Aristotle's square of opposition in the light of Hilbert's epsilon and tau quantifiers

Fabio Pasquali; Christian Retoré

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1606.08326

Aristotle's square of opposition in the light of Hilbert's epsilon and tau quantifiers

Fabio Pasquali·Christian Retoré

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Aristotle considered particular quantified sentences in his study of syllogisms and in his famous square of opposition. Of course, the logical formulas in Aristotle work were not modern formulas of mathematical logic, but ordinary sentences of natural language. Nowadays natural language sentences are turned into formulas of predicate logic as defined by Frege, but, it is not clear that those Fregean sentences are faithful representations of natural language sentences. Indeed, the usual modelling of natural language quantifiers does not fully correspond to natural language syntax, as we shall see. This is the reason why Hilbert's epsilon and tau quantifiers (that go beyond usual quantifiers) have been used to model natural language quantifiers. Here we interpret Aristotle quantified sentences as formulas of Hilbert's epsilon and tau calculus. This yields to two potential squares of opposition and provided a natural condition holds, one of these two squares is actually a square of opposition i.e. satisfies the relations of contrary, contradictory, and subalternation.

Explore related subjects

math.LO

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Fabio Pasquali, Christian Retoré. 2016-06-27. Aristotle's square of opposition in the light of Hilbert's epsilon and tau quantifiers. https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.08326

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

There is no maximal $K$-degree

The Kolmogorov complexity of a string characterize how complex it is to describe the string. If every prefix of a real $x$ is more complex to describe than every prefix (of the same length) of real $y$, then it is seen as $x$ is more complex to describe than $y$. It is wondered if there is a real $x$ so that no other reals are strictly more complex (to describe) than $x$. The behavior of Kolmogorov complexity functions generated by reals (namely $n\mapsto$ the minimal description length of the real) is quite chaos. Therefore, it is widely believed that there are many reals that are maximally complex to describe. For instance, it is conjectured that all random enough reals have maximal $K$-degree. In this paper, it is shown that there is no real with maximal $K$-degree. Actually, for almost all real $x$, we can uniformly computably find another real whose $K$-degree is strictly above $x$.

math.LO↗

arXiv2026

Quadruples and cubes

We prove, in $\mathsf{ZFC}$, that the $\lambda$-terraced cube relation fails whenever $\lambda$ is an uncountable cardinal. The corresponding terraced relation for quadruples fails for every $\lambda$. If $\lambda$ is $\aleph_0$ then the pretinent terraced relation has consistency strength of at least one Woodin cardinal. We prove positive polarized relations at a successor and a double successor from wondrous ideals. We show, however, that there are no such ideals over two consecutive cardinals simultaneously.

math.LO↗

arXiv2026

Possibilistic Logic over a Logic of Formal Inconsistency

In this article, we have introduced a new possibilistic logic on a logic of formal inconsistency with the aim of developing a possibility theoretic framework to deal with uncertainty and inconsistency meaningfully without leading to a system collapse. We have discussed the syntax and semantics for this logic and have proved the soundness and completeness theorems. A set of new measures of consistency, contradictoriness, and triviality of a set of formulas have been defined. These have then been put to use in an example to show that this framework can provide better means of machine reasoning.

math.LO↗