**Principle of Compositionality**

Instead of using truth tables, logical connective symbols can be interpreted by means of an interpretation function and a functionally complete set of truth-functions (Gamut 1991), as detailed by the principle of compositionality of meaning. Let *I* be an interpretation function, let *Φ*, *Ψ* be any two sentences and let the truth function *f*_{nand} be defined as:

*f*_{nand}(T,T)=F;*f*_{nand}(T,F)=*f*_{nand}(F,T)=*f*_{nand}(F,F)=T

Then, for convenience, *f*_{not}, *f*_{or} *f*_{and} and so on are defined by means of *f*_{nand}:

*f*_{not}(*x*)=*f*_{nand}(*x*,*x*)*f*_{or}(*x*,*y*)=*f*_{nand}(*f*_{not}(*x*),*f*_{not}(*y*))*f*_{and}(*x*,*y*)=*f*_{not}(*f*_{nand}(*x*,*y*))

or, alternatively *f*_{not}, *f*_{or} *f*_{and} and so on are defined directly:

*f*_{not}(T)=F;*f*_{not}(F)=T;*f*_{or}(T,T)=*f*_{or}(T,F)=*f*_{or}(F,T)=T;*f*_{or}(F,F)=F*f*_{and}(T,T)=T;*f*_{and}(T,F)=*f*_{and}(F,T)=*f*_{and}(F,F)=F

Then

*I*(~)=*I*(¬)=*f*_{not}*I*(&)=*I*(^)=*I*(&)=*f*_{and}*I*(*v*)=*I*=*f*_{or}*I*(~*Φ*)=*I*(¬*Φ*)=*I*(¬)(*I*(*Φ*))=*f*_{not}(*I*(*Φ*))*I*(*Φ*&*Ψ*) =*I*(&)(*I*(*Φ*),*I*(*Ψ*))=*f*_{and}(*I*(*Φ*),*I*(*Ψ*))

etc.

Thus if *S* is a sentence that is a string of symbols consisting of logical symbols *v*_{1}...*v*_{n} representing logical connectives, and non-logical symbols *c*_{1}...*c*_{n}, then if and only if *I*(*v*_{1})...*I*(*v*_{n}) have been provided interpreting *v*_{1} to *v*_{n} by means of *f*_{nand} (or any other set of functional complete truth-functions) then the truth-value of I(s) is determined entirely by the truth-values of *c*_{1}...*c*_{n}, i.e. of *I*(*c*_{1})...*I*(*c*_{n}). In other words, as expected and required, *S* is true or false only under an interpretation of all its non-logical symbols.

Read more about this topic: Truth Function

### Other articles related to "principle of compositionality, principle":

**Principle Of Compositionality**- Critiques

... The

**principle of compositionality**has been the subject of intense debate ... Indeed, there is no general agreement as to how the

**principle**is to be interpreted, although there have been several attempts to provide formal definitions of it ... Scholars are also divided as to whether the

**principle**should be regarded as a factual claim, open to empirical testing a analytic truth, obvious from the nature of language ...

### Famous quotes containing the words principle of and/or principle:

“We seem to be pariahs alike in the visible and the invisible world, with no foothold anywhere, though by every *principle of* government and religion we should have an equal place on this planet.”

—Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815–1902)

“Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the *principle* on which I bring up my own children, and this is the *principle* on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, sir!”

—Charles Dickens (1812–1870)