Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{DISPLAYTITLE:Functional Logic : Inquiry and Analogy}} | | {{DISPLAYTITLE:Functional Logic : Inquiry and Analogy}} |
| + | <pre> |
| + | o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o |
| + | |
| + | IDS -- Fumctional Logic |
| + | |
| + | o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o |
| + | |
| + | FL. Note 1 |
| + | |
| + | o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o |
| + | |
| + | Inquiry and Analogy |
| + | |
| + | | Version: Draft 3.25 |
| + | | Created: 01 Jan 1995 |
| + | | Revised: 24 Dec 2001 |
| + | | Revised: 12 Mar 2004 |
| + | |
| + | Abstract |
| + | |
| + | This report discusses C.S. Peirce's treatment of analogy, |
| + | placing it in relation to his overall theory of inquiry. |
| + | The first order of business is to introduce the three |
| + | fundamental types of reasoning that Peirce adopted |
| + | from classical logic. In Peirce's analysis both |
| + | inquiry and analogy are complex programs of |
| + | reasoning which develop through stages of |
| + | these three types, although normally in |
| + | different orders. |
| + | |
| + | 1. Three Types of Reasoning |
| + | |
| + | 1.1. Types of Reasoning in Aristotle |
| + | |
| + | 1.2. Types of Reasoning in C.S. Peirce |
| + | |
| + | 1.3. Comparison of the Analyses |
| + | |
| + | 1.4. Aristotle's "Apagogy": Abductive Reasoning as Problem Reduction |
| + | |
| + | 1.5. Aristotle's "Paradigm": Reasoning by Analogy or Example |
| + | |
| + | 1.6. Peirce's Formulation of Analogy |
| + | |
| + | 1.7. Dewey's "Sign of Rain": An Example of Inquiry |
| + | |
| + | 2. Functional Conception of Quantification Theory |
| + | |
| + | Up till now quantification theory has been based on the assumption of |
| + | individual variables ranging over universal collections of perfectly |
| + | determined elements. Merely to write down quantified notations like |
| + | "(For All)_(x in X) F(x)" and "(For Some)_(x in X) F(x)" involves a |
| + | subscription to such notions, as shown by the membership relations |
| + | invoked in their indices. Reflected on pragmatic and constructive |
| + | principles, these ideas begin to appear as problematic hypotheses |
| + | whose warrants to be granted are not beyond question, as projects |
| + | of exhaustive determination that overreach the powers of finite |
| + | information and control to manage. Consequently, it is worth |
| + | considering how we might shift the medium of quantification |
| + | theory closer to familiar ground, toward the predicates |
| + | themselves that represent our continuing acquaintance |
| + | with phenomena. |
| + | |
| + | 2.1. Higher Order Propositional Expressions |
| + | |
| + | By way of equipping this inquiry with a bit of concrete material, I begin |
| + | with a consideration of "higher order propositional expressions" (HOPE's), |
| + | in particular, those that stem from the propositions on 1 and 2 variables. |
| + | |
| + | 2.1.1. Higher Order Propositions and Logical Operators (n = 1) |
| + | |
| + | A "higher order" proposition is, very roughly speaking, a proposition about propositions. |
| + | If the original order of propositions is a class of indicator functions F : X -> B, then |
| + | the next higher order of propositions consists of maps of the type m : (X -> B) -> B. |
| + | |
| + | For example, consider the case where X = B. Then there are exactly four |
| + | propositions F : B -> B, and exactly sixteen higher order propositions |
| + | that are based on this set, all bearing the type m : (B -> B) -> B. |
| + | |
| + | Table 10 lists the sixteen higher order propositions about propositions on |
| + | one boolean variable, organized in the following fashion: Columns 1 & 2 |
| + | form a truth table for the four F : B -> B, turned on its side from the |
| + | way that one is most likely accustomed to see truth tables, with the |
| + | row leaders in Column 1 displaying the names of the functions F_i, |
| + | for i = 1 to 4, while the entries in Column 2 give the values of |
| + | each function for the argument values that are listed in the |
| + | corresponding column head. Column 3 displays one of the |
| + | more usual expressions for the proposition in question. |
| + | The last sixteen columns are topped by a collection of |
| + | conventional names for the higher order propositions, |
| + | also known as the "measures" m_j, for j = 0 to 15, |
| + | where the entries in the body of the Table record |
| + | the values that each m_j assigns to each F_i. |
| + | |
| + | Table 10. Higher Order Propositions (n = 1) |
| + | o------o-----o-----o---o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o |
| + | | \ x | 1 0 | F | m |m |m |m |m |m |m |m |m |m |m |m |m |m |m |m | |
| + | | F \ | | | 00|01|02|03|04|05|06|07|08|09|10|11|12|13|14|15| |
| + | o------o-----o-----o---o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | F_0 | 0 0 | 0 | 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | F_1 | 0 1 | (x) | 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | F_2 | 1 0 | x | 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | F_3 | 1 1 | 1 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | o------o-----o-----o---o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o |
| + | |
| + | I am going to put off explaining Table 11, that presents a sample of |
| + | what I call "Interpretive Categories for Higher Order Propositions", |
| + | until after we get beyond the 1-dimensional case, since these lower |
| + | dimensional cases tend to be a bit "condensed" or "degenerate" in |
| + | their structures, and a lot of what is going on here will almost |
| + | automatically become clearer as soon as we get even two logical |
| + | variables into the mix. |
| + | |
| + | Table 11. Interpretive Categories for Higher Order Propositions (n = 1) |
| + | o-------o----------o------------o------------o----------o----------o-----------o |
| + | |Measure| Happening| Exactness | Existence | Linearity|Uniformity|Information| |
| + | o-------o----------o------------o------------o----------o----------o-----------o |
| + | | m_0 | nothing | | | | | | |
| + | | | happens | | | | | | |
| + | o-------o----------o------------o------------o----------o----------o-----------o |
| + | | m_1 | | | nothing | | | | |
| + | | | | just false | exists | | | | |
| + | o-------o----------o------------o------------o----------o----------o-----------o |
| + | | m_2 | | | | | | | |
| + | | | | just not x | | | | | |
| + | o-------o----------o------------o------------o----------o----------o-----------o |
| + | | m_3 | | | nothing | | | | |
| + | | | | | is x | | | | |
| + | o-------o----------o------------o------------o----------o----------o-----------o |
| + | | m_4 | | | | | | | |
| + | | | | just x | | | | | |
| + | o-------o----------o------------o------------o----------o----------o-----------o |
| + | | m_5 | | | everything | F is | | | |
| + | | | | | is x | linear | | | |
| + | o-------o----------o------------o------------o----------o----------o-----------o |
| + | | m_6 | | | | | F is not | F is | |
| + | | | | | | | uniform | informed | |
| + | o-------o----------o------------o------------o----------o----------o-----------o |
| + | | m_7 | | not | | | | | |
| + | | | | just true | | | | | |
| + | o-------o----------o------------o------------o----------o----------o-----------o |
| + | | m_8 | | | | | | | |
| + | | | | just true | | | | | |
| + | o-------o----------o------------o------------o----------o----------o-----------o |
| + | | m_9 | | | | | F is | F is not | |
| + | | | | | | | uniform | informed | |
| + | o-------o----------o------------o------------o----------o----------o-----------o |
| + | | m_10 | | | something | F is not | | | |
| + | | | | | is not x | linear | | | |
| + | o-------o----------o------------o------------o----------o----------o-----------o |
| + | | m_11 | | not | | | | | |
| + | | | | just x | | | | | |
| + | o-------o----------o------------o------------o----------o----------o-----------o |
| + | | m_12 | | | something | | | | |
| + | | | | | is x | | | | |
| + | o-------o----------o------------o------------o----------o----------o-----------o |
| + | | m_13 | | not | | | | | |
| + | | | | just not x | | | | | |
| + | o-------o----------o------------o------------o----------o----------o-----------o |
| + | | m_14 | | not | something | | | | |
| + | | | | just false | exists | | | | |
| + | o-------o----------o------------o------------o----------o----------o-----------o |
| + | | m_15 | anything | | | | | | |
| + | | | happens | | | | | | |
| + | o-------o----------o------------o------------o----------o----------o-----------o |
| + | |
| + | o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o |
| + | |
| + | FL. Note 2 |
| + | |
| + | o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o |
| + | |
| + | 2.1.2. Higher Order Propositions and Logical Operators (n = 2) |
| + | |
| + | By way of reviewing notation and preparing to extend it to |
| + | higher order universes of discourse, let us first consider |
| + | the universe of discourse X% = [!X!] = [x_1, x_2] = [x, y], |
| + | based on two logical features or boolean variables x and y. |
| + | |
| + | 1. The points of X% are collected in the space: |
| + | |
| + | X = <|x, y|> = {<x, y>} ~=~ B^2. |
| + | |
| + | In other words, written out in full: |
| + | |
| + | X = {<"(x)", "(y)">, |
| + | <"(x)", " y ">, |
| + | <" x ", "(y)">, |
| + | <" x ", " y ">} |
| + | |
| + | X ~=~ {<0, 0>, |
| + | <0, 1>, |
| + | <1, 0>, |
| + | <1, 1>} |
| + | |
| + | 2. The propositions of X% make up the space: |
| + | |
| + | X^ = (X -> B) = {f : X -> B} ~=~ (B^2 -> B). |
| + | |
| + | As always, it is frequently convenient to omit a few of the |
| + | finer markings of distinctions among isomorphic structures, |
| + | so long as one is aware of their presence and knows when |
| + | it is crucial to call upon them again. |
| + | |
| + | The next higher order universe of discourse that is built on X% is |
| + | X%2 = [X%] = [[x, y]], which may be developed in the following way. |
| + | The propositions of X% become the points of X%2, and the mappings |
| + | of type m : (X -> B) -> B become the propositions of the second |
| + | order universe of discourse X%2. In addition, it is convenient |
| + | to equip the discussion with a selected set of higher order |
| + | operators on propositions, all of which have the form |
| + | w : (B^2 -> B)^k -> B. |
| + | |
| + | To save a few words in the remainder of this discussion, I will use the terms |
| + | "measure" and "qualifier" to refer to all types of "higher order" propositions |
| + | and operators. To describe the present arrangement in picturesque terms, the |
| + | propositions of [x, y] may be regarded as a gallery of sixteen venn diagrams, |
| + | while the measures m : (X -> B) -> B are analogous to a body of judges or |
| + | a collection of critical viewers, each of whom evaluates each picture as |
| + | a whole and reports the ones that find favor or not. In this way, each |
| + | judge m_j partitions the gallery of pictures into two aesthetic portions, |
| + | the pictures (m_j)^(-1)(1) that m_j likes and the pictures (m_j)^(-1)(0) |
| + | that m_j dislikes. |
| + | |
| + | There are 2^16 = 65536 measures of type m : (B^2 -> B) -> B. |
| + | Table 12 introduces the first sixteen of these measures in the |
| + | fashion of the higher order truth table that I set out before. |
| + | The column headed "m_j" shows the values of the measure m_j on |
| + | each of the propositions f_i : B^2 -> B, for i = 0 to 15, with |
| + | a blank entry in the Table being optional for a value of zero. |
| + | The arrangement of measures that continues in accord with this |
| + | plan will be referred to as the "standard ordering" of measures. |
| + | In this scheme of things, the index j of the measure m_j is the |
| + | decimal equivalent of the bit string that is associated with |
| + | m_j's functional values, which can be obtained in turn by |
| + | reading the j^th column of binary digits in the Table as |
| + | the corresponding range of boolean values, taking them |
| + | in order from bottom to top. |
| + | |
| + | Table 12. Higher Order Propositions (n = 2) |
| + | o------o------o----------o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o |
| + | | | x | 1100 | f |m|m|m|m|m|m|m|m|m|m|m|m|m|m|m|m|.| |
| + | | | y | 1010 | |0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|1|1|1|1|1|1|.| |
| + | | f \ | | |0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|0|1|2|3|4|5|.| |
| + | o------o------o----------o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_0 | 0000 | () |0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_1 | 0001 | (x)(y) | 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_2 | 0010 | (x) y | 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_3 | 0011 | (x) | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_4 | 0100 | x (y) | | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_5 | 0101 | (y) | | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_6 | 0110 | (x, y) | | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_7 | 0111 | (x y) | | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | o------o------o----------o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_8 | 1000 | x y | | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_9 | 1001 | ((x, y)) | | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_10 | 1010 | y | | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_11 | 1011 | (x (y)) | | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_12 | 1100 | x | | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_13 | 1101 | ((x) y) | | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_14 | 1110 | ((x)(y)) | | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_15 | 1111 | (()) | | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | o------o------o----------o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o |
| + | |
| + | o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o |
| + | |
| + | FL. Note 3 |
| + | |
| + | o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o |
| + | |
| + | 2.1.3. Umpire Operators |
| + | |
| + | In order to get a handle on the space of higher order propositions and |
| + | eventually to carry out a functional approach to quantification theory, |
| + | it serves to construct some specialized tools. Specifically, I define |
| + | a higher order operator !Y!, called the "umpire operator", which takes |
| + | up to three propositions as arguments and returns a single truth value |
| + | as the result. Formally, this so-called "multi-grade" property of !Y! |
| + | can be expressed as a union of function types, in the following manner: |
| + | |
| + | !Y! : |_|^(m = 1, 2, 3) ((B^k -> B)^m -> B). |
| + | |
| + | In contexts of application the intended sense can be discerned by |
| + | the number of arguments that actually appear in the argument list. |
| + | Often, the first and last arguments appear as indices, the one in |
| + | the middle being treated as the main argument while the other two |
| + | arguments serve to modulate the sense of the operator in question. |
| + | |
| + | Accordingly, the employment of umpires may be |
| + | contingent on the following application forms: |
| + | |
| + | !Y!_p^r <q> = !Y!<p, q, r> |
| + | |
| + | !Y!_p^r : (B^k -> B) -> B |
| + | |
| + | The intention of this operator is that we evaluate the proposition q |
| + | on each model of the proposition p and combine the results according |
| + | to the method indicated by the connective parameter r. In principle, |
| + | the index r might specify any connective on as many as 2^k arguments, |
| + | but usually we have in mind a much simpler form of combination, most |
| + | often either collective products or collective sums. By convention, |
| + | each of the accessory indices p, r is assigned a default value that |
| + | is understood to apply when the corresponding place is left blank, |
| + | specifically, the constant proposition 1 : B^k -> B for the lower |
| + | index p, and the continued conjunction or continued product ]^[ |
| + | for the upper index r. Taking the upper default value gives |
| + | license to the following readings: |
| + | |
| + | 1. !Y!_p <q> = !Y!<p, q> = !Y!<p, q, product> |
| + | |
| + | 2. !Y!_p = !Y!<p, _, product> : (B^k -> B) -> B |
| + | |
| + | This means that !Y!_p <q> = 1 if and only if q holds for all models of p. |
| + | In propositional terms, this is tantamount to the assertion that p => q, |
| + | or that (p (q)) = 1. Throwing in the lower default value licences the |
| + | following abbreviations: |
| + | |
| + | 3. !Y!q = !Y!<q> = !Y!_1 q = !Y!<1, q, product) |
| + | |
| + | 4. !Y! = !Y!<1, _, product> : (B^k -> B) -> B |
| + | |
| + | This means that !Y!q = 1 if and only if q holds true over the entire |
| + | universe of discourse in question, in other words, if and only if q |
| + | is the constant true proposition 1 : B^k -> B. The ambiguities of |
| + | this trial usage will not be a problem so long as we distinguish |
| + | the context of definition from the context of application and |
| + | restrict all shorthand notations to the latter. |
| + | |
| + | o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o |
| + | |
| + | FL. Note 4 |
| + | |
| + | o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o |
| + | |
| + | 2.1.4. Measure for Measure |
| + | |
| + | An acquaintance with the functions of the umpire operator can be gained |
| + | from Tables 13 & 14, where the 2-dimensional case is worked out in full. |
| + | |
| + | The auxiliary notations: |
| + | |
| + | !a!_i f = !Y!<f_i, f>, |
| + | |
| + | !b!_i f = !Y!<f, f_i>, |
| + | |
| + | define two series of measures: |
| + | |
| + | !a!_i, !b!_i : (B^2 -> B) -> B, |
| + | |
| + | incidentally providing compact names for |
| + | the column headings of these two Tables. |
| + | |
| + | Table 13. Qualifiers of Implication Ordering: !a!_i f = !Y!<f_i => f> |
| + | o------o------o----------o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o |
| + | | | x | 1100 | f |a |a |a |a |a |a |a |a |a |a |a |a |a |a |a |a | |
| + | | | y | 1010 | |1 |1 |1 |1 |1 |1 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 | |
| + | | f \ | | |5 |4 |3 |2 |1 |0 |9 |8 |7 |6 |5 |4 |3 |2 |1 |0 | |
| + | o------o------o----------o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_0 | 0000 | () | 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_1 | 0001 | (x)(y) | 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_2 | 0010 | (x) y | 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_3 | 0011 | (x) | 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_4 | 0100 | x (y) | 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_5 | 0101 | (y) | 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_6 | 0110 | (x, y) | 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_7 | 0111 | (x y) | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_8 | 1000 | x y | 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_9 | 1001 | ((x, y)) | 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_10 | 1010 | y | 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_11 | 1011 | (x (y)) | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_12 | 1100 | x | 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_13 | 1101 | ((x) y) | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_14 | 1110 | ((x)(y)) | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_15 | 1111 | (()) |1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | o------o------o----------o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o |
| + | |
| + | |
| + | Table 14. Qualifiers of Implication Ordering: !b!_i f = !Y!<f => f_i> |
| + | o------o------o----------o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o |
| + | | | x | 1100 | f |b |b |b |b |b |b |b |b |b |b |b |b |b |b |b |b | |
| + | | | y | 1010 | |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |1 |1 |1 |1 |1 |1 | |
| + | | f \ | | |0 |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |6 |7 |8 |9 |0 |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 | |
| + | o------o------o----------o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_0 | 0000 | () |1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_1 | 0001 | (x)(y) | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_2 | 0010 | (x) y | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_3 | 0011 | (x) | 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_4 | 0100 | x (y) | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_5 | 0101 | (y) | 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_6 | 0110 | (x, y) | 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_7 | 0111 | (x y) | 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_8 | 1000 | x y | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_9 | 1001 | ((x, y)) | 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_10 | 1010 | y | 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_11 | 1011 | (x (y)) | 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_12 | 1100 | x | 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_13 | 1101 | ((x) y) | 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_14 | 1110 | ((x)(y)) | 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_15 | 1111 | (()) | 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | o------o------o----------o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o |
| + | |
| + | Applied to a given proposition f, the qualifiers !a!_i and !b!_i tell whether |
| + | f rests "above f_i" or "below f_i", respectively, in the implication ordering. |
| + | By way of example, let us trace the effects of several such measures, namely, |
| + | those that occupy the limiting positions of the Tables. |
| + | |
| + | !a!_00 f = 1 iff f_00 => f iff 0 => f, hence !a!_00 f = 1 for all f. |
| + | |
| + | !a!_15 f = 1 iff f_15 => f iff 1 => f, hence !a!_15 f = 1 iff f = 1. |
| + | |
| + | !b!_00 f = 1 iff f => f_00 iff f => 0, hence !b!_00 f = 1 iff f = 0. |
| + | |
| + | !b!_15 f = 1 iff f => f_15 iff f => 1, hence !b!_15 f = 1 for all f. |
| + | |
| + | In short, !a!_0 = !b!_15 is a totally indiscriminate measure, |
| + | one that accepts all of the propositions f : B^2 -> B, while |
| + | !a!_15 and !b!_0 are measures that appreciate the constant |
| + | propositions 1 : B^2 -> B and 0 : B^2 -> B, respectively, |
| + | above all others. |
| + | |
| + | Finally, in conformity with the use of the fiber notation to |
| + | indicate sets of models, it is natural to use notations like |
| + | the following to denote classes of propositions that satisfy |
| + | the umpires in question: |
| + | |
| + | [| !a!_i |] = (!a!_i)^(-1)(1) |
| + | |
| + | [| !b!_i |] = (!b!_i)^(-1)(1) |
| + | |
| + | [| !Y!_p |] = (!Y!_p)^(-1)(1) |
| + | |
| + | o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o |
| + | |
| + | FL. Note 5 |
| + | |
| + | o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o |
| + | |
| + | 2.1.5. Extending the Existential Interpretation to Quantificational Logic |
| + | |
| + | Previously I introduced a calculus for propositional logic, fixing its meaning |
| + | according to what C.S. Peirce called the "existential interpretation". As far |
| + | as it concerns propositional calculus this interpretation settles the meanings |
| + | that are associated with merely the most basic symbols and logical connectives. |
| + | Now we must extend and refine the existential interpretation to comprehend the |
| + | analysis of "quantifications", that is, quantified propositions. In doing so |
| + | we recognize two additional aspects of logic that need to be developed, over |
| + | and above the material of propositional logic. At the formal extreme there |
| + | is the aspect of higher order functional types, into which we have already |
| + | ventured a little above. At the level of the fundamental content of the |
| + | available propositions we have to introduce a different interpretation |
| + | for what we may call "elemental" or "singular" propositions. |
| + | |
| + | Let us return to the 2-dimensional universe X% = [x, y]. |
| + | In order to construct a bridge between propositions and |
| + | quantifications it serves to create a set of qualifiers |
| + | L_uv : (B^2 -> B) -> B that take on the following forms: |
| + | |
| + | L_00 f = L_<(x)(y)> f |
| + | |
| + | = !a!_1 f |
| + | |
| + | = !Y!_<(x)(y)> f |
| + | |
| + | = !Y!<(x)(y) => f> |
| + | |
| + | = <f likes (x)(y)> |
| + | |
| + | L_01 f = L_<(x) y > f |
| + | |
| + | = !a!_2 f |
| + | |
| + | = !Y!_<(x) y > f |
| + | |
| + | = !Y!<(x) y => f> |
| + | |
| + | = <f likes (x) y > |
| + | |
| + | L_10 f = L_< x (y)> f |
| + | |
| + | = !a!_4 f |
| + | |
| + | = !Y!_< x (y)> f |
| + | |
| + | = !Y!< x (y) => f> |
| + | |
| + | = <f likes x (y)> |
| + | |
| + | L_11 f = L_< x y > f |
| + | |
| + | = !a!_8 f |
| + | |
| + | = !Y!_< x y > f |
| + | |
| + | = !Y!< x y => f> |
| + | |
| + | = <f likes x y > |
| + | |
| + | Intuitively, the L_uv operators may be thought of as qualifying propositions |
| + | according to the elements of the universe of discourse that each proposition |
| + | positively values. Taken together, these measures provide us with the means |
| + | to express many useful observations about the propositions in X% = [x, y], |
| + | and so they mediate a subtext [L_00, L_01, L_10, L_11] that takes place |
| + | within the higher order universe of discourse X%2 = [X%] = [[x, y]]. |
| + | |
| + | Figure 15 summarizes the action of the L_uv on the f_i in X%2. |
| + | |
| + | o-------------------------------------------------o |
| + | | | |
| + | | o | |
| + | | / \ | |
| + | | / \ | |
| + | | /x y\ | |
| + | | / o---o \ | |
| + | | o \ / o | |
| + | | / \ o / \ | |
| + | | / \ | / \ | |
| + | | / \ @ / \ | |
| + | | / x y \ / x y \ | |
| + | | o o---o o o---o o | |
| + | | / \ \ / \ / / \ | |
| + | | / \ @ / \ @ / \ | |
| + | | / \ / \ / \ | |
| + | | / y \ / \ / y \ | |
| + | | o @ o @ o o o | |
| + | | / \ / \ / \ | / \ | |
| + | | / \ / \ / \ @ / \ | |
| + | | / \ /x y\ / \ / \ | |
| + | | / x y \ / o o \ / x y \ / x y \ | |
| + | | o @ o \ / o o o o o o | |
| + | | |\ / \ o / \ | / \ \ / /| | |
| + | | | \ / \ | / \ @ / \ @ / | | |
| + | | | \ / \ @ / \ / \ / | | |
| + | | | \ / x \ / x y \ / x \ / | | |
| + | | | o @ o o---o o o o | | |
| + | | | |\ / \ \ / / \ | /| | | |
| + | | | | \ / \ @ / \ @ / | | | |
| + | | | | \ / \ / \ / | | | |
| + | | |L_11| \ / o y \ / x o \ / |L_00| | |
| + | | o---------o | o | o---------o | |
| + | | | \ x @ / \ @ y / | | |
| + | | | \ / \ / | | |
| + | | | \ / \ / | | |
| + | | |L_10 \ / o \ / L_01| | |
| + | | o---------o | o---------o | |
| + | | \ @ / | |
| + | | \ / | |
| + | | \ / | |
| + | | \ / | |
| + | | o | |
| + | | | |
| + | o-------------------------------------------------o |
| + | Figure 15. Higher Order Universe [L_uv] c [[x, y]] |
| + | |
| + | o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o |
| + | |
| + | FL. Note 6 |
| + | |
| + | o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o |
| + | |
| + | 2.1.6. Application of Higher Order Propositions to Quantification Theory |
| + | |
| + | Our excursion into the vastening landscape of higher order propositions |
| + | has finally come round to the stage where we can bring its returns to |
| + | bear on opening up new perspectives for quantificational logic. |
| + | |
| + | There is a question arising next that is still experimental in my mind. |
| + | Whether it makes much difference from a purely formal point of view is |
| + | not a question I can answer yet, but it does seem to aid the intuition |
| + | to invent a slightly different interpretation for the two-valued space |
| + | that we use as the target of our basic indicator functions. Therefore, |
| + | let us establish a type of "existence-valued" functions f : B^k -> %E%, |
| + | where %E% = {-e-, +e+} = {"empty", "exist"} is a couple of values that |
| + | we interpret as indicating whether of not anything exists in the cells |
| + | of the underlying universe of discourse, venn diagram, or other domain. |
| + | As usual, let us not be too strict about the coding of these functions, |
| + | reverting to binary codes whenever the interpretation is clear enough. |
| + | |
| + | With this interpretation in mind we note the following correspondences |
| + | between classical quantifications and higher order indicator functions: |
| + | |
| + | Table 16. Syllogistic Premisses as Higher Order Indicator Functions |
| + | o---o---------------------o-----------------o----------------------------o |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | A | Universal Affrmtve | All x is y | Indicator of < x (y)> = 0 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | E | Universal Negative | All x is (y) | Indicator of < x y > = 0 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | I | Particular Affrmtve | Some x is y | Indicator of < x y > = 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | O | Particular Negative | Some x is (y) | Indicator of < x (y)> = 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | o---o---------------------o-----------------o----------------------------o |
| + | |
| + | Tables 17 and 18 develop these ideas in greater detail. |
| + | |
| + | Table 17. Relation of Quantifiers to Higher Order Propositions |
| + | o------------o------------o-----------o-----------o-----------o----------o |
| + | | Mnemonic | Category | Classical | Alternate | Symmetric | Operator | |
| + | | | | Form | Form | Form | | |
| + | o============o============o===========o===========o===========o==========o |
| + | | E | Universal | All x | | No x | (L_11) | |
| + | | Exclusive | Negative | is (y) | | is y | | |
| + | o------------o------------o-----------o-----------o-----------o----------o |
| + | | A | Universal | All x | | No x | (L_10) | |
| + | | Absolute | Affrmtve | is y | | is (y) | | |
| + | o------------o------------o-----------o-----------o-----------o----------o |
| + | | | | All y | No y | No (x) | (L_01) | |
| + | | | | is x | is (x) | is y | | |
| + | o------------o------------o-----------o-----------o-----------o----------o |
| + | | | | All (y) | No (y) | No (x) | (L_00) | |
| + | | | | is x | is (x) | is (y) | | |
| + | o------------o------------o-----------o-----------o-----------o----------o |
| + | | | | Some (x) | | Some (x) | L_00 | |
| + | | | | is (y) | | is (y) | | |
| + | o------------o------------o-----------o-----------o-----------o----------o |
| + | | | | Some (x) | | Some (x) | L_01 | |
| + | | | | is y | | is y | | |
| + | o------------o------------o-----------o-----------o-----------o----------o |
| + | | O | Particular | Some x | | Some x | L_10 | |
| + | | Obtrusive | Negative | is (y) | | is (y) | | |
| + | o------------o------------o-----------o-----------o-----------o----------o |
| + | | I | Particular | Some x | | Some x | L_11 | |
| + | | Indefinite | Affrmtve | is y | | is y | | |
| + | o------------o------------o-----------o-----------o-----------o----------o |
| + | |
| + | Table 18. Simple Qualifiers of Propositions (n = 2) |
| + | o------o------o----------o-----o-----o-----o-----o-----o-----o-----o-----o |
| + | | | x | 1100 | f |(L11)|(L10)|(L01)|(L00)| L00 | L01 | L10 | L11 | |
| + | | | y | 1010 | |no x|no x|no ~x|no ~x|sm ~x|sm ~x|sm x|sm x| |
| + | | f \ | | |is y|is ~y|is y|is ~y|is ~y|is y|is ~y|is y| |
| + | o------o------o----------o-----o-----o-----o-----o-----o-----o-----o-----o |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_0 | 0000 | () | 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_1 | 0001 | (x)(y) | 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_2 | 0010 | (x) y | 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_3 | 0011 | (x) | 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_4 | 0100 | x (y) | 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_5 | 0101 | (y) | 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_6 | 0110 | (x, y) | 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_7 | 0111 | (x y) | 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_8 | 1000 | x y | 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_9 | 1001 | ((x, y)) | 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_10 | 1010 | y | 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_11 | 1011 | (x (y)) | 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_12 | 1100 | x | 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_13 | 1101 | ((x) y) | 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_14 | 1110 | ((x)(y)) | 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | | f_15 | 1111 | (()) | 1 1 1 1 | |
| + | | | | | | |
| + | o------o------o----------o-----o-----o-----o-----o-----o-----o-----o-----o |
| + | |
| + | o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o |
| + | |
| + | FL. Note 7 |
| + | |
| + | o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o |
| + | |
| + | |
| + | |
| + | o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o |
| + | |
| + | FL. Note 0 |
| + | |
| + | o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o |
| + | |
| + | To: NKS |
| + | |
| + | I will need to focus on the DATA thread while I have |
| + | the concentration to do so, but an exagoric inquiry |
| + | from a reader of that thread prompts me to revisit |
| + | for a moment a topic where I previously noticed |
| + | some fractal shades lurking about my tables. |
| + | I am reorganizing this material on a couple |
| + | of other discussion lists, starting here: |
| + | |
| + | FL. http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/thrd1.html#05480 |
| + | FL. http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2004-March/thread.html#1256 |
| + | |
| + | See especially FL Note 4, at either of these web loci: |
| + | |
| + | FL 4. http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg05483.html |
| + | FL 4. http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2004-March/001259.html |
| + | |
| + | o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o |
| + | |
| + | FL. Functional Logic |
| + | |
| + | Ontology List |
| + | |
| + | 01. http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg05480.html |
| + | 02. http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg05481.html |
| + | 03. http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg05482.html |
| + | 04. http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg05483.html |
| + | 05. http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg05484.html |
| + | 06. http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg05485.html |
| + | 07. |
| + | |
| + | Inquiry List |
| + | |
| + | 01. http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2004-March/001256.html |
| + | 02. http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2004-March/001257.html |
| + | 03. http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2004-March/001258.html |
| + | 04. http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2004-March/001259.html |
| + | 05. http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2004-March/001260.html |
| + | 06. http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2004-March/001261.html |
| + | 07. |
| + | |
| + | o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o |
| + | </pre> |