Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Between Truth and Falsity
Between Truth and Falsity
Presupposition
Vagueness
Dick Cheney is smart.
Alan Iverson is tall.
Logic is hard.
B
& T I F
A T T I F
I I I F
F F F F
B
v T I F
A T T T T
I T I I
F T I F
B
→ T I F
A T T I F
I T T I
F T T T
L3 at least preserves tautologies of the
form A → A. But it also assigns T to
statements like:
B
→ T I F
A T T I F
I T T F
F T T T
The point of G3 is to correct another
apparent defect of K3. Besides
preserving (A →A) as a tautology, it
maintains the falsity of conditionals with
an indeterminate antecedent like:
B
↔ T I F
A T T I F
I I I I
F F I T
A -A
T F
I T
F T
A +A
T T
I T
F F
Validity
Implication
Sentence Validity
Again:
Contradiction
Again:
1. A sentence is contradictory iff it is
impossible for it to be true.
2. A sentence is contradictory iff it is
false under every possible
interpretation.
Truth Tables
B
→ T I F
A T T I F
I T I I
F T T T
Closure
A A +A
-
A A A
but not
+A
-A
– p
+p
Weak Negation
+p
-p
Weak Conjunction
+(p & q)
+p
+q
–(p & q)
-p -q
Weak Disjunction
+(p v q)
+p +q
–( p v q)
–p
–q
Weak Conditional
+(p →q)
–p +q
–(p →q)
+p
–q
Weak Biconditional
(p ↔q)
+p -p
+q -q
-( p ↔ q)
+p -p
-q +q
Problems (p v (q → r)
√ (p & r)
√ – (q & r)
Test for validity. (p v √+(q
(q → r),
& r) (p & r)
(q & r) +q
√+r
p
r
–r
p q →r
q r
Test for validity. q (p & r) v (p & r)
q
√ –((p & r) v (p & r))
√–(p & r)
√–(p & r)
√+( p & r)
+p
+r
–p –r
Invalid
Determine whether this is a tautology.
(Devil’s Hint: There are no SL
tautologies in K3).
(p → p) v –( p
→ p)
√ –((p → p) v –( p → p))
–(p → p)
– –(p → p)
pv–p
Fuzzy Logic
Negation
[A] = 1 – [A]
Conjunction
[A v B] = Max ([A],[B])
Conditional
Biconditional
Fuzzy tautologies
Consider:
(p → p)
(p → (q →p))
(p v p)
Modus Ponens
Mathematical evaluation of
arguments in fuzzy logic. (p.338)
and ultimately
1 > [p].
Suppose
[p] is .9
[q] is .5
Then
[p] → [q] = 1 - .4 = .6
So, Min ([p], [p →q]) = Min ( .9, .6) = .6
which is > [q].
Intuitionistic Logic
p v p
Philosophical intermezzo
A→B
A & B.
However, to show that A → B is true,
we must actually derive B from A.
Specifically, it will not be enough to
simply show that A, and derive A → B
from there.
But, of course,
√?(p v q)
?p
?q
Questionable Conjunction
√?(p & q)
?p ?q
Conditional
√(p →q)
?p q
Biconditional
√(p ↔q)
p ?p
q ?q
Furthermore, the questionable
conditional and questionable
biconditional require shift lines, as
follows.
Questionable Conditional
√?(p →q)
p
?q
Questionable Biconditional
√?(p ↔ q)
p ?p
?q q
?p
p
A branch like this does not close:
?p .
p .
?p
√ p
?p
Also we have:
Questionable Negation
√? p
p
√?(p v p)
?p
√? p
p
Props to Tim!!
Lanae says no props to Tim.
Rejects equivalence of (p q) and (p v
q).