Lecture 11

Conversion, Obversion and contraposition involve stating the known fact in different words.

 Conversion

S and P share some feature.

There is one object that has characteristic of S as well as P.

 Obversion

An object can either be in a set or its complement set.

Suppose “indoors” was a set of all things that are within the classroom.

This set has many members. Tables, chairs, people, fans, etc.

The complement set of “indoors” is everything that is not inside the classroom.

We call it the set “non-indoors”. In simpler terms, “non-indoors” is the set of everything that is
outside the classroom.

An object can be either inside the classroom or outside the classroom.

Thus, an object can be either in the set indoors or set non-indoors.

If an object is in the set indoors, then it is not in non-indoors.

In proposition form:

Prep = Some student is indoors.

ObvPrep = Some student is not non-indoors.

Prep = All students are indoors.

ObvPrep = No student is non-indoors.

 Contraposition

If you find an object in a set, then you won’t find it in complement set.

If you find an object in Q, then in non-Q, you won’t find it.

If you find all students indoors, then in non-indoors, you won’t find students. You will only find non-
students there.

If all the students are inside the class, then outside the class, there are only non-students.

Prep = All students are indoors.

conversion:

(i) Replace subject with complement of predicate.

(ii) Replace predicate with complement of subject.

Prep = All non-indoors are non-students.

Another example:

Prep = Some Students are NOT idealists

Contraposition. S becomes ~P. P becomes ~S.

ContraPrep = Some non-idealists are NOT non-students.

Set of Idealists Set of non-Idealists

.. … S ..

… … .. ..

And they state the same truth values. Look here:

ContraPrep = Some non-idealists are not non-students.

Paraphrasing:

Prep = Some non-idealists are not [in complement of students]

Remember: An object can either be in a set or in the complement set.

Prep = Some non-idealists are students.

Conversion:

Prep = Some students are non-idealists.

 NOW WE BEGIN WITH A PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION:

 For a proposition to be true about a subject, does the subject need to really exist?
Yes. At least for I-type and O-type.

Because I-type propositions are of the form: “There exists at least one…”

Some apples are rotten = There exists at least one apple that is rotten.

Some oranges are not fresh = There exists at least one orange that is not fresh.

Thus, I-type and O-type propositions declare/assert the existence of their subject.

Existential import = A statement has existential import when its truth depends on evidence for the
existence of things in a certain category--in the case of categorical propositions, the existence of
things in the categories signified by its subject and predicate terms.

[http://www.wwnorton.com/college/phil/logic3/ch8/import.htm]

Paraphrase = If the truth value of a statement depends on whether the subject exists in a class, then
this statement has existential import. Existence of a thing in a class decides whether the statement is
true or false.

I-type and O-type propositions have existential import. Because they assert/declare that an object
exists which has a property, or which does not have a property.

The existence of the object is pre-supposed (considered to be true).

A-type and E-type have no existential import.

Prep = All angels have wings.

Paraphrase = If there is an angel, it will have wings.

Here, the existence of the angel is not declared/asserted. What is asserted is that (in case the angels
exist), all angels have wings.

Prep = No crocophants are carnivores.

Paraphrase = If there is a crocophant, it shall not be a carnivore.

[Thanks to K S Kaushik for the correction]

Again, the existence of a crocophant is not declared/asserted. What is asserted is, if crocophants are
discovered, they would be found to be carnivores.
Compare it with:

Prep = Some crocophant is carnivore.

Paraphrase = There exists a crocophant that is carnivore.

The existence is asserted/claimed.

In other words:

An I-type statement,

Some S is P

is really two inherent statements:

(i) S exists

(ii) and it belongs to the set/class P

For the I-type statement to be true, both the inherent statements have to true.

If any one of these two inherent statements is false, entire I-type statement shall be false.

Agreed?

So, if S does not exist, (i) is false.

Therefore, entire I-type statement shall be false.

Angels do not exist. Martians do not exist. Crocophants do not exist.

Therefore, any I-type statements about angels, martians and crocophants shall be false.

Some angels have one foot; Some martians are not nice; Some crocophants lay eggs

This holds true for all O-type statements as well.

An O-type statement,

Some S is not P

is really two inherent statements:

(i) S exists

(ii) and it does not belong to the set/class P

You can work out the rest yourself.

In the end:

I-type and O-type propositions have existential import, i.e. they assert the existence of an entity.
Therefore, I-type and O-type propositions about propositions about things that do not exist, will be
false.

A-type and E-type propositions do not have existential import, i.e. they do not assert the existence
of an entity.

 Look at the traditional square of opposition, as was accepted by Aristotle:

A1 = All birds have wings (At least one is false) E1 = No birds have wings
If bottom false, top false.

If bottom false, top false.

If top true, bottom true.

If top true, bottom true.

I1 = Some birds have wings (At least one is true) O1 = Some birds have not wings

We know that A1 is true, then E1 has to be false. (Horizontally)

We know that A1 is true, then I1 has to be true. (Vertically)

We know that A1 is true, then O1 is false. (Diagonally)

Replace birds with angels.

Here’s what an angel looks like.

A2 = All angels have wings (At least one is false) E2 = No angels have wings
If bottom false, top false.

If bottom false, top false.

If top true, bottom true.

If top true, bottom true.

I2 = Some angels have wings (At least one is true) O2 = Some angels have not wings

What is the truth value of I2? Keep looking till you find at least one angel who has wings.

I2 can be false in two situations:

Situation 1 = You looked at every angel, and could not find any winged one.

Situation 2 = You could not find any angels at all. Therefore, you could not find even one winged
angel. Since there is no angel, there is no winged angel, and hence I2 is false.

What is the truth value of O2? Keep looking until you find at least one angel who has no wings.

Situation 2 = You could not find any angels at all. Therefore, you could not find any un-winged angel
either. Since there is no angel, there is no unwinged angel, and hence O2 is false.

If I2 is false, then subcontrary O2 has to be true. (But is not the case)

If I2 is false, then superaltern A2 has to be false. If A2 is false, contradictory O2 has to be true. (But is
not the case).
PROBLEM!!! Traditional square of opposition seems to be falling apart!

Where is the problem originating from?

Empty sets! Sets with no members. E.g.: Set of all angels, martians and crocophants, honest
politicians (?)

Claims about empty sets are causing the trouble!

Solution?? Do away with propositions about empty sets.

If it is a proposition, it cannot be about an empty set.

If it is a proposition, the subject contains members.

After all, propositions are the statements whose truth values can be checked.

If truth value cannot be checked, because the entities do not exist, then it is not a proposition.

Sort of makes sense. Why would you make a proposition like,

“All boys in this girls’-school are athletes”?

The listener would not assume the statement to be true or false. She would assume you to be
retarded or funny, because there are no boys in the girls’-school.

Or why would you make a proposition like,

“I have finished all vegetables”, when you were served no vegetables at all.

Making a proposition about an entity, presupposes that this entity exists (otherwise, it gets
confusing for the listener).

Aristotelian logic requires the assumption that following exist: (i) the subject class, (ii) predicate class
(iii) and the complement of the predicate class.
BUT bigger problems?

Propositions about empty sets are necessary! Because:

1. It is an important part of modern mathematics that is based on set theory:

https://www.thoughtco.com/empty-set-3126581

2. It allows us to do thought experiments and hypothesizing.

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

Other reasons?