Abstract
Attempts are made to transform the basis of elementary probability theory into the logical calculus.
We obtain the propositional calculus NP by a naive approach. As rules of transformation, NP has rules of the classical propositional logic (for events), rules of the Łukasiewicz logic Łℵ 0 (for probabilities) and axioms of probability theory, in the form of rules of inference. We prove equivalence of NP with a fragmentary probability theory, in which one may only add and subtract probabilities.
The second calculus MP is a usual modal propositional calculus. It has the modal rules x ⊢ □ x, x ⊃ y ⊢ □ x ⊃ □ y, x ⊢ ⌝ □ ⌝x, x ⊃ y ⊢ □ (y ⊃ x), ≡ ⊢ (⊢y ⊃ ⊢x), in addition to the rules of classical propositional logic. One may read □x as “x is probable”. Imbeddings of NP and of Łℵ 0 into MP are given.
The third calculus ŁP is a modal extension of Łℵ 0. It may be obtained by adding the rule □((∼□x→□y)→□y) ⊢ □x→□y to the modal logic of quantum mechanics ŁQ [5]. One may read □x in ŁP as “x is observed”. An imbedding of NP into ŁP is given.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
J. ŁUkasiewicz and A. Tarski, Untersuchungen über den Aussagenkalkül, Comptes Rendus des Séances de la Société des Sciences et des Lettres de Varsovie, Classe III, vol. 23 (1930), pp. 30–50.
A. Kolmogoroff, Grundbegriffe der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung, Berlin 1933.
J. B. Rosser, Axiomatization of infinite-valued logics, Logique et Analyse 3 (1960), pp. 137–153.
R. Wójcicki, On matrix representation of consequence operations of Łukasiewicz's sentential calculi, in: Selected Papers on Łukasiewicz Sentential Calculi, Ossolineum, Wrocław 1977.
H. Dishkant, An extension of the Łukasiewicz logic to the modal logic of quantum mechanics, Studia Logica 37 (1978), pp. 73–79.
L. A. Zadeh, The Concept of a Linguistic Variable and its Application to Approximate Reasoning, N. Y., 1973.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dishkant, H. Three prepositional calculi of probability. Stud Logica 39, 49–61 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00373096
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00373096