A cube of opposition for predicate logic
The author clearly states the key intention of his article: ``to examine relational syllogistic construed as predicate logic by visualization in a cube of opposition (C.O). Moreover he adds: ``This is done by devising a cube for the considered predicate logical fragment in which the traditional square arises as a special case (p. 103). Let us recall a basic concept: the traditional square of opposition (S.O). Such a logical diagram originated with Aristotle and represents the logical theory of the four categorical forms, placed at the square's vertices: Every \(A\) is \(B\); No \(A\) is \(B\); Some \(A\) is \(B\); Some \(A\) is not \(B\). Contraries, subcontraries, subalterns and contradictories correspond to the edges and the diagonal. Nilsson envisages two quantifiers (``every and ``some), two monadic predicates \(C\) and \(D\), a binary predicate \(R\), and the negation sign. Then he defines 8 predicate logical assertoric closed sentences (every every; every some; some every; some some; each with optionally postfixed/prefixed negation sign). Inspired by the Aristotelian S.O, he devises a cube for the relational predicate logic (p. 105). If the relation \(R\) is ``equality, the front square of this cube becomes the traditional S.O; the rear square is defined by four ``unorthodox cases (p. 107). Besides the cube can be construed in Aristotelian modal logic with modalities of necessity and possibility (p. 108). Nilsson remarks that ``pairs of the sentence forms that are neither opposed by contradictories nor by contraries, nor connected by the directed, transitive subalterns are known as `disparatae'. These sentences form a tetrahedron embedded into the cube (p. 109). Then begins, so it seems to me, the most appealing part of this work (pp. 109--110). A brief remainder is in order: the Klein's 4-group (\(G\)) has two generators \(a\), \(b\) which are related according to \(a.a = b.b = 1\) and are commutative (\(a.b = b.a\)). G has four elements: \(I\), \(a\), \(b\), \(ab\) (\(I\) is the identity). The author points out that \(G\) is present at all corners of the cube. ``This becomes apparent by taking the devised three surface-diagonal forms of opposition constituted by the two forms of negation \(\operatorname{neg} S\) (sentential negation) and \(\operatorname{neg} R\) (relational negation) and \(\mathrm{inv Q}\) (the quantifier inversion), supplemented with the identity operation (p. 109). Hence \(G = (I, \mathrm{neg S}, \operatorname{neg} R, \operatorname{inv} Q)\). Note that \((\operatorname{neg} S\, \operatorname{neg} S = (\operatorname{neg} R\, \operatorname{neg} R) = (\operatorname{inv} Q\, \operatorname{inv} Q) = I\) and \((\operatorname{neg} S\, \operatorname{neg} R = \operatorname{inv} Q)\). At once a question arises: may a logical meaning be associated with a representation of \(G\)? Moreover: Is this very question meaningful? At the end of the paper Nilsson writes that ``from an aesthetic point of view the C.O suffers from an unbalance, in that all negation signs appears at the right. This unbalance is overcome in a four-dimensional version of the three dimensional cube (p. 110, fig. 8). Such symmetry considerations are quite interesting, but I am not sure that I get the point: in the resulting tesseract negation signs appear at all the ``outer cube vertices and the lack of symmetry of the original ``inner cube remains. Perhaps the desired symmetry is hidden inside the brief word ``all.
- Leibniz's logic and the ``cube of opposition
- Structures of opposition induced by relations. The Boolean and the gradual cases
- Graded Cube of Opposition with Intermediate Quantifiers in Fuzzy Natural Logic
- Generalization and composition of modal squares of oppositions
- Gradual structures of oppositions
- A Machine-Oriented Logic Based on the Resolution Principle
- Aristotle's modal syllogistic
- Diagrammatic Reasoning with Classes and Relationships
- From Blanché's hexagonal organization of concepts to formal concept analysis and possibility theory
- Geometric and cognitive differences between logical diagrams for the Boolean algebra \(\mathbb {B}_{4}\)
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3666758 (Why is no real title available?)
- John Buridan's theory of consequence and his octagons of opposition
- Leibniz's logic and the ``cube of opposition
- Syllogistic logics with verbs
- The medieval octagon of opposition for sentences with quantified predicates
- The square of opposition: a cornerstone of thought
- Things that are right with the traditional square of opposition
- Treatise on consequences. Translated from the French/Latin and with an introduction by Stephen Read. With an editorial introduction by Hubert Hubien
- On the 3D visualisation of logical relations
- Logic and colour
- Towards a tesseract of Sugeno integrals
- The Cretan square
- Ploucquet's ``refutation of the traditional square of opposition
- Logic on the n-cube
- The medieval octagon of opposition for sentences with quantified predicates
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3885855 (Why is no real title available?)
- Cubes and hypercubes of opposition, with ethical ruminations on inviolability
- Organizing families of aggregation operators into a cube of opposition
- The cube generalizing Aristotle's square in logic of determination of objects (LDO)
- Hypercubes of duality
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1418442 (Why is no real title available?)
- Modern versus classical structures of opposition: a discussion
- Varieties of cubes of opposition
This page was built for publication: A cube of opposition for predicate logic
Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q2307718)
