Semantic Entailment and Natural Deduction


 Adele Edwards
 10 months ago
 Views:
Transcription
1 Semantic Entailment and Natural Deduction Alice Gao Lecture 6, September 26, 2017 Entailment 1/55
2 Learning goals Semantic entailment Define semantic entailment. Explain subtleties of semantic entailment. Determine whether a semantic entailment holds by using truth tables, valuation trees, and/or logical identities. Prove semantic entailment using truth tables and/or valuation trees. Natural deduction in propositional logic Describe rules of inference for natural deduction. Prove a conclusion from given premises using natural deduction inference rules. Describe strategies for applying each inference rule when proving a conclusion formula using natural deduction. Entailment 2/55
3 A review of the conditional Consider the formulas and. The following two statements are equivalent: for any truth valuation, if is true, then is true. is a tautology. Entailment 3/55
4 Subtleties about the conditional Consider the formulas and. How many of the following statements are true? a. If is false, then is true. b. If and, then is false. c. If is a tautology, then is true. d. Two of (a), (b), and (c) are true. e. All of (a), (b), and (c) are true. Entailment 4/55
5 Proving arguments valid Recall that logic is the science of reasoning. One important goal of logic is to infer that a conclusion is true based on a set of premises. A logical argument: Premise 1 Premise 2... Premise n Conclusion A common problem is to prove that an argument is valid, that is the set of premises semantically entails the conclusion. Entailment 5/55
6 Formalizing argument validity: Semantic Entailment Let be a set of premises and let be the conclusion that we want to derive. semantically entails, denoted, if and only if Whenever all the premises in are true, then the conclusion is true. For any truth valuation, if every premise in is true under, then the conclusion is true under. For any truth valuation, if satisfies (denoted T), then satisfies ( T). is a tautology. If semantically entails, then we say that the argument (with the premises in and the conclusion ) is valid. What does T ( satisfies ) mean? See the next slide. Entailment 6/55
7 What does T mean? T ( satisfies ) means... Every formula in is true under the valuation. If a formula is in, then is true under. If is the empty set, then any valuation satisfies. Why? The definition of satisfies says If a formula is in, then is true under. There is no formula in, so the premise of the above statement is false, which means the statement is vacuously true. Thus, any valuation satisfies the empty set. Entailment 7/55
8 Subtleties about entailment Consider a set of formulas and the formula. How many of the following statements are true? a. If in is false, then is false. b. If, then is true. c. If is true, then is a tautology ( is the empty set). d. Two of (a), (b), and (c) are true. e. All of (a), (b), and (c) are true. Entailment 8/55
9 Proving or disproving entailment Proving that entails, denoted : Using a truth table: Consider all rows of the truth table in which all of the formulas in are true. Verify that is true in all of these rows. Direct proof: For every truth valuation under which all of the premises are true, show that the conclusion is also true under this valuation. Proof by contradiction: Assume that the entailment does not hold, which means that there is a truth valuation under which all of the premises are true and the conclusion is false. Derive a contradiction. Proving that does not entail, denoted : Find one truth valuation under which all of the premises in are true and the conclusion is false. Entailment 9/55
10 Proving entailment using a truth table Let,, and. Based on the truth table, which of the following statements is true? a. and. b. and. c. and. d. and Entailment 10/55
11 Proving entailment What is? a. True b. False Entailment 11/55
12 Equivalence and Entailment Equivalence can be expressed using the notion of entailment. Lemma. if and only if both and. Entailment 12/55
13 Proofs in Propositional Logic: Natural Deduction Natural Deduction 13/55
14 Solution to the previous puzzle A very special island is inhabited only by knights and knaves. Knights always tell the truth, and knaves always lie. You meet three inhabitants: Alice, Rex and Bob. 1. Alice says, Rex is a knave. This means Alice and Rex are different. 2. Rex says, it s false that Bob is a knave (or Bob is a knight). This means Rex and Bob are the same. 3. Bob claims, I am a knight or Alice is a knight. Bob is a knight, or Bob and Alice are both knaves. Based on 1 and 2, Alice and Bob are different, so they cannot both be knaves (2nd option in 3). Thus, the only possibility left is Alice is a knave, and Rex and Bob are knights. Natural Deduction Overview 14/55
15 Labyrinth Puzzle Natural Deduction Overview 15/55
16 Learning goals Natural deduction in propositional logic Describe rules of inference for natural deduction. Prove a conclusion from given premises using natural deduction inference rules. Describe strategies for applying each inference rule when proving a conclusion formula using natural deduction. Natural Deduction Overview 16/55
17 The Natural Deduction Proof System We will consider a proof system called Natural Deduction. It closely follows how people (mathematicians, at least) normally make formal arguments. It extends easily to morepowerful forms of logic. Natural Deduction Overview 17/55
18 Why would you want to study natural deduction proofs? It is impressive to be able to write proofs with nested boxes and mysterious symbols as justifications. Be able to prove or disprove that Superman exists (on Tuesday). Be able to prove or disprove that the onnagata are correct to insist that males should play female characters in Japanese kabuki theatres. To realize that writing proofs and problem solving in general is both a creative and a scientific endeavour. To develop problem solving strategies that can be used in many other situations. Natural Deduction Overview 18/55
19 A proof is syntactic First, we think about proofs in a purely syntactic way. A proof starts with a set of premises, transforms the premises based on a set of inference rules (by pattern matching), and reaches a conclusion. We write ND or simply if we can find such a proof that starts with a set of premises and ends with the conclusion. Natural Deduction Overview 19/55
20 Goal is to show semantic entailment Next, we think about connecting proofs to semantic entailment. We will answer these questions: (Soundness) Does every proof establish a semantic entailment? If I can find a proof from to, can I conclude that semantically entails? Does imply? (Completeness) For every semantic entailment, can I find a proof for it? If I know that semantically entails, can I find a proof from to? Does imply? Natural Deduction Overview 20/55
21 Reflexivity / Premise If you want to write down a previous formula in the proof again, you can do it by reflexivity. Name notation inference notation Reflexivity, or Premise The notation on the right: Given the formulas above the line, we can infer the formula below the line. The version in the center reminds us of the role of assumptions in Natural Deduction. Other rules will make more use of it. Natural Deduction Basic Rules 21/55
22 An example using reflexivity Here is a proof of. 1. Premise 2. Premise 3. Reflexivity: 1 Alternatively, we could simply write and be done. 1. Premise Natural Deduction Basic Rules 22/55
23 For each symbol, the rules come in pairs. An introduction rule adds the symbol to the formula. An elimination rule removes the symbol from the formula. Natural Deduction Basic Rules 23/55
24 Rules for Conjunction Name notation inference notation introduction ( i) If and, then Name notation inference notation elimination ( e) If, then and Natural Deduction Conjunction Rules 24/55
25 Example: Conjunction Rules Example. Show that. 1. Premise 2. e: 1 3. e: 1 4. i: 2, 3 Natural Deduction Conjunction Rules 25/55
26 Example: Conjunction Rules (2) Example. Show that,. 1. Premise 2. Premise 3. e: 1 4. i: 3, 2 Natural Deduction Conjunction Rules 26/55
27 Rules for Implication: e Name notation inference notation elimination ( e) (modus ponens) If and, then In words: If you assume is true and implies, then you may conclude. Natural Deduction Implication Rules 27/55
28 Rules for Implication: i Name notation inference notation introduction ( i) If, then. The box denotes a subproof. In the subproof, we starts by assuming that is true (a premise of the subproof), and we conclude that is true. Nothing inside the subproof may come out. Outside of the subproof, we could only use the subproof as a whole. Natural Deduction Implication Rules 28/55
29 Example: Rule i and subproofs Example. Give a proof of. To start, we write down the premises at the beginning, and the conclusion at the end. What next? 1. Premise 2. Premise 3. Assumption 4. e: 1, 3 5. e: 2, 4 6.??? The goal contains. Let s try rule i. Inside the subproof, we can use rule e. Done! Natural Deduction Implication Rules 29/55
30 Rules of Disjunction: i and e Name notation inference notation introduction ( i) elimination ( e) If, then and If, and,, then, e is also known as proof by cases... Natural Deduction Disjunction Rules 30/55
31 Example: OrIntroduction and Elimination Example: Show that. 1. Premise 2. Assumption 3. Assumption 4. Reflexivity: 2 5. i: i: 5 7. Assumption 8. Assumption 9. Reflexivity: i: i: e: 1, 2 6, 7 11 Natural Deduction Disjunction Rules 31/55
32 Negation We shall treat negation by considering contradictions. We shall use the notation to represent any contradiction. It may appear in proofs as if it were a formula. The elimination rule for negation: Name notation inference notation introduction, or elimination ( e),, If we have both and, then we have a contradiction. Natural Deduction Negation 32/55
33 Negation Introduction ( i) If an assumption leads to a contradiction, then derive. Name notation inference notation introduction ( i) If, then. Natural Deduction Negation 33/55
34 Example: Negation Example. Show that. 1. Premise 2. Assumption 3. e: 1, 2 4. e: 2, 3 5. i: 2 4 Natural Deduction Negation 34/55
35 The Last Two Basic Rules DoubleNegation Elimination: Name notation inference notation elimination ( e) If, then Contradiction Elimination: Name notation inference notation elimination ( e) If, then Natural Deduction Negation 35/55
36 A Redundant Rule The rule of elimination is not actually needed. Suppose a proof has 27. some rule 28. e: 27. We can replace these by 27. some rule 28. Assumption 29. Reflexivity: i: e: 30. Thus any proof that uses e can be modified into a proof that does not. Natural Deduction Negation 36/55
37 Example: Modus tollens The principle of modus tollens:. 1. Premise 2. Premise 3. Assumption 4. e: 3, 1 5. e: 2, 4 6.?? Modus tollens is sometimes taken as a derived rule : MT Natural Deduction Negation 37/55
38 Derived Rules Whenever we have a proof of the form, we can consider it as a derived rule: If we use this in a proof, it can be replaced by the original proof of. The result is a proof using only the basic rules. Using derived rules does not expand the things that can be proved. But they can make it easier to find a proof. Natural Deduction Negation 38/55
39 Strategies for natural deduction proofs 1. Work forward from the premises. Can you apply an elimination rule? 2. Work backwards from the conclusion. What introduction rule do you need to use at the end? 3. Stare at the formula. Notice its structure. Use it to guide your proof. 4. If a direct proof doesn t work, try a proof by contradiction. Natural Deduction Additional Examples and Techniques 39/55
40 Further Examples of Natural Deduction Example. Show that. In the subproof, try elimination on the assumption (step 2). 1. Premise 2. Assumption 3. Assumption 4. i: 3 5. Assumption 6. e: 5, 1 7. i: 6 8. e: 2, 3 4, i: 2 8 Natural Deduction Additional Examples and Techniques 40/55
41 Life s Not Always So Easy Example. Show that. 1. Assumption 2. No elimination applies ????? 5. No connective. 6. Try i Time to try something ingenious. Natural Deduction Additional Examples and Techniques 41/55
42 Some Common Derived Rules Proof by contradiction (reductio ad absurdum): if, then. The Law of Excluded Middle (tertiam non datur):. DoubleNegation Introduction: if then. You can try to prove these yourself, as exercises. (Hint: in the first two, the last step uses rule e:.) Or see pages of Huth and Ryan. Natural Deduction Additional Examples and Techniques 42/55
43 Soundness and Completeness of Natural Deduction for Propositional Logic Natural Deduction Soundness and Completeness 43/55
44 Soundness and Completeness of Natural Deduction We want to prove that Natural Deduction is both sound and complete. Soundness of Natural Deduction means that the conclusion of a proof is always a logical consequence of the premises. That is, If ND, then. Completeness of Natural Deduction means that all logical consequences in propositional logic are provable in Natural Deduction. That is, If, then ND. Natural Deduction Soundness and Completeness 44/55
45 Proof of Soundness To prove soundness, we use induction on the length of the proof: For all deductions which have a proof of length or less, it is the case that. That property, however, is not quite good enough to carry out the induction. We actually use the following property of a natural number. Suppose that a formula appears at line of a partial deduction, which may have one or more open subproofs. Let be the set of premises used and be the set of assumptions of open subproofs. Then. Natural Deduction Soundness and Completeness 45/55
46 Basis of the Induction Base case. The shortest deductions have length 1, and thus are either 1. Premise. or 1. Assumption. 2. We have either (in the first case), or (in the second case). Thus, as required. Natural Deduction Soundness and Completeness 46/55
47 Proof of Soundness: Inductive Step Inductive step. Hypothesis: the property holds for each ; that is, If some formula appears at line or earlier of some partial deduction, with premises and unclosed assumptions, then. To prove: if appears at line, then (where when is an assumption, and otherwise). The case that is an assumption is trivial. Otherwise, formula must have a justification by some rule. We shall consider each possible rule. Natural Deduction Soundness and Completeness 47/55
48 Inductive Step, Case I Case I: was justified by i. We must have, where each of and appear earlier in the proof, at steps and, respectively. Also, any subproof open at step or is still open at step. Thus the induction hypothesis applies to both; that is, and. By the definition of, this yields, as required. Natural Deduction Soundness and Completeness 48/55
49 Inductive Step, Case II Case II: was justified by i. Rule i requires that and there is a closed subproof with assumption and conclusion, ending by step. Also, any subproof open before the assumption of is still open at step. The induction hypothesis thus implies. Hence, as required. Natural Deduction Soundness and Completeness 49/55
50 Inductive Step, Cases III ff. Case III: was justified by e. This requires that be the pseudoformula, and that the proof contain formulas and for some, each using at most steps. By the induction hypothesis, both and. Thus is contradictory, and for any. Cases IV XIII: The other cases follow by similar reasoning. This completes the inductive step, and the proof of soundness. Natural Deduction Soundness and Completeness 50/55
51 Completeness of Natural Deduction We now turn to completeness. Recall that completeness means the following. Let be a set of formulas and be a formula. If, then. That is, every consequence has a proof. How can we prove this? Natural Deduction Proof of Completeness 51/55
52 Proof of Completeness: Getting started We shall assume that the set of hypotheses is finite. The theorem is also true for infinite sets of hypotheses, but that requires a completely different proof. Suppose that, where. Thus the formula is a tautology. Lemma. Every tautology is provable in Natural Deduction. Once we prove the Lemma, the result follows. Given a proof of, one can use i and e to complete a proof of. Natural Deduction Proof of Completeness 52/55
53 Tautologies Have Proofs For a tautology, every line of its truth table ends with T. We can mimic the construction of a truth table using inferences in Natural Deduction. Claim. Let have variables. Let be a valuation, and define as if T if F If T, then, and if F, then. To prove the claim, use structural induction on formulas (which is induction on the column number of the truth table). Once the claim is proven, we can prove a tautology as follows. Natural Deduction Proof of Completeness 53/55
54 Outline of the Proof of a Tautology 1. L.E.M. 2. L.E.M.. L.E.M. 1. assumption assumption assumption. e: 2, 1. assumption e:,. e: 1,, Once each variable is assumed true or false, the previous claim provides a proof. Natural Deduction Proof of Completeness 54/55
55 Proving the Claim Hypothesis: the following hold for formulas and : If, then ; If, then ; If, then ; and If, then. If, put the two proofs of and together, and then infer, by i. If (i.e., and ), Prove and. Assume ; from it, conclude ( e) and then ( e). From the subproof, conclude, by i. The other cases are similar. Natural Deduction Proof of Completeness 55/55
Artificial Intelligence: Valid Arguments and Proof Systems. Prof. Deepak Khemani. Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Artificial Intelligence: Valid Arguments and Proof Systems Prof. Deepak Khemani Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Madras Module 02 Lecture  03 So in the last
More informationThe way we convince people is generally to refer to sufficiently many things that they already know are correct.
Theorem A Theorem is a valid deduction. One of the key activities in higher mathematics is identifying whether or not a deduction is actually a theorem and then trying to convince other people that you
More informationModule 5. Knowledge Representation and Logic (Propositional Logic) Version 2 CSE IIT, Kharagpur
Module 5 Knowledge Representation and Logic (Propositional Logic) Lesson 12 Propositional Logic inference rules 5.5 Rules of Inference Here are some examples of sound rules of inference. Each can be shown
More informationLecture Notes on Classical Logic
Lecture Notes on Classical Logic 15317: Constructive Logic William Lovas Lecture 7 September 15, 2009 1 Introduction In this lecture, we design a judgmental formulation of classical logic To gain an intuition,
More informationAlso, in Argument #1 (Lecture 11, Slide 11), the inference from steps 2 and 3 to 4 is stated as:
by SALVATORE  5 September 2009, 10:44 PM I`m having difficulty understanding what steps to take in applying valid argument forms to do a proof. What determines which given premises one should select to
More informationINTERMEDIATE 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
More informationAn Introduction to. Formal Logic. Second edition. Peter Smith, February 27, 2019
An Introduction to Formal Logic Second edition Peter Smith February 27, 2019 Peter Smith 2018. Not for reposting or recirculation. Comments and corrections please to ps218 at cam dot ac dot uk 1 What
More information4.1 A problem with semantic demonstrations of validity
4. Proofs 4.1 A problem with semantic demonstrations of validity Given that we can test an argument for validity, it might seem that we have a fully developed system to study arguments. However, there
More informationLogic I or Moving in on the Monkey & Bananas Problem
Logic I or Moving in on the Monkey & Bananas Problem We said that an agent receives percepts from its environment, and performs actions on that environment; and that the action sequence can be based on
More informationThe Problem of Induction and Popper s Deductivism
The Problem of Induction and Popper s Deductivism Issues: I. Problem of Induction II. Popper s rejection of induction III. Salmon s critique of deductivism 2 I. The problem of induction 1. Inductive vs.
More informationAnnouncements. CS243: Discrete Structures. First Order Logic, Rules of Inference. Review of Last Lecture. Translating English into FirstOrder Logic
Announcements CS243: Discrete Structures First Order Logic, Rules of Inference Işıl Dillig Homework 1 is due now Homework 2 is handed out today Homework 2 is due next Tuesday Işıl Dillig, CS243: Discrete
More informationArtificial Intelligence Prof. P. Dasgupta Department of Computer Science & Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Artificial Intelligence Prof. P. Dasgupta Department of Computer Science & Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur Lecture 10 Inference in First Order Logic I had introduced first order
More informationChapter 8  Sentential Truth Tables and Argument Forms
Logic: A Brief Introduction Ronald L. Hall Stetson University Chapter 8  Sentential ruth ables and Argument orms 8.1 Introduction he truthvalue of a given truthfunctional compound proposition depends
More informationDoes Deduction really rest on a more secure epistemological footing than Induction?
Does Deduction really rest on a more secure epistemological footing than Induction? We argue that, if deduction is taken to at least include classical logic (CL, henceforth), justifying CL  and thus deduction
More informationExercise 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
More informationSemantic Foundations for Deductive Methods
Semantic Foundations for Deductive Methods delineating the scope of deductive reason Roger Bishop Jones Abstract. The scope of deductive reason is considered. First a connection is discussed between the
More informationKnowledge, Time, and the Problem of Logical Omniscience
Fundamenta Informaticae XX (2010) 1 18 1 IOS Press Knowledge, Time, and the Problem of Logical Omniscience RenJune Wang Computer Science CUNY Graduate Center 365 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10016 rwang@gc.cuny.edu
More informationRevisiting the Socrates Example
Section 1.6 Section Summary Valid Arguments Inference Rules for Propositional Logic Using Rules of Inference to Build Arguments Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements Building Arguments for Quantified
More informationArtificial Intelligence. Clause Form and The Resolution Rule. Prof. Deepak Khemani. Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Artificial Intelligence Clause Form and The Resolution Rule Prof. Deepak Khemani Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Madras Module 07 Lecture 03 Okay so we are
More informationChapter 9 Sentential Proofs
Logic: A Brief Introduction Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University Chapter 9 Sentential roofs 9.1 Introduction So far we have introduced three ways of assessing the validity of truthfunctional arguments.
More informationA Judgmental Formulation of Modal Logic
A Judgmental Formulation of Modal Logic Sungwoo Park Pohang University of Science and Technology South Korea Estonian Theory Days Jan 30, 2009 Outline Study of logic Model theory vs Proof theory Classical
More informationA Liar Paradox. Richard G. Heck, Jr. Brown University
A Liar Paradox Richard G. Heck, Jr. Brown University It is widely supposed nowadays that, whatever the right theory of truth may be, it needs to satisfy a principle sometimes known as transparency : Any
More informationLecture 17:Inference Michael Fourman
Lecture 17:Inference Michael Fourman 2 Is this a valid argument? Assumptions: If the races are fixed or the gambling houses are crooked, then the tourist trade will decline. If the tourist trade declines
More informationLogical Omniscience in the Many Agent Case
Logical Omniscience in the Many Agent Case Rohit Parikh City University of New York July 25, 2007 Abstract: The problem of logical omniscience arises at two levels. One is the individual level, where an
More informationInformalizing Formal Logic
Informalizing Formal Logic Antonis Kakas Department of Computer Science, University of Cyprus, Cyprus antonis@ucy.ac.cy Abstract. This paper discusses how the basic notions of formal logic can be expressed
More informationStudy Guides. Chapter 1  Basic Training
Study Guides Chapter 1  Basic Training Argument: A group of propositions is an argument when one or more of the propositions in the group is/are used to give evidence (or if you like, reasons, or grounds)
More informationHow Gödelian Ontological Arguments Fail
How Gödelian Ontological Arguments Fail Matthew W. Parker Abstract. Ontological arguments like those of Gödel (1995) and Pruss (2009; 2012) rely on premises that initially seem plausible, but on closer
More informationThe Development of Knowledge and Claims of Truth in the Autobiography In Code. When preparing her project to enter the Esat Young Scientist
Katie Morrison 3/18/11 TEAC 949 The Development of Knowledge and Claims of Truth in the Autobiography In Code Sarah Flannery had the rare experience in this era of producing new mathematical research at
More informationLogic & Proofs. Chapter 3 Content. Sentential Logic Semantics. Contents: Studying this chapter will enable you to:
Sentential Logic Semantics Contents: TruthValue Assignments and TruthFunctions TruthValue Assignments TruthFunctions Introduction to the TruthLab TruthDefinition Logical Notions TruthTrees Studying
More informationConstructive Logic, Truth and Warranted Assertibility
Constructive Logic, Truth and Warranted Assertibility Greg Restall Department of Philosophy Macquarie University Version of May 20, 2000....................................................................
More informationVerification and Validation
20122013 Verification and Validation Part III : Proofbased Verification Burkhart Wolff Département Informatique Université ParisSud / Orsay " Now, can we build a Logic for Programs??? 05/11/14 B. Wolff
More informationLing 98a: The Meaning of Negation (Week 1)
Yimei Xiang yxiang@fas.harvard.edu 17 September 2013 1 What is negation? Negation in twovalued propositional logic Based on your understanding, select out the metaphors that best describe the meaning
More informationSession 10 INDUCTIVE REASONONING IN THE SCIENCES & EVERYDAY LIFE( PART 1)
UGRC 150 CRITICAL THINKING & PRACTICAL REASONING Session 10 INDUCTIVE REASONONING IN THE SCIENCES & EVERYDAY LIFE( PART 1) Lecturer: Dr. Mohammed Majeed, Dept. of Philosophy & Classics, UG Contact Information:
More information9 Methods of Deduction
M09_COPI1396_13_SE_C09.QXD 10/19/07 3:46 AM Page 372 9 Methods of Deduction 9.1 Formal Proof of Validity 9.2 The Elementary Valid Argument Forms 9.3 Formal Proofs of Validity Exhibited 9.4 Constructing
More informationAnnouncements. 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:
More informationDay 3. Wednesday May 23, Learn the basic building blocks of proofs (specifically, direct proofs)
Day 3 Wednesday May 23, 2012 Objectives: Learn the basics of Propositional Logic Learn the basic building blocks of proofs (specifically, direct proofs) 1 Propositional Logic Today we introduce the concepts
More informationThere are two common forms of deductively valid conditional argument: modus ponens and modus tollens.
INTRODUCTION TO LOGICAL THINKING Lecture 6: Two types of argument and their role in science: Deduction and induction 1. Deductive arguments Arguments that claim to provide logically conclusive grounds
More informationLogic and Pragmatics: linear logic for inferential practice
Logic and Pragmatics: linear logic for inferential practice Daniele Porello danieleporello@gmail.com Institute for Logic, Language & Computation (ILLC) University of Amsterdam, Plantage Muidergracht 24
More informationIllustrating Deduction. A Didactic Sequence for Secondary School
Illustrating Deduction. A Didactic Sequence for Secondary School Francisco Saurí Universitat de València. Dpt. de Lògica i Filosofia de la Ciència Cuerpo de Profesores de Secundaria. IES Vilamarxant (España)
More informationChapter 3: Basic Propositional Logic. Based on Harry Gensler s book For CS2209A/B By Dr. Charles Ling;
Chapter 3: Basic Propositional Logic Based on Harry Gensler s book For CS2209A/B By Dr. Charles Ling; cling@csd.uwo.ca The Ultimate Goals Accepting premises (as true), is the conclusion (always) true?
More informationArtificial Intelligence Prof. P. Dasgupta Department of Computer Science & Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Artificial Intelligence Prof. P. Dasgupta Department of Computer Science & Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur Lecture 9 First Order Logic In the last class, we had seen we have studied
More informationUC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016
Logical Consequence UC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016 John MacFarlane 1 Intuitive characterizations of consequence Modal: It is necessary (or apriori) that, if the premises are true, the conclusion
More informationLogic Appendix: More detailed instruction in deductive logic
Logic Appendix: More detailed instruction in deductive logic Standardizing and Diagramming In Reason and the Balance we have taken the approach of using a simple outline to standardize short arguments,
More informationTOWARDS A PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE LOGICS OF FORMAL INCONSISTENCY
CDD: 160 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/01006045.2015.v38n2.wcear TOWARDS A PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE LOGICS OF FORMAL INCONSISTENCY WALTER CARNIELLI 1, ABÍLIO RODRIGUES 2 1 CLE and Department of
More information(Refer Slide Time 03:00)
Artificial Intelligence Prof. Anupam Basu Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur Lecture  15 Resolution in FOPL In the last lecture we had discussed about
More information2.3. 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
More informationChapter 3: More Deductive Reasoning (Symbolic Logic)
Chapter 3: More Deductive Reasoning (Symbolic Logic) There's no easy way to say this, the material you're about to learn in this chapter can be pretty hard for some students. Other students, on the other
More informationCan Gödel s Incompleteness Theorem be a Ground for Dialetheism? *
논리연구 202(2017) pp. 241271 Can Gödel s Incompleteness Theorem be a Ground for Dialetheism? * 1) Seungrak Choi Abstract Dialetheism is the view that there exists a true contradiction. This paper ventures
More information1.2. What is said: propositions
1.2. What is said: propositions 1.2.0. Overview In 1.1.5, we saw the close relation between two properties of a deductive inference: (i) it is a transition from premises to conclusion that is free of any
More informationWhat is Game Theoretical Negation?
Can BAŞKENT Institut d Histoire et de Philosophie des Sciences et des Techniques can@canbaskent.net www.canbaskent.net/logic Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań April 1719, 2013 Outlook of the Talk Classical
More informationIs the law of excluded middle a law of logic?
Is the law of excluded middle a law of logic? Introduction I will conclude that the intuitionist s attempt to rule out the law of excluded middle as a law of logic fails. They do so by appealing to harmony
More informationSelections 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
More informationConditionals II: no truth conditions?
Conditionals II: no truth conditions? UC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016 John MacFarlane 1 Arguments for the material conditional analysis As Edgington [1] notes, there are some powerful reasons
More information2.1 Review. 2.2 Inference and justifications
Applied Logic Lecture 2: Evidence Semantics for Intuitionistic Propositional Logic Formal logic and evidence CS 4860 Fall 2012 Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2.1 Review The purpose of logic is to make reasoning
More informationWhat is the Nature of Logic? Judy Pelham Philosophy, York University, Canada July 16, 2013 PanHellenic Logic Symposium Athens, Greece
What is the Nature of Logic? Judy Pelham Philosophy, York University, Canada July 16, 2013 PanHellenic Logic Symposium Athens, Greece Outline of this Talk 1. What is the nature of logic? Some history
More informationScott Soames: Understanding Truth
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Vol. LXV, No. 2, September 2002 Scott Soames: Understanding Truth MAlTHEW MCGRATH Texas A & M University Scott Soames has written a valuable book. It is unmatched
More informationQuantificational logic and empty names
Quantificational logic and empty names Andrew Bacon 26th of March 2013 1 A Puzzle For Classical Quantificational Theory Empty Names: Consider the sentence 1. There is something identical to Pegasus On
More informationOutline. 1 Review. 2 Formal Rules for. 3 Using Subproofs. 4 Proof Strategies. 5 Conclusion. 1 To prove that P is false, show that a contradiction
Outline Formal roofs and Boolean Logic II Extending F with Rules for William Starr 092911 1 Review 2 Formal Rules for 3 Using Subproofs 4 roof Strategies 5 Conclusion William Starr hil 2310: Intro Logic
More informationA. Problem set #3 it has been posted and is due Tuesday, 15 November
Lecture 9: Propositional Logic I Philosophy 130 1 & 3 November 2016 O Rourke & Gibson I. Administrative A. Problem set #3 it has been posted and is due Tuesday, 15 November B. I am working on the group
More informationAn alternative understanding of interpretations: Incompatibility Semantics
An alternative understanding of interpretations: Incompatibility Semantics 1. In traditional (truththeoretic) semantics, interpretations serve to specify when statements are true and when they are false.
More informationb) The meaning of "child" would need to be taken in the sense of age, as most people would find the idea of a young child going to jail as wrong.
Explanation for Question 1 in Quiz 8 by Norva Lo  Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 9:39 AM The following is the solution for Question 1 in Quiz 8: (a) Which term in the argument is being equivocated. (b) What
More informationHaberdashers Aske s Boys School
1 Haberdashers Aske s Boys School Occasional Papers Series in the Humanities Occasional Paper Number Sixteen Are All Humans Persons? Ashna Ahmad Haberdashers Aske s Girls School March 2018 2 Haberdashers
More informationLogic is the study of the quality of arguments. An argument consists of a set of
Logic: Inductive Logic is the study of the quality of arguments. An argument consists of a set of premises and a conclusion. The quality of an argument depends on at least two factors: the truth of the
More informationClass #14: October 13 Gödel s Platonism
Philosophy 405: Knowledge, Truth and Mathematics Fall 2010 Hamilton College Russell Marcus Class #14: October 13 Gödel s Platonism I. The Continuum Hypothesis and Its Independence The continuum problem
More informationRosen, Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications, 6th edition Extra Examples
Rosen, Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications, 6th edition Extra Examples Section 1.1 Propositional Logic Page references correspond to locations of Extra Examples icons in the textbook. p.2, icon at
More informationParadox of Deniability
1 Paradox of Deniability Massimiliano Carrara FISPPA Department, University of Padua, Italy Peking University, Beijing  6 November 2018 Introduction. The starting elements Suppose two speakers disagree
More informationCRITICAL 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
More informationCourses providing assessment data PHL 202. Semester/Year
1 Department/Program 20122016 Assessment Plan Department: Philosophy Directions: For each department/program student learning outcome, the department will provide an assessment plan, giving detailed information
More informationMCQ 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 .
More informationPHI 1500: Major Issues in Philosophy
PHI 1500: Major Issues in Philosophy Session 3 September 9 th, 2015 All About Arguments (Part II) 1 A common theme linking many fallacies is that they make unwarranted assumptions. An assumption is a claim
More informationMethods of Proof for Boolean Logic
Chapter 5 Methods of Proof for Boolean Logic limitations of truth table methods Truth tables give us powerful techniques for investigating the logic of the Boolean operators. But they are by no means the
More informationIntroduction Symbolic Logic
An Introduction to Symbolic Logic Copyright 2006 by Terence Parsons all rights reserved CONTENTS Chapter One Sentential Logic with 'if' and 'not' 1 SYMBOLIC NOTATION 2 MEANINGS OF THE SYMBOLIC NOTATION
More information6.041SC Probabilistic Systems Analysis and Applied Probability, Fall 2013 Transcript Lecture 3
6.041SC Probabilistic Systems Analysis and Applied Probability, Fall 2013 Transcript Lecture 3 The following content is provided under a Creative Commons license. Your support will help MIT OpenCourseWare
More informationThe Paradox of Knowability and Semantic AntiRealism
The Paradox of Knowability and Semantic AntiRealism Julianne Chung B.A. Honours Thesis Supervisor: Richard Zach Department of Philosophy University of Calgary 2007 UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY This copy is to
More informationCircumscribing Inconsistency
Circumscribing Inconsistency Philippe Besnard IRISA Campus de Beaulieu F35042 Rennes Cedex Torsten H. Schaub* Institut fur Informatik Universitat Potsdam, Postfach 60 15 53 D14415 Potsdam Abstract We
More informationDeductive Forms: Elementary Logic By R.A. Neidorf READ ONLINE
Deductive Forms: Elementary Logic By R.A. Neidorf READ ONLINE If you are searching for a book Deductive Forms: Elementary Logic by R.A. Neidorf in pdf format, in that case you come on to the correct website.
More informationLogic: 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
More informationCHAPTER 1 A PROPOSITIONAL THEORY OF ASSERTIVE ILLOCUTIONARY ARGUMENTS OCTOBER 2017
CHAPTER 1 A PROPOSITIONAL THEORY OF ASSERTIVE ILLOCUTIONARY ARGUMENTS OCTOBER 2017 Man possesses the capacity of constructing languages, in which every sense can be expressed, without having an idea how
More informationWhat would count as Ibn Sīnā (11th century Persia) having first order logic?
1 2 What would count as Ibn Sīnā (11th century Persia) having first order logic? Wilfrid Hodges Herons Brook, Sticklepath, Okehampton March 2012 http://wilfridhodges.co.uk Ibn Sina, 980 1037 3 4 Ibn Sīnā
More informationNatural Deduction for Sentence Logic
Natural Deduction for Sentence Logic Derived Rules and Derivations without Premises We will pursue the obvious strategy of getting the conclusion by constructing a subderivation from the assumption of
More informationHANDBOOK (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
More informationPart II: How to Evaluate Deductive Arguments
Part II: How to Evaluate Deductive Arguments Week 4: Propositional Logic and Truth Tables Lecture 4.1: Introduction to deductive logic Deductive arguments = presented as being valid, and successful only
More informationIntroduction to Philosophy
Introduction to Philosophy PHIL 2000Call # 41480 Kent Baldner Teaching Assistant: Mitchell Winget Discussion sections ( Labs ) meet on Wednesdays, starting next Wednesday, Sept. 5 th. 10:0010:50, 1115
More information2. Refutations can be stronger or weaker.
Lecture 8: Refutation Philosophy 130 October 25 & 27, 2016 O Rourke I. Administrative A. Schedule see syllabus as well! B. Questions? II. Refutation A. Arguments are typically used to establish conclusions.
More informationC. Exam #1 comments on difficult spots; if you have questions about this, please let me know. D. Discussion of extra credit opportunities
Lecture 8: Refutation Philosophy 130 March 19 & 24, 2015 O Rourke I. Administrative A. Roll B. Schedule C. Exam #1 comments on difficult spots; if you have questions about this, please let me know D. Discussion
More information15. 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
More informationA Puzzle about Knowing Conditionals i. (final draft) Daniel Rothschild University College London. and. Levi Spectre The Open University of Israel
A Puzzle about Knowing Conditionals i (final draft) Daniel Rothschild University College London and Levi Spectre The Open University of Israel Abstract: We present a puzzle about knowledge, probability
More informationA Solution to the Gettier Problem Keota Fields. the three traditional conditions for knowledge, have been discussed extensively in the
A Solution to the Gettier Problem Keota Fields Problem cases by Edmund Gettier 1 and others 2, intended to undermine the sufficiency of the three traditional conditions for knowledge, have been discussed
More informationBeyond Symbolic Logic
Beyond Symbolic Logic 1. The Problem of Incompleteness: Many believe that mathematics can explain *everything*. Gottlob Frege proposed that ALL truths can be captured in terms of mathematical entities;
More informationForeknowledge, evil, and compatibility arguments
Foreknowledge, evil, and compatibility arguments Jeff Speaks January 25, 2011 1 Warfield s argument for compatibilism................................ 1 2 Why the argument fails to show that free will and
More informationThe Backward Induction Solution to the Centipede Game*
The Backward Induction Solution to the Centipede Game* Graciela Rodríguez Mariné University of California, Los Angeles Department of Economics November, 1995 Abstract In extensive form games of perfect
More informationInstrumental reasoning* John Broome
Instrumental reasoning* John Broome For: Rationality, Rules and Structure, edited by Julian NidaRümelin and Wolfgang Spohn, Kluwer. * This paper was written while I was a visiting fellow at the Swedish
More informationLogic: inductive. Draft: April 29, Logic is the study of the quality of arguments. An argument consists of a set of premises P1,
Logic: inductive Penultimate version: please cite the entry to appear in: J. Lachs & R. Talisse (eds.), Encyclopedia of American Philosophy. New York: Routledge. Draft: April 29, 2006 Logic is the study
More informationTHE FORM OF REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM J. M. LEE. A recent discussion of this topic by Donald Scherer in [6], pp , begins thus:
Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic Volume XIV, Number 3, July 1973 NDJFAM 381 THE FORM OF REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM J. M. LEE A recent discussion of this topic by Donald Scherer in [6], pp. 247252, begins
More informationThe problems of induction in scientific inquiry: Challenges and solutions. Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction Defining induction...
The problems of induction in scientific inquiry: Challenges and solutions Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction... 2 2.0 Defining induction... 2 3.0 Induction versus deduction... 2 4.0 Hume's descriptive
More informationPROPOSITIONAL LOGIC OF SUPPOSITION AND ASSERTION 1
PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC OF SUPPOSITION AND ASSERTION 1 1. LANGUAGE AND SPEECH ACTS In this paper I develop a system of what I understand to be illocutionary logic. In order to motivate this system and make
More informationName: Course: CAP 4601 Semester: Summer 2013 Assignment: Assignment 06 Date: 08 JUL Complete the following written problems:
Name: Course: CAP 4601 Semester: Summer 2013 Assignment: Assignment 06 Date: 08 JUL 2013 Complete the following written problems: 1. AlphaBeta Pruning (40 Points). Consider the following minmax tree.
More informationLecture 3 Arguments Jim Pryor What is an Argument? Jim Pryor Vocabulary Describing Arguments
Lecture 3 Arguments Jim Pryor What is an Argument? Jim Pryor Vocabulary Describing Arguments 1 Agenda 1. What is an Argument? 2. Evaluating Arguments 3. Validity 4. Soundness 5. Persuasive Arguments 6.
More informationSUPPOSITIONAL REASONING AND PERCEPTUAL JUSTIFICATION
SUPPOSITIONAL REASONING AND PERCEPTUAL JUSTIFICATION Stewart COHEN ABSTRACT: James Van Cleve raises some objections to my attempt to solve the bootstrapping problem for what I call basic justification
More information