Logical, conditional, and classical probability
G. A. Quznetsov gunn@chelcom.ru, lak@cgu.chel.su, gunn@mail.ru
Abstract
The propositional logic is generalized on the real numbers field. the logical function with all properties of the classical probability function is obtained.
The logical analog of the Bernoulli independent tests scheme is constructed. The logical analog of the Large Number Law is deduced from properties of these functions.
The logical analog of thd conditional probability is defined. Consistency encured by a model on a suitable variant of the nonstandard analysis.
1 Introduction
There is the evident nigh affinity between the classical probability function and the Boolean function of the classical propositional logic [1] . These functions are differed by the range of value, only. That is if the range of values of the Boolean function shall be expanded from the two-elements set
to the segment
of the real numeric axis then the logical analog of the Bernoulli Large Number Law [2] can be deduced from the logical axioms. These topics is considered in this article.
2 The classical logic
Definition 2.1 Sentence
is a true sentence if and only if
[3] .
For example: sentence
it rains
is the true sentence if and only if it rains.
Definition 2.2 Sentence
is a false sentence if and only if it is not that
.
Definition 2.3 Sentences
and
are equal (
) if
is true if and only if
is true.
Hereinafter we use the usual notions of the classical propositional logic [4] .
Definition 2.4 Sentence
is a conjunction of the sentences
and
(
) if
is true if and only if
is true and
is true.
Definition 2.5 Sentence
is a negation of the sentence
(
), if
is true if and only if
is false.
Theorem 2.1 1)
; 2)
; 3)
; 4) if
is the true sentence then for every sentence
:
; 5) if
is false sentence then
is true sentence.
Proof of the Theorem 2.1: From Definitions 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4.
Definition 2.6 Each function
with domain in the set of the sentences and with the range of values on the two-elements set
is a Boolean function if:
1)
for every sentence
; 2)
for all sentences
and
.
Definition 2.7 Set
of the sentences is a basic set if for every element
of this set there exist Boolean functions
and
such that the following conditions fulfill:
1)
; 2)
for each element
of
such that
.
Definition 2.8 Set
of the sentences is a propositional closure of the set
if the following conditions fulfill:
1) if
then
; 2) if
then
; 3) if
and
then
; 4) there do not exist other elements of
except the listed by 1), 2), 3) points of this definition.
In the following text the elements of
are called as the
-sentences.
Definition 2.9
-sentence
is a tautology if for all Boolean functions
:
Definition 2.10 A disjunction and an implication are defined by the usual way:
| |
| |
By this definition and the Definitions 2.4 and 2.5:
is the false sentence if and only if
is the false sentence and
is the false sentence.
is the false sentence if and only if
is the true sentence and
is the false sentence.
Definition 2.11 A
-sentence is a propositional axiom [4] if this sentence has got one some amongst the following forms:
A1.
; A2.
; A3.
.
Let
be some basic set. In the following text I consider
-sentences, only.
Definition 2.12 Sentence
is obtained from the sentences
and
by the logic rule ”modus ponens”.
Definition 2.13 [4] Array
of the sentences is a propositional deduction of the sentence
from the hypothesis list
(denote:
) if
and for all numbers
(
):
is either the propositional axiom or
is obtained from some sentences
and
by the modus ponens or
.
Definition 2.14 A sentence is a propositional proved sentence if this sentence is the propositional axiom or this sentence is obtained from the propositional proved sentences by the modus ponens.
Hence, if
is the propositional proved sentence then the propositional deduction
exists.
Theorem: 2.2 [4] If sentence
is the propositional proved sentence then for all Boolean function
:
.
Proof of the Theorem 2.2: [4] .
Theorem: 2.3 (The completeness Theorem). [4] All tautologies are the propositional proved sentences.
Proof of the Theorem 2.3: [4] .
3 B-functions
Definition 3.1 Each function
with domain in the sentences set and with the range of values on the numeric axis segment
is called as a B-function if
for some sentence
and
for every sentences
and
.
Theorem: 3.1 For each B-function
:
1) for every sentences
and
:
; 2) for every sentence
: if
is the true sentence, then
3) for every sentence
: if
is the true sentence, then
; Proof of the Theorem 3.1:
1)From Definitions 3.1.
2) From the points 4 and 2 of the Theorem 2.1:
3) From previous point of that Theorem. Therefore, if
is the true sentence, then
Hence, for every sentence
:
|
(2)
|
Theorem: 3.2 If sentence
is the propositional proved sentence then for all B-functions
:
.
Proof of the Theorem 3.2:
If
is A1 then by Definition 2.10:
By ( 2 ):
By the Definition 3.1 and the Theorem 2.1:
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
The proof is similar for the rest propositional axioms .
Let for all B-function
:
and
.
By Definition 2.10:
By ( 2 ):
Hence,
By Definition 3.1:
Hence,
By Definition 3.1 and the Theorem 2.1:
Therefore, for all B-function
:
Theorem: 3.3 1) If for all Boolean functions
:
then for all B-functions
:
2) If for all Boolean functions
:
then for all B-functions
:
Proof of the Theorem 3.3:
1) This just follows from the preceding Theorem and from the Theorem 2.3.
2) If for all Boolean functions
:
, then by the Definition 2.6:
. Hence, by the point 1 of this Theorem: for all B-function
:
. By ( 2 ):
.
Theorem: 3.4 All Boolean functions are the B-functions. Hence, the B-function is the generalization of the logic Boolean function.
Therefore, the B-function is the logic function, too.
Proof of the Theorem 3.4: If
is A1 then
.
By Definition 2.6: for all Boolean functions
:
.
Theorem: 3.5
Definition 3.2 Sentences
and
are inconsistent sentences for the B-function
if
Proof of the Theorem 3.5: By the Definition 2.10 and ( 2 ):
By Definition 3.1:
Theorem: 3.6 If sentences
and
are the inconsistent sentences for the B-function
then
Proof of the Theorem 3.6: This just follows from the preceding Theorem and Definition 3.2.
Theorem: 3.7 If
then
.
Proof of the Theorem 3.7: By the Definition 3.1:
Hence,
Hence, by ( 2 ):
Theorem: 3.8
.
Proof of the Theorem 3.8: By the Definition 3.1 and by the points 2 and 3 of the Theorem 2.1:
hence, by the point 1 of the Theorem 2.1:
Theorem: 3.9
Proof of the Theorem 3.9:
By Definition 3.1:
4 The independent tests
Definition 4.1 Let
be a function such that
has got the domain on the set of natural numbers and has got the range of values in the set of the
-sentences.
In this case
-sentence
is a [st]-series of range
with Vnumber
if
,
and
fulfill to some one amongst the following conditions:
1)
and
,
or
,
; 2)
is [st]-series of range
with V-number
and
or
is [st]-series of range
with V-number
and
Let us denote a set of [st]-series of range
with V-number
as
.
For example, if
is a sentence
then the sentences:
,
,
are the elements of
, and
.
Definition 4.2 Function
is independent for B-function
if for
: if
then:
Definition 4.3 Let
be a function such that
has got the domain on the set of natural numbers and has got the range of values in the set of the
-sentences.
In this case sentence
is [st]-disjunction of range
with V-number
(denote:
) if
is the disjunction of all elements of
.
For example, if
is the sentence
then:
,
,
,
. Definition 4.4 A rational number
is called as a frequency of sentence
in the [st]-series of
independent for B-function
tests (designate:
) if 1)
is independent for B-function
, 2) for all
:
, 3)
is true and
.
Theorem: 4.1 (the J.Bernoulli formula [2] ) If
is independent for B-function
and there exists a real number
such that for all
:
then
Proof of the Theorem 4.1: By the Definition 4.2 and the Theorem 3.7:
if
then:
Since
contains
elements then by the Theorems 3.7, 3.8 and 3.6 this Theorem is fulfilled.
Definition 4.5 Let function
has got the domain on the set of the natural numbers and has got the range of values in the set of the
-sentences.
Let function
has got the domain in the set of threes of the natural numbers and has got the range of values in the set of the
-sentences.
In this case
if 1)
, 2)
.
Definition 4.6 If
and
are real numbers and
and
then
.
Theorem: 4.2
Proof of the Theorem 4.2: By the Definition 4.6: there exist natural numbers
and
such that
and
.
The recursion on
:
1. Let
. In this case by the Definition 4.4:
2. Let
be any natural number.
The recursive assumption: Let
By the Definition 4.5:
By the recursive assumption and by the Definition 4.4:
Hence, by the Definition 2.10:
Theorem: 4.3 If
is independent for B-function
and there exists a real number
such that
for all
then
Proof of the Theorem 4.3: This is the consequence from the Theorem 4.1 by the Theorem 3.6.
Theorem: 4.4 If
is independent for the B-function
and there exists a real number
such that
for all
then
for every positive real number
.
Proof of the Theorem 4.4: Because
then if
then
Hence, by ( 2 ) this Theorem is fulfilled.
Hence
|
(3)
|
for all tiny positive numbers
.
5 The logic probability function
Definition 5.1 B-function
is
-function if for every
-sentence
:
If
then
is true sentence.
Hence from Theorem 4.2 and ( 3 ): if
is a
-function then the sentence
is almost true sentence for large
and for all tiny
. Therefore, it is almost truely that
for large
.
Therefore, it is almost true that
for large
.
Therefore, the function, defined by the Definition 5.1 has got the statistical meaning. That is why I'm call such function as the logic probability function.
6 Conditional probability
Definition 6.1: Conditional probability
for
is the following function:
|
(4)
|
Theorem 6.1 The conditional probability function is a B-function. Proof of Theorem 6.1 From Definition 6.1:
.
Hence by point 1 of Theorem 2.1:
.
Form Definition 6.1:
.
Hence:
.
By point 3 of Theorem 2.1:
.
Hence by Definition 3.1:
.
Hence by Definition 6.1:
7 Classical probability
Let
be
-function.
Definition 7.1
is called as complete set if the following conditions are fulfilled:
1. if
then
is a false sentence; 2.
is a true sentence.
Definition 7.2
is favorable for
if
is a false sentence, and
is unfavorable for
if
is a false sentence.
Let 1.
be complete set; 2. for
and
:
; 3. if
then
is favorable for
, and if
then
is unfavorable for
.
In that case from point 5 of Theorem 2.1 and from ( 1 ) and ( 2 ):
for
and
for
.
Hence from Definition 3.1:
for
.
By point 4 of Theorem 2.1:
Hence by Theorem 3.9:
.
Therefore
8 Conclusion
The logic probability function is the extension of the logic B-function. Therefore, the probability is some generalization of the classic propositional logic. That is the probability is the logic of events such that these events do not happen, yet.
9 Appendix. Consistency
9.1 THE NONSTANDARD NUMBERS
Let us consider the set
of natural numbers.
Definition A.1: The
-part-set
of
is defined recursively as follows:
1)
; 2)
.
Definition A.2: If
is the
-part-set of
and
then
is the quantity elements of the set
, and if
then
is the frequency of the set
on the
-part-set
.
Theorem A.1: 1)
; 2)
; 3)
; 4)
.
Proof of the Theorem A.1: From Definitions A.1 and A.2. Definition A.3: If ”
” is the Cauchy-Weierstrass ”limit” then let us denote:
Theorem A.2:
is the filter [5] , i.e.:
1)
, 2)
, 3) if
and
then
; 4) if
and
then
.
Proof of the Theorem A.2: From the point 3 of Theorem A.1:
From the point 4 of Theorem A.1:
Hence,
Hence,
In the following text we shall adopt to our topics the definitions and the proofs of the Robinson Nonstandard Analysis [6] :
Definition A.4: The sequences of the real numbers
and
are Q-equivalent (denote:
) if
Theorem A.3: If
,
,
are the sequences of the real numbers then 1)
, 2) if
then
; 3) if
and
then
.
Proof of the Theorem A.3: By Definition A.4 from the Theorem A.2 is obvious.
Definition A.5: The Q-number is the set of the Q-equivalent sequences of the real numbers, i.e. if
is the Q-number and
and
, then
and if
and
then
.
Definition A.6: The Q-number
is the standard Q-number
if
is some real number and the sequence
exists, for which:
and
Definition A.7: The Q-numbers
and
are the equal Q-numbers (denote:
) if a
and
. Theorem A.4: Let
be a function, which has got the domain in
, has got the range of values in
(
is the real numbers set).
Let
,
,
,
,
,
be any sequences of real numbers.
In this case if
then
.
Proof of the Theorem A.4: Let us denote:
if
or
or
then
In this case by Definition A.4 for all
:
Because
then by Theorem A.2:
Definition A.8: Let us denote:
is the set of the Q-numbers. Definition A.9: The function
, which has got the domain in
, has got the range of values in
, is the Q-extension of the function
, which has got the domain in
, has got the range of values in
, if the following condition is accomplished:
Let
,
,
be any sequences of real numbers. In this case: if
,
,
,
, then
.
Theorem A.5: For all functions
, which have the domain in
, have the range of values in
, and for all real numbers
,
,
,
: if
is the Q-extension of
;
,
,
,
are standard Q-numbers
,
,
,
, then: if
then
and vice versa.
Proof of the Theorem A.5: If
,
,
,
then by Definition A.6:
| |
| |
| |
| |
1) Let
.
In this case by Theorem A.2:
Hence, by Definition A.4:
Therefore by Definition A.5:
Hence, by Definition A.9:
2) Let
.
In this case by Definition A.9:
Hence, by Definition A.5:
Therefore, by Definition A.4:
Hence, by the Theorem A.2:
Hence, since this set does not empty, then
By this Theorem: if
is the Q-extension of the function
then the expression ”
” will be denoted as ”
” and if
is the standard Q-number then the expression ”
” will be denoted as ”
”.
Theorem A.6: If for all real numbers
,
,
:
then for all Q-numbers
,
,
:
Proof of the Theorem A.6: If
,
,
,
, then by Definition A.9:
.
Because
then
.
If
then by Definition A.9:
, too.
Therefore, for all sequences
of real numbers: if
then by Definition A.5:
.
Hence,
; and if
then
; hence,
.
Therefore,
.
Theorem A.7: If for all real numbers
,
,
:
then for all Q-numbers
,
,
:
Consequences from Theorems A.6 and A.7: [7] : For all Q-numbers
,
,
:
1:
,
2:
,
3:
,
5:
,
6:
,
:
,
10:
.
Proof of the Theorem A.7: Let
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
By the condition of this Theorem:
.
By Definition A.9:
,
,
.
For all sequences
of real numbers:
1) If
then by Definition A.5:
.
Hence
.
Therefore, by Definition A.4:
and
Hence, by Theorem A.2:
Hence, by Definition A.4:
Therefore, by Definition A.5:
.
2) If
then by Definition A.5:
.
Because
then by Definition A.4:
Therefore, by Theorem A.2:
Hence, by Definition A.4:
Therefore,
Hence, by Definition A.5:
.
From above and from 1) by Definition A.7:
.
Theorem A.8:
4: For every Q-number
the Q-number
exists, for which:
.
Proof of the Theorem A.8: If
then
is the Q-number, which contains
.
Theorem A.9:
: There is not that
.
Proof of the Theorem A.9: is obvious from Definition A.6 and Definition A.7. Definition A.10: The Q-number
is Q-less than the Q-number
(denote:
) if the sequences
and
of real numbers exist, for which:
,
and
Theorem A.10: For all Q-numbers
,
,
: [8]
: there is not that
;
: if
and
then
;
: if
then
;
: if
and
, then
;
: if
then there is not, that
or
and vice versa;
: for all standard Q-numbers
,
,
:
or
or
.
Proof of the Theorem A.10: is obvious from Definition A.10 by the Theorem A.2. Theorem A.11:
8: If
then the Q-number
exists, for which
. Proof of the Theorem A.11: If
then by Definition A.10: if
then
.
In this case: if for the sequence
: if
then
then
Thus, Q-numbers are fulfilled to all properties of real numbers, except
3 [9] .
The property
3 is accomplished by some weak meaning (
3' and
3”).
Definition A.11: The Q-number
is the infinitesimal Q-number if the sequence of real numbers
exists, for which:
and for all positive real numbers
:
Let the set of all infinitesimal Q-numbers be denoted as
.
Definition A.12: The Q-numbers
and
are the infinite closed Q-numbers (denote:
) if
or
is infinitesimal.
Definition A.13: The Q-number
is the infinite Q-number if the sequence
of real numbers exists, for which
and for every natural number
:
9.2 Model
Let us define the propositional calculus like to ([4] ), but the propositional forms shall be marked by the script greek letters.
Definition C1: A set
of the propositional forms is a U-world if:
1) if
and
then
, 2) for all propositional forms
: it is not that
, 3) for every propositional form
:
or
.
Definition C2: The sequences of the propositional forms
and
are Q-equivalent (denote:
) if
Let us define the notions of the Q-extension of the functions for like as in the Definitions A.5, A.2, A.9, A.5, A.6. Definition C3: The Q-form
is Q-real in the U-world
if the sequence
of the propositional forms exists, for which:
and
Definition C4: The set
of the Q-forms is the Q-extension of the U-world
if
is the set of Q-forms
, which are Q-real in
.
Definition C5: The sequence
of the Q-extensions is the S-world.
Definition C6: The Q-form
is S-real in the S-world
if
Definition C7: The set
(
) is the regular set if for every real positive number
the natural number
exists, for which: for all natural numbers
and
, which are more or equal to
:
Theorem C1: If
is the regular set and for all real positive
:
then
Proof of theTheorem C1: Let be
That is the real number
exists, for which: for every natural number
the natural number
exists, for which:
Let
be some positive real number, for which:
. Because
is the regular set then for
the natural number
exists, for which: for all natural numbers
and
, which are more or equal to
:
That is
Since
then
.
Hence, the natural number
exists, for which: for all natural numbers
:
if
then
.
Therefore,
and by this Theorem condition:
Hence,
That is
. It is the contradiction for the Theorem 2.2.
Definition C8: Let
be a S-world. In this case the function
, which has got the domain in the set of the Q-forms, has got the range of values in
, is defined as the following:
If
then the sequence
of the real numbers exists, for which:
and
Theorem C2: If
is the regular set and
then
is S-resl in
.
Proof of the Theorem C2: Since
then by Definitions.2.12 and 2.11: for all positive real
:
Hence, by the point 3 of the Theorem 2.1: for all positive real
:
Therefore, by the Theorem C1:
That is:
Hence, by Definition.2.3:
And by Definition C6:
is S-real in
.
Theorem C3: The P-function exists.
Proof of the Theorem C3: By the Theorems C2 and 2.1:
is the P-function in
.
References
-
Lyndon R., Notes on logic, (D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY, INC., 1966)
-
Bernoulli J., Ars Conjectandi, (BASILEA, Impenfis THURNISORUM, Fratrum, 1713)
-
Tarski A., The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 4, 1944.
-
Mendelson E., Introduction to Mathematical Logic, D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY, INC., 1963.
-
M.Davis. Applied Nonstandard Analysis. (Moscow, 1980), p.32
-
Item
-
Item, p.73
-
Item, p.73
-
Item, p.74