INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC: PART 1

L. MARIZZA A. BAILEY

1. Historical Significance and Motivation 1.1. Euclids Elements. Before Euclid, there were many mathematicians that made great progress in the knowledge of numbers, algebra and geometry. However, their work was so scattered and disorganized that much of the work was redundant. A volume of known mathematical concepts was necessary to keep mathematics from stagnating. Euclid was the rst known mathematician to try to classify mathematical knowledge into the tiers of axioms, denitions, and theorems. An axiom, or postulate, is a statement which we assume in order to build our model of reality. Example 1. For example, in planar geometry, we assume that between any two points, we can draw only one line between them. However, in spherical geometry, there are innitely many lines between the north and south pole because lines in spherical geometry are great circles. Below are some examples of axioms, which, given the dierence, imply a completely dierent geometrical universe. Euclidean Geometry: Axiom 5: Given a line and a non-collinear point, there exists exactly one line parallel to the given line through that point. Elliptical Geometry: Axiom 5: Given a line and a non-collinear point, there exist no lines parallel to the given line through that point. These axioms are necessary to build the geometry of each space, and each axiom yields a completely dierent geometry. Take a minute to illustrate the postulates above to convince yourself that these axioms are a natural consequence of the geometry they specify. Although, these axioms may make sense after a moments thought and some illustrations, they are meaningless if we havent dened everything clearly. In Euclidean geometry, we imagine a line to be a straight curve which extends indenitely in two directions but has no width. However, as soon as non-Euclidean spaces were required to model physical reality, the denition of line required generalization.
Date: June 14, 2011.
1

For example, since we live on a spherical like object called the Earth, and we would like to think we are dealing with lines on the surface to carve the shortest path between two points on earth, it seems necessary to be able to identify these lines. Hence, it seems natural to dene a line on a surface to be the path of minimal distance. On a sphere, these happen to be great circles and between the north and south pole, there are innitely many great circles. Clearly, the geometry of a sphere is vastly dierent than the geometry of a plane. The beauty and art of mathematics is that we can dene anything into existence in the mathematical world as long as it is well-dened. The ability to create new denitions allows mathematics to keep growing in order to satisfy some new model constructed to appease physicists, chemists, biologists, programmers, engineers, or just the whim of a mathematician. To create denitions, axioms or prove theorems based on these denitions and axioms, it is necessary to rst learn the art of using precise language and developing infallible arguments. Most people think of logic as the analysis of methods and reasoning, but there is more to logic than this. Logic is not interested in the content of an argument, but rather the form of the argument. Mathematics is about precision of argument. Therefore, the natural aim in studying logic is to make the form of argument precise. All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Hence, Socrates is mortal. The validity of each premise or conclusion is not important. The logical question to answer is whether or not the premise implies the conclusion. However, the form of the argument above is not precise enough to easily identify the premise or conclusion. In order to better understand why precision in form and language is important, we will visit a well known historic paradox that baed mathematicians at the time and revolutionized mathematics 1.2. Russels Paradox. Not all of the elds of mathematics followed Euclids example and continued to axiomatize their concepts. For example, in set theory, rather than develop an axiomatized approach to sets, the denition was loosely given as a collection of objects with a well-dened property. This model of set theory is called Naive Set Theory. Unfortunately, it led to a famous paradox found by Russel in 1902. Are you ready? This is going to be mind twister so get your math pants on. Problem 1. Let A be the collection of all sets that are not members of themselves. Is A A? In other words, is A in this collection, or not? Solution 1. Let us rst suppose A is in this collection. Then by its inherent property, it is a not a member of itself. Thus, it cannot be in this collection. WHAT????

Okay, dont give up. We can still suppose that A is not in this collection. But then it cannot satisfy the property that it is not a member of itself. Therefore it must be a member of itself ... which means it is in this collection. Aaaaah! Both assumptions contradict themselves, and there is no other possibility. This can only mean one thing ... there is something wrong with the entire model!. And that, my dears, is how axiomatic set theory was born. Here is some more food for thought. Consider the following sentence, This sentence is false. What is the validity of this statement? Can we judge the validity, or is this statement a semantic paradox. The analysis of these, and other, paradoxes, has led to various suggestions for avoiding them.
Basis Scottsdale E-mail address: mbailey@basisscottsdale.org