notes_15_2x2

# notes_15_2x2 - Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 1 '...

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

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: Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 1 ' & \$ % Announcements and Such • Today’s Music: The Doors • I have posted my solutions to HW #4 and HW #5. • HW #6 is due on Thursday @ 4pm. + The final is in class on Thursday. You’ll be given 3 hours to do it. • I’ve posted two important handouts concerning the final exam: – The (Complete) Natural Deduction Rules Handout (provided at final). – A sample final exam, which has the same structure as the actual final. This sample was discussed, in detail, in lecture last week. • Today: Chapters 7 & 8 — L2PL – I will only be covering (some of) the L2PL parts of Chapters 7 & 8. – I will say something about what will be on the final at the end of today’s lecture (which, alas, will be my last lecture at Berkeley). UCB Philosophy Chapters 7&8 (L2PL) 06/30/10 Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 2 ' & Why ( † ) is So Important — L2PL vs LMPL: Infinite Domains • In LMPL, if p is true on any interpretation I , then it is true on a finite interpretation. Indeed, p will be true on an interpretation of size no greater than 2 k , where k is the # of monadic predicate letters in p . • In L2PL, some statements are true only on infinite interpretations. It is for this reason that there is no general decision procedure for validity (or logical truth) in L2PL. ( † ) on the last slide is a good example of this. ( † ) ( ∀ x)( ∃ y)Rxy,( ∀ x)( ∀ y)( ∀ z)[(Rxy & Ryz) → Rxz] ( ∃ x)Rxx • Fact . Only infinite interpretations I can be counterexamples to the validity in ( † ). To see why, try to construct such an interpretation. • We start by showing that no interpretation I 1 with a 1-element domain can be an interpretation on which the premises of ( † ) are > and its conclusion is ⊥ . Then, we will repeat this argument for I 2 and I 3 . • This reasoning can, in fact, be shown correct for all (finite) n . So, only I ’s with infinite domains will work [ e.g. , D = N , Rxy : x < y ]. • Begin with a 1-element domain { α } . For the conclusion of (4) to be ⊥ , no UCB Philosophy Chapters 7&8 (L2PL) 06/30/10 Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 3 ' & \$ % object can be related to itself: ( ∀ x) ∼ Rxx . Thus, we must have ∼ Raa : α • But, to make the first premise > , we need there to be some y such that Ray is > . That means we need another object β to allow Rab . Thus: α β • Now, because we need the conclusion to remain ⊥ , we must have ∼ Rbb . And, because we need the first premise to remain > , we need there to be some y such that Rby is > . We could try to make Rba > , as follows: α β UCB Philosophy Chapters 7&8 (L2PL) 06/30/10 Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 4 ' & • But, this picture is not consistent with the second premise being > and (at the same time) the conclusion being ⊥ . If R is transitive, then Rab & Rba (as pictured) entails Raa , which makes the conclusion > ....
View Full Document

## This note was uploaded on 11/26/2011 for the course PHILOSOPHY 101 taught by Professor Buechner during the Fall '06 term at Rutgers.

### Page1 / 6

notes_15_2x2 - Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 1 '...

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

View Full Document
Ask a homework question - tutors are online