Explanation
In classical logic there are theorems which clearly presuppose that there is something in the domain of discourse. Consider the following classically valid theorems.
- 1. ;
- 2. (where r does not occur free for x in Ax and A(r/x) is the result of substituting r for all free occurrences of x in Ax);
- 3. (where r does not occur free for x in Ax).
A valid scheme in the theory of equality which exhibits the same feature is
- 4. .
Informally, if F is '=y', G is 'is Pegasus', and we substitute 'Pegasus' for y, then (4) appears to allow us to infer from 'everything identical with Pegasus is Pegasus' that something is identical with Pegasus. The problem comes from substituting nondesignating constants for variables: in fact, we cannot do this in standard formulations of first-order logic, since there are no nondesignating constants. Classically, ∃x(x=y) is deducible from the open equality axiom y=y by particularization (i.e. (3) above).
In free logic, (1) is replaced with
- 1b., where E! is an existence predicate (in some but not all formulations of free logic, E!t can be defined as ∃y(y=t)).
Similar modifications are made to other theorems with existential import (e.g. the Rule of Particularization becomes (Ar → (E!r → ∃xAx)).
Axiomatizations of free-logic are given in Hintikka (1959), Lambert (1967), Hailperin (1957), and Mendelsohn (1989).
Read more about this topic: Free Logic
Famous quotes containing the word explanation:
“To develop an empiricist account of science is to depict it as involving a search for truth only about the empirical world, about what is actual and observable.... It must involve throughout a resolute rejection of the demand for an explanation of the regularities in the observable course of nature, by means of truths concerning a reality beyond what is actual and observable, as a demand which plays no role in the scientific enterprise.”
—Bas Van Fraassen (b. 1941)
“How strange a scene is this in which we are such shifting figures, pictures, shadows. The mystery of our existence—I have no faith in any attempted explanation of it. It is all a dark, unfathomed profound.”
—Rutherford Birchard Hayes (1822–1893)
“Young children constantly invent new explanations to account for complex processes. And since their inventions change from week to week, furnishing the “correct” explanation is not quite so important as conveying a willingness to discuss the subject. Become an “askable parent.””
—Ruth Formanek (20th century)