4
$\begingroup$

In chapter 4 of the book it says:

The sentence $a=a$ is necessarily true. So of course, no matter what your initial premises may be, it will be impossible for those premises to be true and for $a=a$ to be false--simply because it is impossible for $a=a$ to be false!

It then goes on to say a few pages later:

it should be clear, however, that not all logically necessary claims are tautologies. The simplest example of a logically necessary claim that is not a tautology is the FOL sentence $a =a$. Since this is an atomic sentence, its truth table would contain one T and one F. The truth table method is too coarse to recognize that the row containing the F does not represent a genuine possibility."

How can this sentence be such that "it is impossible to be false" yet not be a tautology?

thanks

edit: nvmd, I see what they're saying.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ If you see what they're saying, you can give that as your own answer to this question. That way, we can give you feedback on what understanding you came to. $\endgroup$ – Semiclassical Oct 4 '16 at 18:33
8
$\begingroup$

You have to check the definition of tautology.

Usually, tautology is defined in the context of propositional logic.

For first order logic, a formula is a tautology if it is a formula obtainable from a tautology of propositional logic by replacing (uniformly) each sentence symbol by a formula of the first-order language.

Thus, $\forall x P(x) \to \forall x P(x)$ is a tautology, being an "instance" of $A \to A$, while $x=x$ is not, because it is an "instance" of the single sentence symbol $A$, which is not a tautology.

Of course, $x=x$ is valid, i.e. true in every interpretation.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ This makes sense. Indeed, that's what I realized too. That what they mean by 'a=a' being an atomic sentence is that it is either true or false, just as a literal in propositional logic is either true or false, but not a tautology. That the possibility of falsehood here isn't really genuine isn't relevant. $\endgroup$ – guest Oct 4 '16 at 18:38
  • $\begingroup$ @guest - exactly ! If you start from $∀xP(x)→∀xP(x)$ and replace (uniformly) each atomic formula with a sentence letter, you get $A \to A$, which is a tautology. But from the atomic $\forall x (x=x)$ you get only $A$. $\endgroup$ – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Oct 5 '16 at 6:08

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.