CategoricalProposition

Categoricalproposition

Inlogic, acategorical proposition,

orcategorical statement, is a
propositionthat asserts or denies that all
or some of the members of one category
(thesubject term) are included in another
(thepredicate term).[1]The study of
argumentsusing categorical statements
(i.e.,syllogisms) forms an important
branch ofdeductive reasoningthat began
with theAncient Greeks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition
 The Ancient Greeks such asAristotle
identified four primary distinct types of
categorical proposition and gave them
standard forms (now often calledA,E,I,
andO). If, abstractly, the subject category is
namedSand the predicate category is
namedP, the four standard forms are:
AllSareP. (Aform)
NoSareP. (Eform)
SomeSareP. (Iform)
SomeSare notP. (Oform)
 A surprisingly large number of sentences may be
translated into one of these canonical forms while
retaining all or most of the original meaning of the
sentence. Greek investigations resulted in the so-
calledsquare of opposition, which codifies the logical
relations among the different forms; for example, that
anA-statement is contradictory to anO-statement; that
is to say, for example, if one believes "All apples are
red fruits," one cannot simultaneously believe that
"Some apples are not red fruits." Thus the relationships
of the square of opposition may allow
immediate inference, whereby the truth or falsity of
one of the forms may follow directly from the truth or
falsity of a statement in another form.
 Modern understanding of categorical propositions
(originating with the mid-19th century work of
George Boole) requires one to consider if the subject
category may be empty. If so, this is called
thehypothetical viewpoint, in opposition to
theexistential viewpointwhich requires the subject
category to have at least one member. The existential
viewpoint is a stronger stance than the hypothetical
and, when it is appropriate to take, it allows one to
deduce more results than otherwise could be made.
The hypothetical viewpoint, being the weaker view,
has the effect of removing some of the relations
present in the traditional square of opposition.
 Arguments consisting of three categorical
propositions two as premises and one as
conclusion are known as
categorical syllogismsand were of paramount
importance from the times of ancient Greek
logicians through the Middle Ages. Although
formal arguments using categorical syllogisms
have largely given way to the increased
expressive power of modern logic systems like
thefirst-order predicate calculus , they still
retain practical value in addition to their
historic and pedagogical significance.
Translating statem ents into standard
form
Sentences can be paraphrased to be
converted to the standard form. The
standard form is usually this:
All/Some/No S is/are/isn't/aren't P
Here S and P represent two terms
which the categorical proposition
seeks to define the relation between.
Properties ofcategoricalpropositions

Categorical propositions can be

categorized into four types on the
basis of their "quality" and
"quantity", or their "distribution of
terms". These four types have long
been namedA,E,IandO. This is
based on the Latinafirmo(I affirm),
referring to the affirmative
propositionsAandI, andnego(I
deny), referring to the negative
propositionsEandO.[2]
Q uantity and quality
Quantityrefers to the amount of members of the subject
class that are used in the proposition. If the proposition
refers to all members of the subject class, it isuniversal. If
the proposition does not employ all members of the subject
class, it isparticular. For instance, anI-proposition ("Some S
are P") is particular since it only refers to some of the
members of the subject class.
Qualityrefers to whether the proposition affirms or denies
the inclusion of a subject within the class of the predicate.
The two possible qualities are
calledaffirmativeandnegative.[3]For instance, anA-
proposition ("All S are P") is affirmative since it states that
the subject is contained within the predicate. On the other
hand, anO-proposition ("Some S are not P") is negative
since it excludes the subject from the predicate.
 NameStatementQuantityQualityAAll S are
P.universalaffirmativeENo S are
P.universalnegativeISome S are
P.particularaffirmativeOSome S are not
P.particularnegativeAn important
consideration is the definition of the
wordsome. In logic,somerefers to "one
or more", which could mean "all".
Therefore, the statement "Some S are P"
does not guarantee that the statement
"Some S are not P" is also true.
 Name Statement Quantity Quality
A All S are P. universal affirmative
E No S are P. universal negative
I Some S are P. particular affirmative
O Some S are not
particular negative
P

An important consideration is the

definition of the wordsome. In
logic,somerefers to "one or more",
which could mean "all". Therefore,
the statement "Some S are P" does
not guarantee that the statement
D istributivity

The two terms (subject and predicate) in a

categorical proposition may each be classified
asdistributedorundistributed. If all members
of the term's class are affected by the proposition,
that class isdistributed; otherwise it
isundistributed. Every proposition therefore has
one of four possibledistribution of terms.
Each of the four canonical forms will be examined
in turn regarding its distribution of terms.
Although not developed here,Venn diagramsare
sometimes helpful when trying to understand the
distribution of terms for the four forms.
A form

AnA-proposition distributes the subject to

the predicate, but not the reverse.
Consider the following categorical
proposition: "All dogs are mammals". All
dogs are indeed mammals but it would be
false to say all mammals are dogs. Since
all dogs are included in the class of
mammals, "dogs" is said to be distributed
to "mammals". Since all mammals are not
necessarily dogs, "mammals" is
undistributed to "dogs".
Eform

AnE-proposition distributes
bidirectionally between the subject
and predicate. From the categorical
proposition "No beetles are
mammals", we can infer that no
mammals are beetles. Since all
beetles are defined not to be
mammals, and all mammals are
defined not to be beetles, both
classes are distribute
Iform

Both terms in anI-proposition are

undistributed. For example, "Some
Americans are conservatives".
Neither term can be entirely
distributed to the other. From this
proposition it is not possible to say
that all Americans are conservatives
or that all conservatives are
Americans.
O form

In anO-proposition only the predicate is

distributed. Consider the following: "Some
politicians are not corrupt". Since not all
politicians are defined by this rule, the subject
is undistributed. The predicate, though, is
distributed because all the members of
"corrupt people" will not match the group of
people defined as "some politicians". Since the
rule applies to every member of the corrupt
people group, namely, "all corrupt people are
not some politicians", the predicate is
distributed.
O form
The distribution of the predicate in anO-proposition is
often confusing due to its ambiguity. When a
statement like "Some politicians are not corrupt" is
said to distribute the "corrupt people" group to "some
politicians", the information seems of little value since
the group "some politicians" is not defined. But if, as
an example, this group of "some politicians" were
defined to contain a single person, Albert, the
relationship becomes more clear. The statement would
then mean, of every entry listed in the corrupt people
group, not one of them will be Albert: "all corrupt
people are not Albert". This is a definition that applies
to every member of the "corrupt people" group, and is
therefore distributed.
Sum m ary
Name Stateme Distribution
nt
Subject Predicate

A All S are
distributed undistributed
P.
E No S are
distributed distributed
P.
I Some S
undistributed undistributed
are P.
O Some S
undistributed distributed
are not P.
C riticism

Peter Geachand others have

criticized the use of distribution to
determine the validity of an
argument.[5][6]It has been suggested
that statements of the form "Some A
are not B" would be less problematic
if stated as "Not every A is B,"[7]
which is perhaps a closer translation
toAristotle's original form for this
type of statement.[8]
O perations on categorical
statem ents
There are several operations (e.g., conversion,
obversion, and contraposition) that can be performed on
a categorical statement to change it into another. The
new statement may or may not be equivalent to the
original. [In the following tables that illustrate such
operations, rows with equivalent statement shall be
marked in green, while those with inequivalent
statements shall be marked in red.]
Some operations require the notion of theclass
complement. This refers to every
element under considerationwhich isnotan element of
the class. Class complements are very similar to
set complements. The class complement of a set P will
be called "non-P".
C onversion

The simplest operation

isconversionwhere the subject and
predicate terms are interchanged.
C onversion

From a statement inEorIform, it is valid

to conclude its converse. This is not the
case for theAandOforms.
O bversion

Obversion changes thequality(that

is the affirmativity or negativity) of
the statement and the predicate
term.[9]For example, a universal
affirmative statement would become
a universal negative statement.
 O bversion

Categorical statements are logically

equivalent to their obverse. As such, a
Venn diagram illustrating any one of
the forms would be identical to the
Venn diagram illustrating its obverse.
 C ontraposition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition