DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:1312.7832V5 [Math.LO] 8 May 2021

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arxiv:1312.7832V5 [Math.LO] 8 May 2021 Defining implication relation for classical logic Li Fu School of Software Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China [email protected] Abstract Classical logic has a problematic definition of implication – the “material implication”. This work presents a definition of implication relation to replace the material implication for classical logic. The “paradoxes” of material implication are avoided while strength and simplicity of the system are reserved with this definition of implication. Keywords. implication; relation; material implication; logical implication; classical logic; propositional logic; paradox 1 Introduction In classical logic, “if P then Q” or “P implies Q” is defined as “not P or Q” (namely (P → Q) ↔ ¬P ∨ Q in symbols), and is called material implication. It is well known that this definition is problematic in that it leads to counterintuitive results or “paradoxes”. There are many paradoxes of material implication, see e.g. (Bronstein, 1936) and (Lojko, 2012) where lists sixteen paradoxes of material implication. For instance, the following formulas are theorems in classical logic, which can be verified with (P → Q) ↔ ¬P ∨ Q: (1) (P ↔⊤) ∨ (P ↔⊥) (any proposition is “either a tautology or a contradiction”); (2) (P → Q) ∨ (Q → P ) (for any two propositions, “at least one implies the other”). It is actually even worse than counterintuitive or merely “paradoxical”: the first one excludes any normal contingencies or contingent propositions, and the second one means that any two propositions must be related by implication. Both do not coincide with a large number of cases in the real world. Many efforts have been made to resolve this problem such as: intuitionistic logic which rejects the law of excluded middle, paraconsistent logic which rejects the principle of explosion (including relevance logic requiring relevant antecedent and consequent), modal logic which introduces the “strict implication”, and inquisitive logic (see e.g. (Ciardelli, 2011)) which considers inquisitive semantics of sentences rather than arXiv:1312.7832v5 [math.LO] 8 May 2021 just their descriptive aspects. These non-classical logics are important to modern formal sciences and other disciplines. However, classical logic exists on its own reason, see e.g. (Fulda, 1989). Classical logic, with its natural principles like the law of excluded middle, is not only fundamental, but also simple and useful. Classical logic is an important part of logic education, so it has been an essential part of most logic textbooks. Implication is the kernel concept in logic: “implies” means the same as that “of ordinary inference and proof” (Lewis, 1912). So it is not satisfying that the both simple and useful classical logic has a wrong definition of implication – material implication. This work defines implication as a relation (indeed it is) to replace material implication in classical logic. Moreover, this is done by using only concepts that already exist in classical logic rather than using any “new” notions introduced in non-classical logics. Another objective of this work is to prevent from developing “too narrow” a definition of implication, as Bronstein (1936) commented on Nelson’s intensional logic: “Although his system does avoid the ‘paradoxes’, it does so only by unduly narrowing his conception of implication.” Although classical logics include at least propositional logic and first-order logic, this work concentrates on classical propositional logic, since concepts concerning the implication relation are the same. 1 2 Informal analysis 2.1 The problem The definition of material implication in classical logic is based on the “fact”: for propositions P and Q, “if P then Q” is logically equivalent to “it is not that P and not Q”, and this is again logically equivalent to “not P or Q”. Thus (P → Q) ↔ ¬P ∨ Q is taken as a tautology to define the material implication. This makes the material implication a truth-functional connective just like conjunction and disjunction, i.e., the truth value of the compound proposition P → Q is a function of the truth values of its sub- propositions. This means that the truth value of “if P then Q” is determined solely by the combination of truth value of P and that of Q, but this is problematic as shown below. (1) When we know that P is true and Q is true (“not P or Q” must be true), can we decide that “if P then Q” is true (or false)? No. (2) When we know that P is true and Q is false (“not P or Q” must be false), can we decide that “if P then Q” is true (or false)? Yes, we can decide that it must be false. (3) When we know that P is false and Q is true (“not P or Q” must be true), can we decide that “if P then Q” is true (or false)? No. (4) When we know that P is false and Q is false (“not P or Q” must be true), can we decide that “if P then Q” is true (or false)? No. In all cases, the truth values of “not P or Q” are determined by those of the components, but in only one case, namely the second one, the truth value of “if P then Q” can be determined by the truth-value combination of P and Q (when P is true and Q is false, “if P then Q” must be false). This indicates that “if P then Q” is not logically equivalent to “not P or Q”. On the other hand, since “if P then Q” is surely false when P is true and Q is false, we must have P ∧¬Q → ¬(P → Q), which is equivalent to (P → Q) → ¬P ∨Q by contraposition and duality. In summary, (P → Q) = ¬P ∨ Q; (P → Q) → ¬P ∨ Q. Some researchers have already addressed this issue with different motivations or explanations, such as MacColl (1880), Bronstein (1936), Woods (1967), Dale (1974), and Lojko (2012). It is the incorrect definition of implication in classical logic that leads to unacceptable results. The use of the mistaken equivalence between “P implies Q” and “not P or Q” is the root of the problem. The implication as a binary relation must not be truth-functional (Woods, 1967). It is correct to put the implication in the level of relation between propositions, rather than the level of function of propositions. 2.2 The solution Implication relation P → Q says just that “if P is true, then Q is true”, offering no information about cases when P is false. In other words, the implication is true if and only if whenever the antecedent is true the consequent must be true, no matter what happen when the antecedent is false. Hence, in cases when P is true Q is not necessarily true (Q is false or may be true or false), P → Q is false; and in cases when P is false, the truth of Q does not affect the truth of P → Q. The implication described above is essentially the same as “strict implication” in modal logic. However, the target of this work is a “classical” system, which means at least that only logical connectives in classical logic are used, without introducing any “new things” like modal operators. The equivalence relation is defined as the bidirectional implication: P ↔ Q = (P → Q) ∧ (Q → P ). By the meaning of the implication, two propositions are equivalent if and only if they are simultaneously true and simultaneously false – it is even simpler than the implication itself. So another way is to define implication by equivalence instead. To find an equivalence expression that reflects the characteristics of the implication, consider a lattice (L, ≤, ∧, ∨). It is a property of a lattice that a ≤ b if and only if a ∧ b = a if and only if a ∨ b = b. If we 2 define implication relation P → Q by P ∧ Q ↔ P , it is exactly what the implication is: whenever P is true, P ∧ Q (↔ P ) is true, i.e. P is true and Q is true, so Q must be true; and when P is false, although P ∧ Q is false, Q can be either true or false. In addition to the implication relation, fundamental laws about tautology and contradiction, negation, conjunction and disjunction are also necessary for a propositional logical system, so a natural result must be (at least) a Boolean lattice that is a complemented distributive lattice. A Boolean lattice (L, ≤, ∧, ∨, 1, 0, ¬) can be derived from Boolean algebra (L, ∧, ∨, 1, 0, ¬) by defining the partial order “≤” as a ≤ b if and only if a ∧ b = a or a ∨ b = b. In order to construct a propositional logical system whose axioms are borrowed from those of Boolean algebra, the only thing needs to be considered first is to define the counterpart of the equality relation (=) in the algebra. This can be done by specifically adding axioms to define the equivalence relation (↔). The resulted propositional logical system (L, ⊤, ⊥, ¬, ∧, ∨, →, ↔) is a Boolean lattice with the implication defined by (P → Q) ↔ (P ∧ Q ↔ P ) as a partial order, but this system is more than a Boolean lattice: it encompasses multiple implication (and equivalence) expressions which can not be interpreted in a lattice so that it is more expressive or powerful. Due to properties of a Boolean algebra, the following four formulas are equivalent: P ∧ Q ↔ P ; P ∨ Q ↔ Q; P ∧ ¬Q ↔⊥; ¬P ∨ Q ↔⊤. The last one reveals the contrasting difference between the implication defined in this work and the material implication of classical logic: (P → Q) ↔ (¬P ∨ Q ↔⊤) in this work; (P → Q) ↔ (¬P ∨ Q) in classical logic. 3 Propositional logic IRL For convenience, IRL (Implication-is-a-Relation Logic) is used hereinafter to refer the propositional logical system presented in this section. 3.1 Language and semantics Let L be a propositional language, a set of formulas formed recursively by ϕ, ψ := ⊤ | ⊥ | P | ¬ϕ | ϕ ∧ ψ | ϕ ∨ ψ | ϕ → ψ | ϕ ↔ ψ, where P is any member of a countable set of symbols or strings of symbols representing primitive propositions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Classifying Material Implications Over Minimal Logic
    Classifying Material Implications over Minimal Logic Hannes Diener and Maarten McKubre-Jordens March 28, 2018 Abstract The so-called paradoxes of material implication have motivated the development of many non- classical logics over the years [2–5, 11]. In this note, we investigate some of these paradoxes and classify them, over minimal logic. We provide proofs of equivalence and semantic models separating the paradoxes where appropriate. A number of equivalent groups arise, all of which collapse with unrestricted use of double negation elimination. Interestingly, the principle ex falso quodlibet, and several weaker principles, turn out to be distinguishable, giving perhaps supporting motivation for adopting minimal logic as the ambient logic for reasoning in the possible presence of inconsistency. Keywords: reverse mathematics; minimal logic; ex falso quodlibet; implication; paraconsistent logic; Peirce’s principle. 1 Introduction The project of constructive reverse mathematics [6] has given rise to a wide literature where various the- orems of mathematics and principles of logic have been classified over intuitionistic logic. What is less well-known is that the subtle difference that arises when the principle of explosion, ex falso quodlibet, is dropped from intuitionistic logic (thus giving (Johansson’s) minimal logic) enables the distinction of many more principles. The focus of the present paper are a range of principles known collectively (but not exhaustively) as the paradoxes of material implication; paradoxes because they illustrate that the usual interpretation of formal statements of the form “. → . .” as informal statements of the form “if. then. ” produces counter-intuitive results. Some of these principles were hinted at in [9]. Here we present a carefully worked-out chart, classifying a number of such principles over minimal logic.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematical Logic. Introduction. by Vilnis Detlovs And
    1 Version released: May 24, 2017 Introduction to Mathematical Logic Hyper-textbook for students by Vilnis Detlovs, Dr. math., and Karlis Podnieks, Dr. math. University of Latvia This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License and is copyrighted © 2000-2017 by us, Vilnis Detlovs and Karlis Podnieks. Sections 1, 2, 3 of this book represent an extended translation of the corresponding chapters of the book: V. Detlovs, Elements of Mathematical Logic, Riga, University of Latvia, 1964, 252 pp. (in Latvian). With kind permission of Dr. Detlovs. Vilnis Detlovs. Memorial Page In preparation – forever (however, since 2000, used successfully in a real logic course for computer science students). This hyper-textbook contains links to: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; MacTutor History of Mathematics archive of the University of St Andrews; MathWorld of Wolfram Research. 2 Table of Contents References..........................................................................................................3 1. Introduction. What Is Logic, Really?.............................................................4 1.1. Total Formalization is Possible!..............................................................5 1.2. Predicate Languages.............................................................................10 1.3. Axioms of Logic: Minimal System, Constructive System and Classical System..........................................................................................................27 1.4. The Flavor of Proving Directly.............................................................40
    [Show full text]
  • Minimal Logic and Automated Proof Verification
    Minimal Logic and Automated Proof Verification Louis Warren A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Canterbury New Zealand 2019 Abstract We implement natural deduction for first order minimal logic in Agda, and verify minimal logic proofs and natural deduction properties in the resulting proof system. We study the implications of adding the drinker paradox and other formula schemata to minimal logic. We show first that these principles are independent of the law of excluded middle and of each other, and second how these schemata relate to other well-known principles, such as Markov’s Principle of unbounded search, providing proofs and semantic models where appropriate. We show that Bishop’s constructive analysis can be adapted to minimal logic. Acknowledgements Many thanks to Hannes Diener and Maarten McKubre-Jordens for their wonderful supervision. Their encouragement and guidance was the primary reason why my studies have been an enjoyable and relatively non-stressful experience. I am thankful for their suggestions and advice, and that they encouraged me to also pursue the questions I found interesting. Thanks also to Douglas Bridges, whose lectures inspired my interest in logic. I cannot imagine a better foundation for a constructivist. I am grateful to the University of Canterbury for funding my research, to CORCON for funding my secondments, and to my hosts Helmut Schwichtenberg in Munich, Ulrich Berger and Monika Seisenberger in Swansea, and Milly Maietti and Giovanni Sambin in Padua. This thesis is dedicated to Bertrand and Hester Warren, to whom I express my deepest gratitude.
    [Show full text]
  • The Incorrect Usage of Propositional Logic in Game Theory
    The Incorrect Usage of Propositional Logic in Game Theory: The Case of Disproving Oneself Holger I. MEINHARDT ∗ August 13, 2018 Recently, we had to realize that more and more game theoretical articles have been pub- lished in peer-reviewed journals with severe logical deficiencies. In particular, we observed that the indirect proof was not applied correctly. These authors confuse between statements of propositional logic. They apply an indirect proof while assuming a prerequisite in order to get a contradiction. For instance, to find out that “if A then B” is valid, they suppose that the assumptions “A and not B” are valid to derive a contradiction in order to deduce “if A then B”. Hence, they want to establish the equivalent proposition “A∧ not B implies A ∧ notA” to conclude that “if A then B”is valid. In fact, they prove that a truth implies a falsehood, which is a wrong statement. As a consequence, “if A then B” is invalid, disproving their own results. We present and discuss some selected cases from the literature with severe logical flaws, invalidating the articles. Keywords: Transferable Utility Game, Solution Concepts, Axiomatization, Propositional Logic, Material Implication, Circular Reasoning (circulus in probando), Indirect Proof, Proof by Contradiction, Proof by Contraposition, Cooperative Oligopoly Games 2010 Mathematics Subject Classifications: 03B05, 91A12, 91B24 JEL Classifications: C71 arXiv:1509.05883v1 [cs.GT] 19 Sep 2015 ∗Holger I. Meinhardt, Institute of Operations Research, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Englerstr. 11, Building: 11.40, D-76128 Karlsruhe. E-mail: [email protected] The Incorrect Usage of Propositional Logic in Game Theory 1 INTRODUCTION During the last decades, game theory has encountered a great success while becoming the major analysis tool for studying conflicts and cooperation among rational decision makers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Broadest Necessity
    The Broadest Necessity Andrew Bacon∗ July 25, 2017 Abstract In this paper we explore the logic of broad necessity. Definitions of what it means for one modality to be broader than another are formulated, and we prove, in the context of higher-order logic, that there is a broadest necessity, settling one of the central questions of this investigation. We show, moreover, that it is possible to give a reductive analysis of this necessity in extensional language (using truth functional connectives and quantifiers). This relates more generally to a conjecture that it is not possible to define intensional connectives from extensional notions. We formulate this conjecture precisely in higher-order logic, and examine concrete cases in which it fails. We end by investigating the logic of broad necessity. It is shown that the logic of broad necessity is a normal modal logic between S4 and Triv, and that it is consistent with a natural axiomatic system of higher-order logic that it is exactly S4. We give some philosophical reasons to think that the logic of broad necessity does not include the S5 principle. 1 Say that a necessity operator, 21, is as broad as another, 22, if and only if: (*) 23(21P ! 22P ) whenever 23 is a necessity operator, and P is a proposition. Here I am quantifying both into the position that an operator occupies, and the position that a sentence occupies. We shall give details of the exact syntax of the language we are theorizing in shortly: at this point, we note that it is a language that contains operator variables, sentential variables, and that one can accordingly quantify into sentence and operator position.
    [Show full text]
  • 46. on the Completeness O F the Leibnizian Modal System with a Restriction by Setsuo SAITO Shibaura Institute of Technology,Tokyo (Comm
    198 [Vol. 42, 46. On the Completeness o f the Leibnizian Modal System with a Restriction By Setsuo SAITO Shibaura Institute of Technology,Tokyo (Comm. by Zyoiti SUETUNA,M.J.A., March 12, 1966) § 1. Introduction. The purpose of this paper is to show the completeness of a modal system which will be called Lo in the following. In my previous paper [1], in order to show an example of defence of _.circular definition, the following definition was given: A statement is analytic if and only if it is consistent with every statement that expresses what is possible. This definition, roughly speaking, is materially equivalent to Carnap's definition of L-truth which is suggested by Leibniz' conception that a necessary truth must hold in all possible worlds (cf. Carnap [2], p.10). If "analytic" is replaced by "necessary" in the above definition, this definition becomes as follows: A statement is necessary if and only if it is consistent with every statement that expresses what is possible. This reformed definition is symbolized by modal signs as follows: Opm(q)[Qq~O(p•q)1, where p and q are propositional variables. Let us replace it by the following axiom-schema and rule: Axiom-schema. D a [Q,9 Q(a •,S)], where a, ,9 are arbitrary formulas. Rule of inference. If H Q p Q(a •p), then i- a, where a is an arbitrary formula and p is a propositional variable not contained in a. We call L (the Leibnizian modal system) the system obtained from the usual propositional calculus by adding the above axiom schema and rule and the rule of replacement of material equivalents.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 10: Symbolic Trails and Formal Proofs of Validity, Part 2
    Essential Logic Ronald C. Pine CHAPTER 10: SYMBOLIC TRAILS AND FORMAL PROOFS OF VALIDITY, PART 2 Introduction In the previous chapter there were many frustrating signs that something was wrong with our formal proof method that relied on only nine elementary rules of validity. Very simple, intuitive valid arguments could not be shown to be valid. For instance, the following intuitively valid arguments cannot be shown to be valid using only the nine rules. Somalia and Iran are both foreign policy risks. Therefore, Iran is a foreign policy risk. S I / I Either Obama or McCain was President of the United States in 2009.1 McCain was not President in 2010. So, Obama was President of the United States in 2010. (O v C) ~(O C) ~C / O If the computer networking system works, then Johnson and Kaneshiro will both be connected to the home office. Therefore, if the networking system works, Johnson will be connected to the home office. N (J K) / N J Either the Start II treaty is ratified or this landmark treaty will not be worth the paper it is written on. Therefore, if the Start II treaty is not ratified, this landmark treaty will not be worth the paper it is written on. R v ~W / ~R ~W 1 This or statement is obviously exclusive, so note the translation. 427 If the light is on, then the light switch must be on. So, if the light switch in not on, then the light is not on. L S / ~S ~L Thus, the nine elementary rules of validity covered in the previous chapter must be only part of a complete system for constructing formal proofs of validity.
    [Show full text]
  • Metamathematics in Coq Metamathematica in Coq (Met Een Samenvatting in Het Nederlands)
    Metamathematics in Coq Metamathematica in Coq (met een samenvatting in het Nederlands) Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit Utrecht op gezag van de Rector Magnificus, Prof. dr. W.H. Gispen, ingevolge het besluit van het College voor Promoties in het openbaar te verdedigen op vrijdag 31 oktober 2003 des middags te 14:30 uur door Roger Dimitri Alexander Hendriks geboren op 6 augustus 1973 te IJsselstein. Promotoren: Prof. dr. J.A. Bergstra (Faculteit der Wijsbegeerte, Universiteit Utrecht) Prof. dr. M.A. Bezem (Institutt for Informatikk, Universitetet i Bergen) Voor Nelleke en Ole. Preface The ultimate arbiter of correctness is formalisability. It is a widespread view amongst mathematicians that correct proofs can be written out completely for- mally. This means that, after ‘unfolding’ the layers of abbreviations and con- ventions on which the presentation of a mathematical proof usually depends, the validity of every inference step should be completely perspicuous by a pre- sentation of this step in an appropriate formal language. When descending from the informal heat to the formal cold,1 we can rely less on intuition and more on formal rules. Once we have convinced ourselves that those rules are sound, we are ready to believe that the derivations they accept are correct. Formalis- ing reduces the reliability of a proof to the reliability of the means of verifying it ([60]). Formalising is more than just filling-in the details, it is a creative and chal- lenging job. It forces one to make decisions that informal presentations often leave unspecified. The search for formal definitions that, on the one hand, con- vincingly represent the concepts involved and, on the other hand, are convenient for formal proof, often elucidates the informal presentation.
    [Show full text]
  • Problems for Temporary Existence in Tense Logic Meghan Sullivan* Notre Dame
    Philosophy Compass 7/1 (2012): 43–57, 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2011.00457.x Problems for Temporary Existence in Tense Logic Meghan Sullivan* Notre Dame Abstract A-theorists of time postulate a deep distinction between the present, past and future. Settling on an appropriate logic for such a view is no easy matter. This Philosophy Compass article describes one of the most vexing formal problems facing A-theorists. It is commonly thought that A-theo- ries can only be formally expressed in a tense logic: a logic with operators like P (‘‘it was the case that’’) and F (‘‘it will be the case that’’). And it seems natural to think that we live in a world where objects come to exist and cease to exist as time passes. Indeed, this is typically a key component of the most prominent kind of A-theory, presentism. But the temporary existence assumption cannot be upheld in any tense logic with a standard quantification theory. I will explain the problem and outline the philosophical and logical considerations that generate it. I will then consider two possible solutions to the problem – one that targets our logic of quantification and one that targets our assumptions about change. I survey the costs of each solution. 1. Univocal Existence and Temporary Existence Metaphysicians should be applauded when they make efforts to be sensible. Here are two particular convictions about existence and change that seem worthy of defense: UNIVOCAL EXISTENCE: There is just one way that objects exist; and TEMPORARY EXISTENCE: Some objects came to exist or will cease to exist.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Symbolic Logic: Volume 1 Formal Logic
    An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Symbolic Logic: Volume 1 Formal Logic Rebeka Ferreira and Anthony Ferrucci 1 1An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Symbolic Logic: Volume 1 Formal Logic is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. 1 Preface This textbook has developed over the last few years of teaching introductory symbolic logic and critical thinking courses. It has been truly a pleasure to have beneted from such great students and colleagues over the years. As we have become increasingly frustrated with the costs of traditional logic textbooks (though many of them deserve high praise for their accuracy and depth), the move to open source has become more and more attractive. We're happy to provide it free of charge for educational use. With that being said, there are always improvements to be made here and we would be most grateful for constructive feedback and criticism. We have chosen to write this text in LaTex and have adopted certain conventions with symbols. Certainly many important aspects of critical thinking and logic have been omitted here, including historical developments and key logicians, and for that we apologize. Our goal was to create a textbook that could be provided to students free of charge and still contain some of the more important elements of critical thinking and introductory logic. To that end, an additional benet of providing this textbook as a Open Education Resource (OER) is that we will be able to provide newer updated versions of this text more frequently, and without any concern about increased charges each time.
    [Show full text]
  • INTERMEDIATE LOGIC – Glossary of Key Terms This Glossary Includes Terms That Are Defined in the Text in the Lesson and on the Page Noted
    1 GLOSSARY | INTERMEDIATE LOGIC BY JAMES B. NANCE INTERMEDIATE LOGIC – Glossary of key terms This glossary includes terms that are defined in the text in the lesson and on the page noted. It does not include the rules that are given in the appendices, but does include some key terms carried over from Introductory Logic. Algebraic identity Lesson 36, page 291 A rule of digital logic that can be used to simplify a proposition (see Appendix D). AND gate Lesson 32, page 266 A logic gate that performs the logical operation conjunction. Antecedent Lesson 4, page 27 In a conditional if p then q, the antecedent is the proposition represented by the p. Argument Introductory Logic, lesson 19, page 141 A set of statements, one of which appears to be implied or supported by the others. Biconditional Lesson 5, page 35 The logical operator “if and only if” symbolized by ≡, that joins two propositions and is true when both propositions have the same truth value, and false when their truth values differ. Binary number system Lesson 30, page 254 A base-two number system, using only the numerals 0 and 1 to represent any number (cf. the standard decimal number system, which is base ten, using the numerals 0 through 9). Bit Lesson 29, page 249 The smallest amount of information that a computer stores, having a binary value of 1 or 0. Bubble pushing Lesson 38, page 303 A technique used to simplify logic circuits by visually applying De Morgan’s theorem. Byte Lesson 29, page 249 A set of bits (usually eight) required to encode one character.
    [Show full text]
  • MGF1121 Course Outline
    MGF1121 Course Outline Introduction to Logic............................................................................................................. (3) (P) Description: This course is a study of both the formal and informal nature of human thought. It includes an examination of informal fallacies, sentential symbolic logic and deductive proofs, categorical propositions, syllogistic arguments and sorites. General Education Learning Outcome: The primary General Education Learning Outcome (GELO) for this course is Quantitative Reasoning, which is to understand and apply mathematical concepts and reasoning, and analyze and interpret various types of data. The GELO will be assessed through targeted questions on either the comprehensive final or an outside assignment. Prerequisite: MFG1100, MAT1033, or MAT1034 with a grade of “C” or better, OR the equivalent. Rationale: In order to function effectively and productively in an increasingly complex democratic society, students must be able to think for themselves to make the best possible decisions in the many and varied situations that will confront them. Knowledge of the basic concepts of logical reasoning, as offered in this course, will give students a firm foundation on which to base their decision-making processes. Students wishing to major in computer science, philosophy, mathematics, engineering and most natural sciences are required to have a working knowledge of symbolic logic and its applications. Impact Assessment: Introduction to Logic provides students with critical insight
    [Show full text]