COMP 1002 Class Notes #1

INTRODUCTION

Logic (from the Greek λογική, logikē) refers to both the study of modes of reasoning
(which are valid, and which are fallacious) and the use of valid reasoning. The study of
logic features most prominently in the subjects of philosophy, mathematics, and computer
science.

Logic was studied in several ancient civilizations, including India,[4] China,[5] Persia and
Greece. In the West, logic was established as a formal discipline by Aristotle, who gave it a
fundamental place in philosophy.

The concept of logical form is central to logic, it being held that the validity of an argument
is determined by its logical form, not by its content. Traditional Aristotelian syllogistic
logic and modern symbolic logic are examples of formal logics.

• Informal logic is the study of natural language arguments. The dialogues of Plato[6]
are good examples of informal logic.

For example, consider the following syllogism:

All humans are mortal.

All Greeks are humans.

Therefore all Greeks are mortal.

• Formal logic is the study of inference with purely formal content. An inference
possesses a purely formal content if it can be expressed as a particular application
of a wholly abstract rule, that is, a rule that is not about any particular thing or
property. The works of Aristotle contain the earliest known formal study of logic.
Modern formal logic follows and expands on Aristotle. In many definitions of
logic, logical inference and inference with purely formal content are the same.

• Symbolic logic is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal
features of logical inference. Symbolic logic is often divided into two branches:
propositional logic and predicate logic.

In above example we replace “humans” by p, “mortal” by q, and ”Greeks” by r we

expose the form of the syllogism:

COMP 1002 Class Note #1, By John Shieh, Fall semester of 2018 Page 1
 If p then q.
If q then r.
Therefore If p then r.
This syllogism has a name: transitivity of implication.
p and q above are called symbolic variables.

• Mathematical logic is an extension of symbolic logic into other areas, in particular to the
study of model theory, proof theory, set theory, and recursion theory.

Logic is generally considered formal when it analyzes and represents the form of any valid
argument type. The form of an argument is displayed by representing its sentences in the formal
grammar and symbolism of a logical language to make its content usable in formal inference.

Logic is often divided into three parts: inductive reasoning, abductive reasoning, and deductive
reasoning.

Deductive and inductive reasoning, and abductive inference

Deductive reasoning concerns what follows necessarily from given premises (if a, then b).

However, inductive reasoning—the process of deriving a reliable generalization from

observations—has sometimes been included in the study of logic. Similarly, it is important to
distinguish deductive validity and inductive validity. An inference is deductively valid if and
only if there is no possible situation in which all the premises are true but the conclusion false.
An inductive argument can be neither valid nor invalid; its premises give only some degree of
probability, but not certainty, to its conclusion.

The notion of deductive validity can be rigorously stated for systems of formal logic in terms of
the well-understood notions of semantics. Inductive validity on the other hand requires us to
define a reliable generalization of some set of observations.

Abduction is a form of logical inference that goes from observation to a hypothesis that accounts
for the reliable data (observation) and seeks to find the simplest and most likely relevant
evidence. The American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) first introduced the
term as "guessing". Thus, to abduce P from Q involves determining that P is sufficient (or nearly
sufficient), but not necessary, for Q. In abductive reasoning, unlike in deductive reasoning, the
premises do not guarantee the conclusion. One can understand abductive reasoning as "inference to the
best explanation".

For example, suppose we observe that the lawn is wet. If it rained last night, then it would be
unsurprising that the lawn is wet. Therefore, by abductive reasoning, the possibility that it rained
last night is reasonable; however, some other process may have also resulted in a wet lawn, e.g.
dew or lawn sprinklers. Moreover, abducing that it rained last night from the observation of a
wet lawn can lead to false conclusion(s).

COMP 1002 Class Note #1, By John Shieh, Fall semester of 2018 2
Peirce argues that good abductive reasoning from P to Q involves not simply a determination
that Q is sufficient for P, but also that Q is among the most economical explanations for P.
Simplification and economy both call for that "leap" of abduction.

For this course the discussion of logic mainly deals with deductive logic.

It is amusing by syllogisms that appear to be obviously invalid, but are actually valid! For
example:
Everyone loves my baby.
My baby loves only me.
Therefore, I am my own baby.
Why?

COMP 1002 Class Note #1, By John Shieh, Fall semester of 2018 3