Differential Logic • Part 1

Author: Jon Awbrey

---

• Overview • Part 1 • Part 2 • Part 3 • Document History •

---

Introduction

Differential logic is the component of logic whose object is the description of variation — for example, the aspects of change, difference, distribution, and diversity — in universes of discourse subject to logical description.  A definition that broad naturally incorporates any study of variation by way of mathematical models, but differential logic is especially charged with the qualitative aspects of variation pervading or preceding quantitative models.  To the extent a logical inquiry makes use of a formal system, its differential component treats the principles governing the use of a differential logical calculus, that is, a formal system with the expressive capacity to describe change and diversity in logical universes of discourse.

Simple examples of differential logical calculi are furnished by differential propositional calculi.  A differential propositional calculus is a propositional calculus extended by a set of terms for describing aspects of change and difference, for example, processes taking place in a universe of discourse or transformations mapping a source universe to a target universe.  Such a calculus augments ordinary propositional calculus in the same way the differential calculus of Leibniz and Newton augments the analytic geometry of Descartes.

Cactus Language for Propositional Logic

The development of differential logic is facilitated by having a moderately efficient calculus in place at the level of boolean-valued functions and elementary logical propositions.  One very efficient calculus on both conceptual and computational grounds is based on just two types of logical connectives, both of variable $k$-ary scope.  The syntactic formulas of this calculus map into a family of graph-theoretic structures called “painted and rooted cacti” which lend visual representation to the functional structures of propositions and smooth the path to efficient computation.

The first kind of connective takes the form of a parenthesized sequence of propositional expressions, written ${\texttt {(}}e_{1}{\texttt {,}}e_{2}{\texttt {,}}\ldots {\texttt {,}}e_{k-1}{\texttt {,}}e_{k}{\texttt {)}}$ and meaning exactly one of the propositions $e_{1},e_{2},\ldots ,e_{k-1},e_{k}$ is false, in short, their minimal negation is true.  An expression of this form maps into a cactus structure called a lobe, in this case, “painted” with the colors $e_{1},e_{2},\ldots ,e_{k-1},e_{k}$ as shown below.

The second kind of connective is a concatenated sequence of propositional expressions, written $e_{1}\ e_{2}\ \ldots \ e_{k-1}\ e_{k}$ and meaning all the propositions $e_{1},e_{2},\ldots ,e_{k-1},e_{k}$ are true, in short, their logical conjunction is true.  An expression of this form maps into a cactus structure called a node, in this case, “painted” with the colors $e_{1},e_{2},\ldots ,e_{k-1},e_{k}$ as shown below.

All other propositional connectives can be obtained through combinations of these two forms.  As it happens, the parenthesized form is sufficient to define the concatenated form, making the latter formally dispensable, but it's convenient to maintain it as a concise way of expressing more complicated combinations of parenthesized forms.  While working with expressions solely in propositional calculus, it's easiest to use plain parentheses for logical connectives.  In contexts where ordinary parentheses are needed for other purposes an alternate typeface ${\texttt {(}}\ldots {\texttt {)}}$ may be used for the logical operators.

Table 1 shows the cactus graphs, the corresponding cactus expressions, their logical meanings under the so-called existential interpretation, and their translations into conventional notations for a sample of basic propositional forms.

${\text{Table 1.}}~~{\text{Syntax and Semantics of a Calculus for Propositional Logic}}$

${\text{Graph}}$	${\text{Expression}}$	${\text{Interpretation}}$	${\text{Other Notations}}$
	$~$	$\mathrm {true}$	$1$
	${\texttt {(}}~{\texttt {)}}$	$\mathrm {false}$	$0$
	$a$	$a$	$a$
	${\texttt {(}}a{\texttt {)}}$	$\mathrm {not} ~a$	$\lnot a\quad {\bar {a}}\quad {\tilde {a}}\quad a^{\prime }$
	$a~b~c$	$a~\mathrm {and} ~b~\mathrm {and} ~c$	$a\land b\land c$
	${\texttt {((}}a{\texttt {)(}}b{\texttt {)(}}c{\texttt {))}}$	$a~\mathrm {or} ~b~\mathrm {or} ~c$	$a\lor b\lor c$
	${\texttt {(}}a{\texttt {(}}b{\texttt {))}}$	${\begin{matrix}a~\mathrm {implies} ~b\\[6pt]\mathrm {if} ~a~\mathrm {then} ~b\end{matrix}}$	$a\Rightarrow b$
	${\texttt {(}}a{\texttt {,}}b{\texttt {)}}$	${\begin{matrix}a~\mathrm {not~equal~to} ~b\\[6pt]a~\mathrm {exclusive~or} ~b\end{matrix}}$	${\begin{matrix}a\neq b\\[6pt]a+b\end{matrix}}$
	${\texttt {((}}a{\texttt {,}}b{\texttt {))}}$	${\begin{matrix}a~\mathrm {is~equal~to} ~b\\[6pt]a~\mathrm {if~and~only~if} ~b\end{matrix}}$	${\begin{matrix}a=b\\[6pt]a\Leftrightarrow b\end{matrix}}$
	${\texttt {(}}a{\texttt {,}}b{\texttt {,}}c{\texttt {)}}$	${\begin{matrix}\mathrm {just~one~of} \\a,b,c\\\mathrm {is~false} .\end{matrix}}$	${\begin{matrix}&{\bar {a}}~b~c\\\lor &a~{\bar {b}}~c\\\lor &a~b~{\bar {c}}\end{matrix}}$
	${\texttt {((}}a{\texttt {),(}}b{\texttt {),(}}c{\texttt {))}}$	${\begin{matrix}\mathrm {just~one~of} \\a,b,c\\\mathrm {is~true} .\\[6pt]\mathrm {partition~all} \\\mathrm {into} ~a,b,c.\end{matrix}}$	${\begin{matrix}&a~{\bar {b}}~{\bar {c}}\\\lor &{\bar {a}}~b~{\bar {c}}\\\lor &{\bar {a}}~{\bar {b}}~c\end{matrix}}$
	${\texttt {(}}a{\texttt {,(}}b{\texttt {,}}c{\texttt {))}}$	${\begin{matrix}\mathrm {oddly~many~of} \\a,b,c\\\mathrm {are~true} .\end{matrix}}$	$a+b+c$ ${\begin{matrix}&a~b~c\\\lor &a~{\bar {b}}~{\bar {c}}\\\lor &{\bar {a}}~b~{\bar {c}}\\\lor &{\bar {a}}~{\bar {b}}~c\end{matrix}}$
	${\texttt {(}}x{\texttt {,(}}a{\texttt {),(}}b{\texttt {),(}}c{\texttt {))}}$	${\begin{matrix}\mathrm {partition} ~x\\\mathrm {into} ~a,b,c.\\[6pt]\mathrm {genus} ~x~\mathrm {comprises} \\\mathrm {species} ~a,b,c.\end{matrix}}$	${\begin{matrix}&{\bar {x}}~{\bar {a}}~{\bar {b}}~{\bar {c}}\\\lor &x~a~{\bar {b}}~{\bar {c}}\\\lor &x~{\bar {a}}~b~{\bar {c}}\\\lor &x~{\bar {a}}~{\bar {b}}~c\end{matrix}}~$

The simplest expression for logical truth is the empty word, typically denoted by ${\boldsymbol {\varepsilon }}$ or $\lambda$ in formal languages, where it is the identity element for concatenation.  To make it visible in context, it may be denoted by the equivalent expression ${}^{\backprime \backprime }{\texttt {((}}~{\texttt {))}}{}^{\prime \prime },$ or, especially if operating in an algebraic context, by a simple ${}^{\backprime \backprime }1{}^{\prime \prime }.$  Also when working in an algebraic mode, the plus sign ${}^{\backprime \backprime }+{}^{\prime \prime }$ may be used for exclusive disjunction.  Thus we have the following translations of algebraic expressions into cactus expressions.

${\begin{matrix}a+b\quad =\quad {\texttt {(}}a{\texttt {,}}b{\texttt {)}}\\[6pt]a+b+c\quad =\quad {\texttt {(}}a{\texttt {,(}}b{\texttt {,}}c{\texttt {))}}\quad =\quad {\texttt {((}}a{\texttt {,}}b{\texttt {),}}c{\texttt {)}}\end{matrix}}$

It is important to note the last expressions are not equivalent to the 3-place form ${\texttt {(}}a{\texttt {,}}b{\texttt {,}}c{\texttt {)}}.$

Differential Expansions of Propositions

Bird's Eye View

An efficient calculus for the realm of logic represented by boolean functions and elementary propositions makes it feasible to compute the finite differences and the differentials of those functions and propositions.

For example, consider a proposition of the form ${}^{\backprime \backprime }\,p~\mathrm {and} ~q\,{}^{\prime \prime }$ that is graphed as two letters attached to a root node:

Written as a string, this is just the concatenation $p~q$.

The proposition $pq$ may be taken as a boolean function $f(p,q)$ having the abstract type $f:\mathbb {B} \times \mathbb {B} \to \mathbb {B} ,$ where $\mathbb {B} =\{0,1\}$ is read in such a way that $0$ means $\mathrm {false}$ and $1$ means $\mathrm {true} .$

Imagine yourself standing in a fixed cell of the corresponding venn diagram, say, the cell where the proposition $pq$ is true, as shown in the following Figure:

Now ask yourself: What is the value of the proposition $pq$ at a distance of $\mathrm {d} p$ and $\mathrm {d} q$ from the cell $pq$ where you are standing?

Don't think about it — just compute:

The cactus formula ${\texttt {(}}p{\texttt {,}}\mathrm {d} p{\texttt {)(}}q{\texttt {,}}\mathrm {d} q{\texttt {)}}$ and its corresponding graph arise by substituting $p+\mathrm {d} p$ for $p$ and $q+\mathrm {d} q$ for $q$ in the boolean product or logical conjunction $pq$ and writing the result in the two dialects of cactus syntax. This follows from the fact that the boolean sum $p+\mathrm {d} p$ is equivalent to the logical operation of exclusive disjunction, which parses to a cactus graph of the following form:

Next question: What is the difference between the value of the proposition $pq$ over there, at a distance of $\mathrm {d} p$ and $\mathrm {d} q,$ and the value of the proposition $pq$ where you are standing, all expressed in the form of a general formula, of course? Here is the appropriate formulation:

There is one thing that I ought to mention at this point: Computed over $\mathbb {B} ,$ plus and minus are identical operations. This will make the relation between the differential and the integral parts of the appropriate calculus slightly stranger than usual, but we will get into that later.

Last question, for now: What is the value of this expression from your current standpoint, that is, evaluated at the point where $pq$ is true? Well, substituting $1$ for $p$ and $1$ for $q$ in the graph amounts to erasing the labels $p$ and $q,$ as shown here:

And this is equivalent to the following graph:

We have just met with the fact that the differential of the and is the or of the differentials.

${\begin{matrix}p~\mathrm {and} ~q&\quad &{\xrightarrow {\quad \mathrm {Diff} \quad }}&\quad &\mathrm {d} p~\mathrm {or} ~\mathrm {d} q\end{matrix}}$

It will be necessary to develop a more refined analysis of that statement directly, but that is roughly the nub of it.

If the form of the above statement reminds you of De Morgan's rule, it is no accident, as differentiation and negation turn out to be closely related operations. Indeed, one can find discussions of logical difference calculus in the Boole–De Morgan correspondence and Peirce also made use of differential operators in a logical context, but the exploration of these ideas has been hampered by a number of factors, not the least of which has been the lack of a syntax that was adequate to handle the complexity of expressions that evolve.

Worm's Eye View

Let's run through the initial example again, keeping an eye on the meanings of the formulas which develop along the way.  We begin with a proposition or a boolean function $f(p,q)=pq.$

A function like this has an abstract type and a concrete type.  The abstract type is what we invoke when we write things like $f:\mathbb {B} \times \mathbb {B} \to \mathbb {B}$ or $f:\mathbb {B} ^{2}\to \mathbb {B} .$ The concrete type takes into account the qualitative dimensions or the “units” of the case, which can be explained as follows.

Let $P$ be the set of values $\{{\texttt {(}}p{\texttt {)}},~p\}~=~\{\mathrm {not} ~p,~p\}~\cong ~\mathbb {B} .$

Let $Q$ be the set of values $\{{\texttt {(}}q{\texttt {)}},~q\}~=~\{\mathrm {not} ~q,~q\}~\cong ~\mathbb {B} .$

Then interpret the usual propositions about $p,q$ as functions of the concrete type $f:P\times Q\to \mathbb {B} .$

We are going to consider various operators on these functions. Here, an operator $\mathrm {F}$ is a function that takes one function $f$ into another function $\mathrm {F} f.$

The first couple of operators that we need to consider are logical analogues of the pair that play a founding role in the classical finite difference calculus, namely:

The difference operator $\Delta ,$ written here as $\mathrm {D} .$

The enlargement operator $\mathrm {E} ,$ written here as $\mathrm {E} .$

These days, $\mathrm {E}$ is more often called the shift operator.

In order to describe the universe in which these operators operate, it is necessary to enlarge the original universe of discourse. Starting from the initial space $X=P\times Q,$ its (first order) differential extension $\mathrm {E} X$ is constructed according to the following specifications:

${\begin{array}{rcc}\mathrm {E} X&=&X\times \mathrm {d} X\end{array}}$

where:

${\begin{array}{rcc}X&=&P\times Q\\[4pt]\mathrm {d} X&=&\mathrm {d} P\times \mathrm {d} Q\\[4pt]\mathrm {d} P&=&\{{\texttt {(}}\mathrm {d} p{\texttt {)}},~\mathrm {d} p\}\\[4pt]\mathrm {d} Q&=&\{{\texttt {(}}\mathrm {d} q{\texttt {)}},~\mathrm {d} q\}\end{array}}$

The interpretations of these new symbols can be diverse, but the easiest option for now is just to say that $\mathrm {d} p$ means “change $p$” and $\mathrm {d} q$ means “change $q$”.

Drawing a venn diagram for the differential extension $\mathrm {E} X=X\times \mathrm {d} X$ requires four logical dimensions, $P,Q,\mathrm {d} P,\mathrm {d} Q,$ but it is possible to project a suggestion of what the differential features $\mathrm {d} p$ and $\mathrm {d} q$ are about on the 2-dimensional base space $X=P\times Q$ by drawing arrows that cross the boundaries of the basic circles in the venn diagram for $X,$ reading an arrow as $\mathrm {d} p$ if it crosses the boundary between $p$ and ${\texttt {(}}p{\texttt {)}}$ in either direction and reading an arrow as $\mathrm {d} q$ if it crosses the boundary between $q$ and ${\texttt {(}}q{\texttt {)}}$ in either direction.

Propositions are formed on differential variables, or any combination of ordinary logical variables and differential logical variables, in the same ways that propositions are formed on ordinary logical variables alone. For example, the proposition ${\texttt {(}}\mathrm {d} p{\texttt {(}}\mathrm {d} q{\texttt {))}}$ says the same thing as $\mathrm {d} p\Rightarrow \mathrm {d} q,$ in other words, that there is no change in $p$ without a change in $q.$

Given the proposition $f(p,q)$ over the space $X=P\times Q,$ the (first order) enlargement of $f$ is the proposition $\mathrm {E} f$ over the differential extension $\mathrm {E} X$ that is defined by the following formula:

${\begin{matrix}\mathrm {E} f(p,q,\mathrm {d} p,\mathrm {d} q)&=&f(p+\mathrm {d} p,~q+\mathrm {d} q)&=&f({\texttt {(}}p,\mathrm {d} p{\texttt {)}},~{\texttt {(}}q,\mathrm {d} q{\texttt {)}})\end{matrix}}$

In the example $f(p,q)=pq,$ the enlargement $\mathrm {E} f$ is computed as follows:

${\begin{matrix}\mathrm {E} f(p,q,\mathrm {d} p,\mathrm {d} q)&=&(p+\mathrm {d} p)(q+\mathrm {d} q)&=&{\texttt {(}}p,\mathrm {d} p{\texttt {)(}}q,\mathrm {d} q{\texttt {)}}\end{matrix}}$

Given the proposition $f(p,q)$ over $X=P\times Q,$ the (first order) difference of $f$ is the proposition $\mathrm {D} f$ over $\mathrm {E} X$ that is defined by the formula $\mathrm {D} f=\mathrm {E} f-f,$ or, written out in full:

${\begin{matrix}\mathrm {D} f(p,q,\mathrm {d} p,\mathrm {d} q)&=&f(p+\mathrm {d} p,~q+\mathrm {d} q)-f(p,q)&=&{\texttt {(}}f({\texttt {(}}p,\mathrm {d} p{\texttt {)}},~{\texttt {(}}q,\mathrm {d} q{\texttt {)}}),~f(p,q){\texttt {)}}\end{matrix}}$

In the example $f(p,q)=pq,$ the difference $\mathrm {D} f$ is computed as follows:

${\begin{matrix}\mathrm {D} f(p,q,\mathrm {d} p,\mathrm {d} q)&=&(p+\mathrm {d} p)(q+\mathrm {d} q)-pq&=&{\texttt {((}}p,\mathrm {d} p{\texttt {)(}}q,\mathrm {d} q{\texttt {)}},pq{\texttt {)}}\end{matrix}}$

We did not yet go through the trouble to interpret this (first order) difference of conjunction fully, but were happy simply to evaluate it with respect to a single location in the universe of discourse, namely, at the point picked out by the singular proposition $pq,$ that is, at the place where $p=1$ and $q=1.$ This evaluation is written in the form $\mathrm {D} f|_{pq}$ or $\mathrm {D} f|_{(1,1)},$ and we arrived at the locally applicable law that is stated and illustrated as follows:

$f(p,q)~=~pq~=~p~\mathrm {and} ~q\quad \Rightarrow \quad \mathrm {D} f|_{pq}~=~{\texttt {((}}\mathrm {dp} {\texttt {)(}}\mathrm {d} q{\texttt {))}}~=~\mathrm {d} p~\mathrm {or} ~\mathrm {d} q$

The picture shows the analysis of the inclusive disjunction ${\texttt {((}}\mathrm {d} p{\texttt {)(}}\mathrm {d} q{\texttt {))}}$ into the following exclusive disjunction:

${\begin{matrix}\mathrm {d} p~{\texttt {(}}\mathrm {d} q{\texttt {)}}&+&{\texttt {(}}\mathrm {d} p{\texttt {)}}~\mathrm {d} q&+&\mathrm {d} p~\mathrm {d} q\end{matrix}}$

The differential proposition that results may be interpreted to say “change $p$ or change $q$ or both”. And this can be recognized as just what you need to do if you happen to find yourself in the center cell and require a complete and detailed description of ways to escape it.

Panoptic View • Difference Maps

In the last section we computed what is variously called the difference map, the difference proposition, or the local proposition $\mathrm {D} f_{x}$ of the proposition $f(p,q)=pq$ at the point $x$ where $p=1$ and $q=1.$

In the universe $X=P\times Q,$ the four propositions $pq,~p{\texttt {(}}q{\texttt {)}},~{\texttt {(}}p{\texttt {)}}q,~{\texttt {(}}p{\texttt {)(}}q{\texttt {)}}$ indicating the “cells”, or the smallest regions of the venn diagram, are called singular propositions.  These serve as an alternative notation for naming the points $(1,1),~(1,0),~(0,1),~(0,0),$ respectively.

Thus we can write $\mathrm {D} f_{x}=\mathrm {D} f|_{x}=\mathrm {D} f|_{(1,1)}=\mathrm {D} f|_{pq},$ so long as we know the frame of reference in force.

In the example $f(p,q)=pq,$ the value of the difference proposition $\mathrm {D} f_{x}$ at each of the four points in $x\in X$ may be computed in graphical fashion as shown below:

The easy way to visualize the values of these graphical expressions is just to notice the following equivalents:

Laying out the arrows on the augmented venn diagram, one gets a picture of a differential vector field.

The Figure shows the points of the extended universe $\mathrm {E} X=P\times Q\times \mathrm {d} P\times \mathrm {d} Q$ indicated by the difference map $\mathrm {D} f:\mathrm {E} X\to \mathbb {B} ,$ namely, the following six points or singular propositions.

${\begin{array}{rcccc}1.&p&q&\mathrm {d} p&\mathrm {d} q\\2.&p&q&\mathrm {d} p&{\texttt {(}}\mathrm {d} q{\texttt {)}}\\3.&p&q&{\texttt {(}}\mathrm {d} p{\texttt {)}}&\mathrm {d} q\\4.&p&{\texttt {(}}q{\texttt {)}}&{\texttt {(}}\mathrm {d} p{\texttt {)}}&\mathrm {d} q\\5.&{\texttt {(}}p{\texttt {)}}&q&\mathrm {d} p&{\texttt {(}}\mathrm {d} q{\texttt {)}}\\6.&{\texttt {(}}p{\texttt {)}}&{\texttt {(}}q{\texttt {)}}&\mathrm {d} p&\mathrm {d} q\end{array}}$

The information borne by $\mathrm {D} f$ should be clear enough from a survey of these six points — they tell you what you have to do from each point of $X$ in order to change the value borne by $f(p,q),$ that is, the move you have to make in order to reach a point where the value of the proposition $f(p,q)$ is different from what it is where you started.

We have been studying the action of the difference operator $\mathrm {D}$ on propositions of the form $f:P\times Q\to \mathbb {B} ,$ as illustrated by the example $f(p,q)=pq$ that is known in logic as the conjunction of $p$ and $q.$ The resulting difference map $\mathrm {D} f$ is a (first order) differential proposition, that is, a proposition of the form $\mathrm {D} f:P\times Q\times \mathrm {d} P\times \mathrm {d} Q\to \mathbb {B} .$

Abstracting from the augmented venn diagram that shows how the models or satisfying interpretations of $\mathrm {D} f$ distribute over the extended universe of discourse $\mathrm {E} X=P\times Q\times \mathrm {d} P\times \mathrm {d} Q,$ the difference map $\mathrm {D} f$ can be represented in the form of a digraph or directed graph, one whose points are labeled with the elements of $X=P\times Q$ and whose arrows are labeled with the elements of $\mathrm {d} X=\mathrm {d} P\times \mathrm {d} Q,$ as shown in the following Figure.

${\begin{array}{rcccccc}f&=&p&\cdot &q\\[4pt]\mathrm {D} f&=&p&\cdot &q&\cdot &{\texttt {((}}\mathrm {d} p{\texttt {)(}}\mathrm {d} q{\texttt {))}}\\[4pt]&+&p&\cdot &{\texttt {(}}q{\texttt {)}}&\cdot &~~{\texttt {(}}\mathrm {d} p{\texttt {)}}~~\mathrm {d} q~~~~\\[4pt]&+&{\texttt {(}}p{\texttt {)}}&\cdot &q&\cdot &~~~~\mathrm {d} p~~{\texttt {(}}\mathrm {d} q{\texttt {)}}~~\\[4pt]&+&{\texttt {(}}p{\texttt {)}}&\cdot &{\texttt {(}}q{\texttt {)}}&\cdot &~~\mathrm {d} p~~~~\mathrm {d} q~~\end{array}}$

Any proposition worth its salt can be analyzed from many different points of view, any one of which has the potential to reveal an unsuspected aspect of the proposition's meaning.  We will encounter more and more of these alternative readings as we go.

Panoptic View • Enlargement Maps

The enlargement or shift operator $\mathrm {E}$ exhibits a wealth of interesting and useful properties in its own right, so it pays to examine a few of the more salient features that play out on the surface of our initial example, $f(p,q)=pq.$

A suitably generic definition of the extended universe of discourse is afforded by the following set-up:

${\begin{array}{lccl}{\text{Let}}&X&=&X_{1}\times \ldots \times X_{k}.\\[6pt]{\text{Let}}&\mathrm {d} X&=&\mathrm {d} X_{1}\times \ldots \times \mathrm {d} X_{k}.\\[6pt]{\text{Then}}&\mathrm {E} X&=&X\times \mathrm {d} X\\[6pt]&&=&X_{1}\times \ldots \times X_{k}~\times ~\mathrm {d} X_{1}\times \ldots \times \mathrm {d} X_{k}\end{array}}$

For a proposition of the form $f:X_{1}\times \ldots \times X_{k}\to \mathbb {B} ,$ the (first order) enlargement of $f$ is the proposition $\mathrm {E} f:\mathrm {E} X\to \mathbb {B}$ that is defined by the following equation:

${\begin{matrix}\mathrm {E} f(x_{1},\ldots ,x_{k},\mathrm {d} x_{1},\ldots ,\mathrm {d} x_{k})&=&f(x_{1}+\mathrm {d} x_{1},\ldots ,x_{k}+\mathrm {d} x_{k})&=&f({\texttt {(}}x_{1}{\texttt {,}}\mathrm {d} x_{1}{\texttt {)}},\ldots ,{\texttt {(}}x_{k}{\texttt {,}}\mathrm {d} x_{k}{\texttt {)}})\end{matrix}}$

The differential variables $\mathrm {d} x_{j}$ are boolean variables of the same basic type as the ordinary variables $x_{j}.$ Although it is conventional to distinguish the (first order) differential variables with the operative prefix “$\mathrm {d}$” this way of notating differential variables is entirely optional. It is their existence in particular relations to the initial variables, not their names, that defines them as differential variables.

In the example of logical conjunction, $f(p,q)=pq,$ the enlargement $\mathrm {E} f$ is formulated as follows:

${\begin{matrix}\mathrm {E} f(p,q,\mathrm {d} p,\mathrm {d} q)&=&(p+\mathrm {d} p)(q+\mathrm {d} q)&=&{\texttt {(}}p{\texttt {,}}\mathrm {d} p{\texttt {)(}}q{\texttt {,}}\mathrm {d} q{\texttt {)}}\end{matrix}}$

Given that this expression uses nothing more than the boolean ring operations of addition and multiplication, it is permissible to “multiply things out” in the usual manner to arrive at the following result:

${\begin{matrix}\mathrm {E} f(p,q,\mathrm {d} p,\mathrm {d} q)&=&p~q&+&p~\mathrm {d} q&+&q~\mathrm {d} p&+&\mathrm {d} p~\mathrm {d} q\end{matrix}}$

To understand what the enlarged or shifted proposition means in logical terms, it serves to go back and analyze the above expression for $\mathrm {E} f$ in the same way that we did for $\mathrm {D} f.$ Toward that end, the value of $\mathrm {E} f_{x}$ at each $x\in X$ may be computed in graphical fashion as shown below:

Given the data that develops in this form of analysis, the disjoined ingredients can now be folded back into a boolean expansion or a disjunctive normal form (DNF) that is equivalent to the enlarged proposition $\mathrm {E} f.$

${\begin{matrix}\mathrm {E} f&=&pq\cdot \mathrm {E} f_{pq}&+&p(q)\cdot \mathrm {E} f_{p(q)}&+&(p)q\cdot \mathrm {E} f_{(p)q}&+&(p)(q)\cdot \mathrm {E} f_{(p)(q)}\end{matrix}}$

Here is a summary of the result, illustrated by means of a digraph picture, where the “no change” element $(\mathrm {d} p)(\mathrm {d} q)$ is drawn as a loop at the point $p~q.$

${\begin{array}{rcccccc}f&=&p&\cdot &q\\[4pt]\mathrm {E} f&=&p&\cdot &q&\cdot &(\mathrm {d} p)(\mathrm {d} q)\\[4pt]&+&p&\cdot &(q)&\cdot &(\mathrm {d} p)~\mathrm {d} q~\\[4pt]&+&(p)&\cdot &q&\cdot &~\mathrm {d} p~(\mathrm {d} q)\\[4pt]&+&(p)&\cdot &(q)&\cdot &~\mathrm {d} p~~\mathrm {d} q~\end{array}}$

We may understand the enlarged proposition $\mathrm {E} f$ as telling us all the different ways to reach a model of the proposition $f$ from each point of the universe $X.$

---

• Overview • Part 1 • Part 2 • Part 3 • Document History •

---