Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:02:57.431Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On Characterizing Unary Probability Functions and Truth-Value Functions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Hugues Leblanc*
Affiliation:
Temple University, PhiladelphiaPA19122, U.S.A.

Extract

Consider a language SL having as its primitive signs one or more atomic statements, the two connectives ‘∼’ and ‘&,’ and the two parentheses ‘(’ and ‘)’; and presume the extra connectives ‘V’ and ‘≡’ defined in the customary manner. With the statements of SL substituting for sets, and the three connectives ‘∼,’ ‘&,’and ‘V’ substituting for the complementation, intersection, and union signs, the constraints that Kolmogorov places in [1] on (unary) probability functions come to read:

K1. 0 ≤ P(A),

K2. P(∼(A & ∼A)) = 1,

K3. If ⊦ ∼(A & B), then P(A ∨ B) = P(A) + P(B),

K4. If ⊦ A ≡ B, then P(A) = P(B).2

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1]Kolmogorov, Andrei N. Foundations of Probability (New York: Chelsea Publishing Company 1950)Google Scholar
[2]Leblanc, HuguesPopper's 1955 Axiomatization of Absolute Probability,’ Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 63 (1982) 133–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Leblanc, HuguesProbability Functions and their Assumption Sets: The Singulary Case,’ Journal of Philosophical Logic, 12 (1983) 379402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Popper, Karl R.Two Autonomous Axiom Systems for the Calculus of Probability,’ The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 6 (1955) 51–7Google Scholar
[5]Popper, Karl R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery (New York: Basic Books 1959)Google Scholar
[6]Rescher, NicholasA Probabilistic Approach to Modal Logic,’ Modal and Many Valued Logics, Acta Philosophica Fennica, 16 (1963) 215–26Google Scholar