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:
“My companion assumes to know my mood and habit of thought, and we go on from explanation to explanation, until all is said that words can, and we leave matters just as they were at first, because of that vicious assumption.”
—Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)
“Are cans constitutionally iffy? Whenever, that is, we say that we can do something, or could do something, or could have done something, is there an if in the offing—suppressed, it may be, but due nevertheless to appear when we set out our sentence in full or when we give an explanation of its meaning?”
—J.L. (John Langshaw)
“We live between two worlds; we soar in the atmosphere; we creep upon the soil; we have the aspirations of creators and the propensities of quadrupeds. There can be but one explanation of this fact. We are passing from the animal into a higher form, and the drama of this planet is in its second act.”
—W. Winwood Reade (1838–1875)