Why are there two fundamental laws of logic?What is the difference between Law of Excluded Middle and Principle of Bivalence?Suspending some of the usual laws of logicWhy don't we have consensus in more complicated areas of logic?Are the laws of thought still accepted as the basis of logic?Is it nonsense to say B -> [A -> B]?Are the fundamental laws of logic always true in every field known to man?Is there any exception that proves or suggests that the law of non-contradiction does not always apply?
Is it normal to not be able to work 8 hours a day?
Students requesting to switch partners mid term
Why should interrupts be short in a well configured system?
What's the purpose of using a union with only one member?
Why is it recommended to combine WordPress and Godaddy for hosting?
What's the name of this windows feature?
How can I deal with my coworkers using unknown jargon and acronyms?
Origin of the noun "mathematician"
How did the USSR track Gagarin's Vostok-1 orbital flight? Was tracking capability an issue in the choice of orbit?
Summary Proceeding in New Zealand - Denying liability but not requesting a hearing
My passport's Machine Readable Zone is damaged. How do I deal with it?
Is it possible to remove the trash icon from the dock on macOS Catalina?
Can you combine DDR3 and DDR4?
Creating an affinity-matrix between protein and RNA sequences
Queuable Apex logic in Constructor or Execute Method
When to differentiate under the integral sign.
How to deal with a player that prioritizes combat over roleplay in a roleplay heavy campaign?
Will a falling rod stay in contact with the frictionless floor?
Why can I solve an impossible equation using linear algebra?
Increasing spatial resolution of Landsat MSS and TM images?
Does this code demonstrate the central limit theorem?
Why does the forward voltage drop in a diode vary slightly when there is a change in the diode current?
What stops one country from issuing another country's passports?
Is it true that almost everyone who starts a PhD and sticks around long enough can get one?
Why are there two fundamental laws of logic?
What is the difference between Law of Excluded Middle and Principle of Bivalence?Suspending some of the usual laws of logicWhy don't we have consensus in more complicated areas of logic?Are the laws of thought still accepted as the basis of logic?Is it nonsense to say B -> [A -> B]?Are the fundamental laws of logic always true in every field known to man?Is there any exception that proves or suggests that the law of non-contradiction does not always apply?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
.everyonelovesstackoverflowposition:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;
We have the law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle, but looking at it, it seems that both of them are the same thing, or at least one of them logically implies the other.
Is there a reason why we chose to say that there are two laws, when one of them is redundant?
NOT(A and NOT A) = NOT A or A = A or NOT A
Both laws basically mean the same thing. One is a restatement of the other. Am I wrong in any way?
logic philosophy-of-logic
edited Sep 20 at 0:15
Frank Hubeny
17.9k6 gold badges19 silver badges73 bronze badges
asked Sep 19 at 20:06
VOXuserVOXuser
3131 silver badge5 bronze badges
add a comment
|
We have the law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle, but looking at it, it seems that both of them are the same thing, or at least one of them logically implies the other.
Is there a reason why we chose to say that there are two laws, when one of them is redundant?
NOT(A and NOT A) = NOT A or A = A or NOT A
Both laws basically mean the same thing. One is a restatement of the other. Am I wrong in any way?
logic philosophy-of-logic
edited Sep 20 at 0:15
Frank Hubeny
17.9k6 gold badges19 silver badges73 bronze badges
asked Sep 19 at 20:06
VOXuserVOXuser
3131 silver badge5 bronze badges
8
One implies the other only if you use de Morgan law, double negation removal, and commutativity in the process. And they mean very different things, that something can not be true along with its negation vs something or its negation being true. In intuitionistic logic you have non-contradiction, but not excluded middle (some statements are undecidable, like the continuum hypothesis), in paraconsistent logic vice versa (some statements are both true and false, like "I am false").
– Conifold
Sep 19 at 20:39
I made an edit replacing 3 with two. I think you are only referring to two laws here. Do not hesitate to roll this back or edit further if I misrepresented your position.
– Frank Hubeny
Sep 19 at 23:53
They can only imply each other in the context of a certain set of other logical laws/rules/axioms/postulates/assumptions, the ones we are most used to and normally assume and use. But they are far from the only set of logical laws that can be assumed.
– RBarryYoung
Sep 20 at 14:42
add a comment
|
We have the law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle, but looking at it, it seems that both of them are the same thing, or at least one of them logically implies the other.
Is there a reason why we chose to say that there are two laws, when one of them is redundant?
NOT(A and NOT A) = NOT A or A = A or NOT A
Both laws basically mean the same thing. One is a restatement of the other. Am I wrong in any way?
logic philosophy-of-logic
edited Sep 20 at 0:15
Frank Hubeny
17.9k6 gold badges19 silver badges73 bronze badges
asked Sep 19 at 20:06
VOXuserVOXuser
3131 silver badge5 bronze badges
We have the law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle, but looking at it, it seems that both of them are the same thing, or at least one of them logically implies the other.
Is there a reason why we chose to say that there are two laws, when one of them is redundant?
NOT(A and NOT A) = NOT A or A = A or NOT A
Both laws basically mean the same thing. One is a restatement of the other. Am I wrong in any way?
logic philosophy-of-logic
logic philosophy-of-logic
edited Sep 20 at 0:15
Frank Hubeny
17.9k6 gold badges19 silver badges73 bronze badges
asked Sep 19 at 20:06
VOXuserVOXuser
3131 silver badge5 bronze badges
edited Sep 20 at 0:15
Frank Hubeny
17.9k6 gold badges19 silver badges73 bronze badges
asked Sep 19 at 20:06
VOXuserVOXuser
3131 silver badge5 bronze badges
edited Sep 20 at 0:15
Frank Hubeny
17.9k6 gold badges19 silver badges73 bronze badges
edited Sep 20 at 0:15
Frank Hubeny
17.9k6 gold badges19 silver badges73 bronze badges
edited Sep 20 at 0:15
Frank Hubeny
17.9k6 gold badges19 silver badges73 bronze badges
17.9k6 gold badges19 silver badges73 bronze badges
asked Sep 19 at 20:06
VOXuserVOXuser
3131 silver badge5 bronze badges
asked Sep 19 at 20:06
VOXuserVOXuser
3131 silver badge5 bronze badges
asked Sep 19 at 20:06
VOXuserVOXuser
3131 silver badge5 bronze badges
3131 silver badge5 bronze badges
8
One implies the other only if you use de Morgan law, double negation removal, and commutativity in the process. And they mean very different things, that something can not be true along with its negation vs something or its negation being true. In intuitionistic logic you have non-contradiction, but not excluded middle (some statements are undecidable, like the continuum hypothesis), in paraconsistent logic vice versa (some statements are both true and false, like "I am false").
– Conifold
Sep 19 at 20:39
I made an edit replacing 3 with two. I think you are only referring to two laws here. Do not hesitate to roll this back or edit further if I misrepresented your position.
– Frank Hubeny
Sep 19 at 23:53
They can only imply each other in the context of a certain set of other logical laws/rules/axioms/postulates/assumptions, the ones we are most used to and normally assume and use. But they are far from the only set of logical laws that can be assumed.
– RBarryYoung
Sep 20 at 14:42
add a comment
|
8
One implies the other only if you use de Morgan law, double negation removal, and commutativity in the process. And they mean very different things, that something can not be true along with its negation vs something or its negation being true. In intuitionistic logic you have non-contradiction, but not excluded middle (some statements are undecidable, like the continuum hypothesis), in paraconsistent logic vice versa (some statements are both true and false, like "I am false").
– Conifold
Sep 19 at 20:39
I made an edit replacing 3 with two. I think you are only referring to two laws here. Do not hesitate to roll this back or edit further if I misrepresented your position.
– Frank Hubeny
Sep 19 at 23:53
They can only imply each other in the context of a certain set of other logical laws/rules/axioms/postulates/assumptions, the ones we are most used to and normally assume and use. But they are far from the only set of logical laws that can be assumed.
– RBarryYoung
Sep 20 at 14:42
8
8
One implies the other only if you use de Morgan law, double negation removal, and commutativity in the process. And they mean very different things, that something can not be true along with its negation vs something or its negation being true. In intuitionistic logic you have non-contradiction, but not excluded middle (some statements are undecidable, like the continuum hypothesis), in paraconsistent logic vice versa (some statements are both true and false, like "I am false").
– Conifold
Sep 19 at 20:39
One implies the other only if you use de Morgan law, double negation removal, and commutativity in the process. And they mean very different things, that something can not be true along with its negation vs something or its negation being true. In intuitionistic logic you have non-contradiction, but not excluded middle (some statements are undecidable, like the continuum hypothesis), in paraconsistent logic vice versa (some statements are both true and false, like "I am false").
– Conifold
Sep 19 at 20:39
I made an edit replacing 3 with two. I think you are only referring to two laws here. Do not hesitate to roll this back or edit further if I misrepresented your position.
– Frank Hubeny
Sep 19 at 23:53
I made an edit replacing 3 with two. I think you are only referring to two laws here. Do not hesitate to roll this back or edit further if I misrepresented your position.
– Frank Hubeny
Sep 19 at 23:53
They can only imply each other in the context of a certain set of other logical laws/rules/axioms/postulates/assumptions, the ones we are most used to and normally assume and use. But they are far from the only set of logical laws that can be assumed.
– RBarryYoung
Sep 20 at 14:42
They can only imply each other in the context of a certain set of other logical laws/rules/axioms/postulates/assumptions, the ones we are most used to and normally assume and use. But they are far from the only set of logical laws that can be assumed.
– RBarryYoung
Sep 20 at 14:42
add a comment
|
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
They're not equivalent, but they do seem very close together in most contexts when you assume a bivalent (two truth valued) logic.
But they pull apart when it comes to several controversial decisions we have to make in formal semantics and the philosophy of language. Lets consider two prominent examples.
Supervaluationism: This is one solution to the problem of vagueness, which the is problem that many, perhaps even most, predicates don't have determine meanings in terms of their truth. For example, a 7ft man is tall, but precisely where is the line between tallness and non-tallness? Supervaluationism demarcates the LEM from a related rule, the law of bivalence, which says that either P is true or ¬P is true (and thus P is false). On classical logic, this is how the LEM is rendered, because these are the only options possible. But strictly speaking, LEM states that either P is true or is not true. Supervaluationism, and I won't go into detail, says that LEM is true, but that there are "untrue" but not false statements. So, on supervaluationism, the law of bivalence is denied, but excluded middle accepted. If this seems weird, or unwarrented, note I haven't explained the benefits or motivations of supervaluationism at all here. I'm just telling you what it says as an example of where excluded middle pulls apart from how we'd interpret it when learning about propositional logic.
The point of that example is to show that how the Law of Excluded middle manifests in one system is not the full characterisation of it; it's a metalogical property, and has different implications in different systems. So while it could be equivalent to non-contradiction in one system, it might not in another.
Now consider modal conditionals such as "if it were the case that x, then it would be the case that y". Let ">" be the symbol for these statements. Conditional law of excluded middle is then rendered:
"(A > B) V (A > ¬B)".
But consider the following two conditionals (note that Bizet is a french singer and Verdi is an Italian one; i didn't know this when i came across this so was confused:
(BV1) If Bizet and Verdi were compatriots, Verdi would be French.
(BV2) If Bizet and Verdi were compatriots, Bizet would be Italian.
Note that BV2 entails the negation of BV1 and vice versa. It's a very defensible claim that neither one of these are true. And this is the line taken in perhaps the most widely accepted semantics for counterfactuals; Lewis'
Therefore conditional excluded middle fails on Lewis' system. But does the law of non contradiction? No. So they aren't the same thing on some very mainstream systems of conditional logic. For a system that accepts excluded middle for conditionals, see Stalnaker's theory. To learn more about LEwis' system, this is the best guide I've seen: https://math.berkeley.edu/~buehler/Counterfactuals%20Notes.pdf
Warning: this is a technical textbook. But it's rextremely clear.
I hope this clarifies things. The takeaway lesson: don't consider the properties of some logical laws as being identical to their consequences in some system, no matter how ubiquitous that system is. LEM is a metalogical property, and it manifests differently in different logical contexts.
answered Sep 19 at 21:57
Daniel PrendergastDaniel Prendergast
5201 silver badge8 bronze badges
Good link to Buehler's notes on Lewis's Counterfactuals
– Frank Hubeny
Sep 19 at 23:13
1
Your statement of the conditional law of excluded middle came out as "(A > B) V (A > B)". Surely this can't be what you intended.
– Rosie F
Sep 20 at 9:22
5
Pedantic comment is that neither Verdi nor Bizet were singers. They were composers.
– Grzegorz Oledzki
Sep 20 at 9:47
@Grzegorz fair play. It's still a step up from at first not understanding the problem at all becuase I thought they were random names without referents
– Daniel Prendergast
Sep 20 at 17:47
1
Well, if you accept BV1 makes BV2 false, and that BV2 makes BV1 false, I'm not sure where the substantial issue is here
– Daniel Prendergast
Sep 20 at 20:39
|
show 7 more comments
When you say,
NOT(A and NOT A) = NOT A or A
you are actually doing a few things at once. First, you are using de Morgan's Laws to state
NOT(A and NOT A) = NOT A or NOT NOT A
Then, you use double negation elimination to state
NOT A or NOT NOT A = NOT A or A
i.e. NOT NOT A = A.
This makes your reasoning circular. Assuming that double negation elimination holds is equivalent to assuming that the Law of Excluded Middle holds (for justification, see e.g. https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2902033/double-negation-vs-law-of-excluded-middle/2902129).
In addition, assuming de Morgan's Laws is equivalent to assuming the weak Law of Excluded Middle (proof: https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/weak+excluded+middle).
So essentially, you're assuming that the Law of Excluded Middle holds to prove that you don't need the Law of Excluded Middle.
answered Sep 20 at 11:42
probably_someoneprobably_someone
5332 silver badges7 bronze badges
Actually, I think you're using circular logic here. If they are indeed equivalent, then the OP could correctly conclude that the Law of Non-Contradiction and Double Negation are the real 2 fundamental laws of logic, no? If the former is!(P&!P)and the latter is!!P>P, while the Law of the Excluded Middle is!P|P, would not these two laws be a better fit as being the fundamentals, allowing the derivation of the LEM?
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:33
@Andrew The OP claimed that there only needed to be one fundamental law of logic, because they thought that LEM could be derived from non-contradiction. I refuted this claim by showing that the derivation itself depended on assuming the very law the OP meant to derive. You can, of course, take non-contradiction and double negation elimination as your two axioms. That's what the word "equivalent" means, after all. But I never disagreed with this anywhere in the answer, so I'm puzzled why you think there's something circular in my own reasoning.
– probably_someone
Sep 20 at 20:41
I would actually disagree that they were claiming there only needed to be 1; rather, they were questioning why there are 2 if equivalent (not necessarily implying to the extent suggested, due to it being a "seeming" question). Anyways...
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:52
Well, basically, I meant that I think your claim that his reasoning was circular because the two laws are equivalencies was itself circular reasoning. If LEM can be concluded from DN (and vice versa), yet DN is what's truly distinct from LNC, then doesn't it stand to reason that LEM is in fact the unnecessary equivalency, inverting your logic on OP's reasoning being circular? :)
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:52
add a comment
|
~(A & ~A) The Law of Non-contradiction is that a statement can not be both true and false. It does not prohibit the assignment of some other value, but restricts how many values may be assigned.
(A v ~A) The Law of Excluded Middle is that a statement must true or false. It does not prohibit statements from having multiple values, but restricts what those values may be.
answered Sep 20 at 4:07
Graham KempGraham Kemp
1,4502 silver badges12 bronze badges
1
A statement that is neither true nor false is allowed by the Law of Non-Contradiction, when it would be forbidden by the Law of Excluded Middle, so the two laws cannot be equivalent even in classical logic.
– probably_someone
Sep 20 at 11:29
1
To be clear, in classical logic the statements are both tautologies.
– Graham Kemp
Sep 20 at 13:51
Ahh, so this really all has to do moreso with the semantics of logic itself; whereas, when I look at~(A & ~A), I presume that this means you can only ever have justAor~A. To me, that is therefore kind of misleading to state the LNC with such symbology, unless you simultaneously make this clear.
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:56
add a comment
|
This answer is offered as a supplement to Daniel Prendergast's answer. I hope to address the following question:
Both laws basically mean the same thing. One is a restatement of the other. Am I wrong in any way?
Wikipedia offers a way to look at the law of the excluded middle differently from the law of non-contradiction if one thinks of A and not A creating a dichotomy of the logical space of two truth-values true and false:
The law of non contradiction and the law of excluded middle create a dichotomy in "logical space", wherein the two parts are "mutually exclusive" and "jointly exhaustive". The law of non-contradiction is merely an expression of the mutually exclusive aspect of that dichotomy, and the law of excluded middle, an expression of its jointly exhaustive aspect.
From the perspective of a dichotomy, NOT(A and NOT A), the law of non-contradiction, means that A and NOT A are mutually exclusive. They do not overlap. If they are a dichotomy of the set of two truth-values true and false, neither A nor NOT A can be both true and false.
Furthermore, A or NOT A, the law of the excluded middle, means that they are jointly exhaustive of those two truth-values. Together they cover both truth-values true and false.
Wikipedia contributors. (2019, September 11). Law of noncontradiction. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 23:46, September 19, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Law_of_noncontradiction&oldid=915201284
answered Sep 19 at 23:49
Frank HubenyFrank Hubeny
17.9k6 gold badges19 silver badges73 bronze badges
I don't really get your point here. Saying that e.g.,!(!P)and its equivalent,Pcover both the True (P) and False (!(!P)) values isn't really useful.
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:39
@Andrew It isn't useful until it is applied to a domain where the law of bivalence semantically holds. For finite mathematical domains there should be no problem with it. For infinite mathematical domains one would find an intuitionist objection. For other domains anti-realists would have other reasons to reject bivalence. But in terms of understanding a difference in meaning between the law of the excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction, Wikipedia's suggestion to view these as two parts of a dichotomy seems helpful.
– Frank Hubeny
Sep 20 at 21:11
add a comment
|
To expand on @conifold's comment:
In the process of deriving the law of excluded middle from the law of non contradiction, you used double negation removal.
But double negation removal (NOT NOT A equivalent to A) is actually just the law of excluded middle in disguise!
So while you showed that they are indeed equivalent in classical logic (as are any two true propositions), your proof does not show that they are equivalent in logic without the law of the excluded middle (intuitionistic logic).
answered Sep 20 at 11:40
radiusradius
111 bronze badge
add a comment
|
Whatever the laws of logic, they're all going to be equivalent, because they're all going to be tautologies. Any two statements that are always true are equivalent. Suppose that two laws of logic were not equivalent: then there would be some cases in which one is true and the other false. But then how can they both be laws of logic?
So the question might be: Why is there focus on Non-Contradiction and Excluded Middle among all the tautologies of classical logic? The answer is that some interesting logics reject one of these, or even both. Intuitionistic logic rejects Excluded Middle, and various kinds of Paraconsistent logics reject Non-Contradiction. In those kinds of logics, Non-Contradiction and Excluded Middle are not equivalent.
answered Sep 20 at 14:08
EliranEliran
5,2804 gold badges15 silver badges35 bronze badges
I disagree but upvoted because you explained your position well. One ought not to use contrary systems as the basis for depicting what the fundamentals for a system are to be, because if those contrary systems are in fact incorrect, then they have no bearing on what is true under the original, true system. That an aspect is rejected by contrary systems does not necessarily imply that it is a fundamental of the original system.
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 21:10
add a comment
|
It's actually an artifact of how we are taught. If you look at original books on logic they don't actually say that a certain law is fundamental or not. That not how you go about thinking. But it does help beginners in a subject to guide where to begin, to help distinguish the important from the non-important. Its probably also an artifact from fetishing the axiomatic system which do use such a system axiomatically. But of course, Euclid didn't invent geometry - somebody else did.
answered Sep 20 at 2:15
Mozibur UllahMozibur Ullah
42.2k10 gold badges59 silver badges172 bronze badges
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "265"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f67192%2fwhy-are-there-two-fundamental-laws-of-logic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
They're not equivalent, but they do seem very close together in most contexts when you assume a bivalent (two truth valued) logic.
But they pull apart when it comes to several controversial decisions we have to make in formal semantics and the philosophy of language. Lets consider two prominent examples.
Supervaluationism: This is one solution to the problem of vagueness, which the is problem that many, perhaps even most, predicates don't have determine meanings in terms of their truth. For example, a 7ft man is tall, but precisely where is the line between tallness and non-tallness? Supervaluationism demarcates the LEM from a related rule, the law of bivalence, which says that either P is true or ¬P is true (and thus P is false). On classical logic, this is how the LEM is rendered, because these are the only options possible. But strictly speaking, LEM states that either P is true or is not true. Supervaluationism, and I won't go into detail, says that LEM is true, but that there are "untrue" but not false statements. So, on supervaluationism, the law of bivalence is denied, but excluded middle accepted. If this seems weird, or unwarrented, note I haven't explained the benefits or motivations of supervaluationism at all here. I'm just telling you what it says as an example of where excluded middle pulls apart from how we'd interpret it when learning about propositional logic.
The point of that example is to show that how the Law of Excluded middle manifests in one system is not the full characterisation of it; it's a metalogical property, and has different implications in different systems. So while it could be equivalent to non-contradiction in one system, it might not in another.
Now consider modal conditionals such as "if it were the case that x, then it would be the case that y". Let ">" be the symbol for these statements. Conditional law of excluded middle is then rendered:
"(A > B) V (A > ¬B)".
But consider the following two conditionals (note that Bizet is a french singer and Verdi is an Italian one; i didn't know this when i came across this so was confused:
(BV1) If Bizet and Verdi were compatriots, Verdi would be French.
(BV2) If Bizet and Verdi were compatriots, Bizet would be Italian.
Note that BV2 entails the negation of BV1 and vice versa. It's a very defensible claim that neither one of these are true. And this is the line taken in perhaps the most widely accepted semantics for counterfactuals; Lewis'
Therefore conditional excluded middle fails on Lewis' system. But does the law of non contradiction? No. So they aren't the same thing on some very mainstream systems of conditional logic. For a system that accepts excluded middle for conditionals, see Stalnaker's theory. To learn more about LEwis' system, this is the best guide I've seen: https://math.berkeley.edu/~buehler/Counterfactuals%20Notes.pdf
Warning: this is a technical textbook. But it's rextremely clear.
I hope this clarifies things. The takeaway lesson: don't consider the properties of some logical laws as being identical to their consequences in some system, no matter how ubiquitous that system is. LEM is a metalogical property, and it manifests differently in different logical contexts.
answered Sep 19 at 21:57
Daniel PrendergastDaniel Prendergast
5201 silver badge8 bronze badges
Good link to Buehler's notes on Lewis's Counterfactuals
– Frank Hubeny
Sep 19 at 23:13
1
Your statement of the conditional law of excluded middle came out as "(A > B) V (A > B)". Surely this can't be what you intended.
– Rosie F
Sep 20 at 9:22
5
Pedantic comment is that neither Verdi nor Bizet were singers. They were composers.
– Grzegorz Oledzki
Sep 20 at 9:47
@Grzegorz fair play. It's still a step up from at first not understanding the problem at all becuase I thought they were random names without referents
– Daniel Prendergast
Sep 20 at 17:47
1
Well, if you accept BV1 makes BV2 false, and that BV2 makes BV1 false, I'm not sure where the substantial issue is here
– Daniel Prendergast
Sep 20 at 20:39
|
show 7 more comments
They're not equivalent, but they do seem very close together in most contexts when you assume a bivalent (two truth valued) logic.
But they pull apart when it comes to several controversial decisions we have to make in formal semantics and the philosophy of language. Lets consider two prominent examples.
Supervaluationism: This is one solution to the problem of vagueness, which the is problem that many, perhaps even most, predicates don't have determine meanings in terms of their truth. For example, a 7ft man is tall, but precisely where is the line between tallness and non-tallness? Supervaluationism demarcates the LEM from a related rule, the law of bivalence, which says that either P is true or ¬P is true (and thus P is false). On classical logic, this is how the LEM is rendered, because these are the only options possible. But strictly speaking, LEM states that either P is true or is not true. Supervaluationism, and I won't go into detail, says that LEM is true, but that there are "untrue" but not false statements. So, on supervaluationism, the law of bivalence is denied, but excluded middle accepted. If this seems weird, or unwarrented, note I haven't explained the benefits or motivations of supervaluationism at all here. I'm just telling you what it says as an example of where excluded middle pulls apart from how we'd interpret it when learning about propositional logic.
The point of that example is to show that how the Law of Excluded middle manifests in one system is not the full characterisation of it; it's a metalogical property, and has different implications in different systems. So while it could be equivalent to non-contradiction in one system, it might not in another.
Now consider modal conditionals such as "if it were the case that x, then it would be the case that y". Let ">" be the symbol for these statements. Conditional law of excluded middle is then rendered:
"(A > B) V (A > ¬B)".
But consider the following two conditionals (note that Bizet is a french singer and Verdi is an Italian one; i didn't know this when i came across this so was confused:
(BV1) If Bizet and Verdi were compatriots, Verdi would be French.
(BV2) If Bizet and Verdi were compatriots, Bizet would be Italian.
Note that BV2 entails the negation of BV1 and vice versa. It's a very defensible claim that neither one of these are true. And this is the line taken in perhaps the most widely accepted semantics for counterfactuals; Lewis'
Therefore conditional excluded middle fails on Lewis' system. But does the law of non contradiction? No. So they aren't the same thing on some very mainstream systems of conditional logic. For a system that accepts excluded middle for conditionals, see Stalnaker's theory. To learn more about LEwis' system, this is the best guide I've seen: https://math.berkeley.edu/~buehler/Counterfactuals%20Notes.pdf
Warning: this is a technical textbook. But it's rextremely clear.
I hope this clarifies things. The takeaway lesson: don't consider the properties of some logical laws as being identical to their consequences in some system, no matter how ubiquitous that system is. LEM is a metalogical property, and it manifests differently in different logical contexts.
answered Sep 19 at 21:57
Daniel PrendergastDaniel Prendergast
5201 silver badge8 bronze badges
Good link to Buehler's notes on Lewis's Counterfactuals
– Frank Hubeny
Sep 19 at 23:13
1
Your statement of the conditional law of excluded middle came out as "(A > B) V (A > B)". Surely this can't be what you intended.
– Rosie F
Sep 20 at 9:22
5
Pedantic comment is that neither Verdi nor Bizet were singers. They were composers.
– Grzegorz Oledzki
Sep 20 at 9:47
@Grzegorz fair play. It's still a step up from at first not understanding the problem at all becuase I thought they were random names without referents
– Daniel Prendergast
Sep 20 at 17:47
1
Well, if you accept BV1 makes BV2 false, and that BV2 makes BV1 false, I'm not sure where the substantial issue is here
– Daniel Prendergast
Sep 20 at 20:39
|
show 7 more comments
They're not equivalent, but they do seem very close together in most contexts when you assume a bivalent (two truth valued) logic.
But they pull apart when it comes to several controversial decisions we have to make in formal semantics and the philosophy of language. Lets consider two prominent examples.
Supervaluationism: This is one solution to the problem of vagueness, which the is problem that many, perhaps even most, predicates don't have determine meanings in terms of their truth. For example, a 7ft man is tall, but precisely where is the line between tallness and non-tallness? Supervaluationism demarcates the LEM from a related rule, the law of bivalence, which says that either P is true or ¬P is true (and thus P is false). On classical logic, this is how the LEM is rendered, because these are the only options possible. But strictly speaking, LEM states that either P is true or is not true. Supervaluationism, and I won't go into detail, says that LEM is true, but that there are "untrue" but not false statements. So, on supervaluationism, the law of bivalence is denied, but excluded middle accepted. If this seems weird, or unwarrented, note I haven't explained the benefits or motivations of supervaluationism at all here. I'm just telling you what it says as an example of where excluded middle pulls apart from how we'd interpret it when learning about propositional logic.
The point of that example is to show that how the Law of Excluded middle manifests in one system is not the full characterisation of it; it's a metalogical property, and has different implications in different systems. So while it could be equivalent to non-contradiction in one system, it might not in another.
Now consider modal conditionals such as "if it were the case that x, then it would be the case that y". Let ">" be the symbol for these statements. Conditional law of excluded middle is then rendered:
"(A > B) V (A > ¬B)".
But consider the following two conditionals (note that Bizet is a french singer and Verdi is an Italian one; i didn't know this when i came across this so was confused:
(BV1) If Bizet and Verdi were compatriots, Verdi would be French.
(BV2) If Bizet and Verdi were compatriots, Bizet would be Italian.
Note that BV2 entails the negation of BV1 and vice versa. It's a very defensible claim that neither one of these are true. And this is the line taken in perhaps the most widely accepted semantics for counterfactuals; Lewis'
Therefore conditional excluded middle fails on Lewis' system. But does the law of non contradiction? No. So they aren't the same thing on some very mainstream systems of conditional logic. For a system that accepts excluded middle for conditionals, see Stalnaker's theory. To learn more about LEwis' system, this is the best guide I've seen: https://math.berkeley.edu/~buehler/Counterfactuals%20Notes.pdf
Warning: this is a technical textbook. But it's rextremely clear.
I hope this clarifies things. The takeaway lesson: don't consider the properties of some logical laws as being identical to their consequences in some system, no matter how ubiquitous that system is. LEM is a metalogical property, and it manifests differently in different logical contexts.
answered Sep 19 at 21:57
Daniel PrendergastDaniel Prendergast
5201 silver badge8 bronze badges
They're not equivalent, but they do seem very close together in most contexts when you assume a bivalent (two truth valued) logic.
But they pull apart when it comes to several controversial decisions we have to make in formal semantics and the philosophy of language. Lets consider two prominent examples.
Supervaluationism: This is one solution to the problem of vagueness, which the is problem that many, perhaps even most, predicates don't have determine meanings in terms of their truth. For example, a 7ft man is tall, but precisely where is the line between tallness and non-tallness? Supervaluationism demarcates the LEM from a related rule, the law of bivalence, which says that either P is true or ¬P is true (and thus P is false). On classical logic, this is how the LEM is rendered, because these are the only options possible. But strictly speaking, LEM states that either P is true or is not true. Supervaluationism, and I won't go into detail, says that LEM is true, but that there are "untrue" but not false statements. So, on supervaluationism, the law of bivalence is denied, but excluded middle accepted. If this seems weird, or unwarrented, note I haven't explained the benefits or motivations of supervaluationism at all here. I'm just telling you what it says as an example of where excluded middle pulls apart from how we'd interpret it when learning about propositional logic.
The point of that example is to show that how the Law of Excluded middle manifests in one system is not the full characterisation of it; it's a metalogical property, and has different implications in different systems. So while it could be equivalent to non-contradiction in one system, it might not in another.
Now consider modal conditionals such as "if it were the case that x, then it would be the case that y". Let ">" be the symbol for these statements. Conditional law of excluded middle is then rendered:
"(A > B) V (A > ¬B)".
But consider the following two conditionals (note that Bizet is a french singer and Verdi is an Italian one; i didn't know this when i came across this so was confused:
(BV1) If Bizet and Verdi were compatriots, Verdi would be French.
(BV2) If Bizet and Verdi were compatriots, Bizet would be Italian.
Note that BV2 entails the negation of BV1 and vice versa. It's a very defensible claim that neither one of these are true. And this is the line taken in perhaps the most widely accepted semantics for counterfactuals; Lewis'
Therefore conditional excluded middle fails on Lewis' system. But does the law of non contradiction? No. So they aren't the same thing on some very mainstream systems of conditional logic. For a system that accepts excluded middle for conditionals, see Stalnaker's theory. To learn more about LEwis' system, this is the best guide I've seen: https://math.berkeley.edu/~buehler/Counterfactuals%20Notes.pdf
Warning: this is a technical textbook. But it's rextremely clear.
I hope this clarifies things. The takeaway lesson: don't consider the properties of some logical laws as being identical to their consequences in some system, no matter how ubiquitous that system is. LEM is a metalogical property, and it manifests differently in different logical contexts.
answered Sep 19 at 21:57
Daniel PrendergastDaniel Prendergast
5201 silver badge8 bronze badges
edited Sep 20 at 17:54
answered Sep 19 at 21:57
Daniel PrendergastDaniel Prendergast
5201 silver badge8 bronze badges
answered Sep 19 at 21:57
Daniel PrendergastDaniel Prendergast
5201 silver badge8 bronze badges
answered Sep 19 at 21:57
Daniel PrendergastDaniel Prendergast
5201 silver badge8 bronze badges
5201 silver badge8 bronze badges
Good link to Buehler's notes on Lewis's Counterfactuals
– Frank Hubeny
Sep 19 at 23:13
1
Your statement of the conditional law of excluded middle came out as "(A > B) V (A > B)". Surely this can't be what you intended.
– Rosie F
Sep 20 at 9:22
5
Pedantic comment is that neither Verdi nor Bizet were singers. They were composers.
– Grzegorz Oledzki
Sep 20 at 9:47
@Grzegorz fair play. It's still a step up from at first not understanding the problem at all becuase I thought they were random names without referents
– Daniel Prendergast
Sep 20 at 17:47
1
Well, if you accept BV1 makes BV2 false, and that BV2 makes BV1 false, I'm not sure where the substantial issue is here
– Daniel Prendergast
Sep 20 at 20:39
|
show 7 more comments
Good link to Buehler's notes on Lewis's Counterfactuals
– Frank Hubeny
Sep 19 at 23:13
1
Your statement of the conditional law of excluded middle came out as "(A > B) V (A > B)". Surely this can't be what you intended.
– Rosie F
Sep 20 at 9:22
5
Pedantic comment is that neither Verdi nor Bizet were singers. They were composers.
– Grzegorz Oledzki
Sep 20 at 9:47
@Grzegorz fair play. It's still a step up from at first not understanding the problem at all becuase I thought they were random names without referents
– Daniel Prendergast
Sep 20 at 17:47
1
Well, if you accept BV1 makes BV2 false, and that BV2 makes BV1 false, I'm not sure where the substantial issue is here
– Daniel Prendergast
Sep 20 at 20:39
Good link to Buehler's notes on Lewis's Counterfactuals
– Frank Hubeny
Sep 19 at 23:13
Good link to Buehler's notes on Lewis's Counterfactuals
– Frank Hubeny
Sep 19 at 23:13
1
1
Your statement of the conditional law of excluded middle came out as "(A > B) V (A > B)". Surely this can't be what you intended.
– Rosie F
Sep 20 at 9:22
Your statement of the conditional law of excluded middle came out as "(A > B) V (A > B)". Surely this can't be what you intended.
– Rosie F
Sep 20 at 9:22
5
5
Pedantic comment is that neither Verdi nor Bizet were singers. They were composers.
– Grzegorz Oledzki
Sep 20 at 9:47
Pedantic comment is that neither Verdi nor Bizet were singers. They were composers.
– Grzegorz Oledzki
Sep 20 at 9:47
@Grzegorz fair play. It's still a step up from at first not understanding the problem at all becuase I thought they were random names without referents
– Daniel Prendergast
Sep 20 at 17:47
@Grzegorz fair play. It's still a step up from at first not understanding the problem at all becuase I thought they were random names without referents
– Daniel Prendergast
Sep 20 at 17:47
1
1
Well, if you accept BV1 makes BV2 false, and that BV2 makes BV1 false, I'm not sure where the substantial issue is here
– Daniel Prendergast
Sep 20 at 20:39
Well, if you accept BV1 makes BV2 false, and that BV2 makes BV1 false, I'm not sure where the substantial issue is here
– Daniel Prendergast
Sep 20 at 20:39
|
show 7 more comments
When you say,
NOT(A and NOT A) = NOT A or A
you are actually doing a few things at once. First, you are using de Morgan's Laws to state
NOT(A and NOT A) = NOT A or NOT NOT A
Then, you use double negation elimination to state
NOT A or NOT NOT A = NOT A or A
i.e. NOT NOT A = A.
This makes your reasoning circular. Assuming that double negation elimination holds is equivalent to assuming that the Law of Excluded Middle holds (for justification, see e.g. https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2902033/double-negation-vs-law-of-excluded-middle/2902129).
In addition, assuming de Morgan's Laws is equivalent to assuming the weak Law of Excluded Middle (proof: https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/weak+excluded+middle).
So essentially, you're assuming that the Law of Excluded Middle holds to prove that you don't need the Law of Excluded Middle.
answered Sep 20 at 11:42
probably_someoneprobably_someone
5332 silver badges7 bronze badges
Actually, I think you're using circular logic here. If they are indeed equivalent, then the OP could correctly conclude that the Law of Non-Contradiction and Double Negation are the real 2 fundamental laws of logic, no? If the former is!(P&!P)and the latter is!!P>P, while the Law of the Excluded Middle is!P|P, would not these two laws be a better fit as being the fundamentals, allowing the derivation of the LEM?
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:33
@Andrew The OP claimed that there only needed to be one fundamental law of logic, because they thought that LEM could be derived from non-contradiction. I refuted this claim by showing that the derivation itself depended on assuming the very law the OP meant to derive. You can, of course, take non-contradiction and double negation elimination as your two axioms. That's what the word "equivalent" means, after all. But I never disagreed with this anywhere in the answer, so I'm puzzled why you think there's something circular in my own reasoning.
– probably_someone
Sep 20 at 20:41
I would actually disagree that they were claiming there only needed to be 1; rather, they were questioning why there are 2 if equivalent (not necessarily implying to the extent suggested, due to it being a "seeming" question). Anyways...
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:52
Well, basically, I meant that I think your claim that his reasoning was circular because the two laws are equivalencies was itself circular reasoning. If LEM can be concluded from DN (and vice versa), yet DN is what's truly distinct from LNC, then doesn't it stand to reason that LEM is in fact the unnecessary equivalency, inverting your logic on OP's reasoning being circular? :)
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:52
add a comment
|
When you say,
NOT(A and NOT A) = NOT A or A
you are actually doing a few things at once. First, you are using de Morgan's Laws to state
NOT(A and NOT A) = NOT A or NOT NOT A
Then, you use double negation elimination to state
NOT A or NOT NOT A = NOT A or A
i.e. NOT NOT A = A.
This makes your reasoning circular. Assuming that double negation elimination holds is equivalent to assuming that the Law of Excluded Middle holds (for justification, see e.g. https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2902033/double-negation-vs-law-of-excluded-middle/2902129).
In addition, assuming de Morgan's Laws is equivalent to assuming the weak Law of Excluded Middle (proof: https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/weak+excluded+middle).
So essentially, you're assuming that the Law of Excluded Middle holds to prove that you don't need the Law of Excluded Middle.
answered Sep 20 at 11:42
probably_someoneprobably_someone
5332 silver badges7 bronze badges
Actually, I think you're using circular logic here. If they are indeed equivalent, then the OP could correctly conclude that the Law of Non-Contradiction and Double Negation are the real 2 fundamental laws of logic, no? If the former is!(P&!P)and the latter is!!P>P, while the Law of the Excluded Middle is!P|P, would not these two laws be a better fit as being the fundamentals, allowing the derivation of the LEM?
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:33
@Andrew The OP claimed that there only needed to be one fundamental law of logic, because they thought that LEM could be derived from non-contradiction. I refuted this claim by showing that the derivation itself depended on assuming the very law the OP meant to derive. You can, of course, take non-contradiction and double negation elimination as your two axioms. That's what the word "equivalent" means, after all. But I never disagreed with this anywhere in the answer, so I'm puzzled why you think there's something circular in my own reasoning.
– probably_someone
Sep 20 at 20:41
I would actually disagree that they were claiming there only needed to be 1; rather, they were questioning why there are 2 if equivalent (not necessarily implying to the extent suggested, due to it being a "seeming" question). Anyways...
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:52
Well, basically, I meant that I think your claim that his reasoning was circular because the two laws are equivalencies was itself circular reasoning. If LEM can be concluded from DN (and vice versa), yet DN is what's truly distinct from LNC, then doesn't it stand to reason that LEM is in fact the unnecessary equivalency, inverting your logic on OP's reasoning being circular? :)
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:52
add a comment
|
When you say,
NOT(A and NOT A) = NOT A or A
you are actually doing a few things at once. First, you are using de Morgan's Laws to state
NOT(A and NOT A) = NOT A or NOT NOT A
Then, you use double negation elimination to state
NOT A or NOT NOT A = NOT A or A
i.e. NOT NOT A = A.
This makes your reasoning circular. Assuming that double negation elimination holds is equivalent to assuming that the Law of Excluded Middle holds (for justification, see e.g. https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2902033/double-negation-vs-law-of-excluded-middle/2902129).
In addition, assuming de Morgan's Laws is equivalent to assuming the weak Law of Excluded Middle (proof: https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/weak+excluded+middle).
So essentially, you're assuming that the Law of Excluded Middle holds to prove that you don't need the Law of Excluded Middle.
answered Sep 20 at 11:42
probably_someoneprobably_someone
5332 silver badges7 bronze badges
When you say,
NOT(A and NOT A) = NOT A or A
you are actually doing a few things at once. First, you are using de Morgan's Laws to state
NOT(A and NOT A) = NOT A or NOT NOT A
Then, you use double negation elimination to state
NOT A or NOT NOT A = NOT A or A
i.e. NOT NOT A = A.
This makes your reasoning circular. Assuming that double negation elimination holds is equivalent to assuming that the Law of Excluded Middle holds (for justification, see e.g. https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2902033/double-negation-vs-law-of-excluded-middle/2902129).
In addition, assuming de Morgan's Laws is equivalent to assuming the weak Law of Excluded Middle (proof: https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/weak+excluded+middle).
So essentially, you're assuming that the Law of Excluded Middle holds to prove that you don't need the Law of Excluded Middle.
answered Sep 20 at 11:42
probably_someoneprobably_someone
5332 silver badges7 bronze badges
edited Sep 20 at 12:37
answered Sep 20 at 11:42
probably_someoneprobably_someone
5332 silver badges7 bronze badges
answered Sep 20 at 11:42
probably_someoneprobably_someone
5332 silver badges7 bronze badges
answered Sep 20 at 11:42
probably_someoneprobably_someone
5332 silver badges7 bronze badges
5332 silver badges7 bronze badges
Actually, I think you're using circular logic here. If they are indeed equivalent, then the OP could correctly conclude that the Law of Non-Contradiction and Double Negation are the real 2 fundamental laws of logic, no? If the former is!(P&!P)and the latter is!!P>P, while the Law of the Excluded Middle is!P|P, would not these two laws be a better fit as being the fundamentals, allowing the derivation of the LEM?
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:33
@Andrew The OP claimed that there only needed to be one fundamental law of logic, because they thought that LEM could be derived from non-contradiction. I refuted this claim by showing that the derivation itself depended on assuming the very law the OP meant to derive. You can, of course, take non-contradiction and double negation elimination as your two axioms. That's what the word "equivalent" means, after all. But I never disagreed with this anywhere in the answer, so I'm puzzled why you think there's something circular in my own reasoning.
– probably_someone
Sep 20 at 20:41
I would actually disagree that they were claiming there only needed to be 1; rather, they were questioning why there are 2 if equivalent (not necessarily implying to the extent suggested, due to it being a "seeming" question). Anyways...
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:52
Well, basically, I meant that I think your claim that his reasoning was circular because the two laws are equivalencies was itself circular reasoning. If LEM can be concluded from DN (and vice versa), yet DN is what's truly distinct from LNC, then doesn't it stand to reason that LEM is in fact the unnecessary equivalency, inverting your logic on OP's reasoning being circular? :)
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:52
add a comment
|
Actually, I think you're using circular logic here. If they are indeed equivalent, then the OP could correctly conclude that the Law of Non-Contradiction and Double Negation are the real 2 fundamental laws of logic, no? If the former is!(P&!P)and the latter is!!P>P, while the Law of the Excluded Middle is!P|P, would not these two laws be a better fit as being the fundamentals, allowing the derivation of the LEM?
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:33
@Andrew The OP claimed that there only needed to be one fundamental law of logic, because they thought that LEM could be derived from non-contradiction. I refuted this claim by showing that the derivation itself depended on assuming the very law the OP meant to derive. You can, of course, take non-contradiction and double negation elimination as your two axioms. That's what the word "equivalent" means, after all. But I never disagreed with this anywhere in the answer, so I'm puzzled why you think there's something circular in my own reasoning.
– probably_someone
Sep 20 at 20:41
I would actually disagree that they were claiming there only needed to be 1; rather, they were questioning why there are 2 if equivalent (not necessarily implying to the extent suggested, due to it being a "seeming" question). Anyways...
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:52
Well, basically, I meant that I think your claim that his reasoning was circular because the two laws are equivalencies was itself circular reasoning. If LEM can be concluded from DN (and vice versa), yet DN is what's truly distinct from LNC, then doesn't it stand to reason that LEM is in fact the unnecessary equivalency, inverting your logic on OP's reasoning being circular? :)
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:52
Actually, I think you're using circular logic here. If they are indeed equivalent, then the OP could correctly conclude that the Law of Non-Contradiction and Double Negation are the real 2 fundamental laws of logic, no? If the former is
!(P&!P) and the latter is !!P>P, while the Law of the Excluded Middle is !P|P, would not these two laws be a better fit as being the fundamentals, allowing the derivation of the LEM?– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:33
Actually, I think you're using circular logic here. If they are indeed equivalent, then the OP could correctly conclude that the Law of Non-Contradiction and Double Negation are the real 2 fundamental laws of logic, no? If the former is
!(P&!P) and the latter is !!P>P, while the Law of the Excluded Middle is !P|P, would not these two laws be a better fit as being the fundamentals, allowing the derivation of the LEM?– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:33
@Andrew The OP claimed that there only needed to be one fundamental law of logic, because they thought that LEM could be derived from non-contradiction. I refuted this claim by showing that the derivation itself depended on assuming the very law the OP meant to derive. You can, of course, take non-contradiction and double negation elimination as your two axioms. That's what the word "equivalent" means, after all. But I never disagreed with this anywhere in the answer, so I'm puzzled why you think there's something circular in my own reasoning.
– probably_someone
Sep 20 at 20:41
@Andrew The OP claimed that there only needed to be one fundamental law of logic, because they thought that LEM could be derived from non-contradiction. I refuted this claim by showing that the derivation itself depended on assuming the very law the OP meant to derive. You can, of course, take non-contradiction and double negation elimination as your two axioms. That's what the word "equivalent" means, after all. But I never disagreed with this anywhere in the answer, so I'm puzzled why you think there's something circular in my own reasoning.
– probably_someone
Sep 20 at 20:41
I would actually disagree that they were claiming there only needed to be 1; rather, they were questioning why there are 2 if equivalent (not necessarily implying to the extent suggested, due to it being a "seeming" question). Anyways...
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:52
I would actually disagree that they were claiming there only needed to be 1; rather, they were questioning why there are 2 if equivalent (not necessarily implying to the extent suggested, due to it being a "seeming" question). Anyways...
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:52
Well, basically, I meant that I think your claim that his reasoning was circular because the two laws are equivalencies was itself circular reasoning. If LEM can be concluded from DN (and vice versa), yet DN is what's truly distinct from LNC, then doesn't it stand to reason that LEM is in fact the unnecessary equivalency, inverting your logic on OP's reasoning being circular? :)
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:52
Well, basically, I meant that I think your claim that his reasoning was circular because the two laws are equivalencies was itself circular reasoning. If LEM can be concluded from DN (and vice versa), yet DN is what's truly distinct from LNC, then doesn't it stand to reason that LEM is in fact the unnecessary equivalency, inverting your logic on OP's reasoning being circular? :)
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:52
add a comment
|
~(A & ~A) The Law of Non-contradiction is that a statement can not be both true and false. It does not prohibit the assignment of some other value, but restricts how many values may be assigned.
(A v ~A) The Law of Excluded Middle is that a statement must true or false. It does not prohibit statements from having multiple values, but restricts what those values may be.
answered Sep 20 at 4:07
Graham KempGraham Kemp
1,4502 silver badges12 bronze badges
1
A statement that is neither true nor false is allowed by the Law of Non-Contradiction, when it would be forbidden by the Law of Excluded Middle, so the two laws cannot be equivalent even in classical logic.
– probably_someone
Sep 20 at 11:29
1
To be clear, in classical logic the statements are both tautologies.
– Graham Kemp
Sep 20 at 13:51
Ahh, so this really all has to do moreso with the semantics of logic itself; whereas, when I look at~(A & ~A), I presume that this means you can only ever have justAor~A. To me, that is therefore kind of misleading to state the LNC with such symbology, unless you simultaneously make this clear.
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:56
add a comment
|
~(A & ~A) The Law of Non-contradiction is that a statement can not be both true and false. It does not prohibit the assignment of some other value, but restricts how many values may be assigned.
(A v ~A) The Law of Excluded Middle is that a statement must true or false. It does not prohibit statements from having multiple values, but restricts what those values may be.
answered Sep 20 at 4:07
Graham KempGraham Kemp
1,4502 silver badges12 bronze badges
1
A statement that is neither true nor false is allowed by the Law of Non-Contradiction, when it would be forbidden by the Law of Excluded Middle, so the two laws cannot be equivalent even in classical logic.
– probably_someone
Sep 20 at 11:29
1
To be clear, in classical logic the statements are both tautologies.
– Graham Kemp
Sep 20 at 13:51
Ahh, so this really all has to do moreso with the semantics of logic itself; whereas, when I look at~(A & ~A), I presume that this means you can only ever have justAor~A. To me, that is therefore kind of misleading to state the LNC with such symbology, unless you simultaneously make this clear.
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:56
add a comment
|
~(A & ~A) The Law of Non-contradiction is that a statement can not be both true and false. It does not prohibit the assignment of some other value, but restricts how many values may be assigned.
(A v ~A) The Law of Excluded Middle is that a statement must true or false. It does not prohibit statements from having multiple values, but restricts what those values may be.
answered Sep 20 at 4:07
Graham KempGraham Kemp
1,4502 silver badges12 bronze badges
~(A & ~A) The Law of Non-contradiction is that a statement can not be both true and false. It does not prohibit the assignment of some other value, but restricts how many values may be assigned.
(A v ~A) The Law of Excluded Middle is that a statement must true or false. It does not prohibit statements from having multiple values, but restricts what those values may be.
answered Sep 20 at 4:07
Graham KempGraham Kemp
1,4502 silver badges12 bronze badges
edited Sep 20 at 13:42
answered Sep 20 at 4:07
Graham KempGraham Kemp
1,4502 silver badges12 bronze badges
answered Sep 20 at 4:07
Graham KempGraham Kemp
1,4502 silver badges12 bronze badges
answered Sep 20 at 4:07
Graham KempGraham Kemp
1,4502 silver badges12 bronze badges
1,4502 silver badges12 bronze badges
1
A statement that is neither true nor false is allowed by the Law of Non-Contradiction, when it would be forbidden by the Law of Excluded Middle, so the two laws cannot be equivalent even in classical logic.
– probably_someone
Sep 20 at 11:29
1
To be clear, in classical logic the statements are both tautologies.
– Graham Kemp
Sep 20 at 13:51
Ahh, so this really all has to do moreso with the semantics of logic itself; whereas, when I look at~(A & ~A), I presume that this means you can only ever have justAor~A. To me, that is therefore kind of misleading to state the LNC with such symbology, unless you simultaneously make this clear.
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:56
add a comment
|
1
A statement that is neither true nor false is allowed by the Law of Non-Contradiction, when it would be forbidden by the Law of Excluded Middle, so the two laws cannot be equivalent even in classical logic.
– probably_someone
Sep 20 at 11:29
1
To be clear, in classical logic the statements are both tautologies.
– Graham Kemp
Sep 20 at 13:51
Ahh, so this really all has to do moreso with the semantics of logic itself; whereas, when I look at~(A & ~A), I presume that this means you can only ever have justAor~A. To me, that is therefore kind of misleading to state the LNC with such symbology, unless you simultaneously make this clear.
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:56
1
1
A statement that is neither true nor false is allowed by the Law of Non-Contradiction, when it would be forbidden by the Law of Excluded Middle, so the two laws cannot be equivalent even in classical logic.
– probably_someone
Sep 20 at 11:29
A statement that is neither true nor false is allowed by the Law of Non-Contradiction, when it would be forbidden by the Law of Excluded Middle, so the two laws cannot be equivalent even in classical logic.
– probably_someone
Sep 20 at 11:29
1
1
To be clear, in classical logic the statements are both tautologies.
– Graham Kemp
Sep 20 at 13:51
To be clear, in classical logic the statements are both tautologies.
– Graham Kemp
Sep 20 at 13:51
Ahh, so this really all has to do moreso with the semantics of logic itself; whereas, when I look at
~(A & ~A), I presume that this means you can only ever have just A or ~A. To me, that is therefore kind of misleading to state the LNC with such symbology, unless you simultaneously make this clear.– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:56
Ahh, so this really all has to do moreso with the semantics of logic itself; whereas, when I look at
~(A & ~A), I presume that this means you can only ever have just A or ~A. To me, that is therefore kind of misleading to state the LNC with such symbology, unless you simultaneously make this clear.– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:56
add a comment
|
This answer is offered as a supplement to Daniel Prendergast's answer. I hope to address the following question:
Both laws basically mean the same thing. One is a restatement of the other. Am I wrong in any way?
Wikipedia offers a way to look at the law of the excluded middle differently from the law of non-contradiction if one thinks of A and not A creating a dichotomy of the logical space of two truth-values true and false:
The law of non contradiction and the law of excluded middle create a dichotomy in "logical space", wherein the two parts are "mutually exclusive" and "jointly exhaustive". The law of non-contradiction is merely an expression of the mutually exclusive aspect of that dichotomy, and the law of excluded middle, an expression of its jointly exhaustive aspect.
From the perspective of a dichotomy, NOT(A and NOT A), the law of non-contradiction, means that A and NOT A are mutually exclusive. They do not overlap. If they are a dichotomy of the set of two truth-values true and false, neither A nor NOT A can be both true and false.
Furthermore, A or NOT A, the law of the excluded middle, means that they are jointly exhaustive of those two truth-values. Together they cover both truth-values true and false.
Wikipedia contributors. (2019, September 11). Law of noncontradiction. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 23:46, September 19, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Law_of_noncontradiction&oldid=915201284
answered Sep 19 at 23:49
Frank HubenyFrank Hubeny
17.9k6 gold badges19 silver badges73 bronze badges
I don't really get your point here. Saying that e.g.,!(!P)and its equivalent,Pcover both the True (P) and False (!(!P)) values isn't really useful.
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:39
@Andrew It isn't useful until it is applied to a domain where the law of bivalence semantically holds. For finite mathematical domains there should be no problem with it. For infinite mathematical domains one would find an intuitionist objection. For other domains anti-realists would have other reasons to reject bivalence. But in terms of understanding a difference in meaning between the law of the excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction, Wikipedia's suggestion to view these as two parts of a dichotomy seems helpful.
– Frank Hubeny
Sep 20 at 21:11
add a comment
|
This answer is offered as a supplement to Daniel Prendergast's answer. I hope to address the following question:
Both laws basically mean the same thing. One is a restatement of the other. Am I wrong in any way?
Wikipedia offers a way to look at the law of the excluded middle differently from the law of non-contradiction if one thinks of A and not A creating a dichotomy of the logical space of two truth-values true and false:
The law of non contradiction and the law of excluded middle create a dichotomy in "logical space", wherein the two parts are "mutually exclusive" and "jointly exhaustive". The law of non-contradiction is merely an expression of the mutually exclusive aspect of that dichotomy, and the law of excluded middle, an expression of its jointly exhaustive aspect.
From the perspective of a dichotomy, NOT(A and NOT A), the law of non-contradiction, means that A and NOT A are mutually exclusive. They do not overlap. If they are a dichotomy of the set of two truth-values true and false, neither A nor NOT A can be both true and false.
Furthermore, A or NOT A, the law of the excluded middle, means that they are jointly exhaustive of those two truth-values. Together they cover both truth-values true and false.
Wikipedia contributors. (2019, September 11). Law of noncontradiction. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 23:46, September 19, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Law_of_noncontradiction&oldid=915201284
answered Sep 19 at 23:49
Frank HubenyFrank Hubeny
17.9k6 gold badges19 silver badges73 bronze badges
I don't really get your point here. Saying that e.g.,!(!P)and its equivalent,Pcover both the True (P) and False (!(!P)) values isn't really useful.
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:39
@Andrew It isn't useful until it is applied to a domain where the law of bivalence semantically holds. For finite mathematical domains there should be no problem with it. For infinite mathematical domains one would find an intuitionist objection. For other domains anti-realists would have other reasons to reject bivalence. But in terms of understanding a difference in meaning between the law of the excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction, Wikipedia's suggestion to view these as two parts of a dichotomy seems helpful.
– Frank Hubeny
Sep 20 at 21:11
add a comment
|
This answer is offered as a supplement to Daniel Prendergast's answer. I hope to address the following question:
Both laws basically mean the same thing. One is a restatement of the other. Am I wrong in any way?
Wikipedia offers a way to look at the law of the excluded middle differently from the law of non-contradiction if one thinks of A and not A creating a dichotomy of the logical space of two truth-values true and false:
The law of non contradiction and the law of excluded middle create a dichotomy in "logical space", wherein the two parts are "mutually exclusive" and "jointly exhaustive". The law of non-contradiction is merely an expression of the mutually exclusive aspect of that dichotomy, and the law of excluded middle, an expression of its jointly exhaustive aspect.
From the perspective of a dichotomy, NOT(A and NOT A), the law of non-contradiction, means that A and NOT A are mutually exclusive. They do not overlap. If they are a dichotomy of the set of two truth-values true and false, neither A nor NOT A can be both true and false.
Furthermore, A or NOT A, the law of the excluded middle, means that they are jointly exhaustive of those two truth-values. Together they cover both truth-values true and false.
Wikipedia contributors. (2019, September 11). Law of noncontradiction. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 23:46, September 19, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Law_of_noncontradiction&oldid=915201284
answered Sep 19 at 23:49
Frank HubenyFrank Hubeny
17.9k6 gold badges19 silver badges73 bronze badges
This answer is offered as a supplement to Daniel Prendergast's answer. I hope to address the following question:
Both laws basically mean the same thing. One is a restatement of the other. Am I wrong in any way?
Wikipedia offers a way to look at the law of the excluded middle differently from the law of non-contradiction if one thinks of A and not A creating a dichotomy of the logical space of two truth-values true and false:
The law of non contradiction and the law of excluded middle create a dichotomy in "logical space", wherein the two parts are "mutually exclusive" and "jointly exhaustive". The law of non-contradiction is merely an expression of the mutually exclusive aspect of that dichotomy, and the law of excluded middle, an expression of its jointly exhaustive aspect.
From the perspective of a dichotomy, NOT(A and NOT A), the law of non-contradiction, means that A and NOT A are mutually exclusive. They do not overlap. If they are a dichotomy of the set of two truth-values true and false, neither A nor NOT A can be both true and false.
Furthermore, A or NOT A, the law of the excluded middle, means that they are jointly exhaustive of those two truth-values. Together they cover both truth-values true and false.
Wikipedia contributors. (2019, September 11). Law of noncontradiction. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 23:46, September 19, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Law_of_noncontradiction&oldid=915201284
answered Sep 19 at 23:49
Frank HubenyFrank Hubeny
17.9k6 gold badges19 silver badges73 bronze badges
answered Sep 19 at 23:49
Frank HubenyFrank Hubeny
17.9k6 gold badges19 silver badges73 bronze badges
answered Sep 19 at 23:49
Frank HubenyFrank Hubeny
17.9k6 gold badges19 silver badges73 bronze badges
answered Sep 19 at 23:49
Frank HubenyFrank Hubeny
17.9k6 gold badges19 silver badges73 bronze badges
17.9k6 gold badges19 silver badges73 bronze badges
I don't really get your point here. Saying that e.g.,!(!P)and its equivalent,Pcover both the True (P) and False (!(!P)) values isn't really useful.
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:39
@Andrew It isn't useful until it is applied to a domain where the law of bivalence semantically holds. For finite mathematical domains there should be no problem with it. For infinite mathematical domains one would find an intuitionist objection. For other domains anti-realists would have other reasons to reject bivalence. But in terms of understanding a difference in meaning between the law of the excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction, Wikipedia's suggestion to view these as two parts of a dichotomy seems helpful.
– Frank Hubeny
Sep 20 at 21:11
add a comment
|
I don't really get your point here. Saying that e.g.,!(!P)and its equivalent,Pcover both the True (P) and False (!(!P)) values isn't really useful.
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:39
@Andrew It isn't useful until it is applied to a domain where the law of bivalence semantically holds. For finite mathematical domains there should be no problem with it. For infinite mathematical domains one would find an intuitionist objection. For other domains anti-realists would have other reasons to reject bivalence. But in terms of understanding a difference in meaning between the law of the excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction, Wikipedia's suggestion to view these as two parts of a dichotomy seems helpful.
– Frank Hubeny
Sep 20 at 21:11
I don't really get your point here. Saying that e.g.,
!(!P) and its equivalent, P cover both the True (P) and False (!(!P)) values isn't really useful.– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:39
I don't really get your point here. Saying that e.g.,
!(!P) and its equivalent, P cover both the True (P) and False (!(!P)) values isn't really useful.– Andrew
Sep 20 at 20:39
@Andrew It isn't useful until it is applied to a domain where the law of bivalence semantically holds. For finite mathematical domains there should be no problem with it. For infinite mathematical domains one would find an intuitionist objection. For other domains anti-realists would have other reasons to reject bivalence. But in terms of understanding a difference in meaning between the law of the excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction, Wikipedia's suggestion to view these as two parts of a dichotomy seems helpful.
– Frank Hubeny
Sep 20 at 21:11
@Andrew It isn't useful until it is applied to a domain where the law of bivalence semantically holds. For finite mathematical domains there should be no problem with it. For infinite mathematical domains one would find an intuitionist objection. For other domains anti-realists would have other reasons to reject bivalence. But in terms of understanding a difference in meaning between the law of the excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction, Wikipedia's suggestion to view these as two parts of a dichotomy seems helpful.
– Frank Hubeny
Sep 20 at 21:11
add a comment
|
To expand on @conifold's comment:
In the process of deriving the law of excluded middle from the law of non contradiction, you used double negation removal.
But double negation removal (NOT NOT A equivalent to A) is actually just the law of excluded middle in disguise!
So while you showed that they are indeed equivalent in classical logic (as are any two true propositions), your proof does not show that they are equivalent in logic without the law of the excluded middle (intuitionistic logic).
answered Sep 20 at 11:40
radiusradius
111 bronze badge
add a comment
|
To expand on @conifold's comment:
In the process of deriving the law of excluded middle from the law of non contradiction, you used double negation removal.
But double negation removal (NOT NOT A equivalent to A) is actually just the law of excluded middle in disguise!
So while you showed that they are indeed equivalent in classical logic (as are any two true propositions), your proof does not show that they are equivalent in logic without the law of the excluded middle (intuitionistic logic).
answered Sep 20 at 11:40
radiusradius
111 bronze badge
add a comment
|
To expand on @conifold's comment:
In the process of deriving the law of excluded middle from the law of non contradiction, you used double negation removal.
But double negation removal (NOT NOT A equivalent to A) is actually just the law of excluded middle in disguise!
So while you showed that they are indeed equivalent in classical logic (as are any two true propositions), your proof does not show that they are equivalent in logic without the law of the excluded middle (intuitionistic logic).
answered Sep 20 at 11:40
radiusradius
111 bronze badge
To expand on @conifold's comment:
In the process of deriving the law of excluded middle from the law of non contradiction, you used double negation removal.
But double negation removal (NOT NOT A equivalent to A) is actually just the law of excluded middle in disguise!
So while you showed that they are indeed equivalent in classical logic (as are any two true propositions), your proof does not show that they are equivalent in logic without the law of the excluded middle (intuitionistic logic).
answered Sep 20 at 11:40
radiusradius
111 bronze badge
answered Sep 20 at 11:40
radiusradius
111 bronze badge
answered Sep 20 at 11:40
radiusradius
111 bronze badge
answered Sep 20 at 11:40
radiusradius
111 bronze badge
111 bronze badge
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
Whatever the laws of logic, they're all going to be equivalent, because they're all going to be tautologies. Any two statements that are always true are equivalent. Suppose that two laws of logic were not equivalent: then there would be some cases in which one is true and the other false. But then how can they both be laws of logic?
So the question might be: Why is there focus on Non-Contradiction and Excluded Middle among all the tautologies of classical logic? The answer is that some interesting logics reject one of these, or even both. Intuitionistic logic rejects Excluded Middle, and various kinds of Paraconsistent logics reject Non-Contradiction. In those kinds of logics, Non-Contradiction and Excluded Middle are not equivalent.
answered Sep 20 at 14:08
EliranEliran
5,2804 gold badges15 silver badges35 bronze badges
I disagree but upvoted because you explained your position well. One ought not to use contrary systems as the basis for depicting what the fundamentals for a system are to be, because if those contrary systems are in fact incorrect, then they have no bearing on what is true under the original, true system. That an aspect is rejected by contrary systems does not necessarily imply that it is a fundamental of the original system.
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 21:10
add a comment
|
Whatever the laws of logic, they're all going to be equivalent, because they're all going to be tautologies. Any two statements that are always true are equivalent. Suppose that two laws of logic were not equivalent: then there would be some cases in which one is true and the other false. But then how can they both be laws of logic?
So the question might be: Why is there focus on Non-Contradiction and Excluded Middle among all the tautologies of classical logic? The answer is that some interesting logics reject one of these, or even both. Intuitionistic logic rejects Excluded Middle, and various kinds of Paraconsistent logics reject Non-Contradiction. In those kinds of logics, Non-Contradiction and Excluded Middle are not equivalent.
answered Sep 20 at 14:08
EliranEliran
5,2804 gold badges15 silver badges35 bronze badges
I disagree but upvoted because you explained your position well. One ought not to use contrary systems as the basis for depicting what the fundamentals for a system are to be, because if those contrary systems are in fact incorrect, then they have no bearing on what is true under the original, true system. That an aspect is rejected by contrary systems does not necessarily imply that it is a fundamental of the original system.
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 21:10
add a comment
|
Whatever the laws of logic, they're all going to be equivalent, because they're all going to be tautologies. Any two statements that are always true are equivalent. Suppose that two laws of logic were not equivalent: then there would be some cases in which one is true and the other false. But then how can they both be laws of logic?
So the question might be: Why is there focus on Non-Contradiction and Excluded Middle among all the tautologies of classical logic? The answer is that some interesting logics reject one of these, or even both. Intuitionistic logic rejects Excluded Middle, and various kinds of Paraconsistent logics reject Non-Contradiction. In those kinds of logics, Non-Contradiction and Excluded Middle are not equivalent.
answered Sep 20 at 14:08
EliranEliran
5,2804 gold badges15 silver badges35 bronze badges
Whatever the laws of logic, they're all going to be equivalent, because they're all going to be tautologies. Any two statements that are always true are equivalent. Suppose that two laws of logic were not equivalent: then there would be some cases in which one is true and the other false. But then how can they both be laws of logic?
So the question might be: Why is there focus on Non-Contradiction and Excluded Middle among all the tautologies of classical logic? The answer is that some interesting logics reject one of these, or even both. Intuitionistic logic rejects Excluded Middle, and various kinds of Paraconsistent logics reject Non-Contradiction. In those kinds of logics, Non-Contradiction and Excluded Middle are not equivalent.
answered Sep 20 at 14:08
EliranEliran
5,2804 gold badges15 silver badges35 bronze badges
answered Sep 20 at 14:08
EliranEliran
5,2804 gold badges15 silver badges35 bronze badges
answered Sep 20 at 14:08
EliranEliran
5,2804 gold badges15 silver badges35 bronze badges
answered Sep 20 at 14:08
EliranEliran
5,2804 gold badges15 silver badges35 bronze badges
5,2804 gold badges15 silver badges35 bronze badges
I disagree but upvoted because you explained your position well. One ought not to use contrary systems as the basis for depicting what the fundamentals for a system are to be, because if those contrary systems are in fact incorrect, then they have no bearing on what is true under the original, true system. That an aspect is rejected by contrary systems does not necessarily imply that it is a fundamental of the original system.
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 21:10
add a comment
|
I disagree but upvoted because you explained your position well. One ought not to use contrary systems as the basis for depicting what the fundamentals for a system are to be, because if those contrary systems are in fact incorrect, then they have no bearing on what is true under the original, true system. That an aspect is rejected by contrary systems does not necessarily imply that it is a fundamental of the original system.
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 21:10
I disagree but upvoted because you explained your position well. One ought not to use contrary systems as the basis for depicting what the fundamentals for a system are to be, because if those contrary systems are in fact incorrect, then they have no bearing on what is true under the original, true system. That an aspect is rejected by contrary systems does not necessarily imply that it is a fundamental of the original system.
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 21:10
I disagree but upvoted because you explained your position well. One ought not to use contrary systems as the basis for depicting what the fundamentals for a system are to be, because if those contrary systems are in fact incorrect, then they have no bearing on what is true under the original, true system. That an aspect is rejected by contrary systems does not necessarily imply that it is a fundamental of the original system.
– Andrew
Sep 20 at 21:10
add a comment
|
It's actually an artifact of how we are taught. If you look at original books on logic they don't actually say that a certain law is fundamental or not. That not how you go about thinking. But it does help beginners in a subject to guide where to begin, to help distinguish the important from the non-important. Its probably also an artifact from fetishing the axiomatic system which do use such a system axiomatically. But of course, Euclid didn't invent geometry - somebody else did.
answered Sep 20 at 2:15
Mozibur UllahMozibur Ullah
42.2k10 gold badges59 silver badges172 bronze badges
add a comment
|
It's actually an artifact of how we are taught. If you look at original books on logic they don't actually say that a certain law is fundamental or not. That not how you go about thinking. But it does help beginners in a subject to guide where to begin, to help distinguish the important from the non-important. Its probably also an artifact from fetishing the axiomatic system which do use such a system axiomatically. But of course, Euclid didn't invent geometry - somebody else did.
answered Sep 20 at 2:15
Mozibur UllahMozibur Ullah
42.2k10 gold badges59 silver badges172 bronze badges
add a comment
|
It's actually an artifact of how we are taught. If you look at original books on logic they don't actually say that a certain law is fundamental or not. That not how you go about thinking. But it does help beginners in a subject to guide where to begin, to help distinguish the important from the non-important. Its probably also an artifact from fetishing the axiomatic system which do use such a system axiomatically. But of course, Euclid didn't invent geometry - somebody else did.
answered Sep 20 at 2:15
Mozibur UllahMozibur Ullah
42.2k10 gold badges59 silver badges172 bronze badges
It's actually an artifact of how we are taught. If you look at original books on logic they don't actually say that a certain law is fundamental or not. That not how you go about thinking. But it does help beginners in a subject to guide where to begin, to help distinguish the important from the non-important. Its probably also an artifact from fetishing the axiomatic system which do use such a system axiomatically. But of course, Euclid didn't invent geometry - somebody else did.
answered Sep 20 at 2:15
Mozibur UllahMozibur Ullah
42.2k10 gold badges59 silver badges172 bronze badges
answered Sep 20 at 2:15
Mozibur UllahMozibur Ullah
42.2k10 gold badges59 silver badges172 bronze badges
answered Sep 20 at 2:15
Mozibur UllahMozibur Ullah
42.2k10 gold badges59 silver badges172 bronze badges
answered Sep 20 at 2:15
Mozibur UllahMozibur Ullah
42.2k10 gold badges59 silver badges172 bronze badges
42.2k10 gold badges59 silver badges172 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
Thanks for contributing an answer to Philosophy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f67192%2fwhy-are-there-two-fundamental-laws-of-logic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
8
One implies the other only if you use de Morgan law, double negation removal, and commutativity in the process. And they mean very different things, that something can not be true along with its negation vs something or its negation being true. In intuitionistic logic you have non-contradiction, but not excluded middle (some statements are undecidable, like the continuum hypothesis), in paraconsistent logic vice versa (some statements are both true and false, like "I am false").
– Conifold
Sep 19 at 20:39
I made an edit replacing 3 with two. I think you are only referring to two laws here. Do not hesitate to roll this back or edit further if I misrepresented your position.
– Frank Hubeny
Sep 19 at 23:53
They can only imply each other in the context of a certain set of other logical laws/rules/axioms/postulates/assumptions, the ones we are most used to and normally assume and use. But they are far from the only set of logical laws that can be assumed.
– RBarryYoung
Sep 20 at 14:42