Ideas from 'Beginning Logic' by E.J. Lemmon [1965], by Theme Structure

[found in 'Beginning Logic' by Lemmon,E.J. [Nelson 1979,017-712040-1]].

Click on the Idea Number for the full details    |     back to texts     |     expand these ideas


4. Formal Logic / B. Propositional Logic PL / 1. Propositional Logic
'Contradictory' propositions always differ in truth-value
4. Formal Logic / B. Propositional Logic PL / 2. Tools of Propositional Logic / a. Symbols of PL
We write the conditional 'if P (antecedent) then Q (consequent)' as P→Q
That proposition that either P or Q is their 'disjunction', written P∨Q
The sign |- may be read as 'therefore'
That proposition that both P and Q is their 'conjunction', written P∧Q
If A and B are 'interderivable' from one another we may write A -||- B
We write the 'negation' of P (not-P) as
We write 'P if and only if Q' as P↔Q; it is also P iff Q, or (P→Q)∧(Q→P)
4. Formal Logic / B. Propositional Logic PL / 2. Tools of Propositional Logic / b. Terminology of PL
A wff is a 'tautology' if all assignments to variables result in the value T
A 'well-formed formula' follows the rules for variables, , →, ∧, ∨, and ↔
The 'scope' of a connective is the connective, the linked formulae, and the brackets
A 'theorem' is the conclusion of a provable sequent with zero assumptions
'Subcontrary' propositions are never both false, so that A∨B is a tautology
'Contrary' propositions are never both true, so that (A∧B) is a tautology
A 'implies' B if B is true whenever A is true (so that A→B is tautologous)
A wff is 'inconsistent' if all assignments to variables result in the value F
A 'substitution-instance' is a wff formed by consistent replacing variables with wffs
A wff is 'contingent' if produces at least one T and at least one F
Two propositions are 'equivalent' if they mirror one another's truth-value
4. Formal Logic / B. Propositional Logic PL / 2. Tools of Propositional Logic / c. Derivation rules of PL
MPP: Given A and A→B, we may derive B
A: we may assume any proposition at any stage
DN: Given A, we may derive A
∧I: Given A and B, we may derive A∧B
∧E: Given A∧B, we may derive either A or B separately
∨I: Given either A or B separately, we may derive A∨B
∨E: Derive C from A∨B, if C can be derived both from A and from B
CP: Given a proof of B from A as assumption, we may derive A→B
MTT: Given B and A→B, we derive A
RAA: If assuming A will prove B∧B, then derive A
4. Formal Logic / B. Propositional Logic PL / 2. Tools of Propositional Logic / d. Basic theorems of PL
'Modus ponendo tollens' (MPT) says P, (P ∧ Q) |- Q
'Modus tollendo ponens' (MTP) says P, P ∨ Q |- Q
The Distributive Laws can rearrange a pair of conjunctions or disjunctions
We can change conjunctions into negated conditionals with P→Q -||- (P → Q)
We can change conditionals into negated conjunctions with P→Q -||- (P ∧ Q)
We can change conditionals into disjunctions with P→Q -||- P ∨ Q
De Morgan's Laws make negated conjunctions/disjunctions into non-negated disjunctions/conjunctions
4. Formal Logic / B. Propositional Logic PL / 3. Truth Tables
Truth-tables are good for showing invalidity
A truth-table test is entirely mechanical, but this won't work for more complex logic
4. Formal Logic / B. Propositional Logic PL / 4. Soundness of PL
If any of the nine rules of propositional logic are applied to tautologies, the result is a tautology
4. Formal Logic / B. Propositional Logic PL / 5. Completeness of PL
Propositional logic is complete, since all of its tautologous sequents are derivable
4. Formal Logic / C. Predicate Calculus PC / 2. Tools of Predicate Calculus / a. Symbols of PC
Write '(∀x)(...)' to mean 'take any x: then...', and '(∃x)(...)' to mean 'there is an x such that....'
'Gm' says m has property G, and 'Pmn' says m has relation P to n
The 'symbols' are bracket, connective, term, variable, predicate letter, reverse-E
4. Formal Logic / C. Predicate Calculus PC / 2. Tools of Predicate Calculus / b. Terminology of PC
Our notation uses 'predicate-letters' (for 'properties'), 'variables', 'proper names', 'connectives' and 'quantifiers'
4. Formal Logic / C. Predicate Calculus PC / 2. Tools of Predicate Calculus / c. Derivations rules of PC
Predicate logic uses propositional connectives and variables, plus new introduction and elimination rules
With finite named objects, we can generalise with &-Intro, but otherwise we need ∀-Intro
UE all-to-one; UI one-to-all; EI arbitrary-to-one; EE proof-to-one
Universal elimination if you start with the universal, introduction if you want to end with it
Universal Elimination (UE) lets us infer that an object has F, from all things having F
If you pick an arbitrary triangle, things proved of it are true of all triangles
4. Formal Logic / C. Predicate Calculus PC / 2. Tools of Predicate Calculus / d. Universal quantifier ∀
If there is a finite domain and all objects have names, complex conjunctions can replace universal quantifiers
4. Formal Logic / C. Predicate Calculus PC / 2. Tools of Predicate Calculus / e. Existential quantifier ∃
'Some Frenchmen are generous' is rendered by (∃x)(Fx→Gx), and not with the conditional →
5. Theory of Logic / B. Logical Consequence / 8. Material Implication
The paradoxes of material implication are P |- Q → P, and P |- P → Q