Jump to content

Tautological consequence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hanlon1755 (talk | contribs) at 21:23, 17 January 2012 (Added content). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In logic, a proposition q is a tautological consequence of a set of propositions p1, p2, ..., pn if and only if every row of the joint truth table that assigns T to all propositions p1, p2, ..., pn also assigns T to q. p1, p2, ..., pn are said to tautologically imply q. Tautological consequence is a type of logical consequence.[1] Not all logical consequences are tautological consequences.

Example

Consider the following argument:

a = "Socrates is a man."

b = "All men are mortal."

c = "Socrates is mortal."

ab

___________

c

The conclusion of this argument is a logical consequence of the premise because it is impossible for the premise to be true while the conclusion false. Now construct a joint truth table.

a b c ab c
T T T T T
T T F T F
T F T F T
T F F F F
F T T F T
F T F F F
F F T F T
F F F F F


Reviewing the truth table, it turns out the conclusion of the argument is not a tautological consequence of the premise. Not every row that assigns T to the premise also assigns T to the conclusion. In particular, it is the second row that assigns T to "ab," but does not assign T to c.

Denotation and properties

The double turnstile is used to denote that q is a tautological consequence of p as . q is a tautological consequence of p if and only if the material implication is a tautology.[2]

It follows from the definition that if a proposition p is a contradiction then p tautologically implies every proposition, because there is no truth valuation that causes p to be true and so the definition of tautological implication is trivially satisfied. Similarly, if p is a tautology then p is tautologically implied by every proposition.

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Barwise and Etchemendy 1999, p. 110
  2. ^ Kleene 1967, p. 27

References

  • Barwise, Jon, and John Etchemendy. Language, Proof and Logic. Stanford: CSLI (Center for the Study of Language and Information) Publications, 1999. Print.
  • Kleene, S. C. (1967) Mathematical Logic, reprinted 2002, Dover Publications, ISBN 0-486-42533-9.