# 3slides - Chapter 3 Propositional Languages We define here...

This preview shows pages 1–6. Sign up to view the full content.

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

View Full Document

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

View Full Document

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

View Full Document
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Chapter 3: Propositional Languages We define here a general notion of a propo- sitional language. We show how to obtain, as specific cases, var- ious languages for propositional classical logic and some non-classical logics. We assume the following : All propositional languages contain a set of variables V AR , which elements are denoted by a,b,c,.... with indices, if necessary. 1 All propositional languages share the general way their sets of formulas are formed. We distinguish one propositional language from the other is the choice of its set of propo- sitional connectives. We adopt a notation L CON , where CON stands for the set of connec- tives. We use a notation L when the set of connectives is fixed. 2 For example, the language L {} denotes a propositional language with only one connective . The language L { , } denotes that a language with two connec- tives and adopted as propositional connectives. Remember: any formal language deals with symbols only and is also called a symbolic language. 3 Symbols for connectives do have intuitive mean- ing. Semantics is a formal meaning of the connec- tives and is defined separately. One language can have many semantics . Different logics can share the same language. For example the language L { , , , } is used as a propositional language of classical and intuitionistic logics, some many- valued logics, and is extended to the language of modal logics. 4 Several languages can share the same seman- tics. The classical propositional logic is the best example of such situation. Due to functional dependency of classical log- ical connectives the languages: L {} , L {} , L {} , L { , , , } , L { , , , , } , L {} , L {} all share the same semantics characteristic for classical propositional logic. The connectives have well established com- mon names and readings, even if their se- mantic can differ....
View Full Document

## This note was uploaded on 02/12/2011 for the course CSE 541 taught by Professor Bachmair,l during the Spring '08 term at SUNY Stony Brook.

### Page1 / 26

3slides - Chapter 3 Propositional Languages We define here...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 6. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document
Ask a homework question - tutors are online