DOCSLIB.ORG

First-Order Logic Homework #2 Is Assigned, It Is Due Monday, July 7 (1 Week from Today)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
First-Order Logic Homework #2 Is Assigned, It Is Due Monday, July 7 (1 Week from Today) Announcements First-Order Logic Homework #2 is assigned, it is due Monday, July 7 (1 week from today) Project proposals are due today Burr H. Settles CS-540, UW-Madison www.cs.wisc.edu/~cs540-1 Read Chapter 9 in AI: A Modern Approach Summer 2003 for next time 1 2 General Logic PL Review: Truth Tables ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ∧ ∨ ¢ ∨ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ((A C) (A¢ C)) (C B) (A (B C)) ((A B) (A C)) ¡ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ ∧ ∨ £ ∨ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ Logics are characterized by what they consider to A B C ((A C) (A £ C)) (C B) A B C (A (B C)) ((A B) (A C)) be “primitives” T T T T T T T T T T F T T T F T T F T T T F T T T F F T T F F T Logic Primitives Available Knowledge F T T T F T T T Propositional facts true/false/unknown F T F T F T F T F F T T F F T T First-Order facts, objects, relations true/false/unknown F F F F F F F T Temporal facts, objects, relations, true/false/unknown times (A∨B)∧(A∨¬B)∧(¬A∨B)∧(¬A∨¬B) A B (A∨B)∧(A∨¬B)∧(¬A∨B)∧(¬A∨¬B) Probability Theory facts degree of belief 0…1 valid T T F satisfiable, Fuzzy degree of truth degree of belief 0…1 T F F but not valid F T F 3 unsatisfiable F F F 4 PL Review: Inference Rules First-Order Logic ¤ ¤ £ £ ¥ £ Modus Ponens £ , Given the following ¥ knowledge base: ¨ Propositional logic has advantages ¤ ¤ ¤ ∧ ∧ ∧ 1 ∧ 2 ∧ … ∧ n And-Elimination (AE): ¤ 1. P i – Simple § § § 2. P § R ¤ ¤ ¤ 1, 2, … , n – Inference is fast and easy ¤ ¤ ¤ § § ¬ § And-Introduction (AI): ∧ ∧ ∧ 3. R § ¬W 1 ∧ 2 ∧ … ∧ n 4. S ∨ R ¨ ¤ But PL is limited in key ways ∧ § § ∨ § i 5. (P ∧ R) § (S ∨ W) ¤ ¤ Or-Introduction (OI): ¤ ∨ ∨ ∨ 1 2 … n – Enumerate all facts as separate propositions Prove S using natural Double-Negation ¬ ¬ ¤ – No concept of individuals or objects ¤ deduction with these rules. Elimination (DNE): – Can’t express relationships easily ¤ ∨ ¬ 6. R (MP: 1,2) ¨ ¥ ∨ ¥ , ¬ Unit Resolution (UR): ¤ 7. ¬W (MP: 3,6) First-Order Logic is a logic language designed to ¤ ∧ ¥ ¦ ∨ ¥ , ¬ ∨ 8. P R (AI: 1,6) Resolution (R): ¤ remedy these problems ∨ ¦ 9. S ∨ W (MP: 5,8) 10. S (UR: 7,9) ¤ deMorgan’s Law (DML): ¬(¬ ∨ ¥ ) ¤ ∧ ¬¥ ∧ ¬ 5 6 1 FOL Syntax: Basic FOL Syntax: Basic ¨ A term is used to denote an object in the world ¨ An atom is smallest expression to which a truth – Constant: Bob, 2, Madison, Green, … value can be assigned – Variable: x, y, a, b, c, … – Predicate(term1, …, termn): – Function(term1, …, termn): • e.g. teacher(Burr,You), lte(sqrt(2),sqrt(7)) • e.g. sqrt(9), distance(Madison,Chicago) • Maps one or more objects to a truth value • Maps one or more objects to another object • Represents a user defined relation • Can refer to an unnamed object: e.g. leftLegOf(John) • Represents a user defined functional relation – Term1 = Term2: • e.g. height(Burr) = 73in, 1 = 2 ¨ • Represents the equality relation when A ground term is a term with no variables two terms refer to the same object 7 8 FOL Syntax: Basic FOL Syntax: Basic ¡ ¨ A sentence represents a fact in the world that is Sentences are assigned a truth value with respect assigned a truth value to a model and an interpretation – Atom ∧ ∨ ¬ ⇔ ¨ ∧ ∨ ¬ ⇔ – Complex sentence using connectives: The model contains the objects and the relations ¢ ¢ ¢ • e.g. spouse(Burr,Nat) ¢ spouse(Burr,Nat) among them • e.g. less(11,22) ∧ less(22,33) ¨ The interpretation specifies what symbols refer to: – Complex sentence using quantified variables: ∀ ∃ – Constants symbols refer to objects • More about these in a bit… – Predicate symbols refer to relations – Functional symbols refer to functional relations 9 10 FOL Semantics: Assigning Truth FOL Syntax: Quantifiers ¡ ∀ The atom predicate(term1, …, termn) is true iff the The universal quantifier: objects referred to by term1, …, termn are in the relation referred to by the predicate ¡ Sentence holds true for all values of x in the domain of variable x ¨ What is the truth value for s(B,N)? ¨ – Model: Main connective typically ¡ forming if-then rules • Objects: Burr, Nat, Thom, Mark in FOL becomes: • Relation: spouse {<Burr,Nat>,<Nat,Burr>} – “All humans are mammals” ¢ ∀ ¢ ¢ – Interpretation: x human(x) ¢ mammal(x) • B means Burr, N means Nat, T means Thom, etc. – Means if x is a human then x is a mammal • s(term1,term2) means term1 is the spouse of term2 11 12 2 FOL Syntax: Quantifiers FOL Syntax: Quantifiers ¡ ¡ ¡ ¨ ∀x human(x) ¡ mammal(x) Common mistake is to use ∧ as main connective – Results in a blanket statement about everything ¨ Equivalent to the conjunction of all the instantiations of variable x: ¨ For example: ∀x human(x) ∧ mammal(x) ∧ (human(Burr) ∧ mammal(Burr)) ∧ ¢ ¢ ¢ (human(Burr) ¢ mammal(Burr)) ∧ ∧ (human(Nat) ∧ mammal(Nat)) ∧ ¢ ¢ ¢ (human(Nat) ¢ mammal(Nat)) ∧ ∧ (human(Thom) ∧ mammal(Thom)) ∧ … ¢ ¢ ¢ (human(Thom) ¢ mammal(Thom)) ∧ … – But this means everything is human and a mammal! 13 14 FOL Syntax: Quantifiers FOL Syntax: Quantifiers The existential quantifier: ∃ ∃x human(x) ∧ male(x) ¡ Sentence holds true for some value of x in the ¨ Equivalent to the disjunction of all the domain of variable x instantiations of variable x: (human(Burr) ∧ male(Burr)) ∨ ¨ Main connective typically ∧ (human(Nat) ∧ male(Nat)) ∨ – “Some humans are male” in FOL becomes: (human(Thom) ∧ male(Thom)) ∨ … ∃x human(x) ∧ male(x) – Means x is some human and x is a male 15 16 FOL Syntax: Quantifiers FOL Syntax: Quantifiers ¨ ¨ Common mistake is to use ¡ as main connective. Properties of quantifiers: – Results in a weak statement – ∀x ∀y is the same as ∀y ∀x – ∃x ∃y is the same as ∃y ∃x ¨ ¡ ¡ ¡ For example: ∃x human(x) ¡ male(x) ¨ ¢ ¢ ∨ ¢ (human(Burr) ¢ male(Burr)) Why? ¢ ¢ ∨ ¢ (human(Nat) ¢ male(Nat)) ∨ – ∀x ∀y likes(x,y) ∨ ¢ ¢ ∨ ¢ (human(Thom) ¢ male(Thom)) … the active voice: “Everyone likes everyone.” – Can be true if there is something not human! – ∀y ∀x likes(x,y) the passive voice: “Everyone is liked by everyone.” 17 18 3 FOL Syntax: Quantifiers FOL Syntax: Quantifiers ¨ ¨ Properties of quantifiers: Properties of quantifiers: – ∀x ∃y is not the same as ∃y ∀x – ∀x P(x) is the same as ¬∃x ¬P(x) – ∃x ∀y is not the same as ∀y ∃x – ∃x P(x) is the same as ¬∀x ¬P(x) ¨ ¨ Why? Why? – ∀x ∃y likes(x,y) – ∀x sleep(x) “Everyone has someone they like.” “Everybody sleeps.” – ∃y ∀x likes(x,y) – ¬∃x ¬sleep(x) “There is someone who is liked by everyone.” double negative: “Nobody don’t sleep.” 19 20 FOL Syntax: Quantifiers FOL Syntax: Basics ¨ Properties of quantifiers: A free variable is a variable that isn’t bound – ∀x P(x) when negated is ∃x ¬P(x) by a quantifier – ∃x P(x) when negated is ∀x ¬P(x) – i.e. ∃y Likes(x,y): x is free, y is bound ¨ Why? – ∀x sleeps(x) A well-formed formula is a sentence where “Everybody sleeps.” all variables are quantified (none are free) – ∃x ¬sleeps(x) negated: “Somebody doesn’t sleep.” 21 22 Summary So Far Summary So Far ¨ Constants: Bob, 2, Madison, … Term: Constant, variable, or function… denotes an object in the world (a ground term has no variables) ¨ Variables: x, y, a, b, c, … ¨ Functions: Income, Address, Sqrt, … Atom: Is smallest expression assigned a truth value ¨ – e.g. Predicate(term , …, term ), term = term Predicates: Teacher, Sisters, Even, Prime… 1 n 1 2 ¨ ¡ Connectives: ∧ ∨ ¬ ⇔ Sentence: An atom, quantified sentence with variables, or ¨ Equality: = complex sentence using connectives; assigned a truth value ¨ ∀ ∃ Quantifiers: Well-Formed Formula (wff): A sentence where all variables are quantified 23 24 4 Thinking in Logical Sentences Thinking in Logical Sentences Convert the following sentences into FOL: We can also do this with relations: ¨ ¨ “Bob is a fish.” “America bought Alaska from Russia.” – What is the constant? – What are the constants? • Bob • America, Alaska, Russia – What is the predicate? – What are the relations? • is a fish • bought – Answer: fish(Bob) – Answer: bought(America, Alaska, Russia) ¨ ¨ “Burr and Mark are grad students.” “Warm is between cold and hot.” ¨ ¨ “Burr, Mark, or Nat is not a rat.” “Burr and Nat are married.” 25 26 Thinking in Logical Sentences Thinking in Logical Sentences Now let’s think about quantification: ¨ All ¨ “Burr likes everything.” – Things: anything, everything, whatever – What is the constant? – Persons: anybody, anyone, everybody, everyone, whoever • Burr ¨ Some (at least one) – How are they variables quantified? – Things: something • All/universal – Persons: somebody, someone ∀ – Answer: x likes(Burr, x) ¨ None – i.e. likes(Burr, IceCream) ∧ likes(Burr, Nat) ∧ likes(Burr, Armadillos) ∧ … – Things: nothing ¨ “Burr likes something.” – Persons: nobody, no one ¨ “Somebody likes Burr.” 27 28 Thinking in Logical Sentences Thinking in Logical Sentences We can also have multiple quantifiers: Let’s allow more complex quantified relations: ¨ ¨ “Somebody heard something.” “All stinky shoes are allowed.” – What are the variables? – How are ideas connected? • being a shoe and being stinky implies that it is allowed • somebody and something ∀ ∧ – Answer: ∀x shoe(x) ∧ stinky(x) allowed(x) – How are they quantified? ¨ • both are at least one/existential “No stinky shoes are allowed.” ¬∃ ∧ ∧ – Answer: ∃x,y heard(x,y) – Answer: x shoe(x) stinky(x) allowed(x) ¨ ¨ “Everybody heard everything.” The equivalent: “Stinky shoes are not allowed.” ¨ “Somebody did not hear everything.” ∀ ∧ ¬ – Answer: ∀x shoe(x) ∧ stinky(x) ¬allowed(x) 29 30 5 Thinking in Logical Sentences Thinking in Logical Sentences And some more complex relations: And some really complex relations: ¨ ¨ “No one sees everything.” “Any good amateur can beat some professional.” – What are the variables and quantifiers? – Lets break this down: ¢ ∀ ¢ ¢ • nothing and everything • x [ (x is a good amateur) ¢ (x can beat some professional) ] • not one (i.e.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Formal Logic: Quantifiers, Predicates, and Validity
    Formal Logic: Quantifiers, Predicates, and Validity CS 130 – Discrete Structures Variables and Statements • Variables: A variable is a symbol that stands for an individual in a collection or set. For example, the variable x may stand for one of the days. We may let x = Monday, x = Tuesday, etc. • We normally use letters at the end of the alphabet as variables, such as x, y, z. • A collection of objects is called the domain of objects. For the above example, the days in the week is the domain of variable x. CS 130 – Discrete Structures 55 Quantifiers • Propositional wffs have rather limited expressive power. E.g., “For every x, x > 0”. • Quantifiers: Quantifiers are phrases that refer to given quantities, such as "for some" or "for all" or "for every", indicating how many objects have a certain property. • Two kinds of quantifiers: – Universal Quantifier: represented by , “for all”, “for every”, “for each”, or “for any”. – Existential Quantifier: represented by , “for some”, “there exists”, “there is a”, or “for at least one”. CS 130 – Discrete Structures 56 Predicates • Predicate: It is the verbal statement which describes the property of a variable. Usually represented by the letter P, the notation P(x) is used to represent some unspecified property or predicate that x may have. – P(x) = x has 30 days. – P(April) = April has 30 days. – What is the truth value of (x)P(x) where x is all the months and P(x) = x has less than 32 days • Combining the quantifier and the predicate, we get a complete statement of the form (x)P(x) or (x)P(x) • The collection of objects is called the domain of interpretation, and it must contain at least one object.
    [Show full text]
  • First-Order Logic Part Two
    First-Order Logic Part Two Recap from Last Time What is First-Order Logic? ● First-order logic is a logical system for reasoning about properties of objects. ● Augments the logical connectives from propositional logic with ● predicates that describe properties of objects, ● functions that map objects to one another, and ● quantifiers that allow us to reason about many objects at once. Some muggle is intelligent. ∃m. (Muggle(m) ∧ Intelligent(m)) ∃ existential quantifier ∃ isis thethe existential quantifier andand sayssays “for“for somesome choicechoice ofof m,m, thethe followingfollowing isis true.”true.” “For any natural number n, n is even if and only if n2 is even” ∀n. (n ∈ ℕ → (Even(n) ↔ Even(n2))) ∀ universal quantifier ∀ isis thethe universal quantifier andand sayssays “for“for anyany choicechoice ofof nn,, thethe followingfollowing isis true.”true.” “All A's are B's” translates as ∀x. (A(x) → B(x)) Useful Intuition: Universally-quantified statements are true unless there's a counterexample. ∀x. (A(x) → B(x)) IfIf xx isis aa counterexample,counterexample, itit mustmust havehave propertyproperty AA butbut notnot havehave propertyproperty BB.. “Some A is a B” translates as ∃x. (A(x) ∧ B(x)) Useful Intuition: Existentially-quantified statements are false unless there's a positive example. ∃x. (A(x) ∧ B(x)) IfIf xx isis anan example,example, itit mustmust havehave propertyproperty AA onon toptop ofof propertyproperty BB.. The Aristotelian Forms “All As are Bs” “Some As are Bs” ∀x. (A(x) → B(x)) ∃x. (A(x) ∧ B(x)) “No As are Bs” “Some As aren’t Bs” ∀x. (A(x) → ¬B(x)) ∃x. (A(x) ∧ ¬B(x)) ItIt isis worthworth committingcommitting thesethese patternspatterns toto memory.memory.
    [Show full text]
  • Whose Existence? a Deflationist Compromise to the Fregean/Neo-Meinongiandivide
    Whose Existence? A Deflationist Compromise to the Fregean/Neo-Meinongian Divide Giuliano Bacigalupo University of Geneva Abstract The dispute between the Fregean and the Neo-Meinongian approach to existence has become entrenched: it seems that nothing but intuitions may be relied upon to decide the issue. And since contemporary analytic philosophers clearly are in- clined towards the intuitions that support Frege’s approach, it looks as if Fre- geanism has won the day. In this paper, however, I try to develop a compromise solution. This compromise consists in abandoning the assumption shared by both Fregeanism and Neo-Meinongianism, namely that the notion of existence adds something to the content of a statement. To the contrary, we should think of ex- istence as a redundant notion. In other words, I will argue that we should be de- flationist about existence. Moreover, the kind of deflationism I propose relies on what I call the existence equivalence schema, a schema which follows the blue- print of the well-known truth equivalence schema. From such a perspective, we can say that Fregean philosophers rightly deny the status of a discriminating property to existence; and, conversely, Neo-Meinongians, too, rightly reject the view that existence is captured by quantification or expresses a universal property of objects. Finally, the argument that we should take a deflationist approach to existence builds upon an analysis of natural language (general) existential state- ments and their intuitive entailment-relations. Keywords: Existence, Frege, Meinong, Deflationism 1. Introduction There are few problems in philosophy on the solution of which there seems to be an overwhelming consensus.
    [Show full text]
  • Handout 5 – the Semantics of Predicate Logic LX 502 – Semantics I October 17, 2008
    Handout 5 – The Semantics of Predicate Logic LX 502 – Semantics I October 17, 2008 1. The Interpretation Function This handout is a continuation of the previous handout and deals exclusively with the semantics of Predicate Logic. When you feel comfortable with the syntax of Predicate Logic, I urge you to read these notes carefully. The business of semantics, as I have stated in class, is to determine the truth-conditions of a proposition and, in so doing, describe the models in which a proposition is true (and those in which it is false). Although we’ve extended our logical language, our goal remains the same. By adopting a more sophisticated logical language with a lexicon that includes elements below the sentence-level, we now need a more sophisticated semantics, one that derives the meaning of the proposition from the meaning of its constituent individuals, predicates, and variables. But the essentials are still the same. Propositions correspond to states of affairs in the outside world (Correspondence Theory of Truth). For example, the proposition in (1) is true if and only if it correctly describes a state of affairs in the outside world in which the object corresponding to the name Aristotle has the property of being a man. (1) MAN(a) Aristotle is a man The semantics of Predicate Logic does two things. It assigns a meaning to the individuals, predicates, and variables in the syntax. It also systematically determines the meaning of a proposition from the meaning of its constituent parts and the order in which those parts combine (Principle of Compositionality).
    [Show full text]
  • First Order Logic Beyond Propositional Logic
    First Order Logic Beyond Propositional logic • Propositional logic not expressive enough – In Wumpus world we needed to explicitly write every case of Breeze & Pit relation – Facts = propositions – “All squares next to pits are breezy” • “Regular” programming languages mix facts (data) and procedures (algorithms) – World[2,2]=Pit – Cannot deduce/compose facts automatically – Declarative vs. Procedural Natural Language • Natural language probably not used for representation – Used for communication – “Look!” First-Order Logic • Idea: – Don’t treat propositions as “atomic” entities. • First-Order Logic: – Objects: cs4701, fred, ph219, emptylist … – Relations/Predicates: is_Man(fred), Located(cs4701, ph219), is_kind_of(apple, fruit)… • Note: Relations typically correspond to verbs – Functions: Best_friend(), beginning_of() : Returns object(s) – Connectives: , , , , – Quantifiers: • Universal: x: ( is_Man(x) ) is_Mortal(x) ) • Existential: y: ( is_Father(y, fred) ) Predicates • In traditional grammar, a predicate is one of the two main parts of a sentence the other being the subject, which the predicate modifies. • "John is yellow" John acts as the subject, and is yellow acts as the predicate. • The predicate is much like a verb phrase. • In linguistic semantics a predicate is an expression that can be true of something Wikipedia Types of formal mathematical logic • Propositional logic – Propositions are interpreted as true or false – Infer truth of new propositions • First order logic – Contains predicates, quantifiers and variables • E.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Domains of Discourse François Recanati
    Domains of discourse François Recanati To cite this version: François Recanati. Domains of discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy, Springer Verlag, 1996, 19 (5), pp.445-475. ijn_00000178 HAL Id: ijn_00000178 https://jeannicod.ccsd.cnrs.fr/ijn_00000178 Submitted on 9 Oct 2002 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Domains of discourse* François Recanati CREA (Ecole Polytechnique/CNRS) 1 rue Descartes, 75005 Paris, France I. Austinian semantics Natural language quantifiers often seem implicitly restricted. Thus when we say 'The burglar took everything', we have the feeling that 'everything' ranges over the domain of valuable objects in the house — not everything in the world. (In this case, it can be argued that there has to be some contextual restriction or other, for a totally unrestricted notion of 'everything in the world' hardly makes sense.) In the same way, someone who says 'Most students came to the party' is likely to have a particular group of students in mind, such that most students in that group came to the party. Footnotes * A decade ago I presented a first version of the theory of domains, inspired by Fauconnier's work, in a talk to the Aristotelian Society (Recanati 1987).
    [Show full text]
  • David Lewis's Neglected Challenge: It's Me Or God I
    David Lewis’s Neglected Challenge: It’s Me or God David Lewis’s Neglected Challenge: It’s Me or God Andrew Stephenson University of Oxford Abstract I begin by sketching a dialectic typical of modern discus- sions of the ontological argument and explain the underlying modal principles. I will not pursue this well-worn dialectic. Instead I will explicate David Lewis’s valid reconstruction (in first order predicate logic) of St Anselm’s argument in Proslogion-II. Lewis’s objections to this argument are based on his idiosyncratic views about modality. Implicitly, Lewis presents a challenge: either I am right about modality, or there is a sound version of the ontological argument. More specifically, Lewis claims there is no good reason to suppose there is anything special about the actual world. I suggest there is good reason to think that must be incorrect. Thus we are left with a formal version of the ontological argument for God’s existence that for all we have seen here looks eminently viable. I Modal versions of the ontological argument for Gods existence de- pend on the plausibility of their claim that some proposition p to the effect that God exists is possibly necessary (or, if they are com- fortable with de re modal ascriptions, their claim that God is such that He possibly necessarily exists). Such an argument might take the following form (sticking with modality de dicto): 55 Perspectives: International Postgraduate Journal of Philosophy (1) Possibly necessarily p (premise) (2) If possibly necessarily p then necessarily p (modal principle) (3) Necessarily p (from (1) and (2)) (4) If necessarily p then p (modal principle) (5) p (from (3) and (4)) (2) instantiates a theorem of S5, a system of modal logic in which the accessibility relation between possible worlds is one of equivalence.
    [Show full text]
  • ONTOLOGICAL TERROR Blackness, Nihilism, and Emancipation ONTOLOGICAL TERROR ONTOLOGICAL
    Calvin L. Warren ONTOLOGICAL TERROR Blackness, Nihilism, and Emancipation ONTOLOGICAL TERROR ONTOLOGICAL BLACKNESS, NIHILISM, AND EMANCIPATION TERROR Calvin L. Warren | | © Duke University Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America on acid- free paper ∞ Designed by Matthew Tauch Typeset in Warnock Pro by Copperline Book Services Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication Data Names: Warren, Calvin L., [date – ] author. Title: Ontological terror : Blackness, nihilism, and emancipation / Calvin L. Warren. Description: Durham : Duke University Press, . | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: (print) | (ebook) (ebook) (hardcover : alk. paper) (pbk. : alk. paper) Subjects: : Race — Political aspects. | Racism. | Race awareness. | Blacks — Race identity. | Nihilism (Philosophy) | Ontology. Classification: (ebook) | . (print) | . — dc record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/ Cover art: Sondra Perry, still from Black/Cloud, . Courtesy Bridget Donahue Gallery, NYC. DEDICATED TO Fannie Warren, Lurene Brunson, and Jane Elven (my three mothers) For their love, patience, and unending support CONTENTS Acknowledgments ix INTRODUCTION The Free Black Is Nothing CHAPTER 1 The Question of Black Being CHAPTER 2 Outlawing CHAPTER 3 Scientific Horror CHAPTER 4 Catachrestic Fantasies CODA Adieu to the Human Notes Bibliography Index ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This book is born out of numerous conversations, spirited debates, no- etic experiments, and silent reflections. My intention is to reinvigorate and expand a philosophical field, one often neglected and ignored: black nihilism. The thinking here represents my attempt to center the onto- logical crisis blackness presents to an antiblack world. This is a difficult task, and many have provided intellectual and emotional support to ac- complish it. I am grateful for those who have endured my negativity, un- conventional thinking, and exasperation.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematical Logic Part Two
    Mathematical Logic Part Two Announcements ● Problem Set 2 and Checkpoint 3 graded. ● Will be returned at end of lecture. ● Problem Set 3 due this Friday at 2:15PM. ● Stop by office hours questions! ● Email [email protected] with questions! First-Order Logic What is First-Order Logic? ● First-order logic is a logical system for reasoning about properties of objects. ● Augments the logical connectives from propositional logic with ● predicates that describe properties of objects, and ● functions that map objects to one another, ● quantifiers that allow us to reason about multiple objects simultaneously. The Universe of Propositional Logic The Universe of Propositional Logic p ∧ q → ¬r ∨ ¬s The Universe of Propositional Logic p ∧ q → ¬r ∨ ¬s TRUE FALSE The Universe of Propositional Logic p ∧ q → ¬r ∨ ¬s r s p q TRUE FALSE The Universe of Propositional Logic p ∧ q → ¬r ∨ ¬s s r q p TRUE FALSE Propositional Logic ● In propositional logic, each variable represents a proposition, which is either true or false. ● Consequently, we can directly apply connectives to propositions: ● p → q ● ¬p ∧ q ● The truth or falsity of a statement can be determined by plugging in the truth values for the input propositions and computing the result. ● We can see all possible truth values for a statement by checking all possible truth assignments to its variables. The Universe of First-Order Logic The Universe of First-Order Logic The Universe of First-Order Logic The Sun The Universe of First-Order Logic The Sun The Moon The Universe of First-Order Logic The Sun Venus The Moon The Universe of First-Order Logic The Sun Venus The Morning Star The Moon The Universe of First-Order Logic The Sun Venus The Morning Star The Evening Star The Moon First-Order Logic ● In first-order logic, each variable refers to some object in a set called the domain of discourse.
    [Show full text]
  • David Lewis's Metaphysics
    David Lewis's Metaphysics The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Hall, Edwards. 2010. David Lewis's metaphysics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2010. Published Version http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/lewis- metaphysics/ Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:34611680 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Articles, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#OAP David Lewis Part 1: Fundamental ontology Ned Hall §0 Introduction One of the most interesting and influential analytic philosophers of the 20th cen- tury, David Lewis produced a body of philosophical writing that, in four books and scores of articles, spanned every major philosophical area, with perhaps the greatest concentration in metaphysics, philosophy of language, philosophical logic, and phi- losophy of mind. Despite this astonishing variety, a newcomer to Lewis’s philosophy would be best advised to begin with his metaphysics (especially: 1986a, 1986e, 1999). There are several reasons. First, the majority of Lewis’s work either concerns, or sub- stantially overlaps, topics in metaphysics. Second, the metaphysical positions Lewis stakes out are strikingly original and powerfully argued. Third, there is a coherence and systematicity to this work that makes it a particularly
    [Show full text]
  • The Theurgic Turn in Christian Thought: Iamblichus, Origen, Augustine, and the Eucharist by Jason A
    The Theurgic Turn in Christian Thought: Iamblichus, Origen, Augustine, and the Eucharist by Jason B. Parnell A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Classical Studies) in the University of Michigan 2009 Doctoral Committee: Professor Sarah L. Ahbel‑Rappe, Co‑Chair Professor David S. Potter, Co‑Chair Professor Victor Caston Associate Professor Arthur Mfw Verhoogt © Jason B. Parnell 2009 Acknowledgments Thanks beyond measure are due to Professor Sara Ahbel‑Rappe, my principal advisor, without whose thoughtful and timely input this project would simply have failed. What coherence is to be found here is largely due to her knowledge, experience and knack for dispensing just the right wisdom at just the right time. For their very helpful advice on constructing a larger narrative about intellectual history, I am indebted to Professor David Potter and Professor Victor Caston – as to Professor Arthur Verhoogt for his papyrologist’s eye for error and scrutinizing attention to key ideas and their proper explication. Professor H.D. Cameron is justly acknowledged as well, for believing early on that the project was alive when it appeared quite moribund. More broadly, I must express my gratitude to the Department of Classical Studies as a whole, for permitting my completion of a project that began, properly speaking, in 1996. Among my peers in graduate school, who have contributed so much charm and mayhem to my years at Michigan, I must acknowledge pre‑eminently Raji Mittal, Alex Conison, Alex Angelov, and Albertus Horsting, whose capacities for constructive idleness and distraction astonishingly dwarf even my own.
    [Show full text]
  • The Syntax of Predicate Logic
    The Syntax of Predicate Logic LX 502 – Semantics I October 11, 2008 1. Below the Sentence-Level In Propositional Logic, atomic propositions correspond to simple sentences in the object language. Since atomic propositions are the smallest elements of the system, simple sentences are the smallest parts of the object language that we can represent in our metalanguage. In this respect, Propositional Logic is a blunt instrument. It is ill-equipped to capture the valid arguments in (1) or (2). (1) Every man is mortal Aristotle is a man Therefore: Aristotle is mortal (2) Aristotle is a man Therefore: Someone is a man Our intuitions tell us these arguments are valid, i.e., the premises entail the conclusion. The reasoning is straightforward but it draws on relationships in the object language formed below the sentence-level. These relationships are sensitive to things in the world, like Aristotle, and properties they have, like being a man and being mortal. Consider (1). Suppose the first premise is true: those things in the world that are mortal include those things in the world that are men. Put another way, every thing in the world that is a man is mortal. Now suppose Aristotle is a man. It follows Aristotle is necessarily mortal. Set Theory gives us a way to represent this inference, illustrated in (3), which shows the relationship between being mortal and being a man: from the first premise, that being a man is a subset of being mortal. If Aristotle is in the set of men, he must also be in the set of mortal things.
    [Show full text]