LIBRARY

-ITY OF UNIVf CALI ORNIA

.

SAN DIEGO

THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO

LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA

THE ALGEBRA OF LOGIC

BY

LOUIS COUTURAT

AUTHORIZED ENGLISH TRANSLATION

BY

LYDIA GILLJNGHAM ROBINSON,

WITH A PREFACE BY PHILIP
E. B.

B. A.
A. (CANTAB.)

JOURDAIN. M.

CHICAGO AND LONDON THE OPEN COURT PUBLISHING COMPANY

1914

Copyright

in

Great Britain under the Act of 1911,

PREFACE.
Mathematical Logic is a necessary preliminary to logical "Mathematical Logic" is the name given by PEANO to what is also known (after VENN) as "Symbolic
Mathematics.
Logic";

and Symbolic Logic is, in essentials, the Logic of Aristotle, given new life and power by being dressed up in almost magical armour and accoutrements the wonderful
In less than seventy years, of Algebra. of DE MORGAN'S, has so thriven expression
in
logic,

to

use

an

upon symbols and,

consequence, so grown and altered that the ancient logicians would not recognize it, and many old-fashioned logicians will not recognize it. The metaphor is not quite correct: Logic has neither grown nor altered, but we now see more of it

and more

into

it.

The primary significance of lie in the economy of mental

is

a symbolic calculus seems to

effort

which

it

brings about, and

due the characteristic power and rapid development to this of mathematical knowledge. Attempts to treat the operations
of formal logic in an analogous way had been made not infrequently by some of the more philosophical mathematicians, such as LEIBNIZ and LAMBERT; but their labors remained little

known, and

it

was BOOLE and

of the nineteenth century, to

of course non- quantitative

though way of regarding logic was due.

DE MORGAN, about the whom a mathematical

middle

this, not only was the traditional or Aristotelian doctrine of logic reformed and completed, but out of it has developed, in course of time, an instrument which deals in a sure manner

By

with the

task

mathematics
in hand,

of investigating the fundamental concepts of a task which philosophers have repeatedly taken
in

and

which they have

as repeatedly failed.

IV

PREFACE.

First of all, it is necessary to glance at the growth of symbolism in mathematics, where alone it first reached perThere have been three stages in the development fection. of mathematical doctrines: first came propositions with particular

numbers,

like the

invented,

ing for

5"; then came more general laws holdby "2 + 3 all numbers and expressed by letters, such as
(a

one expressed, with signs subsequently

+ 6)

= ac + 6c";
for

lastly

came the knowledge of more general laws of functions and the formation of the conception and expression "function".
origin

The

of the symbols

particular

whole numbers

is

very ancient, while the symbols

now

in use for the operations

and relations of arithmetic mostly date from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; and these "constant" symbols together
with the letters
first

used systematically by VIETE (1540

1650), serve,

1603)

and DESCARTES (1596

by themselves,

to express

many propositions. It is not, then, surprising that DESCARTES, who was both a mathematician and a philosopher, should
have had the idea of keeping the method of algebra while going beyond the material of traditional mathematics and

embracing the general science of what thought finds, so that philosophy should become a kind of Universal Mathematics. This sort of generalization of the use of symbols for analogous theories is a characteristic of mathematics, and seems to be
a reason lying deeper than the erroneous idea, arising from a simple confusion of thought, that algebraical symbols necessarily

imply

something

quantitative,

for

the

antagonism

there used to be

and

is

on the part of those

logicians

who

were not and are not mathematicians, to symbolic logic. This idea of a universal mathematics was cultivated especially by

GOTTFRIED WILHELM LEIBNIZ

(i

646
to

1716).

distinct plan That this is so appears of a system of mathematical logic. from research much of which is quite recent into LEIBNIZ'S
first

Though modern logic MORGAN, LEIBNIZ was the

is

really

due

to

BOOLE and DE

have a

really

unpublished work.

The

principles of the

logic

of LEIBNIZ, and consequently

PREFACE.
:

1 of his whole philosophy, reduce to two (i) All our ideas are compounded of a very small number of simple ideas which form the "alphabet of human thoughts"; (2) Complex ideas

proceed from these simple ideas by a uniform and symmetrical combination which is analogous to arithmetical multiplication. With regard to the first principle, the number of simple ideas is
and, with regard to the second considers three operations which we shall meet principle, logic with in the following book under the names of logical multiplication, logical addition

much greater than LEIBNIZ thought;

and negation
LEIBNIZ,

"Characters"

were,

with

instead of only one. any written signs, and

in the

"real" characters were those which

as

Chinese ideo-

graphy

represent ideas directly, and not the words for them.

real characters,

Among

some simply

serve to represent ideas,

Egyptian and Chinese hieroglyphics and the symbols of astronomers and chemists belong to the first category, but LEIBNIZ declared them to be imperfor reasoning.
fect,

and some serve

he called

and desired the second category of characters for what 2 his "universal characteristic". It was not in the
first

form of an algebra that LEIBNIZ

conceived his charateristic,

probably because he was then a novice in mathematics, but in the form of a universal language or script 3 It was in

1676 that he first dreamed of a kind of algebra of thought, 4 and it was the algebraic notation which then served as model
for the characteristic. 5

LEIBNIZ attached so

much importance
And,

to

the invention of

proper symbols that he attributed to this alone the

his discoveries in mathematics. 6

whole of

in fact, his infinitesimal

calculus
of,

affords

a most
skill

brilliant

example of the importance

a suitable notation. 7
is

and LEIBNIZ'S

in devising,

Now,
by
the

it

must be remembered that what

logic",

usually understood

name "symbolic
is

and which
is

though not

its

name

chiefly

due

to

BOOLE,
is

what LEIBNIZ called

a

Calculus
1

ratiorinator,

and

only

part of the Universal

des

CoUTURAT, La Logique de Leibniz

1901, pp.
p. 8l.

cfapres

documents

incdits,

Paris,
2

431432,

48.
4 Ibid., p.
7

Ibid.,

3 Ibid., pp.

5 Ibid.,

p. 83.

51, /8. 6 Ibid., p. 84.

6l.

Ibid., p.

8487.

VI

PREFACE.

Characteristic. In symbolic logic LEIBNIZ enunciated the principal

properties of what

we now

call logical multiplication, addition,

negation, identity, class-inclusion, and the null-class; but the aim of LEIBNIZ'S researches was, as he said, to create "a kind

of general system of notation in which all the truths of reason should be reduced to a calculus. This could be, at the same
time, a kind of universal written language, very different from
all

those which have been projected hitherto; for the characters and even the words would direct the reason, and the
errors

excepting
It

those

of fact

would only be
to

errors

of

calculation.

would be very
but
very

difficult to

or

characteristic,

easy

invent this language learn it without any

it:

dictionaries".

He

fixed the time necessary to form

finish

"I think
five

that

some chosen men could

the

matter

within

years"; and finally remarked: "And so I repeat, what I have often said, that a man who is neither a prophet nor a prince

can never undertake any thing more conducive of the human race and the glory of God".
In his last letters he remarked:
"If I

to the

good

had been

less busy,

were younger or helped by well-intentioned young I would have hoped to have evolved a characteristic people, of this kind"; and: "I have spoken of my general characteristic
or
if

to

the Marquis

more

attention than

de PHopital and others; but they paid no if I had been telling them a dream. It
to support
it

would be necessary
for this
at least

it by some obvious use; but, would be necessary to construct a part purpose, of my characteristic; and this is not easy, above all

to

one situated as
LEIBNIZ
thus

am".
projects

formed

of both what

he called a
ratio-

characteristica universalis,

aud what he called a calculus

cinator;

it

is

connected,
comprise,
the
it

not hard to see that these projects are intersince a perfect universal characteristic would
seems, a logical calculus.

LEIBNIZ did not publish

incomplete results which

he

had obtained, and conse-

quently his ideas had no continuators, with the exception of LAMBERT and some others, up to the time when BOOLE, DE

MORGAN, SCHRODER, MacCpLL, and others rediscovered his But when the investigations of the principles of theorems.

PREFACE.

VII

mathematics became the chief task of logical symbolism, the aspect of symbolic logic as a calculus ceased to be of such
importance, as we see in the work of FREGE and RUSSELL. FREGE'S symbolism, though far better for logical analysis than

BOOLE'S
inferior

or
to

the

more modern PEANO'S,

a
in

for instance,

is

far

PEANO'S

intern ationality

of symbolism and power of expressing mathematical theorems

the
merits

which

are

very

satisfactorily

attained

in

practical

convenience.

RUSSELL,

especially in his later works, has

of
of,

used the ideas of

FREGE,
as
little

many

independently
take

he discovered subsequently to, but and modified the symbolism of PEANO FREGE,
which
Still,

as possible.

away that simple a calculus, and which BOOLE and others reached by passing over certain distinctions which a subtler logic has shown us
must ultimately be made.
Let us dwell a
little

the complications thus introduced character which seems necessary to

longer on the distinction pointed out

by LEIBNIZ between a calculus ratiocinator and a characteristica

univer-sails or lingua characteristica.

nary language are too well

us
to

give

instances.

The ambiguities of ordiknown for it to be necessary for The objects of a complete logical

symbolism an ideography,
relations

are: firstly, to avoid this disadvantage in

by providing which the signs represent ideas and the

directly

between them

(without the intermediary of

words), and secondly, so to manage that, from given premises, we can, in this ideography, draw all the logical conclusions

which they imply by means

formulas
to

of rules of transformation of

of algebra, in fact, in which analogous we can replace reasoning by the almost mechanical process This second requirement is the requirement of calculation.
those
of

a calculus

ratiocinator.

It

is

essential

that

the

ideo-

graphy should be complete, that only symbols with a wellto avoid the same sort of defined meaning should be used
ambiguities
that

words

have

and,

consequently,
is

that

no

the case

suppositions should be if the meaning of signs

introduced implicitly, as
is

commonly

not well defined. Whatever

premises are necessary and sufficient for a conclusion should

be stated

explicitly.

VIII

PREFACE.
it

Besides

this,

is

theoretically irrelevant,

of practical importance, though it is that the ideography should be concise,

are obvious:
rigor of

so that

it

is

The

merits
is

a sort of stenography. of such an ideography

reasoning sure of not

ensured

by

the

calculus

character;

introducing

unintentionally

we are any premise; and

we can

see exactly on what propositions any demonstration

depends. We can shortly, but very fairly accurately, characterize the dual development of the theory of symbolic logic during the
last

sixty

years

as

follows:

The

calculus ratiocinator aspect

of

symbolic

logic was developed

by BOOLE,

DE MORGAN,

JEVONS, VENN, C. S. PEIRCE, SCHRODER, Mrs. LADD FRANKLIN and others; the lingua characteristica aspect was developed

by FREGE, PEANO and RUSSELL. Of course there is no hard and fast boundary-line between the domains of these two Thus PEIRCE and SCHRODER early began to work at parties.
the foundations of arithmetic with the help of the calculus of
relations;

and thus they did not consider the logical calculus merely as an interesting branch of algebra. Then PEANO paid
that his

particular attention to the calculative aspect of his symbolism.

FREGE has remarked

own symbolism

is

meant

to

be

a calculus ratiodnator as well as a lingua characteristica, but the using of FREGE'S symbolism as a calculus would be rather
like

using

three-legged

stand-camera

for

what

is

called

"snap-shot"

photography,
of FREGE
all

and

one

of the
is

noticeable things about RUSSELL'S

work

his

outwardly most combination of

the symbolisms

and PEANO

in

such a way as to

preserve nearly

of the merits of each.

is concerned with the calculus ratiodnator and shows, in an admirably succinct form, the beauty, aspect, symmetry and simplicity of the calculus of logic regarded as

The

present work

an algebra. In fact, it can hardly be doubted that some such form as the one in which SCHRODER left it is by far the best for exhibiting it from this point of view. 1 The content of the

Cf.

A. N. WHITEHEAD,

Treatise en Universal Algebra -with Appli-

cations,

Cambridge, 1898.

PREFACE.
present

IX
first
1

volume

corresponds
S.

to

the two
treatise.

volumes

of

SCHRODER'S great but rather prolix

to

Principally owing

SCHRODER departed from the custom of BOOLE, JEVONS, and himself (1877), which consisted in the making fundamental of the notion of equality,
the
influence of C.

PEIRCE,

adopted the notion of subordination or inclusion as a A more orthodox BOOLIAN exposition is primitive notion.
that of
notes.

and

VENN*, which
finally

also contains

many

valuable historical

We

will

make two remarks.

%
2

When BOOLE
mining a
(as did
class

(cf.

of

moments

below) spoke of propositions deterat which they are true, he really

MACCOLL) used
a

the

word "proposition"
function".

for

what we
is

now

call

"prepositional

"proposition"

thing expressed by such a phrase as "twice two are four" or "twice two are five", and is always true or always false. But

we might seem

to

be

stating

proposition

when we

say:

"Mr. WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN is Candidate for the Presidency of the United States", a statement which is sometimes true

and sometimes
time.

false.

But such a statement

so far as
this
it

is

like a

mathethe

matical function

in

depends on a variable

Functions of

kind are conveniently distinguished

entities as that expressed by the phrase "twice two are four" by calling the latter entities "propositions" and the former entities "prepositional functions": when the variable

from such

in a prepositional

function

is

fixed,

the

function

becomes a

proposition.

There

these

special

of course, no sort of necessity why is, names should be used; the use of them is

merely a question of convenience and convention. In the second place, it must be carefully observed
S 13, o and
i

that, in

are not defined by expressions

whose principal

uber die Algebra der Logik, Vol. I., Leipsic, 1890; 1891 and 1905. We may mention that a much shorter Abriss of the work has been prepared by EUGEN MULLER. Vol. Ill (1895) f
Vorlesungen
II,

Vol.

ScHR6DER's work
C. S. PEIRCE,
2

is

on the logic of
of Logic

relatives

branch

that

is

founded by DE MORGAN and only mentioned in the con1894.

cluding sentences of this volume.

Symbolic Logic, London,

88 1; 2nd

ed.,

PREFACE.

copulas are relations of inclusion. A definition is simply the convention that, for the sake of brevity or some other convenience, a certain

new

sign

of signs whose meaning is The theory sign of equality that forms the principal copula. of definition has been most minutely studied, in modern times

be used instead of a group Thus, it is the already known.

is

to

by FREGE and PEANO.

Philip E. B. Jourdain.
Girton, Cambridge.

England.

CONTENTS.
Page.

Preface

Hi
XIII

Bibliography
1.

Introduction

2.
3.

The Two

Interpretations of the Logical Calculus

Relation of Inclusion

4
6 8 8

4. Definition
5.

6.
7-

of Equality Principle of Identity Principle of the Syllogism

Multiplication

and Addition and Composition

9
II

8.

Principles of Simplification

9.

10. 11.

12.

The Laws of Tautology and of Absorption Theorems on Multiplication and Addition The First Formula for Transforming Inclusions The Distributive Law
o and
I
...

12

14
into Equalities

15

16
17

13. Definition of
14.

The Law of Duality

Negation

20
21
...

15. Definition of

16.
17.
1 8.

The

Principles of Contradiction and of Excluded Middle

23

Law Law

of Double Negation

24
Equalities

Second

Formula

for

Transforming Inclusions into

of Contraposition 20. Postulate of Existence

19.

25 26

,..

21.

The Developments of o and of

27 28

22. Properties of the Constituents

23. Logical Functions 24.

29
29

25.
26.

The Law of Development The Formulas of De Morgan Disjunctive Sums

Developed Functions
a Function
,.

30 32 34

27. Properties of
28.

34
37

The Limits of

29.

Formula of Poretsky

38

30. Schroder's
31.
32.

Theorem The Resultant of Elimination The Case of Indetermination

39
41

43

XII

CONTENTS.
Page.

33.
34.

35.

Sums and Products of Functions The Expression of an Inclusion by Means of an Indeterminate The Expression of a Double Inclusion by Means of an Indeterminate

44
46

48

36. Solution of an Equation Involving 37. Elimination of Several

38.

One Unknown Quantity

...

50
53 55 57
57

Unknown

Quantities

Theorem concerning

the Values of a Function

39. Conditions of Impossibility and Indetermination 40. Solution of Equations Containing Several Unknown Quantities

41.
42.

43.
44.

45. 46. 47.

The Problem of Boole The Method of Poretsky The Law of Forms The Law of Consequences The Law of Causes Forms of Consequences and Causes

59
6l

62 63
67

69 70
73
75

Example: Venn's Problem 48. The Geometrical Diagrams of Venn 49. The Logical Machine of Jevons
50.

Table of Consequences 51. Table of Causes

52.

76
77

The Number of

Possible Assertions

79

53. Particular Propositions 54. Solution of

*
...

So
81

an Inequation with One Unknown

5556.

System of an Equation and an Inequation Formulas Peculiar to the Calculus of Propositions

83

84
85 88

57. Equivalence of
58.

Law

an Implication and an Alternative of Importation and Exportation

59. Reduction of Inequalities to Equalities

90
92
...

60. Conclusion

Index

95

BIBLIOGRAPHY.
GEORGE BOOLE.
bridge and London, 1847).

The Mathematical Analysis of Logic (Camof the Laws of Thought (London and

An

Investigation

Cambridge, 1854).

W. STANLEY JEVONS. Pure Logic (London, 1864). "On the Mechanical Performance of Logical Inference"
(Philosophical Transactions, 1870).

ERNST

SCHRODER.
1877).
iiber

Der

Operationskreis

des

Logikkalkuls
Vol.

(Leipsic,

Vorlesungen

die Algebra

VoL

II (1891),

Vol. Ill:
2

(1890), Algebra und Logik der Relative

der Logik,

(1895) (Leipsic).

ALEXANDER MACFARLANE.
JOHN VENN.

Principles of the Algebra of Logic,

with Examples (Edinburgh, 1879).

Symbolic Logic, 1881; 2nd. ed., 1894 (London).-* by members of the Johns Hopkins University (Boston, 1883): particularly Mrs. LADD-FRANKLIN, O. MITCHELL and C. S. PEIRCE.
Studies in Logic

A. N. WHITEHEAD.

Treatise on Universal Algebra,

Vol. I

(Cambridge, 1898).
the Algebra of Symbolic Logic" of Mathematics, Vol. XXIII, 1901). Journal

"Memoir on

(American

This

list

contains

and SCHRODER explained

a

only the works relating to the system of in this work.

a part,

BOOLE

EUGEN MULLER has prepared

and

is

the publication of supplements to Vols. II

and

III,

preparing more, of from the papers left

by SCHR6DER.
3

valuable

-work

from the points of view of history and bibliog-

raphy.

XIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

EUGEN MULLER.
lagen
die

Obcr die Algebra der Logik:

II.

des

Gebietekalkuls;

Das

Syllogistik;

Programs of the

Die GrundEliminationsproblem und Grand Ducal Gymnasium

I.

of Tauberbischofsheim (Baden), 1900, 1901

(Leipsic).

W.

E. JOHNSON.

theque du

"Sur la theorie des egalites logiques" (BiblioVol. Ill, Congres international de Philosophic.
Histoire des Sciences; Paris, 1901). Sept Lois fondamentales de la theorie des

Logique

et

PLATON PORETSKY.
SgalitSs logiques
-

(Kazan, 1899).
ult/rieures de la theorie des egalite's logiques

Quelques

lois

(Kazan, 1902). "Expose" elementaire de la theorie des egalites logiques a deux termes" (Revue de Metaphysique et de Morale. Vol. VIII,
1900.)

"Theorie des egalites logiques a

et

trois

termes" (Bibliothlque
Vol.
III.

du Congres international de Philosophic.

Histoire des Sciences.
(Paris,

(Logique
233).

1901, pp. 201

Thtorie des
E. V.

non-e'galite's logiques

(Kazan, 1904).

HUNTINGTON.

"Sets of Independent Postulates for the

(Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, Vol. V, 1904).

Algebra of Logic"

THE ALGEBRA OF

LOGIC.

1. Introduction. The algebra of logic was founded by GEORGE BOOLE (1815 1864); it was developed and perfected The fundamental laws by ERNST SCHRODER (1841 1902).

were devised to express the principles of the "laws of thought". But this calculus may be reasoning, considered from the purely formal point of view, which is that of mathematics, as an algebra based upon certain prinof this
calculus
ciples
arbitrarily

laid

down.
to

It

belongs
in

to

the

realm

of
this

philosophy
calculus

to

decide

whether, and
the
actual

what measure,

operations of the mind, adapted to translate or even to replace argument; we cannot discuss this point here. The formal value of this

corresponds

and

is

calculus

and

its

interest for the

mathematician are absolutely

independent of the interpretation given it and of the application which can be made of it to logical problems. In
short,
2.

we

shall discuss

it

not as logic but as algebra.

The Two
There
is

culus.

Interpretations of the Logical Calone circumstance of particular interest,

namely, that the algebra in question, like logic, is susceptible of two distinct interpretations, the parallelism between them
being almost perfect, according as the letters represent conDoubtless we can, with BOOLE and cepts or propositions.

SCHRODER, reduce the two interpretations to one, by considering the concepts on the one hand and the propositions

on the other as corresponding

a

to assemblages or classes; since

concept

determines

the

class
is

of objects
called
its

to

which

it

is

applied

(and which in logic

is

extension),

and a

proposition determines the class of the instances or

moments

of time in which

it

true

(and which by analogy can also

Accordingly the calculus of coni*

be called

its

extension).

LOGICAL CALCULUS AND INCLUSION.

cepts and the calculus of propositions become reduced to but one, the calculus of classes, or, as LEIBNIZ called it, the

theory
that

of the
is

whole and
contained.

part,

of that which contains

fact,

and

which

But as a matter of

the cal-

culus

of concepts

certain differences,
plete identification

and the calculus of propositions present as we shall see, which prevent their comfrom the formal point of view and consea single "calculus of classes".
in
all,

quently their reduction to

Accordingly we have
in

reality

three

distinct calculi,

or,

the part

common

to

three different interpretations of

the
that

same
the

calculus.
logical

value

In any case the reader must not forget and the deductive sequence of the
in

formulas
pretations

does

not

the

least

depend upon
them,
and, in

the

inter-

which

may be
I."

given

order

to

make

this

necessary abstraction easier, we shall take care to

(conceptual interpretation}

place the symbols "C.

and "P.

I."

(prepositional interpretation)

before

all

interpretative phrases.

These interpretations shall serve only to render the formulas intelligible, to give them clearness and to make their meaning
at

once obvious, but never to

without
destroying

justify

them.

They may
of
the

be

omitted

the

logical

rigidity

system. In order
that

not

to

favor

either

interpretation

we

shall say

the

letters

represent terms;

these terms
to

may be
case
in

either

concepts

or

propositions

according

the

hand.

Hence we use the word term only in the logical sense. When we wish to designate the "terms" of a sum we shall use the word summand in order that the logical and mathematical meanings of the word may not be confused. A term may therefore be either a factor or a summand.
3.

Relation of Inclusion.
algebra of logic
1

Like

all

deductive

theories,

.the

may be

of principles
1

we

shall,

on various systems choose the one which most nearly

established

See HUNTINGTON,

"Sets of Independent Postulates for the Algebra

of Logic", Transactions of the Am. Math. Sac., Vol. V, 1904, pp. 288 309. [Here he says: "Any set o consistent postulates would give rise to a corresponding algebra, viz., the totality of propositions which follow

RELATION OF INCLUSION.

approaches the exposition of SCHRODER and current logical

interpretation.

The fundamental
(two -termed)
relation

relation

of this
is

calculus

is

the

binary

which

called

inclusion (for classes),

subsumption

(for concepts),

or implication (for propositions).

We

adopt the first name as affecting alike the two logical interpretations, and we will represent this relation by the because it has formal properties analogous to those sign
will

<

of the mathematical relation

<

<

("less than") or

more

exactly

especially the relation of not being symmetrical.

Because

of this analogy SCHRODER represents this relation by the sign =^= which we shall not employ because it is complex, whereas
the relation of inclusion

In

the
is

relation

is a simple one. system of principles which we shall adopt, ^this taken as a primitive idea and is consequently

indefinable.
for the

explanations which follow are of defining it but only to indicate purpose according to each of the two interpretations.
C.
I.:

The

not given
its

meaning

When
it

signifies that the concept a

a and b denote concepts, the relation a <C b is subsumed under the concept b;

that

is,

is

the
is

extensive point of view,

a species with respect to the genus b. From it denotes that the class of a's
of
's

contained in the class

or

makes a part of

it;

or,

more
sive
in the

concisely, that "All a's are

's".

From

the comprehen-

point of view it concept a or

means that the concept b is contained makes a part of it, so that consequently
b.

the character a implies or involves the character

Example:

"All

men
I.
:

are

mortal";

"Man

implies

mortal";

"Who

says

man
P.

says mortal"; or, simply, "Man, therefore mortal".

When
l>,

a and b denote propositions, the relation

is

a<^b

signifies

that the proposition a implies or involves the prop-

osition

which
"If

often

judgment,

is

true, b is true";

expressed by or by

the
"tf

implies b";

hypothetical or

more simply by

"#, therefore b".

We

see that in both inter-

from these postulates by logical deductions. Every set of postulates should be free from redundances, in other words, the postulates of each set should be independent, no one of them deducible from the rest."]

6
pretations
the

DEFINITION OF EQUALITY.
relation

<^ may be translated approximately

by

"therefore".

whatever

relation as "# <^ b" is a proposition, be the interpretation of the terms a and b. may relation has two like relations Consequently, whenever a

Remark.

Such a

<

(or even only one)

for

its

members,
is

it

prepositional interpretation, that

to say,

can receive only the it can only denote

an implication.

whose members are simple terms (letters) is primary proposition; a relation whose members are primary propositions is called a secondary proposition, and
relation

called a

so on.

From
since
to
it

this

it

may be

seen at once that the prepositional

interpretation

the

more homogeneous than the conceptual, alone makes it possible to give the same meaning in both primary and secondary propcopula
is

<

ositions.

4.

that

Definition of Equality. There is a second copula may be denned by means of the first; this is the

copula

("equal to").

By

definition

we have

whenever

a<^b
are true at the the
single

and b

<a
only.

same
a

relation

=b
and

time,

and then
is

In other words,
the two simulta-

equivalent

to

neous relations a
In

<b

<^

a.

both interpretations the meaning of the copula determined by its formal definition:
C. L:

is

=b =b

means,

"All a's are ^'s

and

all

Ps are

#'s";

in other words,

that the classes a

and b coincide,

that they

are identical. 1
P.
I.:

means
mean

that

a implies b and b implies a;

the

in

This

does

not

that

concepts a and b have the same

"trilateral",

meaning.

Examples:

"triangle"

and

"equiangular triangle"

and "equilateral

triangle".

DEFINITION OF EQUALITY.
other
that
is

words,

that

the propositions a and b are equivalent,

to say, either true or false at the

same

time. 1

Remark.
reason of
the
relation

The
its

relation

of equality

is

definition:

=b

is

equivalent to b
:

symmetrical by very But a.

of inclusion

is

not symmetrical
it
it.

a <[ b

is

not

We might agree b<^a, imply consider the expression a ^> b equivalent to b a, but we prefer for the sake of clearness to preserve always the same sense for the copula <<\ However, we might translate
equivalent to

nor does

to

<

verbally the

same

inclusion

a<^b

sometimes by "a

is

con-

tained in b" and sometimes by "b contains a". In order not to favor either interpretation,
the
first

we

will

call

member

of

this

relation

the

antecedent

and

the

second the consequent.

C. L:

The antecedent

is

the subject and the consequent

is

the predicate of a universal affirmative proposition. P. L: The antecedent is the premise or the cause, and the

lated

consequent is the consequence. When an implication is transby a hypothetical (or conditional) judgment the antecedent is called the hypothesis (or the condition) and the
is

consequent

called the thesis.

shall
it

When we
usually
strate

analyze

have to demonstrate an equality we shall into two converse inclusions and demonThis analysis
is

them

separately.
is

sometimes made also

when
can
ever

the equality

When
be
a
called

a datum (a premise). both members of the equality are propositions, separated into two implications, of which one
its

it

is

a theorem and the other

reciprocal.

Thus when-

theorem

and

its

reciprocal

are

true

we have an

simple theorem gives rise to an implication whose antecedent is the hypothesis and whose consequent is
equality.

the thesis of the theorem.

It is often said that the hypothesis is the sufficient condition of the thesis, and the thesis the necessary condition of the hy-

This

does not

mean

"The

triangle

ABC

that they have the same meaning. Example: has two equal sides", and "The triangle ABC has

two equal angles".

8
pothesis; that
true
thesis
is

IDENTITY AND SYLLOGISM.

to say,
it

is

sufficient that the hypothesis

it

be

for the thesis to

be

true; while

is

necessary that the

be true for the hypothesis to be true also. When a theorem and its reciprocal are true we say that its hypothesis
is is

that

the necessary and sufficient condition of the thesis; to say, that it is at the same time both cause and

consequence.
5.

Principle of Identity.
is

The

first

principle
identity,

or axiom

of the algebra of logic formulated thus:

(Ax.
I)

the principle of

which

is

O,
e.,

whatever the term a

C. L: "All
<z's

may

be.
i.

are a's",

any

class

whatsoever

is

con-

tained in

itself.
i.

P. L: "a implies a",

plies
itself. is

e.,

any proposition whatsoever im-

This

the primitive formula of the principle of identity.

By means of the definition of equality, we may deduce from formula which is often wrongly taken as the exit another
pression of this principle:

a
whatever a

= a,
a,

may

be; for

when we have
a

a <^

<

a,

we have
C. L:
P. L:
6.

as a direct result,

a.
itself.
itself.

The The

class a

is

identical with
is

proposition a

equivalent to

Principle

of the

Syllogism.

Another

principle

of

the

may
(Ax.

algebra of logic is the principle of the syllogism , be formulated as follows:

II)

which

(<*) (*<*)<(< 4
's,

C. L: "If all a's are

and
and

if all

Ps are

^'s,

then

all

a's

are

<r's".

This
"If

is

the principle of the categorical syllogism.

b,

P. L:

a implies

if

implies

c,

a implies

t."

This

is

the principle of the hypothetical syllogism.

MULTIPLICATION AND ADDITION.

We

see that in this formula

the

the principal copula has al-

sense of implication because the proposition is a ways secondary one. By the definition of equality the consequences of the
principle

of the
T
:

syllogism

may be

stated in

the following

formulas

(a

= b)
is

= ,)< O =

f).

The conclusion
are equalities.

an equality only when both premises

The preceding formulas can be

generalized as follows:

(6<c)
Here we have the two
other combinations
chief formulas of the sorites.
easily imagined, but

Many

may be

we can have

an equality
equalities.

for

This statement

a conclusion only when all the premises are is of great practical value. In a

we must pay close attention to see from one proposition to the other takes place if the transition by means of an equivalence or only of an implication. There
succession of deductions
is

no equivalence between two extreme propositions

unless

all
if

intermediate deductions are equivalences; in other words, there is one single implication in the chain, the relation

of the two
7.

extreme propositions

is

only that of implication.

Multiplication and Addition.

The

algebra of logic

and

admits of three operations, logical multiplication, logical addition, The two former are binary operations, that is negation.

to say, combinations of two terms having as a consequent a

third term

which

may

or

may

not be different from each of

them.
of two

The

existence of the logical product

and

logical

sum
of
a

terms

must necessarily

answer

the

purpose
laws
is

Strictly

speaking,
will

plication

which

these formulas presuppose the be established further on; but it

of multi-

fitting to cite

them here

in order to compare them with the principle of the syllogism from which they are derived.

IO

MULTIPLICATION AND ADDITION.

for

double postulate, for simply to define an entity is not enough The two postulates may be formulated thus: it to exist.
(Ax. IH).

Given any two terms, a and

then there

is

term

such that

/
and that

O, / <
x
for

*,

for every value of

which

we have

also

(Ax. IV).

Given any two terms, a and

b,

then there exists

a term s such that

O
a

<
<C

s>

and

that,

for

any value of x for which

<

x, b

x,

we have
It
is

also

s<x.
/ and s determined by and accordingly we can given unique, define the product ab and the sum a + b as being respectively the terms / and s.
easily

proved

that the terms

the

conditions

are

C. L:
is

i.

The product of two

in

classes

is

a class

which
every

contained

each

of

them

and which

contains

(other) class contained in

2.

The sum of two

each of them; classes a and b

is

is

a class s which

contains each of them and which

class

contained in every (other)

in

which contains each of them.

a metawith the

Taking the words "less than" and "greater than" phorical sense which the analogy of the relation

<

mathematical relation of inequality suggests, it may be said that the product of two classes is the greatest class contained
in

both,

and the sum of two

both. 1

classes

is

the smallest class

which
1

contains

Consequently

the

product

of two

According to another analogy DEDEKIND designated the logical sum and product by the same signs as the least common multiple and greatest common divisor (Was sind und was sollen die Zahlen? Nos. 8 and 17, 1887.
[Cf. English translation entitled Essays on Number (Chicago, Open Court Publishing Co. 1901, pp. 46 and 48) ] GEORG CANTOR originally gave them the same designation (Mathematische Annalen, Vol. XVII, 1880).

SIMPLIFICATION
classes
their
is

AND COMPOSITION.

I I

the

part

that

is

common

to

each (the class of

classes
at
is

common
of
all

class

elements) and the sum of two the elements which belong to

the

least

one

of them.
P. I.: i. The product of two propositions is a proposition which implies each of them and which is implied by every proposition which implies both:
2.
is

The sum of two

by both.

propositions

is

the proposition which

implied by

each of them and which implies every propsay that the product of two propositions
their

osition implied

Therefore
is

we can

their

weakest

strongest
in

common cause, and that their sum is common consequence, strong and weak being
that

used

sense

every

stronger

than the

proposition which implies another is latter and the latter is weaker than the
it is

one which implies it. Thus of two propositions consists

"a and b
are
in

easily seen that the

product

in their simultaneous affirmation:

true",
their
"<z

or

simply

"a and b";

and

that their

sum
is

consists

alternative affirmation,

"either a or b

true", or

simply

or b".

Remark.
that
is

1 Logical addition thus denned is not disjunctive; to say, it does not presuppose that the two summands

have no element
8.

in

common.

Principles

of Simplification

and Composition.
:

The two preceding

definitions, or rather the postulates which and justify them, yield directly the following formulas precede

(1)

(2)

ab<^a, ab<^b, X <a)(X <b)<(X <ab),

(3)
(4)

a<
(a
(i)

<*)

and (3) bear the name of the principle of because by means of them the premises of an simplification
Formulas
[BOOLE, closely following analogy with ordinary mathematics, premised, as a necessary condition to the definition of "x -j- y", that x and y were
mutually exclusive. JEVONS, and practically all mathematical logicians after him, advocated, on various grounds, the definition of "logical addition"
in a
1

form which does not necessitate mutual exclusiveness.]

12

THE LAWS OF TAUTOLOGY AND OF ABSORPTION.

by deducing therefrom weaker by deducing one of the factors from a propositions, product, or by deducing from a proposition a sum (alternative) of which it is a summand.
argument
simplified
either

may be

Formulas (2) and (4) are called the principle of composition, because by means of them two inclusions of the same antecedent or the same consequent may be combined (composed}.
In
the
in the

The

case we have the product of the consequents, first second, the sum of the antecedents. formulas of the principle of composition can be transequalities

formed into

syllogism and of simplification.

1

by means of the principles of the Thus we have

(ab

(SylL)
(Syll.)

(x

(*

< ab} <

ab) (ab

< a)< (x < <b}<(X <

a),
b).

Therefore

(Comp.)
2

(SylL)
(Syll.)

(a

<a+

(x<ab}<(x<a) (x<b}. b) (a + b < *)< (a <*),

Therefore

(Comp.)
If

we compare
their

the

new formulas

with those

preceding,

which are

converse propositions, we

may

write

+ *<*)-=(<*) (b< X

).

say that x is contained in ab is equivalent to saying that it is contained at the same time in both a and b;

Thus,
to
it

to

and
that

say

that

contains

is

equivalent to saying
b.

contains at the

same time both a and

9.

The Laws

of Tautology

and of Absorption.

Since the definitions of the logical sum and product do not imply any order among the terms added or multiplied,
logical
tative

addition

and

associative properties

and multiplication evidently possess commuwhich may be expressed in

a
(a

the formulas

ab
(ab} c

= ba, =a

(be},

+ b}

+b +c

=b = a + (b
-f a,

-i-

c).

THE LAWS OF TAUTOLOGY AND OF ABSORPTION.

Moreover they possess a special property which law of tautology:
a
is

13

expressed

in the

= aa,
aa <<

a.

Demonstration
i

(Simpl.)

(Comp.)

(a

<C

a.)

(a

<C

a)

= (a <^ ad)
=
a,

a,

whence, by the definition of equality,

(aa <C #) (a <C aa)
In the
2

(a

= aa).

same way:
a <^ a
(a

(Simpl.)

(Comp.)

<<

a)

(a

<<

a)

= (a + a << a),

whence
(a-

<
law

0) (a

+ a<^a)

= (a

a).

From
single

this

it

follows that the

(identical)

sum or product of any

terms
is equal to one of logic there are
it

number whatever of equal

term.

Therefore

in

the

algebra

neither

nor powers, in which respect much simpler than numerical algebra.

multiples
Finally,
logical

is

very

addition

and
also

multiplication

possess
to

remarkable
calculations,

property

which
is

serves

greatly

simplify

and which
a
-r

expressed by the law of absorption:

\

ab

a,

a (a

b)

a.

Demonstration :
1

(Comp.)
(Simpl.)

(a

<C

a) (ab

<C

a)

<<

(a
al>,

ab

<

a),

a <^ a

whence, by the definition of equality,

(a In the
2

ab <C a) (a <^ a

ab)

= (a + ab =
[a

a).

same way:
(a

(Comp.)
(Simpl.)

<

a)

(a

< a + )< < a

+
b)

(a

)],

a (a

<C

#,

whence
[a

<a

(a

+ b)]
(a)

[a (a

+ )< a] =
summand
it

[a (a
(ab)
is

b)

a].
it

Thus a term
factor,

absorbs a

of which

is

or a factor (a

b)

of which

a summand.

14
10.

THEOREMS ON MULTIPLICATION AND ADDITION.

can

Theorems on Multiplication and Addition. We now establish two theorems with regard to the comof inclusions

bination
plication:

and

equalities

by addition and

multi-

(Th.

I)

(a<b)<(ac<bc},
ac
(ac (ac

(<*)<(
(ac

+ *<* + *).

Demonstration :
1

(Simpl.)
(Syll.)

<C

c,

<

a) (a (ac

< b)<
<C
f)

<
<C

*),

(Comp.)
2

<C b}

<C

(ac

be).

(Simpl.)
(Syll.)

<^ b

+ ^,
<r

(<*) (b<b + c)<(a<b + c\

(a< +
<r)

(Comp.)
This

(*< + <:)< ( +
easily

<b+
to

c).

theorem

may be
|

extended

the

case

of

equalities:

(*

= )< (ac =*bc\

(a

= )< (a + = b +
<:

^).

(Th.

II)

Demonstration :
1

(Syll.)

(Syll.)

(a^<^) (c<a)<(ac<<t),
(ac
^) (ac

(Comp.)
2
(Syll.) (Syll.)

< <

a) (a

< *)<

(ac

<

*),

(Comp.)

(a

<

(c<d)
b

+ d}

(c

<

+ </)<

(a

+<

<^

+</).

This theorem

may

easily
is

be extended

to the case in

which

one of the two inclusions

( fl

replaced by an equality:

= 3)

(c<d}<(ac<bd),
by
equalities

When
equality:

both

are

replaced

the

result

is

an

(a

b)

(c=d}< (ac =
(c

(a=*b)

= </)< (a + c = b +

bd),

d).

up, two or more inclusions or equalities can be added or multiplied together member by member; the result will not be an equality unless all the propositions combined
are equalities.

To sum

TRANSFORMING INCLUSIONS.
ii.

The

First

Formula

for

Transforming Inclusions

can now demonstrate an important into Equalities. which an inclusion may be transformed into an formula by
equality, or vice versa:

We

(a<b)
Demonstration :
i.

(a

= a&)

(a

<<*)

= (a + b = b}
(a

(a

< b}< = a b\
(a (a

(a

< b)<
(a

+b

b).

For
(Comp.)

<

a) (a

< *)< <

J),

On
(Def.

the other hand,

we have

(Simpl.)

ab<^a,
(a

=)
(a

< ab)

b<^a + b, (ab<a) = (a = ab\

(a

2.

= ab)<(a<b\

+ b = )< (a< b).

For

Remark.

If

we take

idea (one not denned)

we

the relation of equality as a primitive shall be able to define the relation

We

of inclusion by means of one of the two preceding formulas. 1 shall then be able to demonstrate the principle of the
2

syllogism.

From

the

preceding

formulas

may be
a

derived an inter-

esting result:

(a

b)

= (ab =

b).

For
i.
(

(Syll.)

(-*) = (<*) (b<a\ = (a*=-ab\ (b < a) = (a + b = a\ a <b) = ab) (a + b = )< (ab = a + (a

6).
I.

See HUNTINGTON, op. tit., % This can be demonstrated

(a

<<$)

(a

a&), and
its

(b

<<)

= =
(b

as

follows:
bc).

By

definition
first

we

have

If in the

equality

we

substitute for b

Substitute

for
to

a
the

value derived from the second equality, then a=abc. its abc. This equality is equivalent ab, then ab

equivalent

inclusion,

ab

whence we have a

<

<

c.

Conversely

substitute

for

ab;

c.

Q. E. D.

l6
2.

DISTRIBUTIVE LAW.

(Comp.)

= a + 6)<(a + b = (a < a (a + b < ab) = (a a*) = (a < (# < ab) (ab < a) = = J) = (6 < (J < a J) (a 3 <)
(ab
(
(

),

).

Hence
j

=a
it

-I-

< < (<) = =

(a
)

^).

12.

The
make

Distributive

Law.

The

principles

previously

stated

law,

possible to demonstrate the converse distributive both of multiplication with respect to addition, and of

addition with respect to multiplication,

Demonstration :

(b

<a+ <
b)

[be

<(* +

)*];

whence, by composition,

[ac< (a +
2.

b)c\

[be

<
a)

(a

+ b)c]

< [ac + be <

+
<0>

(a

(ab<^

<C (^

+ <r<C

whence, by composition,

(ab+c<a + c)

(ab

+ c<^b + <:)< [ab + ^<

sufficient to

(a

+ c)

(6

c)].

But these principles are not

direct distributive

demonstrate the

law
be,

(a

+ b) c < ac +

(a

c]

(b

+ <:)< ab +

c,

and we are obliged to postulate one of these formulas or some simpler one from which they can be derived. For
greater convenience

we
(a

shall postulate the

formula

(Ax. V).
This,

b) c

< ac +

be.

combined with the converse formula, produces the

(a

equality

b} c

= ac + be,

which we

shall call briefly

the distributive law.

From

this

may be directly deduced the formula

(a

+ 6)

(c

+ d)

= ae+ be+ad+ bd,

DEFINITION OF O

AND

I.

I/
distributive law,

and consequently the second formula of the

+
For
(a

<r)

(b

c}

= ab +

c.

+ c)

(b

c)

= ab + ac + be +
c.

c,

and, by the law of absorption,

ac

+ be 4- c =

This second formula implies the inclusion cited above,

(a

+ c)
to

(b-\-c)<.ab

+ c,

which thus
Corollary.

is

shown

be proved.

We +
c)

have the equality

ab
for

ac

be

= (a +

b)

(a

+ c)
+
c)

(b

+ c),
be.

(a
It

+ b)
will

(a

(b

+ c)

= (a + be}

(b

= ab + ac +
this

be noted that the two members of

having the signs of multiplication
14).

equality

differ

only in

and addition

transposed (compare

13.

Definition

of o

and

i.

We

shall

now

define

and

introduce into the logical calculus two special terms which we shall designate by o and by i, because of some formal
analogies that they present with the zero and unity of arithmetic.

These two terms are formally defined by the two

There
a

following principles which affirm or postulate their existence.

(Ax. VI).

is

term o
x,

such that whatever value

may be given to the term

we have

(Ax. VII).

There

is

a term

such that whatever value

may be

given to the term x,

we have
i.

x <^
It

may be shown
is
it

that
if

each of the terms thus defined

is

unique; that
property
is

to say,

a second term possesses the same

first.

equal to (identical with) the

DEFINITION OF O

AND

I.

The two
will

doxes which we

of these terms give rise to paranot stop to elucidate here, but which 1 be justified by the conclusions of the theory.
interpretations
shall
I.:

C.
it is

o denotes the class contained

"null"

in

every class; hence

the

or

"void"
i

class

which contains no element

all

(Nothing or Naught),
classes;

denotes the class which contains

totality

hence

it

is
it.

the
It is

of the elements which are

after

contained within

called,

BOOLE, the "universe

of discourse" or simply the "whole".

P.
I.:

o denotes the proposition which implies every propit

osition;

is

the

"false"

or

the

"absurd",

for

it

implies

pairs notably the proposition which

all

of contradictory
is

propositions,

denotes

implied in every proposition; it is the "true", for the false may imply the true whereas the true can imply only the true.

By

definition

we have

the following inclusions

o<o,
the
first

o<i,

<

i,

and

last

ciple of identity.

It is

of which, moreover, result from the prinimportant to bear the second in mind.
2

C. L:
P. L:

The
The

null class is contained in the whole.

false implies the true.

By

the definitions of o
(a

and
o),

we have
(i

the equivalences
(a
i),

< = =
)

(a

< = =
a)
i

since

we have
o

<

a,

a <^

whatever the value of

the

a.

Consequently principle the two following corollaries:

(a

of composition

gives

rise to

= o) = i) (a

= o) = (a + b = = i) = (ab = (b
(b

o),

i).

Thus we can combine two

*

equalities having o for a

second

Compare

the author's

Manuel de
is

Logistique,

Chap. L,

% 8,

Paris,

1905 [This work, however, did not appear].

2

The

rendering "Nothing

everything" must be avoided.

DEFINITION OF O

AND

I.

19
equalities
their
first

member by adding
having
i

their

first

members, and two

multiplying

for

a second

member by
sum
its
is

members.
Conversely, to say that a
"null" [zero]
is

to say that
is

each of the summands

to
i
is

is

null; to

say that a product

is

equal

to say that

each of

factors

equal to

i.

Thus we have
(a

+b

= o)< (a =

o),

M=i)<(a=i),
and more generally (by the principle of the syllogism)

(a

<
____

(a

= i)< (b =
.

i).

_^ ________

...

_.

____ ______

____

____

ceptual interpretation the

first

equality denotes that the part

is

common
follows

to

the

classes

and b

null;

it

by no means
is

that

either

one or the other of these classes

that these

null.

The second denotes

the

two classes combined form

that
either

whole;
is

it

by no means follows
formulas
i,

one or the

other

equal to the whole.

following

The

culus of o

and

comprising the rules for the calcan be demonstrated:

o, a,

aXo
a + o =

= = a. ax
a

For
(o
(a

<
<<
it

a)
i)

= o X a) = (a + o = = (a = a x i) = (a + =
(o
i

a),
i).
it

Accordingly
to

does not change a term to add o to

i.

or

multiply
is

it

by
the
is

We

express

this
i

fact

by

saying that

the

modulus of addition and

the modulus of multi-

plication.

On

whatever by o
1
is

other hand, the product of any term o and the sum of any term whatever with
following interpretation of the

i.

These formulas
two terms:

justify

the

2*

2O
C.
I.:

DUALITY.

The
is

null class

part common to any class whatever and to the the null class; the sum of any class whatever
is

and of the whole

the whole.

The sum

of the null class and

of any class whatever is equal to the latter; the part common to the whole and any class whatever is equal to the latter.
P.
I.:

The
is

simultaneous

affirmation

of any

proposition

whatever and of a
(i.

false proposition is equivalent to the latter

e.,

it

false);

while their alternative

affirmation

is

equal

to the former.
osition whatever

The simultaneous
and of a
true

affirmation
is

of

any prop-

proposition

equivalent to
equivalent to

the former; while their alternative affirmation the latter

(i.

is

e.,

it

is

true).

Remark.

If

we accept

axioms, because
pretation,

the four preceding formulas as of the proof afforded by the double interthe paradoxical formulas
i,

we may deduce from them

o

<

x,

and

x <[

by means of the equivalences established above,

(a

= ab) = (a < = (a + b =
b)

b).

14.

The Law
exists

symmetry and those

to

of Duality. We have proved that a perfect between the formulas relating to multiplication

relating to addition.

We
the

can pass from one

signs of addition

class

the

other

multiplication,

by interchanging on condition that we

i

and
the

also

interchange

and reverse the meaning of the sign (or the two members of an inclusion). This symmetry, or transpose duality as it is called, which exists in principles and definitions, must also exist in all the formulas deduced from them as
long as no principle or definition is introduced which would overthrow them. Hence a true formula may be deduced
it by the principle by following the rule given above. In its application the law of duality makes it possible to replace two demonstrations by one. It is well to note that this law

terms o and

<

from another true formula by transforming

is,

of duality; that

is

derived
(the

from

the

definitions
for

of

addition

and
by

multipli-

cation

formulas

which are

reciprocal

duality)

DEFINITION OF NEGATION.

21

and
laws

not,

as

is

often

thought

from the laws of negation

which have not yet been

the

stated.

We

shall see that these

same property and consequently preserve possess the duality, but they do not originate it; and duality would exist even if the idea of negation were not introduced. For
instance, the equality
(

12)

ab
is

+ ac +

be

= (a + b}
duality,

(a

t)
its

(b

+ c)

its

own

reciprocal

by

for

two members are

transformed into each other by duality. It is worth remarking that the law of duality
applicable primary propositions. those propositions primary which contain
to

is

only

We

call

[after

BOOLE]

one copula We those propositions secondary of which both members (connected by the copula <[ or =) are primary For instance, the principle of propositions, and so on.
but
or =).
call

identity

and the

principle of simplification are primary pro-

positions, while the principle of the syllogism

and the principle

of composition are secondary propositions.

15.

Definition of Negation.
i

The

introduction of the terms

o and
is

makes

it

possible

for us to define negation.

This

a "uni-nary" operation which transforms a single term into another term called its negative. 2 The negative of a is called

not-0

and

is

written

<z'.

Its

formal
:

definition

implies

the

4 following postulate of existence

i

[BOOLE thus derives

[In French]
its

it

(Laivs of Thought,

London

1854,

Chap.

Ill,

Prop. IV).]
3

the

same word negation denotes both the operation

result

and

result,

which becomes equivocal. The

like [the English] "negative".

ought to be denoted
authors say, "supple-

by another word,

Some

mentary" or "supplement", [e. g. BOOLE and HUNTINGTON]. Classical logic makes use of the term "contradictory" especially for propositions.
not-a by
neither

adopt here the notation of MAcCoLL; SCHRODER indicates which prevents the use of indices and obliges us to express them as exponents. The notation a' has the advantage of excluding
3
a-i

We

nor exponents. The notation a employed by many inconvenient for typographical reasons. "When the negative affects a proposition written in an explicit form (with a copula) it is
indices
is

authors

or ==) by a vertical bar (<t^ or =}=). The applied to the copula accent can be considered as the indication of a vertical bar applied to letters.
4

[BOOLE follows

Aristotle in usually calling

the

law of duality the

22
(Ax. VIII.)

DEFINITION OF NEGATION.

term a

such that

Whatever the term a may be, there we have at the same time
aa

is

also a

= o,
it

-}-

i.

It

can be proved by means of the following lemma that

exists
is

if

a term so denned
If at the

unique:

same time

acbc,
then

l>

c,

a
Demonstration.

= b.
members of
the second

Multiplying both

premise by a, we have a
Multiplying both

ac

= ab + ac.
,

members by

ab + be = b + be.

By

the

first

premise,

ab

ac

= ab

-\-

be.

Hence
a

ac

= b + be,
to

which by the law of absorption may be reduced

a

b.

Remark.
tributive law.

This demonstration

rests

upon the

direct

dis-

This law cannot, then, be demonstrated by means of negation, at least in the system of principles which we are adopting, without reasoning in a circle.
This lemma being established, let us suppose that the same term a has two negatives; in other words, let a\ and a'2 be two terms each of which by itself satisfies the conditions of

principle of contradiction "which affirms that it is impossible for any being to possess a quality and at the same time not to possess it". He writes it in the form of an equation of the second degree, x x* o,

or

expresses the universe less x, or not x. Thus he regards the law of duality as derived from negation as stated in note I above.]
(I

x)

=o

in

which

CONTRADICTION AND EXCLUDED MIDDLE.

the definition.

23
Since,

We

will

prove

that

they

are equal.

by hypothesis,

aa\
aa' 2

= o, = o,
2
,

+ a+
a
a

a\
a'2

= i, =
i
,

we have
aa
-i

= a a'

a\

=a+

a' 2

whence we conclude, by the preceding lemma,

that

a\ = a

We
The

can

now speak

of the negative of a term as of a unique

and well-defined term.

uniformity of
the

operation of negation

may be

ex-

pressed
If
(Z

in the following

manner:
a'

then

also

=
in

b'.

By

this

proposition,

both

members of an
"denied".

equality

the

logical

calculus

may be

16.

The

Middle.

Principles of Contradiction and of Excluded By definition, a term and its negative verify the
aa

two formulas

= o,

+a

which represent respectively the principle of contradiction and

the principle of excluded middle.*
C.

I:

i.

The

classes a

in other

words, no element can be

and a have nothing in common; at the same time both a

and
2.

not-<z.

The

classes

a and

a
is

combined form the whole;

either a or not-a.

in

other words, every element

As Mrs. LADD- FRANKLIN has

truly

remarked (BALDWIN, Dictionary

of Philosophy and Psychology, article "Laws of Thought"), the principle of contradiction is not sufficient to define contradictories; the principle of

excluded
principle
to call

middle

must be

added which equally deserves the name of

This
is

of contradiction.

why

Mrs.

LADD-FRANKLIN proposes
and the principle of two contradictory terms
to the second, they

them

respectively the principle of exclusion

as,

exhaustion,

inasmuch
(the

according to the

first,

are exclusive

one of the other); and, according

are exhaustive (of the universe of discourse).

24
P. L:
i.

DOUBLE NEGATION.

The simultaneous
is

affirmation of the propositions

a and not-a
2.

false; in other words, these at the

two propositions

cannot both be true

same

time.

The
is

alternative

affirmation of the

propositions a

and

not-0

true; in other words,

true.

one of these two propositions

must be

propositions are said to be contradictory when one is the negative of the other; they cannot both be true or false If one is true the other is false; if one at the same time.
is

Two

false the other is true.

This

is

in

agreement with the

fact that the terms o

and

are the negatives of each other; thus

we have
1.

0X1
Generally speaking,

= 0, 0+1 =

we

say that two terms are contradictory

when one
17.
is

is

the negative of the other.

Law
is

of
if

Double Negation.
is

Moreover

this reciprocity

general:

a term b

the negative of the term a, then the

b.

term a

the negative of the term

These two statements

are expressed by the

same formulas
o,

ab

=
b.

and, while they unequivocally determine b in terms of a, they

likewise

determine a

in

terms

of

This

is

due

to

the

symmetry of these relations, that is to say, to the commuThis reciprocity is tativity of multiplication and addition.
expressed by the law of double negation
(

y = a,

which

may be

formally

pothesis the negative of a,

proved as follows: a being by hywe have

o,

aa

On
in the

'

the other hand, let a" be the negative of a

we

have,

same way,

d a" =

a"

But, by the preceding lemma, these four equalities involve the equality

= a".

Q. E. D.

TRANSFORMING INCLUSIONS.
This law
If b

25

a,

may be expressed in we have a = b', and

makes
it

the following manner:

conversely,
in

by symmetry.
calculations,

This

proposition

possible,

to

transpose the negative from one the other.

member
it

of an equality to

The law of double negation makes

(if

possible to conclude

the equality of two terms from the equality of their negatives

b'

then a

3),

and therefore

to cancel the negation

of both

members

of an equality.

From

the characteristic formulas of negation together with

the fundamental properties of o

and

i,

it

results that every

product which contains two contradictory factors is null, and that every sum which contains two contradictory summands
is

equal to

i.

In particular,

we have
'

the following formulas:

,

a = ab + ab

(a as

b)

(a

b'),

which

may be demonstrated
a
i

follows

by means of the

distributive law:

= a x = a(b + = ab + ab', a = a+ o a + bb' = (a + b) (a +

b')

b'}

These formulas indicate the principle of the method of

development which we
18.

shall explain in detail later

21 sqq.)

Second Formula

for

Transforming Inclusions

into Equalities:

We

can now establish two very important

equivalences between inclusions and equalities:

Demonstration.
inclusion

i.
b'

If

a<^b by
(ab'

we multiply we have

the two

members of

the

<
o,

bb')

= (<*'< o) = (ab' =
a

o).

2.

Again,

we know

that

= ab + ab'
-{-

Now

if

ab'

= ab

= ab.

26

LAW OF

CONTRAPOSITION.

On

the other hand:

i.

Add

a to each of the two members

of the inclusion a<^Z>;

(a
2.

we have

<a
b

+
6

b)

= (i < a

b}

= (a

i).

We know
if

that

= (a + 6)
,

(a'

+ b).

Now,

=
b

= (a + b} X = a + b.
i

By

the preceding formulas, an inclusion can be transformed

at will into

Any
this

equality

an equality whose second member is either o or i. may also be transformed into an equality of

form by means of the following formulas:

Demonstration :

= (ab'= o) (db = o) = (ab' + ab= = + = a + '=i) =

(>'

o),

j) (

Again,

we have the two formulas

)

= ^) = [(^ + (a

('

^')

= o],

(a

= b) = (ab + a = i),
b'

which can be deduced from the preceding formulas by performing the indicated multiplications (or the indicated additions) by means of the distributive law.
19.

Law

of Contraposition.
contraposition,

We

are

now

able to

demon-

strate the

law of

Demonstration.

By

the preceding formulas,

we have

(a<)=-(^'==o)
Again, the law of contraposition

= ('<<O.
may
take the form

which presupposes the law of double negation. It may be expressed verbally as follows: "Two members of an inclusion

may be

interchanged on condition that both are denied".

POSTULATE OF EXISTENCE.
C. L: "If all a
P.
in
I.:

2J

is

b,

then
b,

all

"If

a implies
"If
false,
is

notis
is

not-0, artd conversely". not-a and conversely"; implies notis

other words,
is

a a

true
false".

is

true",

is

equivalent to

saying, "If b

This equivalence

the principle of the reductio

ad absurdum

(see hypothetical arguments,

modus

tollens,

% 58).

20. Postulate of Existence.

One

final

formulated here, which we

(Ax. IX)

will call the postulate

axiom may be of existence:

i<o,
also

whence may be

deduced i=f=-

In the conceptual interpretation (C. I.) this axiom means that the universe of discourse is not null, that is to say, that
it

contains

some elements,

at least one.
i

If

it

contains but

o. But even one, there are only two classes possible, then they would be distinct, and the preceding axiom would

and

be

verified.

In the prepositional interpretation (P.

that the true

I.)
;

this

axiom

signifies
it

and the
i

false are

distinct

in this case,

bears

the

mark

of

evidence

and

proposition,

= o,
types

of necessity.
the

The

contrary

is,

consequently,

type of absurdity

(of the formally false proposition) while the propositions

and

0,

are

of identity

(of the

formally

true

pro-

position).

Accordingly we put
(i

= o) = o,

(0

= 0) =
~
m

(I

i)

i.

More

generally, every equality of the

form

X
is

-~

X
for,
if

equivalent

to

one of the
its

identity-types;
will

this

equality so that

second member

be o or
i)

we reduce i, we find
(i

(xx

+ xx '=

o)

= (o = o),
x

(xx

+ x x '=

i).

On

the other hand, every equality of the form

=x
for

is

equivalent to the absurdity-type,

we

find

by the same

process,

(xx

+xx

= o) = (i = o),

(xx

+ xx'

i)

= (o =

i).

28
21.

DEVELOPMENTS OF O AND OF

I.

The Developments

of o

and of

i.

Hitherto

we

have met only such formulas as directly express customary modes of reasoning and consequently offer direct evidence.

We

shall

now expound

theories

and methods which depart

from the usual modes of thought and which constitute more particularly the algebra of logic in so far as it is a formal
and, so to speak, automatic

method of an absolute
replacing

universality

and

an

infallible

certainty,

reasoning

by

cal-

culation.

The fundamental
Given the terms
develop o or
i

process
b,

of
(to

this

method
finite

is

development.

a,

any

number), we can
distributive law:

with respect to these terms (and their negatives)

by the following formulas derived from the

= a a, = aa'+ bb'= (a + b} (a + o = aa'+ bb' + cc = (a + b +

o

i
i

= a + a, = a + a) (b + = (a + a) (b +
(

+ b) (a'+ &'), c) (a + 6 + c) (a + &' + c) X(a + + f) (a + b + c) X (a'+ b + f) (a'+b'+c) (a+ ff+f')',

b'}

(a

t>'

b'}

b') (c

= ab + ab' + a b + ab', + c) = abc + abc + ab' c + ab' c

4-

a be

abc '+ a

b'c

+ a'b'c;

and so
will
1

on.

be developed
all

In general, for any number n of simple terms^ in a product containing 2" factors, and

in

a sum containing 2" summands.

The

factors

of zero

comprise possible additive combinations, and the summands of i all possible multiplicative combinations of the n given
terms

and

different
at the

each combination comprising n terms and never containing a term and its negative
their

negatives,

same

time.

The summands of

the

development of

are what

BOOLE
dis-

called the constituents (of the universe of discourse).

1 the equally well call them, with PoRETSKY,

We may

minima of

course, because

they are the smallest classes into which the

See the Bibliography, page

xiv.

PROPERTIES OF THE CONSTITUENTSuniverse of discourse

terms.
is

2g

In

the

same way we

divided with reference to the n given shall call the factors of the

development of o the maxima of discourse, because they are the largest classes that can be determined in the universe of discourse by means of the n given terms.
22.

Properties of the Constituents.

The

constituents

or minima of discourse possess two properties characteristic of contradictory terms (of which they are a generalization);

they are mutually exclusive,

i.

e.,

the product of any two of

i.

them
of
all

is

o;

and they are

from

collectively exhaustive,

e.,

the

sum
other

"exhausts" the universe of discourse.

is

The

latter

prop-

erty

evident

the

preceding

formulas.

The

any two constituents differ at least in the "sign" of one of the terms which serve as factors, i. e., one contains this term as a factor and the other the negative
results

from the

fact that

of this term.
their

This is enough, as we know, to ensure that product be null. The maxima of discourse possess analogous and correlative

properties; their

seen; and the

sum of any two

as

combined product is equal to o, of them is equal to

as
i,

we have

inasmuch

as they differ in the sign of at least one of the terms which

enter into

them

summands.
simplicity,
to
e.,

For the sake of

we

shall confine ourselves, with

BOOLE and SCHRODER, minima of discourse, /.

leave
the
to

the study of the constituents or shall the developments of i.

We

the

reader

the task of finding and demonstrating

corresponding theorems which concern the discourse or the developments of o.

23. Logical Functions.

maxima of

We

shall call a logical function

any term whose expression is complex, that is, formed of letters which denote simple terms together with the signs of
1 the three logical operations.

In

this

algebra
ordinary

the

logical

function
that

is
it

function
the
first.

of

algebra,

except

analogous to the integral has no powers beyond

3O

LOGICAL FUNCTIONS AND THEIR DEVELOPMENT.

logical function

may be

considered as a function of

all

the terms of discourse, or only of some of them which may be regarded as unknown or variable and which in this case

are

denoted

by the
(x, y, z)

letters

x, y,

z.

We

shall

represent a
x; y,
z,

function of the variables or

the symbol

unknown

quantities,

by

or by other analogous symbols, as in

Once for all, a logical function may be ordinary algebra. as a function of any term of the universe of disconsidered course, whether or not the term appears in the explicit expression of the function.

24.

The Law
proceed

of

Development.
and
let

This being established,

we

shall

to develop a function

f(x) with respect to

x.

Suppose the problem solved,

ax + bx
be
the

development sought.

By hypothesis we have

the

equality

f(x)

= ax + bx'
Make x

for all possible values of x.

x =

and consequently

o.

We

have
/(i)

i
;

a.

Then put x

=o

and x

we have

/(o)

= b.
a and
b of

These two

equalities determine the coefficients

the development which

may

then be written as follows:

+/((>)*',

/(*)-/(!)*
in

which /(i), /(o) represent the value of the function /(#) when we let x i o respectively. and x

Corollary.
equalities

Multiplying

both

by x and x

in turn,

members of we have the

the

preceding

following pairs

of equalities

(MAC COLL):
xf(x)

= ax xf(x) = */(

x'f(x)
i)
,

bx

x'f(x)

= *'/(o)

Now

let

a function of two (or more) variables be developed

LAW OF DEVELOPMENT.
with

31
y.

respect
first

to

the

two variables

x and

Developing

/(x, y)

with respect to x,

we

find
,

y)x.

Then, developing the second member with respect to 7,

we have

This result

is

symmetrical with respect to the two variables,

and therefore independent of the order in which the developments with respect to each of them are performed.
In the same way we can obtain progressively the development of a function of 3, 4, ...... variables.
,

general law of these developments is as follows: To develop a function with respect to n variables, form all the constituents of these n variables and multiply each of

The

them by the value assumed by the function when each of

the simple factors of the corresponding constituent
to
i is

equated

(which

is

the

same thing

as equating to o those factors

whose negatives appear

in the constituent).

When a variable with respect to which the development is made", y for instance, does not appear explicitly in the
function

(/(x)

for

instance),

we

have,

according

to

the

general law,

/(*)

-/toy +/(*)/.

In particular, if a is a constant term, independent of the variables with respect to which the development is made,

we have for its a a x + a x',

a

successive developments,

= axy + axy + ax y + ax'y, a = axyz + axyz + axy z + axyz' + ax yz + ax yz + ax y z

'

'

+ ax y z
and so
on.

Moreover these formulas may be directly obtained by multiplying by a both members of each development of i.
Cor.
i.

(a

We have the equivalence + x') (b + x) = ax + bx +

ab

= ax + bx

'.

These formulas express the method of

classification

by dichotomy.

32
For,
if

FORMULAS OF DE MORGAN.

we develop

with respect to x,

we have

ax + bx + abx + abx
Cor. 2.

=
c
-

(a

ab)x

(b

ab)x

= ax + bx'.

We

have the equivalence

(a

ax + bx +
For
if

+ c}x +

(b

+ c)x'.
we
find

we develop
'

the term c with respect to x,

ax + bx + ex + ex
Thus,

= (a + c)x + (b + c)x.
contains

when

function

represented by
to .the

c) independent of x,

terms (whose sum we can always reduce

is
it

developed form ax + bx by adding c to the coefficients Therefore we can always consider a of both x and x. function to be reduced to this form.
In
practice,

each term
instance)

we perform the development by multiplying which does not contain a certain letter (x for

by (x

+ x)

and by developing the product according

like

Then, when desired, be reduced to a single term.

to the distributive law.

terms

may

25.

The Formulas

of

De Morgan.

In any development
is the

of

i, the sum of a certain number of constituents of the sum of all the others.

negative

For,
to
i,

by hypothesis, the sum of these two sums is equal and their product is equal to o, since the product of
is

two

different constituents

zero.

From this DE MORGAN:

proposition

may be deduced
a'b',

the formulas of

(a

+ b)' =

(ab)

=a

+ b'. + b):

Demonstration.

Let us develop the sum (a

= ab + ab' + ab + a b = ab + ab' + a b.
'

Now the development of i with respect to a and b contains the three terms of this development plus a fourth term a b\
This fourth term, therefore, other three.
is

the negative of the

sum

of the

We
ative

can demonstrate the second formula either by a correl-

(i. e., considering the development of o by or by observing that the development of (' factors)

argument

FORMULAS OF DE MORGAN.
'

33

a b
differs

'

ab'

+
i

a b\
only by the

from the development of

summand

ab.

How DE
clear;

for instance c

MORGAN'S formulas may be generalized is now we have for a sum of three terms,
abc

+b+

abc '-f ab

'

ab' c -^ a bc-\- a be

a'b'c.

This development differs from the development of i only by the term ab' c. Thus we can demonstrate the formulas
(a
4-

c)'

=a

b' c

(abc}'

=a

b'

c,

which are generalizations of

The formulas
of a

of

DE MORGAN'S formulas. DE MORGAN are in very frequent

make
it

use in

calculation, for they

possible to perform the negation

a product by transferring the negation to the the negative of a sum is the product of the negatives of its summands; the negative of a product is the
or

sum

simple

terms:

sum

of the negatives of

its

factors.

These formulas,

again,
its

make

it

possible to pass from a

by duality, demonstrate their equivalence. For this purpose it is only necessary to apply the law of contraposition to the given proposition, and then to perform the negation of both

primary proposition to
to

correlative proposition

and

members.

Example:

ab

ac

be

= (a + b)
=
[(a

(a

+ c)

(b

+ c}

Demonstration :
(ab

ac

be}'

= (ab}'(ac}'(bc}'
(a

+ b) (a + c} (b + c}} + b}'+(a + *)'+ (b + c}', (a

,

+ b'}

(a

-f c'} (b'

c'}

=a

b'

b' c

Since the simple terms, a, &, c, may be any terms, we may suppress the sign of negation by which they are affected, and obtain the given formula.

Thus DE MORGAN'S formulas

find

furnish a

means by which

to

or

to

demonstrate the formula correlative to another;

said

but, as
this

we have

above

14), they are

not the basis of

correlation.
3

34
26. Disjunctive

DISJUNCTIVE SUMS.

Sums.
its

By means

of development
i.

we can
which

transform any

sum
of

into a disjunctive sum,

e.,

one

in

each
For,

product
let

(a

+ b 4- c)

summands taken two by two is zero. be a sum of which we do not know

let us

whether or not the three terms are disjunctive;

that they are not.

assume

Developing, we have:
-\-

+b+c

= abc + abc
first

ab' c

+ ab

a be

a be

b' c.

Now,
the

the

four terms

of this development constitute

respect to b and c; the following are the development of a b with respect to c.

development

of a with

two

The

above sum,

therefore, reduces to

+ab+

b'

and the terms of

this

sum

are disjunctive

like those

of the
;

This process is general and preceding, as may be verified. moreover, obvious. To enumerate without repetition all the
a's,

all

the

's,

and
the

all

the

^'s,

etc.,

it
's

is

clearly sufficient to
0's,

enumerate
then
It
all

all

a's,

then

all

the

which are not

nor
's,

and
not

the

^'s

which are neither

that
it

a's

and so on.
is

will

be noted
since

the expression thus obtained

symmetrical,
original

summands.
b

depends on the order assigned to the Thus the same sum may be written:
',

+ ab'+ a 'b'c

+ ac +

abc,

we may
in

Conversely, in order to simplify the expression of a sum, suppress as factors in each of the summands (arranged

any suitable order) the negatives of each preceding summand. Thus, we may find a symmetrical expression for a sum. For instance,
a

a b

= t>+ ab'

'

b.

27.
utility
lies

Properties of Developed Functions.

The

practical

of the process of development in the algebra of logic

in the fact that

developed functions possess the following

property:

The sum
sum

or the product of two functions developed with

respect to the

same

letters

is

or the product of their coefficients.

obtained simply by finding the The negative of a

PROPERTIES OF DEVELOPED FUNCTIONS.

35
the

developed

function
its

is

obtained

simply

by

replacing

coefficients of

development by

their negatives.

We
of

shall

now demonstrate
this

these propositions in the case

will

two variables;

demonstration

of course

be of

universal application.

Let the developed functions be

a^xy
a 2 xy
1.

+ b-iXy + c^x'y + d^x'y', + b xy + c x'y + d x y

2 2
2
.

I say that their

sum

is

(a,

a 2 )xy
is

fa

-f

&2 )xy

fo

+ c^x'y +

(<tt

+ d )x'y.
2

This result
2.

derived directly from the distributive law.

I say that their

product
2

is

#i a2 xy
for
if

+ bi b

xy

+ Ci c

x'y

+ d^ d x'y
2

we

find

their

product according to the general rule

(by applying the distributive law), the products of two terms of different constituents will be zero; therefore there will remain
only the products of the terms of the same constituent, and, the law of tautology) the product of this constituent
it

as (by

multiplied

by itself is equal to itself, obtain the product of the coefficients.

3.

is

only necessary to

Finally, I say that the negative of

axy
is

+ bxy + ex y + dx'y
xy

a xy

-f b'

+ c x'y +

d'x'y.
is

that the product of these

In order to verify this statement, it two functions

is

sufficient to

prove

is

zero and that their

sum
(axy

equal to

i.

Thus
(a

+ bxy + ex y + dx'y)

xy

+ b' xy + c x'y +

d' xy)

= (ad xy + bb' xy' + cc x'y + dd'x'y) = (o-xy + O'Xjf+ O'x'y + Q-x'y)= o

(axy + 6xy+ cx'y + dx'y)

(axy + b' xy
(c
i

+ c'xy + d' x'y)

= [(a + a) xy+(l> + xy + = (i xy +
b')

+ c) x'y +(</ + //') x'y] -xy + i -x'y + i x'y)

i.

36

PROPERTIES OF DEVELOPED FUNCTIONS.

Special Case.

We

have the
'

equalities:

+ a b')''= ab' + a b, (ab + a b) = ab -{ a b'

(ab
'

which may

easily

be demonstrated

by combined form the development of i or again by performing the negation (ab + a b')' by means of DE MORGAN'S formulas
;

observing that the

many ways; for instance, two sums (ab-\-db') and (ab' + a b)

in

(S 25).

From

these equalities
(ab'

we can deduce

the following equality:

'

+
(

a b

= o) = (ab + a b'= i),

in another

which result might also have been obtained

way

by observing
(

that

18)

(ab'

+ ab

= o) = [(a +

b'}

(a

b)

=
in

i],

and by performing the multiplication indicated

equality.
.

the

last

THEOREM.

We

have the following equivalences*

= be + (a
member
will

b'c)

= (b = ac +
first
'

etc}

(c

= ab' + ab).
its

For, reducing the

of these equalities so that

'

second

be o,
a(bc

+ b' c'} + a (be + b'c) = abc + ab' c + a 'be + a b' c =

'
'

6,
o.

Now

it

is

clear that the

first

member

of this equality

is

symmetrical with respect to the three terms a, b, c. We may therefore conclude that, if the two other equalities which differ

from the

first

only in the permutation of these three

the

letters

be

similarly transformed,

same

result will

be obtained,

which proves the proposed equivalence.

Corollary.
If

we have
,

at the

same time the three

inclusions:

a<^bc '+ b'c

we have
a
also

b<^ac'+a'c,
converse

c<^ab'+a'b,
and therefore the

the

inclusions,

corresponding equalities

= bc'-\-b'c,

ac'+a'c,

c=ab'-\-a'b.

W. STANLEY

JEVONS, Pure Logic, 1864, p. 61.

LIMITS OF

A FUNCTION.

3/

For
shall

if

we transform

the given inclusions into equalities,

we

have

abc

+ ab' c

= o,
abc

abc-\- a be

= o,
'

abc

+a

b'

= o,

whence, by combining them into a single equality,

+ &b' c'

}-

d'be +

b' c

= o.

Now this equality, as we see, is equivalent to any one of the three equalities to be demonstrated.
28.

The Limits

of a Function.

term x
,

is

said to

be

when it contains comprised between two given terms, a and one and is contained in the other; that is to say, if we have,
for instance,

a<,x,
which we

*<,
When
the

may

write

more

briefly as

a<><.
Such a formula
term
is

called a double inclusion.

is

variable

and

constant terms a and b,

always comprised between two these terms are called the limits
is

of

x.

The

first

(contained in x)
is

called inferior limit; the

second (which contains x)

called the superior limit.

is

THEOREM. A developed function and the product of its coefficients.

comprised between the

sum

We

shall first

demonstrate

this

theorem for a function of

one variable,

ax + bx.

We

have, on the one hand,

(ab <C 0)

<C (abx

< ax),
+ bx
,

(ab<b)<(abx'<bx).
Therefore

abx
or

+ abx

<^ ax

ab <^ ax

+ bx.
)*],
b)x'}.

On

the other hand,

(a

< a + < [ax < (a +

b)

[6x'<

(a

38
Therefore

FORMULA OF PORETSKY.

ax + bx'< (a +
or

b) (x

+ *'),

ax + &x'<^a +

b.

To sum
Remark

up,

ab<^ ax + bx'<^a +
i.

b.

Q. E. D.

This double inclusion

*

may be

expressed in the

following form:

For
f(a)

= aa + bd
it

+ b,

But

this

form, pertaining as

does to an equation of one

unknown
that

appear susceptible of generalization, whereas the other one does so appear, for it is readily seen
the

quantity, does not

former

demonstration

is

of

general

application.

Whatever the number of variables

the

number of constituents 2") it may same manner that the function coefficients and is contained in its
theorem
is

(and consequently the be demonstrated in exactly

contains the product of
their

sum.

Hence

the

of general application.
2.

Remark

This theorem assumes that

all

the constituents

appear in the development, consequently those that are wanting must really be present with the coefficient o. In this case,
the

product of
is

all

the coefficients

is

evidently o.
i,

Likewise
all

when one
coefficients
It will

coefficient

has
i.
(

the value

the

sum of

the

equal to

be shown
limits,

later

both

its

and consequently

38) that a function that they are

may
its
is

reach

extreme
always

values.

yet, however, we between them. comprised

As

know

only that

it

29.

Formula

of Poretsky. 2

We

have the
.T

equivalence

(x = ax + bx') = (b <C
1

<C a)

EUGEN MULLER, Aus

PORETSKY, "Sur
les

der Algebra der Logik, Art.

II.

(Bull, de la Soc.

methodes pour resoudre les egalit^s logiques". phys.-math. de Kazan, Vol. II, 1884).

SCHRODER'S THEOREM.
Demonstration.
the
First

39

multiplying
is

by x both members of

given

equality

[which

the

first

member

of the entire

secondary equality],

we have

x
which, as

= ax,

we know,

is

equivalent to the inclusion

x<^a.

Now

multiplying both

members by
o

x',

we have

= bx',

which, as

we know,

is

equivalent to the inclusion

b<x.
Summing
up,

we have

(x

= a x + bx'} <^(b<^x<^d).

Conversely,
(b

< x < a)< = ax + bx).

(x
)

For

= (*'= o).
[the

Adding these two equalities member to member members of the two larger equalities],
(x

second

= ax)
(b

(o

= bx))<^ (x = ax + bx).

Therefore

< *< <*)< (* = ax + bx),

is

and

thus the equivalence

proved.
1

30. Schroder's

Theorem.

The

equality

ax + bx
signifies that

=o
b.

lies

between a and

Demonstration:

(ax

+ bx

= o) = (ax = o) = (*<')> (a* o)

(bx

= o),

SCHRODER,

Operationskreis des Logikkalkuls (1877),

Theorem

20.

40
Hence
(ax

SCHRODER'S THEOREM.

+ bx

= o) = (b <^ x <C d)

Comparing

this

theorem with the formula of PORETSKY, we

obtain at once the equality

(ax

+ bx'

o)

= (x = ax + bx')

which may be directly proved by reducing the formula of PORETSKY to an equality whose second member is o, thus:
(x

ax + bx'}

= [x(ax +

b'

x)

+ x' (ax + bx')

= o]

(ax-}- bx' = o).

If

is

the

we consider the given equality as an equation in which unknown quantity, PORETSKY'S formula will be its
the double inclusion

solution.

From

<x<a
b<a.

we conclude, by

the principle of the syllogism, that

a consequence of the given equality and is inIt is called the dependent of the unknown quantity x. resultant of the elimination of x in the given equation. It is
This
is

equivalent to the equality

ab
Therefore

= o.
.

we have
(ax

the implication

+ bx

= o) <^ (ab = o)
into

Taking

this

consequence

consideration, the solution

may be

simplified, for

(ab=6)
Therefore

= (b = aV).
a' a' b

= a x + bx = ax + a bx = d bx + x + bx = = b + d x = b + ax.
a' b'
b'

a' b'

sense: since
that

This form of the solution conforms most closely to common x contains b and is contained in a, it is natural

x should be equal

to

the

sum of

and a part of

RESULTANT OF ELIMINATION.
(that
is is

41
x).

to say, the part

common

to

a and

The

solution
b);
it is

generally indeterminate (between the limits a and determinate only when the limits are equal,

a
for then

= b,
=-=

x
Then

= b + ax = b + bx
(ax

= a.

the equation assumes the form

+ ax

= o) == (a = x)

and

is

equivalent to the double inclusion

(a

< x < a) = (x = a).

When ab
is

31.

The

Resultant of Elimination.
is

not

zero, the equation

impossible (always false), because it has a false consequence. It is for this reason that SCHRODER considers the resultant of the elimination as a condition of

the equation.

But we must not be misled by

word.

The

resultant of the elimination of

it

is

this equivocal not a cause of

the equation,

is

a consequence of

it;

it

is

not a

sufficient

but

a necessary condition. The same conclusion

ab

is

the inferior

limit

of the

may be reached by observing function ax + bx', and

that

that

consequently the function can not vanish unless

(ab

this limit is o.

<^ax + bx)

(ax

+ bx
we
(b

= o) < (ab = o).

in other equiv-

We

can express the resultant of elimination

if

alent forms; for instance, (a

write the equation in the

form

+ *')

+ x)
o

= o,

we observe

that the resultant

ab
is

=
x).

obtained

simply by dropping

the

unknown

quantity (by

suppressing the terms

written:

x and
a x

Again the equation may be

+ b' x + b'

=
i
.

and the

resultant of elimination:
a'

42

RESULTANT OF ELIMINATION.

Here again
1

it

is

obtained simply by dropping the unknown

quantity.

Remark.

If in the

equation

ax + bx
we
substitute

o
quantity

for

the

unknown

its

value derived

from the equations,

x we
find

a'x

bx',
'

= ax +

b'

(abx
that
is

+ abx

= o) = (ab

o),

to say, the resultant of the elimination of

we have we are
as

x which, as a consequence of the equation itself. Thus assured that the value of x verifies this equation.
seen,
is

Therefore

we

can, with VOIGT, define the solution of an equation

that value which,

it

when

substituted

for

in the equation,

reduces

to the resultant of the elimination of x.

Special Case.

When the equation contains a term independent

it

of x,

i. e-,

when

is

of the form

ax + bx +
it

=o
o,

is

equivalent to
(a

+ c}x +

(b

+ c)x'
is

and the

resultant of elimination
(a

+ i)

(b

+ c)

= ab + c = o,

This

is

the

method of elimination of Mrs. LADD-FRANKLIN and

Mr. MITCHELL, but this rule is deceptive in its apparent simplicity, for it cannot be applied to the same equation when put in either of the forms

ax
Now, on

+ bx'= o,

(a

+ x')

(b'-\- x)
(

I.

may be

the other hand, as applied to the forms

we

shall see

54),

for inequalities

it

ax
and not

+ bx'=^= o,
forms
(b

(a

+ x')

r (b
-f-

x)

=f=

I.

to the equivalent
(a

+ x')
is

+ x) =j= o,

ax + b'V=f

I.

Consequently, use it correctly,

it

has not the mnemonic property attributed to

necessary to recall to which forms
it is-

it,

for, to

it

applicable.

CASE OF INDETERMINATION.

43

whence we derive
to zero the

this practical rule:

To
it

obtain the resultant

sufficient to

of the elimination of

in this case,

is

equate

product of the coefficients of to them the term independent of x.

32.

x and x\ and add

The Case

of Indetermination.

Just as the resultant

ab = o
corresponds to the case when the equation
equality
is

possible, so the

=o
=

this

corresponds to the case of absolute indetermination. For in case the equation both of whose coefficients are zero
(a

= o),
it

{b
is

therefore

reduced to an identity (0 0), and whatever the value of x may "identically" verified,
is

= o),

be;

does not determine the value of x

at

all,

since the

double inclusion
then becomes

o<><
which does not
case we say
limit in

i,

any way
is

the variability of x.
indeterminate.
if

In

this

that the equation

(a
if

We shall reach the + b) is the superior

this

same conclusion
limit

we observe

that
that,
all

of the function
is

ax + bx and

limit

is

o,

the

function

necessarily zero

for

values of x,

(ax

+ bx'<^ a + b}
When

(a

+b=

o)

<

(a x

+ bx

= o)
a

Special Case.

the

equation

contains

term

in-

dependent of x,

ax + bx

+c
c

= o,

the condition of absolute indetermination takes the form

+ 6+
c

= o.
(l>

For

ax + bx +
(a

t)

(b

+ c)

= (a + c}x + + c)x', = a + b + c = o.

44
33.
at
this

SUMS AND PRODUCTS OF FUNCTIONS.

Sums and Products

point

of Functions.

It

is

desirable

to introduce a notation

borrowed from mathe-

matics, which

is very useful in the algebra of logic. Let/(^) be an expression containing one variable; suppose that the

class of all the possible values of

class of all

is

determined; then the

the values which the function f(x)

will

can assume
will

in

consequence

also

be determined.
their

Their sum

be

represented
is

by

2/()

and

product by ]^[ /(.*).

notion, for
it

This

idea of

new notation and not a new sum and product applied

the symbols

is

merely the

to the values of a function.

When

an(^ 1 1 are applied to propositions,

they assume an interesting significance:

means

that f(x)

=o
is

is

true for every value of x;

and

that f(x)

=o

true

for

some value of

x.

For,

in order

may be equal to i (/'. <?., be true), all its factors must be equal to i (/. ^., be true); but, in order that a sum may be equal to i (/'. e., be true), it is sufficient that only one of its summands be equal to i (/'. *., be true). Thus we
that a product

have a means of expressing universal and particular propositions

are applied to variables, especially those in the form: "For every value of x such and such a proposition is true", and "For some value of x, such and such a proposition
is

when they

true", etc.

For instance, the equivalence

(a
is

b)

= (ac = be)
so
that

(a

+c

= b+

f)

somewhat paradoxical because the second member contains

(c)

a term
is

which does not appear

of
c,

in the

first.

This equivalence
it

independent

we can

write

as

follows,

considering c as a variable

Y][(a

= b) =

(ax

= bx)

(a

+x

= b + #)],

SUMS AND PRODUCTS OF FUNCTIONS.

or,

45

the

first

member being independent of

b)

x,

= = (a
X

[0*

= bx)

(a

+x

= b + x)].
variable term,

In

general,
is

when a proposition contains a

great care
true
it

necessary to distinguish the case in

which
in

it

is

for ei-ery value of the variable,

from the case

variable.
serve.
1

which
is

is

true only for

some value of the

[

This

the

purpose that the symbols J

and

Thus when

\ve

say for instance that the equation

ax + bx
is

=o
it

possible,

we

are
is

stating

that

can be

verified

by some

value of x; that

to say,

2(* + bx
*

o),

x
is

and, "since

the necessary and sufficient condition for this

that the resultant (ab

= o)
bx

is

true,

we must

write

= o) = (ab = o),
o)

although

we have only
(ax

the implication

+ bx' =
be

<^ (ab

= o)

On

the other hand, the necessary

verified

and

sufficient condition
is

for the equation to

by every value of x
o.
is

that

a
Demonstration.
i.

+ b=

The

condition

sufficient,

for if

= o) = (a = o) (a + b
we
obviously have

= o), (b

ax +

bx'
is

=o
to say,

whatever the value of x; that

+ 6x
same

= o).
made
in

This

is

the

as

the

distinction

mathematics between
not be verified by

identities

and

equations,

except that an equation

may

any value of the variable.

46
2.

INCLUSION

AND INDETERMINATES.
if

The condition

is

necessary, for
c

bx)

= o,
x

the equation

is

true, in particular, for the value

= a;

hence

+ b = o.

Therefore the equivalence

is

proved.
its

In
first

this

instance,
is

the

equation

reduces

to

an

identity:

member

"identically" null.

34. The Expression of an Inclusion by Means of an Indeterminate. The foregoing notation is indispensable in

almost every case where variables or indeterminates occur in

one member of an equivalence, which are not present in the other. For instance, certain authors predicate the two following
equivalences
(a
in

< = = bu) =
b)

(a

(a

+v

b),

which

u,

v are two "indeterminates".

Now, each of the

its

two
as

equalities has the inclusion (a <^

b) as

consequence,

we may

assure ourselves

by eliminating u and v respectively

from the following

1.

equalities:

[a(b'

+ u) +
:

a bu

= o] = [(ab' + a b)u + au = o].

Resultant

2.

= o] = (ab' = o) = (a < b}. == = [b'v + (ab'+ a b)v = o] [(a + v)b''+ abv o]

[(ab'+ a'b) a
Resultant
:

\b'(ab'+ ab)

= o] = (ab' = o)

O<).

But we cannot say, conversely, that the inclusion implies the two equalities for any values of u and v and, in fact, we }
restrict ourselves to

the proof that this implication holds for

v,

some value of u and

namely

for the particular values

EUGEN MlJLLER,

Op.

tit.

INCLUSION

AND INDETERMINATES.

47

u
for

= a,

b <= v\

we have
(a

= ab) = (a < = (a + b =
V)
is
it

6)

But we cannot conclude, from the

(and therefore also the equivalence)
the indeterminates, that
is

fact that the implication

true for

some value of
it

true for all; in particular,

is

not true for the values

u
for then (a

i,

= o,
b}

bit)

and (a

+v

become

(a

),

which
1

obviously asserts

more than

the given inclusion (a

<^

b}.

Therefore

we can

write only the equivalences

j),

(<*)- 2(-j,o = 2(a + * =

V

but the three expressions

(<*),
are not equivalent. 2

Likewise

if

we make
u

= =

o,

i ,

we

obtain the equalities

(

o),

(*

i),

which
2

assert

still

more than
the

the given inclusion.

in

According

to

remark

the

preceding note,

it

is

clear that

we have

a^y
since
the equalities affected

,
I

..
I

by

the sign

may be
v

likewise

verified

by

the values

u
If

o,

u=\

and

o,

we wish
it

to

know

within what limits the indeterminates

to solve with respect to

u and v

are

variable,

is sufficient

them

the equations

'

ab'

= a'bu

-j-

ab'

-{-

au

ab''== ab' -\- b'v

-f-

dbv

db u -\- a b u

o,

a b'v

+ ab v'=o

48
35.

DOUBLE INCLUSION AND INDETERMINATES.

The

of an Indeterminate.

Expression of a Double Inclusion by Means THEOREM. The double inclusion

is

equivalent

to

the equality

= au +
the

l>u'

together

with the

condition (b

<

0),

u being a term
Let us

absolutely indeterminate.

Demonstration.

develop

equality
o,

in question,

x(au + b' u) + x (au + bu) (a' x H- ax')u + (b' x + bx')u

Eliminating u from
it,

= o.

a
This equality
is

b'

+ abx
a

= o.
+
b.

equivalent to the double inclusion

ab<^x<^
But,

by hypothesis, we have
(b

< a = (ab = =
)

b}

(a

= a).

The double

inclusion

is

therefore reduced to

b<^x <C a.
So, whatever the value of u, the equality under consideration

involves

the

double

inclusion.

Conversely,

the

double

in-

clusion involves the equality, whatever the value of

for
it

x may

be,

is

equivalent to

ax +
and then the equality
is

bx
'

o,

simplified

and reduced

to

ax' u
from which (by a formula
solutions

b xu

= o.
later on)

to

be demonstrated

we

derive the

u
or simply

=a

-f-

(a

-f- b'),

u=ab-{-wb',

= ab v= a
v
b

-j-

(a -j- b) t

-\-

w a,
arrive

at these solutions being absolutely simply by asking: By what term must we multiply b in order to obtain a? By a term which contains ab plus any part of b'. What term must we add to a in order to obtain 6? A term which -contains a'b plus

indeterminate.

We

would

any part of a'b and a

a.

In short,

u can vary between ab and

a-\-b',

v between

+ b.

DOUBLE INCLUSION AND INDETERMINATES.

49
in

We
of x,

can always derive from this the value of u for the resultant (ab'xx '= o) is identically
is

terms

verified.

The

solution

given by the double inclusion

b'

x<^u <C a + x.
no contradiction between
lies
is

Remark.

There

is

this

result,

which shows that the value of u

between certain

limits,

and the previous

for the latter

assertion that u
is

absolutely indeterminate;
will verify the

assumes that x

any value that

double inclusion, while when we evaluate u in terms of x the value of x is supposed to be determinate, and it is with respect to this particular value of x that the value of u is
subjected to
limits.
1

In order that the value of

u should be completely

deter-

mined,

it

is

necessary and
b'

sufficient that
a'

we should have

+ x,
(a'+x) = o

that

is

to say,
b'

xax '+

(b

+ x)

or

bx Now, by
hypothesis,

+ ax

o.

we already have
a'

x+

bx'

= o.
we
find

If

we combine

these two equalities,

= i) (a'+ b = o) = (a
This
is

= o). (b
of

the

case
it

when
lies

the value

is

absolutely ini.

determinate, since

between the
.

limits

o and

In

this

case

we have
u

= b'x = a + x = x.

it

In order that the value of u be absolutely indeterminate, is necessary and sufficient that we have at the same time

Moreover,
this

if

we

substitute for

limit of u,

limit

becomes

66'

=o

its
;

inferior limit b in the inferior

and,

if

we

substitute

its

superior limit a

in the superior limit of u, this limit

becomes a
4

for^ + a =1.

5<D

EQUATION INVOLVING ONE UNKNOWN. bX

'

=
b'x

O,

a
ax'

+X

I,

or

= o,

that

is

a <^

Now we
so

already have, by hypothesis,

<#<;
we may
This
is

infer

b
the

= x = a.
is

case

in

which the value of x

completely

determinate. 36. Solution of an Equation Involving Quantity. The solution of the equation

One Unknown

ax +

bx'

=o

may be

expressed in the form

= a'u + bu,

the equation be verified; for implies the equality

u being an indeterminate, on condition that the resultant of we can prove that this equality

ab x
which
is

'

+ a bx

= o,
-\-

equivalent to the double inclusion

a b <i x <^

a'

b.

Now, by

hypothesis,

we have

(ab = o) == (a'b = b) = (a + b = a).

Therefore, in this hypothesis, the proposed solution implies
the double inclusion

which

is

equivalent to the given equation. In the

Remark.

same hypothesis

in

which we have

we can always put

metrical forms

this

solution in the simpler but less sym-

EQUATION INVOLVING ONE UNKNOWN. For

1.

5I

We

have identically
b

= bu + bu.

Now
(b<a')<(bu<a'u).
Therefore
(x
2.

= bu + a'u)

(x

= b + a'u).

Let us

now demonstrate

the formula

x = a b + a'u.

Now
a'b

= b.

Therefore

= b + a'u
same
solution in the form

which may be reduced to the preceding form.

Again,

we can 'put x

the

= a b + u(ab + a'H),
in the

which follows from the equation put

ab' x
if

form

4-

a bx

= o,
b'

we

note that

a'+ b
-and that

= ab + a b + a
ua
b

<^ a

b.

This

last

form

is

needlessly complicated, since, by hypothesis,

ab
Therefore there remains

= o.
b'

x
which again
is

= a b + ua
x

equivalent to

= b + ua',
a'

since

a b

=b

and
to

= ab +
e.,

a'b'.

Whatever form we give

in
it is

the solution, the parameter

i.

absolutely indeterminate,

it

can receive

all

values, including o

and

i;

for

when u

possible

we have
4*

52

EQUATION INVOLVING ONE UNKNOWN.

x
and when u

Z>,

we have

= a,
x.

and these are the two extreme values of

Now we
case
in

understand that

is

which a

b,

and

that,

determinate in the particular on the other hand, it is

absolutely indeterminate
b = o
,

when
a

(or a

= o)

Summing

up, the formula

= a'u + bu
and

replaces the "limited" variable x (lying between the limits a and b) by the "unlimited" variable u which can receive all

o possible values, including

i.

Remark*

The formula of

solution

x
is

= ax + bx
the given equation, but not so the

indeed

equivalent to

formula of solution

x
latter

= a'u + bu
For
if

as a function of the indeterminate u.

we develop

the

we
at>'x

find

a'bx'

+ ab(xu + x'u) + a'&'(xu + x'u) =

it

o,

and

if

we compare

with the developed equation

ab

+ ab'x + a bx' =
ab(xu

o,

we

ascertain that

it

contains, besides the solution, the equality

x'u)

= o, = o.
if

and lacks of the same

'

solution the equality

'

d b (xu '+ x

tt)

Moreover these two terms disappear u x

we make

and

this

reduces the formula to

x
i

= a' x + bx'

PORETSKY.

Sept

lots,

Chaps.

XXXIII and XXXIV.

ELIMINATION OF SEVERAL UNKNOWNS.

53

From

this

remark, PORETSKY concluded

is

that, in general, the

solution of an equation

neither a consequence nor a cause

it

of the equation.

It is

a cause of

in the particular case in

which

ab
and
it

= o,
in the particular case in

is

a consequence of
(a'b'

it

which

= o) =

(a

l>

i).

But
the

if

ab

is

formula

not equal to o, the equation is unsolvable and of solution absurd, which fact explains the
If

preceding paradox.

we have
and

at the

same time

ab
the solution
that
is is

=o

both consequence and cause

it

to

=b

say,

is

equivalent to the equation.

is

the

equation

same time, For when determinate and has only the one
at the

solution

=a =
is

b.

Thus, whenever an equation

of
its

solvable,

its

solution

is

one
a
it.

causes; and, in fact, the problem

consists in finding
is

value of

x which
up,

will verify

it,

/.

<?.,

which

a cause of

To sum

we have
o)

the following equivalence:

(ax

+ bx

= (ab = o)^(x

a u

+ bu)

which includes the following implications:

(ax (ax

bx

= o) <C (ab = o),

'

+ bx' =
o).

(ab

= o)^(x = a'u + bu'} <C (ax + bx

u

37.

Elimination of Several

Unknown

Quantities.

We
its

consider an equation involving several unknown and suppose it reduced to the normal form, i. e., quantities
shall
first

now

member developed with quantities, and its second member

respect
zero.

to

the

unknown
concern

Let us

first

ourselves with the problem of elimination. the unknown quantities either one by one or

We

can eliminate
at once.

all

54 For
(1)

ELIMINATION OF SEVERAL UNKNOWNS.

instance, let

tp(x,y, z)

+ bxyz '+ cxy z + dxy z -\-fxyz + gx'yz + hx'y'z + kx'y'z' =

axyz
quantities.
it

be an equation involving three unknown

We
(axy
or
(2)

can eliminate z by considering

as the only

unknown

quantity,

and we obtain

as resultant

+ cxy' +fx'y + hx y)
abxy

(bxy

+ dxy + gx y + kx y)

=o

+ cdxy

-\-fgx

y + hkx y

= o.
is

If equation (i) is possible, equation (2)

possible as well;

that

is,

it

is

verified

we can
the only

eliminate

y. Accordingly from the equation by considering it as y

quantity,

by some

values of

x and

unknown

and we obtain as

resultant

(abx -\-fgx) (cdx

or
(3)

+ hkx)

=o

abcdx -\-fghkx
equation (i)
is,

o.
is

If

is

possible,

equation (3)

also possible;

that

it

is

verified
it

eliminate

x from

by some values of x. and obtain as the final

Hence we can
resultant,

abed .fghk
which
the
is

=o
that

a consequence of
It
is

(i),

independent of the unknown

if

evident, by same resultant would be obtained the unknown quantities in a different

quantities.

the principle of symmetry,

we were

to eliminate
this

order.

Moreover
(

result

might have been foreseen,

for since
(f (x, y, z)

we have
,

28)

abcdfghk
(f(x, y, z)
is

<

can vanish only

[<p(x,y, z)

if

the product

of

its

coefficients

zero:

o]

< (abcdfghk =
the

o).

Hence we can
by equating
to

eliminate

all

unknown
of the
all

quantities at

once

the

product

coefficients

of the

function developed with respect to

these

unknown

quantities.

can also eliminate some only of the unknown quantities at one time. To do this, it is sufficient to develop the first

We

VALUES OF A FUNCTION.

55
quantities
this

member
equate
to o.

with
the

respect

to

these

unknown

and

to

product of the coefficients of

will

development

This product

generally contain the other

unknown

quantities.

Thus
seen,

the resultant of the elimination of z alone,

is

as

we have

abxy
and the

+ cdxy

-\-fgxy

+ hkx, y

=o
z
is

resultant of the elimination of

y and

abcdx+fghkx
These
partial

= o.

resultants

can be obtained by means of the

the constituents relating to the
for

following practical rule:

Form

unknown

quantities to

be retained; give each of them,

it is

coefficient, the product of the coefficients of the constituents

of the general development of which

the

a factor, and equate

sum

to o.

38.

Theorem Concerning
.

the Values of a Function:

All the values which can be assumed by a function of any number

of variables f(x, y, z

.)

are given by the formula

(a

abc
in which

..&+u

+ + c +... + &),
Z>

is

absolutely indeterminate,

and

a,

b.

.,

k are

the coefficients of the development of f.

Demonstration.

It is

sufficient to
.

prove that

in the equality
.
.

/0, 7,

.)

= abc
as

(a

+b+c+
that
in
is

+ K)
u,
is

u can assume
equality,

all

possible values,

to

say, that this

in-

considered

an equation

terms of

determinate.

In the

first

place, for the sake of greater homogeneity,

we

may
for

put the second

member
u(a

in the
l>

form
.
. .

u abc

...+
.

+ +c+

),

abc

= uabc...k-\-uabc...k,
to

and

uabc

..

Reducing the second member

only three variables x, y,
z)

(assuming

there are

56
(axyz

VALUES OF A FUNCTION.
'

+ kx y z X [ua b' c k' + u (a + b +/ + ... + k' )} + (axyz + b' xyz + / xy z + + fcxy z ) X[u(a + + + ... + >) + u abc k]
z
4.

+ bxyz + cxy
.
. .

<:

= o,

or more simply
(a-t-3

+ ^ + ..- + ) (a xyz + b' xyz + c xy z + + u (a + b' + c + -i k ) (axyz + bxyz +

. . .

-f

k'x'ys)

. .

+ kx'y z) = o.

If

we

eliminate
u,

all

the variables x, y,

z,

but not the in-

determinate

we

get the resultant

.

u (a

k + b + + ... + K) a b' c + u (a +Z>' + /+... + k') abc

.
.

=o

Now
it
1

the two coefficients of u

and u

are identically zero;

follows that

is

absolutely indeterminate, which was to be

proved.

From
into

this

that a function of any

theorem follows the very important consequence number of variables can be changed

a function of a single variable without diminishing or

its

altering

"variability".

Corollary.

function

of any
its

number of

variables

can

become equal
For,
if this

to either of

limits.

function

is

expressed in the equivalent form

<:

abc ... k
it

+ u (a + b + +
(abc
. .

...
.

+ k)

will
its

to

be equal to its minimum maximum (a + b + c + Moreover we can verify this

. .

+ K)

,K) when u i. when u

= o,

and

form

of

the

function

by

proposition on the primitive giving suitable values to the

variables.

Thus a function can assume

its
it

all

values comprised between

two
is

limits, including the limits themselves.

Consequently,

absolutely indeterminate

when
a

abc
at the

k == o

and

+ b + c+... + & = i

same

time, or

abc ...k=o
i

= abc...k.
I,

WHITEHEAD, Universal

Algebra, Vol.

33

(4).

IMPOSSIBILITY

AND INDETERMINATION.

57

The preceding theorem

39. Conditions of Impossibility and Indetermination. enables us to find the conditions

under which an equation of several unknown quantities is Let f(x, y, z be the first .) impossible or indeterminate.
.

member supposed developed, and a, b, c The necessary and sufficient condition coefficients.
to

be

.,

its

for

the

equation to be possible

is

abc
For,
its

o.

(i)

if

vanishes for
. . .

some value of

the
.
.

k must be zero; (2) if abc become equal to it, and therefore may vanish /may values of the unknowns.
inferior limit

abc

unknowns, k is zero,
.

for certain

The necessary and

be indeterminate

sufficient condition for the

is

equation to

(identically verified)

For,
superior

(i)

if

a-\-b-\-c Jr...
of
if

rk

is

zero,

since

it

is

the

limit

be zero;
a

(2)
. .

/ f
k

this
is

function will always and necessarily

for
all

zero

values of the unknowns,

it

+ b+ c+ of/
Summing

will

be

zero,

for

is

one of the values

up, therefore,

we have
)
]

the two equivalences

(
-

[/(* y*

*>

n U(*>
The
equality
that can
fied)

y> z

abc.

= = abc k = = = o+b+c +k= k = o as we know, the resultant

)-

)-

is,

of the elimination of

it is the consequence be derived from the equation (assumed to be veriindependently of all the unknowns.

all

the unknowns;

40.

Solution of Equations Containing Several

Un-

known
we

Quantities. On the other hand, let us see how can solve an equation with respect to its various unand,
to
this

knowns,

end,

we

shall

limit

ourselves to the

case of two unknowns

a xy

+ bxy +

ex y

+ dx y

o.

58

EQUATIONS CONTAINING SEVERAL UNKNOWNS.

First solving with respect to x,

= (a ^ +
f

b'y) x

+ (cy +
x

dy) x
is

The

resultant of the elimination of

acy
If

bdy

o.
is

the given equation

is

true, this resultant

true.
it,

Now

it

is

an equation involving

y=

(a

/)

y only; + bdy y
.

solving

Had we

eliminated

first

and then

x,

we would have

obtained the solution

= (ax + c x') y +
in

(bx

+ dx ) y

and the equation

abx + cdx
whence the solution

o,

= (a
is

+ b')

+ cdx

of an equation involving two not symmetrical with respect to these quantities unknowns; according to the order in which they were elimsee
that

We

the

solution

unknown
inated,

we have x
j/

the solution
,

= (ay + b'y) x + (cy + dy) x = ('+ y + bdy

c'}
,

or the solution

= (a + b') x + cdx?, y = (ax + c x'} y + (bx + dx'} y

x

If we replace the terms x, y, in the second members by indeterminates u, v, one of the unknowns will depend on only

one indeterminate, while the other will depend on two. We shall have a symmetrical solution by combining the two formulas,

= (a + = (a + c y
x
it

b')
)

u
v

+ cdu

+ b dv

but the two indeterminates u and v will no longer be independent of each other. For if we bring these solutions into the given equation,

becomes

PROBLEM OF BOOLE.

59

abed

-f

ab' c

uv + dbd uv

'

'

cd u'v

b' c

du' v
is

=o

or since, by hypothesis, the resultant

ab' c
is

abed

verified,
o.

uv

a'bd'uv

a' cd'u'v

b'cdu'v

an "equation of condition" which the indeterminates This u and v must verify; it can always be verified, since its
resultant
is

identically true,
'
'

ab t
but
it

bd

'
.

'

a cd' b
.

d = aa

bb'

cc

dd

-=

o,

is

not verified by any pair of values attributed to u

and

v.

Some
solutions

general
in

symmetrical

solutions,

/.

<?.,

symmetrical

which the unknowns are expressed in terms of several independent indeterminates, can however be found.
This

HEAD

problem has been treated by .SCHRODER *, by WHITEand by JOHNSON. 3

for,

This investigation has only a purely technical interest;

from the practical point of view, we either wish to eliminate one or more unknown quantities (or even all), or else we seek
to solve the equation with respect to

one particular unknown.

In the
to the
its

first

case,
to

we develop

the

first

member

with respect

unknowns
to

coefficients

to

be eliminated and equate the product of o. In the second case we develop with
that
is

respect

the

unknown
is

to

be extricated and apply

the formula for the solution of the equation of one

quantity.
If
it

unknown
terms of

desired

to

have the solution

in

some unknown quantities or in terms of the known only, the other unknowns (or all the unknowns) must first be eliminated
before performing the solution.
41. The Problem of Boole. According most general problem of the algebra of logic

to
is

BOOLE

the

the follow-

ing*:

1 2

Algebra der Logik, Vol. Universal Algebra, Vol.

I, I,

24.

3537du Cong,
intern, de Phil.,

"Sur la
Ill,

tlieorie

des

galites logiques", Bibl.

Vol.
4

p.

185 (Paris, 1901).

8.

Laws

of Thought, Chap. IX,

6O

PROBLEM OF BOOLE.
Given any equation (which
f(x,
_>-,

is

assumed
o,

to

be possible)

= *,...)

and, on the other hand, the expression of a term t in terms of the variables contained in the preceding equation
/

=y

(x,y,

z, ...),

to

determine the expression of

in

terms of the constants

contained in

Suppose x,y, s... and

f and in (p. f and (f developed

let

with respect to the variables

/ / ,/3
z
,

be

their constituents:
2
.
.

f(x,y,
(f

0,

.)

= AA

(x,y,

/...)

A
o:

+ B/ + C/3 + + ^/2 + ^/3 +

.,

.-

Then reduce
second member
(ftp

the
will

equation which expresses

so that

its

be

+ / rp

= o) =

[(ap t

b'p2

+
developing
[(A
it

(apt +

+ c'ps + .) / bp + cps + ...)/' =

. .

o].

Combining the two equations

with respect to
/:

into

a single equation and

+
This

[(A
is

+ +

<z')A

+(#+
(J5

b')p2

a)p

+
/,

b}p

/ + (C+ /)/3 + + (C + e)p 3 + ...] t'=

.
.

.]

o.

the

equation

dt

/.

Eliminating

we

which gives the desired expression obtain the resultant

2

Api
as

+ Bp + Cp +
z

o,

we might

expect.
(i.

If,
e.,

on the other hand, we wish

the constituents

to

eliminate x,y,z,...

/2 /3
,

.),

we

put the equation in the form

(A + a't+
and the
(A

a/)A+ (+ t't+ bt')p + (C+ct+ct)p^ + ... =

2

o,

resultant will

be
o,

+ at+ai) (B + b't+bi} (C+ c t + ct)... =

an equation that contains only the unknown quantity / and the constants of the problem (the coefficients of f and of <p).

From

this

may be

derived the

expression
first

of

/ in

terms of
equation

these constants.

Developing the

member

of

this

..>**' -=o.

METHOD OF PORETSKY. The

solution
a)
is

61

t=(A +
The

(B+b) (C+c)... + u(A'a +

is

JBft>

+
it

C'c +
is

...).

resultant

verified

by hypothesis since

ABC...
which
is

= =

o,

the resultant of the given equation

f(x,y,z,

...)

o.

We

can see how

/.

this
/

equation

contributes

to

restrict

the
<JP,

variability of
it

Since

was denned only by the function

was determined by the double inclusion

a be
. .

.</O +

+
_/=
o,

Now

that

we

take into account the condition

/is

determined by the double inclusion

(A

+ a)

(B

(C+t)...<t<

(A* a

+ 3 b + Cf c +...).

The

inferior limit

can only have increased and the superior

limit diminished, for

abc...<, (A
and

+ a) (B+b)

(C

+
c

c)

. .

A'a

'b+C?c...<^a
if

+b+

The
is,

limits

do not change

if

the equation

/=

^ = 2?=C=...
identity,

o,

that
this

is

reduced to an

and

was evident a

priori.

The method of BOOLE 42. The Method of Poretsky. and SCHRODER which we have heretofore discussed is clearly
inspired

up

in

by the example of ordinary algebra, and it is summed two processes analogous to those of algebra, namely

the solution of equations with reference to

unknown

quantities

and elimination of the unknowns.

second
view,
is

Of

these

processes

the

much

the

more important from a

logical point of

and BOOLE was even on the point of considering deduction as essentially consisting in the diminution of middle

WHITEHEAD, Universal

Algebra, p. 63.

62
terms.

LAW OF
This notion, which
is

FORMS.
too restricted,
in

was suggested

by the example of the syllogism, results from the elimination of the middle term, and which for a long time was wrongly considered as the only type
1 of mediate deduction.

which the conclusion

However this may be, BOOLE and SCHRODER have exaggerated the analogy between the algebra of logic and ordinary algebra. In logic, the distinction of known and unknown
terms
is

artificial

and almost

useless.

All the terms are

in

principle at least
relations relations
relations.

known, and it is simply a question, certain between them being given, of deducing new (unknown or not explicitly known) from these known
This
is

the purpose of PORETSKY'S

It

method which
in

we

shall

now expound.

may be summed up

three

laws,

the

law of forms, the law of consequences and the

law of causes.
43.

problem:

The Law of Forms. An equality being

This law answers the following given, to find for any term

ity.

(simple or complex) a determination equivalent to this equalIn other words, the question is to find all the forms
to
this

equivalent
its

equality,

any term

at

all

being given as

first

member.

We know that any equality can be reduced to a form in which the second member is o or i; /. e., to one of the two equivalent forms
The
function

is

what PORETSKY

calls

the
2

logical zero

of the given equality;

N*

is

its

logical whole.

In fact, the fundamental formula of elimination

(ax
is,

-j-

bx

o)

< (ab =

o)

as

we have

seen,

only another form and a consequence of the prin-

ciple of the syllogism

(b<x<dX(b<a).
2

They
I

are

called
i.

"logical"

to

distinguish

them from the

identical
to

zero

and whole,

e.,

to indicate that these

two terms are not equal

problem.

and

respectively except

by

virtue of the data of the

LAW OF CONSEQUENCES.
Let

63

be any term; then the determination of U\

U= N' U + NU'
is

equivalent

to

the

proposed equality;

for

we know

it

is

equivalent to the equality

(NU + Nlf =
'

o)

= (N=

o).

Let us recall the signification of the determination

It

denotes that

U=tf U + NU'. the term U contained

is

in

and con-

tains

N.

This

is

N
the
is

easily

is

equal to o and

N"

understood, since, by hypothesis, to i. Therefore we can formulate

law of forms
obtain
to

in the following

way:
',

// equivalent to a given equality that any term contains the logical zero sufficient express of this equality and is contained in its logical whole.

To

all the

forms

The number
any term gives
the are
others,

of forms of a given equality

rise to
it

is

unlimited; for

a form, and to a form different from

first

since
to

has a different
universe

member.

But

if

we

limited

the
the

of discourse

determined by n
finite

simple terms,
terminate.
stituents.

number of forms becomes

the

and de2

For,

in this limited universe,

all

there are

con-

Now,
and

terms
are
is,

in

this

universe that can be

conceived
stituents.

defined

sums
be

of

some
equal with 2

of these
to

con-

Their number
that
"

therefore,

the

number

of

combinations

can

made

constituents,

2 namely a (including o, the combination of o constituent, and i, the combination of all the constituents). This will

also

be the number of

different

forms of any equality in the

universe in question.

The Law of Consequences. We shall now pass to law of consequences. Generalizing the conception of BOOLE, who made deduction consist in the elimination of
44. the

middle terms, PORETSKY makes it consist in the elimination of known terms (connaissances). This conception is explained

and

justified

as follows.

64
All

LAW OF CONSEQUENCES.
problems

equalities

which the data are expressed by logical or inclusions can be reduced to a single logical
in
x

equality

by means of the formula

(A

= o)

(B

o)

(C =

o)

(A

+B+

C.

o).

In this logical equality, which sums up all the data of the problem, we develop the first member with respect to all
the simple terms which appear in
to the

unknown

quantities).

it (and not with respect Let n be the number of simple

terms;

ment of
All

then the number of the constituents of the developi is 2. Let (< 2) be the number of those

constituents

appearing

in

the

first

member

of the equality.

consequences of this equality (in the universe of the n terms in question) may be obtained by forming all
possible

the additive combinations of these

ing

constituents,

and equat-

them

to o;

and

this is

done

in virtue

of the formula

(A

B = o)< (A =

o).
its its

pass from the equality to any one of consequences by suppressing some of the constituents in
see
that
first

We

we

member, which correspond to as many elementary equalities (having o for second member), i. e., as many as there are data in the problem. This is what is meant by "eliminating
the

known

terms".

The number
an equality
it

(in the

of consequences that can be derived from universe of n terms with respect to which
is

is

developed)
that

equal

to

the

number of
its

additive

com/.
<?.,

binations
2

may be formed

with

constituents;

This number includes the combination of o constituents, which gives rise to the identity 0, and the combination
.

of the

constituents, which reproduces the given

equality.

Let us

apply

this

method

to

the equation with one un-

known

quantity

ax + bx

o.

We

employ

capitals to denote

contrast to simple terms denoted

complex terms (logical by small letters (a, b,

<-,

functions) in
.

.)

LAW OF CONSEQUENCES.
Developing
it

65
a, 6, x:

with respect to the three terms

(a If x

ab x

+ abx + a bx
)

= o)
o).

= \ab (x + x + ab x + a bx o] = (ab = o) (ab' x = o) (a bx =

formed

Thus we find, on the one hand, the resultant ab o, and, on the other hand, two equalities which may be transinto the inclusions

x <C

b,

ab <C x.
equivalent to b

But by the resultant which

/

is
/

<C a

we have

a
This consequence
inclusion

+
,

= a,

a o

/ ,

b.

may
x

therefore be reduced to the double

<a

<

x,

that

is,

to the

known
the

solution.

Let us
syllogism

apply

same method

to

the

premises of the

(a<b) (b<c).
Reduce them
to a single equality
o),

(<) =
and seek

(ab'

(b<c)

(bc'

= o),

(ab'

'

be

o),

all

of

its

consequences.
a,
t>,

Developing with respect to the three terms

c\

abc

ab
of

ab

a be

o.

The consequences
constituents, are
1.

this

equality,

which contains four

16 (z 4) in number as follows:

2.

3-

4.
5. 6.

(abc
(abc

= o) = (ab <^ (abc = o) == (ac <C b}; = o) = (a < b + (ab' c (abc = o) = (b <C a + + ab' c = o) = (a <^ be + b c); + ab c = o) = (ac' = o) = (0 <
(abc
c};

c};

c);

).

66
This
7.
is

LAW OF CONSEQUENCES.
1 the traditional conclusion of the syllogism.

(abc
is

a be

= o) = (be = o) = (<V).

This
8.

the second premise. (a b' c

ab' c

= o) = (ab' = o) = (a <^
<5>

b).

This
9.

is

the

first

premise.

10.

11. 12.

(a^V + &' be = o) = (#*: < <C # + f); = (<*' + a'b<^c); (ab' c + dbc' o) = (ati + ac o)=(a o) (ftbfrJc ab c + ab'c' = o) = (tf^f + Af = o) ab' c + abc (abc
'

-\-

=
13.

(tff

(abc

+
+

<^<^); ab' c + a' be =

ab

o)

= (a/ + be = o)
(<z

14.

(ab

= (a < ^
The
first
is

a be

= o) =
(15

= o)

<:).

last

two

consequences

and 16) are those oball;

tained by combining o constituent

the identity

and by combining

the

15.

=
confirms
is

0,

which
of

the

paradoxical

proposition
(is

that

the

true

(identity)
it);

implied by any proposition

is

a consequence

the second

the given equality itself

16.

ab'
is,

be

o,

which

in

fact,

its

own consequence by

virtue

of the

principle of identity.

These two consequences may be called

the

If consequences" of the proposed equality. we wish to exclude them, we must say that the number of the consequences properly so called of an equality of m

"extreme

constituents

is

2.

1 It will be observed that this two extreme consequences [see the

is

the only consequence (except the

text below]) independent of b; there-

fore

it

is

the resultant of the elimination of that middle term.

LAW OF
45.

CAUSES.

O/
finding the

The Law

of Causes.

The method of

consequences of a given equality suggests directly the method of finding its causes, namely, the propositions of which it is
the

consequence.

Since

consequence by eliminating
constituents,
to

we pass from known terms,

terms,

the
/'.

cause

to

the

e.,

by suppressing

we
the

will

pass

conversely from

the consequence

the cause by adjoining

to

known
to

/. e.,

stituents

given
zn

equality.
it,

Now,
/.
<?.,

the

stituents that

may be added
is

by adding connumber of conthat do not already

all the possible causes (in the universe of the n terms under consideration) by forming all the additive combinations of these constituents,

appear

in

it,

m.

We

will

obtain

and adding them

to the first

member
(A

of the equality in virtue

of the general formula

(A

+ B = o)<

o),

which means that the equality (A o), in which equality (A +

B=

= o)
is

has as

its

cause the

any term.

of causes thus obtained will be equal to the aforesaid combinations, or 2 2n -m.

The number number of the

This method may be applied to the investigation of the causes of the premises of the syllogism

(<*) (6<c\
which,
equality as

we have
abc

seen,

is

equivalent
'

to

the

developed

ab'c

+ ab c +

a be

= o.

This

equality

contains four of the eight (22) constituents

of the universe of three terms, the four others being

abc,

abc, ab'c, a

b' c

the

The number number of

(abc

of their combinations

is

16 (2+),

this is also

the causes sought, which are:

1.

2.

+ abc + abc = o) ( a + be (<*); (abc + a b c + a b c + ab c + ab c = o) = (abc + ab' + a b o) = (ab<^c) (a

abc

ab' c

= (a = o) o)

b);

5*

68
3.

LAW OF
(abc

CAUSES.

ab' c

+ abc +
ab'c

a be

b' c

= o)
c)

= (be + b'c +
4.
(c'

= o) = (b =

(a

<

c};

(abc + ab c + ab c -\-abc -\-abc = o) = + aj= o) = = i) (<);

5.

(0<^

+
(

tf/

+ ate +
)

ab' c
o)

+ abc + ahc

= o)

=
6.

+
abc

=
-\r

= (a
+

= o);
+
a'bc
-{

(tf^

+
+

ab'c
b'

ab' c

a' b' c

= o) = o) = o)
c);

= (# + be +
a3/

c = o) = (a = o)

((5

=
a

f);

+
-{-

ab'c-{- ab' c

+ abc +
a be

b' c'

8.

(d!^/

ab' c

ab'c

+ abc +
c)

b' c

= (a/ + dfV + ab'c-\- abc = o) = (a = (ac <^b<^a + = (a = b =

c] 9.

(abc

10.

+ = (/ + ab' + a b = o) = (c = i) (a (#/ + # b' c + a b' c + a b c + a b' c +

ab' c

ab' c

+ abc + abc +

b' c

= o)
=
o)

= b};
a
b' c

=
the

(b'

= o) =

(b
it

c =

i).

Before going any further,

may be observed
is

that

sum

of
is

certain

constituents
i.

equal to o,

the

when sum of

the rest
the

equal to

sum of seven

constituents

Consequently, instead of examining obtained by ignoring one of

the four missing constituents,

we can examine

the equalities
i
:

obtained by equating each of these constituents to

1 1.

12. 13.
14.

= i) = (a + b + c = o) = (a = b = c o); = i) = (a + b + c = o) (a = b = o) = i); (a b'c = (a + '+ /== o) = (a = o) = c = i); (abc = =* (a = b = c = (abc = i)

(a b' c
(c

i)

(b

i).

It

will

be observed

that this cause

is

the only one which

is

inde-

pendent of b; and indeed, in this case, whatever b is, it will always contain a and will always be contained in c. Compare Cause 5, which
is

independent of

c,

and Cause

10,

which

is

independent of

a.

FORMS OF CONSEQUENCES AND CAUSES.

69

Note

that

the last four causes are based on the inclusion

0<I.
The
In the
to
15.
i,

last

two causes (15. and

16.)

are obtained either

by

adding all the

first

missing constituents or by not adding any. case, the sum of all the constituents being equal

we

find
i

o,

that

is,

absurdity,
that

and
the

this

confirms
absurd)

the

paradoxical

prop-

osition
(is

the false

(the

implies

any proposition
its

its

cause).

In

second

case,

we

obtain simply the

given equality, (by the principle of identity):

16.
If

which thus appears as one of

ab'

own

causes

be'

o.

we

disregard these two extreme causes, the

will

number of

causes properly so called

be
2.

2**46.

Forms

of

Consequences and Causes.

We

can

apply the law of forms to the consequences and causes of a given equality so as to obtain all the forms possible to each
of them. Since any equality
is

equivalent to one of the two forms

N=0,
each of
its

J^=i,
or

1 consequences has the form

NX=*o,
and each of
its

if + X' ~=
or
is

i,

causes has the form

=
1

In S 44 we said that a consequence

first

of the constituents of the

a term

member N, and
seen
that this

obtained by taking a part not by multiplying it by

to the to the

X; but

it

is

For, suppose that (like of discourse. It will be

easily

amounts

N)

be developed with respect

same thing. n terms

To perform
all

the

multiplication

their

constituents
is

composed of a certain number of constituents. of by X, it is sufficient to multiply each by each. Now, the product of two identical

constituents constituents

equal to each
o.

is

Hence
So,
its

the

of them, and the product of two different becomes reduced to by product of

the

sum of

the constituents
to

contained in N.
to taking

X, which multiply JV by an arbitrary term

to
all,

common

N and

is,

of course,

is

tantamount

a part of

constituents (or

or none).

70
In fact,

VENN'S PROBLEM.

we have

the following formal implications:

(N +

X = o)< (N= o) <(NX=o\ + AT (N'X' = i)< (X = i) =

i).

Applying the
quences becomes

law

of forms,

the

formula

of

the

conse-

U=

X+
'

X'}

U + NXlf,
(JV

and the formula of the causes

U= N'X' U +
X

+ X)

[/;

and X are indeterminate terms, or, more generally, since and consequently are not necessarily the negatives of each
other, the formula of the consequences will

be

U= (N' + X)
and the formula of the causes
/

U + NYU',

The
contains

first

U=JV X[/+ (N + Y}U'. denotes that U contained in

is

(N'

+ X)

and

NY;

which indeed
contained
in

results,

esis that

is

a fortiori, from the hypoth-

and contains N.
that

The second formula denotes

and contains
contained in

is

contained in

MX
U
is

N' + Y whence results, N" and contains N.

this

a fortiori, that

We
every
class

can
class

express

rule in

verbally

contained
contains
all

another

if we agree to call sub -class, and every

that

another

super-class.

We

To

obtain

form

U = N* U
N,
all
its

the consequences of an equality

-\-

NU

say: (put in the

its

then

'),

it

is

sufficient to

substitute for
for
its

logical whole

N*

all

its

super-classes,

and,
to

logical
all

zero

sub-classes.

Conversely,

obtain

the

causes
its

of the same equality, it is sufficient to substitute for logical whole all its sub -classes, and for its logical zero,
super-classes.

all its

-47.
holders

Example: Venn's Problem.

or shareholders,
but not both.

The members of

the

administrative

council of a financial society

are either bondall the bond-

Now,

VENN'S PROBLEM.
holders

71

form a part of
?

the

council.

What

conclusion

must

we draw
be

Let a be the class of the members of the council; let b the class of the bondholders and c that of the share-

holders.

The data

of the

problem may be expressed

tic,

as

follows

a <C b c

<
a b

a.

Reducing

to a single

developed equality,
b' c}

a (be
(1)

o,

abc
equality,

ab' c

+ dbc + a'bc

= =

o,
o.

This

which

contains

equivalent to the following,

(2)

4 of the constituents, is which contains the four others,

a'b'c

abc

b' c

a'b'c

i.

This equality
as
a,

may be
in

expressed in as
the

many

different

forms terms

there
b,
c.

are

classes

universe

of the

three

Ex.

a
is,

abc -\-abc-\-abc-\-abc,
b' c,

that

b<^a<^bc +
Ex.
2.

Ex.

3.

= abc + ab' c = ac; c c + a c + a c = a

b' b'
b'
'

+ abc

that

is,

ab'

b<^ c<^^>

with respect to

These are the solutions obtained by solving equation 0, b, and c.

(i)

From
follows:
1.

equality

(i)

we can

derive

16

consequences

as

2.

3.

4.

= o; = o) = (a << b + (a b c (abc = o) = (<r<C a); (db c = o) = (b <C a +

abc
'

c);

c);

72
5.

VENN'S PROBLEM.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.
1 1.

= (a <^ be + b premise]; = o) = (be = o); (abc + a be (abc + a be == o) = < a/ + tfV); (ab'c + dbc= o) = (bc<a<b + (0^V -\-a be '= o) = (#' + 0'$ < = o) [2 d premise]; (0'^ + abc = o) = ^f = o) = (bc + ab c = o); (<zfo + a^ ^ +
(abc

ab' c

'

o)

c) [i

st

(<

c);

*:);

(a'

12.

at>c+ ab' c -\-abc= o;

(<**

13.
14.

+ a'^^ + abc = o) ab c + a be + a be

= =

(/5r

+ a be)

o;

o.

(o

two consequences, as we know, are the identity and the equality (i) itself. Among the preceding consequences will be especially noted the 6 th (be o), the

The

last

= o)

resultant

of the

elimination of a,

and the io th (ab

c.

o),

the resultant of the elimination of the resultant

is

When

is

eliminated

the identity
[(a'

c)

ac

= o] = (o = o).
the equality (i) or
its

Finally,

we can deduce from

equiv-

alent (2) the following 16 causes:

1.

2.

3-

4-

56.

7-

8.

9-

10.

= i) = (a = = i) (ab' c = i) = (a = i) (b = o) = (a = o) (b = o) (db'c = = (a = o) (b = o) c = (a = ('=*); (abc + ab'c= i) = d c = i) = (a = = c); (<z/ (0/ + a'&'c = i) = = o) (# = (a&'f+a'&'c= i) = (" = o)(V= (atc+dtc-= = = o)(tf = = (a = o) = o); (a'^V + d b'c=
(abc
i) (b

(c

(c

i)

(c
(c

b'

i)

= o); = i); = i); = o)

;

i)

-{-

b'

l>

(V

);

i);
;);

i)

i)

GEOMETRICAL DIAGRAMS OF VENN.

11.
12.

73

13.

14.

= i) = (b = /) (/<C #); (abc + ab' c + a b c = i) = (be = o) (a = = (#<r= o) (a = (abc + a b'c + a c = = i) = (b = o) (a<^ +a ^+ (#<
{abc

ab'c

b' c
'

'

'

b'

i)

<r

<

<

c).

The
itself

last two causes, and the absurdity

as
(i
is

we know,

are the
is

equality (i)

o).

It

evident that the

(c

There no cause, properly speaking, independent of b. The most "natural" cause, the one which may be at once divined
is

cause independent of a cause independent of c

the 8 tb (b

the io

th

= o) = (a = o) (b =
sense,
is

i), o).

and the

is

simply by the exercise of

(be

common
o) (a

the

12 th

=
7

=
=

c}.

But other causes are

(b

(<z^

= o) (a = = o) (a =

just as possible;
th

c),
b}.

the

(c

o)

(a

for instance the 9 th

b),

or

the

13^

We

see that this

method

furnishes the

complete enumera-

tion of all possible cases.

In particular, it comprises, among the forms of an equality, the solutions deducible therefrom with respect to such and such an "unknown quantity", and, among the consequences of an equality, the resultants of the
elimination of such

and such a term.

48.

The Geometrical Diagrams

of

Venn.

PORETSKY'S

method may be looked upon of STANLEY JEVONS and VENN.

Conversely,
illustration,
it

as the perfection of the

methods

finds in

them a geometrical and mechanical

is

for

VENN'S method
all

translated in geometrical
constituents,

diagrams which represent

order
to

the

so

that,

in

obtain

shading) those

result, we need only which are made to vanish by

the

strike

out

(by

the data of the

a,
b,
c,

problem.

For instance, the universe of three terms

represented by the unbounded plane, is divided by three simple closed contours into eight regions which represent the
eight constituents (Fig.
i).

74

GEOMETRICAL DIAGRAMS OF VENN.

a'b'c'

Fig.

i.

To
must
will

strike out the regions abc,

represent geometrically the data of VENN'S problem we ab' c , a be and a be; there
,

which

then remain the regions abc will constitute the universe

calls his

ab'c,
relative

a'b'c,
to

and a

b' c

the problem,
2).

being what PORETSKY

logical whole (Fig.

Then

a'b'c

'

Fig. 2.

for

every class will be contained in this universe, which will give each class the expression resulting from the data of the

problem.

Thus,

simply by inspecting the diagram,

we

see

that the region be does not exist (being struck out); that the

region b is reduced to abc or <:, and so on.

(hence to a b);

that all a

is

LOGICAL MACHINE OF JEVONS.

75

This diagrammatic method has, however, serious inconveniences as a method for solving logical problems. It does not show how the data are exhibited by canceling certain
constituents,

nor does
so
as
to

it

show how
the

to

combine the remaining

In

constituents
short,
it

obtain

consequences sought.

serves only to exhibit one single step in the argument,

it

namely the equation of the problem;

the

dispenses neither with

"throwing of the problem into an equation" and the transformation of the premises, nor with the subsequent steps, i. <?., the combinations that lead to
previous
steps,
*'.

e.,

the

various

consequences.

Hence

it

is

of very

little

use,

inasmuch as the constituents can be represented by algebraic symbols quite as well as by plane regions, and are much
easier to deal with in this form.

make

Logical Machine of Jevons. In order to diagrams more tractable, VENN proposed a mechanical device by which the plane regions to be struck out
49.
his

The

could be lowered and caused to disappear. But JEVONS invented a more complete mechanism, a sort of logical piano. The keyboard of this instrument was composed of keys indicating the various simple terms (a,
b, c,

d), their negatives,

Another part of the instrument signs + consisted of a panel with movable tablets on which were written all the combinations of simple terms and their neg-

and the

and

=.

atives;

that

is,

all

the

constituents

of the universe of dis-

course. Instead of writing out the equalities which represent the premises, they are "played" on a keyboard like that of

because
all

a typewriter. The result is that the constituents which vanish of the premises disappear from the panel. When
the premises have been
constituents

"played", the panel shows only

is equal to i, that is, forms the universe with respect to the problem, its logical whole. This mechanical method has the advantage over VENN'S geometrical method of performing automatically the "throwing

those

whose sum

into

an

equation",
in the

pressed than the

form of

although the premises must first be exequalities; but it throws no more light

geometrical

method on the operations

to

be per-

76
formed
in

TABLE OF CONSEQUENCES.
order
to

draw the consequences from the data

displayed on the panel.

50.

Table of Consequences.
illustrated, better than

But PORETSKY'S

method

can be
devices,
directly
equality.

by geometrical and mechanical

all

by the construction of a table which will exhibit the consequences and all the causes of a given
(This table
is

relative

to

this

equality

and each

table). comprises can be denned and distinguished in the universe of discourse of n terms. We know that an equality

equality
2

requires

different

Each

table

the

classes that

number of these classes, viz., of those which have for constituents some of the constituents of its logical zero N. Let m be the number of these latter constituents, then the number of the subclasses of is 2 m which, therefore, is the number of classes
consists
in

the

annulment of a certain

of the universe which vanish in consequence of the equality considered. Arrange them in a column commencing with o

and ending with JV

given
to
it

(the
at

two

extremes).

On

the other

hand,

any

class

all,

any preceding

class

may be

without altering its value, since by hypothesis Consethey are null (in the problem under consideration).
quently,
2'
2

added

by

the data of the problem,

each class
the
~ zn

classes

n classes

Thus, (including itself). of discourse is divided into

series
2

equal to assemblage of the

is

series of

2^

classes,

each

being constituted by the sums of a certain

class

and of the

classes of the

first

column

(sub-classes

of N).

first column which gave rise to them. Let us take, for instance, the very simple equality a b, which is equivalent to

following to the classes of the

Hence we can arrange these 2 m sums in the columns by making them correspond horizontally

ati

a b

o.

The
prises
o,

logical

zero

(N)

two
b,

constituents

a p, a

and ab'

in this case is ab' a b. It comand consequently four sub-classes: a b. These will compose the first
b'',

column. The other classes of discourse are ah, a

ab

b'

TABLE OF CAUSES.

77

and those obtained by adding

classes of the
is first

to

each of them the four

column.

In this way, the following table

obtained:

ab
a
,

a b
b
'

ab

ab
a b
ab'
-\i ,

+ ab a + b a + b
i
.

ab

a'+
of

b'

By
data

construction,

each class
its
it

this
its

table

is

the

sum of

those at the head of of the

row and of
is

problem,

equal

to

column, and, by the each of those in the

same column.
any
comprise
itself)

Thus we have 64
identities

different

consequences for
2

equality in the universe

of discourse of

letters.

They
by

16

(obtained of
the

by equating each
equality,
in

class to

and
the

16

forms

given

obtained

which correspond classes which are known to be equal to them, namely

equating
classes

each row to the

= ab
a

a
l>,

b,

ab

=a+ o = a
,

d,

=a ab' = a
a b

+
l>,

ab
a

+
b

a b a

=
+

b.

Each of these 8
is

equalities counts for two, according as it considered as a determination of one or the other of its

members.
51.

Table of Causes.
all

represent

the causes of the

The same table may serve to same equality in accordance

equality

with the following theorem: When the consequences of an

in

N= o

are

ex-

of determinations of any class U, the pressed causes of this equality are deduced from the consequences
of the
opposite

the form

equality,
to

by changing For we know

have the form

i, put in the same if in one of the two members.

form,

that the consequences of the equality

A=o
r

U=
and
that the causes

(N*

+ X) U +
same

NY if,
Y) [/.

of the

equality have the form

U = N*X U + (N +

78
Now,
this last
if

TABLE OF CAUSES.

we change
it

into

U'

in

one of the members o

formula,

becomes
1

and the
letters

7= (N + x U + rf Y U', accents of X and Y can be suppressed

)

since these

represent the formula of the consequences of the equality

indeterminate

classes.

But then we have

N' =

o or

This theorem

being established,

let

us construct,

for in-

stance, the table of causes of the equality a

b.

This will

be the table
a

of the consequences
first
is

of the opposite equality

b',

for the

equivalent to

ab
and the second
(ab o
to

a b

o,

b'

= o) =
ab
a
b'

(ab'

+ ab
ab
a
a

i).

a b
b

ab
a
b'

a
b'

+ +b + b'
i

a b

ab

db'

To

derive the causes of the equality a

=b

from

this table

instead of the consequences of the opposite equality a b' sufficient to equate the negative of each class to each it is
,

=
'

of the classes in the same column.

Examples
a

are:

a a

= o, b =
b'

a a

+ +

b'

<= a b',

'

a,

= b\

+ +

b'

= ab + b = a +

a
b'
;

b'',

Among

the

64 causes of the equality under consideration

there are 16 absurdities (consisting in equating each class of the table to its negative); and 16 forms of the equality (the same, of course, as in the table of consequences, for two

equivalent equalities

are

at

the

same time both cause and

differs

consequence of each other).

It will

be noted that the table of causes

from the

table

of consequences only in the fact that it is symmetrical to the other table with respect to the principal diagonal

NUMBER OF
(o, i);

POSSIBLE ASSERTIONS.

79

word "row"
ment.

hence they can be made identical by substituting the for the word "column" in the foregoing state-

And, indeed, since the

rule of the consequences con-

cerns only classes of the same column, we are at liberty so to arrange the classes in each column on the rows that the
rule

of the

causes

will

be

verified

by the

classes

in

the

same row.
It will

be noted,

moreover,
this

that,

by the method of conclasses

adopted negatives of each

respect to classes of
equality

struction

for

table,

the

which are the

occupy positions symmetrical with the center of the table. For this result, the subother

the class N' (the logical whole of the given or the logical zero of the opposite equality) must be placed in the first row in their natural order from o to N' ;
then, in each division,
at the

head of
this

With

must be placed the sum of the classes row and column. precaution, we may sum up the two rules in the
its

following practical statement:

To
to

obtain

every

consequence
it

of the given

equality

(to

which the table

relates)

is

sufficient to

every class in the same

it

cause,

is

sufficient to
its

column; equate each

equate each class and, to obtain every

every class in

class to
class.

the
It

row occupied by
is

symmetrical

clear that the

table relating to the equality

can also serve

that the

for the opposite equality

N=

N=

i,

on condition
statement

words "row" and "column"

in the foregoing

be interchanged.

Of course
equality
is

useful
all

the construction of the table relating to a given and profitable only when we wish to
the consequences .or the causes of this equal-

enumerate
ity.

If

we
to

desire only
this

one particular consequence or cause

relating

or that class of the discourse,

we make use

of one of the formulas given above.

52.

The Number
we

of Possible Assertions.
as

If

we regard

logical functions
all the letters,
different

and equations
that

developed with respect to can calculate the number of assertions or

problems

may be

formulated

about n simple

8O
terras.

PARTICULAR PROPOSITIONS.
For
all

those
ficient

constituents

the functions thus developed can contain only which have the coefficient i or the coef-

Hence they

o (and in the latter case, they do not contain them). are additive combinations of these constituents;

and, since the number of the constituents is 2, the number 2 From this must be deducted of possible functions is a ".
the function
o,

in

which
2

all
2

constituents
i

are absent,

which

is

"

identically

leaving

possible

equations

(255 when

3).

But these equations,

/'.

in their turn,

may be combined
hence the number
always the

by
null

logical addition,

<?.,

by
2 22
is

alternation;
"
l

of their

combinations
This

is

i,

excepting

combination.

the

affecting
z

n terms.

When n

number of possible assertions 2, this number is as high as

32767. admitted

We
in

must observe that only universal premises are this calculus, as will be explained in the follow-

ing section.

Hitherto we have only 53. Particular Propositions. considered propositions with an affirmative copula (i. <?., inclusions or equalities) corresponding to the universal prop2 It remains for us to study propositions of classical logic.
ositions with a negative copula (non inclusions or inequalities), which translate particular propositions 3 ; but the calculus of

G. PEANO, Calcolo geometrico (1888)

II,

p. x;

SCHRODER, Algibra der

Logik, Vol.
2

p.

144

148.

The universal

affirmative,

"All a's are

&'s",

may be
b

expressed by

the formulas
(a

<

b)

(a

=
=
is

ab)

(ab'

'=

o)

= + =
(a

I),

and the universal negative, "No

(a
3

a's are 3's",

by

the formulas

< fi')=

(a

ab')

= (ab = =
o)

(a

+6'=
's",

i).

For the particular affirmative, "Some

of the universal negative,

(a

being the negation expressed by the formulas

a's are

<

b'}

= +
(a

ab')

= (ab + = (' + *'+

o)

i),

and the particular

negative,

"Some
is

of the universal affirmative,

(a

being the negation expressed by the formulas

a's are
6's",

not

<

b}

(a

4= ab)

= (*'+ =
o)

(a' -j- b

1).

SOLUTION OF AN INEQUATION WITH ONE UNKNOWN.

propositions having a negative

81

copula results from laws already known, especially from the formulas of DE MORGAN and the law of contraposition. We shall enumerate the chief
formulas derived from
it.

The

principle

of composition gives

rise

to

the following

formulas:

whence come the

particular instances

(a

+ o) =

(a

+ o) +

(c

o).

From
plications

these
:

may be deduced
(

the following important im-

+ o)<( +
of the syllogism,

From

the

principle

we deduce, by

the

law of transposition,

x)<(+
The formulas
give
inclusions
for

i).

corresponding

transforming inclusions and equalities formulas for the transformation of non-

and

inequalities,

(a 4= b)

= (a b

a b

=}=

o)

= (a b

ab

=j= i).

54. Solution of an Inequation with One Unknown. If we consider the conditional inequality (inequation) with

one unknown

ax + bx
we know
its

4= o,
is

that

its

first

member

contained in the sum of

coefficients

ax + bx <^

b.

82

SOLUTION OF AN INEQUATION WITH ONE UNKNOWN.

this

From we have

we conclude
a

that,

if this

inequation

is

verified,

the inequality

b 4= o.

This

is

the

necessary

condition

of the solvability of the

inequation, and the

resultant

of the elimination of the unthe equivalence

known

x.

For, since

we have
bx =
o)

J (ax
*

(a

o),

we have

also

by contraposition the equivalence

^ (ax + X
^ (ax X
we can deduce
X

bx

=|=

o)

= (a

b 4= o).

Likewise, from the equivalence

bx

= o) = (a b = o),
= (ab 4= o),
is

the equivalence
4= o)

Yl (ax + bx
which
signifies that the

necessary and sufficient condition for

the inequation to be always true

(a4=o);
and, indeed,

we know

that in this case the equation

(ax
is

bx

o)

impossible (never true).

Since, moreover,

we have bx

the equivalence

(ax

+
+

= o) = (x = a x
4= o)

bx

),

we have

also the equivalence

(ax

bx

= (x 4= a x
(bx 4= o)
,

bx'}.

Notice the significance of

this solution:

(ax

+
is

bx^ o) = (ax =H o) +
x
is

= (x <
it

a)

+ (<*).
b".

"Either

not contained in a

or

does not contain

This

the negative of the double inclusion

EQUATION AND AN INEQUATION.

Just as the product of several equalities
single equality, the
is

83
reduced to one

sum

(the alternative) of several inequalities

may be reduced

to a single inequality.

But neither several

alternative equalities nor several simultaneous inequalities can be reduced to one.

55.
shall

System of an Equation and an Inequation.

limit

We

our study to the case of a simultaneous equality and inequality. For instance, let the two premises be

(ax

bx

= o)
= ax

(ex

+ dx ^ o).

To

satisfy

the

must be

verified.

former (the equation) its resultant ab The solution of this equation is

=o

x
Substituting
this

bx

expression

(which

is

equivalent

to

the

equation) in the inequation, the latter

'

becomes

(a c
Its

+ ad}x +

(be

+
its

'

d}x '=)=

o.
is

resultant (the condition of

solvability)

(a'c

+ ad +
(ab

be

+ b'd^o)
+
b

[(a

b) c

')</+<>],

which, taking into account the resultant of the equality,

= o) = (a
to

= a) = (a
bV=J=
o.

b'

= d')

may be reduced

a'c

The same
equality
is

result

may be reached by

observing that the

equivalent to the

two inclusions

(*<') (x<b'\
and by multiplying both members of each by the same term
(ex

<

a'c}

(dx

<

b'd)
o)

(ex

+ dx^

< (ex + dx < < + b'd^r

(a'c

a'c

b' d}

o).

This resultant implies the resultant of the inequality taken alone

c

so

that

we do not need

to take the latter into account.

It

6*

84
is

CALCULUS OF PROPOSITIONS.
therefore sufficient to

add

to

it

the resultant of the equality

to have

the complete resultant of the

proposed system

(ab

'

o)

(a c

b'W=j= o).

The

solution

of the transformed inequality

is

(which conse-

quently involves the solution of the equality)

x^=(ac + ad!}x +
56.
All
alike

(be

b'd)x.

Formulas Peculiar
the formulas which
for

to the Calculus of Propositions. we have hitherto noted are valid

We shall now propositions and for concepts. a series of formulas which are valid only for propestablish
ositions,

because

all

of them

are

derived from

an axiom
called

peculiar to the calculus of propositions, which the principle of assertion.

may be

This axiom
(Ax. X.)
P.
I.:

is

as follows:
(a

i)

a.

To

proposition

itself.

say that a proposition a is true is to state the In other words, to state a proposition is
1

to affirm the truth of that proposition.

Corollary:

a '= (a
P. L:

i)

= (a =
is

o).
is

The

negative of a proposition a
false.

equivalent to the

affirmation that this proposition

By Ax. IX

20),
.

we

already have
i)

(a

(a

= o) =

o,

"A

proposition cannot be both true and false at the

same

time", for
(SylL) (a

i)

(a

= o)<
this
for, if

(i

= o) =

o.

We

can see

at

once that
I.);

formula
a
is

ceptual interpretation (C.

osition,

is not susceptible of a cona concept, (a I) is a prop-

and we would then have a logical equality a concept and a proposition, which is absurd.

(identity)

between

IMPLICATION AND ALTERNATIVE.

83

But now, according to Ax. X, we have

(a

i)

(a

= o) = a

i.

"A proposition is either true or false". From these two formulas combined we deduce directly that the propositions
(a

i)

and
(

(a

4= i)

= o) are = =
(

contradictory,
o),

/.

<?.,

O 4=

i).

point of view of calculation Ax. X makes it to reduce to its first member every equality whose possible

From

the

second
have

member is i Of course equalities.

formulas

and to transform these equalities and

inequalities inequalities

into

must

Nevertheless all the propositions as their members. of this section are also valid for classes in the

particular case

where

th'e

universe of discourse contains only

one element,
calculus

for then there are

no

classes but o
is

and

i.

In

short, the special calculus of propositions

equivalent to the

of classes
i.

when

the

classes

can possess only the

two values o and

57.

Equivalence of an Implication and an Alternative. The fundamental equivalence

(a

< =
b)

(a

=
b\

i)

gives

rise,

by Ax. X, to the equivalence

(a<b}
which
is

= (a
the
or b

no

less

fundamental in the calculus of propositions.

is

To
", is

say
*'.

that a implies b
"either

same
is

as affirming "not-0 or

e.,

is

false

true."

This equivalence

often

employed

in every

day conversation.

Corollary.

For any
(a

equality,
b)

we have

the equivalence

= = ab

+
+

a b

Demonstration :
(a

= = (a< b)
b)

(b

< =
a)

(a

b)

(b'

a)

= ab

b'

"To
is

affirm

that

two

propositions

are

equal

(equivalent)

the same

as stating that either both are true or both are

false".

86

IMPLICATION

AND ALTERNATIVE.
im-

The fundamental equivalence established above has portant consequences which we shall enumerate.
.

In the
tertiary,

first

place,

it

makes

it

possible to reduce secondary,

etc.,

to

sums
it

(alternatives)

propositions to primary propositions, or even of elementary propositions. For it

makes

and consequently
plication

possible to suppress the copula of any proposition, An imto lower its order of complexity.

(A

<

),

in

which
is

and

represent propositions

+ B, in which only copulas within A and appear, that is, propLikewise an equality (A ositions of an inferior order. B) is reduced to the sum (AB + B"} which is of a lower
more
or
less

complex,

reduced to the sum A'

order.

We know
possible to
ities,
ities,

that

the

principle

of

composition

makes

it

combine several simultaneous inclusions or equalbut we cannot combine alternative inclusions or equalor at least the result
is

native

but

is

only a consequence of

not equivalent to their alterIn short, we have it.

only the implications

(a<c} + (b<c)<(ab<c\ (c<a) + (c<b)<(c<a +

which, in the special cases where c

b\
c

=o
b

and

i,

become

(a

i)

0=

i)<( +
the

i).

In the calculus

of classes,

converse implications are

is is

not valid, for, from the statement that the class ab we cannot conclude that one of the classes a or b

null,

null
in
is

(they can be not-null and still not have any element common); and from the statement that the sum (a + b)

equal
to
i

to

we cannot conclude

that either a or b

is

equal

(these classes can together comprise all the elements of

the universe without any of them alone comprising all). But these converse implications are true in the calculus of propositions

b)<(c<a)

IMPLICATION AND ALTERNATIVE.

for they are

87

deduced from the equivalence established above, or rather we may deduce from it the corresponding equalities which imply them,
(1)

(ab<c}

(2)

(c<

= (a<:c) = (c< a) b}
+
l>'

+ (b<c\
+
(c

<
+
+

t>).

Demonstration:
(1)

(at><c)
(a

=a
c)

+ +

c,

<

c)

(b

< = (a

c)

(b'

c)

=a
c'

+ +

b'

+
+

c;

(2)

In

(c<a + b} = c + a + = (/ + a) + (c < a) + (*< J) the special cases where c = o

(*b
(a
I.:
is

b,

(t'

&)

&.

and

respectively,

we
(3)
(4)

find

+
To

= o) = (a = o) = (a = b =
i)

i)

+ +

= = (b

o),
i).

P.

(i)

say

that

two propositions united imply a

this third proposition.

third

to say that that

one of them implies

a proposition implies the alternative of (2) say two others is to say that it implies one of them.
(3)

To

To
To

say that two propositions combined are false

is

is

to

say that
(4)

one of them

false.

is

say that the alternative of two propositions is true to say that one of them is true. The paradoxical character of the first three of these statewill

ments

be noted

in contrast to the self-evident character

These paradoxes are explained, on the one hand, by the special axiom which states that a proposition is either true or false; and, on the other hand, by the fact that the false implies the true and that only the false is not
of the fourth.

For instance, if both premises in the implied by the true. first statement are true, each of them implies the consequence,

and

if

one of them

is

false,

it

implies the conse-

quence (true or false). In the second, if the alternative is true, one of its terms must be true, and consequently will,
like the alternative,

be implied by the premise

(true or false).

88
Finally,

LAW OF IMPORTATION AND EXPORTATION.

in the third, the

be

false

unless one of

them

product of two propositions cannot is false, for, if both were true,

i).

their

product would be true (equal to

58.

Law

of Importation
(a

mental equivalence
esting
is

<^

b)

=a

and Exportation. The funda+ b has many other interexportation,

consequences.

One

of the most important of these

the

law of importation and

which

is

expressed

by the following formula:

"To say
and
This
infer the

that

if

is

true

b implies

c,

is

to

say that a

b imply c".

equality

involves

two

converse
first,

implications:

If

we

second member from the

we import
if

into the

implication (b<^c) the hypothesis or condition a;

the
first

we

infer

member from

the

second,

we,

on the

contrary,

export from the implication

(ab<^c)

the hypothesis a.

Demonstration :

[<(<
Cor.
i.

= a + (b < = a = (ab)' + c = a + (ab <

c)}
c)

b'

c,

c)

b'

c.

Obviously we have the equivalence

[a<(b<c)}
since both
tative

=
commu-

members are equal to (ab<^c), by the law of multiplication.

2.

Cor.

We

have also

for,

by the law of importation and exportation,

*)]

= (aa<b) =

(a<b).

If

we apply

the

formulas,
identity
position,

of which

law of importation to the two following the first results from the principle of

and the second expresses the principle of contra-

LAW OF IMPORTATION AND EXPORTATION.

(a

89
),

< J)< < b\

(a

(a<b}<

(b'

<a

we

obtain the two formulas

(a<b)a<b,
which
implies
implies
are
b, b,

(a<b)b'<a,
of hypothetical reasoning:
is

the

two
if

types
is

"If

and and

a
b

true, b
false,

true" (modus ponens};

false"

"If a

if

is

a.

is

(modus

tollens).

Remark.

These two formulas could be

directly

deduced

by the

principle of assertion,

from the following

i),

(a<6)

0= i)<0-

which are not dependent on the law of importation and which result from the principle of the syllogism.

From

the

same fundamental equivalence, we can deduce

several paradoxical formulas:

1.

a<(b<a\
"If

a'<(a<b).

a a

is

true,

is

any proposition known properties of o and i.

false,

implies

implied by any proposition b; if a is b". This agrees with the

2.

a
"If

<

[(a

<b)<
then
'a

b],

a
'b

is

true,
a'

a'< [(b implies V implies

<

)<
b;
if

b'}.

is

false,

then

implies implies not-." These two formulas are other forms of hypothetical reason-

ing (modus ponens

3.

and modus
',

tollens).

= [(a <*)<]
"To say
that,
if

[(b
b,

<a)< a] = a,
a
is

a implies
if

true,
a,

is is

the

same
is

as

affirming

a;

to

say that,

implies

false,

the

same

as denying a".

Demonstration :
[(a
[(b

< )< = + < = < a)< = (' + a < a) =

a]

(a

a]

ab'
</

a']

+ a = a, + a'= a'.
See

This formula

is

BERTRAND RUSSELL'S
I, p.

"principle of reduction".

The Principles of Mathematics, Vol.

17 (Cambridge, 1903).

gO
In

INEQUALITIES REDUCED TO EQUALITIES.

formulas

(i)

and

(3),

in

which b
i

is

any term
b.

at

all,

we might introduce
following formula,
sign.
4.
it

the sign

Y\ w

tn respect to
to

In the
this

becomes necessary

make

use of

n
Demonstration :

= [(a +
We
can
clear

b'

#)

<C x\
X

= a bx
+
and

+ x=ab +
x),

x.

must now form the product J J (a b

value,

where x
it

assume every
that

including
to
all

i.

Now,

is

the

part

common

the terms of the form

(ab + x) can only be ab. For, (i) ab is contained in each of the sums (ab + x) and therefore in the part common to
all;

(2) the part

common

to all the
is,

sums (ab

x) must be

contained in (ab
part
is

o),
,

that

in ab.

Hence

this

common

equal to

ab 1 which proves

the theorem.

59.

Reduction of Inequalities to Equalities.

said,

As we

have

the

principle

of assertion

enables

us to reduce
:

inequalities to equalities

by means of the following formulas

i),

(a 4,

= (a = (a + i) (a^b)=(a =
(a =
b').

o),

For,
(a 4= b)

= (ab/ +
we

ab +

o)

= (ab' +

\
i)

**-

= (a =

b').

Consequently,

have the paradoxical formula

This argument

is

general and from

it

we can deduce
a,

the formula

Yl
X

(i

+ *) =
=
a.

whence may be derived the

correlative formula

ax

INEQUALITIES REDUCED TO EQUALITIES.

pi
b,

This
either
its

is
it

easily understood,
is

for,

whatever the proposition

is

true
is

and

its

negative

false,

or

it

is

false

and

negative
it

true.

Now, whatever the proposition a may

hence
it

be,

is

true or false;
b'
.

is

necessarily equal either to

b or to
is

Thus

to

deny an equality (between propositions)

to affirm the opposite equality.

Thence it results that, in the calculus of propositions, we do not need to take inequalities into consideration a fact Morewhich greatly simplifies both theory and practice.
over, just
also

as

we can combine

alternative equalities,

we can
redu-

combine simultaneous

inequalities,

since

they are

cible to equalities.

For, from the formulas previously established

57)

(ab
(a

= o) = (a = o) + = (a = + b =
i) i)

(b

(b

= =
<>),

o),
i),

we deduce by

contraposition
(

= (+i) (*+i) =
+ o)
(J

4=0)

( (

+ *+

i).

These two formulas, moreover, according

just said, are equivalent to the
( fl

to

what we have

known formulas
i),

(a

= o)

^i)

_,)-(*= = (a = o)
-h

o).

Therefore, in the
all

calculus

of propositions,

we can

solve

simultaneous systems of equalities or inequalities and all alternative systems of equalities or inequalities, which is not
possible in the calculus of classes.

To

this

end,

it is

necessary

only to apply the following rule: First reduce the inclusions to

equalities

and the non-

inclusions to inequalities; then reduce the equalities so that their

second members

will

be

i,

and the

inequalities so that their

.second members will be o, and transform the latter into equalities having i for a second member; finally, suppress the

second members

and the

signs of equality,

/.

<?.,

form the

product of the first members of the simultaneous equalities and the sum of the first members of the alternative equalities,
retaining the parentheses.

92
60.

CONCLUSION.

Conclusion.
exhaustive;
it

The
does

foregoing

exposition
to

is

far

from

being
treatise

not
logic,

on the algebra of

pretend complete but only undertakes to make

be a

known the elementary principles and theories of that science. The algebra of logic is an algorithm with laws peculiar to In some phases it is very analogous to ordinary alitself.
gebra,
stance,

and
it

in others it is very widely different. For indoes not recognize the distinction of degrees; the

laws

of

tautology

and

absorption

introduce
it

into

it

great

simplifications
It
is

by

excluding

from

numerical
rise

coefficients.
all

a formal calculus which

can give

to

sorts of
in-

theories
finite

and problems, and

the

is

susceptible

of an

almost

development.
at

But

same time

it

is

a restricted system,

and

it

is

important to bear in mind that it is far from embracing all of logic. Properly speaking, it is only the algebra of classical logic. Like this logic, it remains confined to the domain circumscribed by Aristotle, namely, the domain of
the relations of inclusion between concepts and the relations

of implication between propositions. It is true that classical logic (even when shorn of its errors and superfluities) was

much more narrow

entirely

contained

within
limits

than the algebra of logic. It is almost the bounds of the theory of the
to-day
the

syllogism
artificial.

whose

appear very
of logic

restricted

and

Nevertheless,

with

much more

algebra breadth and universality,

simply

treats,

problems of the

same order;

is it at bottom nothing else than the theory of classes or aggregates considered in their relations of inNow logic ought to study many other clusion or identity.

kinds of concepts than generic concepts (concepts of classes) and many other relations than the relation of inclusion (of
It ought, in short, to subsumption) between such concepts. develop into a logic of relations, which LEIBNIZ foresaw, which PEIRCE and SCHRODER founded, and which PEANO and

RUSSELL seem
While

to

have established on

definite foundations.

algebra of logic are of logic use to mathematics, mathematics, on the other hardly any hand, finds in the logic of relations its concepts and funclassical

and the

CONCLUSION.

93
is

damental principles; the true logic of mathematics

of relations.
logic
rests

the logic

The algebra of
as

considered

out of pure logic a particular mathematical theory, for it

itself arises

on

principles

which have been

implicitly postulated

and

which are not susceptible of algebraic or symbolic expression because they are the foundation of all symbolism and of all
Accordingly, we can say that the algebra of logic is a mathematical logic by its form and by its method, but it must not be mistaken for the logic of
the
logical
calculus.
1

mathematics.
*

The

principle

of deduction and the principle of substitution.

de Logistique, Chapter
I,

See

the author's

SS 2 and 3 [not published], and Les Principes des Mathtmatiques, Chapter I, A.

Manuel

INDEX.
Absorption,
Absurdity,

Law

of,

13,

92.

Calculus, Infinitesimal, v ; Logical,

!

Type

of,

27.

viii,
viii.

3;

ratiocinate?,

Addition,

and multiplication, Logical, v, vi, 9, 20; and multiplication, Modulus of,

19; and multiplication, Theorems on, 14; Logical, not
disjunctive,

Cantor, Georg,

ion.
8.

Categorical syllogism,

Cause,
Causes,
of,

7,

n.
of,

Forms

69;

Law

n.

Affirmative propositions, 80 n.

Table

6769; Sixteen, of, 7779.

v.

67, 72;

Algebra, of logic an algorithm, 92; of logic compared to

Characters,

mathematical algebra,
of thought,
v.

13;

Classes, Calculus of, 4, 86, 91. of dichotomy, Classification

31 n.

Algorithm,
an,

Algebra

of logic

Commutativity, 24.

92,
v.

Composition,
ii
12, 86.

Principle

of,

Alphabet of human thought,

Alternative,

12;

affirmation,

Concepts, Calculus
Condition, 7;
sufficient,

of,

4.

n,

20, 24; Equivalence of

an, 85.

an implication and
Antecedent,
Aristotle,
iii,

Necessary and
45, 49, 57,

78,

7.

2 in.,

92.

82; Necessary but not sufficient, 41; of impossibility

Assertion, Principle of, 84.

Assertions,
sible,

and

Number
10, 16,

in determination,

57.

of

posConnaissances, 63.

79.

Axioms,
27,

Consequence,
8,

7,

n.
of,

17,

22,

84.

Consequences, Forms

69;

Law
nn., 18, Problem
21,
of,

of,

63
9;
of,
7.

66;

of the
65,

Baldwin,
Boole,
28,
iii

syllogism,
ix, xiii,

Sixteen,

71; Table

7677.
Properties

29,

63;

Consequent,
Constituents,

5961.
Bryan, William Jennings,
ix.

28;

of,

29.

INDEX.

95

Contradiction,
22n.,

Principle

of,

Equalities,

Formulas for

trans-

2324.
;

forming inclusions into, 15,

Contradictory propositions, 24
terms,
29.

2526;

Reduction of
85, 91.

in-

equalities to,

Contraposition,

Law
of,

of,

26,

Equality a primitive idea, 15;

Definition of,

81; Principle
Council,
Couturat,

88.
of,

68;

Notion

Members
v.,

71.

of,

ix.

i8n., 93.

Equation,

and an inequation,
of,

Dedekind, ion. Deduction, 61 ; Principle

Definition,

83; Throwing into an, 75.

Equations, Solution
of, 93.
x.

5053,
of,

Theory
iii,

5759,

61, 73.

of,

De Morgan,
Formulas
Descartes,

Excluded middle, Principle

iv,

vi, viii, ix;

of,

32

33, 81.

2324.
Exclusion, Principle
of,

23

n.

iv.

Development,
;

28; Law of, of logical functions, 30 32 79; of mathematics, iv; of

logic,
viii.

Exclusive, Mutually, 29.

Existence, Postulate
of, 21, 27.

Exhaustion, Principle of, 23

n.

Exhaustive, Collectively, 29.

symbolic

Diagrams of Venn, Geometrical,

73-74of,

Forms,

Law
vii,

of,

62, 70; of con-

Dichotomy, Classification
3 in.
Disjunctive,
not,

sequences and causes, 69.

Frege,
viii,

x;

Symbolism

Logical
sums, 34.
16.

addition

of,

vii.

ii

Functions, iv;
;

Development of
Integral,

Distributive law,

logical,

79;
of,

29 n;

Limits

Double

exinclusion, 37; pressed by an indeterminate, 48; Negative of the, 82. 24.

20.
iii.

3738;

Logical,

of variables, 56; of developed, Properties

29

30;

Double negation,
Duality,

3437;
Values

Prepositional,
of,

iv;

Law

Sums and products

of,

44;

of,

55.

Economy
63,

of mental of
;

effort,

Elimination

known

terms,

Hopital, Marquis de

1',

vi.

64

67

of middle terms,

Huntington, E. V.,
i5n., 2 in.

xiv,

4n.,

61, 63;

of unknowns, 53, 57, 59, 61; Resultant of, 40, 41,57,72,73,82; Rule
43, 55.

Hypothesis,

7.

Hypothetical arguments,

27

for resultant of,

reasoning, 89; syllogism, 8.

96
Ideas, Simple
Identity, vi;

INDEX.

and complex,
Principle
of, of,

v. 8,

Ladd-Franklin, Mrs.,
23
n.,

viii,

xiii,

42.
iii,

21, 88;

Type
v,

27.

Lambert,
Leibniz,
alter-

vi.
ivff.,

Ideography,

vii,

viii.

iii,

4,

92.

Implication, 5;

and an

Limits of a function,

3738.
30.
xiii.

native, Equivalence

of an,

85; Relations

of,

92.

MacColl,

vi, ix,

2 in.,

Importation and exportation,

Law

of,

88.

MacFarlane, Alexander, Mathematical function,

logic,
iii,

ix;

Impossibility, Condition of, 57.

iv,

93.

Inclusion, vi; a primitive idea,

ix,

Mathematics,
universal, iv.

Philosophy

5; Double, 37; expressed

by an indeterminate, 46, 48;

Negative of the double, 82; Relation of, x, 46, 92.
Inclusions into equalities, For-

Maxima of

discourse, 29.

Middle, Principle of excluded, 23 24; terms, Elimination

of,

61, 63.

mulas for transforming,

1 5,

Minima of

discourse, 28.
xiii,

2526.
Indeterminate,
5
1
;

Mitchell, O.,

42.

Inclusion

Modulus of addition and multiplication,

expressed by an, 46, 48. Indetermination, 43; Condition

of,

19.

57-

Modus Modus
Miiller,

ponens, 89.
fallens,

27, 89.
ix,

Inequalities, to equalities,

Re-

Eugen,

xiv,

duction of, 85, 91; Transformation of non-inclusions

and, 81.
Inequation, Equation and an, 83; Solution of an, 81, 84.
Infinitesimal calculus, v.

Multiplication.
dition."

See

s. v.

46 n. "Ad-

Negation,

v,

vi,

9;

defined,

21-23; Double, 24; Dualnot derived from, 20, 22. Negative, 21, 23; of the double
ity

Integral function,

Interpretations
culus, 3f.

2gn. of the

cal-

inclusion, 82; propositions,

Son.
Non-inclusions

and inequalof, 81.

Jevons,

viii,

ix,

xiii,

nn., 73;
ities,

Transformation
v, 2

Logical piano

of,

75.
59.

Johnson,

W.

Notation,

in, 44.
18,
20.

E., xiv,

Null-class, vi,

Known

terms (connaissances)^
67.

Number
79-

of possible assertions,

63-64,

INDEX.

97
,

One, Definition

of, ix,

1720.

Simplification

Principle

of,

II
Particular propositions, 80.

12,

21.
1 1
,

Simultaneous affirmation,
20, 24.

Peano,

iii,

viii,

x,

Son, 92.
ix,
xiii.

Peirce, C.

S.,

viii,

Solution of equations, 50

53,
in-

Philosophy a universal mathematics,

iv.

57-59,
Subject,
7.

6 1,

73;

of

equations, 8 1, 84.
28,
73,
5 an,

Piano of Jevons, Logical, 75.

Poretsky,
xiv,

Substitution, Principle of, 93.

53; Formula of, 38-39, 40; Method of, 62 70.

Predicate,
7.
7.

Subsumption,

5.

Summand,
Sums,
tions,

4.

and products of func44;

Disjunctive,

Premise,

34;

Primary proposition,
Inclusion

6,

21.
a, 1 5
;
i

Logical, 10.

Primitive idea, Equality

a,
ix,

5.
I

Syllogism, Principle of the, 8, 15, 6 an; Theory of the, 92.

Product, Logical, 10. Propositions, ix; Calculus

4,

Symbolic

logic,
of,

iii,

v;

Devel-

of,

opment
Symbolism
Symmetry,
Tautology,

viii.

86,

91;

Contradictory,
peculiar
to

in

mathematics,
of,
iv.

iv.

24;

Formulas

Symbols, Origin
7,

the calculus of, 84; Implication between,

20, 24.

92; reduced 86;

to

lower

orders,

Un-

Law
7.

of,

13, 92.

iversal

and particular, 44,80.

Term,
Thesis,

4.

Reciprocal, 7, 21. Reductio ad absurdum, 27.

Theorem,
7.

Reduction, Principle

of,

89 n.

Relations, Logic of, 92.

Relatives, Logic of,
ix.

Thought, Algebra of, v; Alphabet of human, v; Economy

of,
iii.

Resultant
4i,
for,

of elimination, 40,
72,

Transformation
into equalities,

of inclusions
15, 25
into

57,

73, 82;

Rule

26;

43, 55.
vii,
viii,

of inequalities

equal-

Russell, B.,

89 n,

ities,

92.

85,

91;

of

non-in-

clusions

and inequalities, 81.

characteristic
viii;

Schroder,
29,

vi, viiif, xiii, 5, 2

in,

41,

59,

61-62, 8on,
of,

Universal
Leibniz, v

of

92;

Theorem

39.
6, 21.

propositions,

Secondary proposition,

Son.

98
Universe
2311,

INDEX.

of

discourse,

18,

Viete,

iv.

27.
of, 53,

Voigt, 42.

Unknowns, Elimination
57, 59, 61.

Whitehead,
5611.,

A.

N.,

viii,

xiii,

59,

6in.

Variables, Functions of, 56.

Whole, Logical, 62.

Zero, Definition
Logical, 62,
20;

Venn, John,

iii,

viii,

ix;

Geo-

metrical diagrams

of, 7 3

- 74

of, ix, 17

Mechanical device

of,

75;

76.

Problem

of,

7173.

Printed by

W.

Drugulin, Leipzig (Germany).

000 682737"