Sentential Falsehood Logic FL4
ABSTRACT: In some philosophical conceptions, statements are valued as true, false, senseless (neither true nor false), or inconsistent. Falsehood logic FL4 makes it possible to operate correctly by such statements. Logic with falsehood operator FL4 is formulated. For FL4 metatheorems of consistency, deduction and completeness are fulfilled. Correlation between falsehood logic FL4 and four-valued Belnap’s logic and von Wright’s truth logic T"LM is considered. In FL4, the implication for Belnap’s logic is defined so that the truth-valued matrix of it is characterized for logic of tautological consequences Efde. Correlation between three-valued falsehood sublogic FL3N of FL4 and three-valued Kleene’s logic and Lukasiewicz’s logic is considered. Lukasiewicz’s three-valued logic is functionally equivalent to FL3N logic. Correlation between three-valued falsehood sublogic FL3B of FL4 and three-valued paraconsistent Priest’s logic is also considered.
The construction of falsehood logic FL4 (1) and its analysis answer the question about the use of truth and falsehood notions. In some philosophical conceptions statements are valued as true, false, senseless (neither true nor false), inconsistent. Falsehood logic FL4 makes it possible to operate correctly by such statements.
The main principles of falsehood logic FL4 are as follows:
1. The notion of falsehood will be considered as applied only to sentences of the following form: "Sentence 'S' is false" (in symbols: '(- S)' ).
The proposition '(- S)' is a proposition about falsehood of the sentence 'S' and it is a proposition in a metalanguage related to the language in which a sentence 'S' is formulated.
The set of propositions of language, metalanguage, metametalanguage and so on is considered as a whole. And one can operate with these propositions (viz. 'S', '(- S)', '(- S(- S))', ...) simultaneously in the language of FL4.
2. We shall consider the notion of falsehood as a primitive one which will be used as a logical operator in this formal system.
3. The sentence '(- S)' is always either true or false, while the sentence 'S' may have other truth-values than true or false. In other words, the laws of classical logic are valid for sentence '(- S)', but need not to be valid for sentence 'S'.
4. Sentences with the implication will be evaluated in standard way.
Let '(S1 ® S2) ' stands for 'S1 implies S2'.
'(S1 ® S2)' is true iff 'S1' is false or 'S2' is true.
'(S1 ® S2)' is false iff 'S1' is true and 'S2' is false.
America’s newfound favorite pastime, football, came from a bizarre chain of events. Football started when a soccer player got fed up with just kicking the ball, so he picked up the ball and ran to the goal. His actions of picking up the ball and running with it fathered a new European sport, rugby, which was soon brought over to American shores, and was altered slightly, the shape of the ball and a few other small rules. The sport became organized into a league and produced the NFL(National Football League). The NFL had a slow beginning, but has picked up popularity, currently having a 9 billion dollar yearly revenue. Playing football comes with great costs, including physical and mental health deterioration, plus the amount of time spent prepping before game day. Which can pose several questions, “Why suffer for a game, Is it worth the money? Is it worth the fame? How great is the cost?” I believe that football, should have stricter regulations for the treatment of injuries, along with informing players of just how devastating a concussion can be, along with the other major injuries that commonly occur while playing football.
In order to understand the concept of Moore’s Paradox, we must first assess and understand the behavior of logical and performative contradictions. Credited for devising and examining this paradox, George Edward Moore, a British philosopher who taught at the University of Cambridge and studied ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics describes the paradox in its omissive and commissive forms in which we will discuss thoroughly. I will then express my standpoint on which solution is the most optimal choice for Moore’s Paradox in order to analyze and explain why I believe my solution is superior to other solutions. I will also discuss any issues that arise
A paradox stems from a statement that apparently contradicts itself yet might still be true. In most cases logical paradoxes are essentially known to be invalid but are used anyways to promote critical thinking. The Raven’s paradox is an example of a paradox that essentially goes against what most logical paradoxes stand for in that it tries to make a valid claim through inductive logic. Carl Hempel is known for his famous accepting of this paradox with minor adjustments by the use of the contraposition rule. In this paper, however, I argue that Hempel’s solution to the Raven’s paradox is actually unsuccessful because he fails to take into account a possible red herring that serves as evidence against his solution. Irvin John Good is responsible for the formulation of the red herring argument as he tries to prove that the observation of a black raven can potentially negate the Raven’s paradox as valid. In addition to Good’s claim, Karl Popper and his view of falsificationism also functions as evidence to reject Hempel’s solution. Using Popper’s view as a basis, Israel Scheffler and Nelson Goodman formulate the concept of selective confirmation to reject the contraposition rule used by Hempel. Based off of all of the rejections that Hempel’s solution has it can clearly be seen that the Raven’s paradox has flaws that principally lead it to it being invalid.
The Procter and Gamble Company. (2013, November 17). Company Strategy. Retrieved March 22, 2014, from http://www.pginvestor.com: http://www.pginvestor.com/GenPage.aspx?IID=4004124&GKP=208821
These statements assert that the negative ( or contradictory) of an alternative proposition is a conjunction which the conjuncts are the contradictions of the corresponding alternants. That the negative of a conjunctive is an alternative proposition in which the alternants are the contradictories of the corresponding conjuncts.
But, more recently, physicians at professional levels are having higher thresholds for diagnosis of concussions (Izraelski, 2014, p.348). The higher threshold for diagnosis means that even if symptoms are present, even more are required to be taken out of a game. Player associations within professional hockey and football are growing in concussion litigation by ex-players and current players. Players that are retired are suffering the devastating effects of this process of conservative diagnosis (Park, 2015). Legally, their perspective is that the league has breached a duty of care and that the NFL was committing fraud (Kondro, 2012) by concealing risks of concussions. The concept of a duty to care is present with all contact sports that have players receiving the most concussions, particularly at the professional level where medical expertise is highly invested in athletes worth millions of dollars. Even in leagues where the players are not paid, such as the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) or minor leagues, the concussion recurrence is extremely high for the athletes participating (Delaney, J., Lamfookon, C., Bloom, G., Al-Kashmiri, A., & Correa, J., 2015, pg. 113). An NCAA concussion study looked at aspects of concussion in sport which highlighted why certain players either hide concussions or suffer recurrences, or why certain levels of sport have higher concussion rates (Delaney et al. 2003). However, academic research also shown more recently why athletes hide their symptoms or why at the professional level, athletes hide symptoms from medical staff. Another research study from McGill University (Guskiewicz et al. 2003 p.116) has stated that athletes hide injuries because of the perceived negative impacts of sitting out for an
In fact, we see that (1) is a logically necessary truth, the denial of which is self-contradictory. As David Oderberg argues:
A logically self-contradictory utterance is not only false, it cannot possibly describe anything. Therefore, it may also be called an impossible description. A tautological utterance, on the other hand, says something true, but it supplies no new information about the world. Therefore, from a common sense point of view, it is a superfluous description. There are at least, I will show, three other kinds of utterances which adequately can be called impossible descriptions and three which can be called superfluous descriptions. Only views which belong ...
Lying is simply an act of not telling the truth, and this definition of lying will be used in future sections of this paper. There are three groups of lies t...
Lying is an issue that has been debated on for a long time. Some people believe that lying is sometimes ok in certain circumstances. Some people believe lying is always acceptable. In contrast, some believe lying is always bad. Keeping all other’s opinions in mind, I believe that lying is a deficient way of solving problems and is a bad thing. I claim that only certain situations allow the usage of lies and that otherwise, lying is bad. Dishonesty is bad because it makes it harder to serve justice, harms the liar individually, and messes up records. Furthermore, it should only be said to protect someone from grave danger.
This essay will consist in an exposition and criticism of the Verification Principle, as expounded by A.J. Ayer in his book Language, Truth and Logic. Ayer, wrote this book in 1936, but also wrote a new introduction to the second edition ten years later. The latter amounted to a revision of his earlier theses on the principle.It is to both accounts that this essay shall be referring.
There are several types of false statement. One of them is a deliberate lie, which goes under the Tort of Deceit. Another one is negligent misstatement, which is basically the statement made carelessly or without reasonable background and is included into the Law of Tort.
A false statement or a statement intended to deceive someone is known as a lie. Of course, there are many different types of lies. There are those blatant lies that have no truth in them whatsoever, lies of omission, and half-truths.
Atomic sentences have truth-values that evaluate the application of a concept to an object that is being referred. To find what the sentence refers to, the referent of the predicate must be applied to the referent of the subject. Connectives are vocabulary like “and”, “if”, and “not” that are functions from truth-values to truth tables. Each of these provide the basis for Frege’s language system such that we are able to speaking in our ordinary language, but still maintain the mathematical connection he attempts to establish early. Frege’s use of language and sentences being functions with variables is consistent with how he defines the basic constructs of what are needed in a human language.
Russell’s Theory of Definite Description has totally changed the way we view definite descriptions by solving the three logical paradoxes. It is undeniable that the theory itself is not yet perfect and there can be objections on this theory. Still, until now, Russell’s theory is the most logical explanation of definite description’s role.