22.01.2014 Views

Metatheory - University of Cambridge

Metatheory - University of Cambridge

Metatheory - University of Cambridge

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

4. Expressive adequacy 32<br />

4.2 Individually expressively adequate connectives<br />

In fact, some two-place connectives are individually expressively adequate.<br />

These connectives are not standardly included in TFL, since they are rather<br />

cumbersome to use. But their existence shows that, if we had wanted to, we<br />

could have defined a truth-functional language that was expressively adequate,<br />

which contained only a single primitive connective.<br />

The first such connective we shall consider is ‘↑’, which has the following<br />

characteristic truth table.<br />

A B A ↑ B<br />

T T F<br />

T F T<br />

F T T<br />

F F T<br />

This is <strong>of</strong>ten called ‘the Sheffer stroke’, after Harry Sheffer, who used it to show<br />

how to reduce the number <strong>of</strong> logical connectives in Russell and Whitehead’s<br />

Principia Mathematica. 2 (In fact, Charles Sanders Peirce had anticipated Sheffer<br />

by about 30 years, but never published his results.) 3 It is quite common,<br />

as well, to call it ‘nand’, since its characteristic truth table is the negation <strong>of</strong><br />

the truth table for ‘∧’.<br />

Proposition 4.2. ‘↑’ is expressively adequate all by itself.<br />

Pro<strong>of</strong>. Theorem 4.1 tells us that ‘¬’ and ‘∨’ are jointly expressively adequate.<br />

So it suffices to show that, given any scheme which contains only those two<br />

connectives, we can rewrite it as a tautologically equivalent scheme which contains<br />

only ‘↑’. As in the pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the subsidiary cases <strong>of</strong> Theorem 4.1, then, we<br />

simply apply the following equivalences:<br />

¬A<br />

(A ∨ B)<br />

⊨<br />

⊨<br />

⊨ (A ↑ A)<br />

⊨ ((A ↑ A) ↑ (B ↑ B))<br />

to Subsidiary Result 1 <strong>of</strong> Theorem 4.1.<br />

■<br />

Similarly, we can consider the connective ‘↓’:<br />

A B A ↓ B<br />

T T F<br />

T F F<br />

F T F<br />

F F T<br />

This is sometimes called the ‘Peirce arrow’ (Peirce himself called it ‘ampheck’).<br />

More <strong>of</strong>ten, though, it is called ‘nor’, since its characteristic truth table is the<br />

negation <strong>of</strong> ‘∨’.<br />

Proposition 4.3. ‘↓’ is expressively adequate all by itself.<br />

2 Sheffer, ‘A Set <strong>of</strong> Five Independent Postulates for Boolean Algebras, with application<br />

to logical constants,’ (1913, Transactions <strong>of</strong> the American Mathematical Society 14.4)<br />

3 See Peirce, ‘A Boolian Algebra with One Constant’, which dates to c.1880; and Peirce’s<br />

Collected Papers, 4.264–5.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!