Symbolic Logic Flashcards
(45 cards)
Define: simple statement.
A statement that does not contain any other statement as a compound.
Define: compound statement.
A statement that contains two or more statements as components.
Define: component.
A part of a compound statement that is itself a statement, and is of such a nature that, if replaced in the larger statement by any other statement, the result will be meaningful.
Define: conjunction.
A truth-functional connective meaning “and,” symbolized by this dot ·. A statement in the form p · q is true if and only if p is true and q is true.
Define: conjunct.
Each one of the component statements connected in a conjunctive statement.
Define: truth value.
The status of any statement as true or false (T or F).
Define: truth-functional component.
Any component of a compound statement whose replacement there by any other statement having the same truth value would leave the truth value of the compound statement unchanged.
Define: truth-functional compound statement.
A compound statement whose truth value is determined wholly by the truth values of its components.
Define: truth-functional connective.
Any logical connective (e.g. conjunction, disjunction, material implication and material equivalence) between the components of a truth-functionally compound statement.
Define: truth table.
An array on which all possible truth values of compound statements are displayed, through the display of all possible combinations of the truth values of their simple components. A truth table may be used to define truth-functional connectives; it may also be used to test the validity of many deductive arguments.
Define: negation.
Denial; symbolized by th tilde or curl, ~p simply means “it is not the case that p,” and may be read as “not-p.”
Define: curl or tilde.
The symbol for negation, ~. It appears immediately before (to the left of) what is negated or denied).
Define: disjunction.
A truth-functional connective meaning “or”; components so connected are called “disjuncts.” There are two types of disjunction: inclusive and exclusive.
Define: inclusive disjunction.
A truth-functional connective between two components called disjuncts. A compound statement asserting inclusive disjunction is true when at least one of the disjuncts (that is, one or both) is true. Normally called simply “disjunction,” it is also called “weak disjunction” and is symbolized by the wedge, v.
Define: exclusive disjunction or strong disjunction.
A logical relation meaning “or” that may connect two component statements. A compound statement asserting exclusive disjunction says that at least one of the disjuncts is true and that at least one of the disjuncts is false. It is contrasted with an “inclusive” (or “weak”) disjunction, which says that at least one of the disjuncts is true and that they may both be true.
Define: wedge.
The symbol for weak (inclusive) disjunction, v. Any statement of the form p v q is true if p is true, or if q is true, or if both p and q are true.
Define: punctuation.
The parentheses, brackets, and braces used in mathematics and logic to eliminate ambiguity.
Define: conditional statement.
A hypothetical statement; a compound proposition or statement of the form “if p then q.”
Define: antecedent.
In a conditional statement (“if . . . then . . . “), the component that immediately follows the “then.” Sometimes called the implicate, or the apodosis.
Define: consequent.
In a conditional statement (“if . . . then . . .”), the component that immediately follows the “then.” Sometimes called the implicate, or the apodosis.
Define: implication.
The relation that holds between the antecedent and the consequent of a true conditional or hypothetical statement.
Define: horseshoe.
The symbol for material implication, ⊃.
Define: material implication.
A truth-functional relation (symbolized by the horseshoe, ⊃) that may connect two statements. The statement “p materially implies q” is true when either p is false, or q is true.
Define: refutation by logical analogy.
A method that shows the invalidity of an argument by presenting another argument that has the same form, but whose premises are known to be true and whose conclusion is known to be false.