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.