LOGIC

DEFINITION
• The word "logic" originates from the Greek word "logos", which has a
variety of translations, such as reason, discourse, or language. Logic is
traditionally defined as the study of the laws of thought or
correct reasoning. This is usually understood in terms
of inferences or arguments: reasoning may be seen as the activity of
drawing inferences, whose outward expression is given in
arguments. An inference or an argument is a set of premises together
with a conclusion. Logic is interested in whether arguments are good or
inferences are valid, i.e. whether the premises support their
conclusions.
• The term "logic" can also be used in a slightly different
sense as a countable noun. In this sense, a logic is a
logical formal system. Different logics differ from each
other concerning the formal languages used to express
them and, most importantly, concerning the rules of
inference they accept as valid. Starting in the 20th
century, many new formal systems have been proposed.
There is an ongoing debate about which of these
systems should be considered logics in the strict sense
instead of non-logical formal systems.
• Suggested criteria for this distinction
include logical completeness and proximity to
the intuitions governing classical logic.
According to these criteria, it has been argued,
for example, that higher-order logics and fuzzy
logic should not be considered logics when
understood in a severe sense.
 INTRODUCTION
• Logic is the study of the patterns of coherent or reliable speech. Its most
important applications are the search for inconsistencies in stories or
reports and the identification of valid and invalid forms of reasoning or
argumentation.

• Logic rests on the fact that there are statements that necessarily are true
and therefore cannot be falsified no matter what is or is not the case.
Such statements are called tautologies. Here are some simple examples
of tautological statements:
• It rains or it does not rain.
• Boys are boys.
• No circle is a rectangle.
• It rains and it does not rain.

• Some boy is not a boy.

• Some circle is a rectangle.

• Because tautologies are true no matter what is or is not the case

it simply is impossible to find, construct or even imagine a
counterexample (a situation in which the tautology would not be
true). For the same reason, the negation of a tautology
necessarily is false and therefore cannot be verified no matter
what is or is not the case. Negations of tautologies are
called contradictions. that are the negations of the tautologies
listed above:
• It is impossible to find, construct or even imagine an
example (a situation in which the contradiction would be
a true statement). Here are the contradictory statements

• Incoherent speech involves the speaker in a

contradiction, which may be more or less obvious to his
audience or so well-hidden in his arguments that only
diligent logical analysis will bring it to light.
 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 entity 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.
• Logic is the study of correct reasoning or
good arguments. It is often defined in a more narrow
sense as the science of deductively valid inferences or
of logical truths. In this sense, it is equivalent to formal
logic and constitutes a formal science investigating how
conclusions follow from premises in a topic-neutral way
or which propositions are true only in virtue of the logical
vocabulary they contain. When used as a countable noun,
the term "a logic" refers to a logical formal system.
• Formal logic contrasts with informal logic, which is also
part of logic when understood in the widest sense. There
is no general agreement on how the two are to be
distinguished. One prominent approach associates their
difference with the study of arguments expressed
in formal or informal languages. Another characterizes
informal logic as the study of ampliative inferences, in
contrast to the deductive inferences studied by formal
logic. But it is also common to link their difference to the
distinction between formal and informal fallacies.
• Logic is based on various fundamental concepts. It

studies arguments, which are made up of a set of

premises together with a conclusion. Premises and

conclusions are usually understood either as sentences

or as propositions and are characterized by their

internal structure. Logically true propositions constitute

a special case since their truth depends only on the

logical vocabulary used in them.

 CONCEPT

• The representation of an object by the intellect

through which man understands or
comprehends a thing

• It is an “idea”- starts with an outside reality

and apprehended by the senses
 KINDS OF CONCEPT
• 1.First Intention: we understand what the thing is
according to what it is in reality
• Ex. A dog is an animal.
• Second Intention: we understand not only what the thing is
according to what it is in reality but also how it is in the
mind
• Ex. “Monte Vista” (Mountain View) is the name of my
subdivision
• Concrete Concepts: expresses a “form” and a “subject”
• Ex. The flower rose
• Abstract Concepts: has a “form” only , has intangible quality, that
which cannot be perceived by the senses
• Ex. Beauty in a woman
• Absolute Concepts: signifies the meaning of a concept, all
definitions are absolute concepts
• Ex. A triangle is a three-sided figure.
• Connotative Concepts: signifies a characteristic existing in the
concept, all modifiers are connotative concepts
• Ex. Drummer boy
• Positive Concepts: signifies the existence or
possession of something

• Ex. happy ,Negative Concepts: signifies the

absence of something

• Ex. sad
 Divisions of Logic.
• The simplest act of the mind in which it can attain truth is
the judgment -- the act by which the mind affirms or denies
something about something else. That which is affirmed (or
denied) of the other is called an attribute: that to which it is said
to belong (or not to belong) is called a subject. Hence we may
define a judgment as the act by which the mind affirms or
denies an attribute of a subject.

• A judgment however gives the mind a complex object: for it

involves these two parts -- subject and attribute. We must
therefore take account of a more elementary act of the mind than
• judgment, viz.: Simple Apprehension. However, the words

true or false cannot be applied to simple apprehensions, just

as we cannot say that the words in a dictionary are true or

false. Following Hume, some philosophers indeed deny that

the mind ever forms a simple apprehension; they hold that in

every case some judgment is made. We need not even enter

into this question.

• We can at least analyze the judgment into simple apprehensions:

for every judgment requires two concepts, one in which the mind

expresses the subject, and the other in which it expresses the

attribute. Thus in the example given above, I must have a concept

of horse, and one of whiteness, in order to say 'The horse is

white'. These are the elements which go to constitute the complex

act of judgment, and they can be considered in isolation from it.

Logic therefore must deal with the concept.

• There is a third process of the mind, namely Reasoning or Inference.
This is defined as the act, by which from two given judgments, the
mind passes to a third judgment distinct from these, but implicitly
contained in them. Thus if I say

• All roses wither in the autumn;

• This flower is a rose;

• Therefore: This flower wilt wither in the autumn;

• or if I argue

• Whatever displays the harmonious ordering of many parts is due to an

intelligent cause;
• The world displays the harmonious ordering of many parts;

• Therefore : The world is due to an intelligent cause;

• I am said in each case to infer the third judgment. An inference

of the form which we have employed in these examples, is
called a syllogism. The two judgments given are known as
the premises. The judgment derived from them is
the conclusion.

• It is of these three acts of the mind that Logic treats: and the
science falls correspondingly into three main divisions, -- the
Logic (1) of the Concept, (2) of the Judgment, (3) of Inference.
 Types of Logic
• There are many types of logic located within the
governing science. The four main logic types are:
• Informal logic
• Formal logic
• Symbolic logic
• Mathematical logic
 Informal Logic

• Most people use informal logic everyday, as it's how we reason and
form argumentation in the moment. For example, arguing with a
friend about if Rachel and Ross were on a break in the TV
show Friends would result in the use of informal logic. On the
show, the couple decided to take time away from each other, and in
that time, Ross slept with another woman. Ross argues they were on
a break, and Rachel argues they weren't. For this argument, each
person uses the information presented and creates their conclusion
based on their understanding of the word '~break'~.
• Informal logic consists of two types of reasoning to make arguments:

• Deductive reasoning: Uses information from various sources and applies that
information to the argument at hand to support a larger, generalized conclusion

• Inductive reasoning: Uses the specific information given to form a generalized

conclusion

• In the Friends example, the arguing friends would use inductive reasoning, since they
are only using the evidence given from the one source (the TV show). They would look
at the episode before and after Ross' actions to determine if the couple was, in fact, on a
break. To use deductive reasoning, the arguing friends would look into more examples of
infidelity and might even define the word ''break'' in terms of various definitions.
Inductive reasoning uses a smaller source pool and focuses on Ross and Rachel.
Deductive reasoning would center on the concept of cheating and the notion behind the
word ''break'' pulling from multiple sources until a larger conclusion about cheating is
created.
 Deductive vs Inductive
• Deductive vs Inductive Reasoning: Make Smarter
Arguments, Better Decisions, and Stronger
Conclusions
• Inductive reasoning is usually associated with
extrapolating general rules from different cases where
specific facts vary.
• Deductive logic is the reverse: reasoning based upon a
general rule to determine the appropriate outcome in a
specific case.
• The main difference between
inductive and deductive reasoning is
that inductive reasoning aims at developing a
theory while deductive reasoning aims at
testing an existing theory.

• Inductive reasoning moves from specific

observations to broad generalizations,
and deductive reasoning the other way around.
• Inductive research approach
• When there is little to no existing literature on a topic, it is common to
perform inductive research because there is no theory to test. The
inductive approach consists of three stages:
• Observation
– A low-cost airline flight is delayed
– Dogs A and B have fleas
– Elephants depend on water to exist
• Observe a pattern
– Another 20 flights from low-cost airlines are delayed
– All observed dogs have fleas
– All observed animals depend on water to exist
• Develop a theory
– Low cost airlines always have delays
– All dogs have fleas
– All biological life depends on water to exist
• Limitations of an inductive approach
• A conclusion drawn on the basis of an inductive method can never be
proven, but it can be invalidated.
• Deductive research approach
• When conducting deductive research, you always start with a theory (the
result of inductive research). Reasoning deductively means testing these
theories. If there is no theory yet, you cannot conduct deductive research.
• The deductive research approach consists of four stages:
• Start with an existing theory
– Low cost airlines always have delays
– All dogs have fleas
– All biological life depends on water to exist
• Formulate a hypothesis based on existing theory
– If passengers fly with a low cost airline, then they will always experience
delays
– All pet dogs in my apartment building have fleas
– All land mammals depend on water to exist
• Collect data to test the hypothesis
– Collect flight data of low-cost airlines
– Test all dogs in the building for fleas
– Study all land mammal species to see if they depend on water
• Analyse the results: does the data reject or support the
hypothesis?
– 5 out of 100 flights of low-cost airlines are not delayed = reject
hypothesis
– 10 out of 20 dogs didn’t have fleas = reject hypothesis
– All land mammal species depend on water = support hypothesis
• Limitations of a deductive approach
• The conclusions of deductive reasoning can only be true if all the
premises set in the inductive study are true and the terms are clear.
• Example
• All dogs have fleas (premise)
• Benno is a dog (premise)
• Benno has fleas (conclusion)
• Based on the premises we have, the conclusion must be true. However,
if the first premise turns out to be false, the conclusion that Benno has
fleas cannot be relied upon.
Basis for comparison Deductive Reasoning Inductive Reasoning

Definition Deductive reasoning is the form of valid
reasoning, to deduce new information or
conclusion from known related facts and
information.
Approach Deductive reasoning follows a top-down
approach.
Starts from Deductive reasoning starts from Premises.
Validity In deductive reasoning conclusion must be true In inductive reasoning, the truth of
if the premises are true.
Usage Use of deductive reasoning is difficult, as we
need facts which must be true.
Inductive reasoning arrives at a conclusion
by the process of generalization using
specific facts or data.
Inductive reasoning follows a bottom-up
approach.
Inductive reasoning starts from the
Conclusion.
premises does not guarantee the truth of
conclusions.
Use of inductive reasoning is fast and
easy, as we need evidence instead of true
facts. We often use it in our daily life.

Process Theory→ hypothesis→ Observations-

patterns→confirmation. →patterns→hypothesis→Theory.

Argument In deductive reasoning, arguments may be valid In inductive reasoning, arguments may be
or invalid. weak or strong.

Structure Deductive reasoning reaches from general facts Inductive reasoning reaches from specific
to specific facts. facts to general facts.
• Logic is the study of reasoning. Logic investigates the level of

correctness of the reasoning found in arguments. An argument

is a group of statements of which one (the conclusion) is

claimed to follow from the others (the premises).

• A statement is a sentence that is either true or false. Every

statement is either true or false; these two possibilities are

called “truth values.” Premises are statements that contain

information intended to provide support or reasons to believe a

conclusion.
• The conclusion is the statement that is claimed to follow
from the premises. In order to help recognize arguments,
we rely on premise indicator words and phrases, and
conclusion indicator words and phrases.
• Inference is the term used by logicians to refer to the
reasoning process that is expressed by an argument. If a
passage expresses a reasoning process—that the
conclusion follows from the premises—then we say that it
makes an inferential claim. If a passage does not express a
reasoning process (explicit or implicit), then it does not
make an inferential claim (it is a non inferential passage).
• One type of non inferential passage is the explanation. An
explanation provides reasons for why or how an event
occurred. By themselves, explanations are not arguments;
however, they can form part of an argument.

There are two types of argument: deductive and inductive. A

deductive argument is one in which it is claimed that the
conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. In other
words, it is claimed that under the assumption that the
premises are true it is impossible for the conclusion to be
false.
• An inductive argument is one in which it is claimed
that the premises make the conclusion probable. In
other words, it is claimed that, under the assumption
that the premises are true, it is improbable for the
conclusion to be false.
• Revealing the logical form of a deductive argument
helps with logical analysis and evaluation. When we
evaluate deductive arguments, we use the following
concepts: valid, invalid, sound, and unsound.
• A valid argument is one where, assuming the premises are true, it

is impossible for the conclusion to be false. In other words, the

conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.

• An invalid argument is one where, assuming the premises are

true, it is possible for the conclusion to be false. In other words, a

deductive argument in which the conclusion does not follow

necessarily from the premises is an invalid argument. When

logical analysis shows that a deductive argument is valid, and

when truth value analysis of the premises shows that they are all

true, then the argument is sound.

A counter example to a statement is evidence that shows the
statement is false, and it concerns truth value analysis. A
counterexample to an argument shows the possibility that
premises assumed to be true do not make the conclusion
necessarily true. A single counter example to a deductive
argument is enough to show that an argument is invalid.

• When we evaluate inductive arguments, we use the following

concepts: strong, weak, cogent, and uncogent. A strong inductive
argument is one such that if the premises are assumed to be true,
then the conclusion is probably true.
• In other words, if the premises are assumed to be true,
then it is improbable that the conclusion is false.
• A weak inductive argument is one such that if the
premises are assumed to be true, then the conclusion is
not probably true. An inductive argument is cogent when
the argument is strong and the premises are true.
• An inductive argument is uncogent if either or both of the
following conditions hold: the argument is weak, or the
argument has at least one false premise.
 Formal Logic
• Formal logic uses deductive reasoning in conjunction
with syllogisms and mathematical symbols to infer if a
conclusion is valid. In formal logic, a person looks to
ensure the premises made about a topic logically connects
to the conclusion.
• A common example of formal logic is the use of a
syllogism to explain those connections. A syllogism is
form of reasoning which draws conclusions based on two
given premises. In each syllogism, there are two premises
and one conclusion that is drawn based on the given
information. The most famous example is about Socrates.
• Premise A: Socrates is a man.
• Premise B: All men are mortal.
• Conclusion C: therefore man are mortal
 Symbolic Logic
• Symbolic logic deals with how symbols relate to
each other. It assigns symbols to verbal
reasoning in order to be able to check the
veracity of the statements through a
mathematical process. You typically see this
type of logic used in calculus.
 Mathematical Logic
• In mathematical logic, you apply formal logic
to math. This type of logic is part of the basis
for the logic used in computer sciences.
Mathematical logic and symbolic logic are
often used interchangeably.
 Principles
• Logic is a branch of philosophy that is based on
certain fundamental principles like the 'law of
identity', the 'law of excluded middle', the 'law
of non-contradiction', and the 'law of sufficient
reason'. These fundamental principles assist in
formulating true statements in a linguistic
discourse.
• The task of logic is to study the principles underlying
the validity deductive arguments and the strength of
inductive arguments.
• Since not all deductive argument are valid, we need to
know the principles that ensures a valid argument to be
valid and in valid argument to be invalid. It has been
suggested that the arguments that satisfy or conform to
the laws or principles of logic are valid and arguments
that do not do so are invalid. In other won validity
amounts to not violating any law of logic.
 The Scope of Logic
• The Scope of Logic. Logicians are frequently divided into
three classes, according as they hold that the science is
concerned (1) with names only, (2) with the form of thought
alone, (3) with thought as representative of reality.
(1) The first of these views - that Logic is concerned with
names only - has found but few defenders. It is however taught
by the French philosopher Condillac (1715 - 1780), who held
that the process of reasoning consists solely in verbal
transformations. The meaning of the conclusion is, he thought,
ever identical with that of the original proposition.
• (2) The theory that Logic deals only with the forms of thought, irrespective of

their relation to reality, was taught among others by Hamilton (1788 -1856) and

Mansel (1820 -1871). Both of these held that Logic is no way concerned with the

truth of our thoughts, but only with their consistency.

• In this sense Hamilton says: "Logic is conversant with the form of thought, to the

exclusion of the matter" (Lectures. I. p. xi). By these logicians a distinction is

drawn between 'formal truth,' i.e., self-consistency and 'material truth,' i.e.,

conformity with the object and it is said that Logic deals with formal truth alone.

On this view Mill well observes: "the notion of the true and false will force its

way even into Formal Logic. We may abstract from actual truth, but the validity

of reasoning is always a question of conditional truth - whether one proposition

must be true if the others are true, or whether one proposition can be true if others are

true"
• (3) According to the third theory, Logic deals with thought as the means by

which we attain truth. Mill, whom we have just quoted, may stand as a

representative of this view. "Logic," he says, "is the theory of valid 'thought,

not of thinking, but of correct thinking" (Exam. of Hamilton, p. 388).

• To which class of logicians should Aristotle and his Scholastic followers be

assigned? Many modern writers rank them in the second of these groups, and

term them Formal Logicians. It will soon appear on what a misconception

this opinion rests, and how completely the view taken of Logic by the

Scholastics differs from that of the Formal Logicians. In their eyes, the aim

of the science was most assuredly not to secure self-consistency, but

theoretically to know how the mind represents its object, and practically to

arrive at truth.
Proposition
Propositions and logical operations

Main concepts:

• propositions

• truth values

• propositional variables

• logical operations
• A proposition is the most basic element of logic
• It is a declarative sentence that is either true or false
• Every proposition has a truth value (T or F)
• The value may be:
• known/widely accepted as true
• known/widely accepted as false
• unknown
• a matter of opinion (true for some people)
or even a false belief
 What is a proposition
• A proposition is a viewpoint that you will create,
defend or destroy. It should be worded as a
declarative sentence that unambiguously expresses
your position.
• A proposition can be the main point of your
position. It can also be a single supportive element.
It can also be an opposing proposition that you will
disprove.
 Proposition Definition:
• A proposition is a statement that can be either true or false; It must be
one or the other, it can not be both.
• Propositions are regarded as the material of our reasoning and we
also say that proposition and statements are regarded as same.
• Proposition is the unit of logic.
• Proposition always comes in present tense. (sentences - all tenses)
• Proposition can explain quantity and quality. (sentences- cannot)
• Meaning of sentence is called proposition.
• Sometime more then one sentences can expressed only one
proposition.
• Key point of definition:

• If a proposition is true then we say it is “Truth value” is

“True” and if a proposition false, then we say its truth
value is “False”

• Example:

• Monmoghan sing is the current prime minister of India.

• if he is then it is true

• if he is not then its truth value will be false

• It is raining .

• All above sentences have only one meaning or one proposition.

• Sometimes a sentence may expressed different propositions in different

contexts.

• Sentences are expressed through its own language But Propositions are
Language neutral.

• Proposition must be either True or False. (Truth and Falsity can be apply only
to proposition)

• When a sentence both term like subject and predicate are regarded as noun,
then sentence is called proposition.

• We can say that all propositions are sentences, but not all sentences are
propositions.
 Components of Proposition (Terms)
• There are three components in every proposition, which are known as
term.
• By term, we mean any word or word phrase, which is used in a
proposition as a subject or predicate.
• Subject term- It refers to the assertion or denying something.
• Predicate term- It refers to the assertion or denying of what.
• Copula- It is defined as negative or affirmative. It comes between
subject and predicate term.
• E.g.- Ram is a good person.
• (sub) (copula) (predicate)
 Constructing Propositions
• To avoid writing long propositions we use propositional
variables
• A propositional variable is typically a single letter (p, q, r,
…)
• It can denote arbitrary propositions
• Examples: p: it is raining
p represents the proposition “it is raining”
q: the streets are wet
q represents the proposition “the streets are wet”
• A logical operation combines propositions using cert
ain rules

• Example:

• The operation denoted by “∧” means “and”

• “p ∧ q” means “it is raining and the streets are wet”

• If both p and q are true then p ∧ q is true

• If either p or q (or both) are false then p ∧ q is false

• “∧” is called the conjunction

 Classification/ Types of Proposition

• There are 3 types of proposition according to the relation of terms.

• Categorical Proposition-There are no condition (Unconditional) for
their assertion.
• Conditional or Hypothetical Proposition- It is also known as a type
of compound proposition. This proposition is false, when the antecedent
is true and the consequent is false.
• Distinctive proposition- It is also known as a type of compound
proposition. It says that this proposition is true, if at least one of the
component of proposition are also true.
 Types of proposition
• There are three types of proposition: fact, value and
policy.
• Proposition of Fact
• A proposition of fact is a statement in which you
focus largely on belief of the audience in its truth or
falsehood. Your arguments are thus aimed at getting
your audience to accept the statement as being true
or false.
• Propositions of Value
• In a proposition of values, you make a statement where you
are asking your audience to make an evaluative judgment as
to whether the statement is morally good or bad, right or
wrong. This may be done by comparing two items and asking
them which is better.
• Propositions of Policy
• A proportion of policy advocates a course of action. In this,
you ask your audience to endorse a policy or to commit
themselves to a particular action.