DOCSLIB.ORG

Logic and Proof Book Chapter

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Logic and Proof Book Chapter Logic and Proof Jeffrey X. Watt Logic And Proof Jeffrey X. Watt, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Mathematical Sciences Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis Copyright © ii Contents Chapter 1 Sets 1 1.1 Definitions and Notations 1 1.2 Operations 19 1.3 Properties of Sets 28 1.4 Theorems of Set Theory 41 Chapter 2 Logic 55 2.1 Propositional Calculus 55 2.2 Tautology, Equivalence, and Conditional 65 2.3 Theorems of Propositional Calculus 78 2.4 Analysis of Arguments for Logical Validity 89 Chapter 3 From Logic to Proof 101 3.1 Predicate Calculus 101 3.2 Quantified Predicates in One Variable 123 3.3 Quantification in Several Variables 141 3.4 Introduction to Proof 156 3.5 Infinite Unions and Intersections 175 Chapter 4 Methods of Mathematical Proof 189 4.1 Proof by Transitivity 189 4.2 Division into Cases 208 4.3 Proof by Induction 226 4.4 Epsilon-Delta Proofs 243 4.5 Indirect Proofs 262 Chapter 5 Advanced Methods of Mathematical Proof 287 5.1 Existence and Uniqueness 287 5.2 Advanced Methods 294 5.3 Equivalence Relations 315 5.4 Equivalence Classes and Partitions 328 5.5 Partial Orderings 346 Appendices 352 A Answers to Selected Problems 352 Glossary 397 Index 403 iii 3.2 QUANTIFIERS The first chapter of this book focused on how to determine the truth values of compound statements and how to determine whether an argument is valid; however, the methods learned thus far are often incapable of describing many of the statements in mathematics. Consider the following sentence x is a prime number. This sentence is not either true or false. That is, the truth value of this sentence depends on the value of x. For example, if x = 2 then the sentence is false and if x = 3 then the sentence is true. Since the majority of statement in mathematics include variables, we must expand our understanding of logic to include such statements. Let p(x) be a statement involving the variable x and let U be a set. p(x) is called a propositional function if for each x in U , p(x) is a statement. A propositional function is a sentence containing one or more variables. The set U is called the domain of discourse of p(x) . A propositional function, by itself, is neither true nor false. However, for each x in its domain of discourse, p(x) is a statement, and is either true or false. That is, each value of x will determine the truth value of the proposition. Let p(x) be a propositional function over a domain of discourse U, the set P contains all x in U that make p(x) true. The set P is called the truth set of p(x) . Example A Let p(x) be the statement x is a prime number, and let U = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9} . Then p(x) is a propositional function with domain of discourse U. Determine the truth values of p(x) for x = 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Determine the truth set P for p(x) . 123 Solution If x = 1, we obtain the proposition, 1 is a prime number, which is false. If x = 2, we obtain the proposition, 2 is a prime number, which is true. If x = 3, we obtain the proposition, 3 is a prime number, which is true. If x = 4, we obtain the proposition, 4 is a prime number, which is false. If x = 5, we obtain the proposition, 5 is a prime number, which is true. Therefore, p(1) and p(4) are false statements. p(2), p(3), and p(5) are true statements. Note: each of p(1), p(2),… is either true or false, but not both. The truth set for p(x) is the set containing all values of x from the domain of discourse that make p(x) a true statement. Thus, P = {2, 3, 5, 7, 9} We can connect propositional functions together to form compound propositional functions in the same manner that we formed compound statements in the first two sections of this chapter. With propositional functions, we want to find the values of x in the domain of discourse that make the compound propositional function true based on the truth values of the individual propositional functions. For example, the truth set for q(x) → s(x) are those values of x that make q(x) → s(x) a true statement. 1. Let U = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9} be the domain of discourse for the following propositional functions. p(x) : x is a prime number q(x) : x ≤ 3 r(x) : x + 5 > 10 s(x) : x is an even integer t(x) : x < 7 Determine the truth sets for each propositional function. 2. Using the results of exercise 1, find the truth sets of the compound propositional functions. [a] ¬p(x) [b] p(x) ∧ q(x) [c] q(x) ∨ r(x) [d] t(x) ∧ ¬s(x) [e] q(x) → s(x) [f] p(x) ↔ t(x) 124 In exercise 2[e], you must find the values in set U that make the compound propositional function q(x) → s(x) true. Remember, a conditional statement is true unless the premise is true and the conclusion is false (i.e., for a given value of x, q(x) is true and s(x) is false). The only values of x in U = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9} that make the conditional statement false are 1 and 3. Therefore, the truth set of q(x) → s(x) is {2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9} . Universal and Existential Quantifiers You most likely have noticed that many of the statements in mathematics use terms such as “for every” and “for some.” For example: For every rectangle, the sum of the angles is equal to 360 . For some number x, 5 + x = 8 . We now extend our understanding of logic to include “for every” and “for some” in statements. If p(x) is a propositional function with variable x and domain of discourse U, then: The sentence for all x, p(x) , symbolized (∀x)( p(x)) , is a proposition that is true if and only if the truth set of p(x) equals U. The sentence for some x, p(x) , symbolized (∃x)( p(x)) , is a proposition that is true if and only if the truth set of p(x) is nonempty. It is important to understand that an expression (∀x)( p(x)) or (∃x)( p(x)) is a statement (either true or false), and not a propositional function, even though it contains a variable. Unlike a propositional function, its truth value does not depend on which value is substituted for the variable x. Example B Let the domain of discourse be U = {0,1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9} . For each of the following statements, convert the statement into symbolic form and determine its truth value. [a] For every number x, x is a prime number. [b] For some number x, x is a prime number. [c] For every number x, there is a number y, such that x − y = x . Solution [a] (∀x)( p(x)) where p(x) : x is a prime number, and U = {0,1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9} . This is a false statement because not every number in U is a prime number. [b] (∃x)( p(x)) where p(x) : x is a prime number, and U = {0,1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9} . 125 This is a true statement because at least one number in the domain of discourse is a prime number. [c] (∀x)(∃y)(s(x, y)) where s(x, y) : x − y = x , and U = {0,1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9} . This is a true statement because for every number in the domain of discourse, there is a number, 0, in the domain of discourse such that x − y = x . 3. Let the domain of discourse be all students at IUPUI in the year 2004. Define three propositional functions over U by: p(x) : x is a male q(x) : x is an athlete r(x) : x is younger than 25 years old For each of the following statements, convert into symbolic form and determine its truth value. [a] All students are male. [b] Some students are athletes. [c] Not all students are male. [d] Some students are male and are not younger than 25 years old. [e] All students are male athletes. [f] Some students are male or athletes. 4. Let s(x, y) be a propositional function “x is taller than y,” and let the domain of discourse be all high school students in Perry Township this year. Express each statement in an English sentence and determine its truth value. [a] (∀x)(∀y)(s(x, y)) [b] (∀x)(∃y)(s(x, y)) [c] (∃x)(∀y)(s(x, y)) [d] (∃x)(∃y)(s(x, y)) In exercise 3[c], you should have found the statement to be true, but did you find ¬(∀x)( p(x)) or (∃x)(¬p(x)) to be the symbolic form? It turns out that both forms are correct. The first symbolic form reads, “it is not the case that all students are male,” and the second form reads, “some students are not male.” These two forms are logically equivalent. In exercise 3[e], you should have found this statement to be false, since IUPUI has a female basketball team.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Discrete Mathematics
    Discrete Mathematics1 http://lcs.ios.ac.cn/~znj/DM2017 Naijun Zhan March 19, 2017 1Special thanks to Profs Hanpin Wang (PKU) and Lijun Zhang (ISCAS) for their courtesy of the slides on this course. Contents 1. The Foundations: Logic and Proofs 2. Basic Structures: Sets, Functions, Sequences, Sum- s, and Matrices 3. Algorithms 4. Number Theory and Cryptography 5. Induction and Recursion 6. Counting 7. Discrete Probability 8. Advanced Counting Techniques 9. Relations 10. Graphs 11. Trees 12. Boolean Algebra 13. Modeling Computation 1 Chapter 1 The Foundations: Logic and Proofs Logic in Computer Science During the past fifty years there has been extensive, continuous, and growing interaction between logic and computer science. In many respects, logic provides computer science with both a u- nifying foundational framework and a tool for modeling compu- tational systems. In fact, logic has been called the calculus of computer science. The argument is that logic plays a fundamen- tal role in computer science, similar to that played by calculus in the physical sciences and traditional engineering disciplines. Indeed, logic plays an important role in areas of computer sci- ence as disparate as machine architecture, computer-aided de- sign, programming languages, databases, artificial intelligence, algorithms, and computability and complexity. Moshe Vardi 2 • The origins of logic can be dated back to Aristotle's time. • The birth of mathematical logic: { Leibnitz's idea { Russell paradox { Hilbert's plan { Three schools of modern logic: logicism (Frege, Russell, Whitehead) formalism (Hilbert) intuitionism (Brouwer) • One of the central problem for logicians is that: \why is this proof correct/incorrect?" • Boolean algebra owes to George Boole.
    [Show full text]
  • Sets, Propositional Logic, Predicates, and Quantifiers
    COMP 182 Algorithmic Thinking Sets, Propositional Logic, Luay Nakhleh Computer Science Predicates, and Quantifiers Rice University !1 Reading Material ❖ Chapter 1, Sections 1, 4, 5 ❖ Chapter 2, Sections 1, 2 !2 ❖ Mathematics is about statements that are either true or false. ❖ Such statements are called propositions. ❖ We use logic to describe them, and proof techniques to prove whether they are true or false. !3 Propositions ❖ 5>7 ❖ The square root of 2 is irrational. ❖ A graph is bipartite if and only if it doesn’t have a cycle of odd length. ❖ For n>1, the sum of the numbers 1,2,3,…,n is n2. !4 Propositions? ❖ E=mc2 ❖ The sun rises from the East every day. ❖ All species on Earth evolved from a common ancestor. ❖ God does not exist. ❖ Everyone eventually dies. !5 ❖ And some of you might already be wondering: “If I wanted to study mathematics, I would have majored in Math. I came here to study computer science.” !6 ❖ Computer Science is mathematics, but we almost exclusively focus on aspects of mathematics that relate to computation (that can be implemented in software and/or hardware). !7 ❖Logic is the language of computer science and, mathematics is the computer scientist’s most essential toolbox. !8 Examples of “CS-relevant” Math ❖ Algorithm A correctly solves problem P. ❖ Algorithm A has a worst-case running time of O(n3). ❖ Problem P has no solution. ❖ Using comparison between two elements as the basic operation, we cannot sort a list of n elements in less than O(n log n) time. ❖ Problem A is NP-Complete.
    [Show full text]
  • Principle of Acquaintance and Axiom of Reducibility
    Principle of acquaintance and axiom of reducibility Brice Halimi Université Paris Nanterre 15 mars 2018 Russell-the-epistemologist is the founding father of the concept of acquaintance. In this talk, I would like to show that Russell’s theory of knowledge is not simply the next step following his logic, but that his logic (especially the system of Principia Mathematica) can also be understood as the formal underpinning of a theory of knowledge. So there is a concept of acquaintance for Russell-the-logician as well. Principia Mathematica’s logical types In Principia, Russell gives the following examples of first-order propositional functions of individuals: φx; (x; y); (y) (x; y);::: Then, introducing φ!zb as a variable first-order propositional function of one individual, he gives examples of second-order propositional functions: f (φ!zb); g(φ!zb; !zb); F(φ!zb; x); (x) F(φ!zb; x); (φ) g(φ!zb; !zb); (φ) F(φ!zb; x);::: Then f !(φb!zb) is introduced as a variable second-order propositional function of one first-order propositional function. And so on. A possible value of f !(φb!zb) is . φ!a. (Example given by Russell.) This has to do with the fact that Principia’s schematic letters are variables: It will be seen that “φ!x” is itself a function of two variables, namely φ!zb and x. [. ] (Principia, p. 51) And variables are understood substitutionally (see Kevin Klement, “Russell on Ontological Fundamentality and Existence”, 2017). This explains that the language of Principia does not constitute an autonomous formal language.
    [Show full text]
  • Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 I I 73-26,859
    INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at die upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again - beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Foundations: Logic and Proof, Sets, and Functions
    The Foundations: Logic and Proof, Sets, and Functions his chapter reviews the foundations of discrete mathematics. Three important topics are covered: logic, sets, and functions. The rules of logic specify the mean- ing of mathematical statements For instance, these rules help us understand and reason with statements such as "There exists an integer that is not the sum of two squares," and "For every positive integer n the sum of the positive integers not exceeding n is n(n + 1)/2." Logic is the basis of all mathematical reasoning, and it has practical applications to the design of computing machines, to system specifications, to artificial intelligence, to computer programming, to programming languages, and to other areas of computer science, as well as to many other fields of study. To understand mathematics, we must understand what makes up a correct mathemat- ical argument, that is, a proof. Moreover, to learn mathematics, a person needs to actively construct mathematical arguments and not just read exposition. In this chapter, we ex- plain what makes up a correct mathematical argument and introduce tools to construct these arguments. Proofs are important not only in mathematics, but also in many parts of computer science, including program verification, algorithm correctness, and system security. Furthermore, automated reasoning systems have been constructed that allow computers to construct their own proofs. Much of discrete mathematics is devoted to the study of discrete structures, which are used to represent discrete objects. Many important discrete structures are built using sets, which are collections of objects. Among the discrete structures built from sets are combinations, which are unordered collections of objects used extensively in counting; relations, which are sets of ordered pairs that represent relationships between objects; graphs, which consist of sets of vertices and of edges that connect vertices: and finite state machines, which are used to model computing machines.
    [Show full text]
  • The Early Life of Russell's Notion of a Propositional Function
    Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication Volume 4 200 YEARS OF ANALYTICAL PHILOSOPHY Article 1 2008 The Early Life Of Russell’s Notion Of A Propositional Function Michael Beaney University of York, UK Follow this and additional works at: https://newprairiepress.org/biyclc This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Beaney, Michael (2008) "The Early Life Of Russell’s Notion Of A Propositional Function," Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication: Vol. 4. https://doi.org/10.4148/ biyclc.v4i0.125 This Proceeding of the Symposium for Cognition, Logic and Communication is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at New Prairie Press. It has been accepted for inclusion in Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication by an authorized administrator of New Prairie Press. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Early Life of Russell’s Notion of a Propositional Function 2 The Baltic International Yearbook of weeks before the whole manuscript was submitted to Cambridge Uni- Cognition, Logic and Communication versity Press in late May 1902. The stage may have been set for its in- troduction, but given the importance of the notion, the precise nature of August 2009 Volume 4: 200 Years of Analytical Philosophy its appearance deserves elucidation. I offer an account of its emergence pages 1-25 DOI: 10.4148/biyclc.v4i0.125 in section 2. My interest in this is not merely antiquarian, however. The evolution of Russell’s conception of a propositional function plays a central role in the development of his thinking about analysis, and ex- MICHAEL BEANEY plaining this thinking is important not only in understanding Russell’s University of York, United Kingdom philosophy in all its changes but also in appreciating the complex na- ture of the practices of analysis in analytic philosophy today.
    [Show full text]
  • Discrete Mathematics1
    Discrete Mathematics1 http://lcs.ios.ac.cn/~znj/DM2017 Naijun Zhan April 5, 2017 1Special thanks to Profs Hanpin Wang (PKU) and Lijun Zhang (ISCAS) for their courtesy of the slides on this course. Contents 1. The Foundations: Logic and Proofs 2. Basic Structures: Sets, Functions, Sequences, Sum- s, and Matrices 3. Algorithms 4. Number Theory and Cryptography 5. Induction and Recursion 6. Counting 7. Discrete Probability 8. Advanced Counting Techniques 9. Relations 10. Graphs 11. Trees 12. Boolean Algebra 13. Modeling Computation 1 Chapter 1 The Foundations: Logic and Proofs Logic in Computer Science During the past fifty years there has been extensive, continuous, and growing interaction between logic and computer science. In many respects, logic provides computer science with both a u- nifying foundational framework and a tool for modeling compu- tational systems. In fact, logic has been called the calculus of computer science. The argument is that logic plays a fundamen- tal role in computer science, similar to that played by calculus in the physical sciences and traditional engineering disciplines. Indeed, logic plays an important role in areas of computer sci- ence as disparate as machine architecture, computer-aided de- sign, programming languages, databases, artificial intelligence, algorithms, and computability and complexity. Moshe Vardi 2 • The origins of logic can be dated back to Aristotle's time. • The birth of mathematical logic: { Leibnitz's idea { Russell paradox { Hilbert's plan { Three schools of modern logic: logicism (Frege, Russell, Whitehead) formalism (Hilbert) intuitionism (Brouwer) • One of the central problem for logicians is that: \why is this proof correct/incorrect?" • Boolean algebra owes to George Boole.
    [Show full text]
  • What the Weatherman Said Enrichment, CTT and the Dialogical Approach to Moderate Contextualism Shahid Rahman
    What the Weatherman Said Enrichment, CTT and the Dialogical Approach to Moderate Contextualism Shahid Rahman To cite this version: Shahid Rahman. What the Weatherman Said Enrichment, CTT and the Dialogical Approach to Moderate Contextualism. 2020. halshs-02649104 HAL Id: halshs-02649104 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-02649104 Preprint submitted on 29 May 2020 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. What the Weatherman Said Enrichment, CTT and the Dialogical Approach to Moderate Contextualism Shahid Rahman1 Abstract The main aim of the present paper is to show that the recently developed dialogical approach to Martin-Löf’s Constructive Type Theory (CTT), called Immanent Reasoning, provides, the means for distinguishing François Recanati’s process of free enrichment and saturation, meets his own objections against perspectives based on unarticulated constituents, and opens a new venue to pragmatic modulation, where the speaker-receiver interaction is integrated into the notion of enrichment. In such a setting enrichment operates on proof-objects that make fully articulated event-propositions true. The point is that by distinguishing what makes a proposition true from the proposition made true offers a simple and clean way to avoid conflating the contextual elements that enrich a proposition with the proposition itself.
    [Show full text]
  • The Axiom of Reducibility, Weneedacasewherenon- Cation Oftheaxiomreducibility
    THE AXIOM OF REDUCIBILITY Russell Wahl Philosophy / Idaho State U. Pocatello, id 83209-8056, usa [email protected] The axiom of reducibility plays an important role in the logic of Principia Mathematica, but has generally been condemned as an ad hocz non-logical axiom which was added simply because the ramiWed type theory without it would not yield all the required theorems. In this paper I examine the status of the axiom of reducibility. Whether the axiom can plausibly be included as a logical axiom will depend in no small part on the understanding of propositional functions. If we understand propositional functions as constructions of the mind, it is clear that the axiom is clearly not a logical axiom and in fact makes an implausible claim. I look at two other ways of understanding propositional functions, a nominalist interpretation along the lines of Landini and a realist interpretation along the lines of Linsky and Mares. I argue that while on either of these inter- pretations it is not easy to see the axiom as a non-logical claim about the world, there are also appear to be diUculties in accepting it as a purely logical axiom. he most cited reason for the view that the logicism of Principia Mathematica was a failure is the position that the reduction of T mathematics to logic fails because the theory demands non-logi- cal principles and is in fact (in Quine’s words) “set theory in sheep’s clothing”.1 The non-logical principle most objected to is the axiom of reducibility, the axiom which states that for any propositional function of whatever order of a given type of argument, there is an extensionally equivalent predicative propositional function of that type.
    [Show full text]
  • Propositional and Predicate Logic: Linguistic Aspects P a M Seuren, Max Planck Institute for Utterance Token with a Truth Value
    146 Prophecy realities of a later period as well as the conditions See also: Akkadian; Bible. in which the utterances were initially spoken. 2. Scholars continue to compare prophetic texts of Bibliography one culture with those from other settings. For example, recent publication of Akkadian texts Blenkinsopp J (1996). A history of prophecy in Israel. attests the preserving of more than one oracle on Louisville: Westminster John Knox. a clay tablet. Such practice marks the transition Lewis I (1975). Ecstatic religion: an anthropological study from archival preservation of one oracle to the of shamanism and spirit possession. Baltimore: Penguin. creation of prophetic literature, i.e., the arranged Nissinen M (2000). Prophecy in its ancient Near Eastern composition of multiple oracles and sayings. Such context: Mesopotamian, biblical, and Arabian perspec- tives. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. compositions are observable in both biblical and Overholt T (1989). Channels of prophecy: the social extrabiblical texts. dynamics of prophetic activity. Minneapolis: Fortress. 3. Study of the rhetorical and literary features Petersen D (2002). The prophetic literature: an introduc- of prophetic texts is currently of great interest, tion. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. particularly as such study has been informed by Wilson R (1980). Prophecy and society in ancient Israel. new understandings of Hebrew poetry. Philadelphia: Fortress. Propositional and Predicate Logic: Linguistic Aspects P A M Seuren, Max Planck Institute for utterance token with a truth value. It is true that there Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands are sentences, called ‘eternal sentences,’ that can do ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. without a specific key, such as all humans are mortal.
    [Show full text]
  • Russell and Frege on the Logic of Functions
    Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication Volume 4 200 YEARS OF ANALYTICAL PHILOSOPHY Article 9 2008 Russell And Frege On The Logic of Functions Bernard Linsky University of Alberta, CA Follow this and additional works at: https://newprairiepress.org/biyclc This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Linsky, Bernard (2008) "Russell And Frege On The Logic of Functions," Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication: Vol. 4. https://doi.org/10.4148/biyclc.v4i0.133 This Proceeding of the Symposium for Cognition, Logic and Communication is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at New Prairie Press. It has been accepted for inclusion in Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication by an authorized administrator of New Prairie Press. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Russell and Frege on the Logic of Functions 2 The Baltic International Yearbook of Grundgesetze, which is occupied with the reference, or Bedeutung, in Cognition, Logic and Communication the extensional logic of courses of values (Werthverlaufe) of concepts, his logicist version of classes. Frege’s theory of sense, it seems, is jus- August 2009 Volume 4: 200 Years of Analytical Philosophy tifiably foundational in the later development of the philosophy of lan- pages 1-17 DOI: 10.4148/biyclc.v4i0.133 guage, but is not so fundamental to his own life’s work, the project of reducing mathematics to logic. Russell’s theory of descriptions might seem to be similarly a digres- BERNARD LINSKY sion into the philosophy of language by a philosopher whose main University of Alberta project was to write a long book proving the principles of mathemat- Edmonton, Canada1 ics from definitions using symbolic logic.
    [Show full text]
  • Predicate Logic and Quantifiers
    Notes Predicate Logic and Quantifiers Predicate Logic and Quantifiers CSE235 Slides by Christopher M. Bourke Instructor: Berthe Y. Choueiry Spring 2006 Computer Science & Engineering 235 Introduction to Discrete Mathematics 1 / 1 Sections 1.3–1.4 of Rosen [email protected] Introduction Predicate Consider the following statements: Logic and Quantifiers x > 3, x = y + 3, x + y = z CSE235 The truth value of these statements has no meaning without specifying the values of x, y, z. However, we can make propositions out of such statements. A predicate is a property that is affirmed or denied about the subject (in logic, we say “variable” or “argument”) of a statement. “ x is greater than 3” |{z} | {z } subject predicate Terminology: affirmed = holds = is true; denied = does not 2 / 1 hold = is not true. Propositional Functions Predicate Logic and To write in predicate logic: Quantifiers CSE235 “ x is greater than 3” |{z} | {z } subject predicate We introduce a (functional) symbol for the predicate, and put the subject as an argument (to the functional symbol): P (x) Examples: Father(x): unary predicate Brother(x,y): binary predicate Sum(x,y,z): ternary predicate P(x,y,z,t): n-ary predicate 3 / 1 Since 32 + 42 = 25 = 52, Q(3, 4, 5) is true. Since 22 + 22 = 8 6= 32 = 9, Q(2, 2, 3) is false. There are infinitely many values for (x, y, z) that make this propositional function true—how many right triangles are there? Propositional Functions Notes Predicate Logic and Quantifiers Definition CSE235 A statement of the form P (x1, x2, .
    [Show full text]