You are on page 1of 4

# c.pelling@bbk.ac.

uk

## B.A. Introduction to Logic 2012-13

Lecture 14: Quantificational Logic II
Recap
Names: Names in QL are lower-case italic letters from the first part of the English alphabet which denote specific, individual things. Predicate-letters: Predicate-letters are upper-case italic letters from F onwards in the English alphabet which translate predicates such as ...is mortal, ...is red, etc. Universal quantifier: . This means all, any, or every. Existential quantifier: . This means some or at least one. The quantifiers are always used together with variables to form general formulas. Variables: Variables are lower-case italic letters from the end of the English alphabet, e.g. x, y, z, etc. We can think of such a variable as meaning thing. General formulas: An example of a general formula would be: x [Fx]. If we take F to translate ...is mortal, then we can read this as everything is mortal or all things are mortal. Connectives in QL: &, v, , , and ~ can be used to connect formulas, e.g. Fa & x [Gx]. But they can also be used within a matrix governed by a quantifier, e.g. x [Fx & Gx]. QL-interpretations: QL-interpretations are used (i) to specify what the various elements of a formalization stand for, and (ii) to make clear ones choice of a domain. Domains: A domain consists of the set of elements which were talking about in the general formulas were concerned with. Validity in QL: A sequent of QL is valid if and only if there is no possible interpretation under which all the premises are true and the conclusion is false.

## The interdefinability of the quantifiers

The two quantifiers and are closely related, more so than one might initially realize. A key point is that they are interdefinable, i.e. either can be defined in terms of the other. In particular: Any formula of the form x [...] is equivalent to a corresponding formula of the form ~ x [~ (...)]. Example: x [Fx] is equivalent to ~ x [~Fx]. Moreover, any formula of the form x [...] is equivalent to a corresponding formula of the form ~ x [~ (...)]. Example: x [Fx] is equivalent to ~ x [~Fx].

c.pelling@bbk.ac.uk More generally, any universally quantified formula can be rewritten as some kind of existentially quantified formula; and any existentially quantified formula can be rewritten as some kind of universally quantified formula. Here are some examples: Something is F Nothing is F Everything is F Some Fs are Gs All Fs are Gs No Fs are Gs x [Fx] ~ x [Fx] x [Fx] x [Fx & Gx] x [Fx Gx] ~ x [Fx & Gx] ~ x [~Fx] x [~Fx] ~ x [~Fx] ~ x [~ (Fx & Gx)] ~ x [Fx & ~ Gx] x [Fx ~ Gx]

Relations
Predicate-letters allow us to translate sentences such as John is tall, which ascribe a property to a single thing. But we cant use predicate-letters to translate sentences such as John loves Mary, which say that a relation holds between more than one thing. In QL, there is a different kind of expression which we can use to translate such sentences, namely relational expressions: Relational expressions: Relational expressions are upper-case italic letters from R onwards in the English alphabet which translate expressions such as ...loves, ...is taller than, is located to the left of, etc. The main formal difference between relational expressions and predicate-letters is this: while predicate-letters have only one gap or place of the sort that can be filled by a name or variable, relational expressions have more than one such place. For example, if we take a to denote John, b to denote Mary, and R to translate loves, then we can formalize John loves Mary as Rab. Important points about relational expressions: The convention is to write the relational expression first, followed by the names or variables. So we would write Rab rather than aRb, for example. The order in which the names or variables are written does matter. For example, if Rab formalizes John loves Mary then Rba formalizes Mary loves John. In some cases, one may need to write the same name or variable more than once after the relational expression. For example, one might formalize John loves himself as Raa. In principle, relations can have any number of places. However, well focus mainly on twoplace (or dyadic) relations.

## Relations and quantifiers

Relational expressions often feature in general formulas, when suitably combined with quantifier/variable constructions. Here are some examples, together with an interpretation:

c.pelling@bbk.ac.uk

D: R: a:

## {people} ...loves... John x [Rxa] x [Rax] x [Rxa] x [Rax] ~ x [Rxa] ~ x [Rax]

Someone loves John John loves someone Everyone loves John John loves everyone Nobody loves John John doesnt love anybody

Relational expressions can also feature in complex matrices, i.e. ones which involve one or more connectives. Here are some examples, each of which uses the same interpretation as above except that in addition, F translates is a woman: Some woman loves John John loves some woman John loves every woman Not every woman loves John There is some woman who does not love John There is some woman whom John does not love x [Fx & Rxa] x [Fx & Rax] x [Fx Rax] ~ x [Fx Rxa] x [Fx & ~ Rxa] x [Fx & ~ Rax]

## Relations and multiple generality

Some relational sentences in natural languages involve multiple generality, e.g. everyone loves someone, someone loves everyone, everyone loves everyone, etc. To translate sentences like these into QL, we need to use more than one quantifier. Here are some examples: Everyone loves everyone Someone loves someone Everyone loves someone (i.e. someone or other) Everyone has someone who loves them There is someone whom everyone loves x [y [Rxy]] x [y [Rxy]] x [y [Rxy]] x [y [Ryx]] y [x [Rxy]] 3

c.pelling@bbk.ac.uk

Important points about formulas involving multiple generality: We really do need two separate quantifiers to translate sentences such as those above. For example, we couldnt translate everyone loves everyone as x [Rxx], since this would mean everyone loves themselves. Notice that each quantifier has its own set of brackets, to indicate the differences in scope. Notice the difference between examples 3 & 4: these show that when the quantifiers involved are different (i.e. one is the existential quantifier and the other is the universal quantifier), then the order of the variables after the relational expression does matter. Notice the difference between examples 3 & 5: these show that when the quantifiers involved are different, the order of the quantifiers themselves does matter.