LOGIC ANTHONY KAPOLKA FYF 101-9/3/2010

Similar documents
7.1. Unit. Terms and Propositions. Nature of propositions. Types of proposition. Classification of propositions

INTERMEDIATE LOGIC Glossary of key terms

Study Guides. Chapter 1 - Basic Training

Rosen, Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications, 6th edition Extra Examples

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

PART III - Symbolic Logic Chapter 7 - Sentential Propositions

Logic: A Brief Introduction

Logic: A Brief Introduction. Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University

Unit. Categorical Syllogism. What is a syllogism? Types of Syllogism

SYLLOGISTIC LOGIC CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

What are Truth-Tables and What Are They For?

1 Clarion Logic Notes Chapter 4

Part II: How to Evaluate Deductive Arguments

Overview of Today s Lecture

Logic Appendix: More detailed instruction in deductive logic

5.6.1 Formal validity in categorical deductive arguments

SHORT ANSWER. Write the word or phrase that best completes each statement or answers the question.

Day 3. Wednesday May 23, Learn the basic building blocks of proofs (specifically, direct proofs)

Module 5. Knowledge Representation and Logic (Propositional Logic) Version 2 CSE IIT, Kharagpur

10.3 Universal and Existential Quantifiers

KRISHNA KANTA HANDIQUI STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY Patgaon, Ranigate, Guwahati SEMESTER: 1 PHILOSOPHY PAPER : 1 LOGIC: 1 BLOCK: 2

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

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

Ling 98a: The Meaning of Negation (Week 1)

Baronett, Logic (4th ed.) Chapter Guide

Chapter 9- Sentential Proofs

Chapter 8 - Sentential Truth Tables and Argument Forms

Today s Lecture 1/28/10

ILLOCUTIONARY ORIGINS OF FAMILIAR LOGICAL OPERATORS

Logic for Computer Science - Week 1 Introduction to Informal Logic

What is a logical argument? What is deductive reasoning? Fundamentals of Academic Writing

The antecendent always a expresses a sufficient condition for the consequent

A. Problem set #3 it has been posted and is due Tuesday, 15 November

Complications for Categorical Syllogisms. PHIL 121: Methods of Reasoning February 27, 2013 Instructor:Karin Howe Binghamton University

1. To arrive at the truth we have to reason correctly. 2. Logic is the study of correct reasoning. B. DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

UC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016

VERITAS EVANGELICAL SEMINARY

Truth At a World for Modal Propositions

Symbolic Logic. 8.1 Modern Logic and Its Symbolic Language

Semantic Entailment and Natural Deduction

PHILOSOPHY 102 INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC PRACTICE EXAM 1. W# Section (10 or 11) 4. T F The statements that compose a disjunction are called conjuncts.

Introduction to Logic

TWO VERSIONS OF HUME S LAW

Perry High School. Geometry: Week 5

Lecture 3 Arguments Jim Pryor What is an Argument? Jim Pryor Vocabulary Describing Arguments

A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC FOR METAPHYSICIANS

PHI 1500: Major Issues in Philosophy

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

Logic: Deductive and Inductive by Carveth Read M.A. CHAPTER V THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPOSITIONS

Selections from Aristotle s Prior Analytics 41a21 41b5

Empty Names and Two-Valued Positive Free Logic

Instrumental reasoning* John Broome

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

An alternative understanding of interpretations: Incompatibility Semantics

Durham Research Online

An Introduction to. Formal Logic. Second edition. Peter Smith, February 27, 2019

Workbook Unit 3: Symbolizations

Artificial Intelligence: Valid Arguments and Proof Systems. Prof. Deepak Khemani. Department of Computer Science and Engineering

Philosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics. Critical Thinking Lecture 1. Background Material for the Exercise on Validity

Ancient Philosophy Handout #1: Logic Overview

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

McCLOSKEY ON RATIONAL ENDS: The Dilemma of Intuitionism

2.1 Review. 2.2 Inference and justifications

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

9 Methods of Deduction

b) 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.

6. Truth and Possible Worlds

Courses providing assessment data PHL 202. Semester/Year

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

A Categorical Imperative. An Introduction to Deontological Ethics

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

Foreknowledge, evil, and compatibility arguments

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC 1 Sets, Relations, and Arguments

A Solution to the Gettier Problem Keota Fields. the three traditional conditions for knowledge, have been discussed extensively in the

Generic truth and mixed conjunctions: some alternatives

Williams on Supervaluationism and Logical Revisionism

Introduction to Philosophy

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

HOW TO ANALYZE AN ARGUMENT

A Problem for a Direct-Reference Theory of Belief Reports. Stephen Schiffer New York University

PHI Introduction Lecture 4. An Overview of the Two Branches of Logic

Ayer s linguistic theory of the a priori

Venn Diagrams and Categorical Syllogisms. Unit 5

Deduction. Of all the modes of reasoning, deductive arguments have the strongest relationship between the premises

Unit 7.3. Contraries E. Contradictories. Sub-contraries

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

Is the law of excluded middle a law of logic?

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

Logicola Truth Evaluation Exercises

Chapter 2. A Little Logic

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

7. Some recent rulings of the Supreme Court were politically motivated decisions that flouted the entire history of U.S. legal practice.

PHILOSOPHY OF LOGIC AND LANGUAGE OVERVIEW LOGICAL CONSTANTS WEEK 5: MODEL-THEORETIC CONSEQUENCE JONNY MCINTOSH

In Defense of The Wide-Scope Instrumental Principle. Simon Rippon

Ayer on the criterion of verifiability

Illustrating Deduction. A Didactic Sequence for Secondary School

Russell: On Denoting

Pastor-teacher Don Hargrove Faith Bible Church September 8, 2011

Logic and Pragmatics: linear logic for inferential practice

Am I free? Freedom vs. Fate

Transcription:

LOGIC ANTHONY KAPOLKA FYF 101-9/3/2010

LIBERALLY EDUCATED PEOPLE......RESPECT RIGOR NOT SO MUCH FOR ITS OWN SAKE BUT AS A WAY OF SEEKING TRUTH.

LOGIC PUZZLE COOPER IS MURDERED. 3 SUSPECTS: SMITH, JONES, & WILLIAMS SMITH SAYS: COOPER IS A FRIEND OF JONES & WILLIAM DISLIKES HIM. JONES SAYS: I DON T KNOW COOPER AND I WAS OUT OF TOWN THAT DAY. WILLIAMS SAYS: I SAW BOTH SMITH & JONES WITH COOPER THE DAY OF THE MURDER; ONE OF THEM MUST HAVE KILLED HIM. WHO IS GUILTY?

HELPFUL ASSUMPTIONS INNOCENT PEOPLE DO NOT LIE. INNOCENT PEOPLE ARE NOT MISTAKEN. THERE IS ONLY ONE MURDERER. THE MURDERER IS ONE OF THE SUSPECTS.

REASONING REASONING IS THE PROCESS OF MOVING TOWARD CONCLUSIONS USING CLEAR, RELEVANT AND COMPELLING SUPPORTIVE STATEMENTS.

EXAMPLE REASONING IF INNOCENT PEOPLE DO NOT LIE, AND SINCE SMITH AND JONES CONTRADICT EACH OTHER, THEN EITHER SMITH OR JONES IS GUILTY. IF INNOCENT PEOPLE DO NOT LIE, AND SINCE WILLIAMS AND JONES CONTRADICT EACH OTHER, THEN EITHER WILLIAMS OR JONES IS GUILTY. SINCE THERE IS ONLY ONE MURDERED, THEN SMITH AND WILLIAMS CANNOT BOTH BE GUILTY. JONES IS GUILTY.

WHAT IS LOGIC? LOGIC IS A MECHANISM FOR PROVIDING PRECISE MEANING TO STATEMENTS. IT INCLUDES: A FORMAL LANGUAGE FOR EXPRESSING STATEMENTS. RULES FOR OBJECTIVELY REASONING ABOUT THE TRUTH OF STATEMENTS.

STATEMENTS PROPOSITIONS ARE DECLARATIVE SENTENCES WHICH ARE EITHER TRUE (T) OR FALSE (F). PROPOSITIONS 2+3=5 FORSTER WROTE BOOKS. FYF101 IS GREAT. NOT PROPOSITIONS DID YOU DO THE READING? DO THE READING! X + Y = 4

LOGICAL OPERATORS A LOGICAL OPERATOR IS DEFINED BY A TRUTH TABLE.

NEGATION, NOT, S: TODAY IS FRIDAY. S: TODAY IS NOT FRIDAY. TRUTH TABLE P P NEGATION SWITCHES A STATEMENT S TRUTH VALUE. T F F T

NEGATION, NOT, IT IS NOT TRUE THAT... THAT IS IRRELEVANT. MY EXAMPLES ARE UNSATISFACTORY.

CONJUNCTION, AND, S: TODAY IS FRIDAY T: IT IS RAINING. S T: TODAY IS FRIDAY AND IT IS RAINING. TRUTH TABLE P Q P Q T T T T F F F T F F F F

DISJUNCTION, INCLUSIVE OR, S: TODAY IS FRIDAY T: IT IS RAINING. S T: TODAY IS FRIDAY OR IT IS RAINING. TRUTH TABLE P Q P Q T T T T F T F T T F F F

IN A RESTAURANT... WAITER OFFERS YOU CHOICE OF FRIES OR A BAKED POTATO. THIS IS NOT A DISJUNCTION - BECAUSE YOU CANNOT HAVE BOTH.

EXCLUSIVE OR, XOR, S: TODAY IS FRIDAY T: IT IS RAINING. S T: EITHER TODAY IS FRIDAY OR IT IS RAINING. TRUTH TABLE P Q P Q T T F T F T F T T F F F

(ENGLISH) LANGUAGE IS AMBIGUOUS. YOU OR I WILL WIN THE CONTEST. JOE S MAJOR IS ART OR PHARMACY. LOGIC IS MORE PRECISE. S T = (S T) (S T)

IMPLICATION, CONDITIONAL, IF S THEN T S IMPLIES T T IS NECESSARY FOR S S IS SUFFICIENT FOR T S IS ANTECEDENT, T IS CONSEQUENT. P Q P Q IF YOU STUDY, YOU WILL DO WELL. T T T T F F F T T F F T

BICONDITIONAL, IFF, S IF AND ONLY IF T S IS NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT FOR T S: YOU CAN TAKE A BUS T: YOU CAN BUY A TICKET S T: YOU CAN TAKE A BUS ONLY IF YOU BUY A TICKET. P Q P Q T T T T F F F T F F F T

BICONDITIONAL, IFF, S AND T ARE EQUIVALENT - BOTH TRUE OR FALSE TOGETHER. S P = (S P) (P S)

OPERATOR PRECEDENCE ALLOWS YOU TO ORDER OPERATIONS HIGH TO LOW:,,,,,, ARE LEFT ASSOCIATIVE: S T U (S T) U

PROPOSITIONS ACCORDING TO UNITY (ABSOLUTE, RELATIVE) ACCORDING TO QUALITY (AFFIRMATIVE, NEGATIVE) ACCORDING TO QUANTITY (ALL, SOME, NONE) ACCORDING TO MODALITY (NECESSARY, POSSIBLE)

UNITY: ABSOLUTE OR RELATIVE ABSOLUTE - WE SAY ONE THING OF ANOTHER WITHOUT QUALIFICATION. (THIS IS A CATEGORICAL PROPOSITION.) ALL HUMANS ARE CAPABLE OF USING LOGIC. RELATIVE - THE COMBINATION OF CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS BY CERTAIN CONNECTIVES. (THIS IS A COMPOUND OR HYPOTHETICAL PROPOSITION.) IF MAN IS RATIONAL, THEN HE IS CAPABLE OF USING LOGIC.

UNITY: ABSOLUTE OR RELATIVE COPULA - CONNECTS SUBJECT & PREDICATE ABSOLUTE - WE SAY ONE THING OF ANOTHER WITHOUT QUALIFICATION. (THIS IS A CATEGORICAL PROPOSITION.) ALL HUMANS ARE CAPABLE OF USING LOGIC. RELATIVE - THE COMBINATION OF CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS BY CERTAIN CONNECTIVES. (THIS IS A COMPOUND OR HYPOTHETICAL PROPOSITION.) IF MAN IS RATIONAL, THEN HE IS CAPABLE OF USING LOGIC.

QUALITY: AFFIRMATIVE OR NEGATIVE ASK IF PREDICATE BEING AFFIRMED OR DENIED. AFFIRMATIVE - EXPRESSES UNION OF PREDICATE WITH SUBJECT. LOGIC IS FUN. NEGATIVE - EXPRESSES SEPARATION OF PREDICATE FROM SUBJECT. LOGIC IS NOT FUN. NO LOGIC IS FUN.

EXAMPLE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT FRIENDLY ARE UNSOCIABLE.

EXAMPLE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT FRIENDLY ARE UNSOCIABLE. EVEN THOUGH THIS SOUNDS NEGATIVE, THE NEGATIVE PREDICATE IS BEING AFFIRMED OF THE NEGATIVE SUBJECT.

QUANTITY: ALL, SOME, NONE ALL - UNIVERSAL - PREDICATE BELONGS TO THE SUBJECT AND ALL ITS SINGULAR MEMBERS. ALL TIGERS ARE MAMMALS. NONE - UNIVERSAL - PREDICATE DENIED OF THE SUBJECT AND ALL ITS SINGULAR MEMBERS. NO TIGERS ARE LIONS. SOME - PARTICULAR - PREDICATE SAID OF THE SUBJECT BUT IS MEANT TO BE LIMITED TO SOME OF ITS SINGULAR MEMBERS. SOME TIGERS ARE FIERCE.

FOUR TYPES OF CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS - FOR ALL - THERE EXISTS AT LEAST ONE... - EQUAL BY DEFINITION - SUBSET - SET INTERSECTION - THE EMPTY SET.

MODALITY: NECESSARY, POSSIBLE, IMPOSSIBLE NECESSARY - S - S MUST BE TRUE POSSIBLE - S - S COULD BE TRUE IMPOSSIBLE - S - S COULD NEVER BE TRUE

WHY CARE? (AGAIN) WE BUILD ARGUMENTS OUT OF PROPOSITIONS. SOME OF THESE PROPOSITIONS (THE PREMISES) SHOULD EPISTEMICALLY SUPPORT OTHER PROPOSITIONS (THE CONCLUSIONS) OF THE ARGUMENT. AN ARGUMENT IS VALID IFF THE PREMISES THE CONCLUSIONS. AN ARGUMENT IS SOUND IFF IT IS VALID AND THE PREMISES ARE TRUE. LOGIC WINS ARGUMENTS.

EXERCISE LET P Q & R BE THE FOLLOWING PROPOSITIONS: P: YOU GET AN A ON THE FINAL EXAM. Q: YOU DO EVERY EXERCISE IN THE BOOK. R: YOU GET AN A IN THIS CLASS. WRITE AS A LOGICAL STATEMENT: YOU GET AN A IN THE CLASS, BUT YOU DO NOT DO EVERY EXERCISE IN THE BOOK.

EXERCISE LET P Q & R BE THE FOLLOWING PROPOSITIONS: P: YOU GET AN A ON THE FINAL EXAM. Q: YOU DO EVERY EXERCISE IN THE BOOK. R: YOU GET AN A IN THIS CLASS. WRITE AS A LOGICAL STATEMENT: YOU GET AN A IN THE CLASS, BUT YOU DO NOT DO EVERY EXERCISE IN THE BOOK. R Q

EXERCISE LET P Q & R BE THE FOLLOWING PROPOSITIONS: P: YOU GET AN A ON THE FINAL EXAM. Q: YOU DO EVERY EXERCISE IN THE BOOK. R: YOU GET AN A IN THIS CLASS. WRITE AS A LOGICAL STATEMENT: TO GET AN A IN THIS CLASS, IT IS NECESSARY FOR YOU TO GET AN A ON THE FINAL.

EXERCISE LET P Q & R BE THE FOLLOWING PROPOSITIONS: P: YOU GET AN A ON THE FINAL EXAM. Q: YOU DO EVERY EXERCISE IN THE BOOK. R: YOU GET AN A IN THIS CLASS. WRITE AS A LOGICAL STATEMENT: TO GET AN A IN THIS CLASS, IT IS NECESSARY FOR YOU TO GET AN A ON THE FINAL. R P

EXERCISE LET P Q & R BE THE FOLLOWING PROPOSITIONS: P: YOU GET AN A ON THE FINAL EXAM. Q: YOU DO EVERY EXERCISE IN THE BOOK. R: YOU GET AN A IN THIS CLASS. WRITE AS A LOGICAL STATEMENT: GETTING AN A ON THE FINAL & DOING EVERY EXERCISE IN THE BOOK IS ENOUGH TO GET AN A IN THIS CLASS.

EXERCISE LET P Q & R BE THE FOLLOWING PROPOSITIONS: P: YOU GET AN A ON THE FINAL EXAM. Q: YOU DO EVERY EXERCISE IN THE BOOK. R: YOU GET AN A IN THIS CLASS. WRITE AS A LOGICAL STATEMENT: GETTING AN A ON THE FINAL & DOING EVERY EXERCISE IN THE BOOK IS ENOUGH TO GET AN A IN THIS CLASS. P Q R