Why do we use a predicate logic
at all? Think of the problem
we
would have with the oldest syllogism in the world:
Every human being is mortal. Socrates is a
human being. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
We can see easily enough it works because of how we are linking the
individual ideas (or terms), but this could never be shown if we used
just
letters for the complete statements. (For instance, H and S,
therefore
M.)
But we can see how it works if we have a way of expressing the
relationship
in the first sentence using a variable in place of an actual name.
Every human being is mortal. (x)(Hx
-> Mx)
Then we can see that if we talk about Socrates as a specific instance
of the generalization we have this formula:
[If Socrates is a human being then he is
mortal.]
Hs -> Ms
Once we assert that the antecedent is true (Hs)
we can see that the consequent (the conclusion here in the syllogism)
has
to be true as well (Ms).
For this course we are setting some definite restrictions on what counts as a WFF, and one reason is to get around the problem of working with an ordinary keyboard. Traditionally the ideas of all and some have been represented with rotated versions of the letters "A" and "E." We will just use just (x) for a universal quantifier and (Ex) for an existential quantifier. Do study the following examples carefully.
Imagine we have a specific domain or universe of discourse, such as all the creatures in a particular yard. We might say
Everyone is
a human being.
(x)Hx
No one is a human being.
(x)~Hx or ~(Ex)Hx
Some are human beings (the same
as saying that there are human beings). (Ex)Hx
Some are not human beings.
(Ex)~Hx
We might go further and imagine that the yard is shared by quite mortal human beings and angels (which are immortal).
All human
beings are mortal.
(x)(Hx -> Mx)
All angels are immortal. (x)(Ax
-> ~Mx)
Some creatures in the yard are mortal.
(Ex)(Cx & Mx)
Some creatures in the yard are immortal.
(Ex)(Cx & ~Mx)
Only angels are immortal. (x)(~Mx -> Ax) (Do you see
a parallel with how earlier we learned to work with necessary
conditions?)
A key point in
symbolization: universals (talking about
everyone)
involve thinking in terms of conditionals while particular cases (or
existential
situations--the reason for using the letter "E" suggesting "there
actually
exists...") involve thinking in terms of conjunctions. What
is important here is that we can then assert both that all unicorns are
white -- (x)(Ux ->Wx) -- and that no
unicorns
are white -- (x)(Ux -> ~Wx) -- without
contradicting
ourselves. Sound strange? Well, if there are no
unicorns
at all, the conditionals are automatically true under truth table
rules.
(This is a key difference between modern symbolic logic and the
classical
logic of syllogisms dating back to the Greeks.) Another
point
following from it is that asserting that all unicorns are white does
not
imply that some unicorns are white (which we understand as saying that
there are white unicorns so that I simultaneously claim that there are
unicorns and that they are white).
Practice exercises:
Write translations for the following sentences, using the letter "S" to represent students, "A" to represent those who are ambitious and "W" to represent those who work hard. Also use the first letter of the names (lower case, remember).
Bob is a student but Carol is not.
Everyone is ambitious.
No one is working hard.
There are ambitious students and there are
students
who do not work hard.
Every student is ambitious.
Some students are not working hard.
If all students are ambitious then Bob is
ambitious.
Everyone who works hard is ambitious.
Only those who are ambitious work hard.
Only those who work hard are ambitious.
When you are done click
on to check your answers.