The Modern Square of Opposition

Let us compare the diagram for the A proposition with the diagram for the O proposi tion.
The diagram for the A proposition asserts that the left-hand part of the 5 circle is empty,
whereas the diagram for the O proposition asserts that this same area is not empty. These
two diagrams make assertions that are the exact opposite of each other. As a result, their
corresponding statements are said to contradict each other. Analogously, the diagram for the
E proposition asserts that the area where the two circles overlap is empty, whereas the
diagram for the I proposition asserts that the area where the two cir cles overlap is not
empty. Accordingly, their corresponding propositions are also said to contradict each other.
This relationship of mutually contradictory pairs of propositions is represented in a diagram
called the modern square of opposition. This diagram, which arises from the modern (or
Boolean) interpretation of categorical propositions, is represented as follows:
If two propositions are related by the contradictory relation, they necessarily have opposite
truth value. Thus, if a certain A proposition is given as true, the correspond- ing O
proposition must be false. Similarly, if a certain I proposition is given as false. the
corresponding E proposition must be true. But no other inferences are possible. In particular,
given the truth value of an A or O proposition, nothing can be determined about the truth
value of the corresponding E or I proposition. These propositions are said to have logically
undetermined truth value. Like all propositions, they do have a truth value, but logic alone
cannot determine what it is. Similarly, given the truth value of an E or I proposition, nothing
can be determined about the truth value of the corresponding A or O propositions. They,
too, are said to have logically undetermined truth value.

Square of opposition
The square of opposition is a chart that was introduced within classical (categorical) logic to
represent the logical relationships holding between certain propositions in virtue of their
form. The square, traditionally conceived, looks like this:

The four corners of this chart represent the four basic forms of propositions recognized in
classical logic:
A propositions, or universal affirmatives take the form: All S are P.
E propositions, or universal negations take the form: No S are P.
I propositions, or particular affirmatives take the form: Some S are P.
O propositions, or particular negations take the form: Some S are not P.
Given the assumption made within classical (Aristotelian) categorical logic, that every
category contains at least one member, the following relationships, depicted on the square,
hold:
Contradictory,
Firstly, A and O propositions are contradictory, as are E and I propositions. Propositions are
contradictory when the truth of one implies the falsity of the other, and conversely. Here we
see that the truth of a proposition of the form All S are P implies the falsity of the
corresponding proposition of the form Some S are not P. For example, if the proposition “all
industrialists are capitalists” (A) is true, then the proposition “some industrialists are not
capitalists” (O) must be false. Similarly, if “no mammals are aquatic” (E) is false, then the
proposition “some mammals are aquatic” must be true.

Contrary
Secondly, A and E propositions are contrary. Propositions are contrary when they
cannot both be true. An A proposition, e.g., “all giraffes have long necks” cannot be true at
the same time as the corresponding E proposition: “no giraffes have long necks.” Note,
however, that corresponding A and E propositions, while contrary, are not contradictory.
While they cannot both be true, they can both be false, as with the examples of “all planets
are gas giants” and “no planets are gas giants.”

Subcontrary
Next, I and O propositions are subcontrary. Propositions are subcontrary when it is
impossible for both to be false. Because “some lunches are free” is false, “some lunches are
not free” must be true. Note, however, that it is possible for corresponding I and O
propositions both to be true, as with “some nations are democracies,” and “some nations are
not democracies.” Again, I and O propositions are subcontrary, but not contrary or
contradictory.

Subalternation
Lastly, two propositions are said to stand in the relation of subalternation when the truth of
the first (“the superaltern”) implies the truth of the second (“the subaltern”),
but not conversely. A propositions stand in the subalternation relation with the corresponding
I propositions. The truth of the A proposition “all plastics are synthetic,” implies the truth of
the proposition “some plastics are synthetic.” However, the truth of the O proposition “some
cars are not American-made products” does not imply the truth of the E proposition “no cars
are American-made products.” In traditional logic, the truth of an A or E proposition implies
the truth of the corresponding I or O proposition, respectively. Consequently, the falsity of an
I or O proposition implies the falsity of the corresponding A or E proposition, respectively.
However, the truth of a particular proposition does not imply the truth of the corresponding
universal proposition, nor does the falsity of an universal proposition carry downwards to the
respective particular propositions.

Categorical proposition
A categorical proposition, or categorical statement, is a proposition that asserts
or denies that all or some of the members of one category (the subject term) are
included in another (the predicate term).[1] The study of arguments using categorical
statements (i.e., syllogisms) forms an important branch of deductive reasoning that
began with the Ancient Greeks.
The Ancient Greeks such as Aristotle identified four primary distinct types of
categorical proposition and gave them standard forms (now often called A, E, I,
and O). If, abstractly, the subject category is named S and the predicate category is
named P, the four standard forms are:
  All S are P. (A )
 No S are P. (E)
 Some S are P. (I )
 Some S are not P. (O)
A large number of sentences may be translated into one of these canonical forms
while retaining all or most of the original meaning of the sentence. Greek
investigations resulted in the so-called square of opposition, which codifies the
logical relations among the different forms; for example, that an A-statement is
contradictory to an O-statement; that is to say, for example, if one believes "All
apples are red fruits," one cannot simultaneously believe that "Some apples are not
red fruits." Thus the relationships of the square of opposition may allow immediate
inference, whereby the truth or falsity of one of the forms may follow directly from the
truth or falsity of a statement in another form.
Sentences in natural language may be translated into standard forms. In each row of
the following chart, S corresponds to the subject of the example sentence,
and P corresponds to the predicate.

Name English Sentence Standard Form

A All cats have four legs. All S is P.

E No cats have eight legs. No S is P.

I Some cats are orange. Some S is P.

O Some cats are not black. Some S is not P.

Note that "All S is not P" (e.g., "All cats do not have eight legs") is not classified as
an example of the standard forms. This is because the translation to natural
language is ambiguous. In common speech, the sentence "All cats do not have eight
legs" could be used informally to indicate either (1) "At least some, and perhaps all,
cats do not have eight legs" or (2) "No cats have eight legs".
Properties of categorical propositions
Categorical propositions can be categorized into four types on the basis of their
"quality" and "quantity", or their "distribution of terms". These four types have long
been named A, E, I, and O. This is based on the Latin affirmo (I affirm), referring to
the affirmative propositions A and I, and nego (I deny), referring to the negative
propositions E and O.
Quantity and quality
Quantity refers to the number of members of the subject class (A class is a
collection or group of things designated by a term that is either subject or predicate
in a categorical proposition) that are used in the proposition. If the proposition refers
to all members of the subject class, it is universal. If the proposition does not employ
all members of the subject class, it is particular. For instance, an I-proposition
("Some S is P") is particular since it only refers to some of the members of the
subject class.
Quality It is described as whether the proposition affirms or denies the inclusion of a
subject within the class of the predicate. The two possible qualities are
called affirmative and negative.[4] For instance, an A-proposition ("All S is P") is
affirmative since it states that the subject is contained within the predicate. On the
other hand, an O-proposition ("Some S is not P") is negative since it excludes the
subject from the predicate.

The Four Aristotelian Propositions

Name Statement Quantity Quality

A All S is P. universal affirmative

E No S is P. universal negative

I Some S is P. particular affirmative

O Some S is not P. particular negative

An important consideration is the definition of the word some. In logic, some refers to
"one or more", which is consistent with "all". Therefore, the statement "Some S is P"
does not guarantee that the statement "Some S is not P" is also true.
Distributivity
The two terms (subject and predicate) in a categorical proposition may each be
classified as distributed or undistributed. If all members of the term's class are
affected by the proposition, that class is distributed; otherwise it is undistributed.
Every proposition therefore has one of four possible distribution of terms.
Each of the four canonical forms will be examined in turn regarding its distribution of
terms. Although not developed here, Venn diagrams are sometimes helpful when
trying to understand the distribution of terms for the four forms.
A form (otherwise known as Universal Affirmative)
An A-proposition distributes the subject to the predicate, but not the reverse.
Consider the following categorical proposition: "All dogs are mammals". All dogs are
indeed mammals, but it would be false to say all mammals are dogs. Since all dogs
are included in the class of mammals, "dogs" is said to be distributed to "mammals".
Since all mammals are not necessarily dogs, "mammals" is undistributed to "dogs".
E form (otherwise known as Universal Negative)
An E-proposition distributes bidirectionally between the subject and predicate. From
the categorical proposition "No beetles are mammals", we can infer that no
mammals are beetles. Since all beetles are defined not to be mammals, and all
mammals are defined not to be beetles, both classes are distributed.
The empty set is a particular case of subject and predicate class distribution.
I form (otherwise known as Particular Affirmative)
Both terms in an I-proposition are undistributed. For example, "Some Americans are
conservatives". Neither term can be entirely distributed to the other. From this
proposition, it is not possible to say that all Americans are conservatives or that all
conservatives are Americans. Note the ambiguity in the statement: It could either
mean that "Some Americans (or other) are conservatives", or it could mean that
"Some Americans (in particular, Albert and Bob) are conservatives".
O form (otherwise known as Particular Negative)
In an O-proposition, only the predicate is distributed. Consider the following: "Some
politicians are not corrupt". Since not all politicians are defined by this rule, the
subject is undistributed. The predicate, though, is distributed because all the
members of "corrupt people" will not match the group of people defined as "some
politicians". Since the rule applies to every member of the corrupt people group,
namely, "All corrupt people are not some politicians", the predicate is distributed.
The distribution of the predicate in an O-proposition is often confusing due to its
ambiguity. When a statement such as "Some politicians are not corrupt" is said to
distribute the "corrupt people" group to "some politicians", the information seems of
little value, since the group "some politicians" is not defined; This is the interpretation
of the intensional statement, or "Some politicians (or other) are not corrupt". But if, as
an example, this group of "some politicians" were defined to contain a single person,
Albert, the relationship becomes clearer; This is the interpretation of the intensional
statement, or "Some politicians (in particular) are not corrupt". The statement would
then mean that, of every entry listed in the corrupt people group, not one of them will
be Albert: "All corrupt people are not Albert". This is a definition that applies to every
member of the "corrupt people" group, and is, therefore, distributed.
Summary
In short, for the subject to be distributed, the statement must be universal (e.g., "all",
"no"). For the predicate to be distributed, the statement must be negative (e.g., "no",
"not").

Name Statement Distribution

 Subject Predicate

A All S is P. distributed undistributed

E No S is P. distributed distributed

I Some S is P. undistributed undistributed

O Some S is not P. undistributed distributed

Operations on categorical statements

There are several operations (e.g., conversion, obversion, and contraposition) that
can be performed on a categorical statement to change it into another. The new
statement may or may not be equivalent to the original. [In the following tables that
illustrate such operations, at each row, boxes are green if statements in one green
box are equivalent to statements in another green box, boxes are red if statements in
one red box are inequivalent to statements in another red box. Statements in a
yellow box means that these are implied or valid by the statement in the left-most
box when the condition stated in the same yellow box is satisfied.]
Some operations require the notion of the class complement. This refers to
every element under consideration which is not an element of the class. Class
complements are very similar to set complements. The class complement of a set P
will be called "non-P".

Conversion
The simplest operation is conversion where the subject and predicate terms are
interchanged. Note that this is not same to the implicational converse in the modern
logic where a material implication statement is converted (conversion) to another
material implication statement . The both conversions are equivalent only for A type
categorical statements.
 Subaltern / Converse per
Converse / Obverted accidens / Obverted
Name Statement Obverted Subaltern / Converse per
Converse Condition of accidens / Condition of
Validity Validity

Some S is P.
All P is S. Some P is S.
Some S is not
A All S is P. No P is non- Some P is not non-S.
non-P.
S. (if S exists)
(if S exists)

No P is S. Some S is not P. Some P is not S.

E No S is P. All P is non- Some S is non-P. Some P is non-S.
S. (if S exists) (if P exists)

Some P is S.
Some S is
I Some P is
P.
not non-S.

—
Some P is
Some S is not S.
O
not P. Some P is
non-S.

From a statement in E or I form, it is valid to conclude its converse (as they are
equivalent). This is not the case for the A and O forms.

Obversion
Obversion changes the quality (that is the affirmativity or negativity) of the statement
and the predicate term.[10] For example, by obversion, a universal affirmative
statement become a universal negative statement with the predicate term that is the
class complement of the predicate term of the original universal affirmative
statement. In the modern forms of the four categorical statements, the negation of
the statement corresponding to a predicate term P, is interpreted as a predicate
term 'non-P' in each categorical statement in obversion. The equality of can be used
to obvert affirmative categorical statements.
 Name Statement Obverse (obverted)

A All S is P. No S is non-P.

E No S is P. All S is non-P.

I Some S is P. Some S is not non-P.

O Some S is not P. Some S is non-P.

Categorical statements are logically equivalent to their obverse. As such, a Venn

diagram illustrating any one of the forms would be identical to the Venn diagram
illustrating its obverse.

Contraposition
Contraposition is the process of simultaneous interchange and negation of the
subject and predicate of a categorical statement. It is also equivalent to converting
(applying conversion) the obvert (the outcome of obversion) of a categorical
statement. Note that this contraposition in the traditional logic is not same
to contraposition (also called transposition) in the modern logic stating that material
implication statements and are logically equivalent. The both contrapositions are
equivalent only for A type categorical statements.

Contrapositive / Contrapositive per accidens /

Name Statement Obverted Obverted Contrapositive per
Contrapositive accidens / Condition of Validity

Some non-P is non-S.

All non-P is non-S.
A All S is P. Some non-P is not S.
No non-P is S.
(if non-P exists)

Some non-P is not non-S.

No non-P is non-S.
E No S is P. Some non-P is S.
All non-P is S.
(if S exists)
 Some S is Some non-P is non-S.
I
P. Some non-P is not S.

—
Some non-P is not
Some S is
O non-S.
not P.
Some non-P is S.