1. What is Logic? Flashcards
Logic is about many things, but most centrally it is about _________.
logical consequence
The statement “someone is male” is a _______ of the statement “Grant is male”. If Grant is male, then it logically follows that someone is male.
Put another way: the statement “Grant is male” logically implies the statement “someone is male”.
logical consequence;
The statement __________ is a logical consequence of the statements “It’s not the case that Leisel is male” and “Either Leisel is male or Grant is male” (taken together). The first statement follows from the latter two statements; they logically imply it.
Put another way: the argument whose premises are the latter two statements, and whose conclusion is the former statement, is a logically correct one.
“Grant is male”
________ is truth-preservation by virtue of form
Logical consequence
For φ to be a logical consequence of ψ, it is not enough that we all know that _________.
φ is true if ψ is
We all know that an apple will fall if it is dropped, but the relationship between falling and dropping does not hold by virtue of logic.
Why not?
For one thing, “by virtue of logic” requires the presence of some sort of necessary connection, a connection that is absent in the case of the dropped apple (since it would be possible—in some sense—for a dropped apple not to fall). For another, it requires the relationship to hold by virtue of the forms of the statements involved, whereas the relationship between “the apple was dropped” and “the apple fell” holds by virtue of the contents of these statements and not their form.
The inference from “It’s not the case that Leisel is male” and “Either Leisel is male or Grant is male” to “Grant is male” is said to hold in virtue of form since any argument of the form __________ is logically correct.
“it’s not the case that φ; either φ or ψ; therefore ψ”
Just as logical consequence is truth-preservation by virtue of form, ________ is truth by virtue of form.
logical truth
Logical truth is truth by virtue of form.
Examples might include: “it’s not the case that snow is white and also not white”, “All fish are fish”, and “If Grant is male then someone is male”. As with logical consequence, logical truth is thought to require some sort of ______ and to hold by virtue of ______.
necessity;
form, not content
It is plausible that logical truth and logical consequence are related thus: a logical truth is _______. One can infer a logical truth by _______.
a sentence that is a logical consequence of the empty set of premises;
using logic alone, without the help of any premises
A central goal of logic is to study ______ and ______.
logical truth;
logical consequence
Modern logic is called “mathematical” or “symbolic” logic because its method is ________.
the mathematical study of formal languages
Modern logicians use the tools of mathematics (especially the tools of very abstract mathematics, such as set theory) to ________.
treat sentences and other parts of language as mathematical objects
The formal sentence _____ is a tautology, but since it is uninterpreted, we probably shouldn’t call it a logical truth. Rather, it represents logical truths like “If snow is white then snow is white.” A logical truth ought to at least to be true, after all, and _____ isn’t true, since it doesn’t even have a meaning—what’s the meaning of P?
P→P;
P→P
Why are formal languages called “formal”? (They’re also sometimes called “artificial” languages.)
Because their properties are mathematically stipulated, rather than being pre-existent in flesh-and-blood linguistic populations. We stipulatively define a formal language’s grammar. We must stipulatively define any properties of the symbolic sentences that we want to study, for example, the property of being a tautology. Formal languages often contain abstractions, like the sentence letters P, Q, … of propositional logic.
Metalogic proofs are phrased in _______ and employ _______.
natural language (perhaps augmented with mathematical vocabulary); informal (though rigorous!) reasoning of the sort one would encounter in a mathematics book
Proofs in formal systems, unlike metalogic proofs, are phrased using ________.
sentences of formal languages, and proceed according to prescribed formal rules
Logicians often distinguish the “_____language” from the “_____language”.
object ;
meta
The object language is the language that’s being studied. One example is…
the language of propositional logic. Its sentences look like this:
P∧Q
∼(P∨Q)↔R
The metalanguage is the language we use to talk about the object language.
One example is…
English, as it is used in this book.
Here are some example sentences of the metalanguage:
“P∧Q” is a formal sentence with three symbols
Every sentence of propositional logic has the same number of left parentheses as right parentheses
Every provable formula is a tautology
Thus, we formulate metalogical claims about an object language in the metalanguage, and prove such claims by reasoning in the metalanguage.
i) is it a sentence of the object language or the metalanguage?
ii) is it true?
‘P∨∼P’ is a logical truth.
“‘P∨∼P’ is a logical truth” is a sentence of the metalanguage, and (I would say) is false. ‘P∨∼P’ contains the meaningless letter ‘P’, so it isn’t a logical truth. Rather, it represents logical truths (assuming the law of the excluded middle is correct! See chapter 3.)
i) is it a sentence of the object language or the metalanguage?
ii) is it true?
(P∨Q)→(Q∨P)
‘(P∨Q)→(Q∨P)’ is a sentence of the object language. Since it contains meaningless expressions (‘P’, ‘Q’), it isn’t true. (Not that it’s false!)
i) is it a sentence of the object language or the metalanguage?
ii) is it true?
‘Frank and Joe are brothers’ logically implies ‘Frank and Joe are siblings’.
This is a bit of a trick question. “‘Frank and Joe are brothers’ logically implies ‘Frank and Joe are siblings’” is a sentence of English, which is talking about further sentences of English. So English is functioning here both as the object language and as the metalanguage. As for whether the sentence is true, I would say no, since the implication is not “formal.”
Each of the following sentences confuses use and mention. In each case, fill in quotation marks to x the problem.
* Attorney and lawyer are synonyms.
‘Attorney and lawyer are synonyms’ confuses use and mention; inserting quotation marks thus fixes the problem:
‘Attorney’ and ‘lawyer’ are synonyms.
Each of the following sentences confuses use and mention. In each case, fill in quotation marks to x the problem.
* If S1 is an English sentence and S2 is another English sentence, then the string S1 and S2 is also an English sentence.
How can we insert quotation marks to remove the use-mention confusion in ‘If S1
is an English sentence and S2 is another English sentence, then the string S1
and S2 is also an English sentence’? This is again a bit of a trick question. You might think to do it this way:
If S1 is an English sentence and S2 is another English sentence, then the string ‘S1 and S2’ is also an English sentence.
But this isn’t right. It makes the (false) claim that the string of letters ‘S1 and S2’ (a string that contains the variables ‘S1’ and ‘S2’) is an English sentence, whereas the intention of the original sentence was to say that strings like ‘Snow is white and grass is green’ and ‘Roses are red and violets are blue’ are English sentences. Really, what we want is something like this:
If S1 is an English sentence and S2 is another English sentence, then the string consisting of S1, followed by ‘and’, followed by S2, is also an English sentence.
Quine (1940, 36) invented a device for saying such things more concisely. In his notation, we could write instead:
If S1 is an English sentence and S2 is another English sentence, then ┌S1 and S2┐ is also an English sentence.
His “corner quotes”, ‘┌’ and ‘┐’, work like regular quotation marks, except when it comes to variables of the metalanguage such as ‘S1’ and ‘S2’. Expressions other than such variables simply refer to themselves within corner quotes, just as all expressions do within regular quotation marks. But metalanguage variables refer to their values—i.e., the linguistic expressions they stand for—rather than themselves, within Quine’s corner quotes. Thus,
┌S1 and S2┐
means the same as:
the string consisting of S1, followed by ‘and’, followed by S2
Corner quotes
┌ and ┐
Semantic/Model-theoretic approach:
φ is represented as being a logical consequence of ψ1, ψ2, … if and only if _______.
φ is true in any model in which each of ψ1, ψ2, … is true
Semantic/Model-theoretic approach:
φ is represented as being a logical consequence of ψ1, ψ2, … if and only if φ is true in any model in which each of
ψ1, ψ2, … is true.
This isn’t a theory of genuine logical consequence. It’s only _________. What theory of genuine logical consequence lies behind it? Perhaps one like this:
a way of representing logical consequence using formal languages;
“φ is a logical consequence of ψ1, ψ2 … if and only if the meanings of the logical expressions in φ and ψ1, ψ2 … guarantee that φ is true whenever ψ1, ψ2 … are all true.” (Nonlogical expressions are expressions other than ‘and’, ‘or’, ‘not’, ‘some’, and so on)
Under the semantic/model-theoretic approach, one…
chooses a formal language, defines a notion of model (or interpretation) for the chosen language, defines a notion of truth-in-a-model for sentences of the language, and then finally represents logical consequence for the chosen language as truth-preservation in models (φ is represented as being a logical consequence of ψ1, ψ2, … if and only if φ is true in any model in which each of ψ1, ψ2, … is true.)
Under the proof-theoretic approach, …
logical consequence is more a matter of provability than of truth-preservation. As with the semantic account, there is a question of whether we have here a proper theory about the nature of logical consequence (in which case we must ask: what is provability? by which rules?
and in which language?) or whether we have merely a preference for a certain approach to formalizing logical consequence. In the latter case, the approach to formalization is one in which we define up a relation of provability between sentences of formal languages. We do this, roughly speaking, by dening certain acceptable “transitions” between sentences of formal languages, and then saying that a sentence φ is provable from sentences ψ1, ψ2, … if and only if there is some way of moving by acceptable transitions from ψ1, ψ2, … to φ.
Proof-theoretic approach:
φ is provable from sentences ψ1, ψ2, … if and only if _______.
there is some way of moving by acceptable transitions from ψ1, ψ2, … to φ
There are alternate philosophical conceptions of logical consequence. For example, there is the view of W. V. O. Quine: φ is a logical consequence of ψ1, ψ2, … iff ___________.
there is no way to (uniformly) substitute expressions for nonlogical expressions in φ and ψ1, ψ2, … so that ψ1, ψ2, … all become true but φ does not
There are alternate philosophical conceptions of logical consequence. For example, there is the modal account: φ is a logical consequence of ψ1, ψ2, … iff __________.
it is not possible for ψ1, ψ2, … to all be true without φ being true (under some suitable notion of possibility)
Let sentence S1 be ‘There exists an x such that x and x are identical’, and let S2 be ‘There exists an x such that there exists a y such that x and y are not identical’. Does S1 logically imply S2 according to the modal criterion? According to Quine’s criterion?
Let sentence S1 be ‘There exists an x such that x and x are identical’, and let S2 be ‘There exists an x such that there exists a y such that x and y are not identical’.
Does S1 logically imply S2 according to the modal criterion? Well, that depends. It depends on what is possible. You might think that there could have existed only a single thing, in which case S1 would be true and S2 would be false. If this is indeed possible, then S1 doesn’t logically imply S2 (given the modal criterion). But some people think that numbers exist necessarily, and in particular that it’s necessarily true that the numbers 0 and 1 exist and are not identical. If this is correct, then it wouldn’t be possible for S1 to be true while S2 is false (since it wouldn’t be possible for S2 to be false.) And so, S1 would logically imply S2, given the modal criterion.
How about according to Quine’s criterion? Again, it depends—in this case on which expressions are logical expressions. If (as is commonly supposed) ‘there exists an x such that’, ‘there exists a y such that’, ‘not’, and ‘are identical’ are all logical expressions, then all expressions in S1 and S2 are logical expressions. So, since each sentence is in fact true, there’s no way to substitute nonlogical expressions to make S1 true and S2 false. So S1 logically implies S2 (according to Quine’s criterion). But suppose ‘are identical’ is not a logical expression. Then S1 would not logically imply S2, according to Quine’s criterion. For consider the result of substituting the predicate ‘are both existent’ for ‘are identical’. S1 then becomes true: ‘There exists an x such that x and x are both existent’, whereas S2 becomes false: ‘There exists an x such that there exists a y such that x and y are not both existent’.
Consider an implication that, one is inclined to say, does hold by virtue of form; the implication from ‘Leisel is a swimmer and Leisel is famous’ to ‘Leisel is a swimmer’. This holds by virtue of form, one might think, because i) _______ and ii) _______. But the defender of the modal conception of logical consequence could say the following:
The inference from ‘Grant is a bachelor’ to ‘Grant is unmarried’ also holds in virtue of form. For: i) _______ and ii) _______
it has the form “φ and ψ; so, φ”;
for any pair of sentences of this form, the first logically implies the second;
it has the form “α is a bachelor; so, α is unmarried”;
for any pair of sentences of this form, the first sentence logically implies the second (since it’s impossible for the first to be true while the second is false.)
We normally think of the “forms” of inferences as being things like “φ and ψ; so, φ”, and not things like “α is a bachelor; so, α is unmarried”, but why not?
When we assign a form to an inference, we focus on some phrases while ignoring others. The phrases we ignore disappear into the schematic letters (φ, ψ, and α…); the phrases on which we focus remain (‘and’, ‘bachelor’, ‘unmarried’). Now, logicians do not focus on just any old phrases. They focus on ‘and’, ‘or’, ‘not’, ‘if then’, and so on, in propositional logic; on ‘all’ and ‘some’ in addition in predicate logic; and on a few others. But they do not focus on ‘bachelor’ and ‘unmarried’. Call the words on which logicians focus—the words they leave intact when constructing forms, and the words for which they introduce special symbolic correlates, such as ∧, ∨, and ∀—the logical constants.
We can speak of ______ logical constants (‘and’, ‘or’, ‘all’, ‘some’…) as well as ______ logical constants (∧, ∨, ∀, ∃…).
natural language;
symbolic
Unlike P, Q, and so on, which are ________, ∧ and ∨ fixedly represent ‘and’ and ‘or’.
not symbolic logical constants, and which do not fixedly represent any particular natural language sentences
In terms of the notion of a logical constant, we can say why the inference from ‘Grant is a bachelor’ to ‘Grant is unmarried’ is not a logical one. When we say that logical implications hold by virtue of form, we mean that they _______; and the form “α is a bachelor; so, α is unmarried” is not a logical form. A logical form must consist exclusively of _______; and the fact is that logicians do not treat ‘bachelor’ and ‘unmarried’ as ________.
hold by virtue of logical form; logical constants (plus punctuation and schematic variables); logical constants
“Standard logic” is what is usually studied in introductory logic courses. It includes propositional logic (logical constants: _______), and predicate logic (logical constants: ________).
∀,∃, variables