bergmann

2013

In predicate logic, many different styles of expression in English get cast into the same 'property-is-had-by-entity' form. For example,

2013

Skills to be acquired in this tutorial:

To start learning how to symbolize sentences using predicate logic.

The Tutorial:

There are many valid arguments which cannot be shown to be valid using sentential logic alone. For example,

 

Beryl is a philosopher.
All philosophers are wise.
Therefore
Beryl is wise.

There are many valid arguments which cannot be shown to be valid using sentential logic alone. For example,

Beryl is a philosopher.
All philosophers are wise.
Therefore
Beryl is wise.

Roll your own derivations

2013

You may have derivations of your own that you wish to try. Just type, paste, or drag and drop, them into the panel, select your derivation, and click 'Start from selection'.

[Often copy-and-paste won't work directly from a Web Page; however, usually drag-and-drop will work!]

You will need to use the correct logical symbols. Here they are

F ∴ F & G ∼ & ∨ ⊃ ≡ ∀ ∃ ∴

And the right syntax (the premises separated by commas and then a 'therefore' followed by the conclusion).

Review of Sentential Logic

2013

You now have to tools to appraise sentential arguments.

Let us run through how these might be used with two examples.

Example 1.

Consider the argument

If no human action is free, then no one is responsible for what they do.
If no one is responsible for what they do, no one should be punished.
Therefore
If no human action is free, no one should be punished.

First it should be symbolized

3/16/06

So that we can show certain arguments to be valid.

The focus of the course lies with the validity and invalidity of arguments. Now, invalidity can be established by counter-example (by producing an interpretation under which all the premises are true and the conclusion false, at the same time). But validity is a different matter. And the usual approach is to have rules of inference and to do derivations.

2013

Skills to be acquired

Becoming familiar with common inference patterns and being able to use them via three new rules of inference and via rewrite rules. This helps with assessing ordinary everyday reasoning such as that found in the law, in newspapers, in advertisements, etc.

Reading

Bergmann[2008] The Logic Book Section 5.5

2013

Skills to be acquired:

Learning the Rules Or Elimination and the Introduction of the Biconditional.

Reading

Bergmann[2008] The Logic Book Section 5.1 and 5.4

The Tutorial:

Or Elimination, in the guise of Dilemma, also is a form of inference dating from antiquity.

1/10/2020

Skills to be acquired:

Learning reductio proof, both as plain Negation Introduction and via (double) Negation Elimination (to prove some formulas that do not have negation as their main connective).

Reading

Bergmann[2004] The Logic Book Section 5.1 and 5.4

The Tutorial:

Reductio ad Absurdum is the second of the classical forms of inference.

2013

Skills to be acquired:

Learning conditional proof.

Reading

Bergmann[2008] The Logic Book Section 5.1 and 5.4

The Tutorial:

The five remaining sentential rules of inference are slightly more difficult than the ones that we have met before. They are slightly more difficult in that they require you to make new assumptions, and the correct new assumptions at that. However they follow a similar pattern to each other so mastery of one should lead to mastery of the others.