eBook - ePub
Introduction to Logic
Patrick Suppes
This is a test
Partager le livre
- 336 pages
- English
- ePUB (adapté aux mobiles)
- Disponible sur iOS et Android
eBook - ePub
Introduction to Logic
Patrick Suppes
DĂ©tails du livre
Aperçu du livre
Table des matiĂšres
Citations
Ă propos de ce livre
Part I of this coherent, well-organized text deals with formal principles of inference and definition. Part II explores elementary intuitive set theory, with separate chapters on sets, relations, and functions. Ideal for undergraduates.
Foire aux questions
Comment puis-je résilier mon abonnement ?
Il vous suffit de vous rendre dans la section compte dans paramĂštres et de cliquer sur « RĂ©silier lâabonnement ». Câest aussi simple que cela ! Une fois que vous aurez rĂ©siliĂ© votre abonnement, il restera actif pour le reste de la pĂ©riode pour laquelle vous avez payĂ©. DĂ©couvrez-en plus ici.
Puis-je / comment puis-je télécharger des livres ?
Pour le moment, tous nos livres en format ePub adaptĂ©s aux mobiles peuvent ĂȘtre tĂ©lĂ©chargĂ©s via lâapplication. La plupart de nos PDF sont Ă©galement disponibles en tĂ©lĂ©chargement et les autres seront tĂ©lĂ©chargeables trĂšs prochainement. DĂ©couvrez-en plus ici.
Quelle est la différence entre les formules tarifaires ?
Les deux abonnements vous donnent un accĂšs complet Ă la bibliothĂšque et Ă toutes les fonctionnalitĂ©s de Perlego. Les seules diffĂ©rences sont les tarifs ainsi que la pĂ©riode dâabonnement : avec lâabonnement annuel, vous Ă©conomiserez environ 30 % par rapport Ă 12 mois dâabonnement mensuel.
Quâest-ce que Perlego ?
Nous sommes un service dâabonnement Ă des ouvrages universitaires en ligne, oĂč vous pouvez accĂ©der Ă toute une bibliothĂšque pour un prix infĂ©rieur Ă celui dâun seul livre par mois. Avec plus dâun million de livres sur plus de 1 000 sujets, nous avons ce quâil vous faut ! DĂ©couvrez-en plus ici.
Prenez-vous en charge la synthÚse vocale ?
Recherchez le symbole Ăcouter sur votre prochain livre pour voir si vous pouvez lâĂ©couter. Lâoutil Ăcouter lit le texte Ă haute voix pour vous, en surlignant le passage qui est en cours de lecture. Vous pouvez le mettre sur pause, lâaccĂ©lĂ©rer ou le ralentir. DĂ©couvrez-en plus ici.
Est-ce que Introduction to Logic est un PDF/ePUB en ligne ?
Oui, vous pouvez accĂ©der Ă Introduction to Logic par Patrick Suppes en format PDF et/ou ePUB ainsi quâĂ dâautres livres populaires dans Matematica et Logica nella matematica. Nous disposons de plus dâun million dâouvrages Ă dĂ©couvrir dans notre catalogue.
Informations
Sujet
MatematicaSous-sujet
Logica nella matematicaPART I
PRINCIPLES OF INFERENCE AND DEFINITION
CHAPTER 1
THE SENTENTIAL CONNECTIVES
To begin with, we want to develop a vocabulary which is precise and at the same time adequate for analysis of the problems and concepts of systematic knowledge. We must use vague language to create a precise language. This is not as silly as it seems. The rules of chess, for example, are a good deal more precise than those of English grammar, and yet we use English sentences governed by imprecise rules to state the precise rules of chess. In point of fact, our first step will be rather similar to drawing up the rules of a game. We want to lay down careful rules of usage for certain key words: ânotâ, âandâ, âorâ, âif ..., then...â, âif and only ifâ, which are called sentential connectives. The rules of usage will not, however, represent the rules of an arbitrary game. They are designed to make explicit the predominant systematic usage of these words; this systematic usage has itself arisen from reflection on the ways in which these words are used in ordinary, everyday contexts. Yet we shall not hesitate to deviate from ordinary usage whenever there are persuasive reasons for so doing.
§ 1.1 Negation and Conjunction. We deny the truth of a sentence by asserting its negation. For example, if we think that the sentence âSugar causes tooth decayâ is false, we assert the sentence âSugar does not cause tooth decayâ. The usual method of asserting the negation of a simple sentence is illustrated in this example: we attach the word ânotâ to the main verb of the sentence. However, the assertion of the negation of a compound sentence is more complicated. For example, we deny the sentence âSugar causes tooth decay and whiskey causes ulcersâ by asserting âIt is not the case that both sugar causes tooth decay and whiskey causes ulcersâ. In spite of the apparent divergence between these two examples, it is convenient to adopt in logic a single sign for forming the negation of a sentence. We shall use the prefix âââ, which is placed before the whole sentence. Thus the negation of the first example is written:
-(Sugar causes tooth decay).
The second example illustrates how we may always translate âââ; we may always use âit is not the case thatâ.
The main reason for adopting the single sign âââ for negation, regardless of whether the sentence being negated is simple or compound, is that the meaning of the sign is the same in both cases. The negation of a true sentence is false, and the negation of a false sentence is true.
We use the word âandâ to conjoin two sentences to make a single sentence which we call the conjunction of the two sentences. For example, the sentence âMary loves John and John loves Maryâ is the conjunction of the sentence âMary loves Johnâ and the sentence âJohn loves Maryâ. We shall use the ampersand sign â&â for conjunction. Thus the conjunction of any two sentences P and Q is written
P & Q.
The rule governing the use of the sigh i & is in close accord with ordinary usage. The conjunction of two sentences is true if and only if both sentences are true. We remark that in logic we may combine any two sentences to form a conjunction. There is no requirement that the two sentences be related in content or subject matter. Any combinations, however absurd, are permitted. Of course, we are usually not interested in sentences like âJohn loves Mary, and 4 is divisible buy 2â. Although it might seem desirable to have an additional rule stating that we may only conjoin two sentences which have a common subject matter, the undesirability of such a rule becomes apparent once we reflect on the vagueness of the notion of common subject matter.
Various words are used as approximate synonyms for ânotâ and âandâ in ordinary language. For example, the word âneverâ in the sentence:
I will never surrender to your demands
has almost the same meaning as ânotâ in:
I will not surrender to your demands.
Yet it is true that âneverâ carries a sense of continuing refusal which ânotâ does not.
The word âbutâ has about the sense of âandâ, and we symbolize it by â&â, although in many cases of ordinary usage there are differences of meaning. For example, if a young woman told a young man:
I love you and I love your brother almost as well,
he would probably react differently than if she had said:
I love you but I love your brother almost as well.
In view of such differences in meaning, a natural suggestion is that different symbols be introduced for sentential connectives like âneverâ and âbutâ. There is, however, a profound argument against such a course of action. The rules of usage agreed upon for negation and conjunction make these two sentential connectives truth-functional; that is, the truth or falsit...