3 views

Uploaded by Ikki De Queero

Logic Philosophy School University Notes Modal Logic

- evaluating_definite_integrals.pdf
- pcml-16
- combinatronics
- 03 Valid Invalid Arguments
- d-nim
- Design a 3 Bit Minimum Transition State Counter
- 2000 - SQLf Horizontal Fuzzy Quantified Query Processing
- Lógica modal cuantificada
- Meta Ontology - Peter Van Inwagen
- What is Logic
- Lambda calculus lecture
- (Mind Association Occasional Series) Colin R. Caret, Ole T. Hjortland-Foundations of Logical Consequence-Oxford University Press (2015)
- 1051_cal1_sol_hw_c02s02
- Thomas Jech and Saharon Shelah- A Partition Theorem for Pairs of Finite Sets
- K Map Week 9
- MIT24 244S15 Testing logic
- Saharon Shelah and Bradd Hart- Categoricity over P for first order T or categoricity for phi in Lomega1 omega can stop at alephk while holding for aleph0, ..., alephk-1
- Martin Goldstern and Saharon Shelah- All creatures great and small
- Exercise 1.2 -Relation & Functions
- Adaptive Type-2 Fuzzy Controller For

You are on page 1of 4

uk

Lecture 16: Quantificational Logic IV

Recap

Multiple generality and complex matrices: We looked at QL formulas which involve both multiple generality and complex matrices, e.g. x [Fx y [Gy & Rxy]] Reflexivity: R is reflexive if and only if: R is irreflexive if and only if: R is non-reflexive if and only if: x [Rxx] x [~ Rxx] x [Rxx] & x [~ Rxx]

Symmetry: R is symmetrical if and only if: R is asymmetrical if and only if: R is non-symmetrical if and only if: x [y [Rxy Ryx]] x [y [Rxy ~ Ryx]] x [y [Rxy & Ryx]] & x [y [Rxy & ~ Ryx]]

Transitivity: R is transitive if and only if: R is intransitive if and only if: R is non-transitive if and only if: x [y [z [(Rxy & Ryz) & Rxz]]] & x [y [z [(Rxy & Ryz) & ~ Rxz]]] Identity: = represents identity. If a denotes James Bond and b denotes 007, we can translate James Bond is 007 as a = b. Numerically definite quantification: = allows us to quantify in a numerically precise way. For example, if F translates ...is red, then we can translate there are exactly two red things as: x [y [((Fx & Fy) & ~ (x = y)) & z [Fz ((z = x) v (z = y))]]] x [y [z [(Rxy & Ryz) Rxz]]] x [y [z [(Rxy & Ryz) ~ Rxz]]]

Proof Theory in QL

Proofs in QL have the same four elements as proofs in PL: dependency-number, line number, formula, and rule annotation. Moreover, all the rules of inference in PL (&I, &E, MP, CP, etc.) carry over to QL. But in QL, there are four extra rules of inference to consider: an introduction and an elimination rule for both the universal and existential quantifiers. 1

c.pelling@bbk.ac.uk

UE

Well start with the elimination rule for the universal quantifier: the rule UE. UE: Given any universal formula on any line of proof you may infer any particular instance of that formula on another line of proof. The new line should be annotated with the line number of the universal formula in question and UE. The dependency-numbers of the new line are identical with those of the line of the original universal formula. What is an instance of a universal formula? To get an instance of a universal formula, remove the initial quantifier/variable construction, then replace the remaining variables with names. For example: x [Fx] x [Fx] x [Fx Gx] y [Fy & Gy] x [~ Fx] Fa Fb Fa Ga Fa & Ga ~ Fc

Now lets look at some examples of UE in action. Example 1: Suppose we want to prove this sequent: x [Fx] : Fa We begin, as usual, by entering the premise; then we can use UE to move directly to the conclusion: {1} {1} 1. 2. x [Fx] Fa Premise 1 UE

Example 2: Suppose we want to prove this sequent: x [Fx] : Fa & Fb Here we need to apply UE twice, before using &I to give us the conclusion: {1} {1} {1} {1} 1. 2. 3. 4. x [Fx] Fa Fb Fa & Fb Premise 1 UE 1 UE 2,3 &I

Example 3: Suppose we want to prove this sequent: y [Fy Gy], y [Gy Hy] : Fb Hb Here well need to use MP and CP as well as UE, as follows: 2

c.pelling@bbk.ac.uk {1} {2} {1} {2} {5} {1,5} {1,2,5} {1,2} 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. y [Fy Gy] y [Gy Hy] Fb Gb Gb Hb Fb Gb Hb Fb Hb Premise Premise 1 UE 2 UE A 3,5 MP 4,6 MP 5,7 CP

UI

Now lets move on to look at the introduction rule for the universal quantifier: the rule UI. UI: Given a formula containing a name on any line of proof, you may replace each occurrence of that name with a variable, introduce the universal quantifier to that matrix and write the resulting formula on a new line provided that the original formula containing the name does not include among its dependencies any formula containing that name. Annotate the new line UI together with the line number of the original line. The dependency-numbers of the new line are identical with those of the line of the original formula. Heres the basic idea: if youve got an instance of a universal formula then youre allowed to infer the universal formula in question, but only under certain circumstances. The key is to understand the nature of the restriction, which is needed is to prevent inferences such as this: {1} {1} 1. 2. Fa x [Fx] Premise 1 UI

This inference is not permitted by UI. Why not? Look at the formula on line 1 which has been used for the purposes of UI. This formula contains the name a. Now look at the dependency-number for this line, which refers us back to the same line, line 1. But as weve just noted, line 1 contains the name a. For this reason, UI cannot be applied. Heres another example of an illegitimate use of UI: {1} {1} {1} {1} 1. 2. 3. 4. Fa & Gb Fa Gb x [Gx] Premise 1 &E 1 &E 3 UI

Why is this use of UI illegitimate? Look at the formula on line 3 which has been used for the purposes of UI. This formula contains the name b. Now look at the dependency-number for this line, which refers us back to line 1. Line 1 also contains the name b. This is why UI cannot be applied. Now lets contrast these misapplications of UI with some perfectly legitimate applications: 3

c.pelling@bbk.ac.uk

Example 1: Suppose we want to prove this sequent: x [Fx & Gx] : x [Fx] The proof would look like this: {1} {1} {1} {1} 1. 2. 3. 4. x [Fx & Gx] Fa & Ga Fa x [Fx] Premise 1 UE 2 &E 3 UI

Why is this a legitimate use of UI? Look at the formula on line 3 which has been used for the purposes of UI. This formula contains the name a. Now look at the dependency-number for this line, which refers us back to line 1. Line 1 does not contain the name a. This is why we can apply UI. Example 2: Suppose we want to prove this sequent: x [Fx Gx], x [Fx] : x [Gx] The proof would look like this: {1} {2} {1} {2} {1,2} {1,2} 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. x [Fx Gx] x [Fx] Fa Ga Fa Ga x [Gx] Premise Premise 1 UE 2 UE 3,4 MP 5 UI

Look at the formula on line 5 which has been used for the purposes of UI. This formula contains the name a. Now look at the dependency-numbers for this line, which refer us back to lines 1 and 2. Lines 1 and 2 do not contain the name a. This is why we can apply UI.

Reading

Tomassi, P. Logic. Chapter 6, I - II.

Exercises

Exercises 6.1, 6.2

http://fundraise.unicef.org.uk/MyPage/Charlie-KP-Marathon 4

- evaluating_definite_integrals.pdfUploaded byJose Galera
- pcml-16Uploaded bygopicryo
- combinatronicsUploaded byUbi Bhatt
- 03 Valid Invalid ArgumentsUploaded bySachinandan Satapathy
- d-nimUploaded bysidky
- Design a 3 Bit Minimum Transition State CounterUploaded bySriram
- 2000 - SQLf Horizontal Fuzzy Quantified Query ProcessingUploaded byFranck Dernoncourt
- Lógica modal cuantificadaUploaded byFide Flores
- Meta Ontology - Peter Van InwagenUploaded byAnonymous zqmay1
- What is LogicUploaded byBerdengtubig
- Lambda calculus lectureUploaded byscribd_guard.bloodnok2391
- (Mind Association Occasional Series) Colin R. Caret, Ole T. Hjortland-Foundations of Logical Consequence-Oxford University Press (2015)Uploaded byCarlos Diaz Huerta
- 1051_cal1_sol_hw_c02s02Uploaded byBo Yu Chen
- Thomas Jech and Saharon Shelah- A Partition Theorem for Pairs of Finite SetsUploaded byHutsDM
- K Map Week 9Uploaded byArvinNundloll
- MIT24 244S15 Testing logicUploaded byDamla Nihan Yildiz
- Saharon Shelah and Bradd Hart- Categoricity over P for first order T or categoricity for phi in Lomega1 omega can stop at alephk while holding for aleph0, ..., alephk-1Uploaded byHutsDM
- Martin Goldstern and Saharon Shelah- All creatures great and smallUploaded byJutmso
- Exercise 1.2 -Relation & FunctionsUploaded byCompetitive Tutorial
- Adaptive Type-2 Fuzzy Controller ForUploaded byijflsjournal
- Mst 3013 Cap Four 08Uploaded byJeoff Libo-on
- Managed Pressure Drilling_ What is It AnywayUploaded byrouholah.ahmadi9876
- 2.5Uploaded byJoan Olaya
- Induction ContradictionUploaded bysimpleid
- 2η συλλογή ασκήσεων στον Γραμμικό ΠρογραμματισμόUploaded byManolis Vavalis
- Alan Mekler, Saharon Shelah and Jouko Vaananen- The Ehrenfeucht-Fraisse-game of length omega-1Uploaded byJtyhmf

- BA Logic 11Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Logic 8Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Logic 6Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Logic 4Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Logic 7Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Logic 5Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- Why be moralUploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Logic 3Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Logic 10Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Lectures on Epistemology Week 8 2012-13Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- Logic 2Uploaded bya967t
- PoemUploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Logic 9Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Logic 12Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- As Level Sociology Childhood NotionUploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Logic 15Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Logic 19Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Lectures on Epistemology Week 1 2012-2013Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Lectures on Epistemology Week 1 2012-2013Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- Assess the Strengths and Weaknessess of Using Structured Interviews to Investigate the Real Rate of Street Crime NotesUploaded byIkki De Queero
- Drawing Manga Weapons Vehicles and Accessories.rUploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Logic 18Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- Assess the Strengths and Weaknessess of Using Structured Interviews to Investigate the Real Rate of Street CrimeUploaded byIkki De Queero
- Assess the Relationship Between Law and RightsUploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Logic 14Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Logic 12Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Logic 13Uploaded byIkki De Queero

- q. bankUploaded byvrihad
- SCHWIMMER, Eric - Is the canonical formula useful for cultural description.pdfUploaded byRafa Etechebere
- 15 Word Syntax.pdfUploaded byHussein
- 276511981-Aplio-400-Operator-Manual.pdfUploaded byWaleed
- Data Mining Lesson Plan-revised SyllabusUploaded byrahulrnair4u_5534754
- Graph Problems ShuffledUploaded byrappycat
- 5acb4c9ce4b0a301a079529dUploaded bykartik bhatt
- S130 Lecture 1-Probability Distribution and Special Discrete PDs.pptxUploaded byMean Median
- Lie Symmetries of Differential EquationsUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Oop AssignmentUploaded bydalu
- Work and Energy WorksheetsUploaded bydddn1328
- regular expressionUploaded bytrupti.kodinariya9810
- rlsUploaded byathos00
- Deep learning machine appliesUploaded bySerag El-Deen
- Capital Budgeting presentationUploaded byaldamati2010
- STEC_RefGuide_V3.0Uploaded byJaime Fernández Wohlenberg
- implicit-interaction.pdfUploaded bySayonara
- Instantaneous Spectral BandUploaded bydayutttt
- Unit 3velandacclnanalysis Graphicalmethod 130404060343 Phpapp02Uploaded byWernher Braun
- Analog Dialog Vol40n1[1]Uploaded bysambala4444
- BCA-601Uploaded byJoona John
- S.N. Bland et al- Use of Faraday Probing to Estimate Current Distribution in Wire Array Z-PinchesUploaded byCola7890
- (8) Why Do People Find Mathematics Difficult_ - QuoraUploaded bykale sanjay
- Analysis of Velocity and Accelerations ComponentsUploaded bydineshcchauhan
- TDC 41597 a (Mechanical Engg.)_2012Uploaded bybiotech_vidhya
- Monetary Policy Transmission in a Model With Animal Spirits and House Price Booms and BustsUploaded byJeisson Gabriel
- analytical skills buildingUploaded byNikita Sangal
- Efficient Seed and K Value Selection in K-Means Clustering Using Relative Weight and New Distance MetricUploaded byInternational Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
- fdpyUploaded byChris Tan
- spep transcriptUploaded byapi-319053601