Phi142: Introduction to Logic

Introduction and Motivation

A. V. Ravishankar Sarma
Email: avrs@[Link]
Office: FB 670
July 30, 2026
IIT Kanpur

1/59
Proverbs

Lao Tzu
To attain knowledge add things every day.
To attain wisdom delete things every day.
. . . . . . Lao Tzu (604 BC - 531 BC) Chinese Taoist Philosopher

Aristotle
The more you know, the more you know you don’t know

Rabindranath Tagore
A mind all logic is like a knife all blade.
A knife is useful because the blade is controlled by the handle. In the same way,
reason is useful only when guided by qualities like empathy, imagination, moral sense,
and human warmth.
2/59
Course Overview

1. Informal Logic: 3. Syllogistic Logic

Arguments, fallacies Predicate Logic

PHI142: Introduction to Logic

4. Some theorems,
2. Propositional Logic
paradoxes,
Brief overview of Indian Logic
3/59
Evaluation

3. End Sem: 40%

1. Mid Sem: 30% Predicate Logic

PHI142: Introduction to Logic

4. Attendance: 10%
2. Quiz 20%

4/59
Logic as a branch of Philosophy

3. Epistemology
1. Metaphysics: Existence Theory of Knowledge

Philosophy

4. Logic: Valid rasonng

2. Ethics: Morality

5/59
Books

1. Patrick Hurley, A concise introduction to Logic, Wardsworth, 2012 [Course Book]

2. Elliot Mendelson, Introduction to Mathematical Logic(4th Ed), chapman Hall,
2001
3. John Kelly, The essence of Logic, Pearson Education Ltd, 1996.
4. Graham Priest, A very short introduction to logic, Oxford University Press, 2001

6/59
Other Books

1. Martin Gardner, aha! Insight aha! Gotcha, AMS series, 2002

2. Raymond Smullyan, What is the name of this book? The riddle of Dracula and
other interesting puzzles, Dover publications, 1978
3. Cederblom, Jerry, Paulsen, David, Critical Reasoning: Understanding and
criticizing Arguments and theories, paperback, 2005

7/59
What is logic?

What is logic
• The systematic study of valid inference and correct reasoning.
• Logic studies the preservation of truth: If your starting points are true, what else
must guaranteeably be true?

What it is not?
• Is it common sense? Intuition? Something to do with Gut feeling?
• It does not concern itself with what people happen(actually) to think (that is
psychology), nor with whether the premises of an argument are physically true in
the real world (that is empirical science).
• Instead, logic studies the preservation of truth: If your starting points are true,
what else must guaranteeably be true?
8/59
Classic Fallacy:Proof of 2=1

1. Let a = b
2. a2 = ab
3. 2 a2 = a2 + ab
4. 2a2 − 2ab = a2 − ab
5. 2(a2 − ab) = 1(a2 − ab)
6. 2 = 1

Which step is wrong? What constitutes a valid proof in mathematics and how is such
proof to be recognized?

9/59
Proof of p ∨ ¬p in RW Formal Logical System

1. L: Propositional variables (p, q, r), ∨, ¬, Punctuation (,)

2. Definition: p → q means ¬ p ∨ q
3. RW1: p ∨ p → p.
4. RW2: q → (p ∨ q).
5. RW3: (p ∨ q) rightarrow (q ∨ p)
6. RW4: (q → r ) → [(p ∨ q) → (p ∨ r )].

10/59
Proof

1. p → p is a theorem in RW.
2. By definition ¬ p ∨ p.
3. L3: (p ∨ q) → (q, ∨ p).
4. (¬p ∨ p) → (p ∨ ¬p) (Substituting ¬p for p and p for q).
5. (¬ p ∨ p) is a theorem
6. (p ∨ negp). By Modus ponens rule.

11/59
Fallacies

1. Nothing is better than eternal bliss; A peanut butter sandwich is better than
nothing. Therefore, a peanut butter sandwich is better than eternal bliss.
2. The Auditorium is made of atoms; Atoms are invisible. Therefore the auditorium is
invisible.
3. A: This scripture is the inspired word of God. B: How do you know? A: Because it
says so right here, in this scripture. B: Why should I believe what it says there? A:
Because this scripture is the inspired word of God.

12/59
What is Logic?

• Logic is the study of right reason or valid inferences, and attending fallacies,
formal, informal.
• Logic is a way to think so that we can come to correct conclusions by
understanding implications and mistakes people often make in thinking.
• Logic is the science of valid processes of reasoning. In Mathematical Logic, we
investigate these processes by mathematical methods.
• Logic: how we ought to reason rather than how actually reason.

13/59
Seven Liberal Arts

1. The trivium: Grammar, Rhetoric(the art of effective communication), Logic(a

discussion and investigation of truth and opinions).
2. The quadrivium: Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, Astronomy

14/59
Four Lens of Liberal Arts

Four Lens
History, Humanities, Social sciences, Natural sciences

15/59
21 century liberal arts
Humanities, social sciences, Performing and Fine arts

1. Humanities: History, Philosophy, Political science, English, Languages

2. Social Sciences: Economics, Sociology, Psychology, Anthropology
3. Fine Arts: Theater, Music, Poetry (often rolled into literature studies), Art history

16/59
12 benifits of liberal arts

1. Writing skills, Verbal communication and public speaking skills, Research skills
2. Critical thinking skills
3. Information literacy skills
4. Insights into human minds and behaviors
5. Teamwork skills in diverse groups
6. Complex problem-solving skills
7. Logic and abstract thinking skills
8. Argumentation and persuasion skills
9. Foundation to learn new languages
10. Adaptability to workplace automation

17/59
Common sense, Intuition, Gut Felling

Commonsense: A collection of culturally inherited, practical assumptions. It works

well for daily survival, but it fails instantly in quantum mechanics,
advanced statistics, or high-dimensional economics.
Intuition & Gut Feeling : Rapid, subconscious pattern-recognition by the brain. It is
fast and often accurate in familiar environments, but notoriously prone to
bias, framing effects, and cognitive illusions.
Heuristics : Mental shortcuts designed for quick decision-making under uncertainty
(e.g., "if it looks dangerous, step back"). They trade absolute correctness
for processing speed.
Guesswork : Hypothesizing in the absence of complete data

18/59
How Logic is Different?

How logic is different?

Logic is explicit, transparent, reproducible, and context-invariant. It guarantees truth
preservation

Intuitive leap
An intuitive leap might give you a brilliant hypothesis, but you need logic to prove
whether that hypothesis holds together without falling apart under its own weight.

19/59
System 1 and System 2 Thinking: Daniel Kahneman

System 1
System 1 is fast, automatic, and intuitive, operating with little to no effort. This
mode of thinking allows us to make quick decisions and judgments based on patterns
and experiences.

System 2
System 2 is slow, deliberate, and conscious, requiring intentional effort. This type of
thinking is used for complex problem-solving and analytical tasks where more thought
and consideration are necessary.

Daniel Kahneman
The automatic operations of System 1 generate surprisingly complex patterns of ideas,
but only the slower System 2 can construct thoughts in an orderly series of steps.
– Daniel Kahneman in Thinking, Fast and Slow 20/59
Logic vs Cognition

Intuition & Gut Feeling

Fast, heuristic-driven mental shortcuts (System 1 thinking). Essential for rapid survival
decisions, but prone to cognitive bias, emotional noise, and systematic fallacies.

Formal Logic
Deliberate, structural validation of arguments (System 2 thinking). Evaluates whether
a conclusion must strictly follow from premises, independent of personal belief.
P → (Q ∧ P) ⊢ Q

21/59
Why Study Logic?

Cognitive Self-Defense : It acts as an immunity booster against fallacies, cognitive

biases, manipulation, and political spin.
Structural Precision : It trains your brain to break complex, messy problems into
explicit, unambiguous claims.
Foundation of Intellectual Disciplines : Computer science, analytic philosophy,
mathematics, law, and linguistics all share logic as their foundational
operating system.
Clarity of Expression : It forces you to say exactly what you mean, stripping away
rhetorical fluff.

22/59
Why Study Logic?

1. Logic provides the foundational syntax for all rigorous academic inquiry. Without
formal logic, mathematical proofs dissolve into hand-waving, and software code
becomes unreliable.
2. By abstracting thought into formal structure, we learn to detect subtle flaws,
construct unassailable arguments, and master complexity across fields.

23/59
Why We Insist Everyone Be "Logical"

When we demand that someone be logical, we aren’t asking them to turn into an
emotionless robot like Spock. We are asking for three fundamental commitments
necessary for coherent human interaction.

Non-Contradiction : You cannot simultaneously hold that A is true and A is false. If

a system allows contradictions, it collapses (in formal logic, this is called
the Principle of Explosion: from a contradiction, anything follows).
Consistency & Fairness : If you accept a rule or premise in Case 1, you must apply it
to Case 2 unless you can demonstrate a logically relevant distinction.
Epistemic Accountability : You must be willing to trace your conclusions back to
premises, and if those premises are disproven, you must abandon the
conclusion.
24/59
How Logic Practiced these days

Mathematical Logic: Model theory, set theory, proof theory, and computability.
Application: Foundations of mathematics, automated theorem proving.
Computational Logic : Type theory, program verification, lambda calculus-
Application: Software safety, compiler design, artificial intelligence
Philosophical & Non-Classical Modal, epistemic, temporal, and intuitionistic logic;
Modeling belief revision, time, necessity, and knowledge in multi-agent
systems
Formal Epistemology : Merging probability theory with logic (Bayesian logic).
Decision theory, scientific methodology, machine learning update rules

25/59
Indian vs Western Logic

1. WIKIPEDIA: Western logic (from Aristotle to Frege) historically leaned toward

purely formal, abstract, structural validity (separating the form of an argument
from its empirical content), Indian logic—most notably the Nyāya, Buddhist, and
Jain traditions—was inherently epistemic, empirical, and context-bound.
2. Nyaya 5 part syllogism: Unlike Aristotle’s 3-step abstract model, Nyāya required an
explicit real-world example (Udāharan.a) inside the logical deduction. An argument
wasn’t just formally valid; it had to be tied to observable reality.
3. Buddhist Catuskot.i (Tetralemma): Evaluates four possibilities: A, Not-A, Both A
and Not-A, Neither A nor Not-A.
4. Jain Saptabhaṅgı̄ (Seven-Valued Logic / Syādvāda): A relativistic logic postulating
that truth claims depend on perspective (anekāntavāda), offering a nuanced,
multi-faceted approach to complex realities.
26/59
Indian Logic

In Indian thought, logic (Anumāna or inference) is never studied in isolation; it is deeply

embedded in epistemology— how we perceive, infer, and verify knowledge.

27/59
Potential Applications

Computer Science & AI

Program Verification : Ensuring safety-critical software (like aircraft controls or
medical devices) has zero bugs through mathematical logic proofs.
Knowledge Representation & Semantic Web : Modeling human knowledge into
ontologies using Description Logics.
Database Queries : SQL and relational databases are direct implementations of
first-order predicate logic and tuple relational calculus.

28/59
Law & Jurisprudence

Law & Jurisprudence

• Statutory Interpretation: Resolving ambiguities in legal codes, contracts, and
constitutional rights.
• Precedent Analysis: Structuring analogical and defeasible reasoning (reasoning
that holds unless overridden by stronger evidence).

29/59
Cognitive Science & Linguistics
• Formal Semantics: Mapping how human languages generate precise meaning out
of syntax using modal logic and Montague grammar.
• Modeling Human Thought: Studying how human brains depart from classical
logic, leading to non monotonic logics (reasoning where adding new information
can invalidate previous conclusions).

30/59
Quantum mechanics

Quantum Mechanics & Physics Quantum Logic

Classical logic assumes A ∧ (B ∨ C ) ≡ (A ∧ B) ∨ (A ∧ C ). In quantum mechanics,
because measurements interfere with each other, distributive laws fail— requiring a
whole new Quantum Logic to model subatomic behavior.

31/59
Core Learning Objectives

Represent Claims in Formal Solve Logical Puzzles

Language Apply truth tables, Smullyan puzzles,
Translate everyday sentences into and strategic reasoning.
propositional and predicate calculus. (Modules 2 & 5)
(Modules 2 & 4)
Distinguish Reasoning Types
Detect and Analyse Fallacies Differentiate deduction, induction, and
Identify formal and informal fallacies in abduction with examples.
real-world arguments. (Module 1 & throughout)
(Modules 1 & 3)

32/59
Some good books

• Patrick Hurley A Concise Introduction to Logic, Wardsworth, 2007 [Standard

Course Book]
• Elliot Mendelson Introduction to Mathematical Logic, pp: 1-90 [Propositional and
Predicate Logic], url[Link] krajicek/[Link]
• John Kelly, The essence of Logic(1 ed), Pearson education ltd, 1996
• Roy T Cook, Dictionary of Philosophical Logic, Edinburgh University Press,2009
• Stephen Toulmin, Richard Rieke,Allan Janik, Introduction to Reasoning(2ed),
Macmillan Publishers, 1984.
• Raymond Smullyan, Logical Labyrinths, [Link]
wp-content/uploads/2015/09/logical_labirints.pdf
• Martin Gardner, aha! Insight & aha! [Link] mathematical association of
America, 2002.
• Graham Priest, Logic: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2001. 33/59
Module 1: Informal Logic
Module 1 – Overview

Informal Logic
Logic begins with arguments we encounter daily: in news, ads, speeches, conversation.
This module builds the tools to identify premises and conclusions, classify reasoning,
and detect fallacies.

Central Question
What makes an argument good – before we write a single symbol?

34/59
The Anatomy of an Argument

Premise the evidence or reason offered.

Conclusion the claim being supported.
Inference the logical leap from premise(s) to conclusion.

Example
If it rains, the ground gets wet. It is raining. Therefore, the ground is wet.
Premises: If it rains, ground gets wet & It is raining
Conclusion: The ground is wet

35/59
Deduction, Induction, Abduction

Deduction Induction Abduction

Premises ⇒ conclusion Premises ⇒ conclusion Inference to best
necessarily. probably. explanation.
If premises true, Generalisations from The grass is wet.
conclusion must be true. observations. ∴ It rained.
All humans are mortal. Every swan seen is white. (could be sprinklers)
Socrates is human. ∴ All swans are white.
∴ Socrates is mortal. (defeasible)

36/59
Common Fallacies

△ Ad Hominem – attack the person,

Spot the Fallacy
not the argument
We should not listen to Dr. Patel on tax
△ Straw Man – misrepresent to attack reform; she is a physicist, not an
△ False Dilemma – only two options economist.
when more exist
△ Slippery Slope – small step ⇒
inevitable disaster
△ Circular Reasoning – premise and
conclusion same
△ Hasty Generalisation – too few
examples
37/59
Common Fallacies

△ Ad Hominem – attack the person,

Spot the Fallacy
not the argument
We should not listen to Dr. Patel on tax
△ Straw Man – misrepresent to attack reform; she is a physicist, not an
△ False Dilemma – only two options economist.
when more exist
7→ Genetic fallacy / Ad Hominem
△ Slippery Slope – small step ⇒
inevitable disaster
△ Circular Reasoning – premise and
conclusion same
△ Hasty Generalisation – too few
examples
37/59
Common Fallacies

△ Ad Hominem – attack the person,

Spot the Fallacy
not the argument
We should not listen to Dr. Patel on tax
△ Straw Man – misrepresent to attack reform; she is a physicist, not an
△ False Dilemma – only two options economist.
when more exist
7→ Genetic fallacy / Ad Hominem
△ Slippery Slope – small step ⇒
inevitable disaster
Another
△ Circular Reasoning – premise and Either ban all cars from the city or
conclusion same accept gridlock forever.
△ Hasty Generalisation – too few
examples
37/59
Common Fallacies

△ Ad Hominem – attack the person,

Spot the Fallacy
not the argument
We should not listen to Dr. Patel on tax
△ Straw Man – misrepresent to attack reform; she is a physicist, not an
△ False Dilemma – only two options economist.
when more exist
7→ Genetic fallacy / Ad Hominem
△ Slippery Slope – small step ⇒
inevitable disaster
Another
△ Circular Reasoning – premise and Either ban all cars from the city or
conclusion same accept gridlock forever.
△ Hasty Generalisation – too few
7→ False Dilemma
examples
37/59
Module 2: Propositional Logic
Module 2 – Overview

Propositional Logic
We move from natural language to a precise formal language. Sentences become
letters (P, Q, R), combined with logical connectives. This lets us calculate truth
conditions and decide validity mechanically.

✓ Key insight: The form of an argument matters more than its content.

38/59
The Logical Connectives

Name Symbol English True when. . .

Negation ¬P not P P is false
Conjunction P ∧Q P and Q both true
Disjunction P ∨Q P or Q at least one true
Conditional P →Q if P then Q not (P true & Q false)
Biconditional P ↔Q P iff Q same truth value

Translation
If you study, you will pass.
S = you study, P = you pass ⇒ S → P

39/59
Truth Tables

P Q ¬P P ∧Q P ∨Q P →Q

T T F T T T
T F F F T F
F T T F T T
F F T F F T

▶ Activity: Build the truth table for (P → Q) ∧ (Q → P).

What do you notice?

40/59
Truth Tables

P Q ¬P P ∧Q P ∨Q P →Q

T T F T T T
T F F F T F
F T T F T T
F F T F F T

▶ Activity: Build the truth table for (P → Q) ∧ (Q → P).

What do you notice? It matches P ↔ Q.

40/59
Smullyan’s Knights and Knaves

The Setup
• Knights always tell the truth.
• Knaves always lie.

Classic Puzzle
You meet two people, A and B.
A says: "We are both knaves."
What are A and B?

41/59
Smullyan’s Knights and Knaves

The Setup
• Knights always tell the truth.
• Knaves always lie.

Classic Puzzle
You meet two people, A and B.
A says: "We are both knaves."
What are A and B?

Approach: Let P = "A is a knight", Q = "B is a knight".

A’s statement translates to ¬P ∧ ¬Q.
If A is a knight, then ¬P ∧ ¬Q is true, which contradicts P being true.
So A is a knave, and ¬P ∧ ¬Q is false. 41/59
More Smullyan Puzzles

Three Islanders
A says: "B is a knave."
B says: "A and C are of the same type."
Determine the types of A, B, and C .

42/59
More Smullyan Puzzles

Three Islanders
A says: "B is a knave."
B says: "A and C are of the same type."
Determine the types of A, B, and C .

Hint: Two cases – A is knight or A is knave. Test each.

✓ Solution: A: knight, B: knave, C : knight.

42/59
Module 3: Syllogistic Logic
Module 3 – Overview

Syllogistic Logic
Aristotle’s logic of categorical statements – claims about classes of things.
Two-premise arguments whose validity depends on the arrangement of terms.

• Four categorical forms: A, E, I, O

• Validity testing with Venn diagrams
• Bridge to modern predicate logic

43/59
The Four Categorical Statements

Label Form Example

A All S are P All philosophers are thinkers.
E No S are P No planet is a star.
I Some S are P Some birds can fly.
O Some S are not P Some mammals are not land-dwelling.

Modern notation: A: ∀x(S(x) → P(x)) E: ∀x(S(x) → ¬P(x)) I: ∃x(S(x) ∧ P(x)) O:

∃x(S(x) ∧ ¬P(x))

44/59
Testing Validity with Venn Diagrams

Method:
Classic Syllogism: Barbara
1. Draw three overlapping circles (S,
1. All M are P
M, P)
2. All S are M
2. Shade empty regions per premises
∴ All S are P
3. If conclusion region is already
shaded ⇒ valid

▶ Try: All M are P; Some S are M; ∴ Some S are P.

✓ Valid – the syllogism Darii

45/59
Module 4: Predicate Logic
Module 4 – Overview

Predicate Logic
Propositional logic treats sentences as wholes. Predicate logic looks inside: subjects,
predicates, and quantifiers (∀, ∃). This formalises arguments that propositional logic
cannot capture.

✓ Motto: "All men are mortal"is not M → P; it is ∀x(Man(x) → Mortal (x)).

46/59
Quantifiers in Action

Formula English
∀x P(x) Everything is P.
∃x P(x) Something is P.
∀x(P(x) → Q(x)) All P are Q.
∃x(P(x) ∧ Q(x)) Some P are Q.
∀x(P(x) → ¬Q(x)) No P are Q.

Think Carefully
Everyone loves someone. ∀x∃y Loves(x, y )
Someone loves everyone. ∃x∀y Loves(x, y )
These are NOT the same!
47/59
Russell’s Paradox

The Paradox
Let R = {x | x ∈
/ x} – the set of all sets not members of themselves.
Is R ∈ R?

48/59
Russell’s Paradox

The Paradox
Let R = {x | x ∈
/ x} – the set of all sets not members of themselves.
Is R ∈ R?

△ Contradiction:

• If R ∈ R, then by definition R ∈
/ R.
• If R ∈
/ R, then by definition R ∈ R.
⇒ Either way, contradiction.

48/59
Russell’s Paradox

The Paradox
Let R = {x | x ∈
/ x} – the set of all sets not members of themselves.
Is R ∈ R?

△ Contradiction:

• If R ∈ R, then by definition R ∈
/ R.
• If R ∈
/ R, then by definition R ∈ R.
⇒ Either way, contradiction.

Resolution: Naïve set theory is inconsistent. Led to ZFC set theory and type theory (Russell).

48/59
The Liar Paradox

The Ancient Puzzle

"This sentence is false."
△ The problem:

• If true, then what it says holds – so it is false.

• If false, then what it says does not hold – so it is true.
⇒ True iff false.

Related: "This sentence is not provable."(Gödel)

✓ Modern solution: Tarski’s semantic hierarchy – no language defines its own truth predicate.

49/59
Module 5: Theorems & Logical
Traditions
Module 5 – Overview

Essential Theorems and Two Great Traditions

We consolidate key inference rules, then compare Western and Indian logical
traditions – focusing on the Nyāya school’s five-step syllogism.

✓ Goal: Appreciate logic as a universal human endeavour with multiple cultural

expressions.

50/59
Essential Inference Rules

Name Form Meaning

Modus Ponens P → Q, P ∴ Q Affirm antecedent
Modus Tollens P → Q, ¬Q ∴ ¬P Deny consequent
Hyp. Syllogism P → Q, Q → R ∴ P → R Chain
Disj. Syllogism P ∨ Q, ¬P ∴ Q Either/or
De Morgan (1) ¬(P ∧ Q) ⇐⇒ ¬P ∨ ¬Q Distribute ¬
De Morgan (2) ¬(P ∨ Q) ⇐⇒ ¬P ∧ ¬Q Distribute ¬

✓ Memorise these – they are the engine of all proof.

51/59
De Morgan’s Laws – Visualised

Two Fundamental Equivalences

¬(P ∧ Q) ≡ (¬P) ∨ (¬Q) ¬(P ∨ Q) ≡ (¬P) ∧ (¬Q)

Everyday Example
"It is not that I am both hungry and tired"
⇐⇒ "I am not hungry or I am not tired"

▶ Prove: P → Q ≡ ¬P ∨ Q using truth tables.

52/59
Western Logic – Timeline

Aristotle ∼350 BCE Stoics Medieval Frege 1879

Aristotle Syllogistic logic, the Organon

Stoics Propositional logic, modal logic (Chrysippus)
Medieval Supposition theory, paradoxes
Frege Begriffsschrift – modern predicate logic
20th C. Gödel, Turing, Tarski – limits of logic

53/59
Indian Logic – The Nyāya School

A Parallel Tradition
Indian logic (nyāya) developed independently from the Greek tradition, rooted in the
Nyāya Sūtras (2nd c. BCE–2nd c. CE). It is deeply epistemological: logic studies valid
means of knowledge (pramāıa).

Four pramāıas: Key difference:

1. Perception (pratyaks.a) Western logic focuses on formal validity.
Indian logic focuses on valid cognition and
2. Inference (anumāna)
the means by which truth is known.
3. Comparison (upamāna)
4. Testimony (śabda)

54/59
The Five Characteristics of Indian Logic

The Nyāya Syllogism

Step Meaning Example

1. Pratijñā Thesis "There is fire on the hill."
2. Hetu Reason "Because there is smoke."
3. Udāharana Example "Where smoke, fire; e.g., kitchen."
4. Upanaya Application "This hill is smoky."
5. Nigamana Conclusion "Therefore, this hill has fire."

✓ Key difference: The Nyāya syllogism adds the example step for empirical
grounding – absent in Aristotle’s 3-step syllogism.

55/59
Western vs. Indian Logic – Comparison

Aspect Western (Aristotle) Indian (Nyāya)

# Steps 2 premises + conclusion 5 steps (thesis, reason, exam-
ple, application, conclusion)
Purpose Formal validity Valid cognition (pramā)
Example Not required Essential for empirical ground
Epistemology Axiomatic/deductive Inductive-deductive mix
Scope Categorical statements Inference, testimony, percep-
tion
Paradox Excluded middle [Link].i (4 corners)

△ The [Link].i rejects excluded middle: p can be true, false, both, or neither.

56/59
Paradox Playground

Three Famous Paradoxes

1. Liar Paradox: "This statement is false."
2. Russell’s Paradox: The set of all sets not in themselves.
3. Knights & Knaves: Truth-tellers and liars on Smullyan’s island.

▶ Group Activity: Each group gets one paradox.

Develop a 2-minute explanation + proposed solution. Present to class.

Solution Hints

• Liar → Tarski’s hierarchy

• Russell → ZFC set theory / type theory
57/59
• Knights/Knaves → Propositional encoding
Course Wrap-Up

Skills Gained Knowledge Gained

• Identifying arguments and fallacies • Propositional and predicate calculus
• Translating claims into formal • Syllogistic logic and Venn diagrams
language • Key theorems (De Morgan, MP, MT)
• Building truth tables; testing validity • Western and Indian logical traditions
• Solving Smullyan puzzles • Famous paradoxes and resolutions
• Distinguishing
deduction/induction/abduction

"Logic is the anatomy of thought." – John Locke

58/59
Further Reading

Recommended Texts
• Smullyan, R. What Is the Name of This Book? (puzzles)
• Copi, I. & Cohen, C. Introduction to Logic (comprehensive)
• Priest, G. Logic: A Very Short Introduction (concise)
• Ganeri, J. Philosophy in Classical India (Indian logic)
• Matilal, B.K. The Character of Logic in India (definitive)
• Forbes, G. Modern Logic (formal systems)

Thank you! Questions & Discussion

59/59