소요의 철학 아카이브

Irving M. Copi, Symbolic Logic, New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1979, pp. 19-26. (2) Argument Forms and Truth Tables

Irving M. Copi, Symbolic Logic, New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1979, pp. 16-18. (2) Conditional Statements ① The compound statement "If the train is late, then we shall miss our connection" is a conditional (or a hypothetical, an implication, or an implicative statement). ② The component between the 'if' and the 'then' is called the antecedent (or the implicans or protasis조건문의 조건절, 전제절), and th..

Irving M. Copi, Symbolic Logic, New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1979, pp. 8-14. (1) Simple and Compound Statements ① simple and compound (a) All statements can be divided into two kinds, simple and compound. A simple statement A compound statement does not contain any other statement as a component part does contain another statement as a component part For example, ‘Atmospheric testing of nucle..

Irving M. Copi, Symbolic Logic, New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1979, pp. 1-7. (1) What Is Logic? ① Charles Peirce: ‘It will, however, generally be conceded that its central problem is the classification of arguments, so that all those that are bad are thrown into one division, and those which are good into another....' The study of logic, then, is the study of the methods and principles used in..

Geoffrey Hunter, Metalogic. An Introduction to the Metatheory of Standard First Order Logic, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1996, pp. 6-7. 2. Interpretations of Formal Languages. Model Theory ① ②

Geoffrey Hunter, Metalogic. An Introduction to the Metatheory of Standard First Order Logic, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1996, pp. 3-6. (1) truths of logic(2) sentences used to express truths of logicNotably, (1) and (2) are not the same; for two different sentences, e.g. one in French, one in English, might be used to express the same truths of logic.Keeping the ab..

2023-2 Modal Logic (Segment 2) Q) UG, MP. E! is primitive, ∼ , ∨ are primitive and we have the usual definitions. Sketch proofs of: ① ├FL (∀x)( E!x ≡ (∃y)(x = y)). ② ├FL (∀y) ((∀x) ϕx ⊃ ϕy). Now consider the system FL* which is just like the above except that (∀y) ((∀x) ϕx ⊃ ϕy) replaces axiom schemas 2 and 3, and E! is dropped as a primitive sign. Sketch proofs of: ③ ├FL* (∀x) (∃y)(x = y) ④ ├FL..

2023-2 Modal Logic (Segment 3) Q) Describe in some detail the different approaches to understanding possible worlds—e.g., out in Lycan’s discussion in “The Trouble with Possible Worlds”. What is the problem of how we know we are actual”? What are some main difficulties of and attempt at a combinatorial approach to possible worlds? What sense of “possible” seems more amenable to a combinatorial a..

2023-2 Modal Logic (Segment 2) Q) Evaluate the following wffs in the B-semantics + inclusion requirement and determine in what systems, K, T, S4, β, S5 (if any) they are valid. 1. (∃y)LM(ϕy ⊃ (∀x)ϕx) 2. L(∃x)(Lϕx ∨ ψy) ⊃ (∃x)L(Lϕx ∨ ψy) 3. L(M(∃x)ϕx ⊃ (∃x)Mϕx) 4. L(∃x)ϕx ⊃ (∃x)Lϕx

2023-2 Modal Logic (Segment 2) Q) Quantification theory may be formalized this way: Prove the following in the systems indicated. 1. ├ L(∀x)ϕx . ⊃. (∀x)Lϕx 2. ├ β (∀x)Lϕx . ⊃. L(∀x)ϕx (Recall that system β is T + p ⊃ LMp. ) 3. ├ M(∃x)ϕx . ⊃. (∃x)Mϕx (The system is QML + (∀x)Lϕx . ⊃. L(∀x)ϕx) 4. ├ (∀x)Lα ⊃ L(∀x)α (The system is QML+ (∀x)L(α ⊃ β) .⊃. L((∀x)α ⊃ (∀x)β)