by Brian Bosse, Copyright June 12, 2010, all rights reserved.
There is an important distinction between declarative sentences and propositions. A proposition is simply the meaning of a sentence. So, the distinction between a proposition and a sentence is really the distinction between the sentence and its meaning. That there is a distinction between the meaning of a sentence and the sentence itself is easily illustrated. Consider the following three different sentences:
(1) God is good.
(2) Dios es beuno.
(3) O θεος αγαθος εστιν.
Sentence (2) is a Spanish translation of sentence (1), and sentence (3) is a Greek translation of sentence (1). As such, it is possible for all three of these different sentences to express the same meaning, i.e., they can express the same proposition. Now, consider these two sentences…
(4) You are bad!
(5) You are bad!
Even though these are the same sentences, depending on how they are used they could carry very different meanings. For example, (4) may be a comment on someone’s morality; whereas, (5) could be a comment on someone’s lack of ability in some area. In the right context, (5) could even mean the opposite of a lack of ability. It could be a comment on someone’s prodigious ability. For example, after a very impressive basketball game by Jones, someone might say, “Jones, you are one bad basketball player!” As such, this distinction between a sentence and its proposition is a good distinction - if not an obvious one.
An interesting consequence of this is that sentences do not carry a truth-value. That is to say, that technically, it is improper to say that a sentence is true or false. Only propositions carry truth-value. So, saying something like, “The proposition expressed by sentence (1) is true,” is to use truth-value in its proper context; whereas, to say, “Sentence (1) is true,” would be technically improper.
There are some philosophers (not all!) that see another distinction they call ‘linguistic meaning’ that is different from both propositions and sentences. My next post will explore this distinction.
Posted in Philosophy Logic • 0 Comments • Permalink • 76 views
by Brian Bosse, Copyright May 01, 2010, all rights reserved.
In the last post we looked at a direct derivation (DD) in the propositional calculus. In this post we will consider an indirect derivation (ID). ID is based on the idea that if φ leads to a contradiction, then φ cannot be, and if φ cannot be, then ¬φ is the case. It is rooted in the law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle, which are as follows…
Law of Non-Contradiction (LCN): Something cannot be both A and not-A at the same time and in the same relationship.
Law of Excluded Middle (LEM): You either have A or not-A.
So, here is the reasoning:
If B leads to both A and not-A, and you cannot have both A and not-A (LCN), then you cannot have B. If you cannot have B, then by LEM you have not-B. As such, this line of reasoning can be used to establish not-B indirectly by assuming B, and from this deriving a contradiction. In other words, if one assumes B and arrives at a contradiction, then not-B has been established. Let’s visit again the following argument…
Premise 1: If Socrates did not die of old age, then the Athenians condemned Socrates to death.
Premise 2: The Athenians did not condemn Socrates to death.
Show: Socrates did die of old age.
To begin, we need to translate this argument into symbolic sentences. Here is the translation…
P: Socrates did die of old age.
Q: The Athenians condemned Socrates to death.
Premise 1: ¬P → Q
Premise 2: ¬Q
Show: P
Now, in our previous post we proved this very argument directly by using MT. This time we are not going to use MT, but rather we will use ID.
1. Show P [ID]
Since we want to prove P by the ID method, we will assume ¬P and attempt to derive a contradiction. Since our assumption is not a premise or does not follow directly from an inference rule, but only is being assumed “for the sake of the argument,” we will indicate this by indenting the line.
2. Assume ¬P [Assumption for ID]
At this point we introduce our first premise…
3. ¬P → Q [Premise 1]
(Technically, 3 does not need to be indented as our assumption was. However, I want to use 3 within the framework of our assumption, and as such have indented it. The same can be said for 5 below.)
From here we can now apply an instance of MP on 2 and 3…
4. Q [MP – 2 and 3]
We now introduce our second premise…
5. ¬Q [Premise 2]
We have derived our contradiction (lines 4 and 5), and by the reasoning of ID we have established what we set out to prove. We can now cross through ‘Show’ in line 1. Here is the full proof…
1.ShowP [ID] 2. Assume ¬P [Assumption for ID] 3. ¬P → Q [Premise 1] 4. Q [MP – 2 and 3] 5. ¬Q [Premise 2] Q.E.D.
Posted in Logic • 0 Comments • Permalink • 99 views
by Brian Bosse, Copyright May 01, 2010, all rights reserved.
There are three types of derivations that we will use in our propositional calculus: (1) Direct Derivation (DD), (2) Conditional Derivation (CD), and (3) Indirect Derivation (ID). The following is a proof in the propositional calculus using the direct derivation method.
Premise 1: If Socrates did not die of old age, then the Athenians condemned Socrates to death.
Premise 2: The Athenians did not condemn Socrates to death.
Show: Socrates did die of old age.
To begin, we need to translate this argument into symbolic sentences. Here is the translation…
P: Socrates did die of old age.
Q: The Athenians condemned Socrates to death.
Premise 1: ¬P → Q
Premise 2: ¬Q
Show: P
To begin our proof we begin with what it is we are trying to show. As such, our first line is…
1. Show P [DD]
At this point we will list our two premises…
2. ¬P → Q [Premise 1] 3. ¬Q [Premise 2]
We now consider what inference rules we can use, and see that MT can be applied to 2 and 3. If we let φ stand for ¬P and ψ stand for Q, then by MT we can conclude ¬ φ, which when we translate back is ¬¬P. This is our line 4.
4. ¬¬P [MT – 2 and 3]
We now are able to apply the rule of DN to line four and get…
5. P [DN – 4]
At this point we have derived P from our premises, and as such have shown P. To indicate this we put a line through ‘Show’ in line 1. This would be the full proof…
1.ShowP [DD] 2. ¬P → Q [Premise 1] 3. ¬Q [Premise 2] 4. ¬¬P [MT – 2 and 3] 5. P [DN – 4] Q.E.D.
This is considered a direct derivation because each line follows directly from previous lines (with the exception of the first line). Note: the brackets next to each line are not part of the propositional calculus. They simply are an aid to the reader to show which rule is being used to account for the symbolic sentence. Also, ‘Q.E.D.’ stands for the Latin phrase “quod erat demonstrandum,” which means, “which was to be demonstrated.”
Posted in Logic • 0 Comments • Permalink • 102 views
Page 1 of 3 pages 1 2 3 >