In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) is the third of the three classic laws of thought. It states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is.
The law is also known as the law (or principle) of the excluded third (or of the excluded middle), or, in Latin, principium tertii exclusi. Yet another Latin designation for this law is tertium non datur: "no third (possibility) is given".
The earliest known formulation is Aristotle's principle of non-contradiction, first proposed in On Interpretation, where he says that of two contradictory propositions (i.e. where one proposition is the negation of the other) one must be true, and the other false. He also states it as a principle in the Metaphysics book 3, saying that it is necessary in every case to affirm or deny, and that it is impossible that there should be anything between the two parts of a contradiction. The principle was stated as a theorem of propositional logic by Russell and Whitehead in Principia Mathematica as:
The principle should not be confused with the principle of bivalence, which states that every proposition is either true or false, and has only a semantical formulation.
Read more about Law Of Excluded Middle: Classic Laws of Thought, Analogous Laws, Examples, Criticisms
Famous quotes containing the words law of, law, excluded and/or middle:
“According to the law of nature it is only fair that no one should become richer through damages and injuries suffered by another.”
—Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–43 B.C.)
“The so-called law of induction cannot possibly be a law of logic, since it is obviously a proposition with a sense.—Nor, therefore, can it be an a priori law.”
—Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951)
“Reasoning from the common course of nature, and without supposing any new interposition of the Supreme Cause, which ought always to be excluded from philosophy; what is incorruptible must also be ingenerable. The soul, therefore, if immortal, existed before our birth: And if the former existence noways concerned us, neither will the latter.”
—David Hume (1711–1776)
“Perhaps if the future existed, concretely and individually, as something that could be discerned by a better brain, the past would not be so seductive: its demands would be balanced by those of the future. Persons might then straddle the middle stretch of the seesaw when considering this or that object. It might be fun.”
—Vladimir Nabokov (1899–1977)