Logic: Extension Theorem Explained

  • Thread starter Thread starter dobry_den
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Extension Theorem
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the Extension Theorem in semantic entailment as presented in Wilfrid Hodges's book. A participant expresses confusion about the theorem's validity when considering a set X with formulas A and A->B, and a set Y containing the negation of B. They conclude that the combined set X,Y is semantically inconsistent, leading to the belief that the theorem fails. However, it is clarified that while introducing set Y does not lose semantic validity, it may compromise the soundness of the argument. The conversation emphasizes the importance of soundness in evaluating logical arguments.
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.
 
Back
Top