Modalities in the Survey system of strict implication

1939 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 137-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Tuthill Parry
Keyword(s):  
Finite Number ◽  
Symbolic Logic ◽  
Strict Implication ◽  
Survey System ◽  
Image Position

Professor C. I. Lewis, in Lewis and Langford's Symbolic logic, designates the system (S2) determined by the postulates used in Chapter VI—namely, 11.1–7 (B1–7) andas the system of strict implication. For certain reasons, he prefers it to either the earlier system (S3) determined by the stronger set of postulates of his Survey of symbolic logic, as emended, namely, A1–7 andor the system (S1) determined by the weaker set of postulates B1–7 or A1–7.But Lewis and others, following O. Becker, have also given consideration to systems which contain some additional principle effecting the reduction of complex modalities to simpler ones. Notable are the system (S4) determined by B1–7 pluswhich includes (is stronger than) S3; and the system (S5) determined by B1–7 pluswhich includes S4.It seems worth while to investigate further the system of the Survey (emended), S3, which is intermediate between S2 and S4. This is the purpose of the present paper. We first prove some additional theorems in S2 and S3. These enable us to reduce all the complex modalities in S3 to a finite number, viz. 42; and it is shown that no further reduction is possible. Finally, several systems which include S3 are considered.

On finite and infinite modal systems

1938 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. West Churchman
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
Symbolic Logic ◽  
Modal Operator ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Modal Systems ◽  
Complex Modal

In Oskar Becker's Zur Logik der Modalitäten four systems of modal logic are considered. Two of these are mentioned in Appendix II of Lewis and Langford's Symbolic logic. The first system is based on A1–8 plus the postulate,From A7: ∼◊p⊰∼p we can prove the converse of C11 by writing ∼◊p for p, and hence deriveThe addition of this postulate to A1–8, as Becker points out, allows us to “reduce” all complex modal functions to six, and these six are precisely those which Lewis mentions in his postulates and theorems: p, ∼p, ◊p, ∼◊p, ∼◊∼p, and ◊∼p This reduction is accomplished by showingwhere ◊n means that the modal operator ◊ is repeated n times; e.g., ◊3p = ◊◊◊p. Then it is shown thatBy means of (1), (2), and (3) any complex modal function whatsoever may be reduced to one of the six “simple” modals mentioned above.It might be asked whether this reduction could be carried out still further, i.e., whether two of the six “irreducible” modals could not be equated. But such a reduction would have to be based on the fact that ◊p = p which is inconsistent with the set B1–9 of Lewis and Langford's Symbolic logic and independent of the set A1–8. Hence for neither set would such a reduction be possible.

On the logic of incomplete answers

1965 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. J. Cresswell
Keyword(s):  
Formal Analysis ◽  
Complete List ◽  
Strict Implication ◽  
Complete Answer ◽  
Questions And Answers ◽  
Image Position

I have argued in [1] that a concept bearing some resemblance to ‘p is the answer to d’ (p a proposition and d a question) can be defined wherever d has the form,‘For which a's is it the case that A (a)?’ (Qa)A(a)where a is a variable and A a wff containing a. To say that p is the true and complete answer to (Qa)A(a) is expressed as saying that p is logically equivalent to the true conjunction of A(a) or ~A(a) for each a. It is defined as;Such a concept of answer is like Belnap's [2] direct true answer to a complete list question, or like Harrah's use [3] (p. 43) of the notion of a state description. The main difference between my approach and that of Belnap and Harrah is that while they are concerned to develop a formal metalanguage for discussion of questions and answers I am concerned to express, as far as possible in existing systems, certain interrogative statements; in particular statements of the form ‘— is the (an) answer to —’.While the account in [1] does give a formal analysis of one ‘answer’ concept there are respects in which it is inadequate.1. Since it uses entailment (or strict implication) to define the relation between p the answer and d the question we can shew that if p is the answer to d and q is logically equivalent to p then q is the answer to d.

Proof that there are infinitely many modalities in Lewis's system S2

1940 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 110-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. C. C. McKinsey
Keyword(s):  
Finite Number ◽  
Infinite Matrix ◽  
Image Position

In this note I show, by means of an infinite matrix M, that the number of irreducible modalities in Lewis's system S2 is infinite. The result is of some interest in view of the fact that Parry has recently shown that there are but a finite number of modalities in the system S2 (which is the next stronger system than S2 discussed by Lewis).I begin by introducing a function θ which is defined over the class of sets of signed integers, and which assumes sets of signed integers as values. If A is any set of signed integers, then θ(A) is the set of all signed integers whose immediate predecessors are in A; i.e., , so that n ϵ θ(A) is true if and only if n − 1 ϵ A is true.Thus, for example, θ({−10, −1, 0, 3, 14}) = {−9, 0, 1, 4, 15}. In particular we notice that θ(V) = V and θ(Λ) = Λ, where V is the set of all signed integers, and Λ is the empty set of signed integers.It is clear that, if A and B are sets of signed integers, then θ(A+B) = θ(A)+θ(B).It is also easily proved that, for any set A of signed integers we have . For, if n is any signed integer, then

Permutation endomorphisms and refinement of a theorem of Birkhoff

1960 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. 322-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. K. Farahat ◽  
L. Mirsky
Keyword(s):  
Abelian Group ◽  
Finite Number ◽  
Linear Combination ◽  
Finite Linear Combination ◽  
Usual Manner ◽  
Restricted Permutation ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Ring Of Endomorphisms ◽  
Finite Linear

Let be a free additive abelian group, and let be a basis of , so that every element of can be expressed in a unique way as a (finite) linear combination with integral coefficients of elements of . We shall be concerned with the ring of endomorphisms of , the sum and product of the endomorphisms φ, χ being defined, in the usual manner, by the equationsA permutation of a set will be called restricted if it moves only a finite number of elements. We call an endomorphism of a permutation endomorphism if it induces a restricted permutation of the basis .

The behaviour of strategy-frequencies in Parker's model

1980 ◽  
Vol 12 (01) ◽  
pp. 5-7
Author(s):  
D. Gardiner
Keyword(s):  
Finite Number ◽  
Evolutionarily Stable Strategy ◽  
Pure Strategy ◽  
Payoff Matrix ◽  
Stable Strategy ◽  
Expected Payoff ◽  
Pure Strategies ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Evolutionarily Stable

Parker's model (or the Scotch Auction) for a contest between two competitors has been studied by Rose (1978). He considers a form of the model in which every pure strategy is playable, and shows that there is no evolutionarily stable strategy (ess). In this paper, in order to discover more about the behaviour of strategies under the model, we shall assume that there are only a finite number of playable pure strategies I 1, I 2, ···, I n where I j is the strategy ‘play value m j ′ and m 1 < m 2 < ··· < m n . The payoff matrix A for the contest is then given by where V is the reward for winning the contest, C is a constant added to ensure that each entry in A is non-negative (see Bishop and Cannings (1978)), and E[I i , I j ] is the expected payoff for playing I i against I j . We also assume that A is regular (Taylor and Jonker (1978)) i.e. that all its rows are independent.

Distinct Values of a Polynomial in Subsets of a Finite Field

1969 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 1483-1488
Author(s):  
Kenneth S. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Positive Integer ◽  
Finite Field ◽  
Finite Number ◽  
Image Position

If A is a set with only a finite number of elements, we write |A| for the number of elements in A. Let p be a large prime and let m be a positive integer fixed independently of p. We write [pm] for the finite field with pm elements and [pm]′ for [pm] – {0}. We consider in this paper only subsets H of [pm] for which |H| = h satisfies1.1If f(x) ∈ [pm, x] we let N(f; H) denote the number of distinct values of y in H for which at least one of the roots of f(x) = y is in [pm]. We write d(d ≥ 1) for the degree of f and suppose throughout that d is fixed and that p ≧ p0(d), for some prime p0, depending only on d, which is greater than d.

The arithmetic of certain semigroups of positive operators

1968 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 161-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Lamperti
Keyword(s):  
Finite Number ◽  
Positive Definite ◽  
Positive Operators ◽  
Linear Operators ◽  
Real Numbers ◽  
Ultraspherical Polynomials ◽  
Real Polynomials ◽  
Fixed Parameter ◽  
Summation Sign ◽  
Image Position

Some time ago, S. Bochner gave an interesting analysis of certain positive operators which are associated with the ultraspherical polynomials (1,2). Let {Pn(x)} denote these polynomials, which are orthogonal on [ − 1, 1 ] with respect to the measureand which are normalized by settigng Pn(1) = 1. (The fixed parameter γ will not be explicitly shown.) A sequence t = {tn} of real numbers is said to be ‘positive definite’, which we will indicate by writing , provided thatHere the coefficients an are real, and the prime on the summation sign means that only a finite number of terms are different from 0. This condition can be rephrased by considering the set of linear operators on the space of real polynomials which have diagonal matrices with respect to the basis {Pn(x)}, and noting that

A definition of existence in terms of abstraction and disjunction

1957 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 343-344
Author(s):  
Frederic B. Fitch
Keyword(s):  
Finite Number ◽  
Infinite Number ◽  
Recursive Relation ◽  
Basic Logic ◽  
Class A ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Image Position

Greater economy can be effected in the primitive rules for the system K of basic logic by defining the existence operator ‘E’ in terms of two-place abstraction and the disjunction operator ‘V’. This amounts to defining ‘E’ in terms of ‘ε’, ‘έ’, ‘o, ‘ό’, ‘W’ and ‘V’, since the first five of these six operators are used for defining two-place abstraction.We assume that the class Y of atomic U-expressions has only a single member ‘σ’. Similar methods can be used if Y had some other finite number of members, or even an infinite number of members provided that they are ordered into a sequence by a recursive relation represented in K. In order to define ‘E’ we begin by defining an operator ‘D’ such thatHere ‘a’ may be thought of as an existence operator that provides existence quantification over some finite class of entities denoted by a class A of U-expressions. In other words, suppose that ‘a’ is such that ‘ab’ is in K if and only if, for some ‘e’ in A, ‘be’ is in K. Then ‘Dab’ is in K if and only if, for some ‘e and ‘f’ in A, ‘be’ or ‘b(ef)’ is in K; and ‘a’, ‘Da’, ‘D(Da)’, and so on, can be regarded as existence operators that provide for existence quantification over successively wider and wider finite classes. In particular, if ‘a’ is ‘εσ’, then A would be the class Y having ‘σ’ as its only member, and we can define the unrestricted existence operator ‘E’ in such a way that ‘Eb’ is in K if and only if some one of ‘εσb’, ‘D(εσ)b’, ‘D(D(εσ))b’, and so on, is in K.

The No-Three-In-Line Problem

1968 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 527-531 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard K. Guy ◽  
Patrick A. Kelly
Keyword(s):  
Finite Number ◽  
The Other ◽  
Probabilistic Argument ◽  
Number Of Solutions ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Image Position

Let Sn be the set of n2 points with integer coordinates n (x, y), 1 ≤ x, y <n. Let fn be the maximum cardinal of a subset T of Sn such that no three points of T are collinear. Clearly fn < 2n.For 2 ≤ n ≤ 10 it is known ([2], [3] for n = 8, [ 1] for n = 10, also [4], [6]) that fn = 2n, and that this bound is attained in 1, 1, 4, 5, 11, 22, 57, 51 and 156 distinct configurations for these nine values of n. On the other hand, P. Erdös [7] has pointed out that if n is prime, fn ≥ n, since the n points (x, x2) reduced modulo n have no three collinear. We give a probabilistic argument to support the conjecture that there is only a finite number of solutions to the no-three-in-line problem. More specifically, we conjecture that

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document