# INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC 1 Sets, Relations, and Arguments

Save this PDF as:

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC 1 Sets, Relations, and Arguments"

## Transcription

1 INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC 1 Sets, Relations, and Arguments Volker Halbach Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

2 The Logic Manual The Logic Manual

3 The Logic Manual The Logic Manual web page for the book: Exercises Booklet

4 The Logic Manual The Logic Manual web page for the book: Exercises Booklet More Exercises by Peter Fritz

5 The Logic Manual The Logic Manual web page for the book: Exercises Booklet More Exercises by Peter Fritz slides of the lectures

6 The Logic Manual The Logic Manual web page for the book: Exercises Booklet More Exercises by Peter Fritz slides of the lectures worked examples

7 The Logic Manual The Logic Manual web page for the book: Exercises Booklet More Exercises by Peter Fritz slides of the lectures worked examples past examination papers with solutions

8 The Logic Manual The Logic Manual web page for the book: Exercises Booklet More Exercises by Peter Fritz slides of the lectures worked examples past examination papers with solutions Mark Sainsbury: Logical Forms: An Introduction to Philosophical Logic, Blackwell, second edition, 2001

9 Why logic?

10 Why logic? Logic is the scientific study of valid argument.

11 Why logic? Logic is the scientific study of valid argument. Philosophy is all about arguments and reasoning.

12 Why logic? Logic is the scientific study of valid argument. Philosophy is all about arguments and reasoning. Logic allows us to test validity rigorously.

13 Why logic? Logic is the scientific study of valid argument. Philosophy is all about arguments and reasoning. Logic allows us to test validity rigorously. Modern philosophy assumes familiarity with logic.

14 Why logic? Logic is the scientific study of valid argument. Philosophy is all about arguments and reasoning. Logic allows us to test validity rigorously. Modern philosophy assumes familiarity with logic. Used in linguistics, mathematics, computer science,...

15 Why logic? Logic is the scientific study of valid argument. Philosophy is all about arguments and reasoning. Logic allows us to test validity rigorously. Modern philosophy assumes familiarity with logic. Used in linguistics, mathematics, computer science,... Helps us make fine-grained conceptual distinctions.

16 Why logic? Logic is the scientific study of valid argument. Philosophy is all about arguments and reasoning. Logic allows us to test validity rigorously. Modern philosophy assumes familiarity with logic. Used in linguistics, mathematics, computer science,... Helps us make fine-grained conceptual distinctions. Logic is compulsory.

17 Arguments 1.5 Arguments, Validity, and Contradiction Definition Sentences that are true or false are called declarative sentences. In what follows I will focus exclusively on declarative sentences.

18 Arguments 1.5 Arguments, Validity, and Contradiction Definition Sentences that are true or false are called declarative sentences. In what follows I will focus exclusively on declarative sentences. Definition An argument consists of a set of declarative sentences (the premisses) and a declarative sentence (the conclusion) somehow marked as the concluded sentence.

19 1.5 Arguments, Validity, and Contradiction Example I m not dreaming if I can see the computer in front of me. I can see the computer in front of me. Therefore I m not dreaming.

20 1.5 Arguments, Validity, and Contradiction Example I m not dreaming if I can see the computer in front of me. I can see the computer in front of me. Therefore I m not dreaming. I m not dreaming if I can see the computer in front of me is a premiss.

21 1.5 Arguments, Validity, and Contradiction Example I m not dreaming if I can see the computer in front of me. I can see the computer in front of me. Therefore I m not dreaming. I m not dreaming if I can see the computer in front of me is a premiss. I can see the computer in front of me is a premiss.

22 1.5 Arguments, Validity, and Contradiction Example I m not dreaming if I can see the computer in front of me. I can see the computer in front of me. Therefore I m not dreaming. I m not dreaming if I can see the computer in front of me is a premiss. I can see the computer in front of me is a premiss. I m not dreaming is the conclusion, which is marked by therefore. 40

23 1.5 Arguments, Validity, and Contradiction Occasionally the conclusion precedes the premisses or is found between premisses. The conclusion needn t be marked as such by therefore or a similar phrase.

24 1.5 Arguments, Validity, and Contradiction Occasionally the conclusion precedes the premisses or is found between premisses. The conclusion needn t be marked as such by therefore or a similar phrase. Alternative ways to express the argument:

25 1.5 Arguments, Validity, and Contradiction Occasionally the conclusion precedes the premisses or is found between premisses. The conclusion needn t be marked as such by therefore or a similar phrase. Alternative ways to express the argument: Example I m not dreaming. For if I can see the computer in front of me I m not dreaming, and I can see the computer in front of me.

26 1.5 Arguments, Validity, and Contradiction Occasionally the conclusion precedes the premisses or is found between premisses. The conclusion needn t be marked as such by therefore or a similar phrase. Alternative ways to express the argument: Example I m not dreaming. For if I can see the computer in front of me I m not dreaming, and I can see the computer in front of me. Example I m not dreaming, if I can see the computer in front of me. Thus, I m not dreaming. This is because I can see the computer in front of me.

27 1.5 Arguments, Validity, and Contradiction The point of good arguments is that the truth of the premisses guarantees the truth of the conclusion. Many arguments with this property exhibit certain patterns. Example I m not dreaming if I can see the computer in front of me. I can see the computer in front of me. Therefore I m not dreaming.

28 1.5 Arguments, Validity, and Contradiction The point of good arguments is that the truth of the premisses guarantees the truth of the conclusion. Many arguments with this property exhibit certain patterns. Example I m not dreaming if I can see the computer in front of me. I can see the computer in front of me. Therefore I m not dreaming. Example Fiona can open the dvi-file if yap is installed. yap is installed. Therefore Fiona can open the dvi-file.

29 1.5 Arguments, Validity, and Contradiction The point of good arguments is that the truth of the premisses guarantees the truth of the conclusion. Many arguments with this property exhibit certain patterns. Example I m not dreaming if I can see the computer in front of me. I can see the computer in front of me. Therefore I m not dreaming. Example Fiona can open the dvi-file if yap is installed. yap is installed. Therefore Fiona can open the dvi-file. general form of both arguments A if B. B. Therefore A. Logicians are interested in the patterns of good arguments that cannot take one from true premisses to a false conclusion.

30 1.5 Arguments, Validity, and Contradiction Characterisation An argument is logically (or formally) valid if and only if there is no interpretation under which the premisses are all true and the conclusion is false.

31 1.5 Arguments, Validity, and Contradiction Characterisation An argument is logically (or formally) valid if and only if there is no interpretation under which the premisses are all true and the conclusion is false. Example Zeno is a tortoise. All tortoises are toothless. Therefore Zeno is toothless.

32 1.5 Arguments, Validity, and Contradiction Characterisation An argument is logically (or formally) valid if and only if there is no interpretation under which the premisses are all true and the conclusion is false. Example Zeno is a tortoise. All tortoises are toothless. Therefore Zeno is toothless. Example Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. Therefore Socrates is mortal.

33 1.5 Arguments, Validity, and Contradiction Features of logically valid arguments: The truth of the conclusion follows from the truth of the premisses independently what the subject-specific expressions mean. Whatever tortoises are, whoever Zeno is, whatever exists: if the premisses of the argument are true the conclusion will be true.

34 1.5 Arguments, Validity, and Contradiction Features of logically valid arguments: The truth of the conclusion follows from the truth of the premisses independently what the subject-specific expressions mean. Whatever tortoises are, whoever Zeno is, whatever exists: if the premisses of the argument are true the conclusion will be true. The truth of the conclusion follows from the truth of the premisses purely in virtue of the form of the argument and independently of any subject-specific assumptions.

35 1.5 Arguments, Validity, and Contradiction Features of logically valid arguments: The truth of the conclusion follows from the truth of the premisses independently what the subject-specific expressions mean. Whatever tortoises are, whoever Zeno is, whatever exists: if the premisses of the argument are true the conclusion will be true. The truth of the conclusion follows from the truth of the premisses purely in virtue of the form of the argument and independently of any subject-specific assumptions. It s not possible that the premisses of a logically valid argument are true and its conclusion is false.

36 1.5 Arguments, Validity, and Contradiction Features of logically valid arguments: The truth of the conclusion follows from the truth of the premisses independently what the subject-specific expressions mean. Whatever tortoises are, whoever Zeno is, whatever exists: if the premisses of the argument are true the conclusion will be true. The truth of the conclusion follows from the truth of the premisses purely in virtue of the form of the argument and independently of any subject-specific assumptions. It s not possible that the premisses of a logically valid argument are true and its conclusion is false. In a logically valid argument the conclusion can be false (in that case at least one of its premisses is false).

37 1.5 Arguments, Validity, and Contradiction Features of logically valid arguments: The truth of the conclusion follows from the truth of the premisses independently what the subject-specific expressions mean. Whatever tortoises are, whoever Zeno is, whatever exists: if the premisses of the argument are true the conclusion will be true. The truth of the conclusion follows from the truth of the premisses purely in virtue of the form of the argument and independently of any subject-specific assumptions. It s not possible that the premisses of a logically valid argument are true and its conclusion is false. In a logically valid argument the conclusion can be false (in that case at least one of its premisses is false). Validity does not depend on the meanings of subject-specific expressions.

38 1.5 Arguments, Validity, and Contradiction The following argument isn t logically valid: Example Every eu citizen can enter the us without a visa. Max is a citizen of Sweden. Therefore Max can enter the us without a visa.

39 1.5 Arguments, Validity, and Contradiction The following argument isn t logically valid: Example Every eu citizen can enter the us without a visa. Max is a citizen of Sweden. Therefore Max can enter the us without a visa. However, one can transform it into a logically valid argument by adding a premiss: 30 Example Every eu citizen can enter the us without a visa. Max is a citizen of Sweden. Every citizen of Sweden is a eu citizen. Therefore Max can enter the us without a visa.

40 1.5 Arguments, Validity, and Contradiction Characterisation (consistency) A set of sentences is consistent if and only if there is a least one interpretation under which all sentences of the set are true.

41 1.5 Arguments, Validity, and Contradiction Characterisation (consistency) A set of sentences is consistent if and only if there is a least one interpretation under which all sentences of the set are true. Characterisation (logical truth) A sentence is logically true if and only if it is true under any interpretation. All metaphysicians are metaphysicians.

42 1.5 Arguments, Validity, and Contradiction Characterisation (contradiction) A sentence is a contradiction if and only if it is false under any interpretation. Some metaphysicians who are also ethicists aren t metaphysicians.

43 1.5 Arguments, Validity, and Contradiction Characterisation (contradiction) A sentence is a contradiction if and only if it is false under any interpretation. Some metaphysicians who are also ethicists aren t metaphysicians. I ll make these notions precise for the formal languages or propositional and predicate logic.

44 Sets 1.1 Sets The following is not really logic in the strict sense but we ll need it later and it is useful in other areas as well.

45 Sets 1.1 Sets The following is not really logic in the strict sense but we ll need it later and it is useful in other areas as well. Characterisation A set is a collection of objects.

46 Sets 1.1 Sets The following is not really logic in the strict sense but we ll need it later and it is useful in other areas as well. Characterisation A set is a collection of objects. The objects in the set are the elements of the set.

47 Sets 1.1 Sets The following is not really logic in the strict sense but we ll need it later and it is useful in other areas as well. Characterisation A set is a collection of objects. The objects in the set are the elements of the set. There is a set that has exactly all books as elements.

48 Sets 1.1 Sets The following is not really logic in the strict sense but we ll need it later and it is useful in other areas as well. Characterisation A set is a collection of objects. The objects in the set are the elements of the set. There is a set that has exactly all books as elements. There is a set that has Volker Halbach as its only element. 25

49 1.1 Sets Sets are identical if and only if they have the same elements. Example The set of all animals with kidneys and the set of all animals with a heart are identical, because exactly those animals that have kidneys also have a heart and vice versa.

50 The claim a is an element of S can be written as a S. One also says S contains a or a is in S. 1.1 Sets

51 1.1 Sets The claim a is an element of S can be written as a S. One also says S contains a or a is in S. There is exactly one set with no elements. The symbol for this set is.

52 1.1 Sets The claim a is an element of S can be written as a S. One also says S contains a or a is in S. There is exactly one set with no elements. The symbol for this set is. The set {Oxford,, Volker Halbach} has as its elements exactly three things: Oxford, the empty set, and me.

53 1.1 Sets The claim a is an element of S can be written as a S. One also says S contains a or a is in S. There is exactly one set with no elements. The symbol for this set is. The set {Oxford,, Volker Halbach} has as its elements exactly three things: Oxford, the empty set, and me. Here is another way to denote sets: { d d is an animal with a heart } is the set of all animals with a heart. It has as its elements exactly all animals with a heart.

54 1.1 Sets Example {Oxford,, Volker Halbach} = {Volker Halbach, Oxford, }

55 1.1 Sets Example {Oxford,, Volker Halbach} = {Volker Halbach, Oxford, } Example {the capital of England, Munich} = {London, Munich, the capital of England}

56 1.1 Sets Example {Oxford,, Volker Halbach} = {Volker Halbach, Oxford, } Example {the capital of England, Munich} = {London, Munich, the capital of England} Example Mars {d d is a planet }

57 1.1 Sets Example {Oxford,, Volker Halbach} = {Volker Halbach, Oxford, } Example {the capital of England, Munich} = {London, Munich, the capital of England} Example Mars {d d is a planet } Example { } 15

58 Relations 1.2 Binary relations The set {London, Munich} is the same set as {Munich, London}.

59 Relations 1.2 Binary relations The set {London, Munich} is the same set as {Munich, London}. The ordered pair London, Munich is different from the ordered pair Munich, London.

60 Relations 1.2 Binary relations The set {London, Munich} is the same set as {Munich, London}. The ordered pair London, Munich is different from the ordered pair Munich, London. Ordered pairs are identical if and only if the agree in their first and second components, or more formally: d, e = f, g iff (d = f and e = g) The abbreviation iff stands for if and only if.

61 Relations 1.2 Binary relations The set {London, Munich} is the same set as {Munich, London}. The ordered pair London, Munich is different from the ordered pair Munich, London. Ordered pairs are identical if and only if the agree in their first and second components, or more formally: d, e = f, g iff (d = f and e = g) The abbreviation iff stands for if and only if. There are also triples (3-tuples) like London, Munich, Rome, quadruples, 5-tuples, 6-tuples etc.

62 Definition A set is a binary relation if and only if it contains only ordered pairs. 1.2 Binary relations

63 1.2 Binary relations Definition A set is a binary relation if and only if it contains only ordered pairs. The empty set doesn t contain anything that s not an ordered pair; therefore it s a relation.

64 1.2 Binary relations Definition A set is a binary relation if and only if it contains only ordered pairs. The empty set doesn t contain anything that s not an ordered pair; therefore it s a relation. Example The relation of being a bigger city than is the set { London, Munich, London, Birmingham, Paris, Milan...}.

65 1.2 Binary relations The following set is a binary relation: { France, Italy, Italy, Austria, France, France, Italy, Italy, Austria, Austria }

66 1.2 Binary relations The following set is a binary relation: { France, Italy, Italy, Austria, France, France, Italy, Italy, Austria, Austria } Some relations can be visualised by diagrams. Every pair corresponds to an arrow: France Italy Austria

67 I ll mention only some properties of relations. 1.2 Binary relations

68 1.2 Binary relations I ll mention only some properties of relations. Definition A binary relation R is symmetric iff for all d, e: if d, e R then e, d R.

69 1.2 Binary relations I ll mention only some properties of relations. Definition A binary relation R is symmetric iff for all d, e: if d, e R then e, d R. The relation with the following diagram isn t symmetric: France Austria Italy The pair Austria, Italy is in the relation, but the pair Italy, Austria isn t.

70 1.2 Binary relations The relation with the following diagram is symmetric. France Austria Italy

71 1.2 Binary relations Definition A binary relation is transitive iff for all d, e, f : if d, e R and e, f R, then also d, f R In the diagram of a transitive relation there is for any two-arrow way from an point to a point a direct arrow.

72 1.2 Binary relations Definition A binary relation is transitive iff for all d, e, f : if d, e R and e, f R, then also d, f R In the diagram of a transitive relation there is for any two-arrow way from an point to a point a direct arrow. This is the diagram of a relation that s not transitive: France Austria Italy This is the diagram of a relation that is transitive: France Austria Italy

73 1.2 Binary relations Definition A binary relation R is reflexive on a set S iff for all d in S the pair d, d is an element of R.

74 1.2 Binary relations Definition A binary relation R is reflexive on a set S iff for all d in S the pair d, d is an element of R. The relation with the following diagram is reflexive on the set {France, Austria, Italy}. France Italy Austria 5

75 1.2 Binary relations The relation with the following diagram is not reflexive on {France, Austria, Italy}, but reflexive on {France, Austria}: France Austria Italy

76 Functions Definition A binary relation R is a function iff for all d, e, f : if d, e R and d, f R then e = f. 1.3 Functions

77 Functions Definition A binary relation R is a function iff for all d, e, f : if d, e R and d, f R then e = f. 1.3 Functions The relation with the following diagram is a function: France Austria Italy There is at most one arrow leaving from every point in the diagram of a function.

78 1.3 Functions Example The set of all ordered pairs d, e such that e is mother of d is a function. This justifies talking about the mother of so-and-so.

79 1.3 Functions Example The set of all ordered pairs d, e such that e is mother of d is a function. This justifies talking about the mother of so-and-so. You might know examples of the following kind from school: Example The set of all pairs d, d 2 where d is some real number is a function. One can t write down all the pairs, but the function would look like this: { 2, 4, 1, 1, 5, 25, 1 2, }

80 1.3 Functions Example The set of all ordered pairs d, e such that e is mother of d is a function. This justifies talking about the mother of so-and-so. You might know examples of the following kind from school: Example The set of all pairs d, d 2 where d is some real number is a function. One can t write down all the pairs, but the function would look like this: { 2, 4, 1, 1, 5, 25, 1 2, } One also think of a function as something that yields an output, e.g. 25 when given an input, e.g. 5, or that assigns the value 25 to the argument 5.

### Introducing truth tables. Hello, I m Marianne Talbot and this is the first video in the series supplementing the Formal Logic podcasts.

Introducing truth tables Marianne: Hello, I m Marianne Talbot and this is the first video in the series supplementing the Formal Logic podcasts. Okay, introducing truth tables. (Slide 2) This video supplements

### 1. Introduction Formal deductive logic Overview

1. Introduction 1.1. Formal deductive logic 1.1.0. Overview In this course we will study reasoning, but we will study only certain aspects of reasoning and study them only from one perspective. The special

### Logic, reasoning and fallacies. Example 0: valid reasoning. Decide how to make a random choice. Valid reasoning. Random choice of X, Y, Z, n

Logic, reasoning and fallacies and some puzzling Before we start Introductory Examples Karst Koymans Informatics Institute University of Amsterdam (version 16.3, 2016/11/21 12:58:26) Wednesday, November

### Ayer and Quine on the a priori

Ayer and Quine on the a priori November 23, 2004 1 The problem of a priori knowledge Ayer s book is a defense of a thoroughgoing empiricism, not only about what is required for a belief to be justified

### Subjective Logic: Logic as Rational Belief Dynamics. Richard Johns Department of Philosophy, UBC

Subjective Logic: Logic as Rational Belief Dynamics Richard Johns Department of Philosophy, UBC johns@interchange.ubc.ca May 8, 2004 What I m calling Subjective Logic is a new approach to logic. Fundamentally

### Digital Logic Lecture 5 Boolean Algebra and Logic Gates Part I

Digital Logic Lecture 5 Boolean Algebra and Logic Gates Part I By Ghada Al-Mashaqbeh The Hashemite University Computer Engineering Department Outline Introduction. Boolean variables and truth tables. Fundamental

### Exercise Sets. KS Philosophical Logic: Modality, Conditionals Vagueness. Dirk Kindermann University of Graz July 2014

Exercise Sets KS Philosophical Logic: Modality, Conditionals Vagueness Dirk Kindermann University of Graz July 2014 1 Exercise Set 1 Propositional and Predicate Logic 1. Use Definition 1.1 (Handout I Propositional

### Propositions as Cognitive Event Types

Propositions as Cognitive Event Types By Scott Soames USC School of Philosophy Chapter 6 New Thinking about Propositions By Jeff King, Scott Soames, Jeff Speaks Oxford University Press 1 Propositions as

### Russell on Denoting. G. J. Mattey. Fall, 2005 / Philosophy 156. The concept any finite number is not odd, nor is it even.

Russell on Denoting G. J. Mattey Fall, 2005 / Philosophy 156 Denoting in The Principles of Mathematics This notion [denoting] lies at the bottom (I think) of all theories of substance, of the subject-predicate

### INTERMEDIATE LOGIC Glossary of key terms

1 GLOSSARY INTERMEDIATE LOGIC BY JAMES B. NANCE INTERMEDIATE LOGIC Glossary of key terms This glossary includes terms that are defined in the text in the lesson and on the page noted. It does not include

### Unit 7.3. Contraries E. Contradictories. Sub-contraries

What is opposition of Unit 7.3 Square of Opposition Four categorical propositions A, E, I and O are related and at the same time different from each other. The relation among them is explained by a diagram

### Nominalism III: Austere Nominalism 1. Philosophy 125 Day 7: Overview. Nominalism IV: Austere Nominalism 2

Branden Fitelson Philosophy 125 Lecture 1 Philosophy 125 Day 7: Overview Administrative Stuff First Paper Topics and Study Questions will be announced Thursday (9/18) All section locations are now (finally!)

### Philosophy of Mathematics Kant

Philosophy of Mathematics Kant Owen Griffiths oeg21@cam.ac.uk St John s College, Cambridge 20/10/15 Immanuel Kant Born in 1724 in Königsberg, Prussia. Enrolled at the University of Königsberg in 1740 and

### WHAT DOES KRIPKE MEAN BY A PRIORI?

Diametros nr 28 (czerwiec 2011): 1-7 WHAT DOES KRIPKE MEAN BY A PRIORI? Pierre Baumann In Naming and Necessity (1980), Kripke stressed the importance of distinguishing three different pairs of notions:

### Venn Diagrams and Categorical Syllogisms. Unit 5

Venn Diagrams and Categorical Syllogisms Unit 5 John Venn 1834 1923 English logician and philosopher noted for introducing the Venn diagram Used in set theory, probability, logic, statistics, and computer

### Theories of propositions

Theories of propositions phil 93515 Jeff Speaks January 16, 2007 1 Commitment to propositions.......................... 1 2 A Fregean theory of reference.......................... 2 3 Three theories of

### Introduction to Logic

University of Notre Dame Fall, 2015 Arguments Philosophy is difficult. If questions are easy to decide, they usually don t end up in philosophy The easiest way to proceed on difficult questions is to formulate

### Entailment, with nods to Lewy and Smiley

Entailment, with nods to Lewy and Smiley Peter Smith November 20, 2009 Last week, we talked a bit about the Anderson-Belnap logic of entailment, as discussed in Priest s Introduction to Non-Classical Logic.

### MCQ IN TRADITIONAL LOGIC. 1. Logic is the science of A) Thought. B) Beauty. C) Mind. D) Goodness

MCQ IN TRADITIONAL LOGIC FOR PRIVATE REGISTRATION TO BA PHILOSOPHY PROGRAMME 1. Logic is the science of-----------. A) Thought B) Beauty C) Mind D) Goodness 2. Aesthetics is the science of ------------.

### Constructing the World

Constructing the World Lecture 1: A Scrutable World David Chalmers Plan *1. Laplace s demon 2. Primitive concepts and the Aufbau 3. Problems for the Aufbau 4. The scrutability base 5. Applications Laplace

### [3.] Bertrand Russell. 1

[3.] Bertrand Russell. 1 [3.1.] Biographical Background. 1872: born in the city of Trellech, in the county of Monmouthshire, now part of Wales 2 One of his grandfathers was Lord John Russell, who twice

### A Reply to New Zeno. appeared in Analysis v.60, #2 (April 2000) S. Yablo

A Reply to New Zeno appeared in Analysis v.60, #2 (April 2000) S. Yablo I. A new Zeno paradox has been devised that looks at first sight rather more challenging than the old ones. It begins like so: A

### Negative Facts. Negative Facts Kyle Spoor

54 Kyle Spoor Logical Atomism was a view held by many philosophers; Bertrand Russell among them. This theory held that language consists of logical parts which are simplifiable until they can no longer

### 3. Negations Not: contradicting content Contradictory propositions Overview Connectives

3. Negations 3.1. Not: contradicting content 3.1.0. Overview In this chapter, we direct our attention to negation, the second of the logical forms we will consider. 3.1.1. Connectives Negation is a way

### Artificial Intelligence Prof. Deepak Khemani Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Madras

(Refer Slide Time: 00:14) Artificial Intelligence Prof. Deepak Khemani Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Madras Lecture - 35 Goal Stack Planning Sussman's Anomaly

### On the Aristotelian Square of Opposition

On the Aristotelian Square of Opposition Dag Westerståhl Göteborg University Abstract A common misunderstanding is that there is something logically amiss with the classical square of opposition, and that

### Resemblance Nominalism and counterparts

ANAL63-3 4/15/2003 2:40 PM Page 221 Resemblance Nominalism and counterparts Alexander Bird 1. Introduction In his (2002) Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra provides a powerful articulation of the claim that Resemblance

### Confirmation Gary Hardegree Department of Philosophy University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003

Confirmation Gary Hardegree Department of Philosophy University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 1. Hypothesis Testing...1 2. Hempel s Paradox of Confirmation...5 3. How to Deal with a Paradox...6 1.

### Parmenides PHIL301 Prof. Oakes Winthrop University updated: 9/5/12 3:03 PM

Parmenides PHIL301 Prof. Oakes Winthrop University updated: 9/5/12 3:03 PM Parmenides and Philosophy - Parmenides represents a watershed in the history of Western philosophy. - The level of logical sophistication

### CHAPTER III. Of Opposition.

CHAPTER III. Of Opposition. Section 449. Opposition is an immediate inference grounded on the relation between propositions which have the same terms, but differ in quantity or in quality or in both. Section

### 9 Knowledge-Based Systems

9 Knowledge-Based Systems Throughout this book, we have insisted that intelligent behavior in people is often conditioned by knowledge. A person will say a certain something about the movie 2001 because

### Selections from Aristotle s Prior Analytics 41a21 41b5

Lesson Seventeen The Conditional Syllogism Selections from Aristotle s Prior Analytics 41a21 41b5 It is clear then that the ostensive syllogisms are effected by means of the aforesaid figures; these considerations

### Logic: Deductive and Inductive by Carveth Read M.A. CHAPTER IX CHAPTER IX FORMAL CONDITIONS OF MEDIATE INFERENCE

CHAPTER IX CHAPTER IX FORMAL CONDITIONS OF MEDIATE INFERENCE Section 1. A Mediate Inference is a proposition that depends for proof upon two or more other propositions, so connected together by one or

### 2.3. Failed proofs and counterexamples

2.3. Failed proofs and counterexamples 2.3.0. Overview Derivations can also be used to tell when a claim of entailment does not follow from the principles for conjunction. 2.3.1. When enough is enough

### Guess the Place- Speculating Practice Modals of deduction/ probability/ possibility and determiners with place names

Guess the Place- Speculating Practice Modals of deduction/ probability/ possibility and determiners with place names Choose a place below or a more specific example of it and give hints about where you

### Symbolic Logic. 8.1 Modern Logic and Its Symbolic Language

M08_COPI1396_13_SE_C08.QXD 10/16/07 9:19 PM Page 315 Symbolic Logic 8 8.1 Modern Logic and Its Symbolic Language 8.2 The Symbols for Conjunction, Negation, and Disjunction 8.3 Conditional Statements and

### What are Truth-Tables and What Are They For?

PY114: Work Obscenely Hard Week 9 (Meeting 7) 30 November, 2010 What are Truth-Tables and What Are They For? 0. Business Matters: The last marked homework of term will be due on Monday, 6 December, at

### Presupposition Projection and At-issueness

Presupposition Projection and At-issueness Edgar Onea Jingyang Xue XPRAG 2011 03. Juni 2011 Courant Research Center Text Structures University of Göttingen This project is funded by the German Initiative

### Believing Epistemic Contradictions

Believing Epistemic Contradictions Bob Beddor & Simon Goldstein Bridges 2 2015 Outline 1 The Puzzle 2 Defending Our Principles 3 Troubles for the Classical Semantics 4 Troubles for Non-Classical Semantics

### Russell: On Denoting

Russell: On Denoting DENOTING PHRASES Russell includes all kinds of quantified subject phrases ( a man, every man, some man etc.) but his main interest is in definite descriptions: the present King of

### Lecture 3: Properties II Nominalism & Reductive Realism. Lecture 3: Properties II Nominalism & Reductive Realism

1. Recap of previous lecture 2. Anti-Realism 2.1. Motivations 2.2. Austere Nominalism: Overview, Pros and Cons 3. Reductive Realisms: the Appeal to Sets 3.1. Sets of Objects 3.2. Sets of Tropes 4. Overview

### Lecture Notes Rosalind Hursthouse, Normative Virtue Ethics (1996, 2013) Keith Burgess-Jackson 4 May 2016

Lecture Notes Rosalind Hursthouse, Normative Virtue Ethics (1996, 2013) Keith Burgess-Jackson 4 May 2016 0. Introduction. Hursthouse s aim in this essay is to defend virtue ethics against the following

### From Necessary Truth to Necessary Existence

Prequel for Section 4.2 of Defending the Correspondence Theory Published by PJP VII, 1 From Necessary Truth to Necessary Existence Abstract I introduce new details in an argument for necessarily existing

### Squeezing arguments. Peter Smith. May 9, 2010

Squeezing arguments Peter Smith May 9, 2010 Many of our concepts are introduced to us via, and seem only to be constrained by, roughand-ready explanations and some sample paradigm positive and negative

### Indeterminate Propositions in Prior Analytics I.41

2. Korrektur/pdf - mentis - PLA/12 / Rhema 16.09.09 / Seite: 165 Indeterminate Propositions in Prior Analytics I.41 Marko Malink, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin In Analytica Priora I.41 stellt Aristoteles

### HANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.)

1 HANDBOOK (New or substantially modified material appears in boxes.) I. ARGUMENT RECOGNITION Important Concepts An argument is a unit of reasoning that attempts to prove that a certain idea is true by

### When we think that if the square root of two is rational then one equals zero, we think, The

Meaning, Expression, and Thought. WAYNE A. DAVIS. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Pp. xvii, 654. When we think that if the square root of two is rational then one equals zero, we think, The

### 15. Russell on definite descriptions

15. Russell on definite descriptions Martín Abreu Zavaleta July 30, 2015 Russell was another top logician and philosopher of his time. Like Frege, Russell got interested in denotational expressions as

### Is Klein an infinitist about doxastic justification?

Philos Stud (2007) 134:19 24 DOI 10.1007/s11098-006-9016-5 ORIGINAL PAPER Is Klein an infinitist about doxastic justification? Michael Bergmann Published online: 7 March 2007 Ó Springer Science+Business

### The basic form of a syllogism By Timo Schmitz, Philosopher

The basic form of a syllogism By Timo Schmitz, Philosopher In my article What is logic? (02 April 2017), I pointed out that an apophantic sentence is always a proposition. To find out whether the formal

### On Interpretation. Section 1. Aristotle Translated by E. M. Edghill. Part 1

On Interpretation Aristotle Translated by E. M. Edghill Section 1 Part 1 First we must define the terms noun and verb, then the terms denial and affirmation, then proposition and sentence. Spoken words

### A simple solution to the hardest logic puzzle ever

a simple solution to the hardest logic puzzle ever 105 11 Potts, C. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Searle, J. R. and D. Vanderveken. 1985. Foundations of

### The Myth of Factive Verbs

The Myth of Factive Verbs Allan Hazlett 1. What factive verbs are It is often said that some linguistic expressions are factive, and it is not always made explicit what is meant by this. An orthodoxy among

### What is an argument? PHIL 110. Is this an argument? Is this an argument? What about this? And what about this?

What is an argument? PHIL 110 Lecture on Chapter 3 of How to think about weird things An argument is a collection of two or more claims, one of which is the conclusion and the rest of which are the premises.

### Todays programme. Background of the TLP. Some problems in TLP. Frege Russell. Saying and showing. Sense and nonsense Logic The limits of language

Todays programme Background of the TLP Frege Russell Some problems in TLP Saying and showing Sense and nonsense Logic The limits of language 1 TLP, preface How far my efforts agree with those of other

### The Representation of Logical Form: A Dilemma

The Representation of Logical Form: A Dilemma Benjamin Ferguson 1 Introduction Throughout the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and especially in the 2.17 s and 4.1 s Wittgenstein asserts that propositions

### A Generalization of Hume s Thesis

Philosophia Scientiæ Travaux d'histoire et de philosophie des sciences 10-1 2006 Jerzy Kalinowski : logique et normativité A Generalization of Hume s Thesis Jan Woleński Publisher Editions Kimé Electronic

### Russell on Descriptions

Russell on Descriptions Bertrand Russell s analysis of descriptions is certainly one of the most famous (perhaps the most famous) theories in philosophy not just philosophy of language over the last century.

### The Sea-Fight Tomorrow by Aristotle

The Sea-Fight Tomorrow by Aristotle Aristotle, Antiquities Project About the author.... Aristotle (384-322) studied for twenty years at Plato s Academy in Athens. Following Plato s death, Aristotle left

### Chapter 1. Introduction. 1.1 Deductive and Plausible Reasoning Strong Syllogism

Contents 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Deductive and Plausible Reasoning................... 3 1.1.1 Strong Syllogism......................... 3 1.1.2 Weak Syllogism.......................... 4 1.1.3 Transitivity

### The Problem of Major Premise in Buddhist Logic

The Problem of Major Premise in Buddhist Logic TANG Mingjun The Institute of Philosophy Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Shanghai, P.R. China Abstract: This paper is a preliminary inquiry into the main

### In this section you will learn three basic aspects of logic. When you are done, you will understand the following:

Basic Principles of Deductive Logic Part One: In this section you will learn three basic aspects of logic. When you are done, you will understand the following: Mental Act Simple Apprehension Judgment

### Immanuel Kant, Analytic and Synthetic. Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics Preface and Preamble

+ Immanuel Kant, Analytic and Synthetic Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics Preface and Preamble + Innate vs. a priori n Philosophers today usually distinguish psychological from epistemological questions.

### If we can t assert this, we undermine the truth of the scientific arguments too. So, Kanterian says: A full

Edward Kanterian: Frege: A Guide for the Perplexed. London/New York: Continuum, 2012. ISBN 978-0- 8264-8764-3; \$24.95, 14.99 (paperback); 248 pages. Gottlob Frege s Begriffsschrift founded modern logic.

### On Truth At Jeffrey C. King Rutgers University

On Truth At Jeffrey C. King Rutgers University I. Introduction A. At least some propositions exist contingently (Fine 1977, 1985) B. Given this, motivations for a notion of truth on which propositions

### Wittgenstein s Logical Atomism. Seminar 8 PHIL2120 Topics in Analytic Philosophy 16 November 2012

Wittgenstein s Logical Atomism Seminar 8 PHIL2120 Topics in Analytic Philosophy 16 November 2012 1 Admin Required reading for this seminar: Soames, Ch 9+10 New Schedule: 23 November: The Tractarian Test

### Houghton Mifflin MATHEMATICS

2002 for Mathematics Assessment NUMBER/COMPUTATION Concepts Students will describe properties of, give examples of, and apply to real-world or mathematical situations: MA-E-1.1.1 Whole numbers (0 to 100,000,000),

### Elements of Science (cont.); Conditional Statements. Phil 12: Logic and Decision Making Fall 2010 UC San Diego 9/29/2010

Elements of Science (cont.); Conditional Statements Phil 12: Logic and Decision Making Fall 2010 UC San Diego 9/29/2010 1 Why cover statements and arguments Decision making (whether in science or elsewhere)

### Act individuation and basic acts

Act individuation and basic acts August 27, 2004 1 Arguments for a coarse-grained criterion of act-individuation........ 2 1.1 Argument from parsimony........................ 2 1.2 The problem of the relationship

### To Appear in Philosophical Studies symposium of Hartry Field s Truth and the Absence of Fact

To Appear in Philosophical Studies symposium of Hartry Field s Truth and the Absence of Fact Comment on Field s Truth and the Absence of Fact In Deflationist Views of Meaning and Content, one of the papers

### PHIL 115: Philosophical Anthropology. I. Propositional Forms (in Stoic Logic) Lecture #4: Stoic Logic

HIL 115: hilosophical Anthropology Lecture #4: Stoic Logic Arguments from the Euthyphro: Meletus Argument (according to Socrates) [3a-b] Argument: Socrates is a maker of gods; so, Socrates corrupts the

### Today s Lecture 1/28/10

Chapter 7.1! Symbolizing English Arguments! 5 Important Logical Operators!The Main Logical Operator Today s Lecture 1/28/10 Quiz State from memory (closed book and notes) the five famous valid forms and

### Anti-Metaphysicalism, Necessity, and Temporal Ontology 1

Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Philosophy and Phenomenological Research doi: 10.1111/phpr.12129 2014 Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LLC Anti-Metaphysicalism, Necessity, and Temporal

### Ethical non-naturalism

Michael Lacewing Ethical non-naturalism Ethical non-naturalism is usually understood as a form of cognitivist moral realism. So we first need to understand what cognitivism and moral realism is before

### Anti-Metaphysicalism, Necessity, and Temporal Ontology 1

Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Vol. XCII No. 1, January 2016 doi: 10.1111/phpr.12129 2014 Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LLC Anti-Metaphysicalism,

### Foundations of Non-Monotonic Reasoning

Foundations of Non-Monotonic Reasoning Notation S A - from a set of premisses S we can derive a conclusion A. Example S: All men are mortal Socrates is a man. A: Socrates is mortal. x.man(x) mortal(x)

### Ramsey s belief > action > truth theory.

Ramsey s belief > action > truth theory. Monika Gruber University of Vienna 11.06.2016 Monika Gruber (University of Vienna) Ramsey s belief > action > truth theory. 11.06.2016 1 / 30 1 Truth and Probability

### Personal identity and the radiation argument

38 ERIC T. OLSON the unique proposition of travel through time - whether time is an A-series or not. At this point, the reasonable move for the advocate of the multiverse who would defend the legitimacy

### 2 in which a; is a constituent, where x, the variable, is. 1 I have discussed this subject in Principles of Mathematics, chapter

II. ON DENOTING. B Y BERTRAND BUSSELL. B Y a " denoting phrase " I mean a phrase such as an}- one of the following : a man, some man, any man, every man, all men, the present King of England, the present

### 5 A Modal Version of the

5 A Modal Version of the Ontological Argument E. J. L O W E Moreland, J. P.; Sweis, Khaldoun A.; Meister, Chad V., Jul 01, 2013, Debating Christian Theism The original version of the ontological argument

### I m Very Sure 3 of 4

I m Very Sure 3 of 4 #0226 Study given by W.D. Frazee It s a wonderful thing to be certain and especially to be certain concerning the most important things. In this little series of four studies we are

### Epistemic two-dimensionalism and the epistemic argument

Epistemic two-dimensionalism and the epistemic argument Jeff Speaks November 12, 2008 Abstract. One of Kripke s fundamental objections to descriptivism was that the theory misclassifies certain a posteriori

### Do we have knowledge of the external world?

Do we have knowledge of the external world? This book discusses the skeptical arguments presented in Descartes' Meditations 1 and 2, as well as how Descartes attempts to refute skepticism by building our

### Language and Emptiness: A Diagrammatic Comparative Study of Martin Heidegger, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Nāgārjuna

Language and Emptiness: A Diagrammatic Comparative Study of Martin Heidegger, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Nāgārjuna Kelsie Bissell and Jacob M. Levenstein Introduction: Language and Emptiness Discussions of

### Penultimate Draft: Final Revisions not Included. Published in Philosophical Studies, December1998. DEFLATIONISM AND THE NORMATIVITY OF TRUTH

Penultimate Draft: Final Revisions not Included. Published in Philosophical Studies, December1998. DEFLATIONISM AND THE NORMATIVITY OF TRUTH Deflationist theories of truth, some critics have argued, fail

### CRITICAL THINKING (CT) MODEL PART 1 GENERAL CONCEPTS

Fall 2001 ENGLISH 20 Professor Tanaka CRITICAL THINKING (CT) MODEL PART 1 GENERAL CONCEPTS In this first handout, I would like to simply give you the basic outlines of our critical thinking model

### Instructor s Manual 1

Instructor s Manual 1 PREFACE This instructor s manual will help instructors prepare to teach logic using the 14th edition of Irving M. Copi, Carl Cohen, and Kenneth McMahon s Introduction to Logic. The

### Notes on Bertrand Russell s The Problems of Philosophy (Hackett 1990 reprint of the 1912 Oxford edition, Chapters XII, XIII, XIV, )

Notes on Bertrand Russell s The Problems of Philosophy (Hackett 1990 reprint of the 1912 Oxford edition, Chapters XII, XIII, XIV, 119-152) Chapter XII Truth and Falsehood [pp. 119-130] Russell begins here

### Based on the translation by E. M. Edghill, with minor emendations by Daniel Kolak.

On Interpretation By Aristotle Based on the translation by E. M. Edghill, with minor emendations by Daniel Kolak. First we must define the terms 'noun' and 'verb', then the terms 'denial' and 'affirmation',

### Descartes Method of Doubt

Descartes Method of Doubt Philosophy 100 Lecture 9 PUTTING IT TOGETHER. Descartes Idea 1. The New Science. What science is about is describing the nature and interaction of the ultimate constituents of

### Chapter 2 - Lecture 4 Conditional Probability

Chapter 2 - Lecture 4 September 21st, 2009 Chapter 2 - Lecture 4 Chapter 2 - Lecture 4 Probability Until now we have learn how to assign probabilities on sets that are consisted of simple events without

### 1 ReplytoMcGinnLong 21 December 2010 Language and Society: Reply to McGinn. In his review of my book, Making the Social World: The Structure of Human

1 Language and Society: Reply to McGinn By John R. Searle In his review of my book, Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization, (Oxford University Press, 2010) in NYRB Nov 11, 2010. Colin

### Philosophy of Language

Philosophy of Language Philosophy of Language provides a comprehensive, meticulous survey of twentieth-century and contemporary philosophical theories of meaning. Interweaving the historical development

### Announcements. CS311H: Discrete Mathematics. First Order Logic, Rules of Inference. Satisfiability, Validity in FOL. Example.

Announcements CS311H: Discrete Mathematics First Order Logic, Rules of Inference Instructor: Işıl Dillig Homework 1 is due now! Homework 2 is handed out today Homework 2 is due next Wednesday Instructor:

### Leibniz, Principles, and Truth 1

Leibniz, Principles, and Truth 1 Leibniz was a man of principles. 2 Throughout his writings, one finds repeated assertions that his view is developed according to certain fundamental principles. Attempting

### BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC

BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC 1. What is Logic?...2 2. Inferences and Arguments...2 3. Deductive Logic versus Inductive Logic...5 4. Statements versus Propositions...6 5. Form versus Content...7 6. Preliminary

### sentences in which they occur, thus giving us singular propositions that contain the object

JUSTIFICATION AND RELATIVE APRIORITY Heimir Geirsson Abstract There is obviously tension between any view which claims that the object denoted is all that names and simple referring terms contribute to