The Genealogy of ∨ Landon D. C. Elkind∗ Richard Zach† December 14, 2020 Abstract The use of the symbol ∨ for disjunction in formal logic is ubiquitous. Where did it come from? Some sources say it was introduced by Peano; oth- ers suggest it that it originates as an abbreviation of the Latin word for “or”, vel. The origin of the symbol can be traced to Russell’s first investigations into formal logic. Because of Principia, Russell’s notation was influential in mathematical logic (through the work of the Hilbert school) as well as philos- ophy (the logical empiricists in the 1920s and 1930s, especially Carnap and early Quine). No topic which we have discussed approaches closer to the problem of a uniform and universal language in mathematics than does the topic of symbolic logic. The problem of efficient and uniform notations is perhaps the most serious one facing the mathematical public. No group of workers has been more active in the endeavor to find a solution of that problem than those who have busied themselves with symbolic logic ... Each proposed a list of symbols, with the hope, no doubt, that mathematicians in general would adopt them. That expectation has not been realized. Cajori (1929, p. 314) arXiv:2012.06072v1 [math.LO] 11 Dec 2020 1 The mystery of ∨ The symbol ‘∨’ for inclusive disjunction is almost universally accepted. This con- trasts with every other logical operator: negation is symbolized by ‘¬’ and ‘∼,’ ∗University of Alberta, [email protected] †University of Calgary, [email protected] 1 conjunction is symbolized by ‘á,’ ‘&,’ and ‘⋅,’ and (material) implication is sym- bolized by ‘→’ or ‘Ð’. The story in textbooks usually goes that this ∨ is really a version of the letter ‘v’, the initial letter of vel, the latin word for ‘or’. As we will see, this short story oversimplifies the history of ‘∨’ for inclusive disjunction, and its connection with vel is, so far as the textual evidence goes, tenuous at best. Aside from the myth that ‘∨’ abbreviates vel, even histories of logic have mis- placed the introduction of ‘∨’ for inclusive disjuction. For example, the earliest use of ‘∨’ for disjunction given in the encyclopedic list given by Cajori (1929, p. 307) is in Whitehead and Russell’s 1910 Principia. As we show below, this is not even Russell’s earliest published use by Russell, let alone the first published use. To take another example, the Kneales say that “the system [which includes ∨] is that intro- duced by Peano in his Notations de logique mathematique of 1894, developed in the successive editions of his Formulaire de mathematiques, and then perfected by Whitehead and Russell in their Principia Mathematica of 1910” (W. Kneale and M. Kneale, 1962, p. 520). In fact, we will see here that Peano used ∪ for inclusive disjunction and did not use ‘∨’ for it at all. This raises the question of why ‘∨’ was introduced for inclusive disjunction at all. One naturally suspects that the symbol for disjunction is one of the improve- ments introduced by Whitehead and Russell in Principia Mathematica. But is that true? And if so, when did this happen? And why? In particular, was it because vel starts with ‘v’? Here we offer a novel answer to these questions that is supported by the historical and textual record. Three preliminary remarks are warranted. First, below we will use ‘∨’ when speaking of the modern symbol standardly used for disjunction (although we ac- knowledge it has other uses). However, we will also slip into using the notation of the author that we are presently discussing, particularly when discussing their notion without necessarily identifying it with ours. Second, what counts as “our” notion of disjunction when looking at past texts is controversial (Jennings, 1994). What we mean by “our” notion of disjunction is specifically that the symbol ‘∨’ for disjunction connects truth-apt pieces of language (formulas, propositions, sen- tences) and not truth-inapt objects (sets, classes, numbers, concepts, etc.). So what we are searching for in past authors is the symbol as it is widely used today among mathematicians and philosophers. We readily acknowledge that alternative mean- ings of “our” notion of disjunction or “our” symbol ‘∨’ may produce correlatedly different answers to the questions that we investigate here. Third, “disjunction” below will mean inclusive disjunction unless otherwise stated. 2 2 From Leibniz to the 1800s Curiously, the genealogy of ‘∨’ for disjunction is not so straightforward as some histories of logic might suggest. Leibniz deserves some credit for the first use of ‘v’ as a symbol for ‘or’ in some sense.1 But Leibniz’s use of ‘v’ is not for proposi- tional disjunction (which is what it is widely used for today), and occurs in only one manuscript, his 1695 “Matheseos universalis pars prior: De terminis incomplexis”: Also, in the way that + is a conjunctive mark or sign of aggregation cor- responding to the word and—as in a+b, that is, a and b together—so a disjunctive mark or sign of alternation is also given, which corresponds to the word or [vel], so a v“ b signifies a or b to me. It also has a use in calculus, for if we have xx + ab = a + bx, then x will be equal to a v“b, whether it signifies a or whether it signifies b. In this respect it will have an ambiguous value. For example, if xx + 6 = 5x, x can be 2, but x can also be 3. For if x is 2, then from xx+6 = 5x, we get 4+6 = 10; and if x is 3, then from xx = 6 = 5x, we get 9 + 6 = 15. However, many values of this unknown [variable] or of the present equation can- not be given roots, as will be clear in the appropriate place below. Hence, ambiguous signs also have a use, and this will be clear in the appropriate place below, ambiguity beingù the font of irrationality in x = 3 + 4 calculus;ù and so when I write , this canù be explicated by 3 + 4 or 3 + 2 or 5, just as when I write 3 * 4, it is explicated 3 * 2 1 x = 5 v“ 1 either by or ; thus, we get ù . For in order for us to remove the irrationality, let x * 3 = 4; therefore xx * 6x + 9 = 4, whether xx * 6x + 5 = 0 or xx + 5 = 6x, where it is clear that it would satisfy 5 as much as 1. For if x were given the value 5, we would get 25 + 5 = 30; if x is given the value 1, we get 1 + 5 = 6.2 1We make no claim here about Leibniz’s chronological precursors. We did, however, consult three medievalists who specialize in history of logic about antecedent uses of ∨ for inclusive disjunction, who did not recall any earlier uses. 2“Quemadmodum etiam + est nota conjunctiva seu cumulationis et respondet tÄ et, ut a + b id est a et b simul, ita datur quoque nota disjunctiva seu alternationis quae respondet tÄ vel, sic a v“ b mihi significat a vel b. Idque et in calculo usum habet, nam si sit xx + ab = a + bx, erit x = a v“ b seu x significabit vel a vel b habebitque adeo valorem ambiguum. Ex. causa si sit xx + 6 = 5x, potest x esse 2, sed tamen potest etiam x esse 3. Nam si x sit 2, tunc ex xx + 6 = 5x fiet 4 + 6 = 10; et si x sit 3, tunc ex xx + 6 = 5x lit 9 + 6 = 15. Plures autem incognitae hujus valores seu praesentis aequationis radices dari non possunt, ut suo loco patebit. Hinc usum quoque habent signa ambigua,ù et x = 3 + 4 suo loco patebit, ambiguitatem in calculoù esse fontem irrationalitatis;ù itaque cum scribo , tunc id potest explicari tam per 3 + 4 seu 3 + 2 seu 5, quam per 3 * 4 seu 3 * 2 seu 1, adeoque erit 3 Figure 1: Use of v“ in Leibniz, 1679 This occurrence of ‘v“’ is the first use of a ‘∨’-like symbol for ‘or’ (in some sense) that we know of. Now Leibniz may seem to use the symbol here as a sign for disjunction of (truth-apt) propositions. However, the surrounding context does not have any uses of ‘a’ or ‘b’ for propositions. Rather, Leibniz seems to be using ‘a’ and ‘b’ here as standing for terms, and using ‘a v“ b’ to indicate two alternatives, as in “either chocolate or vanilla” or “7 or 8.” That use of ‘v“’ for alternation between truth-inapt terms is consistent with the other two uses ‘a v“ b’ and ‘5 v“ 1’, where the symbol is flanked by (variables for) numbers and serves to produce an ambiguously referring term.3 These three uses, in this one manuscript, seem to be the only uses of the symbol ‘v“’ in the entirety of his Mathematische Schriften (Leibniz, 1863).4 We also found it nowhere else in Leibniz’s writings. So this manuscript may record the only uses of ‘v“’ for alternation of (truth-inapt) terms in Leibniz’s corpus. The manuscript ù x = 5v1“ . Nam ut tollamus irrationalitatem, sit x*3 = 4; ergo xx*6x+9 = 4 seu xx*6x+5 = 0 seu xx + 5 = 6x, ubi patet satisfacere tam 5 quam 4. Nam si x valeat 5, fiet 25 + 5 = 30; sin [sic] x valeat 4, fit 1 + 5 = 6.” Leibniz (1679, 9v & 9r) and Leibniz (1863, pp. 57–58), translation courtesy of Jack Zupko. Leibniz seems to be using the dative singular tÄ of the Greek article to indicate mention rather than use; Leibniz underlined the corresponding occurrences of ‘et’ and ‘vel’ in the first sentence.