Precedence of logical operators

  • Thread starter Thread starter 0131313131313
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operators
AI Thread Summary
The precedence of logical operators is primarily determined by convention, though it can be obscured by non-standard notation. Parentheses can clarify the order of operations when needed, and the associative or commutative properties of operators can influence evaluation precedence. Research indicates that while conventions exist, there is a lack of consensus on the reasoning behind them, with some suggesting an ordering based on intellectual complexity. The discussion also highlights the existence of 16 logical operators and the need for a systematic approach to prioritizing them. Two proposed projects include establishing operator prioritization based on complexity and comparing computational results from different prioritization methods.
0131313131313
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
based on what is it concluded that this is operation precedes that operation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Convention mostly, but it may not always be obvious what those are, especially in texts that are liberal in use of non-standard notation. Even so, most notations allow use parenthesis of some kind to specify the precise order, if needed. Note that evaluation precedence also often are "affected" if operators are associative or commutative (like, (a+b)+c is same as a+(b+c) so you do not need a precedence rule in this case).
 
Thank you for the answer.
 
In 1997 I did considerable research on the reasoning behind the precedence of logical operators in a parenthesis-free notation, asking why certain ones took priority. Obviously, there has to be an agreement for the convention; otherwise, there would be no consistent computations. Yet, I really could not find anyone with a reason beyond the ordering being a convention. However, if one looks again at people like Jean Piaget, s/he will find that there can be an ordering based on intellectual complexity, let's say the "vee" operator being more complicated than the material implication one. Further, one must consider the Table of Functional Completeness, where there are, in reality 16 operators, which, also - by the way - are results of computations. How are ALL operators prioritized? Such an exercise does not readily come to light because 1) most problems have the variables and operators already grouped, and 2) most persons only use the standard four or those plus ones like nand and xor.

Two projects that would intrigue me are:

A) Establish a prioritization of operators based on intellectual complexity, such as alluded to by Piaget in his "Logic and Psychology"
B) Do a comparison of the computations resulting from different prioritization, including a comparison from the results in the above proposal and the standard rendition.

Incidentally, the question may be asked of mathematical operators, as well.

My paper is at: http://home.earthlink.net/~jhorne18 , "Logic as the language of innate order...".
 
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...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
77
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top