Lecture 24

Three-Valued
and Fuzzy Logic

A ll of our lectures thus far have elucidated certain elements of

classical logic. What defines classical logic is the adherence to
a central proposition: the law of the excluded middle. This is the claim
that all sentences have one of two truth-values: true or false. But what
happens if we deny this axiom? Because this is the foundation of all
the logical inferences we have examined so far, the fear is that by
eliminating the law of the excluded middle, we make logic impossible.
It turns out that we don’t; we just make it more complicated.

Three-Valued Logic
⊲⊲ By denying that all sentences must be either true or false, we
create what we call multivalued logic. The simplest of these is
three-valued logic. We are used to having just two truth-values:
T and F. But we are going to augment this set with one new
member. The name of this new truth-value is a completely
arbitrary choice for which logicians have no unified position.

⊲⊲ Some use M for “middle”—that is, it is some middle value between

true and false. Others use I for “indeterminate” or U for “unknown”
or N for “neither true nor false.” We’ll use M, partially because it
does not presuppose an interpretation for this new truth-value.

⊲⊲ One could develop a full-blown first-order predicate logic, but

for simplicity and to see some of the results more clearly, we
will look at what introducing a new truth-value does for truth-
functional logic.
⊲⊲ We can still use truth tables, but they will have p −p
to be a bit larger because of the new truth-
value. For negation, for example, instead of T F
having two rows, we will now have three. For M M
a sentence p, we have the truth table shown
at right. F T

⊲⊲ The only new information is the middle line. The negation of a

sentence with truth-value M remains M. At first glance, this should
strike us as odd. Negation changes truth-values. But if we think of
M as indeterminate or unknown, then if we don’t know whether p
is true, then we also don’t know if it is false. So, if p has the value
M, then so should −p.

⊲⊲ What about the other connectives? Let’s make one big truth table
for all three remaining connectives.

⊲⊲ We know what the columns are. One each for p and q, and
columns for “or,” “and,” and “if-then.” We have three possible
values for each of the constituent sentences, so we will need nine
rows to capture all of the combinations.

⊲⊲ Let’s start with the disjunction, p “or” q. All of our truth-values

from two-valued logic remain the same, so we can enter all of
those into the table.

⊲⊲ All that is left are the ones that involve the new value M. We know
that a disjunction is true whenever one of the disjuncts is true. So,
let’s put in T for T ∨ M or M ∨T.

⊲⊲ What about the remaining cases: M ∨ F, F ∨ M, and M ∨ M? If,
again, we think of M as indeterminate or unknown, then all three
of these will be unknown as well, because if they turn out to
be true, so will the sentence, but if they turn out to be false,
so will the sentence. So, we can complete the entire column
for disjunction.

Lecture 24—Three-Valued and Fuzzy Logic 225

⊲⊲ What about the conjunction, p “and” q? Again, the two-valued
values remain. So, we can add those to the table.

⊲⊲ We know that a conjunction is false when one conjunct is false,

so M &F and F &M will both give us F.

⊲⊲ “True or unknown” remains unknown, and “unknown or unknown”

is quite unknown, so we can now complete the column.

⊲⊲ Last is the conditional: if p, then q. Once again, the two-valued

values can be plugged in.

⊲⊲ We know that the only time a conditional is false is when the

antecedent is true and the consequent is false. So, if the
antecedent is false or the consequent is true, then we know
that the conditional is true regardless of the truth-value of the
remaining sentence. This was true for two-valued logic and
remains true for three-valued logic.

⊲⊲ If a sentence is T → M, then there is a chance that it could end up

T → F, which would make it false, and it is possible that it could
end up T → T, which would have it end up true. So, T → M would
remain M. The same kind of reasoning holds for M → F. So, we
can plug these values into the table.

⊲⊲ The only remaining case is M → M. Different three-valued systems

treat this case differently. Some take this to give us a value of
T, while others take it to give us a value of M. For the sake of
being more intuitive, let’s go with M → M as M. So, we now have a
complete truth table, as follows.

226 An Introduction to Formal Logic

 p q p ∨q p &q p   q

T T T T T

T M T M M

T F T F F

M T T M T

M M M M M

M F M F M

F T T F T

F M M F T

F F F F T

⊲⊲ One consequence of our choice of M → M being M is that the

entire row for p=M and q=M has a value of M. If we also think of
negation, −p and −q with values of M also remain M.

⊲⊲ As a result, no matter what combination of truth-functional

connectives we use in creating molecular sentences and no
matter how complex we make those sentences, the row with all
truth-values M will always end up with the truth-value M.

⊲⊲ So, there can be no tautologies or contradictions as we

traditionally think of them. We can have modified or pseudo-
tautologies that have no truth-value of F, or we can have modified
or pseudo-contradictions that have no truth-values of T. But
neither of these will function as tautologies or contradictions did
in two-valued truth-functional logic.

⊲⊲ We can still use truth tables to determine validity and invalidity

in exactly the same way. We are still making sure that there are

Lecture 24—Three-Valued and Fuzzy Logic 227

 no cases in which the premises are all true and the conclusion is
false. But now, we have a stronger and weaker sense of validity.

⊲⊲ Recall that an argument is invalid if there is even a single case

in which all of the premises are true and the conclusion is false.
But now there are two ways to avoid that. The first is validity, in
which for every case in which all of the premises are true, the
conclusion is also true. We’ll call this strong validity.

⊲⊲ But then there will be the arguments in which there are no cases in
which the premises are true and the conclusion is false, but there
are some cases in which the premises are true and the conclusion
is true and some cases in which the premises are true and the
conclusion is middle. We can think of this as weak validity.

⊲⊲ But what about the case in which the premises are all true and
the conclusion is sometimes T and sometimes M? We need a
new third value, an M version of validity for these arguments.

⊲⊲ What does this M value really mean? We have been saying, for
the sake of intuition, that it means unknown, but unknown is not a
truth-value.

⊲⊲ There is a difference between what is and what we know about

what is. Three-valued logic does not seem apt for describing
what is, but it does seem appropriate for talking about our
knowledge—and our lack thereof.

⊲⊲ We can be in one of three states with respect to the truth-value

of a sentence: we can know it is true, we can know it is false, or
we can be in a state of doubt, not knowing whether it is true or
false. As such, three-valued logic does seem to be a good model
of our reasoning when we see ourselves as being in a state of
knowledge about some propositions and a state of ignorance
about others.

228 An Introduction to Formal Logic

⊲⊲ With three-valued logic, we deny the law of the excluded middle
by positing a third truth-value. But we could add more. We could
create a four-valued logic or an 18-valued logic. It is not clear
what uses we would have for them, but such utilitarian, pragmatic
questions hold little weight with logicians and mathematicians.

⊲⊲ But in all of these cases, we are making a particular assumption

that we could deny and create an even more general logic. Why
must these truth-values be discrete—that is, why is it an absolute
partitioning of sentences into one of these truth-values? Why
not make a smooth continuum of truth? In this case, we have an
infinite number of truth-values.

Fuzzy Logic
⊲⊲ It is tempting to generalize our use of three-valued logic as a
measure of our knowledge or lack thereof and see fuzzy logic
as a measure of our certainty about a sentence’s truth. But this is
not what fuzzy logic is about. That is induction. Fuzzy logic is not
concerned with likelihood, but rather deals with fuzzy sets.

⊲⊲ A non-fuzzy set is one where all members of the universe are

either in or out of the set. Suppose that the domain is the set of
humans, and the set we want to examine is the set of all pregnant
people. This is non-fuzzy; either you are or are not pregnant.
There is a clear and absolute line between in and out, and no one
straddles that line.

⊲⊲ But some sets are not like that. Some sets are fuzzy; objects in
the universe can be in the set to varying degrees. Again, take the
domain to be humans, and now consider the property of hairiness.
For example, when men grow a beard, they move further into the
fuzzy set. But over the years, as their hairline recedes, they move
further out of the fuzzy set. Hairiness ranges from zero (hairless)
on one extreme to one on the other extreme (werewolf-like).

Lecture 24—Three-Valued and Fuzzy Logic 229

⊲⊲ All humans have some degree of hairiness. So, while all people
are hairy, some sets are fuzzy as well. Logicians have devised
operations on these sets, called fuzzy connectives, that allow us
to have a fuzzy version of truth-functional logic and even a fuzzy
version of predicate logic. The values plugged in are numbers
between zero and one, and the result of the connectives is a new
value between zero and one.

⊲⊲ There are several versions of fuzzy logic, each defining these

connectives in slightly different fashion. Which of the definitions
we use depends on the needs that the fuzzy logic serves.

⊲⊲ The standard example of a system that utilizes fuzzy logic

is the heating and cooling system in your house. There is a
thermostat connected to a switch that controls the heating and
cooling system. You ask your system to keep your home at some
particular temperature.

⊲⊲ If you have an old system, then this is governed by classical logic.

Let p be the sentence “The temperature is the one I desire.” If
p is true, then the system does nothing. If p is false, then the
system turns on—for example, the heater is on full blast until the
temperature is reached, at which point it is turned off.

⊲⊲ But more modern systems use fuzzy logic to be more energy

efficient. If the temperature is the one desired—if p has a value
of one—then the system does nothing. But if the temperature
deviates from the desired temperature, then it springs to action in
a more intricate fashion.

⊲⊲ If it is too cold, it turns on the heat to an appropriate degree,

depending on the degree of deviation from the desired
temperature. If it is way too cold, it cranks the heat way up. If it is
just a little too cold, it gives the heater just a small shot of power
to let it do a little bit of work. This is a different logic governing the
operation of the system—it is a fuzzy logic.

230 An Introduction to Formal Logic

⊲⊲ Fuzzy logic is a generalization of multivalued logic that we
created by seeing what would happen if we denied the central
claim of classical logic, the law of the excluded middle. We found
that if we were clever about it, we could find a way of reasoning
that is helpful and useful. And that is what logic is really all about.

Readings

Epstein, Propositional Logics, chap. 8.

Frielberger and McNeill, Fuzzy Logic.

Questions

1.
In three-valued logic, the negation of the new value middle is still
middle. Does it make sense to make the negation of a value the same
value? Is that not the opposite of what we mean by negation?

2.
Fuzzy logic might be useful—that is, it might be helpful to think of
truth as if it varies smoothly—but does it really? Isn’t truth more like
being pregnant, where you are or you aren’t? Is there really a sense
of “in between” when it comes to truth?

Lecture 24—Three-Valued and Fuzzy Logic 231