Lecture #10 - Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 1...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. 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 Branden is in Chicago all of this week. Hell return next week. HW #2 resubmissions are due Today (4pm, drop box). Please attach your original assignment to your resub! See my HW Tips & Guidelines Handout. [Were now caught-up.] Make sure you have problem #12 from p. 33 of the 4 th printing. Its about the Mayors election (and the council members). HW #3 has been posted. 1st-submission is due next Thursday. I have posted a handout with solutions to (some of) the lecture problems on logical truth, logical falsity, equivalence, consistency, etc. I have also posted a handout on the short truth-table method, which we will be going over in lecture sometime very soon. Today: Chapter 3, Continued (Truth-Table methods for validity testing) UCB Philosophy Chapter 3 02/18/10 Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 2 Semantic Equivalence, Contradictoriness, etc .: Relationships What are the logical relationships between [ p and q are equivalent , [ p and q are consistent , [ p and q are contradictory , and [ p and q are inconsistent ? That is, which of these entails which (and which dont)? Equivalent Contradictory ? ? Consistent Inconsistent Answers: 1. Equivalent Consistent ( example ?) 2. Consistent Equivalent ( example ?) 3. Contradictory Inconsistent ( why ?) 4. Inconsistent Contradictory ( example ?) UCB Philosophy Chapter 3 02/18/10 Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 3 Semantic Equivalence: Example #1 Recall that [ p unless q translates in LSL as [ q p . Weve said that we can also translate [ p unless q as [ p q . This is because [ q p is semantically equivalent to [ p q . We may demonstrate this, using the following joint truth-table. p q q p p q The truth-tables of [ p q and [ q p are the same. Thus, q p p q . UCB Philosophy Chapter 3 02/18/10 Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 4 Semantic Equivalence: Example #2 [ p q is an abbreviation for [ (p q) & (q p) . The following truth-table shows it is a legitimate abbreviation: p q (p q) & (q p) p q [ p q and [ (p q) & (q p) have the same truth-table. Thus, p q (p q) & (q p) . UCB Philosophy Chapter 3 02/18/10 Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 5 Semantic Equivalence: Example #3 Intuitively, the truth-conditions for exclusive or ( ) are such that [ p q is true if and only if exactly one of p or q is true....
View Full Document

Page1 / 7

Lecture #10 - Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 1...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

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