valid
arguments
validity due to
form and not content
created a
language “hodgise” (first-order
predicate language)
invented a
device - tableau - for determining validity of arguments written in hodgise.
1.
In one sense
everything is in order: For the language in question (hodgise) every
semantically valid sequent is syntactically valid and vice versa.
Does it capture all and only
those arguments expressed in a real language (English) that are valid in virtue
of form?
utility depends on how good a model it
provides for English
problems
1. mis-match
®“ is
truth-functor in hodgise but “if ... then ...”in English is not always a
truth-functor
2.
® is transitive
P ® Q
Q ® R
Ø [P ® R]
|
Ø R
![]()
![]()
Ø P Q
Ø Q R
3.
“If – then –“
(arguably) not transitive
Given:
If A then B
If B then
C
Does not follow: If A then C
Consider
If Smith dies before the
election, Jones will win
If Jones wins, Smith will
retire from public life after the election.
\If Smith dies before the election, he will
retire from public after the election.
(Sainsbury p. 76)
4.
If
God does not exist, then it is not true that if I pray, my prayers will be
answered by him.
I
do not pray.
Therefore,
God exists.
g: God exists
p: I pray
a: My prayers will be answered by God.
Øg ® Ø[p®a], Øp |- g
Øg ® Ø[p®a]
Øp
Øg
![]()
Ø[p®a]
ØØg |
p
Øa
5.
2. limited expressive power
can we express
all valid arguments in English in Hodgise ?
today’s
question
6.
Resources of
Hodgise
basic tools
truth-functors
®, Ú, Ù, Ø, «
names n, m
predicates Fx, Gxy
quantifiers " $
identity =
derivative
tools
definite
descriptions
numerical
quantifiers
7.
The Meaning of
“the”
The lecturer
is happy
$x [[[Lx Ù "y [Ly ® x=y]] Ù Hx]
The Meaning of
“three” ? ! ?
There are 3
muskateers
$x $y $z [[[Mx Ù My Ù M z] Ù [ Ø [x=y] ÙØ [x=z] ÙØ [y=z]] Ù
"w [Mw ®[[ w=x Ú w=y ] Ú w=z]]]
8.
Successes
objects
properties
relations
looking pretty
good
all of mathematics
all of physics
?
9.
All spheres of
gold are less than 10 kilometre in diameter
"x [Sx ® Lx]
All spheres of enriched uranium are less than
10 kilometres in diameter
"x [Ux ® Lx]
10.
Today’s
lecture is for PPE
limitations become evident when we come to
those aspects of language that are particularly important in dealing with
conscious agents
11.
Strategies in the face of limitations
1. be ingenious
Russell and “the”
2. extend the logic
add new symbols, new rules
3. move the goal posts
learn about real
language by comparing it to the logical language
12.
Adverbial
modification
Icabod went
with the police quietly
\ Icabod went
with the police
13.
Johnnie went
with the men in white coats noisely.
\Johnnie went
with the men in white coats.
Icabod went
with the zemindars narcescently
\Icabod went
with the zemindars
(witheringly)
14.
n: Icabod
Wx: x went
with the police
Qx: x is quiet
Wn Ù Qn |- Wn
quiet ? Icabod a quiet person ???
True, he went quietly but a quiet person ? never !
Wn Ù Qn |- Qn
15.
another attempt
Gx : x went with the police quietly
Wx : x went
with the police
Gn |- Wn
Implicit ?
"x(Gx ® Wx]
sell-out :
wanted to show this via logic
16.
Mj
|- Wj
"x [Mx ® Wx]
Ni |- Zi
"x [Nx ® Zx]
17.
What was quiet
?
Icabod ?
no - it was
the manner of his going
Icabod’s going
with the police
18.
Icabod answered the phone loudly.
\Icabod answered the phone.
Davidson
adverbial
modification qualifies events
domain :
events and persons !!!
19.
Ex : x is an
event
Qx : x is
quiet
Wx : x is a
going with the police
Ixy : x
involves y
$x[Ex Ù [[Wx Ù Ixn] ÙQx]] |- $x[Ex Ù [Wx Ù Ixn]]
displays
validity as a matter of form
events as objects
!!!
20.
Icabod ran
quickly.
\ Icabod ran.
$x[Ex Ù [Qx Ù [Rx Ù Ixn]]] |- $x[Ex Ù [Rx Ù Ixn]]
Events as
objects ! ! !
21.
Mickey is a
happy mouse.
\ Mickey is a
mouse.
Hx : x is
happy.
Mx : x is a
mouse.
m : Mickey
Hm Ù Mm |- Hm
Hm Ù Mm |- Mm
22.
Mickey is a
large mouse.
\ Mickey is a
mouse.
form not
content
Mickey is a
small moose
\ Mickey is a
moose
23.
Lx : x is
large
Mickey is a
large mouse.
\ Mickey is a
mouse.
Mm Ù Lm |- Mm
but from the premise
Mm Ù Lm |- Lm
we can equally infer
So Mickey is
large !!!
24.
Gx : x is a
large mouse
Lx : x is large
Mx : x is a
mouse
!!! Gm |- Lm
!!! Gm |- Mm
implicit ?
"x [Gx ® Mx]
25.
Meet Bruce the
typical mouse : b
Lxy : x is
larger than y
Mm Ù Lmb |- Mm
Mm Ù Lmb |- Lmb
“large” comparative
no such thing
as the typical mouse !
works with
Australians
26.
Mickey is a
large mouse.
Mickey is
larger than most mice.
“Most”-
quantifier
inexact
All mice are
happy
"x [Mx ® Nx]
Most mice are
Happy
Wx [Mx ® Nx]
27.
For most mice,
Mickey is larger than them
Wx
[Mx ® Lnx]
28.
Evaluative
comparative
Ronnie is a
good actor
\ Ronnie is an
actor
Gx : x is
good.
[Gr Ù Ar] |- Ar
[Gr Ù Ar] |- Gr
Ronnie is a
good actor.
\ Ronnie is
good!!!
no way 29.
good actor
better than
the standard actor ???
Hugh Grant ?
Humphrey
Bogart?
better than
most actors ??
couldn’t most
of them - nearly all of them - be absolutely terrible ?
in which case
he could be better than most but still be truly awful
30.
Propositions
true or false
It is now
raining
Truth-value
changes with time
1. Proposition
- It rains at t
t – names the
time now
2. Proposition
- variable truth values
We have
ignored time !
31.
It is now
raining.
It will rain.
It has rained.
It is now
raining
\ It will be that it has
rained.
32.
r : It is
raining
Fr : It will be that it is
raining
Pr : It was that it is
raining
r |- FPr
Rules for the new
sentence functors which are not truth functors.
33.
r T or F ???
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
r : F F T T F T F
Fr : T T T T T F F
Pr : F F F T T T T
34.
?? |- r ® FPr
![]()
…….
The End of Time
It rains
(naturally)
But no future.
So FPr is
false!
35.
It is now
raining.
Time is 12 :
32.
t : 12.32
Rx : x is rainy
“It is now
raining”
Rt
36.
This is not a
translation.
“ It is now
raining” changes truth-value through time.
“Rt” has a fixed truth value which does not change
(knowledge of it may change)
37.
It is now
raining : Rt
It will rain
$x [Tx Ù [Lxt Ù Rx]]
It has rained
$x [Tx Ù [Ltx Ù Rx]]
38.
It is now
raining. \ It will be
that it was raining.
Rt |- $x [[Tx Ù Lxt] Ù $y [Ty Ù [Lyt Ù [Lxy Ù Rx]]]]
39.
Our final
sentence functor !
! f : May it be the case that f
! Hn: May it be the case that Icabod is happy
! is not a truth-functor
! Hn does not even have a truth-value
40.
t: 12:50 November 29, 2000
Ex: x is an
event
Lxy: x is later
than y
Hx: x is
happy
Fx: x is
festive
$x [Ex Ù [Lxt Ù [Fx Ù [!Hx]]]]
41.