Are Logicians Naturally Logical?
- From: William Elliot <marsh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 02:19:12 -0800
Natural Logic (with modus ponens additives)
Implication: p->q->r for (p->q)->r
p -> (q->p); p->(q->r) -> (p->q -> (p->r))
Theorems: p -> p
Deduction theorem (natural deduction); Substitution theorem
Conjunction, Disjunction
p -> (q -> pq); pq -> p; pq -> q
p -> pvq; q -> pvq; p->r -> (q->r -> (pvq -> r))
Theorems
pq <-> qp; pvq <-> qvp; p(qr) <-> (pq)r; pv(qvr) <-> (pvq)vr
pp <-> p; pvp <-> p; p <-> p v pq; p <-> p(pvq)
p(qvr) <-> pq v pr; (pvq)(pvr) <-> p v qr
(p<->q) <-> (pr<->qr)(pvr<->qvr)
Quantifiers
Ax.p(x) -> p(t); p(t) -> Ex.p(x), if t substitutable for x
Ax(p->q) -> (Ax.p -> Ax.q)(Ex.p -> Ex.q)
Ex.p -> p; p -> Ax.p, if no free x in p
rule G: If p1,..pk |- q, no free x in p1,..pk, then p1,..pk |- Ax.q
rule C: If p1,..pk q(x) |- r, no free x in p1,..pk,r
then p1,..pk, Ex.q(x) |- r
* * * So what are Ax, Ex introduction and elimination rules? * * *
Positive Logic: p->q->p -> p, Pierce's axiom
Natural Negation: ~p =df p->f
Intitutionistic Negation: f -> p
Classical Negation: ~~p -> p
----
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Are Logicians Naturally Logical?
- From: George Dance
- Re: Are Logicians Naturally Logical?
- From: G . Frege
- Re: Are Logicians Naturally Logical?
- From: Frederick Williams
- Re: Are Logicians Naturally Logical?
- Prev by Date: Re: Help with a problem
- Next by Date: Re: Penrose vs the Robot
- Previous by thread: Re: Universe Does Have An "Outside"
- Next by thread: Re: Are Logicians Naturally Logical?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|