If turtles see everything, and nothing seen can see, does it follow that non-turtles exist?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
Consider the following argument:
Turtles see everything. Seeing is asymmetric (for the sake of argument). Therefore, something is not a turtle.
I have problems symbolizing these statements.
My attempt:
Predicates:
Tx: x is a turtle
Sxy: x sees y
Premises:
1) (∃xTx) Λ ∀x∀y(Tx → Sxy)
2) ∀x∀y (Sxy → ¬Syx)
Using this set-up I cannot deduce the conclusion, which is ∃x¬Tx.
I feel like my set-up is wrong. I think I should be able to complete the proof after correctly symbolizing the statements. Please let me know how to proceed.
logic existence deduction
add a comment |
Consider the following argument:
Turtles see everything. Seeing is asymmetric (for the sake of argument). Therefore, something is not a turtle.
I have problems symbolizing these statements.
My attempt:
Predicates:
Tx: x is a turtle
Sxy: x sees y
Premises:
1) (∃xTx) Λ ∀x∀y(Tx → Sxy)
2) ∀x∀y (Sxy → ¬Syx)
Using this set-up I cannot deduce the conclusion, which is ∃x¬Tx.
I feel like my set-up is wrong. I think I should be able to complete the proof after correctly symbolizing the statements. Please let me know how to proceed.
logic existence deduction
1
Isn't ths a take on Rissell's paradox?
– Richard
Mar 2 at 11:30
I think in the second premise, you're taking the converse instead of the contrapositive. Asymmetric doesn't mean that the reverse is always untrue.
– luser droog
Mar 2 at 21:28
add a comment |
Consider the following argument:
Turtles see everything. Seeing is asymmetric (for the sake of argument). Therefore, something is not a turtle.
I have problems symbolizing these statements.
My attempt:
Predicates:
Tx: x is a turtle
Sxy: x sees y
Premises:
1) (∃xTx) Λ ∀x∀y(Tx → Sxy)
2) ∀x∀y (Sxy → ¬Syx)
Using this set-up I cannot deduce the conclusion, which is ∃x¬Tx.
I feel like my set-up is wrong. I think I should be able to complete the proof after correctly symbolizing the statements. Please let me know how to proceed.
logic existence deduction
Consider the following argument:
Turtles see everything. Seeing is asymmetric (for the sake of argument). Therefore, something is not a turtle.
I have problems symbolizing these statements.
My attempt:
Predicates:
Tx: x is a turtle
Sxy: x sees y
Premises:
1) (∃xTx) Λ ∀x∀y(Tx → Sxy)
2) ∀x∀y (Sxy → ¬Syx)
Using this set-up I cannot deduce the conclusion, which is ∃x¬Tx.
I feel like my set-up is wrong. I think I should be able to complete the proof after correctly symbolizing the statements. Please let me know how to proceed.
logic existence deduction
logic existence deduction
edited Mar 2 at 7:26
Conifold
36.7k257146
36.7k257146
asked Mar 2 at 6:29
RobRob
1433
1433
1
Isn't ths a take on Rissell's paradox?
– Richard
Mar 2 at 11:30
I think in the second premise, you're taking the converse instead of the contrapositive. Asymmetric doesn't mean that the reverse is always untrue.
– luser droog
Mar 2 at 21:28
add a comment |
1
Isn't ths a take on Rissell's paradox?
– Richard
Mar 2 at 11:30
I think in the second premise, you're taking the converse instead of the contrapositive. Asymmetric doesn't mean that the reverse is always untrue.
– luser droog
Mar 2 at 21:28
1
1
Isn't ths a take on Rissell's paradox?
– Richard
Mar 2 at 11:30
Isn't ths a take on Rissell's paradox?
– Richard
Mar 2 at 11:30
I think in the second premise, you're taking the converse instead of the contrapositive. Asymmetric doesn't mean that the reverse is always untrue.
– luser droog
Mar 2 at 21:28
I think in the second premise, you're taking the converse instead of the contrapositive. Asymmetric doesn't mean that the reverse is always untrue.
– luser droog
Mar 2 at 21:28
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
First, your premises are inconsistent: your second premise implies that turtles do not see other turtles, or themselves, yet, according to the first premise, they see everything. So, taking y=x, we can deduce both ∀xSxx and ∀x¬Sxx. After that you can deduce whatever you want directly using the law of explosion, contradiction implies anything.
If you fix this, e.g. by specifying that turtles see everything but turtles, your desired conclusion will not be deducible. This is because in the standard predicate calculus the universal quantifier does not have what is called existential import. In other words, ∀yP(y) → ∃yP(y) is generally false. So ∀x∀y(Tx → Sxy) may hold even if there is no y for x to see. It is interpreted conditionally: if there was a non-turtle y then any turtle x would see it. Hence, your modified premises will hold even in a world of turtles only. Just as you specified that your world is not empty, with ∃xTx, you'll have to specify explicitly that it is not devoid of non-turtles, with ∃x¬Tx. Or, you can add existential import as a separate axiom, and apply it to P(y)=∀x¬Syx. Then ∃y∀x¬Syx, together with the first premise, will give you ∃y¬Ty.
I think the premises are consistent, but imply that there are no turtles
– rtpax
Mar 4 at 21:45
1
@rtpax The first premise specifies that there are turtles.
– Conifold
Mar 4 at 21:46
1
missed that, you are correct
– rtpax
Mar 4 at 21:46
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "265"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f60852%2fif-turtles-see-everything-and-nothing-seen-can-see-does-it-follow-that-non-tur%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
First, your premises are inconsistent: your second premise implies that turtles do not see other turtles, or themselves, yet, according to the first premise, they see everything. So, taking y=x, we can deduce both ∀xSxx and ∀x¬Sxx. After that you can deduce whatever you want directly using the law of explosion, contradiction implies anything.
If you fix this, e.g. by specifying that turtles see everything but turtles, your desired conclusion will not be deducible. This is because in the standard predicate calculus the universal quantifier does not have what is called existential import. In other words, ∀yP(y) → ∃yP(y) is generally false. So ∀x∀y(Tx → Sxy) may hold even if there is no y for x to see. It is interpreted conditionally: if there was a non-turtle y then any turtle x would see it. Hence, your modified premises will hold even in a world of turtles only. Just as you specified that your world is not empty, with ∃xTx, you'll have to specify explicitly that it is not devoid of non-turtles, with ∃x¬Tx. Or, you can add existential import as a separate axiom, and apply it to P(y)=∀x¬Syx. Then ∃y∀x¬Syx, together with the first premise, will give you ∃y¬Ty.
I think the premises are consistent, but imply that there are no turtles
– rtpax
Mar 4 at 21:45
1
@rtpax The first premise specifies that there are turtles.
– Conifold
Mar 4 at 21:46
1
missed that, you are correct
– rtpax
Mar 4 at 21:46
add a comment |
First, your premises are inconsistent: your second premise implies that turtles do not see other turtles, or themselves, yet, according to the first premise, they see everything. So, taking y=x, we can deduce both ∀xSxx and ∀x¬Sxx. After that you can deduce whatever you want directly using the law of explosion, contradiction implies anything.
If you fix this, e.g. by specifying that turtles see everything but turtles, your desired conclusion will not be deducible. This is because in the standard predicate calculus the universal quantifier does not have what is called existential import. In other words, ∀yP(y) → ∃yP(y) is generally false. So ∀x∀y(Tx → Sxy) may hold even if there is no y for x to see. It is interpreted conditionally: if there was a non-turtle y then any turtle x would see it. Hence, your modified premises will hold even in a world of turtles only. Just as you specified that your world is not empty, with ∃xTx, you'll have to specify explicitly that it is not devoid of non-turtles, with ∃x¬Tx. Or, you can add existential import as a separate axiom, and apply it to P(y)=∀x¬Syx. Then ∃y∀x¬Syx, together with the first premise, will give you ∃y¬Ty.
I think the premises are consistent, but imply that there are no turtles
– rtpax
Mar 4 at 21:45
1
@rtpax The first premise specifies that there are turtles.
– Conifold
Mar 4 at 21:46
1
missed that, you are correct
– rtpax
Mar 4 at 21:46
add a comment |
First, your premises are inconsistent: your second premise implies that turtles do not see other turtles, or themselves, yet, according to the first premise, they see everything. So, taking y=x, we can deduce both ∀xSxx and ∀x¬Sxx. After that you can deduce whatever you want directly using the law of explosion, contradiction implies anything.
If you fix this, e.g. by specifying that turtles see everything but turtles, your desired conclusion will not be deducible. This is because in the standard predicate calculus the universal quantifier does not have what is called existential import. In other words, ∀yP(y) → ∃yP(y) is generally false. So ∀x∀y(Tx → Sxy) may hold even if there is no y for x to see. It is interpreted conditionally: if there was a non-turtle y then any turtle x would see it. Hence, your modified premises will hold even in a world of turtles only. Just as you specified that your world is not empty, with ∃xTx, you'll have to specify explicitly that it is not devoid of non-turtles, with ∃x¬Tx. Or, you can add existential import as a separate axiom, and apply it to P(y)=∀x¬Syx. Then ∃y∀x¬Syx, together with the first premise, will give you ∃y¬Ty.
First, your premises are inconsistent: your second premise implies that turtles do not see other turtles, or themselves, yet, according to the first premise, they see everything. So, taking y=x, we can deduce both ∀xSxx and ∀x¬Sxx. After that you can deduce whatever you want directly using the law of explosion, contradiction implies anything.
If you fix this, e.g. by specifying that turtles see everything but turtles, your desired conclusion will not be deducible. This is because in the standard predicate calculus the universal quantifier does not have what is called existential import. In other words, ∀yP(y) → ∃yP(y) is generally false. So ∀x∀y(Tx → Sxy) may hold even if there is no y for x to see. It is interpreted conditionally: if there was a non-turtle y then any turtle x would see it. Hence, your modified premises will hold even in a world of turtles only. Just as you specified that your world is not empty, with ∃xTx, you'll have to specify explicitly that it is not devoid of non-turtles, with ∃x¬Tx. Or, you can add existential import as a separate axiom, and apply it to P(y)=∀x¬Syx. Then ∃y∀x¬Syx, together with the first premise, will give you ∃y¬Ty.
edited Mar 3 at 3:59
answered Mar 2 at 7:11
ConifoldConifold
36.7k257146
36.7k257146
I think the premises are consistent, but imply that there are no turtles
– rtpax
Mar 4 at 21:45
1
@rtpax The first premise specifies that there are turtles.
– Conifold
Mar 4 at 21:46
1
missed that, you are correct
– rtpax
Mar 4 at 21:46
add a comment |
I think the premises are consistent, but imply that there are no turtles
– rtpax
Mar 4 at 21:45
1
@rtpax The first premise specifies that there are turtles.
– Conifold
Mar 4 at 21:46
1
missed that, you are correct
– rtpax
Mar 4 at 21:46
I think the premises are consistent, but imply that there are no turtles
– rtpax
Mar 4 at 21:45
I think the premises are consistent, but imply that there are no turtles
– rtpax
Mar 4 at 21:45
1
1
@rtpax The first premise specifies that there are turtles.
– Conifold
Mar 4 at 21:46
@rtpax The first premise specifies that there are turtles.
– Conifold
Mar 4 at 21:46
1
1
missed that, you are correct
– rtpax
Mar 4 at 21:46
missed that, you are correct
– rtpax
Mar 4 at 21:46
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Philosophy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f60852%2fif-turtles-see-everything-and-nothing-seen-can-see-does-it-follow-that-non-tur%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Isn't ths a take on Rissell's paradox?
– Richard
Mar 2 at 11:30
I think in the second premise, you're taking the converse instead of the contrapositive. Asymmetric doesn't mean that the reverse is always untrue.
– luser droog
Mar 2 at 21:28