126 lines
3.5 KiB
Markdown
126 lines
3.5 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
tags:
|
|
- propositional-logic
|
|
- logic
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Logical truth and falsity
|
|
|
|
We say of certain propositions that they are logically true or logically false.
|
|
|
|
## Logical falsity
|
|
|
|
### Informal definition
|
|
|
|
A proposition is logically false if and only if **it is not possible for the
|
|
proposition to be true**. The proposition itself cannot be consistently
|
|
asserted.
|
|
|
|
**Demonstration**
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
There is a country that is not a country.
|
|
Apples are fruits and apples are not fruits
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Neither proposition can be true because the truth of the first clause is
|
|
contradicted by the second. By the principle of
|
|
[consistency](Logical_consistency.md), it is not
|
|
possible for both clauses to be true at once therefore the proposition, overall
|
|
has the truth value of false.
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
It is raining and it is not raining.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Formal definition
|
|
|
|
> A proposition P is truth-functionally false if and only if P is false on every
|
|
> truth-value assignment
|
|
|
|
### Formal expression
|
|
|
|
$$ P \land \lnot P $$
|
|
|
|
### Truth-table
|
|
|
|
| $P$ | $P \land \lnot P$ |
|
|
| --- | ----------------- |
|
|
| T | F |
|
|
| T | F |
|
|
|
|
## Logical truth
|
|
|
|
### Informal definition
|
|
|
|
A proposition is logically true if and only if it is not possible for the
|
|
proposition to be false. The proposition itself cannot be consistently denied.
|
|
|
|
**Demonstration**
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
A rose is a rose.
|
|
Today is Tuesday unless today is not Tuesday.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Regardless of any facts obtaining in the world, these propositions cannot be
|
|
false.should be avoided in arguments, they 'prove' everything whi
|
|
|
|
As with logically false propositions, logical truth can also apply to compound
|
|
propositions:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
A rose is a rose and a shoe is a shoe
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Formal definition
|
|
|
|
> A proposition P is truth-functionally true if and only if P is true on every
|
|
> truth-value assignment
|
|
|
|
$$ P \lor \lnot P$$
|
|
|
|
### Truth-table
|
|
|
|
| $P$ | $P \lor \lnot P$ |
|
|
| --- | ---------------- |
|
|
| T | T |
|
|
| F | T |
|
|
|
|
### Consequences
|
|
|
|
The existence of logically false and logically true propositions affects the
|
|
validity and soundness of arguments in which they are used. These are
|
|
technicalities that have philosophically interesting consequences.
|
|
|
|
- If an argument contains premises which are logically false than this argument
|
|
will perforce be valid. This is because one cannot consistently assert the
|
|
premises and deny the conclusion which is the definition of
|
|
[validity](Validity_and_entailment.md). However the
|
|
_reason_ why one cannot consistently assert the premises and deny the
|
|
conclusions is because one cannot consistently assert the premises - they
|
|
conflict with each other. Furthermore as the argument contains false premises,
|
|
it cannot be sound.
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
(P1) Russia is a country.
|
|
(P2) Russia is not a country
|
|
(P3) All countries have languages.
|
|
____________________________________________
|
|
(C) Russian is a language.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
- Any argument with a logically true conclusion is valid. Because the conclusion
|
|
cannot be consistently denied it follows that we cannot consistently assert
|
|
the premises _and_ deny the conclusion. Whether or not the argument is sound
|
|
remains an open question however. If the premises happen to be true then the
|
|
argument will be sound on the strength of the conclusion being logically true
|
|
but if the premises are false it will be unsound regardless of the truth of
|
|
the conclusion.
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
(P1) Horses have legs.
|
|
(P2) Animals with legs can move.
|
|
____________________________________________
|
|
(C) A horse is a horse
|
|
```
|