Mathematical Logic by Cori and Lascar : Possible typo?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a potential typo in Lemma 1.6 of "Mathematical Logic" by Cori and Lascar, where the notation appears to incorrectly use 'F' and 'G' instead of 'W' and 'V'. The original statement suggests that if certain conditions are true, then various logical expressions are also true, but the poster argues that the expressions should reference 'W' and 'V' for clarity. There is a debate about the necessity of extra parentheses in the expressions, with the book indicating that they can be omitted when not needed. Ultimately, the poster concludes that while the notation may seem confusing, the omission of extra parentheses aligns with the book's definitions. The discussion highlights the importance of precise notation in mathematical logic.
omoplata
Messages
327
Reaction score
2
I have a question on the textbook "Mathematical Logic: Propositional calculus, Boolean Algebras, predicate calculus" by Rene Cori and Daniel Lascar.

This is not about an exercise but about the conceptual content of the book. So I did not post this in the "Coursework and Homework questions" forum. I hope I'm not breaking the rules.

On Lemma 1.6 on http://books.google.com/books?id=JB...tical logic cori&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q&f=false" there is a part that says,
"...if \mathcal{Y}(W) and \mathcal{Y}(V) are true, then \mathcal{Y}(\neg F), \mathcal{Y}(F \wedge G), \mathcal{Y}(F \vee G), \mathcal{Y}(F \Rightarrow G), \mathcal{Y}(F \Leftrightarrow G) are also true.".

I think there is a typo there and it should be,
"...if \mathcal{Y}(W) and \mathcal{Y}(V) are true, then \mathcal{Y}(\neg W), \mathcal{Y}((W \wedge V)), \mathcal{Y}((W \vee V)), \mathcal{Y}((W \Rightarrow V)), \mathcal{Y}((W \Leftrightarrow V)) are also true.",
WITH THE ADDITION OF THE EXTRA PARENTHESES.

I've attached a picture from the next page of the rest of the proof, because that might help, and the google book omits that page.

Propositional Formulas are defined in Definition 1.2 on http://books.google.com/books?id=JB...atical logic cori&pg=PA9#v=onepage&q&f=false".

Is this a typo is there something I don't understand?
 

Attachments

  • typo.jpeg
    typo.jpeg
    20.6 KB · Views: 621
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think the use of 'F' and 'G' instead of "W" and "V" is a typo. I don't see the need for extra parentheses. Does the book distinguish between Y(X) and Y((X)) ?
 
Well, I didn't see it at first, but the book says on http://books.google.com/books?id=JB...tical logic cori&pg=PA10#v=onepage&q&f=false" that extra parentheses can be omitted.

The extra parentheses are applied only when there is a binary connective between two symbols. Like \mathcal{Y}((W \wedge V)). The problem is according to the definition of a formula in http://books.google.com/books?id=JB...atical logic cori&pg=PA9#v=onepage&q&f=false", F \wedge G is not a formula, but (F \wedge G) is (F and G are also formulas here). So the property \mathcal{Y} applied to that formula is \mathcal{Y}((F \wedge G)).

But, since they say that extra parentheses can be omitted, I guess the extra parentheses are not needed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...
Back
Top