PHIL210 -- Slides-16
Page 1: Introduction to Deductive Logic
Course: Phil 210, McGill University
Instructor: Michael Hallett
Page 2: Readings and Exercises
Contents:
Extensions to the Language, Part III — Identity
The Languages of First-Order Logic (FOL), Definition
Interpreting Truth in FOL
Page 3: Readings and Exercises Continuation
Reading Assignment:
Chapter 26 (Part V)
Chapters 29-30 (Part VI) of forall x: Calgary
Note: Chapter 30 will be treated more thoroughly than in the textbook.
Practice Exercises:
Focus on Carnap's work including quantifiers, identity, definite descriptions, and cognate formulations.
Page 4: Table of Contents Reiteration
Included Topics:
Extensions to the Language, Identity Definitions
Languages of FOL
Truth Interpretation in FOL
Page 5: Extensions to Language: Definite Descriptions
Russell’s Idea:
Addresses terms like ‘both’ and ‘neither’ when used as determiners.
Example: “Neither villain is younger than Greta” is true under specific conditions involving two villains.
Formal Representation:
[ \exists x \exists y (((V(x) \land V(y)) \land
eg x = y) \land \forall z(V(z) \rightarrow (z = x \lor z = y))) \land (
eg Y(x, g) \land
eg Y(y, g))) ]This shows the complexity involved in working with multiple individuals in FOL.
Page 6: Overview of ‘Neither, Nor’ Condition
Explanation:
Presents a formula through existential quantifiers outlining conditions related to villains not being younger than Greta.
Comparison of treatments for similar propositions.
Page 7: Alternative Formulations of ‘Neither, Nor’
Multiple expressions representing the same logical scenarios in different forms:
[ \exists x \exists y( \forall z(V(z) \leftrightarrow (z = x \lor z = y)) \land (
eg x = y \land (
eg Y(x, g) \land
eg Y(y, g)))) ]
Page 8: Important Translation Points
Guidelines:
Use ‘∧’ for existential claims to strengthen claims.
Use ‘→’ for universal claims to weaken claims.
A sentence like ‘∀x(A(x) → B(x))’ emphasizes truth for A under condition B.
Clarifies difference in claims based on assignment of properties.
Page 9: Importance of Quantifier Ordering
Different Implications based on Quantifier Order:
∃x∀yA(x, y): There is someone who admires everyone.
∀y∃xA(y, x): Everyone admires someone.
Page 10: Reflection on FOLs
Common Skepticism:
FOL's cumbersome nature makes it hard to express subtle language.
However, it effectively manages to convey complex ideas with simplicity, which raises philosophical questions.
Page 11: Further Recap of Table of Contents
Topics Remain:
Extensions involving identity and truth in FOL.
Page 12: Description of FOLs
Goals:
Provide a precise description of FOL syntax.
Define truth and validity for arguments in FOLs.
Page 13: Definition of FOL Part I: Syntax
Elements:
List of NAMES (e.g., a1, a2)
List of VARIABLES (e.g., x1, x2)
List of PREDICATES based on arity.
CONNECTIVES: ¬, ∧, ∨, →, ↔
Two QUANTIFIERS: ∃, ∀
Equality Predicate: =
Brackets: for grouping terms.
Page 14: Definition of FOL Part II: Expressions & Terms
Expressions: Any finite string of defined symbols.
Terms: Can be a name or variable.
Page 15: Defining FOL Formulas
Atomic Formulas:
Form based on predicates (e.g., Pnk(t1, t2,...)).
Equality (e.g., t1 = t2).
Formulas developed using connectives and quantifiers.
Bound vs Free variables are crucial in understanding sentences.
Page 16: Distinction between Formulas and Sentences
Hierarchy: Expressions ⇝ Formulas ⇝ Sentences
Important Note:
Not all formulas are sentences; sentences must have no free variables.
Page 17: Forming Sentences from Formulas
Role of Quantified statements in transforming formulas into sentences through variable binding.
Page 18: Names, Predicates, and Atomic Sentences
Formation of sentences from atomic elements using logical predicates and the importance of proper variable assignments.
Page 19: Table of Contents Reiteration
Recap of topics covered.
Page 20: Interpretations of Atomic Sentences
Discuss the concept of domain selection for interpretation in FOL.
Address how truth-values assign to atomic sentences based on definitions and assignments.
Page 21: Truth Values of Atomic Sentences
Example:
If ‘m’ names a student in a specific domain, that influences the true/false evaluation of sentences pertaining to that individual.
Page 22: Making Formulas True Overview
Importance of building truth values of complex formulas from the truth values of their simpler subformulas and assignments.
Page 23: Assigning Objects to Variables
Notation for variable assignments under interpretations and satisfaction functions to verify truth of formulas.
Page 24: Truth of Compounded Formulas
Using Truth-Functional Connectives: Truth values for compounded formulas derived from atomic truths.
Page 25: Truth of Quantified Sentences: Existential
Definition of success for existential claims requiring a valid object assignment for the truth of a statement.
Page 26: Truth of Quantified Sentences: Universal
Definition of universal claims requiring satisfaction across all domain objects under varying assignments.