This preview shows pages 1–9. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.
View Full DocumentThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.
View Full DocumentThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.
View Full DocumentThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.
View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Logic I  Session 10 1 Thursday, October 15, 2009 Plan Re: course feedback Review of course structure Recap of truthfunctional completeness? Soundness of SD 2 Thursday, October 15, 2009 The course structure Basics of arguments and logical notions (deductive validity and soundness, logical truth, falsity, consistency, indeterminacy, equivalence SL: syntax and semantics Derivation system SD (and SD+) Metalogic: proofs about SL and SD / SD+ PL: syntax and semantics Derivation system PD (and PD+, PDE) Metalogic: proofs about PL and PD / PD+ / PDE Thursday, October 15, 2009 3 Last time Mathematical induction Strategy: (1) Insert relevant defnitions in the claim you want to prove. (2) Arrange a sequence For the induction. (3) ormulate basis clause and inductive hypothesis. (4) Prove basis clause. (5) Prove inductive hypothesis by assuming its antecedent (n case) and deducing its consequent (n+1 case). TruthFunctional completeness Thursday, October 15, 2009 4 Truthfunctional completeness Truthfunction: a mapping, for some positive integer n, from each combination of TVs n sentences can have to a TV. E.g. for two sentences: {T,F}X{T,F} {T,F}. More generally: {T,F} n {T,F} SL is truthfunctionally complete iff for every truthfunction f, there is an SL sentence P that expresses f. P expresses f iff P s truthtable is the characteristic truth table for for f Thursday, October 15, 2009 5 Truthfunctional completeness We can state this more formally than in TLB: An truthfunction f is a set of ordered pairs like this: { < <T,T>, T > , < <T,F>, F > , < <F,T>, F > , < <F,F>, F > } P expresses f iff for any i that is a member of f, when the atomic components of P are assigned the TVs in the 1st member of i, P receives the TV thats the 2nd member of i. Thursday, October 15, 2009 6 Truthfunctional completeness Why care? We want to use SL and truthtables to test for TF truth, validity, consistency, etc. Suppose we couldnt express some TF in SL, e.g. neither/nor. Then we would have no sentence of SL that expressed the same truthfunction as Neither Alice nor Bill can swim. But then SL wouldnt let us use a TT to show that the sentence is TFentailed by {`Alice can swim if and only if Bill can swim, `If Alice can swim, then Carol cant swim, `Carol can swim}. Similar points apply to other truthfunctions and tests for truthfunctional properties and relations Thursday, October 15, 2009 7 Truthfunctional completeness So we want to know that we can express every truthfunction We know this because we can set out an algorithm that, for any truthfunction f, generates a sentence that expresses f....
View
Full
Document
This note was uploaded on 01/25/2012 for the course PHIL 201H1F taught by Professor Derekallen during the Fall '10 term at University of Toronto Toronto.
 Fall '10
 DerekAllen
 Philosophy

Click to edit the document details