Lecture 19

Relational Logic

F irst-order predicate logic exposes the logical structure within

sentences. But the language as we have developed it so far
can only handle certain kinds of internal logical connections: the
attributions of properties to individuals. In order to be able to more
fully express the kind of content we put in our arguments, we need
to add another piece of machinery: relations between individuals.
In doing this, translation becomes significantly trickier because
when we need to assert a relation between variables, we will need a
different quantifier to bind each variable. Multiple quantifiers as well
as mixtures of properties and relations combine to make translating
into our extended first-order language more difficult.

Relations with Constants

⊲⊲ Just as we did for properties, we will use capital letters to represent
relations. The only difference is that the number of lowercase
letters that follow the capital letter will increase. We translated “Phil
is tall” into our first-order predicate language as Tp, where T is the
property of being tall and p is the constant for Phil.

⊲⊲ If we take T to be the relation “taller than” and j to be the constant

for Jose, then we will translate “Phil is taller than Jose” as Tpj.
Relations will look like properties, except that they will have more
constants or variables.

⊲⊲ We can combine these to create truth-functional combinations,

as in the sentence “Phil is tall, but he is not taller than Jose.” In
this case, the main connective is “and.” Remember that “but” is
just another way of saying “and.”
⊲⊲ So, we have the following.

(Phil is tall) &(It is not the case that Phil is taller than Jose)

⊲⊲ “Phil is tall” is just Tp.

Tp &(It is not the case that Phil is taller than Jose)

⊲⊲ “It is not the case that Phil is taller than Jose” is a truth-functional
combination with the main connective “not.”

Tp &−(Phil is taller than Jose)

⊲⊲ “Phil is taller than Jose” is Tpj, so the final formulation of the

sentence in our first-order language is as follows.

Tp &−Tpj

⊲⊲ You might think that we should have translated the sentence

as follows, because Jose is taller than Phil if Phil is not taller
than Jose.

Tp &Tjp

⊲⊲ But this is problematic. Suppose that Jose and Phil are the same
height; then, neither is taller than the other. The negation of Txy is
not necessarily Tyx.

⊲⊲ Some relations are symmetric—that is, if x bears the relation

to y, then y bears the relation to x. Consider the relation “is
the sibling of.” If you are Bob’s sibling, then he is yours. It is a
symmetric relation.

⊲⊲ Other relations are asymmetric. If x bears the relation to y, then y

does not bear it to x. Think of the relation “is the parent of.” If x is
the parent of y, then y is not the parent of x.

Lecture 19—Relational Logic 181

⊲⊲ Yet other relations are nonsymmetric. If x bears the relation to
y, then y might or might not bear the relation to x. Think of the
relation “is in love with.” When x loves y and y loves x, life can be
happy, but just because x loves y does not mean that y loves x.

⊲⊲ To return to our example, when we translate, we need to translate

the sentence itself. To take “Phil is not taller than Jose” and turn it
into “Jose is taller than Phil” is to import external knowledge about
the “is taller than” relation, knowledge that is not in the structure
of the sentence—that is, not part of the syntax.

⊲⊲ But, rather, this new knowledge is in the semantic content. We

know what “is taller than” means and that (with the rare exception
of people of the same height) it is antisymmetric. But when we
look at the validity of a relational argument, we need to ask what
the syntax alone tells us. If the relation is antisymmetric, then we
will be able to formulate that as a sentence that will be a premise
in the argument.

⊲⊲ We will be able to say that if one person is taller than a second,

then the second is not taller than the first. That is content we will
need to make explicit as a premise. It cannot be simply assumed
in the translating because it is not part of the syntactic structure
of the sentence being translated.

⊲⊲ So far, we have looked only at relations between two individuals,

but we are in no way limited to them. Think of the relation
“between.” It requires three things, one to be in the middle and
two to be on either side. We could write “Kim is between Sharleen
and Gregory” as Bksg. This is the usual way of writing it—that we
put the subject first.

⊲⊲ The objection is that it is a between-ness relation, yet the thing

between is not visually between in the representation in our
language. One could define the symbol for between-ness such
that “Kim is between Sharleen and Gregory” is represented Bskg.

182 An Introduction to Formal Logic

 That is fine, but it’s not how we often do it. We will have to be clear
how we define the relations in this extension of our language.

Relations with Variables

⊲⊲ Relations with constants are straightforward. Define the relation,
and part of that definition will be which place after the capital
letter stands for which place in the relation. But aside from that,
it is simple. This is not the case once we start in with variables
and quantifiers.

⊲⊲ Suppose that we want to say, “Phil is taller than something or

other.” We need a constant for Phil but a variable for the unknown
thing that Phil is taller than. It is something, not everything, so the
quantifier for that variable will be existential.

∃xTpx

⊲⊲ This, of course, is different than “something is taller than Phil,”

which would be the following.

∃xTxp

⊲⊲ The order matters.

⊲⊲ The move to the universal quantifier should be just as simple. Phil

is taller than everything: ∀xTpx. Everything is taller than Phil: ∀xTxp.

⊲⊲ The next move is the Pandora’s box of first-order logic. What

about “something is taller than something”? We need multiple
quantifiers. We are saying that there is a thing and there is
another thing, and the first thing bears the “taller than” relation to
the second thing.

∃x∃yTxy

Lecture 19—Relational Logic 183

⊲⊲ Notice that this is exactly the same sentence as the following.

∃y∃xTyx

⊲⊲ Remember that bound variables—that is, variables that are in

the scope of a quantifier—are dummy variables. They are just
placeholders that show us which quantifier they are connected
to. With properties, this never really came into play, but with
relations, it will be a relevant fact with great regularity.

⊲⊲ For intuition’s sake, let’s switch relations to the loving relation and
restrict ourselves to talking about people. Suppose that we want
to say, “Someone loves someone or other.” We know that this is
the following.

∃x∃yLxy

⊲⊲ There exists a thing such that there is another thing, and the first
thing loves the second one.

⊲⊲ Suppose that we want to say, “Someone loves everyone.” Now,

we are saying that there is a thing, and that thing bears the loving
relation to all other things.

∃x ∀yLxy

⊲⊲ This is a different sentence from “Everyone loves someone or

other.” That is saying that for all things, there is a thing that the
first thing loves.

∀x∃yLxy

⊲⊲ We need to be careful here, because there are two different

propositions we need to keep separate in our mind. One is
“Everyone loves someone or other.” This means that if you picked
any given person, that person loves some person.

184 An Introduction to Formal Logic

⊲⊲ This is different from the sentence “There is a person everyone
loves.” Now, we are saying that there is a thing, and that thing is
loved by all other things.

∃y ∀xLxy

⊲⊲ Notice how changing the order of the quantifiers has a radical

effect on the meaning of the sentence. ∀x∃yLxy means that for
each and every person, there is some person out there whom
that person loves. But switch around the quantifiers and we get
∃y ∀xLxy, which says that there is some person who is universally
loved. That is not something that follows from the first sentence.
The order of the quantifiers matters just as much as the order of
the variables.

⊲⊲ Instead of just the two quantified basic forms that we had with
properties, we now have eight.

1 ∃x∃yLxy Someone loves someone or other.

2 ∃y∃xLxy Someone is loved by someone or other.
3 ∀x ∀yLxy Everyone loves everyone.
4 ∀y ∀xLxy Everyone is loved by everyone.
5 ∃x ∀yLxy Someone loves everyone.
6 ∀x∃yLxy Everyone loves someone or other.
7 ∃y ∀xLxy There is someone who is loved by everyone.
8 ∀y∃xLxy Everyone is loved by someone or other.

⊲⊲ There is one more. All of these presume that the one loving and
the one loved could be different. But what about the sentences
“Someone loves himself/herself” and “Everyone loves himself/
herself”? For these, the one doing the loving, the first variable, and
the beloved, the second variable, are the same thing. As such,
they get the same variable and are bound by the same quantifier.

∃xLxx Something loves itself.

∀xLxx Everything loves itself.

Lecture 19—Relational Logic 185

⊲⊲ So, when we go through the process of asking whether something
is a truth-functional combination of quantified propositions or is a
fundamental form, and we find that it is fundamental, and then
ask whether it is categorical or basic, and we answer basic, we
have 10 new basic forms we need to know.

⊲⊲ With the categorical forms, we move up another notch of

complexity. We will keep the basic form of the A, E, I, and O
sentences, but the placement of quantifiers and the placement of
parentheses will become very important.

⊲⊲ Consider the A sentence “All who love someone are loved by

someone or other.” The sentence makes clear that if person A
loves person B, then there is a person C, who might not be A or
B, who loves A.

⊲⊲ We know that this is an A sentence, so it will have the general form

∀x(Ax → Bx), but it will need to be made more intricate to handle
the relations. The key is to go step by step, partially translating as
we go. So, we start with the following.

All people who love someone or other are loved by someone.

⊲⊲ We identify it as an A sentence and add in the structure, while

keeping the content in place not related to the general form.

∀x(x loves someone or other → someone loves x)

⊲⊲ Because the person who x loves in the antecedent might be

different from the person who loves x in the consequent, they
will need different quantifiers. And because neither appears in
both terms, the quantifiers will be a part of each term. Because
x appears in both, the quantifier for x must appear outside of the
parentheses in the order that both terms lie within its scope.

∀x[y(x loves y) → ∃z(z loves x)]

186 An Introduction to Formal Logic

 ∀x(∃yLxy → ∃zLzx)

Readings

Barker, The Elements of Logic, chap. 5.

Hurley, Logic, chap. 8.
Kahane, Logic and Philosophy, chap. 8.

Questions

1.
Translate the following sentences into first-order relational logic. Use
Hx = x is human, Mxy = x and y are married, Pxy = x is a parent of y,
Gxy = x is a grandparent of y, j = John, m = Mary, r = Roberta.

a John and Mary are married and are the parents of Roberta.

b Everyone has a person who is his/her parent.

c Anyone who is the parent of one’s parent is one’s grandparent.

2.
Translate the following argument into first-order relational logic and
construct a proof for it to show that it is valid.

Everyone has a person who is his/her parent. Anyone who is the

parent of one’s parent is one’s grandparent. Therefore, everyone
has a grandparent.

Lecture 19—Relational Logic 187