0
$\begingroup$

I'm getting two different signals by reading about the validation of the logical argument. Others say that all premises should yield true and bi-conditionally agree with the conclusion. Others say that tautology should be inferred with the material implication (simple conditional).

Take this common Modus Ponens example:

$$ ¬P → Q\\ ¬P\\ -----\\ \therefore Q $$

Validity should be checked with the conjunction of the premises and possibly tautological material implication similar to this:

$$(((¬P → Q) ∧ ¬P) → Q) \space; True$$

Above would imply that the argument is valid, am I correct?

But if I use bi-conditional (if and only if), then the same case Modus Ponens argument validation "fails":

$$(((¬P → Q) ∧ ¬P) ↔ Q) \space; False$$

Could someone throw some clarity to this?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I recommend you read "Logic, Sets and Recursion" by Robert Causey to get a complete understanding about these things. $\endgroup$ – Eric Jul 26 '17 at 14:49
  • $\begingroup$ Btw, what does "bi-conditionally agree" mean? $\endgroup$ – Eric Jul 26 '17 at 14:51
  • $\begingroup$ Biconditional agreement is the last example on my post. Except it is a disagreement. Maybe not a formal expression is this... $\endgroup$ – MarkokraM Jul 26 '17 at 15:33
  • $\begingroup$ Looks like a suitable book, Eric. From the perspective of a programmer especially. Shame it is not sold as an ebook... $\endgroup$ – MarkokraM Jul 26 '17 at 15:59
1
$\begingroup$

Your very own example demonstrates that you should indeed not check whether the biconditional form is a tautology.

And checking the conditional form for being a tautology does work.

Here is why:

An argument with premises $\varphi_1, \varphi_2, ... \varphi_n$ and conclusion $\psi$ is valid if and only if (definition validity)

It is impossible for $\varphi_1, ... \varphi_n$ to all be true while $\psi$ is false iff (semantics $\land$)

It is impossible for $\varphi_1 \land \varphi_2 \land ... \land \varphi_n$ to be true and $\psi$ be false iff (semantics $\rightarrow$)

It is impossible for $(\varphi_1 \land ...\land \varphi_n) \rightarrow \psi$ to be false iff (definition tautology)

$(\varphi_1 \land ...\land \varphi_n) \rightarrow \psi$ is a tautology

$\endgroup$

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.