q2K BHP
Black History Portal
THE BHP WIRE —
HIDDEN TRUTHS
What's New!
THE JOURNEY THROUGH TIME

Explore Black History

Explore the people, places, events, achievements, struggles and stories that shaped our journey.

✊🏾

Civil Rights

Movements, leaders, victories and the continuing fight for equality.

⚙️

Black Inventors

Innovation, patents, science, technology and world-changing contributions.

🏆

Sports

Pioneers, champions, Negro Leagues, records, activism and excellence.

♟️

People

Meet the people whose lives, choices and achievements shaped the journey.

📍

Places

Black towns, communities, institutions and places where history happened.

📜

Events

Moments that changed communities, movements, institutions and the nation.

Enter a person, place, event, or topic.
MY'STORY

The MOVE Fire

This is a personal recollection on the Move fire on May 13, 1985 Philadelphia police fired thousands of rounds at the MOVE house, city officials approved dropping an explosive device on the roof, the resulting fire was allowed to burn, 11 people—including five children—died, and 61 homes were destroyed. Philadelphia City Council later called it a “brutal attack carried out by the City of Philadelphia on its own citizens” and acknowledged that no individual faced criminal consequences for the bombing. One timeline correction worth preserving for the BHP record: the major previous MOVE-police confrontation was August 8, 1978, about seven years before the bombing, not a year or two earlier. Officer James Ramp was killed, other police and firefighters were wounded, nine MOVE members were later convicted, and television cameras recorded police beating Delbert Africa during his arrest. The 1985 MOVE Commission later specifically criticized city planners for failing to adequately use lessons from that 1978 confrontation. And that actually strengthens the point you’re making: 1985 did not happen without precedent or institutional memory. There had already been a deadly confrontation with MOVE, years of conflict, negotiations and police involvement before Osage Avenue.

MORE →
BLACK FACTS
The Truths They Never Taught You...

Ruler of the Mali Empire in the 14th century

Mansa Musa was the ruler of the Mali Empire in West Africa. Details recorded here should be sourced; unknown information is left blank.

MORE →
BHP gathered finds from its connected research sources. Showing the 4 strongest Black History matches.
← BACK TO RESULTS
Wikipedia

Universal instantiation

Universal instantiation
TypeRule of inference
FieldPredicate logic
Symbolic statement

In predicate logic, universal instantiation[1][2][3] (UI; also called universal specification or universal elimination,[citation needed] and sometimes confused with dictum de omni)[citation needed] is a valid rule of inference from a truth about each member of a class of individuals to the truth about a particular individual of that class. It is generally given as a quantification rule for the universal quantifier but it can also be encoded in an axiom schema. It is one of the basic principles used in quantification theory.

Example: "All dogs are mammals. Fido is a dog. Therefore Fido is a mammal."

Formally, the rule as an axiom schema is given as for every formula A and every term t, where is the result of substituting t for each free occurrence of x in A. is an instance of

And as a rule of inference it is

from infer

Irving Copi noted that universal instantiation "...follows from variants of rules for 'natural deduction', which were devised independently by Gerhard Gentzen and Stanisław Jaśkowski in 1934."[4]

Quine

[edit]

According to Willard Van Orman Quine, universal instantiation and existential generalization are two aspects of a single principle, for instead of saying that "∀x x = x" implies "Socrates = Socrates", we could as well say that the denial "Socrates ≠ Socrates" implies "∃x x ≠ x". The principle embodied in these two operations is the link between quantifications and the singular statements that are related to them as instances. Yet it is a principle only by courtesy. It holds only in the case where a term names and, furthermore, occurs referentially.[5]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Irving M. Copi; Carl Cohen; Kenneth McMahon (Nov 2010). Introduction to Logic. Pearson Education. ISBN 978-0205820375.[page needed]
  2. ^ Hurley, Patrick. A Concise Introduction to Logic. Wadsworth Pub Co, 2008.
  3. ^ Moore and Parker[full citation needed]
  4. ^ Copi, Irving M. (1979). Symbolic Logic, 5th edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
  5. ^ Willard Van Orman Quine; Roger F. Gibson (2008). "V.24. Reference and Modality". Quintessence. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. OCLC 728954096. Here: p. 366.

Source: Wikipedia. Article content is retrieved live through the MediaWiki API.

No preview image
Wikipedia

On Interpretation

On Interpretation (Greek: Περὶ Ἑρμηνείας, Peri Hermeneias) is the second text from Aristotle's Organon and is among the earliest surviving philosophical works in the Western tradition to deal with the relationship between language and logic in a comprehensive, explicit, and formal way. The work begins by analyzing simple categoric propositions, and draws a series of basic conclusions on the routine issues of classifying and defining basic linguistic forms, such as simple terms and propositions, nouns and verbs, negation, the quantity of simple propositions (primitive roots of the quantifiers in modern symbolic logic), investigations on the excluded middle (which to Aristotle is not applicable to future tense propositions—the problem of future contingents), and on modal propositions. From the work comes the idea of Apophansis' (Greek: ἀπόφανσις), which considers the nature of nouns and verbs and how they might be combined as a proposition, which is the combination of a subject a noun, a verb, and a tense that can be either outright credible (κατάφασις kataphasis) or not (ἀπόφημι apophasis). The first five chapters deal with the terms that form propositions. Chapters 6 and 7 deal with the relationship between affirmative, negative, universal and particular propositions. These relationships are the basis of the well-known square of opposition. The distinction between universal and particular propositions is the basis of modern quantification theory. The last three chapters deal with modalities. Chapter 9 is famous for the discussion of the sea-battle. (If it is true that there will be a sea-battle tomorrow, then it is true today that there will be a sea-battle. Thus a sea-battle is apparently unavoidable, and thus necessary. Another interpretation would be: that we cannot know that which has not yet come to pass. In other words: if there is a sea battle tomorrow then it is true today that tomorrow there will be a sea battle. So, only if we can know whether or not there will be a sea battle tomorrow then can we know if there will be a sea battle).

MORE →
No preview image
Wikipedia

Universal instantiation

In predicate logic, universal instantiation (UI; also called universal specification or universal elimination, and sometimes confused with dictum de omni) is a valid rule of inference from a truth about each member of a class of individuals to the truth about a particular individual of that class. It is generally given as a quantification rule for the universal quantifier but it can also be encoded in an axiom schema. It is one of the basic principles used in quantification theory. Example: "All dogs are mammals. Fido is a dog. Therefore Fido is a mammal." Formally, the rule as an axiom schema is given as ∀ x A ⇒ A { x ↦ t } , {\displaystyle \forall x\,A\Rightarrow A\{x\mapsto t\},} for every formula A and every term t, where A { x ↦ t } {\displaystyle A\{x\mapsto t\}} is the result of substituting t for each free occurrence of x in A. A { x ↦ t } {\displaystyle \,A\{x\mapsto t\}} is an instance of ∀ x A . {\displaystyle \forall x\,A.} And as a rule of inference it is from ⊢ ∀ x A {\displaystyle \vdash \forall xA} infer ⊢ A { x ↦ t } . {\displaystyle \vdash A\{x\mapsto t\}.} Irving Copi noted that universal instantiation "...follows from variants of rules for 'natural deduction', which were devised independently by Gerhard Gentzen and Stanisław Jaśkowski in 1934."

MORE →
No preview image
Wikipedia

Bounded quantification

In type theory, bounded quantification (also bounded polymorphism or constrained genericity) refers to universal or existential quantifiers which are restricted ("bounded") to range only over the subtypes of a particular type. Bounded quantification is an interaction of parametric polymorphism with subtyping. Bounded quantification has traditionally been studied in the functional setting of System F

MORE →
No preview image
Wikipedia

First-order logic

In mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, and computer science, first-order logic (FOL), also called predicate logic, predicate calculus, or quantificational logic, is a type of formal system. First-order logic uses quantified variables over non-logical objects, and allows the use of sentences that contain variables. Rather than propositions such as "all humans are mortal", in first-order logic one can have expressions in the form "for all x, if x is a human, then x is mortal", where "for all x" is a quantifier, x is a variable, and "... is a human" and "... is mortal" are predicates. This distinguishes it from propositional logic, which does not use quantifiers or relations; in this sense, first-order logic is an extension of propositional logic. A theory about a topic, such as set theory, a theory for groups, or a formal theory of arithmetic, is usually a first-order logic together with a specified domain of discourse (over which the quantified variables range), finitely many functions from that domain to itself, finitely many predicates defined on that domain, and a set of axioms believed to hold about them. "Theory" is sometimes understood in a more formal sense as just a set of sentences in first-order logic. The term "first-order" distinguishes first-order logic from higher-order logic, in which there are predicates having predicates or functions as arguments, or in which quantification over predicates, functions, or both, are permitted. In first-order theories, predicates are often associated with sets. In interpreted higher-order theories, predicates may be interpreted as sets of sets. There are many deductive systems for first-order logic which are both sound, i.e. all provable statements are true in all models; and complete, i.e. all statements which are true in all models are provable. Although the logical consequence relation is only semidecidable, much progress has been made in automated theorem proving in first-order logic. First-order logic also satisfies several metalogical theorems that make it amenable to analysis in proof theory, such as the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem and the compactness theorem. First-order logic is the standard for the formalization of mathematics into axioms, and is studied in the foundations of mathematics. Peano arithmetic and Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory are axiomatizations of number theory and set theory, respectively, into first-order logic. No first-order theory, however, has the strength to uniquely describe a structure with an infinite domain, such as the natural numbers or the real line. Axiom systems that do fully describe these two structures, i.e. categorical axiom systems, can be obtained in stronger logics such as second-order logic. Historically speaking, the foundations of first-order logic were developed independently by Gottlob Frege and Charles Sanders Peirce in the 1880s. However, the distinction between first-order and higher-order logic was not well understood until metalogical ideas and results arrived, such as Gödel's completeness theorem in 1929. By the 1940s, first-order logic had become the dominant language of mathematical foundations.

MORE →
TOPIC OF THE DAY

Greenwood / Black Wall Street

Before the 1921 destruction of Tulsa’s Greenwood District, Black residents had created a remarkable center of business and community life. The district included stores, professional offices, entertainment venues and homes owned by Black citizens. Understanding Greenwood means learning what was built—not only what was burned.

MORE →
TRIVIA QUESTION OF THE DAY

Which heavyweight champion was known as the “Brown Bomber”?

Joe Louis.