1

Some philosophers state the law of identity as "if p, then p" or "p iff p" (i.e. in propositional logic). On the other hand, others state it in a completely different language, for example: "A is A".

What are the origins of these two styles?

  • Do these ways of articulating identity strike you as different on a deeper level than wording? (I'm trying to better understand your concern about "the origin of these two styles") – virmaior Apr 19 '15 at 16:03
  • At least, "p iff p" contains two propositions, but "A is A" contains only one... ? – Barış Akalın Apr 19 '15 at 16:08
  • 2
    Hello. Could you provide a specific reference to a philosopher that regards "if p, then p" as the law of identity? – Ram Tobolski Apr 19 '15 at 17:43
  • You do realise though, that "if p then p" is not equivalent with "p iff p"? The first is implication, the second equivalence. – user2953 Apr 19 '15 at 19:49
1

A is A is the "traditional" form of the Law of identity dating from the medieval commentators to Aristotle.

Aristotle' logic is a logic of terms; terms are (roughly speaking) "names" for objects : individuals, etc.

Thus, the identity is a relation between names or objects, and thus it is expressed with "is" (in formal logic : "=", and the usual law : x=x).

Propositional logic is formulated in terms of sentential variables, standing for sentences: thus, the relations between them are expressed with the connectives : "and, or, not, if__ then___".

"If p, then p" is one of the most elementary law of propositional calculus (in many textbook it is the first one derived).

In Alfred North Whitehead & Bertrand Russell, Principia Mathematica to *56 (2nd ed - 1927), page 99, we have the law :

*2.08. ⊢p ⊃ p

i.e. any proposition implies itself. This is called the "principle of identity". It is not the same as the "law of identity" ("x is identical with x") [...].

I presume that this is the origin of the modern usage in logic.

| improve this answer | |
  • But why we have call it a law/principle? I mean couldn't we derive it from the law of excluded middle and law of non-contradiction? – ado sar Jul 15 at 19:33
  • @adosar - the form x=x is not a propositional formula. This it cannot be derived. The propositional form p ⊃ p is derived (as in Principia above) from propositional axioms, as well as LEM and LNC. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Jul 16 at 11:36

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.