7.2: An application to logic
- Page ID
- 83433
\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)
\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)
\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)
( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)
\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)
\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)
\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)
\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)
\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)
\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)
\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)
\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)
\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)
\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)
\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)
\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)
\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)
\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)
\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}} % arrow\)
\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}} % arrow\)
\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)
\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)
\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)
Theorem \(\PageIndex{1}\): Validity of the Extended Law of Syllogism
The Extended Law of Syllogism is a valid argument.
- Proof
-
By mathematical induction.
Base case \(n=3\).
This is just the ordinary Law of Syllogism.
Induction step.
Let \(k \ge 3\text{.}\) Consider the \(n = k\) version (below left) and the \(n = k+1\) version (below right) of the Extended Law of Syllogism.
\begin{array}{cc}
p_{1} \rightarrow p_{2} &\qquad p_{1} \rightarrow p_{2} \\
p_{2} \rightarrow p_{3} &\qquad p_{2} \rightarrow p_{3} \\
\vdots & \vdots \\
&\qquad p_{k-1} \rightarrow p_{k} \\p_{k-1} \rightarrow p_{k}
&\qquad p_{k} \rightarrow p_{k+1}\\ \hline{p_{1} \rightarrow p_{k} } &\hline \qquad p_{1} \rightarrow p_{k+1}
\end{array}Assume the \(n = k\) version of the argument is valid. We want to show that the \(n = k + 1\) version is also valid. So suppose that premises of that latter version are all true. We need to show that the conclusion \(p_1 \rightarrow p_{k+1}\) must then also be true.
But each premise of the \(n = k\) version is also a premise of the \(n = k + 1\) version, so we can say that we have assumed that every premise of the \(n = k\) version is true. But we have also assumed that version to be valid, so we may take its conclusion \(p_1 \rightarrow p_k\) to be true.
Consider the following syllogism.
\(\begin{aligned}
&p_{1} \rightarrow p_{k} \\
&p_{k} \rightarrow p_{k+1} \\
&\hline p_{1} \rightarrow p_{k+1}
\end{aligned}\)Since this is valid (base case \(n=2\)) and its premises are all true, the conclusion is true.