160 likes | 196 Views
Existential Introduction. Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College. SURPRISE!. Translate the following: Anyone who is respected respects his/her respecter. Hence, Bob is respected, as he respects someone. Let R be a 2-place predicate = “ …respects… ”
E N D
Existential Introduction Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College
SURPRISE! • Translate the following: • Anyone who is respected respects his/her respecter. Hence, Bob is respected, as he respects someone. • Let • R be a 2-place predicate = “…respects…” • b is a name for “Bob.” • You have until 11:20 to complete this.
Overview • Why this matters • Predicate logic is just propositional logic on (minor) steroids • The First New Rule of Inference: • Existential Introduction • Sample Exercises
Why this matters • Recall: there are valid inferences that predicate logic promised to render valid. • This will also make you more adept at evaluating and offering reasons involving statements involving “some.”
Predicate Logic: An Extension of Propositional Logic • Recall: proofs are like games. • You have an initial position (premises), and using a set of pre-established rules (of inference), you move towards a goal (conclusion) • Proofs are still like games in predicate logic! • There are just four more basic rules you can use.
The First Rule: Existential Introduction (I) • English Example: • Khalifa is a professor. So someone is a professor. • Logical Example: • Pk A • xPx 1 I • General rule: • Given any formula with a name (i.e. a-t)in it, add an existential quantifier, and replace each name with a variable. • See Nolt, p. 225 for fancier definition
Three more examples • Al loves himself. 1. Laa A …So someone loves Al. (1st Example) 2. xLxa 1 I …So Al loves someone. (2nd Example) 2’. xLax 1 I …So someone loves him/herself. (3rd Example) 2’’. xLxx 1 I
A fourth, fancier example Al loves himself. So someone loves someone. 1. Laa A 2. yLay 1 I 3. xyLxy 2 I • IMPORTANT: when you apply I twice, you always work from the inside out (right to left). • Otherwise, you’re breaking the rule that students are perpetually tempted to break (applying rules to parts of propositions, as opposed to applying rules to the whole proposition).
Do NOT do the following • Lab A • xLxx 1 I • Think about the inference you’ve just made: • Al loves Beth. So someone loves him/herself. • Clearly invalid! Al may still love Beth, but Al and Beth may nevertheless both hate themselves.
A closely related but legitimate move • Fa A • Gb A • xFx 1 I • xGx 2 I • xFx & xGx 3,4 &I • This is OK, because although it is using the same variable x for two unrelated terms, it is not saying that one thing is both F and G. • Ex. Al is friendly; Beth is grumpy. So someone is friendly and someone is grumpy. • If this confuses you, it’s usually fine to use distinct variables (e.g. y on line 4), but you will still need to be able to interpret statements like line 5 correctly.
Some things to keep in mind… • So long as the main operator is ~, v, &, , or , your proof strategies from propositional logic still hold good. • If your main operator is , then consider proving a singular statement to which you can subsequently apply I.
Sample Exercises, Nolt 8.1.1 Lab ├ xLxb 1. Lab A 2. xLxb 1 I
8.1.2 #2. Lab ├ xLax 1. Lab A 2. xLax 1 I
8.1.3 #3 Laa ├ xLxx 1. Laa A 2. xLxx 1 I
8.1.7 #7 ~xyRxy ├ ~Rab 1. ~xyRxy A 2. |Rab H for ~I 3. |yRay 2 I 4. |xyRxy 3 I 5. |xyRxy & ~xyRxy 1,4 &I 6. ~Rab 2-5 ~I
8.1.9 #9 ├ Fa → xFx 1. | Fa H for →I 2. | xFx 1 I 3. Fa → xFx 1-2 →I