific grammatical role (being a noun, or being a verb, etc.). A compound term is a string of words that act as a grammatical unit within statements. Examples of compound terms include noun phrases, such as ‘the president of the U.S.’, and predicate phrases, such as ‘is a Democrat’. For the purposes of logic, terms divide into two important categories – descriptive terms and logical terms. One must carefully note, however, that this distinction is not absolute. Rather, the distinction between descriptive and logical terms depends upon the level (depth) of logical analysis we are pursuing. Let us pursue an analogy for a moment. Recall first of all that the core meaning of the word ‘analyze’ is to break down a complex whole into its constituent parts. In physics, matter can be broken down (analyzed) at different levels; it can be analyzed into molecules, into atoms, into elementary particles (electrons, protons, etc.); still deeper levels of analysis are available (e.g., quarks). The basic idea in breaking down matter is that in order to go deeper and deeper one needs ever increasing amounts of energy, and one needs ever increasing sophistication. The same may be said about logic and the analysis of language. There are many levels at which we can analyze language, and the deeper levels require more

8

Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

logical sophistication than the shallower levels (they also require more energy on the part of the logician!) In the present text, we consider three different levels of logical analysis. Each of these levels is given a name – Syllogistic Logic, Sentential Logic, and Predicate Logic. Whereas syllogistic logic and sentential logic represent relatively superficial (shallow) levels of logical analysis, predicate logic represents a relatively deep level of analysis. Deeper levels of analysis are available. Each level of analysis – syllogistic logic, sentential logic, and predicate logic – has associated with it a special class of logical terms. In the case of syllogistic logic, the logical terms include only the following: ‘all’, ‘some’, ‘no’, ‘not’, and ‘is/are’. In the case of sentential logic, the logical terms include only sentential connectives (e.g., ‘and’, ‘or’, ‘if...then’, ‘only if’). In the case of predicate logic, the logical terms include the logical terms of both syllogistic logic and sentential logic. As noted earlier, logic analyzes and classifies arguments according to their form. The (logical) form of an argument is a function of the forms of the individual statements that constitute the argument. The logical form of a statement, in turn, is a function of the arrangement of its terms, where the logical terms are regarded as more important than the descriptive terms. Whereas the logical terms have to do with the form of a statement, the descriptive terms have to do with its content. Note, however, that since the distinction between logical terms and descriptive terms is relative to the particular level of analysis we are pursuing, the notion of logical form is likewise relative in this way. In particular, for each of the different logics listed above, there is a corresponding notion of logical form. The distinction between form and content is difficult to understand in the abstract. It is best to consider some actual examples. In a later section, we examine this distinction in the context of syllogistic logic. As soon as we can get a clear idea about form and content, then we can discuss how to classify arguments into those that are deductively correct and those that are not deductively correct.

6.

PRELIMINARY DEFINITIONS

In the present section we examine some of the basic ideas in logic which will be made considerably clearer in subsequent chapters. As we saw in the previous section there is a distinction in logic between form and content. There is likewise a distinction in logic between arguments that are good in form and arguments that are good in content. This distinction is best understood by way of an example or two. Consider the following arguments. (a1) all cats are dogs all dogs are reptiles therefore, all cats are reptiles

Chapter 1: Basic Concepts

9

(a2) all cats are vertebrates all mammals are vertebrates therefore, all cats are mammals Neither of these arguments is good, but they are bad for different reasons. Consider first their content. Whereas all the statements in (a1) are false, all the statements in (a2) are true. Since the premises of (a1) are not all true this is not a good argument as far as content goes, whereas (a2) is a good argument as far as content goes. Now consider their forms. This will be explained more fully in a later section. The question is this: do the premises support the conclusion? Does the conclusion follow from the premises? In the case of (a1), the premises do in fact support the conclusion, the conclusion does in fact follow from the premises. Although the premises are not true, if they were true then the conclusion would also be true, of necessity. In the case of (a2), the premises are all true, and so is the conclusion, but nevertheless the truth of the conclusion is not conclusively supported by the premises; in (a2), the conclusion does not follow from the premises. To see that the conclusion does not follow from the premises, we need merely substitute the term ‘reptiles’ for ‘mammals’. Then the premises are both true but the conclusion is false. All of this is meant to be at an intuitive level. The details will be presented later. For the moment, however we give some rough definitions to help us get started in understanding the ways of classifying various arguments. In examining an argument there are basically two questions one should ask. Question 1: Question 2: Are all of the premises true? Does the conclusion follow from the premises?

The classification of a given argument is based on the answers to these two questions. In particular, we have the following definitions. An argument is factually correct if and only if all of its premises are true. An argument is valid if and only if its conclusion follows from its premises. An argument is sound if and only if it is both factually correct and valid.

These will become clearer as you read further. Part of the problem has to do with knowing what ‘follows from’ means. more importantly perhaps. and a valid argument has good form. As a rough-and-ready definition of validity. In studying logic we are attempting to understand the meaning of ‘follows from’. the following is offered. An argument is valid if and only if it is impossible for the conclusion to be false while the premises are all true. Whether an argument is valid is sometimes difficult to decide. and as you study particular examples. a factually correct argument has good content. then the conclusion would necessarily also be true. To say that an argument is valid is to say that if the premises were true. broadly construed. we are attempting to learn how to distinguish between valid and invalid arguments. The question of the truth or falsity of individual statements is primarily the subject matter of the sciences. An alternative definition might be helpful in understanding validity. the definition only refers to the premises. and a sound argument has both good content and good form. . Symbolic Logic Basically. Although logic can teach us something about validity and invalidity. Sometimes it is hard to know whether or not the conclusion follows from the premises. Note that a factually correct argument may have a false conclusion. it can teach us very little about factual correctness.10 Hardegree.

that in each pair above. For example. which make them peculiar as arguments. Note the following about the four pairs of statements above. however. sentences (1)-(4) yield the following sentence forms. Thus.Chapter 1: Basic Concepts 11 7. the logical terms are all used to express relations among classes. for example. which serve as place holders. In syllogistic logic. and the remaining words are logical terms.C. every syllogism has exactly two premises. FORM AND CONTENT IN SYLLOGISTIC LOGIC In order to understand more fully the notion of logical form. in each case. in syllogistic logic. we can say that the two statements differ in content. In each case. ‘all cows are mammals’ and ‘all cats are felines’ are both substitution instances of sentence form (f1). For example. Concrete sentences are to be distinguished from sentence forms. more precisely. or the class of mammals. the statements on line (1) state that a certain class (Lutherans/dogs) is entirely contained in another class (Protestants/collies). For example. the two statements have the same form. one conclusion) come in very few models. Basically. the descriptive terms all refer to classes. which was invented by Aristotle (384-322 B. all such statements have forms similar to the following statements. Note. a sentence form may be obtained from a concrete sentence by replacing all the descriptive terms by letters. The arguments studied in syllogistic logic are called syllogisms (more precisely. The sentences (1)-(4) are what we call concrete sentences. Secondly. relative to syllogistic logic. whereas in general an argument can have any number of premises. the words written in bold-face letters are descriptive terms. they are all actual sentences of a particular actual language (English). categorical syllogisms). the statements are about different things. Also. (f1) (f2) (f3) (f4) all X are Y some X are Y no X are Y some X are not Y The process can also be reversed: concrete sentences may be obtained from sentence forms by uniformly substituting descriptive terms for the letters. On the other hand. First of all. the pair contains both a true statement (on the left) and a false statement (on the right). these two statements have the same form. (1) (2) (3) (4) all Lutherans are Protestants some Lutherans are Republicans no Lutherans are Methodists some Lutherans are not Democrats all dogs are collies some dogs are cats no dogs are pets some dogs are not mammals In these examples.). Thus. Syllogisms have a couple of distinguishing characteristics. Any concrete sentence obtained from a sentence form in this way is called a substitution instance of that form. so to speak. although ‘all Lutherans are Protestants’ differs in content from ‘all dogs are collies’. the statements that constitute a syllogism (two premises. we will briefly examine syllogistic logic. the class of cats. .

(f1) all L are P some L are R / some P are R all X are Y some X are Z / some Y are Z By a similar procedure we can convert concrete argument (a2) into an associated argument form. In other words. consist of precisely the same statements. Symbolic Logic Just as there is a distinction between concrete statements and statement forms. and use ‘Z’ in another statement. Do you know which one is which? In which one does the truth of the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion? In deriving an argument form from a concrete argument care must be taken in assigning letters to the descriptive terms. we cannot use two different letters for the same term: we cannot use ‘L’ for Lutherans in one statement. they are different in that one is a valid argument. They are different because their conclusions are different. we use a forward slash (/) to abbreviate ‘therefore’.12 Hardegree. using X. The following are examples of concrete arguments. An alternative version of the form. As we will later see. there is also a distinction between concrete arguments and argument forms. (f2) all L are P some P are R / some L are R all X are Y some Y are Z / some X are Z Observe that argument (a2) is obtained from argument (a1) simply by interchanging the conclusion and the second premise. we can do this because the descriptive terms in (a1) all have different initial letters. and the other is an invalid argument. this yields the following argument form. an argument form is an argument consisting entirely of statement forms. we can simply replace each descriptive term by its initial letter. is given to the right. (a1) all Lutherans are Protestants some Lutherans are Republicans / some Protestants are Republicans (a2) all Lutherans are Protestants some Protestants are Republicans / some Lutherans are Republicans Note: henceforth.Z. Secondly. A concrete argument is an argument consisting entirely of concrete statements. In order to obtain the argument form associated with (a1). . First of all different letters must be assigned to different terms: we cannot use ‘L’ for both ‘Lutherans’ and ‘Protestants’. these two arguments which are different.Y.

We begin by making precise definitions concerning statement forms and argument forms. ‘dogs’. In order to understand these definitions let us look at a very simple argument form (since it has just one premise it is not a syllogistic argument form): (F) all X are Y / some Y are Z Now consider the following concrete arguments. First of all. but it is not a uniform substitution instance. (1) (2) (3) all cats are dogs / some cats are cows all cats are dogs / some dogs are cats all cats are dogs / some dogs are cows These examples are not chosen because of their intrinsic interest. in such a way that each occurrence of the same letter is replaced by the same term. we attempt to get a better idea about these notions. On the other hand. Y is replaced by ‘dogs’.Chapter 1: Basic Concepts 13 8. Y. In order for (1) to be a substitution instance to (F). In each occurrence. A substitution instance of an argument/statement form is a concrete argument/statement that is obtained from that form by substituting appropriate descriptive terms for the letters. it is replaced by the same term – namely. It is accordingly not a substitution instance. but in the conclusion. (2) is a substitution instance of (F). but merely to illustrate the concepts of substitution instance and uniform substitution instance. There is only one letter that appears twice (or more) in (F) – namely. (2) is not a uniform substitution . In the present section. A uniform substitution instance of an argument/ statement form is a substitution instance with the additional property that distinct letters are replaced by distinct (non-equivalent) descriptive terms. it is required that each occurrence of the same letter is replaced by the same term. DEMONSTRATING INVALIDITY USING THE METHOD OF COUNTEREXAMPLES Earlier we discussed some of the basic ideas of logic. Therefore. (2) is a substitution instance of (F). Y is replaced by ‘cats’. and so it is not a uniform substitution instance either (why is this?). This is not the case in (1): in the premise. Next. including the notions of validity and invalidity. (1) is not a substitution instance of (F).

Two arguments/statements have the same form if and only if they are both uniform substitution instances of the same argument/statement form. (3) is a uniform substitution instance and hence a substitution instance. ‘dogs’. the following arguments have the same form. one of which is a non-uniform substitution instance. and one of which is a uniform substitution instance. (F) no X are Y no Y are Z / no X are Z no cats are dogs no cats are cows / no dogs are cows no cats are dogs no dogs are cats / no cats are cats no cats are dogs no dogs are cows / no cats are cows (1) (2) (3) Check to make sure you agree with this classification. Thus. The only descriptive term that is repeated is ‘dogs’.14 Hardegree. we now define the notion of having the same form. Y is the only letter that is repeated. X and Z – are replaced by the same descriptive term – namely. ‘cats’. Symbolic Logic instance since distinct letters – namely. it is replaced by the same term – namely. in each occurrence. of (F). it replaces Y. we check to see that the same descriptive term is not used to replace different letters. So (3) is a substitution instance of (F). and in each case. Finally. (3) is a uniform substitution instance. Having defined (uniform) substitution instance. The following is an argument form followed by three concrete arguments. in that order. one of which is not a substitution instance. because they can both be obtained from the argument form that follows as uniform substitution instances. (a1) all Lutherans are Republicans some Lutherans are Democrats / some Republicans are Democrats (a2) all cab drivers are maniacs some cab drivers are Democrats / some maniacs are Democrats The form common to (a1) and (a2) is: . For example. To see whether it is a uniform substitution instance.

Earlier. Let us look at them again. we gave two intuitive definitions of validity. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF LOGIC Whether an argument is valid or invalid is determined entirely by its form. then the conclusion would necessarily also be true. that this method cannot be used to prove that a valid argument is in fact valid. we begin with the following fundamental principle of logic. To say that an argument is valid is to say that if the premises were true. In order to understand the method of counterexamples. They cannot be obtained from a common argument form by uniform substitution. they are difficult to apply to specific instances. An argument is valid if and only if it is impossible for the conclusion to be false while the premises are all true. as follows. .Chapter 1: Basic Concepts 15 (F) all X are Y some X are Z / some Y are Z As an example of two arguments that do not have the same form consider arguments (2) and (3) above. It would be nice if we had some methods that could be applied to specific arguments by which to decide whether they are valid or invalid. Although these definitions may give us a general idea concerning what ‘valid’ means in logic. This principle can be rendered somewhat more specific. Note however. we examine a method for showing that an argument is invalid (if it is indeed invalid) – the method of counterexamples. In the remainder of the present section. in other words: VALIDITY IS A FUNCTION OF FORM.

Now. then it is invalid. The Trivial Principle follows from the definition of validity given earlier: an argument is valid if and only if it is impossible for the conclusion to be false while the premises are all true. every argument with form (F) is invalid. But if (A) is invalid. if the premises are all true. then every argument with the same form is also invalid. Therefore. then it is possible for the conclusion to be false while the premises are all true. THE TRIVIAL PRINCIPLE No argument with all true premises but a false conclusion is valid. If an argument has all true premises but has a false conclusion. If an argument is invalid. and the conclusion is in fact false. which is stated in two forms. In other words. Consider the following concrete argument. (a2) all cats are mammals some mammals are pets / some cats are pets (a3) all Lutherans are Protestants some Protestants are Democrats / some Lutherans are Democrats . if the premises are all true. and the corresponding argument form to its right. then every argument with the same form is also valid. There is one more principle that we need to add before describing the method of counterexamples. Now let's put all these ideas together. then in virtue of the Fundamental Principle (rewritten). Symbolic Logic If an argument is valid. (A) all cats are mammals some mammals are dogs / some cats are dogs (F) all X are Y some Y are Z / some X are Z First notice that whereas the premises of (A) are both true.16 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF LOGIC (REWRITTEN) Hardegree. For example. Therefore. the conclusion is false. argument (A) is invalid. the following arguments are invalid. then the argument is not valid that is. we call it the Trivial Principle. every argument with the same form as (A) is also invalid. and the conclusion is in fact false. it is invalid. in virtue of the Trivial Principle. Since the principle almost doesn't need to be stated.

some mammals are pets.g. which is based on the following definition and principle. One might reason as follows: . it is possible for the conclusion to be false even while the premises are both true. in argument (a2). it is possible for the conclusion to be false while the premises are both true. B. To say that (a2) (or (a3)) is invalid is to say that the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion – the premises do not support the conclusion. yet no cats are pets (in virtue of the edict proclaimed by the dictator). is the method of counterexamples. but no cats are pets. An easier method. some mammals are pets (e. The Principle of Counterexamples follows our earlier principles and the definition of the term ‘counterexample’. For example. which does not require one to imagine unusual worlds. In this world.. PRINCIPLE OF COUNTEREXAMPLES A. both these arguments are invalid. each stated in two forms. it may be difficult to imagine a world in which the premises are true but the conclusion is false. A counterexample to an argument form is any substitution instance (not necessarily uniform) of that form having true premises but a false conclusion. An argument (form) is valid only if it does not admit any counterexamples. Such a world could in fact be easily brought about by a dastardly dictator. A. Nevertheless. A counterexample to a concrete argument d is any concrete argument that (1) (2) (3) has the same form as d has all true premises has a false conclusion B. Thus. which is to say that (a2) is invalid. An argument (form) is invalid if it admits a counterexample. in both arguments (a2) and (a3).Chapter 1: Basic Concepts 17 Notice that the premises are both true and the conclusion is true. Can't we imagine a world in which all cats are mammals. In demonstrating that a particular argument is invalid. dogs). all cats are mammals (that hasn't changed!). who passed an edict prohibiting cats to be kept as pets.

In each of the following. Then there is another argument d* such that: (1) d* has the same form as d. and (3) d* has a false conclusion. then usually we cannot say whether the argument is valid or invalid. the argument to the right has the same form as the argument to the left. (2) d* has all true premises. Thus. The same applies to (a5) and (c5). it has all true premises. For example. we cannot say. Let us consider two more examples. In fact. As an example. an invalid argument is given. the argument is definitely invalid (by the Trivial Principle). we merely look at the earlier argument (A). nevertheless. and so the argument is invalid. (c4) is not valid either. But (c4) is not valid. In (a4). However. (a4) no cats are dogs no dogs are apes / no cats are apes (a5) all humans are mammals no humans are reptiles / no mammals are reptiles (c4) no men are women no women are fathers / no men are fathers (c5) all men are humans no men are mothers / no humans are mothers In each case. So. d is invalid also. To see this. If all we know about an argument is whether its premises and conclusion are true or false. the existence of (A) demonstrates that (a2) and (a3) are invalid. d* is invalid. one can demonstrate that an argument is invalid by showing that it admits a counterexample. and so is the conclusion. since they have exactly the same form. there is only one case in which we can say: when the premises are all true. . This is summarized in the following table. it demonstrates the invalidity of the argument to the left. Since d* has all true premises but a false conclusion. Symbolic Logic Suppose argument d admits a counterexample. in all other cases. the premises are true. Thus. and the conclusion is false. in virtue of the Trivial Principle. But d and d* have the same form. the conclusion does not follow from the premises. because it has a false conclusion and all true premises. and it has a false conclusion. and note that it is a counterexample to both (a2) and (a3). it also has all true premises and a false conclusion. Specifically. consider the earlier arguments (a2) and (a3). so in virtue of the Fundamental Principle.18 Hardegree. and a counterexample is given to its right. as well as in (a5). then (c4) would be valid also. if (a4) were valid. According to the Principle of Counterexamples. we need additional information about the form of the argument. (A) has the same form as (a2) and (a3). one way or the other. These are both invalid.

Analogously. In the present section. need more info can't tell. having all true premises but a false conclusion. you could refute me simply by finding a swan that isn't white. it does not mean that no counterexample exists. EXAMPLES OF VALID ARGUMENTS IN SYLLOGISTIC LOGIC In the previous section. At present we have no method to demonstrate that these arguments are in fact valid. this swan would be a counterexample to my claim. (f1) all X are Y all Y are Z / all X are Z (f2) all X are Y some X are Z / some Y are Z (f3) all X are Z no Y are Z / no X are Y (f4) no X are Y some Y are Z / some Z are not X . although we are going to examine some examples of valid syllogisms. which is an argument with the same form. need more info definitely invalid can't tell. we examine a few examples of valid syllogistic arguments (also called valid syllogisms). need more info PREMISES all true all true not all true not all true 9. this will come in later sections of this chapter. Failure to find a counterexample is not proof that an argument is valid. The following are all valid syllogistic argument forms. if you could not find a non-white swan. these merely serve as examples. For the moment. only that it was not disproved yet. On the other hand. it might simply mean that we have not looked hard enough.Chapter 1: Basic Concepts 19 CONCLUSION true false true false VALID OR INVALID? can't tell. we examined a few examples of invalid arguments in syllogistic logic. Note carefully: if we cannot find a counterexample to an argument. Thus. In each case of an invalid argument we found a counterexample. I could not thereby say that my claim was proved. we do not presently have a technique to prove this. if I claimed “all swans are white”.

a number of possibilities are exemplified. every substitution instance is valid. .20 Hardegree. the argument is valid. Let us examine the first argument form (f1). It is possible for a valid argument to have all true premises and a true conclusion – (1a). (1a) all cats are mammals all mammals are vertebrates / all cats are vertebrates (1b) all cats are reptiles all reptiles are vertebrates / all cats are vertebrates (1c) all cats are animals all animals are mammals / all cats are mammals (1d) all cats are reptiles all reptiles are mammals / all cats are mammals (1e) all cats are mammals all mammals are reptiles / all cats are reptiles (1f) all cats are reptiles all reptiles are cold-blooded / all cats are cold-blooded (1g) all cats are dogs all dogs are reptiles / all cats are reptiles (1h) all Martians are reptiles all reptiles are vertebrates / all Martians are vertebrates T T T F T T T F T F F T T F F F T F F F F ? T ? In the above examples. Symbolic Logic To say that (f1)-(f4) are valid argument forms is to say that every argument obtained from them by substitution is a valid argument. then the conclusion would necessarily also be true. it is possible for a valid argument to have all false premises and a false conclusion – (1g). Since (f1) is valid. On the other hand. we don't know whether the first premise is true or whether it is false. In the case of argument (1h). since it is by far the simplest to comprehend. Nonetheless. if the first premise were true. it is possible for a valid argument to have all false premises and a true conclusion – (1d). For example the following arguments are all valid. since the second premise is true. it is not possible for a valid argument to have all true premises and a false conclusion – no example of this. that is. it is possible for a valid argument to have some false premises and a true conclusion – (1b)-(1c).

All we know is that in any world (real or imaginary). if I (the writer) were to introduce a character in a later chapter call it Persimion (unknown gender!). Thus. as for example in a fictional story. it follows from other things already stated. There is no world (real or imaginary) in which the first two statements are true. Suppose I write a science fiction story. and suppose this story involves various classes of people (human or otherwise!). The third statement follows from the first two. because it is not possible for the first two statements above to be true without the third statement also being true. but the third statement is false. we can say that statement (3) follows from statements (1) and (2) without having any idea whether they are true or false. among them being Gargatrons and Dacrons. I would be guilty of inconsistency. (1) (2) all Dacrons are thieves no Gargatrons are thieves (the latter is equivalent to: no thieves are Gargatrons). I would not have to say it for you (the reader) to know that it is true in my story. . and if I were to say that Persimion is both a Dacron and a Gargatron. Furthermore. if (1) and (2) are true. What could the reader immediately conclude about the relation between Dacrons and Gargatrons? (3) no Dacrons are Gargatrons (or: no Gargatrons are Dacrons) I (the writer) would not have to say this explicitly for it to be true in my story. then (3) must also be true. The truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion may not even arise. Suppose I say the following about these two classes.Chapter 1: Basic Concepts 21 The truth or falsity of the premises and conclusion of an argument is not crucial to the validity of the argument. To say that an argument is valid is simply to say that the conclusion follows from the premises. Note that the argument from (1) and (2) to (3) has the form (F3) from the beginning of this section. then I would be guilty of logical inconsistency in the story.

the premises are all true. if the premises are all true. 6. If an argument is valid and has a false conclusion. 1. 17. 15. 19. then it must have all true premises. 2. the premises are all true. Every valid argument is factually correct. If an argument is valid and has all true premises. In a sound argument the conclusion is true. In any valid argument. 10. In any sound argument. then its conclusion must be true. In any factually correct argument. 9. In any valid argument. 8. 13. 7. . 5. 12. Every valid argument is sound. 18. Every valid argument has a true conclusion. 4. Every sound argument is valid. the conclusion is true. 3. If an argument is valid and has a true conclusion. 20. Every factually correct argument is sound. 16. Every factually correct argument is valid. Symbolic Logic 10. EXERCISES FOR CHAPTER 1 EXERCISE SET A For each of the following say whether the statement is true (T) or false (F). then it must have at least one false premise.22 Hardegree. In any valid argument. 14. Every factually correct argument has a true conclusion. Every sound argument has a true conclusion. Every sound argument is factually correct. 11. the premises are all true. then the conclusion is also true. If an argument is valid and has at least one false premise then its conclusion must be false. In any factually correct argument. the conclusion is true.

In each case. you are given an argument to analyze. 4. . the answer might legitimately be “can't tell”. 5. 9. and hence on cannot decide whether the argument is sound. 1. 10. all dogs are reptiles all reptiles are Martians / all dogs are Martians some dogs are cats all cats are felines / some dogs are felines all dogs are Republicans some dogs are flea-bags / some Republicans are flea-bags all dogs are Republicans some Republicans are flea-bags / some dogs are flea-bags some cats are pets some pets are dogs / some cats are dogs all cats are mammals all dogs are mammals / all cats are dogs all lizards are reptiles no reptiles are warm-blooded / no lizards are warm-blooded all dogs are reptiles no reptiles are warm-blooded / no dogs are warm-blooded no cats are dogs no dogs are cows / no cats are cows no cats are dogs some dogs are pets / some pets are not cats 2. 6. For example. 7. (1) (2) (3) Is the argument factually correct? Is the argument valid? Is the argument sound? Note that in many cases. in certain cases in which one does not know whether the premises are true or false. 3.Chapter 1: Basic Concepts 23 EXERCISE SET B In each of the following. 8. one cannot decide whether the argument is factually correct. answer the following questions.

Symbolic Logic 12.24 11. 16. 14. only dogs are pets some cats are pets / some cats are dogs only bullfighters are macho Max is macho / Max is a bullfighter only bullfighters are macho Max is a bullfighter / Max is macho food containing DDT is dangerous everything I cook is dangerous / everything I cook contains DDT the only dogs I like are collies Sean is a dog I like / Sean is a collie Hardegree. 15. 13. the only people still working these exercises are masochists I am still working on these exercises / I am a masochist .

. A valid argument does not admit a counterexample. attempt to construct a counterexample.Chapter 1: Basic Concepts 25 EXERCISE SET C In the following. 9. 8. so in some cases. In each case. you are given several syllogistic arguments (some valid. 7. you will not be able to construct a counterexample. 5. all dogs are reptiles all reptiles are Martians / all dogs are Martians all dogs are mammals some mammals are pets / some dogs are pets all ducks waddle nothing that waddles is graceful / no duck is graceful all cows are eligible voters some cows are stupid / some eligible voters are stupid all birds can fly some mammals can fly / some birds are mammals all cats are vertebrates all mammals are vertebrates / all cats are mammals all dogs are Republicans some Republicans are flea-bags / some dogs are flea-bags all turtles are reptiles no turtles are warm-blooded / no reptiles are warm-blooded no dogs are cats no cats are apes / no dogs are apes no mammals are cold-blooded some lizards are cold-blooded / some mammals are not lizards 2. some invalid). 1. 3. 6. 10. 4.

4. 7. 19. 16. False False False False False True True False False True EXERCISE SET B 1. Symbolic Logic 11. 9. . False False True True False True True True True False 11. 8. 5. 3.26 Hardegree. 13. 4. 8. 18. 6. 15. 5. ANSWERS TO EXERCISES FOR CHAPTER 1 EXERCISE SET A 1. 3. 12. 17. 6. 14. 2. factually correct? valid? sound? factually correct? valid? sound? factually correct? valid? sound? factually correct? valid? sound? factually correct? valid? sound? factually correct? valid? sound? factually correct? valid? sound? factually correct? valid? sound? NO YES NO NO YES NO NO YES NO NO NO NO YES NO NO YES NO NO YES YES YES NO YES NO 2. 10. 7. 20.

15. . 16. 14. factually correct? valid? sound? factually correct? valid? sound? factually correct? valid? sound? factually correct? valid? sound? factually correct? valid? sound? factually correct? valid? sound? factually correct? valid? sound? factually correct? valid? sound? 10. 11. 12. 13.Chapter 1: Basic Concepts 27 YES NO NO YES YES YES NO YES NO NO YES NO NO NO NO can't tell NO NO can't tell YES can't tell can't tell YES can't tell 9.

9. admits no counterexample 5. 10. 7. all dogs are reptiles all reptiles are Martians / all dogs are Martians 2. admits no counterexample 3. 4. admits no counterexample Counterexample valid. 8. . all birds lay eggs some mammals lay eggs (the platypus) / some birds are mammals all cats are vertebrates all reptiles are vertebrates / all cats are reptiles all dogs are mammals some mammals are cats / some dogs are cats all turtles are reptiles no turtles are lizards / no reptiles are lizards no dogs are cats no cats are poodles / no dogs are poodles no mammals are cold-blooded some vertebrates are cold-blooded / some mammals are not vertebrates 6.28 Hardegree. Symbolic Logic EXERCISE SET C Original Argument 1. all dogs are mammals some mammals are pets / some dogs are pets all ducks waddle nothing that waddles is graceful / no duck is graceful all cows are eligible voters some cows are stupid / some eligible voters are stupid all birds can fly some mammals can fly / some birds are mammals all cats are vertebrates all mammals are vertebrates / all cats are mammals all dogs are Republicans some Republicans are flea-bags / some dogs are flea-bags all turtles are reptiles no turtles are warm-blooded / no reptiles are warm-blooded no dogs are cats no cats are apes / no dogs are apes no mammals are cold-blooded some lizards are cold-blooded / some mammals are not lizards all dogs are mammals some mammals are cats / some dogs are cats valid. valid.

....... 10............................................................... 30 Truth-Functional Statement Connectives ............................................................... 12................................................. 37 A Statement Connective That Is Not Truth-Functional.................................................. TRUTH FUNCTIONAL CONNECTIVES Introduction............................... 40 The Conditional ....................................................................... 56 Answers To Exercises For Chapter 2 ................. 48 Exercises For Chapter 2 ...................................... 6.......................................................................... 30 Statement Connectives.................2 1. 35 Disjunction ........................................................ 46 Truth Tables For Complex Formulas...................... 3............................ 45 Complex Formulas .. 14........................... 42 The Truth-Functional Version Of If-Then..... 5..... 43 The Biconditional.............. 33 Conjunction......................... 2................. 9.................................. 13................ 8.......................................................................................................................................................... 59 %def~±²´& ............................................................ 41 The Non-Truth-Functional Version Of If-Then ....... 4........................................................................... 11......................................................................... 15....................................... 39 Negation ...................... 7................................

a (statement) connective takes one or more smaller statements and forms a larger statement. we examine sentential logic (also called propositional logic and statement logic). The following are further examples of connectives. ‘are’. However. specifically. The form of an argument is a function of the arrangement of the terms in the argument. as opposed to a descriptive term. In the next few chapters. an argument is valid or invalid purely in virtue of its form. ‘no’. Rather. In sentential logic. (e1) snow is white and grass is green (e2) all cats are felines and some felines are not cats (e3) it is raining and it is sleeting Notice that the blanks are filled with statements and the resulting expressions are also statements. Symbolic Logic 1. which represents a different level of logical analysis. and ‘not’. In other words. STATEMENT CONNECTIVES We begin by defining statement connective. the logical terms are truth-functional statement connectives. the logical terms include ‘all’. INTRODUCTION As noted earlier. which are followed by particular instances. ‘some’. is not absolute. it depends upon the level of logical analysis we are pursuing. whenever the blanks are filled by statements the resulting expression is also a statement. The following are examples of statements obtained in this manner. or what we will simply call a connective. the level of syllogistic logic. In syllogistic logic. what counts as a logical term. In the previous chapter we briefly examined one level of logical analysis. The following is a simple example of a connective. and nothing else. we examine a different branch of logic. . and the descriptive terms are all expressions that denote classes. as noted earlier. 2. where the logical terms play a primary role. A (statement) connective is an expression with one or more blanks (places) such that. ___________ and ____________ To say that this expression is a connective is to say that if we fill each blank with a statement then we obtain another statement.30 Hardegree.

A three-place connective is a connective with three blanks. according to how many blanks (places) are involved. it is useful to introduce a further pair of definitions.Chapter 2: Truth-Functional Connectives 31 (c1) it is not true that __________________ (c2) the president believes that ___________ (c3) it is necessarily true that ____________ (c4) (c5) (c6) (c7) __________ or __________ if __________ then __________ __________ only if __________ __________ unless __________ (c8) __________ if __________. At this point. otherwise __________ (c9) __________ unless __________ in which case __________ (i1) it is not true that all felines are cats (i2) the president believes that snow is white (i3) it is necessarily true that 2+2=4 (i4) it is raining or it is sleeting (i5) if it is raining then it is cloudy (i6) I will pass only if I study (i7) I will play tennis unless it rains (i8) I will play tennis if it is warm. A simple statement is a statement that is not constructed out of smaller statements by the application of a statement connective. otherwise I will play racquetball (i9) I will play tennis unless it rains in which case I will play squash Notice that the above examples are divided into three groups. etc. A two-place connective is a connective with two blanks. This grouping corresponds to the following series of definitions. A one-place connective is a connective with one blank. A compound statement is a statement that is constructed from one or more smaller statements by the application of a statement connective. .

.. and the president believes that all swans are white In this example. The above statement can in turn be used to form an even larger compound statement.. A connective can also be applied to compound statements.’ connects the following two statements.. following are examples of simple statements. it is not true that all swans are white the president believes that all swans are white which are themselves compound statements. there are three connectives involved: it is not true that. using the two-place connective ‘if. In all the examples we have considered so far. (s1) (s2) (s3) (s4) (s5) (s6) snow is white grass is green I am hungry it is raining all cats are felines some cats are pets The Note that. it is not true that all swans are white. the president believes that.. in this example.... THEN the president is fallible There is no theoretical limit on the complexity of compound statements constructed using statement connectives. the president is fallible We accordingly obtain the following compound statement.. there are practical limits to the complexity of compound statements. due to the limitation of .. all statements in syllogistic logic are simple statements.. For example. as illustrated in the following example. the two-place connective ‘..and. However....’. which is to say that they are regarded by sentential logic as having no internal structure.32 Hardegree.and. IF it is not true that all swans are white. we combine it with the following (simple) statement. the constituent statements are all simple statements. Thus.then. . Symbolic Logic We have already seen many examples of compound statements. AND the president believes that all swans are white.. we can form compound statements that are as long as we please (say a billion miles long!). from the viewpoint of sentential logic. in principle.

then we say that its truth value is F. The difference between weight and truth-value is quantitative: whereas weight can take infinitely many values (the positive real numbers). Recall that a statement is a sentence that. In logic it is customary to refer to truth and falsity as truth values. but only special ones – namely. or simply atoms. 3. but these parts are not sentential in nature. then we say its truth value is T. Similarly. etc. is either true or false. oxygen. The truth value of a true statement is T. we can say that the truth value of ‘it is raining’ is T. At the level we wish to pursue. On one occasion. this is a practical limit. I doubt very seriously whether any human can understand a statement that is a billion miles long (or even one mile long!) However. it might be F.). Whereas chemical atoms (hydrogen. Furthermore. which are respectively abbreviated T and F. and the limitation of human minds to comprehend excessively long and complex statements. such as ‘it is raining’. or simply molecules. protons. we introduce terminology that is often used in sentential logic. atomic sentences have parts. These further (sub-atomic) parts are the topic of later chapters. one day it might be 150 pounds. truth value can only take two values. TRUTH-FUNCTIONAL STATEMENT CONNECTIVES In the previous section. however. and by analogy. compound statements are often referred to as molecular statements. if a statement is true. By way of concluding this section. sentential logic is not concerned with all connectives. not a theoretical limit. This is summarized as follows. Just as we can say that the weight of John is 150 pounds. Also. The truth value of a statement (say. on another occasion. ‘it is raining’) is analogous to the weight of a person. For example.Chapter 2: Truth-Functional Connectives 33 space and time. the truth-functional connectives. sentential atoms are the smallest sentential units. we examined the general class of (statement) connectives. . the truth value can vary from occasion to occasion. etc. for some statements at least. and if a statement is false. Similarly. these parts are not chemical in nature. on predicate logic. T and F. The analogy continues. the truth value of ‘it is raining’ might be T. Although the word ‘atom’ literally means “that which is indivisible” or “that which has no parts”. another day it might be 152 pounds. The truth value of a false statement is F.) are the smallest chemical units. John's weight can vary from day to day. when uttered. is with chemistry. Simple statements are often referred to as atomic statements. obviously. we know that the chemical atoms do have parts (neutrons. The analogy.

A statement connective is truth-functional if and only if the truth value of any compound statement obtained by applying that connective is a function of (is completely determined by) the individual truth values of the constituent statements that form the compound. to say that the connective + is not truth-functional is to say this: merely knowing the truth values of S1 and S2 does not automatically tell us the truth value of S1+S2. like addition. We will discuss several examples of truth functions in the following sections. the input are numbers. If we want to learn the addition function. the truth value of S1+S2.) On the other hand. nor do they produce numbers as output. Just as we can apply functions to numbers (addition. and to remember. and suppose we have any two statements. and so is the output. learning a truth-function is considerably simpler than learning a numerical function. Since there are only two truth values (compared with infinitely many numbers). if we input the numbers 2 and 3. The basic idea is this: suppose we have a statement connective. etc. you can simply memorize it (two plus two is four. For example. Truth-functions do not take numbers as input. you can master the underlying concept (what are you doing when you add two numbers together?) The best way is probably a combination of these two techniques. let's look at the definition of a truth-functional connective. On the one hand. call them S1 and S2. call it +. Usually we learn a tiny fragment of this in elementary school when we learn the addition tables. the latter are truth-functions. then we automatically know. Symbolic Logic The analogy continues. Rather. we can apply functions to truth values. The addition tables tabulate the output of the addition function for a few select inputs. subtraction. For the moment. we have to learn what the output number is for any two input numbers. exponentiation. then the output is 5.). Then we can form a compound. truth-functions take truth values as input. and we learn it primarily by rote. On the other hand. Just as there are two ways to learn. or at least we can compute. to say that the connective + is truthfunctional is to say this: if we know the truth values of S1 and S2 individually. the addition tables. . there are two ways to learn truth-function tables. In the case of a numerical function. and they produce truth values as output.34 Hardegree. which is denoted S1+S2. Now. two plus three is five. This definition will be easier to comprehend after a few examples have been discussed. Whereas the former are numerical functions. etc. An example of a connective that is not truth-functional is discussed later.

we employ various symbolic devices. in the second and third cases. the other is false. x+y is called the sum of x and y. R&S is called a conjunction. R&S Finally. For example. and ‘S’ to abbreviate ‘it is sleeting’. In other words. for example. Individually. The letter we choose will usually be suggestive of the statement that is abbreviated.] Conjunction is a two-place connective. Thus. First. there are four cases. given in the following table. in the fourth case. However. We discuss this later. Second. Putting these abbreviations together. CONJUNCTION The first truth-functional connective we discuss is conjunction. This means that if we know the truth value of each conjunct. . one is true. which individually are called conjuncts. in arithmetic. both statements are false. we can combine the following two statements it is raining it is sleeting to form the compound statement it is raining and it is sleeting. in logic. A word about terminology. for example. In order to aid our analysis of logical form in sentential logic. More specifically. we can form a compound statement by combining them with ‘and’. [Note: In traditional grammar. we might use ‘R’ to abbreviate ‘it is raining’. and x and y are individually called summands. we abbreviate the above compound as follows. in a manner similar to arithmetic. By analogy. Conjunction is a truth-functional connective. these can be true or false. so in combination. the word ‘conjunction’ is used to refer to any twoplace statement connective. which corresponds to the English expression ‘and’. we abbreviate simple statements by upper case Roman letters. R&S is called the conjunction of R and S. case 1 case 2 case 3 case 4 R T T F F S T F T F In the first case. Consider the simple statements R and S. we can simply compute the truth value of the conjunction. the word ‘conjunction’ refers exclusively to one connective – ‘and’. if we have two statements (simple or compound). we use special symbols to abbreviate (truth-functional) connectives. we abbreviate conjunction (‘and’) by the ampersand sign (‘&’).Chapter 2: Truth-Functional Connectives 35 4. we use parentheses to punctuate compound statements. both statements are true.

to help . but if one or both are false (cases 2-4). each of the following statements summarizes the table in more or less ordinary English. No matter what R and S are specifically. They can stand for any statements whatsoever. Notice. We can also display the truth function for conjunction in a number of ways. and the truth values of d&e are the &. the truth values of e are under the e. it seems plausible that the conjunction R&S is true if both the conjuncts are true individually. then the conjunction R&S is also true. then the conjunction R&S is false. and this table still holds. We do not have to regard ‘R’ and ‘S’ as standing for specific statements. they are followed by three corresponding tables for multiplication. What is the truth value of R&S in each of the above cases? Well. This is summarized in the following table. A conjunction d&e is true if both conjuncts are true. the truth values of d are all under the d. A conjunction d&e is true if and only if both conjuncts are true. Here. that the final (output) column is also shaded. otherwise. d and e stand for arbitrary statements. d T T F F a 1 1 0 0 e d&e T T F F T F F F b 1 0 1 0 a%b 1 0 0 0 d T T F F a 1 1 0 0 & T F F F % 1 0 0 0 e T F T F b 1 0 1 0 & T F T T F F F F % 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Note: The middle table is obtained from the first table simply by superimposing the three columns of the first table. Symbolic Logic Now consider the conjunction formed out of these two statements: R&S. The following three tables present the truth function for conjunction. in the middle table. For example. and R&S is false if either conjunct is false. if they are both true (case 1). it is false. also.36 Hardegree. Thus. We can summarize this information in a number of ways. case 1 case 2 case 3 case 4 R T T F F S T F T F R&S T F F F The information contained in this table readily generalizes.

Just as R&S is called the conjunction of R and S.Chapter 2: Truth-Functional Connectives 37 distinguish it from the input columns. which corresponds roughly to the English ‘or’. We can also express the content of these tables in a series of statements. (1) (2) (3) (4) T&T=T T&F=F F&T=F F&F=F 1%1=1 1%0=0 0%1=0 0%0=0 For example. or senses. Compare them with the corresponding statements concerning multiplication. which are respectively called the exclusive sense and the inclusive sense. OR French fries (e2) would you like squash. just as the constituents of a conjunction are called conjuncts. you cannot choose both disjuncts. beginning with the following simple statements. DISJUNCTION The second truth-functional connective we consider is called disjunction. disjunction is a two-place connective: given any two statements S1 and S2. This method saves much space. OR beans In answering these questions. choosing one disjunct excludes choosing the other disjunct. In English. (c) it is raining or it is sleeting R´S The symbol for disjunction is ‘´’ (wedge). just like we did in elementary school. the inclusive sense of disjunction is typified by the following sentences. the word ‘or’ has at least two different meanings. the constituents of a disjunction are called disjuncts. which is important later. the first statement may be read “T ampersand T is T” (analogously. The conjunction truth function may be conveyed by the following series of statements. (e1) would you like a baked potato. conjunctions. On the other hand. Like conjunction. . These phrases may simply be memorized. For example. we can form the compound statement ‘S1 or S2’. 5. (s1) it is raining (s2) it is sleeting R S we can form the following compound statement. but it is better to understand what they are about – namely. Similarly. R´S is called the disjunction of R and S. “one times one is one”). The exclusive sense is typified by the following sentences.

In logic. the inclusive sense of ‘or’ (the sense of ‘vel’ or ‘and/or’) is taken as basic. The truth table for ´ is given as follows. Latin has two different disjunctive words. it is true. A disjunction d´e is false if and only if both disjuncts are false. By using ‘and/or’ they are able to avoid ambiguity in legal contracts. ‘vel’ (inclusive) and ‘aut’ (exclusive). the initial letter of ‘vel’). which does double duty. This problem has led the legal profession to invent the expression ‘and/or’ to use when inclusive disjunction is intended. English simply has one word ‘or’. otherwise. By contrast. then so is d´e. Symbolic Logic (i1) would you like coffee or dessert (i2) would you like cream or sugar with your coffee In answering these questions. . A disjunction d´e is false if both disjuncts are false. which is worth remembering. The following is an immediate consequence. choosing one disjunct does not exclude choosing the other disjunct as well. regardless of the truth value of e. d T T F F e d´e T T F T T T F F d T T F F ´ T T T F e T F T F ´ T F T T T F T F The information conveyed in these tables can be conveyed in either of the following statements. then so is d´e. it is symbolized by wedge ‘´’ (suggestive of ‘v’. If d is true. you can choose both disjuncts.38 Hardegree. regardless of the truth value of d. If e is true.

we can safely assume that it is false (unless the speaker in question is God. Merely knowing the individual truth values of S (‘I am sad’) and R (‘it is raining’). Suppose both S (‘I am sad’) and R (‘it is raining’) are true. The question is. On the other hand. we do not know whether the rain is responsible for the sadness. it might not. in which case all bets are off). Like conjunction (‘and’) and disjunction (‘or’). given any two statements S1 and S2. the question mark (?) indicates that the truth value is unclear. or whether it is false. For example. A STATEMENT CONNECTIVE THAT IS NOT TRUTHFUNCTIONAL Conjunction (&) and disjunction (´) are both truth-functional connectives. It might be. ‘because’ is a two-place connective. then the compound is false. we can form the compound statement ‘S1 because S2’. S T T F F R T F T F S because R R because S ? ? F F F F F F In the above table. we do not automatically know the truth . so there are four possible combinations of truth values. Merely knowing that the speaker is sad and that it is raining.Chapter 2: Truth-Functional Connectives 39 6. at least in the case of it is raining because I am sad. what is the truth value of each resulting compound. we discuss a connective that is not truth-functional – namely. (c1) I am sad because it is raining (c2) it is raining because I am sad S because R R because S S R The simple statements (s1) and (s2) can be individually true or false. In the present section. On the other hand. the connective ‘because’. for each combination of truth values. What can we say about the truth value of ‘S because R’ and ‘R because S’? Well. given the following simple statements (s1) I am sad (s2) it is raining we can form the following compound statements. if both statements are true. then it is not clear what the truth value of the compound is. in the case of I am sad because it is raining. we cannot say whether it is true. First of all. it seems fairly clear that if either of the simple statements is false. This is summarized in the following partial truth table.

This is also absurd. In the present section. the second strategy employs a statement connective. For surely some statements of the form ‘d because e’ are true. We can also deny the original statement by prefixing the whole sentence by the modifier it is not true that to obtain it is not true that it is raining The advantage of the first strategy is that it produces a colloquial sentence. The advantage of the second strategy is that it is simple to apply. we have examined three two-place connectives. Symbolic Logic value of the compound ‘I am sad because it is raining’. which corresponds to the word ‘not’. the expression it is not true that ______________ . it is raining. In other words. or at least implausible. If we replace ‘?’ by ‘T’. The following might be considered an example. for that would mean that both of the following statements are true. ‘because’ is not a truth-functional connective. negation. If it is truth-functional. which means that ‘d because e’ is always false. NEGATION So far. thus yielding it is not raining. and one obtains the denial. If we wish to deny a statement. This is absurd. Furthermore. In particular. then the truth table for ‘R because S’ is identical to the truth table for R&S. for example. grass is green because 2+2=4 2+2=4 because grass is green Our other choice is to replace ‘?’ by ‘F’.40 Hardegree. we examine a one-place connective. We have only two choices. additional information (of a complicated sort) is needed to decide whether the compound is true or false. This means that the output column consists entirely of F's. This would mean that for any statements d and e. the easiest way is to insert the word ‘not’ in a strategic location. one simply prefixes the statement in question by the modifier. Another way to see that ‘because’ is not truth-functional is to suppose to the contrary that it is truth-functional. ‘d because e’ says no more than ‘d and e’. grass is green because grass contains chlorophyll 7. then we can replace the question mark in the above table.

d T F ~d F T ~d F T T F In the second table. 8. THE CONDITIONAL In the present section. then we automatically know the truth value of the negation ~S. then its denial is false. ~d has the opposite truth value of d. its single blank can be filled by any statement. then its denial (negation) is true. short for negation. and the result is also a statement. and if S is in fact true. then ___________. For ~S denies what S asserts. which corresponds to the expression if ___________. The following are variant negation expressions. if we know the truth value of a statement S. For example.Chapter 2: Truth-Functional Connectives 41 meets our criterion to be a one-place connective. (1) (2) I am relaxed I am happy and we can form the following conditional statements. The right table is simply a compact version of the left table. the truth value of ~S is simply the opposite of the truth value of S. which is a stylized form of ‘n’. it is false that __________________ it is not the case that ____________ Next. so if S is in fact false. . then the resulting expression is also a statement. Both tables can be summarized in the following statement. The conditional connective is a two-place connective. This is plausible. In other words. we introduce one of the two remaining truth-functional connectives that are customarily studied in sentential logic – the conditional connective. This one-place connective is called negation. we note that the negation connective (~) is truth-functional. which is to say that we can replace the two blanks in the above expression by any two statements. the truth values of d are placed below the d. This is summarized in the following truth tables. and the resulting truth values for ~d are placed below the tilde sign (~). using if-then. and is symbolized by ‘~’ (tilde). we can take the following simple statements.

and the word ‘consequent’ means “that which follows”.A. and the second constituent is called the consequent. The constituents of a conditional d²f are respectively called the antecedent and the consequent. Symbolic Logic The symbol used to abbreviate if-then is the arrow (²). note that they are individually stated in the indicative mood. then I would live in California if I lived in N. then my car runs out of gas S²R 9. is . then my car stops R²S if my car stops.. THE NON-TRUTH-FUNCTIONAL VERSION OF IF-THEN In English. When a conditional is stated in standard form in English. if-then is used in a variety of ways. Consider the following conditional statements. for the author at least. it is easy to identify the antecedent and the consequent. it seems that the first one is true. (Los Angeles) I live in N. then I am happy (c2) if I am happy. if my car runs out of gas. all three simple statements are false. which do not play equivalent roles (in contrast to conjunction and disjunction). Consider the following two conditionals.42 (c1) if I am relaxed. so the above compounds can be symbolized as follows.. In a conditional.Y. if I lived in L. then I am relaxed Hardegree. (New York City) I live in California Now.A.Y. since L.C. But what about the two conditionals? Well. (s1) R ² H (s2) H ² R Every conditional statement divides into two constituents. according to the following rule. as required by English grammar. then I would live in California The constituents of these two conditionals are given as follows. the first constituent is called the antecedent. many of which are not truthfunctional. ‘if’ introduces the antecedent ‘then’ introduces the consequent The fact that the antecedent and consequent do not play equivalent roles is related to the fact that d²f is not generally equivalent to f²d.C.A. The word ‘antecedent’ means “that which leads”. L: N: C: I live in L.

the instructor has kept the promise. The relevant circumstances may be characterized as follows. even though you got a hundred on every exam. It follows that the conditional connective employed in the above conditionals is not truth-functional. Fortunately.Chapter 2: Truth-Functional Connectives 43 entirely contained inside California (presently!). two false constituents yield a false conditional. we consider conditional promises and conditional requests. In the first two cases. two false constituents yield a true conditional. Since subjunctive conditionals are not truth-functional. since N. no truth functional connective is going to be completely plausible. the question whether the promise is kept simply reduces to whether you do or don't get an A. case 1: case 2: case 3: case 4: H T T F F A T F T F The cases divide into two groups. then I will give you an A which may be symbolized H²A Now suppose that the semester ends. Thus. what is examined are the truth functional conditional connectives. Consider the following promise (made to the intro logic student by the intro logic instructor). the instructor has not kept the promise. THE TRUTH-FUNCTIONAL VERSION OF IF-THEN Insofar as we want to have a truth-functional conditional connective. at least at the introductory level. the problem is to come up with a truth functional version of if-then that is even marginally plausible. since not every use of ‘if-then’ in English is intended to be truth-functional. Of course. you get a hundred on every exam. The conditional connective employed above is customarily called the subjunctive conditional connective. the condition in question is activated. you get your A. does not overlap California. you don't get your A. . In case 1. Actually. but in the second case. By way of motivating the truth table for the truth-functional version of ‘ifthen’. 10. in the first case. they are not examined in sentential logic.Y. under what circumstances has the instructor kept his/her promise. if you get a hundred on every exam. there is such a connective. if the condition is activated.C. Rather. On the other hand. it seems that the second one is false. since the constituent statements are usually stated in the subjunctive mood. we must construct its truth table. In case 2.

the instructor has not committed him(her)self about your grade when you don't get a hundred on every exam. We can say that no promise was made. so the condition in question isn't activated. there are other ways to get an A. you don't get a hundred on every exam. we can say that a promise was made. Symbolic Logic The remaining two cases are different. 11. It is a very simple promise. Presumably. conditional). or. otherwise. We follow the latter course. d T T F F f d²f T T F F T T F T d T T F F ² T F T T f T F T F The information conveyed in the above tables may be summarized by either of the following statements. and one of which is a . For example. for example. and it was kept by default. In these cases. three of which are two-place connectives (conjunction. and may be combined with other promises. which produces the following truth table. so no obligation was incurred. it is true. A conditional d²f is false if and only if the antecedent d is true and the consequent f is false. the instructor has not promised not to give you an A if you do not get a hundred on every exam. A conditional d²f is false if the antecedent d is true and the consequent f is false.44 Hardegree. which represents the truth-functional version of ‘if-then’. disjunction. by itself. On the basis of these considerations. a 99% average should also earn an A. case 1: case 2: case 3: case 4: H T T F F A T F T F H²A T F T T Note carefully that in making the above promise. THE BICONDITIONAL We have now examined four truth-functional connectives. we propose the following truth table for the arrow connective. We have a choice now about evaluating the promise.

d±e is true if d and e have the same truth value. One can understand a biconditional d±e as saying that the two constituents are equal in truth value. This is summarized in the following tables. e have opposite truth values. otherwise. accordingly. if we fill the two blanks with statements. . which corresponds to the English ______________if and only if _______________ Like the conditional. A biconditional d±e is true if its constituents have the same truth value. the biconditional. A biconditional d±e is false if and only if the constituents d. d T T F F e d±e T T F F T F F T d± T T T F F F F T e T F T F The information conveyed in the above tables may be summarized by any of the following statements. The above compound can accordingly be symbolized thus. The truth table for ± is quite simple. the resulting expression is also a statement. A biconditional d±e is true if and only if the constituents d. it is false. which is called double arrow. and is false if they don't have the same truth value. we can begin with the statements I am happy I am relaxed and form the compound statement I am happy if and only if I am relaxed The symbol for the biconditional connective is ‘±’. the biconditional is a two-place connective.Chapter 2: Truth-Functional Connectives 45 one-place connective (negation). H±R H±R is called the biconditional of H and R. e have the same truth value. which are individually called constituents. There is one remaining connective that is generally studied in sentential logic. For example.

12. and which strings are not. The definition tells us which strings of symbols are formulas of sentential logic. these smaller statements may themselves be compound statements. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) any upper case Roman letter is a formula. For example. the following strings count as formulas in sentential logic. that is. a statement connective forms larger (compound) statements out of smaller statements. otherwise. they are ungrammatical. the script letters stand for strings of symbols. Each acceptable symbolic abbreviation is what is customarily called a formula. if d and e are formulas. then so is ~d. COMPLEX FORMULAS As noted in Section 2. we provide the following formal definition of formula in sentential logic. In this definition. they may be constructed out of smaller statements by the application of one or more statement connectives.46 Hardegree. it is true. then so is (d & e). We have already seen examples of this in Section 2. if d is a formula. then so is (d ± e). then so is (d ´ e). . the following strings of symbols are not formulas in sentential logic. nothing else is a formula. (n1) (n2) (n3) (n4) &´P(Q P&´Q P(´Q( )(P&Q By contrast. if d and e are formulas. (f1) (f2) (f3) (f4) (f5) (P & Q) (~(P & Q) ´ R) ~(P & Q) (~(P & Q) ´ (P & R)) ~((P & Q) ´ (P & R)) In order to distinguish grammatical from ungrammatical strings. if d and e are formulas. Any ungrammatical string of symbols is not a formula. Associated with each statement (simple or compound) is a symbolic abbreviation. Basically. or translation. then so is (d ² e). Now. a formula is simply a string of symbols that is grammatically acceptable. if d and e are formulas. Symbolic Logic A biconditional d±e is false if its constituents have opposite truth values.

both P and Q are formulas. The following represent the rough guidelines for dealing with unofficial formulas in sentential logic. This applies only to official formulas that have outermost parenthesis. the following are all formulas. . we symbolized the sentence it is raining and it is sleeting by the expression R&S Officially. an unofficial formula is a string of symbols that is obtained from an official formula by dropping the outermost parentheses. (P ´ Q) (P ´ ~Q) (~P ´ Q) (~P ´ ~Q) We can now apply clause 2 again. We have already seen numerous examples of unofficial formulas in this chapter. By clause 1. given in the above definition. in the strict sense. by clause 4. it is an unofficial formula. however. the following are both formulas. An unofficial formula is any string of symbols that is obtained from an official formula by removing its outermost parentheses (if such exist). (P & Q) (P & ~Q) (~P & Q) (~P & ~Q) Similarly. although most formulas are too long for humans to write. the latter is not a formula. there are also formulas in a less strict sense. In addition to formulas. so by clause 2. ((P ´ Q) & (P ´ ~Q)) ((P ´ Q) & ~(P ´ ~Q)) The process described here can go on indefinitely. negations do not have outer parentheses. There is no limit to how long a formula can be. The following is the official definition of an unofficial formula. ~(P & Q) ~(P & ~Q) ~(P ´ Q) ~(P ´ ~Q) ~(~P & Q) ~(~P ´ Q) ~(~P & ~Q) ~(~P ´ ~Q) We can now apply clause 3 to any pair of these formulas. Basically.Chapter 2: Truth-Functional Connectives 47 Let us do some examples of this definition. thus obtaining the following formulas. thus obtaining the following among others. ~P ~Q So by clause 3. For example. We call these strings unofficial formulas. the following expressions are all formulas.

%. it is raining and it is sleeting: it is not both raining and sleeting: R&S ~(R & S) 13. In particular. ´. The only significant difference between sentential logic and arithmetic is that. For example. TRUTH TABLES FOR COMPLEX FORMULAS There are infinitely many formulas in sentential logic. This is summarized as follows. can be used to symbolize ‘it is raining and it is sleeting’. whereas arithmetic concerns numerical values (1.2. Symbolic Logic When a formula stands by itself. if we know the numerical values assigned to the variables x. sentential logic is exactly like arithmetic. This computation is particularly simple if we have a hand calculator (provided that we know how to enter the numbers in the correct order. y. then we can compute the numerical value of ((x+y)%z)+((x+y)%(x+z)). if we know the numerical values of x. no matter how complex a given formula d is. then we must first restore the outermost parentheses. an unofficial formula cannot be used to form a compound formula. In this respect. In order to form a compound. which perform the simple computations).3. we can compute its truth value.) and numerical functions (+. at least.). However. sentential logic concerns truth values (T. In order to ascertain the truth value of d. etc. the tables are stored in calculators. which is the formula ~(P&Q). we simply compute it starting with the truth values of the atoms. thus obtaining an unofficial formula. provided we know the truth values of its constituent atomic formulas. y. thereby converting the unofficial formula into an official formula. which is an unofficial formula.48 Hardegree. This is because all the connectives used in constructing d are truth-functional. The example we consider is the negation of the conjunction of two simple formulas P and Q. In arithmetic. some calculators even solve this problem for us). the expression ‘R & S’.. Otherwise. and then prefix the resulting expression by ‘~’. which is ‘it is not both raining and sleeting’. one is permitted to drop its outermost parentheses (if such exist). we can routinely calculate the numerical value of any compound arithmetical expression involving these variables. using the truth function tables. Nevertheless. Now suppose that we substitute T for both P and Q. and each simple computation is based on a table (in the case of arithmetic.). F) and truth functions (&. one must restore the outermost parentheses. On the other hand. then . Let us begin with a simple example of computing the truth value of a complex formula on the basis of the truth values of its atomic constituents. the computational process is completely analogous. if we wish to symbolize the denial of this statement. Thus. z. z. one builds up a complex computation on the basis of simple computations.. etc.

but we also know that ~T = F. the third column is the computation of the truth value of the conjunction (P&Q). the fourth column is the computation of the truth value of the negation ~(P&Q). We simply build up the larger computation on the basis of smaller computations. there are just two letters. so ~(T&F) is ~F. There are two other cases: substituting F for P and T for Q. The formula we consider is a disjunction of (P&Q) and ~P. The first two columns are the initial input values for P and Q. As in the previous case. that is. Table 1 case 1 case 2 case 3 case 4 P T T F F Q P&Q ~(P&Q) T T F F F T T F T F F T This table shows the computations step by step. so ~(T&T) = ~T. case 1: case 2: case 3: case 4: ~(T&T) = ~T = F ~(T&F) = ~F = T ~(F&T) = ~F = T ~(F&F) = ~F = T Another way to convey this information is in the following table. We know that T&F is F. They are computed just like the first two cases. so ~(T&F) is T. which uses the third column as input. case 1: (T&T) ´ ´ T case 2: (T&F) ´ ´ F case 3: (F&T) ´ ´ F case 4: (F&F) ´ ´ F ~T F ~T F ~F T ~F T = = = = = = = = T F T T . and substituting F for both P and Q. These computations may be summarized in the following statements. But we know that T&T = T. followed by the corresponding table. so ~(T&T) = F. We can also substitute T for P and F for Q. it is the formula (P&Q)´~P. so there are four combinations of truth values that can be substituted. The computations are compiled as follows. but ~F is T. in which case we have ~(T&F).Chapter 2: Truth-Functional Connectives 49 we obtain the following expression: ~(T&T). Let us consider another simple example of computing the truth value of a complex formula. this ends our computation.

P and Q . the resulting formula is: ~(P&Q)&((P&Q)´~P). ~(P & Q) & ((P & Q) ´ ~P) case 1: ~(T & T) & ((T & T) ´ ~T) The first computation is to calculate T&T. so this yields. the truth value of ~(P&Q) is F.50 Hardegree. we calculate T ´ F. we would basically combine Tables 1 and 2. Table 3 represents the last three columns of such a table. To begin with. If we were to construct the table for the complex formula from scratch. which is F. which is F.so there are just four cases to consider. This formula has just two atomic formulas . and the truth value of (P&Q) ´ ~P is T. which is T. which yields. and the value of ~T is placed below the ~. It might be helpful to see the computation of the truth value for ~(P&Q)&((P&Q)´~P) done in complete detail for the first case. F&T . The best way to compute the truth value of this large formula is simply to take the output columns of Tables 1 and 2 and combine them according to the conjunction truth table. the value of T&T is placed below the &. These values in turn are combined by the ´. which is T. we write down the formula. Table 2 case 1 case 2 case 3 case 4 P T T F F Q P&Q T T F F T F F F ~P F F T T (P&Q)´~P T F T T Let's now consider the formula that is obtained by conjoining the first formula (Table 1) with the second case formula (Table 2). F & (T ´ F) Next. Symbolic Logic By way of explanation. and we then substitute in the truth values for the first case. so that yields ~T & (T ´ ~T) The next step is to calculate ~T. Notice that the parentheses have been restored on the second formula before it was conjoined with the first formula. for example. Table 3 case 1 case 2 case 3 case 4 ~(P&Q) F T T T (P&Q)´~P ~(P&Q)&((P&Q)´~P) T F F F T T T T In case 1. so the value of their conjunction is F&T. in case 1. This yields the following.

this takes up a lot of space and time. In the case of the first formula. ~(P & Q) & (( P & Q) ´ T T F F Case 2 can also be done in a similar manner. however. we can present its truth table as follows. ~(P & Q) & (( P & Q) ´ T F T F In the above diagrams.Chapter 2: Truth-Functional Connectives 51 Finally. one can construct a diagram like those above for each case. so that each case can be presented on a single line. presented in Table 1. the broken lines indicate. we calculate F&T. F T F F F F ~ P) T T T T T T F ~ P) T Table 3 case 1 case 2 case 3 case 4 ~( P & Q) F T T T T T F F T F F T T F F F . in each simple computation. In principle. The method that I propose simply involves superimposing all the lines above into a single line. Unfortunately. which truth function (connective) is employed. This particular computation can be diagrammed as follows. in each complex computation involving truth functions. and the solid lines indicate the input values. the final result in the computation. This can be illustrated with reference to the formulas we have already discussed. which is F. so it is helpful to have a more compact method of presenting such computations. shown as follows.

the second column is the truth value of (P&Q). We can do the same with Table 2. In constructing compact truth tables. AT ANY PARTICULAR DEPTH. we can do the compact truth table for the conjunction of the formulas given in Tables 3 and 4. ALWAYS DO NEGATIONS FIRST. Table 5 case 1: case 2: case 3: case 4: ~ ( P & Q ) & (( P & Q ) ´ ~ P ) F T T T F T T T T F T T T F F F T F F F F T T F F T T F F T T T F T F F F T F F F T T F 4 3 5 1 3 2 The numbers at the bottom of the table indicate the order in which the columns are filled in. for example.52 Hardegree. in case 1. as indicated by the numbers at the bottom. These rules are applied in the above table. Finally. In the case of ties. Symbolic Logic In this table. . the fourth column is the truth value of the whole formula (P&Q)´~P. and the third column is the truth value of (P&Q). DO CONNECTIVES THAT ARE DEEPER BEFORE DOING CONNECTIVES THAT ARE LESS DEEP. a connective that is inside two pairs of parentheses is deeper than one that is inside of just one pair. the truth values pertaining to each connective are placed beneath that connective. the following rules are useful to remember. Table 4 case 1 case 2 case 3 case 4 ( P T T F F & T F F F Q) ´ ~ P T T F T F F F T T T T F F T T F In this table. or in computing complex formulas. Here. which yields the following table. Thus. the depth of a connective is determined by how many pairs of parentheses it is inside. and the fifth column is the truth value of ~P. the first column is the truth value of ~(P&Q). this means that the order is irrelevant to the construction of the table.

In case of the above formula. In this case. This formula is a disjunction. it is a negation. Q. the second disjunct ~P´R is a disjunction of ~P and R. let us do an example of a formula that contains three atomic formulas P. and the leftmost column (P) is alternated T and F in quadruplets. but is convenient. this is just one particular one. and is filled in first. In the case of ties. completed in the order indicated at the bottom. there are 8 combinations of truth values that can be assigned to the letters. numbered 1-10 at the top. it is best to understand the structure of the formula. Q. It is simply a way of remembering all the cases. The basic rule in constructing this guide table is that the rightmost column (R) is alternated T and F singly. In filling a truth table. Now let's consider a formula involving three letters P. the order doesn't matter. the middle column (Q) is alternated T and F in doublets. where the individual disjuncts are P&~Q and P´R respectively. . R. The remaining columns. R. in particular it is the negation of the formula (P&~Q)´(~P´R). and its associated (compact) truth table. Table 6 P T T T T F F F F Q T T F F T T F F R T F T F T F T F 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ~ [( P & ~ Q ) ´ ( ~ P ´ R )] F T F F T T F T T T T T F F T F F T F F F T T T F T F T T T F T T T F T F T F F F F F F T T T F T T F F F F T T T F T F F F F T F T T F T T F F F T F T T F T F 5 1 3 2 1 4 2 1 3 1 The guide table is not required.Chapter 2: Truth-Functional Connectives 53 Before concluding this section. These combinations are given in the following guide table. The first disjunct P&~Q is a conjunction of P and the negation of Q. Guide Table for any Formula Involving 3 Atomic Formulas case 1 case 2 case 3 case 4 case 5 case 6 case 7 case 8 P T T T T F F F F Q R T T T F F T F F T T T F F T F F There are numerous ways of writing down all the combinations of truth values.

Finally. The first two cases are diagrammed in greater detail below. which are the smallest parts. Next column 3 is constructed from columns 2 and 4 according to the ampersand truth table. the broken lines indicate which truth function is applied. and column 7 is constructed from column 8 in a like manner. In particular. we do the negations of letters. which corresponds to columns 4 and 7. In filling in the above table. these are labeled 1 at the bottom. the first thing we do is fill in three columns under the letters. but not column 1. Symbolic Logic The structure of the formula is crucial. Next. Column 4 is constructed from column 5 on the basis of the tilde truth table. and output values. in turn go into constructing column 6 according to the wedge truth table. the order in which the table is filled in is exactly opposite from the order in which the formula is broken into its constituent parts. .54 Hardegree. ~[( P T F F T F & ~Q ) T F T ´ ( ~ P T ´ R )] T ~[( P T & ~Q ) T F ´ ( ~ P T F ´ R )] F F F T F As in our previous example. 3 and 9. as we have just done. These two resulting columns. and the solid lines indicate the particular input values. column 6 is used to construct column 1 in accordance with the negation truth table. and column 9 is constructed from columns 7 and 10 according to the wedge truth table. and is intimately related to the order in which the truth table is filled in.

Chapter 2: Truth-Functional Connectives 55 14. supposing that the truth value of A. 5. 12. and the truth value of X. 1. 10. 11. Z is F. Y. 13. 7. 8. 20. EXERCISES FOR CHAPTER 2 EXERCISE SET A Compute the truth values of the following symbolic statements. 3. 2. 15. 21. 9. 25. 16. 6. 18. 17. 22. 4. 19. B. 14. C is T. 23. ~A ´ B ~B ´ X ~Y ´ C ~Z ´ X (A & X) ´ (B & Y) (B & C) ´ (Y & Z) ~(C & Y) ´ (A & Z) ~(A & B) ´ (X & Y) ~(X & Z) ´ (B & C) ~(X & ~Y) ´ (B & ~C) (A ´ X) & (Y ´ B) (B ´ C) & (Y ´ Z) (X ´ Y) & (X ´ Z) ~(A ´ Y) & (B ´ X) ~(X ´ Z) & (~X ´ Z) ~(A ´ C) ´ ~(X & ~Y) ~(B ´ Z) & ~(X ´ ~Y) ~[(A ´ ~C) ´ (C ´ ~A)] ~[(B & C) & ~(C &B)] ~[(A & B) ´ ~(B & A)] [A ´ (B ´ C)] & ~[(A ´ B) ´ C] [X ´ (Y & Z)] ´ ~[(X ´ Y) & (X ´ Z)] [A & (B ´ C)] & ~[(A & B) ´ (A & C)] ~{[(~A & B) & (~X & Z)] & ~[(A & ~B) ´ ~(~Y & ~Z)]} ~{~[(B & ~C) ´ (Y & ~Z)] & [(~B ´ X) ´ (B ´ ~Y)]} . 24.

8. supposing that the truth value of A. 15. and the truth value of X. 24. 7. 19.56 Hardegree. 3. Y. 25. B. 14. 17. C is T. 23. 10. Symbolic Logic EXERCISE SET B Compute the truth values of the following symbolic statements. 20. A²B A²X B²Y Y²Z (A ² B) ² Z (X ² Y) ² Z (A ² B) ² C (X ² Y) ² C A ² (B ² Z) X ² (Y ² Z) [(A ² B) ² C] ² Z [(A ² X) ² Y] ² Z [A ² (X ² Y)] ² C [A ² (B ² Y)] ² X [(X ² Z) ² C] ² Y [(Y ² B) ² Y] ² Y [(A ² Y) ² B] ² Z [(A & X) ² C] ² [(X ² C) ² X] [(A & X) ² C] ² [(A ² X) ² C] [(A & X) ² Y] ² [(X ² A) ² (A ² Y)] [(A & X) ´ (~A & ~X)] ² [(A ² X) & (X ² A)] {[A ² (B ² C)] ² [(A & B) ² C]} ² [(Y ² B) ² (C ² Z)] {[(X ² Y) ² Z] ² [Z ² (X ² Y)]} ² [(X ² Z) ² Y] [(A & X) ² Y] ² [(A ² X) & (A ² Y)] [A ² (X & Y)] ² [(A ² X) ´ (A ² Y)] . Z is F. 11. 13. 22. 9. 6. 1. 12. 4. 16. 5. 21. 18. 2.

15. 4. 2. 3. 16. 19. 8. 17. 14. 11. 6. (P & Q) ´ (P & ~Q) ~(P & ~P) ~(P ´ ~P) ~(P&Q)´(~P´~Q) ~( P ´ Q) ´ (~P & ~Q) (P & Q) ´ (~P & ~Q) ~(P ´ (P & Q)) ~(P ´ (P & Q)) ´ P (P & (Q ´ P)) & ~P ((P ² Q) ² P) ² P ~(~(P ² Q) ² P) (P ² Q) ± ~P P ² (Q ² (P & Q)) (P ´ Q) ± (~P ² Q) ~(P ´ (P ² Q)) (P ² Q) ± (Q ² P) (P ² Q) ± (~Q ² ~P) (P ´ Q) ² (P & Q) (P & Q) ´ (P & R) [P ± (Q ± R)] ± [(P ± Q) ± R] [P ² (Q & R)] ² [P ² R] [P ² (Q ´ R)] ² [P ² Q] [(P ´ Q) ² R] ² [P ² R] [(P & Q) ² R] ² [P ² R] [(P & Q) ² R] ² [(Q & ~R) ² ~P] . 7. 12. 24. 21. 22. 18.Chapter 2: Truth-Functional Connectives 57 EXERCISE SET C Construct the complete truth table for each of the following formulas. 9. 23. 5. 25. 20. 13. 10. 1.

T F F T F T T T F T F F T 14. T F T T F F T F T T T F F 14. 9. 3. 2. 24. 21. 15. 18. 21. 8. 23. 4. 6. 8. 22. 9. 22. 5. 3. ANSWERS TO EXERCISES FOR CHAPTER 2 EXERCISE SET A 1. 16. 6. 13. 2. T F T F F T F T F F F T . 19. 16. 11. 25. 24. 18. 10. 5. 17. F T T F F T F F T F T F EXERCISE SET B 1. 13. 15. 10. 12. 25. 23. 11. 7. 4. Symbolic Logic 15. 17. 12. 20. 20. 7.58 Hardegree. 19.

( P T T F F Q) ´ (~ P & ~ T T F T F F F F F T F T T F T F F F F T T F T T Q) T F T F Q) T F T F & T F F F Q) T F T F 7.Chapter 2: Truth-Functional Connectives 59 EXERCISE SET C 1. ~( P & ~ P ) T T F F T T F F T F 3. ~( P ´ Q) ´ (~ P & ~ F T T T F F T F F F T T F F F T F T F F T T F T F F F T F F F T T F T T 6. ( P T T F F & T F F F Q) ´ ( P & ~ Q) T T T F F T F T T T T F T F F F F T F F F F T F 2. ~( P ´ ~ P ) F T T F T F F T T F 4. ~ ( P ´ ( P & Q )) F T T T T T F T T T F F T F F F F T T F F F F F . ~( P & Q) ´ (~ P ´ ~ F T T T F F T F F T T F F T F T T T T F F T T T F T F T F F F T T F T T 5.

( P T T F F 10. P ²( T T T T F T F T Q T F T F P T T F F & T F F F Q )) T F T F . Symbolic Logic ~ ( P ² Q )² P ) F T T T T T T T F F T T F F T T T F F F T F T F ² T F T T Q )± ~ P T F F T F T F T T T T F F T T F ²( T T F T 13. (( P T T F F 11.60 8. ~( F F F F 12. ~ ( P ´ ( P & Q )) ´ P F T T T T T T T F T T T F F T T T F F F F T T F T F F F F F T F 9. ( P T T F F & ( Q ´ P )) & ~ P T T T T F F T T F T T F F T F T T F F T F F F F F F T F ² T F T T Q )² P )² P T T T T T F T T T T T F F T F F F F T F Hardegree.

Chapter 2: Truth-Functional Connectives 61 14. ( P T T T T F F F F ´ T T T F Q )±( T T F T T T F T ~ F F T T P T T F F ² T T T F Q) T F T F P T T F F ² T F T T ² T F T T ´ T T T F ´ ( P ² Q )) T T T T T T F F T F T T T F T F Q )±( T T F F T F F T Q )±( T T F T T T F T Q )²( T T F F T F F T ² T T F T Q T F T F ~ F T F T P ) T T F F ² T F T T ~ F F T T Q T F T F P ) T T F F P T T F F & T F F F Q) T F T F & T T F F F F F F Q) ´ ( P & R ) T T T T T T T T F F F T T T T F F T F F T F F F T T F F F F F F F F T F F F F F . ~( F F F F 16 ( P T T F F 17. ( P T T F F 15. ( P T T F F 19. ( P T T F F 18.

62 20. [( P T T T T F F F F ±( T F F T F T T F ²( T F F F T T T T ²( T T T F T T T T ´ T T T T T T F F ± T F F T T F F T R )] ± [( T T F T T T F T T T F T T T F T R )] ² [ T T F T T T F T T T F T T T F T R )] ² [ T T F T T F F T T T F T T T F T ± T T F F F F T T ² T F T F T T T T ² T T F F T T T T ² T F T F T T T T Q )± R ] T T T T F F F F T F T F T F T T T F F T T F F F Hardegree. [ P T T T T F F F F 21. [ P T T T T F F F F 22. [ P T T T T F F F F 23. Symbolic Logic Q T T F F T T F F P T T T T F F F F Q T T F F T T F F & T F F F T F F F ´ T T T F T T T F P T T T T F F F F R ] T F T F T F T F Q T T F F T T F F P T T T T F F F F Q] T T F F T T F F Q )² R ]²[ T T T T T F F T F T T T F F F T T T T T T F F T F T T T F T F T P T T T T F F F F R ] T F T F T F T F .

Chapter 2: Truth-Functional Connectives 63 24. [( P T T T T F F F F 25. [( P T T T T F F F F & T T F F F F F F Q )² R ]²[ T T T T T F F T F T T T F T F F T T T T T T F T F T T T F T F T P T T T T F F F F ² T F T F T T T T R ] T F T F T F T F ~ F T F T F T F T R )² ~ P ] T T F T F F F T T T F T F T F T T T T F F T T F T T T F F T T F & T T F F F F F F Q ) ² R ] ² [( T T T T T F F T F T T T F T F T T T T T T T F T F T T T F T F T Q T T F F T T F F & F T F F F T F F .

..... 2...................................................................... 5....................................................70 Testing Arguments In Sentential Logic ..................................... Contradictions...............................................................3 1... 6...66 Implication And Equivalence.........................71 The Relation Between Validity And Implication....68 Validity In Sentential Logic .......................................................... ABS~↔→∨ VALIDITY IN SENTENTIAL LOGIC Tautologies....................76 Exercises For Chapter 3 ...........79 Answers To Exercises For Chapter 3......................................... 3..................81 ............ 4.................... And Contingent Formulas . 7..

In doing the exercises. so the formula is contingent. in the second example. The following are examples of each of these types of formulas. A formula A is a contingent formula if and only if A is neither a tautology nor a contradiction. In the first example. A Tautology: P ∨ ~ P T T F T F T T F A Contradiction: P & ~ P T F F T F F T F A Contingent Formula: P → ~ P T F F T F T T F In each example. in other cases the final column has all F's. so the formula is a tautology. There are special names for formulas with these particular sorts of truth tables. A formula A is a contradiction if and only if the truth table of A is such that every entry in the final column is F. so the formula is a contradiction. which are summarized in the following definitions. the final column is shaded. Symbolic Logic 1. AND CONTINGENT FORMULAS In Chapter 2 we saw how to construct the truth table for any formula in sentential logic.66 Hardegree. and in still other cases the final column has a mixture of T's and F's. in the third example. TAUTOLOGIES. the final column consists of a mixture of T's and F's. . A formula A is a tautology if and only if the truth table of A is such that every entry in the final column is T. the final column consists entirely of T's. the final column consists entirely of F's. you may have noticed that in some cases the final (output) column has all T's. CONTRADICTIONS.

If a formula A is contingent. then its negation ~A is also contingent. then its negation ~A is a tautology. . the first formula is a contradiction. we write down the truth tables for their negations. we consider the three formulas cited earlier. If a formula A is a tautology. By way of illustrating these theorems. and given the truth table for negation. the final column of each formula is shaded. we have the following theorems.Chapter 3: Validity in Sentential Logic 67 Given the above definitions. ~( P ∨ ~ P ) F T T F T F F T T F ~( P & ~ P ) T T F F T T F F T F ~( P → ~ P ) T T F F T F F T T F Once again. the second is a tautology. then its negation ~A is a contradiction. If a formula A is a contradiction. In particular. the third is contingent.

Formulas A and B are logically equivalent if and only if the biconditional formula A↔B is a tautology. that is. Formula A logically implies formula B if and only if the conditional formula A→B is a tautology. which are defined as follows.] Let us illustrate these concepts with a few examples. Next.. i. To begin with. so it is not a tautology. We conclude that its antecedent does not imply its consequent. the notion of implication.e. and the notion of equivalence. Considering the converse implication. it is customary to refer to the special cases as tautological implication and tautological equivalence.68 Hardegree. According to the definition of logi- . IMPLICATION AND EQUIVALENCE We can use the notion of tautology to define two very important notions in sentential logic. we ask whether ~(P&Q) and ~P&~Q are logically equivalent. ~P logically implies ~(P&Q). we turn to logical equivalence. the converse is not true. so we conclude that its antecedent logically implies its consequent. the question whether ~P implies ~(P&Q) reduces to the question whether the formula ~P→~(P&Q) is a tautology. A more general definition is required for other branches of logic. ~ F F T T P T T F F → T T T T ~( P & Q) F T T T T T F F T F F T T F F F Notice that the conditional ~P→~(P&Q) is a tautology. Once we have a more general definition. The truth table follows. we note that whereas the formula ~P logically implies the formula ~(P&Q). [Note: The above definitions apply specifically to sentential logic. ~(P&Q) does not imply ~P. As our first example. the question whether ~(P&Q) logically implies ~P reduces to the question whether the conditional formula ~(P&Q)→~P is a tautology. ~(P&Q) does not logically imply ~P). In particular. that is. ~ ( P & Q )→ ~ P F T T T T F T T T F F F F T T F F T T T F T F F F T T F The formula is false in the second case. The following is the truth table for this formula. Symbolic Logic 2. This can be shown by constructing truth tables for the associated pair of conditionals.

Formulas A and B are logically equivalent if and only if A logically implies B and B logically implies A. As our second example. Comparing the two *-columns. it is impossible for the . the shaded column is true in every case. this reduces to the question whether the biconditional formula ~(P&Q)↔(~P∨~Q) is a tautology. ~ ( P & Q )↔( ~ P ∨ ~ Q ) F T T T T F T F F T T T F F T F T T T F T F F T T T F T F T T F F F T T F T T F * * Once again. ~ ( P & Q )↔( F T T T T T T F F F T F F T F T F F F T * ~ F F T T P T T F F & F F F T * ~ F T F T Q) T F T F In this table. Notice that the biconditional is false in cases 2 and 3. As before. and the fact that two formulas A and B are tautologies if and only if the conjunction A&B is a tautology. this reduces to the question whether the biconditional formula ~(P&Q)↔(~P&~Q) is a tautology. We conclude this section by citing a theorem about the relation between implication and equivalence. whereas the constituents are marked by ‘*’. 3. VALIDITY IN SENTENTIAL LOGIC Recall that an argument is valid if and only if it is impossible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false. which is to say that the biconditional formula is a tautology. and the constituents are marked by ‘*’. the biconditional is shaded. equivalently. accordingly. so it is not a tautology. we see they are the same in every case. We conclude that the two constituents – ~(P&Q) and ~P∨~Q – are logically equivalent. the truth value of the biconditional is shaded. This follows from the fact that A↔B is logically equivalent to (A→B)&(B→A).Chapter 3: Validity in Sentential Logic 69 cal equivalence. Its truth table is given as follows. we ask whether ~(P&Q) and ~P∨~Q are logically equivalent. We conclude that the two constituents – ~(P&Q) and ~P&~Q – are not logically equivalent. Its truth table is given as follows.

ø is any statement. etc. However. By way of illustration. R. relative to logic. that constitute the argument. In the following. and the conclusion is false.). and the conclusion is false}. Symbolic Logic premises to be true without the conclusion also being true. as a group. Q – so the possible cases relevant to (a1) consist of all the possible combinations of truth values that can be assigned to P and Q. S: the premises of argument A are all true. we obtain the following. in case of sentential logic.70 Hardegree. the sort of statement we are interested in is the following. there are two atomic formulas – P. To say that it is impossible that S is to say that there is no case in which S. An argument A is valid if and only if there is no case in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false. Q. The cases relevant to an argument A are precisely all the possible combinations of truth values that can be assigned to the atomic formulas (P. This term has already arisen in the previous chapter. we provide the official definition. . but it is the basis for defining validity in sentential logic. Example 1 (a1) P → Q ~Q / ~P In this argument form. These are enumerated as follows. Substituting this statement for S in the above definition. Possibility and impossibility are difficult to judge in general. This is based on the following definition of ‘impossible’. and the conclusion is false} is to say that there is no case in which {the premises of argument A are all true. This is slightly complicated. consider the following sentential argument form. we may judge them by reference to truth tables. This definition is acceptable provided that we know what "cases" are. Here. The following is the resulting definition. To say that it is impossible that {the premises of argument A are all true.

R. which involves three atomic formulas – P. and singly in the R column. Our present method is to display arguments in vertical lists. in pairs in the Q column. In combination with truth tables. the T's and F's are alternated in quadruples in the P column. consider the following sentential argument form. where the conclusion is at the bottom. The first thing we do is adopt a new method of displaying argument forms. For example. In the present section. this is inconvenient.Chapter 3: Validity in Sentential Logic 71 case1 case2 case3 case4 P T T F F Q T F T F As a further illustration. case1 case2 case3 case4 case5 case6 case7 case8 P T T T T F F F F Q T T F F T T F F R T F T F T F T F Notice that in constructing this table. the argument forms from earlier may be displayed as follows. TESTING ARGUMENTS IN SENTENTIAL LOGIC In the previous section. if there are n atomic formulas. 4. in general. then there are 2n cases. we use these ideas to test sentential argument forms for validity and invalidity. Q. Q. Also notice that. R are given as follows. we noted that an argument is valid if and only if there is no case in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false. so we will henceforth write argument forms in horizontal lists. . We also noted that the cases in sentential logic are the possible combinations of truth values that can be assigned to the atomic formulas (letters) in an argument. Example 2 (a2) P → Q Q→R /P→R The possible combinations of truth values that can be assigned to P.

which all use the same guide table. then there would only be two cases to consider. every case in which the premises are all true is also a . so this case won't do either. The above collection of formulas is not merely a collection. But in relation to the whole collection of formulas. it is also an argument (form). So we can ask whether it is valid or invalid. The starred columns are the only columns of interest at this point. To state things equivalently. then they are separated by two semi-colons. GuideTable: P Q case 1 T T case 2 T F case 3 F T case 4 F F Argument: P → Q . the premises are separated by a semi-colon (. the three formulas of the argument are written side by side. so we simply extract them to form the following table. case 1 case 2 case 3 case 4 P T T F F Q T F T F P→Q T F T T . Let's examine the above (multiple) truth table to see whether there are any cases in which the premises are both true and the conclusion is false. Thus. the final (output) column is shaded. then they are separated by three semi-colons. we can look at a multiple truth table simply as a set of several truth tables all put together. there are three truth tables. ~Q F T F T / ~P F F T T In cases 1 through 3.72 (a1) P → Q . This is a property of multiple truth tables that makes them different from individual truth tables. Notice the following. So in the above case. ~Q / ~P (a2) P → Q . if there are four premises. Basically. and the conclusion is marked of by a forward slash (/). If there are three premises. in which there are two atomic formulas – P and Q – there are four cases to consider in all. so they won't do.). but the conclusion is also true. and their truth tables are placed beneath them. According to our definition an argument is valid if and only if there is no case in which the premises are all true but the conclusion is false. In each case. In case 4. one for each formula. both the premises are true. This may be illustrated in reference to argument form (a1). one of the premises is false. etc. Symbolic Logic In (a1) and (a2). T T T T F F F T T F T F ~ F T F T Q T F T F / ~ F F T T P T T F F In the above table. we can form multiple truth tables. a multiple truth table is a collection of truth tables that all use the same guide table. If we were going to construct the truth table for ~Q by itself. Nevertheless. Using our new method of displaying argument forms. Q → R / P → R Hardegree. there is no case in which the premises are all true and the conclusion is false.

Note carefully that case 3 in the above truth table demonstrates that argument (a3) is invalid. On the other hand. since the premises are not both true. case 1 case 2 case 3 case 4 P T T F F Q T F T F P T T F F → T F T T Q T F T F . we conclude that argument (a3) is invalid. Having considered a couple of simple examples. for the notions of validity and invalidity do not apply to the individual cases. (c3) is a counterexample to any argument with the same form. The following is the (multiple) truth table for argument (a3). This does not make any sense. we look for a case in which the premises are all true and the conclusion is false. (c3) if Bush is president. one case is all that is needed to show invalidity.S. (c3) is a counterexample to (a3). We can also show that it is invalid using truth tables. that (c3) has a false conclusion. (a3) P → Q ~P / ~Q The following is a concrete argument with this form. In the above truth table. . Whereas argument (a1) is valid. In other words. Bush is not president. In case 4. To show that (a3) is invalid. let us now examine a couple of examples that are somewhat more complicated. This is one way to show that (a3) is invalid. citizen. On this basis. the 3rd case). But this is not to say that the argument is valid in the other three cases. the premises are both true. then the president is a U. but to all the cases taken all together. but the conclusion is also true. indeed. Observe that (c3) as the form (a3). / the president is not a U. argument (a1) is valid. we show that there is a case (line) in which the premises are both true but the conclusion is false. and the conclusion is false. we conclude that case in which the conclusion is true. cases 1 and 2 do not fill the bill. Thus. in case 3 the premises are both true. so case 4 doesn't fill the bill either. there is a case in which the premises are all true and the conclusion is false (namely. it is invalid.S. the following similar looking argument (form) is not valid. citizen. It follows that (a3) is not valid.Chapter 3: Validity in Sentential Logic 73 On the basis of this. that (c3) has all true premises. ~ F F T T P T T F F / ~ F T F T Q T F T F In deciding whether the argument form is valid or invalid.

but it only involves two atomic formulas (P. the remaining question is whether the premises both true in either of these cases. From this we conclude that the argument is valid. If we extract them from the above table. As usual the final (output) columns are shaded. What we are looking for is at least one case in which the premises are all true and the conclusion is false. ~P→Q . we obtain the following. the first premise is false. the shaded columns are the ones that we are interested in as far as deciding the validity or invalidity of this argument. There are only two such cases – case 2 and case 6. We are looking for a case in which the premises are all true and the conclusion is false. the conclusion is false. Symbolic Logic 1 2 3 4 Q) . the premises are both true. Thus. so there are four cases to consider. but in case 2. 1 2 3 4 P T T F F Q T F T F P→(~P∨Q) . but so is the conclusion. Q→ P / P & Q T F T T T T T T T T T F F T T F F T T T F F T T F T T T F F F F T F T F F F F T F F F F In this example. Since such a case exists. In case 6. the argument has three premises. as shown by the above truth table. there is no case in which the premises are all true and the conclusion is false. we are looking for a case in which the conclusion is false. So in particular. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 P T T T T F F F F Q T T F F T T F F R T F T F T F T F P T T T T F F F F ∨ T T T T T F T T (Q→ R) . ~ P →Q . not just four as in previous examples. . at least one premise is also false. Q). but in each of these cases. the premises are all true. P →~ R / ~(Q & ~ R) T T T T F F T T T F F T T F F T T T F F T T T F F T T T F F T T F F F T F T F T T T F T F F T F T T T F T F T T T F F T T F F F T T F F T T T F F T T F T F T T F F F T F T F F T T F T F F T F As usual. we conclude that the argument is invalid. Q→P / P&Q T T T T F T T F T T F F T F T F In case 1. There are accordingly 8 cases to consider.74 P T T F F Q T F T F P T T F F →( ~ T F F F T T T T P T T F F ∨ T F T T Hardegree. This is exactly what we are looking for – a case with all true premises and a false conclusion. and these are the only columns that interest us. The final example we consider is an argument that involves three atomic formulas (letters). In each of the remaining cases (2-4).

The third column is the final (output) column. as can be seen by constructing the respective truth tables.Chapter 3: Validity in Sentential Logic 75 5. we noted that a formula A is a tautology if and only if it is true in every case. Whereas (a1) is a pair of formulas. though it is clearly not the relation of identity. In other words. one for the argument ~P/~(P&Q). in Section 2. This may be illustrated first using the simplest example – an argument with just one premise. Thus. which are true under some circumstances but false under others. The resulting conditional may be read as saying that: if it is not true that P. and it has all T's. In Section 1. Consider the following argument form. the other for the conditional ~P→~(P&Q). the argument is valid. consider the conditional formed by taking the premise as the antecedent. so we conclude that this formula is a tautology. then it is not true that P&Q. a contradiction is a formula that is false in every case. On the other hand. This can be stated as a general principle. (c1) ~P → ~(P&Q) As far as the symbols are concerned. There seems to be a natural relation between (a1) and (c1). Next. all we have done is to replace the ‘/’ by ‘→’. then it is not true that P&Q. In looking for a case that serves as a counterexample. By contrast. 1 2 3 4 P T T F F Q T F T F ~ F F T T P / ~( P & Q) T F T T T T T T F F F T F F T F T F F F ~ F F T T P T T F F →~( T F T T T T T T P T T F F & T F F F Q) T F T F We now have two truth tables side by side. The notion of implication is intimately associated with the notion of validity. if it is not true that P. Nevertheless they are intimately related. so it is not true that P&Q. Between these two extremes contingent formulas. (a1) ~P / ~(P&Q) You might read this as saying that: it is not true that P. . We can describe this by saying that a tautology is a formula that is true no matter what. Let's look at the conditional first. (c1) is a single formula. This is reflected in the corresponding argument to the left. we notice that every case in which the premise is true so is the conclusion. or false no matter what. THE RELATION BETWEEN VALIDITY AND IMPLICATION Let us begin this section by recalling some earlier definitions. no matter what. and the conclusion as the consequent. we noted that a formula A logically implies (or simply implies) a formula B if and only if the conditional formula A→B is a tautology.

suppose that P→C isn't a tautology. P3. and then form the conditional with this conjunction as its antecedent and with the conclusion as its consequent. Consequently. P2. There is such a principle. [Note: What we have in fact demonstrated is this: the argument P/C is not valid if and only if the conditional P→C is not a tautology.76 Hardegree. What we have to do is to form a single formula out of an argument irrespective of how many premises it has. in general to all arguments. It would be nice if there were a comparable principle that applied to arguments with two premises. we can argue as follows. case n) in which P is true and C is false. Symbolic Logic Argument P/C is valid if and only if the conditional formula P→C is a tautology. by definition. in the corresponding truth table for the conditional P→C. since the parentheses are missing in connection with the ampersands. i. P2. there is a case (namely. Notice that the above formulas are not strictly speaking formulas. P2 / C P1. This demonstrates that if P/C is not valid. It immediately follows that P/C is not valid. Accordingly. then P/C is not valid. It follows that P→C is not a tautology.e. Argument P/C is valid if and only if the premise P logically implies the conclusion C. This statement has the form: ~V↔~T.] The above principle about validity and implication is not particularly useful because not many arguments have just one premise. which is to say that (~V↔~T)↔(V↔T) is a tautology. The student should convince him(her)self that ~V↔~T is equivalent to V↔T. But a conditional is false if and only if its antecedent is true and its consequent is false. So there is a case in which P is true but C is false. The removal of the . In order to demonstrate the truth of this principle. in case n. first conjoin the premises. Suppose that the argument P/C is not valid. The following examples illustrate this technique. P4 / C Associated conditional: (P1 & P2) → C (P1 & P2 & P3) → C (P1 & P2 & P3 & P4) → C In each case. so P does not imply C. We also have to show the converse conditional: if P→C is not a tautology. The particular formula we use begins with the premises. a formula P implies a formula C if and only if the conditional P→C is a tautology. P3 / C P1. the truth value of P→C is T→F. next takes this conjunction and makes a conditional with it as the antecedent and the conclusion as the consequent. This completes our argument. this principle can be restated as follows. next forms a conjunction out of all these.. (1) (2) (3) Argument P1.. Since. arguments with three premises. we take the argument. Well. Then there is a case (call it case n) in which P is true but C is false. Then there is a case in which P→C is false. F. then P→C is not a tautology.

we can now state the principle that relates these two notions. except that one has to take into account the truth table for conjunction (in particular. The interested reader should try to convince him(her)self that this principle is true.Chapter 3: Validity in Sentential Logic 77 extraneous parentheses is comparable to writing ‘x+y+z+w’ in place of the strictly correct ‘((x+y)+z)+z’. The argument proceeds like the earlier one..P2. . Argument P1. Having described how to construct a conditional formula on the basis of an argument.. P&Q can be true only if both P and Q are true). this principle can be restated as follows.Pn/C is valid if and only if the conjunction P1&P2&. An argument A is valid if and only if the associated conditional is a tautology. at least in the case of two premises...&Pn logically implies the conclusion C. In virtue of the relation between implication and tautologies..

EXERCISE SET B In each of the following. you are given a pair generically denoted A. In each case. 2. A: ~(P↔Q) B: (P&Q) → R 20. say whether it is a tautology. a contradiction. A: (P∨Q) → R B: P→R 22. Does A logically imply B? Does B logically imply A? Are A and B logically equivalent? A: ~(P&Q) B: ~P&~Q A: ~(P&Q) B: ~P∨~Q A: ~(P∨Q) B: ~P∨~Q A: ~(P∨Q) B: ~P&~Q A: ~(P→Q) B: ~P→~Q A: ~(P→Q) B: P&~Q A: ~(P↔Q) B: ~P↔~Q A: ~(P↔Q) B: P↔~Q A: ~(P↔Q) B: ~P↔Q 13. Symbolic Logic 6. A: P→Q B: ~Q→~P 15. A: (P&Q)→R B: P → (Q→R) 23. A: P→Q B: ~P∨Q 16. A: P→Q B: ~(P&~Q) 17. A: P↔Q B: (P&Q) & (Q→P) 11. B. answer the following questions: (1) (2) (3) 1. 3. For each formula. or a contingent formula. 7. 8. 9. 6. 4. A: ~P B: ~(P∨Q) 19. A: P→Q B: ~P→~Q 14. A: (P&Q) → R B: P→R 21. 5. A: P↔Q B: (P→Q) & (Q→P) 12.78 Hardegree. A: P → (Q&R) B: P→Q 24. A: P → (Q∨R) B: P→Q 10. EXERCISES FOR CHAPTER 3 EXERCISE SET A Go back to Exercise Set 2C in Chapter 2. A: P→Q B: Q→P . A: ~P B: ~(P&Q) 18.

Chapter 3: Validity in Sentential Logic 79 EXERCISE SET C In each of the following. In each case. ~Q→~P / P↔Q 18. Q→R. P→Q. Q / P P→Q. P∨Q. ~(P&Q). 9. 5. P→Q / P&Q 13. P→~P / ~P&~Q 22. ~P / Q P↔Q. P→Q. P→Q. P→R / Q&R 30. P∨Q. P→Q. P→Q. ~P→~Q / P↔Q 17. ~P / ~Q P∨Q. P∨Q. Q→R / P→R 24. ~(P→Q). P∨Q. 2. ~Q→~P / P&Q 19. Q→R / P&R 26. P / Q P→Q. R→P / P↔R 27. P→R. P∨Q / P 20. 6. splayed horizontally. ~Q / ~P P→Q. ~P→~Q / P&Q 16. P∨Q / P↔Q 21. ~P→R / R 25. 1. Explain your answer. P↔Q. Q→R / (P∨Q)→R 29. ~Q→P / P 23. P→Q. use the method of truth tables to decide whether the argument form is valid or invalid. ~P→~Q. 8. 4. Q / P 11. P / ~Q ~(P&Q). P→Q. ~P→Q / Q 15. P→Q. P→R. P→Q. ~P→~Q. Q→R / R 28. P→Q. ~P / ~Q 10. ~P / Q P∨Q. P→~Q / ~P 14. you are given an argument form from sentential logic. P∨~Q. 7. P→Q / Q 12. P / ~Q ~(P&Q). P→Q. 3. Q→R / R . Q→R.

R→P. consider the argument A/B. P&~R / ~Q 36. P→(Q→R). ~P∨Q. Q→R. Q→~R / ~P 34. P→~Q / R 35. P→(Q&R). On the basis of your answers for Exercise Set B. In each case. Symbolic Logic EXERCISE SET D Go back to Exercise Set B. Thus. ~(Q&R) / ~R Hardegree. P→Q.80 31. as well as the converse argument B/A. Q&R / ~P 33. there are a total of 48 arguments to consider. P&(Q∨R). R→~P / ~P 32. P→(Q∨R). decide which of these arguments are valid and which are invalid. .

7.Chapter 3: Validity in Sentential Logic 81 7. 10. 16. 24. 25. 19. 15. 14. 6. 17. 12. 23. 11. 13. 3. 1. 2. 9. 21. 18. 20. 4. 5. ANSWERS TO EXERCISES FOR CHAPTER 3 contingent tautology contradiction contingent contingent contingent contingent tautology contradiction tautology contradiction contingent tautology tautology contradiction contingent tautology contingent contingent tautology tautology contingent tautology contingent tautology EXERCISE SET A . 22. 8.

A: ~( F F F T → B T F T T T T T T YES NO NO B F T T T → T F F T A F F F T #4. A: ~( F T T T B F T T T → T T T T A F T T T #3.82 Hardegree. A: ~( F T T T B: P & Q) ~ P & ~ Q A T T T F T F F T F T F F F T F T F T F F T T F F F T T F F F T F T T F T Does A logically imply B? Does B logically imply A? Are A and B logically equivalent? B: P & Q) ~ P ∨ ~ Q A T T T F T F F T F T F F F T T T F T F F T T F T F T T F F F T F T T F T Does A logically imply B? Does B logically imply A? Are A and B logically equivalent? B: P ∨ Q) ~ P ∨ ~ Q A T T T F T F F T F T T F F T T T F F F T T T F T F T F F F F T F T T F T Does A logically imply B? Does B logically imply A? Are A and B logically equivalent? B: P ∨ Q) ~ P & ~ Q A T T T F T F F T F T T F F T F T F F F T T T F F F T F F F F T F T T F T Does A logically imply B? Does B logically imply A? Are A and B logically equivalent? → B T F F F F F T T NO YES NO → B T F T T T T T T YES YES YES B F F F T → T T T T A F T T T #2. A: ~( F F F T → B T F T F T F T T YES YES YES B F F F T → T T T T A F F F T . Symbolic Logic EXERCISE SET B #1.

Chapter 3: Validity in Sentential Logic 83 #5. A: ~( F T F F B: P → Q) ~ P → ~ Q A T T T F T T F T F T F F F T T T F T F T T T F F F T F F T F T F T T F F Does A logically imply B? Does B logically imply A? Are A and B logically equivalent? B: P → Q) P & ~ Q A→ T T T T F F T F T T F F T T T F T T F T T F F F T F T F T F F F T F F T Does A logically imply B? Does B logically imply A? Are A and B logically equivalent? B: P ↔ Q) ~ P ↔ ~ Q A T T T F T T F T F T F F F T F T F T F F T T F F F T T F T F T F T T F F Does A logically imply B? Does B logically imply A? Are A and B logically equivalent? B: P ↔ Q) P ↔ ~ Q A→ T T T T F F T F T T F F T T T F T T F F T F T F T T T F T F F F T F F T Does A logically imply B? Does B logically imply A? Are A and B logically equivalent? → B T T T T T F T T YES NO NO B T T F T → F T T F A F T F F #6. A: ~( F T F F B B F F T T F F F F YES YES YES → T T T T A F T F F #7. A: ~( F T T F → B T T F F F F T T NO NO NO B T F F T → F T T F A F T F F #8. A: ~( F T T F B B F F T T T T F F YES YES YES → T T T T A F T T F .

A: ~( F T T F B: P ↔ Q) ~ P ↔ Q A→ T T T F T F T F T T F F F T T F T T F F T T F T T T T F T F T F F F F T Does A logically imply B? Does B logically imply A? Are A and B logically equivalent? Hardegree. A: B: P ↔ Q ( P & Q)&(Q → P ) T T T T T T T T T T T F F T F F F F T T F F T F F T F T F F F T F F F F F F T F Does A logically imply B? Does B logically imply A? Are A and B logically equivalent? #11. Symbolic Logic B B F F T T T T F F YES YES YES → T T T T A F T T F #10.84 #9. A: B: P → Q Q → P A→ B B T T T T T T T T T T T F F F T T F T T T F T T T F F T F F F F T F F T F T T T T Does A logically imply B? Does B logically imply A? Are A and B logically equivalent? A→ T T F T F T T F NO YES NO B T F F F B T F F F → T T T T A T F F T A→ T T F T F T T T YES YES YES B T F F T B T F F T → T T T T A T F F T →A T T F F T F T T NO NO NO . A: B: P ↔ Q ( P → Q)&(Q → P ) T T T T T T T T T T T F F T F F F F T T F F T F T T F T F F F T F F T F T F T F Does A logically imply B? Does B logically imply A? Are A and B logically equivalent? #12.

Chapter 3: Validity in Sentential Logic 85 #13. A: B: P → Q ~ P ∨ Q A→ B B →A T T T F T T T T T T T T T T F F F T F F F T F F T F F T T T F T T T T T T T T F T F T F T F T T T T T T Does A logically imply B? YES Does B logically imply A? YES Are A and B logically equivalent? YES #16. A: B: P → Q ~ P → ~ Q A→ B B →A T T T F T T F T T T T T T T T F F F T T T F F T T T F F F T T T F F F T T F F F T T F T F T F T T F T T T T T T Does A logically imply B? NO Does B logically imply A? NO Are A and B logically equivalent? NO #14. A: B: P → Q ~( P & ~ Q) A→ B B →A T T T T T F F T T T T T T T T F F F T T T F F T F F T F F T T T F F F T T T T T T T F T F T F F T F T T T T T T Does A logically imply B? YES Does B logically imply A? YES Are A and B logically equivalent? YES . A: B: P → Q ~ Q → ~ P A→ B B →A T T T F T T F T T T T T T T T F F T F F F T F T F F T F F T T F T T T F T T T T T T F T F T F T T F T T T T T T Does A logically imply B? YES Does B logically imply A? YES Are A and B logically equivalent? YES #15.

Symbolic Logic B F T T T →A T F F F T T T T YES NO NO B F F F T →A T F T F T T T T NO YES NO A F F T T T T F F → B T T T F T T T T T T T T T T T T YES NO NO B T F T T T T T T → F T T T T T F F A F F T T T T F F . A: B: ~ ( P ↔ Q ) ( P & Q )→ R F T T T T T T T T F T T T T T T F F T T F F T F F T T T T F F T F F T F T F F T F F T T T T F F T F F T T F F F T F F F F T T F F T F F F F T F Does A logically imply B? Does B logically imply A? Are A and B logically equivalent? Hardegree. A: B: ~ P ~( P & Q) A→ B F T F T T T F T F F T T T F F F T T T F T F F T T T T T F T F F F T T T Does A logically imply B? Does B logically imply A? Are A and B logically equivalent? #18.86 #17. A: B: ~ P ~( P ∨ Q) A→ B F T F T T T F T F F T F T T F F T F T F F F T T T F F T F T F F F T T T Does A logically imply B? Does B logically imply A? Are A and B logically equivalent? #19.

A: ( P T T T T F F F F B: & Q )→ R P → R A→ T T T T T T T T T T T F F T F F F T F F T T T T T T T F F T F T F F T F F T T T F T T T T F T T F F T F T T F F T T F T T T T F F T F F T F T T Does A logically imply B? Does B logically imply A? Are A and B logically equivalent? B: ∨ Q )→ R P → R A→ T T T T T T T T T T T F F T F F F T T F T T T T T T T T F F F T F F F T T T T T F T T T T T T F F F T F F T F F T T F T T T T F F T F F T F T T Does A logically imply B? Does B logically imply A? Are A and B logically equivalent? B: & Q )→ R P →( Q → R ) T T T T T T T T T T T F F T F T F F F F T T T T F T T F F T F T T F T F F T T T F T T T T F T T F F T T F F F F T T F T F T T F F T F F T F T F Does A logically imply B? Does B logically imply A? Are A and B logically equivalent? A→ T T F T T T T T T T T T T T T T YES YES YES B T F T T T T T T B T F T T T T T T → T T T T T T T T A T F T T T T T T B B T T F F T T F F T T T T T T T T YES NO NO → T T T T T F T T A T F T F T F T T B B T T F F T T F F T T T T T T T T NO YES NO → F T T T T T T T A T F T T T T T T #21. A: ( P T T T T F F F F .Chapter 3: Validity in Sentential Logic 87 #20. A: ( P T T T T F F F F #22.

A: B: P →( Q ∨ R ) P → Q A→ T T T T T T T T T T T T T T F T F F T F T T F T T T T T T T T F F F F T F F F T F T T T T F T T T T F T T T F F T F T T F T F T T F T T T T F T F F F F T F T T Does A logically imply B? Does B logically imply A? Are A and B logically equivalent? Hardegree. A: B: P →( Q & R ) P → Q A→ T T T T T T T T T T T F T F F T T T F T T F F F T T F F F T T F F F F T F F F T F T T T T F T T T T F T T F F F T T T T F T F F T F T F T T F T F F F F T F T T Does A logically imply B? Does B logically imply A? Are A and B logically equivalent? #24.88 #23. Symbolic Logic B B T T F T T F F F T T T T T T T T YES NO NO → T F T T T T T T A T F F F T T T T B B T T F F T T F F T T T T T T T T NO YES NO → T T T T T T T T A T T T F T T T T .

P → Q .Chapter 3: Validity in Sentential Logic 89 EXERCISE SET C 1. Q / P T T T T T T F F F T F T T T F F T F F F INVALID 3. P ∨ Q . P / ~ Q T T T T F T T T F T T F F T T F F T F F F F T F INVALID . ~ P / Q T T T F T T T T F F T F F T T T F T F F F T F F VALID 6. P → Q . P / Q T T T T T T F F T F F T T F T F T F F F VALID 2. ~ Q / ~ P T T T F T F T T F F T F F T F T T F T T F F T F T F T F VALID 4. P → Q . P → Q . P ∨ Q . ~ P / ~ Q T T T F T F T T F F F T T F F T T T F F T F T F T F T F INVALID 5.

P ∨ Q . ~( P & F T T T T F T F F T F F INVALID Q) . P → Q / P & Q T T T T T T T T T T T F T F F T F F F T T F T T F F T F F F F T F F F F INVALID . P → Q / Q T T T T T T T T T F T F F F F T T F T T T F F F F T F F VALID 12. P / ~ Q T T F T F T T F T F F T F F T F Hardegree. Symbolic Logic 8. P ∨ Q . P ↔ Q . Q / P T T T T T T F F F T F F T T F F T F F F VALID 11. ~( P F T T T T F T F VALID & T F F F Q) . ~ P / ~ Q T T T F T F T T F F F T T F F F T T F F T F T F T F T F VALID 10. ~ P / Q T F T T F F T F T T F T F T F F 9. P ↔ Q .90 7.

P ∨ Q . ~ P → F T T F T T T F F T F T VALID ~ F T F T Q / P & Q T T T T F T F F T F F T F F F F Q / P ↔ Q T T T T F T F F T F F T F F T F Q . ~ P → Q / Q T T T F T T T T T F F F T T F F F T T T F T T T F T F T F F F F VALID 15. ~ Q → ~ T F T T F F T F F F T F T T T F T F T T P / P & Q T T T T T T F F F F F T F F F F . ~ P → ~ F T T F F T T T T F F F T F T T INVALID Q . ~ Q → ~ T F T T F F T F F F T F T T T F T F T T P / P ↔ Q T T T T T T F F F F F T F F T F 18. P → Q . P → Q . P → ~ Q / ~ P T T T T F F T F T T F F T T T F F T F T T F T F T T F F T F F T T F T F VALID 14.Chapter 3: Validity in Sentential Logic 91 13. ~ P → ~ T T T F T T F T F F F T T T F T T T F F F F T F T F T T VALID 17. P → Q . ~ P → ~ T T T F T T F T T F F T T T F T T T F F F F F F T F T T INVALID 16.

P ∨ Q / P ↔ Q T T T T T T T T T T F F T T F T F F F T T F T T F F T F T F F F F F T F INVALID 21. ~( P & F T T T T F T F F T F F INVALID Q) . P → Q . P → Q . Symbolic Logic 20. ~ Q → P / P T F T T T T F T F T T T T F T T F F F T F F F F 23. Q → R / P → R T T T T T T T T T T T T T F F T F F T F F F T T T T T T F F F T F T F F F T T T T T F T T F T T T F F F T F F T F F T T F T T F T F F T F F T F VALID .92 19. ~( P → F T T T T F F F T F F T VALID 22. P ∨ Q / P T T T T T F T T F T T F T T F F F F F F Hardegree. P ∨ ~ T T F T T T F F F F T T VALID Q . P → ~ P / ~ P & ~ T T F F T F T F F F T F F T F T F T T F T T F T F F F F F T T F T F T T Q T F T F Q) .

Chapter 3: Validity in Sentential Logic 93 24. Q → R . Q → R / R T T T T T T T T T T T F F F T F F F T T T T F F F T F F F T T T T T T F T T T F F F F T F F T T T F T F F T F F INVALID . P → Q . ~ P → R / R T T T T T T F T T T T T T T T F F F T T F F T F F F T T F T T T T T F F F T F F T T F F F T T T T T T F T T T F T T T F F T F F F F F T F F T T T F T T T F T F F T F T F F F F VALID 25. P → Q . P → Q . P → Q . R → P / P ↔ R T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T F F F T T T F F T F F F T T T T T T T T T F F F T F F T T T F F F T T T T T T F F F F T F T T T F F F T F F T F F T F F T T T F F F F T F T F F T F F T F F T F VALID 27. Q → R / P & R T T T T T T T T T T T T T F F T F F T F F F T T T T T T F F F T F T F F F T T T T T F F T F T T T F F F F F F T F F T T F F T F T F F T F F F F INVALID 26. Q → R .

P → Q . P → R / Q & R T T T T T T T T T T T T T F F T F F T F F T T T F F T T F F T F F F F F F T T F T T T T T F T T F T F T F F F T F F T T F F T F T F F T F F F F INVALID 30. P → R . P → R . Q → R / ( P ∨ Q )→ R T T T T T T T T T T T T F F T F F T T T F F T T T F T T T T F T T T F F F T F T T F F F F T T T T T F T T T T F T F T F F F T T F F F T T F T T F F F T T F T F F T F F F F T F VALID 29. Symbolic Logic . P → Q .94 28. R → ~ P / ~ P T T T T T T T F F T F T T T T T F F F T F T F T T F F F T T T F F T F T T F F F T F F T F T F T F T T T T T T T T F T F F T T T F F F T T F T F F T F F T T T T T F T F F T F F T F F T T F T F VALID Hardegree. P ∨ Q . Q → R . Q → R / R T T T T T T T T T T T T T T F F T F F F T T F T T T F T T T T T F T F F F T F F F T T F T T T T T T F T T F T F T F F F F F F F T T F T T T F F F F T F F T F F VALID 31.

P → ~ Q / R T T F F T T F T F F T F T T T T F T F T T T F F T F T F T T F F T F T F T F T T F T F F T T F F Q T T F F T T F F → T F T T T F T T R ) . Q → ~ R / ~ P T T F F T F T F T T T F F T T F T F T F T F F T T F F T T T F F T T F F T T T F T F T F T F T T F F F T T F T F Q T T F F T T F F ∨ T T T F T T T F R ) . P &( T T T T T T T F F F F F F F F F VALID 35. P →( Q T T T T T T T T F T F F F T T F T T F T F F T F INVALID 33.Chapter 3: Validity in Sentential Logic 95 32. P →( T T T F T F T F F T F T F T F T VALID 34. P →( T T T F T T T T F T F T F T F T VALID Q T T F F T T F F ∨ T T T F T T T F R ) . P & ~ R / ~ Q T T F F T F T F T T T F F T T T F F T T F F T T T F T F T F F F T F T F F F T F F T T F F F T T F F F F T F T F . Q & R / ~ P T T T T F T F T F F F T T F F T F T F F F F F T T T T T T F F T F F T F T F F T T F F F F F T F & T F F F T F F F R ) .

8. A: P→Q B: ~P→~Q (1) A / B INVALID (2) B / A INVALID . 5.96 36. ~(Q & R ) / ~ R T T T T F T T T F T T F T T T T F F T F F T T T T F F T F T F F T T T F F F T F T T F F F T T T F T T F T F T T F F T F F T F F T F F T F T F F T F T F F F T F Hardegree. 2. Symbolic Logic EXERCISE SET D 1. 9 A: ~(P&Q) B: ~P&~Q (1)A / B INVALID (2) B / A VALID A:~(P&Q) B: ~P∨~Q (1) A / B VALID (2) B / A VALID A: ~(P∨Q) B: ~P∨~Q (1) A / B VALID (2) B / A INVALID A: ~(P∨Q) B: ~P&~Q (1) A / B VALID (2) B / A VALID A: ~(P→Q) B: ~P→~Q (1) A / B VALID (2) B / A INVALID A: ~(P→Q) B: P&~Q (1) A / B VALID (2) B / A VALID A: ~(P↔Q) B: ~P↔~Q (1) A / B INVALID (2) B / A INVALID A: ~(P↔Q) B: P↔~Q (1) A / B VALID (2) B / A VALID A: ~(P↔Q) B: ~P↔Q (1) A / B VALID (2) B / A VALID 10. ~ P ∨ F T T F T T F T F F T F T F T T F T T F T T F T VALID Q . 4. A: P→Q B: Q→P (1) A / B INVALID (2) B / A INVALID 13. 6. A: P↔Q B: (P→Q) & (Q→P) (1) A / B VALID (2) B / A VALID 12. 3. R → P . 7. A: P↔Q B: (P&Q) & (Q→P) (1) A / B INVALID (2) B / A VALID 11.

Chapter 3: Validity in Sentential Logic

97

14. A: P→Q B: ~Q→~P (1) A / B VALID (2) B / A VALID 15. A: P→Q B: ~P∨Q (1) A / B VALID (2) B / A VALID 16. A: P→Q B: ~(P&~Q) (1) A / B VALID (2) B / A VALID 17. A: ~P B ~(P&Q) (1) A / B VALID (2) B / A INVALID 18. A: ~P B ~(P∨Q) (1) A / B INVALID (2) B / A VALID 19. A: ~(P↔Q) B: (P&Q) → R (1) A / B VALID (2) B / A INVALID 20. A: (P&Q) → R B: P→R (1) A / B INVALID (2) B / A VALID 21. A: (P∨Q) → R B: P→R (1) A / B VALID (2) B / A INVALID 22. A: (P&Q)→R B: P → (Q→R) (1) A / B VALID (2) B / A VALID 23. A: P → (Q&R) B: P→Q (1) A / B VALID (2) B / A INVALID 24. A: P → (Q∨R) B: P→Q (1) A / B INVALID (2) B / A VALID

4

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

TRANSLATIONS IN SENTENTIAL LOGIC

Introduction ............................................................................................... 92 The Grammar of Sentential Logic; A Review ............................................. 93 Conjunctions.............................................................................................. 94 Disguised Conjunctions.............................................................................. 95 The Relational Use of ‘And’ ...................................................................... 96 Connective-Uses of ‘And’ Different from Ampersand ................................ 98 Negations, Standard and Idiomatic ........................................................... 100 Negations of Conjunctions ....................................................................... 101 Disjunctions ............................................................................................. 103 ‘Neither...Nor’.......................................................................................... 104 Conditionals............................................................................................. 106 ‘Even If’ ................................................................................................... 107 ‘Only If’ ................................................................................................... 108 A Problem with the Truth-Functional If-Then.......................................... 110 ‘If And Only If’ ........................................................................................ 112 ‘Unless’.................................................................................................... 113 The Strong Sense of ‘Unless’ ................................................................... 114 Necessary Conditions............................................................................... 116 Sufficient Conditions................................................................................ 117 Negations of Necessity and Sufficiency .................................................... 118 Yet Another Problem with the Truth-Functional If-Then ......................... 120 Combinations of Necessity and Sufficiency.............................................. 121 ‘Otherwise’ .............................................................................................. 123 Paraphrasing Complex Statements............................................................ 125 Guidelines for Translating Complex Statements....................................... 133 Exercises for Chapter 4 ............................................................................ 134 Answers to Exercises for Chapter 4.......................................................... 138

def~±²´<

92

Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

1.

INTRODUCTION

In the present chapter, we discuss how to translate a variety of English statements into the language of sentential logic. From the viewpoint of sentential logic, there are five standard connectives – ‘and’, ‘or’, ‘if...then’, ‘if and only if’, and ‘not’. In addition to these standard connectives, there are in English numerous non-standard connectives, including ‘unless’, ‘only if’, ‘neither...nor’, among others. There is nothing linguistically special about the five "standard" connectives; rather, they are the connectives that logicians have found most useful in doing symbolic logic. The translation process is primarily a process of paraphrase – saying the same thing using different words, or expressing the same proposition using different sentences. Paraphrase is translation from English into English, which is presumably easier than translating English into, say, Japanese. In the present chapter, we are interested chiefly in two aspects of paraphrase. The first aspect is paraphrasing statements involving various non-standard connectives into equivalent statements involving only standard connectives. The second aspect is paraphrasing simple statements into straightforwardly equivalent compound statements. For example, the statement ‘it is not raining’ is straightforwardly equivalent to the more verbose ‘it is not true that it is raining’. Similarly, ‘Jay and Kay are Sophomores’ is straightforwardly equivalent to the more verbose ‘Jay is a Sophomore, and Kay is a Sophomore’. An English statement is said to be in standard form, or to be standard, if all its connectives are standard and it contains no simple statement that is straightforwardly equivalent to a compound statement; otherwise, it is said to be nonstandard. Once a statement is paraphrased into standard form, the only remaining task is to symbolize it, which consists of symbolizing the simple (atomic) statements and symbolizing the connectives. Simple statements are symbolized by upper case Roman letters, and the standard connectives are symbolized by the already familiar symbols – ampersand, wedge, tilde, arrow, and double-arrow. In translating simple statements, the particular letter one chooses is not terribly important, although it is usually helpful to choose a letter that is suggestive of the English statement. For example, ‘R’ can symbolize either ‘it is raining’ or ‘I am running’; however, if both of these statements appear together, then they must be symbolized by different letters. In general, in any particular context, different letters must be used to symbolize non-equivalent statements, and the same letter must be used to symbolize equivalent statements.

Chapter 4: Translations in Sentential Logic

93

2.

THE GRAMMAR OF SENTENTIAL LOGIC; A REVIEW

Before proceeding, let us review the grammar of sentential logic. First, recall that statements may be divided into simple statements and compound statements. Whereas the latter are constructed from smaller statements using statement connectives, the former are not so constructed. The grammar of sentential logic reflects this grammatical aspect of English. In particular, formulas of sentential logic are divided into atomic formulas and molecular formulas. Whereas molecular formulas are constructed from other formulas using connectives, atomic formulas are structureless, they are simply upper case letters (of the Roman alphabet). Formulas are strings of symbols. In sentential logic, the symbols include all the upper case letters, the five connective symbols, as well as left and right parentheses. Certain strings of symbols count as formulas of sentential logic, and others do not, as determined by the following definition. Definition of Formula in Sentential Logic: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) every upper case letter is a formula; if d is a formula, then so is ~d; if d and e are formulas, then so is (d & e); if d and e are formulas, then so is (d ´ e); if d and e are formulas, then so is (d ² e); if d and e are formulas, then so is (d ± e); nothing else is a formula.

In the above definition, the script letters stand for arbitrary strings of symbols. So for example, clause (2) says that if you have a string d of symbols, then provided d is a formula, the result of prefixing a tilde sign in front of d is also a formula. Also, clause (3) says that if you have a pair of strings, d and e, then provided both strings are formulas, the result of infixing an ampersand and surrounding the resulting expression by parentheses is also a formula. As noted earlier, in addition to formulas in the strict sense, which are specified by the above definition, we also have formulas in a less strict sense. These are called unofficial formulas, which are defined as follows. An unofficial formula is any string of symbols obtained from an official formula by removing its outermost parentheses, if such exist. The basic idea is that, although the outermost parentheses of a formula are crucial when it is used to form a larger formula, the outermost parentheses are optional when the formula stands alone. For example, the answers to the exercises, at the back of the chapter, are mostly unofficial formulas.

94

Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

3.

CONJUNCTIONS

The standard English expression for conjunction is ‘and’, but there are numerous other conjunction-like expressions, including the following. (c1) (c2) (c3) (c4) (c5) (c6) (c7) (c8) (c9) but yet although though even though moreover furthermore however whereas

Although these expressions have different connotations, they are all truthfunctionally equivalent to one another. For example, consider the following statements. (s1) (s2) (s3) (s4) it is raining, but I am happy although it is raining, I am happy it is raining, yet I am happy it is raining and I am happy

For example, under what conditions is (s1) true? Answer: (s1) is true precisely when ‘it is raining’ and ‘I am happy’ are both true, which is to say precisely when (s4) is true. In other words, (s1) and (s4) are true under precisely the same circumstances, which is to say that they are truth-functionally equivalent. When we utter (s1)-(s3), we intend to emphasize a contrast that is not emphasized in the standard conjunction (s4), or we intend to convey (a certain degree of) surprise. The difference, however, pertains to appropriate usage rather than semantic content. Although they connote differently, (s1)-(s4) have the same truth conditions, and are accordingly symbolized the same: R&H

Chapter 4: Translations in Sentential Logic

95

4.

DISGUISED CONJUNCTIONS

As noted earlier, certain simple statements are straightforwardly equivalent to compound statements. For example, (e1) Jay and Kay are Sophomores is equivalent to (p1) Jay is a Sophomore, and Kay is a Sophomore which is symbolized: (s1) J & K Other examples of disguised conjunctions involve relative pronouns (‘who’, ‘which’, ‘that’). For example, (e2) Jones is a former player who coaches basketball is equivalent to (p2) Jones is a former (basketball) player, and Jones coaches basketball, which may be symbolized: (s2) F & C Further examples do not use relative pronouns, but are easily paraphrased using relative pronouns. For example, (e3) Pele is a Brazilian soccer player may be paraphrased as (p3) Pele is a Brazilian who is a soccer player which is equivalent to (p3') Pele is a Brazilian, and Pele is a soccer player, which may be symbolized: (s3) B & S Notice, of course, that (e4) Jones is a former basketball player is not a conjunction, such as the following absurdity. (??) Jones is a former, and Jones is a basketball player Sentence (e4) is rather symbolized as a simple (atomic) formula.

96

Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

5.

**THE RELATIONAL USE OF ‘AND’
**

As noted in the previous section, the statement, (c) Jay and Kay are Sophomores,

is equivalent to the conjunction, Jay is a Sophomore, and Kay is a Sophomore, and is accordingly symbolized: J&K Other statements look very much like (c), but are not equivalent to conjunctions. Consider the following statements. (r1) (r2) (r3) (r4) (r5) Jay and Kay are cousins Jay and Kay are siblings Jay and Kay are neighbors Jay and Kay are roommates Jay and Kay are lovers

These are definitely not symbolized as conjunctions. The following is an incorrect translation. (?) J&K WRONG!!!

For example, consider (r1), the standard reading of which is (r1') Jay and Kay are cousins of each other. In proposing J&K as the analysis of (r1'), we must specify which particular atomic statement each letter stands for. The following is the only plausible choice. J: K: Jay is a cousin Kay is a cousin

Accordingly, the formula J&K is read Jay is a cousin, and Kay is a cousin. But to say that Jay is a cousin is to say that he is a cousin of someone, but not necessarily Kay. Similarly, to say that Kay is a cousin is to say that she a cousin of someone, but not necessarily Jay. In other words, J&K does not say that Jay and Kay are cousins of each other. The resemblance between statements like (r1)-(r5) and statements like (c1) Jay and Kay are Sophomores (c2) Jay and Kay are Republicans (c3) Jay and Kay are basketball players

Chapter 4: Translations in Sentential Logic

97

is grammatically superficial. Each of (c1)-(c3) states something about Jay independently of Kay, and something about Kay independently of Jay. By contrast, each of (r1)-(r5) states that a particular relationship holds between Jay and Kay. The relational quality of (r1)-(r5) may be emphasized by restating them in either of the following ways. (r1') (r2') (r3') (r4') (r5') (r1) (r2) (r3) (r4) (r5) Jay is a cousin of Kay Jay is a sibling of Kay Jay is a neighbor of Kay Jay is a roommate of Kay Jay is a lover of Kay Jay and Kay are cousins of each other Jay and Kay are siblings of each other Jay and Kay are neighbors of each other Jay and Kay are roommates of each other Jay and Kay are lovers of each other

On the other hand, notice that one cannot paraphrase (c1) as (??) Jay is a Sophomore of Kay (??) Jay and Kay are Sophomores of each other Relational statements like (r1)-(r5) are not correctly paraphrased as conjunctions. In fact, they are not correctly paraphrased by any compound statement. From the viewpoint of sentential logic, these statements are simple; they have no internal structure, and are accordingly symbolized by atomic formulas. [NOTE: Later, in predicate logic, we will see how to uncover the internal structure of relational statements such as (r1)-(r5), internal structure that is inaccessible to sentential logic.] We have seen so far that ‘and’ is used both conjunctively, as in Jay and Kay are Sophomores, and relationally, as in Jay and Kay are cousins (of each other). In other cases, it is not obvious whether ‘and’ is used conjunctively or relationally. Consider the following. (s2) Jay and Kay are married There are two plausible interpretations of this statement. On the one hand, we can interpret it as (i1) Jay and Kay are married to each other, in which case it expresses a relation, and is symbolized as an atomic formula, say: M. On the other hand, we can interpret it as

98 (i2) Jay is married, and Kay is married, (perhaps, but not necessarily, to each other),

Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

in which case it is symbolized by a conjunction, say: J&K. The latter simply reports the marital status of Jay, independently of Kay, and the marital status of Kay, independently of Jay. We can also say things like the following. (s3) Jay and Kay are married, but not to each other. This is equivalent to (p3) Jay is married, and Kay is married, but Jay and Kay are not married to each other, which is symbolized: (J & K) & ~M [Note: This latter formula does not uncover all the logical structure of the English sentence; it only uncovers its connective structure, but that is all sentential logic is concerned with.]

6.

CONNECTIVE-USES OF ‘AND’ DIFFERENT FROM AMPERSAND

As seen in the previous section, ‘and’ is used both as a connective and as a separator in relation-statements. In the present section, we consider how ‘and’ is occasionally used as a connective different in meaning from the ampersand connective (&). There are two cases of this use. First, sentences that have the form ‘P and Q’ sometimes mean ‘P and then Q’. For example, consider the following statements. (s1) I went home and went to bed (s2) I went to bed and went home As they are colloquially understood at least, these two statements do not express the same proposition, since ‘and’ here means ‘and then’. Note, in particular, that the above use of ‘and’ to mean ‘and then’ is not truth-functional. Merely knowing that P is true, and merely knowing that Q is true, one does not automatically know the order of the two events, and hence one does not know the truth-value of the compound ‘P and then Q’. Sometimes ‘and’ does not have exactly the same meaning as the ampersand connective. Other times, ‘and’ has a quite different meaning from ampersand.

it should be obvious that Churchill was not predicting that the addressee (i.Chapter 4: Translations in Sentential Logic 99 (e1) keep trying. then I will move the world if you give us the tools of war. Similarly. it merely says (promises. The appropriate paraphrases are given as follows.. Rather.) Thus. and I will clobber you (e3) give him an inch. threats. then you will succeed if you keep it up buster. the conjunction K&S reads: you will keep trying. Rather. promises. (As it turned out. and he will take a mile (e4) give me a place to stand. . Churchill was saying that he would finish the job if Roosevelt were to give him military aid. and we will finish the job (Churchill. Roosevelt) would in fact give him military aid and Churchill would in fact finish the job (of course. in the last example. and you will succeed. and you will succeed But the original. in reference to WW2) Consider (e1) paraphrased as a conjunction.. and you will succeed (e2) keep it up buster. the word ‘and’ can be used to state conditionals. The only plausible answer is: K: S: you will keep trying you will succeed Accordingly. for example: (?) K&S In proposing (?) as an analysis of (e1). does not say this at all. and I will move the world (Archimedes. It does not say the addressee will keep trying. then he will take a mile if you give me a place to stand. involving requests. nor does it say that the addressee will succeed. etc. under very special circumstances. then I will clobber you if you give him an inch. that was what Churchill was hoping!).e. in reference to the power of levers) (e5) give us the tools of war. we must specify what particular statements K and S abbreviate. of course. Roosevelt eventually gave substantial direct military aid. predicts) that the addressee will succeed if he/she keeps trying. (p1) (p2) (p3) (p4) (p5) if you keep trying. warnings. keep trying. then we will finish the job The treatment of conditionals is discussed in a later section.

the usual colloquial-idiomatic way to negate a statement is to place the modifier ‘not’ in a strategic place within the statement.100 Hardegree. consider the following statement. If sentence S is symbolized by the formula d. there is no simple idiomatic negation of the latter. according to the following simple principle. As noted earlier. . Symbolic Logic 7. standard negations seldom appear in colloquial-idiomatic English. As an example of a compound statement. we can form its standard negation by placing ‘it is not the case that’ (or a variant) in front of it. Note carefully that this principle applies whether S is simple or compound. it is not the case that _____ it is false that _____ Given any statement. (e1) Jay is a Freshman basketball player. Rather. namely. although there is a standard negation. The following is a simple example. As noted in Section 2. then the negation of S (standard or idiomatic) is symbolized by the formula ~d. statement: it is raining idiomatic negation: it is not raining standard negation: it is not true that it is raining Idiomatic negations are symbolized in sentential logic exactly like standard negations. namely (n1) it is not true that (Jay is a Freshman and Jay is a basketball player) The parentheses indicate the scope of the negation modifier. (n1′) Jay is not a Freshman basketball player. and Jay is a basketball player. there is a simple idiomatic negation of the former. Now. usually immediately after the verb. NEGATIONS. STANDARD AND IDIOMATIC The standard form of the negation connective is it is not true that _____ The following expressions are standard variants. However. We consider (n1) and (n1′) further in the next section. this may be paraphrased as a conjunction: (p1) Jay is a Freshman.

may be paraphrased as a conjunction. which is symbolized: (f1) F & B Also. and Jay is a basketball player. How do we read the negation ~(F & B)? Many students suggest the following erroneous paraphrase. but when the formula is negated. which is symbolized: ~(F & B) Notice carefully that. To say that Jay isn't a Freshman basketball player is to say that one of the following states of affairs obtains. Although there is no simple idiomatic negation of (p1). the sentence (s1) Jay is a Freshman basketball player. and Jay is a Basketball player. its standard negation is: (n2) it is not true that (Jay is a Freshman. as noted earlier. we obtain: ~F & B. as in (f2). the idiomatic negation of (p1) is (n1) Jay is not a Freshman basketball player. which is not equivalent to ~(F&B). which is symbolized: ~J & ~B. Jay is not a Freshman. (p1) Jay is a Freshman. But this is clearly not equivalent to (n1). and Jay is a Basketball player). the outer parentheses may be dropped. the outer parentheses must be restored before prefixing the negation sign. as may be shown using truth tables. WRONG!!! . when the conjunction stands by itself. NEGATIONS OF CONJUNCTIONS As noted earlier.Chapter 4: Translations in Sentential Logic 101 8. which is reads: Jay is not a Freshman. Otherwise. and Jay is not a basketball player.

The correct logical equivalence is rather: ~(d & e) is logically equivalent to (~d ´ ~e) The disjunction may be read as follows. Symbolic Logic Jay is a Freshman who does not play Basketball. to say that Jay is not a Freshman and not a Basketball player is to say precisely that the last state of affairs (3) obtains. The latter says that neither of them is a Republican (see later section concerning ‘neither’). Jay is not a Freshman and/or Jay is not a Basketball player. perhaps neither of them is a Republican. which is symbolized: ~J & ~K. Jay is neither a Freshman nor a Basketball player. in a previous chapter (voodoo logic notwithstanding!) ~(d & e) is NOT logically equivalent to (~d & ~e) This is easily demonstrated using truth-tables. ~(J & K) J&K . We have already seen the following. One more example might be useful. Jay is a Basketball player who is not a Freshman. On the other hand. Whereas the latter entails the former. The colloquial negation of the sentence Jay and Kay are both Republicans is Jay and Kay are not both Republicans This is definitely not the same as Jay and Kay are both non-Republicans. whereas the former says less – that at least one of them isn't a Republican.102 (1) (2) (3) Hardegree. the former does not entail the latter.

‘or’ has two senses – an inclusive sense and an exclusive sense. The legal profession has invented an expression to circumvent this ambiguity – ‘and/or’. ‘vel’. expresses the inclusive sense of ‘or’. In the first scenario. Similarly. Jones and Smith are the two finalists in an election in which only one person is elected. Jones and Smith. In particular. DISJUNCTIONS The standard English expression for disjunction is ‘or’. In the second scenario. (f1) J ´ S (f2) (J ´ S) & ~(J & S) We can read (f1) as saying that Jones will win and/or Smith will win.. and are accordingly symbolized as such. (s1) it is raining or sleeting (d1) it raining. or it is sleeting (s2) Jones is a fool or a liar (d2) Jones is a fool. the other will lose. or Jones is a liar R´S F´L . certain simple statements are straightforwardly equivalent to disjunctions. So Jones or Smith will win.. and we can read (f2) as saying that Jones will win or Smith will win but they won't both win (recall previous section on negations of conjunctions). a variant of which is ‘either. Consider the following statements. are the only people running in an election in which two people are elected. As noted in a previous chapter. Adams. maybe both. (is) Jones will win or Smith will win (possibly both) (es) Jones will win or Smith will win (but not both) We can imagine a scenario for each. ‘aut’. and a third person. the other. one will win. which is the sense of ‘and/or’ and ‘vel’. where the inclusive sense is distinguished (parenthetically) from the exclusive sense. expresses the exclusive sense. As with conjunctions. the wedge connective of sentential logic corresponds to the inclusive sense of ‘or’.or’.Chapter 4: Translations in Sentential Logic 103 9. The following are examples. Latin uses two different words: one. which is suggestive of the first letter of ‘vel’. These two statements may be symbolized as follows. In this case. The standard connective of sentential logic for disjunction is the wedge ‘´’.

paraphrase of (e1) uses the expression ‘neither. we must read it as follows.. (e1) Kay isn't either a Freshman or a Sophomore This may be paraphrased in the following. idiomatic. then ‘neither R nor S’ is read neither is it true that it is raining nor is it true that it is sleeting . neither d nor e is logically equivalent to ~(d ´ e) Note carefully that neither-nor in its connective guise is highly non-idiomatic. For example. For example. if R stands for ‘it is raining’ and S stands for ‘it is sleeting’.. neither d nor e is officially read: neither is it true that d nor is it true that e This is completely analogous to the standard (grammatically general) reading of ‘not P’ as ‘it is not the case that P’. (p1) it is not true that (Kay is either a Freshman or a Sophomore) This is a negation of a disjunction.. (s1) ~(F ´ S) Now.or’ This suggests introducing a non-standard connective. ‘NEITHER. consider the following statement.nor’...NOR’ Having considered disjunctions. non-idiomatic. way. ‘neither. in order to obtain a grammatically general reading of it. as follows. we next look at negations of disjunctions. neither-nor with the following defining property..nor’ is the negation of ‘either. an alternative. (p1') Kay is neither a Freshman nor a Sophomore Comparing (p1') with the original statement (e1). and is accordingly symbolized as follows.104 Hardegree.. In particular. we can discern the following principle. Symbolic Logic 10..

and neither is Kay A bit of linguistic reflection reveals that these two sentences are equivalent to one another. as with simple negation. and ‘not’. it is neither raining nor sleeting. or more naturally still. and is accordingly symbolized: ~J & ~K Thus. Other uses of the word ‘neither’ suggest another. Of course. This is entirely consistent with the truth-functional behavior of ‘and’. Further reflection reveals that the latter sentence is simply a stylistic variant of the more monotonous sentence Jay is not a Sophomore. equally natural. For example. given by the following principle. paraphrase of neither-nor. neither Jay nor Kay is a Sophomore Jay is not a Sophomore. as is easily demonstrated using truth-tables.Chapter 4: Translations in Sentential Logic 105 This awkward reading of neither-nor is required in order to insure that ‘neither P nor Q’ is grammatical irrespective of the actual sentences P and Q. We have suggested that neither-nor is the negation of either-or. and Kay is not a Sophomore The latter is a conjunction of two negations. we see that a neither-nor sentence can be symbolized as a conjunction of two negations. ‘or’. one can usually transform the sentence into a more colloquial form. the above sentence is more naturally read neither is it raining nor is it sleeting. since the following pair are logically equivalent. neither d nor e may be paraphrased ~(d ´ e) or equivalently ~d & ~e . Consider the following sentences. ~(d ´ e) is logically equivalent to (~d & ~e) We accordingly have two equally natural paraphrases of sentences involving neither-nor.

‘if’ always introduces the antecedent ‘then’ always introduces the consequent ‘provided (that)’. the order of antecedent and consequent is not fixed: in idiomatic English usage. all of the following statement forms are equivalent (d and f being any statements whatsoever).then’. all of the above statement forms are symbolized in the same manner: d²f As the reader will observe.. then f. should enable one systematically to identify the antecedent and consequent. ‘in case’. then f (c2) if d.106 Hardegree. Note that. f (c4') f in case d (c5) on the condition that d. sometimes the antecedent goes first. In particular. and ‘on the condition that’ are variants of ‘if’ . the constituents of a conditional do not play symmetric roles. There are a number of idiomatic variants of ‘if. The following principles.then’. however. f (c3') f provided (that) d (c4) in case d. and is symbolized: d²f Whereas d is called the antecedent of the conditional. f (c5') f on the condition that d In particular. sometimes the consequent goes first. where d and e are any statements (simple or compound). CONDITIONALS The standard English expression for the conditional connective is ‘if.. (c1) if d. f is called the consequent of the conditional.. Symbolic Logic 11. unlike conjunction and disjunction. f (c2') f if d (c3) provided (that) d.. A standard conditional (statement) is a statement of the form if d.

(e1) the Allies would have won even if the U. In the present section. The difference is not one of meaning but of presupposition. This is summarized as follows. the most common being ‘even’ and ‘only’.S. The expression ‘even if’ is actually quite tricky. . (i1) suggests that the Allies didn't win. had not entered the war (in reference to WW2) (i1) the Allies would have won if the U. In such examples.S. one takes for granted the truth of e. ‘only if’. Whereas (e1) suggests that the Allies did win. it seems that the pure semantic content of ‘even if’ is the same as the pure semantic content of ‘if’.Chapter 4: Translations in Sentential Logic 107 12. we deal very briefly with ‘even if’. and we tend to use ‘if’ when we presuppose that the consequent is false. sincere usage. Consider the following examples. leaving ‘only if’ to the next section. we tend to use ‘even if’ when we presuppose that the consequent is true. A more apt use of ‘if’ would be: (i2) the Axis powers would have won if the U. it would have been the case that e if it had been the case that d pragmatically presupposes ~e it would have been the case that e even if it had been the case that d pragmatically presupposes e To say that one statement d pragmatically presupposes another statement e is to say that when one (sincerely) asserts d. ‘EVEN IF’ The word ‘if’ frequently appears in combination with other words. Notwithstanding the pragmatic matters of appropriate. had not entered the war These two statements suggest quite different things. which give rise to the expressions ‘even if’. had not entered the war.S. on the part of the speaker.

Consider the following examples. (i1) I will get an A in logic if I take all the exams (i2) I will get into law school if I take the LSAT Whereas the ‘only if’ statements are true. we note that ‘only if’ is definitely not equivalent to ‘if’. So how do we paraphrase ‘only if’ statements using the standard connectives? The answer is fairly straightforward. a sign that reads ‘employees only’ means to exclude anyone who is not an employee. Thus. which give rise to the expressions ‘even if’. let us turn to the other expression. Symbolic Logic Given the subtleties of content versus presupposition. As an example of ‘only’ in ordinary discourse. Consider the following statements involving ‘only if’. but subtleties that can be dealt with in intro logic.108 Hardegree. the corresponding ‘if’ statements are false. being related to the general way in which the word ‘only’ operates in English – as a special dual-negative modifier. ‘only if’. if I say ‘Jay loves only Kay’. (o1) I will get an A in logic only if I take all the exams (o2) I will get into law school only if I take the LSAT Now consider the corresponding statements obtained by replacing ‘only if’ by ‘if’. ‘A if B’ does not imply ‘A only if B’. ‘ONLY IF’ The word ‘if’ frequently appears in combination with other words. I mean that he does not love anyone except Kay. which involves its own subtleties. So. One can also produce examples of ‘if’ statements that do not imply the corresponding ‘only if’ statements. . The above considerations show that an ‘only if’ statement does not imply the corresponding ‘if’ statement. The expression ‘even if’ is very complex. the most common being ‘even’ and ‘only’. It follows that ‘only if’ is not equivalent to ‘if’. so we do not consider it any further. and somewhat beyond the scope of intro logic. ‘only if’. 13. First. both ‘only if’ statements are false. Also. and ‘A only if B’ does not imply ‘A if B’. (i3) I will pass logic if I score 100 on every exam (i4) I am guilty of a felony if I murder someone (o3) I will pass logic only if I score 100 on every exam (o4) I am guilty of a felony only if I murder someone Whereas both ‘if’ statements are true. we will not consider ‘even if’ any further in this text.

respectively. we further paraphrase (p1) and (p2) as follows. (p1) and (p2) are not in standard form. in particular. one in front of the antecedent (introduced by ‘if’). (p1') if I do not take all the exams. we use a colloquial form of negation. (p1) I will not get an A in logic if I do not take all the exams (p2) I will not get into law school if I do not take the LSAT Now. Recalling that ‘d if e’ is an idiomatic variant of ‘if e. but the ‘only’ becomes two negations. ‘only’ modifies ‘if’ by introducing two negations. the statement d only if e is paraphrased not d if not e In other words. d only if e is paraphrased not d if not e which is further paraphrased if not e. as follows. the problem being the relative position of antecedent and consequent. and paraphrase them in accordance with this principle. the ‘if’ stays put. let us go back to original examples. and in particular continues to introduce the antecedent. the other in front of the consequent. then d’. With this in mind.Chapter 4: Translations in Sentential Logic 109 In the case of the connective ‘only if’. In each case. then I will not get into law school These are symbolized. then not d which is symbolized ~e ² ~d . then I will not get an A in logic (p2') if I do not take the LSAT. we obtain the following principle. (s1) ~T ² ~A (s2) ~T ² ~L Combining the paraphrases of ‘only if’ and ‘if’.

. Symbolic Logic 14.then’. This means. Consider the last one. a problem specifically having to do with the expression ‘only if’.then’.. As noted already. ~e²~d is the translation of ‘d only if e’. The particular difficulty is summarized as follows. why bother taking the LSAT! The oddity we have just discovered further underscores the shortcomings of the truth-functional if-then connective. The reader may recall that. which is symbolized ‘~e²~d’. in particular that our original examples. Whereas the truth-functional analysis of ‘if.. it is simply the best we can do by way of a truthfunctional version of ‘if. We have paraphrased ‘d only if e’ as ‘not d if not e’.. then e’. Therefore.... . respectively: (e1) if I get an A in logic. which is paraphrased ‘if not e. ~e ² ~d is equivalent to d²e Now.then’ is well suited to the timeless. A PROBLEM WITH THE TRUTH-FUNCTIONAL IF-THEN The reader will recall that the truth-functional version of ‘if. using truth tables. we are led to conclude that ‘d only if e’ is truthfunctionally equivalent to ‘if d. whereas d²e is the translation of ‘if d. then not d’. we examine one of the problems resulting from the truth-functional analysis of ‘if. then e’.110 Hardegree. causeless.then’ is characterized by the truth-function that makes ‘d²e’ false precisely when d is true and e is false. In the present section. then I will take the exams (e2) if I get into law school. one can show the following... rather. it is not so well suited to the realm of ordinary objects and events.then’. this is not a wholly satisfactory analysis of English ‘if. eventless realm of mathematics. these sound odd indeed. (o1) I will get an A in logic only if I take the exams (o2) I will get into law school only if I take the LSAT are truth-functionally equivalent to the following.. since ~e²~d is truth-functionally equivalent to d²e. then I will take the LSAT Compared with the original statements. if you get into law school. My response is that.

we obtain the following re-paraphrases of (e1)-(e3). Consider the following example. growing (as happens with all photosynthetic organisms). A major problem with (e1)-(e3) is with the tense in the consequents. but it suggests that the growing leads to. getting adequate light precedes growing. the former suggests that getting adequate light is required. .. To paraphrase ‘d only if e’ as ‘if d then e’ is at the very least misleading in cases involving temporal or causal factors. The word ‘then’ makes it natural to use future tense. then we must adjust the tenses appropriately. Adjusting the tenses in this manner. following the method above. By contrast. for example. If we insist on translating ‘only if’ statements into ‘if. getting adequate light (as often happens with trees competing with one another for available light). (o3) my tree will grow only if it receives adequate light is best paraphrased (p3) my tree will not grow if it does not receive adequate light which is quite different from (e3) if my tree grows. these statements. which use future perfect tense. then I will have taken the LSAT (p3') if my tree grows. So.. and hence precedes. probably because ‘then’ is used both in a logical sense and in a temporal sense (for example. The latter statement may indeed be true. are more plausible paraphrases of the original ‘only if’ statements. recall ‘and then’). and precedes. then’ statements. then I will have taken the exams (p2') if I get into law school. then it will have received adequate light Unlike the corresponding statements using simple future. then not d which is symbolized ~e ² ~d which is equivalent (by truth tables) to d²e which is the symbolization of if d then e. (p1') if I get an A in logic. so the appropriate tense is not simple future but future perfect. then it will receive adequate light.Chapter 4: Translations in Sentential Logic 111 d only if e is equivalent (in English) to not d if not e which is equivalent (in English) to if not e.

and having examined ‘only if’. (e) you will pass if and only if you average at least fifty This is naturally thought of as dividing into two halves. we next consider their natural conjunction.112 Hardegree. which are more naturally thought of as conjunctions of ‘if’ statements and ‘only if’ statements. which we saw in the previous section may be paraphrased: (t') you will not pass if you do not average at least fifty. So (e) may be paraphrased as a conjunction: (t'') you will pass if you average at least fifty. ‘IF AND ONLY IF’ Having examined ‘if’. 15. ‘not d if not e’ remains the generally most accurate paraphrase of ‘d only if B’. . The first conjunct is symbolized: A²P and the second conjunct is symbolized: ~A ² ~P so the conjunction is symbolized: (A ² P) & (~A ² ~P) The reader may recall that our analysis of the biconditional connective ± is such that the above formula is truth-functionally equivalent to P±A So P±A also counts as an acceptable symbolization of ‘P if and only if A’. a promise-half and a threat-half. and the threat is (t) you will pass only if you average at least fifty. Consider the following sentence. which is ‘if and only if’. although it does not do full justice to the internal logical structure of ‘if and only if’ statements. The promise is (p) you will pass if you average at least fifty. and you will not pass if you do not average at least fifty. Symbolic Logic Nonetheless.

‘Unless’ is very similar to ‘only if’. ‘unless’ is equivalent to ‘if not’ Here. in particular. whereas ‘only if’ incorporates two negations. This means. The following are examples of ‘only if’ statements. followed by their respective paraphrases using ‘unless’. then e which is symbolized ~d ² e . I will not pass logic Let us concentrate on the first one. then I will not graduate (s1) ~P ² ~G Now.Chapter 4: Translations in Sentential Logic 113 16. in the sense that it has a built-in negation. The difference is that. one must add one explicit negation to the sentence. (p1) I will not graduate if I do not pass logic (p1') if I do not pass logic. We already know how to paraphrase and symbolize (o1). comparing (u1) and (u1') with the last three items. that in order to paraphrase ‘only if’ statements using ‘unless’. ‘provided’. We have already seen several conditional-forming expressions. The above principle may be restated as follows. ‘UNLESS’ There are numerous ways to express conditionals in English. ‘only if’. Notice that this principle applies when ‘unless’ appears at the beginning of the statement. as well as when it appears in the middle of the statement. we discern the following principle concerning ‘unless’. d unless e is equivalent to d if not e which is symbolized ~e ² d unless d. including ‘if’. e is equivalent to if not d. In the present section. we consider a further conditional-forming expression – ‘unless’. ‘if not’ is short for ‘if it is not true that’. I will not graduate (o2) I will pass logic only if I study (u2) I will not pass logic unless I study (u2') unless I study. ‘unless’ incorporates only one. (o1) I will graduate only if I pass logic (u1) I will not graduate unless I pass logic (u1') unless I pass logic. as follows.

As with the word ‘or’. (e1) open 24 hours a day except Sundays It is plausible to suppose that (e1) means that the store is open 24 hours Monday-Saturday. the weak sense of ‘unless’ is equivalent to ‘if not’ Unfortunately. Consider the following statement from a sign on a swimming pool. which is summarized in the following principle. for example.114 Hardegree. let us consider the meaning of ‘except’. we also opt for the weak sense of ‘unless’. Just as we opt for the weak (inclusive) sense of ‘or’ in logic. similar statements can be made using ‘unless’. and is not open 24 hours on Sunday (on Sunday. then the store is not open These two can be combined into the following biconditional. then the store is open (c2) if it is Sunday. the word ‘unless’ also has both a weak and strong sense. (c1) if it is not Sunday. as follows. it may not be open at all. this is equivalent to: (u1') the pool may not be used except when a lifeguard is on duty . ‘unless’ is not always intended in the weak sense. or it may only be open 8 hours). Thus. the word ‘unless’ is occasionally used in a way different from its "official" meaning. (b) the store is open if and only if it is not Sunday which is symbolized: (s) O ± ~S Now. THE STRONG SENSE OF ‘UNLESS’ As with many words in English. In addition to the meaning ‘if not’. where we let ‘open’ abbreviate ‘open 24 hours’. consider the following fairly ordinary ‘except’ statement. First. Symbolic Logic 17. which has both a weak (inclusive) sense and a strong (exclusive) sense. various Webster Dictionaries give ‘except when’ and ‘except on the condition that’ as further meanings. which is taken from a grocery store sign. there are two implicit conditionals. (u1) the pool may not be used unless a lifeguard is on duty Following the dictionary definition.

is equivalent to the following biconditional. and the pool may be used if a lifeguard is on duty. then it is intended in the weak sense. Most often. (the converse. we may state the principle as follows. if ‘unless’ is at the beginning of a statement. (c) the pool may not be used if a lifeguard is not on duty. you may assume that every exercise uses ‘unless’ in the weak sense. the overall context is important for determining this. whereas the weak sense of ‘unless’ is truth-functionally equivalent to the weak (inclusive) .Chapter 4: Translations in Sentential Logic 115 which amounts to the conjunction. however. Usually. Usually. If it is not obvious that ‘unless’ is intended in the strong sense. (b) the pool may be used if and only if a lifeguard is on duty By comparing (b) with the original statement (u1). Exercise (an interesting coincidence): show that. we can discern the following principle about the strong sense of ‘unless’. Note carefully: Although ‘unless’ is occasionally used in the strong sense. which. d unless e (in the strong sense of unless) is equivalent to d ± ~e It is not always clear whether ‘unless’ is intended in the strong or in the weak sense. ‘unless’ is placed in the middle of a sentence. the strong sense of ‘unless’ is equivalent to ‘if and only if not’ Or stating it using our symbols. The following rules of thumb may be of some use. if it is intended in the strong sense. is not true). as noted earlier. you should assume that it is intended in the weak sense.

NECESSARY CONDITIONS There are still other words used in English to express conditionals...is necessary for..e. it is necessary that I take all the exams (N2) in order for me to get an A. most importantly the words ‘necessary’ and ‘sufficient’.. however. A more direct approach.is a necessary condition for. Symbolic Logic sense of ‘or’.. we do the same thing with ‘sufficient’. and in the next section... 18. which is: (f) d is necessary for e Now.. then not A [~E ² ~A] The general paraphrase principle is as follows.it is necessary to.. in order to. In the present section... then neither does the second. The following expressions are some of the common ways in which ‘necessary’ is used.e. The sentence is accordingly paraphrased and symbolized as follows. . Thus. taking-the-exams) doesn't obtain then neither does A (i. (n1) (n2) (n3) (n4) (n5) in order that. to say that one state of affairs (event) d is necessary for another state of affairs (event) e is just to say that if the first thing does not obtain (happen).. for example.. the strong sense of ‘unless’ is truth-functionally equivalent to the strong (exclusive) sense of ‘or’.it is necessary that. is first to paraphrase the sentence into the simplest form. if not E. The following are examples of mutually equivalent statements using ‘necessary’.. getting-an-A). in order for. .. .. (N1) in order that I get an A.. to say taking all the exams is necessary for getting an A is just to say that if E (i. it is necessary to take all the exams (N4) taking all the exams is a necessary condition for getting an A (N5) taking all the exams is necessary for getting an A Statements involving ‘necessary’ can all be paraphrased using ‘only if’. it is necessary for me to take all the exams (N3) in order to get an A. we examine conditional statements that involve ‘necessary’..116 Hardegree....it is necessary for..

in order to.....is a sufficient condition for. . (f) d is sufficient for e Now........ (s1) (s2) (s3) (s4) (s5) in order that. The following are examples of mutually equivalent statements using these different forms..it is sufficient that. (S1) in order that I get an A it is sufficient that I get a 100 on every exam (S2) in order for me to get an A it is sufficient for me to get a 100 on every exam (S3) in order to get an A it is sufficient to get a 100 on every exam (S4) getting a 100 on every exam is a sufficient condition for getting an A (S5) getting a 100 on every exam is sufficient for getting an A Just as necessity statements can be paraphrased like ‘only if’ statements..Chapter 4: Translations in Sentential Logic 117 d is necessary for e is paraphrased if not d.is sufficient for. sufficiency statements can be paraphrased like ‘if’ statements. So for example. The direct approach is first to paraphrase the sufficiency statement in the following form.. to say that one state of affairs (event) d is sufficient for another state of affairs (event) e is just to say that e obtains (happens) provided (if) d obtains (happens).... then not e 19. . which is used in the following ways.. completely analogous to ‘necessary’.it is sufficient for. in order for...it is sufficient to.. to say that getting a 100 on every exam is sufficient for getting an A is to say that getting-an-A happens provided (if) getting-a-100 happens which may be symbolized quite simply as: H²A . SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS The natural logical counterpart of ‘necessary’ is ‘sufficient’...

leaving (c5)-(c8) to a later section. note carefully that necessary conditions are quite different from sufficient conditions. Symbolic Logic 20. we can say all the following. but taking all the exams is not sufficient for getting an A. For example. the latter may be paraphrased and symbolized as follows. In the present section. then e Hardegree.118 The general principle is as follows. Similarly. (1) attendance is not necessary for passing logic This may be regarded as the negation of (2) attendance is necessary for passing logic As seen earlier. (c1) (c2) (c3) (c4) (c5) (c6) (c7) (c8) d is necessary for e d is sufficient for e d is not necessary for e d is not sufficient for e d is both necessary and sufficient for e d is necessary but not sufficient for e d is sufficient but not necessary for e d is neither necessary nor sufficient for e We have already discussed how to paraphrase (c1)-(c2). This suggests that we can combine necessity and sufficiency in a number of ways to obtain various statements about the relation between two events (states of affairs). d is sufficient for e is paraphrased if d. For example. We start with the following example involving ‘not necessary’. getting a 100 is sufficient for getting an A. with respect to d and e. taking all the exams is necessary for getting an A. we consider how to paraphrase (c3)-(c4). . NEGATIONS OF NECESSITY AND SUFFICIENCY First. but getting a 100 is not necessary for getting an A.

consider the following example involving ‘not sufficient’. a mere 70 on each of the first three exams will guarantee a pass. in the sense that attendance is not an official requirement. The latter is paraphrased and symbolized as follows. may be paraphrased and symbolized as follows. the latter says that if you don't take all the exams. In particular. in which case you don't have to take all the exams in order to pass. (3) taking all the exams is not sufficient for passing logic This may be regarded as the negation of (4) taking all the exams is sufficient for passing logic. this is true. which is (1). may be paraphrased and symbolized as follows. after all. The negations do not simply cancel each other out. not true. this is. but it won't pass the course. there is no simple-minded (voodoo) transformation of the negation. once again. . that voodoo does not prevail in logic. it is not equivalent to the following (voodoo) ~E ² ~P The former says (roughly) that taking all the exams does not ensure passing. (p4) if I take all the exams. if you like. The negation of an English conditional does not have a straightforward simplification. (s1) ~(~A ² ~P) Notice. of course. then I will not pass logic (s2) ~A ² ~P So the negation of (2). then you won't pass. Your dog can attend every class. Next. This is not true. which is (3). The former says that attendance is not necessary for passing. you can fail all the exams. this is true. then I will pass logic (s4) E ² P So the negation of (4). (p3) it is not true that if I take all the exams. (p1) it is not true that if I do not attend class. then I will not pass logic. the latter is not equivalent to the following. (voodoo) A ² P The latter says (roughly) that attendance will ensure passing. there is no obvious simplification of the three negations in the formula. In particular. then I will pass logic (s4) ~(E ² P) As usual. On the other hand.Chapter 4: Translations in Sentential Logic 119 (p2) if I do not attend class.

which can be verified using truth tables. Symbolic Logic 21. to say that taking the exams is not sufficient for passing logic is not to say you will take all the exams yet you won't pass. We have dealt with negations of conditionals. some falsehoods are impossible.. our paraphrase technique involving ‘if. (1) taking all the exams is not sufficient for passing logic Our proposed paraphrase and symbolization is: (p1) it is not true that if I take all the exams then I will pass logic (s1) ~(E ² P) But this is truth-functionally equivalent to: (s2) E & ~P (p2) I will take all the exams. to say that one state of affairs (event) d is not sufficient for another state of affairs (event) e is to say that it is not true that if the first obtains (happens). the latter formula can be simplified in accordance with the following truth-functional equivalence. which lead to difficulties with the truth-functional analysis of necessity and sufficiency.120 Hardegree. . then so will the second. d is not sufficient for e is paraphrased: it is not true that if d then e. However. which is symbolized: ~(d ² e) As noted in the previous section. rather. ~(d ² e) is truth-functionally equivalent to d & ~e Consider our earlier example. there is no obvious simple transformation of the latter formula. possibility is not a truth-functional concept. only the truth-functional analysis of ‘if. In other words.then’ is not impugned.. Thus. On the other hand. Nevertheless. some falsehoods are possible.then’. and I will not pass However. possibility cannot be analyzed in truth-functional logic.. YET ANOTHER PROBLEM WITH THE TRUTHFUNCTIONAL IF-THEN According to our analysis. it says that it is possible (in some sense) for you to take the exams and yet not pass..

We now turn to (c5)-(c8).Chapter 4: Translations in Sentential Logic 121 22. COMBINATIONS OF NECESSITY AND SUFFICIENCY Recall that the possible combinations of statements about necessity and sufficiency are as follows. one way or the other. then I will not pass. Similarly. one way or the other. I have said nothing concerning whether Kay is a Sophomore. and leave it at that. First. if I say that Jay is a Sophomore. we obtain if I do not average at least fifty. as follows. and leave it at that. For example. if I say d is necessary for e. but not sufficient. and averaging at least fifty is sufficient for passing The latter is symbolized: (~F ² ~P) & (F ² P) Reading this back into English. for e d is neither necessary nor sufficient for e We have already dealt with (c1)-(c4). consider the following example of combination (c6). but taking all the exams is not sufficient for getting an A . but not necessary. for e d is sufficient. for getting an A This is a somewhat more complex conjunction: taking all the exams is necessary for getting an A. Consider the following example of combination (c5). (c1) (c2) (c3) (c4) (c5) (c6) (c7) (c8) d is necessary for e d is sufficient for e d is not necessary for e d is not sufficient for e d is both necessary and sufficient for e d is necessary. then I will pass Next. but not sufficient. (e6) taking all the exams is necessary. notice carefully that (c1)-(c4) are less informative than (c5)-(c8). and if do average at least fifty. (e5) averaging at least 50 is both necessary and sufficient for passing This is quite clearly the conjunction of a necessity statement and a sufficiency statement. averaging at least fifty is necessary for passing. I am not saying whether d is sufficient for e.

consider the following example of combination (c8). but it is not true that if I do not get a 100 on every exam then I will not get an A Finally. we obtain Hardegree. (e7) getting 100 on every exam is sufficient.122 which is symbolized: (~T ² ~A) & ~(T ² A) Reading this back into English. for getting an A This too is a conjunction: getting 100 on every exam is sufficient for getting an A. but it is not true that if I do take all the exams then I will get an A Next. nor is it true that if I do attend class then I will pass . but not necessary. (e8) attending class is neither necessary nor sufficient for passing which may be paraphrased as a complex conjunction: attending class is not necessary for passing. but getting 100 on every exam is not necessary for getting an A which is symbolized: (H ² A) & ~(~H ² ~A) Reading this back into English. Symbolic Logic if I do not take all the exams. we obtain it is not true that if I do not attend class then I will not pass. and attending class is not sufficient for passing which is symbolized: ~(~A ² ~P) & ~(A ² P) Reading this back into English. then I will get an A. consider the following example of combination (c7). we obtain if I get a 100 on every exam. then I will not get an A.

The key words are ‘otherwise’ and ‘in which case’. including BASIC and PASCAL. otherwise f (o3) e if d. (e1) can be paraphrased as a conjunction. ‘else’ is used in conjunction with ‘if.. which is symbolized (d ² e) & (~d ² f) A simple variant of ‘otherwise’ is ‘else’. otherwise f (o2) if d. then e. if d. In other words. and if not d. In a number of high level programming languages. then I'll play tennis.then’ to issue commands. as follows. (c) if X<=100 then goto 300 else goto 400 This is equivalent to two commands in succession: if X<=100 then goto 300 if not(X<=100) then goto 400 . and if it is not sunny. if it is not sunny. otherwise f is paraphrased if d. then I'll play racquetball The latter statement is symbolized: (s1) (S ² T) & (~S ² R) The general principle governing the paraphrase of ‘otherwise’ statements is as follows. the general forms for ‘otherwise’ statements are the following: (o1) if d. I'll play racquetball This statement asserts what the speaker will do if it is sunny. ‘OTHERWISE’ In the present section.. otherwise f The following is a typical example. For example. (e1) if it is sunny. then f. e.e. then e. (p1) if it is sunny. which is largely interchangeable with ‘otherwise’. I'll play tennis otherwise.. we consider two three-place connective expressions that are used to express conditionals in English. i. and it further asserts what the speaker will do otherwise. the following is a typical BASIC command.Chapter 4: Translations in Sentential Logic 123 23. then e. First.

and if it is raining. The paraphrase of (e2) is similar to that of (e1). For example. Consider the following example.. for example. in which case f is paraphrased if not e. then d. there is always a "default" ‘else’ command. I leave that case open.. then I'll play squash The latter is symbolized: (s) (~R ² T) & (R ² S) The overall paraphrase pattern is given by the following principle.then’ statements do not incorporate default ‘else’ clauses. the command line if X<=100 then goto 400 standing alone means if X<=100 then goto 400 else goto next line Unlike ‘if. Recall ‘in case’ is a variant of ‘if’. such as BASIC. namely to go to the next line and follow that command. and if e then f which is symbolized (~e ² d) & (e ² f) . the statement (e2) I'll go to the doctor if I break my arm says nothing about what the speaker will or won't do if he/she does not break an arm. I am not committing myself to anything in case it is not raining. English ‘if.124 Hardegree. Similarly. or undetermined. So. if I say I won't play tennis if it is raining. Symbolic Logic In a computer language.. d unless e. then I'll play tennis. So. That brings us to an expression that is very similar to ‘otherwise’ – namely.then’ statements in computer languages. (e2) I'll play tennis unless it is raining. (p) if it is not raining. it doesn't rain. ‘in which case’. and leave it at that. Statement (e2) asserts what the speaker will do in each case – in case it is not raining. there are two cases considered – it rains. as with ‘otherwise’ statements. in which case I'll play squash Recall that ‘unless’ is equivalent to ‘if not’. and in case it is raining..

In paraphrasing and symbolizing complex statements. Having identified the atomic statements and the connectives. We have already dealt with a number of complex statements in connection with the various non-standard connectives. we are interested in what happens when both ‘unless’ and ‘only if’ appear in the same sentence. For example. At this stage of analysis. ‘K’ does not stand for ‘Kay’. noting which ones are standard. since this is not a sentence. in the above statement. in the statement ‘JAY and KAY are Sophomores’ the atomic formulas are ‘J’ and ‘K’. We now systematically consider complex statements that involve various combinations of non-standard connectives. it is especially important to be clear that each letter abbreviates a complete sentence. in small steps. certain words are entirely capitalized in order to suggest to the student what the atomic statements are. For example. For example. In most of the exercises.Chapter 4: Translations in Sentential Logic 125 24. Similarly. and abbreviate them by upper case letters. ‘J’ does not stand for ‘Jay’. The first step in paraphrasing statements is: Step 1: Identify the simple (atomic) statements. As one gets better. but rather ‘Kay is a Sophomore’. it is best to proceed systematically. it is important to be clear concerning what each atomic formula stands for. it is a good idea to reason through the easy ones systematically. many intermediate steps can be done in one's head. PARAPHRASING COMPLEX STATEMENTS As noted earlier. and having established their abbreviations. perhaps all the intermediate steps can be done in one's head. Rather. There are no theoretical limits to the complexity of compound statements. making sure to retain internal punctuation. Having identified the simple statements. A hybrid formula is so called because it . it stands for ‘Jay is a Sophomore’. and which ones are not standard. although there are practical limits. based on human linguistic capabilities. compound statements may be built up from statements which are themselves compound statements. the next step is: Step 3: Write down the first hybrid formula. Still. On the easy ones. the next step is: Step 2: Identify all the connectives. in order to provide practice in advance of doing the hard ones. The first hybrid formula is obtained from the original statement by replacing the simple statements by their abbreviations.

then V Having identified the major connective. At this point. The first three steps may be better understood by illustration. and work on the resulting (hybrid) formula. we must provide the necessary logical punctuation (i.. the major connective is ‘if.then’.then neither. In (h1).126 Hardegree.. otherwise.. Step 5: Symbolize the major connective if it is standard. the commas are important clues..then’. In (h1).e. Punctuation provides important clues about the logical structure of the sentence.nor Thus. (h2) (neither J nor K) ² V Notice that. and go back to step 4.. paraphrase it into standard form.. our first hybrid formula is: (h1) if neither J nor K. parentheses). Example 1 (e1) if neither Jay nor Kay is working. the next step is to Step 4: Identify the major connective. the placement of the comma indicates that the major connective is ‘if. the next step is: . (standard) (non-standard) Here. which yields the following hybrid formula. In this example. we go on to the next step. as we symbolize the connectives. the structure being: if neither J nor K.. Consider the following example. then V Having obtained the first hybrid formula. the simple statements are: J: K: V: Jay is working Kay is working we go on vacation and the connectives are: if. which is standard.. Symbolic Logic contains both English words and symbols from sentential logic.. so we symbolize it. then we will go on vacation.

so we must paraphrase it. Consider the following example.nor’. then we will go on vacation we see they are equivalent. the constituent formulas are: (c1) neither J nor K (c2) V The latter formula is fully symbolic. translating yields the following. (s1) ~J & ~K Having dealt with the constituent formulas. (t1) if Jay is not working and Kay is not working. the next step is: Step 7: Substitute symbolizations of constituents back into (original) hybrid formula. so we are through. (c1) neither J nor K (p1) not J and not K The latter formula is in standard form.Chapter 4: Translations in Sentential Logic 127 Step 6: Work on the constituent formulas separately. ‘neither. .. This is to make sure the final formula says the same thing as the original statement. which is done as follows. which is therefore the major connective. so we must work on it further. and so they have to be paraphrased in accordance with the principles discussed in previous sections. In our first example.. all the connectives are non-standard. so we are through with it. In our example. this yields: (s2) (~J & ~K) ² V Once you have a purely symbolic formula. the final step is: Step 8: Translate the formula back into English and compare with the original statement. (e1) if neither Jay nor Kay is working. The former is not fully symbolic. It is not standard. Comparing this with the original. It has only one connective. Our first example is simple insofar as the major connective is standard. In many statements. In (h2). then we will go on vacation. so we symbolize it as follows.

so we paraphrase and symbolize it as follows. the placement of the comma tells us that ‘provided that’ is the major connective. This yields the following successive paraphrases. (h2) P unless G. Once again. provided that you are intelligent. . The antecedent is finished.. provided that I We cannot directly symbolize ‘provided that’. which yields: (h4) I ² (P unless G) We next work on the parts. we obtain the final formula. In this statement. Symbolic Logic Example 2 (e2) you will pass unless you goof off. we recall that ‘provided that’ is equivalent to ‘if’. the first stage of the symbolization yields the following hybrid formula. (s) ~G ² P Substituting the parts back into the whole. the overall structure being: P unless G. (c) P unless G This has one connective. (c) (p) P unless G P if not G. if I (h3) if I. (p') if not G. At this point.then’.128 Hardegree.. We must first paraphrase it. which is non-standard. so we symbolize it..then’. since it is non-standard. so we more to the consequent. (h1) P unless G. which is standard. the major connective is ‘if. provided that I Next. then P unless G In (h3). ‘unless’.. which is a simple variant of ‘if. we identity the major connective. the simple statements are: I: P: G: you are intelligent you pass you goof off and the connectives are: unless provided that (non-standard) (non-standard) Thus. then P.

and is standard form. We first observe that the major connective is ‘if. Since it is nonstandard.. since it is standard. so we paraphrase and symbolize it as follows. then H only if S We now work on the new hybrid formula (h2). which is non-standard. as follows. (h2) if not E. (h1) unless E. The antecedent is simple. Example 3 (e3) unless the exam is very easy.. we write down the first hybrid formula. then if you do not goof off then you will pass Although this is not the exact same sentence as the original. which yields: . we work on the separate parts. being symbolized: (a) ~E The consequent has just one connective ‘only if’. (c) (p) (p') (s) H only if S not H if not S if not S. we symbolize it. we observe that ‘unless’ is the principal connective. the simple statements are: E: H: S: the exam is very easy I make a hundred I study and the connectives are: unless only if (non-standard) (non-standard) Having identified the logical parts. which yields: (t) if you are intelligent. I will make a hundred only if I study In this example. we translate (f) back into English. then not H ~S ² ~H Next.Chapter 4: Translations in Sentential Logic 129 (f) I ² (~G ² P) Finally. Let us consider an example similar to Example 2.then’. we cannot symbolize it directly. we substitute the parts back into (h3). H only if S Next. which yields: (h3) not E ² (H only if S) Next. so we paraphrase it. it should be clear that they are equivalent in meaning.

then not J ~F ² ~J The consequent is paraphrased and symbolized as follows. Symbolic Logic Finally.then’. (a) (p) (p') (s) J only if F not J if not F if not F. the simple statements are: J: F: S: W: Jones works we do fire Smith we should fire Smith we want the job finished and the connectives are: if.. The next example is slightly more complicated. (c) (p) (s) S if W if W. which is: (h1) if J only if F.. Example 4 (e4) if Jones will work only if Smith is fired. then S if W The comma placement indicates that the principal connective is ‘if. being a conditional in which both constituents are conditionals. we write down the first hybrid formula. then if I do not study then I will not get a hundred Comparing this statement with the original statement. so we symbolize it. we translate (f) back into English. then we should fire Smith if we want the job finished In (e4).130 (f) ~E ² (~S ² ~H) Hardegree. It is standard. which yields: (h2) (J only if F) ² (S if W) Next. we work on the constituents separately..then only if if (standard) (non-standard) (non-standard) Next.. The antecedent is paraphrased and symbolized as follows. which yields: (t) if the exam is not very easy. we see that they say the same thing. then S W²S .

The major problem is the "stuttering" at the beginning of the sentence. with the original statement. (non-standard) (non-standard) (non-standard) .nor The first hybrid formula is: (h1) in order that P it is necessary that S.. if neither L nor U Next. then if we want the job finished then we should fire Smith The complexity of the conditional structure of this sentence renders a direct translation difficult to understand.. we replace some if-then's by simple variant forms. in more idiomatic English. then in order that P it is necessary that S Here. so we symbolize it as follows. specifically. the principal connective is ‘if’. we see that they are equivalent in meaning. Our last example involves the notion of necessary condition. (t) if if we do not fire Smith then Jones does not work. The best way to avoid this problem is to opt for a more idiomatic translation (just as we do with negations).. the principal connective is ‘if.then’. (t') if Jones will not work if Smith is not fired. converting it into standard form yields: (h2) if neither L nor U. idiomatic translation. the simple statements are: P: S: L: U: we put on the show we find a substitute the leading lady recovers from the flu the understudy recovers from the flu and the connectives are: in order to. which is standard.. then if we want the job finished we should fire Smith Comparing this paraphrase. The following is an example of a more natural. Example 5 (e5) in order to put on the show it will be necessary to find a substitute.Chapter 4: Translations in Sentential Logic 131 Substituting the constituent formulas back into (h2) yields: (f) (~F ² ~J) ² (W ² S) The direct translation of (f) into English reads as follows. if neither the leading lady nor her understudy recovers from the flu In (e5). it is necessary to if neither.. which is not in standard form..

we obtain: (f) (~L & ~U) ² (~S ² ~P) Translating (f) back into English. . (a) (p) (s) neither L nor U not L and not U ~L & ~U The consequent is paraphrased as follows. then not P ~S ² ~P Substituting the parts back into (h3). Symbolic Logic (h3) (neither L nor U) ² (in order that P it is necessary that S) We next attack the constituents. we see that they are equivalent in meaning. we obtain: (t) if the leading lady does not recover from the flu and her understudy does not recover from the flu. The antecedent is paraphrased as follows. (c) (p) (p') (s) in order that P it is necessary that S S is necessary for P if not S. By way of concluding this chapter.132 Hardegree. then if we do not find a substitute then we do not put on the show Comparing (t) with the original statement. let us review the basic steps involved in symbolizing complex statements.

and work on the resulting (hybrid) formula. Translate the formula back into English and compare with the original statement. and go back to step 4. Substitute symbolizations of constituents back into (original) hybrid formula. and abbreviate them by upper case letters. paraphrase it into standard form. introducing parentheses as necessary. noting which ones are standard. which means applying steps 4-5 to each constituent formula. Symbolize the major connective if it is standard. Work on the constituent formulas separately. Write down the first hybrid formula. GUIDELINES FOR TRANSLATING COMPLEX STATEMENTS Step 1: Identify the simple (atomic) statements. Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Step 5: Step 6: Step 7: Step 8: . Identify the major connective. making sure to retain internal punctuation.Chapter 4: Translations in Sentential Logic 133 25. What complete sentence does each letter stand for? Identify all the connectives. and which ones are nonstandard. otherwise.

making sure it is a complete sentence. If JONES is honest. 4. JAY and KAY won't both be present at graduation. 10. I will not FAIL. 19. not negatively stated ones. then so is SMITH. and he will TAKE a mile. but they hate one another. 8. or it is SUNNY and COLD. . 5. 7. 20. Either it is RAINING. KEEP trying. but they both hate Nixon. 6. Provided that I CONCENTRATE. 12. 16. Although I am TIRED. Symbolic Logic 26. 15. GIVE him an inch. Jay and Kay are roommates. otherwise. 17. If JONES isn't a crook. then neither is SMITH. I am not QUITTING. 18. 3. devise an abbreviation scheme of your own. 2. I will not GRADUATE if I don't pass both LOGIC and HISTORY. I will GRADUATE. It is not RAINING. 13. but I am not HUNGRY. In each case. Letters should stand for positively stated sentences. provided I pass both LOGIC and HISTORY. It is RAINING or OVERCAST. JAY and KAY are Sophomores. JAY will win. Either I am CRAZY or I just SAW a flying saucer. Although it is RAINING. 9. the negative sentence ‘I am not hungry’ should be symbolized as ‘~H’ using ‘H’ to stand for ‘I am hungry’. if provided. write down what atomic statement each letter stands for. for example. Jay and Kay are Republicans. but not both. EXERCISE SET A 1. It is DINNER time. but it is still too WET to play. 11. 14. Either Jones is a FOOL or he is DISHONEST. or KAY will win. EXERCISES FOR CHAPTER 4 Directions: Translate each of the following statements into the language of sentential logic. I plan to go JOGGING this afternoon. but in any case it is not SUNNY. and the answer will APPEAR. Use the suggested abbreviations (capitalized words).134 Hardegree.

it is both necessary and sufficient to average at least FIFTY. TAKING all the exams is necessary. . it is necessary but not sufficient to have GOOD grades and take the ADMISSIONS exam. Neither JAY nor KAY is able to attend the meeting. In order to be a BACHELOR it is both necessary and sufficient to be ELIGIBLE but not MARRIED. In order to be ARRESTED. In order to PASS. 38. in which case SMITH will win. In order to ACE intro logic. 29. we will STAY home. for ACING intro logic. 23. 37.Chapter 4: Translations in Sentential Logic 135 EXERCISE SET B 21. but not necessary. I will not FAIL intro logic. it is necessary to RECEIVE an M. 32. I will go to the BEACH this weekend. 33. 25. 40. 34. 27. for ACING intro logic. I won't GRADUATE unless I pass LOGIC and HISTORY. If both JAY and KAY are home this weekend. otherwise. In order to PASS. Although I have been here a LONG time. JONES will win the championship unless he gets INJURED. it is necessary to average at least FIFTY.D. In order to get into MEDICAL school. it is sufficient to get a HUNDRED on every exam. Unless I GOOF off. 35. 24. I will go JOGGING. KAY will attend the party only if JAY does not. otherwise. and do an INTERNSHIP. 30. I will SUCCEED only if I WORK hard and take RISKS. If it is RAINING. 28. 31. I will play BASKETBALL. I will GRADUATE this semester only if I PASS intro logic. 39. 22. it is sufficient but not necessary to COMMIT a crime and GET caught. 36. unless I am SICK. I am neither TIRED nor BORED. Getting a HUNDRED on every exam is sufficient. we will go to thereat. 26. In order to become a PHYSICIAN. but not sufficient.

then I will not PASS unless the prof ACCEPTS bribes. 44. We will have DINNER and attend the CONCERT. 50. 54. 48. Unless logic is very DIFFICULT. 47. I will PASS only if I STUDY. If neither JAY nor KAY can make it. If I do not STUDY. 46. provided that neither of them is sick. If you NEED a thing. you will NEED it. Symbolic Logic EXERCISE SET C 41. provided that JAY and KAY are home this weekend. Provided that he has made a BET. 52. I will PASS if I STUDY. If I STUDY too hard I will not ENJOY college. Jones will KILL you unless you ESCAPE. then I shall be ANGRY unless you have a good EXCUSE. If you WORK hard only if you are THREATENED. If neither JAY nor KAY comes home this weekend. you will FAIL only if you GOOF off. 57. Unless logic is EASY. If you MAKE an appointment and do not KEEP it. Provided that the prof doesn't HATE me. we should either POSTPONE or CANCEL the trip. 53. and if you THROW a thing away. Jones will KILL you unless you PAY. 45. I will not GO out unless it is WARM and SUNNY. If he CATCHES you. . Jones is HAPPY if and only if his horse WINS. 43. 51. we shall not stay HOME unless we are SICK. 42. I'm damned if I do. 49. Provided that you are INTELLIGENT. 58. 55. then we will CANCEL the trip unless KAY goes. Both Jay and Kay will go to the beach this weekend. I will PASS provided I CONCENTRATE. If I am not FEELING well this weekend. then you will not SUCCEED. If you do not PAY. 59. you will have THROWN it away. and I'm damned if I don't.136 Hardegree. If JAY will go only if KAY goes. but at the same time I will not ENJOY college if I FLUNK out. 56.

then you will FLY an airplane only if you are SOBER. If you are HAPPY only if you are DRUNK. 63. I am HAPPY only if my assistant is COMPETENT. In order to be ADMITTED to law school. we will STAY home. If you CONCENTRATE only if you are THREATENED. then either we will CANCEL the trip or we will not INVITE Jay. If you do not CONCENTRATE well unless you are ALERT. then you will not SUCCEED unless you are INSPIRED. then he/she is TRANSFERRED to a better job and I am not HAPPY. 68. If neither JAY nor KAY is home this weekend. then we will CANCEL the trip unless KAY goes. If JAY will go only if KAY goes. 65. then you will not PASS unless you are THREATENED – provided that CONCENTRATING is a necessary condition for PASSING. 64. but if my assistant is COMPETENT. otherwise. then provided that you are not a MANIAC you will FLY an airplane only if you are SOBER. 66. it is necessary to have GOOD grades. then provided that you are WISE you will not FLY an airplane unless you are SOBER. then provided we WANT Kay to come we should DISSUADE Jay from coming.Chapter 4: Translations in Sentential Logic 137 EXERCISE SET D 60. 71. 62. unless your family makes a large CONTRIBUTION to the law school. If you CONCENTRATE well only if you are ALERT. then unless you are DRUNK you are not HAPPY. 67. 61. 69. . 70. If you do not CONCENTRATE well unless you are ALERT. we will go to the BEACH. If you CONCENTRATE only if you are INSPIRED. If KAY will come to the party only if JAY does not come. provided that you are not a MANIAC. If KAY will go only if JAY does not go.

K: Kay is a Republican H: Jay hates Nixon. 18. 19. 14. 20. 24. 37. 11. ANSWERS TO EXERCISES FOR CHAPTER 4 1. 29. 15. 34. 13. 30. 17. 35. 12. 40. 33. . 10. 32.138 Hardegree. 4. 2. 9. 36. 38. 16. 6. 23. 39. 27. 28. 22. 31. 3. R&J ~R & W J&K D & ~H T & ~Q R & (J & K) R: Jay and Kay are roommates J: Jay hates Kay K: Kay hates Jay (J & K) & (H & N) J: Jay is a Republican. Symbolic Logic 27. 21. 5. 25. N: Kay hates Nixon K²A G²T C´S F´D ~(J & K) (J ´ K) & ~(J & K) R ´ (S & C) (R ´ O) & ~S J²S ~J ² ~S C ² ~F (L & H) ² G ~(L & H) ² ~G ~J & ~K [or: ~(J ´ K)] L & (~T & ~B) [or: L & ~(T ´ B)] ~P ² ~G ~~J ² ~K [J ² ~K] ~(W & R) ² ~S ~S ² B ~G ² ~F ~(L & H) ² ~G H²A ~F ² ~P ~(R & I) ² ~P (~F ² ~P) & (F ² P) (H ² A) & ~(~H ² ~A) (~T ² ~A) & ~(T ² A) [~(G & A) ² ~M] & ~[(G & A) ² M] [~(E & ~M) ² ~B] & [(E & ~M) ² B] [(C & G) ² A] & ~[~(C & G) ² ~A] (R ² B) & (~R ² J) [(J & K) ² B] & [~(J & K) ² S] (~I ² J) & (I ² S) 7. 8. 26.

(J & K) ² (D & C) 42. (M & ~K) ² (~E ² A) 58.K) ² (C ´ ~I) 62. ~P ² (~E ² K) 54. (~J & ~K) ² (P ´ C) 43. T: Kay is sick.J ² . (~C ² ~H) & (C ² [T & ~H]) 67. (~C ² ~P) ² [(~T ² ~C) ² (~T ² ~P)] 71. (~K ² ~J) ² (~K ² C) 60. ~D ² (C ² P) 51. (~I ² ~C) ² (~I ² ~S) 64. B ² [(W ² H) & (~W ² ~H)] 56. (J ² ~K) ² (W ² D) 61. ~E ² (~S ² ~P) 52.. (~A ² ~C) ² [W ² (~S ² ~F)] 70. ~M ² [(~A ² ~C) ² (~S ² ~F)] 68. ~C ² (~G ² ~A) 66. I ² (~G ² ~F) 53. K: Kay will go to the beach. ~H ² (S ² P) 50. (. 44. ~F ² [~(W & S) ² ~G] 59. [(~J & ~K) ² B] & [~(~J & ~K) ² S] . (~J & ~K) ² (~S ² ~H) 57. (~D ² ~H) ² (~D ² ~H) 65. D: I am damned.Chapter 4: Translations in Sentential Logic 139 41. (S ² ~E) & (F ² ~E) 46. (N ² T) & (T ² N) 47. (A ² D) & (~A ² D) A: I do (what ever action is being discussed). (~K ² ~J) ² (~K ² C) 63. (~S & ~T) ² (J & K) S: Jay is sick. (~A ² ~C) ² [~M ² (~S ² ~F)] 69. (~T ² ~W) ² ~S 48. C ² (~P ² K) 55. 45. ~S ² (~A ² ~P) 49. J: Jay will go to the beach.

Symbolic Logic .140 Hardegree.

................... 15.................................................................................................................................................................. 13.................................................................................. 207 Answers To Exercises For Chapter 5 ........5 1.................................................................................................................................. 14...... 165 Show-Lines And Show-Rules. 150 The Basic Idea.................................... 159 The Official Inference Rules....... 16........................ 4......... 6..... 21....................... DERIVATIONS IN SENTENTIAL LOGIC Introduction..................................................................... 201 Pictorial Summary Of Strategies........................................................................................................................................ 173 Indirect Derivation (First Form) ............................. 183 Showing Disjunctions Using Indirect Derivation....................................................... 162 Inference Rules (Initial Set) .................... 20.................................... 19........................ 18...................................... 197 Summary Of The System Rules For System SL.......................... 5................................................... 11....................................... • • 7................................................................................... Official Formulation... 17... 10............................................. 155 Simple Derivations......................................... 3...................................................................... 178 Indirect Derivation (Second Form).. 8.... 170 Conditional Derivation ............... 151 Argument Forms And Substitution Instances...................................................... 204 Exercises For Chapter 5 ... 194 The Arrow-Out Strategy .. 166 Examples Of Direct Derivations.................................................................. 191 The Wedge-Out Strategy ...................± ²´¸ .... Direct Derivation .................................... 186 Further Rules......................... 12.................... 214 d efs |~ ¬ .................. 153 Simple Inference Rules ................ 163 Inference Rules... 2.............. 189 Showing Conjunctions And Biconditionals .................... 198 Pictorial Summary Of The Rules Of System SL .......... 9.....

there are argument forms that even a very fast main-frame computer cannot solve. Unfortunately. constructing a derivation demands considerable ingenuity. which can show both validity and invalidity. It is simply a matter of mechanically following a simple set of directions. Skill in symbolic reasoning can in turn be transferred to skill in practical reasoning. this did not mean that flight was impossible. it also provides practice in symbolic reasoning. Even then. due to the "doubling" phenomenon. skill in any game of strategy (say. In the past. and they have failed. in some instances. P. if one fails to construct a derivation. or simply derivation. Accordingly. humans repeatedly failed to fly. This makes the truth-table method impractical in many cases. we now examine a second technique for demonstrating the validity of arguments – the method of formal derivation. we studied a method of deciding whether an argument form of sentential logic is valid or invalid – the method of truth-tables. Of course. If one succeeds in constructing a derivation. then one knows that the corresponding argument is valid. in many instances it can be tedious. less than 100 years!) Another shortcoming of the truth-table method is that it does not require much in the way of reasoning. Q. derivations can only show validity. S. it does not mean that the argument is invalid. at least in a reasonable amount of time (say. INTRODUCTION In an earlier chapter. On the other hand. just like a good combination in chess. chess does not apply directly to any real strategic situation. For these two reasons. chess) can be transferred indirectly to skill in general strategy (such as war. if an argument form involves five distinct atomic formulas (say. Indeed. either formal or informal. T). Symbolic Logic 1. R. Indeed. this method does not afford much practice in reasoning. humans have repeatedly tried to construct perpetual motion machines. Although this method is infallible (when applied correctly). Not only is this method less tedious and mechanical than the method of truth tables. unless one has access to a computer. Sometimes failure is due to lack of cleverness. every additional atomic formula doubles the size of the associated truth-table. Constructing a derivation requires more thinking than filling out truth-tables. By analogy. sometimes failure is due to the impossibility of the task! . the method of formal derivation has its own shortcoming: unlike truth-tables.150 Hardegree. although the transfer is not direct. political or corporate). then the associated truth table contains 32 rows. However. For example.

Proof: Suppose the premises are all true. THE BASIC IDEA Underlying the method of formal derivations is the following fundamental Granting the validity of a few selected argument forms. What we have done is show that (a1) is valid assuming that (MP) is valid. A simple illustration of this procedure might be useful. The first. Why? Because Q follows from P and P²Q by modus ponens. both Q and Q²R are true. Thus. which is a Latin expression meaning the mode of affirming by affirming. . so R (the conclusion) must also be true. Another important classical argument form is the following. use truth-tables to show that (a1) is valid. then so is the conclusion. idea. the first two premises are both true. Then. However. But if P and P²Q are both true. This means that. (MP) P²Q P –––––– Q This argument form is traditionally called modus ponens. we can also convince ourselves that (a1) is valid by reasoning as follows. in particular.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 151 2. But R follows from Q and Q²R. Q. Q²R. then Q must be true. P²Q. we used the method of truth-tables to demonstrate the validity of numerous arguments. if the premises are all true. by modus ponens. Since there are three atomic formulas. (a1) P P²Q Q²R –––––– R We can. But we can use it to show other argument forms are also valid. It is easy to show that (MP) is a valid argument. a few stand out for special mention. In other words. In an earlier chapter. of course. It is so called because. in particular. which is short for modus ponendo ponens. in this mode of reasoning. the argument form is valid. using truth-tables. Let us consider a simple example. So now we know that the following formulas are all true: P. one goes from an affirmative premise to an affirmative conclusion. is the following. Among these. and simplest one perhaps. 8 cases must be considered. we can demonstrate the validity of other argument forms.

(a3) ~P ~P ² ~R Q²R ––––––––– ~Q Proof: Suppose that the premises are all true. if the premises are all true. Granting (MT). which is to say the argument is valid. in particular. the first two premises are both true. then so is the conclusion. if the premises are all true. we can show that the following argument form is also valid. ~Q. Then. then the conclusion is also true. in virtue of modus tollens. let us consider an example of reasoning that appeals to both modus ponens and modus tollens. because ~P follows from P²Q and ~Q. But if ~P and ~P²~R are both true. one goes from a negative premise to a negative conclusion. In other words. which is short for modus tollendo tollens. in particular. Then ~R and Q²R are both true. Thus. But if Q²R and ~R are both true. But if these are true. For ~Q follows from Q²R and ~R. But we can also demonstrate its validity by the following reasoning. (a2) P²Q Q²R ~R –––––– ~P Once again. Symbolic Logic This argument form is traditionally called modus tollens. the last two premises are both true. in this mode of reasoning. . in virtue of modus tollens. So.152 (MT) P²Q ~Q –––––– ~P Hardegree. which is a Latin expression meaning the mode of denying by denying. which involves 8 lines. Q²R. in virtue of modus tollens. then so is ~R. Finally. Then. then ~Q is also true. Thus. in virtue of modus ponens. Proof: Suppose that the premises are all true. That means that all the following formulas are true – P²Q. we can construct a truth-table for (a2). but then ~Q is true. in particular. So. then so is ~P (the conclusion). P²Q and ~Q are both true. then so is ~Q. ~R. if the premises are all true. It is so called because. the argument form is valid.

Yet the argument forms are quite different. in what sense can I say that (MP*) is valid in virtue of (MP)? The intuitive idea is that "the overall form" of (MP*) is the same as (MP). But. The following is the official definition. conditional formula antecedent ––––––––––––––– consequent () ² [] () –––––– [] The fairly imprecise notion of overall form can be made more precise by appealing to the notion of a substitution instance. rather than substituting a concrete argument for an argument form. in the proof of (a3). For example. then a substitution instance of A is any argument form A* that is obtained from A by substituting formulas for letters in A. In particular. the alert reader probably noticed a slight discrepancy between the official argument forms (MP) and (MT). (MP*) is not exactly the same as (MP). I said that ~R follows from ~P and ~P²~R. and the actual argument forms appearing in the proofs of the validity of (a1)-(a3). There is an affiliated definition for formulas. ARGUMENT FORMS AND SUBSTITUTION INSTANCES In the previous section. (MP) has no occurrences of negation.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 153 3. (MP*) is an argument form with the following overall form. if we squinted hard enough. . Definition: If F is a formula of sentential logic. whereas (MP*) has 4 occurrences. then a substitution instance of F is any formula F* obtained from F by substituting formulas for letters in F. (MP) P²Q P –––––– Q ~P ² ~R ~P ––––––––– ~R (MP*) (MP*) looks somewhat like (MP). in virtue of modus ponens. clearly. So. The slight complication here is that. We have already discussed this notion earlier. we might say they looked the same. we substitute one argument form for another argument form. Definition: If A is an argument form of sentential logic. on the one hand.

one is permitted to replace two different letters by the same formula. then the formula replaces the letter in every place. These definitions are best understood in terms of specific examples. (MP*) has four negations. A substitution instance F* always has at least as many occurrences of a connective as the original form F. This gives rise to the notion of uniform substitution instance. The remaining question is whether the validity of (MP) ensures the validity of its substitution instances. One cannot substitute different formulas for the same letter. . and (MP) has none. This is answered by the following theorem. it is to say that (MP*) is a substitution instance of (MP). There is no way to substitute formulas for letters in (MP*) in such a way that (MP) is the result. (MP*) is a (uniform) substitution of (MP). Definition: A substitution instance is a uniform substitution instance if and only if distinct letters are replaced by distinct formulas. First. Theorem: If argument form A* is a substitution instance of A. To say that argument form (MP*) is valid in virtue of modus ponens (MP) is not to say that (MP*) is identical to (MP). Indeed. and argument form A** is a substitution instance of A*. However. the converse is not true: (MP) is not a substitution instance of (MP*). With the notion of substitution instance in hand.154 Hardegree. then A** is a substitution instance of A. obtained by substituting ~P for P. The following are substitution instances of (MP*). The following are examples of substitution instances of (MP) ~P ² ~Q ~P –––––––––– ~Q (P & Q) ² ~R P&Q –––––––––––– ~R (P ² Q) ² (P ² R) P²Q ––––––––––––––––– P²R Whereas (MP*) is a substitution instance of (MP). Symbolic Logic Note carefully: it is understood here that if a formula replaces a given letter in one place. ~(P & Q) ² ~(P ² Q) ~(P & Q) –––––––––––––––––––– ~(P ² Q) ~~P ² ~(Q ´ R) ~~P –––––––––––––––– ~(Q ´ R) Interestingly enough these are also substitution instances of (MP). we are now in a position to solve the original problem. and ~R for Q. we have the following general theorem. rather.

We have to select from the infinitely-many valid argument forms of sentential logic a handful of very fertile ones. But how do we make the selection? On the one hand. we want each inference rule to be simple. even though we can choose the rules initially. modus ponens). ones that will generate the rest. It is very much like inventing a game – we get to make up the rules. the most parsimonious system is not the most intuitively clear. although not every valid argument yields a corresponding inference rule. capital script letters (d. we must adhere to the ones we have chosen. however. the rules are not entirely arbitrary. In order to convey that each inference rule subsumes infinitely many argument forms. easy to remember. then every substitution instance of A is also valid. we mean to grant that specific argument form as well as every substitution instance. note that. etc. which we will call system SL (short for ‘sentential logic’). Our particular choice will accordingly be a compromise solution. Note. On the other hand. Every inference rule corresponds to a valid argument form of sentential logic. that in granting the validity of an argument form (say. We want to employ as few inference rules as possible and still be able to generate all the valid argument forms. the most intuitively clear system is not the most parsimonious. we lay down the ground work for constructing our system of formal derivation. f. and intuitively obvious. (MP) d²f d ––––––– f . Thus.) will stand for arbitrary formulas of sentential logic. These two desiderata actually push in opposite directions. for example. e. the rule of modus ponens will be written as follows. once we have chosen. the choice is arbitrary. On the other hand. we will use an alternate font to formulate the inference rules. At the heart of any derivation system is a set of inference rules. SIMPLE INFERENCE RULES In the present section. because each rule must correspond to a valid argument form. Also. in particular. The rigorous proof of this theorem is beyond the scope of introductory logic. 4. Each inference rule corresponds to a valid argument of sentential logic. To a certain extent. where d and f are arbitrary formulas of sentential logic.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 155 Theorem: If argument form A is valid. we want to be parsimonious. We select a subset of valid arguments to serve as inference rules.

MTP corresponds to the "process of elimination": one has a choice between two things. Before putting these four rules to work. using truthtables. (MTP1) d´e ~d –––––– e (MTP2) d´e ~e ––––––– d This mode of reasoning is traditionally called modus tollendo ponens. given as follows. worse. an affirmative conclusion is reached on the basis of a negative premise. that the simplest instances of these inference rules are in fact valid. . leaving the other. The reader should verify. The following arguments are not instances of any of the above rules. In addition to (MP) and (MT). which means the mode of affirming by denying. one eliminates one choice. the rule modus tollens may be written as follows. there are two other similar rules that we are going to adopt. (MP) stands for infinitely many argument forms. (MT) d²f ~f ––––––– ~d conditional literal negation of consequent ––––––––––––––––––––––– literal negation of antecedent (antecedent) ² [consequent] ~[consequent] ––––––––––––––––––––––– ~(antecedent) (MT) Note: By ‘literal negation of formula d’ is meant the formula that results from prefixing the formula d with a tilde.156 Hardegree. they are invalid. Symbolic Logic Given that the script letters ‘d’ and ‘f’ stand for arbitrary formulas. The literal negation of a formula always has exactly one more symbol than the formula itself. it is important to point out two classes of errors that a student is liable to make. The reader should also verify the intuitive validity of these forms of reasoning. Errors of the First Kind The four rules given above are to be carefully distinguished from argument forms that look similar but are clearly invalid. (MP) conditional antecedent ––––––––– consequent (antecedent) ² [consequent] (antecedent) ––––––––––––––––––––––– [consequent] Along the same lines. all looking like the following. In each case.

Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 157 Invalid! P´Q Q ––––– ~P Invalid! P²Q Q –––––– P Invalid! P²Q ~P –––––– ~Q Invalid! P´Q P ––––– ~Q These modes of inference are collectively known as modus morons. which means the mode of reasoning like a moron. or you can construct counter-examples. however. Some arguments. which may be shown using truth tables. the names of numbers are numerals. Thus. does that mean they are the same? Of course not! That is like arguing from the premise that John and Mary are legally equivalent (meaning that they are equal under the law) to the . one might be thinking of arithmetic: for example. You can use truth-tables. either way. But the corresponding numerals are not identical: the linguistic expression ‘--2’ is not identical to the linguistic expression ‘2’. numbers have names. Valid but not MT! ~P ² Q ~Q –––––––– P Valid but not MT! P ² ~Q Q –––––––– ~P Valid but not MTP! ~P ´ ~Q P –––––––– ~Q Valid but not MTP! ~P ´ ~Q Q –––––––– ~P The following are corresponding correct applications of the rules. Another possible reason to think ~~P and P are the same is that they are logically equivalent. “aren't ~~P and P the same?” In asking this question. look like (but are not) substitution instances of inference rules. This means they have the same truth-value no matter what. Similarly. they are invalid. the Roman numeral ‘VII’ is not identical to the Arabic numeral ‘7’ even though both numerals denote the same number. This isn't too surprising. Just like people. MT ~P ² Q ~Q ––––––– ~~P MT P ² ~Q ~~Q ––––––– ~P MTP ~P ´ ~Q ~~P –––––––– ~Q MTP ~P ´ ~Q ~~Q –––––––– ~P The natural question is. They have the same truth-value. Errors of the Second Kind Many valid arguments are not substitution instances of inference rules. The following are examples. We shouldn't confuse numbers and their names (numerals). they are as different as the Roman numeral ‘VII’ and the Arabic numeral ‘7’. the answer is that the formulas ~~P and P are not the same. --2 and 2 are one and same number. It is easy to show that every one of them is invalid. We don't confuse people and their names.

then ~~P won't work. it is no use to put in 25 of them. We have already seen intuitive examples in an earlier section. The same can be said about ~~P and P. equivalence. for our purposes. they have different forms – one is a negation. We will have such conversion rules available. Simple derivations are defined as follows. and inference rules in particular. for example. A derivation system is equally "stubborn". they are physically quite different. etc. In this respect. the other is atomic. it is blind to content. parking meters. does not "care" what the value of a coin is. “yes and no”. but they are definitely not identical. How do we utilize these in demonstrating other arguments of sentential logic are also valid? In order to prove (show. automatic toll booths. one derives its conclusion from its premises. MT. pay phones. What one must do is first trade P for ~~P. The first technique of derivation that we examine is called simple derivation. It only "cares" about the coin's form. A derivation system in general. A vending machine. Similarly. and will be replaced in the next section. like legal Consider a very similar question whose answer revolves around the distinction between equality and identity: are four quarters and a dollar bill the same? The answer is. Quarters are made of metal. 5. the other only one. and responds exclusively to form. SIMPLE DERIVATIONS We now have four inference rules. even though 25 pennies have the same monetary value as a quarter. If P is required by an inference-rule. MTP1. pertain exclusively to the forms of the formulas involved. it responds exclusively to the shape and weight of the coin. and MTP2. and if ~~P is required. dollar bills are made of paper. For some purposes they are interchangeable. that does not mean they are the same. then P won't work. Four quarters are monetarily equal to a dollar bill. if the machine does not accept pennies. a dollar bill is worthless when dealing with many coin-operated machines.158 conclusion that John and Mary are the same. just like 25 pennies won't buy a stick of gum from a vending machine. demonstrate) that an argument is valid. is not identity. derivation systems are similar to coin-operated machines – vending machines. One has three symbols. More importantly. They have the same value (in the sense of truth-value). It is temporary. We now redo these examples formally. so they are not identical. However. Similarly frustrating at times. it demonstrates the key intuitions about derivations. Hardegree. MP. Symbolic Logic Logical equivalence. The fact that truth-tables tell us that P and ~~P are logically equivalent is irrelevant. . but they are definitely not identical. A penny worth one dollar to collectors won't buy a soft drink from a vending machine.

.. sn is a list of formulas (also called lines) satisfying the following conditions. every line is either a premise or follows by a rule. Example 1 Argument: P .MP 3. . ~R / ~P Simple Derivation: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) P²Q Q²R ~R ~Q ~P Pr Pr Pr 2.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 159 Definition: A simple derivation of conclusion f from premises s1.3. The basic idea is that in order to prove that an argument is valid. every line (formula) is either: a premise (one of s1. Q ² R / R Simple Derivation: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) P P²Q Q²R Q R Pr Pr Pr 1.4. it is sufficient to construct a simple derivation of its conclusion from its premises.4. P ² Q . The annotation to the right of each formula indicates the precise justification for the presence of the formula in the derivation.2.MT . . (1) (2) the last line is f. the formula is a premise (annotation: ‘Pr’). rule).MP This is an example of a simple derivation. or: follows from previous lines according to an inference rule.. Q ² R . Example 2 Argument: P ² Q .. sn). There are two possible justifications at the moment.. The last line is the conclusion. s2.MT 1. it is better to deal with some examples by way of explaining the method of simple derivation. Rather than dwell on abstract matters of definition. the formula follows from previous formulas by a rule (annotation: line numbers. s2..

following one is more unusual. if the need arises. Example 5 Argument: P ² (Q ´ R) .MP 4. P ² Q / Q Simple Derivation: (1) (2) (3) (4) (P ² Q) ² P P²Q P Q Pr Pr 1. once as major premise. once as minor premise.MT The These three examples take care of the examples from Section 2. P ² ~R . Q ² R / ~Q Simple Derivation: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) ~P ~P ² ~R Q²R ~R ~Q Pr Pr Pr 1. in connection with MP.3.MTP2 .4. We conclude this section with examples of slightly longer simple derivations. One can appeal to the same line over and over again. P / Q Simple Derivation: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) P ² (Q ´ R) P ² ~R P ~R Q´R Q Pr Pr Pr 2. Example 4 Argument: (P ² Q) ² P . Symbolic Logic Example 3 Argument: ~P .MP 1.2.3.160 Hardegree. ~P ² ~R .MP What is unusual about this one is that line (2) is used twice.3.MP 2.2.5.MP 3.

MTP1 Example 7 Argument: (P ´ R) ´ (P ² Q) .MTP2 Example 8 Argument: P ² ~Q .4. ~(P ² Q) .MT 1. ~(R & S) . R ² (P ² Q) / P Simple Derivation: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (P ´ R) ´ (P ² Q) ~(P ² Q) R ² (P ² Q) P´R ~R P Pr Pr Pr 1.MT 4.5.5.3.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 161 Example 6 Argument: ~P ² (Q ´ R) .6.MP 3. ~Q / R Simple Derivation: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) ~P ² (Q ´ R) P²Q ~Q ~P Q´R R Pr Pr Pr 2.5. P ´ T / T Simple Derivation: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) P ² ~Q ~Q ² (R & S) ~(R & S) P´T ~~Q ~P T Pr Pr Pr Pr 2.MT 1. P ² Q .MTP1 .MT 4.3.MTP2 2.2.3. ~Q ² (R & S) .

we would like to pursue the following overall plan. THE OFFICIAL INFERENCE RULES So far. we want a rule for "eliminating" the connective. In particular. if we were to follow the overall plan. we want two rules: on the one hand.162 Hardegree. Since the new rules will be given more pictorial. An introduction-rule is also called an in-rule. In particular. Symbolic Logic 6. listed as follows. Also. we want a rule for "introducing" the connective. non-Latin. which are marked by an asterisk. we would have a total of ten rules. and (2) indication whether the rule is an introduction (in) rule or an elimination (out) rule. are the following inference rules. Also. we add quite a few more inference rules to our list. Ampersand-In Ampersand-Out Wedge-In Wedge-Out Double-Arrow-In Double-Arrow-Out *Arrow-In Arrow-Out *Tilde-In *Tilde-Out &I &O ´I ´O ±I ±O ²I ²O ~I ~O However. In constructing the full set of inference rules. and the two forms of modus tollendo ponens. for reasons of simplicity of presentation. What we adopt instead. the name should consist of two parts: (1) reference to the specific connective involved. Thus. an elimination-rule is called an out-rule. we are going to consolidate our original four rules into two rules. For each of the five connectives. in the derivation system SL. the general plan is not followed completely. on the other hand. we have discussed only four inference rules: modus ponens. modus tollens. • . we are going to rename our original four rules in order to maintain consistency. it would be nice if the name of each rule is suggestive of what the rule does. In the present section. names. there are three points of difference.

Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 163 INFERENCE RULES (INITIAL SET) Ampersand-In (&I) d e –––––– d&e d&e ––––––– d d –––––– d´e d´e ~d –––––– e d²e e²d ––––––––– d±e d±e ––––––– d²e d²e d ––––––– e d –––––– ~~d d e –––––– e&d d&e ––––––– e d –––––– e´d d´e ~e –––––– d d²e e²d ––––––––– e±d d±e ––––––– e²d d²e ~e ––––––– ~d ~~d –––––– d Ampersand-Out (&O) Wedge-In (´I) Wedge-Out (´O) Double-Arrow-In (±I) Double-Arrow-Out (±O) Arrow-Out (²O) Double Negation (DN) A few notes may help clarify the above inference rules. .

Each rule is short for infinitely many substitution instances. Inference rules apply to whole lines. it does not even have to be anywhere near the derivation in question! (5) (6) (7) There is one point that is extremely important. In the wedge-in (´I) rule. not to pieces of lines. in one order dve. In other words. what are given above are not actually the inference rules themselves. the rule for decomposing disjunctions. given as follows. In each of the rules. Symbolic Logic Notes (1) (2) (3) (4) Arrow-out (²O). or the other order evd. then one is entitled to write down either conjunct d or conjunct e. replaces both modus ponens and modus tollens. The actual rules are more properly written as follows. d and e. but only pictures suggestive of the rules. in one order d&e. the rule for decomposing conditional formulas. Wedge-out (´O). • INFERENCE RULES. then one is entitled to write down the disjunction of d with any formula e. Wedge-In (´I): If one has available a line d. then one is entitled to write down their conjunction.164 Hardegree. . Ampersand-Out (&O): If one has available a line of the form d&e. There is no arrow-in rule! [The rule for introducing arrow is not an inference rule but rather a show-rule. or the other order e&d. OFFICIAL FORMULATION Ampersand-In (&I): If one has available lines. Double negation (DN) stands in place of both the tilde-in and the tildeout rule. the formula e is any formula whatsoever. d and e are arbitrary formulas of sentential logic. the order of the premises is completely irrelevant. which will be repeated as the need arises.] In each of the rules. which is a different kind of rule. to be discussed later. replaces both forms of modus tollendo ponens.

Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic

165

Wedge-Out (´O): If one has available a line of the form d´e, and if one additionally has available a line which is the negation of the first disjunct, ~d, then one is entitled to write down the second disjunct, e. Likewise, if one has available a line of the form d´e, and if one additionally has available a line which is the negation of the second disjunct, ~e, then one is entitled to write down the first disjunct, d. Double-Arrow-In (±I): If one has available a line that is a conditional d²e, and one additionally has available a line that is the converse e²d, then one is entitled to write down either the biconditional d±e or the biconditional e±d. Double-Arrow-Out (±O): If one has available a line of the form d±e, then one is entitled to write down both the conditional d²e and its converse e²d. Arrow-Out (²O): If one has available a line of the form d²e, and if one additionally has available a line which is the antecedent d, then one is entitled to write down the consequent e. Likewise, if one has available a line of the form d²e, and if one additionally has available a line which is the negation of the consequent, ~e, then one is entitled to write down the negation of the antecedent, ~d. Double Negation (DN): If one has available a line d, then one is entitled to write down the double-negation ~~d. Similarly, if one has available a line of the form ~~d, then one is entitled to write down the formula d. The word ‘available’ is used in a technical sense that will be explained in a later section. To this list, we will add a few further inference rules in a later section. They are not crucial to the derivation system; they merely make doing derivations more convenient.

166

Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

7.

SHOW-LINES AND SHOW-RULES; DIRECT DERIVATION

Having discussed simple derivations, we now begin the official presentation of the derivation system SL. In constructing system SL, we lay down a set of system rules – the rules of SL. It's a bit confusing: we have inference rules, already presented; now we have system rules as well. System rules are simply the official rules for constructing derivations, and include, among other things, all the inference rules. For example, we have already seen two system rules, in effect. They are the two principles of simple derivation, which are now officially formulated as system rules.

**System Rule 1 (The Premise Rule)
**

At any point in a derivation, prior to the first show-line, any premise may be written down. The annotation is ‘Pr’.

**System Rule 2 (The Inference-Rule Rule)
**

At any point in a derivation, a formula may be written down if it follows from previous available lines by an inference rule. The annotation cites the line numbers, and the inference rule, in that order. System Rule 2 is actually short-hand for the list of all the inference rules, as formulated at the end of Section 6. The next thing we do in elaborating system SL is to enhance the notion of simple derivation to obtain the notion of a direct derivation. This enhancement is quite simple; it even seems redundant, at the moment. But as we further elaborate system SL, this enhancement will become increasingly crucial. Specifically, we add the following additional system rule, which concerns a new kind of line, called a show-line, which may be introduced at any point in a derivation.

**System Rule 3 (The Show-Line Rule)
**

At any point in a derivation, one is entitled to write down the expression ‘¬: d’, for any formula d whatsoever. In writing down the line ‘¬: d’, all one is saying is, “I will now attempt to show the formula d”. What the rule amounts to, then, is that at any point one is entitled to attempt to show anything one pleases. This is very much like saying that any citizen (over a certain age) is entitled to run for president. But rights are not guarantees; you can try, but you may not succeed.

Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic

167

Allowing show-lines changes the derivation system quite a bit, at least in the long run. However, at the current stage of development of system SL, there is generally only one reasonable kind of show-line. Specifically, one writes down ‘¬: f’, where f is the conclusion of the argument one is trying to prove valid. Later, we will see other uses of show-lines. All derivations start pretty much the same way: one writes down all the premises, as permitted by System Rule 1; then one writes down ‘¬: f’ (where f is the conclusion), which is permitted by System Rule 3. Consider the following example, which is the beginning of a derivation.

Example 1

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (P ´ Q) ² ~R P&T R ´ ~S U²S ¬: ~U Pr Pr Pr Pr ???

These five lines may be regarded as simply stating the problem – we want to show one formula, given four others. I write ‘???’ in the annotation column because this still needs explaining; more about this later. Given the problem, we can construct what is very similar to a simple derivation, as follows. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (P ´ Q) ² ~R P&T R ´ ~S U²S ¬: ~U P P´Q ~R ~S ~U Pr Pr Pr Pr ??? 2,&O 6,´I 1,7,²O 3,8,´O 4,9,²O

Notice that, if we deleted the show-line, (5), the result is a simple derivation. We are allowed to try to show anything. But how do we know when we have succeeded? In order to decide when a formula has in fact been shown, we need additional system rules, which we call "show-rules". The first show-rule is so simple it barely requires mentioning. Nevertheless, in order to make system SL completely clear and precise, we must make this rule explicit. The first show-rule may be intuitively formulated as follows. Direct Derivation (Intuitive Formulation) If one is trying to show formula d, and one actually obtains d as a later line, then one has succeeded.

168

Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

The intuitive formulation is, unfortunately, not sufficiently precise for the purposes to which it will ultimately be put. So we formulate the following official system rule of derivation. System Rule 4 (a show-rule) Direct Derivation (DD) If one has a show-line ‘¬: d’, and one obtains d as a later available line, and there are no intervening uncancelled show-lines, then one is entitled to box and cancel ‘¬: d’. The annotation is ‘DD’ As it is officially written, direct derivation is a very complicated rule. Don't worry about it now. The subtleties of the rule don't come into play until later. For the moment, however, we do need to understand the idea of cancelling a show-line and boxing off the associated sub-derivation. Cancelling a show-line simply amounts to striking through the word ‘¬’, to obtain ‘-’. This indicates that the formula has in fact been shown. Now the formula d can be used. The trade-off is that one must box off the associated derivation. No line inside a box can be further used. One, in effect, trades the derivation for the formula shown. More about this restriction later. The intuitive content of direct derivation is pictorially presented as follows. Direct Derivation (DD) - d

d The box is of little importance right now, but later it becomes very important in helping organize very complex derivations, ones that involve several show-lines. For the moment, simply think of the box as a decoration, a flourish if you like, to celebrate having shown the formula. Let us return to our original derivation problem. Completing it according to the strict rules yields the following.

Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic

169 Pr Pr Pr Pr DD 2,&O 6,´I 1,7,²O 3,8,´O 4,9,²O

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

(P ´ Q) ² ~R P&T R ´ ~S U²S -: ~U P P´Q ~R ~S ~U

Note that ‘¬’ has been struck through, resulting in ‘-’. Note the annotation for line (5); ‘DD’ indicates that the show-line has been cancelled in accordance with the show-rule Direct Derivation. Finally, note that every formula below the showline has been boxed off. Later, we will have other, more complicated, show-rules. For the moment, however, we just have direct derivation.

8.

**EXAMPLES OF DIRECT DERIVATIONS
**

In the present section, we look at several examples of direct derivations.

Example 1

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) ~P ² (Q ´ R) P²Q ~Q -: R ~P Q´R R Pr Pr Pr DD 2,3,²O 1,5,²O 3,6,´O

Example 2

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) P&Q -: ~~P & ~~Q P Q ~~P ~~Q ~~P & ~~Q Pr DD 1,&O 1,&O 3,DN 4,DN 5,6,&I

Example 3

(1) (2) (3) P&Q (Q ´ R) ² S -: P & S Pr Pr DD

170 (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) P Q Q´R S P&S 1,&O 1,&O 5,´I 2,6,²O 4,7,&I

Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

Example 4

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) A&B (A ´ E) ² C D ² ~C -: ~D A A´E C ~~C ~D Pr Pr Pr DD 1,&O 5,´I 2,6,²O 7,DN 3,8,²O

Example 5

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) A & ~B B ´ (A ² D) (C & E) ± D -: A & C A ~B A²D D D ² (C & E) C&E C A&C Pr Pr Pr DD 1,&O 1,&O 2,6,´O 5,7,²O 3,±O 8,9,²O 10,&O 5,11,&I

Example 6

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) A²B (A ² B) ² (B ² A) (A ± B) ² A -: A & B B²A A±B A B A&B Pr Pr Pr DD 1,2,²O 1,5,±I 3,6,²O 1,7,²O 7,8,&I

Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic

171

Example 7

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) ~A & B (C ´ B) ² (~D ² A) ~D ± E -: ~E ~A B C´B ~D ² A ~~D E ² ~D ~E Pr Pr Pr DD 1,&O 1,&O 6,´I 2,7,²O 5,8,²O 3,±O 9,10,²O

NOTE: From now on, for the sake of typographical neatness, we will draw boxes in a purely skeletal fashion. In particular, we will only draw the left side of each box; the remaining sides of each box should be mentally filled in. For example, using skeletal boxes, the last two derivations are written as follows.

Example 6 (rewritten)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) A²B (A ² B) ² (B ² A) (A ± B) ² A -: A & B |B ² A |A ± B |A |B |A & B Pr Pr Pr DD 1,2,²O 1,5,±I 3,6,²O 1,7,²O 7,8,&I

Example 7 (rewritten)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) ~A & B (C ´ B) ² (~D ² A) ~D ± E -: ~E |~A |B |C ´ B |~D ² A |~~D |E ² ~D |~E Pr Pr Pr DD 1,&O 1,&O 6,´I 2,7,²O 5,8,²O 3,±O 9,10,²O

NOTE: In your own derivations, you can draw as much, or as little, of a box as you like, so long as you include at a minimum its left side. For example, you can use any of the following schemes.

172 -: -: -:

Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

-:

Finally, we end this section by rewriting the Direct Derivation Picture, in accordance with our minimal boxing scheme. Direct Derivation (DD) -: d |º |º |º |º |º |º |º |d DD

9.

CONDITIONAL DERIVATION

So far, we only have one method by which to cancel a show-line – direct derivation. In the present section, we examine a new derivation method, which will enable us to prove valid a larger class of sentential arguments. Consider the following argument. (A) P ² Q Q²R –––––– P²R This argument is valid, as can easily be demonstrated using truth-tables. Can we derive the conclusion from the premises? The following begins the derivation. (1) (2) (3) (4) P²Q Q²R ¬: P ² R ??? Pr Pr ??? ???

Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic

173

What formulas can we write down at line (4)? There are numerous formulas that follow from the premises according to the inference rules. But, not a single one of them makes any progress toward showing the conclusion P²R. In fact, upon close examination, we see that we have no means at our disposal to prove this argument. We are stuck. In other words, as it currently stands, derivation system SL is inadequate. The above argument is valid, by truth-tables, but it cannot be proven in system SL. Accordingly, system SL must be strengthened so as to allow us to prove the above argument. Of course, we don't want to make the system so strong that we can derive invalid conclusions, so we have to be careful, as usual. How might we argue for such a conclusion? Consider a concrete instance of the argument form. (I) if the gas tank gets a hole, then the car runs out of gas; if the car runs out of gas, then the car stops; therefore, if the gas tank gets a hole, then the car stops.

In order to argue for the conclusion of (I), it seems natural to argue as follows. First, suppose the premises are true, in order to show the conclusion. The conclusion says that the car stops if the gas tank gets a hole or in other words, the car stops supposing the gas tank gets a hole. So, suppose also that the antecedent, the gas tank gets a hole, is true. In conjunction with the first premise, we can infer the following by modus ponens (²O): the car runs out of gas. And from this in conjunction with the second premise, we can infer the following by modus ponens (²O). the car stops So supposing the antecedent (the gas tank gets a hole), we have deduced the consequent (the car stops). In other words, we have shown the conclusion – if the gas tank gets a hole, then the car stops. The above line of reasoning is made formal in the following official derivation.

one derivation is nested inside another derivation. This is because the original problem – showing H²S – is reduced to another problem. Symbolic Logic Example 1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) H²R R²S -: H ² S |H |-: S ||R ||S Pr Pr CD As DD 1. The official formulation of conditional derivation is considerably more complicated. showing S assuming H.6.174 Hardegree. then one is entitled to box and cancel ‘¬: d²f’. System Rule 5 (a show-rule) Conditional Derivation (CD) If one has a show-line of the form ‘¬: d²f’.4. there are two show-lines. and one has f as a later available line. First of all. The annotation is ‘CD’ System Rule 6 (an assumption rule) If one has a show-line of the form ‘¬: d²f’. being given by the following two system rules. which may be intuitively formulated as follows. This procedure is in accordance with a new show-rule. as an assumption. in particular. then one is entitled to write down the antecedent d on the very next line. . it is sufficient to show the consequent f. and there are no subsequent uncancelled show-lines. called conditional derivation.²O 2. Conditional Derivation (Intuitive Formulation) In order to show a conditional d²f. The annotation is ‘As’ It is probably easier to understand conditional derivation by way of the associated picture.²O This new-fangled derivation requires explaining. assuming the antecedent d.

9. In order to further our understanding of conditional derivation.²O The above examples involve two show-lines.7.²O 2.6. we do a few examples. .²O 8.²O 6. The following examples introduce a new twist – three show-lines in the same derivation. one shows a conditional d²f by assuming its antecedent d and showing its consequent f.&O 4.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 175 Conditional Derivation (CD) -: d ² f |d |-: f || || || || || || CD As This is supposed to depict the nature of conditional derivation.&O 1.7.&O 1.9. with a conditional derivation inside a conditional derivation.&I Example 3 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Q²R R ² (P ² S) -: (P & Q) ² S |P & Q |-: S ||P ||Q ||R ||P ² S ||S Pr Pr CD As DD 4. each one involves a direct derivation inside a conditional derivation.&O 4.²O 2.8. Example 2 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) P²R Q²S -: (P & Q) ² (R & S) |P & Q |-: R & S ||P ||Q ||R ||S ||R & S Pr Pr CD As DD 4.

7.²O Irrespective of the complexity of the above problems. we immediately write down two more lines – we assume the antecedent.²O Example 5 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (P & Q) ² R -: (P ² Q) ² (P ² R) |P ² Q |-: P ² R ||P ||-: R |||Q |||P & Q |||R Pr CD As CD As DD 3. the depth of nesting is not restricted. Example 6 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (P & Q) ² (R ² S) Pr -: R ² [(P ² Q) ² (P ² S)] CD |R As |-: (P ² Q) ² (P ² S) CD ||P ² Q As ||-: P ² S CD |||P As |||-: S DD ||||Q 5.10.²O ||||S 3. they are solved in the same systematic manner.5.&I 1.8.9.²O Needless to say.²O ||||P & Q 7.7. d.11.&I ||||R ² S 1.176 Hardegree. in order to (attempt to) show the consequent. That is all there is to it! .5. At each point where we come across ‘¬: d²f’.&I 1.7. Symbolic Logic Example 4 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (P & Q) ² R -: P ² (Q ² R) |P |-: Q ² R ||Q ||-: R |||P & Q |||R Pr CD As CD As DD 3. consider the following example.²O 5. f.

Let's try a sneaky approach to the problem. which is studied in more advanced courses in logic. From our study of truth-tables.²O 5. one can quickly demonstrate that (a1) is valid. Consider the following argument form. Even though system SL is complete as it stands. Consider line (3). a self-contradiction at line (8). might go as follows. What happens when we try to construct a derivation that proves it to be valid? Consider the following start.5. using DD and CD. System SL is also consistent. which is to say that no invalid argument can be proven in system SL. the premises are both conditionals. it's not a conditional! That leaves direct derivation. . INDIRECT DERIVATION (FIRST FORM) System SL is now a complete set of rules for sentential logic.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 177 10.&I We have gotten down to line (8) which is Q&~Q. every valid argument of sentential logic can be proved valid in system SL. which says in effect that P is false. (a1) P ² Q P ² ~Q ––––––– ~P Using truth-tables. in the case of (2). it is false no matter what. which is a negation. Demonstrating these two very important logical facts – that system SL is both complete and consistent – is well outside the scope of introductory logic. we will nonetheless enhance it further. we write P as an assumption. (1) (2) (3) (4) P²Q P ² ~Q ¬: ~P ??? Pr Pr ??? ??? An attempted derivation. we need P or ~~Q. none of these is available. But arrow-out requires a minor premise. Well.6. thereby sacrificing elegance in favor of convenience. In the case of (1) we need P or ~Q. (1) (2) (3) (4) (6) (7) (8) P²Q P ² ~Q ¬: ~P P Q ~Q Q & ~Q Pr Pr ??? As?? 1. So we see that assuming P at line (4) leads to a very bizarre result. Just for the helluvit. we know that this formula is a self-contradiction.²O 1. That yields the following partial derivation. so the appropriate rule is arrow-out. We are stuck! We are trying to show ~P.4. let us assume the opposite of what we are trying to show. So right below ‘¬: ~P’. and see what happens. It rather falls under the scope of metalogic. We cannot show it by conditional derivation.

8.²O 7. we have shown. This rule would work perfectly well. that if P is true. but it is not nearly as tidy as what we do instead. in other words. which means that we have shown P²(Q&~Q). we have shown that if P is true.²O This is an OK derivation.²O 2.²O 7.²O 2. by the show-line rule (we can try to show anything!). To see this. let us rewrite the problem as follows. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) P²Q P ² ~Q ¬: ~P -: P ² (Q & ~Q) |P |-: Q & ~Q ||Q ||~Q ||Q & ~Q ~(Q & ~Q) ~P Pr Pr DD CD As DD 1. At this stage in the elaboration of system SL. by introducing a further show-rule.5.5. but it is still not complete. in effect.5. we could introduce a new system rule that allows one to write ~(d&~d) at any point in a derivation.10. Line (4) is permitted.&I ??? 4. But the latter can't be true. This reasoning can be made formal in the following part derivation. We choose instead to abbreviate the above chain of reasoning considerably. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) P²Q P ² ~Q ¬: ~P -: P ² (Q & ~Q) |P |-: Q & ~Q ||Q ||~Q ||Q & ~Q Pr Pr ??? CD As DD 1. The remaining lines are completely ordinary.5. then so is Q&~Q. we have in fact shown P²(Q&~Q). whose intuitive formulation is given as follows. which is marked in the annotation column by ‘???’. Lines (5) and (6) then are written down in accordance with conditional derivation. Symbolic Logic So. Notice especially the new show-line (4). . So how do we complete the derivation? We are trying to show ~P.&I This is OK as far as it goes. called indirect derivation. which has no justification. so neither can the former (by modus tollens). show-line (3) has not been cancelled yet.178 Hardegree.8. then so is Q&~Q. except for line (10).

[Alternatively.] In other words. see below. In addition to the syntactic and semantic rules governing ¸.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 179 Indirect Derivation (First Form) Intuitive Formulation In order to show a negation ~d. it is sufficient to show any contradiction. . d. in particular. we also need inference rules. ¸ is a "zero-place" logical connective. at this point. There are infinitely many contradictions in sentential logic. These are given as follows. ¸ is a generic contradiction. in accordance with the following syntactic and semantic rules. it is equivalent to every contradiction. and the parentheses – we introduce the symbol ‘¸’. we need an elimination rule. which as usual is considerably more complex. With our new generic contradiction. it is sufficient to show ¸. and an introduction rule. d. we can reformulate Indirect Derivation as follows. as with the other logical symbols. Syntactic Rule: ¸ is a formula. Recall that a contradiction is any formula whose truth table yields all F's in the output column. We must still provide the official formulation of indirect derivation. whose truth table always produces F. Indirect Derivation (First Form) Second Formulation In order to show a negation ~d. assuming the un-negated formula. it is convenient to introduce a new symbol into the vocabulary of sentential logic. For this reason. assuming the un-negated formula. Semantic Rule: ¸ is false no matter what. In addition to the usual symbols – the letters. the connective symbols.

System Rule 8 (an assumption rule) If one has a show-line of the form ‘¬: ~d’. we offer a pictorial abbreviation of indirect derivation as follows. As with earlier rules. ¸I. it is included simply for symmetry. as an assumption. then one is entitled to write down the un-negated formula d on the very next line. By contrast. . System Rule 7 (a show rule) Indirect Derivation (First Form) If one has a show-line of the form ‘¬: ~d’. We are now in a position to write down the official formulation of indirect derivation of the first form (we discuss the second form in the next section).180 Contradiction-In (¸I) d ~d –––– ¸ Hardegree. then one is entitled to cancel ‘¬: ~d’ and box off all subsequent lines. Symbolic Logic Contradiction-Out (¸O) ¸ ––– d We will have little use for the elimination rule. The annotation is ‘As’. ¸O. the introduction rule. The annotation is ‘ID’. and there are no subsequent uncancelled show-lines. will be used extensively. then if one has ¸ as a later available line.

which is a negation. On line (8). we obtain ¸ from lines (6) and (7).²O 2.6.²O 4.4. Let's do another simple example. Example 2 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) P²Q Q ² ~P -: ~P |P |-: ¸ ||Q ||~P ||¸ Pr Pr ID As DD 1.7. ¸ is obtained from an atomic formula and its negation. let us now go back and do our earlier derivation in accordance with the new rules. Example 1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) P²Q P ² ~Q -: ~P |P |-: ¸ ||Q ||~Q ||¸ Pr Pr ID As DD 1. as in the following examples. . so we do it by ID This entails writing down P on the next line as an assumption.4. we are trying to show ~P. applying our new rule ¸I.7.²O 2.¸I On line (3).¸I In the previous two examples.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 181 Indirect Derivation (First Form) -: ~d |d |-: ¸ || || || || || || || ID As With our new rules in hand.4. Sometimes.²O 6. and writing down ‘¬: ¸’ on the following line. ¸ comes from more complex formulas.

¸ comes. which is very similar to the first form.¸I Here. so we must show it by direct derivation.5. but that approach comes to a screeching halt! Once again.¸I Here.5. Consider the following derivation problem. INDIRECT DERIVATION (SECOND FORM) In addition to indirect derivation of the first form. (3) is atomic. (1) (2) (3) (4) P²Q ~P ² Q ¬: Q ¬: ~~Q Pr Pr ??? ??? We have written down an additional show-line (which is completely legal. remember). let's do something sneaky (but completely legal!). ¸ comes by ¸I from P´Q and ~(P´Q). we have no simple means of dealing with either premise. we also add indirect derivation of the second form. and see where that leads. 11. (1) (2) (3) P²Q ~P ² Q ¬: Q Pr Pr ??? The same problem as before arises. Example 4 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) ~(P & Q) -: P ² ~Q |P |-: ~Q ||Q ||-: ¸ |||P & Q |||¸ Pr CD As ID As DD 3. The new problem facing us – to show ~~Q – appears much more promising.7.´I 1.&I 1. from P&Q and ~(P&Q).182 Hardegree. Symbolic Logic Example 3 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) ~(P ´ Q) -: ~P |P |-: ¸ ||P ´ Q ||¸ Pr ID As DD 3. . by ¸I.

²O 2. we have shown ~~Q. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) P²Q ~P ² Q -: Q |-: ~~Q ||~Q ||-: ¸ |||~P |||~~P |||¸ |Q Pr Pr DD ID As DD 1.5. As usual. we apply double negation to obtain line (10). assuming its negation ~d. we have in fact shown ~~Q.5. it is sufficient to show ¸. Indirect Derivation (Second Form) Intuitive Formulation In order to show a formula d. This is a near-hit because we can apply Double Negation to line (4) to get Q. the formula d is available. . the official formulation of the rule is more complex.¸I The derivation is not complete.5.DN This derivation presents something completely novel.¸I 4. The intuitive formulation of this rule is given as follows. at least until the show-line itself gets boxed off. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) P²Q ~P ² Q ¬: Q -: ~~Q |~Q |-: ¸ ||~P ||~~P ||¸ Pr Pr ??? ID As DD 1. Upon getting to line (9). This is in accordance with the following principle.8. We can now use the formula ~~Q in connection with the usual rules of inference. thus obtaining ‘-: d’.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 183 specifically. This yields the following completed derivation.²O 2. In this particular case. We are trying to show Q. In order to abbreviate the above derivation somewhat. Line (3) is not cancelled. in effect. the above double negation maneuver. which yields the following part-derivation. we enhance the method of indirect derivation so as to include.²O 7. As soon as one cancels a show-line ‘¬: d’. which is marked by cancelling the ‘SHOW’ and boxing off the associated derivation. so we can attack it using indirect derivation. we are trying to show a negation.²O 7.5.8.

7. ¸ is obtained by ¸I from ~P and ~~P. The annotation is ‘ID’ System Rule 10 (an assumption rule) If one has a show-line ‘¬: d’.4. we also offer a pictorial version of the rule. . we can now rewrite our earlier derivation.184 Hardegree. Let's look at one more example of the second form of indirect derivation. and there are no intervening uncancelled show lines. Symbolic Logic System Rule 9 (a show rule) Indirect Derivation (Second Form) If one has a show-line ‘¬: d’. as follows.¸I In this particular problem.²O 6.²O 2. then one is entitled to write down the negation ~d on the very next line. then if one has ¸ as a later available line. The annotation is ‘As’ As usual. then one is entitled to cancel ‘¬: d’ and box off all subsequent formulas. as an assumption. Example 1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) P²Q ~P ² Q -: Q |~Q |-: ¸ ||~P ||~~P ||¸ Pr Pr DD As DD 1.4. Indirect Derivation (Second Form) -: d |~d |-: ¸ || || || || || || With this new show-rule in hand.

by indirect derivation (second form). as demonstrated in the previous section. . which yields the following. This is shown. In this particular problem. So. DD is available but it does not work (except in conjunction with the doublenegation maneuver). ID of the first form is not available because it is not a negation. That leaves the second form of ID.&I 1. and we have no rule for dealing with line (3). We don't have the minor premise to deal with line (1). CD is not available because this formula is not a conditional. what do we do? We can always write down a show-line of our own choosing. in turn. which means we assume P and show Q. so we choose to write down ‘¬: ~P’. SHOWING DISJUNCTIONS USING INDIRECT DERIVATION The second form of ID is very useful for showing atomic formulas. we are nearly stuck. (1) (2) ~P ² Q ¬: P ´ Q Pr ??? We are asked to show a disjunction P´Q. which means we assume ~Q to show ¸. Consider the following derivation problem.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 185 Example 2 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) ~(P & ~Q) -: P ² Q |P |-: Q ||~Q ||-: ¸ |||P & ~Q |||¸ Pr CD As ID As DD 3. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) ~P ² Q ¬: P ´ Q ~(P ´ Q) ¬: ¸ ??? Pr ID As DD At this point. This produces the following part-derivation.¸I In this derivation we show P²Q by conditional derivation. It is also useful for showing disjunctions.5. ¸ is obtained by ¸I from P&~Q and ~(P&~Q). 12.7.

´I 3. it is a rule for breaking down formulas that are negations of disjunctions.8. In other words. so we can use it (while it is still available). Tilde-Wedge-Out (~´O) ~(d ´ e) ––––––––– ~d ~(d ´ e) ––––––––– ~e As with all inference rules. but completely routine. . and yet how routine. This enables us to complete the derivation as follows. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) ~P ² Q -: P ´ Q |~(P ´ Q) |-: ¸ ||-: ~P |||P |||-: ¸ ||||P ´ Q ||||¸ ||Q ||P ´ Q ||¸ Pr ID As DD ID As DD 6. sub-derivation.¸I Lines 5-9 constitute a crucial.11. this sub-derivation is.8. As its name suggests. We add it purely for the sake of convenience. but now we have shown ~P. Symbolic Logic We are still not finished. the official formulation of the rule goes as follows.5. Adding it to system SL decreases its elegance.´I 3.¸I Hardegree. not to parts of lines. System SL is already complete as it stands.¸I 1. The new rule is called tilde-wedge-out (~´O). Given how important. we now add a further inference-rule to our list.186 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) ~P ² Q ¬: P ´ Q ~(P ´ Q) ¬: ¸ -: ~P |P |-: ¸ ||P ´ Q ||¸ ??? Pr ID As DD ID As DD 6.²O 10. It is pictorially presented as follows. this rule applies exclusively to lines. so we don't require this new rule.´I 3.

we show a disjunction using the second form of indirect derivation. the disjunction is simple (its disjuncts are atomic). In the previous example. then write down ‘¬: ¸’. then apply ~´O to obtain ~d and ~e. . Example 1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) ~P ² Q -: P ´ Q |~(P ´ Q) |-: ¸ ||~P ||~Q ||Q ||¸ Pr ID As DD 3.²O 6. In cartoon form: -: d ´ e |~[d ´ e] |-: ¸ ||~d ||~e || || || || ID As ~´O ~´O This particular strategy actually applies to any disjunction. This involves a general strategy for showing any disjunction.~´O 3. simple or complex. General Strategy for Showing Disjunctions If you have a show-line of the form ‘¬: d´e’. the disjunction is complex (its disjuncts are not atomic). then one is entitled to write down both ~d and ~e.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 187 Tilde-Wedge-Out (~´O) If one has available a line of the form ~(d ´ e). then use indirect derivation: first assume ~[d´e].7. much simpler.¸I In the above problem.5.~´O 1. Once we have the new rule ~´O. the above derivation is much. formulated as follows. then proceed from there. In the next example.

the Rule of Repetition. The only difference is that the formulas are more complex. we have a rule for handling any negated molecular formula. Also.²O 7. That way.5. The additional negation rules are given as follows. it does make a number of derivations much easier. FURTHER RULES In the previous section. we add ~&O.~´O 8. Symbolic Logic Example 2 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (P ´ Q) ² (P & Q) -: (P & Q) ´ (~P & ~Q) |~[(P & Q) ´ (~P & ~Q)] |-: ¸ ||~(P & Q) ||~(~P & ~Q) ||~(P ´ Q) ||~P ||~Q ||~P & ~Q ||¸ Pr ID As DD 3.~´O 3.&I 6. ~²O. we added the rule ~´O to our list of inference rules. 13. and ~±O. we add corresponding rules for the remaining two-place connectives. Tilde-Ampersand-Out (~&O) ~(d & e) ––––––––– d ² ~e Tilde-Arrow-Out (~²O) ~(d ² f) –––––––––– d & ~f . Although it is not strictly required. for the sake of symmetry. specifically.¸I The basic strategy is exactly like the previous problem.9.10.~´O 1.~´O 7. we add one more rule that is sometimes useful. In the present section.188 Hardegree.

d. The advantage of the particular choice becomes more apparent in a later chapter on predicate logic. In the present section. then write down ‘¬: e’ and complete the associated derivation. you can simply copy (repeat) it at any later time. Formula Type Conditional Negation Atomic Formula Disjunction Strategy Conditional Derivation Indirect Derivation (1) Indirect Derivation (2) Indirect Derivation (2) That leaves only two kinds of formulas – conjunctions and biconditionals. if you have an available formula. we officially present the Rule of Repetition.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 189 Tilde-Double-Arrow-Out (~±O) ~(d ± e) –––––––––– ~d ± e The reader is urged to verify that these are all valid argument forms of sentential logic. The choice is to a certain arbitrary. apply &I. Finally. There are other valid forms that could serve equally well as the rules in question. we discuss the strategies for these kinds of formulas. 14. then write down two further show-lines. as follows. Specifically. See Problem #120 for an application of this rule. Repetition (R) d –– d In other words. strategies are suggested for showing various kinds of formulas. first write down ‘¬: d’ and complete the associated derivation. Strategy for Showing Conjunctions If you have a show-line of the form ‘¬: d&e’. . and cancel ‘¬: d&e’ by direct derivation. Finally in this section. SHOWING CONJUNCTIONS AND BICONDITIONALS In the previous sections.

then write down ‘¬: e²d’ and complete the associated derivation. Strategy for Showing Biconditionals If you have a show-line of the form ‘¬: d±e’. first write down ‘¬: d²e’ and complete the associated derivation. given as follows. -: d & e |-: d || || || || |-: e || || || || |d & e DD Hardegree. Finally. apply ±I and cancel ‘¬: d±e’ by direct derivation. The associated cartoon version is as follows. -: d ± e |-: d ² e || || || || |-: e ² d || || || || |d ± e DD ±I We conclude this section by doing a few examples that use these two strategies. Symbolic Logic &I There is a parallel strategy for biconditionals. Specifically.190 This strategy is easier to see in its cartoon version. then write down two further show-lines. .

10.´I 1.´I 1.²O 12.9.DN 2.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 191 Example 1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (A ´ B) ² C -: (A ² C) & (B ² C) |-: A ² C ||A ||-: C |||A ´ B |||C |-: B ² C ||B ||-: C |||A ´ B |||C |(A ² C) & (B ² C) Pr DD CD As DD 4.11.±I .²O CD As DD 1.²O CD As DD 9.DN 4.²O 3.8.7.6.&I Example 2 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) ~P ² Q Q ² ~P -: P ± ~Q |-: P ² ~Q ||P ||-: ~Q |||~~P |||~Q |-: ~Q ² P ||~Q ||-: P |||~~P |||P |P ± ~Q Pr Pr DD CD As DD 5.

we need one of the minor premises.8. so in order to decompose it by wedge-out. partly completed.&I 1. Symbolic Logic Example 3 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (P & Q) ² ~R Q²R -: P ± (P & ~Q) |-: P ² (P & ~Q) ||P ||-: P & ~Q |||-: ~Q ||||Q ||||-: ¸ |||||P & Q |||||~R |||||R |||||¸ |||P & ~Q |-: (P & ~Q) ² P ||P & ~Q ||-: P |||P |P ± (P & ~Q) Pr Pr DD CD As DD ID As DD 5.15. a conjunction.192 Hardegree. say.²O 11.7. Consider the following problem. The premise is a disjunction. If we had. that is. or a biconditional. THE WEDGE-OUT STRATEGY We now have a strategy for dealing with every kind of show-line.12.²O 2.&O 3. the first one.¸I 5. at which point we are stuck.&I CD As DD 16. a disjunction. a conditional. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (P ² Q) ´ (P ² R) ¬: (P & ~Q) ² R P & ~Q ¬: R ~R ¬: ¸ P ~Q ??? Pr CD As ID As DD 3.&O ??? Everything goes smoothly until we reach line (9). whether it be atomic.&O 4.±I 15. One often runs into problems that do not immediately surrender to any of these strategies. then we could proceed as follows.8. we need either ~(P ² Q) or ~(P ² R). . a negation.10.

&O ID As DD 7.´O 7. one can write down any show-line whatsoever. if we could somehow get ~(P²Q). . Remember.²O 8.11.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 193 Pr CD As ID As DD 3.12. except for line (9). then the derivation could be legally completed.&O 3.9.¸I (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (P ² Q) ´ (P ² R) ¬: (P & ~Q) ² R P & ~Q ¬: R ~R ¬: ¸ P ~Q ~(P ² Q) P²R R ¸ This is great.10. However.&O 3.¸I Notice that we have shown exactly what we needed. So what can we do? One thing is to try to show the needed formula. Doing this produces the following partly completed derivation.10. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (P ² Q) ´ (P ² R) ¬ (P & ~Q) ² R P & ~Q ¬: R ~R ¬: ¸ P ~Q -: ~(P ² Q) |P ² Q |-: ¸ ||Q ||¸ Pr CD As ID As DD 3.&O ????? 1.²O 5. which is completely without justification! For this reason the derivation remains incomplete. so we can use it to complete the derivation as follows.

12.´O 5. try to show one of them.¸I The above derivation is an example of a general strategy. If you get stuck. then look for means to break it down using wedge-out. however) is this: .&O ID As DD 7. This requires having either ~d or ~e. Look for ways to get one of these. In pictures.10.²O 8.14.15.²O 7. write ‘¬: ~d’ or ‘¬: ~e’. this strategy looks thus: d´e ¬: f º º -: ~d | | | | e º º º d´e ¬: f º º -: ~e | | | | d º º º ´O ´O How does one decide which one to show.¸I 1.&O 3..e. which is formulated as follows. i. Symbolic Logic Example 1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (P ² Q) ´ (P ² R) -: (P & ~Q) ² R |P & ~Q |-: R ||~R ||-: ¸ |||P |||~Q |||-: ~(P ² Q) ||||P ² Q ||||-: ¸ |||||Q |||||¸ |||P ² R |||~P |||¸ Pr CD As ID As DD 3.194 Hardegree.9. the rule of thumb (not absolutely reliable. called the wedge-out strategy. Wedge-Out Strategy If you have as an available line a disjunction d´e.

write ‘¬: d’ or ‘¬: ~f’. then look for means to break it down using arrow-out.. Arrow-Out Strategy If you have as an available line a conditional d²f. In pictures: .7. Look for ways to get one of these. try to show one of them. so you might as well choose the first one.e. one that is very similar to the wedge-out strategy.13. This requires having either d or ~f. Since the wedge-out strategy is so important.¸I 16.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 195 Rule of Thumb In the wedge-out strategy. Here the crucial line is line (7). the choice of which disjunct to attack is largely unimportant.´O 12. i.10. Example 2 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (P & R) ´ (Q & R) -: ~P ² Q |~P |-: Q |||~Q |||-: ¸ ||||-: ~(P & R) |||||P & R |||||-: ¸ ||||||P ||||||¸ ||||Q & R ||||Q ||||¸ Pr CD As ID As DD ID As DD 8. let's do one more example.&O 3.¸I 1. THE ARROW-OUT STRATEGY There is one more strategy that we will examine. the difference is that it pertains to conditionals. If you get stuck.&O 5.

The crucial line is line (5).&O 9.&O 1.²O 3.5.10.²O . Example 1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (P ² Q) ² (P ² R) -: (P & Q) ² R |P & Q |-: R ||-: P ² Q |||P |||-: Q ||||Q ||P ² R ||P ||R Pr CD As DD CD As DD 3.196 d²f ¬: e º º -: d | | | | f º º º Hardegree. Symbolic Logic ²O d²f ¬: e º º -: ~f | | | | ~d º º º ²O The following is a derivation that employs the arrow-out strategy.

Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic

197

**17. SUMMARY OF THE SYSTEM RULES FOR SYSTEM SL
**

1. System Rule 1 (The Premise Rule)

At any point in a derivation, prior to the first show-line, any premise may be written down. The annotation is ‘Pr’.

2.

**System Rule 2 (The Inference-Rule Rule)
**

At any point in a derivation, a formula may be written down if it follows from previous available lines by an inference rule. The annotation cites the lines numbers, and the inference rule, in that order.

3.

**System Rule 3 (The Show-Line Rule)
**

At any point in a derivation, one is entitled to write down the expression ‘¬: d’, for any formula d whatsoever.

4.

**System Rule 4 (a show-rule)
**

Direct Derivation (DD) If one has a show-line ‘¬: d’, and one obtains d as a later available line, and there are no intervening uncancelled show-lines, then one is entitled to box and cancel ‘¬: d’. The annotation is ‘DD’

5.

**System Rule 5 (a show-rule)
**

Conditional Derivation (CD) If one has a show-line of the form ‘¬: d²f’, and one has f as a later available line, and there are no subsequent uncancelled show-lines, then one is entitled to box and cancel ‘¬: d²f’. The annotation is ‘CD’

198

Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

6.

**System Rule 6 (an assumption rule)
**

If one has a show-line of the form ‘¬: d²f’, then one is entitled to write down the antecedent d on the very next line, as an assumption. The annotation is ‘As’

7.

**System Rule 7 (a show rule)
**

Indirect Derivation (First Form) If one has a show-line of the form ‘¬: ~d’, then if one has ¸ as a later available line, and there are no intervening uncancelled show-lines, then one is entitled to box and cancel ‘¬: ~d’. The annotation is ‘ID’.

8.

**System Rule 8 (an assumption rule)
**

If one has a show-line of the form ‘¬: ~d’, then one is entitled to write down the un-negated formula d on the very next line, as an assumption. The annotation is ‘As’

9.

**System Rule 9 (a show rule)
**

Indirect Derivation (Second Form) If one has a show-line ‘¬: d’, then if one has ¸ as a later available line, and there are no intervening uncancelled show lines, then one is entitled to box and cancel ‘¬: d’. The annotation is ‘ID’

**10. System Rule 10 (an assumption rule)
**

If one has a show-line ‘¬: d’, then one is entitled to write down the negation ~d on the very next line, as an assumption. The annotation is ‘As’

Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic

199

**11. System Rule 11 (Definition of available formula)
**

Formula d in a derivation is available if and only if either d occurs (as a whole line!), but is not inside a box, or ‘-: d’ occurs (as a whole line!), but is not inside a box.

**12. System Rule 12 (definition of box-and-cancel)
**

To box and cancel a show-line ‘¬: d’ is to strike through ‘¬’ resulting in ‘-’, and box off all lines below ‘¬: d’ (which is to say all lines at the time the box-and-cancel occurs).

200

Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

**18. PICTORIAL SUMMARY OF THE RULES OF SYSTEM SL
**

INITIAL INFERENCE RULES

Ampersand-In (&I) d e ––––––– d&e d e –––––– e&d

Ampersand-Out (&O) d&e –––––– d Wedge-In (´I) ´ d –––––– d´e Wedge-Out (´O) ´ d –––––– e´d d&e –––––– e

d´e ~d –––––– e

d´e ~e –––––– d

Double-Arrow-In (±I) ±

d²e e²d ––––––– d±e

d²e e²d ––––––– e±d

Double-Arrow-Out (±O) ±

d±e ––––––– d²e

d±e ––––––– e²d

Arrow-Out (²O) ²

d²f d ––––––– f

d²f ~f ––––––– ~d

Double Negation (DN) d ––––– ~~d

~~d ––––– d

Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic

201

**ADDITIONAL INFERENCE RULES
**

Contradiction-In (¸I) ¸ d ~d –––– ¸

Contradiction-Out (¸O) ¸

¸ –– d

Tilde-Wedge-Out (~´O) ~

~(d ´ e) ––––––––– ~d

~(d ´ e) ––––––––– ~e

**Tilde-Ampersand-Out (~&O) ~
**

~(d & e)

––––––––– d ² ~e Tilde-Arrow-Out (~²O) ~

~(d ² f) –––––––––– d & ~f

Tilde-Double-Arrow-Out (~±O) ~

~(d ± e)

–––––––––– ~d ± e Repetition (R) d ––– d

202

Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

SHOW-RULES

Direct Derivation (DD) -: d | | | | | |d Conditional Derivation (CD) -: d ² f |d |-: f || || || || || Indirect Derivation (First Form) -: ~d |d |-: ¸ || || || || || || Indirect Derivation (Second Form) -: d |~d |-: ¸ || || || || || || ID As ID As CD As DD

Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic

203

**19. PICTORIAL SUMMARY OF STRATEGIES
**

-: d & e |-: d || || || || |-: e || || || || |d & e -: d ² f |A |-: f || || || || -: d ´ e |~[d ´ e] |-: ¸ ||~d ||~e || || || || -: d ± e |-: d ² e || || || || |-: e ² d || || || || |d ± e DD

&I CD As

ID As ~´O ~´O

DD

±I

204 -: ~d |d |-: ¸ || || || || -: A |~A |-: ¸ || || || || ID As

Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

ID As

**Wedge-Out Strategy
**

Wedge-Out Strategy If you have as an available line a disjunction d´e, then look for means to break it down using wedge-out. This requires having either ~d or ~e. Look for ways to get one of these. If you get stuck, try to show one of them; i.e., write ‘¬: ~d’ or ‘¬: ~e’. d´e ¬: f º º -: ~d | | | | e º º º d´e ¬: f º º -: ~e | | | | d º º º

´O

´O

Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic

205

**Arrow-Out Strategy
**

If you have as an available line a conditional d²e, then look for means to break it down using arrow-out. This requires having either d or ~e. Look for ways to get one of these. If you get stuck, try to show one of them; i.e., write ‘¬: d’ or ‘¬: ~e’. d²f ¬: e º º -: d | | | | f º º º d²f ¬: e º º -: ~f | | | | ~d º º º

²O

²O

[(P ² Q) ´ R] ² ~R . ~P . R ² S . P ² Q / Q (P ² Q) ² R . R ² P . Q ² R / R P . Q ² R . R ² Q .P²Q. ~R ² S / S (P ² Q) ² P . ~(R ² T) / R ² S ~R ² (P ´ Q) . Q ² R . ~Q / R P ² R . MT. using the simple rules MP. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) P. R ² ~S . ~S ² P . P ² Q . EXERCISES FOR CHAPTER 5 EXERCISE SET A (Simple Derivation) For each of the following arguments. R ² Q . ~P ² (S ´ R) .206 Hardegree. MTP1. construct a simple derivation of the conclusion (marked by ‘/’) from the premises. R ² P . ~~Q / ~~S P ´ Q . ~R / ~Q P ² ~Q . ~R / P ~P ² (Q ´ R) . P ² ~Q . ~R ² ~~Q . P ² Q .Q²R. P ² R . ~R / R ² S (P ² Q) ² (R ² S) . Symbolic Logic 20. (R ² P) ² ~P / Q (P ² Q) ´ R . ~R / S P ´ ~Q . (P ² Q) ² R . P ² Q / Q (P ² Q) ² (Q ² R) . P ´ R / R P ´ Q . R ´ ~P / R ~P ² (~Q ´ R) . (P ² Q) ² (Q ² R) / ~Q . (R ² T) ´ (P ² Q) . ~P . ~Q . and MTP2. ~S / ~P ~P ´ Q .R²S /S P ² Q . ~Q . ~~S / P (P ² Q) ´ (R ² S) . ~R ² S / S P ´ ~Q . P / R ~P ² Q .

~R & S . R ´ ~Q . Q . P ² R . Q ´ (P ² S) . R ² T . P ± ~S / S P & ~Q . V ² (S ² R) . construct a derivation of the conclusion (marked by ‘/’) from the premises. P ´ R . R ² ~S . (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (40) P & Q . (R ± S) ² T . Q ´ (R ² S) . ~T & P / Q & S P ² Q . ~V ² ~P . (P ´ R) ² S / P & S P . use the introduction-elimination rules. ~S ± T / ~T P & ~Q . U ± (~Q & T) / U .Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 207 EXERCISE SET B (Direct Derivation) Convert each of the simple derivations in Exercise Set A into a direct derivation. (P ´ Q) ² (R & S) . S ² ~R / ~S P & Q . Q ´ R . P ² (R & S) / Q & S P & Q . ~Q / S P&Q /Q&P P & (Q & R) / (P & Q) & R P /P&P P / P & (P ´ Q) P & ~P / Q P ± ~Q . (P ² Q) ² (Q ² P) . EXERCISE SET C (Direct Derivation) Directions for remaining exercises: For each of the following arguments. (P ± Q) ² P / P & Q ~P & Q . (R & ~P) ² S . (R ´ T) ² U / U P ² Q . ~R ² Q . ~Q / R & ~P P ² Q . (P & R) ² S / Q & S P ² Q . S / P P & Q . using the rules of System SL. (R ´ Q) ² (~S ² P) . (R & T) ± S / P & R P ² Q . (~P & S) ² T / T P ´ ~Q . (P ´ T) ² R . ~R ² (Q ² S) .

Symbolic Logic EXERCISE SET D (Conditional Derivation) (41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) (48) (49) (50) (P ´ Q) ² R / Q ² R Q ² R / (P & Q) ² (P & R) P ² Q / (Q ² R) ² (P ² R) P ² Q / (R ² P) ² (R ² Q) (P & Q) ² R / P ² (Q ² R) P ² (Q ² R) / (P ² Q) ² (P ² R) (P & Q) ² R / [(P ² Q) ² P] ² [(P ² Q) ² R] (P & Q) ² (R ² S) / (P ² Q) ² [(P & R) ² S] [(P & Q) & R] ² S / P ² [Q ² (R ² S)] (~P & Q) ² R / (~Q ² P) ² (~P ² R) .208 Hardegree.

Q ² ~P / ~P P ² Q . ~Q / ~(P ´ Q) P & Q / ~(~P ´ ~Q) ~P ´ ~Q / ~(P & Q) P ´ Q / ~(~P & ~Q) P ² Q / ~(P & ~Q) P ² (Q ² ~P) / P ² ~Q (P & Q) ² R / (P & ~R) ² ~Q (P & Q) ² ~R / P ² ~(Q & R) P ² ( Q ² R) / (Q & ~R) ² ~P P ² ~(Q & R) / (P & Q) ² ~R P ² ~(Q & R) / (P ² Q) ² (P ² ~R) P ² (Q ² R) / (P ² ~R) ² (P ² ~Q) . Q ² ~R / ~(P & Q) P & Q / ~(P ² ~Q) P & ~Q / ~(P ² Q) ~P / ~(P & Q) ~P & ~Q / ~(P ´ Q) P ± Q . ~Q ´ ~R .Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 209 EXERCISE SET E (Indirect Derivation – First Form) (51) (52) (53) (54) (55) (56) (57) (58) (59) (60) (61) (62) (63) (64) (65) (66) (67) (68) (69) (70) P ² Q . P ² R / ~P P ² R . P ² ~Q / ~P P ² Q .

Q ´ ~R / Q ~P ² R . (~S ´ T) ² (P & R) / S ~(P & ~Q) / P ² Q P ² (~Q ² R) / (P & ~R) ² Q P & (Q ´ R) / ~(P & Q) ² R P´Q /Q´P ~P ² Q / P ´ Q ~(P & Q) / ~P ´ ~Q P ² Q / ~P ´ Q P´Q.Q²S /R´S ~P ² Q . ~Q ´ ~S / P ´ R (P & ~Q) ² R / P ² (Q ´ R) ~P ² (~Q ´ R) / Q ² (P ´ R) P & (Q ´ R) / (P & Q) ´ R (P ´ Q) & (P ´ R) / P ´ (Q & R) (P ´ Q) ² (P & Q) / (P & Q) ´ (~P & ~Q) .P²R. ~R ² S . Symbolic Logic EXERCISE SET F (Indirect Derivation – Second Form) (71) (72) (73) (74) (75) (76) (77) (78) (79) (80) (81) (82) (83) (84) (85) (86) (87) (88) (89) (90) P ² Q .210 Hardegree. Q ² R . Q ´ S / Q (P ´ Q) ² (R ² S) . P ² R / Q ´ R ~P ² Q . P ² Q / R (P ´ ~Q) ² (R & ~S) . ~P ² Q / Q P ´ Q . P ² R .

Q ² ~P / ~P & ~Q (P ² Q) ´ (~Q ² R) / P ² (Q ´ R) P ´ Q .Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 211 EXERCISE SET G (Strategies) (91) (92) (93) (94) (95) (96) (97) (98) (99) P ² (Q & R) / (P ² Q) & (P ² R) (P ´ Q) ² R / (P ² R) & (Q ² R) (P ´ Q) ² (P & Q) / P ± Q P±Q /Q±P P ± Q / ~P ± ~Q P ± Q . P ² ~Q / (P & ~Q) ´ (Q & ~P) (101) (P ´ Q) ² (P & Q) / (~P ´ ~Q) ² (~P & ~Q) (102) P & (Q ´ R) / (P & Q) ´ (P & R) (103) (P & Q) ´ (P & R) / P & (Q ´ R) (104) P ´ (Q & R) / (P ´ Q) & (P ´ R) (105) (P & Q) ´ [(P & R) ´ (Q & R)] / P ´ (Q & R) (106) P ´ Q . ~(P & Q) / (P ² Q) ² ~(Q ² P) (100) P ´ Q . P ² ~Q / (P ² Q) ² (Q & ~P) P ´ Q . Q ´ R / [P & Q] ´ [(P & R) ´ (Q & R)] (107) (P ² Q) ´ (P ² R) / P ² (Q ´ R) (108) (P ² R) ´ (Q ² R) / (P & Q) ² R (109) P ± (Q & ~P) / ~(P ´ Q) (110) (P & Q) ´ (~P & ~Q) / P ± Q . P ´ R .

Symbolic Logic EXERCISE SET H (Miscellaneous) (111) P ² (Q ´ R) / (P ² Q) ´ (P ² R) (112) (P ± Q) ² R / P ² (Q ² R) (113) P ² (~Q ² R) / ~(P ² R) ² Q (114) (P & Q) ² R / (P ² R) ´ (Q ² R) (115) P ± ~Q / (P & ~Q) ´ (Q & ~P) (116) (P ² ~Q) ² R / ~(P & Q) ² R (117) P ± (Q & ~P) / ~P & ~Q (118) P / (P & Q) ´ (P & ~Q) (119) P ± ~P / Q (120) (P ± Q) ± R / P ± (Q ± R) .212 Hardegree.

MTP1 3.5.MT Pr Pr Pr 1. ANSWERS TO EXERCISES FOR CHAPTER 5 EXERCISE SET A #1: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) #2: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) #3: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) #4: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) #5: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) P P ² ~Q R²Q ~R ² S ~Q ~R S Pr Pr Pr Pr 1.MT 1.MTP2 3.5.4.MT 4.4.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 213 21.2.2.MP 4.MP 3.MP 3.2.2.MT 2.6.MP P P²Q Q²R R²S Q R S P²Q Q²R R²S ~S ~R ~Q ~P ~P ´ Q ~Q P´R ~P R P´Q ~P Q²R Q R Pr Pr Pr Pr 1.MTP1 Pr Pr Pr 1.6.MP Pr Pr Pr Pr 3.4.5.MP .6.

MP 2.MP Pr Pr Pr 1.MT 1.3.4. Symbolic Logic .MTP2 Hardegree.2.MP 2.MTP1 3.MP Pr Pr 1.MP Pr Pr Pr 1.3.MTP2 Pr Pr Pr 2.MP Pr Pr Pr 1.3.4.4.5.MP 3.MP 2.214 #6: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) #7: (1) (2) (3) (4) #8: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) #9: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) #10: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) #11: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) P ´ ~Q ~P R²Q ~R ² S ~Q ~R S (P ² Q) ² P P²Q P Q (P ² Q) ² R R²P P²Q R P Q (P ² Q) ² (Q ² R) P²Q P Q²R Q R ~P ² Q ~Q R ´ ~P ~~P R ~P ² (~Q ´ R) P²R ~R ~P ~Q ´ R ~Q Pr Pr Pr Pr 1.2.5.6.2.5.5.MP 4.MP 3.MT 3.2.3.MT 4.

3.MP 3.MTP1 #12: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) #13: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) #14: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) #15: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) #16: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) #17: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) P ² ~Q ~S ² P ~~Q ~P ~~S P´Q Q²R ~R ~Q P ~P ² (Q ´ R) P²Q ~Q ~P Q´R R P²R ~P ² (S ´ R) ~R ~P S´R S P ´ ~Q ~R ² ~~Q R ² ~S ~~S ~R ~~Q P (P ² Q) ´ (R ² S) (P ² Q) ² R ~R ~(P ² Q) R²S .3.MTP2 Pr Pr Pr 2.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 215 Pr Pr Pr 1.MT 1.5.MT 2.5.4.6.MTP2 Pr Pr Pr Pr 3.MT Pr Pr Pr 2.MT 1.4.4.MP 1.4.MT 2.MTP1 Pr Pr Pr 1.4.MTP2 Pr Pr Pr 2.4.3.MT 2.MT 1.6.3.3.MP 3.

4.216 #18: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) #19: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) #20: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (P ² Q) ² (R ² S) (R ² T) ´ (P ² Q) ~(R ² T) P²Q R²S ~R ² (P ´ Q) R²P (R ² P) ² ~P ~P ~R P´Q Q (P ² Q) ´ R [(P ² Q) ´ R] ² ~R (P ² Q) ² (Q ² R) ~R P²Q Q²R ~Q Pr Pr Pr 2.6.5.5. Symbolic Logic EXERCISE SETS B-H #1: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) #2: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) P P²Q Q²R R²S -: S |Q |R |S P²Q Q²R R²S ~S -: ~P |~R |~Q |~P Pr Pr Pr Pr DD 1.MTP2 3.²O .4.MP 1.3.MP 4.²O 3.2.MTP1 1.6.MP 2.7.7.4.²O 4.²O 1.²O Pr Pr Pr Pr DD 3.MP 4.6.4.MT Hardegree.²O 2.MTP1 Pr Pr Pr 1.MP Pr Pr Pr 2.2.3.6.MT 1.

7.´O 3.²O 4.²O 2.2.7.6.5.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 217 Pr Pr Pr DD 1.²O Pr Pr DD 1.²O Pr Pr Pr Pr DD 1.4.²O 4.2.2.´O Pr Pr Pr DD 1.´O 3.²O 3.2.5.´O 3.²O #3: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) #4: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) #5: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) #6: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) #7: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) ~P ´ Q ~Q P´R -: R |~P |R P´Q ~P Q²R -: R |Q |R P P ² ~Q R²Q ~R ² S -: S |~Q |~R |S P ´ ~Q ~P R²Q ~R ² S -: S |~Q |~R |S (P ² Q) ² P P²Q -: Q |P |Q .²O Pr Pr Pr Pr DD 1.6.2.

5.3.²O 2.²O 1.5.5.²O Pr Pr Pr DD 1.5.3.²O 2.²O 3.6. Symbolic Logic .3.²O 3.3.5.²O 1.´O Pr Pr Pr DD 2.²O 3.´O Hardegree.2.3.6.²O Pr Pr Pr DD 2.218 #8: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) #9: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) #10: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) #11: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) #12: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) #13: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (P ² Q) ² R R²P P²Q -: Q |R |P |Q (P ² Q) ² (Q ² R) P²Q P -: R |Q ² R |Q |R ~P ² Q ~Q R ´ ~P -: R |~~P |R ~P ² (~Q ´ R) P²R ~R -: ~Q |~P |~Q ´ R |~Q P ² ~Q ~S ² P ~~Q -: ~~S |~P |~~S P´Q Q²R ~R -: P |~Q |P Pr Pr Pr DD 1.²O Pr Pr Pr DD 1.2.6.²O 2.²O 5.´O Pr Pr Pr DD 1.

´O Pr Pr Pr Pr DD 3.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 219 Pr Pr Pr DD 2.²O 2.´O 1.3.´O Pr Pr Pr DD 2.5.´O Pr Pr Pr DD 2.5.6.²O 3.²O 3.5.´O Pr Pr Pr DD 1.²O #14: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) #15: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) #16: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) #17: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) #18: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) ~P ² (Q ´ R) P²Q ~Q -: R |~P |Q ´ R |R P²R ~P ² (S ´ R) ~R -: S |~P |S ´ R |S P ´ ~Q ~R ² ~~Q R ² ~S ~~S -: P |~R |~~Q |P (P ² Q) ´ (R ² S) (P ² Q) ² R ~R -: R ² S |~(P ² Q) |R ² S (P ² Q) ² (R ² S) (R ² T) ´ (P ² Q) ~(R ² T) -: R ² S |P ² Q |R ² S .3.6.5.²O 1.6.²O 2.3.4.3.7.²O 1.²O 1.

&O 7.&O 2.6.²O 5.4.´O Pr Pr Pr DD 1.220 #19: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) #20: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) #21: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) #22: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) #23: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) P (P ´ Q) ² (R & S) (R ´ T) ² U -: U |P ´ Q |R & S |R |R ´ T |U Pr Pr Pr DD 1.2.5.7.²O 4.´I 3.&O 4.3.6.´O 3.&O 1.²O Hardegree.²O 2.5.²O P&Q (P ´ R) ² S -: P & S |P |P ´ R |S |P & S Pr Pr DD 1.&O 5.´I 2.8. Symbolic Logic .²O 1.5.²O 6.²O 5.7.6.&I ~R ² (P ´ Q) R²P (R ² P) ² ~P -: Q |~P |~R |P ´ Q |Q (P ² Q) ´ R [(P ² Q) ´ R] ² ~R (P ² Q) ² (Q ² R) -: ~Q |~R |P ² Q |Q ² R |~Q Pr Pr Pr DD 2.7.²O 6.&I P&Q P ² (R & S) -: Q & S |P |Q |R & S |S |Q & S Pr Pr DD 1.²O 1.5.´I 2.

²O 4.´O 5.²O 8.7.&O 3.&I 4.²O 8.´O 1.DN 3.7.9.²O 2.9.²O 7.DN 1.10:²O 10.6.6.²O 2.11.&O 2.8.&O 1.&O 3.&I Pr Pr Pr Pr DD 3.9.6.3.²O 2.6.´O #24: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) #25: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) #26: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) #27: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) P²Q P´R ~Q -: R & ~P |~P |R |R & ~P P²Q ~R ² (Q ² S) R²T ~T & P -: Q & S |~T |~R |Q ² S |P |Q |S |Q & S P²Q R ´ ~Q ~R & S (~P & S) ² T -: T |~R |S |~Q |~P |~P & S |T P ´ ~Q ~R ² Q R ² ~S S -: P |~~S |~R |Q |~~Q |P .&I Pr Pr Pr Pr DD 4.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 221 Pr Pr Pr DD 1.²O Pr Pr Pr Pr DD 4.10.5.

4.²O 7.&O 2.8.&O 3.5.5.4.&I 3.´O 6.&I 4.6.&O 3.&I P&Q -: Q & P |P |Q |Q & P Pr DD 1.²O 2.7.²O 1.&O 8.&O 5.²O P&Q (P ´ T) ² R S ² ~R -: ~S |P |P ´ T |R |~~R |~S Pr Pr Pr DD 1.&I P&Q P²R (P & R) ² S -: Q & S |P |R |P & R |S |Q |Q & S P²Q Q´R (R & ~P) ² S ~Q -: S |~P |R |R & ~P |S Pr Pr Pr DD 1.&I Pr Pr Pr Pr DD 1. Symbolic Logic .7.&O 1.8.´I 2.9.4.²O 5.222 #28: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) #29: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) #30: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) #31: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) #32: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) P & (Q & R) -: (P & Q) & R |P |Q & R |Q |P & Q |R |(P & Q) & R Pr DD 1.²O Hardegree.&O 4.&O 1.DN 3.&I 3.&O 6.6.7.

DN Pr Pr Pr DD 1.6.8.DN 5.&I Pr DD 1.²O 3.&O 1.´I 4.²O 3.´O Pr Pr Pr DD 1.9.²O 10:&O 5.&O 1.²O 9.&O 2.11.6.1.±O 7.´I 1.±O 8.&O 3.´O 5.5.3.&I Pr DD 1.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 223 Pr DD 1.&I #33: (1) (2) (3) #34: (1) (2) (3) (4) #35: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) #36: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) #37: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) P -: P & (P ´ Q) |P ´ Q |P & (P ´ Q) P & ~P -: Q |P |~P |P ´ Q |Q P ± ~Q Q P ± ~S -: S |P ² ~Q |~~Q |~P |~S ² P |~~S |S P & ~Q Q ´ (P ² S) (R & T) ± S -: P & R |P |~Q |P ² S |S |S ² (R & T) |R & T |R |P & R P -: P & P |P & P .±O 2.7.

&O 5. Symbolic Logic .&O 2.14.9.²O Hardegree.&I 6.16.±I 3.11.10.²O 1.2.´O 12.7.13.²O 3.&O 7.224 #38: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) #39: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) #40: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) P²Q (P ² Q) ² (Q ² P) (P ± Q) ² P -: P & Q |Q ² P |P ± Q |P |Q |P & Q ~P & Q (R ´ Q) ² (~S ² P) ~S ± T -: ~T |Q |R ´ Q |~S ² P |~P |~~S |T ² ~S |~T P & ~Q Q ´ (R ² S) ~V ² ~P V ² (S ² R) (R ± S) ² T U ± (~Q & T) -: U |P |~~P |~~V |V |S ² R |~Q |R ² S |R ± S |T |~Q & T |(~Q & T) ² U |U Pr Pr Pr DD 1.±O 9.18.15.²O 1.6.±O 17.8.DN 3.´I 2.5.²O 1.8.&O 8.&I Pr Pr Pr DD 1.²O 7.²O 13.DN 4.²O 10.6.±I 5.²O Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr DD 1.²O 1.

5.5.²O 1.²O 3.7.7.&I 1.²O #41: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) #42: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) #43: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) #44: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) #45: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (P ´ Q) ² R -: Q ² R |Q |-: R ||P ´ Q ||R Q²R -: (P & Q) ² (P & R) |P & Q |-: P & R ||P ||Q ||R ||P & R P²Q -: (Q ² R) ² (P ² R) |Q ² R |-: P ² R ||P ||-: R |||Q |||R P²Q -: (R ² P) ² (R ² Q) |R ² P |-: R ² Q ||R ||-: Q |||P |||Q (P & Q) ² R -: P ² (Q ² R) |P |-: Q ² R ||Q ||-: R |||P & Q |||R .5.²O Pr CD As CD As DD 3.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 225 Pr CD As DD 3.²O Pr CD As CD As DD 3.²O 5.5.&O 1.7.6.&I Pr CD As CD As DD 1.7.²O Pr CD As DD 3.&O 3.´I 1.

226 #46: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) #47: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) #48: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) #49: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) P ² (Q ² R) -: (P ² Q) ² (P ² R) |P ² Q |-: P ² R ||P ||-: R |||Q |||Q ² R |||R Pr CD As CD As DD 3. Symbolic Logic (P & Q) ² R Pr -: [(P²Q)²P]²[(P²Q)²R] CD |(P ² Q) ² P As |-: (P ² Q) ² R CD ||P ² Q As ||-: R DD |||P 3.8.10.&I |||R 1.&I |||R ² S 1.8.5.&I 1.²O .9.&I 7.5.9.5.²O |||P & Q 7.²O Hardegree.&O |||S 10:11²O [(P & Q) & R] ² S -: P ² [Q ² (R ² S)] |P |-: Q ² (R ² S) ||Q ||-: R ² S |||R |||-: S ||||P & Q ||||(P & Q) & R ||||S Pr CD As CD As CD As DD 3.&O |||Q 3.7.8.5.²O (P & Q) ² (R ² S) Pr -: (P ² Q) ² [(P & R) ² S] CD |P ² Q As |-: (P & R) ² S CD ||P & R As ||-: S DD |||P 5.7.²O |||R 5.²O |||Q 5.²O 7.²O 1.²O |||P & Q 7.9.

&I 1.9.¸I Pr Pr Pr ID As DD 1.5.²O 6.DN 2.²O 6.4.4.²O 7.4.10.DN 5.²O 4.¸I Pr Pr ID As DD 1.´O 3.5.7.9:²O 5.8.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 227 Pr CD As CD As DD 3.8.²O Pr Pr ID As DD 1.²O 7.DN 2.¸I #50: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) #51: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) #52: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) #53: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (~P & Q) ² R -: (~Q ² P) ² (~P ² R) |~Q ² P |-: ~P ² R ||~P ||-: R |||~~Q |||Q |||~P & Q |||R P²Q P ² ~Q -: ~P |P |-: ¸ ||Q ||~Q ||¸ P²Q Q ² ~P -: ~P |P |-: ¸ ||Q ||~~P ||~Q ||¸ P²Q ~Q ´ ~R P²R -: ~P |P |-: ¸ ||Q ||~~Q ||~R ||~P ||¸ .²O 2.8.7.

Symbolic Logic .7.5.&O 1.&O 1.7.5.²O 8.&O 4.²O 6.5.´O 6.¸I Hardegree.7.7.&O 3.&O 3.6.5.¸I P²R Q ² ~R -: ~(P & Q) |P & Q |-: ¸ ||P ||Q ||R ||~R ||¸ Pr Pr ID As DD 4.¸I Pr ID As DD 1.&O 1.&O 1.9.¸I Pr ID As DD 3.²O 2.&O 1.228 #54: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) #55: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) #56: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) #57: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) #58: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) P&Q -: ~(P ² ~Q) |P ² ~Q |-: ¸ ||P ||Q ||~Q ||¸ P & ~Q -: ~(P ² Q) |P ² Q |-: ¸ ||P ||~Q ||Q ||¸ ~P -: ~(P & Q) |P & Q |-: ¸ ||P ||¸ ~P & ~Q -: ~(P ´ Q) |P ´ Q |-: ¸ ||~P ||~Q ||Q ||¸ Pr ID As DD 1.&O 3.¸I Pr ID As DD 1.²O 6.

7.´O 6.²O 2.&O 1.7.DN 3.¸I Pr ID As DD 3.4.&O 1.´O 1.7.DN 1.¸I Pr ID As DD 1.±O 6.&O 3.8.8.&O 5.7.8.´O 6.5.´O 6.&O 3:&O 5.¸I Pr ID As DD 3.¸I #59: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) #60: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) #61: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) #62: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) P±Q ~Q -: ~(P ´ Q) |P ´ Q |-: ¸ ||P ||P ² Q ||Q ||¸ P&Q -: ~(~P ´ ~Q) |~P ´ ~Q |-: ¸ ||P ||Q ||~~P ||~Q ||¸ ~P ´ ~Q -: ~(P & Q) |P & Q |-: ¸ ||P ||Q ||~~P ||~Q ||¸ P´Q -: ~(~P & ~Q) |~P & ~Q |-: ¸ ||~P ||~Q ||Q ||¸ .Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 229 Pr Pr ID As DD 2.

¸I Pr CD As ID As DD 5.&O 3.¸I Hardegree.²O 3.&O 1.&O 9.10.&O 3.5.¸I Pr CD As ID As DD 1.&I 1.3.7.²O 6.8.&O 9.¸I Pr CD As ID As DD 3.7.230 #63: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) #64: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) #65: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) #66: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) P²Q -: ~(P & ~Q) |P & ~Q |-: ¸ ||P ||~Q ||Q ||¸ P ² (Q ² ~P) -: P ² ~Q |P |-: ~Q ||Q ||-: ¸ ||Q ² ~P ||~P ||¸ (P & Q) ² R -: (P & ~R) ² ~Q |P & ~R |-: ~Q ||Q ||-: ¸ |||P |||P & Q |||R |||~R |||¸ (P & Q) ² ~R -: P ² ~(Q & R) |P |-: ~(Q & R) ||Q & R ||-: ¸ |||Q |||P & Q |||~R |||R |||¸ Pr ID As DD 3.&I 1.8. Symbolic Logic .²O 5.&O 5.10.²O 5.7.²O 3.7.8.

¸I Pr CD As CD As ID As DD 3.5.¸I #67: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) #68: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) #69: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) P ² (Q ² R) -: (Q & ~R) ² ~P |Q & ~R |-: ~P ||P ||-: ¸ |||Q ² R |||Q |||R |||~R |||¸ P ² ~(Q & R) -: (P & Q) ² ~R |P & Q |-: ~R ||R ||-: ¸ |||P |||Q |||Q & R |||~(Q & R) |||¸ P ² ~(Q & R) -: (P ² Q) ² (P ² ~R) |P ² Q |-: P ² ~R ||P ||-: ~R |||R |||-: ¸ ||||Q ||||Q & R ||||~(Q & R) ||||¸ .&I 1.²O 10.²O 9:10.²O 3.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 231 Pr CD As ID As DD 1.&I 1.7.&O 7.5.8.11.&O 3.5.²O 3.8.9.10.¸I Pr CD As ID As DD 3.&O 9.&O 5.²O 7.

¸I Pr Pr ID As DD 1.´O 8.5.¸I Pr Pr Pr ID As DD 1.5.9.²O 9.7.´O 2.²O 3.10.9.10.232 #70: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) #71: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) #72: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) #73: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) P ² (Q ² R) -: (P ² ~R) ² (P ² ~Q) |P ² ~R |-: P ² ~Q ||P ||-: ~Q |||Q |||-: ¸ |||Q ² R |||~R |||~Q |||¸ P²Q ~P ² Q -: Q |~Q |-: ¸ ||~P ||~~P ||¸ P´Q P²R Q ´ ~R -: Q |~Q |-: ¸ ||P ||R ||~R ||¸ ~P ² R Q²R P²Q -: R |~R |-: ¸ ||~Q ||~~P ||P ||Q ||¸ Pr CD As CD As ID As DD 1.4.5.4.7.5.¸I Pr Pr Pr ID As DD 2.²O 2.DN 3.²O 7.11.²O 3.²O 7.¸I Hardegree.5.²O 6.²O 1.²O 8. Symbolic Logic .5.

7.²O 8.´I 1.²O 7.10.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 233 Pr Pr ID As DD 4.¸I Pr CD As ID As DD 3.4.12.&O 10.´I 2.²O 4.11.&O 3.²O 7.¸I #74: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) #75: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) #76: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) #77: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (P ´ ~Q) ² (R & ~S) Q´S -: Q |~Q |-: ¸ ||P ´ ~Q ||R & ~S ||~S ||S ||¸ (P ´ Q) ² (R ² S) (~S ´ T) ² (P & R) -: S |~S |-: ¸ ||~S ´ T ||P & R ||P ||P ´ Q ||R ² S ||R ||S ||¸ ~(P & ~Q) -: P ² Q |P |-: Q ||~Q ||-: ¸ |||P & ~Q |||¸ P ² (~Q ² R) -: (P & ~R) ² Q |P & ~R |-: Q ||~Q ||-: ¸ ||P ||~R ||~Q ² R ||~~Q ||¸ .6.²O 7.9.¸I Pr CD As ID As DD 3.7.´O 8.¸I Pr Pr ID As DD 4.5.6.9.&O 1.²O 5.&O 8.&O 2.9.&I 1.´I 1.

²O 6.10.´O 1.&I 1.¸I Pr ID As DD 3.234 #78: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) #79: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) #80: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) #81: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) P & (Q ´ R) -: ~(P & Q) ² R |~(P & Q) |-: R ||~R ||-: ¸ |||Q ´ R |||Q |||P |||P & Q |||¸ Pr CD As ID As DD 1.~´O 1.~´O 1.&O 5.9.DN 6.7.&I 3.7.~´O 3.~´O 5.¸I Hardegree.9.6.7.~´O 3.¸I .5.&O 8.~´O 3.8.¸I Pr ID As DD 3. Symbolic Logic P´Q -: Q ´ P |~(Q ´ P) |-: ¸ ||~Q ||~P ||Q ||¸ ~P ² Q -: P ´ Q |~(P ´ Q) |-: ¸ |||~P |||~Q |||Q |||¸ ~(P & Q) -: ~P ´ ~Q |~(~P ´ ~Q) |-: ¸ ||~~P ||~~Q ||P ||Q ||P & Q ||¸ Pr ID As DD 3.DN 7.´O 5.

²O 8.11.~´O 5.¸I #82: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) #83: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) #84: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) P²Q -: ~P ´ Q |~(~P ´ Q) |-: ¸ ||~~P ||~Q ||P ||Q ||¸ P´Q P²R Q²S -: R ´ S |~(R ´ S) |-: ¸ ||~R ||~S ||~P ||~Q ||Q ||¸ ~P ² Q P²R -: Q ´ R |~(Q ´ R) |-: ¸ ||~Q ||~R ||~~P ||P ||R ||¸ .~´O 5.6.~´O 2.9.²O 6.´O 10.8.²O 3.7.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 235 Pr ID As DD 3.7.¸I Pr Pr Pr ID As DD 5.~´O 4.~´O 1.²O 7.DN 1.~´O 3.²O 1.8.DN 2.9.¸I Pr Pr ID As DD 4.10.

~´O 1.~´O 3.8.´O 3.&I 1.~´O 5.~´O 1.12.DN 3.7.8.7.²O 2.7.11.´O 10.²O 9.~´O 9.¸I Hardegree.¸I Pr CD As ID As DD 5. Symbolic Logic .10.~´O 5.9.²O 5.236 #85: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) #86: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) #87 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) ~P ² Q ~R ² S ~Q ´ ~S -: P ´ R |~(P ´ R) |-: ¸ ||~P ||~R ||Q ||S ||~~Q ||~S ||¸ (P & ~Q) ² R -: P ² (Q ´ R) |P |-: Q ´ R ||~(Q ´ R) ||-: ¸ |||~Q |||P & ~Q |||R |||~R |||¸ ~P ² (~Q ´ R) -: Q ² (P ´ R) |Q |-: P ´ R ||~(P ´ R) ||-: ¸ |||~P |||~R |||~Q ´ R |||~Q |||¸ Pr Pr Pr ID As DD 5.²O 8.10.¸I Pr CD As ID As DD 5.

&I 6.~´O 1.8.&I 5.²O 7.´O 1.~´O 3.9.9.&O 5.&O 1.~´O 8.10.10.¸I #88: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) #89: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) #90: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) P & (Q ´ R) -: (P & Q) ´ R |~[(P & Q) ´ R] |-: ¸ ||~(P & Q) ||~R || P || Q ´ R || Q || P & Q || ¸ (P ´ Q) & (P ´ R) -: P ´ (Q & R) |~[P ´ (Q & R)] |-: ¸ ||~P ||~(Q & R) ||P ´ Q ||Q ||P ´ R ||R ||Q & R ||¸ (P ´ Q) ² (P & Q) -: (P&Q) ´ (~P & ~ Q) |~[(P & Q) ´ (~P & ~Q)] |-: ¸ ||~(P & Q) ||~(~P & ~Q) ||~(P ´ Q) ||~P ||~Q ||~P & ~Q ||¸ .´O 8.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 237 Pr ID As DD 3.~´O 3.~´O 1.&O 6.¸I Pr ID As DD 3.&I 6.9.~´O 1.~´O 7.7.~´O 3.10.´O 7.5.&O 5.11¸I Pr ID As DD 3.

±I Hardegree.²O 11&O 3.&O CD As DD 10.12. Symbolic Logic .´I 1.6.²O 3.´I 1.8.4.²O 7.238 #91: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) #92: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) #93: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) P ² (Q & R) -: (P ² Q) & (P ² R) |-: P ² Q ||P ||-: Q |||Q & R |||Q |-: P ² R ||P ||-: R |||Q & R |||R |(P ² Q) & (P ² R) (P ´ Q) ² R -: (P ² R) & (Q ² R) |-: P ² R ||P ||-: R |||P ´ Q |||R |-: Q ² R ||Q ||-: R |||P ´ Q |||R |(P ² R) & (Q ² R) (P ´ Q) ² (P & Q) -: P ± Q |-: P ² Q || P ||-: Q |||P ´ Q |||P & Q |||Q |-: Q ² P || Q ||-: P |||P ´ Q |||P & Q |||P |P ± Q Pr DD CD As DD 1.²O CD As DD 9.´I 1.9.´I 1.6.&I Pr DD CD As DD 4.&O CD As DD 1.&O 3.8.&I Pr DD CD As DD 4.²O 6.²O 13.11.9.

²O 15.7.±O 1.8.9.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 239 Pr DD 1.±I Pr DD CD As DD 1.²O 2.11.&I #94: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) #95: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) #96: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) P±Q -: Q ± P |P ² Q |Q ² P |Q ± P P±Q -: ~P ± ~Q |-: ~P ² ~Q || ~P ||-: ~Q |||Q ² P |||~Q |-: ~Q ² ~P ||~Q ||-: ~P |||P ² Q |||~P | ~P ± ~Q P±Q Q ² ~P -: ~P & ~Q |-: ~P ||P ||-: ¸ |||P ² Q |||Q |||~P |||¸ |-: ~Q ||Q ||-: ¸ |||Q ² P |||P |||~P |||¸ |~P & ~Q .±O 9.14.16.±O 4.11.²O 2.4.²O 3.±O 3.¸I 4.±O 12.²O 5.²O CD As DD 1.±O 5.6.8.¸I ID As DD 1.±I Pr Pr DD ID As DD 1.12.

7.13.¸I ID As DD 4.~´O 5.~´O ID As DD 3.13.²O 2.²O 1.²O 8.16.12.¸I 6.240 #97: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) #98: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (P ² Q) ´ (~Q ² R) -: P ² (Q ´ R) |P |-: Q ´ R ||~(Q ´ R) ||-: ¸ |||~Q |||~R |||-: ~(P ² Q) ||||P ² Q ||||-: ¸ |||||Q |||||¸ |||~Q ² R |||R |||¸ P´Q P ² ~Q -: (P ² Q) ² (Q & ~P) |P ² Q |-: Q & ~P ||-: Q |||~Q |||-: ¸ ||||~P ||||P ||||¸ ||-: ~P |||P |||-: ¸ ||||Q ||||~Q ||||¸ ||Q & ~P Pr CD As ID As DD 5.10.¸I Pr Pr CD As DD ID As DD 4.²O 7.7.²O 15.10.15.¸I 1.´O 7.´O 9.&I Hardegree.14. Symbolic Logic .9.12.

9.8.´O 6.9.~´O ID As DD 2.9.&I 2.~´O 4.¸I Pr Pr ID As DD 4.¸I 4.12.²O 11.&I 6.²O 8.15.´O 8.²O 9.15.14.12.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 241 Pr Pr CD As ID As DD ID As DD 1.¸I #99: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) #100: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) P´Q ~(P & Q) -: (P ² Q) ² ~(Q ² P) |P ² Q |-: ~(Q ² P) ||Q ² P ||-: ¸ ||| -: P ||||~P ||||-: ¸ |||||Q |||||~Q |||||¸ |||Q |||P & Q |||¸ P´Q P ² ~Q -: (P & ~Q) ´ (Q & ~P) |~[(P & ~Q) ´ (Q & ~P)] |-: ¸ ||~(P & ~Q) ||~(Q & ~P) ||-: ~P |||P |||-: ¸ ||||~Q ||||P & ~Q ||||¸ ||Q ||Q & ~P ||¸ .11.¸I 1.8.&I 7.14.

´O 18.¸I Hardegree.12.14.DN 3.13.&O 11.´O 9.16.&O 11.242 #101: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) #102: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (P ´ Q) ² (P & Q) -: (~P ´ ~Q) ² (~P & ~Q) |~P ´ ~Q |-: ~P & ~Q ||-: ~P |||P |||-: ¸ ||||P ´ Q ||||P & Q ||||~~P ||||~Q ||||Q ||||¸ ||-: ~Q |||Q |||-: ¸ ||||P ´ Q ||||P & Q ||||~~Q ||||~P ||||P ||||¸ ||~P & ~Q P & (Q ´ R) -: (P & Q) ´ (P & R) |~[(P & Q) ´ (P & R)] |-: ¸ ||~(P & Q) ||~(P & R) ||-: Q |||~Q |||-: ¸ ||||Q ´ R ||||R ||||P ||||P & R ||||¸ || P || P & Q || ¸ Pr CD As DD ID As DD 6.19.8.²O 6.12.10.10.¸I 1. Symbolic Logic .´O 1.DN 3.15.¸I ID As DD 15.&I 5.&O 8.&O 20.´I 1.17.&I 6.21.~´O ID As DD 1.&I Pr ID As DD 3.&O 7.²O 15.´I 1.~´O 3.¸I 5.

´O 13.~´O 1.&O 7.11.9.14.9.&O 19.~´O 4.¸I ID As DD 17.´O 16.&I #103: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) #104: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (P & Q) ´ (P & R) -: P & (Q ´ R) |-: P ||~P ||-: ¸ |||-: ~(P & Q) ||||P & Q ||||-: ¸ |||||P |||||¸ |||P & R |||P |||¸ |-: Q ´ R ||~(Q ´ R) ||-: ¸ |||~Q |||~R |||-: ~(P & Q) ||||P & Q ||||-: ¸ |||||Q |||||¸ P ´ (Q & R) -: (P ´ Q) & (P ´ R) |-: P ´ Q ||~(P ´ Q) ||-: ¸ |||~P |||~Q |||Q & R |||Q |||¸ |-: P ´ R ||~(P ´ R) ||-: ¸ |||~P |||~R |||Q & R |||Q |||¸ |(P ´ Q) & (P ´ R) .&O 4.~´O 17.~´O 1.24.&O 4.17.~´O ID As DD 22.¸I ID As DD 12.6.6.¸I 3.´O 8.~´O 12.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 243 Pr DD ID As DD ID As DD 7.14.¸I Pr DD ID As DD 4.&O 15.¸I 1.

7.²O |||R 3.18.´O ||R 2.¸I Hardegree.~´O ||~(Q & R) 8. Symbolic Logic P´Q Pr P´R Pr Q´R Pr -: (P&Q)´[(P&R)´(Q&R)] ID |~{(P&Q)´[(P&R)´(Q&R)]} As |-: ¸ DD ||~(P & Q) 5.¸I .²O |||~R 11.20.~&O ||Q ² ~R 9.´O |||¸ 17.~´O ||~[(P & R) ´ (Q & R)] 5.13.22.10.244 #105: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) #106: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (P&Q) ´ [(P&R) ´ (Q&R)] -: P ´ (Q & R) |~[P ´ (Q & R)] |-: ¸ ||~P ||~(Q & R) ||-: ~(P & Q) |||P & Q |||-: ¸ ||||P ||||¸ ||(P & R) ´ (Q & R) ||P & R ||P ||¸ Pr ID As DD 3.~&O ||-: ~P ID |||P As |||-: ¸ DD |||~Q 10.´O 13.~´O ||P ² ~Q 7.~&O ||P ² ~R 8.~´O ||~(P & R) 8.14.¸I ||Q 1.´O 6.~´O ID As DD 8.&O 5.14.~´O 3.14.²O ||¸ 21.16.12.´O ||~R 12.&O 5.¸I 1.13.

²O 8.¸I Pr CD As ID As DD ID As DD 3.10.&O 8.15.12.14.¸I #107: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) #108: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (P ² Q) ´ (P ² R) -: P ² (Q ´ R) |P |-: Q ´ R ||~(Q ´ R) ||-: ¸ |||~Q |||~R |||-: ~(P ² Q) ||||P ² Q ||||-: ¸ |||||Q |||||¸ |||P ² R |||R |||¸ (P ² R) ´ (Q ² R) -: (P & Q) ² R |P & Q |-: R ||~R ||-: ¸ |||-: ~(P ² R) ||||P ² R ||||-: ¸ |||||P |||||R |||||¸ |||Q ² R |||Q |||R |||¸ .~´O 5.²O 5.9 ´O 3.¸I 1.²O 5.´O 3.10.¸I 1.14.7.²O 7.&O 13.11.15.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 245 Pr CD As ID As DD 5.~´O ID As DD 3.

&O 4.27.21.±I Hardegree.9. Symbolic Logic .24.246 #109: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) #110: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) P ± (Q & ~P) -: ~(P ´ Q) |P ´ Q |-: ¸ ||P ² (Q & ~P) ||-: P |||~P |||-: ¸ ||||Q ||||Q & ~P ||||(Q & ~P) ² P ||||P ||||¸ ||Q & ~P ||~P ||¸ (P & Q) ´ (~P & ~Q) -: P ± Q |-: P ² Q || P ||-: Q |||~Q |||-: ¸ ||||-: ~(P & Q) |||||P & Q |||||-: ¸ ||||||Q ||||||¸ ||||~P & ~Q ||||~P ||||¸ |-: Q ² P || Q ||-: P |||~P |||-: ¸ ||||-: ~(P & Q) |||||P & Q |||||-: ¸ ||||||P ||||||¸ ||||~P & ~Q ||||~Q ||||¸ |P ± Q Pr ID As DD 1.14.¸I 1.¸I 3.¸I 1.¸I 5.¸I CD As ID As DD ID As DD 22.&O 6.&O 17.±O ID As DD 3.&I 1.´O 7.²O 7.15.12.6.7.¸I Pr DD CD As ID As DD ID As DD 9.&O 6.&O 26.16.11.&O 19.´O 13.²O 14.²O 10.8.12.

9.±O 5.11.10.11.&O 7.²O 5.²O 9.~²O 7.&O 7.~±O 9.12.²O 9.&O 1.12.~´O 5.&O 8.~²O 6.¸I Pr CD As ID As DD 3.¸I Pr CD As CD As DD As DD 1.7.13.²O 10.¸I #111: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) #112: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) #113: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) P ² (Q ´ R) -: (P ² Q) ´ (P ² R) |~[(P ² Q) ´ (P ² R)] |-: ¸ ||~(P ² Q) ||~(P ² R) || P & ~Q || P & ~R || P || ~Q || ~R || Q ´ R || R || ¸ (P ± Q) ² R -: P ² (Q ² R) |P |-: Q ² R ||Q ||-: R |||~R |||-: ¸ ||||~(P ± Q) ||||~P ± Q ||||Q ² ~P ||||~P ||||¸ P ² (~Q ² R) -: ~(P ² R) ² Q |~(P ² R) |-: Q ||~Q ||-: ¸ |||P & ~R |||P |||~R |||~Q ² R |||R |||¸ .Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 247 Pr ID As DD 3.~²O 7.8.´O 11.²O 3.~´O 3.&O 1.

248 #114: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) #115: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) #116: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (P & Q) ² R -: (P ² R) ´ (Q ² R) |~[(P ² R) ´ (Q ² R)] |-: ¸ ||~(P ² R) ||~(Q ² R) ||P & ~R ||Q & ~R ||P ||~R ||Q ||P & Q ||R ||¸ P ± ~Q -: (P & ~Q) ´ (Q & ~P) |~[(P & ~Q) ´ (Q & ~P)] |-: ¸ ||~(P & ~Q) ||~(Q & ~P) ||P ² ~~Q ||Q ² ~~P ||P ² ~Q ||~Q ² P ||-: ~P |||P |||-: ¸ ||||~~Q ||||~Q ||||¸ ||~~Q ||~~~P ||~Q ||¸ (P ² ~Q) ² R -: ~(P & Q) ² R |~(P & Q) |-: R ||P ² ~Q ||R Pr ID As DD 3.19.¸I Pr CD As DD 3.²O 14.11.±O ID As DD 7.~²O 7.~´O 5.~´O 3.~´O 5.~&O 6.²O Hardegree.&O 9.13.¸I 10.&I 1.12.DN 8.±O 1.¸I Pr ID As DD 3.²O 9.11.²O 10.12.5.~&O 1. Symbolic Logic .²O 17.&O 7.18.~²O 6.²O 11.12.&O 7.15.~&O 1.~´O 3.

²O 7.±O ID As DD 6.~&O 6.±O 1.~´O 3.¸I #117: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) #118: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) #119: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) P ± (Q & ~P) -: ~P & ~Q |-: ~P || P ||-: ¸ |||P ² (Q & ~P) |||Q & ~P |||~P |||¸ |-: ~Q || Q ||-: ¸ |||Q & ~P |||(Q & ~P) ² P |||P |||¸ |~P & ~Q P -: (P & Q) ´ (P & ~Q) |~[(P & Q) ´ (P & ~Q)] |-: ¸ ||~(P & Q) ||~(P & ~Q) ||P ² ~Q ||P ² ~~Q ||~Q ||~~Q ||¸ P ± ~P -: Q |~Q |-: ¸ ||P ² ~P ||~P ² P ||-: P |||~P |||-: ¸ ||||P ||||¸ ||~P ||¸ .¸I ID As DD 3.&I Pr ID As DD 3.10.²O 8.~´O 5.¸I 5.15.7.6.²O 1.²O 9.±O 4.10.²O 3.²O 7.~&O 1.8.10.11.&O 4.¸I Pr ID As DD 1.8.14.±O 13.¸I 3.Chapter 5: Derivations in Sentential Logic 249 Pr DD ID As DD 1.&I 1.7.12.8.

20.18.R CD As DD 4.250 #120: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (40) (41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) (48) (49) (50) (51) (52) (53) (54) (55) (P ± Q) ± R -: P ± (Q ± R) |-: P ² (Q ± R) ||P ||-: Q ± R |||-: Q ² R ||||Q ||||-: R |||||-: P ² Q ||||||P ||||||-: Q |||||||Q |||||-: Q ² P ||||||Q ||||||-: P |||||||P |||||P ± Q |||||(P ± Q) ² R |||||R |||-: R ² Q ||||R ||||-: Q |||||R ² (P ± Q) |||||P ± Q |||||P ² Q |||||Q |||Q ± R |-: (Q ± R) ² P ||Q ± R ||-: P |||~P |||-: ¸ ||||-: P ² Q |||||P |||||-: Q ||||||~Q ||||||-: ¸ |||||||¸ ||||-: Q ² P |||||Q |||||-: P ||||||Q ² R ||||||R ||||||R ² (P ± Q) ||||||P ± Q ||||||Q ² P ||||||P ||||P ± Q ||||(P ± Q) ² R ||||R ||||R ² Q ||||Q ||||P ||||¸ |P ± (Q ± R) Pr DD CD As DD CD As DD CD As DD 7.²O 29.±O 40.²O 39.39.49.R 9.23²O 24.53.±O 4. Symbolic Logic .34.±O 50.²O 6.±O 17.±I CD As ID As DD CD As ID As DD 31.²O CD As DD 1.±I 1.²O 31.51.²O 45.²O 1.±I 1.±O 40.±O 48.28.±O 21.¸I 3.44.46.13.¸I CD As DD 29.25.42.52.²O 33.±I Hardegree.±O 43.

....................................................... 324 Answers To Exercises For Chapter 6 ............................................ 16................................................................................. 5........................... 8.. 18............................... 2............ 7........ 10............. 332 ´µdei~®¯±²´ .... 257 Predicates ...... 311 ‘Any’ And Other Wide Scope Quantifiers ................................................... 9.............. 301 ‘The Only’................................................... 266 Combining Quantifiers With Negation.............................6 1........................................................ 15..................................................................... 282 Further Translations Involving Single Quantifiers...... 277 Summary Of The Basic Quantifier Translation Patterns So Far Examined.......... 4.................................. 296 ‘Only’ ... 256 The Subject-Predicate Form Of Atomic Statements....................... 306 Multiple Quantification In Monadic Predicate Logic .. 303 Disjunctive Combinations Of Predicates.... 285 Conjunctive Combinations Of Predicates...... 6................. 266 Quantifiers................................. 21................................ 17......... 260 Atomic Formulas..................................... 13.................. 264 Compound Formulas............................................................. 262 Variables And Pronouns ..................... 270 Symbolizing The Statement Forms Of Syllogistic Logic....... 19.................................................................................................................................... TRANSLATIONS IN MONADIC PREDICATE LOGIC Introduction............................. 20.................. 12................................. 22................... 297 Ambiguities Involving ‘Only’ ................................................................................... 11................. 3........... 258 Singular Terms ......................................... 14. 289 Summary Of Basic Translation Patterns From Sections 12 And 13 ...... 316 Exercises For Chapter 6 .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................

(A) has further logical structure that is not captured by sentential logic. the form of a statement or an argument is not absolute. . argument (A) is not a syllogism. if we symbolize (A) in sentential logic. but rather depends upon the level of logical analysis we are pursuing. Next. In particular. and ‘M’ stands for ‘we will meet’. sentential logic considers statement connectives (e.256 Hardegree. We have already considered two levels of logical analysis – syllogistic logic. ‘and’. ‘A’ stands for ‘Adams will show up’. argument (A) is valid (intuitively. It is easy to show (using truth tables) that (F) is not a valid sentential logic form.. and sentential logic. what we need is a further technique for uncovering the additional structure of (A) that reveals that it is indeed valid. at least). Whereas syllogistic logic considers quantifier expressions (e. as opposed to its specific content. turn out to be valid relative to predicate logic. ‘all’. (A) if at least one person will show up. Symbolic Logic 1. these branches of logic analyze logical form quite differently from one another. As a consequence of the deeper logical analysis. ‘some’) as the sole logical terms. ‘or’) as the sole logical connectives. Nevertheless.g. So.g. or relative to sentential logic. INTRODUCTION As we have noted in earlier chapters. then we will meet Adams will show up / we will meet First of all. What this means is that the formal techniques of sentential logic are not fully adequate to characterize the validity of arguments. Consider the following argument. numerous arguments that are not valid. as we have also noted. It accordingly represents a deeper level of logical analysis. This technique is provided by predicate logic. in particular. Predicate logic subsumes both syllogistic logic and sentential logic. On the other hand. the validity of an argument is a function of its form. so it is not a valid syllogism. (F) P²M A /M Here ‘P’ stands for ‘at least one person will show up’. either relative to syllogistic logic.. it considers both quantifier expressions and statement connectives as logical terms. Thus. we obtain something like the following.

in (2) ‘and’ is used relationally – to assert that a certain relation holds between Jay and Kay. consider the sole atomic statement in (2)..’ The basic idea in the three examples so far is that an atomic sentence can be grammatically analyzed into a predicate and one or more subjects. this sentence has two grammatical subjects – ‘Jay’ and ‘Kay’. In this case.Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 257 2. In addition to the subjects. and the predicate is ‘. In order to further emphasize this point. namely..is a sophomore’. involving several subjects in addition to a single predicate. (1*) Jay is a Sophomore and Kay is a Sophomore.is a roommate of.and.is a sophomore’.. (3) (4) Jay is a Sophomore Kay is a Sophomore Each of these consists of two grammatical components: a subject and a predicate.. we are able to uncover the additional logical structure of (2). which is (2) itself. we are able to display atomic formulas as consisting of a predicate and one or more subjects. ‘. In particular.. (1) (2) Jay and Kay are Sophomores Jay and Kay are roommates Whereas the former is equivalent to a conjunction. but is rather atomic. the subject is ‘Kay’. indeed. in particular (6) is not a conjunction. (6) Chris is sitting between Jay and Kay Once more ‘and’ is used relationally rather than conjunctively.. having no structure from the viewpoint of sentential logic... there is also a predicate – ‘.. In predicate logic. (5) Jay and Kay are roommates This may be paraphrased as follows. In particular. In (3).. THE SUBJECT-PREDICATE FORM OF ATOMIC STATEMENTS Recall the distinction in sentential logic between the following sentences. Next. whereas in (1) ‘and’ is used conjunctively to assert something about Jay and Kay individually.. and there are three grammatical subjects: . Consider the atomic statements that compose (1). we are able to uncover the additional logical structure of (1) as well.is sitting between. the latter is an atomic statement.. (5*) Jay is a roommate of Kay Unlike (3) and (4).... the subject is ‘Jay’. in (4). let us consider a slightly more complicated example. and the predicate is the same. the predicate is fairly complex: .

Jay is clever Kay is a Sophomore Chris sleeps soundly Max is very unhappy On the other hand. 2-place. thus. there are predicates of degree n. and 3-place predicates. which is to say that it forms a statement when combined with two names. for example. n-place predicates).. we obtain the following statements. Kay We now state the first principle of predicate logic.258 Chris. a two-place predicate takes two grammatical subjects. ___ is taller than ___ ___ is south of ___ ___ admires ___ ___ respects ___ ___ is a cousin of ___ Thus. Jay. we are going to concentrate primarily on l-place. PREDICATES Every predicate has a degree. we call it a one-place predicate. Hardegree. . every atomic sentence consists of one predicate and one or more subjects. In other words. and so forth. 3. ___ is clever ___ is a Sophomore ___ sleeps soundly ___ is very unhappy Each of these is a l-place predicate. If a predicate has degree one. we call it a two-place predicate. in that order of emphasis. we obtain the following statements. if it has degree two. for example. for every number n. In principle. Symbolic Logic In predicate logic.e. a one-place predicate forms a statement when combined with a single subject. The following are examples. However. To say that a predicate is a one-place predicate is to say that it takes a single grammatical subject. (i. because it takes a single term to form a statement. which is a number. using various pairs of individual names. The following are examples.

the study of predicate logic is formally divided into monadic predicate logic (also called property logic) and polyadic predicate logic (also called relational logic). the property of being tall). the alert reader probably noticed that diverse sorts of expressions were substituted into the blanks of the predicates. New York is between Boston and Philadelphia Chris is a child of Jay and Kay 11 is the sum of 4 and 7 Jay borrowed this pen from Kay Kay lent this pen to Jay Kay recommended the movie “Casablanca” to Jay One-place predicates (also called monadic predicates) may be thought of as denoting properties (e. SINGULAR TERMS Predicate logic analyzes every atomic sentence into a predicate and one or more subjects. On the other hand. ___ is between ___ and ___ ___ is a child of ___ and ___ ___ is the sum of ___ and ___ ___ borrowed ___ from ___ ___ lent ___ to ___ ___ recommended ___ to ___ Thus.2. the name of a movie. whereas multi-place (1. a three-place predicate takes three grammatical subjects. These are all examples of singular terms (also called individual terms).. for example.Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 259 Jones is taller than Smith New York is south of Boston Jay admires Kay Kay respects Jay Jay is a cousin of Kay Finally. we may obtain the following statements from these predicates. In the previous section. . we deal primarily with monadic predicate logic in the present chapter. we examine the latter in a little more detail. which include four sorts of expressions. In the present section.3place) predicates (also called polyadic predicates) may be thought of as denoting relations (e. and even a demonstrative noun phrase ‘this pen’. we do not formally divide the subject in this way. The following are examples.. which is to say that it forms a statement when combined with three names. but we also used numerals (which are names of numbers). Not only did we use names of people. Sometimes. the relation between two things when one is taller than the other).g. 4. leaving polyadic predicate logic for the next chapter. among others. In this text.g.

that person. Jupiter.S. it. 45. 3. John F.260 (1) (2) (3) (4) proper nouns definite descriptions demonstrative noun phrases pronouns Hardegree. these. Examples of Plural Terms the people who play for the New York Yankees the five smartest persons in the class James Joyce's books the European cities the natural numbers the people standing over there they. etc. why. which (that). where. them. this pen. Kennedy. her. the largest river in the world James Joyce's last book the president of the U. These might be called. Paris. etc. what. she. Symbolic Logic Examples of proper nouns include the following. London. 2. Venus. Chris. Jay. he. etc. when. etc. Mars. either explicitly or implicitly. etc. that pen. by analogy. 1. it is equally important to see examples of noun-like expressions that do not qualify as singular terms. the square root of 2 the first person to finish the exam Examples of demonstrative noun phrases that are singular terms include the following. George Washington. New York. 23. etc. as well as “wh” expressions such as who. those . Kay. whom. plural terms. Examples of definite descriptions that are singular terms include the following. the person over there this person. him. etc. Having seen various examples of singular terms. The use of demonstrative noun phrases generally involves pointing. Examples of pronouns that are singular terms are basically all the third person singular pronouns.

If the noun phrase requires the plural form ‘are’. (1) (2) they are tall (plural verb form) they is tall (singular verb form) A singular term refers to a single individual – a person. ‘him’. (!2) Everyone in the class likes his or her roommate. then it is not a singular term. In times long past. in which case your date is a "her". . In predicate logic. the simplest thing to do is to check whether the noun phrase can be used properly with the singular verb form ‘is’. as can quickly be seen by examining the following two sentences. or a very complex one.S. I am meeting them at the concert hall. and ‘his’ and accordingly insist on rewriting the above sentence in the following (slightly stilted) manner. ‘him’. in which case your date is a "him". your date is a man. In those care-free times. very important. the grammatically correct formulation of (?2) would have been the following. (?1) I have a date tonight with a music major.Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 261 Note carefully that many people use ‘they’ and ‘them’ as singular pronouns. (?2) Everyone in the class likes their roommate. many literate people reject the neutrality of ‘he’. In order to decide whether a noun phrase qualifies as a singular term. but is rather a plural term. ‘them’. it is not a "them". or “is your date a schizophrenic?” More than likely. Nowadays. and ‘his’ had a use as singular third person neutral pronouns. Unless your date consists of several people. these words are in fact plural pronouns. event. like IBM. Notwithstanding the fact that illiterate people use ‘they’. thing. principle of the grammar of predicate logic. when men were men (and so were women!). at least. Consider the following example. Another very common example in which ‘they/them/their’ is used (incorrectly) as a singular pronoun is the following.. place. and ‘their’ as singular pronouns. although perhaps a complex one. Let us conclude by stating a further. like the Renaissance. literate people thought that ‘he’. etc. (*2) Everyone in the class likes his roommate. One's response to hearing the word ‘them’ should be “exactly how many people do you have a date with?”. in the U. or is a woman. every subject is a singular term.

262 Hardegree. In sentential logic. ATOMIC FORMULAS Having discussed the manner in which every atomic sentence of predicate logic is decomposed into a predicate and (singular) subject(s). By contrast. every atomic sentence is analyzed into its constituents. we now introduce the symbolic apparatus by which the form of such a sentence is formally displayed. atomic sentences are abbreviated by upper case letters of the Roman alphabet. Singular terms are symbolized by lower case letters. The following are examples. In order to distinguish these constituents. In particular. the predicate letter goes first and is followed by the subject letter(s). which is simple if not entirely intuitive. This convention is presented as follows. Symbolic Logic 5. in each atomic sentence. (1) (2) (3) (4) Predicates are symbolized by upper case letters. being its predicate and its subject or subjects. Expression Predicates: ___ is tall ___ is a Freshman ___ respects__ _ ___ is a cousin of__ _ ___ is between ___ and __ _ Singular Terms: Jay Kay New York City Jupiter the tallest person in class the movie “Casablanca” Sentences: Jay is tall Kay is a Freshman Jay respects Kay Kay is a cousin of Jay Chris is between Jay and Kay Abbreviation T F R C B j k n j t c Tj Fk Rjk Ckj Bcjk . you will recall. The fact that they are symbolized by letters reflects the fact that they are regarded as having no further logical structure. in predicate logic. Every atomic sentence is symbolized by juxtaposing the associated subject and predicate letters. we adopt a particular notational convention.

then we will subscript these with numerals to obtain. ‘z’ as variables.g. So. one must be careful to use different letters to abbreviate different names. there are infinitely many constants and variables. but only a few constants. For the most part. . it will be explicitly announced. if we need six variables. we also reserve the right to "requisition" constants to use as variables. Furthermore. and ‘w’ into service as variables. we obtain an open formula. Unlike proper nouns. in intro logic we need only three variables. and are accordingly abbreviated simply by lower case letters. When one or more of these singular terms is a variable.. likewise for singular terms. we use the remaining lower case letters ‘x. 6. then we cannot use ‘j’ to abbreviate both of them. we obtain a formula of predicate logic. and there is no need to recruit constants. In addition to constants there are also variables. then we will "draft" ‘u’. ‘c’. `y’. in making general claims. Thus. . However. in principle. whereas we use the lower case letters ‘a’. individual numbers). This is very useful. they are used for cross-referencing inside a sentence or larger linguistic unit. different predicates can be abbreviated by the same letter. including definite descriptions. but if ‘Jay’ and ‘Jupiter’ appear in the same statement or argument. definite descriptions have further logical structure. etc. Notice that we use lower case letters to abbreviate all singular terms. If it turns out that we need more than 26 constants or variables.Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 263 From occasion to occasion. ‘a2’. Variables play the same role in predicate logic that (singular third-person) pronouns play in ordinary language. for example. specifically. The letter ‘j’ can stand for ‘Jay’ or for ‘Jupiter’. ‘z50’. ‘b’. for the purposes of intro logic. ‘w’ as constants. ‘v’. ‘y3’. variables play the same role in predicate logic that variables play in symbolic arithmetic (called algebra in high school). they enable us to refer to individuals (e.. if the need should arise. as we shall see shortly. they are simply singular terms. Concerning symbolization. When we combine a predicate with one or more singular terms. VARIABLES AND PRONOUNS So far we have concentrated on singular terms that might be called constants. Open formulas of predicate logic correspond to open sentences of natural language. for example. If this should happen. In order to avoid using subscripted variables.. we might use ‘j’ for ‘Jay’ and ‘u’ for ‘Jupiter’. and this further structure is revealed and examined in more advanced branches of logic. definite descriptions have no further logical structure. for example. in any given context (a statement or argument). without referring to any particular individual (number).. However. however. Consider the following sentences of arithmetic. specifically.

then if I say “the former respects the lat- . (3) and (4) are open sentences. For example. the sentence does it for me. are closed formulas. we have asserted a true proposition. to the right. A closed sentence. think of the index finger. unlike closed sentences. If I say “two is even”.) This pointing can be fairly straightforward.. even though it does not autonomously express a proposition. but rather internally to the expression ‘everyone’.264 (1) (2) (3) (4) 2 is even 3 is larger than 4 it is even this is larger than that Et Ltf Ex Lxy Hardegree. By contrast. open sentences are essentially indexical in character. by contrast. in the sentence about roommates. in the sentence about the date with the music major. and their symbolizations are open formulas. and their symbolizations. Similarly.e. what is the difference between open and closed sentences. I need not point at the number two in order to assert a proposition. and say “it/this/that is even”. but a false proposition. the ‘his or her’ refers. when we successively point at the number two and the number five. indeed. and we will not examine them any further. an open sentence can be used to assert a proposition – specifically. can be used to assert a proposition. even without having to point. (Here. If I refer to a music major and a business major. by uttering it while "pointing" at a particular object or objects. anyway? The difference can be described by saying that. not externally to a particular person. pointing) expression occurs. as used for pointing. are important expressions in logic. which is to say that their use essentially involves pointing. on the other hand. we have asserted a proposition. but it can also be oblique and subtle. (1) (2) (3) (4) the former the latter the party of the first part the party of the second part The latter two expressions (an example of pointing!) are used almost exclusively in legal documents. If we "point" at the number two (insofar as that is possible). in that order. and say “this is larger than that”. the pronoun refers to (points at) something external. This pointing can also be either external or internal to the sentence in which the indexical (i. So. Another use of internal pointing involves the following indexical expressions. Symbolic Logic Whereas (1) and (2) are closed sentences. whereas (1) and (2) express propositions and are accordingly true or false. The former two expressions. the ‘he or she’ refers to the particular person about whom the speaker is talking. then we have asserted the proposition that the number two is even. On the other hand (this is the tricky part!). (3) and (4) do not (by themselves) express propositions and are accordingly neither true nor false. One way to describe the difference between open and closed sentences is to say that. then we have asserted the proposition that two is larger than five.

Thus. we can form their conjunction. (1) (1a) (1b) (1c) if Jay is a Freshman. then Kay is a Freshman if he is a Freshman. We already know how to construct molecular formulas from atomic formulas in sentential logic. The atomic formulas of predicate logic play exactly the same role that atomic formulas play in sentential logic. If we have a formula. in particular. For example. we can construct the following open statements and associated open formulas. they can be combined with connectives to form molecular formulas. taking (1). and biconditional. as in sentential logic. followed by their symbolizations. but Kay does not respect Jay Fj ² Fk ~Fk ~Fj & ~Fk Rjk & ~Rkj Next. I am saying that the music major respects the business major. The only difference is that the simple statements we begin with are not simply letters.Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 265 ter”. We conclude this section by announcing yet another principle of the grammar of predicate logic. (1) (2) (3) (4) if Jay is a Freshman. This skill carries over directly to predicate logic. either (or both) of the constants ‘j’ and ‘k’ can be replaced by variables (for example. but are rather combinations of predicate letters and singular terms. The following are examples of compound statements in predicate logic. Correspondingly. disjunction. We accordingly obtain various open sentences (formulas). the words ‘former’ and ‘latter’ are useful substitutes for ordinary pronouns. we can form its negation. ‘x’ and ‘y’). every subject is either a constant or a variable. each one being either a constant or a variable. 7. conditional. then it is not clear who respects whom. if we have two formulas. then she is a Freshman Fj ² Fk Fj ² Fy Fx ² Fk Fx ² Fy . If I say instead “he respects her”. COMPOUND FORMULAS We have now described the atomic formulas of predicate logic. then Kay is a Freshman Kay is not a Freshman neither Jay nor Kay is a Freshman Jay respects Kay. In an atomic formula. then she is a Freshman if he is a Freshman. the rules being precisely the same. every such formula consists of an n-place predicate letter followed by n singular terms. we note that either (or both) of the proper nouns ‘Jay’ and ‘Kay’ can be replaced by pronouns. then Kay is a Freshman if Jay is a Freshman.

such as the following. logically fruitful. in predicate logic we concentrate only on a couple of them. many. predicate logic has additional compound forming expressions – namely. at most one. ones. something. Similarly. everything. Symbolic Logic 8. several. nothing These yield sentences such as the following everyone is clever everything is clever someone is clever something is clever no one is clever nothing is clever Recall that there are numerous statement connectives in English. etc. each. every Freshman is clever at least one Sophomore is clever no Senior is clever many Sophomores are clever several Juniors are clever In addition to these quantifier expressions.266 Hardegree. everyone. contractions. all. the quantifiers. a few none. at least two. at most two. but in sentential logic we concentrate on just a few. either some. every at least one Not only do we concentrate on these two quantifier concepts. someone. etc. QUANTIFIERS We have already seen that compound formulas can be constructed using the connectives of sentential logic. no one. most. Quantifiers are linguistic expressions denoting quantity in some form. every. neither at least one. . involving ‘thing’ and ‘one’. even though there are numerous quantifier expressions in English. there are also derivative expressions. etc. exactly one. any. as follows. In addition to these truth-functional connectives. given as follows. Examples of quantifiers in English include the following. These expressions are typically combined with noun phrases to produce sentences. exactly two. we render them very general. both.

it can point at a quantifier expression in the sentence.. These are symbolized respectively as follows.. ‘®z’ are called universal quantifiers.. If this is not stilted enough. everything z is such that. they are sufficiently general to be used in a much wider variety of contexts than more colloquial quantifier expressions. at least one thing is such that.. ®x ¯x ®y ¯y ®z ¯z Historically.. ‘®y’. This sentence might be paraphrased in either of the following ways.. and the backwards ‘E’ derives from the word ‘exist’. there is at least one thing x such that. Recall that a pronoun can point internally. everyone knows someone who respects the former's mother everyone knows someone who respects the latter's mother The additional feature needed by the quantifiers above is an index. every quantifier comes with an index (a variable) attached to it.. everything y is such that. Thus. Whereas the expressions ‘®x’.. because it isn't clear what the pronoun ‘his/her’ points at. there is at least one thing y such that.. there is at least one thing such that. But what if the sentence in question has more than one quantifier? Consider the following... everything x is such that. in order to allow clear and consistent cross-referencing inside of sentences in which they appear. Since we are using variables as pronouns. In the sentence everyone likes his/her roommate the pronoun ‘his/her’ points at the quantifier ‘everyone’.. there is at least one thing z such that.. we must add one further feature to the above quantifiers. in order to obtain the official quantifiers of predicate logic. Although these expressions are somewhat stilted (much like the official expression for negation ‘it is not true that. .. the upside-down ‘A’ derives from the word ‘all’.... it is convenient to use the very same symbolic devices as quantifier indices as well. ‘¯z’ are called existential quantifiers. We thus obtain the following quantifier expressions. and in particular. the expressions ‘¯x’. everyone knows someone who respects his/her mother This sentence is ambiguous.... ‘¯y’.Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 267 everything is such that.’).

For example. We will see examples of this later. Notice the appearance of the parentheses in (2) and (3). ®xFx: ¯xFx: everything [x] is such that it [x] is fascinating there is at least one thing [x] such that it [x] is fascinating In each case. The following are all examples of open formulas involving ‘x’ together with the resulting quantified formulas. If F is a formula. the fact that ‘x’ is used for both the quantifier and the pronoun indicates that ‘it’ points back at (cross-references) the quantifier expression. there are two quantifiers. Open Formula: ~Fx Fx & Gx Fx ² Gx Rxj ¯yRxy Universal Formula: ®x~Fx ®x(Fx & Gx) ®x(Fx ² Gx) ®xRxj ®x¯yRxy Existential Formula: ¯x~Fx ¯x(Fx & Gx) ¯x(Fx ² Gx) ¯xRxj ¯x¯yRxy (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) . since they are not really part of the English sentence. This is just like negation. This is the simplest case. rather. one in which the open formula d is atomic. In other words. I have divided the sentence into a quantifier and an open formula.268 Hardegree. ®xF. In particular. ¯zF Of course. a quantifier is a one-place connective. and prefix either ‘®x’ or ‘¯x’ to obtain the following formulas. or one prefixes ‘¯x’ to obtain an existentially quantified formula. then so are all the following. in forming the compound formula. we can begin with the following open formula. it can even be a quantified formula (a great deal more about this in the next chapter). and an existential quantifier. they are used to cross-reference the pronoun ‘it’. How do they combine with other formulas to make quantified formulas? The basic idea (but not the whole story) is that one begins with an open formula involving (say) the variable ‘x’. ®zF ¯xF. Grammatically. Fx: x is fascinating (it is fascinating). and one prefixes ‘®x’ to obtain a universally quantified formula. just like negation ~. Symbolic Logic For every variable. we have the following grammatical principle. It can also be molecular. The variables are placed in parentheses. ¯yF. the outer parentheses (if any) of the formula F must be restored before prefixing the quantifier. ®yF. a universal quantifier. We now have the official quantifier expressions of predicate logic.

keep in clear sight the rules of formula formation in predicate logic. but to be able to recognize them as formulas. ®yd. ®xd. If d and e are formulas then so are the following. which are sketched as follows. ¯zd. (5) Nothing else is a formula. Toward this end. any formula can be prefixed by either a universal quantifier or an existential quantifier. If d is a formula. we concentrate on the way in which negation interacts with quantifiers. then so is ~d. (6) (7) (8) ®x~Fx ´ ®x(Fx & Gx) disjunction ~®xRxj. ~¯xRxj. ~¯x¯yRxy negations ®xRxj ² ®x¯yRxy.) the following compound formulas. . ¯xRxj ² ¯x¯yRxy conditionals At this stage. Definition of Formula in Predicate Logic: Atomic Formulas: (1) (2) (1) (2) (3) If P is a predicate letter of degree n. and the result is another formula. Let us start with the following open formula. These can in turn be combined using any of the sentential logic connectives. universal formulas and existential formulas respectively. the important thing is not necessarily to be able to read the above formulas.Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 269 The pairs to the right are all examples of quantified formulas. Formulas: 9. ¯yd. just as any formula can be prefixed by negation. ®zd. etc. ¯xd. to obtain (e. Every atomic formula is a formula. COMBINING QUANTIFIERS WITH NEGATION As noted at the end of the previous section. Nothing else is an atomic formula. (d & e) (d ´ e) (d ² e) (d ± e) (4) If d is a formula. then P followed by n singular terms is an atomic formula. etc. In the present section. then so are the following. ~®x¯yRxy.g.

do not have natural negations. (2) (3) ®xPx ¯xPx everything is such that it is perfect at least one thing is such that it is perfect These can in turn be negated. it is not perfect It is imperfect Many adjectives have ready-made negations (happy/unhappy. (7) ®x~Px everything is such that it is not true that it is perfect everything is such that it is not perfect everything is such that it is imperfect (8) ¯x~Px at least one thing is such that it is not true that it is perfect at least one thing is such that it is not perfect . yielding the following formulas. however. let us consider an alternative tack. friendly/unfriendly. which yields the following. most adjectives. Let us first negate ‘Px’ to obtain the following. as follows.270 (1) Px it is perfect Hardegree. Symbolic Logic Then let us quantify it both universally and existentially. we can always produce the negation of any adjective simply by prefixing ‘non-’ in front of the adjective. (4) ~®xPx it is not true that everything is such that it is perfect it is not true that at least one thing is such that it is perfect (5) ~¯xPx Before considering more colloquial paraphrases of the above sentences. On the other hand. Now. (6) ~Px it is not true that it is perfect The latter sentence may be paraphrased as either of the following. let us take the negated formula ‘~Px’ and quantify in the two ways. possible/impossible).

Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 271 at least one thing is such that it is imperfect Having written down all the simple formulas involving negation and quantifiers. The latter sentence. something is perfect Along similar lines. it is not true that it is perfect Recall that this is equivalent to the following more colloquial expression. it is not perfect The advantage of the verbose forms of negation and quantification is grammatical generality. For example. is equivalent to saying at least one thing has a certain property – it is perfect. to say everything is such that it is perfect is equivalent to saying everything has a certain property – it is perfect. . the official form of negation involves prefixing ‘it is not true that’ in front of the sentence in question. we can always produce the official negation or quantification of a sentence. to say at least one thing is such that it is perfect. which is an alternative to there is at least one thing such that it is perfect. These two sentences are simply verbose ways of saying everything is perfect. Thus. These two sentences are simply verbose ways of saying at least one thing is perfect. in turn. but we cannot always easily produce the colloquial negation or quantification. let us now consider the idiomatic rendering of these sentences. recall the way that the negation operator works. can be thought of as one way of rendering precise the following. one obtains the following. consider the following. First. everything is such that it is not true that it is perfect. for example. Similarly.

The latter sentence is a colloquial paraphrase of it is not true that everything is perfect. some things are perfect and some things are not. which is a colloquial paraphrase of it is not true that everything is such that it is perfect. . but the second is false. we write at least one thing is such that it is not perfect. not everything is perfect) everything is non-perfect These are not equivalent. Hardegree. Symbolic Logic Following the above line of reasoning concerning colloquial quantification. This is precisely formula (4) above. the placement of ‘not’ in this sentence makes it unclear whether it modifies ‘is’ or ‘perfect’. if not everything is perfect. everything is not perfect Unfortunately. then there is at least one thing that isn't perfect. The original sentence. To say that everything is non-perfect (imperfect) is equivalent to saying nothing is perfect. To say the latter. accordingly. this sentence is ambiguous in meaning between the following pair of sentences. if. everything is such that it is not perfect. and conversely. the first is true. everything isn't perfect (i. the natural paraphrase of this is the following. which is formula (8) above.. Now. or everything is non-perfect (imperfect).e. says that everything has the property of being non-perfect (imperfect). which is much stronger than not everything is perfect.272 which is equivalent to everything is such that it is not perfect.

To say that at least one thing is perfect is to say that the number of perfect things is at least one. consider formula (5) ~¯xPx it is not true that at least one thing is such that it is perfect which is equivalent to it is not true that at least one thing is perfect. which may be stated as follows. [everything is imperfect] These are instances of two very general equivalences. that is. (c1) everything is perfect (c2) something is perfect (i. To say that this is not true is to say that the number of perfect things is zero.e. which is to say nothing is perfect. two pairs of formulas are equivalent. we basically have six colloquial sentences. etc. Thus. at least one thing is perfect) (c3) everything is imperfect (c4) something is imperfect (c5) not everything is perfect (c6) nothing is perfect These correspond to the following formulas of predicate logic.. The number of things that are perfect is either zero.Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 273 Finally. [something is imperfect] [nothing is perfect]. (f1) (f2) (f3) (f4) (f5) (f6) ®xPx ¯xPx ®x~Px ¯x~Px ~®xPx ~¯xPx As noted earlier. . the number is not zero. two. one. three. In particular: ®x~Px is equivalent to ~¯xPx and ¯x~Px is equivalent to ~®xPx [not everything is perfect].

. and b is F something is F :: a is F. imagine for a moment there are exactly two things in the universe – call them a and b. &dn) is equivalent to d1´~d2´.. is equivalent to a corresponding disjunction of negations. we have the following.´~dn ~(d1´d2´. which is very small. and c is F something is F :: a is F. and/or b is F. (dM1) (dM2) ~(d&e) is equivalent to ~d´~e. every universally quantified statement is equivalent to a conjunction. given as follows. But there are more general forms as well.. and/or b is F Or. however long. respectively. Symbolic Logic What this means is that for any formula d. it might be worthwhile to compare these two equivalences with their counterparts in sentential logic – deMorgan's laws. then we have the following equivalences. the negation of any disjunction.. these laws of logic are stated as follows..274 ~®x = ¯x~ ~¯x = ®x~ Hardegree. In order to understand them better. if there are exactly three things in the universe (a. the negation of any conjunction. everything is F :: a is F. Well. and b is F. in formulas: ®xFx :: Fa & Fb & Fc .. we have the following. is equivalent to a corresponding conjunction of negations. ~(d´e) is equivalent to ~d&~e. ~¯xd is equivalent to ®x~d.&~dn In other words. c). b. however long. everything is F :: a is F.´dn) is equivalent to ~d1&~d2&. and/or c is F Or. ~®xd is equivalent to ¯x~d. however complex. (M1) (M2) ~(d1&d2&. In particular. In such a universe.. in formulas: ®xFx :: Fa & Fb ¯xFx :: Fa ´ Fb Similarly. and every existentially quantified statement is equivalent to a disjunction. In their simplest form. and similarly. But what does this have to do with universal and existential quantifiers.

individuals. Having seen what the equivalence looks like in general. Next. for every universally/ existentially quantified statement. let us concentrate on the simplest non-trivial version – a universe with just two things (a and b) in it. In general. everything is not-F :: a is not F and b is not F something is not-F :: a is not F and/or b is not F Or.) . or any number of. which is ~(Fx²Gx). there is a corresponding conjunction/ disjunction of suitable length. d may be complex – for example. in formulas: ~®xFx :: ~(Fa & Fb) ~¯xFx :: ~(Fa ´ Fb) Finally.Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 275 ¯xFx :: Fa ´ Fb ´ Fc This can be generalized to any (finite) number of things in the universe. Note: In the previous example. Then ~d is the negation of the entire formula. or four. but not in its negation. the formula d is simple. let us consider what happens when we combine quantifiers with negation? First. we obtain the following chain of equivalences. ~®xFx :: ~(Fa & Fb) :: ~Fa ´ ~Fb :: ¯x~Fx ~¯xFx :: ~(Fa ´ Fb) :: ~Fa & ~Fb :: ®x~Fx The same procedure can be carried out with three. in formulas: ®x~Fx :: ~Fa & ~Fb ¯x~Fx :: ~Fa ´ ~Fb Negating the quantified statements yields: not everything is F :: not(a is F and b is F) nothing is F :: not something is F :: not(a is F and/or b is F) Or. being Fx. the simplest. (Notice that the parentheses are optional in the conditional. it might be the formula (Fx²Gx).

How do we add the clause ‘that (who) is A’? Let us try the following paraphrases. In order to translate these into predicate logic.276 Hardegree. (e1) (e2) (e3) (e4) every astronaut is brave some astronaut is brave no astronaut is brave some astronaut is not brave Note that the simple predicate ‘is brave’ can be replaced by the longer expression ‘is a brave person’. everything is such that it is B ®xBx But we don't want to say that everything is B. Symbolic Logic 10. (s1) (s2) (s3) (s4) every A is B some A is B no A is B some A is not B [every A is a B] [some A is a B] [no A is a B] [some A is not a B] Examples of sentences in these forms are given as follows. For example. we could read the latter as follows. just every A is B.. to say every A is a B is to say everything that is A is B.’ Consider (s1).. everyone who is A is B. (f1) (f2) (f3) (f4) all A are B some A are B no A are B some A are not B These are all stated in the plural form. . The next thing we must do is to convert the specific quantifier expressions ‘every/some/no A’ into the corresponding expressions involving general quantifiers ‘every/some/thing is such that. the first thing we must do is to convert each plural form into the corresponding closest singular form. or if we have persons exclusively in mind. SYMBOLIZING THE STATEMENT FORMS OF SYLLOGISTIC LOGIC Recall that the statement forms of syllogistic logic are given as follows. everyone who is an astronaut is brave We know how to formalize ‘everything (everyone) is B’.

then this is B. let us consider (s2) above. which is the reading of ~(A²B). it's OK to omit them when the formula stands by itself. Both are conditionals. which is logically equivalent to ®xAx ² By. which is equivalent to . but when it goes into making a larger formula. to say some astronaut is brave. The most accurate translation of the predicate logic formula. then e’. everything is such that it is B provided it is A Adding the crucial pronoun indices (variables). Note carefully the parentheses around the conditional. This is a perfectly good piece of English. Thus. The same thing happens when we negate a conditional. just as ~A²B is a formula of sentential logic. which is symbolized d²e. the above sentence is symbolized as follows: ®x(Ax ² Bx). the corresponding formula without parentheses. is also a formula of predicate logic. but it is definitely not the same as saying that every A is B. Of course. where ‘this’ points at something external to the sentence. which is equivalent to ‘if d. we obtain the following. reads as follows. for example. ®xAx ² Bx. if everything is A. in contrast to ‘it is not true that if A then B’. To say some A is B.Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 277 everything is B provided it is A everything is such that it is B provided it is A Now we are getting somewhere. is to say there is at least one A that (who) is also B. Next. The latter says ‘if not A. the outer parentheses must be restored. since this sentence divides as follows. then B’. everything x is such that x is B provided x is A Recall ‘e provided d’ is equivalent to ‘e if d’.

it says something entirely different from ‘some A is B’ Next. is to deny that there is at least one A who is B. let us consider (s3) above. Hardegree. ~¯x(Ax & Bx). there is at least one thing such that it is A and it is B This is symbolized as follows. and we are saying in addition that it is B. we are saying that the thing in question is A. where ‘this’ points externally at whatever the person using this sentence is pointing toward.278 there is at least one A and it (he/she) is also B. no astronaut is brave. so we are saying that it is A and it is B. it is the negation of ‘some A is B’. we obtain ¯xAx & Bx. which is literally read as it is not true that there is at least one thing such that it is A and it is B . which may be read something is A. which gives us the following. which is logically equivalent to ¯xAx & By. and is accordingly symbolized as follows. for example. there is at least one thing such that it is A ¯xAx How do we add the clause ‘that is also B’ or ‘and it is also B’? Well. We know how to say there is at least one A. To say no A is B. Symbolic Logic Notice that the pronoun ‘it’ points internally at ‘at least one A’. and this is B. Although this is a perfectly good formula of predicate logic. ¯x(Ax & Bx) Notice once again that the outer parentheses are restored before the quantifier is prefixed. If we were to drop the parentheses. In other words.

we have an alternative way of formulating ‘no A is B’: ®x(Ax ² ~Bx). whose literal reading is it is not true that every thing is such that if it is A then it is B. we have the following equivalence (check the truth table!) ~(d & e) :: d ² ~e So. which is read literally as follows. In the above case. which is symbolized very much the same way as ‘some A is B’. . we obtain the following equivalence. ~¯x(Ax & Bx) :: ®x~(Ax & Bx) But. ¯x(Ax & ~Bx). ~¯x(Ax & Bx) :: ®x(Ax ² ~Bx) Thus. which is symbolized just like it is not true that every A is B.Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 279 Recall that ~¯xë is equivalent to ®x~ë. ë is the formula (Ax&Bx). not every A is B. there is at least one thing such that it is A and it is not B Let us compare this with the following negation. To say some A is not B is to say there is at least one A and it is not B. thus: ~®x(Ax ² Bx). let us consider (s4) above. for any formula ë. we have the following equivalence. in sentential logic. putting these together. which is read literally as everything is such that if it is A then it is not B Finally.

in the above case ë is the formula (Ax ² Bx) – notice the parentheses – so we obtain the following equivalence. we have the following equivalence of predicate logic. Symbolic Logic Recall that ~®xë is equivalent to ¯x~ë. ~(d ² e) :: d & ~e Thus. SUMMARY OF THE BASIC QUANTIFIER TRANSLATION PATTERNS SO FAR EXAMINED Before continuing. ~®x(Ax ² Bx) :: ¯x(Ax & ~Bx) In other words. it is a good idea to review the basic patterns of translation that we have examined so far.280 Hardegree. These are given as follows. Simple Quantification Plus Negation (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) everything is B something is B nothing is B something is non-B everything is non-B not everything is B ®xBx ¯xBx ~¯xBx ¯x~Bx ®x~Bx ~®xBx . the following in effect say the same thing. not every astronaut is brave some astronaut is not brave 11. for any formula ë. to say not every A is B is the same as to say some A is not B. For example. ~®x(Ax ² Bx) :: ¯x~(Ax ² Bx) But recall the following equivalence of sentential logic.

everything is a brave astronaut. everything is such that it is an astronaut and it is brave In other words. or equivalently. no symbol in the formula corresponds to the ‘is’ in the colloquial sentence. and no symbol in the colloquial English sentence corresponds to ‘²’ in the formula. everything is an astronaut who is brave. one might wonder why the following is not a correct translation: (1) every A is B ®x(Ax & Bx) WRONG!!! The correct translation is given as follows. Basic Logical Equivalences (1) (2) (3) (4) ~¯xAx ~®xAx ~¯x(Ax & Bx) ~®x(Ax ² Bx) :: :: :: :: ®x~Ax ¯x~Ax ®x(Ax ² ~Bx) ¯x(Ax & ~Bx) In looking over the above patterns. . it is important to keep the following logical equivalences in mind when doing translations into predicate logic. (2) every A is B ®x(Ax ² Bx) RIGHT!!! Remember there simply is no general symbol-by-symbol translation between colloquial English and the language of predicate logic. which goes as follows. in the correct translation (2). The erroneous nature of (1) becomes apparent as soon as we translate the formula into English.Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 281 Syllogistic Forms Plus Negation (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) every A is B some A is B no A is B some A is not B every A is a non-B not every A is B ®x(Ax ² Bx) ¯x(Ax & Bx) ~¯x(Ax & Bx) ¯x(Ax & ~Bx) ®x(Ax ² ~Bx) ~®x(Ax ² Bx) In addition to these. everything is such that it is A and it is B For example.

Symbolic Logic everything is an astronaut and everything is brave. Needless to say. This sentence must be carefully distinguished from the following. from which it obviously follows that there is at least one Antarctican. please note that there is no symbol-by-symbol translation between the colloquial English form and the predicate logic formula. it is not clear what it says. By contrast. but I suspect it is probably true. then (3t) might correspond to the following colloquial subjunctive sentence. there is someone who would be brave if he were an astronaut From this. consider the following analogous sentence. Whether there is such a person who would be brave were he/she to become an Antarctican. this does not say the same thing as: every astronaut is brave. the straight translation yields the following: (3t) there is at least one thing such that if it is A then it is B. but ampersand does not work. there is someone who would be brave if he/she were Antarctican To say that some Antarctican is brave to say that there is at least one Antarctican who is brave. . To make this clear. If the conditional were subjunctive. it surely does not follow that there is even a single brave astronaut. The sentence ‘some Antarctican is brave’ logically implies ‘at least one Antarctican exists’. the correct translation is: (4) some A is B ¯x(Ax & Bx) RIGHT!!! Once again.K. I really couldn't say. So. Let's see what happens when we translate the formula of (3) into English. O. It takes a brave person to live in Antarctica. let us understand ‘Antarctican’ to mean a permanent citizen of Antarctica. some Antarctican is brave Here.282 This is also equivalent to: Hardegree. rather than truth-functional. arrow works when we have ‘every A is B’.. why doesn't arrow work just as well in the corresponding statement ‘some A is B’? Why isn't the following a correct translation? (3) some A is B ¯x(Ax ² Bx) WRONG!!! As noted above. or even a single astronaut. Does this say that some A is B? No! In fact. the sentence ‘there is someone who would be brave if he/she were Antarctican’ does not imply that any Antarctican exists.

. the following existential sentence is true. not that it works always. and hence the conditional sentence if Smith is Antarctican. then the connective immediately "beneath" the existential quantifier is a conjunction. in saying that it is a rule of thumb. then at least one person is such that if he is Antarctican then he is brave. which will be presented in subsequent sections. all one means is that it works quite often. If one has an existential formula. Of course. What happens if we insist that if-then is truth-functional? In that case. then the connective immediately "beneath" the universal quantifier is a conditional. so long as we can find someone who is not Antarctican! Suppose that Smith is not Antarctican. we see very quickly that ¯x(Ax²Bx) simply does not say that some A is B. The slogan that goes with this reads as follows: UNIVERSAL-CONDITIONAL EXISTENTIAL-CONJUNCTION Remember! This is just a rule of thumb! There are numerous exceptions. then Smith is brave is true! Why? Because of the truth table for if-then! But if Smith is such that if he is Antarctican then he is brave.Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 283 When we take if-then as a subjunctive conditional. the sentence ¯x(Ax²Bx) is automatically true. Rule of Thumb (not absolute) If one has a universal formula. then he is brave We conclude this section by presenting the following rule of thumb about how symbolizations usually go. Then the sentence Smith is Antarctican is false. Thus. there is someone such that if he is Antarctican.

(f1) (f2) (f3) (f4) ®xd ¯xd ~®xd ~¯xd In particular. We have already seen the simplest examples of these forms. but which have more complicated formulas in place of ‘Bx’. we are going to explore numerous patterns of predicate logic that all have one thing in common with what we have so far examined. in Sections 10 and 11. each one has one of the following forms. respectively.284 Hardegree. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) everything is both A and B everything is either A or B everything is A but not B something is both A and B something is either A or B something is A but not B nothing is both A and B nothing is either A or B nothing is A but not B How do we translate these sorts of sentences into predicate logic? One way is first to notice that the overall forms of these sentences may be written and symbolized. Syllogistic patterns are a very tiny fraction of the statement forms that can be formulated in predicate logic. and the next connective is a quantifier. In the next three sections (Sections 12-14). they all involve exactly one quantifier. Symbolic Logic 12. Specifically. However. The following are examples. FURTHER TRANSLATIONS INVOLVING SINGLE QUANTIFIERS In the previous section. . we saw how one can formulate the statement forms of syllogistic logic in terms of predicate logic. either the main connective is a quantifier. the expressive power of predicate logic is significantly greater than syllogistic logic. as follows. or the main connective is negation. More specifically still. ¯xBx ®xBx ~¯xBx ~®xBx ¯x~Bx ®x~Bx something is B everything is B nothing is B not everything is B something is non-B everything is non-B We can also formulate sentences that have an overall form like one of the above.

and Lx are respectively short for the more complex formulas. (c1) everything is both A and B everything is such that it is both A and B everything is such that it is A and it is B ®x(Ax & Bx) (c2) everything is either A or B everything is such that it is either A or B everything is such that it is A or it is B ®x(Ax ´ Bx) . Substituting in accordance with these equivalences.Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 285 (o1) (o2) (o2) (o3) (o4) (o2) (o5) (o6) (o2) everything is J everything is K everything is L something is J something is K something is L nothing is J nothing is K nothing is L ®xJx ®xKx ®xLx ¯xJx ¯xKx ¯xLx ~¯xJx ~¯xKx ~¯xLx Here. (t1) (t2) (t3) (t4) (t5) (t6) (t7) (t8) (t9) ®x(Ax & Bx) ®x(Ax ´ Bx) ®x(Ax & ~Bx) ¯x(Ax & Bx) ¯x(Ax ´ Bx) ¯x(Ax & ~Bx) ~¯x(Ax & Bx) ~¯x(Ax ´ Bx) ~¯x(Ax & ~Bx) The following paraphrase chains may help to see how one might go about producing the symbolization. given as follows. we obtain the following translations of the above sentences. Jx Kx Lx :: :: :: (Ax & Bx) (Ax ´ Bx) (Ax & ~Bx) Note the appearance of the outer parentheses. the pseudo-atomic formulas Jx. Kx.

as noted in the previous sections.286 (c3) everything is A but not B everything is such that it is A but not B everything is such that it is A and it is not B ®x(Ax & ~Bx) (c4) something is both A and B there is at least one thing such that it is both A and B there is at least one thing such that it is A and it is B ¯x(Ax & Bx) Hardegree. (c5) something is either A or B there is at least one thing such that it is either A or B there is at least one thing such that it is A or it is B ¯x(Ax ´ Bx) (c6) something is A but not B there is at least one thing such that it is A but not B there is at least one thing such that it is A and it is not B ¯x(Ax & ~Bx) . of course. that ‘something is both A and B’ is logically equivalent to ‘some A is B’. Symbolic Logic You will recall.

we will further examine these kinds of sentences. .Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 287 (c7) nothing is both A and B it is not true that something is both A and B it is not true that there is at least one thing such that it is both A and B it is not true that there is at least one thing such that it is A and it is B ~¯x(Ax & Bx) (c8) nothing is either A or B it is not true that something is either A or B it is not true that there is at least one thing such that it is either A or B it is not true that there is at least one thing such that it is A or it is B ~¯x(Ax ´ Bx) (c9) nothing is A but not B it is not true that something A but not B it is not true that there is at least one thing such that it is A but not B it is not true that there is at least one thing such that it is A and it is not B ~¯x(Ax & ~Bx) In the next section. but will introduce a further complication.

e. The official predicates are as follows. In other words. who inhabit the fictional country of Bozonia).is a criminal You will notice that every sentence above involves at least one of the following predicate combinations. AB: adult Bozonian (Bozonian adult) AC: adult criminal (criminal adult) BC: Bozonian criminal (criminal Bozonian) In these particular cases. we drop that restriction and discuss formulas with three or more predicates. Consider the following sentences (which pertain to a fictional group of people.. Symbolic Logic 13. A: B: C: . the predicates combine in the simplest manner possible – i. we have concentrated on formulas that have at most two predicates.288 Hardegree. the following are equivalences for the complex predicates. conjunctively.is a Bozonian . we will concentrate on conjunctive combinations of predicates.. for the most part.is an adult .. CONJUNCTIVE COMBINATIONS OF PREDICATES So far... However. . In the present section.. called Bozonians.. E: (e1) (e2) (e3) (e4) (e5) (e6) S: (s1) (s2) (s3) (s4) (s5) (s6) N: (n1) (n2) (n3) (n4) (n5) (n6) every Adult Bozonian is a Criminal every Adult Criminal is a Bozonian every Criminal Bozonian is an Adult every Adult is a Criminal Bozonian every Bozonian is an Adult Criminal every Criminal is an Adult Bozonian some Adult Bozonian is a Criminal some Adult Criminal is a Bozonian some Criminal Bozonian is an Adult some Adult is a Criminal Bozonian some Bozonian is an Adult Criminal some Criminal is an Adult Bozonian no Adult Bozonian is a Criminal no Adult Criminal is a Bozonian no Criminal Bozonian is an Adult no Adult is a Criminal Bozonian no Bozonian is an Adult Criminal no Criminal is an Adult Bozonian The predicate terms have been capitalized for easy spotting.

and a shrimp fisherman is not a shrimp who fishes but someone who fishes for shrimp. but rather is experienced at a particular thing (sailing. the person is not experienced in general. a predicate combination is ambiguous between a conjunctive and a non-conjunctive reading. neither is nearly as large as a small ocean. but someone or something that hunts deer. but not a hunter who is generally experienced. I am sure that the reader can come up with numerous other examples of predicates that don't combine conjunctively. a large whale is a whale. In each case. this is not a universal feature of English. perhaps elsewhere) But it also has a non-conjunctive reading. By contrast. The following is an example. and a large shrimp is a shrimp.Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 289 x is an Adult Bozonian x is an Adult Criminal x is a Bozonian Criminal :: :: :: x is an Adult and x is a Bozonian x is an Adult and x is a Criminal x is a Bozonian and x is a Criminal The above predicates combine conjunctively. but not a sailor who is generally experienced. let alone a small planet. Along the same lines. x is a small whale x is a large shrimp. hunting). as evidenced by the following examples. x is an experienced hunter x is a large whale. an experienced hunter is a hunter. x is a shrimp fisherman For example. an experienced sailor is a sailor. x is a person who drives a cab in Boston (who lives perhaps in Boston. perhaps elsewhere) Another example. Similarly. x is a Bostonian who drives a cab (perhaps in Boston. which seems to engender confusion is the following. Finally a deer hunter is not a deer who hunts. x is a male chauvinist . Similarly. or a small galaxy. an expectant mother need not be a mother at all. x is an alleged criminal x is a putative solution x is imitation leather x is an expectant mother x is an experienced sailor. but neither is generally large. Sometimes. an alleged criminal is not a criminal who is alleged. indeed an alleged criminal need not be a criminal at all. x is a Bostonian Cabdriver This has a conjunctive reading. x is a small shrimp x is a deer hunter.

a male chauvinist is a person (male or female) who is excessively (and blindly) loyal in respect to the alleged superiority of men to women. and ignore the non-conjunctive reading. Bozonians. Nonetheless. let's go back to the original problem of paraphrasing the various sentences concerning adults. It is important to realize that many predicates don't combine conjunctively.290 This has a conjunctive reading. and a male chauvinist need not be a chauvinist. a male chauvinist need not be male. and criminals. (e1) every Adult Bozonian is a Criminal every AB is C everything is such that if it is AB. When there are two readings of a predicate combination. which means Hardegree. we are going to concentrate exclusively on ones that do. Now. We do two examples from each group. As originally intended by the author of this phrase. we will opt for the conjunctive reading. this is not what is usually meant by the phrase ‘male chauvinist’. then it is BC everything is such that if it is A. However. x is a male and x is a chauvinist. Symbolic Logic x is a male who is excessively (and blindly) patriotic (loyal). Rather. then it is C ®x([Ax & Bx] ² Cx) (e4) every Adult is a Bozonian Criminal every A is BC everything is such that if it is A. in each case by presenting a paraphrase chain. for the sake of simplicity. then it is B and it is C ®x(Ax ² [Bx & Cx]) (s3) some Criminal Bozonian is an Adult . then it is C everything is such that if it is A and it is B.

. (n3) no Criminal Bozonian is an Adult no CB is A it is not true that some CB is A it is not true that there is at least one thing such that it is CB. and it is A it is not true that there is at least one thing such that it is C and it is B. and it is A and it is C ¯x(Bx & [Ax & Cx]). and it is A ¯x([Cx & Bx] & Ax) (s5) some Bozonian is an Adult Criminal some B is AC there is at least one thing such that it is B. and it is AC there is at least one thing such that it is B. and it is A there is at least one thing such that it is C and it is B. and it is A ~¯x([Cx & Bx] & Ax).Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 291 some CB is A there is at least one thing such that it is CB.

(s1) ®x([Dx & Ax] ² [Cx & Bx]) (s2) ~¯x([Ax & Bx] & [Dx & Cx]) Another possible complication concerns internal negations in the sentences. together with their step-wise paraphrases. which symbolizes (say) ‘___is deranged’. We can further complicate matters by adding an additional predicate letter (say) ‘D’. then it is C ®x([Ax & ~Bx] ² Cx) . then it is C everything is such that if it is A and it is not B. Hardegree. (e1) every Deranged Adult is a Criminal Bozonian (e2) no Adult Bozonian is a Deranged Criminal The symbolizations go as follows. Symbolic Logic The reader is invited to symbolize the remaining sentences from the above groups. Consider the following two examples. and it is AB it is not true that there is at least one thing such that it is C. The following are examples. (1) every Adult who is not Bozonian is a Criminal every A who is not B is C everything is such that if it is an A who is not B. and it is A and it is B ~¯x(Cx & [Ax & Bx]).292 (n6) no Criminal is an Adult Bozonian no C is AB it is not true that some C is AB it is not true that there is at least one thing such that it is C.

and it is an A who is not C there is at least one thing such that it is B. and it is not C there is at least one thing such that it is A and it is B. and it is not C ¯x([Ax & Bx] & ~Cx) (3) some Bozonian is an Adult who is not a Criminal some B is an A who is not a C there is at least one thing such that it is B. and it is C it is not true that there is at least one thing such that it is A and it is not B. and it is A and it is not C ¯x(Bx & [Ax & ~Cx]) (4) no Adult who is not a Bozonian is a Criminal no A who is not B is C it is not true that some A who is not B is C it is not true that there is at least one thing such that it is an A who is not B.Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 293 (2) some Adult Bozonian is not a Criminal some AB is not C there is at least one thing such that it is AB. and it is C ~¯x([Ax & ~Bx] & Cx) .

SUMMARY OF BASIC TRANSLATION PATTERNS FROM SECTIONS 12 AND 13 Forms With Only Two Predicates (1) (2) (3) (1) (2) (3) (1) (2) (3) everything is both A and B everything is A but not B everything is either A or B something is both A and B something is A but not B something is either A or B nothing is both A and B nothing is A but not B nothing is either A or B ®x(Ax & Bx) ®x(Ax & ~Bx) ®x(Ax ´ Bx) ¯x(Ax & Bx) ¯x(Ax & ~Bx) ¯x(Ax ´ Bx) ~¯x(Ax & Bx) ~¯x(Ax & ~Bx) ~¯x(Ax ´ Bx) Simple Conjunctive Combinations (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) every AB is C some AB is C some AB is not C no AB is C every A is BC some A is BC some A is not BC no A is BC ®x([Ax & Bx] ² Cx) ¯x([Ax & Bx] & Cx) ¯x([Ax & Bx] & ~Cx) ~¯x([Ax & Bx] & Cx) ®x(Ax ² [Bx & Cx]) ¯x(Ax & [Bx & Cx]) ¯x(Ax & ~[Bx & Cx]) ~¯x(Ax & [Bx & Cx]) Conjunctive Combinations Involving Negations (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) every A that is not B is C some A that is not B is C some A that is not B is not C no A that is not B is C every A is B but not C some A is B but not C no A is B but not C ®x([Ax & ~Bx] ² Cx) ¯x([Ax & ~Bx] & Cx) ¯x([Ax & ~Bx] & ~Cx) ~¯x([Ax & ~Bx] & Cx) ®x(Ax ² [Bx & ~Cx]) ¯x(Ax & [Bx & ~Cx]) ~¯x(Ax & [Bx & ~Cx]) ) . Symbolic Logic 14.294 Hardegree.

allowed (or disallowed) depends on the context. In particular. being a member. which in standard form is written if not B. we examine a subtle variant – ‘the only’. ‘only’. specifically things that fail to have a certain property (being an employee. The basic quantificational form for ‘only’ is: only ´ are µ. Before dealing with the quantifier ‘only’. ‘only’ modifies ‘if’ by introducing two negations. then not A [~B ² ~A] In other words. in fact. The word ‘if’ always introduces the antecedent. being a passenger car. recall that A only if B may be paraphrased as not A if not B. and the word ‘only’ modifies ‘if’ by adding two negations in the appropriate places. let us recall a similar expression in sentential logic – namely.Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 295 15. ‘ONLY’ The standard quantifiers of predicate logic are ‘every’ and ‘at least one’. signs employing ‘only’ are intended to exclude certain things. In a later section. we examine another non-standard quantifier. We have already seen how to paraphrase various non-standard quantifiers into standard form. (3) (4) (5) only Employees are Allowed only Members are Allowed only Passenger cars are Allowed What is. In the present section. and ‘no’ as ‘not at least one’. . Examples include: (1) (2) only Men are NFL football players only Citizens are Voters Occasionally. we show how it can be paraphrased using the standard quantifiers. signs use ‘only’ as in: employees only members only passenger cars only These can often be paraphrased as follows. ‘some’ as ‘at least one’. etc. in particular. Generally. we paraphrase ‘all’ as ‘every’. But for the moment let us concentrate on ‘only’ by itself. In particular. ‘only if’.).

the hyphen will generally be dropped. (o1)-(o5) are symbolized as follows. First. we turn to symbolization. Indeed. First the general form is: (o) only ´ are µ. (1)-(4) may be paraphrased as follows. manner. simply to avoid clutter in our intermediate symbolizations. (p) no one who is not ´ is µ So. but simply a prefix. Recall the signs involving ‘only’. in various colloquial examples. (p*) no non-´ are µ However. ‘non’ is not an English word. Symbolic Logic When combined with the connective ‘if’. for example. the following is the "skeletal" paraphrase: only = no non [only = no non-] However. Thus. When ‘only’ acts as a quantifier. they are intended to exclude persons who fail to have a certain property. the following more "meaty" paraphrase is more suitable. we should write the following. it behaves in a similar. . (p1) (p2) (p3) (p4) no one who isn't a Man is an NFL football player no one who isn't a Citizen is a Voter no one who isn't an Employee is Allowed no one who isn't a Member is Allowed Next.296 Hardegree. properly speaking. as follows (o) (p) only ´ are µ no non ´ are µ Strictly speaking. we can paraphrase ‘only d are e’ in at least two very different ways involving double-negatives. we can paraphrase ‘only d are e’ using the negative quantifier ‘no’. which is paraphrased: (p) no non ´ are µ [no non ´ is µ] This is symbolized as follows. (s) ~¯x(~´x & µx) Similarly. double-negative. the word ‘only’ behaves as a special sort of double-negative modifier.

(p1) (p2) (p3) (p4) (p5) everyone who isn't a Man isn't an NFL football player everyone who isn't a Citizen isn't a Voter everyone who isn't an Employee isn't Allowed everyone who isn't a Member isn't Allowed everyone who isn't (driving) a Passenger car isn't Allowed These in turn are symbolized as follows. since the following is an equivalence of predicate logic. first recall the following quantificational equivalence: ~¯xi :: ®x~i And recall the following sentential equivalence: ~(~d & e) :: ~d ² ~e . ~¯x(~´x & µx) :: ®x(~´x ² ~µx) To see this equivalence.Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 297 (s1) (s2) (s3) (s4) (s5) ~¯x(~Mx & Nx) ~¯x(~Cx & Vx) ~¯x(~Ex & Ax) ~¯x(~Mx & Ax) ~¯x(~Px & Ax) The quickest way to paraphrase ‘only’ is using the equivalence ONLY = NO NON An alternative paraphrase technique uses ‘all’/‘every’ plus two occurrences of ‘non’/‘not’. as follows (o) (p1) (p2) (p3) only ´ are µ all non ´ are non µ every non ´ is non µ everyone who is not ´ is not µ These are symbolized as follows. (s) ®x(~´x ² ~µx) So. (1)-(5) may be paraphrased as follows. for example. (s1) (s2) (s3) (s4) (s5) ®x(~Mx ² ~Nx) ®x(~Cx ² ~Vx) ®x(~Ex ² ~Ax) ®x(~Mx ² ~Ax) ®x(~Px ² ~Ax) The two approaches above are equivalent.

however. just as P²Q is admitted as a symbolization of ‘P only if Q’. . to some people) in English. for the sake of having a single form. The problem is that the non-negative construals of ‘only’ statements sound funny (even wrong. the former paraphrase/symbolization will be used exclusively in the answers to the exercises. Symbolic Logic This equivalence enables us to provide yet another paraphrase and symbolization of ‘only ´ are µ’. (o) (p) (s) only ´ are e all µ are ´ ®x(µx ² ´x) The latter symbolization is admitted in intro logic.298 Accordingly. ~¯x(~´x & µx) :: ®x~(~´x & µx) And ~(~´x & µx) :: (~´x ² ~µx) So ~¯x(~´x & µx) :: ®x(~´x ² ~µx) There is still another sentential equivalence: ~d ² ~e :: e ² d So ~µx ² ~´x :: (µx ² ´x) So ~¯x(~´x & µx) :: ®x(µx ² ´x) Hardegree. as follows. in addition to the official ~Q²~P. (o) only ´ are µ (p1) no non ´ is µ (s1) ~¯x(~´x & µx) (p2) every non ´ is non µ (s2) ®x(~´x ² ~µx) Note carefully. our official paraphrase/symbolization goes as follows. In short.

we obtain the following paraphrase. the scope of ‘non’ is ambiguous. AMBIGUITIES INVOLVING ‘ONLY’ Having discussed the basic ‘only’ statement forms. and its paraphrase. even though a poisonous snake is quite different from a poisonous mushroom (a mushroom's bite is not very deadly!) Granting this simplifying assumption. Our original sentence. (r1) x is a non-poisonous snake (r2) x is a non(poisonous snake) x is not a poisonous snake (s1) ~Px & Sx (s2) ~(Px & Sx) On one reading. if we follow the pattern of paraphrase suggested in the previous section. (p1) no non Poisonous Snakes are Dangerous no non Poisonous Snake is Dangerous Unfortunately.Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 299 16. Consider the following example. and hence two different symbolizations. to be a non poisonous snake is to be a snake that is not poisonous. we now move to examples involving more than two predicates. adding a third predicate can complicate matters. only poisonous snakes are dangerous no non poisonous snakes are dangerous are correspondingly ambiguous between the following readings. so that a poisonous snake is simply a snake that is poisonous. For the sentence (1) x is a non poisonous snake has two different readings. x is a Poisonous Snake :: x is Poisonous and x is a Snake Now. ~¯x(~[Px & Sx] & Dx) . On the other reading. As it turns out. we have the following paraphrase. to be a non poisonous snake is simply to be anything but a poisonous snake. (e1) only Poisonous Snakes are Dangerous Let us assume that ‘poisonous’ combines conjunctively.

300 there is no thing x such that x is not a Poisonous Snake. or things in general. in the fourth paragraph. it is clear that we are talking exclusively about snakes. so the second sentence is intended to exclude from the class of dangerous things anything that is not a poisonous snake. it is clear what the topic is – snakes. only poisonous snakes are dangerous. For example. only poisonous snakes are dangerous. Few animals are dangerous. when we get to the second sentence. In particular. What the topic is helps to determine the meaning of the second sentence. but x is Dangerous ~¯x([~Px & Sx] & Dx) there is no thing x such that x is a nonPoisonous Snake. By contrast. (1) (2) (3) (4) Few snakes are dangerous. In fact. In fact. the sentence does not say whether there are any dangerous tigers. animals. but x is Dangerous Hardegree. or dangerous mushrooms. In each paragraph. Few things are dangerous. (1) (2) (3) (4) only Poisonous Snakes are Dangerous snakes only Poisonous Snakes are Dangerous reptiles only Poisonous Snakes are Dangerous animals only Poisonous Snakes are Dangerous things These may be straightforwardly paraphrased and symbolized as follows. In fact. by the time we get to the second sentence. and not things in general. only poisonous snakes are dangerous. reptiles. In fact. An alternative method of clarifying the topic of the sentence is to rewrite the four sentences as follows. Symbolic Logic To see that the original sentence really is ambiguous. consider the following four (very short) paragraphs. in the first paragraph. Few reptiles are dangerous. the first sentence makes it clear that we are talking about things in general. (0) only A are B no non A is B ~¯x(~Ax & Bx) . only poisonous snakes are dangerous.

[Still more complications arise when ‘the’ is combined with ‘only’ (‘all’) to produce ‘only the’ (‘all the’).] The nice thing about ‘the only’ is that it enables us to make ‘only’ statements without the kind of ambiguity seen in the previous section.Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 301 (1) only PS are DS no non(PS) is DS ~¯x(~[Px & Sx] & [Dx & Sx]) only PS are DR no non(PS) is DR ~¯x(~[Px & Sx] & [Dx & Rx]) only PS are DA no non(PS) is DA ~¯x(~[Px & Sx] & [Dx & Ax]) only PS are D no non(PS) is D ~¯x(~[Px & Sx] & Dx) (2) (3) (4) If we prefer to use the ‘every’ paraphrase of ‘only’. (0) only A are B every non A is non B ®x(~Ax ² ~Bx) only PS are DS every non(PS) is non(DS) ®x(~[Px & Sx] ² ~[Dx & Sx]) only PS are DR every non(PS) is non(DR) ®x(~[Px & Sx] ² ~[Dx & Rx]) only PS are DA every non(PS) is non(DA) ®x(~[Px & Sx] ² ~[Dx & Ax]) only PS are D every non(PS) is non-D ®x(~[Px & Sx] ² ~Dx) (1) (2) (3) (4) 17. we are only going to deal with ‘the only’. Recall that only poisonous snakes are dangerous . then the paraphrase and symbolization goes as follows. ‘THE ONLY’ The subtleties of ‘only’ are further complicated by combining it with the word ‘the’ to produce ‘the only’. however.

Recall that only A are B is paraphrased: no non A are B Statements involving ‘the only’ are similarly paraphrased. for example. B and D may be the same predicate. we have the following paraphrases and symbolizations of (1)-(4). (1) (2) (3) (4) the only dangerous snakes are poisonous snakes or: poisonous snakes are the only dangerous snakes the only dangerous reptiles are poisonous snakes or: poisonous snakes are the only dangerous reptiles the only dangerous animals are poisonous snakes or: poisonous snakes are the only dangerous animals the only dangerous things are poisonous snakes or: poisonous snakes are the only dangerous things The general form of these is: the only AB are CD or: CD are the only AB Here. The paraphrase and symbolization of ‘the only’ statements follows a pattern similar to the paraphrase and symbolization of ‘only’ statements. specifically. the details are importantly different. the only AB are CD CD are the only AB are paraphrased: no AB are not CD So. since everything is a thing!). ‘AB’ and ‘BC’ are conjunctively-combined predicates. Symbolic Logic is ambiguous between any of the following (among others): only poisonous snakes are dangerous snakes only poisonous snakes are dangerous reptiles only poisonous snakes are dangerous animals only poisonous snakes are dangerous things These four propositions can also be expressed using ‘the only’. Certain simplifications occasionally occur.302 Hardegree. as follows. or B may be the vacuous predicate ‘is a thing’ (which is never explicitly symbolized. . the paraphrase utilizes both ‘no’ and ‘not’. In particular. However. For example.

. In (1). about (1) and (4).Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 303 (1) the only dangerous snakes are poisonous snakes no dangerous snakes are not poisonous snakes no DS are not PS ~¯x([Dx & Sx] & ~[Px & Sx]) or: the only dangerous snakes are poisonous no dangerous snakes are not poisonous no DS are not P ~¯x([Dx & Sx] & ~Px) the only dangerous reptiles are poisonous snakes no dangerous reptiles are not poisonous snakes no DR are not PS ~¯x([Dx & Rx] & ~[Px & Sx]) the only dangerous animals are poisonous snakes no dangerous animals are not poisonous snakes no DS are not PS ~¯x([Dx & Ax] & ~[Px & Sx]) the only dangerous things are poisonous snakes no dangerous things are not poisonous snakes no D are not PS ~¯x(Dx & ~[Px & Sx]) (2) (3) (4) Two features of the above should be noted. which is paraphrased and symbolized: no AB are not C ~¯x([Ax & Bx] & ~Cx) In (4). which is paraphrased and symbolized: no A are not CD ~¯x(Ax & ~[Cx & Dx]). the only AB are CB is equivalent to the only AB are C. the only A things are CD is equivalent to the only A are CD. hence. Both involve situations in which only three predicates are involved. the predicate ‘is a snake’ is repeated. In particular. and is equivalent to the sentence in which the second occurrence is simply dropped. the predicate ‘is a thing’ is vacuous. In particular. it is not symbolized.

notice that ‘suitable’ does not combine conjunctively. ®x([Cx & Dx] ² Sx) WRONG!!! What is wrong with this translation? Well. piece by piece. DISJUNCTIVE COMBINATIONS OF PREDICATES In Section 13. however. Let us concentrate on the first one for a moment. translating it back into English. ones that may be symbolized by conjunctions. yields the following: . a suitable pet is (usually!) quite different from a suitable meal. Recall that no A are not B ~¯x(Ax & ~Bx) is equivalent to every A is B Accordingly. which is paraphrased: no AB are not CD may also be paraphrased: every AB is CD ®x([Ax & Bx] ² [Cx & Dx]) Both symbolizations count as correct symbolizations. the only AB are CD. only the doublenegative symbolizations will be given in the answers to the exercises. Consider the following two examples. We must accordingly treat the predicate combination ‘suitable pet’ as simple: ‘Sx’ stands for ‘x is a suitable pet’. all Cats and Dogs are Suitable pets only Cats and Dogs are Suitable pets First. As a first attempt at translation. for example. The curious thing about the logical structure of English is that often the word ‘and’. Symbolic Logic Note: Students who seek the shortest symbolization of a given statement may wish to consider the following equivalent symbolization. our archetypical word for conjunction.304 Hardegree. ~¯x([Ax & Bx] & ~[Cx & Dx]) ®x(Ax ² Bx) 18. is used in a manner that does not allow it to be mechanically translated as a conjunction. let us consider the following. we examined many conjunctive predicate combinations.

Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic

305

for any thing x, if x is a cat and x is a dog, then x is a suitable pet in other words, for any thing x, if x is both a cat and a dog, then x is a suitable pet This is surely true, but only because nothing is both a cat and a dog! By contrast, the original sentence is false, since cats and dogs do not all make suitable pets; many are not house-trained, many have rabies, etc. The above translation is quite amusing, but nevertheless wrong. What is the correct translation? In particular, how does the word ‘and’ operate in the above sentence? One possible way to interpret ‘and’ as a genuine conjunction is to transform the original sentence into the following equivalent sentence. all Cats are Suitable pets, and all Dogs are Suitable pets This sentence is a conjunction, which is symbolized as follows. ®x(Cx ² Sx) & ®x(Dx ² Sx) This formula involves two quantifiers; multiply-quantified formulas are the topic of a later section (Section 19). On the other hand, this formula is logically equivalent to the following singly-quantified formula. ®x([Cx ´ Dx] ² Sx), which reads: for any thing x: if x is a cat or x is a dog, then x is a suitable pet Thus, in some sense, to be explained shortly, the word ‘and’ is translated as a disjunction in this sentence. In order to more fully understand what is going on, let us consider the second example. only Cats and Dogs are Suitable pets First, let us apply our earlier technique, transforming this sentence into the corresponding conjunction. only Cats are Suitable pets, and only Dogs are Suitable pets

306

Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

As you can see, the simple transformation technique has failed, since the latter sentence is certainly not equivalent to the original. For, unlike the original sentence, the latter implies that any suitable pet is both a cat and a dog! O.K., the first technique doesn't work. What about the second technique, which involves symbolizing the sentence using disjunction rather than conjunction? Let's see if this surprise attack will also work on the second example. First, the overall form is: only d are S, where ‘d’ stands for ‘Cats and Dogs’. Its overall symbolization is therefore (using the ®-version on ‘only’): ®x(~dx ² ~Sx) Next, we propose the following disjunctive analysis of the pseudo-atomic formula ‘Ax’: dx :: [Cx ´ Dx] Thus, the final proposed symbolization is: ®x(~[Cx ´ Dx] ² ~Sx). Recalling that the negation of ‘either-or’ is ‘neither-nor’, this formula reads: for any thing x: if x is neither a Cat nor a Dog, then x is not a Suitable pet This is equivalent to: for any thing x: if x is a Suitable pet, then x is either a Cat or a Dog This seems to be a suitable translation of the original sentence. The disjunction-approach seems to work. But how can one logically say that sometimes ‘and’ is translated as disjunction, when usually it is translated as conjunction? This does not make sense, unless we can tell when ‘and’ is conjunction, and when ‘and’ is disjunction. As usual in natural language, the underlying logico-grammatical laws/rules are incredibly complex. But let us see if we can make a small amount of sense out of ‘and’. The key may lie in the distinction between singular and plural terms. Whereas predicate logic uses singular terms exclusively, natural English uses plural terms just as frequently as singular terms. The problem is in translating from plural-talk to singular-talk. For example, the expressions,

Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic

307

cats, dogs, cats and dogs, suitable pets are all plural terms; each one refers to a class or set. Let us name these classes as follows. C: D: E: S: the class of all cats the class of all dogs the class of all cats and dogs the class of all suitable pets

Now, let us consider the associated sentences. First, the sentences all cats are suitable pets all dogs are suitable pets all cats and dogs are suitable pets may be understood as asserting the following, respectively. every member of class C (i.e., cats) is also a member of class S (i.e., suitable pets) every member of class D (i.e., dogs) is also a member of class S (i.e., suitable pets) every member of class E (i.e., cats and dogs) is also a member of class S (i.e., suitable pets) The notion of membership in a class is fairly straightforward in most cases. In particular, we have the following equivalences. x is a member of C x is a member of D x is a member of S :: :: :: x is a cat x is a dog x is a suitable pet :: :: :: Cx Dx Sx

But the key equivalence concerns the class E, cats-and-dogs, which is given as follows. x is a member of E :: x is a cat or x is a dog :: [Cx ´ Dx]

In other words, to say that x is a member of the class cats-and-dogs is to say that x is a cat or x is a dog (it surely is not to say that x is both a cat and a dog!). If x is a cat or x is a dog, then x is in the class cats-and-dogs; conversely, if x is in the class cats-and-dogs, then x is a cat or x is a dog. So, when we translate the above sentences, using the above equivalences, we obtain: for any x, if x is a cat, then x is a suitable pet; ®x(Cx ² Sx) for any x, if x is a dog, then x is a suitable pet; ®x(Dx ² Sx)

308 for any x, if x is a cat or x is a dog, then x is a suitable pet; ®x([Cx ´ Dx] ² Sx)

Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

Now let's go back and do the example involving ‘only’. only cats and dogs are suitable pets which may be paraphrased as: only members of E are members of S, which is symbolized as: ®x(~Ex ² ~Sx) But ‘Ex’ means ‘x is a member of the class cats-and-dogs’, which means ‘x is a cat or x is a dog’, so we have as our final symbolization: ®x(~[Cx ´ Dx] ² ~Sx) Let us try one last example in this section. the only mammals that are suitable pets are cats and dogs. Once again, we have the compound-class expression ‘cats and dogs’. The overall form is the only M that are S are E, which we know can be symbolized in a number of ways, including the following. ~¯x([Mx & Sx] & ~Ex) ®x([Mx & Sx] ² Ex) But ‘Ex’ is short for [Cx ´ Dx], so substituting back in, we obtain: ~¯x([Mx & Sx] & ~[Cx ´ Dx]) ®x([Mx & Sx] ² [Cx ´ Dx]) which are read as follows. it is not true that: there is something x such that: it is a mammal and it is a suitable pet, but it is neither a cat nor a dog for any thing x, if x is a mammal and x is a suitable pet, then x is a cat or x is a dog

Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic

309

**19. MULTIPLE QUANTIFICATION IN MONADIC PREDICATE LOGIC
**

So far, we have concentrated on quantified formulas and negations of quantified formulas. A quantified formula is a formula whose principal connective is either a universal or an existential quantifier. The grammar of predicate logic includes the grammar of sentential logic. In other words, when one has one or more predicate logic formulas, then one can combine them with sentential connectives in order to form more complex formulas. For example, if one has quantified formulas or negated quantified formulas d and e, then one can combine them using conjunction (&), disjunction (´), conditional (²), and biconditional (±). Consider the following formulas, together with possible English translations. (1a) (2a) (3a) (4a) (5a) (6a) (1b) (2b) (3b) (4b) (5b) (6b) ®xFx ¯xFx ¯x~Fx ~¯xFx ®x~Fx ~®xFx ®xHx ¯xHx ¯x~Hx ~¯xHx ®x~Hx ~®xHx everyone is friendly someone is friendly someone is unfriendly no one is friendly everyone is unfriendly not everyone is friendly everyone is happy someone is happy someone is unhappy no one is happy everyone is unhappy not everyone is happy

We can take any two of the above formulas (sentences) and combine them with any two-place connective. For example, we can combine them with conjunction. The following are a few examples. (c1) (c2) (c3) (c4) ®xFx & ®xHx ®xFx & ~®xHx ¯xHx & ¯x~Hx ~¯xFx & ®xHx everyone is friendly, and everyone is happy everyone is friendly, but not everyone is happy someone is happy, and someone is unhappy no one is friendly, but everyone is happy

Similarly, we can combine any pair of the above formulas (sentences) with the conditional connective. The following are a few examples. (c5) (c6) (c7) (c8) ®xFx ² ®xHx ¯xFx ² ¯xHx ~¯xFx ² ®x~Hx ¯x~Fx ² ~¯xHx if everyone is friendly, then everyone is happy if someone is friendly, then someone is happy if no one is friendly, then everyone is unhappy if someone is unfriendly, then no one is happy

At this point, probably the most important thing to recognize is the novelty of the above formulas. They are unlike any formula we have discussed so far. In particular, each one involves two quantifier expressions, whereas every previous example has involved at most one quantifier.

310

Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

Let us pursue the difference for a moment. Consider the following pair of formulas. (u1) ®x(Fx ² Hx) (u2) ®xFx ² ®xHx They read as follows. (r1) everything is such that: if it is F, then it is H every F is H (r2) if everything is such that it is F, then everything is such that it is H if everything is F, then everything is H What is the logical relation between (r1) and (r2)? Well, they are not equivalent; although (r1) implies (r2), (r2) does not imply (r1). To see that (r2) does not imply (r1), consider the following counter-example to the argument form. if everyone is a Freshman, then everyone is happy therefore, every Freshman is happy First, this concrete argument has the right form. Furthermore, the conclusion is false. So, what about the premise? This is a conditional; the antecedent is ‘everyone is a Freshman’; this is false; the consequent is ‘everyone is happy’; this is also false. Therefore, recalling the truth table for arrow (F²F=T), the conditional is true. Whereas this argument is invalid, its converse is valid, but not sound. Its validity will be demonstrated in a later chapter. Let us consider another example of the difference between a singly-quantified formula and a similar-looking multiply-quantified formula. Consider the following pair. (e1) ¯x(Fx & Hx) (e2) ¯xFx & ¯xHx The colloquial readings are given as follows. (c1) something is both F and H (c2) something is F, and something is H [or: some F is H ]

Once again the formulas are not logically equivalent; however, (c1) does imply (c2). For suppose that something is both F and H; then, it is F, and hence something is F; furthermore, it is H, and hence something is H. Hence, something is F, and something is H. [We will examine this style of reasoning in detail in the chapter on derivations in predicate logic.]

Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic

311

So (c1) implies (c2). In order to see that (c2) does not imply (c1), consider the following counterexample. someone is female, and someone is male therefore, someone is both male and female The premise is surely true, but the conclusion is false. Legally, if not biologically, everyone is exclusively male or female; no one is both male and female. Having seen the basic theme (namely, combining quantified formulas with sentential connectives), let us now consider the three most basic variations on this theme. First, one can combine the simple quantified formulas, listed above, using non-standard connectives (‘unless’, ‘only if’, etc.) Second, one can combine more complex quantified formulas (every A is B, every AB is C, etc.) using standard connectives. Finally, one can combine complex quantified formulas using nonstandard connectives. The following are examples of these three variations (1a) (1b) (2a) (2b) (3a) (3b) everyone is happy, only if everyone is friendly no one is happy, unless everyone is friendly if every student is happy, then every Freshman is happy every Freshman is a student, but not every student is a Freshman every Freshman is Happy, only if every student is happy no Student is happy, unless every student is friendly

Now, in translating English statements like the above, which involve more than one quantifier, and one or more explicit statement connectives, the best strategy is the following. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Identify the overall sentential structure; i.e., identify the explicit sentential connectives; Identify the various (quantified) parts; Symbolize the overall sentential structure; Symbolize each (quantified) part; Substitute the symbolized parts into the overall sentential form.

This is pretty much the same strategy as for sentential symbolizations. The key difference is that, whereas in sentential logic one combines atomic formulas (capital letters), in predicate logic one combines quantified formulas as well. With this strategy in mind, let us go back to the above examples.

Example 1

(1a) everyone is happy, only if everyone is friendly The overall form of this sentence is:

312 d only if e, which is symbolized: ~e ² ~d The parts, and their respective symbolizations, are: d: everyone is happy e: everyone is friendly So the final symbolization is: ~®xFx ² ~®xHx ®xHx ®xFx

Hardegree, Symbolic Logic

Example 2

(1b) no one is happy, unless everyone is friendly The overall form is d unless e, which is symbolized: ~e ² d The parts, and their respective symbolizations, are: d: no one is happy e: everyone is friendly So the final symbolization is: ~®xFx ² ~¯xHx ~¯xHx ®xFx

Example 3

(2a) if every student is happy, then every Freshman is happy The overall form of this sentence is: if d, then e, which is symbolized d²e The parts, and their respective symbolizations, are: d: every student is happy e: every Freshman is happy So the final symbolization is: ®x(Sx ² Hx) ² ®x(Fx ² Hx) ®x(Sx ² Hx) ®x(Fx ² Hx)

Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic

313

Example 4

(2b) every Freshman is a student, but not every student is a Freshman. The overall form of this sentence is: d but e (i.e., d and e), which is symbolized d & e. The parts, and their respective symbolizations, are: d: every Freshman is a student e: not every student is a Freshman So the final symbolization is: ®x(Fx ² Sx) & ~®x(Sx ² Fx) ®x(Fx ² Sx) ~®x(Sx ² Fx)

Example 5

(3a) every Freshman is Happy, only if every student is happy The overall form of this sentence is: d only if e, which is symbolized ~e ² ~d. The parts, and their respective symbolizations, are: d: every Freshman is happy e: every student is happy So the final symbolization is: ~®x(Sx ² Hx) ² ~®x(Fx ² Hx) ®x(Fx ² Hx) ®x(Sx ² Hx)

Example 6

(3b) no Student is happy, unless every student is friendly The overall form of this sentence is: d unless e, which is symbolized ~e ² d The parts, and their respective symbolizations, are: d: no student is happy e: every student is friendly ~¯x(Sx & Hx) ®x(Sx ² Fx)

some. ‘j’ stands for ‘Jones’. Let us consider ‘anyone’ first. since it merely states a logical truth – that Jones can fix your car supposing everyone can.. this quantifier expression is sometimes equivalent to ‘everyone’. our working hypothesis is that ‘anyone’ and ‘everyone’ are completely interchangeable. then anyone can (fix your car) (2b) if Jones can fix your car. anything. anyone. The troublesome expressions are: any.314 So the final symbolization is: ~®x(Sx ² Fx) ² ~¯x(Sx & Hx) Hardegree. these are not equivalent! Whereas the former sentence could very well be an ad in the yellow pages. this hypothesis is quickly refuted when we interchange the roles of antecedent and consequent in (2a) and (2b). the latter would be a truly stupid ad.’ So far. However. a. then Jones can (fix your car) Clearly. and ‘®x’ stands for ‘every person x is such that. it is a conditional with ‘everyone can fix your car’ [symbolized: ®xFx] as antecedent and with ‘Jones can fix your car’ [symbolized: Fj] as consequent. (1a) anyone can fix your car (1b) everyone can fix your car (2a) if Jones can fix your car. ‘ANY’ AND OTHER WIDE SCOPE QUANTIFIERS Some quantifier expressions are occasionally used in ways that lead to confusion in symbolization in predicate logic. then Jones can (fix your car) if everyone can fix your car. as seen in the following examples. Clearly. (a) (e) if anyone can fix your car. bragging about Jones' mechanical abilities. then everyone can (fix your car) ®xFx ®xFx Fj ² ®xFx Fj ² ®xFx Here. the strategy is the same as before. But in attacking a sentence that has a combination of several quantifiers and one or more sentential connectives (perhaps non-standard).. Now. ‘F_’ stands for ‘_ can fix your car’. Symbolic Logic These are examples of the basic variations on the basic theme. (e') ®xFx ² Fj . the symbolization of (e) is straightforward. in which case we obtain the following statements. It is accordingly symbolized as follows. 20. There are also more complicated variations available.

®xFx is short for the following list: Fa Fb Fc etc. ®x(Fx ² Fj). For example. so that ‘®x’ is the main connective. if everyone is F. in particular.Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 315 Notice that the main connective is arrow. This list says. it goes as follows. a shorthand expression for a (possibly infinite) list of formulas. then j is F But what happens if we get confused and put in parentheses. ®x(Fx ² Gx) is short for the following list: Fa ² Ga Fb ² Gb Fc ² Gc etc. Every universal formula is. and not a universal quantifier. in effect. everyone is such that: if he/she is F. then Jones can if c can fix your car. we obtain the following formula. one formula for every individual in the universe. And. Well. using the original scheme of abbreviation: if a can fix your car. then j is F. following this same pattern. So. which says something quite different from (e). the formula in question. and not ‘²’? In that case. but what? nective is ‘®x’. ®x(Fx ² Fj) is short for the following list: Fa ² Fj Fb ² Fj Fc ² Fj etc. then Jones can etc. then Jones can if b can fix your car. the main con- . so the literal reading goes as follows. when we read it literally.

Although ‘if. Note: ‘Kx’ stands for ‘Jones knows x’. however. this further analysis is unnecessary to make the point about the difference between ‘any’ and ‘every’....’ appears to be the main connective. although the English sentence looks like a conditional with ‘anyone can fix your car’ as its antecedent. but its actual logical position is at the outside of the sentence. The moral concerning ‘any’ versus ‘every’ seems to be this: On the one hand. ‘everyone’ and ‘anyone’ are not interchangeable.. in actuality. This can be further analyzed using a two place predicate ‘. then Jones can Hardegree.knows. the apparent grammatical position of ‘every’ coincides with its true logical position. In short: .316 In other words. of course. (a) is just the opposite. Another way to express the latter is: (a'') Jones knows no one.then.. in fact ‘anyone’ is the main connective. The following are the respective symbolizations in monadic predicate logic. On the other hand. the sentence is a universal conditional.. followed by their respective readings. (e') ~®xKx it is not true that everyone is such that Jones knows him/her.. is one of our original sentences. Consider another pair of examples involving ‘any’ versus ‘every’. ‘any’ appears to be deeper inside the sentence than the affiliated sentential connectives. (a') ®x~Kx everyone is such that it is not true that Jones knows him/her.’. (e) (a) Jones does not know everyone Jones does not know anyone As in the earlier case. which we now see is symbolized in predicate logic as follows. in a sentence. being a universal of a negation. the apparent grammatical position of ‘any’ does not coincide with its true logical position in a sentence. Whereas (e) is a negation of a universal. if anyone can fix your car. In particular. ®x(Fx ² Fj) In other words.. Symbolic Logic This sentence. or ‘x is known by Jones’.

let's consider what the problem might be. Now what is worse is that ‘any’ is not the only wide-scope universal quantifier used in English. then every person will leave if a skunk enters. we are talking about every/any number. which is symbolized (in monadic logic. we are clearly not talking about some particular number. and some tree grows in Brooklyn both mean at least one tree grows in Brooklyn. then it is sturdy This is a much harder symbolization problem! The problem is how do the quantifier ‘a’. The scope of ‘every’ is narrow. rather. if a skunk enters. he/she would be surprised We will deal with these particular examples shortly. . Consider an analogous example. which might be clearer. there are others. which is even if it is divisible by 2.Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 317 The scope of ‘any’ is wide. this sentence can be paraphrased as any number that is divisible by 2 is even. as witnessed by the following examples. both ‘a’ and ‘some’ are occasionally used as existential quantifiers. at least) as follows: ¯x(Tx & Gx) But what if I say if a tree grows in Brooklyn. Clearly. the pronoun ‘it’. In particular. Here. and the connective ‘if-then’ interact logically. a tree grows in Brooklyn. for example. First. which may be paraphrased as there is at least one thing such that it is a tree and it grows in Brooklyn. if a number is divisible by 2. then it is even. then it won't be welcomed a number is even if and only if it is divisible by 2 if someone were to enter.

Let us go back to the example concerning the mechanic Jones. then it won't be welcomed ®x(Sx ² [Ex ² ~Wx]) a number is even if and only if it is divisible by 2 ®x(Nx ² [Ex ± Dx]) if someone were to enter. it is symbolized in a parallel manner. a conditional. then it is even. in this case. then it is sturdy Now let us symbolize the earlier sentences. if anyone can fix your car. where. ‘any’. Symbolic Logic where ‘®x’ means ‘every number is such that’ or ‘for any number’. etc. These are symbolized as follows. ‘®x’ means ‘every tree is such that’ or ‘for any tree’. ~Fj ² ~¯xFx . then no one can (fix your car) This is. every tree is such that: if it grows in Brooklyn.318 or every number is such that: if it is divisible by 2. he/she would be surprised ®x(Ex ² Sx) By way of concluding this section. then Jones can (fix your car). Hardegree. which is symbolized as follows. then every person will leave ®x(Sx ² [Ex ² ®x(Px ² Lx)]) if a skunk enters. Going back to the Brooklyn tree example.) can be translated into corresponding sentences containing narrow-scope existential quantifiers. if Jones cannot fix your car. ®x(Gx ² Sx). One way to look at this is by way of a round-about paraphrase that goes as follows. just as it appears. we observe that in certain special circumstances sentences containing wide-scope universal quantifiers (‘a’. ®x(Dx ² Ex). if a skunk enters.

. then everyone will be sad Whereas ‘everyone’ is a narrow-scope universal quantifier. the latter is short for the following (possibly infinite) list.. F[x] is any formula in which ‘x’ occurs "free". if everyone fails the exam.’ and ‘if any. Fa ² ®xSx Fb ² ®xSx Fc ² ®xSx Fd ² ®xSx etc. let us consider a few special cases. First. let us do an example contrasting ‘if every. in the formula ®x(Fx ² ®xSx).Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 319 if j is not F. the above formula is equivalent to the following formula. ®xFx ² ®xSx ®x(Fx ² ®xSx) Remember. but ‘x’ is not free in ‘®xSx’. then Jones can (fix your car). then everyone will be sad if c fails. ¯xFx ² Fj which translates into colloquial English as follows.’. ‘x’ is free in ‘Fx’.) Rather than dwell on the general problem. This is consistent with our original symbolization of the sentence. if someone can fix your car. Now. then everyone will be sad if d fails.. so we can apply the above-mentioned equivalence.. then everyone will be sad . and e is any formula in which ‘x’ is does not occur "free" (Consult later appendix concerning freedom and bondage of variables. then everyone will be sad if anyone fails the exam. you will recall the following equivalence of sentential logic: ~d ² ~e :: e ² d Accordingly. ®x(F[x] ² e) :: ¯xF[x] ² e Here. then everyone will be sad if b fails. then no one is F Now. since the following is an equivalence of predicate logic (as we will be able to demonstrate in a later chapter!) ®x(Fx ² Fj) :: ¯xFx ² Fj This is a special case of a more general scheme given as follows. to obtain: if a fails. so the symbolizations go as follows. ‘anyone’ is a widescope universal quantifier.

for example. Hardegree. Symbolic Logic This is not equivalent to a corresponding conditional with a narrow-scope existential quantifier. where ‘this’ points at whomever the person speaking chooses. then a will be sad Fb ² Sb if b fails. which is equivalent to ¯xFx ² Sy. then c will be sad etc... then b will be sad Fc ² Sc if c fails. ¯xFx ² Sx. which reads: if someone fails.320 ¯xFx ² ®xSx. . then this (person) will be sad. which is short for the following (infinite) list: Fa ² Sa if a fails. then everyone will be sad But what about the following: if anyone fails the exam. he/she will be sad This is symbolized the same as any ‘if any.’ statement: ®x(Fx ² Sx). which reads if someone fails.

5. then both of them are SOPHOMORES. If JAY is a SOPHOMORE. then neither of them is a FRESHMAN. JAY is not SMARTER than KAY. Both JAY and KAY are MARRIED. FRAN INTRODUCED JAY to KAY. 3. CHRIS is TALLER than both JAY and KAY. Neither JAY nor KAY is MARRIED. 2. 16. 6. 13. 15. 8. JAY and KAY are FRIENDS if and only if they are ROOMMATES. JAY and KAY are MARRIED (to each other). . JAY is TALLER than KAY. JAY is a FRESHMAN. 18. FRAN did not INTRODUCE KAY to JAY. translate each of the following into the language of predicate logic. 12. If JAY and KAY LIVE off-campus. JAY and KAY are not ROOMMATES unless they are MARRIED. JAY and KAY are neither SIBLINGS nor COUSINS. 19. 11. KAY is a JUNIOR. Neither JAY nor KAY is a SENIOR. EXERCISE SET A 1.Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 321 21. 4. 9. If neither JAY nor KAY is a FRESHMAN. 7. EXERCISES FOR CHAPTER 6 Directions for every exercise set: Using the suggested abbreviations (the capitalized words). JAY and KAY are STUDENTS. JAY or KAY is the STUDENT body president. 17. 10. but not both. then so is KAY. Although JAY and KAY are both MARRIED. 20. they are not MARRIED to each other. 14.

Not everyone is PERFECT. Not a thing can be CHANGED. Everything is imPOSSIBLE. 32. 23. Something is imPOSSIBLE. Nothing is imPOSSIBLE. Not everything is imPOSSIBLE. Nothing is POSSIBLE. 30 31. No one is imPERFECT. Someone is imPERFECT. Something is POSSIBLE. 39. Symbolic Logic EXERCISE SET B 21. 37. 28. Someone is PERFECT. 25. . 38. Everything is POSSIBLE. 27. Everyone is imPERFECT. 34. 40. 22. 35. Someone is not PERFECT.322 Hardegree. Not everyone is imPERFECT Not a single person CAME. 26. Something is not POSSIBLE. Everyone is PERFECT. No one is PERFECT. 33. Not everything is POSSIBLE. 29. 24. 36.

51. All SNAKES HIBERNATE. Not every STUDENT is HAPPY. 52. No SCOUNDRELS are unHAPPY. Not all SNAKES are HARMFUL. 56. 48. 45. 60. Not a single STUDENT is HAPPY. Some STUDENT is HAPPY. 57. 47. 46. No STUDENT is HAPPY. Every STUDENT is unHAPPY. 44. 58.Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 323 EXERCISE SET C 41. 42. Not all SNAKES are unHAPPY. Some STUDENT is unHAPPY. 50. Every STUDENT is HAPPY. 54. Not a single SCOUNDREL is HONEST. Some SENATORS are unHAPPY. No SCOUNDRELS are HONEST. Some SENATORS are HONEST. All SKUNKS are unHAPPY. . 59. 53. No STUDENT is unHAPPY. 43. Some STUDENT is not HAPPY. 49. 55. Some SENATORS are not HONEST. Not every STUDENT is unHAPPY.

At least one ATHLETE is not BOORISH. Symbolic Logic EXERCISE SET D 61. Everything is either MATERIAL or SPIRITUAL. 64.324 Hardegree. 66. At least one thing is neither MATERIAL nor SPIRITUAL. 68. . There is at least one POLITICIAN who is HONEST. 70. 69. 65. 62. No one who isn't COORDINATED is an ATHLETE. Everyone who isn't VACATIONING is WORKING. 67. Anyone who is ATHLETIC is WELL-ADJUSTED. Nothing is both MATERIAL and SPIRITUAL. Everyone who is SENSITIVE is HEALTHY. No one who is HONEST is a POLITICIAN. 63.

No AMBITIOUS STUDENT is CLEVER. 76. Not every CLEVER STUDENT is AMBITIOUS. 80. 86. 88. 72. Not every AMBITIOUS STUDENT is CLEVER. 82. . 84. Every STUDENT is either CLEVER or not AMBITIOUS. Not all CLEVER PERSONS are STUDENTS. 83. 79. Not every AMBITIOUS PERSON is a CLEVER STUDENT. Every CLEVER STUDENT is AMBITIOUS. 87. 89. 90. Some AMBITIOUS PERSONS are not CLEVER STUDENTS. Every STUDENT who is CLEVER is AMBITIOUS. Some CLEVER STUDENTS are AMBITIOUS. No STUDENT is both CLEVER and AMBITIOUS.Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 325 EXERCISE SET E 71. 85. 78. No CLEVER STUDENT is AMBITIOUS. 81. Every STUDENT who is AMBITIOUS is CLEVER. No STUDENT is either CLEVER or AMBITIOUS. 77. No AMBITIOUS PERSON is a CLEVER STUDENT. Some CLEVER STUDENTS are not AMBITIOUS. 73. 74. Every AMBITIOUS STUDENT is CLEVER. Every AMBITIOUS PERSON is a CLEVER STUDENT. 75. Every STUDENT is both CLEVER and AMBITIOUS. Some AMBITIOUS STUDENTS are not CLEVER.

107. 94. DOGS are the only PETS worth having. Only MEMBERS are ALLOWED to enter. 97. 96. The only FRESHMEN who PASS intro logic are the ones who WORK. The only PERSONS INSIDE are MEMBERS and GUESTS. 106. The only non-MEMBERS who are ALLOWED inside are GUESTS. DOGS are not the only PETS worth having. The only DANGEROUS SNAKES are the ones that are POISONOUS. 105. that are not VACCINATED. 95. 92. No CATS or DOGS are SOLD here. No CATS or DOGS are SOLD. 110. 104.326 Hardegree. 98. All HORSES and COWS are FARM animals. EXERCISE SET G 101. 102. 93. 99. 103. 100. 108. The only DANGEROUS things are POISONOUS SNAKES. Only POISONOUS SNAKES are DANGEROUS ANIMALS. Only CITIZENS who are REGISTERED are ALLOWED to vote. CATS and DOGS that have RABIES are not SUITABLE pets. 109. CATS and DOGS are the only SUITABLE pets. The only CATS and DOGS that are SUITABLE pets are the ones that have been HOUSE-trained. RAINY days and MONDAYS always get me DOWN. Only POISONOUS SNAKES are DANGEROUS (snakes). Symbolic Logic EXERCISE SET F 91. . CATS and DOGS are the only ANIMALS that are SUITABLE pets. All CATS and DOGS make EXCELLENT pets.

then nothing is SACRED. Not everything is MATERIAL. provided that something is SACRED. Unless every PROFESSOR is FRIENDLY. 118. Every STUDENT is HAPPY. 115. then nothing is SACRED. then every BIRD is DANGEROUS. 117. 119. If nothing is SACRED. If everything is MATERIAL. and every COW is SACRED. 114. only if every PROFESSOR is FRIENDLY. 121. only if no COW is BUTCHERED. 120. 127. 112. If every STUDENT is CLEVER. No PROFESSOR is HAPPY. If every BOSTONIAN CAB driver is a MANIAC. If everything is SACRED. If nothing is sPIRITUAL. then everyone is HAPPY. and no COW is SACRED. If all COWS are SACRED. no STUDENT is HAPPY. All COWS are SACRED. but not all STUDENTS are FRESHMEN. 125. If every BIRD can FLY. then nothing is SACRED. then no BOSTONIAN PEDESTRIAN is SAFE. then everything is SACRED.Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 327 EXERCISE SET H 111. 116. 129. 113. If everyone is FRIENDLY. 128. Some SNAKES are not DANGEROUS. 126. only if some SNAKES are not POISONOUS. then no COW is SACRED. If some SNAKE is not POISONOUS. All FRESHMEN are STUDENTS. 130. If everything is a COW. 123. 122. then everything is SACRED. then not every SNAKE is DANGEROUS. then all COWS are SACRED. unless some STUDENTS are CLEVER. If everything is a COW. . unless every PROFESSOR is unFRIENDLY. then every FRESHMAN is CLEVER. 124. No STUDENT is unHAPPY.

then no one will be HAPPY. If a CLOWN ENTERS the room. then it will be DISPLEASED if no PERSON is SURPRISED. 137. 136. 138. 132. 134. 133. If anyone FAILS the exam. If anyone is FRIENDLY. 139. 135. If everyone PASSES the exam. If anyone PASSES the exam. then no one can. Symbolic Logic EXERCISE SET I 131. then no one will be HAPPY. then every PERSON will be SURPRISED. then everyone will be HAPPY.328 Hardegree. A SKUNK is DANGEROUS if and only if it is RABID. then SMITH can. If everyone FAILS the exam. then everyone is HAPPY. . If SMITH can't FIX your car. then everyone will be HAPPY. If a CLOWN ENTERS the room. 140. If anyone can FIX your car.

in most cases. Fj Jk Sj & Sk Tjk ~Sjk Ifjk ~Ifkj Tcj & Tck Mjk Mj & Mk ~Mj & ~Mk (Mj & Mk) & ~Mjk ~Sj & ~Sk Sj ² Sk (Lj & Lk) ² (~Fj & ~Fk) (~Fj & ~Fk) ² (Sj & Sk) ~Mjk ² ~Rjk (Sj ´ Sk) & ~(Sj & Sk) Fjk ± Rjk ~Sjk & ~Cjk . 8. 12. 18. 16. 4. EXERCISE SET A 1. 7. Your translation is correct if and only if it is equivalent to the answer given below. 3. 14. 10. 11.Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 329 22. 15. 9. 20. 13. there are alternative translations that are equally correct. 6. 17. ANSWERS TO EXERCISES FOR CHAPTER 6 Note: Only one translation is written down in each case. 2. 5. 19.

Symbolic Logic EXERCISE SET B 21. 48. 30. 51. 31. 23. 22. 42. 45. ®xPx ¯xPx ~¯xPx ¯x~Px ~®xPx ®x~Px ~¯x~Px ¯x~Px ~®x~Px ~¯xCx ®xPx ¯xPx ~¯xPx ¯x~Px ~®xPx ®x~Px ~¯x~Px ¯x~Px ~®x~Px ~¯xCx EXERCISE SET C 41.330 Hardegree. 39. 36. 44. 26. 27. 60. 53. 24. ®x(Sx ² Hx) ¯x(Sx & Hx) ~¯x(Sx & Hx) ¯x(Sx & ~Hx) ~®x(Sx ² Hx) ®x(Sx ² ~Hx) ¯x(Sx & ~Hx) ~¯x(Sx & ~Hx) ~®x(Sx ² ~Hx) ~¯x(Sx & Hx) ®x(Sx ² Hx) ¯x(Sx & Hx) ~¯x(Sx & Hx) ¯x(Sx & ~Hx) ~®x(Sx ² Hx) ®x(Sx ² ~Hx) ¯x(Sx & ~Hx) ~¯x(Sx & ~Hx) ~®x(Sx ² ~Hx) ~¯x(Sx & Hx) . 25. 35. 38. 49. 32. 54. 55. 34. 46. 43. 52. 50. 59. 47. 37. 33. 28. 56. 57. 29. 40. 58.

65.Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 331 EXERCISE SET D 61. 64. 79. 88. 81. 62. 68. 89. 84. 70. 77. 83. 80. 75. ~¯x(Hx & Px) ~¯x(~Cx & Ax) ®x(Ax ² Wx) ®x(Sx ² Hx) ¯x(Ax & ~Bx) ¯x(Px & Hx) ®x(~Vx ² Wx) ®x(Mx ´ Sx) ~¯x(Mx & Sx) ¯x(~Mx & ~Sx) EXERCISE SET E 71. 67. 90. 63. 66. 69. 72. 85. 82. 78. 73. 87. 76. 74. 86. ®x([Cx & Sx] ² Ax) ®x([Ax & Sx] ² Cx) ®x(Sx ² [Cx & Ax]) ®x(Sx ² [Cx ´ ~Ax]) ®x([Sx & Ax] ² Cx) ®x([Sx & Cx] ² Ax) ¯x([Cx & Sx] & Ax) ¯x([Cx & Sx] & ~Ax) ~®x([Cx & Sx] ² Ax) ~®x([Ax & Sx] ² Cx) ¯x([Ax & Sx] & ~Cx) ~¯x([Ax & Sx] & Cx) ~¯x([Cx & Sx] & Ax) ~¯x(Sx & [Cx ´ Ax]) ~¯x(Sx & [Cx & Ax]) ®x([Ax & Px] ² [Cx & Sx]) ~¯x([Ax & Px] & [Cx & Sx]) ¯x([Ax & Px] & ~[Cx & Sx]) ~®x([Ax & Px]) ² [Cx & Sx]) ~®x([Cx & Px] ² Sx) .

92.332 Hardegree. ®x([Hx ´ Cx] ² Fx) ®x([Cx ´ Dx] ² Ex) ®x([Rx ´ Mx] ² Dx) ~¯x(Sx & ~[Cx ´ Dx]) ~¯x([Px & Ix] & ~[Mx ´ Gx]) ~¯x({[Cx ´ Dx] & Sx} & ~Hx) ~¯x([Ax & Sx] & ~[Cx ´ Dx]) ~¯x([Cx ´ Dx] & Sx) ~¯x([(Cx ´ Dx) & ~Vx] & Sx) 110. 109. 93. ~¯x(~Mx & Ax) ~¯x(~[Cx & Rx] & Ax) ~¯x([~Mx & Ax] & ~Gx) ~¯x(Px & ~Dx) ¯x(Px & ~Dx) ~¯x([Dx & Sx] & ~Px) ~¯x(Dx & ~[Px & Sx]) ~¯x(~[Px & Sx] & [Dx & Sx]) ~¯x(~[Px & Sx] & [Dx & Ax]) ~¯x([Fx & Px] & ~Wx) EXERCISE SET G 101. 106. ®x([(Cx ´ Dx) & Rx] ² ~Sx) . 99. 94. 103. 96. 107. 95. 98. Symbolic Logic EXERCISE SET F 91. 108. 100. 97. 104. 102. 105.

115. 137. 132. 118. 124. ®x(Fx ² ®xHx) ®x(Fx ² Fs) ~Fs ² ~¯xFx ®xPx ² ®xHx ®x(Px ² ®xHx) ®xFx ² ~¯xHx ®x(Fx ² ~¯xHx) ®x(Sx ² [Dx ± Rx]) ®x([Cx & Ex] ² ®x(Px ² Sx)) ®x([Cx & Ex] ² {~¯y(Py & Sy) ² Dx}) . 125. 127. 128.Chapter 6: Translations in Monadic Predicate Logic 333 EXERCISE SET H 111. 117. ~¯xPx ² ~¯xSx ®xMx ² ~¯xSx ¯xSx ² ~®xMx ®xSx ² ®x(Cx ² Sx) ~¯xSx ² ~¯x(Cx & Sx) ®x(Cx ² Sx) ² ®xSx ®x(Fx ² Sx) & ~®x(Sx ² Fx) ®x(Sx ² Cx) ² ®x(Fx ² Cx) ®x(Bx ² Fx) ² ®x(Bx ² Dx) ¯x(Sx & ~Px) ² ~®x(Sx ² Dx) ~¯x(Sx & Cx) ² ~¯x(Px & Hx) ¯x(Cx & Bx) ² ~®x(Cx ² Sx) ~¯x(Sx & ~Px) ² ~¯x(Sx & ~Dx) [®xCx & ®x(Cx ² Sx)] ² ®xSx [®xCx & ~¯x(Cx & Sx)] ² ~¯xSx ®x([Bx&Cx] ² Mx) ² ~¯x([Bx&Px] & Sx) ®xFx ² ®xHx ~®x(Px ² Fx) ² ~¯x(Sx & Hx) ~®x(Px ² Fx) ² ~®x(Sx ² Hx) ~®x(Px ² ~Fx) ² ~¯x(Sx & ~Hx) EXERCISE SET I 131. 113. 122. 134. 114. 136. 133. 119. 120. 135. 123. 140. 126. 121. 116. 138. 129. 139. 130. 112.

............ 352 Three-Place Predicates.... 6................................................................ 343 The Universe of Discourse ... 11.............................................................................................................................. 364 Exercises for Chapter 7.................................... 376 %~defg®¯±² ...................... 3................................. 369 Answers to Exercises for Chapter 7................................ 8......... 4.................... 346 Quantifier Specification ...................................................................................................... 10.... 358 Combinations of ‘No’ and ‘Any’........................... 361 More Wide-Scope Quantifiers ............................................. 356 ‘Any’ Revisited ............................................ 336 Simple Polyadic Quantification ........ 9.................. TRANSLATIONS IN POLYADIC PREDICATE LOGIC Introduction....................................................................................................................................................... 7.................................................... 337 Negations of Simple Polyadic Quantifiers .......... 12.........7 1.......................... 348 Complex Predicates...................... 5....................................... 2.....................

we obtain the following. INTRODUCTION Recall that predicate logic can be conveniently divided into monadic predicate logic.336 Hardegree. the original concrete argument is valid. Whereas the former deals exclusively with 1-place (monadic) predicates. monadic logic often does not reveal enough logical structure. we turn to quantification in the context of polyadic predicate logic. ®x(Fx ² Sx) [every F is S] / ®x(Kx ² Lx) [every K is L] The following is the translation scheme: Fx: Sx: Kx: Lx: x is a Freshman x is a student x respects every student x respects every Freshman The trouble with this analysis. (A) Every Freshman is a student /Anyone who respects every student respects every Freshman If we symbolize this in monadic logic. Yet. on the other. In the present chapter.). which is the best we can do in monadic predicate logic. This means that our analysis of the logical form of (A) is inadequate. Consider the following argument. and polyadic predicate logic. 2-place. The reason for being interested in polyadic logic is simple: although monadic predicate logic reveals much more logical structure in English sentences than does sentential logic. Kx: Lx: x respects every student x respects every Freshman These formulas are logically analyzed into the following items: student: Freshman: respects every: Sy: Fy: Rxy: ®y: y is a student y is a Freshman x respects y for any person y Thus. on the one hand. is that the resulting argument form is invalid. we need to provide a deeper analysis of the formulas. etc. Symbolic Logic 1. In order to provide an adequate analysis. the formulas are symbolized as follows . the latter deals with all predicates (1-place.

Now. according to our new analysis is: ®x(Fx ² Sx) / ®x(®y(Sy ² Rxy) ² ®y(Fy ² Rxy)) This argument form is valid. With this predicate. First. The example above is fairly complex. ®y(Fy ² Rxy) for any person y: if y is a Freshman.respects. For example.’.. In the next section. consider the two-place predicate ‘. as we will be able to demonstrate in a later chapter. and the resulting expression is also a formula.. abbreviated R. including the following. we start with more basic examples of polyadic quantification. then x respects y Lx: x respects every Freshman.Chapter 7: Translations in Polyadic Predicate Logic 337 Kx: x respects every student ®y(Sy ² Rxy) for any person y: if y is a student. we examine the simplest class of examples of polyadic quantification – those involving an atomic formula constructed from a two-place predicate. It is a fairly complex example. SIMPLE POLYADIC QUANTIFICATION In the present section. 2.. Don't worry just yet! The important point right now is to realize that many sentences and arguments have further logical structure whose proper elucidation requires polyadic predicate logic. so it may not be entirely clear at the moment. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Jay respects Kay he respects Kay Jay respects her he respects her she respects herself Rjk Rxk Rjy Rxy Rxx The particular pronouns used above are completely arbitrary (any third person singular pronoun will do). recall that a two-place predicate is an expression that forms a formula (open or closed) when combined with two singular terms. . then x respects y Thus. the grammar of predicate logic has the following feature: if we have a formula. we can prefix it with a quantifier. the argument form. we can form various formulas. This merely restates the idea that quantifiers are one-place connectives..

Step 1: (a) (b) Step 2: Look at the first quantifier. then check where that variable appears in the quantified formula. which are accompanied by English paraphrases. and read it as follows: universal (®) existential (¯) everyone there is someone who Look to see which variable is quantified (is it ‘x’ or ‘y’?). In other cases. (4a1) (4a2) (4b1) (4b2) (4c1) (4c2) (4d1) (4d2) ®y®xRxy ¯y®xRxy ®y¯xRxy ¯y¯xRxy ®x®yRxy ¯x®yRxy ®x¯yRxy ¯x¯yRxy How do we translate such formulas into English. (4a)-(4d) have variables that can be further quantified in a significant way. for exameveryone is such that Jay respects Kay says exactly the same thing as Rjk Jay respects Kay This is an example of trivial (or vacuous) quantification. quantification is significant.. (2a) (2b) (3a) (3b) (4a) (4b) (4c) (4d) (5a) (5b) ®xRxk ¯xRxk ®yRjy ¯yRjy ®xRxy ¯xRxy ®yRxy ¯yRxy ®xRxx ¯xRxx everyone respects Kay someone respects Kay Jay respects everyone Jay respects someone everyone respects her someone respects her he respects everyone he respects someone everyone respects him(her)self someone respects him(her)self Now. Symbolic Logic Occasionally. beginning with formulas (2)-(5).338 ple. For example.. then read the verb in .respects.. As it turns out. ®xRjk Hardegree. does it appear in the first (active) position.. there is a handy step-by-step procedure for translating formulas (4a1)-(4d2) into colloquial English – supposing that we are discussing people exclusively. So prefixing (4a)-(5b) yields the following formulas. or does it appear in the second (passive) position? If it appears in the first (active) position. however. and supposing that the predicate is ‘. we can construct the following formulas. quantifying a formula is trivial or pointless.’ This procedure is given as follows.

so we read it as: altogether: ®x¯yRxy everyone respects (3) someone (or other) (4) everyone respects someone (or other) Example 2: (1) the first quantifier is existential. so we read it as: the variable x appears in the active position. (4a1) (4a2) (4b1) ®y®xRxy: ¯y®xRxy: ®y¯xRxy: everyone is respected by everyone there is someone who is respected by everyone everyone is respected by someone or other . (a) (b) Step 3: (a) (b) Step 4: active passive respects is respected by Look at the second quantifier. and read it as follows: universal (®) existential (¯) everyone someone or other String together the components obtained in steps (1)-(3) to produce the colloquial English sentence. With this procedure in mind. Example 1: (1) (2) the first quantifier is universal. so we read it as: the variable x appears in the passive position. If it appears in the second (passive) position. so we read it as: altogether: ¯x®yRyx there is someone who (2) is respected by (3) everyone (4) there is someone who is respected by everyone By following the above procedure. let us do a few examples. then read the verb in the passive voice as ‘is respected by’ (passive voice). so we read the verb in the passive voice: the second quantifier is universal.Chapter 7: Translations in Polyadic Predicate Logic 339 the active voice as ‘respects’. we can translate all the above formulas in colloquial English as follows. so we read the verb in the active voice: the second quantifier is existential.

although (4) implies (1). that everyone respects someone. for example.340 (4b2) (4c1) (4c2) (4d1) (4d2) ¯y¯xRxy: ®x®yRxy: ¯x®yRxy: ®x¯yRxy: ¯x¯yRxy: Hardegree. . Symbolic Logic there is someone who is respected by someone or other everyone respects everyone there is someone who respects everyone everyone respects someone or other there is someone who respects someone or other Before continuing. Jay respects Kay can be transformed into Kay is respected by Jay. which might be thought to be equivalent to there is someone who is respected by everyone. not necessarily the same person in each case. A familiar grammatical transformation converts active sentences into passive ones. (1) (2) (3) (4) everyone respects someone or other everyone respects someone someone is respected by everyone there is someone who is respected by everyone The problem we face is simple: (1) and (4) are not equivalent. This is fine so long as we are completely clear what is meant by the last sentence – namely. Both are symbolized the same way. it is important to understand the significance of the expression ‘or other’. we obtain: someone is respected by everyone. The following lists the various sentences. (1) does not imply (4). In Example 1. Rjk If we perform the same grammatical transformation on everyone respects someone. the final translation is everyone respects someone or other Dropping ‘or other’ yields everyone respects someone.

Eve (e). the second is true. it is not true that there is someone who is respected by everyone. Thus. In particular. since Adam respects Eve. For the sake of argument. Rae Rec Rca ~Rea ~Rce ~Rac ~Rcc ~Raa ~Ree Adam respects Eve Eve respects Cain Cain respects Adam Eve doesn't respect Adam Cain doesn't respect Eve Adam doesn't respect Cain Cain doesn't respect himself Adam doesn't respect himself Eve doesn't respect herself Now. in this world. everyone respects someone or other. Also. and Cain (c). It follows that the following can't all be true: (1) is equivalent to (2) (2) is equivalent to (3) (3) is equivalent to (4) For then we would have that (1) and (4) are equivalent. but that doesn't make any difference. They all respect someone. suppose that Cain respects Adam (but not vice versa). Thus. . Thus. suppose that no one respects him(her)self (although the argument does not depend upon this). Thus. since Eve respects Cain. Adam respects Eve (but not vice versa). since Cain respects Adam. but not necessarily the same person in each case. Adam is respected by everyone Eve is respected by everyone Cain is respected by everyone ®xRxa ®xRxe ®xRxc But the first is false. but not necessarily the same person in each case. it is to say all of the following: Adam respects someone Eve respects someone Cain respects someone ¯xRax ¯xRex ¯xRcx The first is true.Chapter 7: Translations in Polyadic Predicate Logic 341 In order to see this. since Cain doesn't respect Eve. the third is true. and Eve respects Cain (but not vice versa). To say that there is someone who is respected by everyone is to say that at least one of the following is true. we have the following state of affairs. which we have just shown is not the case. but there is no single person they all respect. Also. sentences (1) and (4) are not equivalent. since Adam doesn't respect Cain. although it is true that everyone respects someone or other. the second is false. consider a very small world with only three persons in it: Adam (a). finally. in the very small world we are imagining. since Eve doesn't respect Adam. no one respects him(her)self. in this world. to say that everyone respects someone or other is to say everyone respects someone. and the third is false.

it is best to avoid (2) and (3) altogether. (2) means the same thing as (4). but occasionally it is equivalent to (1). so that the ‘or other’ is definitely necessary to distinguish (1) and (2). It is best to avoid (2) in favor of (1). depending on what is meant. sometimes. so that the ‘or other’ is not necessary. On the other hand. if that is what is meant. (2) means the same thing as (1). . (3) usually means the same thing as (4). Symbolic Logic The problem is that (2) and (3) are ambiguous.342 Hardegree. In other words. But. and say either (1) or (4). Usually.

. the second quantifier is existential. there are 64 (2%2%2%2%2%2) combinations! Let us consider two examples. The basic form is the following.e. negated or not negated). (e1) ~®x~¯y~Rxy In this formula..QUANTIFIER. which are the combinations in which every sign is positive. The problem concerns where to place the negation operator in the colloquial sentence. That gives us not just 8 formulas but 64 distinct formulas (plus alphabetic variants).SIGN. at any stage in the construction of these formulas. not to mention the original eight. There are 54 more combinations! We have seen the latter two combinations. the formula has the first quantified variable in active or passive position. NEGATIONS OF SIMPLE POLYADIC QUANTIFIERS What happens when we take the formulas considered in Section 2 and introduce a negation (~) at any of the three possible positions? That is what we consider in the present section. we could interpolate a negation connective. .. all the signs are negative. the second quantifier is universal. the first quantifier is universal.. The quantified formulas obtainable from the atomic formulas ‘Rxy’ and ‘Ryx’ are the following. the second sign is positive.QUANTIFIER. the first quantified variable (‘x’) is in passive position. All told.. the first quantifier is existential. SIGN. finally. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) ®x®yRxy ®y®xRxy ¯x¯yRxy ¯y¯xRxy ®x¯yRxy ¯y®xRxy ®y¯xRxy ¯x®yRxy ®y®xRyx ®x®yRyx ¯y¯xRyx ¯x¯yRyx ®y¯xRyx ¯x®yRyx ®x¯yRyx ¯y®xRyx everyone respects everyone everyone is respected by everyone someone respects someone someone is respected by someone everyone respects someone someone is respected by everyone everyone is respected by someone or other someone respects everyone Now. But how does one translate formulas with negations into colloquial English? This is considerably trickier than before. the first quantified variable (‘x’) is in active position. Consider the following sentences. each quantifier is either universal or existential..FORMULA Each sign is either negative or positive (i. (e2) ~¯x®y~Ryx In this formula the first and third signs are negative.Chapter 7: Translations in Polyadic Predicate Logic 343 3.SIGN.

[SIGN-QUANTIFIER].. let us proceed. ~¯x We are now. ~®x. Hardegree. given as follows. he or she usually means. we need some scheme for expressing them.[SIGN-FORMULA] In particular.. Jay dislikes Kay. for the same reason – he doesn't know her.. either (since I've never tried it). when someone utters the following.. In particular. In particular. I don't like spinach.FORMULA Let us further parse this construction as follows. the problem is that.QUANTIFIER. let us adopt the following translation. it is not true that j likes k. let us employ the somewhat awkward expression ‘fails to. Given that ordinary English seldom provides us with simple negations... finally. j doesn't like k. I dislike spinach.. and read it as follows: universal (®) existential (¯) everyone there is someone who .[SIGN-QUANTIFIER].344 (1) (2) (3) j dislikes k.’ to construct simple negations. Symbolic Logic The problem is that sentence (2) is actually ambiguous in meaning between the sentence (1) and sentence (3). SIGN. it is not true that Jay likes Kay. so he can't like her. there are four quantifiers (plus alphabetic variants): ®x. since (1) and (3) are not equivalent. Furthermore. In this case.SIGN. the following is not valid in ordinary English. Recall that a simple double-quantified formula has the following form. Now. therefore.SIGN. Toward this end.. let us use the word quantifier to refer to the combination sign-quantifier.QUANTIFIER. but I don't dislike spinach. Step 1: (a) (b) Look at the first quantifier. in a position to offer a systematic translation scheme. although he/she might go on to say. x fails to Respect y :: not(x Respects y) With this in mind. this is not a harmless ambiguity.. The premise may be true simply because Jay doesn't even know Kay. ¯x. But he doesn't dislike her either.

it is understood that ‘not’ goes in front of the verb phrase.Chapter 7: Translations in Polyadic Predicate Logic 345 (c) (d) Step 2: negation universal (~®) negation existential (~¯) not everyone there is no one who Check the quantified formula. With this procedure in mind. so we read it as: ~®x¯y~Rxy not everyone . and read the verb as follows: positive active positive passive negative active negative passive respects is respected by fails to respect fails to be respected by (a) (b) (c) (d) Step 3: (a) (b) (c) (d) Look at the second quantifier. and the first quantified variable ‘x’ is in the passive position. so we read it as: the quantified formula is positive.. so we read the verb as: the second quantifier is negation-existential. Step 4: String together the components obtained in steps (1)-(3) to produce the colloquial English sentence. Example 1: (1) (2) the first quantifier is existential.everyone* no one *Here. let us do a few examples. so we read it as: altogether: ¯x~¯yRyx there is someone who is respected by no one (3) (4) there is someone who is respected by no one Example 2: (1) the first quantifier is negation-universal. and read it as follows: universal (®) existential (¯) negation universal (~®) negation existential (~¯) everyone someone or other not. and check whether the first quantified variable occurs in the active or passive position..

.everyone there is someone who does not respect everyone (5*) or.. so we read the verb as: the second quantifier is existential. the following readings are used. the various quantifiers are read differently. so we read it as: altogether: ¯x~®yRxy there is someone who respects not... If we are talking exclusively about persons.everyone (4) (5) there is someone who respects not. the usual readings are the following.. ®x: everything x is such that. for any person x. in the previous sections in particular.. On the other hand.346 (2) the quantified formula is negative.. ¯x: something x is such that.. more properly: 4. Symbolic Logic fails to respect someone (or other) (3) (4) not everyone fails to respect someone (or other) Example 3: (1) (2) the first quantifier is existential.. THE UNIVERSE OF DISCOURSE The reader has probably noticed a small discrepancy in the manner in which the quantifiers are read. so we read it as: altogether: Hardegree. In other words. On the one hand... ¯x: some person x is such that. and the first quantified variable ‘x’ is in active position.. and the first quantified variable ‘x’ is in the active position... then it is convenient to read ‘®x’ as ‘everyone’ and ‘¯x’ as ‘someone’.. so we read the verb as: the second quantifier is negation-universal. rather than the more general . there is at least one person x such that.. so we read it as: the quantified formula is positive. ®x: every person x is such that. there is at least one thing x such that.. for anything x.. depending on the specific example...

In some cases (but never in the exercises) both ‘every(some)one’ and ‘every(some)thing’ appear in the same sentence. depending upon the particular universe of discourse. on the other hand. In particular. then it is equally convenient to read ‘®x’ as ‘every number’ and ‘¯x’ as ‘some number’. there is some person who hates every thing WRONG!!! The principle at work here may be stated as follows. In symbolizing English sentences. one must explicitly supply the predicate ‘. then the student must set U=things.. we first must specify the reading of the quantifiers. namely: U = things (in general) U = persons In particular. The following is not a correct translation. if the sentence uses ‘everyone’ or ‘someone’. then the student is allowed to set U=persons. we are talking exclusively about numbers (as in arithmetic). the set of all the possible things that the constants and variables refer to. U. Consider the following example.. The reason that this is allowed is that. we allow only two possible choices for U. . there is someone who hates everything.is a person’ in order to symbolize the sentence. either U=persons or U=things. we read the various quantifiers differently. So the two possible readings are: there is some person who hates every person there is some thing that hates every thing Neither of these corresponds to the original sentence. The universe of discourse is. For sake of simplifying our choices. ¯x®yHxy WRONG!!! In translating this back into English. for any symbolic context (formula or argument). in any given context. but if the sentence uses ‘every person’ or ‘some person’.Chapter 7: Translations in Polyadic Predicate Logic 347 ‘everything’ and ‘something’. one must first establish exactly what U is. In the present context at least. the following is not an admissible reading of the above formula. we can agree to specify the associated universe of discourse. Thus. which means there is some person who hates every thing. there are only two choices. If. which is to say we must specify the universe of discourse. in the exercises. In such cases.

. there is something such that it is a person who hates everything Now we have a sentence with uniform quantifiers. QUANTIFIER SPECIFICATION So. In that case.348 Hardegree. there is something such that it is a person and it hates everything ¯x (Px & ®yHxy) ¯x(Px & ®yHxy) Let's do another example much like the previous one. if we are talking about anything whatsoever that is not a person. Continuing the translation yields the following sequence. we have to specify which things in the sentence are persons by employing the predicate ‘. In the context of intro logic. All the quantifiers in a sentence must have a uniform reading 5. then it hates something (or other) ®x (Px ² ¯yHxy) ®x(Px ² ¯yHxy) At this point. First. then we must set U=things. how do we symbolize there is someone (some person) who hates everything.. let us compare the sentences. we must choose a universe of discourse that is large enough to encompass everything that we are talking about. . Symbolic Logic One cannot change the universe of discourse in the middle of a sentence. everyone hates something (or other) This means every person hates something (or other) which can be paraphrased pretty much like every other sentence of the form ‘every A is B’: everything is such that if it is a person. The following paraphrase makes significant headway.is a person’.

. The following are simple examples of quantifier specification. substitute ®v(Pv ² F) substitute ¯v(Pv & F) for for ®vF ¯vF Note carefully the use of ‘²’ in one and ‘&’ in the other..Bx ®x(Ax ² Bx) ¯x. still works. quantifier specification involves the following substitutions... and F is any formula.. which might be called quantifier specification. there is something that is K there is some person who is K everything is K every person is K ¯xKx ¯x(Px & Kx) ®xKx ®x(Px ² Kx) We have already seen this particular transition – from completely general claims to more specialized claims. P is any one-place predicate. SIMPLE QUANTIFIER SPECIFICATION: Where v is any variable. This maneuver.......Chapter 7: Translations in Polyadic Predicate Logic 349 ¯x®yHxy ¯x(Px & ®yHxy) ®x¯yHxy ®x(Px ² ¯yHxy) there is something that hates everything there is some person who hates everything everything hates something (or other) every person hates something (or other) The general forms of the above may be formulated as follows.. converting ‘everything’ into ‘every physical object’ converting ‘everyone’ into ‘every student’ converting ‘something’ into ‘some physical object’ converting ‘someone’ into ‘some student’ The general process (in the special case of a simple predicate P) is described as follows.. Examples something is evil some physical thing is evil ¯xEx ¯x(Px & Ex) .. everything is B: every A is B: something is B: some A is B: ®x..Bx ¯x(Ax & Bx) Quantifier specification is the process of modifying quantifiers by further specifying (or delimiting) the domain of discussion..

there is someone who respects every student . there is a person y such that. y is a student and x respects y. However.350 everything is evil every physical thing is evil someone respects everyone some student respects everyone everyone respects someone every student respects someone Hardegree. there is a person such that the latter is a student and the former respects the latter. Still more colloquially. we obtain everyone respects some student (or other) ®x¯y(Sy & Rxy). Symbolic Logic ®xEx ®x(Px ² Ex) ¯x®yRxy ¯x(Sx & ®yRxy) ®x¯yRxy ®x(Sx ² ¯yRxy) So far we have dealt exclusively with the outermost quantifier. we obtain: resulting formula: ¯y(Sy & Rxy) ¯yRxy ¯y Sy Rxy So plugging this back into our original formula. Consider the following example: everyone respects someone (or other) versus everyone respects some student (or other) ??? ®x¯yRxy In applying quantifier specification. we can apply quantifier specification to any quantifier in a formula. We can deal with the following in the same way. for any person. The more or less literal reading of the latter formula is: for any person x. there is a person such that the latter is a student whom the former respects. overall formula: specified quantifier: specifying predicate: modified formula: So applying the procedure. for any person. More colloquially. we note the following.

if y is a student. More colloquially. (1) there is someone who respects everyone (1a) there is a student who respects every professor (1b) there is a professor who respects every student (2) there is someone who is respected by everyone (2a) there is a student who is respected by every professor (2b) there is a professor who is respected by every student . The principles remain the same. for any person y. and by different predicates. there is a person such that. Still more colloquially.Chapter 7: Translations in Polyadic Predicate Logic 351 This results from there is someone who respects everyone ¯x®yRxy. We can also do examples in which both quantifiers are specified. we obtain: resulting formula: ®y(Sy ² Rxy) ®yRxy ®y Sy Rxy So plugging this back into our original formula. by specifying the second quantifier. we have only done examples in which a single quantifier is specified by a predicate. as follows: overall formula: specified quantifier: specifying predicate: modified formula: So applying the procedure. So far. we obtain there is someone who respects every student ¯x®y(Sy ² Rxy) The more or less literal reading of the latter formula is: there is a person x such that. they are simply applied more generally. for any student. Consider the following examples. for any person. there is a person such that. if the latter is a student then the former respects the latter. the former respects the latter. then x respects y.

....Rxy (3a) ®x(Sx ² ¯y(Py & Rxy)) (3b) ®x(Px ² ¯y(Sy & Rxy)) (4) ®x... COMPLEX PREDICATES In order to further understand the translations that appear in the previous sections.. in each case.Rxy (1a) ¯x(Sx & ®y(Py ² Rxy)) (1b) ¯x(Px & ®y(Sy ² Rxy)) (2) ¯x.... the occurrence is free. The notion of a complex one-place predicate depends on the notion of a free occurrence of a variable...352 (3) everyone respects someone or other (3a) every student respects some professor or other (3b) every professor respects some student or other Hardegree.... complex predicates stand to simple (ordinary) predicates as complex (molecular) formulas stand to simple (atomic) formulas.... Briefly. the latter two are obtained from the first one by specifying the quantifiers appropriately...®y. complex predicates..... otherwise. Roughly. we are going to concentrate exclusively on one-place complex predicates. However.... Symbolic Logic (4) everyone is respected by someone or other (4a) every student is respected by some professor or other (4b) every professor is respected by some student or other The following are the corresponding formulas. Like ordinary predicates.....®y.¯y..... ....... etc. an occurrence of a variable in a formula is bound if it falls inside the scope of a quantifier governing that variable. This is discussed in detail in an appendix.Ryx (4a) ®x(Sx ² ¯y(Py & Ryx)) (4b) ®x(Px ² ¯y(Sy & Ryx)) 6. and in order to be prepared for more complex translations still. two-place..... there are one-place..¯y.........Ryx (2a) ¯x(Sx & ®y(Py ² Ryx)) (2b) ¯x(Px & ®y(Sy ² Ryx)) (3) ®x. complex predicates have places...... (1) ¯x.. we now examine the notion of complex predicate..

.’. ‘x’ is free. ‘x’) is free in a formula F is to say that at least one occurrence of ‘x’ is free in F.Chapter 7: Translations in Polyadic Predicate Logic 353 Examples (1) (2) (3) Fx ®x(Fx ² Gx) ®xRxy the one and only occurrence of ‘x’ is free. but ‘y’ is bound. Similarly with all the other formulas above. These abbreviations may be summarized by the following schemes. on the other hand. For example. (f1) (f2) (f3) (f4) ®yRxy ¯yRxy ®yRyx ¯yRyx Any formula with exactly one free variable (perhaps with many occurrences) may be thought of as a complex one-place predicate. which stands for ‘x respects everyone’. then we are attributing a complex predicate to that person.is short for. We can abbreviate this complex predicate ‘dx’. which can be abbreviated by a single letter. we can say the following: some Freshman is d every Freshman is e no Freshman is f some Freshman is not g . in the following formulas. each one corresponds to a complex predicate.. To see how this works.. ‘::’ basically means ‘. to say that a variable (say. if we say of someone that he(she) respects everyone. complex predicates can be used in sentences just like ordinary predicates. Now. dx ex fx gx :: :: :: :: ®yRxy ¯yRxy ®yRyx ¯yRyx Here.. let us translate formulas (1)-(4) into nearly colloquial English. (e1) (e2) (e3) (e4) x (he/she) respects everyone x (he/she) respects someone x (he/she) is respected by everyone x (he/she) is respected by someone Now. to say that ‘x’ is bound in F is to say that no occurrence of ‘x’ is free in F. the one and only occurrence of ‘y’ is free. every occurrence of ‘x’ is bound. Next. all three occurrences of ‘x’ are bound by ‘®x’. For example.

and ‘g’ are short for. ‘e’. ‘e’. ®x(®yRxy ² ¯yRxy) ®x(®yRxy ² ®yRyx) ®x(®yRxy ² ¯yRyx) Let's now consider somewhat more complicated complex predicates. which when substituted yield the following formulas. given as follows. ‘f’. ¯x(Fx & dx) ®x(Fx ² ex) ~¯x(Fx & fx) ¯x(Fx & ~gx) But ‘dx’. these read colloquially as follows. ®x(dx ² ex) ®x(dx ² fx) ®x(gx ² gx) But ‘dx’. some Freshman respects everyone every Freshman respects someone or other no Freshman is respected by everyone some Freshman is not respected by someone (or other) These have the following as overall symbolizations. . these are read colloquially as follows. ‘fx’. and ‘gx’ are short for more complex formulas. ‘fx’. and ‘gx’ are short for more complex formulas. which when substituted yield the following formulas. ‘f’. ¯x(Fx & ®yRxy) ®x(Fx ² ¯yRxy) ~¯x(Fx & ®yRyx) ¯x(Fx & ~¯yRyx) We can also make the following claims. every one who respects everyone respects someone every one who respects everyone is respected by everyone every one who respects everyone is respected by someone The overall symbolizations of these sentences are given as follows. ‘ex’.354 Hardegree. every d is e every d is f every d is g Given what ‘d’. Symbolic Logic Recalling what ‘d’. and ‘g’ are short for. ‘ex’.

(f1) (f2) (f3) (f4) ¯x(Sx & ®y(Py ² Rxy)) ¯x(Px & ®y(Sy ² Ryx)) ®x(Sx ² ¯y(Py & Rxy)) ®x(Px ² ¯y(Sy & Ryx)) These correspond to the formulas obtained by the technique of quantifier specification. presented in the previous section. The advantage of understanding complex predicates is that it allows us to combine the complex predicates into the same formula. ‘gx’ are short for more complex formulas. (o1) (o2) (o3) (o4) ¯x(Sx & dx) ¯x(Px & ex) ®x(Sx ² fx) ®x(Px ² gx) But ‘dx’. ‘ex’. The following are examples. which when substituted yield the following formulas. ‘fx’.Chapter 7: Translations in Polyadic Predicate Logic 355 dx: ex: fx: gx: x respects every professor x is respected by every student x respects at least one professor x is respected by at least one student Given the symbolizations of the formulas to the right. (1) (2) (3) (4) some S is d some P is e every S is f every P is g The colloquial readings are: (r1) there is a student who respects every professor (r2) there is a professor who is respected by every student (r3) every student respects at least one professor (some professor or other) (r4) every professor is respected by at least one student (some student or other) And the overall symbolizations are given as follows. we have the following abbreviations. The following are examples. dx ex fx gx :: :: :: :: ®y(Py ² Rxy) ®y(Sy ² Ryx) ¯y(Py & Rxy) ¯y(Sy & Ryx) We can combine these complex predicates with simple predicates or with each other. .

a direct object. in the sentence Kay loaned her car to Jay may be grammatically analyzed thus: subject: verb: direct object: indirect object: Kay loaned her car Jay The remaining word. ~¯x(®y(Py ² Rxy) & ®y(Sy ² Ryx)) ®x(®y(Sy ² Ryx) ² ¯y(Py & Ryx)) 7. are constructed from verbs that take a subject. perhaps. and an indirect object. As mentioned in the previous chapter. and ‘fx’ stand for more complex formulas. THREE-PLACE PREDICATES So far. Jay borrowed Kay's car (from Kay) . are used to mark indirect objects. we look at examples that involve quantification over formulas based on three-place predicates. The following sentence uses ‘from’ to mark the indirect object. which when substituted yield the following formulas. ~¯x(dx & ex) ®x(ex ² fx) but ‘dx’. marks ‘Jay’ as the indirect object of the verb. For example. as well as others. respectively.356 dx: x respects every professor ex: x is respected by every student fx: x is respected by at least one professor no d is e every e is f These may be read colloquially as Hardegree. ‘ex’. In the present section. we have concentrated on two-place predicates. ‘to’. prepositions such as ‘to’ and ‘from’. there are numerous three place predicate expressions in English. Symbolic Logic no one who respects every professor is respected by every student everyone who is respected by every student is respected by at least one professor The overall symbolizations are. The most common. In general.

. The following are examples. As usual.Chapter 7: Translations in Polyadic Predicate Logic 357 Letting ‘c’ name the particular individual car in question. Avis rents this car to Jay iff Jay rents this car from Avis. First note the following: x rents y to z ± z rents y from x For example. we can say ‘some car’ or ‘every car’. the resulting formulas can be quantified. Kay loaned her car to some student Kay loaned her car to every student Jay borrowed some car from Kay Jay borrowed every car from Kay ¯x(Sx & Lkcx) ®x(Sx ² Lkcx) ¯x(Cx & Bjxk) ®x(Cx ² Bjxk) These are examples of single-quantification. Lkcj Bjck The convention is to write subject first. we can say ‘some student’ or ‘every student’. direct object second. we can quantify over three places. Rather than saying ‘someone’ or ‘everyone’. let's change our example slightly. the above sentences can be symbolized as follows. Letting ‘Rxyz’ stand for ‘x rents y to z’. we can quantify over every place in a predicate. either universally or existentially. consider the following. Two quantifiers first. Quantifier specification works the same as before. Kay loaned her car to him(her) Kay loaned her car to someone Kay loaned her car to everyone Jay borrowed it from Kay Jay borrowed something from Kay Jay borrowed everything from Kay Lkcx ¯xLkcx ®xLkcx Bjxk ¯xBjxk ®xBjxk As before. so in the predicates we are considering. we can also further specify the quantifiers. and as usual. variables (pronouns) may replace one or more of the constants (proper nouns) in above formulas. and indirect object last. rather than saying ‘something’ or ‘everything’.

when it is attached to another logical expression. if y is a student.358 Hardegree. the scope of ‘any’ is wider than the scope of the attached expression. statements of the form: if anything is A. if x is a student. ‘any’ most frequently attaches to ‘if’ to produce the ‘if any’ locution. The most prominent wide-scope quantifier is ‘any’. In the context of monadic predicate logic. then there is a y such that. but because of the wide-scope of ‘any’. In particular. ‘ANY’ REVISITED Recall that certain quantifier expressions of English are wide-scope universal quantifiers. Also recall that other words are also occasionally used as wide-scope universal quantifiers – including ‘a’ and ‘some’. then e) which is symbolized: . then e appears to have the form: if d. To say that ‘any’ is a wide-scope universal quantifier is to say that. x is a car and for any y. then Avis has rented x to y 8. then e. these are discussed in the next section. Symbolic Logic Example 1 every student has rented a car from Avis ®x(Sx ² ¯y(Cy & Rayx)) for any x. the sentence really has the form: for anything (if it is A. y is a car and Avis has rented y to x Example 2 there is at least one car that Avis has rented to every student ¯x(Cx & ®y(Sy ² Raxy)) there is an x such that. whose standard derivatives are ‘anything’ and ‘anyone’.

which might go as follows. Given that ‘Jay does not respect anyone’ summarizes the list. ‘any’ often attaches to other words as well. in short: Jay does not respect anyone. Jay does not respect anyone Jay does not respect x. Jay does not respect Adams Jay does not respect Brown Jay does not respect Carter Jay does not respect Dickens Jay does not respect Evans Jay does not respect Field etc. as in the following examples. no one respects any one Jay does not respect any one Let us consider the second example. Notice that the main logical operator is ‘®x’. One way to understand this sentence is to itemize its content. ®x~Rjx. Jay does not respect x ®x~Rjx Before considering more complex examples. the formula is a universally quantified formula. for any x for any x.Chapter 7: Translations in Polyadic Predicate Logic 359 ®x(Ax ² e) In monadic logic. Jay does not respect anyone ~Rja ~Rjb ~Rjc ~Rjd ~Rje ~Rjf . ~Rja ~Rjb ~Rjc ~Rjd ~Rje ~Rjf etc. most particularly ‘no’ and ‘not’. Another way to symbolize the above ‘any’ statement employs the following series of paraphrases. it is natural to regard ‘Jay does not respect anyone’ as a universally quantified statement. ‘any’ usually attaches to ‘if’. In polyadic logic. since it is easier. namely. let us contrast the any-sentence with the corresponding every-sentence.

360 versus Jay does not respect everyone Hardegree. ‘any’ has wider scope than ‘not’. they are quite different in meaning. consider the following pair. Also. Symbolic Logic The latter certainly does not entail the former. but we already know that. which is summarized as follows. ‘any’ and ‘every’ are not interchangeable. let us next consider quantifier specification. The difference pertains to their respective scopes. not everyone ~®x ®x~ not anyone Having considered the basic ‘not any’ form. as follows. . although both ‘any’ and ‘every’ are universal quantifiers. One approach involves the following series of paraphrases. in respect to ‘not’. We already know how to paraphrase and symbolize the first one. ‘not’ has wider scope than ‘every’. Jay does not respect any Freshman. For example. we already know how to paraphrase and symbolize the latter sentence: Jay does not respect everyone not(Jay does respect everyone) it is not true that Jay respects everyone not everyone is respected by Jay ~®xRjx Notice carefully that. Jay does not respect every Freshman. Jay does not respect every Freshman not(Jay does respect every Freshman) it is not true that Jay respects every Freshman not every Freshman is respected by Jay ~®x(Fx ² Rjx) The corresponding ‘any’ statement is more subtle.

We have already seen how ‘any’ interacts with ‘if’ and ‘not’. (a) no Senior respects any Freshman First we observe that ‘any’ and ‘every’ are not interchangeable. 9. COMBINATIONS OF ‘NO’ AND ‘ANY’ As mentioned in the previous section. in parts. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) there is no S who R's every F there is no S who is d no S is d ~¯x(Sx & dx) dx :: x R's every F :: ®y(Fy ² Rxy) ~¯x(Sx & ®y(Fy ² Rxy)) Now let us go back and do the ‘any’ example (a). Consider the following example. ‘any’ attaches to ‘if’. we might proceed as follows. which results by replacing ‘any’ by ‘every’. as follows. (1) (2) (3) no S R's any F no S is d ~¯x(Sx & Kx) dx :: x R's any F ??? . for any Freshman x for any Freshman x. and ‘no’ to form special compounds. we examine how ‘any’ interacts with ‘no’. ‘not’. if we symbolize it in parts.Chapter 7: Translations in Polyadic Predicate Logic 361 Jay does not respect any Freshman Jay does not respect x. In particular. (a) is not equivalent to the following formula. (e) no Senior respects every Freshman The latter is equivalent to the following. (e') there is no Senior who Respects every Freshman The latter is symbolized. in the present section. as described in an earlier section. Jay does not respect x ®x(Fx ² ~Rjx) Notice that this is obtained from Jay does not respect anyone ®x~Rjx by quantifier specification.

we get stuck. then for any y. because we can't symbolize ‘dx’ in isolation. we obtain the following formula. the first one shows the relation between ‘no A is B’ and ‘some A is B’ – they are negations of one another. At this point. (5) ®x(Sx ² ®y(Fy ² ~Rxy)) The latter formula reads for any x. for any Freshman. if x is a Senior. (a) (1) (2) (3) no Senior respects any Freshman no S R's any F no S is d ®x(Sx ² ~dx) dx :: x R's any F ??? Once again. (s1) ~¯x(Ax & Bx) (s2) ®x(Ax ² ~Bx) These are logically equivalent. so either counts as a correct symbolization. in which the negation gets attached to ‘any’. In choosing a standard symbolization for ‘no A is B’ we settled on (s1) because it uses a single logical operator – namely ~¯x – to represent ‘no’. for any Senior. if y is a Freshman. there are a few sentences of English that are more profitably symbolized using the second scheme. the Senior does not respect the Freshman . Each symbolization has its advantages. However. So let us approach sentence (a) using the alternative symbolization of ‘no’. it might be useful to recall (previous chapter) that ‘no A is B’ may be plausibly symbolized in either of the following ways. The second one shows the relation between ‘no A is B’ and ‘every A is unB’ – they are equivalent. ‘any’ requires a correlative word to which it attaches. especially sentences involving ‘any’. However. (4) ®x(Sx ² ex) ex :: x does not R any F ®y(Fy ² ~Rxy) Substituting the symbolization of ‘ex’ into (4). which cannot be straightforwardly symbolized in isolation. then x does not respect y The latter may be read more colloquially as follows.362 Hardegree. as we will demonstrate in the following chapter. we can rephrase (3) by treating ‘~dx’ as a unit. ‘ex’. Symbolic Logic The problem is that the complex predicate ‘d’ involves ‘any’.

if we follow the suggested translation scheme from earlier in the chapter. our symbolization of ‘no A R’s any B' is different from our symbolization of ‘no A is e’. but we note that one of the parts is a no-any combination. we obtain: (3) ®x(Wx ² ®y([My & ~Ryx] ² ~Rxy)) for any x. if x is a woman. no woman respects any man who does not respect her We attack this in parts. We start with (2) and perform two logical transformations. if y is a man and y does not respect x. this may be symbolized: (2) ®x(Wx ² ®y(dy ² ~Rxy)) dy :: y is a man who does not respect her (x) :: (My & ~Ryx) Substituting the symbolization of ‘dy’ into (2). So the overall form is: (1) no W R's any d As we already saw. both based on the following equivalence. we have the following symbolization. (1) (2) no A R's any B ®x(Ax ² ®y(By ² ~Rxy)) no A is e ~¯x(Ax & ex) We conclude with an alternative symbolization which preserves ‘no’ but sacrifices the universal quantifier reading of ‘any’. Specifically.Chapter 7: Translations in Polyadic Predicate Logic 363 On the other hand. (5) is read colloquially as follows. then for any y. ®x(Ax ² ~¯y(By & Rxy)) ~¯x(Ax & ¯y(By & Rxy)) The latter is read: . (e) (3) (4) ®x(d ² ~e) :: ~¯x(d & e). every Senior fails to respect every Freshman The following is a somewhat more complex example. then x does not respect y Because of our wish to symbolize ‘any’ as a wide-scope universal quantifier.

’ and the singular term ‘your car’. the following is a more precise paraphrase. we read (4) as no A R's some B or other no A R's at least one B Hardegree.. MORE WIDE-SCOPE QUANTIFIERS Recall from the previous chapter the following example. then Jones can fix it. then Jones can (fix your car). but as a universal quantifier. The following is representative. because we now include cars in our domain of discourse. the speaker is speaking to a particular person. and x R's y Following our earlier scheme.. named c in this context. ®x[Px ² (Fxc ² Fjc)] However. y is B. Then the symbolization goes as follows. for anyone x. if anyone can fix your car..can fix. about a particular car. Symbolic Logic 10. ®x(Fxc ² Fjc) This analysis is based on construing the expression ‘your car’ as referring to a particular car. The use of ‘you’ as a universal quantifier is actually quite common in English. even though it includes a direct object. we must symbolize ‘can fix your car’ as a simple one-place predicate. if anyone can fix anyone's car. there is another equally plausible analysis of the original sentence.. This expression is more adequately analyzed as a complex one-place predicate derived from the two-place predicate ‘. In this case. This is not entirely accurate. you can't win at Las Vegas can be paraphrased as . so we need to specify the quantifier to persons. In this reading. not as a particular person to whom the speaker is speaking. in particular.364 it is not true that there is an x such that. and there is a y such that. x is A. if x can fix your car Jones can ®x(Fx ² Fj) Monadic logic does not do full justice to this sentence. as follows. which construes the ‘you’ in the sentence.

In this sentence. The issue is that there are two occurrences of ‘any’... then the former is guilty of a capital crime Let us treat the predicate ‘. .. More about this example in a moment. any. not just of c. The best way to treat the appearance of two wide-scope quantifiers is to treat them as double-universal quantifiers. Simple versus complex predicates is not the issue at the moment.. if someone injures someone. there are two wide-scope quantifiers. symbolizing it simply as ‘G’.. First. let us consider the murder example. for any y. then . can be paraphrased as if anyone murders someone. This can be paraphrased and symbolized as follows. which is to say that the following formula holds. By saying that ‘your car’ means ‘anyone’s car' we are saying that the formula ®x[Px ² (Fxc ² Fjc)] is true. notice that the word ‘someone’ does not act as an existential quantifier in this sentence. then the latter sues the former . let us finish the car example. thus: for any x.. which also involves two wide-scope universal quantifiers. but of every car. if someone injures someone. ®x®y(Mxy ² Gx) Another example that has a similar form is the following. if. then you are guilty of a capital crime..is guilty of a capital crime’ as simple. Another example: if you murder someone.Chapter 7: Translations in Polyadic Predicate Logic 365 no one can win at Las Vegas.. both being occurrences of ‘someone’.. then he/she is guilty of a capital crime. ®x®y([(Px & Cy) & Fxy] ² Fjy) Now. the most plausible reading of ‘someone’ is ‘anyone’. First. if anyone murders anyone. ®y{Cy ² ®x[Px ² (Fxc ² Fjc)]} An alternative symbolization puts all the quantifiers in front. How do we deal with sentences of the form if any..... then the latter sues the former Once again. So the murder-example is symbolized as follows. then.

then the politician is displeased. for any E y. then x R's y ®x(Sx ² ®y[Ey ² (Mxy ² Rxy)]) Having seen examples involving various wide-scope quantifiers. if x M's y. if a solid object is heated. to be conditionals. if a politician isn't respected by any citizen. then x is E for any x. if it is heated. which have the same form. if a student misses an exam. it is important to recognize how they differ from one another. at first glance. if x is S. if x injures y. it is rescheduled These appear. if it is H. then the latter sues the former for any x. if a politician isn't respected by a citizen. it expands if a game is rained out. then x is E ®x(Sx ² [Hx ² Ex]) The word ‘a’ (‘an’) can also appear twice in the antecedent of a conditional. Consider the following two examples. then the S R's the E for any S x. then it expands for any S. including ‘any’. but the occurrence of ‘a’ with the attached pronoun ‘it’ indicates that they are actually universal statements. for any y. whereas ‘a citizen’ attaches to ‘if’. then he/she retakes that exam This may be paraphrased and symbolized as follows. ‘any citizen’ attaches to ‘not’ (in the contraction ‘isn't’). then y sues x ®x®y(Ixy ² Syx) Next. Curiously. In . Compare the following sentences. then the S R's the E for any S. if the former injures the latter. then the politician is displeased. let us consider the word ‘a’.366 Hardegree. then if x is H. then it is E for any S (x). ‘some’. for any E. as in the following example. The following is a plausible paraphrase of the first one. Symbolic Logic for any two people. if the S M's the E. and ‘a’. which (like ‘some’ and ‘any’) is often used as a wide-scope quantifier. if a solid object is heated. if a S M's an E. it expands for any solid object. The difference is between ‘a citizen’ and ‘any citizen’. if x is H.

then the politician isn't re-elected. the quantifier ‘a politician’ attaches to ‘if’. ‘no’. ?? if no one respects any politician. Consider the following. for any C y. The reason this is grammatically dubious is that ‘any’ attaches to ‘no’. every person who likes a movie recommends it Let us simplify matters by treating ‘recommends’ as a two-place predicate. and hence ‘any’ does not attach to the quasi-pronoun ‘the politician’. By contrast. if he/she is A. if no one respects a politician. it does not attach to ‘no’. many sentences involving ‘every’ are paraphrased using ‘if-then’. then x is D ®x(Px ² ®y[Cy ² (~Ryx ² Dx)]) The following example further illustrates the difference between ‘a’ and ‘any’. which is closer than ‘if’. if x isn't R'ed by y. Then the sentence is paraphrased and symbolized as follows. The rule of thumb that prevails is the following. If we substitute ‘any politician’ for ‘a politician’. if the P isn't R'ed by the C. Recall that sentences of the form everyone who is A is B are given an overall paraphrase/symbolization as follows for anyone. if a politician isn't respected by a citizen. ‘a’ attaches to ‘if’ and ‘the politician’. ‘not’ ‘a’ attaches to the nearest occurrence of ‘if’ By way of concluding this section. for any person x. we consider how ‘a’ interacts with ‘every’. if x likes a movie. then the politician isn't re-elected. we obtain a sentence of dubious grammaticality. he/she is B ®x(Ax ² Bx) In particular. ‘any’ attaches to the nearest logical operator from the following list: ‘if’. then he/she is displeased for any P. which is a special case of how it interacts with ‘if’. then x recommends it . The former is paraphrased and symbolized as follows. then the P is D for any P x.Chapter 7: Translations in Polyadic Predicate Logic 367 both cases. for any C.

368 Hardegree. for any movie y. if x likes y. then x recommends y ®x(Px ² ®y[My ² (Lxy ² Rxy)]) . Symbolic Logic for any person x.

2. 3. JAY RESPECTS everyone. Someone doesn't RESPECT JAY. . translate each of the following into the language of predicate logic. 4. 13. 16. 20. There is someone JAY does not RESPECT. Everyone is RESPECTED by everyone. JAY RESPECTS no one. Not everyone RESPECTS JAY. 6. Someone RESPECTS someone. There is some event that CAUSES every event. 10. Someone is RESPECTED by someone. EXERCISE SET A 1. 8. Everyone RESPECTS someone (or other). There is someone who is RESPECTED by everyone. 12. Everyone is RESPECTED by someone (or other). 5. Everyone RESPECTS JAY. There is someone who RESPECTS everyone. 18. 7. 11. No one RESPECTS JAY. 19. JAY doesn't RESPECT everyone. Everyone RESPECTS everyone. 17. Someone RESPECTS JAY.Chapter 7: Translations in Polyadic Predicate Logic 369 11. 15. EXERCISES FOR CHAPTER 7 Directions: Using the suggested abbreviations (the capitalized words). JAY RESPECTS someone. Every event is CAUSED by some event or other (U=events). 9. 14.

37. 35. 28. 29. There is no one who isn't RESPECTED by everyone. 32. 39. 26.370 Hardegree. 27. There is no one who isn't RESPECTED by at least one person. There is someone whom no one RESPECTS. Not everyone RESPECTS everyone. There is no one who isn't RESPECTED by someone or other. 38. 22. 31. Symbolic Logic EXERCISE B 21. For any person there is someone who doesn't RESPECT him/her. 36. Not everyone is RESPECTED by everyone. There is no one who RESPECTS everyone. Not everyone RESPECTS someone or other. 25. . 40. There is no one who is RESPECTED by everyone. There is no one who doesn't RESPECT someone or other. There is no one who RESPECTS no one. There is no one who doesn't RESPECT at least one person. 34. 23. 30. 33. There is someone who RESPECTS no one. There is no one who doesn't RESPECT everyone. There is no one who is RESPECTED by no one. For any person there is someone he/she doesn't RESPECT. 24. Not everyone is RESPECTED by someone or other. For any event there is an event that doesn't CAUSE it. (U=events) There is no event that is not CAUSED by some event or other.

Every PROFESSOR is RESPECTED by some STUDENT or other. There is some FRESHMAN who RESPECTS everyone.Chapter 7: Translations in Polyadic Predicate Logic 371 EXERCISE SET C 41. There is no FRESHMAN who is RESPECTED by everyone. There is a PROFESSOR who is RESPECTED by every STUDENT. Every FRESHMAN IS RESPECTED BY someone or other. There is a PROFESSOR who RESPECTS every STUDENT. 66. 46. 47. There is a PROFESSOR who RESPECTS no STUDENT. There is a STUDENT who is RESPECTED by no PROFESSOR. There is a PROFESSOR who is RESPECTED by no STUDENT. 50. 58. 59. EXERCISE SET D 51. 48. 62. Every FRESHMAN RESPECTS someone or other. 63. Everyone RESPECTS some FRESHMAN or other. 56. There is a STUDENT who RESPECTS every PROFESSOR. For every PROFESSOR. For every PROFESSOR. 57. 52. There is some FRESHMAN who is RESPECTED by everyone. There is a STUDENT who is RESPECTED by every PROFESSOR. 65. 60. There is a STUDENT who RESPECTS no PROFESSOR. 44. 54. 45. 53. Every STUDENT is RESPECTED by some PROFESSOR or other. For every STUDENT. Every PROFESSOR RESPECTS some STUDENT or other. Every STUDENT RESPECTS some PROFESSOR or other. 61. 43. There is no one who RESPECTS every FRESHMAN. For every STUDENT. 49. There is some one who is RESPECTED by every FRESHMAN. 42. Everyone is RESPECTED by some FRESHMAN or other. there is a STUDENT who doesn't RESPECT that professor. there is a PROFESSOR whom the student doesn't RESPECT. There is some one who RESPECTS every FRESHMAN. there is a PROFESSOR who doesn't RESPECT that student. 64. 55. . there is a STUDENT whom the professor doesn't RESPECT.

372 67. 70. 88. There is a STUDENT who is not RESPECTED by every PROFESSOR. At least one person RESPECTS no one who RESPECTS JAY. 73. 84. There is a PROFESSOR who is RESPECTED by every STUDENT who KNOWS him(her). Everyone who RESPECTS him(her)self is RESPECTED by everyone. 68. 75. 78. 72. 76. 89. There is no STUDENT who RESPECTS no PROFESSOR. There is no STUDENT who isn't RESPECTED by at least one PROFESSOR. 92. 85. . JAY RESPECTS no one who RESPECTS KAY. There is a STUDENT who does not RESPECT every PROFESSOR. There is no PROFESSOR who is RESPECTED by no STUDENT. Anyone who is SHORTER than every JOCKEY is a MIDGET. 93. There is no STUDENT who is RESPECTED by every PROFESSOR. There is no STUDENT who is RESPECTED by no PROFESSOR. 86. Hardegree. There is no PROFESSOR who RESPECTS every STUDENT. There is a PROFESSOR who is not RESPECTED by every STUDENT. 80. Everyone who RESPECTS every FRESHMAN is RESPECTED by every FRESHMAN. There is a GANGSTER who is FEARED by everyone who KNOWS him. 90. Anyone who is TALLER than every BASKETBALL player is TALLER than every JOCKEY. Everyone who KNOWS JAY RESPECTS at least one person who KNOWS KAY. There is no STUDENT who doesn't RESPECT at least one PROFESSOR. Symbolic Logic There is no STUDENT who RESPECTS every PROFESSOR. EXERCISE E 81. 91. 83. 69. 82. Everyone who RESPECTS him(her)self RESPECTS everyone. Anyone who is TALLER than JAY is TALLER than every STUDENT. There is a PROFESSOR who does not RESPECT every STUDENT. There is no PROFESSOR who isn't RESPECTED by every STUDENT. 71. 79. 77. 74. JAY RESPECTS everyone who RESPECTS KAY. 87. There is no PROFESSOR who RESPECTS no STUDENT. Everyone who RESPECTS everyone is RESPECTED by everyone.

Every BOOK that KAY LENDS to JAY she STEALS from CHRIS. There is no PROFESSOR who doesn't RESPECT every STUDENT who ENROLLS in every COURSE he/she TEACHES. 108. The only MORTALS who are RESPECTED by everyone are movie STARS. For every PROFESSOR. 98. 103. 109. 105. MORONS are the only people who IDOLIZE every movie STAR. There is a PROFESSOR who RESPECTS no STUDENT who doesn't RESPECT him(her)self. 96.Chapter 7: Translations in Polyadic Predicate Logic 373 94. 101. There is a PROFESSOR who RESPECTS no STUDENT who doesn't RESPECT every PROFESSOR. JAY LIKES every BOOK RECOMMENDED to him by KAY. there is a STUDENT who LIKES every BOOK the professor RECOMMENDS to the student. 107. 100. There is a STUDENT who is RESPECTED by every PROFESSOR who RESPECTS him(her)self. Only MISANTHROPES HATE everyone. Only SAINTS LOVE everyone. 104. Every STUDENT RESPECTS every PROFESSOR who RESPECTS every STUDENT. 97. 110. Only MORONS RESPECT only POLITICIANS. JAY RECOMMENDS every BOOK he LIKES to KAY. 95. There is a PROFESSOR who RESPECTS every STUDENT who ENROLLS in every COURSE the professor OFFERS. Every STUDENT who KNOWS JAY RESPECTS every PROFESSOR who RESPECTS JAY. 99. 102. Every MAGAZINE that JAY READS is BORROWED from KAY. . EXERCISE F 106.

No one who KNOWS JAY RESPECTS anyone who KNOWS KAY. 114. 130. There is no STUDENT who doesn't RESPECT any PROFESSOR. There is no one who doesn't RESPECT anyone. If a CLOWN ENTERS a ROOM. 134. There is a PROFESSOR who doesn't RESPECT any STUDENT who doesn't RESPECT every PROFESSOR. 117. 124. . 136. then every PERSON will NOTICE it. 121. 122. 126. 127. 133. JAY isn't RESPECTED by any POLITICIAN. Every STUDENT KNOWS at least one STUDENT who doesn't RESPECT any POLITICIAN. No STUDENT is RESPECTED by any POLITICIAN. 120. 118. then every PERSON can CRACK it. If a MAN BITES a DOG. 128. There is no one who isn't RESPECTED by anyone. then every PERSON IN the room will NOTICE the clown. If JAY can CRACK a SAFE. There is no STUDENT who isn't RESPECTED by any PROFESSOR. 115. 125. he/she will be EATEN by that alligator. 132. There is a PROFESSOR who doesn't RESPECT any STUDENT who doesn't RESPECT him(her). No STUDENT RESPECTS any POLITICIAN. JAY doesn't RESPECT anyone. Everyone KNOWS someone who doesn't RESPECT any POLITICIAN. JAY isn't RESPECTED by anyone. then no PERSON can CRACK it.374 Hardegree. Symbolic Logic EXERCISE SET G 111. There is no one who doesn't RESPECT any POLITICIAN. then every WITNESS is SURPRISED at him. JAY doesn't RESPECT any POLITICIAN. 137. If a TRESPASSER is CAUGHT by one of my ALLIGATORS. There is someone who doesn't RESPECT anyone who RESPECTS JAY. No STUDENT who KNOWS JAY RESPECTS any PROFESSOR who RESPECTS JAY. 135. 129. 113. If a SKUNK ENTERS the room. There is at least one STUDENT who doesn't RESPECT any POLITICIAN. 131. There is someone who doesn't RESPECT anyone. 116. 119. 112. 123. If KAY can't crack a SAFE. There is someone who isn't RESPECTED by any POLITICIAN.

Any person who LOVES a SLOB is him(her)self a SLOB. . Any FRIEND of YOURS is a FRIEND of MINE (o=you) 139.Chapter 7: Translations in Polyadic Predicate Logic 375 138. Anyone who BEFRIENDS any ENEMY of YOURS is an ENEMY of MINE 140.

13. 11. 4. 16. 10. 9. 7. 15. 12. Symbolic Logic 12. ANSWERS TO EXERCISES FOR CHAPTER 7 EXERCISE SET A 1. ®xRxj ®xRjx ¯xRxj ¯xRjx ¯x~Rxj ¯x~Rjx ~¯xRxj ~¯xRjx ~®xRjx ~®xRxj ®x®yRxy ®x®yRyx ®x¯yRxy ®x¯yRyx ¯x®yRxy ¯x®yRyx ¯x¯yRxy ¯x¯yRyx ®x¯yCyx ¯x®yCxy . 6.376 Hardegree. 19. 18. 14. 5. 17. 2. 3. 8. 20.

39. 47. 40. 49. 31. 50. 36. 43. 35. 28. 30. 42. 24. 22.Chapter 7: Translations in Polyadic Predicate Logic 377 EXERCISE SET B 21. 34. 44. 32. 45. 29. 37. 26. 27. 25. 46. 48. ~¯x®yRxy ~¯x®yRyx ¯x~¯yRxy ¯x~¯yRyx ~®x®yRxy ~®x®yRyx ~®x¯yRxy ~®x¯yRyx ~¯x~¯yRxy ~¯x~¯yRyx ~¯x~®yRxy ~¯x~®yRyx ~¯x~¯yRyx ~¯x~¯yRxy ~¯x~¯yRyx ~¯x~¯yRxy ®x¯y~Rxy ®x¯y~Ryx ®x¯y~Cyx ~¯x~¯yCyx EXERCISE SET C 41. 23. 38. ®x(Fx ² ¯yRxy) ®x(Fx ² ¯yRyx) ®x¯y(Fy & Rxy) ®x¯y(Fy & Ryx) ¯x(Fx & ®yRxy) ¯x(Fx & ®yRyx) ¯x®y(Fy ² Rxy) ¯x®y(Fy ² Ryx) ~¯x(Fx & ®yRyx) ~¯x®y(Fy ² Rxy) . 33.

63. 79. 61. 72. 64. 54. 57. 77. 75. 66. 69. Symbolic Logic EXERCISE SET D 51. 76. 67. 62. 68. 74. 71. 78. 53. 52. 58. 55. ®x(Px ² ¯y(Sy & Ryx)) ®x(Px ² ¯y(Sy & Rxy)) ®x(Sx ² ¯y(Py & Ryx)) ®x(Sx ² ¯y(Py & Rxy)) ®x(Px ² ¯y(Sy & ~Ryx)) ®x(Sx ² ¯y(Py & ~Ryx)) ®x(Px ² ¯y(Sy & ~Rxy)) ®x(Sx ² ¯y(Py & ~Rxy)) ¯x(Sx & ®y(Py ² Rxy)) ¯x(Px & ®y(Sy ² Rxy)) ¯x(Sx & ®y(Py ² Ryx)) ¯x(Px & ®y(Sy ² Ryx)) ¯x(Sx & ~¯y(Py & Rxy)) ¯x(Px & ~¯y(Sy & Rxy)) ¯x(Sx & ~¯y(Py & Ryx)) ¯x(Px & ~¯y(Sy & Ryx)) ~¯x(Sx & ®y(Py ² Rxy)) ~¯x(Px & ®y(Sy ² Rxy)) ~¯x(Sx & ®y(Py ² Ryx)) ~¯x(Sx & ~¯y(Py & Rxy)) ~¯x(Px & ~¯y(Sy & Rxy)) ~¯x(Sx & ~¯y(Py & Ryx)) ~¯x(Px & ~¯y(Sy & Ryx)) ¯x(Sx & ~®y(Py ² Rxy)) ¯x(Px & ~®y(Sy ² Rxy)) ¯x(Px & ~®y(Sy ² Ryx)) ¯x(Sx & ~®y(Py ² Ryx)) ~¯x(Sx & ~¯y(Py & Rxy)) ~¯x(Sx & ~¯y(Py & Ryx)) ~¯x(Px & ~®y(Sy ² Ryx)) . 56. 70. 59. 65.378 Hardegree. 80. 73. 60.

110. 85. 103. 87. 109. 90. 83.Chapter 7: Translations in Polyadic Predicate Logic 379 EXERCISE SET E 81. 102. 92. ~¯x(~Mx & ®y(Sy ² Ixy)). 94. ®x(Kxj ² ¯y(Kyk & Rxy)) ¯x~¯y(Ryj & Rxy) ¯x(Gx & ®y(Kyx ² Fyx)) ¯x(Px & ®y([Sy & Kyx] ² Ryx)) ¯x(Sx & ®y([Py & Ryy] ² Ryx)) ¯x[Px & ®y({Sy & ®z([Cz & Oxz] ² Eyz)} ² Rxy)] ®x{[Sx & Kxj] ² ®y([Py & Ryj] ² Rxy)} ¯x(Px & ~¯y([Sy & ~Ryy] & Rxy)) ¯x(Px & ~¯y([Sy & ~®z(Pz ² Ryz)] & Rxy)) ~¯x{Px & ~®y([Sy & ®z([Cz & Txz) ² Eyz)] ² Rxy)} ®x{Sx ² ®y([Py & ®z(Sz ² Ryz)] ² Rxy)} ~¯x(~Mx & ®yHxy) ~¯x(~Sx & ®yLxy) ~¯x([Mx & ®yRyx] & ~Sx). 108. ®x([Bx & Ljx] ² Rjxk) ®x([Bx & Rkxj] ² Ljx) ®x([Mx & Rjx] ² Bjxk) ®x([Bx & Lkxj] ² Skxc) ®x{Px ² ¯y(Sy & ®z([Bz & Rxzy] ² Lyz))} . ®x(Rxx ² ®yRxy) ®x(Rxx ² ®yRyx) ®x(®yRxy ² ®yRyx) ®x[®y(Fy ² Rxy) ² ®y(Fy ² Ryx)] ®x[®y(Jy ² Sxy) ² Mx] ®x[Txj ² ®y(Sy ² Txy)] ®x[®y(By ² Txy) ² ®y(Jy ² Txy)] ®x(Rxk ² Rjx) ~¯x(Rxk & Rjx). 98. 105. 84. 96. 100. 104. 86. 89. 88. 95. ~¯x(~Mx & ~¯y(~Py & Rxy)) EXERCISE SET F 106. 93. 99. 97. 107. 101. 91. 82.

135.380 Hardegree. 117. Symbolic Logic EXERCISE SET G 111. 115. ®x~Rjx ®x~Rxj ¯x®y~Rxy ~¯x®y~Ryx ~¯x®y~Rxy ®x(Px ² ~Rjx) ®x(Px ² ~Rxj) ¯x®y(Py ² ~Ryx) ~¯x®y(Py ² ~Rxy) ¯x(Sx & ®y(Py ² ~Rxy)) ~¯x(Sx & ®y(Py ² ~Rxy)) ~¯x(Sx & ®y(Py ² ~Ryx)) ®x(Px ² ~¯y(Sy & Ryx)) ®x(Px ² ~¯y(Sy & Rxy)) ®x¯y(Kxy & ®z(Pz ² ~Ryz)) ®x(Sx ² ¯y([Sy & Kxy] & ®z(Pz ² ~Ryz)) ®x(Kxk ² ~¯y(Kyj & Ryx)) ¯x®y(Ryj ² ~Rxy) ®x([Px & Rxj] ² ~¯y([Sy & Kyj] & Ryx)) ¯x(Px & ®y([Sy & ~Ryx] ² ~Rxy)) ¯x(Px & ®y([Sy & ~®z(Pz ² Ryz] ² ~Rxy)) ®x([Sx & Cjx] ² ®y(Py ² Cyx)) ®x([Sx & ~Ckx] ² ~¯y(Py & Cyx)) ®x([Sx & Ex] ² ®y(Py ² Nyx)) ®x®y([(Cx & Ry) & Exy] ² ®z([Pz & Izy]² Nzx)) ®x®y([(Mx&Dy) & Bxy] ² ®z(Wz ² Szx)) ®x®y([(Tx & Ay) & Cyx] ² Eyx) ®x(Fxo ² Fxm) ®x®y([Eyo & Bxy] ² Exm) ®x®y([Sy & Lxy] ² Sx] . 124. 132. 118. 130. 139. 137. 120. 119. 140. 127. 134. 116. 114. 122. 128. 123. 136. 126. 131. 112. 121. 138. 129. 125. 133. 113.

.............................................................. 10....... 387 Potential Errors in Applying Universal-Out .................................... 8...................................... 414 Direct versus Indirect Derivation of Existentials ................................... 429 Appendix 2: Summary of Rules for System PL (Predicate Logic) ....................................................................... 14........................ 16.................................................... 404 How Existential-Out Differs from the other Rules..... 3....... 440 Answers to Exercises for Chapter 8.............. 382 The Rules of Predicate Logic: An Overview........ 12................................ 5.......... 15.............................................................. 6............................................................ 4..... 385 Universal Out ......... 13............................................................................ 397 Existential Out................................................ DERIVATIONS IN PREDICATE LOGIC Introduction........ 420 Appendix 1: The Syntax of Predicate Logic ................................................................................... 2........................... 393 Universal Derivation........................... 382 The Rules of Sentential Logic ... 444 de|~¬-®¯±²´¸ .........8 1........................ 389 Examples of Derivations using Universal-Out......................... 412 Negation Quantifier Elimination Rules ..................... 7........ 438 Exercises for Chapter 8......................................... 11.................................... 390 Existential In ............................. 9...................................................

The transition primarily involves (1) getting used to the new symbols and (2) practicing doing the new derivations (just like in sentential logic!). In particular. on the one hand. is also true. This is a technique to deduce conclusions from premises in sentential logic. There are numerous inference rules. As you might expect. unfortunately. on the other hand. Every rule of System SL (sentential logic) is also a rule of System PL (predicate logic). On the other hand. and if it is invalid. there are show rules. Symbolic Logic 1. since the syntax (grammar) of predicate logic is considerably more complex than the syntax of sentential logic. In the present chapter. but they divide into four basic categories. then we can (in principle) construct a derivation of its conclusion from its premises in System SL. Recall that. there are inference rules. we now turn to the problem of argument validity in predicate logic. i.382 Hardegree. rules that do not arise in sentential logic. there are several rules peculiar to predicate logic. anyone who has already mastered sentential logic derivations can also master predicate logic derivations. then we cannot construct such a derivation. Since predicate logic adopts all the derivation rules of sentential logic. we developed the technique of formal derivation in the context of sentential logic – specifically System SL. Anyone who hasn't already mastered sentential logic derivations will have tremendous difficulty with predicate logic derivations.e. which are upward-oriented. The converse is not true. if an argument is valid in sentential logic.. INTRODUCTION Having discussed the grammar of predicate logic and its relation to English. as we shall see in later sections. . the derivation rules divide into two categories. First of all. THE RULES OF SENTENTIAL LOGIC We begin by stating the first principle of predicate logic derivations. The practical converse. Of course. To wit. which are downward-oriented. the method of derivation in System PL is correspondingly more complex than System SL. it's still not too late to figure out sentential derivations! 2. it is a good idea to review the salient features of sentential logic derivations. we examine the corresponding deductive system for predicate logic – what will be called System PL (short for ‘predicate logic’). in Chapter 5.

For example. ´I. in moving from sentential logic to predicate logic. we are now faced with formulas that involve predicates and quantifiers. ~±O Double Negation. ²O. when applied to predicate logic. as in examples (1)-(4). ´O. However. ±O. . Accordingly. they look somewhat different. (S1) (S2) (S3) (S4) Direct Derivation Conditional Derivation Indirect Derivation (First Form) Indirect Derivation (Second Form) As noted at the beginning of the current section. ¸O Negation Elimination Rules (Tilde-Out-Rules): ~&O.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 383 (I1) (I2) (I3) (I4) Introduction Rules (In-Rules): &I. ~²O. In particular. ±I. ~´O. when we apply the sentential logic rules to the new formulas. Repetition In addition. but only because the syntax of predicate logic is different. ¸I Simple Elimination Rules (Out-Rules): &O. one must first become accustomed to applying the old inference rules to new formulas. instead of formulas that involve only sentential letters and connectives. (1) Fa ² Ga Fa –––––––– Ga ®xFx ² ®xGx ®xFx –––––––––––– ®xGx Fa ² Ga ~Ga –––––––– ~Fa ®x(Fx ² Gx) ² ¯xFx ~¯xFx ––––––––––––––––––– ~®x(Fx ² Gx) (2) (3) (4) Thus. every rule of sentential logic is still operative in predicate logic. the rules of sentential logic look somewhat different. applied to predicate logic formulas. the following are all instances of the arrow-out rule. there are four show-rules.

In each case. or disjunction. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) ¬: Fa ² Ga ¬: ®xFx ² ®xGx ¬: ~Fa ¬: ~¯x(Fx & Gx) ¬: Rab ¬: ®xFx ´ ®xGx Every one of these is a formula for which we already have a ready-made derivation strategy. as follows. to show a conditional formula. For example. so we use indirect derivation of the first form. so we use conditional derivation. to show a negation. which remain operative in predicate logic. one uses conditional derivation. supposing that a direct derivation doesn't look promising. consider the following show lines. either the formula is atomic. so we use indirect derivation. or atomic formula. (3) ¬: ~Fa Fa ¬: ¸ ¬: ~¯x(Fx & Gx) ¯x(Fx & Gx) ¬: ¸ ID As ?? ID As ?? (4) The formula in (5) is atomic. or its main connective is a sentential logic connective. The formulas in (1) and (2) are conditionals. Symbolic Logic The same thing applies to the show rules of sentential logic.384 Hardegree. and their associated derivation strategies. The only difference is that one must learn to apply these strategies to predicate logic formulas. Just as before. similarly. . one uses indirect derivation. as follows. (1) ¬: Fa ² Ga Fa ¬: Ga ¬: ®xFx ² ®xGx ®xFx ¬: ®xGx CD As ?? CD As ?? (2) The formulas in (3) and (4) are negations.

all the derivation techniques we have developed for the latter can be transferred to predicate logic. etc. so we use indirect derivation. since predicate logic subsumes sentential logic. we are stuck very quickly. as noted at the beginning of Chapter 6. we need additional derivation techniques to deal successfully with predicate logic arguments. as follows. in the form of quantifiers. (6) ¬: ®xFx ´ ®xGx ~(®xFx ´ ®xGx) ¬: ¸ ~®xFx ~®xGx ID As ?? ~´O ~´O In conclusion. so we can't use arrow-out. . so we need special rules for the added logical structure of predicate logic. so we can't use ampersand-out. they are not conjunctions. They are not conditionals.. ®x(Fx ² Hx) Fc –––––––––––– Hc ®x(Sx ² Px) ®x([Sx & Px] ² Dx) Sm –––––––––––––––––– Dm every Freshman is Happy Chris is a Freshman ––––––––––––––––––––– Chris is Happy every Snake is Poisonous every Poisonous Snake is Dangerous Max is a Snake –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Max is Dangerous In either example. the formula in (6) is a disjunction. On the other hand. there are valid arguments that can't be shown to be valid using only the resources of sentential logic. along with tilde-wedge-out. On the other hand. if we try to derive the conclusion from the premises. we would be unable to derive any interesting conclusions from our premises. etc. Consider the following (valid) arguments. THE RULES OF PREDICATE LOGIC: AN OVERVIEW If we confined ourselves to the rules of sentential logic. 3. All we could derive would be conclusions that follow purely in virtue of sentential logic. Sentential logic does not provide a rule for dealing with such formulas. given the additional logical apparatus of predicate logic.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 385 ID As ?? (5) ¬: Rab ~Rab ¬: ¸ Finally. for we have no means of dealing with those premises that are universal formulas.

for each two-place connective. and every connective has a tilde-outrule. in addition to all of the rules of sentential logic. but one of them (universal derivation) is a show-rule (downwardoriented rule). and a rule for eliminating that connective. Universal Rules (1) (2) (3) Universal Derivation (UD) Universal-Out (®O) Tilde-Universal-Out (~®O) Existential Rules (1) (2) (3) Existential-In (¯I) Existential-Out (¯O) Tilde-Existential-Out (~¯O) Thus. according to this pattern. for each connective. there are the universal quantifiers – ®x. [Note: Technically speaking. there is an arrow show-rule. just as we have three rules for each sentential connective. In regard to derivations. Symbolic Logic In choosing a set of rules for predicate logic. In particular. ¯y. In sentential logic. we have a rule for eliminating negations of formulas with that connective. that five of the rules are inference rules (upwardoriented rules). rather. So. with the exception of the conditional for which there is no introduction rule. Also. Indeed. there are the existential quantifiers – ¯x. ®z. on the one hand. one goal is to follow the general pattern established in sentential logic. every connective has both an in-rule and an out-rule. and three rules for existentials. namely. ®y.] In the next section. There is no arrow-in inference rule. Notice carefully.386 Hardegree. predicate logic employs six rules. moving from sentential logic to predicate logic basically involves adding two sets of one-place connectives. Existential-Out (¯O) is an assumption rule. we examine in detail the easiest of the six rules of predicate logic – universal-out. on the other hand. conditional derivation. following the general pattern for rules. See Section 10 for an explanation. we have a rule for introducing that connective. universal derivation plays a role in predicate logic very similar to the role of conditional derivation in sentential logic. rather than a true inference rule. ¯z. we correspondingly have three rules for universals. much like conditional derivation. which are summarized as follows. .

e. where v is any variable. and F[n] is the formula that results when n is substituted for every occurrence of v that is free in F[v]. all of the following follow by ®O: Rak. Fc. etc. Rdk. In both of these examples. F[v] is any formula. As its name suggests. Thus. Rck. which is to say that it has the form ®vF[v]. Fb. In Example 1. and easiest. ®x. the intuition behind the rule is quite straightforward. etc. In this v is x. any name. then one is entitled to infer any substitution instance of F[v]. (1) (2) (3) v is any variable (x. but if . Example 1: ®xFx This is by far the easiest example. for short).Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 387 4. UNIVERSAL OUT The first. To obtain a substitution instance of Fx one simply replaces x by a name. The official statement of the rule goes as follows. y.. this may be pictorially summarized as follows. and F[v] is Fx. and F[v] is Ryk. In order to understand this rule. and F[v] is any formula in which v occurs free. rule we examine is universal-elimination (universal-out. all of the following follow by ®O: Fa. In this v is y. Universal-Out (®O) If one has an available line that is a universal formula. In symbols. it is best to look at a few examples. the premise says that everything is an F. any name. Rbk. To obtain a substitution instance of Ryk one simply replaces y by a name. ®y. n is any name (a-w). Example 2: ®yRyk This is almost as easy. it is a rule designed to decompose any formula whose main connective is a universal quantifier (i. Thus. ®O: ®vF[v] –––––– F[n] Here. z). Fd. or ®z).

all of the following follow by ®O. etc. etc. To obtain a substitution instance. so we only replace the first occurrence. so a respects someone. etc. ¯yRdy. Symbolic Logic everything is an F. ¯yRay. one replaces every free occurrence of x in Fx²®xGx by a name. Fc ² Gc. Thus. in Example 2. . Example 3: ®x(Fx ² Gx) In this v is x. c is an F. but if everything bears R to k. F[v] is molecular. The last reading (r3) says that everything has a certain property. b respects someone. In the remaining examples. To obtain a substitution instance of ¯yRxy. namely. For example. but the remaining two are not. so a bears R to k. etc. Fa ² ®xGx. v is x. In this example. To obtain a substitution instance. etc. and F[v] is Fx²Gx. The premise says that everything bears relation R to something or other. the following all follow by ®O. But if everything has this property. then anyone you care to mention respects someone. it translates the English sentence ‘everyone respects someone (or other)’. to say that b has the property is to say that if b is F then b is G. the intuition underlying the rule may be less clear than in the first two examples. In examples 1 and 2. In this example. the same name for both occurrences. Fb ² ®xGx. Thus. and F[v] is ¯yRxy. (r1) every F is G (r2) everything is G if it's F (r3) everything is such that: if it is F. the first occurrence is free. b is an F. But to say that a has the property is simply to say that if a is F then a is G. Thus. Both of these are applications of universal-out. b bears R to k. the formula F[v] is atomic. the following all follow by ®O. we replace both occurrences of x by a name. that if it is F then it is G. the premise says that everything bears relation R to k (for example. etc. everyone respects Kay). The premise may be read in many ways in English. and F[v] is Fx²®xGx. then any particular thing we care to mention bears R to k. So a has the property. Similarly. then any particular thing we care to mention is an F. then any particular thing we care to mention has the property. Fc ² ®xGx. b has the property. Example 4: ®x¯yRxy Here. etc. one replaces the one and only occurrence of x by a name. so a is an F. then it is G. Example 5: ®x(Fx ² ®xGx) Here. Fa ² Ga. any name. But if everyone respects someone (or other).388 Hardegree. ¯yRcy. some more colloquial than others. Fb ² Gb. v is x. ¯yRby.

to infer Fa ² ®aGa. (1) (2) (3) ®xRxx . The premise says that if anyone is an F then everyone is a G (recall the distinction between ‘if any’ and ‘if every’). of course. Universal-out. Recall. the error is the same – specifically. namely. but is rather a conditional. the rule is applied to an appropriate formula. Now. to infer Rax. Refer to the Appendix concerning correct and incorrect substitution instances. POTENTIAL ERRORS IN APPLYING UNIVERSAL-OUT There are basically two ways in which one can misapply the rule universalout: (1) improper substitution. so the appropriate elimination rule is not universal-out. Rab. Fb ² Gc ®x(Fx ² ®xGx). etc. not to atomic formulas. in this connection. or conditionals. But that is precisely what we get when we apply ®O to the premise. Fa ² ®xGa WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! In the case of improper application. the formula in question is not a universal. as its name is intended to suggest. The following are examples of improper application of universal-out. or conjunctions. INFERENCE RULES APPLY EXCLUSIVELY TO WHOLE LINES. The following are a few examples of improper substitution. or biconditional. In the case of improper substitution. one attempts to apply the rule to a line that does not have the appropriate form. NOT TO PIECES OF LINES. or negations. a universal. 5. applies to universal formulas. and if b is an F then everyone is a G. applying universal-out to a formula that does not have the appropriate form. so we have to be especially careful in applying ®O. (2) improper application.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 389 This example is complicated by the presence of a second quantifier governing the same variable. to infer Fa ² Gb. but rather arrow-out (which. one's intuitions are not violated. From this it follows that if a is an F then everyone is a G. or existentials. . or disjunctions. but an error is made in performing the substitution. Rba ®x(Fx ² Gx). Nevertheless. a very important principle. (4) ®xFx ² ®xGx to infer Fa ² ®xGx to infer ®xFx ² Ga to infer Fa ² Gb WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! In each case. requires an additional premise).

is it an atomic formula. In this case. EXAMPLES OF DERIVATIONS USING UNIVERSAL-OUT Having figured out the universal-out rule. a biconditional. is whether the inference is an instance of universal out. a conjunction.4. Later. or ~Fc Hardegree. we next look at examples of derivations in which this rule is used. as well as a number of others that employ our new tool. We start with the arguments at the beginning of Section 3. the formula is a negation. or ~Fb. a disjunction. and hence you can't construct proper derivations. a negation. The moral is that you must be able to recognize the major connective of a formula. a conditional.²O . the error involves applying universal-out to a formula that is not a universal. Symbolic Logic WRONG!!! Once again. In order to show that ®xFx²Ga follows from ®xFx²®xGx. we will have a rule – tildeuniversal-out – designed specifically for formulas of this form. at the moment. a universal. All of these inferences correspond to valid arguments. (6) ®xFx ² ®xGx to infer ®xFx ² Ga to infer ®xFx ² Gb etc. we examine this particular derivation. you can't apply the rules successfully.390 (5) ~®xFx to infer ~Fa. sometimes misapplying a rule produces a valid conclusion. universal-out. These inferences are not. or an existential? Otherwise. 6. Example 1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) ®x(Fx ² Hx) Fc -: Hc |Fc ² Hc |Hc Pr Pr DD 1. In the next section. Take the following example. one must construct a derivation of the conclusion from the premise.®O 2. Of course. But many arguments are valid! The question.

if we have a line of the form ®vF[v].8. one must primarily use trial-and-error. but they illustrate an important strategic principle for doing derivations in predicate logic.®O 3. of all the formulas we are entitled to write down. in the second example. Fc²Hc. we reduce the problem to the point where we can finish it by applying arrow-out. standing on your head until you have a splitting headache and are sick to your stomach is not against the law. A good chess player chooses good moves from among the legal moves. In the first example. Fb²Hb. So. a good derivation builder chooses good moves from among the legal moves.²O 3. in line (4) of the first example. as you will later see. there are several names floating around in a derivation. as well as a host of other formulas. In the examples above. or even that one should do it. But. By analogy.7.&I 6. the choice of one particular letter over any other letter as the letter of instantiation is natural and obvious. but it is pointless because it makes no contribution whatsoever to completing the derivation. universal-out – is specialized to the job at hand. we are entitled to write down any instance of the formula F[v]. According to universal-out. REDUCE THE PROBLEM TO A POINT WHERE YOU CAN APPLY RULES OF SENTENTIAL LOGIC. it is certainly true that Fa²Ga is a permitted step at line (4). for example.®O 2. chess). Under these circumstances. we are entitled to write down Fa²Ha.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 391 Example 2 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) ®x(Sx ² Px) ®x([Sx & Px] ² Dx) Sm -: Dm |Sm ² Pm |(Sm & Pm) ² Dm |Pm |Sm & Pm |Dm Pr Pr Pr DD 1. but most of them are stupid (supposing one's goal is to win). we are entitled by universal-out to instantiate lines (1) and (2) respectively to any name we choose. it's just stupid.²O The above two examples are quite simple. . only one of them is of any use – namely. one is permitted to make any number of moves. Notice in the two derivations above that the tool – namely. and it may not be obvious which one to use at any given place. only those that involve the name m are of any use. But of all the permitted instantiations. Similarly. To say that one is permitted to do something is quite different from saying that one must do it.5. Similarly. At any given point in a game (say. Other times. In each of the above examples.

The following is another example in which a sentential derivation strategy is employed. In the previous section. this is a negation.²O 5. and is accordingly shown by conditional derivation. universalout. ¸. Example 4 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) ®x(Fx ² Hx) ~Hb -: ~®xFx |®xFx |-: ¸ ||Fb ² Hb ||Fb ||Hb ||¸ Pr Pr ID As DD 1. To show the negation of a formula. the argument is valid.3. As noted there. You are. We conclude this section by looking at a considerably more complex example. of course.®O Notice. . already very familiar with conditional derivations. to show a conditional. we looked at an argument that was obtained by a misapplication of universal-out. namely indirect derivation.7.®O 4. that the formula in (2) is a conditional. we have to show ~®xFx. in particular. Symbolic Logic Let us look at some more examples. you assume the antecedent and show the consequent.8.®O 6. but still an example that requires only one special predicate logic rule. although it is not an instance of universal-out. Example 3 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) ®xFx ² ®xGx -: ®xFx ² Ga |®xFx |-: Ga ||®xGx ||Ga Pr CD As DD 1.¸I In line (3).²O 2.392 Hardegree. Let us now show that it is indeed valid by deriving the conclusion from the premises. one assumes the formula negated and one shows the generic contradiction. so we use a tried-and-true strategy for showing negations.

®O 2.²O 12. we add one more to the list. .®O 5.®O 3. this may be pictorially summarized as follows. where F[n] is a substitution instance of formula F[v].®O 9.11.7. EXISTENTIAL IN Of the six rules of predicate logic that we are eventually going to have. better yet if you can reproduce it yourself. The new rule. ¯I) is officially stated as follows. existential introduction (existential-in. ¯I: F[n] –––––– ¯vF[v] Here. z).Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 393 Example 5 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) ®x(Fx ² ®yRxy) ®x®y(Rxy ² ®zGz) ~Gb -: ~Fa |Fa |-: ¸ ||Fa ² ®yRay ||®yRay ||Rab ||®y(Ray ² ®zGz) ||Rab ² ®zGz ||®zGz ||Gb ||¸ Pr Pr Pr ID As DD 1.®O 10. In symbols. then you have truly mastered the universal-out rule! 7. we have now examined only one – universal-out. In the present section.13.¸I If you can figure out this derivation. (1) v is any variable (x. then one is entitled to infer the existential formula ¯vF[v].²O 8. y. Existential-In (¯I) If formula F[n] is an available line.

then at least one thing has that property.’ and ‘j’ be ‘Jay’ and ‘k’ be ‘Kay’. ¯zFz b is F at least one thing is F Here. and Rjz. two different sets of formulas can be inferred in accordance with ¯I. ¯zRzk infer: ¯xRjx. and one substitutes a name n for the variable v. Rjk is a substitution instance of three different formulas – Rxk. and F[n] is Fb&Hb. which are alphabetic variants of one another. letting ‘R’ be ‘. Rjy. Fy. de-substitution is radically different from substitution. The conclusions are basically two (discounting alphabetic variants) – someone respects Kay. Example 1 have: Fb infer: ¯xFx. if a particular thing has a property. and Fz. see Appendix) can all be inferred in accordance with ¯I. ¯zRjz j R's k something R's k j R's something Here.. which is a substitution instance of three different formulas – Fx. one works backwards. in ¯I. which is what all three conclusions assert. Treating ‘j’ as n. ¯yRjy. and Rzk.394 (2) (3) n is any name (a-w). So the inferred formulas (which are alphabetic variants of one another. In ®O. Ryk. we have two choices for n – ‘j’ and ‘k’. However. and one "de-substitutes" a variable v for n. ¯yRyk. which is a substitution instance of nine different formulas: . turning ®O upside down to produce ¯I brings a small complication.. the premise says that Jay respects Kay. But if b is F. In Example 2. Unfortunately. and F[n] is the formula that results when n is substituted for every occurrence of v that is free in F[v]. As with all rules of derivation. one begins with the formula F[v] with variable v. and Jay respects someone. Hardegree. Treating ‘k’ as ‘n’. n is ‘b’. the best way to understand ¯I is to look at a few examples. The only possible complication pertains to free and bound occurrences of v. The premise says that b is F. One might understand this rule as saying that. Rjk is a substitution instance of three different formulas – Rjx. which are alphabetic variants of one another. Symbolic Logic F[v] is any formula. ¯yFy. the intuition underlying the rule's application is quite straightforward. Thus.. Example 2 have: Rjk infer: ¯xRxk. one begins with the substitution instance F[n] with name n. then at least one thing is F. See examples below.respects. and F[n] is Fb. n is ‘b’. By contrast. Existential-In is very much like an upside-down version of Universal-Out. in many cases. Example 3 have: Fb & Hb Here. In Example 1..

b is both F and H). there are two groups of conclusions that are somehow extraneous. Fz & Hz (f2) Fb & Hx. and the conclusions variously say that at least one thing is both F and H. and moreover they are all in accord with ¯I. Fb & Hz (f3) Fx & Hb. ¯yRky. In Example 4. but they are seldom. In Example 3. insofar as it involves two occurrences of the same name. then the premise says that Kay respects Kay.. and F[n] is Rkk. the intuition is less clear.. so we will not dwell on them here. So the above inferences are all in accord with ¯I. Rkx. which is a substitution instance of nine different formulas – Rxx. which introduces a further complication.. ¯z(Fz & Hz) infer:¯x(Fb & Hx). the difference is that the two extra groups of valid conclusions are not only legitimate but also useful. (c1) someone respects her(him)self (c2) someone respects Kay (c3) Kay respects someone ¯xRxx ¯xRxk ¯xRkx All of these follow from the premise ‘Kay respects herself’. Fy & Hb. However. ¯z(Fz & Hb) In Example 3. But if Kay respects herself. In the case of the first group. ¯y(Fb & Hy). Example 4 have: Rkk. Fz & Hb So the following are all inferences that are in accord with ¯I: infer:¯x(Fx & Hx).’ and ‘k’ be ‘Kay’. ¯zRzk infer:¯xRkx.respects. . as well as the alphabetic variants involving ‘y’ and ‘z’. used in actual derivations.. as well. the underlying intuition is fairly clear. ¯z(Fb & Hz) infer:¯x(Fx & Hb). The premise says that b is F and b is H (i. The following is the first such example. ¯yRyk. These are permitted inferences.. three groups of formulas can be inferred by ¯I. Fb & Hy. no premise involves a quantifier. then we can validly draw all of the following conclusions. they are actually not too hard to understand. Letting ‘R’ be ‘. ¯zRkz k R's itself something R's itself something R's k k R's something Here. ¯y(Fy & Hb). ¯yRyy. ¯zRzz infer:¯xRxk. Rxk.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 395 (f1) Fx & Hx. In all the previous examples.e. although the various inferences at first look a bit complicated. Fy & Hy. although they are certainly permitted. if ever. infer:¯xRxx. or more colloquially Kay respects herself. n is ‘k’. In the case of the remaining two groups. The following example is quite similar. ¯y(Fy & Hy).

Let us now look at a few examples of derivations that employ ¯I. Symbolic Logic Example 5 have: infer: ¯xRkx ¯y¯xRyx..5. ®O. in this example.’. letting ‘R’ be ‘.¯I Example 2 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) ®x(Gx ² Hx) Gb -: ¯x(Gx & Hx) |Gb ² Hb |Hb |Gb & Hb |¯x(Gx & Hx) Pr Pr DD 1. because the latter formula doesn't have any substitution instances.¯I 7. since it has no free variables! In Example 5. which is a substitution instance of two different formulas – ¯xRyx..4. and ¯xRzx. the premise says that someone (we are not told who in particular) respects Kay.®O 2.respects.5. Example 1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) ®x(Fx ² Hx) Fa -: ¯xHx |Fa ² Ha |Ha |¯xHx Pr Pr DD 1. and letting ‘k’ be ‘Kay’.396 Hardegree. n is ‘k’.8. The conclusion says that someone respects someone. in other words.&I 6.²O 2.®O 2. as well as our earlier rule. If at least one person respects Kay. However.. which are alphabetic variants of one another. then it follows that at least one person respects at least one person. there is no alphabetic variant involving the variable x'. ¯z¯xRzx k R's something something R's something Here. ¯xRkx is not a substitution instance of ¯xRxx.¸I .¯I Example 3 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) ¯x~Rxa ² ~¯xRax ~Raa -: ~Rab |Rab |-: ¸ ||¯x~Rxa ||~¯xRax ||¯xRax ||¸ Pr Pr ID As DD 2.6. and F[n] is ¯xRkx..²O 4.¯I 1.²O 5.

we need a new rule. (1) (2) (3) ®x(Fx ² Gx) ®xFx ¬: ®xGx Pr Pr ?? How do to go about completing the derivation? At the present.¯I 4.²O 6. as it stands. the only derivation strategies available are direct derivation and indirect derivation (second form). the rule is for dealing with lines of the form ‘¬: ®v. the introduction rule for the universal quantifier is a show rule.. given its form. so. we have to suppose that we have a truly huge collection of names available. an elimination rule. every connective (other than tilde) has associated with it three rules. Suppose one is faced with a derivation problem like the following. called universal derivation (UD). The first important point to observe is that. we examine the introduction rule for the universal quantifier. As stated earlier. one quickly gets stuck. compare this with conditional derivation. However. This is because. This amounts to asserting every item in the following very long list. (c1) (c2) (c3) (c4) Ga Gb Gc Gd etc. In the present section. in this situation. universal-out and existential-in. So. ‘for any x. This is a very long list. in either approach. an introduction rule.] .®O 2. our derivation system is inadequate.. Gx’ says that everything is G.®O 8.5. whereas the introduction rule for the existential quantifier is an inference rule. [Of course. UNIVERSAL DERIVATION We have now studied two rules. and a negation-elimination rule. one in which every particular thing in the universe is (eventually) mentioned. Now what does the conclusion say? Well.’. In other words.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 397 Example 4 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) ®x(¯yRxy ² ®yRxy) Raa -: Rab |¯yRay ² ®yRay |¯yRay |®yRay |Rab Pr Pr DD 1. we run out of ordinary names long before we run out of things to mention. we cannot derive ®xFx' with the machinery currently at our disposal.

This is a pattern we can use to construct as many derivations of this sort as we care to.®O 2. in order to show the conjunction.®O 2.®O 4. we can't) construct all of them. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (3) (4) (5) (6) (3) (4) (5) (6) (3) (4) (5) (6) ®x(Fx ² Gx) ®xFx -: Ga |Fa ² Ga |Fa |Ga -: Gb |Fb ² Gb |Fb |Gb -: Gc |Fc ² Gc |Fc |Gc -: Gd |Fd ² Gd |Fd |Gd . So our task is to show Ga.®O 4.5. How many do we have to do in order to be finished? 5? 25? 100? Well.5. having done a few. the answer is that. for any particular thing we care to mention.398 Hardegree. Pr Pr DD 1. We have the pattern for all the derivations. Gc.®O 2.®O 4. . where every particular thing in the universe is (eventually) mentioned. which is to say that we would have to show every item in the infinite list. etc.®O 4. let's get started anyway and see what develops. . we would have to show every conjunct. This is a daunting task.²O DD 1. we can show that it is G. once we have done just one deri- .5. . Well. Gb. .®O 2. Symbolic Logic Still another way to think about ®xGx is that it is equivalent to a corresponding infinite conjunction: (c) Ga & Gb & Gc & Gd & Ge & . but we have a very long way to go! Fortunately.²O DD 1. .5. to say the least. Nothing really hinges on the difference between the infinitely long list and the infinite conjunction. So we can (eventually!) show that every particular thing is G (Ga. . etc. Gb. the above derivations all look the same. we can see a distinctive pattern emerging.).²O a: b: c: d: We are making steady progress. Gd. After all. Gc. except for particular names used. but we certainly don't want to (indeed. however.²O DD 1. and hence that everything is G (®xGx).

®O 5. it is sufficient to show a substitution instance F[n] of F[v]. as we will see shortly. Example 2 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) ®x(Fx ² Gx) -: ®xFx ² ®xGx |®xFx |-: ®xGx ||-: Ga |||Fa ² Ga |||Fa |||Ga Pr CD As UD DD 1.²O . so we can stop after doing just one! The rest look the same.7. we already have the pattern (model. in effect.²O b: Each example above uses universal derivation to show ®xGx. This is not the whole story. However.6. and are redundant. so stated.®O 2. In order to solidify this idea. First. let's see what universal derivation. the overall technique is the same: one shows a universal formula ®vF[v] by showing a substitution instance F[n] of F[v]. which is to say a formula of the form ®vF[v]. we offer two equivalent solutions to the original problem using universal derivation.®O 2. This leads to the first (but not final) formulation of the principle of universal derivation. mould) for every other derivation. before facing the complication.6.²O Pr Pr UD DD 1.®O 5.®O 3. Example 1 a: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) ®x(Fx ² Gx) ®xFx -: ®xGx |-: Ga ||Fa ² Ga ||Fa ||Ga ®x(Fx ² Gx) ®xFx -: ®xGx |-: Gb ||Fb ² Gb ||Fb ||Gb Pr Pr UD DD 1. Universal Derivation (First Approximation) In order to show a universal formula.®O 6. let's look at two more examples. allows us to do.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 399 vation. In each case.

²O In this example. the fact that we use ‘a’ is completely inconsequential. so we show it using universal derivation. Then what went wrong with our technique? We showed ®xGx by showing an instance of Gx.®O 5.400 Hardegree. line (2) asks us to show ®xFx²®xGx. This means that we immediately write down a new show line. which is a universal formula. let us now examine an illegitimate use. which is to show ®xGx'. But in order to dem- . to show ®vF[v]. in this case ‘¬: Fa²Ha’. and we show the consequent. notice that Fa²Ha is a substitution instance of Fx²Hx. Why? Because ®xFx²®xGx is not a universal formula.²O 8.®O 2. Example 4 (Invalid Argument!!) (1) (2) (3) (4) Fa & Ga ¬: ®xGx ¬: Ga Ga Pr UD DD 1. An important clue is forthcoming as soon as we try to generalize the above erroneous derivation to any other name. In the Examples 1-3. this formula is indeed a universal. this is a conditional. so we use conditional derivation. Consider the following "proof" of a clearly invalid argument. but this would be completely wrong. etc. or ‘¬: Gc’. But with the last example. Symbolic Logic In this example. we already have a derivation technique for showing conditionals – conditional derivation.&O WRONG!!! First of all. we assume the antecedent. So that gets us to line (4).). where F[n] is a substitution instance of F[v]. That gives us the next two lines. but that is all.9. Having seen three successful uses of universal derivation. From the fact that Adams is a Freshman who is Gloomy it does not follow that everyone is Gloomy.7. but rather a conditional. Now. we can indeed show Ga. one shows F[n]. this means we immediately write down a further show-line ‘¬: Ga’ (we could also write ‘¬: Gb’. so we use universal derivation. we could just as easily use any name. Example 3 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) ®x(Fx ² Gx) ®x(Gx ² Hx) -: ®x(Fx ² Hx) |-: Fa ² Ha ||Fa ||-: Ha |||Fa ² Ga |||Ga ² Ha |||Ga |||Ha Pr Pr UD CD As DD 1. we are asked to show ®x(Fx²Gx). Now the problem is to show Fa²Ha. One might be tempted to use universal derivation to show this. This is shown by direct derivation. Well. and the derivation goes through with equal success. we cannot show Gb or Gc or Gd. Remember. namely Ga. the fact that a is F and a is G does not logically imply that everything (or everyone) is G.

But what is the difference? When is a derivation a model derivation.®O 9. This is better because we don't know anything about b. The first approximation. which can be generalized to every name. In the last example. We are trying to show that everything is F. whereas in the bad derivation above the name ‘a’ appears in the premises. but an instance with a letter that is not previously being used in the derivation.&O 2. b is G. is that to show ®vF[v] one merely shows F[n]. Example 5 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) Fa & Ga ®x(Fx ² ®yGy) ®x(Gx ² Fx) -: ®xFx |-: Fb ||Fa ||Fa ² ®yGy ||®yGy ||Gb ||Gb ² Fb ||Fb Pr Pr Pr UD DD 1. then it can lead to problems. however. . there is at least one conspicuous difference between the good derivations and the bad derivation above.2. Not so in Example 4.²O In this derivation. In Examples 1-3. but blocks Example 4.®O 6. but we refrain from using it as our instance at line (5). so whatever we show about b will hold for everything. We elect to show. we show instead that b is F.10. But this is not right! If the name we choose is already in the derivation. For consider the following perfectly good derivation. we already know that a is F. etc. we now formally present the correct and final version of the universal-elimination rule. a name occurs earlier. so it would be no good merely to show that.®O 3. we have actually only shown that a is G. As it turns out. this adjustment allows Examples 1. not just any instance. so we must restrict universal derivation accordingly. We have seen that universal derivation is not as simple as it might have looked at first glance. and when is it not a model derivation? Well.3. Having seen the adjustment required to make universal derivation work. In every good derivation above. which seemed to work for the first three examples.²O 8. no name appears in the derivation before the universal derivation. doing the derivation with ‘a’ was enough because this one derivation serves as a model for every other derivation. where F[n] is any substitution instance. we have to show (in effect) that a is G. This can't be the whole story.5.7. c is G.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 401 onstrate that everything is G. The crucial modification is marked with an ‘u’.

-: ®vF[v] |-: F[n] || || || || || || || UD n must be new. As usual. and n is a new name. but it illustrates a number of important points. which is to say a formula of the form ®vF[v]. . then one may box and cancel ‘¬: ®vF[v]’. then if one has ‘-: F[n]’ as a later available line.. it is sufficient to show a substitution instance F[n] of F[v].402 Hardegree. where F[n] is a substitution instance of F[v]. CD. The annotation is ‘UD’ In pictorial terms. the official formulation of the rule is more complex. similar to the presentations of the other derivation rules (DD. i. including the line ‘¬: ®vF[v]’. and there are no intervening uncancelled showline. This example is quite complex. Universal Derivation (Official Formulation) If one has a show-line of the form ‘¬: ®vF[v]’.e. u where n is any new name. which is to say that n does not appear anywhere earlier in the derivation. Symbolic Logic Universal Derivation (Intuitive Formulation) In order to show a universal formula. it cannot occur in any previous line. ID). universal derivation (UD) may be presented as follows. We conclude this section by examining an argument that involves relational quantification.

Now. so we apply ®O. instantiating ‘x’ to ‘c’.®O Analysis (3) ¬: ®x®yRyx this is a universal ®x.®O 1. so we use the next letter ‘b’...(Ray ² ®x®yRxy). which is to say that we show an instance of ®yRyx. replacing every free occurrence of ‘x’ by ‘a’.®O 6. so we can't use either of them.®O 9...7. replacing every free occurrence of ‘x’ by ‘a’.. so we show it by UD. so we choose ‘a’..²O 8. which is a universal ®x.. yielding: ¬: Rcb This is atomic. both ‘a’ and ‘b’ are already in the derivation. yielding: ®y(Ray ² ®x®yRxy) This is a universal ®y. so we apply ®O.®yRyx. so we apply ®O. so we apply ®O. which yields: ®x®yRxy This is a universal ®x.®y(Rxy ² ®x®yRxy). so we apply ²O. We use either DD or ID. yielding: ®yRcy This is a universal ®y. instantiating ‘y’ to ‘b’. DD happens to work.. in conjunction with line 1. yielding: (7) Raa ² ®x®yRxy This is a conditional. Line (1) is ®x®y(Rxy ² ®x®yRxy). where the name must be new. yielding: ¬: ®yRyb this is also a universal ®y. The choice of letter is completely free. Only ‘a’ is used so far. The choice of letter is completely free..Ryb so we show it by UD. yielding: (4) (5) (6) (8) (9) . where the name must be new. So we use the next letter ‘c’.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 403 Example 6 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Raa ®x®y[Rxy ² ®x®yRxy] -: ®x®yRyx |-: ®yRyb ||-: Rcb |||®y[Ray ² ®x®yRxy] |||Raa ² ®x®yRxy |||®x®yRxy |||®yRcy |||Rcb Pr Pr UD UD DD 2.. which is to say that we show an instance of ‘Ryb’... so we choose ‘a’.Rcy.®yRxy.

in the other case. it is not very specific. the second premise is ¯xFx. we do not have a rule specifically designed to decompose existential formulas.404 (10) Rcb This is what we wanted to show! Hardegree. you are trying to show it. EXISTENTIAL OUT We now have three rules. (1) (2) (3) every Freshman is happy at least one person is a Freshman therefore. . At present. Consider the following derivation problem. But how do we complete the corresponding derivation? The problem is the second premise. UD applies when you want a universal. (1) (2) (3) ®x(Fx ² Hx) ¯xFx ¬: ¯xHx Pr Pr ?? One possible English translation of this argument form goes as follows. ®O applies when you have a universal. but we don't know which one it is. we do not have an elimination rule for ¯. Having ®vF[v] as an available line is very different from having ‘¬: ®vF[v]’ as a line. That is the topic of the current section. and we have an introduction rule for ¯. At the moment. We know that at least one item in the following infinite list is true. How should such a rule look? Well. you must use a new name. however. you don't have ®vF[v]. Symbolic Logic By way of concluding this section. we have both an elimination (out) and an introduction (in) rule for ®. In one case you have ®vF[v]. rather. which is an existential formula. it doesn't say which particular thing is F. let us review the following points. however. at least one person is happy This is indeed a valid argument. which says that some thing (at least one thing) is F. 9. you can use any name whatsoever.

[Once again.5.²O 6. but it provides no further information as to which thing in particular is F. Equivalently. (d) Fa ´ Fb ´ Fc ´ Fd ´ .5.²O 6. Adding this assumption yields the following substitute problem.. (1) (2) (3) (4) ®x(Fx ² Hx) ¯xFx ¬: ¯xHx Fa Pr Pr DD ??? I write ‘???’ because the status of this line is not obvious at the moment.¯I . if we assume that the something that is F is in fact a.®O 4. So let us instead assume that b is F. but only that something is F. Let us proceed anyway.. then maybe the something that is F is in fact b.®O 4. now the problem is much easier! derivation. we pretend that we have sufficiently many names to cover every single thing in the universe. we know that the following infinite disjunction is true. Well. Well.¯I In other words. Then we have the following derivation. The problem is that we don't actually know that a is F. Is it a? Is it b? We don't know given only the information conveyed by ¯xFx. then we can complete the derivation. b: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) ®x(Fx ² Hx) ¯xFx -: ¯xHx |Fb |Fb ² Hb |Hb |¯xHx Pr Pr DD ??? 1.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 405 (1) (2) (3) (4) Fa Fb Fc Fd etc.. a: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) ®x(Fx ² Hx) ¯xFx -: ¯xHx |Fa |Fa ² Ha |Ha |¯xHx The following is the completed Pr Pr DD ??? 1.. ´ .] The second premise ¯xFx says that at least one thing is F (some thing is F). what happens if we simply assume that a is F. So.

The generality of the above derivation is reminiscent of universal derivation. Indeed.4. We can keep going on and on.¯I A definite pattern of reasoning begins to appear. c: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) ®x(Fx ² Hx) ¯xFx -: ¯xHx |Fc |Fc ² Hc |Hc |¯xHx Pr Pr DD ??? 1. It seems that whatever it is that is actually an F (and we know that something is).5. In English. we can show that something is H. Remember that one is entitled to write down any showline at any point in a derivation. Symbolic Logic Or perhaps the something that is F is actually c. (2) at least one thing is F (4) if anything is F then at least one thing is H (10) (therefore) at least one thing is H Without further ado.®O 6.??? The above derivation is clear until the very last line.²O 6. For any particular name.¯I 2.406 Hardegree. Recall that a universal derivation substitutes a single model derivation for infinitely many derivations all of which look virtually the same. we can construct a derivation using that name.®O 4. in which case we have the following derivation. All the resulting derivations would look (virtually) the same.²O 9. the only difference being the particular letter introduced at line (4). u: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) ®x(Fx ² Hx) ¯xFx -: ¯xHx |-: ®x(Fx ² ¯xHx) ||-: Fa ² ¯xHx |||Fa |||-: ¯xHx |||Fa ² Ha |||Ha |||¯xHx |¯xHx Pr Pr DD UD CD As DD 1. The above pattern looks very similar: the first derivation serves as a model of all the rest. let us look at the existential-elimination rule. . since we don't have a rule that deals with lines 2 and 4.8. we can recast the above derivations in the form of UD by inserting an extra show-line as follows. the reasoning goes as follows. so let us assume that c is F.

we annotate derivations as if it were a true inference rule. we apply ¯O to line (2).¯O 1. the annotation appeals to the line number of the existential formula ¯vF[v] and the rule ¯O.²O 6. now using the rule ¯O. Note on annotation: When applying ¯O. The following are two more examples of ¯O.®O 4. In other words.¯I u In line (4). ¯O: ¯vF[v] ––––– F[n] n must be new.’..e.. and not a true inference rule. see below. then one can assume any substitution instance F[n] of F[v]. so long as n is a name that is new to the derivation.5. The following is the cartoon version. instantiating ‘x’ to ‘a’. let us go back now and do our earlier example. Before worrying about the proviso ‘so long as n is . note that ‘a’ is a new name. plus ¯O. including the line ¯vF[v]. even though ¯O is an assumption rule. Example 1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) ®x(Fx ² Hx) ¯xFx -: ¯xHx |Fa |Fa ² Ha |Ha |¯xHx Pr Pr DD 2. . The crucial line is marked by ‘u’.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 407 Existential-Out (¯O) If a line of the form ¯vF[v] is available. The annotation cites the line number. it cannot occur in– any previous line.. i.

408 Hardegree. Which should we apply first? The following are two rules of thumb for dealing with this problem.&O 1. when we get to line (6).²O 6.&O 4. [Remember.®O 10.®O 5. Symbolic Logic Example 2 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) ®x(Fx ² Gx) ¯x(Fx & Hx) -: ¯x(Gx & Hx) |Fa & Ha |Fa |Ha |Fa ² Ga |Ga |Ga & Ha |¯x(Gx & Hx) Pr Pr DD 2.¯O 6.¯O 4.®O 7.²O 2.12. In Example 3. a rule of thumb is just that.&O 1. including ®O and ¯O. .] Rule of Thumb 1 Don't apply ®O unless (until) you have a name in the derivation to which to apply it.11.¸I Examples 2 and 3 illustrate an important strategic principle in constructing derivations in predicate logic.&O 6. Rule of Thumb 2 If you have a choice between applying ®O and applying ¯O.7. we have many rules we can apply.9. it does not work 100% of the time.&I 9.²O 8. apply ¯O first.8.¯I Example 3 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) ®x(Fx ² Gx) ®x(Gx ² ~Hx) -: ~¯x(Fx & Hx) |¯x(Fx & Hx) |-: ¸ ||Fa & Ha ||Fa ||Ha ||Fa ² Ga ||Ga ||Ga ² ~Ha ||~Ha ||¸ Pr Pr ID As DD 4.

and the requirement is not trivially satisfied. one first applies ¯O. you just end up with extraneous lines in the derivation.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 409 The second rule is. The line marked ‘u’ is completely useless. thus producing a name. the requirement that the name be new is easy to satisfy. consider two of them.&I 9. At the point we apply ¯O. rather. in some sense. Example 2 (revisited): (1) (2) (3) (*) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) ®x(Fx ² Gx) ¯x(Fx & Hx) -: ¯x(Gx & Hx) |Fa ² Ga |Fb & Hb |Fb |Hb |Fb ² Gb |Gb |Gb & Hb |¯x(Gx & Hx) Pr Pr DD 1. an application of the first rule.²O 6.8. it is somewhat disfigured. erroneous derivations of invalid arguments). What happens if you violate the above rules of thumb? Well. If one has no name to apply ®O to.&O 1. and then applies ®O. nothing very bad. ‘a’ isn't. it would receive full credit on an exam (supposing it was assigned!). However. This derivation is not incorrect.®O 5. there aren't any names in the derivation. Invalid argument (A) ¯xFx ¯xGx / ¯x(Fx & Gx) at least one thing is F at least one thing is G / at least one thing is both F and G There are many counterexamples to this argument. Nonetheless. because it blocks erroneous derivations (and in particular. there are no names in the derivation except those introduced by ¯O. Consider the following.¯O 4. then one way to produce a name is to apply ¯O. so any name will do! Thus.&O 4. which contains a violation of Rules 1 and 2.7. in other problems. the requirement that the name be new is important. Counterexamples at least one number is even at least one number is odd / at least one number is both even and odd . as can be seen immediately in line (4). it just gets in the way. additional names are involved. In Examples 1-3.¯I u ‘b’ is new. Thus.®O 2. Consider the following derivation.

so it is probably a good idea to consider some of those. When we correct line (5). Symbolic Logic Argument (A) is clearly invalid. Example 4 (erroneous derivation) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) ¯xFx ¯xGx ¬: ¯x(Fx & Gx) Fa Ga Fa & Ga ¯x(Fx & Gx) Pr Pr DD 1. the derivation cannot be completed. then something is H. then something is H. because the argument in question is.¯O 2.²O As noted in the previous chapter. Example 5 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) ®x(Fx ² ¯yHy) -: ¯xFx ² ¯yHy |¯xFx |-: ¯yHy ||Fa ||Fa ² ¯yHy ||¯yHy Pr CD As DD 3.¯O 4.410 at least one person is female at least one person is male / at least one person is both male and female Hardegree. since it appears in line (4).¯I WRONG!!! The reason line (5) is wrong concerns the use of the name ‘a’. whereas the conclusion may be read if something is F.6.®O 5. but that is good.&I 6. which is definitely not new. However. so we would have to instantiate Gx to Gb or Gc.¯O 1.¯O ??? RIGHT!!! but we can't finish Now. the name must be new. anything but Ga. consider the following erroneous derivation. the premise may be read if anything is F. . after all. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) ¯xFx ¯xGx ¬: ¯x(Fx & Gx) Fa Gb ?????? Pr Pr DD 1.5. invalid! The previous examples do not involve multiply quantified formulas. the derivation looks like the following. To be a proper application of ¯O.¯O 2.

this is one of the circumstances.¯I 1. we do one more example involving multiple quantification.¯O 4.6..²O 10. To balance things.®O 6.¯O 1.²O 8. We have shown that the latter follows from the former.¸I As in many previous sections.. we now show the converse as well. ‘if any.®O 5.9. Example 7 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) ¯xFx ² ®x~Gx -: ®x[Fx ² ~¯yGy] |-: Fa ² ~¯yGy ||Fa ||-: ~¯yGy |||¯yGy |||-: ¸ ||||Gb ||||¯xFx ||||®x~Gx ||||~Gb ||||¸ Pr UD CD As ID As DD 6. Example 8 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) ®x®y(Kxy ² Rxy) ¯x¯yKxy -: ¯x¯yRxy |¯yKay |Kab |®y(Kay ² Ray) |Kab ² Rab |Rab |¯yRay |¯x¯yRxy Pr Pr DD 2. Example 6 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) ¯xFx ² ¯yHy -: ®x(Fx ² ¯yHy) |-: Fa ² ¯yHy ||Fa ||-: ¯yHy |||¯xFx |||¯yHy Pr UD CD As DD 4.11..’ is equivalent to ‘if some.7. we conclude this section with some examples that involve relational quantification.¯I 9.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 411 Under very special circumstances.¯O 4.¯I 1.¯I .. ®O 8. These two are equivalent.²O Before turning to examples involving relational quantification.’.

).12. consider a simple application of the rule ¯I.412 Hardegree.®O 10. Symbolic Logic Example 9 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) ®x¯yRxy ®x®y[Rxy ² Rxx] ®x[Rxx ² ®yRyx] -: ®x®yRxy |-: ®yRay ||-: Rab |||¯yRby |||Rbc |||®y[Rby ² Rbb] |||Rbc ² Rbb |||Rbb |||Rbb ² ®yRyb |||®yRyb |||Rab Pr Pr Pr UD UD DD 1.®O 9. .²O 3. but is rather an assumption rule. First consider a simple application of the rule ®O.²O 13. we show exactly how ¯O is different from the other rules in predicate and sentential logic. HOW EXISTENTIAL-OUT DIFFERS FROM THE OTHER RULES As stated in the previous section.®O 7. and the derivation is trivial. Fa ––––– ¯xFx Again.®O 8. etc. ®xFx ––––– Fa This is a valid argument of predicate logic. and the corresponding derivation is trivial. ´O.®O Next. ®O. the argument is valid.¯O 2. it is not a true inference rule. (1) (2) (3) ®xFx -: Fa |Fa Pr DD 2. although we annotate existential-out just like other elimination rules (like ²O.9.®O 11. In the present section.

(1) (2) (3) ¯xFx ¬: Fa |Fa Pr DD 1. so let's hope we cannot! Well. it is not really an inference rule. ¯xFx ––––– Fa In English. but we surely cannot deduce the false conclusion that Hitler is/was a pacifist from the true premise that at least one person is a pacifist. That is good. Following this pattern. because the letter used is not new. The argument is invalid. we can assume (for the sake of argument) that Hitler is a pacifist.¯I (1) (2) (3) Fa -: ¯xFx |¯xFx The same can be said for every inference rule of predicate logic and sentential logic. this reads as follows. Fc. If we could do that. every inference rule corresponds to a valid argument.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 413 Pr DD 1. Specifically. the derivation goes as follows. So. In each case we derive the conclusion simply by appealing to the rule in question. I mentioned that. a is F That this argument form is invalid is seen by observing the following counterexample. because in line (3) ‘a’ is not a permitted substitution according to the ¯O rule.¯O WRONG!!! This derivation is erroneous. because Fa does not follow from the premise! . Adolf Hitler is a pacifist If one has ¯xFx. or a host of other formulas. but is rather an assumption rule. then our derivation system would be inconsistent and useless. one is entitled to assume Fa so long as ‘a’ is new. first we write down the problem. Fd. something is F therefore. then we solve it simply by applying the appropriate rule of inference. much like the assumption rules associated with CD and ID Why is it not a true inference rule? The answer is that it does not correspond to a valid argument in predicate logic! The argument form is the following. can we derive Fa from ¯xFx? If we follow the pattern used above. but none of these makes one bit of progress toward showing Fa. but one might still wonder whether we can nonetheless construct a derivation "proving" it is in fact valid. although the notation makes it look like ®O. But what about ¯O? Does it correspond to a valid argument? Earlier. (1) (2) someone is a pacifist therefore. since ‘a’ already appears in line (2)! We are permitted to write down Fb.

in spite of the notation. Fc). which is to say that they can be derived from the previous rules. These rules are officially given as follows. I promised six rules. NEGATION QUANTIFIER ELIMINATION RULES Earlier in the chapter. then one can infer the formula ¯v~F[v]. and now we have four of them. we are writing down an assumption. When we apply ¯O to an existential formula (say. the former is a rule for eliminating any formula that is a negation of an existential formula. In other words. these rules may be presented as follows. Tilde-Universal-Out (~®O) If a line of the form ~®vF[v] is available. ¯O is quite different from the other rules. we observe is that both of these rules are derived rules. ~¯O : ~¯vF[v] –––––––– ®v~F[v] ~®O: ~®vF[v] –––––––– ¯v~F[v] Before continuing. Tilde-Existential-Out (~¯O) If a line of the form ~¯vF[v] is available. we are not inferring or deducing Fc from ¯xFx. ¯xFx) to obtain a formula (say. Symbolic Logic Thus. and the latter is a rule for eliminating any formula that is a negation of a universal formulas. this is not a valid inference. The remaining two are tilde-existential-out and tilde-universal-out. of course. then one can infer the formula ®v~F[v]. After all. the name is new) just like assuming the antecedent in conditional derivation. Rather. this is an example of a permitted assumption (provided. Schematically. As their names are intended to suggest. Some assumptions are permitted and some are not. 11.414 Hardegree. .

Then ~¯O amounts to the following argument. and let us consider the simplest instance. there is at least one thing such that it is not F Recall from the previous chapter that the colloquial translation of the premise is ‘not everything is F’ and the colloquial translation of the conclusion is ‘something is not F’. Recall from the previous chapters that the colloquial translation of the premise is ‘nothing is F’. 11) a seldom-used sentential logic strategy.6. by deducing the conclusion from the premise. therefore.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 415 these rules are completely dispensable: any conclusion that can be derived using either rule can be derived without using it. let us consider ~®O. . It employs (lines 1. and the colloquial translation of the conclusion is ‘everything is unF’. Argument 1 ~¯xFx ––––––– ®x~Fx it is not true that there is at least one thing such that it is F. Argument 2 ~®xFx ––––––– ¯x~Fx it is not true that everything is such that it is F therefore. They are added for the sake of convenience. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) ~¯xFx -: ®x~Fx |-: ~Fa ||Fa ||-: ¸ |||¯xFx |||¸ Pr UD ID As DD 4. 5. First.¯I 1.¸I Next. let us consider ~¯O. The following derivation demonstrates that Argument 1 is valid. and let us consider its simplest instance (where F[v] is Fx). The following derivation demonstrates that Argument 2 is valid. everything is such that it is not F.

®O 5.®O 5. and accordingly can be demonstrated in our system.¯O 1. THERE IS NO RULE TILDE-UNIVERSAL-IN. Symbolic Logic u u In each derivation. we have only shown the simplest instance of the rule. and that ¯v~F[v] follows from ~®vF[v]. however. THERE IS NO RULE TILDE-EXISTENTIAL-IN. not every valid argument form corresponds to an inference rule.9.6.¯I 3. Note that the converse arguments are also valid.6.5. In particular. As usual.416 u (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) ~®xFx -: ¯x~Fx |~¯x~Fx |-: ¸ ||-: ®xFx |||-: Fa ||||~Fa ||||-: ¸ |||||¯x~Fx |||||¸ ||¸ Pr ID As DD UD ID As DD 7.¯O 3. that neither of the converse arguments corresponds to any rule in our system.¸I Note carefully. the complicated instances are shown in precisely the same manner.¸I Pr ID As DD 1. However. This is simply a choice we make – we only . However.¸I Hardegree. as demonstrated by the following derivations. where F[v] is Fx. The corresponding arguments are valid. We can in principle show for any formula F[v] and variable v that ®v~F[v] follows from ~¯vF[v]. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) ®x~Fx -: ~¯xFx |¯xFx |-: ¸ ||Fa ||~Fa ||¸ ¯x~Fx -: ~®xFx |®xFx |-: ¸ ||~Fa ||Fa ||¸ Pr ID As DD 3. they are not inference rules.¸I 1.

and no negation-connective have negation-connective introduction rules. the premise is a conditional. in order to get an idea of what the syntactic possibilities are. Recall. (7) ~(¯xFx ´ ¯yGy) ––––––––––––––– (®x~Fx ´ ¯yGy) ~¯xFx ² ®xGx –––––––––––––– ®x~Fx ² ®xGx ‚WRONG!!! (8) ‚WRONG!!! In each example. the premise is a negation of a disjunction. sometimes an improper application of a rule produces a valid conclusion. not ~¯O. but whether it is an application of a rule. as usual: . and sometimes it does not. let us look at several applications of ~¯O and ~®O to specific formulas. (1) ~¯xFx ––––––– ®x~Fx ~¯x(Fx & Gx) ––––––––––––– ®x~(Fx & Gx) ~¯x(Fx & ®y(Gy ² Rxy)) ––––––––––––––––––––––– ®x~(Fx & ®y(Gy ² Rxy)) ~®xFx ––––––– ¯x~Fx (2) (3) (4) (5) ~®x(Fx ² Gx) –––––––––––––– ¯x~(Fx ² Gx) (6) ~®x(Fx ² ¯y(Gy & Rxy)) –––––––––––––––––––––– ¯x~(Fx ² ¯y(Gy & Rxy)) Having seen several examples of proper applications of ~¯O or ~®O. In (7). so the appropriate rule is ²O. the error is that the premise does not have the correct form. In (8). Some valid arguments correspond to rules. elimination Before proceeding. The appropriate rule is ~´O. The question here is not whether the argument is valid. not a negation of an existential.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 417 rules. and hence do not have to be explicitly shown. but so are a lot of arguments. it is probably a good idea to see examples of improper applications. Of course. other valid arguments do not correspond to particular rules. and hence must be shown to be valid by constructing a derivation. (8) is a valid argument.

consider Example 2 from Section 7. we can show any universal formula by ID.®O 3. since ID is suitable for any kind of formula.¸I u This derivation is curious in the following way: line (4) is shown by indirect derivation.7. It also illustrates a further point about our new rules. By way of illustration.5.DN 8. first done using UD.¯O 3.²O 7. Indeed. Example 1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) ~¯xFx ² ®xGx -: ®x~Fx ² ®xGx |®x~Fx |-: ®xGx ||~®xGx ||-: ¸ |||~~¯xFx |||¯xFx |||Fa |||~Fa |||¸ Pr CD As ID As DD 1. NOT TO PIECES OF LINES. But this is permissible. Example 2 (done using UD) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) ®x(Fx ² Gx) -: ®xFx ² ®xGx |®xFx |-: ®xGx ||-: Ga |||Fa ² Ga |||Fa |||Ga Pr CD As UD DD 1. once we have the rule ~®O.418 Hardegree.10. so we can derive its conclusion from its premise. (8) is valid. Symbolic Logic INFERENCE RULES APPLY EXCLUSIVELY TO WHOLE LINES.®O 9. rather than universal derivation.²O u . then done using ID. The following is one such derivation.®O 6.

¯I 9.10.®O 3.5. it also involves relational quantification.¸I u Now that we have ~®O.~®O 7.®O 9.®O 4. On rare occasions.¯O 1.~®O 7.¯O 1. Example 3 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) ®x(®yRxy ² ~®yRyx) ¯x®yRxy -: ¯x¯y~Rxy |®yRay |®yRay ² ~®yRya |~®yRya |¯y~Rya |~Rba |¯y~Rby |¯x¯y~Rxy Pr Pr DD 2.¯O 8.²O 8. it is always possible to show a universal by indirect derivation. the indirect derivation is easier. for example go back and try to do Example 1 using universal derivation.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 419 Example 2 (done using ID) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) ®x(Fx ² Gx) -: ®xFx ² ®xGx |®xFx |-: ®xGx ||~®xGx ||-: ¸ |||¯x~Gx |||~Ga |||Fa ² Ga |||Fa |||Ga |||¸ Pr CD As ID As DD 5. We conclude this section with a derivation that uses ~®O in a straightforward way.¯I u .²O 6. the resulting derivation is usually longer than the derivation using universal derivation.11. However.

which is schematically presented as follows.. since we already have a derivation technique (i. ~¯O. |. You may have noticed that. |. . Whereas we have a derivation scheme (show-rule) specially designed for universal formulas. Indirect Derivation Strategy for Existentials -: ¯vF[v] |~¯vF[v] |-: ¸ ||®v~F[v] ||. |F[n] |¯vF[v] DD ¯I But now we have an additional rule. This particular use of ~®O is really no big deal. we do not have such a rule for existential formulas. DIRECT VERSUS INDIRECT DERIVATION OF EXISTENTIALS Adding ~®O to our list of rules enables us to show universals using indirect derivation. ||¸ ID As DD ~¯O Many derivation problems can be solved using either strategy. in every previous example involving ‘¬: ¯vF[v]’.e. universal derivation) that is perfect for universals. we have used direct derivation.420 Hardegree. which is schematically presented as follows. so we can show any existential formula using indirect derivation. This gives rise to a new strategy. recall Example 1 from Section 8. Direct Derivation Strategy for Existentials -: ¯vF[v] |. This corresponds to a derivation strategy. For example. ||. |. Symbolic Logic 12.

¸I Comparing these two derivations illustrates an important point.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 421 Example 1d (DD strategy): (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) ®x(Fx ² Hx) ¯xFx -: ¯xHx |Fa |Fa ² Ha |Ha |¯xHx Pr Pr DD 2. besides illustrating the ID strategy for existentials.¯O 1. .¯I Example 1i (ID strategy) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) ®x(Fx ² Hx) ¯xFx -: ¯xHx |~¯xHx |-: ¸ ||®x~Hx ||Fa ||Fa ² Ha ||Ha ||~Ha ||¸ Pr Pr ID As DD 4.¯O 1.²O 6. Even though we can use the ID strategy.~¯O 2.²O 6.®O 4. it is best to use the ID strategy. there are derivation problems in which the DD strategy will not work in a straightforward way [recall that every indirect derivation can be converted into a "trick" derivation that does not use ID]. Consider the following example.10. in these problems.®O 7. it may end up producing a longer derivation than if we use the DD strategy instead.5.®O 9. it also recalls an important sentential derivation strategy.8. On the other hand.

the first being the wedge-derivation strategy.6. ||. let us recall two other strategies.~´O 9.´O 13.16. ||. which is schematically presented as follows. Wedge-Derivation Strategy -: d ´ e |~(d ´ e) |-: ¸ ||~d ||~e ||.¯O 5.~¯O ID As DD 7.®O 15.~´O 14.®O 10. Symbolic Logic Example 2 u (1) uu (2) (3) (4) (5) u (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) u (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) ¯xFx ´ ¯xGx -: ¯x(Fx ´ Gx) |~¯x(Fx ´ Gx) |-: ¸ ||®x~(Fx ´ Gx) ||-: ~¯xFx |||¯xFx |||-: ¸ ||||Fa ||||~(Fa ´ Ga) ||||~Fa ||||¸ ||¯xGx ||Gb ||~(Fb ´ Gb) ||~Gb ||¸ Pr ID As DD 3. We are following the wedge-out strategy in line (6).422 Hardegree. ||¸ ID As DD ~´O ~´O ¸I .¸I 1.¸I Recall the wedge-out strategy from sentential logic: Wedge-Out Strategy If you have a disjunction (for example. then you try to find (or show) the negation of one of the disjuncts. it is a premise).11.¯O 5. While we are on the topic of sentential derivation strategies.

12. it also reiterates a point made in Chapter 6 – namely.´O 11.®O 8.¯O 7..10.~¯O 6. e. does not say much.g.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 423 This strategy is employed in the following example. The following example illustrates the arrow-out strategy.®O 9. Example 2c (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) ¯x(Fx ´ Gx) -: ¯xFx ´ ¯xGx |~(¯xFx ´ ¯xGx) |-: ¸ ||~¯xFx ||~¯xGx ||®x~Fx ||®x~Gx ||Fa ´ Ga ||~Fa ||~Ga ||Ga ||¸ Pr ID As DD 3. ¯x(Fx ² Gx).~¯O 1. . which is given as follows. then you try to find (or show) either the antecedent or the negation of the consequent. that an existential-conditional formula. and certainly does not say that some F is G. it is a premise).~´O 5. which is the converse of 2.~´O 3. Arrow-Out Strategy If you have a conditional (for example.¸I Another sentential strategy is the arrow-out strategy.

&O 1. as follows.6.®O 7.¯O 5. we apply the arrow-out strategy. Symbolic Logic Example 3 u (1) uu (2) (3) (4) (5) u (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) u (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) ®xFx ² ¯xGx -: ¯x(Fx ² Gx) |~¯x(Fx ² Gx) |-: ¸ ||®x~(Fx ² Gx) ||-: ®xFx |||-: Fa |||||~(Fa ² Ga) |||||Fa & ~Ga |||||Fa ||¯xGx ||Gb ||~(Fb ² Gb) ||Fb & ~Gb ||~Gb ||¸ Pr ID As DD 3. there is a Freshman who respects him/her . but only for the sake of illustrating this strategy.®O 8. then the resulting derivation is much shorter! This is left as an exercise for the student.¯O 3.²O 11.®O 8.~²O 9.9.11. The last several examples of the section involve relational quantification.¸I In line (6) above. Example 3c (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) ¯x(Fx ² Gx) -: ®xFx ² ¯xGx |®xFx |-: ¯xGx ||~¯xGx ||-: ¸ |||®x~Gx |||Fa ² Ga |||Fa |||~Ga |||Ga |||¸ Pr CD As ID As DD 5. The converse of the above argument can also be shown. for every Senior. If one uses the DD strategy.~²O 14.424 Hardegree. which says that something is G if everything is F.&O 12.¸I Note carefully that the ID strategy is used at line (4). Many of the problems are done both with and without ID Example 4 (1) (2) there is a Freshman who respects every Senior therefore.&I 10.~¯O 1. which demonstrates that ¯x(Fx²Gx) is equivalent to ®xFx²¯xGx. electing in particular to show the antecedent.~¯O UD DD 5.®O 13.15.

9.²O ||||¸ 14.¸I u Note that this derivation can be shortened by two lines at the end (exercise for the student!) The previous problem was solved using both ID and DD.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 425 Example 4d (DD strategy) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (8) (9) (10) (11) ¯x(Fx & ®y(Sy ² Rxy)) -: ®x(Sx ² ¯y(Fy & Ryx)) |-: Sa ² ¯y(Fy & Rya) ||Sa ||-: ¯y(Fy & Rya) |||Fb & ®y(Sy ² Rby) |||Fb |||®y(Sy ² Rby) |||Sa ² Rba |||Rba |||Fb & Rba |||¯y(Fy & Rya) Pr UD CD As DD 1.¯I u Example 4i (ID strategy) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) ¯x(Fx & ®y(Sy ² Rxy)) Pr -: ®x(Sx ² ¯y(Fy & Ryx)) UD |-: Sa ² ¯y(Fy & Rya) CD ||Sa As ||-: ¯y(Fy & Rya) ID |||~¯y(Fy & Rya) As |||-: ¸ DD ||||®y~(Fy & Rya) 6.8.&O 6.²O ||||Fb ² ~Rba 12.®O 4. The next problem is done both ways as well.¯O 6.&I 10.15.&O 8.13.~&O ||||~Rba 10.²O 7.~¯O ||||Fb & ®y(Sy ² Rby) 1.®O ||||Sa ² Rba 11.&O ||||®y(Sy ² Rby) 9.¯O ||||Fb 9.16.&O ||||~(Fb & Rba) 8. .®O ||||Rba 4.

for every Freshman.¯I u Example 5i (ID strategy) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (12) (14) (15) ¯x~¯y(Fy & Ryx) -: ®x(Fx ² ¯y~Rxy) |-: Fa ² ¯y~Ray ||Fa ||-: ¯y~Ray |||~¯y~Ray |||-: ¸ ||||®y~~Ray ||||~¯y(Fy & Ryb) ||||®y~(Fy & Ryb) ||||~(Fa & Rab) ||||Fa ² ~Rab ||||~~Rab ||||~Fa ||||¸ Pr UD CD As ID As DD 6.¯O 6.~&O 8.¸I u The final example of this section is considerably more complex than the previous ones. Symbolic Logic Example 5 (1) (2) there is someone who doesn't respect any Freshman therefore.®O 11.13. using ID.²O 10.14.~¯O 7. Using the ID strategy is hard enough.~¯O 1.~¯O 10. using the DD strategy is also hard.9.²O 4. It is done only once. try it and see! .426 Hardegree.®O 12.®O 8.¯O 9. there is someone who doesn't respect him/her.~&O 4. Example 5d (DD strategy) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) ¯x~¯y(Fy & Ryx) -: ®x(Fx ² ¯y~Rxy) |-: Fa ² ¯y~Ray ||Fa ||-: ¯y~Ray |||~¯y(Fy & Ryb) |||®y~(Fy & Ryb) |||~(Fa & Rab) |||Fa ² ~Rab |||~Rab |||¯y~Ray Pr UD CD As DD 1.

there is a Senior who doesn't respect any Freshman ®x(Fx ² Rxa) Pr ¯x(Sx & ~¯y(Rya & Rxy)) Pr -: ¯x(Sx & ~¯y(Fy & Rxy)) ID |~¯x(Sx & ~¯y(Fy & Rxy)) As |-: ¸ DD ||®x~(Sx & ~¯y(Fy & Rxy)) 4.&O ||~¯y(Rya & Rby) 7.21.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 427 Example 6 (1) (2) (3) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) every Freshman respects Adams there is a Senior who doesn't respect any one who respects Adams therefore.22.²O ||¯y(Fy & Rby) 13.&O ||®y~(Rya & Rby) 9. .²O ||¸ 17.¸I u What strategy should one employ in showing existential formulas? The following principles might be useful in deciding between the two strategies.®O ||Rca ² ~Rbc 20.¯O ||Sb 7.~&O ||~~¯y(Fy & Rby) 8.18.~&O ||~Rbc 19.~¯O ||~(Sb & ~¯y(Fy & Rby)) 6.¯O ||Fc 15.&O ||Rbc 15.²O ||~(Rca & Rbc) 10.®O ||Sb ² ~~¯y(Fy & Rby) 11.~¯O ||Sb & ~¯y(Rya & Rby) 2.DN ||Fc & Rbc 14.12.&O ||Fc ² Rca 1.®O ||Rca 16.

it might be harder than the ID strategy. based on 1-4. although a "trick" derivation is still possible. use the ID strategy. If you want more of a challenge. and use ID If names are obtainable by applying ¯O. The worst that can happen is that one has to start over. however. 4. the DD strategy produces a prettier derivation. the ID strategy will. and if there are no existential formulas to instantiate in order to obtain names. then the DD strategy will probably work. The worst that can happen is that the derivation is longer than it needs to be. When it works in a straightforward way (and it usually does). Hardegree. 2. then the ID strategy is advisable. Symbolic Logic If any strategy will work. If you want a risk-free technique. . use the DD strategy. I conclude with the following principle. 3. If there are no names available.428 1.

Atomic Formulas. 1. Variables: x. ¯y.. b. ®y. (1) (2) (3) (4) principal (major) connective free occurrence of a variable substitution instance alphabetic variant 1. y. If d and e are formulas. ®z. Predicate Letters. OFFICIAL PRESENTATION OF THE SYNTAX OF PREDICATE LOGIC Singular Terms.. These include the following notions. Every atomic formula is a formula. Nothing else is an singular term. 2.. Universal Quantifiers: ®x. A. 3-place predicate letters: the same. . B. and so forth. 0. Nothing else is an atomic formula.. X. w.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 429 13. 3. 2. If d is a formula. 3.. Nothing else is a quantifier. z.. 0-place predicate letters: A. 1. 1-place predicate letters: the same... C. Formulas. 1. then so is ~d. Quantifiers. D. c.. B.. Nothing else is a predicate letter. E. then Pt1. . . 1. X. Z. 1. 2. If P is an n-place predicate letter.t2 is an atomic formula. APPENDIX 1: THE SYNTAX OF PREDICATE LOGIC In this appendix.. X.. X. and t1. 2. 2-place predicate letters: the same. then so are: (a) (b) (c) (d) (d & e) (d ´ e) (d ² e) (d ± e). Existential Quantifiers: ¯x... we review the syntactic features of predicate logic that are crucial to understanding derivations in predicate logic.tn are singular terms. ¯z. Constants: a.

Fx. A biconditional. If d is a formula. ®x(Fx ² Gx) & ~®x(Gx ² Fx). Fx ´ Gy. ®yRay. or how many word occurrences are there in . Rab. ~Rxy. etc. whether a rule of predicate logic applies to a given formula is primarily determined by what the formula's major connective is. (In the case of negations. etc. there are no connectives: Fa. 2. 2. ~®xFx. ~(Fx & Gx). 6. A conditional. ®x(Fx ² ¯yRxy). the major connective is double-arrow: Fx ± Gy. etc. Given the above characterization of the syntax of predicate logic. etc. A negation. etc. Hardegree. Now. 5. the major connective is a universal quantifier: ®xFx. then so are: ®xd. 1. 4. etc. ¯x(Fx & ®yRyx). A universal. Variables versus Occurrences of Variables. the major connective is ampersand: Fx & Gy. etc. (1) How many different (unique) words are used in this paragraph? (2) How long is this paragraph in words. the immediately subordinate formula must also be considered. ®xFx ´ ¯yGy. the major connective is arrow: Fx ² Gx. 7. Symbolic Logic X. ¯y®xRxy. ®zd. ®x(Fx ² Gx) ² ®x(Fx ² Hx). Rxb. An atomic formula. ®yd.) So it is important to be able to recognize the major connective of a formula of predicate logic. Rax. ®x¯yRxy. ®x(Fx ² Gx) ´ ~®x(Gx ² Fx). ¯xRax. just as in sentential logic. ®x(Fx ² Gx) ± ~®xGx. the major connective is negation: ~Fa. FREEDOM AND BONDAGE A. An existential. A conjunction. it depends on what you mean. ~¯x®yRxy. etc. ®xFx ² ®xGx. ®xFx ± ¯yGy. ~®x(Fx ² Gx). ®x(Fx ² Gx).430 4. we see that every formula is exactly one of the following. Nothing else is a formula. This question is actually ambiguous between the following two different questions. ¯zd. ¯yd. How many words are there in this paragraph? Well. ®xFx & ¯yGy. 3. ¯x(Fx & Gx). the major connective is an existential quantifier: ¯zFz. ¯xd.

by definition. (1) Fx ‘x’ occurs once (2) Rxy ‘x’ occurs once. ‘y’ occurs once. Consider the analogous definition. (3) Fx ² Hx ‘x’ occurs twice. (4) ®x(Fx ² Hx) ‘x’ occurs three times. On the other hand. which is to say that there are 10 occurrences of the word ‘the’ in this paragraph. Just as a given word of English (e. (5) ®y(Fx ² Hy) ‘x’ occurs once. . Definition The scope of an occurrence of a quantifier is. ‘y’ occurs twice. We also speak the same way about occurrences of other symbols and combinations of symbols. For example. a given variable can occur many times in a formula. Consider the following examples of occurrences of variables. ‘the’) can occur many times in a given sentence (or paragraph) of English. the word ‘the’ appears 10 times. or occurrences of ‘®x’. for example..g. (6) ®x(Fx ² ®xHx) ‘x’ occurs four times. So. And in particular. the answer to the second question is: 93. Quantifier Scope.] B. ‘y’ occurs three times.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 431 this paragraph? The answer to the first question is: 46. we can speak of occurrences of ‘~’. The scope of a quantifier is exactly analogous to the scope of a negation sign in a formula of sentential logic. the smallest formula containing that occurrence. (7) ®x®y(Rxy ² Ryx) ‘x’ occurs three times. [or: there is one occurrence of ‘x’. a given logic symbol can occur many times in a given formula.

. the scope of ~ is: ~(R ² S). ‘®y’ and ‘¯y’ govern the variable ‘y’. consider the following.the scope of ~ is: ~(P ² Q). C. consider the following involving universal quantifiers. consider the following. the smallest formula containing that occurrence. the scope of the first ®y is ®y(®yGy ² ®zRxyz). (4) ®x(®yRxy ² ®zRzx) the scope of ®x is ®x(®yRxy ² ®zRzx) the scope of ®y is ®yRxy the scope of ®z is ®zRzx As a still more complicated example. ~(P ² Q). By analogy. Symbolic Logic The scope of an occurrence of ‘~’ is. the scope of the second ®y is ®yGy. the scope of the second ®x is ®xFx. by definition. (5) ®x[®xFx ² ®y(®yGy ² ®zRxyz)]. ‘®z’ and ‘¯z’ govern the variable ‘z’.432 Definition Hardegree. the scope of the first ®x is the whole formula. Government and Binding Definition ‘®x’ and ‘¯x’ govern the variable ‘x’. Examples (1) (2) (3) ~P ² Q. (1) (2) (3) ®xFx ² Fa the scope of ®x is: ®xFx ®x(Fx ² Gx) the scope of ®x is: ®x(Fx ² Gx) Fa ² ®x(Gx²Hx) the scope of ®x is: ®x(Gx ² Hx) As a somewhat more complicated example. the scope of the only ®z is ®zRxyz. the scope of ~ is: ~P. etc. P ² ~(R²S).

Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 433 Definition An occurrence of a quantifier binds an occurrence of a variable iff: (1) the quantifier governs the variable. but it only truly binds the first two occurrences. In this formula the first ‘®x’ binds every occurrence of ‘x’. . Definition An occurrence of a quantifier truly binds an occurrence of a variable iff: (1) the occurrence of the quantifier binds the occurrence of the variable. and (2) the occurrence of the variable is contained within the scope of the occurrence of the quantifier. the second ‘®x’ truly binds the last two occurrences of ‘x’. Definition An occurrence of a variable in a formula F is free in F if and only if that occurrence is not bound in F. Definition An occurrence of a variable in a formula F is bound in F if and only if that occurrence is bound by some quantifier occurrence in F. Free versus Bound Occurrences of Variables Every given occurrence of a given variable is either free or bound. and (2) the occurrence of the quantifier is inside the scope of every occurrence of that quantifier that binds the occurrence of the variable. Example ®x(Fx ² ®xGx). on the other hand. D.

(2) ®x(Fx ² Gx): all three occurrences of ‘x’ are bound by ‘®x’. and then I give examples of incorrect substitution instances. Notice in example (4) that the variable ‘x’ occurs within the scope of two different occurrences of ‘®x’. (4) ®x(Fx ² ®xGx): the first two occurrences of ‘x’ are bound by the first ‘®x’. (3) Fx ² ®xGx: the first occurrence of ‘x’ is free. Let us look at a few examples. 3. Fc. (1) Fx: Correct: Fa.434 Hardegree. It is only the innermost occurrence of ‘®x’ that truly binds the variable. Incorrect: Fx. Definition Let v be any variable. we turn to the topic of substitution instance. SUBSTITUTION INSTANCES Having described the difference between free and bound occurrences of variables. Then a substitution instance of the formula F[v] is any formula F[n] obtained from F[v] by substituting occurrences of the name n for each and every occurrence of the variable v that is free in F[v]. and let n be any name. let F[v] be any formula containing v. etc. Fz. however. . I give examples of correct substitution instances. in each example. Fy.. the remaining two occurrences are bound. Fb. The other occurrence of ‘®x’ binds the first occurrence of ‘x’ but none of the remaining ones. Symbolic Logic Examples (1) Fx: the one and only occurrence of ‘x’ is free in this formula. which is officially defined as follows. the second two are bound by the second ‘®x’. (5) ®x(®yRxy ² ®zRzx): every occurrence of every variable is bound.

®yRby ² ®zRzb. ®yRay ² ®zRzb. etc. etc. (r4) if anything is F. (6) ®yRxy ² ®zRzx: Correct: ®yRay ² ®zRza. they are clearly equivalent. one can symbolize ‘everything is F’ in one of three ways: (1) (2) (3) ®xFx ®yFy ®zFz Although these formulas are distinct. ®yRcy ² ®zRzc. Yet. ®aRaa. If we translate (4)(6) into English. Incorrect: ®yRzy. 4. Incorrect: Rab. or is not. they are equivalent in a more intimate way than (say) the following formulas. Fc ² Gc. Fc ² ®xGx. (r6) for any two things. In each case. . we can prove that they are logically equivalent. etc. then everything is H. yet. Rxx. Incorrect: ®yRzy ² ®zRza. Rcc. Rbb. Fb ² Gb. ®yRcy. (4) Fx ² ®xGx: Correct: Fa ² ®xGx. then the second is H. you should convince yourself why the given formula is. Fy ² Gy. if the first is F. a correct substitution instance. etc. (r5) if at least one thing is F. Fb ² ®xGx. (5) ®yRxy: Correct: ®yRay.. (3) Rxx: Correct: Raa. (4) (5) (6) ®x(Fx ² ®yHy) ¯xFx ² ®yHy ®x®y(Fx ² Hy) (4)-(6) are mutually equivalent in a weaker sense than (1)-(3). By contrast. Fb ² Ga. Fa ² ®aGa. if we translate (1)-(3) into English. then everything is H. ALPHABETIC VARIANTS As you will recall. Rba. Fb ² ®bGb.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 435 (2) Fx ² Gx: Correct: Fa ² Ga. Incorrect: Fy ² ®xGx. Incorrect: Fa ² Gb. they all read exactly the same. they might read respectively as follows. ®yRby. These definitely don't sound the same.

They are slightly different symbolic ways of saying exactly the same thing. . The formal definition of alphabetic variants is difficult to give in the general case of unlimited variables.436 (r1-3) everything is F. Definition A formula F is closed iff: no variable occurs free in F. Symbolic Logic We describe the relation between the various (1)-(3) by saying that they are alphabetic variants of one another. Hardegree. then the definition is merely complicated. But if we restrict ourselves to just three variables.

replacing every occurrence of ‘x’ by ‘z’ and every occurrence of ‘z’ by ‘y’ and every occurrence of ‘y’ by ‘x’. replacing every occurrence of ‘x’ by ‘y’ and every occurrence of ‘y’ by ‘z’ and every occurrence of ‘z’ by ‘x’. replacing every occurrence of ‘x’ by ‘z’ and every occurrence of ‘z’ by ‘x’. every F is G. ®x¯yRxy. ®y(Fy ² Gy). ®zFz. ‘y’. ‘z’. everyone is F. ®x¯zRxz.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 437 Definition Let F1 and F2 be closed formulas. everyone respects someone (or other). ®z(Fz ² Gz). Then F1 is an alphabetic variant of F2 iff: F1 is obtained from F2 by permuting the variables ‘x’. ®y¯zRyz. ®y¯xRyx. ®yFy. replacing every occurrence of ‘y’ by ‘z’ and every occurrence of ‘z’ by ‘y’. ®x(Fx ² Gx). which is to say applying one of the following procedures: (1) (2) (3) (4) replacing every occurrence of ‘x’ by ‘y’ and every occurrence of ‘y’ by ‘x’. . (5) Examples (1) (2) (3) (4) ®xFx. ®x(Fx ² ¯y[Gy & ®z(Rxz ² Ryz)]) ®x(Fx ² ¯z[Gz & ®y(Rxy ² Rzy)]) ®y(Fy ² ¯z[Gz & ®x(Ryx ² Rzx)]) ®y(Fy ² ¯x[Gx & ®z(Ryz ² Rxz)]) ®z(Fz ² ¯x[Gx & ®y(Ryz ² Rxy)]) ®z(Fz ² ¯y[Gy & ®x(Rzx ² Ryx)]) for every F there is a G who respects everyone the F respects.

APPENDIX 2: SUMMARY OF RULES FOR SYSTEM PL (PREDICATE LOGIC) A. Rules that don't require a new name In the following. F[n] is the formula that results when n is so substituted. F[v] is a formula. a and n are names. Furthermore. and similarly. v is any variable. B. F[a] is the formula that results when a is substituted for v at all its free occurrences. Symbolic Logic 14.438 Hardegree. Universal-Out (®O) ® ®vF[v] –––––– F[a] a can be any name Existential-In (¯I) ¯ F[a] –––––– ¯vF[v] a can be any name . Sentential Logic Rules Every rule of SL (sentential logic) is also a rule of PL (predicate logic).

that is. a name that has not occurred in any previous line of the derivation. n must be a new name.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 439 C. Existential-Out (¯O) ¯ ¯vF[v] –––––– F[n] n must be a new name Universal Derivation (UD) -: ®vF[v] |-: F[n] || || || || n must be a new name D. Negation Quantifier Elimination Rules Tilde-Universal-Out (~®O) ~®vF[v] –––––––– ¯v~F[v] ~ Tilde-Existential-Out (~¯O) ~¯vF[v] –––––––– ®v~F[v] ~ . Rules that do require a new name In the following two rules.

Fa / ~Ga (14) ¯xFx ² ®xGx . ~(Fc & Gc) / ~Fc ®x[(Fx ´ Gx) ² Hx] . ®x[Hx ² (Jx & Kx)] / Fa ² Ka ®x[(Fx & Gx) ² Hx] . ~Gb / ~®xFx ®x(Fx ² Gx) . Raa / Rba . ~Gb / ~Fb ®x(Fx ² Gx) . ®x(Hx ² Gx) / Fa ´ Ga ®x(Fx ² ~Gx) . Raa / ¯x~Rxb (17) ¯xRax ² ®xRxa .440 Hardegree. Fa / ¯x(Gx & Hx) (13) ~¯x(Fx & Gx) . (indicated by ‘/’) from the premises. ®x®y(Rxy ² Rxx) . Symbolic Logic 15. ~(Ga ´ Ha) / ¯x~Fx (16) ®x(Rxa ² ~Rxb) . EXERCISE SET A (Universal-Out) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) ®x(Fx ² Gx) . Fa / Gb (15) ®x[(Fx ´ Gx) ² Hx] . Fa / ¯xRxa (19) ¯xRax ² ®xRxa . Fa / ~®x(Fx ² Gx) ®x(Fx ² Rxx) . ®x~Rax / ~Fa ®x[Fx ² ®yRxy] . ~Raa / ~Rab (20) ®x[¯yRxy ² ®yRyx] . ~Fa / ~Rab EXERCISE SET B (Existential-In) (11) ®x(Fx ² Gx) . Fa & ~Ha / ~Ga ®x[~Fx ² (Gx ´ Hx)] . construct a formal derivation of the conclusion. Fa / Raa (10) ®x(Rxx ² Fx) . EXERCISES FOR CHAPTER 8 General Directions: For each of the following. ®x(Gx ² Hx) . Fa / ¯xGx (12) ®x(Fx ² Gx) . ~Rba / ~Raa (18) ®x(Fx ² Rxx) .

Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 441 EXERCISE SET C (Universal Derivation) (21) ®x(Fx ² Gx) . ®x(Gx ² Hx) . ®x([Gx ´ Hx] ² Kx) / ®x(Fx ² Kx) (24) ®xFx & ®xGx / ®x(Fx & Gx) (25) ®xFx ´ ®xGx / ®x(Fx ´ Gx) (26) ~¯xFx / ®x(Fx ² Gx) (27) ~¯x(Fx & Gx) / ®x(Fx ² ~Gx) (28) ®x(Fx ² Gx) . ~¯x(Gx & Hx) / ®x(Fx ² ~Hx) (29) ®x(Fx ² Gx) / ®xFx ² ®xGx (30) ®x((Fx & Gx) ² Hx) / ®x(Fx ² Gx) ² ®x(Fx ² Hx) EXERCISE SET D (Existential-Out) (31) ®x(Fx ² Gx) . ®x(Gx ² Hx) / ®x(Fx ² Hx) (22) ®x(Fx ² Gx) . ®x[(Fx & Gx) ² Hx] / ®x(Fx ² Hx) (23) ®x(Fx ² Gx) . ¯x(Ix & ~Hx) . ®x(~Fx ´ Gx) / ¯x(Ix & ~Fx) (38) ¯xFx ´ ¯xGx . ®x(Gx ² ~Hx) / ~¯x(Fx & Hx) (37) ®x(Gx ² Hx) . ®x(Hx ² ~Gx) / ¯x(Fx & ~Hx) (33) ®x(Fx ² Gx) . ®x~Fx / ¯xGx (39) ®x(Fx ² Gx) / ¯xFx ² ¯xGx (40) ®x(Fx ² (Gx ² Hx)) / ¯x(Fx & Gx) ² ¯x(Fx & Hx) . ¯x(Fx & Hx) / ¯x(Gx & Hx) (32) ¯x(Fx & Gx) . ¯x~Hx / ¯x~Fx (34) ®x(Fx ² ~Gx) / ~¯x(Fx & Gx) (35) ¯x(Fx & ~Gx) / ~®x(Fx ² Gx) (36) ®x(Fx ² Gx) .

Symbolic Logic EXERCISE SET E (Negation Quantifier Elimination) (41) ~®x(Fx ² Gx) / ¯x(Fx & ~Gx) (42) ~®xFx / ¯x(Fx ² Gx) (43) ®x(Gx ² Hx) .442 Hardegree. ¯xHx / ¯x(Hx & ~Fx) EXERCISE SET F (Multiple Quantification) (51) ®x(Fx ² Gx) / ®x(Fx ² ¯yGy) (52) ®x[Fx ² ®yGy] / ¯xFx ² ®xGx (53) ¯xFx ² ®xGx / ®x[Fx ² ®yGy] (54) ¯xFx ² ®xGx / ®x®y[Fx ² Gy] (55) ®x®y[Fx ² Gy] / ~®xGx ² ~¯xFx (56) ¯xFx ² ¯x~Gx / ®x[Fx ² ~®yGy] (57) ¯xFx ² ®x~Gx / ®x[Fx ² ~¯yGy] (58) ®x[Fx ² ~¯yGy] / ¯xFx ² ®x~Gx (59) ®x[¯yFy ² Gx] / ®x®y(Fx ² Gy) (60) ¯xFx ² ®xFx / ®x®y[Fx ± Fy] . ®x(Fx ² Gx) / ~®xHx ² ¯x~Fx (44) ¯x(Fx ´ Gx) / ¯xFx ´ ¯xGx (45) ¯x(Fx ² Gx) / ¯x~Fx ´ ¯xGx (46) ¯xFx ² ®xFx / ®xFx ´ ®x~Fx (47) ®x(Fx ² Gx) . ®x[(Fx & Gx) ² ~Hx] . ~¯x(Gx & Hx) / ~¯x(Fx & Hx) (48) ¯xFx ´ ¯xGx / ¯x(Fx ´ Gx) (49) ¯x~Fx ´ ¯xGx / ¯x(Fx ² Gx) (50) ®x(Fx ² Gx) .

Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 443 EXERCISE SET G (Relational Quantification) (61) ®x®yRxy / ®x®yRyx (62) ¯xRxx / ¯x¯yRxy (63) ¯x¯yRxy / ¯x¯yRyx (64) ¯x®yRxy / ®x¯yRyx (65) ¯x~¯yRxy / ®x¯y~Ryx (66) ¯x~¯y(Fy & Rxy) / ®x(Fx ² ¯y~Ryx) (67) ®x[Fx ² ¯y~Kxy] . ®x®y[Ryx ² ®zRxz] / ®x®yRxy (73) ®x¯yRxy . ®x[Fx ² ¯y(Fy & Ryx)] . ¯x(Gx & ®yKxy) / ¯x(Gx & ~Fx) (68) ¯x[Fx & ~¯y(Gy & Rxy)] / ®x[Gx ² ¯y(Fy & ~Ryx)] (69) ¯x[Fx & ®y(Gy ² Rxy)] / ®x[Gx ² ¯y(Fy & Ryx)] (70) ~¯x(Kxa & Lxb) . ®x[¯yRyx ² ®yRyx] / ®x®yRxy (74) ¯x¯yRxy . ®x[¯yRxy ² ®yRyx] / ®x®yRxy (76) ®x[Kxa ² ®y(Kyb ² Rxy)] . ®x®y[Rxy ² ¯zRzx] . ~¯x[Fx & ¯y(Hy & Rxy)] / ~¯x(Gx & Hx) (80) ®x(Fx ² Kxa) . ®x[¯yRxy ² Rxx] . ®x®y[Rxy ² Ryx] . ®x®y(Rxy ² Ryx) / ¯x¯y(Rxy & Ryx) (78) ¯x(Fx & Kxa) . ¯x[Gx & ~¯y(Kya & Rxy)] / ¯x[Gx & ~¯y(Fy & Rxy)] . ®x(Fx ² Kxb) . ®x®y[Rxy ² ®zRxz] . ®x[®zRxz ² ®yRyx] / ®x®yRxy (75) ¯x¯yRxy . ®x[Rxx ² ®yRyx] / ®x®yRxy (72) ®x¯yRxy . ®x[Kxa ² (~Fx ² Lxb)] / Kba ² Fb EXERCISE SET H (More Relational Quantification) (71) ®x¯yRxy . ¯x[Kxa & ¯y(Fy & ~Rxy)] / ¯xGx (77) ¯xFx. ¯x[Fx & ®y(Kya ² ~Rxy)] / ¯x[Fx & ¯y(Fy & ~Ryx)] (79) ¯x[Fx & ®y(Gy ² Rxy)] .

4.444 Hardegree. ANSWERS TO EXERCISES FOR CHAPTER 8 #1: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) #2: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) #3: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) #4: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) ®x(Fx ² Gx) ~Gb -: ~Fb |Fb ² Gb |~Fb ®x(Fx ² Gx) ~Gb -: ~®xFx |®xFx |-: ¸ ||Fb ||Fb ² Gb ||Gb ||¸ ®x(Fx ² Gx) ~(Fc & Gc) -: ~Fc |Fc |-: ¸ ||Fc ² Gc ||Fc ² ~Gc ||Gc ||~Gc ||¸ ®x[(Fx ´ Gx) ² Hx] ®x[Hx ² (Jx & Kx)] -: Fa ² Ka |Fa |-: Ka ||(Fa ´ Ga) ² Ha ||Ha ² (Ja & Ka) ||Fa ´ Ga ||Ha ||Ja & Ka ||Ka Pr Pr DD 1.¸I Pr Pr CD As DD 1.7.®O 2.²O 7.8.®O 1.7. Symbolic Logic 16.&O .~&O 4.²O 10.9.®O 6.´I 6.²O 8.8.²O 2.9.6.¸I Pr Pr ID As DD 1.®O 2.²O Pr Pr ID As DD 4.®O 2.®O 4.²O 4.

®O 2.®O 10.¸I Pr Pr DD 1.²O 2.²O 8.7.&I 6.~´O 1.¸I Pr Pr ID As DD 4.12.~´O 8.®O 4.10.²O 4.9.7.®O 2.9.&O 9.7.®O 4.®O 2.´O 2.&O 4.6.²O 9.8.²O #5: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) #6: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) #7: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) #8: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) ®x[(Fx & Gx) ² Hx] Fa & ~Ha -: ~Ga |Ga |-: ¸ ||(Fa & Ga) ² Ha ||Fa ||Fa & Ga ||Ha ||~Ha ||¸ ®x[~Fx ² (Gx ´ Hx)] ®x(Hx ² Gx) -: Fa ´ Ga |~(Fa ´ Ga) |-: ¸ ||~Fa ||~Fa ² (Ga ´ Ha) ||Ga ´ Ha ||~Ga ||Ha ||Ha ² Ga ||Ga ||¸ ®x(Fx ² ~Gx) Fa -: ~®x(Fx ² Gx) |®x(Fx ² Gx) |-: ¸ ||Fa ² ~Ga ||Fa ² Ga ||~Ga ||Ga ||¸ ®x(Fx ² Rxx) ®x~Rax -: ~Fa |Fa ² Raa |~Raa |~Fa .5.²O 2.¸I Pr Pr ID As DD 1.11.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 445 Pr Pr ID As DD 1.®O 6.

¯I Pr Pr DD 1.®O 2.®O 3.~¯O 4.5.®O 2.®O 3.²O Hardegree.&I 9.®O 2.446 #9: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) #10: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) #11: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) #12: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) #13: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) ®x(Fx ² ®yRxy) Fa -: Raa |Fa ² ®yRay |®yRay |Raa ®x(Rxx ² Fx) ®x®y(Rxy ² Rxx) ~Fa -: ~Rab |Raa ² Fa |~Raa |®y(Ray ² Raa) |Rab ² Raa |~Rab ®x(Fx ² Gx) Fa -: ¯xGx |Fa ² Ga |Ga |¯xGx ®x(Fx ² Gx) ®x(Gx ² Hx) Fa -: ¯x(Gx & Hx) |Fa ² Ga |Ga ² Ha |Ga |Ha |Ga & Ha |¯x(Gx & Hx) ~¯x(Fx & Gx) Fa -: ~Ga |®x~(Fx & Gx) |~(Fa & Ga) |Fa ² ~Ga |~Ga Pr Pr DD 1.5.8.8.®O 7.7.²O Pr Pr DD 1.®O Pr Pr Pr DD 1.²O 7.²O 5.®O 6.4. Symbolic Logic .²O 2.²O 6.¯I Pr Pr Pr DD 1.4.²O 5.6.®O 5.~&O 2.

®O 4.®O 2.²O 7.~´O 1.¯I 1.¯I #14: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) #15: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) #16: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) #17: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) #18: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) ¯xFx ² ®xGx Fa -: Gb |¯xFx |®xGx |Gb ®x[(Fx ´ Gx) ² Hx] ~(Ga ´ Ha) -: ¯x~Fx |~Ha |(Fa ´ Ga) ² Ha |~(Fa ´ Ga) |~Fa |¯x~Fx ®x(Rxa ² ~Rxb) Raa -: ¯x~Rxb |Raa ² ~Rab |~Rab |¯x~Rxb ¯xRax ² ®xRxa ~Rba -: ~Raa |Raa |-: ¸ ||¯xRax ||®xRxa ||Rba ||¸ ®x(Fx ² Rxx) Fa -: ¯xRxa |Fa ² Raa |Raa |¯xRxa .5.®O 2.6.4.²O 6.²O 5.4.4.¯I 1.¯I Pr Pr DD 1.²O 5.®O Pr Pr DD 2.®O 2.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 447 Pr Pr DD 2.8.~´O 7.¸I Pr Pr DD 1.¯I Pr Pr ID As DD 4.²O 5.

®O 2.448 #19: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) #20: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) #21: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) #22: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) ¯xRax ² ®xRxa ~Raa -: ~Rab |Rab |-: ¸ ||¯xRax ||®xRxa ||Raa ||¸ ®x[¯yRxy ² ®yRyx] Raa -: Rba |¯yRay ² ®yRya |¯yRay |®yRya |Rba ®x(Fx ² Gx) ®x(Gx ² Hx) -: ®x(Fx ² Hx) |-: Fa ² Ha ||Fa ||-: Ha |||Fa ² Ga |||Ga ² Ha |||Ga |||Ha ®x(Fx ² Gx) ®x[(Fx & Gx) ² Hx] -: ®x(Fx ² Hx) |-: Fa ² Ha ||Fa ||-: Ha |||Fa ² Ga |||Ga |||Fa & Ga |||(Fa & Ga) ² Ha |||Ha Pr Pr ID As DD 4.²O 6.®O 2.6.¯I 1.²O 5.¸I Pr Pr DD 1.&I 2.8. Symbolic Logic .®O 9.9.5.7.®O 2.¯I 4.®O 5.²O 7.²O Pr Pr UD CD AS DD 1.²O 8.8.®O 5.10²O Hardegree.®O Pr Pr UD CD As DD 1.7.

&I Pr UD ID As DD 4.®O 6.´I 2.®O 7.®O 6.®O 9.&O 1.®O 5.7.²O 8.¸I #23: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) #24: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) #25: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11 (12) (13) (14) (15) ®x(Fx ² Gx) ®x[(Gx ´ Hx) ² Kx] -: ®x(Fx ² Kx) |-: Fa ² Ka ||Fa ||-: Ka |||Fa ² Ga |||Ga |||Ga ´ Ha |||(Ga ´ Ha) ² Ka |||Ka ®xFx & ®xGx -: ®x(Fx & Gx) |-: Fa & Ga ||®xFx ||®xGx ||Fa ||Ga ||Fa & Ga ®xFx ´ ®xGx -: ®x(Fx ´ Gx) |-: Fa ´ Ga ||~(Fa ´ Ga) ||-: ¸ |||~Fa |||~Ga |||-: ~®xFx ||||®xFx ||||-: ¸ |||||Fa |||||¸ |||®xGx |||Ga |||¸ .²O Pr UD DD 1.~´O 4.11.®O 5.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 449 Pr Pr UD CD As DD 1.&O 4.´O 13.10.~´O ID As DD 9.¸I 1.14.8.7.

12.~¯O 8.9.¯I 2.®O 6.¸I Pr Pr UD CD As ID As DD 1.&I 9.²O Hardegree.¸I Pr UD CD As ID As DD 1.&I 11. Symbolic Logic .~¯O 8.®O 4.¸I Pr CD As UD DD 1.®O 5.10.9.10.®O 4.²O 7.7.6.450 #26: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) #27: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) #28: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) #29: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) ~¯xFx -: ®x(Fx ² Gx) |-: Fa ² Ga ||Fa ||-: Ga |||~Ga |||-: ¸ ||||®x~Fx ||||~Fa ||||¸ ~¯x(Fx & Gx) -: ®x(Fx ² ~Gx) |-: Fa ² ~Ga ||Fa ||-: ~Ga |||Ga |||-: ¸ ||||®x~(Fx & Gx) ||||~(Fa & Ga) ||||Fa & Ga ||||¸ ®x(Fx ² Gx) ~¯x(Gx & Hx) -: ®x(Fx ² ~Hx) |-: Fa ² ~Ha ||Fa ||-: ~Ha |||Ha |||-: ¸ ||||Fa ² Ga ||||Ga ||||Ga & Ha ||||¯x(Gx & Hx) ||||¸ ®x(Fx ² Gx) -: ®xFx ² ®xGx |®xFx |-: ®xGx ||-: Ga |||Fa ² Ga |||Fa |||Ga Pr UD CD As ID As DD 1.®O 3.

9.²O 4.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 451 #30: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) #31: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) #32: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) #33: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) ®x(Fx & Gx) ² Hx) Pr -: ®x(Fx²Gx)²®x(Fx²Hx) CD |®x(Fx ² Gx) As |-: ®x(Fx ² Hx) UD ||-: Fa ² Ha CD |||Fa As |||-: Ha DD ||||Fa ² Ga 3.&O 1.¯O 4.®O ||||Ga 6.®O 7.DN 5.&O 6.&O 7.®O ||||Ha 10.²O 4.¯I Pr Pr DD 1.6.&O 8.9.²O ||||Fa & Ga 6.²O 1.¯O 2.¯O 2.®O 4.7.&I ||||(Fa & Ga) ² Ha 1.8.11.&I 9.®O 5.6.8.8.®O 5.¯I .¯I Pr Pr Pr DD 3.²O 9.²O ®x(Fx ² Gx) ¯x(Fx & Hx) -: ¯x(Gx & Hx) |Fa & Ha |Fa |Fa ² Ga |Ga |Ha |Ga & Ha |¯x(Gx & Hx) ¯x(Fx & Gx) ®x(Hx ² ~Gx) -: ¯x(Fx & ~Hx) |Fa & Ga |Ha ² ~Ga |Ga |~~Ga |~Ha |Fa |Fa & ~Ha |¯x(Fx & ~Hx) ®x(Fx ² Gx) ®x(Gx ² Hx) ¯x~Hx -: ¯x~Fx |~Ha |Ga ² Ha |~Ga |Fa ² Ga |~Fa |¯x~Fx Pr Pr DD 2.&I 10.

9.&O 1.²O 5.®O 7.452 #34: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) #35: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) #36: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) ®x(Fx ² ~Gx) -: ~¯x(Fx & Gx) |¯x(Fx & Gx) |-: ¸ ||Fa & Ga ||Fa ||Fa ² ~Ga ||~Ga ||Ga ||¸ ¯x(Fx & ~Gx) -: ~®x(Fx ² Gx) |®x(Fx ² Gx) |-: ¸ ||Fa & ~Ga ||Fa ||Fa ² Ga ||Ga ||~Ga ||¸ ®x(Fx ² Gx) ®x(Gx ² ~Hx) -: ~¯x(Fx & Hx) |¯x(Fx & Hx) |-: ¸ ||Fa & Ha ||Fa ||Fa ² Ga ||Ga ||Ga ² ~Ha ||~Ha ||Ha ||¸ Pr ID As DD 3.8.¸I Hardegree.®O 6.9.10.7.&O 3.¸I Pr ID As DD 1.²O 6.&O 8.¯O 5. Symbolic Logic .²O 5.²O 2.®O 9.®O 6.&O 8.&O 1.7.12.¯O 5.¸I Pr Pr ID As DD 4.¯O 6.&O 11.

¯I #37: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) #38: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) #39: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) #40: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) ®x(Gx ² Hx) ¯x(Ix & ~Hx) ®x(~Fx ´ Gx) -: ¯x(Ix & ~Fx) |Ia & ~Ha |~Ha |Ga ² Ha |~Ga |~Fa ´ Ga |~Fa |Ia |Ia & ~Fa |¯x(Ix & ~Fx) ¯xFx ´ ¯xGx ®x~Fx -: ¯xGx |~¯xGx |-: ¸ ||¯xFx ||Fa ||~Fa ||¸ ®x(Fx ² Gx) -: ¯xFx ² ¯xGx |¯xFx |-: ¯xGx ||Fa ||Fa ² Ga ||Ga ||¯xGx ®x[Fx ² (Gx ² Hx)] -: ¯x(Fx&Gx)²¯x(Fx&Hx) |¯x(Fx & Gx) |-: ¯x(Fx & Hx) ||Fa & Ga ||Fa ||Fa ² (Ga ² Ha) ||Ga ² Ha ||Ga ||Ha ||Fa & Ha ||¯x(Fx & Hx) .²O 5.8.10.²O 6.11.&O 10.´O 6.²O 7.²O 3.&I 12.7.¯O 1.&O 8.´O 5.7.9.&I 11.¯O 2.9.®O 5.¯O 5.¯I Pr CD As DD 3.¯O 5.®O 6.&O 1.¯I Pr Pr ID As DD 1.®O 6.®O 8.&O 1.4.®O 7.¸I Pr CD As DD 3.6.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 453 Pr Pr Pr DD 2.

Symbolic Logic .²O 2.~²O 9.10.¸I Pr ID As DD 1.¯O 1.9.454 #41: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) #42: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) #43: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) ~®x(Fx ² Gx) -: ¯x(Fx & ~Gx) |~¯x(Fx & ~Gx) |-: ¸ ||¯x~(Fx ² Gx) ||~(Fa ² Ga) ||Fa & ~Ga ||®x~(Fx & ~Gx) ||~(Fa & ~Ga) ||¸ ~®xFx -: ¯x(Fx ² Gx) |~¯x(Fx ² Gx) |-: ¸ ||¯x~Fx ||~Fa ||®x~(Fx ² Gx) ||~(Fa ² Ga) ||Fa & ~Ga ||Fa ||¸ ®x(Gx ² Hx) ®x(Fx ² Gx) -: ~®xHx ² ¯x~Fx |~®xHx |-: ¯x~Fx ||¯x~Hx ||~Ha ||Ga ² Ha ||~Ga ||Fa ² Ga ||~Fa ||¯x~Fx Pr ID As DD 1.~®O 5.¯O 3.~®O 6.®O 7.²O 11.®O 7.¯O 6.10.®O 9.~®O 5.8.&O 6.¯I Hardegree.~¯O 7.~¯O 8.~²O 3.¸I Pr Pr CD As DD 4.®O 8.

~´O 3.~¯O 11.10.®O 9.~¯O 8.~´O 3.~´O 1.9.¸I #44: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) #45: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) #46: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) ¯x(Fx ´ Gx) -: ¯xFx ´ ¯xGx |~(¯xFx ´ ¯xGx) |-: ¸ ||~¯xFx ||~¯xGx ||Fa ´ Ga ||®x~Fx ||~Fa ||Ga ||®x~Gx ||~Ga ||¸ ¯x(Fx ² Gx) -: ¯x~Fx ´ ¯xGx |~(¯x~Fx ´ ¯xGx) |-: ¸ ||~¯x~Fx ||~¯xGx ||Fa ² Ga ||®x~~Fx ||~~Fa ||Fa ||Ga ||®x~Gx ||~Ga ||¸ ¯xFx ² ®xFx -: ®xFx ´ ®x~Fx |~(®xFx ´ ®x~Fx) |-: ¸ ||~®xFx ||~®x~Fx ||~¯xFx ||®x~Fx ||¸ .12.¸I Pr ID As DD 3.²O 7.¯O 5.¯O 5.8.²O 6.13.~´O 3.®O 7.~¯O 6.¸I Pr ID As DD 3.®O 10.®O 11.5.´O 6.~¯O 8.DN 7.~´O 1.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 455 Pr ID As DD 3.~´O 1.~¯O 12.

²O 6.®O 10.´O 13.²O 2.¯O 6.12.8.14.~¯O 10.~´O 9.456 #47: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) #48: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) ®x(Fx ² Gx) ~¯x(Gx & Hx) -: ~¯x(Fx & Hx) |¯x(Fx & Hx) |-: ¸ ||Fa & Ha ||Fa ||Fa ² Ga ||Ga ||®x~(Gx & Hx) ||~(Ga & Ha) ||Ga ² ~Ha ||~Ha ||Ha ||¸ ¯xFx ´ ¯xGx -: ¯x(Fx ´ Gx) |~¯x(Fx ´ Gx) |-: ¸ ||®x~(Fx ´ Gx) ||-: ~¯xFx |||¯xFx |||-: ¸ ||||Fa ||||~(Fa ´ Ga) ||||~Fa ||||¸ ||¯xGx ||Gb ||~(Fb ´ Gb) ||~Gb ||¸ Pr Pr ID As DD 4.6.16.¸I 1. Symbolic Logic .~&O 9.®O 7.®O 11.&O 1.¯O 5.¯O 5.¸I Hardegree.~¯O ID As DD 7.~´O 14.¸I Pr ID As DD 3.®O 15.&O 13.11.

®O 12.14.~&O 7.¸I Pr UD CD As DD 1.&I 2.®O 16.¸I Pr Pr Pr ID As DD 3.12.®O 15.&O 9.~²O 17.´O 14.6.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 457 Pr ID As DD 3.6.¯O 5.²O 7.~¯O ID As DD 7.~¯O 8.²O 12.DN 1.&O 15.®O 9.13.10.18.17.¯I #49: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) #50: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) #51: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) ¯x~Fx ´ ¯xGx -: ¯x(Fx ² Gx) |~¯x(Fx ² Gx) |-: ¸ ||®x~(Fx ² Gx) ||-: ~¯x~Fx |||¯x~Fx |||-: ¸ ||||~Fa ||||~(Fa ² Ga) ||||Fa & ~Ga ||||Fa ||||¸ ||¯xGx ||Gb ||~(Fb ² Gb) ||Fb & ~Gb ||~Gb ||¸ ®x(Fx ² Gx) ®x[(Fx & Gx) ² ~Hx] ¯xHx -: ¯x(Hx & ~Fx) |~¯x(Hx & ~Fx) |-: ¸ ||Ha ||®x~(Hx & ~Fx) ||~(Ha & ~Fa) ||Ha ² ~~Fa ||~~Fa ||Fa ||Fa ² Ga ||Ga ||Fa & Ga ||(Fa & Ga) ² ~Ha ||~Ha ||¸ ®x(Fx ² Gx) -: ®x(Fx ² ¯yGy) |-: Fa ² ¯yGy ||Fa ||-: ¯yGy |||Fa ² Ga |||Ga |||¯yGy .16.¯O 5.²O 7.¸I 1.~²O 11.®O 10.¯O 5.®O 4.²O 11.

¯O 1.12.²O 8.¯O 1.7.7.¯I 1.²O 9.®O 6. Symbolic Logic .²O 8.¯I 1.®O Pr CD As ID As DD 3.®O Pr UD CD As UD DD 4.®O Pr UD UD CD As DD 5.7.²O 8.11.¯O 5.458 #52: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) #53: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) #54: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) #55: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) ®x(Fx ² ®yGy) -: ¯xFx ² ®xGx |¯xFx |-: ®xGx ||-: Ga |||Fb |||Fb ² ®yGy |||®yGy |||Ga ¯xFx ² ®xGx -: ®x(Fx ² ®yGy) |-: Fa ² ®yGy ||Fa ||-: ®yGy |||-: Gb ||||¯xFx ||||®xGx ||||Gb ¯xFx ² ®xGx -: ®x®y(Fx ² Gy) |-: ®y(Fa ² Gy) ||-: Fa ² Gb |||Fa |||-: Gb ||||¯xFx ||||®xGx ||||Gb ®x®y(Fx ² Gy) -: ~®xGx ² ~¯xFx |~®xGx |-: ~¯xFx ||¯xFx ||-: ¸ |||¯x~Gx |||~Ga |||Fb |||®y(Fb ² Gy) |||Fb ² Ga |||~Fb |||¸ Pr CD As UD DD 3.¸I Hardegree.®O 8.®O 10.~®O 7.

11.¯O 9.8.¯O 1.¯I 1.²O 6.¸I #56: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) #57: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) #58: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) ¯xFx ² ¯x~Gx -: ®x(Fx ² ~®yGy) |-: Fa ² ~®yGy ||Fa ||-: ~®yGy |||®yGy |||-: ¸ ||||¯xFx ||||¯x~Gx ||||~Gb ||||Gb ||||¸ ¯xFx ² ®x~Gx -: ®x(Fx ² ~¯yGy) |-: Fa ² ~¯yGy ||Fa ||-: ~¯yGy |||¯yGy |||-: ¸ ||||¯xFx ||||®x~Gx ||||Gb ||||~Gb ||||¸ ®x(Fx ² ~¯yGy) -: ¯xFx ² ®x~Gx |¯xFx |-: ®x~Gx ||-: ~Ga |||Ga |||-: ¸ ||||Fb ||||Fb ² ~¯yGy ||||~¯yGy ||||®y~Gy ||||~Ga ||||¸ .®O 6.²O 10.¯I 1.9.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 459 Pr UD CD As ID As DD 4.11.®O 10.¸I Pr CD As UD ID As DD 3.12.¸I Pr UD CD As ID As DD 4.®O 10.®O 8.~¯O 11.²O 9.¯O 6.8.

460 #59: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) #60: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) #61: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) #62: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) ®x(¯yFy ² Gx) -: ®x®y(Fx ² Gy) |-: ®y(Fa ² Gy) ||-: Fa ² Gb |||Fa |||-: Gb ||||¯yFy ² Gb ||||¯yFy ||||Gb ¯xFx ² ®xFx -: ®x®y(Fx ± Fy) |-: ®y(Fa ± Fy) ||-: Fa ± Fb |||-: Fa ² Fb ||||Fa ||||-: Fb |||||¯xFx |||||®xFx |||||Fb |||-: Fb ² Fa ||||Fb ||||-: Fa |||||¯xFx |||||®xFx |||||Fa |||Fa ± Fb ®x®yRxy -: ®x®yRyx |-: ®yRya ||-: Rba |||®yRby |||Rba ¯xRxx -: ¯x¯yRxy |Raa |¯yRay |¯x¯yRxy Pr UD UD CD As DD 1.8.8.¯O 3.®O 5.¯I 4.®O Pr DD 1. Symbolic Logic .®O 5.¯I 1.¯I Hardegree.¯I 7.14.²O 9.®O CD As DD 12.²O 15.²O Pr UD UD DD CD As DD 6.¯I 1.®O 5.11.±I Pr UD UD DD 1.

¯I Pr UD CD As DD 1.²O 10¯I #63: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) #64: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) #65: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) #66: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) ¯x¯yRxy -: ¯x¯yRyx |¯yRay |Rab |¯yRyb |¯x¯yRyx ¯x®yRxy -: ®x¯yRyx |-: ¯yRya ||®yRby ||Rba ||¯yRya ¯x~¯yRxy -: ®x¯y~Ryx |-: ¯y~Rya ||~¯yRby ||®y~Rby ||~Rba ||¯y~Rya ¯x~¯y(Fy & Rxy) -: ®x(Fx ² ¯y~Ryx) |-: Fa ² ¯y~Rya ||Fa ||-: ¯y~Rya |||~¯y(Fy & Rby) |||®y~(Fy & Rby) |||~(Fa & Rba) |||Fa ² ~Rba |||~Rba |||¯y~Rya .¯I 5.®O 8.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 461 Pr DD 1.¯O 3.~¯O 5.9.~¯O 7.®O 6.¯O 4.¯I Pr UD DD 1.¯O 4.¯I Pr UD DD 1.®O 5.¯O 6.¯O 4.~&O 4.

13.&O 6. Symbolic Logic ¯x[Fx & ~¯y(Gy & Rxy)] Pr -: ®x[Gx ² ¯y(Fy & ~Ryx)] UD |-: Ga ² ¯y(Fy & ~Rya) CD ||Ga As ||-: ¯y(Fy & ~Rya) DD |||Fb & ~¯y(Gy & Rby) 1.~&O 8.&I |||¯y(Fy & ~Rya) 13.&O |||®y~(Gy & Rby) 8.¸I Hardegree.11.¯I ¯x[Fx & ®y(Gy ² Rxy)] -: ®x[Gx ² ¯y(Fy & Ryx)] |-: Ga ² ¯y(Fy & Rya) ||Ga ||-: ¯y(Fy & Rya) |||Fb & ®y(Gy ² Rby) |||®y(Gy ² Rby) |||Ga ² Rba |||Rba |||Fb |||Fb & Rba |||¯y(Fy & Rya) Pr UD CD As DD 1.¯O |||Fb 6.17.¯O 6.~¯O 2.&O 16.DN 1.10.~¯O |||~(Ga & Rba) 9.&O 9.&O |||~¯y(Gy & Rby) 6.462 #67: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) #68: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) #69: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) ®x(Fx ² ¯y~Kxy) ¯x(Gx & ®yKxy) -: ¯x(Gx & ~Fx) |~¯x(Gx & ~Fx) |-: ¸ ||®x~(Gx & ~Fx) ||Ga & ®yKay ||Ga ||~(Ga & ~Fa) ||Ga ² ~~Fa ||~~Fa ||Fa ||Fa ² ¯y~Kay ||¯y~Kay ||~Kab ||®yKay ||Kab ||¸ Pr Pr ID As DD 4.®O 12.&O 7.²O 14.10.®O 15.®O 9.²O 11.¯O 7.¯I .²O 6.12.~&O |||~Rba 4.®O |||Ga ² ~Rba 10.²O |||Fb & ~Rba 7.8.&I 11.®O 4.¯O 7.

8.®O 12.10.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 463 Pr Pr CD As DD 2.²O 3.DN Pr Pr Pr UD UD DD 1.²O 1.11.²O 12.®O #70: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) #71: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) #72: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) ~¯x(Kxa & Lxb) ®x[Kxa ² (~Fx ² Lxb)] -: Kba ² Fb |Kba |-: Fb ||Kba ² (~Fb ² Lbb) ||~Fb ² Lbb ||®x~(Kxa & Lxb) ||~(Kba & Lbb) ||Kba ² ~Lbb ||~Lbb ||~~Fb ||Fb ®x¯yRxy ®x(¯yRxy ² Rxx) ®x(Rxx ² ®yRyx) -: ®x®yRxy |-: ®yRay ||-: Rab |||¯yRby |||¯yRby ² Rbb |||Rbb |||Rbb ² ®yRyb |||®yRyb |||Rab ®x¯yRxy ®x®y(Rxy ² ¯zRzx) ®x®y(Ryx ² ®zRxz) -: ®x®yRxy |-: ®yRay ||-: Rab |||¯yRay |||Rac |||®y(Ray ² ¯zRza) |||Rac ² ¯zRza |||¯zRza |||Rda |||®y(Rya ² ®zRaz) |||Rda ² ®zRaz |||®zRaz |||Rab .6.²O 15.®O 8.®O 7.®O 9.¯O 3.~¯O 8.®O Pr Pr Pr UD UD DD 1.®O 4.~&O 4.®O 2.²O 11.10.®O 7.®O 9.²O 7.®O 13.14.®O 9.²O 11.10.¯O 2.

®O 14.®O 11.¯O 7.®O 9.®O 15.¯I 12.®O 8.²O 13.®O 7.®O Hardegree.¯O 2.²O 3.12.®O 11.²O 17.16.®O 8.464 #73: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) #74: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) ®x¯yRxy ®x®y(Rxy ² Ryx) ®x(¯yRyx ² ®yRyx) -: ®x®yRxy |-: ®yRay ||-: Rab |||¯yRby |||Rbc |||®y(Rby ² Ryb) |||Rbc ² Rcb |||Rcb |||¯yRyb ² ®yRyb |||¯yRyb |||®yRyb |||Rab ¯x¯yRxy ®x®y(Rxy ² ®zRxz) ®x(®zRxz ² ®yRyx) -: ®x®yRxy |-: ®yRay ||-: Rab |||¯yRcy |||Rcd |||®y(Rcy ² ®zRcz) |||Rcd ² ®zRcz |||®zRcz |||®zRcz ² ®yRyc |||®yRyc |||Rac |||®y(Ray ² ®zRaz) |||Rac ² ®zRaz |||®zRaz |||Rab Pr Pr Pr UD UD DD 1.¯O 2.14.®O 2.²O 3.®O 9.10.®O Pr Pr Pr UD UD DD 1. Symbolic Logic .10.²O 14.

²O 12.®O 6.11.®O #75: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) ¯x¯yRxy ®x(¯yRxy ² ®yRyx) -: ®x®yRxy |-: ®yRay ||-: Rab |||¯yRcy |||¯yRcy ² ®yRyc |||®yRyc |||Rbc |||¯yRby |||¯yRby ² ®yRyb |||®yRyb |||Rab .®O 10.²O 8.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 465 Pr Pr UD UD DD 1.®O 9.¯O 2.7.¯I 2.

®O 9.¯O 8.12.¯O 7.®O 10.6.15.®O 10.&O 8.²O 13.12. Symbolic Logic .²O 9.²O 14.¯O 2.®O 2.16.¸I Pr Pr Pr DD 1.&O 11.²O 7.®O 5.18.11.¯O 9.&O 1.¯I Hardegree.¯I 14.466 #76: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) #77: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) ®x[Kxa ² ®y(Kyb ² Rxy)] ®x(Fx ² Kxb) ¯x[Kxa & ¯y(Fy & ~Rxy)] -: ¯xGx |~¯xGx |-: ¸ ||Kca & ¯y(Fy & ~Rcy) ||¯y(Fy & ~Rcy) ||Fd & ~Rcd ||Fd ||Kca ² ®y(Kyb ² Rcy) ||Kca ||®y(Kyb ² Rcy) ||Kdb ² Rcd ||Fd ² Kdb ||Kdb ||Rcd ||~Rcd ||¸ ¯xFx ®x[Fx ² ¯y(Fy & Ryx)] ®x®y(Rxy ² Ryx) -: ¯x¯y(Rxy & Ryx) |Fa |Fa ² ¯y(Fy & Rya) |¯y(Fy & Rya) |Fb & Rba |Rba |®y(Rby ² Ryb) |Rba ² Rab |Rab |Rab & Rba |¯y(Ray & Rya) |¯x¯y(Rxy & Ryx) Pr Pr Pr ID As DD 3.&O 17.²O 9.&I 13.®O 7.&O 3.

&O 19.²O 5.¯O 2.&O 6.¯O 5.8.&I 14.²O 11.&O 9.²O 6.~¯O 4.&I 11.¯O 2.®O 14.Chapter 8: Derivations in Predicate Logic 467 Pr Pr DD 1.~&O 13.¯O 12.~&O 6.¸I #78: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) #79: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) ¯x(Fx & Kxa) ¯x[Fx & ®y(Kya ² ~Rxy)] -: ¯x[Fx & ¯y(Fy & ~Ryx)] |Fb & Kba |Fc & ®y(Kya ² ~Rcy) |®y(Kya ² ~Rcy) |Kba ² ~Rcb |Kba |~Rcb |Fc |Fc & ~Rcb |¯y(Fy & ~Ryb) |Fb |Fb & ¯y(Fy & ~Ryb) |¯x[Fx & ¯y(Fy & ~Ryx)] ¯x[Fx & ®y(Gy ² Rxy)] ~¯x[Fx & ¯y(Hy & Rxy)] -: ~¯x(Gx & Hx) |¯x(Gx & Hx) |-: ¸ ||Fa & ®y(Gy ² Ray) ||®x~[Fx & ¯y(Hy & Rxy)] ||~[Fa & ¯y(Hy & Ray)] ||Fa ² ~¯y(Hy & Ray) ||Fa ||~¯y(Hy & Ray) ||®y~(Hy & Ray) ||Gb & Hb ||~(Hb & Rab) ||Hb ² ~Rab ||Hb ||~Rab ||®y(Gy ² Ray) ||Gb ² Rab ||Gb ||Rab ||¸ .®O 4.¯I 4.&O 12.10.&O 9.20.~¯O 7.®O 8.²O 17.&O 7.21.10.®O 13.&O 18.¯I Pr Pr ID As DD 1.13.16.&O 15.

&O ||¸ 21.~&O ||~~¯y(Fy & Rby) 7.¯O ||Gb 6. Symbolic Logic .~¯O ||~[Gb & ~¯y(Fy & Rby)] 8.®O ||Kca ² ~Rbc 19.20.®O ||Gb ² ~~¯y(Fy & Rby) 9.~¯O ||~(Kca & Rbc) 18.¯O ||Fc 13.²O ||¯y(Fy & Rby) 11.¸I Hardegree.~&O ||~Rbc 16.²O ||~¯y(Kya & Rby) 6.15.DN ||Fc & Rbc 12.²O ||Rbc 13.&O ||®x~[Gx & ~¯y(Fy & Rxy)] 4.®O ||Kca 14.&O ||®y~(Kya & Rby) 17.22.468 #80: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) ®x(Fx ² Kxa) Pr ¯x[Gx & ~¯y(Kya & Rxy)] Pr -: ¯x[Gx & ~¯y(Fy & Rxy)] ID |~¯x[Gx & ~¯y(Fy & Rxy)] As |-: ¸ DD ||Gb & ~¯y(Kya & Rby) 2.10.&O ||Fc ² Kca 1.

- Read and print without ads
- Download to keep your version
- Edit, email or read offline

Razvan Constantin Pascal

Becoming a Professional Life Coach Lessons From the Institute of Life Coach T...

Lewis Carroll Symbolic Logic

Depression

The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night — Volume 02 by Anonymous

2008 - Fact and Value in Emotion - Charland & Zachar.

HubbardInformationMngmntMeasureAnything

A History of Mathematics

Coaching

The Text of the NTestament - Critical Editions and Modern Textual Criticism

Mapping Crime

Pitch Perfect

pdf - Mathematics - Encyclopedia Dictionary of Mathematics [Section C]

Algebra of Logic

Advanced Calculus and Analysis

Great Book of Puzzles

Becoming a Professional Life Coach Lessons From the Institute of Life Coach Training

Spears of Maiden Colour

The Three Investigators 14 - The Mystery of the Caughing Dragon

SPSS Advanced Statistics 17.0

Art of Choosing Summary

UABFM 3 Chapters

Algebraic the or Yo 00 Macau of t

Differential Equations

Math 250

A Gyro Vector Space Approach to Hyperbolic Geometry

Events Management - A Practical Guide

Rock, Paper, Scissors!

Symbolic Logic

Buffy - Dark Congress

Fun in Math Ma Tics

GOODY JACK the Power of the Written Tradition 2000

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

CANCEL

OK

You've been reading!

NO, THANKS

OK

scribd