Category Archives: Logic

Immediate Inference Cheat Sheet

Introductory Logic,

Equivalent Immediate Inferences of the four Categorical Statements:

All S is P
=  No S is non-P  (obverse)
=  All non-P is non-S  (contrapositive)

No S is P
=  All S is non-P  (obverse)
=  No P is S  (converse)

Some S is P
= Some S is not non-P  (obverse)
= Some P is S  (converse)

Some S is not P
= Some S is non-P  (obverse)
= Some non-P is not non-S  (contrapositive)

Immediate inferences work in reverse:

All S is non-P
= No S is P  (obverse)

All non-S is non-P
= All P is S  (contrapositive)

No S is non-P
= All S is P  (obverse)

Some S is non-P
= Some S is not P  (obverse)

Some S is not non-P
= Some S is P  (obverse)

Some non-S is not non-P
= Some P is not S  (contrapositive)

Immediate inferences can be combined:

No non-S is P
= No P is non-S = All P is S  (converse, obverse)

Some non-S is P
= Some P is non-S = Some P is not S  (converse, obverse)

Other translations:

All non-S is P
= All non-P is S  (contrapositive)

No non-S is non-P
= All non-S is P  (obverse)

Some non-S is not P
= Some non-P is not S  (contrapositive)

Some non-S is non-P
= Some non-S is not P  (obverse)

All of this and more is included in this complete Immediate Inference Chart.

A Brief History of Validity #2

Introductory Logic, , ,

The 19 Traditional Forms

In the first post in this series, we saw that Aristotle identified 16 valid forms of categorical syllogisms (though he formally acknowledged only the first three figures). Some thirteenth-century logicians such as William of Sherwood and Peter of Spain recognized nineteen valid forms, giving them Latin names as a mnemonic device for ease of memorizing:

Barbara, Celarent, Darii, Ferioque prioris.
Cesare, Camestres, Festino, Baroco secundae.
Tertia Darapti, Disamis, Datisi, Felapton, Bocardo, Ferison habet.
Quarta insuper addit Bramantip, Camenes, Dimaris, Fesapo, Fresison.

The vowels in each name correspond with the mood, such that “Barbara” is AAA-1, “Cesare” is EAE-2, and so on. Thus the medievals recognized these valid forms:

Figure 1: AAA, EAE, AII, EIO
Figure 2: EAE, AEE, EIO, AOO
Figure 3: AAI, IAI, AII, EAO, OAO, EIO
Figure 4: AAI, AEE, IAI, EAO, EIO

The five forms not included in this list are AAI-1, EAO-1, EAO-2, AEO-2, and AEO-4. Why were these five not included? They are the forms in which the conclusion is the subimplication of moods with all universal statements, namely AAA-1, EAE-1, EAE-2, AEE-2,  and AEE-4. Thus they were seen as “weaker” forms of the syllogisms (why bother concluding the particular “Some S is not P”when you can conclude the universal “No S is P”?).

Defending the Missing Five

Interestingly, these five omitted forms can readily be shown to be equivalent to Bramantip (AAI-4) using immediate inferences, as follows:

AAI-4 (given)
All P is M
All M is S

∴ Some S is P

AAI-1 (taking the converse of the conclusion, correcting the premise order)
All M is S
All P is M

∴ Some P is S

EAO-1 (taking the obverse of the major premise and conclusion of the AAI-1)
No M is non-S
All P is M

∴ Some P is not non-S

EAO-2 (taking the converse of the major premise of the EAO-1)
No non-S is M
All P is M

∴ Some P is not non-S

AEO-2 (From the AAI-1, take the contrapositive of the major premise, obverse of the minor premise and conclusion)
All non-S is non-M
No P is non-M

∴ Some P is not non-S

AEO-4 (From the AEO-2, take the converse of the minor premise)
All non-S is non-M
No non-M is P

∴ Some P is not non-S.

This is one practical application of the immediate inferences learned in Lesson 27 of Introductory Logic.

A Brief History of Validity #1

Introductory Logic, , , ,

Which forms of categorical syllogisms are valid? Logicians have disputed the answer for centuries, a dispute that can give us insight into the meaning of validity, the central concept of formal logic. This will be the first of a few posts in which I will briefly discuss the history of syllogistic validity.

Aristotle’s 16

It all started with Aristotle, who in his Prior Analytics, Book I, chapters 4-7, detailed sixteen valid forms:

Figure 1: AAA, EAE, AII, EIO
Figure 2: EAE, AEE, EIO, AOO
Figure 3: AAI, EAO, IAI, AII, OAO, EIO
Figure 4: EAO, EIO

If you read Prior Analytics (which is no trivial task), Aristotle presents only the first three figures as figures, omitting any mention of a fourth figure. But in chapter 7 he admits in passing the forms of EAO-4 and EIO-4 as valid, saying,

If A belongs to all or some B, and B belongs to no C … it is necessary that C does not belong to some A.

It is not difficult to see why Aristotle omits AAI-1, EAO-1, AEO-2, and EAO-2. These four forms are his AAA-1, EAE-1, AEE-2, and EAE-2 with the subimplication of the conclusion. Aristotle apparently saw no need to include syllogism forms with particular conclusions when the premises could imply the universal.

Aristotle and Figure 4

It is rather more difficult to understand why Aristotle does not admit the fourth figure, though logicians have argued that it has to do with how he defines a syllogism. We learn from Bertrand Russell, in his Cambridge Essays, that

The fourth figure…was added by Aristotle’s pupil Theophrastus and does not occur in Aristotle’s work, although there is evidence that Aristotle knew of fourth-figure syllogisms.

Theophrastus apparently recognized three more valid forms of figure 4: AAI, AEE, and IAI, bringing the total to 19. These were given Latin names by medieval scholars, but that will be the topic for my next post.

After Intermediate Logic?

Logic, Rhetoric, Trivium, ,

What is recommended after Intermediate Logic? The short answer is: Rhetoric! But let me give you a bit more than that.

Introductory and Intermediate Logic together provide a complete foundational logic curriculum. Informal, categorical, and modern propositional logic are all included. The next step in a student’s classical education is to begin to apply what they have learned in logic to effective speaking and writing. This means that the student should move on to study formal rhetoric. Rhetoric applies the tools of logic: defining terms, declaring truth, arguing to valid conclusions, and refuting invalid ones. Indeed, of the modes of rhetorical persuasion – ethos, pathos, and logos – one-third is applied logic.

With this in mind, Roman Roads has released a new curriculum, Fitting Words: Classical Rhetoric for the Christian Student. I am the author of this text, and in Fitting Words I work to apply in rhetoric much of what the student has learned in logic. I am very excited about this project, because one significant reason that I wrote this text was to provide a satisfying answer the question of where to go next!

Take a look HERE for the most up-to-date information about Fitting Words.

Equivalence w/ Shorter Truth Tables

Mr. Nance,

Within Intermediate Logic Lesson 11, what would keep us from setting up the propositions both being true at the same time, and if there were a contradiction they would not be equivalent? Instead of setting them up one true and one false and if there’s a contradiction then they are equivalent?

That would be checking for consistency, not equivalence. If you set them both as true, and get a contradiction, then they are not consistent (which of course also means they are not equivalent, nor related by implication, per the chart in Introductory Logic, p. 71). But if you get no contradiction, all you have shown is that they can both be true, which is the meaning of consistency. To show equivalence, you have to show that they cannot have opposite truth values: the first cannot be true while the second is false, and vice versa.

Blessings!

Formal Proof Challenge!

Intermediate Logic

Several years ago I was teaching a logic course, and we were learning about formal proofs of validity. I enjoy proofs, and to keep myself sharp I was working through a practice quiz in David Kelley’s The Art of Reasoning, when I came across this argument:

D ⊃ (E ⊃ F)
D ⊃ (F ⊃ G)
∴ D ⊃ (E ⊃ G)

I was in a quiet library with plenty of time, but despite all my efforts I could not solve this (without using the Conditional Proof). The next day in class some students were finishing their assignment early, so I  challenged them with this proof, thinking to myself, “That ought to keep them busy,” but not really expecting anyone to succeed. Before the end of class, Caroline Jones came forward and said, “I solved it, Mr. Nance.” I scoffed inwardly at first, only to be pleasantly surprised by her correct solution.

Since that time I have called this “The Caroline Jones” proof, and have challenged my logic students to solve it using only the regular rules of inference and replacement. The most elegant proof I have seen requires twelve total steps.

Anyone up to the challenge?

Reductio Challenge

Intermediate Logic,

In formal proofs of validity, the reductio ad absurdum method can be used to make some proofs easier, and even some shorter. For example, consider this argument:

(~P ⊃ R) • (~Q ⊃ S)    ~(R ∨ S)    ∴ P • Q

The proof for this valid argument is 14 steps without the reductio (which I will let you try to solve on your own), but only 7 steps with the reductio, as shown here:

  1. (~P ⊃ R) • (~Q ⊃ S)
  2. ~(R ∨ S)   /  ∴  P • Q
  3. ~(P • Q)                     R.A.A.
  4. ~P ∨ ~Q                    3 De M.
  5. R ∨ S                         1, 4 C.D.
  6. (R ∨ S) • ~(R ∨ S)   5, 2 Conj.
  7. P • Q                          3-6 R.A.

The reasoning behind the reductio method is this: If assuming that a proposition is false leads to a self-contradiction, then the proposition must be true. This reasoning can itself be written as a propositional argument:

~P ⊃ (Q • ~Q)   ∴  P

This is a valid argument, as a shorter truth table will show. But the proof for this argument (if you are not allowed to use reductio) requires 13 steps, and it is rather difficult to solve. Any takers?

Two Strange Proofs

Mr. Nance,

Could you give real-world examples of the arguments to prove in Intermediate Logic Lesson 18, number 7) U / ∴ W ⊃ W, and number 8) X / ∴ Y ⊃ X, showing how they would be used, or explain them a bit? Thank you.

Thanks for the great question! These two arguments are unusual, so I am not surprised that you are asking about them.

A real-world example for #7 might be Esther 4:16, “I will go to the king which is against the law; if I perish, then I perish!” This argument form basically shows that any proposition implies a tautology.

An example for #8 could be, “God created all things. So even if evolution can be used to explain some fossils, it’s still true that God created all things.” The form of this argument shows that if a proposition is given, any other proposition implies it.

To be honest, my purposes for including those two problems were: 1) to show how very strange the conditional proof is, and 2) to show how this method can be used to simplify otherwise difficult proofs.

Blessings!

Conditional Proof Assumption

Intermediate Logic, Logic,

With the nine rules of inference and the ten rules of replacement taught in Lessons 13-17 of Intermediate Logic, any valid propositional argument can be proven. But for the benefit of the logic student, I introduce an additional rule in Lesson 18: the conditional proof. The conditional proof will often simplify a proof, especially one that has a conditional in the conclusion, making the proof shorter or easier to solve. Conditional proof starts with making an assumption. I want to clarify what happens with that assumption.

To use conditional proof, you start by assuming the antecedent of a conditional. If by using that assumption along with the other premises you are able to deduce the consequent, you can conclude the entire conditional using conditional proof. More briefly, if an assumed proposition p implies the proposition q, we can conclude if p then q.

One misconception new logic students often make is thinking that the assumption actually “comes from” some previous step in the proof. They think that the assumption must appear somewhere else in order to make it. This is not the case. The assumed antecedent doesn’t come from anywhere; it is quite simply assumed. I tell my students we get the antecedent from our imagination; from Narnia, Middle Earth, Badon Hill. With conditional proof, you are allowed to assume any antecedent you wish, as long as you use conditional proof correctly from that point on.

 

May Proofs Use the Same Line Twice?

Mr. Nance,

In the answer to Exercise 17a, problem #12, is there a typo? It has row 5 twice.

There is no mistake there. A given line may be used more than once in a proof, as I say at the end of Lesson 15, “Usually, though by no means always, every step in a proof is used and used once.” Line 5 is used twice, once to simplify to get ~L, and once to commute and simplify to get ~M. 

Blessings!