notes_16_2x2 - Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 1 '...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 1 ' & $ % Announcements & Such Peter Tosh : Rastafari Is Administrative Stuff HW #3 due today , usual drill (truth-table methods for validity). I have posted two handouts: (1) solutions to problems from lecture on logical truth, equivalence, etc., and (2) three examples of the short truth-table method for validity (to be discussed today). + Make sure you study my handouts. They tend to be useful. Today: Chapter 3, Final Final Remarks on LSL Semantics Expressive Completeness: re-cap + some additional remarks. Rewind: Some Chapter 2 problems revisited in light of Chapter 3. An actual LSAT problem (easy, given our knowledge of Chapter 3). Next: Chapter 4 Natural Deduction Proofs for LSL Natural deductions are the most challenging topic of the course. UCB Philosophy Chapter 3 Final, Chapter 4 Intro 10/03/08 Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 2 ' & Expressive Completeness: Recap Fact . The set of 4 connectives h , & , , i is expressively complete. [ p q , [ (p q) & (q p) Fact . The set of 3 connectives h , & , i is expressively complete. [ p q , [ p q Fact . The pairs h , & i and h , i are both expressively complete. [ p q , [ ( p & q) The h , i strategy is similar [ [ p & q , [ ( p q) ]. Consider the binary connective | such that [ p | q [ (p & q) . Fact . | alone is expressively complete! How to express h , & i using | : [ p , [ p | p , and [ p & q , [ (p | q) | (p | q) I called | NAND in a previous lecture. NOR is also expressively complete. UCB Philosophy Chapter 3 Final, Chapter 4 Intro 10/03/08 Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 3 ' & $ % Expressive Completeness: Additional Remarks and Questions Q . How can we define in terms of | ? A . If you navely apply the schemes I described last time, then you get a 187 symbol monster : [ p q , A | A , where A is given by the following 93 symbol expression: (((p | (q | q)) | (p | (q | q))) | ((p | (q | q)) | (p | (q | q)))) | (((q | (p | p)) | (q | (p | p))) | ((q | (p | p)) | (q | (p | p)))) There are simpler definitions of using | . E.g. , this 43 symbol answer: [ p q , ((p | (q | q)) | (q | (p | p))) | ((p | (q | q)) | (q | (p | p))) Can anyone give an even simpler definition of using | ? Extra-Credit! How could you show that the pair h , i is expressively complete? Fact . No subset of h , & , , , i that does not contain negation is expressively complete. [This is a 140A question, beyond our scope.] Let denote the truth-function ( i.e. , the trivial function that always returns ). How could you show that h , i is expressively complete?...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/23/2009 for the course PHIL 12A taught by Professor Fitelson during the Spring '08 term at University of California, Berkeley.

Page1 / 5

notes_16_2x2 - Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 1 '...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online