Scientists, Literature and Logic

Gabriellebirchak/ January 26, 2020/ Contemporary History, Early Modern History, Late Modern History, Modern History

Jan­u­ary 27 marks the day of Charles Lud­wig Dodg­son’s birth­day! For those who don’t know who that is, Dodg­son’s pen name was Lewis Car­roll. Dodgson’s con­tri­bu­tions to lit­er­a­ture and math­e­mat­ics were impres­sive! He wrote 14 bod­ies of lit­er­ary works, some of which include his poet­ry. As a math­e­mati­cian, he wrote 11 books along with the algo­rithm known as the Dodg­son condensation. 

Alice’s Adven­tures in Won­der­land con­tains so many exam­ples of good log­ic and delib­er­ate­ly bad log­ic. In my pod­cast, I read from the book from my favorite pas­sage, the con­ver­sa­tion at the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party. 

“Alice in Won­der­land”. Illus­tra­tion from the cov­er and inte­ri­or of the book Boys and Girls of Book­land from 1923, writ­ten by Nora Archibald Smith and illus­trat­ed by Jessie Will­cox Smith. Cre­ative Commons.

“Then you should say what you mean,” the March Hare went on. 

“I do,” Alice hasti­ly replied, “at least—at least I mean what I say—that’s the same thing, you know.” 

“Not the same thing a bit!” said the Hat­ter. “You might just as well say that ‘I see what I eat’ is the same thing as ‘I eat what I see’!” 

“You might just as well say,” added the March Hare, “that ‘I like what I get’ is the same thing as ‘I get what I like’!” 

“You might just as well say,” added the Dor­mouse, who seemed to be talk­ing in his sleep, “that ‘I breathe when I sleep’ is the same thing as ‘I sleep when I breathe’!” 

“It IS the same thing with you,” said the Hat­ter, and here the con­ver­sa­tion dropped, and the par­ty sat silent for a minute, while Alice thought over all she could remem­ber about ravens and writ­ing-desks, which was­n’t much. 

In this con­ver­sa­tion, Car­roll presents pairs of relat­ed state­ments between the Hare, the Hat­ter, and the Dor­mouse. Each pair of state­ments do not say the same thing. 

The Hat­ter pro­pos­es the state­ment; “I see what I eat” is the same thing as “I eat what I see.” 

This is not entire­ly true. For humans, we see our com­put­ers, or our cars, but we do not eat them.

The March Hare pro­pos­es, “I like what I get” is the same thing as “I get what I like.” 

This is not entire­ly true as well, espe­cial­ly for those who received a real­ly awful hol­i­day gift last month and imme­di­ate­ly re-gift­ed it! I am guilty of this one too!

Then, the Dor­mouse says, “I breathe when I sleep,” is the same thing as “I sleep when I breathe.” 

When we turn the Dormouse’s argu­ment into an “if-then” state­ment, we get:

If I sleep, then I breathe. 

And

If I breathe, then I sleep.

In this set­up, we apply the struc­ture of log­ic with a con­di­tion­al state­ment that takes on three forms: 

Con­verse

Con­tra­pos­i­tive

Inverse

In math, the first state­ment is a con­di­tion­al state­ment. The con­di­tion­al state­ment sets up the con­di­tions by which the state­ment is either true or false. 

So, using the con­di­tion­al state­ment, we inter­change the hypoth­e­sis (“sleep”) and the con­clu­sion (“breathe”) to cre­ate a sec­ond state­ment. This is sec­ond state­ment then becomes a con­verse of the con­di­tion­al state­ment.

The con­verse of a true state­ment can also be false, which means that a state­ment and its con­verse do not have the same meaning. 

The con­tra­pos­i­tive is a lit­tle like the con­verse only, instead of just inter­chang­ing the hypoth­e­sis and con­clu­sion of the con­di­tion­al state­ment, we also deny both the hypoth­e­sis and con­clu­sion. So now, we get:

If I sleep, then I breathe. 

and

If I do not breathe, then I do not sleep.

So, we have inter­changed the hypoth­e­sis and con­clu­sion and denied both of them. 

Final­ly, if we take the con­verse of the orig­i­nal argu­ment where the Dor­mouse says, “If I breathe, then I sleep,” and then invert the state­ment and deny both the hypoth­e­sis and con­clu­sion. We then get the inverse, as fol­lows:

If I breathe, then I sleep.

and

If I do not sleep, then I do not breathe.

As a result, the inverse of a con­di­tion­al state­ment is when we inter­change the hypoth­e­sis and the con­clu­sion of the con­verse state­ment and then deny them both.

Euler Dia­grams

Using Euler dia­grams, it looks like this:

Each Euler dia­gram rep­re­sents two com­plete state­ments. The first Euler dia­gram rep­re­sents the two statements:

If I sleep, then I breathe.

and

If I do not breathe, then I do not sleep. 

The sec­ond Euler dia­gram rep­re­sents two state­ments as well: 

If I breathe, then I sleep. 

and

If I do not sleep, then I do not breathe. 

A state­ment and its con­tra­pos­i­tive are rep­re­sent­ed by the same dia­gram, which means that the state­ments are log­i­cal­ly equiv­a­lent. What this means is that, unlike a con­verse state­ment, where one state­ment can be true and the oth­er can be false, in a con­tra­pos­i­tive state­ment, one state­ment can­not be true and the oth­er state­ment can­not be false. They are either BOTH true OR they are either BOTH false. 

In addi­tion, the con­verse of the con­di­tion­al state­ment and the inverse of the con­di­tion­al state­ment are log­i­cal­ly equiv­a­lent as well. This means that in both state­ments, they too are either BOTH true OR they are either BOTH false. 

Math­e­mat­i­cal Symbols

In math­e­mat­i­cal sym­bols, the hypoth­e­sis can be rep­re­sent­ed with a, and the con­clu­sion can be rep­re­sent­ed with b.

So, using sym­bols, the con­di­tion­al state­ment is writ­ten as: 

a → b

The con­verse is writ­ten as 

b → a

The con­tra­pos­i­tive is writ­ten as

not b → not a

The inverse is writ­ten as 

not a → not b

And so, our log­i­cal­ly equiv­a­lent state­ments are grouped as follows:

Sci­en­tists and their Literature!

If you are inter­est­ed in read­ing the works of some of the authors that I list­ed on my pod­cast, I am pro­vid­ing links to either their Wikipedia pages or their own web­page, where you can find their books! These authors were and are incred­i­bly tal­ent­ed and amaz­ing, not just as authors, but as sci­en­tists as well! Hap­py reading! 

Isaac Asi­mov

E.T. Bell (also known as John Taine)

Arthur C. Clarke

Annie Francé-Har­rar

J. Gold­en­lane (also known as Júlia Gold­man)

Omar Khayyám

Sofia Kovalevskaya

Rudy Ruck­er — his Ama­zon page is here

Bertrand Rus­sell

Neal Stephen­son at https://www.NealStephenson.com

Share this Post