The Syllogistic with Unity
- First Online:
- 118 Downloads
We extend the language of the classical syllogisms with the sentence-forms “At most 1 p is a q” and “More than 1 p is a q”. We show that the resulting logic does not admit a finite set of syllogism-like rules whose associated derivation relation is sound and complete, even when reductio ad absurdum is allowed.
KeywordsSyllogisms Proof theory Logic and natural language Computational complexity
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Bentham, G. (1827). Outline of a new system of logic, with a critical examination of Dr. Whately’s “Elements of Logic”. London: Hunt and Clarke.Google Scholar
- 2.Boole, G. (1868). Of propositions numerically definite. Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, XI(II), 396–411.Google Scholar
- 3.Boole, G. (1952). Collected logical works: Studies in logic and probability (Vol. 1). La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
- 5.De Morgan, A. (1847). Formal Logic: Or, the calculus of inference, necessary and probable. London: Taylor and Walton.Google Scholar
- 8.Grattan-Guinness, I. (2000). The search for mathematical roots, 1870–1940: Logics, set theories and the foundations of mathematics from Cantor through Russell to Gödel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- 10.Hamilton, W. (1860). Lectures on logic (Vol. II). Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood and Sons.Google Scholar
- 11.Jevons, W. (1871). On a general system of numerically definite reasoning. Memoirs of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society (3rd Series), 4, 330–352.Google Scholar
- 12.Jevons, W. (1890). Pure logic and other minor works. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar