Conversion (logic)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Converse (logic))
Jump to: navigation, search

Conversion is a concept in traditional logic referring to a "type of immediate inference in which from a given proposition another proposition is inferred which has as its subject the predicate of the original proposition and as its predicate the subject of the original proposition (the quality of the proposition being retained)".[1] The immediately inferred proposition is termed the converse of the original proposition. Conversion has distinctive applications in philosophical logic and mathematical logic. This article concerns its philosophical application distinct from the other traditional inference processes of contraposition and obversion where equivocation varys with different proposition types.

The process of conversion results in an equivalent proposition only in type "E" and type "I" propositions. In the "E" type proposition both the subject term and the predicate term remain distributed in conversion, and in the "I" type proposition both the subject term and the predicate term remain undistributed in conversion.

For example, in the "E" type proposition No S is P conversion yields No P is S. Both of the terms remain distributed, that is, their class membership is exhausted. It can be expressed grammatically in the statements:

No Romans are philosophers and No philosophers are Romans.

In the "I" type proposition Some S is P conversion yields Some P is S. Both of the terms remain undistributed, that is, their class membership is not exhausted. It can be expressed grammatically in the statements:

Some Greeks are philosophers and Some philosophers are Greek.

In an "A" type proposition, conversion of "All S is P" to "All P is S" may violate the rules of distribution, for example:

All popes are saints and All saints are popes. In an "A" type proposition the subject term is distributed (exhausted) and the predicate undistributed. Conversion distributes the predicate of the original proposition as the subject in the inferred proposition. Contrast this with two other converted propositions:

(1) All isosceles triangles have their base angles equal, and All triangles with their base angles equal are isosceles.
(2) All equilateral triangles have three equal angles, and Some triangles with three equal angles are equilateral.

Conversion (1) violates the rules of distribution and is invalid as a logical inference (yet both statements are true), whereas conversion (2) obeys the rules and is valid (yet if read informally, the second statement could be misleading). Thus, logicians allow for conversion of the "A" type proposition with limitations ("some" rather than "all"), or per accidens. The notion of limitation, or conversion per accidens, requires a change in the quantity of the proposition from universal to particular in instances where the rules of distribution would otherwise be violated.

Conversion of the "O" type proposition Some S is not P is not possible, in every instance violating the rules of distribution.

The schema of conversion is:[2]

Original Proposition Converse
(A) All S is P (I) Some P is S
(E) No S is P (E) No P is S
(I) Some S is P (I) Some P is S
(O) Some S is not P None

  • Aristotle. Organon.
  • Brody, Bobuch A. "Glossary of Logical Terms". Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Macmillan, 1973.
  • Copi, Irving. Introduction to Logic. MacMillan, 1953.
  • Copi, Irving. Symbolic Logic. MacMillan, 1979, fifth edition.
  • Stebbing, Susan. A Modern Introduction to Logic. Cromwell Company, 1931.

  1. ^ Definition is quoted from: Brody, Bobuch A. "Glossary of Logical Terms". Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 5-6, p. 61. Macmillan, 1973. See also, Stebbing, L. Susan. A Modern Introduction to Logic. Seventh edition, pp.63-64. Harper, 1961, and Irving Copi's Introduction to Logic, pp. 137-141, Macmillan, 1953. All sources give virtually identical explanations. Copi, in Symbolic Logic, 1979, does not use the term "conversion" except to remark how "some of the 'immediate inferences' involving categorical propositions are already contained in the notation of class algebra", and that "conversion, where is valid, is an immediate consequence of the principle of commutation", pp. 173-174.
  2. ^ Stebbing, L. Susan. A Modern Introduction to Logic. Seventh edition, p. 64. Harper, 1961, and Copi, p. 138, 1953.

Advanced Search
Included Web Search Engines


Safe Search

close

Top Matching Results

Occasionally Search.com will highlight specialized results that are based on the context of your query. Examples of specialized results include specific links to news, images, or video.

Top Matching Results may highlight information from other Search.com pages, content from the CNET Network of sites, or third party content. The listings are based purely on relevance. Search.com does not receive payment for listings in this section but our partners that provide this data may get paid for listing these products.

Sponsored Links

This section contains paid listings which have been purchased by companies that want to have their sites appear for specific search terms and related content. These listings are administered, sorted and maintained by a third party and are not endorsed by Search.com.

Search Results

Search.com sends your search query to several search engines at one time and integrates the results into one list which has been sorted by relevance using Search.com's proprietary algorithm. You can customize the list of search engines included in your metasearch from the preferences.

The search engines that are used in your metasearch may allow companies to pay to have their Web sites included within the results. To view the Paid Inclusion policy for a specific search engine, please visit their Web site. Search.com does not accept payment or share revenue with any search engine partner for listings in this section.