Misplaced Pages

#866133

67-410: The work begins by analyzing simple categoric propositions, and draws a series of basic conclusions on the routine issues of classifying and defining basic linguistic forms, such as simple terms and propositions , nouns and verbs, negation , the quantity of simple propositions (primitive roots of the quantifiers in modern symbolic logic), investigations on the excluded middle (which to Aristotle

134-411: A n ∧ b n ) {\displaystyle f(b_{1},b_{2},\dots ,b_{n})=a_{0}\oplus (a_{1}\land b_{1})\oplus \dots \oplus (a_{n}\land b_{n})} , for all b 1 , b 2 , … , b n ∈ { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle b_{1},b_{2},\dots ,b_{n}\in \{0,1\}} . Another way to express this

201-491: A n ) {\displaystyle f(a_{1},\dots ,a_{n})=\neg f(\neg a_{1},\dots ,\neg a_{n})} for all a 1 , … , a n ∈ { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle a_{1},\dots ,a_{n}\in \{0,1\}} . Negation is a self dual logical operator. In first-order logic , there are two quantifiers, one is the universal quantifier ∀ {\displaystyle \forall } (means "for all") and

268-441: A Heyting algebra . These algebras provide a semantics for classical and intuitionistic logic. The negation of a proposition p is notated in different ways, in various contexts of discussion and fields of application. The following table documents some of these variants: The notation N p {\displaystyle Np} is Polish notation . In set theory , ∖ {\displaystyle \setminus }

335-432: A battle, or there won't. Both options can't be simultaneously taken. Today, they are neither true nor false; but if one is true, then the other becomes false. According to Aristotle, it is impossible to say today if the proposition is correct: we must wait for the contingent realization (or not) of the battle, logic realizes itself afterwards: For Diodorus, the future battle was either impossible or necessary. Aristotle added

402-460: A is the case, then necessarily, a is the case", then this is known as the modal fallacy . Expressed in another way: That is, there are no contingent propositions. Every proposition is either necessarily true or necessarily false. The fallacy arises in the ambiguity of the first premise. If we interpret it close to the English, we get: However, if we recognize that the English expression (i)

469-430: A negative (since it denies justice)? The logical square, also called square of opposition or square of Apuleius has its origin in the four marked sentences to be employed in syllogistic reasoning: Every man is white, the universal affirmative and its negation Not every man is white (or Some men are not white), the particular negative on the one hand, Some men are white, the particular affirmative and its negation No man

536-1062: A person x in all humans who is not mortal", or "there exists someone who lives forever". There are a number of equivalent ways to formulate rules for negation. One usual way to formulate classical negation in a natural deduction setting is to take as primitive rules of inference negation introduction (from a derivation of P {\displaystyle P} to both Q {\displaystyle Q} and ¬ Q {\displaystyle \neg Q} , infer ¬ P {\displaystyle \neg P} ; this rule also being called reductio ad absurdum ), negation elimination (from P {\displaystyle P} and ¬ P {\displaystyle \neg P} infer Q {\displaystyle Q} ; this rule also being called ex falso quodlibet ), and double negation elimination (from ¬ ¬ P {\displaystyle \neg \neg P} infer P {\displaystyle P} ). One obtains

603-672: A primitive rule ex falso quodlibet . As in mathematics, negation is used in computer science to construct logical statements. The exclamation mark " ! " signifies logical NOT in B , C , and languages with a C-inspired syntax such as C++ , Java , JavaScript , Perl , and PHP . " NOT " is the operator used in ALGOL 60 , BASIC , and languages with an ALGOL- or BASIC-inspired syntax such as Pascal , Ada , Eiffel and Seed7 . Some languages (C++, Perl, etc.) provide more than one operator for negation. A few languages like PL/I and Ratfor use ¬ for negation. Most modern languages allow

670-441: A proposition implies its double negation, but not conversely. This marks one important difference between classical and intuitionistic negation. Algebraically, classical negation is called an involution of period two. However, in intuitionistic logic , the weaker equivalence ¬ ¬ ¬ P ≡ ¬ P {\displaystyle \neg \neg \neg P\equiv \neg P} does hold. This

737-414: A result, in the propositional case, a sentence is classically provable if its double negation is intuitionistically provable. This result is known as Glivenko's theorem . De Morgan's laws provide a way of distributing negation over disjunction and conjunction : Let ⊕ {\displaystyle \oplus } denote the logical xor operation. In Boolean algebra , a linear function

SECTION 10

#1732765707867

804-604: A single proposition, the nouns referring to the subjects combine to form a unity. Thus, 'two-footed domesticated animal' applies to a 'man', and the three predicates combine to form a unity. But in the term 'a white walking man' the three predicates do not combine to form a unity of this sort. Chapter 12 . This chapter considers the mutual relation of modal propositions: affirmations and denials which assert or deny possibility or contingency, impossibility or necessity. Chapter 13 . The relation between such propositions. Logical consequences follow from this arrangement. For example, from

871-429: A third term, contingency , which saves logic while in the same time leaving place for indetermination in reality. What is necessary is not that there will or that there will not be a battle tomorrow, but the dichotomy itself is necessary: What exactly al-Farabi posited on the question of future contingents is contentious. Nicholas Rescher argues that al-Farabi's position is that the truth value of future contingents

938-559: A trip tomorrow, then he will, but crucially: There is in Zayd the possibility that he stays home....if we grant that Zayd is capable of staying home or of making the trip, then these two antithetical outcomes are equally possible Al-Farabi's argument deals with the dilemma of future contingents by denying that the proposition P "it is true at t 1 {\displaystyle t_{1}} that Zayd will travel at t 2 {\displaystyle t_{2}} " and

1005-461: A universal, but as a singular: it is true that "Caesar crosses the Rubicon", but it is true only of this Caesar at this time , not of any dictator nor of Caesar at any time (§8, 9, 13). Thus Leibniz conceives of substance as plural: there is a plurality of singular substances, which he calls monads . Leibniz hence creates a concept of the individual as such, and attributes to it events. There

1072-466: A verb. A simple proposition indicates a single fact, and the conjunction of its parts gives a unity. A complex proposition is several propositions compounded together. Chapter 6 . An affirmation is an assertion of something, a denial an assertion denying something of something. (For example, 'a man is an animal' asserts 'animal' of 'man'. 'A stone is not an animal' denies 'animal' of stone'). Chapter 7 . Terms. Some terms are universal . A universal term

1139-565: A way of reducing the number of necessary parentheses, one may introduce precedence rules : ¬ has higher precedence than ∧, ∧ higher than ∨, and ∨ higher than →. So for example, P ∨ Q ∧ ¬ R → S {\displaystyle P\vee Q\wedge {\neg R}\rightarrow S} is short for ( P ∨ ( Q ∧ ( ¬ R ) ) ) → S . {\displaystyle (P\vee (Q\wedge (\neg R)))\rightarrow S.} Here

1206-420: Is logical consequence and ⊥ {\displaystyle \bot } is absolute falsehood ). Conversely, one can define ⊥ {\displaystyle \bot } as Q ∧ ¬ Q {\displaystyle Q\land \neg Q} for any proposition Q (where ∧ {\displaystyle \land } is logical conjunction ). The idea here

1273-423: Is a sea battle tomorrow then it is true today that tomorrow there will be a sea battle. So, only if we can know whether or not there will be a sea battle tomorrow then can we know if there will be a sea battle). Chapter 1 . Aristotle defines words as symbols of 'affections of the soul' or mental experiences. Spoken and written symbols differ between languages, but the mental experiences are the same for all (so that

1340-472: Is a table that shows a commonly used precedence of logical operators. Within a system of classical logic , double negation, that is, the negation of the negation of a proposition P {\displaystyle P} , is logically equivalent to P {\displaystyle P} . Expressed in symbolic terms, ¬ ¬ P ≡ P {\displaystyle \neg \neg P\equiv P} . In intuitionistic logic ,

1407-430: Is a universal necessity, which is universally applicable, and a singular necessity, which applies to each singular substance, or event. There is one proper noun for each singular event: Leibniz creates a logic of singularity, which Aristotle thought impossible (he considered that there could only be knowledge of generality). One of the early motivations for the study of many-valued logics has been precisely this issue. In

SECTION 20

#1732765707867

1474-468: Is already distributed in an "indefinite way", whereas Fritz Zimmerman argues that al-Farabi endorsed Aristotle's solution that the truth value of future contingents has not been distributed yet. Peter Adamson claims they are both correct as al-Farabi endorses both perspectives at different points in his writing, depending on how far he is engaging with the question of divine foreknowledge. Al-Farabi's argument about "indefinite" truth values centers around

1541-411: Is also used to indicate 'not in the set of': U ∖ A {\displaystyle U\setminus A} is the set of all members of U that are not members of A . Regardless how it is notated or symbolized , the negation ¬ P {\displaystyle \neg P} can be read as "it is not the case that P ", "not that P ", or usually more simply as "not P ". As

1608-449: Is an operation on one logical value , typically the value of a proposition , that produces a value of true when its operand is false, and a value of false when its operand is true. Thus if statement P {\displaystyle P} is true, then ¬ P {\displaystyle \neg P} (pronounced "not P") would then be false; and conversely, if ¬ P {\displaystyle \neg P}

1675-632: Is because in intuitionistic logic, ¬ P {\displaystyle \neg P} is just a shorthand for P → ⊥ {\displaystyle P\rightarrow \bot } , and we also have P → ¬ ¬ P {\displaystyle P\rightarrow \neg \neg P} . Composing that last implication with triple negation ¬ ¬ P → ⊥ {\displaystyle \neg \neg P\rightarrow \bot } implies that P → ⊥ {\displaystyle P\rightarrow \bot } . As

1742-452: Is capable of being asserted of several subjects (for example 'moon'—even though the Earth has one moon, it may have had more, and the noun 'moon' could have been said of them in exactly the same sense). Other terms are individual. An individual or singular term ('Plato') is not predicated (in the same) sense of more than one individual. A universal affirmative proposition, such as, 'Every man

1809-466: Is equivalent to the two simple propositions 'a man is white and a horse is white'. Chapter 9 . Of contradictory propositions about the past and present, one must be true, the other false. But when the subject is individual, and the proposition is future, this is not the case. For if so, nothing takes place by chance. For either the future proposition such as, 'A sea battle will take place,' corresponds with future reality, or its negation does, in which case

1876-426: Is formulated using a primitive absurdity sign ⊥ {\displaystyle \bot } . In this case the rule says that from P {\displaystyle P} and ¬ P {\displaystyle \neg P} follows an absurdity. Together with double negation elimination one may infer our originally formulated rule, namely that anything follows from an absurdity. Typically

1943-459: Is honest' and 'No man is honest' are false. But their contradictories, 'Some men are not honest' and 'Some men are honest,' are both true. Chapter 8 . An affirmation is single, if it expresses a single fact. For example, 'every man is mortal'. However, if a word has two meanings, for example if the word 'garment' meant 'man and horse', then 'the garment is white' would not be a single affirmation, for it would mean 'the man and horse are white', which

2010-541: Is interpreted intuitively as being true when P {\displaystyle P} is false, and false when P {\displaystyle P} is true. For example, if P {\displaystyle P} is "Spot runs", then "not P {\displaystyle P} " is "Spot does not run". Negation is a unary logical connective . It may furthermore be applied not only to propositions, but also to notions , truth values , or semantic values more generally. In classical logic , negation

2077-512: Is mortal' and a universal negative proposition having the same subject and predicate, such as, 'No man is mortal,' are called contrary . A universal affirmative proposition ("Every man is mortal") and the non-universal denial of that proposition in a way ("Some men are not mortal") are called contradictories . Of contradictories, one must be true, the other false. Contraries cannot both be true, although they can both be false, and hence their contradictories are both true. For example, both 'Every man

On Interpretation - Misplaced Pages Continue

2144-421: Is negative because " x < 0 " yields true) To demonstrate logical negation: Inverting the condition and reversing the outcomes produces code that is logically equivalent to the original code, i.e. will have identical results for any input (depending on the compiler used, the actual instructions performed by the computer may differ). In C (and some other languages descended from C), double negation ( !!x )

2211-513: Is normally identified with the truth function that takes truth to falsity (and vice versa). In intuitionistic logic , according to the Brouwer–Heyting–Kolmogorov interpretation , the negation of a proposition P {\displaystyle P} is the proposition whose proofs are the refutations of P {\displaystyle P} . An operand of a negation is a negand , or negatum . Classical negation

2278-435: Is not applicable to future tense propositions—the problem of future contingents ), and on modal propositions . The first five chapters deal with the terms that form propositions. Chapters 6 and 7 deal with the relationship between affirmative, negative, universal and particular propositions. These relationships are the basis of the well-known square of opposition . The distinction between universal and particular propositions

2345-474: Is one such that: If there exists a 0 , a 1 , … , a n ∈ { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle a_{0},a_{1},\dots ,a_{n}\in \{0,1\}} , f ( b 1 , b 2 , … , b n ) = a 0 ⊕ ( a 1 ∧ b 1 ) ⊕ ⋯ ⊕ (

2412-454: Is that any contradiction is false, and while these ideas work in both classical and intuitionistic logic, they do not work in paraconsistent logic , where contradictions are not necessarily false. As a further example, negation can be defined in terms of NAND and can also be defined in terms of NOR. Algebraically, classical negation corresponds to complementation in a Boolean algebra , and intuitionistic negation to pseudocomplementation in

2479-405: Is that each variable always makes a difference in the truth-value of the operation, or it never makes a difference. Negation is a linear logical operator. In Boolean algebra , a self dual function is a function such that: f ( a 1 , … , a n ) = ¬ f ( ¬ a 1 , … , ¬

2546-451: Is the basis of modern quantification theory . The last three chapters deal with modalities . Chapter 9 is famous for the discussion of the sea-battle . (If it is true that there will be a sea-battle tomorrow, then it is true today that there will be a sea-battle. Thus a sea-battle is apparently unavoidable, and thus necessary. Another interpretation would be: that we cannot know that which has not yet come to pass. In other words: if there

2613-403: Is thus a "contingent necessity"). Leibniz hereby uses the concept of compossible worlds. According to Leibniz, contingent acts such as "Caesar crossing the Rubicon" or "Adam eating the apple" are necessary: that is, they are singular necessities, contingents and accidentals, but which concerns the principle of sufficient reason . Furthermore, this leads Leibniz to conceive of the subject not as

2680-415: Is true if "tomorrow" eventually occurs.) By asserting " A sea-fight must either take place tomorrow or not, but it is not necessary that it should take place tomorrow, neither is it necessary that it should not take place, yet it is necessary that it either should or should not take place tomorrow ", Aristotle is simply claiming "necessarily (a or not-a)", which is correct. However, if we then conclude: "If

2747-489: Is true, then P {\displaystyle P} would be false. The truth table of ¬ P {\displaystyle \neg P} is as follows: Negation can be defined in terms of other logical operations. For example, ¬ P {\displaystyle \neg P} can be defined as P → ⊥ {\displaystyle P\rightarrow \bot } (where → {\displaystyle \rightarrow }

On Interpretation - Misplaced Pages Continue

2814-527: Is used as an idiom to convert x to a canonical Boolean, ie. an integer with a value of either 0 or 1 and no other. Although any integer other than 0 is logically true in C and 1 is not special in this regard, it is sometimes important to ensure that a canonical value is used, for example for printing or if the number is subsequently used for arithmetic operations. The convention of using ! to signify negation occasionally surfaces in ordinary written speech, as computer-related slang for not . For example,

2881-435: Is white, the universal negative on the other. Robert Blanché published with Vrin his book Structures intellectuelles in 1966 and since then many scholars think that the logical square or square of opposition representing four values should be replaced by the logical hexagon which by representing six values is a more potent figure because it has the power to explain more things about logic and natural language. The study of

2948-626: The 4th century. Another translation was completed by Boethius in the 6th century, c.  510 /512. Negation In logic , negation , also called the logical not or logical complement , is an operation that takes a proposition P {\displaystyle P} to another proposition "not P {\displaystyle P} ", written ¬ P {\displaystyle \neg P} , ∼ P {\displaystyle {\mathord {\sim }}P} or P ¯ {\displaystyle {\overline {P}}} . It

3015-456: The English word 'cat' and the French word 'chat' are different symbols, but the mental experience they stand for—the concept of a cat—is the same for English speakers and French speakers). Nouns and verbs on their own do not involve truth or falsity. Chapter 2 . A noun signifies the subject by convention, but without reference to time. Chapter 3 . A verb carries with it the notion of time. 'He

3082-471: The above statement to be shortened from if (!(r == t)) to if (r != t) , which allows sometimes, when the compiler/interpreter is not able to optimize it, faster programs. In computer science there is also bitwise negation . This takes the value given and switches all the binary 1s to 0s and 0s to 1s. See bitwise operation . This is often used to create ones' complement or " ~ " in C or C++ and two's complement (just simplified to " - " or

3149-426: The affirmations and denials that can be assigned when 'indefinite' terms such as 'unjust' are included. He makes a distinction that was to become important later, between the use of the verb 'is' as a mere copula or 'third element', as in the sentence 'a man is wise', and as a predicate signifying existence, as in 'a man is [i.e. exists]'. Chapter 11 . Some propositions appear to be simple, but are really composite. In

3216-493: The early 20th century, the Polish formal logician Jan Łukasiewicz proposed three truth-values: the true, the false and the as-yet-undetermined . This approach was later developed by Arend Heyting and L. E. J. Brouwer ; see Łukasiewicz logic . Issues such as this have also been addressed in various temporal logics , where one can assert that " Eventually , either there will be a sea battle tomorrow, or there won't be." (Which

3283-550: The four propositions constituting the square is found in Chapter 7 and its appendix Chapter 8. Most important also is the immediately following Chapter 9 dealing with the problem of future contingents. This chapter and the subsequent ones are at the origin of modal logic . Aristotle's original Greek text, Περὶ Ἑρμηνείας ( Peri Hermeneias ) was translated into the Latin " De Interpretatione " by Marius Victorinus , at Rome, in

3350-502: The future that are contingent : neither necessarily true nor necessarily false. The problem of future contingents seems to have been first discussed by Aristotle in chapter 9 of his On Interpretation ( De Interpretatione ), using the famous sea-battle example. Roughly a generation later, Diodorus Cronus from the Megarian school of philosophy stated a version of the problem in his notorious master argument . The problem

3417-601: The haecceity of Alexander, then fatalism threatens Leibniz's construction: Against Aristotle's separation between the subject and the predicate , Leibniz states: The predicate (what happens to Alexander) must be completely included in the subject (Alexander) "if one understands perfectly the concept of the subject". Leibniz henceforth distinguishes two types of necessity: necessary necessity and contingent necessity, or universal necessity vs singular necessity. Universal necessity concerns universal truths, while singular necessity concerns something necessary that could not be (it

SECTION 50

#1732765707867

3484-424: The idea that "from premises that are contingently true, a contingently true conclusion necessarily follows". This means that even though a future contingent will occur, it may not have done so according to present contingent facts; as such, the truth value of a proposition concerning that future contingent is true, but true in a contingent way. al-Farabi uses the following example; if we argue truly that Zayd will take

3551-430: The intuitionistic negation ¬ P {\displaystyle \neg P} of P {\displaystyle P} is defined as P → ⊥ {\displaystyle P\rightarrow \bot } . Then negation introduction and elimination are just special cases of implication introduction ( conditional proof ) and elimination ( modus ponens ). In this case one must also add as

3618-412: The negative sign since this is equivalent to taking the arithmetic negative value of the number) as it basically creates the opposite (negative value equivalent) or mathematical complement of the value (where both values are added together they create a whole). To get the absolute (positive equivalent) value of a given integer the following would work as the " - " changes it from negative to positive (it

3685-600: The other is the existential quantifier ∃ {\displaystyle \exists } (means "there exists"). The negation of one quantifier is the other quantifier ( ¬ ∀ x P ( x ) ≡ ∃ x ¬ P ( x ) {\displaystyle \neg \forall xP(x)\equiv \exists x\neg P(x)} and ¬ ∃ x P ( x ) ≡ ∀ x ¬ P ( x ) {\displaystyle \neg \exists xP(x)\equiv \forall x\neg P(x)} ). For example, with

3752-592: The paradox in §6 of Discourse on Metaphysics : "That God does nothing which is not orderly, and that it is not even possible to conceive of events which are not regular." Thus, even a miracle , the Event by excellence, does not break the regular order of things. What is seen as irregular is only a default of perspective, but does not appear so in relation to universal order, and thus possibility exceeds human logics. Leibniz encounters this paradox because according to him: If everything that happens to Alexander derives from

3819-434: The past, prior and up to the original statement "A sea battle will not be fought tomorrow", that the battle will not be fought, and thus the statement that it will be fought is necessarily false. Therefore, it is not possible that the battle will be fought. In general, if something will not be the case, it is not possible for it to be the case. "For a man may predict an event ten thousand years beforehand, and another may predict

3886-495: The phrase !voting means "not voting". Another example is the phrase !clue which is used as a synonym for "no-clue" or "clueless". In Kripke semantics where the semantic values of formulae are sets of possible worlds , negation can be taken to mean set-theoretic complementation (see also possible world semantics for more). Problem of future contingents Future contingent propositions (or simply, future contingents ) are statements about states of affairs in

3953-494: The predicate P as " x is mortal" and the domain of x as the collection of all humans, ∀ x P ( x ) {\displaystyle \forall xP(x)} means "a person x in all humans is mortal" or "all humans are mortal". The negation of it is ¬ ∀ x P ( x ) ≡ ∃ x ¬ P ( x ) {\displaystyle \neg \forall xP(x)\equiv \exists x\neg P(x)} , meaning "there exists

4020-440: The proposition Q "it is true that at t 2 {\displaystyle t_{2}} that Zayd travels" would lead us to conclude that necessarily if P then necessarily Q . He denies this by arguing that "the truth of the present statement about Zayd's journey does not exclude the possibility of Zayd’s staying at home: it just excludes that this possibility will be realized". Leibniz gave another response to

4087-410: The proposition 'it is possible' it follows that it is contingent, that it is not impossible, or from the proposition 'it cannot be the case' there follows 'it is necessarily not the case'. Chapter 14 . Is there an affirmative proposition corresponding to every denial? For example, is the proposition 'every man is unjust' an affirmation (since it seems to affirm being unjust of every man) or is it merely

SECTION 60

#1732765707867

4154-477: The reverse; that which was truly predicted at the moment in the past will of necessity take place in the fullness of time" ( De Int. 18b35). This conflicts with the idea of our own free choice : that we have the power to determine or control the course of events in the future, which seems impossible if what happens, or does not happen, is necessarily going to happen, or not happen. As Aristotle says, if so there would be no need "to deliberate or to take trouble, on

4221-517: The rules for intuitionistic negation the same way but by excluding double negation elimination. Negation introduction states that if an absurdity can be drawn as conclusion from P {\displaystyle P} then P {\displaystyle P} must not be the case (i.e. P {\displaystyle P} is false (classically) or refutable (intuitionistically) or etc.). Negation elimination states that anything follows from an absurdity. Sometimes negation elimination

4288-402: The sea battle will take place with necessity, or not take place with necessity. But in reality, such an event might just as easily not happen as happen; the meaning of the word 'by chance' with regard to future events is that reality is so constituted that it may issue in either of two opposite possibilities. This is known as the problem of future contingents . Chapter 10 . Aristotle enumerates

4355-399: The supposition that if we should adopt a certain course, a certain result would follow, while, if we did not, the result would not follow". Aristotle solved the problem by asserting that the principle of bivalence found its exception in this paradox of the sea battles: in this specific case, what is impossible is that both alternatives can be possible at the same time: either there will be

4422-404: Was healthy' and 'he will be healthy' are tenses of a verb. An untensed verb indicates the present, the tenses of a verb indicate times outside the present. Chapter 4 . The sentence is an expression whose parts have meaning. The word 'cat' signifies something, but is not a sentence. Only when words are added to it do we have affirmation and negation. Chapter 5 . Every simple proposition contains

4489-408: Was later discussed by Leibniz . The problem can be expressed as follows. Suppose that a sea-battle will not be fought tomorrow. Then it was also true yesterday (and the week before, and last year) that it will not be fought, since any true statement about what will be the case in the future was also true in the past. But all past truths are now necessary truths; therefore it is now necessarily true in

#866133