Mathematical Logic by Cori and Lascar : Possible typo?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on a potential typo in Lemma 1.6 of the textbook "Mathematical Logic: Propositional calculus, Boolean Algebras, predicate calculus" by Rene Cori and Daniel Lascar. The original statement suggests that if \mathcal{Y}(W) and \mathcal{Y}(V) are true, then \mathcal{Y}(F) expressions are also true, which the user argues should reference W and V instead of F and G, with added parentheses for clarity. The user also notes that the book states extra parentheses can be omitted, leading to confusion regarding their necessity in this context.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of propositional logic and Boolean algebra
  • Familiarity with mathematical notation, particularly in logic
  • Knowledge of the textbook "Mathematical Logic" by Cori and Lascar
  • Basic concepts of logical formulas and their representations
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the definitions of propositional formulas in "Mathematical Logic" by Cori and Lascar
  • Examine the implications of parentheses in logical expressions
  • Explore the concept of logical equivalence and its notation
  • Investigate common typographical errors in mathematical texts
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematical logic, educators teaching propositional calculus, and anyone analyzing logical expressions in academic texts.

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: 629
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:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K