Introducing a New Logical Operation.

It being the Boolean and Symbolic Counterpart of a

Well-Known Philosophical Relationship.
(As is a Another, Related, Logic Operator.)

Copyright © 2013-2018, Kersasp Shekhdar, All Rights Reserved

Summary

This cross-disciplinary article synthesizes the sub-disciplines of three ‘foundational Logics:’

Philosophical Logic, Boolean Logic, and Symbolic Logic. The proposal is approached from
the bi-valued foundations of Boolean Logic as well as the linguistic underpinnings of
Philosophical Logic considering that the two are intimately related.

This exposition sets out concepts and operations in and of these different foundational Logics,
and for the key ones, maps analogous concepts and foundations across the Logics as a
preliminary step and to facilitate intuitive understanding of the same. It then demonstrates the
existence of the semantic value of an unmapped and unidentified Boolean output as a well-
known logical construct in Philosophical Logic and shows the two to be equivalent analogues.
This Boolean output and the Philosophical Logic relationship from which it is obtained are then
converged into the sub-discipline of Symbolic Logic in which a new operation is proposed,
complete with specification for: common name, notation, output, operator, and formal
nomenclatural identifier.

The correctness of the proposed operation, as a ‘missing link,’ is hypothesized using

Philosophical Logic and truth-tables, and then its correctness is proven with a Symbolic Logic
equation that reduces to a tautological truth.

It is hoped that this paper will be of crossover appeal to specialists in different branches of
philosophy and that it will aid and assist undergraduates to perceive, conceive, interpret and
convey the same underlying ‘fact’ with separate by inter-related ‘logical lenses’.
Boolean Truth-Tables, Operators, and Outputs

This article spans Boolean Logic and Symbolic Logic (and also Philosophical Logic or
Rhetorical Logic); therefore, operators from both branches of Logic are used. Symbolic Logic
operators are used in equations. Where truth-tables are presented, operators from both
branches of Logic plus the standard abbreviations are notated for completeness and to facilitate
at-a-glance correspondence.

Consider two bi-valued inputs P and Q

Where P is
FFTT
and Q is
FTFT

In columnar truth-table form:

P Q
F F
F T
T F
T T

The above input values for P and Q will implicitly be used throughout this paper.

Let us examine all possible outputs for P and Q.

Preliminarily, however, a note about the absence of what may appear to be two valid
combinations, FFFF and TTTT :– Actually these are not combinatorial outputs at all but are
merely redundant representations of ‘always off/false’ and ‘always on/true’ which are properly
represented as simply ‘F ’ and ‘T ’. This is so in Boolean Logic because for such cases not even
a single bi-valued input is required, let alone two as we are dealing with here. Such is the case
in Philosophical Logic as well, consider that even a tautologous argument has two conclusions,
even if only implicitly, to wit: “If it is then it is, and if it isn’t then it isn’t.” (The sentence is
tautologous because each argument simply asserts a ‘true’ conclusion.)

First, the trivial cases, which are the inputs themselves and their negations:–
FFTT being ‘P’
FTFT being ‘Q’
TTFF being ‘~P’
TFTF being ‘~Q’

Next, the known combinatorial outputs, their operators, notations, and names:–
FFFT • ∧ AND (and – ‘Conjunction’)
FTTT + ∨ OR (or – ‘Disjunction’)
TTFT ⇒ ⊃ IF (if-then – ‘Implication’)
TFFT ⇔ ≡ IFF (If-and-Only-If – ‘Equivalence’)
Finally, the above outputs’ respective negations:–
TTTF ~• ~∧ NAND (not-and)
TFFF ~+ ~∨ NOR (not-or)
FFTF ~⇒ ~⊃ NOT-IF (not-if-then)
FTTF ⊕ XOR (either-or – ‘Exclusive Or’)

Only two outputs are missing above. These are:–

TFTT
FTFF

In fact, these outputs are negations of each other, as such they represent an output-negation
pair. Hence, only one true output is actually missing from the list of outputs enumerated earlier.
However there is no defined operator and no defined relationship in Boolean Logic that would
produce either of the above two outputs; therefore, they are missing or undefined outputs. We
aver that the first of those outputs could be realized by a contrived argument such as P + ~Q or
Q ⇒ P . The former is not a relation between (the input values of) the two terms in question but
requires the negation of one of them. The latter is equally unacceptable because we are going
from ‘right to left’, so to speak, that is to say the terms must be transposed to produce the
missing output. We can play this transposition trick because, unlike all other operators, ⇒ is
not commutative. Formally, by writing Q ⇒ P for P ? Q , we are actually making the antecedent
the consequent and vice-versa! One might argue that one freely does just that for all the other
relational operators, but then, unlike all those other operators, implication is not commutative.
That is, while (P + Q) ⇔ (Q + P) , (P • Q) ⇔ (Q • P) , etc., it is certainly not the case that (P
⇒ Q) ⇔ (Q ⇒ P) . Furthermore, and more importantly, the very notions of ‘antecedent’ and
‘consequent’ are inapplicable for all heretofore defined relational operators except Implication
(’if-then’) (and its negation) because there is no implied predication of the second output upon
(the truth or falsity of) the first.

So the fact remains that for the argument P ? Q to have the output TFTT , (a) an operator that
would have such an output is undefined, and (b) no such output can be produced by any known
operator.

This proposal shall, inter alia, demonstrate the existence of the semantic value of this output –
undefined in Boolean Logic – as a well-known logical construct in Philosophical Logic.
The Sufficient Condition and the Necessary Condition

Here we transition to Philosophical Logic or Rhetorical Logic. The respective equivalents of

conjunction, disjunction, and negation between Philosophical Logic (or Rhetorical Logic) and
Boolean Logic are well-established and surely well-known. (Interestingly, in Philosophical
Logic, the construct of If-and-Only-If, identified as ‘Equivalence’, is the preferred way of
‘looking at’ or representing a particular relationship whereas in Boolean Logic – and especially
in Digital Logic – its negation, ‘either-or’, identifed as ‘Exclusive Or’, is the established way of
‘looking at’ or representing the relationship.) We shall now consider two other logical
constructs and introduce the concepts of ‘Sufficient Condition’ and ‘Necessary Condition’ by
way of example.

We posit a premise and conclusion: “If you cut open your finger with a razor, your finger will
bleed.” This is the ‘Sufficient Condition’ of Philosophical Logic. Cutting open your finger is a
sufficient condition for your finger to start bleeding –- no additional condition is required and
there is no possibility that your finger will not bleed. However, the preceding is not a
necessary condition, for your finger can bleed as a result of another cause, e.g. being cut open
by a shard of glass. Or just by being pricked by a needle. This logical construct is mirrored by
‘Implication’, i.e. the ‘if-then’ relationship of Boolean Logic.

We posit another premise and conclusion: “If you catch the flu bug, you may get flu.” This is
the ‘Necessary Condition’ of Philosophical Logic. Catching the flu virus is a necessary
condition for you to get the flu – i.e. if you get the flu, first you have to have acquired the flu
bug specifically. However, it is not a sufficient condition, because if you catch the virus it is
not a foregone conclusion that you will get flu – your natural resistance may be high. Or you
may have taken an effective flu vaccine. Thus the presence of other conditions may invalidate
the conclusion. This logical construct lacks an established counterpart in Boolean Logic.

Therefore and furthermore, this proposal shall demonstrate the existence of the Necessary
Condition’s equivalent in Boolean Logic, and shall introduce the same formally.

In general, Sufficient Condition and Necessary Condition are distinguished from each other by
the following two properties.

Sufficient Condition:
a) Cause X suffices to result in effect Y without exception such that if X occurs, Y has to
occur.
b) X is not necessary for effect Y to occur, for in the absence of X some other cause may result
in effect Y.

Necessary Condition:
a) Cause X may suffice to result in effect Y with the proviso that if X occurs, Y does not have
to occur.
b) X is necessary for effect Y to occur, for in the absence of X no other cause can result in
effect Y.
A Brief Digression into Modal Logics

At this juncture, a brief digression is relevant and desirable.

Modal Logics – a family of Logics – incorporate the concept and expression ‘necessarily’ or ‘it
is necessary that’ denoted by symbol ☐ . This symbol is often somewhat loosely called an
‘operator;’ however, it is not an operator in the pure sense as one understands the term and
concept in Boolean Logic and Symbolic Logic: for ☐ does not operate upon or relate a pair of
operands and is not (and cannot be) represented or expressed in a truth-table. Rather, it is an
assertion upon an expression so as to make a conditional proposition. In other words, Modal
Logics’ ‘necessarily’ or ‘it is necessary that’ further conditionally defines some or another
expression (or formula), typically an implicative one.

What is being teased out and that which shall be proposed later in this paper is not the
‘necessarily’ or ‘it is necessary that’ of Modal Logics, nor can it be; it is merely the case that the
English words are the same. Furthermore, Modal Logics’ ☐ is a useful convenience that one
has posited or invented; what we are interested in uncovering and correctly identifying a reality
that already exists within the natural schemes of the foundational Logics.
The ‘Cognitive Outlooks’ of Boolean Logic and Philosophical Logic, and the resultant
‘Implication’

The aim here is to illustrate how the ‘Boolean Logic Outlook’ relates to the ‘Philosophical
Logic Outlook’ from a cognitive position, and expose the linkage of these different approaches
to a cognitive outlook or conception of the same underlying ‘fact’ or reality.

The objective is not to contrive or propose some new ‘unification theory’; rather, it is to tease
out and expose the extant relationships and unity between the different ‘outlooks’ on, or
conceptions of, one and the same underlying ‘fact’ or reality so as to facilitate an intuitive
understanding of analogous concepts and operators across the foundational Logics, and even
across related concepts and operators. Just as there are ‘neuronal connections’ so too there are
cognitive connections and these can be identified by making the conceptual linkages between
different but related systems of conception and interpretation.

Consider the following four truth-tables.

– OR –
P Q Output
F F F
F T T
T F T
T T T

– AND –
P Q Output
F F F
F T F
T F F
T T T

SUFFICIENT
P Q Output
F F T
F T T
T F F
T T T

NECESSARY
P Q Output
F F T
F T F
T F T
T T T
The translation of the preceding truth-tables into English:–

OR
If neither condition is true, then the result is false.
If only condition A is true, then the result is true.
If only condition B is true, then the result is true.
If both conditions are true, then the result is true.

Sufficient
If the condition is false, then can the result be false? Yes.
If the condition is false, then can the result be true? Yes.
If the condition is true, then can the result be false? No.
If the condition is true, then can the result be true? Yes.

AND
If neither condition is true, then the result is false.
If only condition A is true, then the result is false.
If only condition B is true, then the result is false.
If both conditions are true, then the result is true.

Necessary
If the condition is false, then can the result be false? Yes.
If the condition is false, then can the result be true? No.
If the condition is true, then can the result be false? Yes.
If the condition is true, then can the result be true? Yes.

Thus, any Disjunction implies the Sufficient Condition:–

Let’s say: “You have to have a 3.7 average in CE or a 3.8 average in CS to be invited to join the
Computer Honour Society.”
Then we may correctly also say: “Having a 3.7 average in CE is a sufficient but not necessary
condition to be invited to join the Computer Honour Society.” We may equally correctly say,
“Having a 3.8 average in CS is a sufficient but not necessary condition to be invited to join the
Computer Honour Society.”

Thus, any Conjunction implies the Necessary Condition:–

Let’s say: “You have to get 3.7-plus high-school GPA and a 1300-plus SAT score to obtain
admission into a highly selective university.”
Then we may correctly also say: “Getting a 3.7-plus high-school GPA is a necessary but not
sufficient condition to obtain admission into a highly selective university.” We may equally
correctly say, “Getting a 1300-plus SAT score is a necessary but not sufficient condition to
obtain admission into a highly selective university.”

The ‘trick’ in understanding the Sufficient Condition and the Necessary Condition as being
related and analogous to but distinct from the Conjunction and the Disjunction respectively is to
conceive in terms of “. . . can . . . be?” versus “is;” then the relatedness and analogous-ness but
distinctness will readily be apparent.
Convergence of Philosophical Logic and Boolean Logic

We know that the concept of Sufficient Condition has a well-established counterpart in Boolean
Logic and Symbolic Logic. It is ‘If P Then Q’, known as ‘Implication’ and its well-known
operators are P ⊃ Q and P ⇒ Q . The set of outputs of its truth-table, below, is concordant
with the ‘truth’ of the four possibilities of the razor-and-finger example.

You do not cut open your finger with a razor, your finger does not bleed.
You do not cut open your finger with a razor, your finger bleeds.
You cut open your finger with a razor, your finger does not bleed.
You cut open your finger with a razor, your finger bleeds.
P Q ⇒
F F T
F T T
T F F
T T T

Obviously the only statement that cannot be true is the third one, and the only output that is
false is that of the corresponding row.

But, unlike Sufficient Condition, the notion of Necessary Condition has no counterpart in
Boolean Logic. Yet we will see that our ‘missing’ or ‘undefined’ Boolean Logic output shown
below is in fact the Necessary Condition of Philosophical Logic.
P Q ?
F F T
F T F
T F T
T T T

Let us examine our virus-and-flu example vis-a-vis the above truth-table. We shall compare
each possibility of our example to each truth-table row in the correct order, and evaulate the
‘truth’ of each statement against what is shown as the output in the corresponding row.
You do not catch the flu bug, you do not get the flu.
You do not catch the flu bug, you get the flu.
You catch the flu bug, you do not get the flu.
You catch the flu bug, you get the flu.

”You do not catch the flu bug, you will not get the flu” is a true statement, for without acquiring
the flu virus one cannot get the flu; correspondingly the equivalent row (first row) in the truth-
table has a ‘True’ output. “You catch the flu bug, you do not get the flu” is also a true
statement for those persons whose resistance is high or who have taken a flu shot;
correspondingly the equivalent row (third row) in the truth-table has a ‘True’ output. “You
catch the flu bug, you get the flu” is also a true statement for those persons whose resistance is
low and who have not taken a flu shot; correspondingly the equivalent row (fourth row) in the
truth-table has a ‘True’ output. Clearly the only statement that can not be true is the second one:
“You do not catch the flu bug, you get the flu”. For if one has not caught the flu bug it is not
possible to get the flu – as instructors are wont to say, “Without P there can be no Q.” In order
to get the flu, it is necessary that the flu virus be acquired. In the truth-table, the corresponding
row (second row) is the only one with a false output. As such, the output of the truth-table
above represents the ‘Necessary Condition.’
Proposal

We propose that this new Boolean Logic relationship shall:–

• Be associated with the output (of two bi-valued inputs FFTT and FTFT ): TFTT.
• Be referred to as ‘P Necessary-For Q.’
• Be denoted as NEC.
• Be represented by the symbols ⇐ and as its operators.
• Be formally termed ‘Necessitation’.
Further Convergence of the Relationships of Philosophical Logic and the Operations of
Boolean Logic as a Side-Effect of Necessitation

The If-and-Only-If relationship known as ‘Equivalence’ is a stricter form of both the Sufficient
Condition and the Necessary Condition. Consider the statement “Your heart beats, you are
alive.” This is ‘Equivalence’; the ‘If-and-Only-If’ relationship of either branch of Logic (under
consideration here). It is evident that live persons have beating hearts and dead bodies have
stilled hearts. And that living people do not have stilled hearts and dead bodies do not have
beating hearts. (Barring two rare exceptions: the temporary period when a heart-lung machine
can keep a person without a beating heart alive and the temporary period during which a ‘brain
dead’ person’s heart continues beating.) Let us examine the four combinations for this example
in connection with the truth-table for If-and-Only-If:

Your heart does not beat, you are not alive.

Your heart does not beat, you are alive.
Your heart beats, you are not alive.
Your heart beats, you are alive.

P Q ⇔
F F T
F T F
T F F
T T T

It is self-evident that the outputs of the If-and-Only-If truth-table, above, is concordant with the
‘truth’ of the four possibilities of our heart-and-life example.

This relationship may be defined as:–

a) Cause X suffices to result in effect Y without exception such that if X occurs, Y has to
occur.
b) X is necessary for effect Y to occur, for in the absence of X no other cause can result in
effect Y.

These two relationships’ properties are, in fact, ones encountered earlier: the first property
signifies one-half of the Sufficient Condition, and the second one, one-half the Necessary
Condition, as has been outlined previously. Both of the preceding properties are the more
stringent ones from each of the previously-described pairs, i.e. they tend to suppress ‘True’
outputs. From a linguistic and causal perspective, in the If-and-Only-If relationship –
‘Equivalence’ – there is no room for the presence of another circumstance that may cause the
same effect (as in Sufficient Condition); similarly there is no room for an ameliorating
circumstance that may allow for the cause to exist without the effect (as in Necessary
Condition). If, as it seems, If-and-Only-If is both Sufficient and Necessary conditions
together, then logically, this relation is a conjunction of Sufficient Condition and Necessary
Condition. And indeed, from a Boolean perspective, given a P and Q, when we AND the truth-
table outputs for ‘Implication’ and (the proposed) ‘Necessitation’, the output is the same as that
of ‘Equivalence’ for that same P and Q:–
P Q ⇒ ⇐ ⇒ •⇐ P ⇔ Q
F F T T T T
F T T F F F
T F F T F F
T T T T T T

As expected, and as we see above, the AND ed output of ⇒ and ⇐ is the same as the output of
If-and-Only-If or ‘Equivalance’ of P and Q.

Formally, in Symbolic Logic, as a tautology: √((P ⇒ Q) • (P ⇐ Q)) ⇔ (P ⇔ Q)

Benefits and Desirable Outcomes

1. Completeness
As we see above, even a few members of output-negation pairs – such as TFFT and FTTF –
each have their own discrete logic operator! One member of such a pair is not notated as the
inverse of the other even though that would be notationally trivial. Yet we have an output-
negation pair for which neither member is represented by, or identified with, a discrete logic
operator. So, all outputs and their negations except one are mapped to discrete and unique logic
operators. Therefore, by mapping a discrete and unique logic operator to the one and only
relation that has no operator assigned to it, we achieve Completeness in the vocabulary of
Symbolic Logic.

2. Consistency
We do not use ~P V Q instead of P ⊃ Q to notate ‘P implies Q’ or ‘if P, then Q.’ Similarly,
we should not need to, and ought not to, use P V ~Q to notate the inverse relationship: for it is
a symbolic workaround, a notational kludge. Having all atomic relations bar one represented
by a dedicated relationship and operator is peculiarly inconsistent and also leaves the
vocabulary incomplete. In other words, every atomic relation except one is associated with a
descriptive set comprising name, acronym, and notational symbol. Describing the unidentified
logical relation with a name, acronym, and notational symbol brings (hitherto absent)
Consistency to the building-blocks of Boolean Logic.

3. Accuracy and Flexibility

Consider the sentence “I haven’t eaten so I’m hungry.” Now consider the equivalent sentence
“I’m hungry because I haven’t eaten.” It is as a result of the conjunctions ‘so’ (an informal
‘therefore’) and ‘because’ that we can interchange the protasis (”I haven’t eaten”) and apodosis
(”I’m hungry”) (of what is essentially the same construct) such that either can appear as the first
part or the last part of a conditional sentence. The English language, because of its vocabularic
richness, allows us to choose whether we wish to construct our conditional sentence as
protasis-apodosis or apodosis-protasis, thus providing us not only with linguistic flexibility,
but also accuracy in expression. Oddly, the fields of Logic do not have the same expressive
power as does the English language – we are constrained to phrasing relations such that the
antecedent must precede the consequent (or use a notational kludge which may or may not
directly express that fact or concept which the logician is visualizing and wishes to convey).
With the incorporation into Logic of the ‘Necessitation’ operator and associated terminology,
the same Accuracy and Flexibility in conditional expression as that provided by English syntax
and vocabulary will be available to logicians.

4. Notional and Conceptual Purity and Precision

To begin with a somewhat hackneyed example:– in a language that does not possess words
equivalent to ‘alley’ and ‘avenue’, one which has a single umberella word meaning ‘road’, the
very notions, the concepts, of alley and avenue are, for the most part, non-existent. When
speakers of that language come across an alley, they would necessarily have to describe it: “a
very narrow, somewhat unkempt, road running between walls and buildings.” Likewise for
when such persons might come across (what English-speakers would identify as) an avenue.
Conversely, it is well known that the Inuit and other Eskimo peoples’ language contains a
plurality of words which denote the various substances which are all encompassed under the
single English umberella word ‘snow’. And so, English-speakers (as well as those of most
other languages) must perforce qualify various types of snow – and rather weakly at that – as
‘powder’, ‘fine powder’, ‘sticky’, ‘wet’, ‘heavy and dense’ and so forth! Probably a better
example and one more analogous to the topic under discussion would be the fact that the single
English word ‘uncle’ maps to four words of finer granularity in various Indo-Iranian (as well
as some other) languages. Consider: if an English-speaker wants to be precise about a
particular uncle, that uncle must be qualified using one word from each of the following pairs:
‘paternal’ or ‘maternal’ and ‘by blood’ (or ‘cosanguinous’) or ‘by marriage;’ e.g. say ‘paternal
uncle by marriage’ or spell it out: “father’s sister’s husband.” These roundabout and lengthy
treatments mirror the present ‘hacks’ through which the two undefined and unnamed outputs
are referred to. On the other hand, a single well-defined and well-understood word enables all
persons (who share a language) to ‘lock on’ to a notion or concept. In general, the availability
of linguistic tokens and associated symbols to exactly and directly refer to, denote, and identify
any ‘thing’ that must otherwise either be described or be referred to in roundabout or
convoluted ways resultantly brings about Notional and Conceptual Purity and Precision.

5. A Matter of Elegance
Those Scientists who have a design background, or for whom harmony and aesthetics in the
Sciences are of importance, will appreciate the point that involutions and inversions are neither
good design nor are they harmonious or aesthetic. The proposal made herein is good design,
and it imparts harmony and aesthetic value to the topic in question. We claim that the proposed
additions are, simply put, Elegant.