I'm studying formal logic, and I get stuck in the beginning.

I'm trying to do easier translations in syllogistic logic. I'm using Gensler book "Introduction to Logic".

They say that this examples are non-wffs (well-formed formulas). And i don't get why:

all A is not B

Why this are not wffs? All logicians are not charming. This is not valid?

A is B

Again: Logicians are charming.


For "A is B" the explanation is simple.

Gensler's language has two types of "basic" formulae:

(i) formulae expressing relation between sets ("general categoris"): "All logicians are charming", translated as "all L is C"

(ii) formulae expressing the fact that an individual belongs to a set: "Gensler is a logician", translated as "g is L".

In this second case, g is the name of an individual; thus, we cannot quantify it with "all" or "some".

In the previous case, instead, L and C are names for sets and we have to quantify the first one in order to correctly express the relationship between them. If we say "Logicians are charming" (i.e. L is C) we have an ambiguous expression, because we do not know if we are asserting it of all or some Logicians.

I presume that he forbid the expression "all A is not B" as "ungrammatical" (non-wff) simply because it is already expressible as: "no A is B".

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.