Categorical proposition

In <a href="/facts/Logic/8JnpJLtt">logic</a>, a categorical proposition, or categorical statement, is a <a href="/facts/Proposition/0877MFMD">proposition</a> that asserts or denies that all or some of the members of one category (the subject term) are included in another (the predicate term). The study of <a href="/facts/Argument/1K1e3Xg4">arguments</a> using categorical statements (i.e., <a href="/facts/Syllogism/cgpmd6jB">syllogisms</a>) forms an important branch of <a href="/facts/Deductive_reasoning/HadA1zWS">deductive reasoning</a> that began with the <a href="/facts/Ancient_Greeks/PTVBrWXq">Ancient Greeks</a>.
The Ancient Greeks such as <a href="/facts/Aristotle/U2bDlBFW">Aristotle</a> identified four primary distinct types of categorical proposition and gave them standard forms (now often called A, E, I, and O). If, abstractly, the subject category is named S and the predicate category is named P, the four standard forms are:

<ul><li>All S are P. (A form)</li>
<li>No S are P. (E form)</li>
<li>Some S are P. (I form)</li>
<li>Some S are not P. (O form)</li></ul>
A large number of sentences may be translated into one of these canonical forms while retaining all or most of the original meaning of the sentence. Greek investigations resulted in the so-called <a href="/facts/Square_of_opposition/z9S71UVr">square of opposition</a>, which codifies the logical relations among the different forms; for example, that an A-statement is contradictory to an O-statement; that is to say, for example, if one believes "All apples are red fruits," one cannot simultaneously believe that "Some apples are not red fruits." Thus the relationships of the square of opposition may allow <a href="/facts/Immediate_inference/yq5L6lQz">immediate inference</a>, whereby the truth or falsity of one of the forms may follow directly from the truth or falsity of a statement in another form.
Modern understanding of categorical propositions (originating with the mid-19th century work of <a href="/facts/George_Boole/fWJT2rek">George Boole</a>) requires one to consider if the subject category may be empty. If so, this is called the hypothetical viewpoint, in opposition to the existential viewpoint which requires the subject category to have at least one member. The existential viewpoint is a stronger stance than the hypothetical and, when it is appropriate to take, it allows one to deduce more results than otherwise could be made. The hypothetical viewpoint, being the weaker view, has the effect of removing some of the relations present in the traditional square of opposition.
Arguments consisting of three categorical propositions — two as premises and one as conclusion — are known as <a href="/facts/Categorical_syllogism/cgpmd6jB">categorical syllogisms</a> and were of paramount importance from the times of ancient Greek logicians through the Middle Ages. Although formal arguments using categorical syllogisms have largely given way to the increased expressive power of modern logic systems like the <a href="/facts/First-order_logic/lcISqWIg">first-order predicate calculus</a>, they still retain practical value in addition to their historic and <a href="/facts/Pedagogy/t1LIfLeC">pedagogical</a> significance.

Categorical proposition open-in-new

Categorical proposition