Abstract
One lists the distinct pairs of categorical premises (PCPs) formulable via only the positive terms, S,P,M, by constructing a six by six matrix obtained by pairing the six categorical P-premises, A(P,M), O(P,M), A(M,P*), O(M,P*), where P* ∈ {P,P′}, with the six, similar, categorical S-premises. One shows how five rules of valid syllogism (RofVS), select only 15 distinct PCPs that entail logical consequences (LCs) belonging to the set L+: = {A(P,S), O(P,S), A(S,P), E(S,P), O(S,P), I(S,P)}. The choice of admissible LCs can be regarded as a condition separated from the conditions (or axioms) contained in the RofVS: the usual eight (Boolean) PCPs that generate valid syllogisms are obtained when the only admissible LCs belong to the set L: = {A(S,P), E(S,P), O(S,P), I(S,P)} and no existential imports are addressed. A 64 PCP-matrix obtains when both PCPs and LCs may contain indefinite terms—the positive, S,P,M, terms, and their complementary sets, S′,P′, M′, in the universe of discourse, U, called the negative terms. Now one can accept eight LCs: A(S*,P*), I(S*,P*), where P* ∈ {P,P′}, S* ∈ {S,S′}, and there are 32 conclusive PCPs, entailing precise, “one partitioning subset of U” LCs. The four rules of conclusive syllogisms (RofCS) predict the less precise LCs, left after eliminating the middle term from the exact LCs. The RofCS also predict that the other 32 PCPs of the 64 PCP-matrix are non-conclusive. The RofVS and the RofCS are generalized, and arguments are given, for also accepting as valid syllogisms the conclusive syllogisms formulable via positive terms which entail the LCs A(P,S) and O(P,S).
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alvarez, E., & Correia, M. (2012). Syllogistic with Indefinite Terms. History and Philosophy of Logic, 33(4), 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/01445340.2012.680704
Alvarez-Fontecilla, E. (2016). Canonical syllogistic moods in traditional Aristotelian logic. Logica Universalis, 10(4), 517–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11787-016-0156-x
Alvarez-Fontecilla, E., & Tomas, L. (2019). Aristotelian logic axioms in propositional logic: The pouch method. History and Philosophy of Logic, 40(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/01445340.2018.1442172
Carroll, L. (1986). Symbolic logic. Reprinted part I elementary, 1896. Fifth edition. Part II, advanced, never previously published. Edited, with annotations and an introduction by William Warren Bartley III. Reprinted edition. Clark son Potter.
Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & McMahon, K. (2014). Introduction to logic (14th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
Correia, M. (2017). The proto-exposition of aristotelian categorical logic. In J.-Y. Béziau & G. Basti (Eds.), The square of opposition: A cornerstone of thought. Springer.
De Morgan, A. (1860). Syllabus of a proposed system of logic. Walton and Maberly.
Hurley, P. J. (2015). A concise introduction to logic (12th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Jevons, W. S. (2019). The substitution of similars, the true principle of reasoning, derived from a modification of Aristotle’s dictum. Macmillan and Co., London (1869). Wentworth Press.
Keynes, J. N. (1884). Studies and exercises in formal logic (4th ed.). Macmillan & Co.
Radulescu, D. C. (2021). Variation and pattern in the 3-term syllogisms and biliteral sorites of types Barbara, Darapti and Darii. Journal of Applied Logics, 9(7), 1953–1975.
Stebbing, L. S. (1961). A Modern Introduction to Logic (1st ed.). Harper & Row.
Striker, G. (2009). Aristotle’s prior analytics book I. Oxford University Press.
Wilkinson, J. (1932). Negative terms in traditional logic: Distribution, immediate infer ence, and syllogism. The Monist, 42(1), 96–111.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author has no conflict of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Ethical Approval
The research for this article did not involve any Ethical approval from anybody; no Ethical approval is applicable for this article.
Informed Consent
The research for this article did not involve asking for an Informed consent from anybody—only the author did the research.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
To the memory of my beloved ones: Alexandra, Lidia, Constantin and Cristina.
Dan Constantin Radulescu—Retired.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Radulescu, D.C. A Matricial Vue of Classical Syllogistic and an Extension of the Rules of Valid Syllogism to Rules of Conclusive Syllogisms with Indefinite Terms. J of Log Lang and Inf 31, 465–491 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-022-09362-1
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-022-09362-1