Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

(=/ stands for invalidity)

VxVy((Sx=Sy)x=y) =/ Vx~(Sx=0)
Interpretation for 8a
U: [0,1,2]
J[0] = 0
J[S] = {(0,1) (1,2) (2,0)}
8a. This interpretation shows that the given argument is in fact invalid. What the left side
of this invalidity claim says is for all X and for all Y, if the successor of X is equal to the
successor of Y, the X and Y are equal. This also says in a way that no two outputs can be
the same unless the inputs are the same. What the right side says is for all X, there is no
X such that 0 is the successor of X or, more concisely Zero is not the successor of any
X. Invalidity occurs when we have true premises but a false conclusion, the left side
being our premise and the right side being our Conclusion. This interpretation makes our
left side true, and our right side false, effectively showing invalidity. Interpreting our
successor function [S], and giving an output for each possible input (each object in our
universe) we can see that no two inputs have the same output; they are all different.
Under the possible term assignment where Sx and Sy would be the same, we can see that
it is necessitated by our interpretation that under this assignment, x and y are also the
same, again because no two outputs are the same. Therefore, because of the fact that
every input has an output different from one another, and because this shows that under
the term assignment, where Sx and Sy would be the same, x and y are equal, this
interpretation makes our premise true. However, this interpretation also makes our
conclusion false. Our conclusion says that no X has zero as a successor, or in more
abstract terms, no input for the function [S] has what we make our constant as an output.
Under this interpretation, we have made zero our constant, and we can clearly see that
when X corresponds to 2, zero is the output, saying that 2 has 0 as its successor. This fact
makes the conclusion false. Because our premise is true and conclusion false under this
interpretation, we have shown invalidity.
Interpretation for 8b
U: [0,1,2]
J[0]: 0
J[S]: { (0,1) (1,2) (2,1) }
8b. Again, for 8b, we are showing invalidity, but with the conclusion for 8a as our
premise, and our premise for 8a as our conclusion. Therefore, we want to show that 0
being the successor of no number is true, and that for any x and y, if Sx and Sy are equal,
then x and y are equal, is false. As we can see, this interpretation accomplishes this. We
do not have any output for J[S] as 0, meaning that no X has 0 as a successor. However, 0
and 2 have the same output, and as we can clearly see, these are different inputs.
Therefore, this makes the conclusion for 8b false. Again, a true premise and a false
conclusion effectively shows invalidity.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen