Exportation: Some Explanations

Let me try to explain the exportation rule a few more times.

Here's the rule (I am using the triple bar to symbolize logical equivalence and the arrow to symbolize conditionals):

(p & q) -> r ≡ p -> (q -> r)

 Explanation 1: Look at the left side of the triple bar. It tells us that if p and q are true, then r is true. Look at the right side of the triple bar. It tells us that if p is true, then if q is true, then r is true. Even in plain English that sounds nearly identical. 

 Explanation 2: Look at the left side of the triple bar. It tells us, according to the meaning of conditionals, that if p is false then the whole conditional is true. Look at the right side of the triple bar. It tells us that if p is false the whole conditional is true (just remind yourself of the truth-table for p -> q).

 Explanation 3: Look at the left side of the triple bar. It tells us that if q is false the whole conditional is true. Look at the right side of the triple bar. It tells us that if q is false the whole conditional is true (again, check the truth table for conditionals to see this). 

 Explanation 4: Look at the left side of the triple bar. It tells us that if r is true the whole conditional is true. Look at the right side of the triple bar. It tells us that if r is true, the whole conditional is true. 

 Explanation 5: Look at the left side of the triple bar. It tells us that if p and q are true and r is false, then the whole conditional is false. Look at the right side of the triple bar. It tells us that if p and q are true and r is false, then the whole conditional is false. 

 Explanation 6: In propositional logic, to say that two propositions are logically equivalent is to say that each proposition implies the other one. For example, if p is logically equivalent to ~~p then p implies ~~p and ~~p implies p. So, to say that (p&q) ->r is logically equivalent to p -> (q -> r) is just to say that (p&q) ->r implies  p -> (q -> r) and  p -> (q -> r) implies (p&q) ->r. We can use conditional proof to show that. 

 Here is a conditional proof (in English) to show that (p&q) ->r implies p -> (q -> r)

 Assume (p&q) ->r for CP
Apply IMPL to (p&q) ->r
That gives us ~(p&q) v r
Apply DM ~(p&q) v r
That gives us (~p v ~q) v r
Apply ASSOC to (~p v ~q) v r
That gives us ~p v (~q v r)
Apply IMPL to ~p v (~q v r)
That gives us p -> (~q v r)
Apply IMPL to p -> (~q v r)
That gives us p -> (q -> r)
We just showed what we wanted: (p&q) ->r implies p -> (q -> r)

 Now we need to show the other direction: p -> (q -> r) implies (p&q) ->r

 I bet you can do it! I will give 2 points of extra credit to those who email me the correct proof. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Relations and Multiple Quantifiers in Predicate Logic

Thus far we have been using only one-place predicates. These are predicates that only require one name (put differently, these are properties that only require one object) to complete them. For example, _____ is red = Rx _____ is heavy = Hx _____ is a wife = Wx ( ∃ x)Rx is true if and only if there is at least one thing in the universe that is red. ( ∃ x)Hx is true iff there is at least one thing in the universe that is heavy, and so on. (x)Rx is true iff everything in the universe is red, and so on.  But, as we all know, there are predicates that are more than one place. In other words, there are predicates that require more than one name to complete them (put differently, there are properties-- better-called relations--that require more than one object). For example ____ is heavier than ____ = Hxy ____ is taller than ____ =  Txy ____ loves ____ = Lxy ____ is between ____, _____ = Bxyz (∃ x) (∃y )Hxy is true iff there is something ...
Read more

Predicates in search of nouns

According to standard categorical logic, statements of the form All S are P must have some sort of noun-phrase in the predicate.  Thus ‘All dogs are mammals’ is fine, but ‘All dogs are four-legged’ is not.  Why is this a requirement? Standard categorical logic is based on Aristotelian logic and inherits some of Aristotle’s assumptions. So one reason for the noun-requirement is that given Aristotelian metaphysics predicates without nouns are incomplete. To understand why, we first need to keep in mind that  predicates (parts of language) correspond to  properties (parts of the extra-linguistic—that is, non-linguistic—world).  Predicates without nouns are incomplete because, according to Aristotle,  properties  must inhere in objects in order to exist.  There are no free-floating properties—properties without some subject that they attach to.  Thus, statements like ‘All dogs are four-legged’ while grammatic...
Read more

Meta-Logical Themes: Soundness of Propositional Logic

We have been studying propositional logic (PL) for some time now. PL is about whole or complete propositions and their relationships to each other in terms of truth-preservation. That is, PL investigates the relationships between sets of true propositions to other propositions. How can we be sure that if we are given a set of true propositions (called the premises) that we will through a series of steps wind up with another true proposition and not a false one (i.e. how can we be sure that the relationship between the premise set and the conclusion is, in fact, a valid one). Put differently, we want to make sure that the logic we are using will never take us from truths to falsity. We have been using our rules to show that if we start with a set of (assumed to be) true propositions we can derive another proposition that must be true if the premises are. But we have only studied a finite number of arguments. There is an infinite number of arguments. So, how can we be sure that there i...
Read more