[FOM] Odd Thought About Identity
Alex Blum
blumal at mail.biu.ac.il
Thu May 21 03:56:01 EDT 2009
CORRECTIONS
Richard Heck wrote:
>This came up in my logic final. There was a deduction in which one got
>to here:
> Rxy . ~Ryx
>and needed to get to here:
> ~(x = y)
>What a lot of students did was this:
> (x)(y)(x = y --> Rxy <--> Ryx)
>This does not, of course, accord with the usual way we state the laws of
>identity, but it struck me that it is, in fact, every bit as intuitive
>as the usual statement. Which, of course, is why they did it that way.
>
>It wouldn't be difficult to formulate a version of the law of identity
>that allowed this sort of thing. But I take it that it would not be
>"schematic", in the usual sense, or in the strict sense that Vaught
>uses. I wonder, therefore, if a logic that had a collection of axioms of
>this sort might not yield an interesting example somewhere. Or if there
>isn't a similar phenomenon somewhere else.
>
>Anyone have any thoughts about this?
>
>Richard
>
>
>
Perhaps,
If x=y, then any free occurences of x in a wff F may be replaced by y (if y does not become bound where x was free)
and any free occurences of y in the formula may be replaced by x (if x does not become bound where y was free).
This would immediately yield from 'x=y and Rxy', 'Ryx'. But '~Ryx'. Hence '~(x=y) v ~Rxy'. And 'Rxy', hence '~(x=y)'. Thanks to John Corcoran
for prompting a correction in the deduction.
Alex Blum
More information about the FOM
mailing list