Logic: Extension Theorem Explained

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter dobry_den
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Extension Theorem
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Extension Theorem as presented in Wilfrid Hodges's book on logic, specifically focusing on the properties of semantic entailment. Participants explore the implications of adding formulae to a set and the conditions under which semantic consistency is maintained or lost.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the validity of the Extension Theorem by presenting a scenario where set X contains formulae A and A->B, and set Y contains the negation of B, suggesting that this leads to semantic inconsistency.
  • Another participant asks for clarification on the implications of the inconsistency, prompting further elaboration on the relationship between the sets and their entailments.
  • A participant proposes that if X implies a formula psi, the inconsistency of the combined set X,Y means it cannot imply psi, indicating a nuanced understanding of entailment.
  • One participant attempts to clarify the meaning of X |= a, stating that it indicates the absence of a structure where all formulae of X are true while a is false, suggesting a deeper grasp of the concept.
  • Another participant agrees with the previous explanation and asserts that if {X, Y} is inconsistent, it follows that X,Y |= P for any formula P, indicating a potential misunderstanding in earlier claims.
  • A participant expresses gratitude for the clarification and acknowledges a shift in understanding regarding their earlier mistake.
  • Another participant reiterates the initial concern about the Extension Theorem, noting that while the property of semantic validity may not be lost by introducing set Y, the property of soundness could be compromised, emphasizing the importance of soundness in arguments.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a mix of agreement and disagreement, with some clarifying and refining earlier claims while others maintain differing views on the implications of the Extension Theorem and the conditions of semantic entailment.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in understanding the implications of semantic consistency and soundness, as well as the dependence on specific definitions and interpretations of the theorem. Some mathematical steps and assumptions remain unresolved.

dobry_den
Messages
113
Reaction score
0
Hi! I'm just reading Wilfrid Hodges's book Logic, chapter 24. Properties of Semantic Entailment. I'm a bit puzzled by the following paragraphs concerning the Extension Theorem:

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j315/dobry_den/extension_theorem.jpg

What if X contains formulae A, A->B and Y contains just B' (negation of B). Then the resulting set X,Y is semantically inconsistent and therefore the theorem isn't true.

I'm probably wrong, but I can't see where...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
dobry_den said:
Then the resulting set X,Y is semantically inconsistent and therefore the theorem isn't true.
Elaborate upon that "therefore".
 
Well, assume that the first part of the if-clause is true. X implies psi. But then the second part is somewhat tricky - X,Y is semantically inconsistent, so it cannot imply psi. That's what I mean.
 
I'm on the right track now, I think. X |= a (X is a set of formulae, a is a formula) means that there's no structure in which a and all the formulae of X are defined, and all the formulae of X are true while a is false. In the example above, this is satisfied, since there's no structure in which all the formulae of X are true... Is this explanation correct?
 
dobry_den said:
I'm on the right track now, I think. X |= a (X is a set of formulae, a is a formula) means that there's no structure in which a and all the formulae of X are defined, and all the formulae of X are true while a is false.
That is correct.

So I think you see, or are at least close to seeing, why you were wrong before. If {X, Y} is inconsistent, then it is clear that X,Y|=P, no matter what P is.
 
thank you.. when i began to elaborate on that "therefore", i was enlighted and saw my mistake:)
 
dobry_den said:
Hi! I'm just reading Wilfrid Hodges's book Logic, chapter 24. Properties of Semantic Entailment. I'm a bit puzzled by the following paragraphs concerning the Extension Theorem:

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j315/dobry_den/extension_theorem.jpg

What if X contains formulae A, A->B and Y contains just B' (negation of B). Then the resulting set X,Y is semantically inconsistent and therefore the theorem isn't true.

I'm probably wrong, but I can't see where...

The property of semantic validity isn't lost by introducing the set Y.
But the property of soundness will, in general, be lost (assuming the argument was
sound to begin with). That's important, because (in the final analysis) the question
of acceptance is usually couched in terms of soundness of argument.

Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the book. Maybe the author addresses the issue later.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K