# Logic I or Moving in on the Monkey & Bananas Problem

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Logic I or Moving in on the Monkey & Bananas Problem"

Transcription

2 PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC A logic in general consists of 1. a formal language 2. inference rules 3. axioms 4. semantics (what the symbols mean) Propositional logic (PL, for short) has a language consisting of letters (A, B, C, etc; so- called sentential variables), connectives (à, ^, v, ~), and parentheses; and the usual ways of combining these into so- called well- formed formulas (or wffs). At times we will want to refer to arbitrary wffs, and we can use Greek or boldface letters (A, B, etc) to indicate unspecified wffs that may be simple letters or more complex wffs such as A&~C, Cà (BvC), etc. The inference rules for PL can be of various sorts. A very common choice is simply that of modus ponens (MP): from A à B and A, infer B. It is often enough all by itself; what we mean by enough will become clear later. As for axioms, a simple choice is to allow all tautologies: wffs that are always true but to say what that means will require us to loo at semantics, so we turn to that now. Semantics for PL is that of the familiar truth tables. We simply list all the letters of interest, and under them we create rows with all possible arrangements of Ts and Fs. Each such row is called an interpretation of PL. It does not really go so far as to state meanings for the letters; it simply marks each as true or false. And then we extend the listing to include whatever wffs we are interested in (that employ those letters), and we also mark down the proper Ts and Fs for them in each row, based on the usual understandings. For instance, the truth table for A à B is A B Aà B T T T T F F F T T F F T I find it easy to remember this as follows: consider à to indicate a promise: if you do what is on the left- hand side, then I promise to do what is on the right- hand side. Now, how can it happen that the promise turns out to be false (that is, how can I break the promise)? You will have to do your part (A) and I will have to refrain from doing my part (B). That is, Aà B is false iff A is true and B is false, which happens only in row 3.

3 Now we can say precisely what a tautology is: any wff whose truth- table assigns it the value True in every row. And a contradiction is a wff that is assigned False in every row. Finally, a contingent wff is one that is neither a tautology or a contradiction: it is assigned both True and False (in different rows, of course). So, the tautologies are pretty special. But they can take a great many forms, and there is an infinite number of them. So it is a bit awkward taking all of them as axioms, when we don t even know what they all look like. A more streamlined set was proposed by Lukasiewicz: 1. (~A à A) à A 2. A à (~A à B) 3. (Aà B) à ((Bà C)à (Aà C)) The three forms above are schemata: they each represent an infinite number of possible wffs, gotten by replacing the boldface letters by any actual wffs we like. Each of the three forms however always will be a tautology (this is easily verified by truth- tables), so the Lukasiewicz schemata (let s call them L) are a subset of all tautologies. It turns out that the rule MP together with axioms L lead to exactly the same set of consequences (things that can be proven) as does MP with all tautologies as axioms. However, it is still cumbersome that L represents an infinite number of axioms. We will see a way around that a bit later on. What does it mean to prove something, say the wff W, in PL? It means: to start with whatever one is using as axioms (which need not consist of tautologies, by the way just whatever one wants to take to be true for whatever reason), and to apply one s rule(s) of inference over and over until one arrives at the result that is wanted. We write Ax W where Ax is our chosen set of axioms (we perhaps could call it KB instead); the inference rules are understood to be whatever we have specified. This notion of proof is formal, or syntactic: it does not make any mention of truth or meaning. We sometimes read the above as Ax proves W, which really means: there is a proof of W from Ax (using the understood rules of inference, eg MP). There is another totally different way to try to conclude a wff: write out the truth- table for all the axiom wffs as well as the wff W that one wants to prove. Then check all those rows in which the axioms are all true, to see if W holds in them. If so, we way W is entailed by the axiom set (Ax, say), and we write Ax = W

4 This means, then, that W is true in all interpretations in which all wffs of Ax are true. It is a semantic notion, making use of truth- values, but does not use inference rules at all. So we have two extremely different notions of arriving at a wff as a conclusion, starring from initial (axiom) wffs. One way is much like the usual mathematical notion of proof, where we reason step- by- step, starting from axioms and using inference rules as we go along, trying to be clever enough to choose the right axioms and the right rule(s) to get to the result we want; and then it looks much like a search problem, in a huge tree of possible proofs- sequences. And the other method is much more routine, possibly tedious, but very methodical: just fill out the (possibly enormous) truth- table and check to see of W is true in every row where all the axioms are true. There is no thinking needed here, no cleverness. How do they match up? Well, with the right combination of axioms and inference rules, they match up perfectly. For instance, we have this famous result: Theorem (Soundness and Completeness of PL): Consider any version of PL that includes the Lukasiewicz schemata among its axiom set Ax, and MP as one of its inference rules. Then for every wff W, Ax = W if and only if Ax W. The left- to- right direction is completeness (the proof method is able to prove everything it should), and the right- to- left is soundness (everything provable is true). A digression on speed/efficiency: Even with the Lukasiewicz axioms indeed even with the much more streamlined Robinson resolution method that we will see shortly it still usually takes a long time to find proofs in PL. There is a famous problem, called SAT: the satisfiability problem for PL. It is this: given a wff W, is it satisfiable (is it true in at least one interpretation) or not? We can settle the matter by drawing the entire truth table for W, of course, but that is very time- consuming, requiring in general the filling out of as many as 2^n rows, where n is the number of letters in W, and where each row has at least n+1 entries (one for each letter plus one for W). We say that this solves SAT, but it is an exponential time and space solution. SAT is in the class of problems known as NP- problems. This is the class of problems that, when a supposed solution is suggested, it is easy (i.e., can be done in time proportional to a polynomial in the size n of the problem) to check if it really is a solution. In fact, SAT was the first problem shown to be NP- hard: any solution to SAT can be transformed into one that solves any other NP problem in essentially the same amount of time. So SAT is maximally hard among NP problems. No one has

5 ever found a fast (polynomial- time) solution to SAT; and if anyone does, then that will mean all NP problems can be solved in polynomial time. What makes SAT so special like this? Perhaps because, being based on a basic logic framework, it can be used to encode all the other NP problems. This idea was exploited by Stephen Cook in 1971, when he first proved that SAT is both NP- hard and a member of NP (together these say SAT is NP- complete). One final note on PL proofs: to prove W from a given axioms set, KB, we can suppose ~W (enlarge our axiom set to KB = KB+W) and try to show that KB is inconsistent (contradictory). This we mentioned before: proof by contradiction, also called indirect proof. In particular it is typically used along with Robinson s resolution method, and also is basic to the PROLOG programming language. We will study both of these soon.

### Semantic Entailment and Natural Deduction

Semantic Entailment and Natural Deduction Alice Gao Lecture 6, September 26, 2017 Entailment 1/55 Learning goals Semantic entailment Define semantic entailment. Explain subtleties of semantic entailment.

### 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

### Module 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

### Revisiting 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

### Artificial 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

### Logic & Proofs. Chapter 3 Content. Sentential Logic Semantics. Contents: Studying this chapter will enable you to:

Sentential Logic Semantics Contents: Truth-Value Assignments and Truth-Functions Truth-Value Assignments Truth-Functions Introduction to the TruthLab Truth-Definition Logical Notions Truth-Trees Studying

### Chapter 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 truth-value of a given truth-functional compound proposition depends

### 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

### Does 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

### Class 33: Quine and Ontological Commitment Fisher 59-69

Philosophy 240: Symbolic Logic Fall 2008 Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays: 9am - 9:50am Hamilton College Russell Marcus rmarcus1@hamilton.edu Re HW: Don t copy from key, please! Quine and Quantification I.

### The 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

### 2.1 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

### Knowledge, Time, and the Problem of Logical Omniscience

Fundamenta Informaticae XX (2010) 1 18 1 IOS Press Knowledge, Time, and the Problem of Logical Omniscience Ren-June Wang Computer Science CUNY Graduate Center 365 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10016 rwang@gc.cuny.edu

### Chapter 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?

### A 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

### Quantificational 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

### Semantic 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

### Verification and Validation

2012-2013 Verification and Validation Part III : Proof-based Verification Burkhart Wolff Département Informatique Université Paris-Sud / Orsay " Now, can we build a Logic for Programs??? 05/11/14 B. Wolff

### JELIA Justification Logic. Sergei Artemov. The City University of New York

JELIA 2008 Justification Logic Sergei Artemov The City University of New York Dresden, September 29, 2008 This lecture outlook 1. What is Justification Logic? 2. Why do we need Justification Logic? 3.

### How 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

### A Model of Decidable Introspective Reasoning with Quantifying-In

A Model of Decidable Introspective Reasoning with Quantifying-In Gerhard Lakemeyer* Institut fur Informatik III Universitat Bonn Romerstr. 164 W-5300 Bonn 1, Germany e-mail: gerhard@uran.informatik.uni-bonn,de

### Logic for Robotics: Defeasible Reasoning and Non-monotonicity

Logic for Robotics: Defeasible Reasoning and Non-monotonicity The Plan I. Explain and argue for the role of nonmonotonic logic in robotics and II. Briefly introduce some non-monotonic logics III. Fun,

### Circumscribing Inconsistency

Circumscribing Inconsistency Philippe Besnard IRISA Campus de Beaulieu F-35042 Rennes Cedex Torsten H. Schaub* Institut fur Informatik Universitat Potsdam, Postfach 60 15 53 D-14415 Potsdam Abstract We

### An 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 re-posting or re-circulation. Comments and corrections please to ps218 at cam dot ac dot uk 1 What

### Informalizing 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

### Intersubstitutivity Principles and the Generalization Function of Truth. Anil Gupta University of Pittsburgh. Shawn Standefer University of Melbourne

Intersubstitutivity Principles and the Generalization Function of Truth Anil Gupta University of Pittsburgh Shawn Standefer University of Melbourne Abstract We offer a defense of one aspect of Paul Horwich

### ILLOCUTIONARY ORIGINS OF FAMILIAR LOGICAL OPERATORS

ILLOCUTIONARY ORIGINS OF FAMILIAR LOGICAL OPERATORS 1. ACTS OF USING LANGUAGE Illocutionary logic is the logic of speech acts, or language acts. Systems of illocutionary logic have both an ontological,

### Nozick s fourth condition

Nozick s fourth condition Introduction Nozick s tracking account of knowledge includes four individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions. S knows p iff (i) p is true; (ii) S believes p; (iii)

### Nature of Necessity Chapter IV

Nature of Necessity Chapter IV Robert C. Koons Department of Philosophy University of Texas at Austin koons@mail.utexas.edu February 11, 2005 1 Chapter IV. Worlds, Books and Essential Properties Worlds

### 4.1 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

### 1. Lukasiewicz s Logic

Bulletin of the Section of Logic Volume 29/3 (2000), pp. 115 124 Dale Jacquette AN INTERNAL DETERMINACY METATHEOREM FOR LUKASIEWICZ S AUSSAGENKALKÜLS Abstract An internal determinacy metatheorem is proved

### Artificial 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

### TOWARDS A PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE LOGICS OF FORMAL INCONSISTENCY

CDD: 160 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0100-6045.2015.v38n2.wcear TOWARDS A PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE LOGICS OF FORMAL INCONSISTENCY WALTER CARNIELLI 1, ABÍLIO RODRIGUES 2 1 CLE and Department of

### International Phenomenological Society

International Phenomenological Society The Semantic Conception of Truth: and the Foundations of Semantics Author(s): Alfred Tarski Source: Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Mar.,

### An alternative understanding of interpretations: Incompatibility Semantics

An alternative understanding of interpretations: Incompatibility Semantics 1. In traditional (truth-theoretic) semantics, interpretations serve to specify when statements are true and when they are false.

### Announcements. CS243: Discrete Structures. First Order Logic, Rules of Inference. Review of Last Lecture. Translating English into First-Order 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

### Language, Meaning, and Information: A Case Study on the Path from Philosophy to Science Scott Soames

Language, Meaning, and Information: A Case Study on the Path from Philosophy to Science Scott Soames Near the beginning of the final lecture of The Philosophy of Logical Atomism, in 1918, Bertrand Russell

### Beyond 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;

### Puzzles for Divine Omnipotence & Divine Freedom

Puzzles for Divine Omnipotence & Divine Freedom 1. Defining Omnipotence: A First Pass: God is said to be omnipotent. In other words, God is all-powerful. But, what does this mean? Is the following definition

### 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:

### Predicate logic. Miguel Palomino Dpto. Sistemas Informáticos y Computación (UCM) Madrid Spain

Predicate logic Miguel Palomino Dpto. Sistemas Informáticos y Computación (UCM) 28040 Madrid Spain Synonyms. First-order logic. Question 1. Describe this discipline/sub-discipline, and some of its more

### Philosophy of Logic and Artificial Intelligence

Philosophy of Logic and Artificial Intelligence Basic Studies in Natural Science 3 rd Semester, Fall 2008 Christos Karavasileiadis Stephan O'Bryan Group 6 / House 13.2 Supervisor: Torben Braüner Content

### The Ontological Argument for the existence of God. Pedro M. Guimarães Ferreira S.J. PUC-Rio Boston College, July 13th. 2011

The Ontological Argument for the existence of God Pedro M. Guimarães Ferreira S.J. PUC-Rio Boston College, July 13th. 2011 The ontological argument (henceforth, O.A.) for the existence of God has a long

### Class #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

### Chapter 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 truth-functional arguments.

### Belief, Awareness, and Two-Dimensional Logic"

Belief, Awareness, and Two-Dimensional Logic" Hu Liu and Shier Ju l Institute of Logic and Cognition Zhongshan University Guangzhou, China Abstract Belief has been formally modelled using doxastic logics

### What God Could Have Made

1 What God Could Have Made By Heimir Geirsson and Michael Losonsky I. Introduction Atheists have argued that if there is a God who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, then God would have made

### 6. Truth and Possible Worlds

6. Truth and Possible Worlds We have defined logical entailment, consistency, and the connectives,,, all in terms of belief. In view of the close connection between belief and truth, described in the first

### SMITH ON TRUTHMAKERS 1. Dominic Gregory. I. Introduction

Australasian Journal of Philosophy Vol. 79, No. 3, pp. 422 427; September 2001 SMITH ON TRUTHMAKERS 1 Dominic Gregory I. Introduction In [2], Smith seeks to show that some of the problems faced by existing

### The Metaphysics of Perfect Beings, by Michael Almeida. New York: Routledge, Pp \$105.00

1 The Metaphysics of Perfect Beings, by Michael Almeida. New York: Routledge, 2008. Pp. 190. \$105.00 (hardback). GREG WELTY, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. In The Metaphysics of Perfect Beings,

### Some proposals for understanding narrow content

Some proposals for understanding narrow content February 3, 2004 1 What should we require of explanations of narrow content?......... 1 2 Narrow psychology as whatever is shared by intrinsic duplicates......

### What 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

### Philosophy Epistemology Topic 5 The Justification of Induction 1. Hume s Skeptical Challenge to Induction

Philosophy 5340 - Epistemology Topic 5 The Justification of Induction 1. Hume s Skeptical Challenge to Induction In the section entitled Sceptical Doubts Concerning the Operations of the Understanding

### Haberdashers 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

### How Do We Know Anything about Mathematics? - A Defence of Platonism

How Do We Know Anything about Mathematics? - A Defence of Platonism Majda Trobok University of Rijeka original scientific paper UDK: 141.131 1:51 510.21 ABSTRACT In this paper I will try to say something

### (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

### Can Negation be Defined in Terms of Incompatibility?

Can Negation be Defined in Terms of Incompatibility? Nils Kurbis 1 Introduction Every theory needs primitives. A primitive is a term that is not defined any further, but is used to define others. Thus

### Comments on Truth at A World for Modal Propositions

Comments on Truth at A World for Modal Propositions Christopher Menzel Texas A&M University March 16, 2008 Since Arthur Prior first made us aware of the issue, a lot of philosophical thought has gone into

### What is the Frege/Russell Analysis of Quantification? Scott Soames

What is the Frege/Russell Analysis of Quantification? Scott Soames The Frege-Russell analysis of quantification was a fundamental advance in semantics and philosophical logic. Abstracting away from details

### The Perfect Being Argument in Case-Intensional Logic The perfect being argument for God s existence is the following deduction:

The Perfect Being Argument in Case-Intensional Logic The perfect being argument for God s existence is the following deduction: - Axiom F1: If a property is positive, its negation is not positive. - Axiom

### Bob Hale: Necessary Beings

Bob Hale: Necessary Beings Nils Kürbis In Necessary Beings, Bob Hale brings together his views on the source and explanation of necessity. It is a very thorough book and Hale covers a lot of ground. It

### Deduction by Daniel Bonevac. Chapter 1 Basic Concepts of Logic

Deduction by Daniel Bonevac Chapter 1 Basic Concepts of Logic Logic defined Logic is the study of correct reasoning. Informal logic is the attempt to represent correct reasoning using the natural language

### 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

### part one MACROSTRUCTURE Cambridge University Press X - A Theory of Argument Mark Vorobej Excerpt More information

part one MACROSTRUCTURE 1 Arguments 1.1 Authors and Audiences An argument is a social activity, the goal of which is interpersonal rational persuasion. More precisely, we ll say that an argument occurs

### Negative Introspection Is Mysterious

Negative Introspection Is Mysterious Abstract. The paper provides a short argument that negative introspection cannot be algorithmic. This result with respect to a principle of belief fits to what we know

### 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

### Can Negation be Defined in Terms of Incompatibility?

Can Negation be Defined in Terms of Incompatibility? Nils Kurbis 1 Abstract Every theory needs primitives. A primitive is a term that is not defined any further, but is used to define others. Thus primitives

### All They Know: A Study in Multi-Agent Autoepistemic Reasoning

All They Know: A Study in Multi-Agent Autoepistemic Reasoning PRELIMINARY REPORT Gerhard Lakemeyer Institute of Computer Science III University of Bonn Romerstr. 164 5300 Bonn 1, Germany gerhard@cs.uni-bonn.de

### Understanding Truth Scott Soames Précis Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Volume LXV, No. 2, 2002

1 Symposium on Understanding Truth By Scott Soames Précis Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Volume LXV, No. 2, 2002 2 Precis of Understanding Truth Scott Soames Understanding Truth aims to illuminate

### The Paradox of Knowability and Semantic Anti-Realism

The Paradox of Knowability and Semantic Anti-Realism Julianne Chung B.A. Honours Thesis Supervisor: Richard Zach Department of Philosophy University of Calgary 2007 UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY This copy is to

### Lecture 8 Keynes s Response to the Contradictions

Lecture 8 Keynes s Response to the Contradictions Patrick Maher Scientific Thought II Spring 2010 Introduction The Principle of Indifference is usually understood as saying: If there is no known reason

### UC 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

### Coordination Problems

Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Vol. LXXXI No. 2, September 2010 Ó 2010 Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LLC Coordination Problems scott soames

### BonJour Against Materialism. Just an intellectual bandwagon?

BonJour Against Materialism Just an intellectual bandwagon? What is physicalism/materialism? materialist (or physicalist) views: views that hold that mental states are entirely material or physical in

### 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

### 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

### INHISINTERESTINGCOMMENTS on my paper "Induction and Other Minds" 1

DISCUSSION INDUCTION AND OTHER MINDS, II ALVIN PLANTINGA INHISINTERESTINGCOMMENTS on my paper "Induction and Other Minds" 1 Michael Slote means to defend the analogical argument for other minds against

### Wittgenstein and Gödel: An Attempt to Make Wittgenstein s Objection Reasonable

Wittgenstein and Gödel: An Attempt to Make Wittgenstein s Objection Reasonable Timm Lampert published in Philosophia Mathematica 2017, doi.org/10.1093/philmat/nkx017 Abstract According to some scholars,

### Reductio ad Absurdum, Modulation, and Logical Forms. Miguel López-Astorga 1

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

### Knowability as Learning

Knowability as Learning The aim of this paper is to revisit Fitch's Paradox of Knowability in order to challenge an assumption implicit in the literature, namely, that the key formal sentences in the proof

### Mathematics in and behind Russell s logicism, and its

The Cambridge companion to Bertrand Russell, edited by Nicholas Griffin, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, US, xvii + 550 pp. therein: Ivor Grattan-Guinness. reception. Pp. 51 83.

### A 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

### Study 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)

### G. H. von Wright Deontic Logic

G. H. von Wright Deontic Logic Kian Mintz-Woo University of Amsterdam January 9, 2009 January 9, 2009 Logic of Norms 2010 1/17 INTRODUCTION In von Wright s 1951 formulation, deontic logic is intended to

### 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

### Chapter 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

### TWO DIMENSIONAL MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

European Journal of Science and Theology, February 2017, Vol.13, No.1, 161-171 TWO DIMENSIONAL MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD Zsolt Ziegler * Budapest University of Technology and

### Semantics and the Justification of Deductive Inference

Semantics and the Justification of Deductive Inference Ebba Gullberg ebba.gullberg@philos.umu.se Sten Lindström sten.lindstrom@philos.umu.se Umeå University Abstract Is it possible to give a justification

### Math Matters: Why Do I Need To Know This? 1 Logic Understanding the English language

Math Matters: Why Do I Need To Know This? Bruce Kessler, Department of Mathematics Western Kentucky University Episode Two 1 Logic Understanding the English language Objective: To introduce the concept

### Lecture 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

### LOGIC: An INTRODUCTION to the FORMAL STUDY of REASONING. JOHN L. POLLOCK University of Arizona

LOGIC: An INTRODUCTION to the FORMAL STUDY of REASONING JOHN L. POLLOCK University of Arizona 1 The Formal Study of Reasoning 1. Problem Solving and Reasoning Human beings are unique in their ability

### Requirements. John Broome. Corpus Christi College, University of Oxford.

Requirements John Broome Corpus Christi College, University of Oxford john.broome@philosophy.ox.ac.uk ABSTRACT: Expressions such as morality requires, prudence requires and rationality requires are ambiguous.

### Stout s teleological theory of action

Stout s teleological theory of action Jeff Speaks November 26, 2004 1 The possibility of externalist explanations of action................ 2 1.1 The distinction between externalist and internalist explanations

### Choosing Rationally and Choosing Correctly *

Choosing Rationally and Choosing Correctly * Ralph Wedgwood 1 Two views of practical reason Suppose that you are faced with several different options (that is, several ways in which you might act in a

### Verificationism. PHIL September 27, 2011

Verificationism PHIL 83104 September 27, 2011 1. The critique of metaphysics... 1 2. Observation statements... 2 3. In principle verifiability... 3 4. Strong verifiability... 3 4.1. Conclusive verifiability

### xiv Truth Without Objectivity

Introduction There is a certain approach to theorizing about language that is called truthconditional semantics. The underlying idea of truth-conditional semantics is often summarized as the idea that

### The Problem of Evil. Prof. Eden Lin The Ohio State University

The Problem of Evil Prof. Eden Lin The Ohio State University Where We Are You have considered some questions about the nature of God: What does it mean for God to be omnipotent? Does God s omniscience