Tonk, Plonk and Plink

Nuel D. Belnap

Analysis, Vol. 22, No. 6. (Jun., 1962), pp. 130-134.

Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-2638%28196206%2922%3A6%3C130%3ATPAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G

Analysis is currently published by The Analysis Committee.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/anacom.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.org
Sun Dec 30 10:48:38 2007
 ANALYSIS

TONK, PLONK AND PLINK1

A. N. PRIOR has recently discussed2 the connective tonk, where

tonk is defined by specifying the role it plays in inference. Prior
characterizes the role of tonk in inference by describing how it behaves
as conclusion, and as premiss: (1) A I- A-tonk-B, and (2) A-tonk-B t B
(where we have used the sign ' k ' for deducibility). We are then led by
the transitivity of deducibility to the validity of A I- B, " which promises
to banish falscbe Spitzjndigkeit from Logic for ever."
A possible moral to be drawn is that connectives cannot be defined
in terms of deducibility at all; that, for instance, it is illegitimate to
define and as that connective such that (1) A-and-B t A, (2) A-and-B I- B,
and (3) A, B I- A-and-B. We must first, so the moral goes, have a notion
of what and means, independently of the role it plays as premiss and as
conclusion. Truth-tables are one way of specifying this antecedent
meaning; this seems to be the moral drawn by J. T. Stevenson.3 There
are good reasons, however, for defending the legitimacy of defining
connections in terms of the roles they play in deductions.
It seems plain that throughout the whole texture of philosophy one
can distinguish two modes of explanation: the analytic mode, which
tends to explain wholes in terms of parts, and the synthetic mode, which
explains parts in terms of the wholes or contexts in which they occur.4
In logic, the analytic mode would be represented by Aristotle, who
commences with terms as the ultimate atoms, explains propositions or
judgments by means of these, syllogisms by means of the propositions
which go to make them up, and finally ends with the notion of a science
as a tissue of syllogisms. The analytic mode is also represented by the
contemporary logician who first explains the meaning of complex
sentences, by means of truth-tables, as a function of their parts, and then
proceeds to give an account of correct inference in terms of the sentences
occurring therein. The loczls classicuf of the application of the synthetic
mode is, I suppose, Plato's treatment of justice in the Rept/blic, where he
defines the just man by reference to the larger context of the community.
Among formal logicians, use of the synthetic mode in logic is illustrated
by Kneale and Popper (cited by Prior), as well as by Jaskowski, Gentzen,
Fitch, and Curry, all of these treating the meaning of connectives as
1 This research was supported in part by the Office of Naval Research, Group Psychology
Branch, Contract No. SAR/Nonr-609(16).
2 ' The Runabout Inference-ticket , ANALYSIS 21.2, December 1960.
3 ' Roundabout the Runabout Inference-ticket ', ANALYSIS 21.6, June 1961. Cf. p. 127:
"The important difference between the theory of analytic validity [Prior's phrase for what is
here called the synthetic view] as it should be stated and as Prior stated it lies in the fact
that he gives the meaning of connectives in terms of permissive rules, whereas they should
be stated in terms of truth-function statements in a meta-language."
4 1 learned this way of looking at the matter from R. S. Brumbaugh.
 TONK, PLONK AND PLINK 131
arising from the role they play in the context of formal inference. It
is equally well illustrated, I think, by aspects of Wittgenstein and those
who learned from him to treat the meanings of words as arising from the
role they play in the context of discourse. It seems to me nearly self-
evident that employment of both modes of explanation is important
and useful. It would therefore be truly a shame to see the synthetic
mode in logic pass away as a result of a severe attack of tonktitis.
Suppose, then, that we wish to hold that it is after all possible to
define connectives contextually, in terms of deducibility. How are we to
prevent tonktitis? How are we to make good the claim that there is no
connective such as tonkl though there is a connective such as and (where
tonk and and are defined as above) ?
It seems to me that the key to a solution2lies in observing that even
on the synthetic view, we are not d e w g our connectives ab initio, but
rather in terms of an antecedently given context of dedgcibility, concerning
which we have some definite notions. By that I mean that before
arriving at the problem of characterizing connectives, we have already
made some assumptions about the nature of deducibility. That this is
so can be seen immediately by observing Prior's use of the transitivity
of deducibility in order to secure his ingenious result. But if we note
that we already have some assumptions about the context of deducibility
within which we are operating, it becomes apparent that by a too careless
use of definitions, it is possible to create a situation in which we are
forced to say things inconsistent with those assumptions.
The situation is thus exactly analogous to that, pointed out by
Peano, which occurs when one attempts to define an operation, ' ? ', on
rational numbers as follows :

This definition is inadmissible precisely because it has consequences

which contradict prior assumptions; for, as can easily be shown, adrnit-
ting this definition would lead to (say) -3 -
2 - 53.
In short, we can distinguish between the admissibility of the defini-
tion of and and the inadmissibility of tonk on the grounds of consistency
-i.e., consistency with antecedent assumptions. We can give a precise
account of the requirement of consistency from the synthetic point of
view as follows.
That there is no meaningful proposition expressed by A-fonk-B; that thereis no meaning-
ful sentence A-tonk-B-distinctions suggested by these alternative modes of expression are
irrelevant. Not myself being a victim of eidophobia, I will continue to use language which
treats the connective-word ' fonk ' as standing for the putative propositional connective, tonk.
It is equally irrelevant whether we take the sign k as representing a syntactic concept of
deducibility or a semantic concept of logical consequence.
Priqr's note is a gem, reminding one of Lewis Carroll's ' What the Tortoise said to
.
Achilles And as for the latter, so for the former, I suspect that no solution will ever be
universally accepted as fbe solution.
132 ANALYSIS

(1) We consider some characterization of deducibility, which may be

treated as a formal system, i.e., as a set of axioms and rules involving the
sign of deducibility, ' t- ', where 'A,, . . . , A, I- B ' is read ' B is deducible
from A,, . . . , A,.' For definiteness, we shall choose as our characteriza-
tion the structural rules of Gentzen:
Axiom. A t A
Wes. Weakening: from A,, ..., A, t C to infer A,, ..., A, B t C
Permzltation: from A,, ..., A, A,,,, ..., A, I- B to infer
A,, ..., Ai+l' Ai, . .., A, t B.
Contraction: from A,, ...,A,, A, t B to infer A,, ..., A, I- B
Transitivig: from A,, ..., A, t- B and C,, ..., C,, B t- D
to infer A,, ..., A,, C,, ..., C, C- D.
In accordance with the opinions of experts (or even perhaps on more
substantial grounds) we may take this little system as expressing all and
only the universally valid statements and rules expressible in the given
notation: it completely determines the context.
(2) We may consider the proposed definition of some connective, say
plonk, as an extension of the formal system characterizing deducibility,
and an extension in two senses. (a) The notion of sentence is extended by
introducing A-plonk-B as a sentence, whenever A and B are sentences.
(b) We add some axioms or rules governing A-plonk-B as occurring as
one of the prernisses or as conclusion of a deducibility-statement. These
axioms or rules constitute our definition ofplonk in terms of the role it
plays in inference.
(3) We may now state the demand for the consistency of the definition
of the new connective, plank, as follows: the extension must be con-
servativel; i.e., although the extension may well have new deducibility-
statements, these new statements will all involve plonk. The extension
will not have any new deducibility-statements which do not involve
plonk itself. It will not lead to any deducibility-statement A,, ..., A, I- B
not containing plonk, unless that statement is already provable in the
absence of theplonk-axioms andplonk-rules. The justification for unpack-
ing the demand for consistency in terms of conservativeness is precisely
our antecedent assumption that we already had all the universally valid
deducibility-statements not involving any special connectives.
So the trouble with the definition of tonk given by Prior is that it is
inconsistent. It gives us an extension of our original characterization
of deducibility which is not conservative, since in the extension (but not
in the original) we have, for arbitrary A and ByA t B. Adding a tonkish
role to the deducibility-context would be like adding to cricket a player
whose role was so specified as to make it impossible to distinguish
winning from losing.
1 The notion of conservative extensions is due to Emil Post.
 TONK, PLONK AND PLINK 133
Hence, given that our characterization of deducibility is taken as
complete, we may with propriety say ' There is no such connective as
tonk'; just as we say that there is no operation, '?', on rational numbers
a c
such that ( 6 ? a) a+c On the other hand, it is easily shown that
= wd.
the extension got by adding and is conservative, and we may hence say
' There is a connective having these properties '.
It is good to keep in mind that the question of the existence of a
connective having such and such properties is relative to our character-
ization of deducibility. If we had initially allowed A I- B (!), there would
have been no objection to tonk, since the extension would then have
been conservative. Also, there would have been no inconsistency had
we omitted from our characterization of deducibility the rule of transi-
tivity.
The mathematical analogy leads us to ask if we ought not also to add
uniqtlenessl as a requirement for connectives introduced by definitions in
terms of deducibility (although clearly this requirement is not as essential
as the first, or at least not in the same way). Suppose, for example, that
I propose to define a comectiveplonk by specifying that B I- A-plonk-B.
The extension is easily shown to be conservative, and we may, therefore,
say ' There is a connective having these properties '. But is there only
one? It seems rather odd to say we have defined plonk unless we can
show that A-plonk-B is a function of A and Byi.e., given A and Bythere
is only one proposition A-plonk-B. But what do we mean by uniqueness
when operating from a synthetic, contextualist point of view? Clearly
that at most one inferential role is permitted by the characterization of
plonk; i.e., that there cannot be two connectives which share the charac-
terization given to plonk but which otherwise sometimes play different
roles. Formally put, uniqueness means that if exactly the same properties
are ascribed to some other connective, say plink, then A-plink-B will
play exactly the same role in inference as A-$onk-By both as prerniss
and as conclusion. T o say thatplonk (characterized thus and so) describes
a unique way of combining A and B is to say that if plink is given a
characterization formally identical to that ofplonk, then
(1)A,, ..., B-plonk-C, ..., A, I- D if and only if A,, ...,B-$link-C, ..., A, I- D
and
(2) A,, ..., A, I- B-plonk-C if and only if A,, ...,A, I- B-plink-C.
Whether or not we can show this will depend, of course, not only
on the properties ascribed to the comectives, but also on the properties
ascribed to deducibility. Given the characterization of deducibility
above, it is sufficient and necessary that B-plonk-C I- B-plink-C, and
conversely.
'Application to connectives of the notions of existence and uniqueness was suggested to
me by a lecture of H. Hii.
134 ANALYSIS

Harking back now to the definition of plonk by: B I- A-plonk-B, it is

easy to show thatplonk is not unique; that given only: B I- A-plonk-Byand
B I- A-plink-B, we cannot show that plonk and plink invariably play the
same role in inference. Hence, the possibility arises that plonk and plink
stand for different connectives : the conditions on plod do not determine
a unique connective. On the other hand, if we introduce a connective,
et, with the same characterization as and, it will turn out that A-and-B
and A-et-B play exactly the same role in inference. The conditions on
and therefore do determine a unique connective.
Though it is difficult to draw a moral from Prior's delightful note
without being planking, I suppose we might put it like this: one can
define connectives in terms of deducibility, but one bears the onus of
proving at least consistency (existence); and if one wishes further to
talk about the connective (instead of a connective) satisfying certain
conditions, it is necessary to prove uniqueness as well. But it is not
necessary to have an antecedent idea of the independent meaning of the
connective.

Yale UniversiD

UNQUANTIFIED INDUCTIVE GENERALIZATIONS

J. 0. NELSON argues that the ordinary grammar of inductive

generalizations is not amenable to quantification and that this
grammar is preferable to the one that, in his view, logicians have foisted
upon them (ANALYSIS, January 1962). It seems to me that his diagnosis
departs from instead of returning to ordinary grammar.
1. As an example of an unquantified inductive generalization (hence-
forth U.I.G.) he gives 'Ants attack spiders '. This, he says, is an ambigu-
ous proposition. ''At the point of asserting the proposition, do we mean
by it all or some ants? And if ' all ', all ants at present on earth or all
ants present and future? And if ' some ', merely the ant we have
observed or others in addition, and what proportion of them? We do
not mean any of these things as.yet. It is still up to us to establish or
decide which of these interpretations, if any, our assertion is to have "
http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS
- Page 1 of 1 -

You have printed the following article:

Tonk, Plonk and Plink
Nuel D. Belnap
Analysis, Vol. 22, No. 6. (Jun., 1962), pp. 130-134.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-2638%28196206%2922%3A6%3C130%3ATPAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G

This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from an
off-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Please
visit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR.

[Footnotes]

3
Roundabout the Runabout Inference-Ticket
J. T. Stevenson
Analysis, Vol. 21, No. 6. (Jun., 1961), pp. 124-128.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-2638%28196106%2921%3A6%3C124%3ARTRI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D

NOTE: The reference numbering from the original has been maintained in this citation list.