DUKE 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2016 
 
 https://archive.org/details/investigationofl01bool 
 
AN INVESTIGATION 
 
 THE LAWS OF THOUGHT 
 
AN INVESTIGATION 
 
 OF 
 
 THE LAWS OF THOUGHT 
 
 ON WHICH ARE FOUNDED 
 
 THE MATHEMATICAL THE0E1ES OF LOGIC 
 AND PBOBABILITIES. 
 
 GEORGE BOOLE, LL. D. 
 
 PROFESSOR OF MATHEMATICS IN QUEEN’S COLLEGE, CORK. 
 
 DOVER PUBLICATIONS, INC. 
 
First American Printing 
 of the 1854 edition with all corrections 
 made within the text 
 
 DOVER PUBLICATIONS, INC. 
 
 1780 BROADWAY, NEW YORK 19 , N. Y. 
 
 Printed and bound in the United States 
 of America 
 
no 
 
 37 zm 
 
 TO 
 
 JOHN RY ALL, LL. D. 
 
 VICE-PRESIDENT AND PROFESSOR OF GREEK 
 IN QUEEN’S COLLEGE, CORK, 
 
 THIS WORK IS INSCRIBED 
 IN TESTIMONY OF FRIENDSHIP AND ESTEEM 
 
 *, oq 
 
 o* +-J -jl*s 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 f I ''HE following work is not a republication of a former trea- 
 tise by the Author, entitled, “ The Mathematical Analysis 
 of Logic.” Its earlier portion is indeed devoted to the same 
 object, and it begins by establishing the same system of funda- 
 mental laws, but its methods are more general, and its range of 
 applications far wider. It exhibits the results, matured by some 
 years of study and reflection, of a principle of investigation re- 
 lating to the intellectual operations, the previous exposition of 
 which was written within a few weeks after its idea had been 
 conceived. 
 
 That portion of this work which relates to Logic presupposes 
 in its reader a knowledge of the most important terms of the 
 science, as usually treated, and of its general object. On these 
 points there is no better guide than Archbishop Whately’s 
 “ Elements of Logic,” or Mr. Thomson’s “ Outlines of the Laws 
 of Thought.” To the former of these treatises, the present re- 
 vival of attention to this class of studies seems in a great measure 
 due. Some acquaintance with the principles of Algebra is also 
 requisite, but it is not necessary that this application should have 
 been carried beyond the solution of simple equations. For the 
 study of those chapters which relate to the theory of probabilities, 
 a somewhat larger knowledge of Algebra is required, and espe- 
 cr<o on 
 
TKEFACE. 
 
 daily of the doctrine of Elimination, and of the solution of Equa- 
 tions containing more than one unknown quantity. Preliminary 
 information upon the subject-matter will be found in the special 
 treatises on Probabilities in “ Lardner’s Cabinet Cyclopaedia,” 
 and the “ Library of Useful Knowledge,” the former of these by 
 Professor De Morgan, the latter by Sir John Lubbock; and in 
 an interesting series of Letters translated from the French of 
 M. Quetelet. Other references will be given in the work. On a 
 first perusal the reader may omit at his discretion, Chapters x., 
 xiv., and xix., together with any of the applications which he 
 may deem uninviting or irrelevant. 
 
 In different parts of the work, and especially in the notes to 
 the concluding chapter, will be found references to various writers, 
 ancient and modern, chiefly designed to illustrate a certain view of 
 the history of philosophy. ' With respect to these, the Author 
 thinks it proper to add, that he has in no instance given a cita- 
 tion which he has not believed upon careful examination to be 
 supported either by parallel authorities, or by the general tenor 
 of the work from which it was taken. While he would gladly 
 have avoided the introduction of anything which might by pos- 
 sibility be construed into the parade of learning, he felt it to be 
 due both to his subject and to the truth, that the statements in 
 the text should be accompanied by the means of verification. 
 And if now, in bringing to its close a labour, of the extent of 
 which few persons will be able to judge from its apparent fruits, 
 he may be permitted to speak for a single moment of the feelings 
 with which he has pursued, and with Avhich he now lays aside, 
 his task, he would say, that he never doubted that it was worthy of 
 his best efforts ; that he felt that whatever of truth it might bring 
 to light was not a private or arbitrary thing, not dependent, as to 
 its essence, upon any human opinion. He was fully aware that 
 learned and able men maintained opinions upon the subject of 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Logic directly opposed to the views upon which the entire argu- 
 ment and procedure of his work rested. While he believed those 
 opinions to be erroneous, he was conscious that his own views 
 might insensibly be warped by an influence of another kind. He 
 felt in an especial manner the danger of that intellectual bias which 
 long attention to a particular aspect of truth tends to produce. 
 But he trusts that out of this conflict of opinions the same truth 
 will but emerge the more free from any personal admixture ; that 
 its different parts will be seen in their just proportion; and that 
 none of them will eventually be too highly valued or too lightly 
 regarded because of the prejudices which may attach to the 
 mere form of its exposition. 
 
 To his valued friend, the Rev. George Stephens Dickson, 
 of Lincoln, the Author desires to record his obligations for much 
 kind assistance in the revision of this work, and for some impor- 
 tant suggestions. 
 
 5, Grenville-place, Cork, 
 
 Nov. 30 th. 1853. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Nature and Design of this Work, 1 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Signs and their Laws, 24 
 
 CHAPTER IH. 
 
 Derivation of the Laws, 39 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Division of Propositions, 52 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Principles of Symbolical Reasoning, 66 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Of Interpretation, 80 
 
 CHAPTER VTI. 
 
 Of Elimination, 99 
 
 ' CHAPTER VIH. 
 
 Of Reduction, 114 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Methods of Abbreviation, 130 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 Conditions of a Perfect Method, ... 150 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 Of Secondary Propositions, 159 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Methods in Secondary Propositions, 177 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 Clarke and Spinoza, 185 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 Example of Analysis, 219 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 Of the Aristotelian Logic, 226 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 Of the Theory of Probabilities, 243 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 General Method in Probabilities, 253 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 Elementary Illustrations, 276 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 Of Statistical Conditions, 295 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 Problems on Causes, 320 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 Probability of Judgments, 376 
 
 CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 Constitution of the Intellect, 399 
 
NOTE. 
 
 In Prop. II., p. 261, by the “ absolute probabilities” of the events x, y, z . . is 
 meant simply what the probabilities of those events ought to be, in order that, 
 regarding them as independent, and their probabilities as our only data, the cal- 
 culated probabilities of the same events under the condition V should be p, q, r . . 
 The statement of the appended problem of the urn must be modified in a similar 
 way. The true solution of that problem, as actually stated, is p = cp, q = cq, 
 in which c is the arbitrary probability of the condition that the ball drawn shall 
 be either white, or of marble, or both at once See p. 270, Case II. 
 
 Accordingly, since by the logical reduction the solution of all questions in 
 the theory of probabilities is brought to a form in which, from the probabilities 
 of simple events, s, f, &c. under a given condition, V, it is required to determine 
 the probability of some combination, A, of those events under the same condi- 
 tion, the principle of the demonstration in Prop. IV. is really the following : — 
 “ The probability of such combination A under the condition V must be calcu- 
 lated as if the events s, f, &c. were independent, and possessed of such probabi- 
 lities as would cause the derived probabilities of the said events under the same 
 condition V to be such as are assigned to them in the data.” This principle I 
 regard as axiomatic. At the same time it admits of indefinite verification, as 
 well directly as through the results of the method of which it forms the basis. 
 I think it right to add, that it was in the above form that the principle first pre- 
 sented itself to my mind, and that it is thus that I have always understood it, 
 the error in the particular problem referred to having arisen from inadvertence 
 in the choice of a material illustration. 
 
AN INVESTIGATION 
 
 OF 
 
 THE LAWS OF THOUGHT. 
 

 
 
 
 
AN INVESTIGATION 
 
 OF 
 
 THE LAWS OE THOUGHT. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 NATURE AND DESIGN OF THIS WORK. 
 
 1 . r I ''HE design of the following treatise is to investigate the 
 fundamental laws of those operations of the mind by which 
 reasoning is performed; to give expression to them in the symboli- 
 cal language of a Calculus, and upon this foundation to establish the 
 science of Logic and construct its method ; to make that method 
 itself the basis of a general method for the application of the ma- 
 thematical doctrine of Probabilities ; and, finally, to collect from 
 the various elements of truth brought to view in the course of 
 these inquiries some probable intimations concerning the nature 
 and constitution of the human mind. 
 
 2. That this design is not altogether a novel one it is almost 
 needless to remark, and it is well known that to its two main 
 practical divisions of Logic and Probabilities a very considerable 
 share of the attention of philosophers has been directed. In its 
 ancient and scholastic form, indeed, the subject of Logic stands 
 almost exclusively associated with the great name of Aristotle. 
 As it was presented to ancient Greece in the partly technical, 
 partly metaphysical disquisitions of the Organon, such, with 
 scarcely any essential change, it has continued to the present 
 day. The stream of original inquiry has rather been directed 
 towards questions of general philosophy, which, though they 
 
2 NATURE AND DESIGN OF THIS WORK. [CHAP. I. 
 
 have arisen among the disputes of the logicians, have outgrown 
 their origin, and given to successive ages of speculation their pe- 
 culiar bent and character. The eras of Porphyry and Proclus, 
 of Anselm and Abelard, of Ramus, and of Descartes, together 
 with the final protests of Bacon and Locke, rise up before the 
 mind as examples of the remoter influences of the study upon the 
 course of human thought, partly in suggesting topics fertile of 
 discussion, partly in provoking remonstrance against its own un- 
 due pretensions. The history of the theory of Probabilities, on 
 the other hand, has presented far more of that character of steady- 
 growth which belongs to science. In its origin the early genius 
 of Pascal, — in its maturer stages of development the most recon- 
 dite of all the mathemat ical speculations of Laplace, — were direct- 
 ed to its improvement ; to omit here the mention of other names 
 scarcely less distinguished than these. As the study of Logic has 
 been remarkable for the kindred questions of Metaphysics to 
 which it has given occasion, so that of Probabilities also has been 
 remarkable for the impulse which it has bestowed upon the 
 higher departments of mathematical science. Each of these sub- 
 jects has, moreover, been justly regarded as having relation to a 
 speculative as well as to a practical end. To enable us to deduce 
 correct inferences from given premises is not the only object of 
 Logic ; nor is it the sole claim of the theory of Probabilities that 
 it teaches us how to establish the business of life assurance on a 
 secure basis ; and how to condense whatever is valuable in the 
 records of innumerable observations in astronomy, in physics, or 
 in that field of social inquiry which is fast assuming a character 
 of great importance. Both these studies have also an interest 
 of another kind, derived from the light which they shed upon 
 the intellectual powers. They instruct us concerning the mode 
 in which language and number serve as instrumental aids to the 
 processes of reasoning ; they reveal to us in some degree the 
 connexion between different powers of our common intellect ; 
 they set before us what, in the two domains of demonstrative and 
 of probable knowledge, are the essential standards of truth and 
 correctness, — standards not derived from without, but deeply 
 founded in the constitution of the human faculties. These ends 
 of speculation yield neither in interest nor in dignity, nor yet, it 
 
3 
 
 CHAP. I.] NATURE AND DESIGN OF THIS WORK. 
 
 may be added, in importance, to the practical objects, with the 
 pursuit of which they have been historically associated. To un- 
 fold the secret laws and relations of those high faculties of 
 thought by which all beyond the merely perceptive knowledge 
 of the world and of ourselves is attained or matured, is an object 
 which does not stand in need of commendation to a rational 
 mind. 
 
 3. But although certain parts of the design of this work have 
 been entertained by others, its general conception, its method, 
 and, to a considerable extent, its results, are believed to be ori- 
 ginal. For this reason I shall offer, in the present chapter, some 
 preparatory statements and explanations, in order that the real 
 aim of this treatise may be understood, and the treatment of its 
 subject facilitated. 
 
 It is designed, in the first place, to investigate the fundamen- 
 tal laws of those operations of the mind by which reasoning is 
 performed. It is unnecessary to enter here into any argument to 
 prove that the operations of the mind are in a certain real sense 
 subject to laws, and that a science of the mind is therefore possible. 
 If these are questions which admit of doubt, that doubt is not 
 to be met by an endeavour to settle the point of dispute a priori, 
 but by directing the attention of the objector to the evidence of 
 actual laws, by referring him to an actual science. And thus the 
 solution of that doubt would belong not to the introduction to 
 this treatise, but to the treatise itself. Let the assumption be 
 granted, that a science of the intellectual powers is possible, and 
 let us for a moment consider how the knowledge of it is to be 
 obtained. 
 
 4. Like all other sciences, that of the intellectual operations 
 must primarily rest upon observation, — the subject of such ob- 
 servation being the very operations and processes of which we 
 desire to determine the laws. But while the necessity of a foun- 
 dation in experience is thus a condition common to all sciences, 
 there are some special differences between the modes in which 
 this principle becomes available for the determination of general 
 truths when the subject of inquiry is the mind, and when the 
 subject is external nature. To these it is necessary to direct 
 attention. 
 
4 
 
 NATURE AND DESIGN OF THIS WORK. [CHAP. I. 
 
 The general laws of Nature are not, for the most part, imme- 
 diate objects of perception. They are either inductive inferences 
 from a large body of facts, the common truth in which they ex- 
 press, or, in their origin at least, physical hypotheses of a causal 
 nature serving to explain phasnomena with undeviating precision, 
 and to enable us to predict new combinations of them. They 
 are in all cases, and in the strictest sense of the term, probable 
 conclusions, approaching, indeed, ever and ever nearer to cer- 
 tainty, as they receive more and more of the confirmation of ex- 
 perience. But of the character of probability, in the strict and 
 proper sense of that term, they are never wholly divested. On the 
 other hand, the knowledge of the laws of the mind does not require 
 as its basis any extensive collection of observations. The general 
 truth is seen in the particular instance, and it is not confirmed 
 by the repetition of instances. We may illustrate this position 
 by an obvious example. It may be a question whether that for- 
 mula of reasoning, which is called the dictum of Aristotle, de omni 
 et nullo, expresses a primary law of human reasoning or not ; but 
 it is no question that it expresses a general truth in Logic. Now 
 that truth is made manifest in all its generality by reflection 
 upon a single instance of its application. And this is both an 
 evidence that the particular principle or formula in question is 
 founded upon some general law or laws of the mind, and an illus- 
 tration of the doctrine that the perception of such general truths 
 is not derived from an induction from many instances, but is in- 
 volved in the clear apprehension of a single instance. In con- 
 nexion with this truth is seen the not less important one that 
 our knowledge of the laws upon which the science of the intellec- 
 tual powers rests, whatever may be its extent or its deficiency, is 
 not probable knowledge. For we not only see in the particular 
 example the general truth, but we see it also as a certain truth, — 
 a truth, our confidence in which will not continue to increase 
 with increasing experience of its practical verifications. 
 
 5. But if the general truths of Logic are of such a nature that 
 when presented to the mind they at once command assent, 
 wherein consists the difficulty of constructing the Science of 
 Logic ? Not, it may be answered, in collecting the materials of 
 knowledge, but in discriminating their nature, and determining 
 
5 
 
 CHAP. I.] NATURE AND DESIGN OF THIS WORK. 
 
 their mutual place and relation. All sciences consist of general 
 truths, but of those truths some only are primary and fundamen- 
 tal, others are secondary and derived. The laws of elliptic mo- 
 tion, discovered by Kepler, are general truths in astronomy, but 
 they are not its fundamental truths. And it is so also in the 
 purely mathematical sciences. An almost boundless diversity of 
 theorems, which are known, and an infinite possibility of others, 
 as yet unknown, rest together upon the foundation of a few sim- 
 ple axioms ; and yet these are all general truths. It may be 
 added, that they are truths which to an intelligence sufficiently 
 refined would shine forth in their own unborrowed light, with- 
 out the need of those connecting links of thought, those steps 
 of wearisome and often painful deduction, by which the know- 
 ledge of them is actually acquired. Let us define as fundamental 
 those laws and principles from which all other general truths of 
 science may be deduced, and into which they may all be again 
 resolved. Shall we then err in regarding that as the true science 
 of Logic which, laying down certain elementary laws, confirmed 
 by the very testimony of the mind, permits us thence to deduce, 
 by uniform processes, the entire chain of its secondary conse- 
 quences, and furnishes, for its practical applications, methods of 
 perfect generality ? Let it be considered whether in any science, 
 viewed either as a system of truth or as the foundation of a prac- 
 tical art, there can properly be any other test of the completeness 
 and the fundamental character of its laws, than the completeness 
 of its system of derived truths, and the generality of the methods 
 which it serves to establish. Other questions may indeed pre- 
 sent themselves. Convenience, prescription, individual prefe- 
 rence, may urge their claims and deserve attention. But as 
 respects the question of what constitutes science in its abstract 
 integrity, I apprehend that qo other considerations than the 
 above are properly of any value. 
 
 6. It is designed, in the next place, to give expression in this 
 treatise to the fundamental laws of reasoning in the symbolical 
 language of a Calculus. Upon this head it will suffice to say, that 
 those laws are such as to suggest this mode of expression, and 
 to give to it a peculiar and exclusive fitness for the ends in view. 
 
6 
 
 NATURE AND DESIGN OF THIS WORK. [CHAP. I. 
 
 There is not only a close analogy between the operations of the 
 mind in general reasoning and its operations in the particular 
 science of Algebra, but there is to a considerable extent an exact 
 agreement in the laws by which the two classes of operations are 
 conducted. Of course the laws must in both cases be determined 
 independently ; any formal agreement between them can only be 
 established a posteriori by actual comparison. To borrow the 
 notation of the science of Number, and then assume that in its 
 new application the laws by which its use is governed will remain 
 unchanged, would be mere hypothesis. There exist, indeed, 
 certain general principles founded in the very nature of language, 
 by which the use of symbols, which are but the elements of 
 scientific language, is determined. To a certain extent these 
 elements are arbitrary. Their interpretation is purely conven- 
 tional : we are permitted to employ them in whatever sense we 
 please. But this permission is limited by two indispensable con- 
 ditions, — first, that from the sense once conventionally established 
 we never, in the same process of reasoning, depart ; secondly, 
 that the laws by which the process is conducted be founded ex- 
 clusively upon the above fixed sense or meaning of the symbols 
 employed. In accordance with these principles, any agreement 
 which may be established between the laws of the symbols of 
 Logic and those of Algebra can but issue in an agreement of pro- 
 cesses. The two provinces of interpretation remain apart and 
 independent, each subject to its own laws and conditions. 
 
 Now the actual investigations of the following pages exhibit 
 Logic, in its practical aspect, as a system of processes carried on 
 by the aid of symbols having a definite interpretation, and sub- 
 ject to laws founded upon that interpretation alone. But at the 
 same time they exhibit those laws as identical in form with the 
 laws of the general symbols of algebra, with this single addition, 
 viz., that the symbols of Logic are further subject to a special 
 law (Chap, ii.), to which the symbols of quantity, as such, are 
 not subject. Upon the nature and the evidence of this law it is not 
 purposed here to dwell. These questions will be fully discussed 
 in a future page. But as constituting the essential ground of 
 difference between those forms of inference with which Logic is 
 
7 
 
 CHAP. I.] NATURE AND DESIGN OF THIS WORK. 
 
 conversant, and those which present themselves in the particular 
 science of Number, the law in question is deserving of more 
 than a passing notice. It may be said that it lies at the very 
 foundation of general reasoning, — that it governs those intellec- 
 tual acts of conception or of imagination which are preliminary to 
 the processes of logical deduction, and that it gives to the pro- 
 cesses themselves much of their actual form and expression. It 
 may hence be affirmed that this law constitutes the germ or semi- 
 nal principle, of which every approximation to a general method 
 in Logic is the more or less perfect development. 
 
 7. The principle has already been laid down (5) that the 
 sufficiency and truly fundamental character of any assumed sys- 
 tem of laws in the science of Logic must partly be seen in the 
 perfection of the methods to which they conduct us. It remains, 
 then, to consider what the requirements of a general method in 
 Logic are, and how far they are fulfilled in the system of the pre- 
 sent work. 
 
 Logic is conversant with two kinds of relations, — relations 
 among things, and relations among facts. But as facts are ex- 
 pressed by propositions, the latter species of relation may, at 
 least for the purposes of Logic, be resolved into a relation among 
 propositions. The assertion that the fact or event A is an inva- 
 riable consequent of the fact or event B may, to this extent at 
 least, be regarded as equivalent to the assertion, that the truth 
 of the proposition affirming the occurrence of the event B always 
 implies the truth of the proposition affirming the occurrence of 
 the event A. Instead, then, of saying that Logic is conversant 
 with relations among things and relations among facts, we are 
 permitted to say that it is concerned with relatione among things 
 and relations among propositions. Of the former kind of relations 
 we have an example in the proposition — “ All men are mortal 
 of the latter kind in the proposition — “ If the sun is totally 
 eclipsed, the stars will become visible.” The one expresses a re- 
 lation between “men” and “ mortal beings,” the other between 
 the elementary propositions — “The sun is totally eclipsed;” 
 “ The stars will become visible.” Among such relations I sup- 
 pose to be included those which affirm or deny existence with 
 respect to things, and those which affirm or deny truth with re- 
 
8 
 
 NATURE AND DESIGN OF THIS WORK. [CHAP. I. 
 
 spect to propositions. Now let those things or those propositions 
 among which relation is expressed be termed the elements of 
 the propositions by which such relation is expressed. Proceed- 
 ing from this definition, we may then say that the premises of any 
 logical argument express given relations among certain elements, 
 and that the conclusion must express an implied relation among 
 those elements, or among a part of them, i. e. a relation implied 
 by or inferentially involved in the premises. 
 
 8. Now this being premised, the requirements of a general 
 method in Logic seem to be the following : — 
 
 1st. As the conclusion must express a relation among the 
 whole or among a part of the elements involved in the premises, 
 it is requisite that we .should possess the means of eliminating 
 those elements which we desire not to appear in the conclusion, 
 and of determining the whole amount of relation implied by the 
 premises among the elements which we wish to retain. Those 
 elements which do not present themselves in the conclusion are, 
 in the language of the common Logic, called middle terms ; and 
 the species of elimination exemplified in treatises on Logic consists 
 in deducing from two propositions, containing a common element 
 or middle term, a conclusion connecting the two remaining terms. 
 But the problem of elimination, as contemplated in this work, 
 possesses a much wider scope. It proposes not merely the elimi- 
 nation of one middle term from two propositions, but the elimi- 
 nation generally of middle terms from propositions, without 
 regard to the number of either of them, or to the nature of .their 
 connexion. To this object neither the processes of Logic nor 
 those of Algebra, in their actual state, present any strict parallel. 
 In the latter science the problem of elimination is known to be 
 limited in the following manner : — From two equations we can 
 eliminate one symbol of quantity ; from three equations two 
 symbols ; and, generally, from n equations n - 1 symbols. But 
 though this condition, necessary in Algebra, seems to prevail in 
 the existing Logic also, it has no essential place in Logic as a 
 science. There, no relation whatever can be proved to prevail 
 between the number of terms to be eliminated and the number 
 of propositions from which the elimination is to be effected. 
 From the equation representing a single proposition, any num- 
 
9 
 
 CHAP. I.] NATURE AND DESIGN OF THIS WORK. 
 
 ber of symbols representing terms or elements in Logic may be 
 eliminated ; and from any number of equations representing pro- 
 positions, one or any other number of symbols of this kind may 
 be eliminated in a similar manner. For such elimination there 
 exists one general process applicable to all cases. This is One of 
 the many remarkable consequences of that distinguishing law of 
 the symbols of Logic, to which attention has been already 
 directed. 
 
 2ndly. It should be within the province of a general method 
 in Logic to express the final relation among the elements of the 
 conclusion by any admissible kind of proposition, or in any se- 
 lected order of terms. Among varieties of kind we may reckon 
 those which logicians have designated by the terms categorical, 
 hypothetical, disjunctive, &c. To a choice or selection in the 
 order of the terms, we may refer whatsoever is dependent upon 
 the appearance of particular elements in the subject or in the 
 predicate, in the antecedent or in the consequent, of that propo- 
 sition which forms the “ conclusion.” But waiving the language 
 of the schools, let us consider what really distinct species of 
 problems may present themselves to our notice. We have seen 
 that the elements of the final or inferred relation may either be 
 things or propositions. Suppose the former case ; then it might 
 be required to deduce from the premises a definition or description 
 of some one thing, or class of things, constituting an element of 
 the conclusion in terms of the other things involved in it. Or 
 we might form the conception of some thing or class of things, 
 involving more than one of the elements of the conclusion, and 
 require its expression in terms of the other elements. Again, 
 suppose the elements retained in the conclusion to be propo- 
 sitions, we might desire to ascertain such points as the following, 
 viz., Whether, in virtue of the premises, any of those propo- 
 sitions, taken singly, are true or false ? — Whether particular 
 combinations of them are true or false ? — Whether, assuming a 
 particular proposition to be true, any consequences will follow, 
 and if so, what consequences, with respect to the other propo- 
 sitions ? — Whether any particular condition being assumed with 
 reference to certain of the propositions, any consequences, and 
 what consequences, will follow with respect to the others ? and 
 
10 
 
 NATURE AND DESIGN OF THIS WORK. [CHAP. I. 
 
 so on. I say that these are general questions, which it should 
 fall within the scope or province of a general method in Logic to 
 solve. Perhaps we might include them all under this one state- 
 ment of the final problem of practical Logic. Given a set of 
 premises expressing relations among certain elements, whether 
 things or propositions : required explicitly the whole relation 
 consequent among any of those elements under any proposed 
 conditions, and in any proposed form. That this problem, under 
 all its aspects, is resolvable, will hereafter appear. But it is not 
 for the sake of noticing this fact, that the above inquiry into the 
 nature and the functions of a general method in Logic has been 
 introduced. It is necessary that the reader should apprehend 
 what are the specific ends of the investigation upon which we 
 are entering, as well as the principles which are to guide us to 
 the attainment of them. 
 
 9. Possibly it may here be said that the Logic of Aristotle, 
 in its rules of syllogism and conversion, sets forth the elementary 
 processes of which all reasoning consists, and that beyond these 
 there is neither scope nor occasion for a general method. I have 
 no desire to point out the defects of the common Logic, nor do I 
 wish to refer to it any further than is necessary, in order to place 
 in its true light the nature of the present treatise. With this 
 end alone in view, I would remark : — 1st. That syllogism, con- 
 version, &c., are not the ultimate processes of Logic. It will 
 be shown in this treatise that they are founded upon, and are re- 
 solvable into, ulterior and more simple processes which constitute 
 the real elements of method in Logic. Nor is it true in fact that 
 all inference is reducible to the particular forms of syllogism and 
 conversion. — Vide Chap. xv. 2ndly. If all inference were re- 
 ducible to these two processes (and it has been maintained that 
 it is reducible to syllogism alone), there would still exist the 
 same necessity for a general method. For it would still be re- 
 quisite to determine in what order the processes should succeed 
 each other, as well as their particular nature, in order that the 
 desired relation should be obtained. By the desired relation I 
 mean that full relation which, in virtue of the premises, connects 
 any elements selected out of the premises at will, and which, 
 moreover, expresses that relation in any desired form and order. 
 
CHAP. 1.1 NATURE AND DESIGN OF THIS WORK. 1 1 
 
 If we may judge from the mathematical sciences, which are the 
 most perfect examples of method known, this directive function 
 of Method constitutes its chief office and distinction. The fun- 
 damental processes of arithmetic, for instance, are in themselves 
 but the elements of a possible science. To assign their nature is 
 the first business of its method, but to arrange their succession 
 is its subsequent and higher function. In the more complex 
 examples of logical deduction, and especially in those which form 
 a basis for the solution of difficult questions in the theory of 
 Probabilities, the aid of a directive method, such as a Calculus 
 alone can supply, is indispensable. 
 
 10. Whence it is that the ultimate laws of Logic are mathe- 
 matical in their form ; why they are, except in a single point, 
 identical with the general laws of Number ; and why in that par- 
 ticular point they differ ; — are questions upon which it might not 
 be very remote from presumption to endeavour to pronounce a 
 positive judgment. Probably they lie beyond the reach of our 
 limited faculties. It may, perhaps, be permitted to the mind to 
 attain a knowledge of the laws to which it is itself subject, with- 
 out its being also given to it to understand their ground and 
 origin, or even, except in a very limited degree, to comprehend 
 their fitness for their end, as compared with other and conceivable 
 systems of law. Such knowledge is, indeed, unnecessary for the 
 ends of science, which properly concerns itself with what is, and 
 seeks not for grounds of preference or reasons of appointment. 
 These considerations furnish a sufficient answer to all protests 
 against the exhibition of Logic in the form of a Calculus. It is 
 not because we choose to assign to it such a mode of manifes- 
 tation, but because the ultimate laws of thought render that mode 
 possible, and prescribe its character, and forbid, as it would 
 seem, the perfect manifestation of the science in any other form, 
 that such a mode demands adoption. It is to be remembered 
 that it is the business of science not to create laws, but to discover 
 them. We do not originate the constitution of our own minds, 
 greatly as it may be in our power to modify their character. 
 And as the laws of the human intellect do not depend upon our 
 will, so the forms of the science, of which they constitute the ba- 
 sis, are in all essential regards independent of individual choice. 
 
12 NATURE AND DESIGN OF THIS WORK. [CHAP. I. 
 
 1 1 . Beside the general statement of the principles of the 
 above method, this treatise will exhibit its application to the 
 analysis of a considerable variety of pi’opositions, and of trains of 
 propositions constituting the premises of demonstrative argu- 
 ments. These examples have been selected from various writers, 
 they differ greatly in complexity, and they embrace a wide range 
 of subjects. Though in this particular respect it may appear to 
 some that too great a latitude of choice has been exercised, I do 
 not deem it necessary to offer any apology upon this account. 
 That Logic, as a science, is susceptible of very wide applications 
 is admitted ; but it is equally certain that its ultimate forms and 
 processes are mathematical. Any objection a priori which may 
 therefore be supposed to lie against the adoption of such forms 
 and processes in the discussion of a problem of morals or of ge- 
 neral philosophy must be founded upon misapprehension or false 
 analogy. It is not of the essence of mathematics to be conversant 
 with the ideas of number and quantity. Whether as a general 
 habit of mind it would be desirable to apply symbolical processes 
 to moral argument, is another question. Possibly, as I have 
 elsewhere observed,* the perfection of the method of Logic may 
 be chiefly valuable as an evidence of the speculative truth of its 
 principles. To supersede the employment of common reasoning, 
 or to subject it to the rigour of technical forms, would be the last 
 desire of one who knows the value of that intellectual toil and 
 warfare which imparts to the mind an athletic vigour, and teaches 
 it to contend with difficulties, and to rely upon itself in emer- 
 gencies. Nevertheless, cases may arise in which the value of a 
 scientific procedure, even in those things which fall confessedly 
 under the ordinary dominion of the reason, may be felt and ac- 
 knowledged. Some examples of this kind will be found in the 
 present work. 
 
 12. The general doctrine and method of Logic above ex- 
 plained form also the basis of a theory and corresponding method 
 of Probabilities. Accordingly, the development of such a theory 
 and method, upon the above principles, will constitute a distinct 
 object of the present treatise. Of the nature of this application 
 it may be desirable to give here some account, more especially as 
 
 * Mathematical Analysis of Logic. London : G. Bell. 1847- 
 
CHAP. I.] NATURE AND DESIGN OF THIS WORK. 13 
 
 regards the character of the solutions to which it leads. In con- 
 nexion with this object some further detail will be requisite con- 
 cerning the forms in which the results of the logical analysis are 
 presented. 
 
 The ground of this necessity of a prior method in Logic, as 
 the basis of a theory of Probabilities, may be stated in a few 
 words. Before we can determine the mode in which the expected 
 frequency of occurrence of a particular event is dependent upon 
 the known frequency of occurrence of any other events, we must be 
 acquainted with the mutual dependence of the events themselves. 
 Speaking technically, we must be able to express the event 
 whose probability is sought, as a function of the events whose 
 probabilities are given. Now this explicit determination belongs 
 in all instances to the department of Logic. Probability, how- 
 ever, in its mathematical acceptation, admits of numerical mea- 
 surement. Hence the subject of Probabilities belongs equally to 
 the science of Number and to that of Logic. In recognising the 
 co-ordinate existence of both these elements, the present treatise 
 differs from all previous ones ; and as this difference not only 
 affects the question of the possibility of the solution of problems 
 in a large number of instances, but also introduces new and im- 
 portant elements into the solutions obtained, I deem it necessary 
 to state here, at some length, the peculiar consequences of the 
 theory developed in the following pages. 
 
 13. The measure of the probability of an event is usually 
 defined as a fraction, of which the numerator represents the num- 
 ber of cases favourable to the event, and the denominator the 
 whole number of cases favourable and unfavourable ; all cases 
 being supposed equally likely to happen. That definition is 
 adopted in the present work. At the same time it is shown that 
 there is another aspect of the subject (shortly to be referred to) 
 which might equally be regarded as fundamental, and which 
 would actually lead to the same system of methods and conclu- 
 sions. It may be added, that so far as the received conclusions 
 of the theory of Probabilities extend, and so far as they are con- 
 sequences of its fundamental definitions, they do not differ from 
 the results (supposed to be equally correct in inference) of the 
 method of this work. 
 
14 
 
 NATURE AND DESIGN OF THIS WORK. TcHAP. I. 
 
 Again, although questions in the theory of Probabilities 
 present themselves under various aspects, and may be variously 
 modified by algebraical and other conditions* there seems to be 
 one general type to which all such questions, or so much of each 
 of them as truly belongs to the theory of Probabilities, may be 
 referred. Considered with reference to the data and the qucesi- 
 turn , that type may be described as follows : — 1st. The data are 
 the probabilities of one or more given events, each probability 
 being either that of the absolute fulfilment of the event to which 
 it relates, or the probability of its fulfilment under given sup- 
 posed conditions. 2ndly. The qucesitum, or object sought, is the 
 probability of the fulfilment, absolutely or conditionally, of some 
 other event differing in expression from those in the data, but 
 more or less involving the same elements. As concerns the data, 
 they are either causally given , — as when the probability of a par- 
 ticular throw of a die is deduced from a knowledge of the consti- 
 tution of the piece, — or they are derived from observation of 
 repeated instances of the success or failure of events. In the 
 latter case the probability of an event may be defined as the 
 limit toward which the ratio of the favourable to the whole num- 
 ber of observed cases approaches (the uniformity of nature being 
 presupposed) as the observations are indefinitely continued. 
 Lastly, as concerns the nature or relation of the events in ques- 
 tion, an important distinction remains. Those events are either 
 simple or compound. By a compound event is meant one of 
 which the expression in language, or the conception in thought, 
 depends upon the expression or the conception 1 of other events, 
 which, in relation to it, may be regarded as simple events. To 
 say “ it rains,” or to say “ it thunders,” is to express the occur- 
 rence of a simple event; but to say “it rains and thunders,” or 
 to say “ it either rains or thunders,” is to express that of a com 1 
 pound event. For the expression of that event depends upon 
 the elementary expressions, “it rains,” “ it thunders.” The cri- 
 terion of simple events is not, therefore, any supposed simplicity 
 in their nature. It is founded solely on the mode of their ex- 
 pression in language or conception in thought. 
 
 14. Now one general problem, which the existing theory of 
 Probabilities enables us to solve, is the following, viz. : — Given 
 
15 
 
 CHAP. I.] NATURE AND DESIGN OF THIS WORK. 
 
 the probabilities of any simple events : required the probability of 
 a given compound event, i. e. of an event compounded in a given 
 manner out of the given simple events. The problem can also 
 be solved when the compound event, whose probability is re- 
 quired, is subjected to given conditions, i. e. to conditions de- 
 pendent also in a given manner on the given simple events. 
 Beside this general problem, there exist also particular problems 
 of which the principle of solution is known. Various questions 
 relating to causes and effects can be solved by known methods 
 under the particular hypothesis that the causes are mutually ex- 
 clusive, but apparently not otherwise. Beyond this it is not 
 clear that any advance has been made toward the solution of 
 what may be regarded as the general problem of the science, viz. : 
 Given the probabilities of any events, simple or compound, con- 
 ditioned or unconditioned : required the probability of any other 
 event equally arbitrary in expression and conception. In the 
 statement of this question it is not even postulated that the 
 events whose probabilities are given, and the one whose proba- 
 bility is sought, should involve some common elements, because 
 it is the office of a method to determine whether the data of a 
 problem are sufficient for the end in view, and to indicate, when 
 they are not so, wherein the deficiency consists. 
 
 This problem, in the most unrestricted form of its statement, 
 is resolvable by the method of the present treatise ; or, to speak 
 more precisely, its theoretical solution is completely given, and 
 its practical solution is brought to depend only upon processes 
 purely mathematical, such as the resolution and analysis of equa- 
 tions. The order and character of the general solution may be 
 thus described. 
 
 15. In the first place it is always possible, by the preliminary 
 method of the Calculus of Logic, to express the event whose 
 probability is sought as a logical function of the events whose 
 probabilities are given. The result is of the following character : 
 Suppose that X represents the event whose probability is sought, 
 A , B, C, &c. the events whose probabilities are given, those 
 events being either simple or compound. Then the ivhole rela- 
 tion of the event X to the events A, B, C, &c. is deduced in the 
 form of what mathematicians term a development, consisting, in 
 
16 
 
 NATURE AND DESIGN OF THIS WORK- [CHAP. I. 
 
 the most general case, of four distinct classes of terms. By the 
 first class are expressed those combinations of the events A, B, C, 
 which both necessarily accompany and necessarily indicate the 
 occurrence of the event X ; by the second class, those combina- 
 tions which necessarily accompany, but do not necessarily imply, 
 the occurrence of the event X ; by the third class, those combi- 
 nations whose occurrence in connexion with the event X is im- 
 possible, but not otherwise impossible ; by the fourth class, 
 those combinations whose occurrence is impossible under any cir- 
 cumstances. I shall not dwell upon this statement of the result 
 of the logical analysis of the problem, further than to remark 
 that the elements which it presents are precisely those by which 
 the expectation of the event X, as dependent upon our know- 
 ledge of the events A, B, C, is, or alone can be, affected. General 
 reasoning would verify this conclusion ; but general reasoning 
 would not usually avail to disentangle the complicated web of 
 events and circumstances from which the solution above de- 
 scribed must be evolved. The attainment of this object consti- 
 tutes the first step towards the complete solution of the question 
 proposed. It is to be noted that thus far the process of solution 
 is logical, i. e. conducted by symbols of logical significance, and 
 resulting in an equation interpretable into a proposition. Let this 
 result be termed the final logical equation. 
 
 The second step of the process deserves attentive remark. 
 From the final logical equation to which the previous step has 
 conducted us, are deduced, by inspection, a series of algebraic 
 equations implicitly involving the complete solution of the pro- 
 blem proposed. Of the mode in which this transition is effected 
 let it suffice to say, that there exists a definite relation between 
 the laws by which the probabilities of events are expressed as 
 algebraic functions of the probabilities of other events upon which 
 they depend, and the laws by which the logical connexion of 
 the events is itself expressed. This relation, like the other co- 
 incidences of formal law which have been referred to, is not 
 founded upon hypothesis, but is made known to us by observation 
 (1. 4), and reflection. If, however, its reality were assumed a priori 
 as the basis of the very definition of Probability, strict deduction 
 ■would thence lead us to the received numerical definition as a 
 
CHAP. I.] NATURE AND DESIGN OF THIS WORK. IT 
 
 necessary consequence. The Theory of Probabilities stands, as 
 it has already been remarked (1. 12), in equally close relation to 
 Logic and to Arithmetic ; and it is indifferent, so far as results 
 are concerned, whether we regard it as springing out of the lat- 
 ter of these sciences, or as founded in the mutual relations which 
 connect the two together. 
 
 16. There are some circumstances, interesting perhaps to the 
 mathematician, attending the general solutions deduced by the 
 above method, which it may be desirable to notice. 
 
 1st. As the method is independent of the number and the 
 nature of the data, it continues to be applicable when the latter 
 are insufficient to render determinate the value sought. When 
 such is the case, the final expression of the solution will contain 
 terms with arbitrary constant coefficients. To such terms there 
 will correspond terms in the final logical equation (I. 15), the 
 interpretation of which will inform us what new data are re- 
 quisite in order to determine the values of those constants, and 
 thus render the numerical solution complete. If such data are 
 not to be obtained, we can still, by giving to the constants their 
 limiting values 0 and 1, determine the limits within which the 
 probability sought must lie independently of all further expe- 
 rience. When the event whose probability is sought is quite in- 
 dependent of those whose probabilities are given, the limits thus 
 obtained for its value will be 0 and 1 , as it is evident that they 
 ought to be, and the interpretation of the constants will only 
 lead to a re-statement of the original problem. 
 
 2ndly. The expression of the final solution will in all cases 
 involve a particular element of quantity, determinable by the so- 
 lution of an algebraic equation. Now when that equation is of 
 an elevated degree, a difficulty may seem to arise as to the se- 
 lection of the proper root. There are, indeed, cases in which 
 both the elements given and the element sought are so obviously 
 restricted by necessary conditions that no choice remains. But 
 in complex instances the discovery of such conditions, by un- 
 assisted force of reasoning, would be hopeless. A distinct me- 
 thod is requisite for this end, — a method which might not 
 inappropriately be termed the Calculus of Statistical Conditions. 
 Into the nature of this method I shall not here further enter 
 
18 
 
 NATURE AND DESIGN OF THIS WORK. [CHAP. I. 
 
 than to say, that, like the previous method, it is based upon the 
 employment of the “ final logical equation,” and that it definitely 
 assigns, 1st, the conditions which must be fulfilled among the 
 numerical elements of the data, in order that the problem may 
 be real, i. e. dei'ived from a possible experience ; 2ndly, the nu- 
 merical limits, within which the probability sought must have 
 been confined, if, instead of being determined by theory, it had 
 been deduced directly by observation from the same system of 
 phenomena from which the data were derived. It is clear that 
 these limits will be actual limits of the probability sought. 
 Now, on supposing the data subject to the conditions above as- 
 signed to them, it appears in every instance which I have exa- 
 mined that there exists one root, and only one root, of the final 
 algebraic equation which is subject to the required limitations. 
 Every source of ambiguity is thus removed. It would even seem 
 that new truths relating to the theory of algebraic equations 
 are thus incidentally brought to light. It is remarkable that 
 the special element of quantity, to which the previous discussion 
 relates, depends only upon the data, and not at all upon the 
 qucesitum of the problem proposed. Hence the solution of each 
 particular problem unties the knot of difficulty for a system of 
 problems, viz., for that system of problems which is marked by 
 the possession of common data, independently of the nature of 
 their quoesita. This circumstance is important whenever from a 
 particular system of data it is required to deduce a series of con- 
 nected conclusions. And it further gives to the solutions of 
 particular problems that character of relationship, derived from 
 their dependence upon a central and fundamental unity, which 
 not unfrequently marks the application of general methods. 
 
 17. But though the above considerations, with others of a 
 like nature, justify the assertion that the method of this treatise, 
 for the solution of questions in the theory of Probabilities, is a 
 general method, it does not thence follow that we are relieved in 
 all cases from the necessity of recourse to hypothetical grounds. 
 It has been observed that a solution may consist entirely of terms 
 affected by arbitrary constant coefficients, — may, in fact, be 
 wholly indefinite. The application of the method of this work to 
 some of the most important questions within its range would — 
 
19 
 
 CHAP. I.] NATURE AND DESIGN OF THIS WORK. 
 
 were the data of experience alone employed — present results of 
 this character. To obtain a definite solution it is necessary, in 
 such cases, to have recourse to hypotheses possessing more or less 
 of independent probability, but incapable of exact verification. 
 Generally speaking, such hypotheses will differ from the imme- 
 diate results of experience in partaking of a logical rather than of a 
 numerical character ; in prescribing the conditions under which 
 phenomena occur, rather than assigning the relative frequency 
 of their occurrence. This circumstance is, however, unimportant. 
 Whatever their nature may be, the hypotheses assumed must 
 thenceforth be regarded as belonging to the actual data, although 
 tending, as is obvious, to give to the solution itself somewhat of 
 a hypothetical character. With this understanding as to the 
 possible sources of the data actually employed, the method is 
 perfectly general, but for the correctness of the hypothetical ele- 
 ments introduced it is of course no more responsible than for the 
 correctness of the numerical data derived from experience. 
 
 In illustration of these remarks we may observe that the 
 theory of the reduction of astronomical observations* rests, in 
 part, upon hypothetical grounds. It assumes certain positions 
 as to the nature of error, the equal probabilities of its occurrence 
 in the form of excess or defect, &c., without which it would be 
 impossible to obtain any definite conclusions from a system of 
 conflicting observations. But granting such positions as the 
 above, the residue of the investigation falls strictly within the 
 province of the theory of Probabilities. Similar observations 
 apply to the important problem which proposes to deduce from 
 the records of the majorities of a deliberative assembly the mean 
 probability of correct judgment in one of its members. If the 
 method of this treatise be applied to the mere numerical data, 
 the solution obtained is of that wholly indefinite kind above de- 
 scribed. And to show in a more eminent degree the insufficiency 
 of those data by themselves, the interpretation of the arbitrary 
 constants (I. 16) which appear in the solution, merely produces 
 
 * The author designs to treat this subject either in a separate work or in a 
 future Appendix. In the present treatise he avoids the use of the integral 
 calculus. 
 
20 
 
 NATURE AND DESIGN OF THIS WORK. [CHAP. I. 
 
 a re-statement of the original problem. Admitting, however, 
 the hypothesis of the independent formation of opinion in the 
 individual mind, either absolutely, as in the speculations of 
 Laplace and Poisson, or under limitations imposed by the actual 
 data, as will be seen in this treatise, Chap, xxi., the problem as- 
 sumes a far more definite character. It will be manifest that the 
 ulterior value of the theory of Probabilities must depend very 
 much upon the correct formation of such mediate hypotheses, 
 where the purely experimental data are insufficient for definite 
 solution, and where that further experience indicated by the in- 
 terpretation of the final logical equation is unattainable. Upon 
 the other hand, an undue readiness to form hypotheses in sub- 
 jects which from their very nature are placed beyond human 
 ken, must re-act upon the credit of the theory of Probabilities, 
 and tend to throw doubt in the general mind over its most legi- 
 timate conclusions. 
 
 18. It would, perhaps, be premature to speculate here upon 
 the question whether the methods of abstract science are likely at 
 any future day to render service in the investigation of social 
 problems at all commensurate with those which they have ren- 
 dered in various departments of physical inquiry. An attempt 
 to resolve this question upon pure a priori grounds of reasoning 
 would be very likely to mislead us. For example, the conside- 
 ration of human free-agency would seem at first sight to preclude 
 the idea that the movements of the social system should ever ma- 
 nifest that character of orderly evolution which we are prepared 
 to expect under the reign of a physical necessity. Yet already 
 do the researches of the statist reveal to us facts at variance with 
 such an anticipation. Thus the records of crime and pauperism 
 present a degree of regularity unknown in regions in which the 
 disturbing influence of human wants and passions is unfelt. On 
 the other hand, the distemperature of seasons, the eruption of 
 volcanoes, the spread of blight in the vegetable, or of epidemic 
 maladies in the animal kingdom, things apparently or chiefly the 
 product of natural causes, refuse to be submitted to regular and 
 apprehensible laws. “ Fickle as the wind,” is a proverbial ex- 
 pression. Reflection upon these points teaches us in some degree 
 to correct our earlier judgments. We learn that we are not to 
 
21 
 
 CHAP. I.] NATURE AND DESIGN OF THIS WORK. 
 
 expect, under the dominion of necessity, an order perceptible to 
 human observation, unless the play of its producing causes is 
 sufficiently simple ; nor, on the other hand, to deem that free 
 agency in the individual is inconsistent with regularity in the 
 motions of the system of which he forms a component unit. 
 Human freedom stands out as an apparent fact of our conscious- 
 ness, while it is also, I conceive, a highly probable deduction of 
 analogy (Chap, xxn.) from the nature of that portion of the 
 mind whose scientific constitution we are able to investigate. 
 But whether accepted as a fact reposing on consciousness, or as 
 a conclusion sanctioned by the reason, it must be so interpreted 
 as not to conflict with an established result of observation, viz. : 
 that phenomena, in the production of which large masses of men 
 are concerned, do actually exhibit a very remarkable degree of 
 regularity, enabling us to collect in each succeeding age the ele- 
 ments upon which the estimate of its state and progress, so far 
 as manifested in outward results, must depend. There is thus no 
 sound objection a priori against the possibility of that species of 
 data which is requisite for the experimental foundation of a 
 science of social statistics. Again, whatever other object this 
 treatise may accomplish, it is presumed that it will leave no 
 doubt as to the existence of a system of abstract principles and of 
 methods founded upon those principles, by which any collective 
 body of social data may be made to yield, in an explicit form, 
 whatever information they implicitly involve. There may, where 
 the data are exceedingly complex, be very great difficulty in ob- 
 taining this information, — difficulty due not to any imperfection 
 of the theory, but to the laborious character of the analytical 
 processes to which it points. It is quite conceivable that in many 
 instances that difficulty may be such as only united effort could 
 overcome. But that we possess theoretically in all cases, and 
 practically, so far as the requisite labour of calculation may be 
 supplied, the means of evolving from statistical records the seeds 
 of general truths which lie buried amid the mass of figures, is a 
 position which may, I conceive, with perfect safety be affirmed. 
 
 19. But beyond these general positions I do not venture to 
 speak in terms of assurance. Whether the results which might 
 be expected from the application of scientific methods to statis- 
 
22 
 
 NATURE AND DESIGN OF THIS WORK. [CHAP. I. 
 
 tical records, over and above those the discovery of which re- 
 quires no such aid, would so far compensate for the labour in- 
 volved as to render it worth while to institute such investigations 
 upon a proper scale of magnitude, is a point which could, per- 
 haps, only be determined by experience. It is to be desired, 
 and it might without great presumption be expected, that in 
 this, as in other instances, the abstract doctrines of science should 
 minister to more than intellectual gratification. Nor, viewing 
 the apparent order in which the sciences have been evolved, and 
 have successively contributed their aid to the service of mankind, 
 does it seem very improbable that a day may arrive in which si- 
 milar aid may accrue from departments of the field of knowledge 
 yet more intimately allied with the elements of human welfare. 
 Let the speculations of this treatise, however, rest at present 
 simply upon them claim to be regarded, as true. 
 
 20. I design, in the last place, to endeavour to educe from 
 the scientific results of the previous inquiries some general inti- 
 mations respecting the nature and constitution of the human 
 mind. Into the grounds of the possibility of this species of in- 
 ference it is not necessary to enter here. One or two general 
 observations may serve to indicate the track which I shall endea- 
 vour to follow. It cannot but be admitted that our views of 
 the science of Logic must materially influence, perhaps mainly 
 determine, our opinions upon the nature of the intellectual facul- 
 ties. For example, the question whether reasoning consists 
 merely in the application of certain first or necessary truths, 
 with which the mind has been originally imprinted, or whether 
 the mind is itself a seat of law, whose operation is as manifest 
 and as conclusive in the particular as in the general formula, or 
 whether, as some not undistinguished writers seem to maintain, 
 all reasoning is of particulars ; this question, I say, is one which 
 not merely affects the science of Logic, but also concerns the for- 
 mation of just views of the constitution of the intellectual facul- 
 ties. Again, if it is concluded that the mind is by original 
 constitution a seat of law, the question of the nature of its sub- 
 jection to this law, — whether, for instance, it is an obedience 
 founded upon necessity, like that which sustains the revolutions 
 of the heavens, and preserves the order of Nature, — or whether 
 
CHAP. I.] NATURE AND DESIGN OF THIS WORK. 23 
 
 it is a subjection of some quite distinct kind, is also a matter of 
 deep speculative interest. Further, if the mind is truly deter- 
 mined to be a subject of law, and if its laws also are truly assigned, 
 the question of their probable or necessary influence upon the 
 course of human thought in different ages is one invested with 
 great importance, and well deserving a patient investigation, as 
 matter both of philosophy and of history. These and other 
 questions I propose, however imperfectly, to discuss in the con- 
 cluding portion of the present work. They belong, perhaps, to 
 the domain of probable or conjectural, rather than to that of po- 
 sitive, knowledge. But it may happen that where there is not 
 sufficient warrant for the certainties of science, there may be 
 grounds of analogy adequate for the suggestion of highly pro- 
 bable opinions. It has seemed to me better that this discussion 
 should be entirely reserved for the sequel of the main business of 
 this treatise, — which is the investigation of scientific truths and 
 laws. Experience sufficiently instructs us that the proper order 
 of advancement in all inquiries after truth is to proceed from the 
 known to the unknown. There are parts, even of the philosophy 
 and constitution of the human mind, which have been placed 
 fully within the reach of our investigation. To make a due ac- 
 quaintance with those portions of our nature the basis of all en- 
 deavours to penetrate amid the shadows and uncertainties of that 
 conjectural realm which lies beyond and above them, is the 
 course most accordant with the limitations of our present con- 
 dition. 
 
24 
 
 SIGNS AND THEIR LAWS. 
 
 [CHAP. II. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 OF SIGNS IN GENERAL, AND OF THE SIGNS APPROPRIATE TO THE 
 SCIENCE OF LOGIC IN PARTICULAR ; ALSO OF THE LAWS TO WHICH 
 
 THAT CLASS OF SIGNS ARE SUBJECT. 
 
 1 • nPHAT Language is an instrument of human reason, and 
 not merely a medium for the expression of thought, is a 
 truth generally admitted. It is proposed in this chapter to in- 
 quire what it is that renders Language thus subservient to the 
 most important of our intellectual faculties. In the various 
 steps of this inquiry we shall be led to consider the constitution 
 of Language, considered as a system adapted to an end or pur- 
 pose ; to investigate its elements ; to seek to determine their mu- 
 tual relation and dependence ; and to inquire in what manner they 
 contribute to the attainment of the end to which, as co-ordinate 
 parts of a system, they have respect. 
 
 In proceeding to these inquiries, it will not be necessary to 
 enter into the discussion of that famous question of the schools, 
 whether Language is to be regarded as an essential instrument 
 of reasoning, or whether, on the other hand, it is possible for us 
 to reason without its aid. I suppose this question to be beside 
 the design of the present treatise, for the following reason, viz., 
 that it is the business of Science to investigate laws ; and that, 
 whether we regard signs as the representatives of things and of 
 their relations, or as the representatives of the conceptions and 
 operations of the human intellect, in studying the laws of signs, 
 we are in effect studying the manifested laws of reasoning. If 
 there exists a difference between the two inquiries, it is one which 
 does not affect the scientific expressions of formal law, which are 
 the object of investigation in the present stage of this work, but 
 relates only to the mode in which those results are presented to 
 the mental regard. For though in investigating the laws of signs, 
 a posteriori, the immediate subject of examination is Language, 
 with the rules which govern its use ; while in making the internal 
 
SIGNS AND THEIR LAWS. 
 
 25 
 
 CHAP. II.] 
 
 processes of thought the direct object of inquiry, we appeal in a 
 more immediate way to our personal consciousness, — it will be 
 found that in both cases the results obtained are formally equi- 
 valent. Nor could we easily conceive, that the unnumbered 
 tongues and dialects of the earth should have preserved through 
 a long succession of ages so much that is common and universal, 
 were we not assured of the existence of some deep foundation of 
 their agreement in the laws of the mind itself. 
 
 2. The elements of which all language consists are signs or 
 symbols. Words are signs. Sometimes they are said to repre- 
 sent things ; sometimes the operations by which the mind com- 
 bines together the simple notions of things into complex concep- 
 tions ; sometimes they express the relations of action, passion, or 
 mere quality, which we perceive to exist among the objects of our 
 experience ; sometimes the emotions of the perceiving mind. But 
 words, although in this and in other ways they fulfil the office of 
 signs, or representative symbols, are not the only signs which we 
 are capable of employing. Arbitrary marks, which speak only to 
 the eye, and arbitrary sounds or actions, which address themselves 
 to some other sense, are equally of the nature of signs, provided 
 that their representative office is defined and understood. In the 
 mathematical sciences, letters, and the symbols +, -, =, &c., are 
 used as signs, although the term “ sign” is applied to the latter 
 class of symbols, which represent operations or relations, rather 
 than to the former, which represent the elements of number and 
 quantity. As the real import of a sign does not in any way de- 
 pend upon its particular form or expression, so neither do the 
 laws which determine its use. In the present treatise, however, 
 it is with written signs that we have to do, and it is with reference 
 to these exclusively that the term “ sign” will be employed. The 
 essential properties of signs are enumerated in the following de- 
 finition. 
 
 Definition . — A sign is an arbitrary mark, having a fixed in- 
 terpretation, and susceptible of combination with other signs in 
 subjection to fixed laws dependent upon their mutual interpre- 
 tation. 
 
 3. Let us consider the particulars involved in the above de- 
 finition separately. 
 
26 
 
 SIGNS AND THEIR LAWS. 
 
 [CHAP. II. 
 
 (1.) In the first place, a sign is an arbitrary mark. It is 
 clearly indifferent what particular word or token we associate 
 with a given idea, provided that the association once made is 
 permanent. The Romans expressed by the word “ civitas” what 
 we designate by the word “ state.” But both they and we 
 might equally well have employed any other word to represent 
 the same conception. Nothing, indeed, in the nature of Language 
 would prevent us from using a mere letter in the same sense. 
 Were this done, the laws according to which that letter would 
 require to be used would be essentially the same with the laws 
 which govern the use of “civitas” in the Latin, and of “state” 
 in the English language, so far at least as the use of those words 
 is regulated by any general principles common to all languages 
 alike. 
 
 (2.) In the second place, it is necessary that each sign should 
 possess, within the limits of the same discourse or process of 
 reasoning, a fixed interpretation. The necessity of this condi- 
 tion is obvious, and seems to be founded in the very nature of the 
 subject. There exists, however, a dispute as to the precise nature 
 of the representative office of words or symbols used as names in 
 t he processes of reasoning. By some it is maintained, that they 
 represent the conceptions of the mind alone ; by others, that they 
 represent things. The question is not of great importance here, 
 as its decision cannot affect the laws according to which signs 
 are employed. I apprehend, however, that the general answer 
 to this and such like questions is, that in the processes of reason- 
 ing, signs stand in the place and fulfil the office of the concep- 
 tions and operations of the mind ; but that as those conceptions 
 and operations represent things, and the connexions and relations 
 of things, so signs represent things with their connexions and re- 
 lations ; and lastly, that as signs stand in the place of the con- 
 ceptions and operations of the mind, they are subject to the laws 
 of those conceptions and operations. This view will be more 
 fully elucidated in the next chapter ; but it here serves to explain 
 the third of those particulars involved in the definition of a sign, 
 viz., its subjection to fixed laws of combination depending upon 
 the nature of its interpretation. 
 
 4. The analysis and classification of those signs by which the 
 
CHAP. II.] SIGNS AND THEIR LAWS. 27 
 
 operations of reasoning are conducted will be considered in the 
 following Proposition : 
 
 Proposition I. 
 
 All the operations of Language, as an instrument of reasoning, 
 may be conducted by a system of signs composed of the following ele- 
 ments, viz. : 
 
 1st. Literal symbols, as x , y, Sfc., representing things as subjects 
 of our conceptions. 
 
 2nd. Signs of operation, as + ,-,x, standing for those operations 
 of the mind by which the conceptions of things are combined or re- 
 solved so as to form new conceptions involving the same elements. 
 
 3rd. The sign of identity, =. 
 
 And these symbols of Logic are in their use subject to definite 
 laws, partly agreeing with and partly differing from the laws of the 
 corresponding symbols in the science of Algebra. 
 
 Let it be assumed as a criterion of the true elements of ra- 
 tional discourse, that they should be susceptible of combination 
 in the simplest forms and by the simplest laws, and thus com- 
 bining should generate all other known and conceivable forms of 
 language ; and adopting this principle, let the following classifi- 
 cation be considered. 
 
 class i. 
 
 5. Appellative or descriptive signs, expressing either the name 
 of a thing, or some quality or circumstance belonging to it. 
 
 To this class we may obviously refer the substantive proper 
 or common, and the adjective. These may indeed be regarded as 
 differing only in this respect, that the former expresses the sub- 
 stantive existence of the individual thing or things to which it 
 refers ; the latter implies that existence. If we attach to the 
 adjective the universally understood subject “ being” or “ thing,” 
 it becomes virtually a substantive, and may for all the essential 
 purposes of reasoning be replaced by the substantive. Whether 
 or not, in every particular of the mental regard, it is the same 
 thing to say, “Water is a fluid thing,” as to say, “Water is 
 fluid it is at least equivalent in the expression of the processes 
 of reasoning. 
 
28 
 
 SIGNS AND THEIR LAWS. 
 
 [CHAP. II. 
 
 It is clear also, that to the above class we must refer any smn 
 which may conventionally be used to express some circumstance 
 or relation, the detailed exposition of which would involve the 
 use of many signs. The epithets of poetic diction are very fre- 
 quently of this kind. They are usually compounded adjectives, 
 singly fulfilling the office of a many- worded description. Homer’s 
 “ deep-eddying ocean” embodies a virtual description in the single 
 word j3a0i/S/vr}c. And conventionally any other description ad- 
 dressed either to the imagination or to the intellect might equally 
 be represented by a single sign, the use of which would in all es- 
 sential points be subject to the same laws as the use of the ad- 
 jective “ good” or “ great.” Combined with the subject “ thing,” 
 such a sign would virtually become a substantive ; and by a single 
 substantive the combined meaning both of thing and quality 
 might be expressed. 
 
 6. Now, as it has been defined that a sign is an arbitrary 
 mark, it is permissible to replace all signs of the species above 
 described by letters. Let us then agree to represent the class of 
 individuals to which a particular name or description is appli- 
 cable, by a single letter, as x. If the name is “ men,” for instance, 
 let x represent “all men,” or the class “men.” By a class is 
 usually meant a collection of individuals, to each of which a 
 particular name or description may be applied ; but in this work 
 the meaning of the term will be extended so as to include the 
 case in which but a single individual exists, answering to the 
 required name or description, as well as the cases denoted by 
 the terms “ nothing” and “ universe,” which as “ classes” 
 should be understood to comprise respectively “ no beings,” 
 “ all beings.” Again, if an adjective, as “good,” is employed 
 as a term of description, let us represent by a letter, as y, all 
 things to which the description “ good” is applicable, i. e. “ all 
 good things,” or the class “good things.” Let it further be 
 agreed, that by the combination xy shall be represented that 
 class of things to which the names or descriptions represented by 
 x and y are simultaneously applicable. Thus, if x alone stands 
 for “ white things,” and y for “ sheep,” let xy stand for “ white 
 sheep ;” and in like manner, if z stand for “ horned things,” and 
 x and y retain their previous interpretations, let zxy represent 
 
SIGNS AND THEIR LAWS. 
 
 29 
 
 CHAP. II.] 
 
 “ horned white sheep,” i. e. that collection of things to which 
 the name “ sheep,” and the descriptions “ white” and “ horned” 
 are together applicable. 
 
 Let us now consider the laws to which the symbols x, y, &c., 
 used in the above sense, are subject. 
 
 7. First, it is evident, that according to the above combina- 
 tions, the order in which two symbols are written is indifferent. 
 The expressions xy and yx equally represent that class of things 
 to the several members of which the names or descriptions x and 
 y are together applicable. Hence we have, 
 
 xy = yx. (1) 
 
 In the case of x representing white things, and y sheep, either 
 of the members of this equation will represent the class of “ white 
 sheep.” There may be a difference as to the order in which the 
 conception is formed, but there is none as to the individual things 
 which are comprehended under it. In like manner, if x represent 
 “ estuaries,” and y “ rivers,” the expressions xy and yx will in- 
 differently represent “ rivers that are estuaries,” or “ estuaries 
 that are rivers,” the combination in this case being in ordinary 
 language that of two substantives, instead of that of a substantive 
 and an adjective as in the previous instance. Let there be a 
 third symbol, as z, representing that class of things to which the 
 term “ navigable” is applicable, and any one of the following 
 expressions, 
 
 zxy, zyx , xyz, &c., 
 
 will represent the class of “ navigable rivers that are estuaries.” 
 
 If one of the descriptive terms should have some implied re- 
 ference to another, it is only necessary to include that reference 
 expressly in its stated meaning, in order to render the above 
 remarks still applicable. Thus, if x represent “wise” and y 
 “ counsellor,” we shall have to define whether x implies wisdom 
 in the absolute sense, or only the wisdom of counsel. With such 
 definition the law xy - yx continues to be valid. 
 
 We are permitted, therefore, to employ the symbols x, y, z, Sfc., in 
 the place of the substantives, adjectives, and descriptive phrases subject 
 to the rule of interpretation, that any expression in which several of 
 these symbols are written together shall represent all the objects or indi- 
 
30 SIGNS AND THEIR LAWS. [CHAP. II. 
 
 viduals to which their several meanings are together applicable, and 
 to the law that the order in which the symbols succeed each other is 
 indifferent. 
 
 As the rule of interpretation has been sufficiently exempli- 
 fied, I shall deem it unnecessary always to express the subject 
 “ things” in defining the interpretation of a symbol used for an 
 adjective. When I say, let x represent 45 good,” it will be un- 
 derstood that x only represents 44 good” when a subject for that 
 quality is supplied by another symbol, and that, used alone, its in- 
 terpretation will be 44 good things.” 
 
 8. Concerning the law above determined, the following ob- 
 servations, which will also be more or less appropriate to certain 
 other laws to be deduced hereafter, may be added. 
 
 First, I would remark, that this law is a law of thought, and 
 not, properly speaking, a law of things. Difference in the order 
 of the qualities or attributes of an object, apart from all ques- 
 tions of causation, is a difference in conception merely. The law 
 (1) expresses as a general truth, that the same thing may be con- 
 ceived in different ways, and states the nature of that difference ; 
 and it does no more than this. 
 
 Secondly, As a law of thought, it is actually developed in a 
 law of Language, the product and the instrument of thought. 
 Though the tendency of prose writing is toward uniformity, 
 yet even there the order of sequence of adjectives absolute in 
 their meaning, and applied to the same subject, is indifferent, 
 but poetic diction borrows much of its rich diversity from the 
 extension of the same lawful freedom to the substantive also. 
 The language of Milton is peculiarly distinguished by this spe- 
 cies of variety. Not only does the substantive often precede the 
 adjectives by which it is qualified, but it is frequently placed in 
 their midst. In the first few lines of the invocation to Light, 
 we meet with such examples as the following : 
 
 “ Offspring of heaven first-born .” 
 
 “ The rising world of waters dark and deep.' 1 '’ 
 
 44 Bright effluence of bright essence increate .” 
 
 Now these inverted forms are not simply the fruits of a poetic 
 license. They are the natural expressions of a freedom sane- 
 
CHAP. II.] SIGNS AND THEIR LAWS. 31 
 
 tioned by the intimate laws of thought, but for reasons of conve- 
 nience not exercised in the ordinary use of language. 
 
 Thirdly, The law expressed by (1) may be characterized by 
 saying that the literal symbols x, y, z, are commutative, like the 
 symbols of Algebra . In saying this, it is not affirmed that the 
 process of multiplication in Algebra, of which the fundamental 
 law is expressed by the equation 
 
 xy = yx, 
 
 possesses in itself any analogy with that process of logical com- 
 bination which xy has been made to represent above ; but only 
 that if the arithmetical and the logical process are expressed in 
 the same manner, their symbolical expressions will be subject to 
 the same formal law. The evidence of that subjection is in the 
 two cases quite distinct. 
 
 9. As the combination of two literal symbols in the form xy 
 expresses the whole of that class of objects to which the names 
 or qualities represented by x and y are together applicable, it 
 follows that if the two symbols have exactly the same significa- 
 tion, their combination expresses no more than either of the 
 symbols taken alone would do. In such case we should there- 
 fore have 
 
 xy = x. 
 
 As y is, however, supposed to have the same meaning as x, we 
 may replace it in the above equation by x, and we thus get 
 
 xx = x. 
 
 Now in common Algebra the combination xx is more briefly re- 
 presented by x 2 . Let us adopt the same principle of notation 
 here ; for the mode of expressing a particular succession of mental 
 operations is a thing in itself quite as arbitrary as the mode of 
 expressing a single idea or operation (II. 3). In accordance with 
 this notation, then, the above equation assumes the form 
 
 x 2 - x, (2) 
 
 and is, in fact, the expression of a second general law of those 
 symbols by which names, qualities, or descriptions, are symboli- 
 cally represented. 
 
32 SIGNS AND THEIR LAWS. [CHAP. II. 
 
 The reader must bear in mind that although the symbols x 
 and y in the examples previously formed received significations 
 distinct from each other, nothing prevents us from attributing to 
 them precisely the same signification. It is evident that the 
 more nearly their actual significations approach to each other, 
 the more nearly does the class of things denoted by the combi- 
 nation xy approach to identity with the class denoted by x , as 
 well as with that denoted by y. The case supposed in the de- 
 monstration of the equation (2) is that of absolute identity of 
 meaning. The law which it expresses is practically exemplified 
 in language. To say “good, good,” in relation to any subject, 
 though a cumbrous and useless pleonasm, is the same as to say 
 “good.” Thus “good, good” men, is equivalent to “good” 
 men. Such repetitions of words are indeed sometimes employed 
 to heighten a quality or strengthen an affirmation. But this 
 effect is merely secondary and conventional ; it is not founded in 
 the intrinsic relations of language and thought. Most of the 
 operations which we observe in nature, or perform ourselves, are 
 of such a kind that their effect is augmented by repetition, and 
 this circumstance prepares us to expect the same thing in lan- 
 guage, and even to use repetition when we design to speak with 
 emphasis. But neither in strict reasoning nor in exact discourse 
 is there any just ground for such a practice. 
 
 10. We pass now to the consideration of another class of the 
 signs of speech, and of the laws connected with their use. 
 
 CLASS II. 
 
 11. Signs of those mental operations whereby we collect parts 
 into a whole , or separate a whole into its parts. 
 
 We are not only capable of entertaining the conceptions of 
 objects, as characterized by names, qualities, or circumstances, 
 applicable to each individual of the group under consideration, 
 but also of forming the aggregate conception of a group, of objects 
 consisting of partial groups, each of which is separately named 
 or described. For this purpose we use the conjunctions “and,” 
 “or,”&c. “ Trees and minerals,” “barren mountains, or fer- 
 
 tile vales,” are examples of this kind. In strictness, the words 
 
CHAP. II.] 
 
 SIGNS AND THEIR LAWS. 
 
 33 
 
 “ and,” “ or,” interposed between the terms descriptive of two or 
 more classes of objects, imply that those classes are quite distinct, 
 so that no member of one is found in another. In this and in 
 all other respects the words “ and” “ or” are analogous with the 
 sign + in algebra, and their laws are identical. Thus the ex- 
 pression “ men and women” is, conventional meanings set aside, 
 equivalent with the expression “ women and men.” Let x repre- 
 sent “ men,” y, “women ;” and let + stand for “ and ” and “ or,” 
 then we have 
 
 x + y=y + x, (3) 
 
 an equation which would equally hold true if x and y represented 
 numbers , and + were the sign of arithmetical addition. 
 
 Let the symbol z stand for the adjective “European,” then 
 since it is, in effect, the same thing to say “ European men and 
 women,” as to say “ European men and European women,” we 
 have 
 
 z (x + ij) = zx + zy. (4) 
 
 And this equation also would be equally true were x, y, and z 
 symbols of number, and were the juxtaposition of two literal 
 symbols to represent their algebraic product, just as in the logical 
 signification previously given, it represents the class of objects to 
 which both the epithets conjoined belong. 
 
 The above are the laws which govern the use of the sign 
 +, here used to denote the positive operation of aggregating 
 parts into a whole. But the very idea of an operation effecting 
 some positive change seems to suggest to us the idea of an oppo- 
 site or negative operation, having the effect of undoing what the 
 former one has done. Thus w r e cannot conceive it -possible to 
 collect parts into a whole, and not conceive it also possible to 
 separate a part from a whole. This operation we express in 
 common language by the sign except , as, “ All men except 
 Asiatics,” “ All states except those which are monarchical.” 
 Here it is implied that the things excepted form a part of the 
 things from which they are excepted. As we have expressed 
 the operation of aggregation by the sign +, so we may express 
 the negative operation above described by - minus. Thus if x 
 be taken to represent men, and y, Asiatics, i. e. Asiatic men, 
 
34 
 
 SIGNS AND THEIR LAWS. 
 
 [CHAP. II. 
 
 then the conception of “All men except Asiatics” will be ex- 
 pressed by x - y. And if we represent by x, “ states,” and by 
 y the descriptive property “ having a monarchical form,” then 
 the conception of “ All states except those which are monarchi- 
 cal” will be expressed by x - xy. 
 
 As it is indifferent for all the essential purposes of reasoning 
 whether we express excepted cases first or last in the order of 
 speech, it is also indifferent in what order we write any series of 
 terms, some of which are affected by the sign -. Thus we have, 
 as in the common algebra, 
 
 x - y = - y + x. (5) 
 
 Still representing by x the class “men,” and by y “Asiatics,” 
 let z represent the adjective “ white.” Now to apply the adjec- 
 tive “white” to the collection of men expressed by the phrase 
 “ Men' except Asiatics,” is the same as to say, “ White men, 
 except white Asiatics.” Hence we have 
 
 z (p — y) - zx - zy . (6) 
 
 This is also in accordance with the laws of ordinary algebra. 
 
 The equations (4) and (6) may be considered as exemplifica- 
 tion of a single general law, which may be stated by saying, that 
 the literal symbols, x, y, z, Sfc. are distributive in their operation. 
 The general fact which that law expresses is this, viz. : — If any 
 quality or circumstance is ascribed to all the members of a group, 
 formed either by aggregation or exclusion of partial groups, the 
 resulting conception is the same as if the quality or circumstance 
 were first ascribed to each member of the partial groups, and the 
 aggregation or exclusion effected afterwards. That which is 
 ascribed to the members of the whole is ascribed to the members 
 of all its parts, howsoever those parts are connected together. 
 
 CLASS III, 
 
 12. Signs by which relation is expressed, and by which we 
 form propositions. 
 
 Though all verbs may with propriety be referred to this class, 
 it is sufficient for the purposes of Logic to consider it as includ- 
 ing only the substantive verb is or are, since every other verb 
 
CHAP. II.] SIGNS AND THEIR LAWS. 3 5 
 
 may be resolved into this element, and one of the signs included 
 under Class i. For as those signs are used to express quality or 
 circumstance of every kind, they may be employed to express 
 the active or passive relation of the subject of the verb, considered 
 with reference either to past, to present, or to future time. 
 Thus the Proposition, “ Caesar conquered the Gauls,” may be 
 resolved into “ Caesar is he who conquered the Gauls.” The 
 ground of this analysis I conceive to be the following : — Unless 
 we understand what is meant by having conquered the Gauls, 
 i. e. by the expression “ One who conquered the Gauls,” we 
 cannot understand the sentence in question. It is, therefore, 
 truly an element of that sentence ; another element is “ Caesar,” 
 and there is yet another required, the copula is, to show the 
 connexion of these two. I do not, however, affirm that there is 
 no other mode than the above of contemplating the relation ex- 
 pressed by the proposition, “ Caesar conquered the Gauls;” but 
 only that the analysis here given is a correct one for the particu- 
 lar point of view which has been taken, and that it suffices for 
 the purposes of logical deduction. It may be remarked that the 
 passive and future participles of the Greek language imply the 
 existence of the principle which has been asserted, viz. : that the 
 sign is or are may be regarded as an element of every personal 
 verb. 
 
 13. The above sign, is or are, may be expressed by the sym- 
 bol =. The laws, or as would usually be said, the axioms which 
 the symbol introduces, are next to be considered. 
 
 Let us take the Proposition, “ The stars are the suns and the 
 planets,” and let us represent stars by x, suns by y, and planets 
 by z; we have then 
 
 x = y + z. (7) 
 
 Now if it be true that the stars are the suns and the planets, it 
 will follow that the stars, except the planets, are suns. This 
 would give the equation 
 
 x- z=y, (8) 
 
 which must therefore be a deduction from (7). Thus a term z 
 has been removed from one side of an equation to the other by 
 
36 SIGNS AND THEIR LAWS. [CHAP. II. 
 
 changing its sign. This is in accordance with the algebraic rule 
 of transposition. 
 
 But instead of dwelling upon particular cases, we may at once 
 affirm the general axioms : — 
 
 1st. If equal things are added to equal things, the wholes are 
 equal. 
 
 2nd. If equal things are taken from equal things, the re- 
 mainders are equal. 
 
 And it hence appears that we may add or subtract equations, 
 and employ the rule of transposition above given just as in com- 
 mon algebra. 
 
 Again : If two classes of things, x and y, be identical, that is, 
 if all the members of the one are members of the other, then 
 those members of the one class which possess a given property z 
 will be identical with those members of the other which possess 
 the same property z. Hence if we have the equation 
 
 x = y \ 
 
 then whatever class or property z may represent, we have also 
 
 zx - zy. 
 
 This is formally the same as the algebraic law : — If both mem- 
 bers of an equation are multiplied by the same quantity, the 
 products are equal. 
 
 In like manner it may be shown that if the corresponding 
 members of two equations are multiplied together, the resulting 
 equation is true. 
 
 14. Here, however, the analogy of the present system with 
 that of algebra, as commonly stated, appears to stop. Suppose it 
 true that those members of a class x which possess a certain pro- 
 perty z are identical with those members of a class y which pos- 
 sess the same property z, it does not follow that the members of 
 the class x universally are identical with the members of the 
 class y. Hence it cannot be inferred from the equation 
 
 zx = zy , 
 
 that the equation 
 
 x = y 
 
 is also true. In other words, the axiom of algebraists, that both 
 
CHA1>. II.] 
 
 SIGNS AND THEIR LAWS. 
 
 37 
 
 sides of an equation may be divided by the same quantity, has no 
 formal equivalent here. I say no formal equivalent, because, in 
 accordance with the general spirit of these inquiries, it is not 
 even sought to determine whether the mental operation which is 
 represented by removing a logical symbol, z, from a combination 
 zx, is in itself analogous with the operation of division in Arith- 
 metic. That mental operation is indeed identical with what is 
 commonly termed Abstraction, and it will hereafter appear that 
 its laws are dependent upon the laws already deduced in this 
 chapter. What has now been shown is, that there does not 
 exist among those laws anything analogous in form with a com- 
 monly received axiom of Algebra. 
 
 But a little consideration will show that even in common 
 algebra that axiom does not possess the generality of those other 
 axioms Avhich have been considered. The deduction of the 
 equation x = y from the equation zx = zy is only valid when it 
 is known that z is not equal to 0. If’ then the value z = 0 is 
 supposed to be admissible in the algebraic system, the axiom 
 above stated ceases to be applicable, and the analogy before ex- 
 emplified remains at least unbroken. 
 
 15. However, it is not with the symbols of quantity generally 
 that it is of any importance, except as a matter of speculation, to 
 trace such affinities. We have seen (II. 9) that the symbols of 
 Logic are subject to the special law, 
 
 x- = x. 
 
 Now of the symbols of Number there are but two, viz. 0 and 1, 
 which are subject to the same formal law r . We know that 0 2 = 0, 
 and that 1 2 = 1 ; and the equation :c 2 = x, considered as algebraic, 
 has no other roots than 0 and 1 . Hence, instead of determining 
 the measure of formal agreement of the symbols of Logic with 
 those of Number generally, it is more immediately suggested to 
 us to compare them with symbols of quantity admitting only of 
 the values 0 and 1. Let us conceive, then, of an Algebra in 
 which the symbols x, y, z, &c. admit indifferently of the values 
 0 and 1, and of these values alone. The laws, the axioms, and 
 the processes, of such an Algebra will be identical in their whole 
 extent with the laws, the axioms, and the processes of an Al- 
 
38 
 
 SIGNS AND THEIR LAWS. 
 
 [CHAP. II. 
 
 gebra of Logic. Difference of interpretation will alone divide 
 them. Upon this principle the method of the following work is 
 established. 
 
 16. It now remains to show that those constituent parts of 
 ordinary language which have not been considered in the pre- 
 vious sections of this chapter are either resolvable into the same 
 elements as those which have been considered, or are subsidiary 
 to those elements by contributing to their more precise defi- 
 nition. 
 
 The substantive, the adjective, and the verb, together with 
 the particles and , except, we have already considered. The pro- 
 noun may be regarded as a particular form of the substantive or 
 the adjective. The adverb modifies the meaning of the verb, but 
 does not affect its nature. Prepositions contribute to the ex- 
 pression of circumstance or relation, and thus tend to give pre- 
 cision and detail to the meaning of the literal symbols. The 
 conjunctions if, either, or, are used chiefly in the expression of 
 relation among propositions, and it will hereafter be shown that 
 the same relations can be completely expressed by elementary 
 symbols analogous in interpretation, and identical in form and 
 law with the symbols whose use and meaning have been ex- 
 plained in this Chapter. As to any remaining elements of 
 speech, it will, upon examination, be found that they are used 
 either to give a more definite significance to the terms of dis- 
 course, and thus enter into the interpretation of the literal sym- 
 bols already considered, or to express some emotion or state of 
 feeling accompanying the utterance of a proposition, and thus do 
 not belong to the province of the understanding, with which 
 alone our present concern lies. Experience of its use will tes- 
 tify to the sufficiency of the classification which has been adopted. 
 
CHAP. III.] 
 
 DERIVATION OF THE LAWS. 
 
 39 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 DERIVATION OF THE LAWS OF THE SYMBOLS OF LOGIC FROM THE 
 LAWS OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE HUMAN MIND. 
 
 1. r I ''HE object of science, properly so called, is the knowledge 
 oflaws and relations. To be able to distinguish what 
 is essential to this end, from what is only accidentally associated 
 with it, is one of the most important conditions of scientific pro- 
 gress. I say, to distinguish between these elements, because a con- 
 sistent devotion to science does not require that the attention 
 should be altogether withdrawn from other speculations, often of a 
 metaphysical nature, with which it is not unfrequently connected. 
 Such questions, for instance, as the existence of a sustaining 
 ground of phenomena, the reality of cause, the propriety of forms 
 of speech implying that the successive states of things are con- 
 nected by operations , and others of a like nature, may possess 
 a deep interest and significance in relation to science, without 
 being essentially scientific. It is indeed scarcely possible to 
 express the conclusions of natural science without borrowing 
 the language of these conceptions. Nor is there necessarily 
 any practical inconvenience arising from this source. They who 
 believe, and they who refuse to believe, that there is more in the 
 relation of cause and effect than an invariable order of succession, 
 agree in their interpretation of the conclusions of physical astro- 
 nomy. But they only agree because they recognise a common ele- 
 ment of scientific truth, which is independent of their particular 
 views of the nature of causation. 
 
 2. If this distinction is important in physical science, much 
 more does it deserve attention in connexion with the science of 
 the intellectual powers. For the questions which this science 
 presents become, in expression at least, almost necessarily mixed 
 up with modes of thought and language, which betray a meta- 
 physical origin. The idealist would give to the laws of reasoning 
 
40 DERIVATION OF THE LAWS. [CHAP. III. 
 
 one form of expression ; the sceptic, if true to his principles, ano- 
 ther. They who regard the phenomena with which we are con- 
 cerned in this inquiry as the mere successive states of the thinking 
 subject devoid of any causal connexion, and they who refer them 
 to the operations of an active intelligence, would, if consistent, 
 equally differ in their modes of statement. Like difference would 
 also result from a difference of classification of the mental faculties. 
 Now the principle which I would here assert, as affording us the 
 only ground of confidence and stability amid so much of seeming 
 and of real diversity, is the following, viz., that if the laws in ques- 
 tion are really deduced from observation, they have a real existence 
 as laws of the human mind, independently of any metaphysical 
 theory which may seem to be involved in the mode of their state- 
 ment. They contain an element of truth which no ulterior cri- 
 ticism upon the nature, or even upon the reality, of the mind’s 
 operations, can essentially affect. Let it even be granted that 
 the mind is but a succession of states of consciousness, a series 
 of fleeting impressions uncaused from without or from within, 
 emerging out of nothing, and returning into nothing again, — 
 the last refinement of the sceptic intellect, — still, as laws of suc- 
 cession, or at least of a past succession, the results to which obser- 
 vation had led would remain true. They would require to be 
 interpreted into a language from whose vocabulary all such terms 
 as cause and effect, operation and subject, substance and attri- 
 bute, had been banished ; but they would still be valid as scien- 
 tific truths. 
 
 Moreover, as any statement of the laws of thought, founded 
 upon actual observation, must thus contain scientific elements 
 which are independent of metaphysical theories of the nature of 
 the mind, the practical application of such elements to the con- 
 struction of a system or method of reasoning must also be inde- 
 pendent of metaphysical distinctions. For it is upon the scien- 
 tific elements involved in the statement of the laws, that any 
 practical application will rest, just as the practical conclusions of 
 physical astronomy are independent of any theory of the cause 
 of gravitation, but rest only on the knowledge of its phasno- 
 menal effects. And, therefore, as respects both the determi- 
 
DERIVATION OF THE LAWS. 
 
 41 
 
 CHAP. III.] 
 
 nation of the laws of thought, and the practical use of them 
 when discovered, we are, for all really scientific ends, uncon- 
 cerned with the truth or falsehood of any metaphysical specula- 
 tions whatever. 
 
 3. The course which it appears to me to be expedient, under 
 these circumstances, to adopt, is to avail myself as far as possible 
 of the language of common discourse, without regard to any 
 theory of the nature and powers of the mind which it may be 
 thought to embody. For instance, it is agreeable to common 
 usage to say that we converse with each other by the communi- 
 cation of ideas, or conceptions, such communication being the 
 office of words ; and that with reference to any particular ideas or 
 conceptions presented to it, the mind possesses certain powers or 
 faculties by which the mental regard maybe fixed upon some ideas, 
 to the exclusion of others, or by which the given conceptions or 
 ideas may, in various ways, be combined together. To those 
 faculties or powers different names, as Attention, Simple Appre- 
 hension, Conception or Imagination, Abstraction, &c., have been 
 given, — names which have not only furnished the titles of distinct 
 divisions of the philosophy of the human mind, but passed into 
 the common language of men. Whenever, then, occasion shall 
 occur to use these terms, I shall do so without implying thereby 
 that I accept the theory that the mind possesses such and such 
 powers and faculties as distinct elements of its activity. Nor is 
 it indeed necessary to inquire whether such powers of the under- 
 standing have a distinct existence or not. We may merge these 
 different titles under the one generic name of Operations of the 
 human mind, define these operations so far as is necessary for the 
 purposes of this work, and then seek to express their ultimate laws. 
 Such will be the general order of the course which I shall pur- 
 sue, though reference will occasionally be made to the names which 
 common agreement has assigned to the particular states or ope- 
 rations of the mind which may fall under our notice. 
 
 It will be most convenient to distribute the more definite re- 
 sults of the following investigation into distinct Propositions. 
 
42 
 
 DERIVATION OF THE LAWS. 
 
 [CHAP. III. 
 
 Proposition I. 
 
 4. To deduce the laws of the symbols of Logic from a conside- 
 ration of those operations of the mind which are implied in the strict 
 use of language as an instrument of reasoning. 
 
 In every discourse, whether of the mind conversing with its 
 own thoughts, or of the individual in his intercourse with others, 
 there is an assumed or expressed limit within which the subjects of 
 its operation are confined. The most unfettered discourse is that 
 in which the words we use are understood in the widest possible 
 application, and for them the limits of discourse are co-extensive 
 with those of the universe itself. But more usually we confine our- 
 selves to a less spacious field. Sometimes, in discoursing of men 
 we imply (without expressing the limitation) that it is of men 
 only under certain circumstances and conditions that we speak, 
 as of civilized men, or of men in the vigour of life, or of men 
 under some other condition or relation. Now, whatever maybe 
 the extent of the field within which all the objects of our dis- 
 course are found, that field may properly be termed the universe 
 of discourse. 
 
 5. Furthermore, this universe of discourse is in the strictest 
 sense the ultimate subject of the discourse. The office of any name 
 or descriptive term employed under the limitations supposed is not 
 to raise in the mind the conception of all the beings or o bjects to 
 which that name or description is applicable, but only of those 
 which exist within the supposed universe of discourse. If that 
 universe of discourse is the actual universe of things, which it 
 always is when our words are taken in their real and literal sense, 
 then by men we mean all men that exist ; but if the universe of 
 discourse is limited by any antecedent implied understanding, 
 then it is of men under the limitation thus introduced that we 
 speak. It is in both cases the business of the word men to direct 
 a certain operation of the mind, by which, from the proper uni- 
 verse of discourse, we select or fix upon the individuals signified. 
 
 6. Exactly of the same kind is the mental operation implied 
 by the use of an adjective. Let, for instance, the universe of dis- 
 course be the actual Universe. Then, as the word men directs 
 
CHAP. III.] DERIVATION OF THE LAWS. 43 
 
 us to select mentally from that Universe all the beings to which 
 the term “men” is applicable ; so the adjective “good,” in the 
 combination “ good men,” directs us still further to select men- 
 tally from the class of men all those who possess the further 
 quality “good;” andfff another adjective were prefixed to the 
 combination “ good men,” it would direct a further operation of 
 the same nature, having reference to that further quality which 
 it might be chosen to express. 
 
 It is important to notice carefully the real nature of the ope- 
 ration here described, for it is conceivable, that it might have 
 been different from what it is. Were the adjective simply attri- 
 butive in its character, it would seem, that when a particular set 
 of beings is designated by men , the prefixing of the adjective 
 good would direct us to attach mentally to all those beings the 
 quality of goodness. But this is not the real office of the ad- 
 jective. The operation which we really perform is one of se- 
 lection according to a prescribed principle or idea. To what fa- 
 culties of the mind such an operation would be referred, according 
 to the received classification of its powers, it is not important to 
 inquire, but I suppose that it would be considered as dependent 
 upon the two faculties of Conception or Imagination, and Atten- 
 tion. To the one of these faculties might be referred the forma- 
 tion of the general conception ; to the other the fixing of the 
 mental regard upon those individuals within the prescribed uni- 
 verse of discourse which answer to the conception. If, however, 
 as seems not improbable, the power of Attention is nothing more 
 than the power of continuing the exercise of any other faculty of the 
 mind, we might properly regard the whole of the mental process 
 above described as referable to the mental faculty of Imagination 
 or Conception, the first step of the process being the conception 
 of the Universe itself, and each succeeding step limiting in a de- 
 finite manner the conception thus formed. Adopting this view, I 
 shall describe each such step, or any definite combination of such 
 steps, as a definite act of conception. And the use of this term I 
 shall extend so as to include in its meaning not only the conception 
 of classes of objects represented by particular names or simple 
 attributes of quality, but also the combination of such concep- 
 tions in any manner consistent with the powers and limitations 
 
44 
 
 DERIVATION OF THE LAWS. 
 
 [CHAP. III. 
 
 of the human mind ; indeed, any intellectual operation short 
 of that which is involved in the structure of a sentence or propo- 
 sition. The general laws to which such operations of the mind 
 are subject are now to be considered. 
 
 7. Now it will be shown that the laws which in the preced- 
 ing chapter have been determined a posteriori from the consti- 
 tution of language, for the use of the literal symbols of Logic, 
 are in reality the laws of that definite mental operation which 
 has just been described. We commence our discourse with a 
 certain understanding as to the limits of its subject, i. e. as to 
 the limits of its Universe. Every name, every term of descrip- 
 tion that we employ, directs him Avhom we address to the per- 
 formance of a certain mental operation upon that subject. And 
 thus is thought communicated. But as each name or descriptive 
 term is in this view but the representative of an intellectual ope- 
 ration, that operation being also prior in the order of nature, it 
 is clear that the laws of the name or symbol must be of a deriva- 
 tive character,— must, in fact, originate in those of the operation 
 which they represent. That the laws of the symbol and of the 
 mental process are identical in expression will now be shown. 
 
 8. Let us then suppose that the universe of our discourse is 
 the actual universe, so that words are to be used in the full ex- 
 tent of their meaning, and let us consider the two mental opera- 
 tions implied by the words “white” and “men.” The word 
 “ men” implies the operation of selecting in thought from its 
 subject, the universe, all men; and the resulting conception, 
 men , becomes the subject of the next operation. The operation 
 implied by the word “ white” is that of selecting from its subject, 
 “ men,” all of that class which are white. The final resulting 
 conception is that of “white men.” Now it is perfectly appa- 
 rent that if the operations above described had been performed 
 in a converse order, the result would have been the same. Whe- 
 ther we begin by forming the conception of “»zen,” and then 
 by a second intellectual act limit that conception to “ white 
 men,” or whether we begin by forming the conception of “ white 
 objects,” and then limit it to such of that class as are “men,” is 
 perfectly indifferent so far as the result is concerned. It is ob- 
 vious that the order of the mental processes would be equally 
 
CHAP. III.] 
 
 DERIVATION OF THE LAWS. 
 
 45 
 
 indifferent if for the words “white” and “men” we substituted 
 any other descriptive or appellative terms whatever, provided 
 only that their meaning was fixed and absolute. And thus the 
 indifference of the order of two successive acts of the faculty of 
 Conception, the one of which furnishes the subject upon which 
 the other is supposed to operate, is a general condition of the 
 exercise of that faculty. It is a law of the mind, and it is the 
 real origin of that law of the literal symbols of Logic which con- 
 stitutes its formal expression (1) Chap. n. 
 
 9. It is equally clear that the mental operation above de- 
 scribed is of such a nature that its effect is not altered by repe- 
 tition. Suppose that by a definite act of conception the attention 
 has been fixed upon men, and that by another exercise of the 
 sam'e faculty we limit it to those of the race who are white. 
 Then any further repetition of the latter mental act, by which 
 the attention is limited to white objects, does not in any way 
 modify the conception arrived at, viz., that of ’white men. This 
 is also an example of a general law of the mind, and it has its 
 formal expression in the law ((2) Chap, n.) of the literal symbols. 
 
 10. Again, it is manifest that from the conceptions of two 
 distinct classes of things we can form the conception of that col- 
 lection of things which the two classes taken together compose ; 
 and it is obviously indifferent in what order of position or of 
 priority those classes are presented to the mental view. This is 
 another general law of the mind, and its expression is found in 
 (3) Chap. ii. 
 
 11. It is not necessary to pursue this course of inquiry and 
 comparison. Sufficient illustration has been given to render ma- 
 nifest the two following positions, viz. : 
 
 First, That the operations of the mind, by -which, in the 
 exercise of its power of imagination or conception, it combines 
 and modifies the simple ideas of things or qualities, not less than 
 those operations of the reason which are exercised upon truths 
 and propositions, are subject to general laws. 
 
 Secondly, That those laws are mathematical in their form, 
 and that they are actually developed in the essential law r s of 
 human language; Wherefore the laws of the symbols of Logic 
 
46 DERIVATION OF THE LAW'S. [CHAP. III. 
 
 are deducible from a consideration of the operations of the mind 
 in reasoning. 
 
 12. The remainder of this chapter will be occupied with 
 questions relating to that law of thought whose expression is 
 x 2 = x (II. 9), a law which, as has been implied (II. 15), forms 
 the characteristic distinction of the operations of the mind in its 
 ordinary discourse and reasoning, as compared with its operations 
 when occupied with the general algebra of quantity. An im- 
 portant part of the following inquiry will consist in proving that 
 the symbols 0 and 1 occupy a place, and are susceptible of an 
 interpretation, among the symbols of Logic ; and it may first be 
 necessary to show how particular symbols, such as the above, 
 may with propriety and advantage be employed in the represen- 
 tation of distinct systems of thought. 
 
 The ground of this propriety cannot consist in any commu- 
 nity of interpretation. For in systems of thought so truly 
 distinct as those of Logic and Arithmetic (I use the latter term 
 in its widest sense as the science of Number), there is, properly 
 speaking, no community of subject. The one of them is conver- 
 sant with the very conceptions of things, the other takes account 
 solely of their numerical relations. But inasmuch as the forms 
 and methods of any system of reasoning depend immediately upon 
 the laws to which the symbols are subject, and only mediately, 
 through the above link of connexion, upon their interpretation, 
 there may be both propriety and advantage in employing the 
 same symbols in different systems of thought, provided that such 
 interpretations can be assigned to them as shall render their for- 
 mal laws identical, and their use consistent. The ground of that 
 employment will not then be community of interpretation, but 
 the community of the formal laws, to which in their respective 
 systems they are subject. Nor must that community of formal 
 laws be established upon any other ground than that of a careful 
 observation and comparison of those results which are seen to 
 flow independently from the interpretations of the systems under 
 consideration. 
 
 These observations will explain the process of inquiry adopted 
 in the following Proposition. The literal symbols of Logic are 
 
CHAP. III.] DERIVATION OF tHE LAWS. 47 
 
 universally subject to the law whose expression is x 2 = x. Of 
 the symbols of Number there are two only, 0 and 1, which sa- 
 tisfy this law. But each of these symbols is also subject to a law 
 peculiar to itself in the system of numerical magnitude, and this 
 suggests the inquiry, what interpretations must be given to the 
 literal symbols of Logic, in order that the same peculiar and 
 formal laws may be realized in the logical system also. 
 
 Proposition II. 
 
 13. To determine the logical value and significance of the 
 symbols 0 and 1. 
 
 The symbol 0, as used in Algebra, satisfies the following for- 
 mal law, 
 
 0 x y = 0, or Qy = 0, (1) 
 
 whatever number y may represent. That this formal law may be 
 obeyed in the system of Logic, we must assign to the symbol 0 
 such an interpretation that the class represented by 0 y may be 
 identical with the class represented by 0, whatever the class y 
 may be. A little consideration will show that this condition is 
 satisfied if the symbol 0 represent Nothing. In accordance with 
 a previous definition, we may term Nothing a class. In fact, 
 Nothing and Universe are the two limits of class extension, for 
 they are the limits of the possible interpretations of general 
 names, none of which can relate to fewer individuals than are 
 comprised in Nothing, or to more than are comprised in the 
 Universe. Now whatever the class y may be, the individuals 
 which are common to it and to the class “ Nothing” are identi- 
 cal with those comprised in the class “ Nothing,” for they are 
 none. And thus by assigning to 0 the interpretation Nothing, 
 the law ( 1 ) is satisfied ; and it is not otherwise satisfied consis- 
 tently with the perfectly general character of the class y. 
 
 Secondly, The symbol 1 satisfies in the system of Number 
 the following law, viz., 
 
 1 x y = y> or 1 y = y, 
 
 whatever number y may represent. And this formal equation 
 being assumed as equally valid in the system of this work, in 
 
48 DERIVATION OF THE LAWS. [CHAP. III. 
 
 which 1 and y represent classes, it appears that the symbol 1 
 must represent such a class that all the individuals which are 
 found in any proposed class y are also all the individuals 1 y that 
 are common to that class y and the class represented by 1. A' 
 little consideration will here show that the class represented by 1 
 must be “ the Universe,” since this is the only class in which 
 are found all the individuals that exist in any class. Hence the 
 respective interpretations of the symbols 0 and 1 in the system 
 of Logic are Nothing and Universe. 
 
 14. As with the idea of any class of objects as “ men,” there 
 is suggested to the mind the idea of the contrary class of beings 
 Avhich are not men ; and as the whole Universe is made up of 
 these two classes together, since of every individual which it 
 comprehends we may affirm either that it is a man, or that it is 
 not a man, it becomes important to inquire how such contrary 
 names are to be expressed. Such is the object of the following 
 Proposition. 
 
 Proposition III. 
 
 If x represent any class of objects, then will 1 - x represent the 
 contrary or supplementary class of objects., i. e. the class including 
 all objects which are not comprehended in the class x. 
 
 F or greater distinctness of conception let x represent the class 
 men , and let us express, according to the last Proposition, the 
 Universe by 1 ; now if from the conception of the Universe, as 
 consisting of “ men” and “not-men,” we exclude the conception 
 of “ men,” the resulting conception is that of the contrary class, 
 
 “ not-men.” Hence the class “ not-men” will be represented by 
 1 - x. And, in general, whatever class of objects is represented 
 by the symbol x, the contrary class will be expressed by 1 - x. 
 
 15. Although the following Proposition belongs in strictness 
 to a future chapter of this work, devoted to the subject of 
 maxims or necessary truths, yet, on account of the great impor- 
 tance of that law of thought to which it relates, it has been 
 thought proper to introduce it here. 
 
CHAP. III.] 
 
 DERIVATION OF THE LAWS. 
 
 49 
 
 Proposition IV. 
 
 That axiom of metaphysicians which is termed the principle of 
 contradiction , and which affirms that it is impossible for any being to 
 possess a quality, and at the same time not to possess it, is a conse- 
 quence of the fundamental law of thought , whose expression is x 2 = x. 
 
 Let us write this equation in the form 
 x - x 2 = 0, 
 
 whence we have 
 
 x(\-x) = 0; (1) 
 
 both these transformations being justified by the axiomatic laws 
 of combination and transposition (II. 13). Let us, for simplicity 
 of conception, give to the symbol x the particular interpretation 
 of men, then 1 - x will represent the class of “ not-men” 
 (Prop, iii.) Now the formal product of the expressions of two 
 classes represents that class of individuals which is common to 
 them both (II. 6). Hence #(1 - x) will represent the class 
 whose members are at once “men,” and “ not men,” and the 
 equation (1) thus express the principle, that a class whose mem- 
 bers are at the same time men and not men does not exist. In 
 other words, that it is impossible for the same individual to be at 
 the same time a man and not a man. Now let the meaning of 
 the symbol x be extended from the representing of “ men,” to 
 that of any class of beings characterized by the possession of any 
 quality whatever; and the equation (1) will then express that it 
 is impossible for a being to possess a quality and not to possess 
 that quality at the same time. But this is identically that 
 “ principle of contradiction” which Aristotle has described as the 
 fundamental axiom of all philosophy. “ It is impossible that the 
 same quality should both belong and not belong to the same 
 thing. . . This is the most certain of all principles. . . Wherefore 
 they who demonstrate refer to this as an ultimate opinion. For 
 it is by nature the source of all the other axioms.”* 
 
 * To yap avro apa virapxtiv rt Kal pi) virapxtiv aSvvarov Tip airip Kai Kara 
 to auTO. . . A vty] Si ) iraoGiv lari fitfiaiOTaTi] tOiv apxoiv. . . A 16 Travrig oi cnroStiK- 
 viivrtg tig TavTpv avayovoiv iaxaTi)v S 6 £av ipvcni yap apxn Kai tuiv aWuw 
 aZiuipaTwv avTp iravToiv — Metaphysica, III. 3. 
 
50 DERIVATION OF THE LAWS. [CHAP. III. 
 
 The above interpretation has been introduced not on account 
 of its immediate value in the present system, but as an illustration 
 of a significant fact in the philosophy of the intellectual powers, 
 viz., that what has been commonly regarded as the fundamental 
 axiom of metaphysics is but the consequence of a law of thought, 
 mathematical in its form. I desire to direct attention also to the 
 circumstance that the equation (1) in which that fundamental 
 law of thought is expressed is an equation of the second degree.* * 
 Without speculating at all in this chapter upon the question, 
 whether that circumstance is necessary in its own nature, we 
 may venture to assert that if it had not existed, the whole pro- 
 cedure of the understanding would have been different from what 
 it is. Thus it is a consequence of the fact that the fundamental 
 equation of thought is of the second degree, that we perform the 
 operation of analysis and classification, by division into pairs of 
 
 * Should it here be said that the existence of the equation x 2 = x necessitates 
 also the existence of the equation x 3 = x, which is of the third degree, and then 
 inquired whether that equation does not indicate a process of trichotomy ; the 
 answer is, that the equation x 3 = x is not interpretable in the system of logic. 
 For writing it in either of the forms 
 
 * (1 - *) (I + *) = 0, (2) 
 
 x (1 — x) (— 1 — x) = C, (3) 
 
 we see that its interpretation, if possible at all, must involve that of the factor 
 1 + x, or of the factor — 1 — x. The former is not interpretable, because we 
 cannot conceive of the addition of any class x to the universe 1 ; the latter is not 
 
 interpretable, because the symbol — 1 is not subject to the law x (1 — x) = 0, to 
 
 which all class symbols are subject. Hence the equation x 3 = x admits of no in- 
 terpretation analogous to that of the equation x 2 = x. Were the former equation, 
 however, true independently of the latter, i. e. were that act of the mind which 
 is denoted by the symbol x, such that its second repetition should reproduce the 
 result of a single operation, but not its first or merd repetition, it is presumable 
 that we should be able to interpret one of the forms (2), (3), which under the 
 actual conditions of thought we cannot do. There exist operations, known to 
 the mathematician, the law of which may be adequately expressed by the equa- 
 tion x 3 —x. But they are of a nature altogether foreign to the province of 
 general reasoning. 
 
 In saying that it is conceivable that the law of thought might have been dif- 
 ferent from what it is, I mean only that we can frame such an hypothesis, and 
 study its consequences. The possibility of doing this involves no such doctrine 
 as that the actual law of human reason is the product either of chance or of arbi- 
 trary will. 
 
CHAP. III.] DERIVATION OF THE LAWS. 51 
 
 opposites, or, as it is technically said, by dichotomy. Now if the 
 equation in question had been of the third degree, still admitting 
 of interpretation as such, the mental division must have been 
 threefold in character, and we must have proceeded by a species 
 of trichotomy, the real nature of which it is impossible for us, 
 with our existing faculties, adequately to conceive, but the laws 
 of which we might still investigate as an object of intellectual 
 speculation. 
 
 16. The law of thought expressed by the equation (1) will, 
 for reasons which are made apparent by the above discussion, be 
 occasionally referred to as the “ law of duality.” 
 
52 
 
 DIVISION OF PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 [CHAP. IV. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 OF THE DIVISION OF PROPOSITIONS INTO THE TWO CLASSES OF 
 “PRIMARY” AND “ SECONDARY;” OF THE CHARACTERISTIC PRO- 
 PERTIES OF THOSE CLASSES, AND OF THE LAWS OF THE EXPRES- 
 SION OF PRIMARY PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 1 . r I ''HE laws of t]iose mental operations which are concerned 
 in the processes of Conception or Imagination having 
 been investigated, and the corresponding laws of the symbols 
 by which they are represented explained, we are led to consider 
 the practical application of the results obtained : first, in the 
 expression of the complex terms of propositions ; secondly, in 
 the expression of propositions ; and lastly, in the construction of 
 a general method of deductive analysis. In the present chapter 
 we shall be chiefly concerned with the first of these objects, as 
 an introduction to which it is necessary to establish the following 
 Proposition : 
 
 Proposition I. 
 
 All logical propositions may be considered as belonging to one 
 or the other oftiuo great classes, to which the respective names of 
 “ Primary" or “ Concrete Propositions," and “ Secondary ” or “ Ab- 
 stract Propositions," may be given. 
 
 Every assertion that we make may be referred to one or the 
 other of the two following kinds. Either it expresses a relation 
 among things, or it expresses, or is equivalent to the expression of, 
 a relation among propositions. An assertion respecting the pro- 
 perties of things, or the phaenomena which they manifest, or the 
 circumstances in which they are placed, is, properly speaking, the 
 assertion of a relation among things. To say that “ snow is 
 white,” is for the ends of logic equivalent to saying, that “snow 
 is a white thing.” An assertion respecting facts or events, their 
 mutual connexion and dependence, is, for the same ends, generally 
 equivalent to the assertion, that such and such propositions con- 
 
DIVISION OF PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 53 
 
 CHAP. IV.] 
 
 cerning those events have a certain relation to each other as 
 respects their mutual truth or falsehood. The former class of 
 propositions, relating to things , I call “ Primary the latter class, 
 relating to propositions, I call “ Secondary.” The distinction is 
 in practice nearly but not quite co-extensive with the common 
 logical distinction of propositions as categorical or hypothetical. 
 
 For instance, the propositions, “The sun shines,” “The earth 
 is warmed,” are primary; the proposition, “ If the sun shines 
 the earth is warmed,” is secondary. To say, “ The sun shines,” 
 is to say, “ The sun is that which shines,” and it expresses a re- 
 lation between two classes of things, viz., “ the sun” and “ things 
 which shine.” The secondary proposition, however, given above, 
 expresses a relation of dependence between the two primary propo- 
 sitions, “ The sun shines,” and “ The earth is warmed.” I do not 
 hereby affirm that the relation between these propositions is, like 
 that which exists between the facts which they express, a rela- 
 tion of causality, but only that the relation among the propo- 
 sitions so implies, and is so implied by, the relation among the 
 facts, that it may for the ends of logic be used as a fit repre- 
 sentative of that relation. 
 
 2. If instead of the proposition, “ The sun shines,” we say, 
 “It is true that the sun shines,” we then speak not directly of 
 things, but of a proposition concerning things, viz., of the pro- 
 position, “ The sun shines.” And, therefore, the proposition in 
 which we thus speak is a secondary one. Every primary pro- 
 position may thus give rise to a secondary proposition, viz., to 
 that secondary proposition which asserts its truth, or declares its 
 falsehood. 
 
 It will usually happen, that the particles if, either, or, will 
 indicate that a proposition is secondary ; but they do not neces- 
 sarily imply that such is the case. The proposition, “ Animals 
 are either rational or irrational,” is primary. It cannot be re- 
 solved into “ Either animals are rational or animals are irra- 
 tional,” and it does not therefore express a relation of dependence 
 between the two propositions connected together in the latter 
 disjunctive sentence. The particles, either, or, are in fact no 
 criterion of the nature of propositions, although it happens that 
 they are more frequently found in secondary propositions. Even 
 
54 DIVISION OF PROPOSITIONS. [CHAP. IV. 
 
 the conjunction if may be found in primary propositions. “ Men 
 are, if wise, then temperate,” is an example of the kind. It 
 cannot be resolved into “ If all men are wise, then all men are 
 temperate.” 
 
 3. As it is not my design to discuss the merits or defects of 
 the ordinary division of propositions, I shall simply remark here, 
 that the principle upon which the present classification is founded 
 is clear and definite in its application, that it involves a real 
 and fundamental distinction in propositions, and that it is of 
 essential importance to the development of a general method of 
 reasoning. Nor does the fact that a primary proposition may 
 be put into a form in which it becomes secondary at all conflict 
 with the views here maintained. For in the case thus supposed, 
 it is not of the things connected together in the primary propo- 
 sition that any direct account is taken, but only of the propo- 
 sition itself considered as true or as false. 
 
 4. In the expression both of primary and of secondary propo- 
 sitions, the same symbols, subject, as it will appear, to the same 
 laws, will be employed in this work. The difference between 
 the two cases is a difference not of form but of interpretation. 
 In both cases the actual relation which it is the object of the 
 proposition to express will be denoted by the sign =. In the 
 expression of primary propositions, the members thus connected 
 will usually represent the “ terms” of a proposition, or, as they 
 are more particularly designated, its subject and predicate. 
 
 Proposition II. 
 
 5. To deduce a general method , founded upon the enumeration of 
 possible varieties, for the expression of any class or collection of things, 
 which may constitute a “ term' of a Primary Proposition. 
 
 First, If the class or collection of things to be expressed is 
 defined only by names or qualities common to all the individuals 
 of which it consists, its expression will consist of a single term, 
 in which the symbols expressive of those names or qualities will 
 be combined without any connecting sign, as if by the alge- 
 braic process of multiplication. Thus, if x represent opaque 
 substances, y polished substances, z stones, we shall have, 
 
CHAP. IV.] DIVISION OF PROPOSITIONS. 55 
 
 xyz = opaque polished stones ; 
 
 xy (1 - z) = opaque polished substances which are not stones; 
 x (1 - y) (1 - z) = opaque substances which are not polished, 
 and are not stones ; 
 
 and so on for any other combination. Let it be observed, that 
 each of these expressions satisfies the same law of duality, as the 
 individual symbols which it contains. Thus, 
 
 xyz x xyz - xyz ; 
 
 x y (1 “ z ) x xy (1 - z) = xy (1 - z) ; 
 
 and so on. Any such term as the above we shall designate as 
 a “ class term,” because it expresses a class of things by means 
 of the common properties or names of the individual members of 
 such class. 
 
 Secondly, If we speak of a collection of things, different 
 portions of which are defined by different properties, names, or 
 attributes, the expressions for those different portions must be 
 separately formed, and then connected by the sign + . But if 
 the collection of which we desire to speak has been formed by 
 excluding from some wider collection a defined portion of its 
 members, the sign - must be prefixed to the symbolical expres- 
 sion of the excluded portion. Respecting the use of these sym- 
 bols some further observations may be added. 
 
 6. Speaking generally, the symbol + is the equivalent of the 
 conjunctions “ and,” “or,” and the symbol -, the equivalent of 
 the preposition “ except.” Of the conjunctions “ and” and “ or,” 
 the former is usually employed when the collection to be de- 
 scribed forms the subject, the latter when it forms the predicate, 
 of a proposition. “ The scholar and the man of the world de- 
 sire happiness,” may be taken as an illustration of one of these 
 cases. “ Things possessing utility are either productive of plea- 
 sure or preventive of pain,” may exemplify the other. Now 
 whenever an expression involving these particles presents itself 
 in a primary proposition, it becomes very important to know 
 whether the groups or classes separated in thought by them are 
 intended to be quite distinct from each other and mutually ex- 
 clusive, or not. Does the expression, “ Scholars and men of the 
 world,” include or exclude those who are both ? Does the ex- 
 
56 
 
 DIVISION OF PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 [CHAP. IV. 
 
 pression, “ Either productive of pleasure or preventive of pain,” 
 include or exclude things which possess both these qualities ? I 
 apprehend that in strictness of meaning the conjunctions “and,” 
 “ or,” do possess the power of separation or exclusion here re- 
 ferred to ; that the formula, “ All x's are either y s or z s,” 
 rigorously interpreted, means, “ All as are either y’s, but not z’s,” 
 or, “ z’s but not y s.” But it must at the same time be admitted, 
 that the “jus et norma loquendi” seems rather to favour an oppo- 
 site interpretation. The expression, “ Either y s or 2 ’s,” would 
 generally be understood to include things that are y s and z' s at 
 the same time, together with tilings which come under the one, 
 but not the other. Remembering, however, that the symbol + 
 does possess the separating power ivhich has been the subject of 
 discussion, we must resolve any disjunctive expression which may 
 come before us into elements really separated in thought, and 
 then connect their respective expressions by the symbol + . 
 
 And thus, according to the meaning implied, the expression, 
 “ Things which are either x's or y s,” will have two different sym- 
 bolical equivalents. If we mean, “ Things which are x's, but 
 not y s, or y s, but not x’s,” the expression will be 
 
 ~y) + yi} -«); 
 
 the symbol x standing for x's, y for y s. If, however, we mean, 
 “ Things which are either x's, or, if not x’s, then y’s,” the ex- 
 pression will be 
 
 x + y (1 - x). 
 
 This expression supposes the admissibility of things which are 
 both x's and y's at the same time. It might more fully be ex- 
 pressed in the form 
 
 *y + x (1 - y) + y (1 - x) ; 
 
 but this expression, on addition of the two first terms, only re- 
 produces the former one. 
 
 Let it be observed that the expressions above given satisfy 
 the fundamental law of duality (III. 16). Thus we have 
 
 {x (1 - y) + y (1 - x)) 2 = x (1 -y) + y (1 - x), 
 
 {x + y (1 - x ) } 2 = x + y (1 - x). 
 
 It will be seen hereafter, that this is but a particular manifesta- 
 
CHAP. IV.] DIVISION OP PROPOSITIONS. 57 
 
 tion of a general law of expressions representing “ classes or 
 collections of things.” 
 
 7. The results of these investigations may be embodied in 
 the following rule of expression. 
 
 Rule . — Express simple names or qualities by the symbols x, y, z, 
 Sfc., their contraries by 1- x, 1 - y, 1 - z, 8fc.; classes of things 
 defined by common names or qualities , by connecting the correspond- 
 ing symbols as in multiplication ; collections of things , consisting of 
 portions different from each other , by connecting the expressions of 
 those portions by the sign + . In particular , let the expression , “ Either 
 x’s or ys," be expressed by x(l- y) + y x), when the classes de- 
 noted by x and y are exclusive , by x + y ( 1 - x) when they are not 
 exclusive. Similarly let the expression , “ Either x's, or ys, or z's," be 
 expressed by x (1 - y) (1 - z) + y (1 - x) (1 - z) + z (1 - x ) (1 - y), 
 when the classes denoted by x, y, and z, are designed to be mutually 
 exclusive, by x + y (1 - x) + z (1 - x) (1 -y), when they are not meant 
 to be exclusive, and so on. 
 
 8. On this rule of expression is founded the converse rule of 
 interpretation. Both these will be exemplified with, perhaps, 
 sufficient fulness in the following instances. Omitting for bre- 
 vity the universal subject “ things,” or “ beings,” let us assume 
 
 x = hard, y = elastic, z = metals ; 
 and we shall have the following results : 
 
 “ Non-elastic metals,” will be expressed by z (1 - y) ; 
 
 “ Elastic substances with non-elastic metals,” by y + z (1 - y) ; 
 
 “ Hard substances, except metals,” by x -z ; 
 
 “ Metallic substances, except those which are neither hard nor 
 
 elastic,” by z -z (1 - x) (1 - y), or by 2 { 1 - (1 - x) (1 - y)), 
 
 vide (6), Chap. II. 
 
 In the last example, what we had really to express was “ Metals, 
 except not hard, not elastic, metals.” Conjunctions used be- 
 tween adjectives are usually superfluous, and, therefore, must 
 not be expressed symbolically. 
 
 Thus, “ Metals hard and elastic,” is equivalent to “ Hard 
 elastic metals,” and expressed by xyz. 
 
 Take next the expression, “ Hard substances, except those 
 
58 DIVISION OF PROPOSITIONS. [CHAP. IV. 
 
 which are metallic and non-clastic, and those which are elastic 
 and non-metallic.” Here the word those means hard substances, 
 so that the expression really means, Hard substa?ices except hard 
 substances, metallic, non-elastic , and hard substances non-metallic, 
 elastic; the word except extending to both the classes which 
 follow it. The complete expression is 
 
 x - [xz (1 - y) + xy (1 - z)} ; 
 or, x - xz (1 - y) - xy (1 - z). 
 
 9. The preceding Proposition, with the different illustrations 
 which have been given of it, is a necessary preliminary to the 
 following one, which will complete the design of the present 
 chapter. 
 
 Proposition III. 
 
 To deduce from an examination of their possible varieties a gene- 
 ral method for the expression of Primary or Concrete Propositions. 
 
 A primary proposition, in the most general sense, consists of 
 two terms, between which a relation is asserted to exist. These 
 terms are not necessarily single-worded names, but may represent 
 any collection of objects, such as we have been engaged in consi- 
 dering in the previous sections. The mode of expressing those 
 terms is, therefore, comprehended in the general precepts above 
 given, and it only remains to discover how the relations between 
 the terms are to be expressed. This will evidently depend upon 
 the nature of the relation, and more particularly upon the ques- 
 tion whether, in that relation, the terms are understood to be 
 universal or particular, i. e. whether we speak of the whole of 
 that collection of objects to which a term refers, or indefinitely of 
 the whole or of a part of it, the usual signification of the prefix, 
 “ some.” 
 
 Suppose that we wish to express a relation of identity be- 
 tween the two classes, “ Fixed Stars” and “ Suns,” i. e. to 
 express that “ All fixed stars are suns,” and “ All suns are fixed 
 stars.” Here, if x stand for fixed stars, and y for suns, we shall 
 have 
 
 x = y 
 
 for the equation required. 
 
CHAP. IV.] DIVISION OF PROPOSITIONS. 59 
 
 In the proposition, “ All fixed stars are suns,” the term “all 
 fixed stars” would be called the subject , and “ suns” the predi- 
 cate. Suppose that Ave extend the meaning of the terms subject 
 and predicate in the following manner. By subject let us mean 
 the first term of any affirmative proposition, i. e. the term Avhich 
 precedes the copula is or are ; and by predicate let us agree to 
 mean the second term, i. e. the one which follows the copula ; 
 and let us admit the assumption that either of these may be uni- 
 versal or particular, so that, in either case, the Avhole class may 
 be implied, or only a part of it. Then >ve shall have the folio av- 
 ing Rule for cases such as the one in the last example: — 
 
 10. Rule. — When both Subject and Predicate of a Proposition 
 are universal, form the separate expressions for them, and connect them 
 by the sign =. 
 
 This case will usually present itself in the expression of, the 
 definitions of science, or of subjects treated after the manner of 
 pure science. Mr. Senior’s definition of Avealth affords a good 
 example of this kind, viz. : 
 
 “ Wealth consists of things transferable, limited in supply, 
 and either productive of pleasure or preventive of pain.” 
 
 Before proceeding to express this definition symbolically, it 
 must be remarked that the conjunction and is superfluous. 
 Wealth is really defined by its possession of three properties or 
 qualities, not by its composition out of three classes or collections 
 of objects. Omitting then the conjunction and , let us make 
 
 w = wealth. 
 
 t - things transferable. 
 s = limited in supply. 
 p = productive of pleasure. 
 r = preventive of pain. 
 
 Now it is plain from the nature of the subject, that the ex- 
 pression, “ Either productive of pleasure or preventive of pain,” 
 in the above definition, is meant to be equivalent to “ Either pro- 
 ductive of pleasure ; or, if not productive of pleasure, preventive 
 of pain.” Thus the class of things Avhich the above expression, 
 taken alone, would define, would consist of all things productive 
 
60 
 
 DIVISION OF PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 [CHAP. IV. 
 
 of pleasure, together with all things not productive of pleasure, 
 but preventive of pain, and its symbolical expression would be 
 
 p + ( 1 - p) r. 
 
 If then we attach to this expression placed in brackets to denote 
 that both its terms are referred to, the symbols s and t limiting 
 its application to things “transferable” and “limited in supply,” 
 we obtain the folloAving symbolical equivalent for the original 
 definition, viz. : 
 
 w = st [p + r (1 - p)}. (1) 
 
 If the expression, “ Either productive of pleasure or preventive of 
 pain,” were intended to point out merely those things which are 
 productive of pleasure without being preventive of pain, p (1 - r), 
 or preventive of pain, without being productive of pleasure, 
 r (1 - p) (exclusion being made of those things which are both 
 productive of pleasure and preventive of pain), the expression in 
 symbols of the definition would be 
 
 w - st [p (1 - r) + r (1 -/>)}. (2) 
 
 All this agrees with what has before been more generally stated. 
 
 The reader may be curious to inquire what effect would be 
 produced if we literally translated the expression, “ Things pro- 
 ductive of pleasure or preventive of pain,” by p + r, making the 
 symbolical equation of the definition to be 
 
 w = st (p + r ). (3) 
 
 The answer is, that this expression would be equivalent to (2), 
 with the additional implication that the classes of things denoted 
 by stp and sir are quite distinct, so that of things transferable 
 and limited in supply there exist none in the universe which are 
 at the same time both productive of pleasure and preventive of 
 pain. How the full import of any equation may be determined 
 will be explained hereafter. What has been said may show that be- 
 fore attempting to translate our data into the rigorous language 
 of symbols, it is above all things necessary to ascertain the in- 
 tended. import of the words we are using. But this necessity 
 cannot be regarded as an evil by those who value correctness of 
 
CHAP. IV.] 
 
 DIVISION OF PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 61 
 
 thought, and regard the right employment of language as both 
 its instrument and its safeguard. 
 
 1 1 . Let us consider next the case in which the predicate of 
 the proposition is particular, e. g. “ All men are mortal.” 
 
 In this case it is clear that our meaning is, “ All men are 
 some mortal beings,” and we must seek the expression of the 
 predicate, “ some mortal beings.” Represent then by v, a class 
 indefinite in every respect but this, viz., that some of its members 
 are mortal beings, and let x stand for “mortal beings,” then will 
 vx represent “ some mortal beings.” Hence if y represent men, 
 the equation sought will be 
 
 y - vx. 
 
 From such considerations we derive the following Rule, for 
 expressing an affirmative universal proposition whose predicate 
 is particular : 
 
 Rule. — Express as before the subject and the predicate , attach 
 to the latter the indefinite symbol v, and equate the expressions. 
 
 It is obvious that v is a symbol of the same kind as x, y, &c., 
 and that it is subject to the general law, 
 
 v 2 = v, or v (1 - v) ~ 0. 
 
 Thus, to express the proposition, “ The planets are either 
 primary or secondary,” we should, according to the rule, proceed 
 thus : 
 
 Let x represent planets (the subject) ; 
 y = primary bodies ; 
 z = secondary bodies ; 
 
 then, assuming the conjunction “or” to separate absolutely the 
 class of “primary” from that of “ secondary” bodies, so far as 
 they enter into our consideration in the proposition given, we 
 find for the equation of the proposition 
 
 x = v [y{\ - z) + z{\ -y)}. (4) 
 
 It may be worth while to notice, that in this case the literal 
 translation of the premises into the form 
 
 x - v (y + z) 
 
 ( 5 ) 
 
DIVISION OF PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 62 
 
 [chap. IV. 
 
 would be exactly equivalent, v being an indefinite class 6yrabol. 
 The form (4) is, however, the better, as the expression 
 
 y (1 -z) + z{\ -y) 
 
 consists of terms representing classes quite distinct from each 
 other, and satisfies the fundamental law of duality. 
 
 If we take the proposition, “ The heavenly bodies are either 
 suns, or planets, or comets,” representing these classes of things 
 by w, x , y, z , respectively, its expression, on the supposition that 
 none of the heavenly bodies belong at once to two of the divi- 
 sions above mentioned, will be 
 
 w = v{x(l - y) (1 - z) + y(l - x) (1 - z) + z (l -x) (1 -y)). 
 
 If, however, it were meant to be implied that the heavenly 
 bodies were either suns, or, if not suns, planets, or, if neither suns 
 nor planets, fixed stars, a meaning which does not exclude the 
 supposition of some of them belonging at once to two or to all 
 three of the divisions of suns, planets, and fixed stars, — the ex- 
 pression required would be 
 
 w = v [x + y - x) + z ( \ - x) {\ - y)). (6) 
 
 The above examples belong to the class of descriptions, not 
 definitions. Indeed the predicates of propositions are usually 
 particular. When this is not the case, either the predicate is a 
 singular term, or we employ, instead of the copula “ is” or “ are,” 
 some form of connexion, which implies that the predicate is to be 
 taken universally. 
 
 12. Consider next the case of universal negative propositions, 
 e. g. “ No men are perfect beings.” 
 
 Now it is manifest that in this case we do not speak of a class 
 termed “no men,” and assert of this class that all its members 
 are “ perfect beings.” But we virtually make an assertion about 
 “ all men ” to the effect that they are “ not perfect beings .” Thus 
 the true meaning of the proposition is this : 
 
 “ All men (subject) are (copula) not perfect (predicate) ;” 
 whence, if y represent “ men,” and x “ perfect beings,” we shall 
 have 
 
 y = «0 - x ), 
 
DIVISION OF PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 63 
 
 CHAP. IV.] 
 
 and similarly in any other case. Thus we have the following 
 Rule : 
 
 Rule. — To express any proposition of the form “ No x's are 
 y s," convert it into the form “ All x's are not y's," and then proceed 
 as in the previous case. 
 
 13. Consider, lastly, the case in which the subject of the 
 proposition is particular, e. g. “ Some men are not wise.” Here, 
 as has been remarked, the negative not may properly be referred, 
 certainly, at least, for the ends of Logic, to the predicate wise ; 
 for we do not mean to say that it is not true that “ Some men 
 are wise,” but we intend to predicate of “ some men” a want of 
 wisdom. The requisite form of the given proposition is, there- 
 fore, “ Some men are not-wise.” Putting, then, y for “men,” 
 x for “ wise,” i. e. “ wise beings,” and introducing v as the sym- 
 bol of a class indefinite in all respects but this, that it contains 
 some individuals of the class to whose expression it is prefixed, 
 we have 
 
 vy = v (1 - x). 
 
 14. We may comprise all that we have determined in the 
 following general Rule : 
 
 GENERAL RULE FOR THE SYMBOLICAL EXPRESSION OF PRIMARY 
 PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 1st. If the proposition is affirmative, form the expression of the 
 subject and that of the predicate. Should either of them be particular, 
 attach to it the indefinite symbol v, and then equate the resulting ex- 
 pressions. 
 
 2ndly. If the proposition is negative, express first its true mean- 
 ing by attaching the negative particle to the predicate, then proceed as 
 above. 
 
 One or two additional examples may suffice for illustration. 
 
 Ex. — “ No men are placed in exalted stations, and free from 
 envious regards.” 
 
 Let y represent “ men,” x, “ placed in exalted stations,” z, 
 “ free from envious regards.” 
 
 Now the expression of the class described as “placed in 
 
64 
 
 DIVISION OF PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 [CHAP. IV. 
 
 exalted station,” and “ free from envious regards,” is xz. Hence 
 the contrary class, i. e. they to whom this description does not 
 apply, will be represented by 1 - xz, and to this class all men 
 are referred. Hence we have 
 
 y = v( 1 - xz). 
 
 If the proposition thus expressed had been placed in the equiva- 
 lent form, “ Men in exalted stations are not free from envious 
 regards,” its expression would have been 
 
 yx = v (1 - z). 
 
 It will hereafter appear that this expression is really equivalent 
 to the previous one, on the particular hypothesis involved, viz., 
 that v is an indefinite class symbol. 
 
 Ex. — “ No men are heroes but those who unite self-denial to 
 courage.” 
 
 Let x = “ men,” y = “ heroes,” z = “ those who practise self- 
 denial,” w, “ those who possess courage.” 
 
 The assertion really is, that “ men who do not possess cou- 
 rage and practise self-denial are not heroes.” 
 
 Hence we have 
 
 x ( 1 - zw ) = v ( 1 - y) 
 for the equation required. 
 
 15. Inclosing this Chapter it may be interesting to compare 
 together the great leading types of propositions symbolically ex- 
 pressed. If we agree to represent by X and Y the symbolical 
 expressions of the “terms,” or things related, those types will 
 be 
 
 X =vY, 
 
 X = Y, 
 vX =vY. 
 
 In the first, the predicate only is particular ; in the second, both 
 terms are universal ; in the third, both are particular. Some mi- 
 nor forms are really included under these. Thus, if Y = 0, the 
 second form becomes 
 
 X=0; 
 
 and if Y = 1 it becomes 
 
 X - \ ; 
 
CHAP. IV.] 
 
 DIVISION OF PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 65 
 
 both which forms admit of interpretation. It is further to be 
 noticed, that the expressions X and Y, if founded upon a suffi- 
 ciently careful analysis of the meaning of the “ terms” of the 
 proposition, will satisfy the fundamental law of duality which 
 requires that we have 
 
 P=Ior X(1 - X) = 0, 
 
 Y 2 = Y or Y(1 - Y) = 0. 
 
G(j 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF SYMBOLICAL REASONING. [CHAP. V. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF SYMBOLICAL REASONING, AND 
 OF THE EXPANSION OR DEVELOPMENT OF EXPRESSIONS INVOLV- 
 ING LOGICAL SYMBOLS. 
 
 1 . r I ''HE previous chapters of this work have been devoted to 
 the investigation of the fundamental laws of the opera- 
 tions of the mind in reasoning; of their development in the 
 laws of the symbols of Logic ; and of the principles of expression, 
 by which that species of propositions called primary may be repre- 
 sented in the language of symbols. These inquiries have been 
 in the strictest sense preliminary. They form an indispensable 
 introduction to one of the chief objects of this treatise — the con- 
 struction of a system or method of Logic upon the basis of an 
 exact summary of the fundamental laws of thought. There are 
 certain considerations touching the nature of this end, and the 
 means of its attainment, to which I deem it necessary here to 
 direct attention. 
 
 2. I would remark in the first place that the generality of a 
 method in Logic must very much depend upon the generality of 
 its elementary processes and laws. We have, for instance, in the 
 previous sections of this work investigated, among other things, 
 the laws of that logical process of addition which is symbolized 
 by the sign +. Now those laws have been determined from the 
 study of instances, in all of which it has been a necessary condi- 
 tion, that the classes or things added together in thought should 
 be mutually exclusive. The expression x + y seems indeed un- 
 interpretable, unless it be assumed that the things represented 
 by x and the things represented by y are entirely separate ; 
 that they embrace no individuals in common. And conditions 
 analogous to this have been involved in those acts of conception 
 from the study of which the laws of the other symbolical opera- 
 tions have been ascertained. The question then arises, whether 
 
CHAP. V.] PRINCIPLES OF SYMBOLICAL REASONING. 67 
 
 it is necessary to restrict the application of these symbolical laws 
 and processes by the same conditions of interpretability under 
 which the knowledge of them was obtained. If such restriction 
 is necessary, it is manifest that no such thing as a general 
 method in Logic is possible. On the other hand, if such restric- 
 tion is unnecessary, in what light are we to contemplate pro- 
 cesses which appear to be uninterpretable in that sphere of thought 
 which they are designed to aid ? These questions do not belong 
 to the science of Logic alone. They are equally pertinent to every 
 developed form of human reasoning which is based upon the 
 employment of a symbolical language. 
 
 3. I would observe in the second place, that this apparent 
 failure of correspondency between process and interpretation does 
 not manifest itself in the ordinary applications of human rea- 
 son. For no operations are there performed of which the mean- 
 ing and the application are not seen ; and to most minds it does 
 not suffice that merely formal reasoning should connect their 
 premises and their conclusions ; but every step of the connecting 
 train, every mediate result which is established in the course of 
 demonstration, must be intelligible also. And without doubt, 
 this is both an actual condition and an important safeguard, in 
 the reasonings and discourses of common life. 
 
 There are perhaps many who would be disposed to extend 
 the same principle to the general use of symbolical language as 
 an instrument of reasoning. It might be argued, that as the 
 laws or axioms which govern the use of symbols are established 
 upon an investigation of those cases only in which interpretation 
 is possible, we have no right to extend their application to other 
 cases in which interpretation is impossible or doubtful, even 
 though (as should be admitted) such application is employed in 
 the intermediate steps of demonstration only. Were this ob- 
 jection conclusive, it must be acknowledged that slight ad- 
 vantage would accrue from the use of a symbolical method in 
 Logic. Perhaps that advantage would be confined to the mecha- 
 nical gain of employing short and convenient symbols in the 
 place of more cumbrous ones. But the objection itself is falla- 
 cious. Whatever our a -priori anticipations might be, it is an 
 unquestionable fact that the validity of a conclusion arrived at 
 
68 PRINCIPLES OF SYMBOLICAL REASONING. [CHAP. V. 
 
 by any symbolical process of reasoning, does not depend upon 
 our ability to interpret the formal results which have presented 
 themselves in the different stages of the investigation. There 
 exist, in fact, certain general principles relating to the use of 
 symbolical methods, which, as pertaining to the particular sub- 
 ject of Logic, I shall first state, and I shall then offer some re- 
 marks upon the nature and upon the grounds of their claim to 
 acceptance. 
 
 4. The conditions of valid reasoning, by the aid of symbols, 
 are — 
 
 1st, That a fixed interpretation be assigned to the symbols 
 employed in the expression of the data ; and that the laws of the 
 combination of those symbols be correctly determined from that 
 interpretation . 
 
 2nd, That the formal processes of solution or demonstration 
 be conducted throughout in obedience to all the laws deter- 
 mined as above, without regard to the question of the interpreta- 
 bility of the particular results obtained. 
 
 3rd, That the final result be interpretable in form, and that 
 it be actually interpreted in accordance with that system of in- 
 terpretation which has been employed in the expression of the 
 data. Concerning these principles, the following observations 
 may be made. 
 
 5. The necessity of a fixed interpretation of the symbols has 
 already been sufficiently dwelt upon (II. 3). The necessity that 
 the fixed result should be in such a form as to admit of that in- 
 terpretation being applied, is founded on the obvious principle, 
 that the use of symbols is a means towards an end, that end 
 being the knowledge of some intelligible fact or truth. And 
 that this end may be attained, the final result which expresses 
 the symbolical conclusion must be in an interpretable form. It 
 is, however, in connexion with the second of the above general 
 principles or conditions (V. 4), that the greatest difficulty is 
 likely to be felt, and upon this point a few additional words are 
 necessary. 
 
 I would then remark, that the principle in question may be 
 considered as resting upon a general law of the mind, the know- 
 ledge of which is not given to us a priori, i. e. antecedently to 
 
CHAP. V.] PRINCIPLES OF SYMBOLICAL REASONING. 
 
 69 
 
 experience, but is derived, like the knowledge of the other laws 
 of the mind, from the clear manifestation of the general principle 
 in the particular instance. A single example of reasoning, in 
 which symbols are employed in obedience to laws founded upon 
 their interpretation, but without any sustained reference to that 
 interpretation, the chain of demonstration conducting us through 
 intermediate steps which are not interpretable, to a final result 
 which is interpretable, seems not only to establish the validity of 
 the particular application, but to make known to us the general 
 law manifested therein. No accumulation of instances can pro- 
 perly add weight to such evidence. It may furnish us with clearer 
 conceptions of that common element of truth upon which the ap- 
 plication of the principle depends, and so prepare the way for its 
 reception. It may, where the immediate force of the evidence is 
 not felt, serve as a verification, a posteriori, of the practical vali- 
 dity of the principle in question. But this does not affect the posi- 
 tion affirmed, viz., that the general principle must be seen in the 
 particular instance, — seen to be general in application as well as 
 true in the special example. The employment of the uninterpre- 
 table symbol ^/ - 1 , in the intermediate processes of trigonometry, 
 furnishes an illustration of what has been said. I apprehend that 
 there is no mode of explaining that application which does not 
 covertly assume the very principle in question. But that prin- 
 ciple, though not, as I conceive, warranted by formal reasoning 
 based upon other grounds, seems to deserve a place among those 
 axiomatic truths which constitute, in some sense, the foundation 
 of the possibility of general knowledge, and which may properly 
 be regarded as expressions of the mind’s own laws and consti- 
 tution. 
 
 6. The following is the mode in which the principle above 
 stated will be applied in the present work. It has been seen, 
 that any system of propositions may be expressed by equations 
 involving symbols x, y, z, which, whenever interpretation is pos- 
 sible, are subject to laws identical in form with the laws of a sys- 
 tem of quantitative symbols, susceptible only of the values 0 and 
 1 (II. 15). But as the formal processes of reasoning depend only 
 upon the laws of the symbols, and not upon the nature of their 
 interpretation, we are permitted to treat the above symbols, 
 
70 PRINCIPLES OF SYMBOLICAL REASONING. [CHAP. V. 
 
 x, y, z, as if they were quantitative symbols of the kind above 
 described. We may in fact lay aside the logical interpretation of 
 the symbols in the given equation ; convert them into quantitative sym- 
 bols, susceptible only of the values 0 and 1 ; perform upon them as such 
 all the requisite processes of solution; and finally restore to them their 
 logical interpretation. And this is the mode of procedure which 
 will actually be adopted, though it will be deemed unnecessary 
 to restate in every instance the nature of the transformation em- 
 ployed. The processes to which the symbols x, y, z, regarded 
 as quantitative and of the species above described, are subject, are 
 not limited by those conditions of thought to which they would, 
 if performed upon purely logical symbols, be subject, and a free- 
 dom of operation is given to us in the use of them, without 
 which, the inquiry after a general method in Logic would be a 
 hopeless quest. 
 
 Now the above system of processes would conduct us to no 
 intelligible result, unless the final equations resulting therefrom 
 were in a form which should render their interpretation, after 
 restoring to the symbols their logical significance, possible. 
 There exists, however, a general method of reducing equations 
 to such a form, and the remainder of this chapter will be devoted 
 to its consideration. I shall say little concerning the way in 
 which the method renders interpretation possible, — this point 
 being reserved for the next chapter, — but shall chiefly confine 
 myself here to the mere process employed, which may be cha- 
 racterized as a process of “ development.” As introductory to 
 the nature of this process, it may be proper first to make a few 
 observations. 
 
 7. Suppose that we are considering any class of things with 
 reference to this question, viz., the relation in which its members 
 stand as to the possession or the want of a certain property x. As 
 every individual in the proposed class either possesses or does 
 not possess the property in question, we may divide the class 
 into two portions, the former consisting of those individuals 
 which possess, the latter of those which do not possess, the pro- 
 perty. This possibility of dividing in thought the whole class 
 into two constituent portions, is antecedent to all knowledge of 
 the constitution of the class derived from any other source ; of 
 
71 
 
 CHAP. V.] PRINCIPLES OF SYMBOLICAL REASONING. 
 
 which knowledge the effect can only be to inform us, more or 
 less precisely, to what further conditions the portions of the class 
 which possess and which do not possess the given property are 
 subject. Suppose, then, such knowledge is to the following effect, 
 viz., that the members of that portion which possess the property 
 x, possess also a certain property u, and that these conditions 
 united are a sufficient definition of them. We may then repre- 
 sent that portion of the original class by the expression ux (II. 6). 
 If, further, we obtain information that the members of the ori- 
 ginal class which do not possess the property x, are subject to a 
 condition v, and are thus defined, it is clear, that those members 
 ■will be represented by the expression v (1 -x). Hence the class 
 in its totality will be represented by 
 
 ux + v (1 - x) ; 
 
 which may be considered as a general developed form for the 
 expression of any class of objects considered Avith reference to 
 the possession or the want of a given property x. 
 
 The general form thus established upon purely logical 
 grounds may also be deduced from distinct considerations of 
 formal laiv, applicable to the symbols x, y, z, equally in their 
 logical and in their quantitative interpretation already referred to 
 (V.6). 
 
 8. Definition . — Any algebraic expression involving a sym- 
 bol x is termed a function of x, and may be represented under 
 the abbreviated general form f(x). Any expression involving 
 two symbols, x and y, is similarly termed a function of x and y, 
 and may be represented under the general form f(x, y), and so 
 on for any other case. 
 
 Thus the form f (x) would indifferently represent any of the 
 
 following functions, viz., x, 1 - x, 
 
 1 + x 
 
 - — -, &c . ; and fix, y) Avould 
 
 equally represent any of the forms x + y, x -2 y, - — &c. 
 
 x — ly 
 
 On the same principles of notation, if in any function f(x), 
 Ave change x into 1, the result Avill be expressed by the form 
 /( 1) ; if in the same function Ave change x into 0, the result Avill 
 be expressed by the form /( 0). Thus, if f (x) represent the 
 
72 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF SYMBOLICAL REASONING. [CHAP. V. 
 
 function 
 
 a +x 
 a - 2x 
 
 /( 1) will represent 
 
 a + 1 
 a - 2 ’ 
 
 and / (0) will repre- 
 
 , a 
 sent - . 
 a 
 
 9. Definition . — Any function f(x), in which # is a logical 
 symbol, or a symbol of quantity susceptible only of the values 
 0 and 1, is said to be developed, when it is reduced to the form 
 ax + b (1 - x), a and b being so determined as to make the result 
 equivalent to the function from which it was derived. 
 
 This definition assumes, that it is possible to represent any 
 function f (x) in the form supposed. The assumption is vindi- 
 cated in the following Proposition. 
 
 Proposition I. 
 
 10. To develop any function f (x) in which x is a logical symbol. 
 
 By the principle which has been asserted in this chapter, it 
 is lawful to treat a as a quantitative symbol, susceptible only of 
 the values 0 and 1. 
 
 Assume then, 
 
 f(x) = ax + b ( 1 - x), 
 and making x = 1, we have 
 
 /(!) = «• 
 
 Again, in the same equation making x = 0, we have 
 
 m = &■ 
 
 Hence the values of a and b are determined, and substituting 
 them in the first equation, we have 
 
 /(*W(l)*+/(0)(l-«); (1) 
 
 as the development sought.* The second member of the equa- 
 
 * To some it may be interesting to remark, that the development of /Or) 
 obtained in this chapter, strictly holds, in the logical system, tl^e place of the 
 expansion of f (x) in ascending powers of x in the system of ordinary algebra. 
 Thus it may be obtained by introducing into the expression of Taylor’s well- 
 known theorem, viz. : 
 
 / (*) =/ (0) + / (0) X +f" (0) A- 4 (0) jfL-, &C. 
 
 the condition x (1 - x) = 0, whence we find x* = x, x 3 — x, &c., and 
 
 ( 1 ) 
 
CHAP. V.] PRINCIPLES OF SYMBOLICAL REASONING. 
 
 73 
 
 tion adequately represents the function f (x), whatever the form 
 of that function may be. For a; regarded as a quantitative sym- 
 bol admits only of the values 0 and 1, and for each of these 
 values the development 
 
 / (1) x + f (0) (I-*), 
 
 assumes the same value as the function/ (x). 
 
 As an illustration, let it be required to develop the function 
 
 l Q 
 
 - — — . Here, when x = 1, we find /( 1) = - , and when x = 0, 
 1 + 2x o 
 
 we find/(0) = y , or 1. Hence the expression required is 
 
 l+x 2 
 
 t72i-3* +l -* i 
 
 and this equation is satisfied for each of the values of which the 
 symbol x is susceptible. 
 
 Proposition II. 
 
 To expand or develop a function involving any number of logical 
 symbols. 
 
 Let us begin with the case in which there are two symbols, 
 x and y, and let us represent the function to be developed by 
 
 First, considering / (x, y) as a function of x alone, and ex- 
 panding it by the general theorem (1), we have 
 
 f(*>y) ts f(i>y)*-+f(0,y)(i-x)i ( 2 ) 
 
 /(*) =/( 0 ) + {/ ( 0 ) +45 + + &C. } X. ( 2 ) 
 
 But making in (1), x = 1, we get 
 
 /(i) =/( o) +/ (0) +4? + rS + &c - ; 
 
 whence 
 
 /' (0) +45 + &c - = ^ (i ) 
 
 and (2) becomes, on substitution, 
 
 /(x)=/(0) + {/(l)-/(0)}x, 
 
 = /(l)x +/ (0) (1 - x), 
 
 the form in question. This demonstration in supposing/ (x) to be developable in 
 a series of ascending powers of x is less general than the one in the text. 
 
74 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF SYMBOLICAL REASONING. [CHAP. V. 
 
 wherein /(l, y) represents what the proposed function becomes, 
 when in it for x we write 1, and / (0, y) what the said function 
 becomes, when in it for x we write 0. 
 
 Now, taking the coefficient / (1, y), and regarding it as a func- 
 tion of y, and expanding it accordingly, we have 
 
 /(i, y) = /(l, l)y+/(l,0)(l-y), (3) 
 
 wherein /( 1, 1) represents what/(l, y) becomes when y is made 
 equal to 1, and /(l, 0) what f(\,y ) becomes when y is made 
 equal to 0. 
 
 In like manner, the coefficient/ (0, y ) gives by expansion, 
 
 /(0) y) = /(0, 1) y +/(0, 0) (1 - y). (4) 
 
 Substitute in (2) for /( 1, y), /( 0, y), their values given in (3) 
 and (4), and we have 
 
 /0> y) =/(!> 1 )*y +/(1, 0)a;(l -y) +/( 0, 1) (1-x )y 
 
 +/(0, 0)(l-*)(l-y), (5) 
 
 for the expansion required. Here /( 1, 1) represents what f(x,y) 
 becomes when we make therein x = 1, y = 1 ; /( 1, 0) represents 
 what f ( x , y) becomes when we make therein x = 1, y = 0, and 
 so on for the rest. 
 
 1 - x 
 
 Thus, if / ( x , y) represent the function - — -, we find 
 /0.0-jj. /(M)-J.o, /(0, 1) ■= g, /(0,0) = I, 
 
 whence the expansion of the given function is 
 
 W + 0# (1 - y) + J (1 - x) y + (1 - x) (1 - y). 
 
 It will in the next chapter be seen that the forms and the 
 
 former of which is known to mathematicians as the symbol of in- 
 determinate quantity, admit, in such expressions as the above, of 
 a very important logical interpretation. 
 
 Suppose, in the next place, that we have three symbols in 
 the function to be expanded, which we may represent under the 
 general form f(x, y, z ). Proceeding as before, we get 
 
CHAP. V.] PRINCIPLES OF SYMBOLICAL REASONING. 75 
 
 f(z,y, z)=f(\,\,\)xyz+f(\,\,0)xy(\-z)+f(} > 0, l)o;(l -y)z 
 + /(!» 0) x (1 - y) (1 - z) + /( 0, 1, 1) (1 - x) yz 
 
 + /(0, 1, 0) (1 - x)y (1-z) +/(0, 0, 1) (1 -x) (1 -y)z 
 + / ( 0, 0, 0) (1 -x) (1 -y) (1-z), 
 
 in which /(l, 1,1) represents what the function fix, y, z) be- 
 comes when we make therein x = 1, y = 1, z = 1, and so on for 
 the rest. 
 
 11. It is now easy to see the general law which determines 
 the expansion of any proposed function, and to reduce the me- 
 thod of effecting the expansion to a rule. But before proceeding 
 to the expression of such a rule, it will be convenient to premise 
 the following observations : — 
 
 Each form of expansion that we have obtained consists of cer- 
 tain terms, into which the symbols x, y, &c. enter, multiplied by 
 coefficients, into which those symbols do not enter. Thus the 
 expansion of f(x) consists of two terms, x and 1 - x, multiplied 
 by the coefficients f( 1) and/(0) respectively. And the expan- 
 sion of f(x,y) consists of the four terms xy, x (1 -y), (1 - x) y, 
 and (1 - x), (1 - y), multiplied by the coefficients /( 1, 1), /(l, 0), 
 f(0, 1), /( 0, 0), respectively. The terms x, 1 - x, in the former 
 case, and the terms xy, a;(l - y), &c., in the latter, we shall call 
 the constituents of the expansion. It is evident that they are in 
 form independent of the form of the function to be expanded . 
 Of the constituent xy , x and y are termed the factors . 
 
 The general rule of development will therefore consist of two 
 parts, the first of which will relate to the formation of the consti- 
 tuents of the expansion, the second to the determination of their 
 respective coefficients. It is as follows : 
 
 1st. To expand any function of the symbols x, y, z . — Form a 
 series of constituents in the following manner : Let the first con- 
 stituent be the product of the symbols ; change in this product 
 any symbol z into 1 - z, for the second constituent. Then in 
 both these change any other symbol y into 1 - y, for two more 
 constituents. Then in the four constituents thus obtained change 
 any other symbol x into 1 - x, for four new constituents, and so 
 on until the number of possible changes is exhausted. 
 
 2ndly. To find the coefficient of any constituent. — If that con- 
 
76 PRINCIPLES OF SYMBOLICAL REASONING. [CHAP. V. 
 
 stituent involves x as a factor, change in the original function x 
 into 1 ; but if it involves 1 - x as a factor, change in the original 
 function x into 0. Apply the same rule with reference to the 
 symbols y, z, &c. : the final calculated value of the function thus 
 transformed will be the coefficient sought. 
 
 The sum of the constituents, multiplied each by its respective 
 coefficient, will be the expansion required. 
 
 12. It is worthy of observation, that a function may be de- 
 veloped with reference to symbols which it does not explicitly 
 contain. Thus if, proceeding according to the rule, we seek to 
 develop the function 1 - x, with reference to the symbols x and 
 y, we have, 
 
 When x = 1 and y = 1 the given function = 0. 
 
 ® = 1 . „ V = 0 „ „ = 0 . 
 
 x = 0 „ y = 1 „ „ =1. 
 
 x = 0 „ y = 0 „ „ =1. 
 
 Whence the development is 
 
 1 — x = 0 xy + Q x (\ - y) + ( \ - x)y + (1-#) (1 - y) ; 
 and this is a true development. The addition of the terms ( 1 - x)y 
 and (1 - x) (1 - y) produces the function 1 - x. 
 
 The symbol 1 thus developed according to the rule, with re- 
 spect to the symbol x, gives 
 
 x + 1 — x. 
 
 Developed with respect to x and y, it gives 
 
 xy + .z(l -y) + (1 -x) y + (l - x) (1 -y). 
 
 Similarly developed with respect to any set of symbols, it pro- 
 duces a series consisting of all possible constituents of those 
 symbols. 
 
 13. A few additional remarks concerning the nature of the 
 general expansions may with propriety be added. Let us take, 
 for illustration, the general theorem (5), which presents the type 
 of development for functions of two logical symbols. 
 
 In the first place, that theorem is perfectly true and intel- 
 ligible when x and y are quantitative symbols of the species con- 
 sidered in this chapter, whatever algebraic form may be assigned 
 to the function f(x, y), and it may therefore be intelligibly cm- 
 
CHAP. V.] PRINCIPLES OF SYMBOLICAL REASONING. 77 
 
 ployed in any stage of the process of analysis intermediate be- 
 tween the change of interpretation of the symbols from the 
 logical to the quantitative system above referred to, and the final 
 restoration of the logical interpretation. 
 
 Secondly. The theorem is perfectly true and intelligible when 
 x and y are logical symbols, provided that the form of the func- 
 tion/ (x, y ) is such as to represent a class or collection of things, 
 in which case the second member is always logically interpretable. 
 For instance, if f(x, y) represent the function 1 - x + xy , we ob- 
 tain on applying the theorem 
 
 1 - x + xy = xy + Q x (\ -?/) + (!- x) y + (\ - x) (\ - y), 
 
 = xy + (1 -x)y + (1 -x) (1 -y), 
 and this result is intelligible and true. 
 
 Thus we may regard the theorem as true and intelligible for 
 quantitative symbols of the species above described, alivays ; for 
 logical symbols, always when interpretable . Whensoever there- 
 fore it is employed in this work it must be understood that the 
 symbols x, y are quantitative and of the particular species referred 
 to, if the expansion obtained is not interpretable. 
 
 But though the expansion is not always immediately inter- 
 pretable, it always conducts us at once to results which are in- 
 terpretable. Thus the expression x - y gives on development 
 the form 
 
 which is not generally interpretable. We cannot take, in thought, 
 from the class of things which are x's and not y’s, the class of 
 things which are y s and not x's, because the latter class is not 
 contained in the former. But if the form x - y presented itself 
 as the first member of an equation, of which the second member 
 was 0, we should have on development 
 
 *(1 - V ) -3/C 1 -*) = °- 
 
 Now it will be shown in the next chapter that the above equa- 
 tion, x and y being regarded as quantitative and of the species 
 described, is resolvable at once into the two equations 
 x(\-y) = 0, y( l-.r) = 0, 
 
 and these equations are directly interpretable in Logic when lo- 
 
78 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF SYMBOLICAL REASONING. [CHAP. V. 
 
 gical interpretations are assigned to the symbols x and y. And 
 it may be remarked, that though functions do not necessarily be- 
 come interpretable upon development, yet equations are always 
 reducible by this process to interpretable forms. 
 
 14. The following Proposition establishes some important 
 properties of constituents. In its enunciation the symbol t is 
 employed to represent indifferently any constituent of an expan- 
 sion. Thus if the expansion is that of a function of two symbols 
 x and y, t represents any of the four forms xy, x (1 - y), (1 - x)y, 
 and (l - x) (1 - y). Where it is necessary to represent the con- 
 stituents of an expansion by single symbols, and yet to distinguish 
 them from each other, the distinction will be marked by suffixes. 
 Thus ti might be employed to represent xy, t 2 to represent x ( 1 - y), 
 and so on. 
 
 Proposition III. 
 
 Any single constituent t of an expansion satisfies the law of dua- 
 lity whose expression is 
 
 t(l-t) = 0. 
 
 The product of any two distinct constituents of an expansion is equal 
 to 0, and the sum of all the constituents is equal to 1. 
 
 1st. Consider the particular constituent xy. We have 
 
 xy x xy = x 2 y 2 . 
 
 But x 2 = x, y 2 = y, by the fundamental law of class symbols ; 
 hence 
 
 xy x xy = xy. 
 
 Or representing xy by t, 
 
 t x ij = ij] 
 
 or if (1 - t ) = 0. 
 
 Similarly the constituent x ( 1 - y) satisfies the same law. For we 
 have 
 
 x 2 = x, (1 - y ) 2 = 1 - y, 
 
 .-. {*(1 - y)} 2 = z(l -y), or £(1 -t) = 0. 
 
 Now every factor of every constituent is either of the form x or 
 of the form 1 - x. Hence the square of each factor is equal to that 
 
CHAP. V.] PRINCIPLES OF SYMBOLICAL REASONING. 
 
 79 
 
 factor, and therefore the square of the product of the factors, i. e. 
 of the constituent, is equal to the constituent ; wherefore t repre- 
 senting any constituent, we have 
 
 tr = t, or t (1 - t) = 0. 
 
 2ndly. The product of any two constituents is 0. This is 
 evident from the general law of the symbols expressed by the 
 equation x (1 - x) = 0 ; for whatever constituents in the same ex- 
 pansion we take, there will be at least one factor x in the one, to 
 which will correspond a factor 1 - x in the other. 
 
 3rdly. The sum of all the constituents of an expansion is 
 unity. This is evident from addition of the two constituents x 
 and 1 - x, or of the four constituents, xy, x (1 - y), (1 - x) y, 
 (1 - x) (1 - y). But it is also, and more generally, proved by 
 expanding 1 in terms of any set of symbols (V. 12). The consti- 
 tuents in this case are formed as usual, and all the coefficients 
 are unity. 
 
 15. With the above Proposition we may connect the fol- 
 lowing. 
 
 Proposition IV. 
 
 If V represent the sum of any series of constituents , the separate 
 coefficients of which are 1, then is the condition satisfied, 
 
 V(l-V) = 0. 
 
 Let t\, . . . t n be the constituents in question, then 
 
 V — t\ + t 2 . . . 4- t n . 
 
 Squaring both sides, and observing that t? - t u t x t 2 = 0, &c., we 
 have 
 
 V 2 = t x + t 2 . . . + t n ; 
 
 whence 
 
 Therefore 
 
 V = F 2 . 
 
 F(1 - V) = 0. 
 
80 
 
 OF INTERPRETATION. 
 
 [CHAP. VI. 
 
 CHAPTEK VI. 
 
 OF THE GENERAL INTERPRETATION OF LOGICAL EQUATIONS, AND 
 THE RESULTING ANALYSIS OF PROPOSITIONS. ALSO, OF THE 
 CONDITION OF INTERPRET ABILITY OF LOGICAL FUNCTIONS. 
 
 1. TT has been observed that the complete expansion of any 
 function by the general rule demonstrated in the last 
 chapter, involves two distinct sets of elements, viz., the consti- 
 tuents of the expansion, and their coefficients. I propose in 
 the present chapter to inquire, first, into the interpretation of 
 constituents, and afterwards into the mode in which that inter- 
 pretation is modified by the coefficients with which they are 
 connected. 
 
 The terms “ logical equation,” “ logical function,” &c., will 
 be . employed generally to denote any equation or function in- 
 volving the symbols x , y, &c., which may present itself either 
 in the expression of a system of premises, or in the train of sym- 
 bolical results which intervenes between the premises and the 
 conclusion. If that function or equation is in a form not imme- 
 diately interpretable in Logic, the symbols x, y, &c., must be re- 
 garded as quantitative symbols of the species described in previous 
 chapters (II. 15), (V. 6), as satisfying the law, 
 
 x (1 - x) = 0. 
 
 By the problem, then, of the interpretation of any such logical 
 function or equation, is meant the reduction of it to a form in 
 which, when logical values are assigned to the symbols x, y, &c., 
 it shall become interpretable, together with the resulting inter- 
 pretation. These conventional definitions are in accordance with 
 the general principles for the conducting of the method of this 
 treatise, laid down in the previous chapter. 
 
CHAP. VI.] 
 
 OF INTERPRETATION. 
 
 81 
 
 Proposition I. 
 
 2. The constituents of the expansion of any function of the logi- 
 cal symbols x, y, 8fc., are interpretable , and represent the several 
 exclusive divisions of the universe of discourse , formed by the predica- 
 tion and denial in every possible way of the qualities denoted by the 
 symbols x, y, fc. 
 
 For greater distinctness of conception, let it be supposed that 
 the function expanded involves two symbols x and y, with re- 
 ference to which the expansion has been effected. W e have then 
 the following constituents, viz. : 
 
 xy, x(l -y), (l-x)y, (l-x)(l-y). 
 
 Of these it is evident, that the first xy represents that class 
 of objects which at the same time possess both the elementary 
 qualities expressed by x and y, and that the second x (l - y) re- 
 presents the class possessing the property x, but not the property 
 y. In like manner the third constituent represents the class of 
 objects which possess the property represented by y, but not 
 that represented by x ; and the fourth constituent (1 - x) (1 - y), 
 represents that class of objects, the members of which possess nei- 
 ther of the qualities in question. 
 
 Thus the constituents in the case just considered represent 
 all the four classes of objects which can be described by affirma- 
 tion and denial of the properties expressed by x and y. Those 
 classes are distinct from each other. No member of one is a mem- 
 ber of another, for each class possesses some property or quality 
 contrary to a property or quality possessed by any other class. 
 Again, these classes together make up the universe, for there is 
 no object which may not be described by the presence or the 
 absence of a proposed quality, and thus each individual thing in 
 the universe may be referred to some one or other of the four 
 classes made by the possible combination of the two given 
 classes x and y, and their contraries. 
 
 The remarks which have here been made with reference to the 
 constituents of / ( x , y) are perfectly general in character. The 
 constituents of any expansion represent classes — those classes 
 
82 OF INTERPRETATION. [CHAP. VI. 
 
 are mutually distinct, through the possession of contrary qualities, 
 and they together make up the universe of discourse. 
 
 3. These properties of constituents have their expression in 
 the theorems demonstrated in the conclusion of the last chapter, 
 and might thence have been deduced. From the fact that every 
 constituent satisfies the fundamental law of the individual sym- 
 bols, it might have been conjectured that each constituent would 
 represent a class. From the fact that the product of any two 
 constituents of an expansion vanishes, it might have been con- 
 cluded that the classes they represent are mutually exclusive. 
 Lastly, from the fact that the sum of the constituents of an ex- 
 pansion is unity, it might have been inferred, that the classes 
 which they represent, together make up the universe. 
 
 4. Upon the laws of constituents and the mode of their in- 
 terpretation above determined, are founded the analysis and the 
 interpretation of logical equations. That all such equations ad- 
 mit of interpretation by the theorem of development has already 
 been stated. I propose here to investigate the forms of possible 
 solution which thus present themselves in the conclusion of a 
 train of reasoning, and to show how those forms arise. Although, 
 properly speaking, they are but manifestations of a single funda- 
 mental type or principle of expression, it will conduce to clearness 
 of apprehension if the minor varieties which they exhibit are 
 presented separately to the mind. 
 
 The forms, which are three in number, are as follows : 
 
 FORM i. 
 
 5. The form we shall first consider arises when any logical 
 equation V= 0 is developed, and the result, after resolution into 
 its component equations, is to be interpreted. The function is sup- 
 posed to involve the logical symbols x,y,&c., in combinations which 
 are not fractional. Fractional combinations indeed only arise in 
 the class of problems which will be considered when we come to 
 speak of the third of the forms of solution above referred to. 
 
 Proposition II. 
 
 To interpret the logical equation V= 0. 
 
 For simplicity let us suppose that V involves but two sym- 
 
OF INTERPRETATION. 
 
 83 
 
 CHAP. VI.] 
 
 bols, x and y, and let us represent the development of the given 
 equation by 
 
 axy + bx (1 - y) + c (1 - x) y + <2(1 - x) (1 - y) = 0; (1) 
 
 a, b, c, and d being definite numerical constants. 
 
 Now, suppose that any coefficient, as a, does not vanish. 
 Then multiplying each side of the equation by the constituent xy , 
 to which that coefficient is attached, we have 
 
 axy = 0, 
 
 whence, as a does not vanish, 
 
 xy = 0, 
 
 and this result is quite independent of the nature of the other co- 
 efficients of the expansion. Its interpretation, on assigning to 
 x and y their logical significance, is “No individuals belonging at 
 once to the class represented by x, and the class represented by y, 
 exist.” 
 
 But if the coefficient a does vanish, the term axy does not 
 appear in the development (1), and, therefore, the equation xy = 0 
 cannot thence be deduced. 
 
 In like manner, if the coefficient b does not vanish, we have 
 
 * (i - y) = o, 
 
 which admits of the interpretation, “ There are no individuals 
 which at the same time belong to the class x, and do not belong 
 to the class y.” 
 
 Either of the above interpretations may, however, as will sub- 
 sequently be shown, be exhibited in a different form. 
 
 The sum of the distinct interpretations thus obtained from 
 the several terms of the expansion whose coefficients do not 
 vanish, will constitute the complete interpretation of the equation 
 V = 0. The analysis is essentially independent of the number 
 of logical symbols involved in the function V, and the object of 
 the proposition will, therefore, in all instances, be attained by the 
 following Rule: — 
 
 Rule. — Develop the function V, and equate to 0 every consti- 
 tuent whose coefficient does not vanish. The interpretation of these 
 results collectively will constitute the interpretation of the yiven 
 equation . 
 
84 
 
 OF INTERPRETATION. 
 
 [CHAP. VI. 
 
 6. Let us take as an example the definition of “ clean beasts,” 
 laid down in the Jewish law, viz., “ Clean beasts are those 
 which both divide the hoof and chew the cud,” and let us assume 
 
 x = clean beasts ; 
 y = beasts dividing the hoof; 
 z = beasts chewing the cud. 
 
 Then the given proposition will be represented by the equation 
 
 x = yz, 
 
 which we shall reduce to the form 
 
 x - yz = 0, 
 
 and seek that form of interpretation to which the present method 
 leads. Fully developing the first member, we have 
 
 0 xyz + xy ( 1 — z) + x ( 1 — y) z + x ( 1 — y) ( 1 - z) 
 -( 1 -^)y2+°(l-^)y(l-^) + 0( 1 -.r)( l -y)2 + °( 1 -^)( 1 -y)(l-2). 
 
 Whence the terms, whose coefficients do not vanish, give 
 
 zy(\-z) = 0, xz(\-y) = 0, x(\-y)(\-z) = 0, (\-x)yz = 0. 
 
 These equations express a denial of t he existence of certain classes 
 of objects, viz. : 
 
 1st. Of beasts which are clean, and divide the hoof, but do 
 not chew the cud. 
 
 2nd. Of beasts which are clean, and chew the cud, but do not 
 divide the hoof. 
 
 3rd. Of beasts which are clean, and neither divide the hoof 
 nor chew the cud. 
 
 4th. Of beasts which divide the hoof, and chew the cud, and 
 are not clean. 
 
 Now all these several denials are really involved in the origi- 
 nal proposition. And conversely, if these denials be granted, 
 the original proposition will follow as a necessary consequence. 
 They are, in fact, the separate elements of that proposition. 
 Every primary proposition can thus be resolved into a series of 
 denials of the existence of certain defined classes of things, and 
 may, from that system of denials, be itself reconstructed. It 
 might here be asked, how it is possible to make an assertive pro- 
 
CHAP. VI.] 
 
 OF INTERPRETATION. 
 
 85 
 
 position out of a series of denials or negations ? From what 
 source is the positive element derived ? I answer, that the mind 
 assumes the existence of a universe not a priori as a fact inde- 
 pendent of experience, but either a, posteriori as a deduction 
 from experience, or hypothetically as a foundation of the possi- 
 bility of assertive reasoning. Thus from the Proposition, “There 
 are no men who are not fallible,” which is a negation or denial of 
 the existence of “ infallible men,” it may be inferred either hypo- 
 thetically, “ All men (if men exist) are fallible,” or absolutely, 
 (experience having assured us of the existence of the race), “ All 
 men are fallible.” 
 
 The form in Avhich conclusions are exhibited by the method 
 of this Proposition may be termed the form of “ Single or Con- 
 joint Denial.” 
 
 FORM II. 
 
 7. As the previous form was derived from the development 
 and interpretation of an equation whose second member is 0, the 
 present form, which is supplementary to it, will be derived from 
 the development and interpretation of an equation whose second 
 member is 1. It is, however, readily suggested by the analysis 
 of the previous Proposition. 
 
 Thus in the example last discussed we deduced from the 
 equation 
 
 x - yz = 0 
 
 the conjoint denial of the existence of the classes represented by 
 the constituents 
 
 xy{\-z), xz{\ - y), x (1 - y) (1 - z), (l-x)yz, 
 
 whose coefficients were not equal to 0. It follows hence that 
 the remaining constituents represent classes which make up the 
 universe. Hence we shall have 
 
 *y* + (i -x)y{} -*) + 0 -*) ( l -y) z + ( l -•*) (i -y) (i ~z) = 1. 
 
 This is equivalent to the affirmation that all existing things be- 
 long to some one or other of the following classes, viz. : 
 
 1st. Clean beasts both dividing the hoof and chewing the 
 cud. 
 
86 OF INTERPRETATION. [CHAP. VI. 
 
 2nd. Unclean beasts dividing the hoof, but not chewing the 
 cud. 
 
 3rd. Unclean beasts chewing the cud, but not dividing the 
 hoof. 
 
 4th. Things which are neither clean beasts, nor chewers of 
 the cud, nor dividers of the hoof. 
 
 This form of conclusion may be termed the form of “ Single 
 or Disjunctive Affirmation,” — single when but one constituent 
 appears in the final equation; disj unctive when, as above, more 
 constituents than one are there found. 
 
 Any equation, V = 0, wherein V satisfies the law of duality, 
 may also be made to yield this form of interpretation by reducing 
 it to the form 1 - V= 1 , and developing the first member. The 
 case, however, is really included in the next general form. Both 
 the previous forms are of slight importance compared with the 
 following one. 
 
 FORM III. 
 
 8. In the two preceding cases the functions to be developed 
 were equated to 0 and to 1 respectively. In the present case I 
 shall suppose the corresponding function equated to any logical 
 symbol w. We are then to endeavour to interpret the equation 
 V = w, V being a function of the logical symbols x, y, z, &c. In 
 the first place, however, I deem it necessary to show how the 
 equation V = w, or, as it will usually present itself, w = V, arises. 
 
 Let us resume the definition of “ clean beasts,” employed in 
 the previous examples, viz., “Clean beasts are those which both 
 divide the hoof and chew the cud,” and suppose it required to de- 
 termine the relation in which “ beasts chewing the cud” stand to 
 “ clean beasts” and “beasts dividing the hoof.” The equation 
 expressing the given proposition is 
 
 x = yz , 
 
 and our object will be accomplished if we can determine z as an 
 interpretable function of x and y. 
 
 Now treating x, y, z as symbols of quantity subject to a pe- 
 culiar law, we may deduce from the above equation, by solution, 
 
 x 
 
 ' ~ y 
 
CHAP. VI.] 
 
 OF INTERPRETATION. 
 
 87 
 
 But this equation is not at present in an interpretable form. If 
 we can reduce it to such a form it will furnish the relation 
 required. 
 
 On developing the second member of the above equation, we 
 have 
 
 * = *y + q * (1 - V) + 0 (1 - x) y + jj (1 - x) (1 - y), 
 
 and it will be shown hereafter (Prop. 3) that this admits of the 
 following interpretation : 
 
 “ Beasts which chew the cud consist of all clean beasts 
 (which also divide the hoof), together with an indefinite re- 
 mainder (some, none, or all) of unclean beasts which do not di- 
 vide the hoof.” 
 
 9. Now the above is a particular example of a problem of the 
 utmost generality in Logic, and which may thus be stated : — 
 “ Given any logical equation connecting the symbols x, y, z, tv, 
 required an interpretable expression for the relation of the class 
 represented by to to the classes represented by the other symbols 
 x, y, z, &c.” 
 
 The solution of this problem consists in all cases in deter- 
 mining, from the equation given , the expression of the above 
 symbol to , in terms of the other symbols, and rendering that ex- 
 pression interpre table by development. Now the equation given 
 is always of the first degree with respect to each of the symbols 
 involved. The required expression for to can therefore always 
 be found. In fact, if we develop the given equation, whatever 
 its form may be with respect to tv, we obtain an equation of the 
 form 
 
 Etv + E' (1 - to) = 0, (1) 
 
 E and E’ being functions of the remaining symbols, 
 above we have 
 
 E = (E - E) to. 
 
 Therefore 
 
 w 
 
 E 
 
 E - E 
 
 From the 
 
 ( 2 ) 
 
 and expanding the second member by the rule of development, it 
 will only remain to interpret the result in logic by the next 
 proposition. 
 
88 
 
 OF INTERPRETATION. 
 
 [CHAP. VI. 
 
 If the fraction 
 
 E 
 
 has common factors in its numerator 
 
 E - E 
 
 and denominator, we are not pei'mitted to reject them, unless they 
 are mere numerical constants. For the symbols x , y, &c., re- 
 garded as quantitative, may admit of such values 0 and 1 as to 
 cause the common factors to become equal to 0, in which case 
 the algebraic rule of reduction fails. This is the case contem- 
 plated in our remarks on the failure of the algebraic axiom of 
 division (II. 14). To express the solution in the form (2), and 
 without attempting to perform any unauthorized reductions, to 
 interpret the result by the theorem of development, is a course 
 strictly in accordance with the general principles of this treatise. 
 
 If the relation of the class expressed by 1 - xo to the other 
 classes, x, y, &c. is required, we deduce from (1), in like manner 
 as above, 
 
 E 
 
 1 - w = 
 
 E - E 
 
 to the interpretation of which also the method of the following 
 Proposition is applicable : 
 
 Proposition III. 
 
 10. To determine the interpretation of any logical equation of 
 the form w = V, in wh ich w is a class symbol, and V a function of 
 other class symbols quite unlimited in its form. 
 
 Let the second member of the above equation be fully ex- 
 panded. Each coefficient of the result will belong to some one 
 of the four classes, which, with their respective interpretations, 
 we proceed to discuss. 
 
 1st. Let the coefficient be 1. As this is the symbol of the 
 universe, and as the product of any two class symbols represents 
 those individuals which are found in both classes, any constituent 
 which has unity for its coefficient must be interpreted without 
 limitation, i. e. the whole of the class which it represents is 
 implied. 
 
 2nd. Let the coefficient be 0. As in Logic, equally with 
 Arithmetic, this is the symbol of Nothing, no part of the class 
 
OF INTERPRETATION. 
 
 89 
 
 CHAP. VI.] 
 
 represented by the constituent to which it is prefixed must be 
 taken. 
 
 3rd. Let the coefficient be of the form jj. Now, as in Arith- 
 metic, the symbol ^ represents an indefinite number , except when 
 
 otherwise determined by some special circumstance, analogy 
 would suggest that in the system of this work the same symbol 
 should represent an indefinite class. That this is its true mean- 
 ing will be made clear from the following example : 
 
 Let us take the Proposition, “ Men not mortal do not exist 
 represent this Proposition by symbols ; and seek, in obedience to 
 the laws to which those symbols have been proved to be subject, 
 a reverse definition of “ mortal beings,” in terms of “ men.” 
 
 Now if we represent “ men” by y, and “ mortal beings” by x, 
 the Proposition, “Men who are not mortals do not exist,” will 
 be expressed by the equation 
 
 y(l - x) = 0, 
 
 from which we are to seek the value of x. Now the above equa- 
 tion gives 
 
 y-yx = 0, or yx = y. 
 
 Were this an ordinary algebraic equation, we should, in the next 
 place, divide both sides of it by y. But it has been remarked in 
 Chap. ii. that the operation of division cannot be performed with 
 the symbols with which we are now engaged. Our resource, then, 
 is to express the operation, and develop the result by the method 
 of the preceding chapter. We have, then, first, 
 
 and, expanding the second member as directed, 
 
 * = V + 5 ( l “ y)‘ 
 
 This implies that mortals (x) consist of all men (y), together 
 with such a remainder of beings which are not men (l - y), as 
 
 Avill be indicated by the coefficient Now let us inquire what 
 
90 
 
 OF INTERPRETATION. 
 
 [CHAP. VI. 
 
 remainder of “ not men” is implied by the premiss. It might 
 happen that the remainder included all the beings who are not 
 men, or it might include only some of them, and not others, or it 
 might include none, and any one of these assumptions would be 
 in perfect accordance with our premiss. In other words, whether 
 those beings which are not men are all, or some, or none, of them 
 mortal, the truth of the premiss which virtually asserts that all 
 men are mortal, will be equally unaffected, and therefore the 
 
 expression - here indicates that all, some , or none of the class to 
 
 whose expression it is affixed must be taken. 
 
 Although the above determination of the significance of the 
 
 symbol - is founded only upon the examination of a particular 
 
 case, yet the principle involved in the demonstration is general, 
 and there are no circumstances under which the symbol can pre- 
 sent itself to which the same mode of analysis is inapplicable. 
 
 We may properly term - an indefinite class symbol, and may, if 
 
 convenience should require, replace it by an uncompounded sym- 
 bol v, subject to the fundamental law, v (1 - v) = 0. 
 
 4th. It may happen that the coefficient of a constituent in an 
 expansion does not belong to any of the previous cases. To as- 
 certain its true interpretation when this happens, it will be ne- 
 cessary to premise the following theorem : 
 
 11. Theorem. — If a function V, intended to represent any 
 class or collection of objects, ic, be expanded, and if the numerical 
 coefficient, a, of any constituent in its development , do not satisfy 
 the law. 
 
 a (1 - a) = 0, 
 
 then the constituent in question must be made equal to 0. 
 
 To prove the theorem generally, let us represent the expan- 
 sion given, under the form 
 
 w = ajtj + a 2 t 2 + a 3 t 3 + &c., (1) 
 
 in which t u t 2 , t 3 , &c. represent the constituents, and a u a 2 , a 3 , &c. 
 the coefficients ; let us also suppose that a x and a 2 do not satisfy 
 the law 
 
 U\ [1 — ajj — 0, a 2 [1 aj) - 0 , 
 
OF INTERPRETATION. 
 
 91 
 
 CHAP. VI.] 
 
 but that the other coefficients are subject to the law in question, 
 so that we have 
 
 « 3 2 = a 3 , &c. 
 
 Now multiply each side of the equation (1) by itself. The re- 
 sult will be 
 
 w = a ! 2 t x + a 2 2 t 2 + &c. (2) 
 
 This is evident from the fact that it must represent the develop- 
 ment of the equation 
 
 w = V 2 , 
 
 but it may also be proved by actually squaring (1), and observing 
 that we have 
 
 t 2 = t u t 2 2 = t 2 , t x t 2 = 0, &c. 
 
 by the properties of constituents. Now subtracting (2) from (1), 
 we have 
 
 (a x - a x 2 ) t x + (<z 2 - a 2 2 ) t 2 = 0. 
 
 Or, a x (1 - a x ) t x + a 2 (1 - a 2 ) t*. = 0. 
 
 Multiply the last equation by U ; then since t x t 2 - 0, we have 
 a x (1 - a x ) t x = 0, whence t x = 0. 
 
 In like manner multiplying the same equation by ( 2 , we have 
 a 2 ( 1 - a 2 ) t 2 = 0, whence t 2 = 0. 
 
 Thus it may be shown generally that any constituent whose 
 coefficient is not subject to the same fundamental law as the sym- 
 bols themselves must be separately equated to 0. The usual 
 
 form under which such coefficients occur is This is the alge- 
 braic symbol of infinity. Now the nearer any number approaches 
 to infinity (allowing such an expression), the more does it depart 
 from the condition of satisfying the fundamental law above re- 
 ferred to. 
 
 0 
 
 The symbol -, whose interpretation was previously dis- 
 cussed, does not necessarily disobey the law we are here consi- 
 dering, for it admits of the numerical values 0 and 1 indifferently. 
 Its actual interpretation, however, as an indefinite class symbol, 
 cannot, I conceive, except upon the ground of analogy, be de- 
 
OF INTERPRETATION. 
 
 92 
 
 [chap. VI. 
 
 duced from its arithmetical properties, but must be established 
 experimentally. 
 
 12. We may now collect the results to which we have been 
 led, into the following summary : 
 
 1st. The symbol 1, as the coefficient of a term in a develop- 
 ment, indicates that the whole of the class which that constituent 
 represents, is to be taken. 
 
 2nd. The coefficient 0 indicates that none of the class are to 
 be taken. 
 
 3rd. The symbol - indicates that a perfectly indefinite por- 
 tion of the class, i. e. some, none, or all of its members are to be 
 taken. 
 
 4th. Any other symbol as a coefficient indicates that the 
 constituent to which it is prefixed must be equated to 0. 
 
 It follows hence that if the solution of a problem, obtained 
 by development, be of the form 
 
 io = A + OB + H C + i D, 
 
 that solution may be resolved into the two following equations, 
 viz., 
 
 w = A + vC, (3) 
 
 D = 0, (4) 
 
 v being an indefinite class symbol. The interpretation of (3) 
 shows what elements enter, or may enter, into the composition 
 of w, the class of things whose definition is required ; and the 
 interpretation of (4) shows what relations exist among the ele- 
 ments of the original problem, in perfect independence of w. 
 
 Such are the canons of interpretation. It may be added, that 
 they are universal in their application, and that their use is 
 always unembarrassed by exception or failure. 
 
 13. Corollary. — If Che an independently interpretable logi- 
 cal function, it will satisfy the symbolical law, V (l - V) = 0. 
 
 By an independently interpretable logical fimction, I mean 
 one which is interpretable, without presupposing any relation 
 among the things represented by the symbols which it involves. 
 Thus x ( 1 - if) is independently interpretable, but x - y is not so. 
 
OF INTERPRETATION. 
 
 93 
 
 CHAP. VI.] 
 
 The latter function presupposes, as a condition of its interpreta- 
 tion, that the class represented by y is wholly contained in the 
 class represented by x ; the former function does not imply any 
 such requirement. 
 
 Now if V be independently interpretable, and if w represent 
 the collection of individuals which it contains, the equation 
 w = V will hold true without entailing as a consequence the va- 
 nishing of any of the constituents in the development of V ; 
 since such vanishing of constituents would imply relations among 
 the classes of things denoted by the symbols in V. Hence the 
 development of V will be of the form 
 
 GL\ t\ + ^2 &C* 
 
 the coefficients a x , a 2 , &c. all satisfying the condition 
 a x (1 - a x ) = 0, g 2 (1 - a 2 ) = 0, &c. 
 
 Hence by the reasoning of Prop. 4, Chap. v. the function V will 
 be subject to the law 
 
 F(1 - V) = 0. 
 
 This result, though evident a priori from the fact that V is sup- 
 posed to represent a class or collection of things, is thus seen to 
 follow also from the properties of the constituents of which it is 
 composed. The condition F(1 - V) = 0 may be termed “the 
 condition of interpretability of logical functions.” 
 
 14. The general form of solutions, or logical conclusions de- 
 veloped in the last Proposition, may be designated as a “ Relation 
 between terms.” I use, as before, the word “ terms” to denote 
 the parts of a proposition, whether simple or complex, which are 
 connected by the copula “ is” or “ are.” The classes of things re- 
 presented by the individual symbols may be called the elements 
 of the proposition. 
 
 15. Ex. 1. — Resuming the definition of “ clean beasts,” 
 (VI. 6), required a description of “unclean beasts.” 
 
 Here, as before, x standing for “ clean beasts,” y for “beasts 
 dividing the hoof,” r for “ beasts chewing the cud,” we have 
 
 x^yz\ (5) 
 
 whence 
 
 1 - x = 1 - yz ; 
 
 ‘and developing the second member, 
 
94 
 
 OF INTERPRETATION. 
 
 [chap. VI. 
 
 1 - x = y(l - z) + * (1- y) + (1 - y) (1 - z); 
 
 which is interpretable into the following Proposition: Unclean 
 beasts are all which divide the hoof without chewing the cud , all 
 which chew the cud without dividing the hoof , and all which neither 
 divide the hoof nor chew the cud. 
 
 Ex. 2. — The same definition being given, required a descrip- 
 tion of beasts which do not divide the hoof. 
 
 From the equation x - yz we have 
 
 x 
 
 therefore. 
 
 1 -y = 
 
 and developing the second member, 
 
 - 1 0 
 
 1 - y = 0 xz + — x (1 - z) + (1 - x) z + - (1 - x) (1 - z). 
 
 Here, according to the Rule, the term whose coefficients is 
 must be separately equated to 0, whence we have 
 
 1 - y = (1 - x) z + v (1 - a?) (1 - z), 
 x (1 - z) = 0 ; 
 
 whereof the first equation gives by interpretation the Proposition : 
 Beasts which do not divide the hoof consist of all unclean beasts which 
 cheiv the cud , and an indefinite remainder (some, none, or all ) of un- 
 clean beasts ivhich do not chew the cud. 
 
 The second equation gives the Proposition : There are no clean 
 beasts which do not chew the cud. This is one of the independent 
 relations above referred to. We sought the direct relation of 
 “ Beasts not dividing the hoof,” to “ Clean beasts and beasts 
 which chew the cud.” It happens, however, that independently 
 of any relation to beasts not dividing the hoof, there exists, in 
 virtue of the premiss, a separate relation between clean beasts 
 and beasts which chew the cud. This relation is also necessarily 
 given by the process. 
 
 Ex. 3. — Let us take the following definition, viz. : “ Respon- 
 sible beings are all rational beings who are either free to act, or 
 
OF INTERPRETATION. 
 
 95 
 
 CHAP. VI.] 
 
 have voluntarily sacrificed their freedom,” and apply to it the 
 preceding analysis. 
 
 Let x stand for responsible beings. 
 y ,, rational beings. 
 
 z ,, those who are free to act, 
 
 w ,, those who have voluntarily sacrificed their 
 
 freedom of action. 
 
 In the expression of this definition I shall assume, that the 
 two alternatives which it presents, viz. : “ Rational beings free 
 to act,” and “ Rational beings whose freedom of action has been 
 voluntarily sacrificed,” are mutually exclusive, so that no indivi- 
 duals are found at once in both these divisions. This will per- 
 mit us to interpret the proposition literally into the language of 
 symbols, as follows : 
 
 x = yz + yiu. (6) 
 
 Let us first determine hence the relation of ts rational beings” to 
 responsible beings, beings free to act, and beings whose freedom 
 of action has been voluntarily abjured. Perhaps this object will 
 be better stated by saying, that we desire to express the relation 
 among the elements of the premiss in such a form as will enable 
 us to determine how far rationality may be inferred from respon- 
 sibility, freedom of action, a voluntary sacrifice of freedom, and 
 their contraries. 
 
 From (6) we have 
 
 x 
 
 y z+ w 
 
 and developing the second member, but rejecting terms whose 
 coefficients are 0, 
 
 y = i xzw + xz(\ - w) + x(l - z) w + ^--x (1 - z) (1 - w) 
 
 jL v 
 
 + jj(l -*)(!-*) (I-*). 
 
 whence, equating to 0 the terms whose coefficients are ^ and 
 we have 
 
 y = xz (1 - w) + .r w (1 - z) + v (1 - x) (1 - z) (1 - «0; (7) 
 
 xziv = 0 ; (8) 
 
96 
 
 OF INTERPRETATION. 
 
 [CHAP. VI. 
 
 ( 9 ) 
 
 x (1 - z) (1 - w) = 0 ; 
 whence by interpretation — 
 
 Direct Conclusion. — Rational beings are all responsible beings 
 who are either free to act, not having voluntarily sacrificed their free- 
 dom, or not free to act, having voluntarily sacrificed their freedom, 
 together with an indefinite remainder (some, none, or all) of beings 
 not responsible, not free , and not having voluntarily sacrificed their 
 freedom. 
 
 First Independent Relation. — No responsible beings are at 
 the same time free to act, and in the condition of having voluntarily 
 sacrificed their freedom. 
 
 Second. — No responsible beings are not free to act, and at the 
 same time in the condition of not having sacrificed their freedom. 
 
 The independent relations above determined may, however, 
 be put in another and more convenient form. Thus (8) gives 
 
 xw = - = 0 z + ^ (1 - z), on development ; 
 z 0 
 
 or, xw = v (1 - z) ; (10) 
 
 and in like manner (9) gives 
 
 /i \ 0 0 n/1 x 
 
 a? (1 - w) = YZ~ z = o 2 + 0 C 1 - z ) ; 
 or, x (1 -w) = vz; (11) 
 
 and (10) and (11) interpreted give the following Propositions : 
 
 1st. Responsible beings who have voluntarily sacrificed their free- 
 dom are not free. 
 
 2nd. Responsible beings who have not voluntarily sacrificed their 
 freedom are free. 
 
 These, however, are merely different forms of the relations 
 before determined. 
 
 16. In examining, these results, the reader must bear in mind, 
 that the sole province of a method of inference or analysis, is to 
 determine those relations which are necessitated by the connexion 
 of the terms in the original proposition. Accordingly, in esti- 
 mating the completeness with which this object is effected, we 
 have nothing whatever to do with those other relations which 
 
CHAP. VI.] 
 
 0!F INTERPRETATION. 
 
 97 
 
 may be suggested to our minds by the meaning of the terms 
 employed, as distinct from their expressed connexion. Thus it 
 seems obvious to remark, that “ They who have voluntarily sa- 
 crificed their freedom are not free,” this being a relation implied 
 in the very meaning of the terms. And hence it might appear, 
 that the first of the two independent relations assigned by the me- 
 thod is on the one hand needlessly limited, and on the other hand 
 superfluous. However, if regard be had merely to the connexion 
 of the terms in the original premiss, it will be seen that the re- 
 lation in question is not liable to either of these charges. The 
 solution, as expressed in the direct conclusion and the indepen- 
 dent relations, conjointly, is perfectly complete, without being 
 in any way superfluous. 
 
 If we wish to take into account the implicit relation above 
 referred to, viz., “ They who have voluntarily sacrificed their 
 freedom are not free,” we can do so by making this a distinct 
 proposition, the proper expression of which would be 
 
 w = v (1 - z). 
 
 This equation we should have to employ together with that 
 expressive of the original premiss. The mode in which such an 
 examination must be conducted will appear when we enter upon 
 the theory of systems of propositions in a future chapter. The 
 sole difference of result to which the analysis leads is, that the 
 first of the independent relations deduced above is superseded. 
 
 17* Ex. 4. — Assuming the same definition as in Example 2, 
 let it be required to obtain a description of irrational persons. 
 
 We have 
 
 Z + W - X 
 Z + 10 
 
 = - xziv + 0 xz (1 - w) + 0 X (1 - z) W - ^ X (1 - z) (1 - w) 
 
 & V 
 
 + (l-*) 2 ia + (l-a;).c(l-ir) + (l-a;)(l-r)ty+jj(l-a:)(l- 2 )(l-M;) 
 
 = (1- x) 2i04(l-a:)2(l- w) + (l- .r)(l- 2 )i»+v(l-;r)(l- 2 )(l-M>) 
 = (l-a:)£+(l-;r)(l- 2 )u; + i;(l-a:)(l-z)(l - iv), 
 
 with xzw = 0, ;r(l- 2 )(l - ir) = 0. 
 
98 
 
 OF INTERPRETATION. 
 
 [CHAP. VI. 
 
 The independent relations here given are the same as we 
 before arrived at, as they evidently ought to be, since whatever 
 relations prevail independently of the existence of a given class 
 of objects y, prevail independently also of the existence of the con- 
 trary class 1 - y. 
 
 The direct solution afforded by the first equation is : — Irra- 
 tional persons consist of all irresponsible beings who are either free to 
 act, or have voluntarily sacrificed their liberty, and are not free to 
 act ; together with an indefinite remainder of irresponsible beings 
 ivho have not sacrificed their liberty, and are not free to act. 
 
 18. The propositions analyzed in this chapter have been of 
 that species called definitions. I have discussed none of which 
 the second or predicate term is particular, and of which the ge- 
 neral type is Y = vX, Y and X being functions of the logical 
 symbols x, y, z, &c., and v an indefinite class symbol. The ana- 
 lysis of such propositions is greatly facilitated (though the step 
 is not an essential one) by the elimination of the symbol v, and 
 this process depends upon the method of the next chapter. I 
 postpone also the consideration of another important problem 
 necessary to complete the theory of single propositions, but of 
 which the analysis really depends upon the method of the reduc- 
 tion of systems of propositions to be developed in a future page 
 of this work. 
 
CHAP. VII.] 
 
 OF ELIMINATION. 
 
 99 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 ON ELIMINATION. 
 
 1. TN the examples discussed in the last chapter, all the ele- 
 ments of the original premiss re-appeared in the conclusion, 
 
 . only in a different order, and with a different connexion. But it 
 more usually happens in common reasoning, and especially when 
 we have more than one premiss, that some of the elements are 
 required not to appear in the conclusion. Such elements, or, as 
 they are commonly called, “ middle terms,” may be considered 
 as introduced into the original propositions only for the sake of 
 that connexion which they assist to establish among the other 
 elements, which are alone designed to enter into the expression of 
 the conclusion. 
 
 2. Respecting such intermediate elements, or middle terms, 
 some erroneous notions prevail. It is a general opinion, to which, 
 however, the examples contained in the last chapter furnish a con- 
 tradiction, that inference consists peculiarly in the elimination of 
 such terms, and that the elementary type of this process is exhi- 
 bited in the elimination of one middle term from two premises, so as 
 to produce a single resulting conclusion into which that term does 
 not enter. Hence it is commonly held, that syllogism is the basis, 
 or else the common type, of all inference, which may thus, how- 
 ever complex its form and structure, be resolved into a series of 
 syllogisms. The propriety of this view will be considered in a 
 subsequent chapter. At present I wish to direct attention to an 
 important, but hitherto unnoticed, point of difference between 
 the system of Logic, as expressed by symbols, and that of com- 
 mon algebra, with reference to the subject of elimination. In 
 the algebraic system we are able to eliminate one symbol from 
 two equations, two symbols from three equations, and generally 
 n - 1 symbols from n equations. There thus exists a definite 
 connexion between the number of independent equations given, 
 
100 
 
 OF ELIMINATION. 
 
 [CHAP. VII. 
 
 and the number of symbols of quantity which it is possible to 
 eliminate from them. But it is otherwise with the system of 
 Logic. No fixed connexion there prevails between the num- 
 ber of equations given representing propositions or premises, 
 and the number of typical symbols of which the elimination 
 can be effected. From a single equation an indefinite num- 
 ber of such symbols may be eliminated. On the other hand, 
 from an indefinite number of equations, a single class symbol 
 only may be eliminated. We may affirm, that in this peculiar 
 system, the problem of elimination is resolvable under all circum- 
 stances alike. This is a consequence of that remarkable law of 
 duality to which the symbols of Logic are subject. To the equa- 
 tions furnished by the premises given, there is added another 
 equation or system of equations drawn from the fundamental 
 laws of thought itself, and supplying the necessary means for the 
 solution of the problem in question. Of the many consequences 
 which flow from the law of duality, this is perhaps the most 
 deserving of attention. 
 
 3. As in Algebra it often happens, that the elimination of 
 symbols from a given system of equations conducts to a mere 
 identity in the form 0 = 0, no independent relations connecting 
 the symbols which remain ; so in the system of Logic, a like re- 
 sult, admitting of a similar interpretation, may present itself. 
 Such a circumstance does not detract from the generality of 
 the principle before stated. The object of the method upon 
 which we are about to enter is to eliminate any number of sym- 
 bols from any number of logical equations, and to exhibit in the 
 result the actual relations which remain. Now it may be, that 
 no such residual relations exist. In such a case the truth of the 
 method is shown by its leading us to a merely identical propo- 
 sition. 
 
 4. The notation adopted in the following Propositions is 
 similar to that of the last chapter. By / (x) is meant any ex- 
 pression involving the logical symbol x, with or without other 
 logical symbols. By /(l) is meant what f(x) becomes when x 
 is therein changed into 1 ; by /( 0) what the same function be- 
 comes when x is changed into 0. 
 
CHAP. VII.] 
 
 OF ELIMINATION. 
 
 101 
 
 Proposition I. 
 
 5. Iff {x) = 0 be any logical equation involving the class symbol 
 x , with or without other class symbols, then will the equation 
 
 fa) /( o)=o 
 
 be true, independently of the interpretation of x ; and it will be the 
 complete result of the elimination of x from the above equation. 
 
 In other words, the elimination of x from any given equation, 
 f( x) = 0,ivill be effected by successively changing in that equation xinto 
 1, and x into 0, and multiplying the two resulting equations together. 
 
 Similarly the complete result of the elimination of any class sym- 
 bols, x, y, Sfc.,from any equation of the form V=(), ivill be obtained 
 by completely expanding the first member of that equation in con- 
 stituents of the given symbols , and multiplying together all the coeffi- 
 cients of those constituents, and equating the product to 0. 
 
 Developing the first member of the equation f(x) = 0, we 
 have (V. 10), 
 
 /(l)*+/(0)(l-*)-0; 
 
 or, 
 
 and 
 
 f/O) -/(°)J *+/(0) = 0. 
 
 . . m . 
 
 " m-fw 
 
 i _ S ____ZQL_ 
 
 m -for 
 
 (i) 
 
 Substitute these expressions for x and 1 - x in the fundamental 
 equation 
 
 x (1 - x) = 0, 
 
 and there results 
 
 mm 0 . 
 
 ~ l/(0)-/(l)) 2_U ’ 
 
 or, /(l)/(0) = 0, (2) 
 
 the form required. 
 
 6. It is seen in this process, that the elimination is really effected 
 between the given equation f(x) = 0 and the universally true 
 equation x (1 - x) = 0, expressing the fundamental law of logical 
 symbols, qua logical. There exists, therefore, no need of more 
 
102 
 
 OF ELIMINATION. 
 
 [CHAP. VII. 
 
 than one premiss or equation, in order to render possible the eli- 
 mination of a term, the necessary law of thought virtually sup- 
 plying the other premiss or equation. And though the demon- 
 stration of this conclusion may be exhibited in other forms, yet 
 the same element furnished by the mind itself will still be vir- 
 tually present. Thus we might proceed as follows : 
 
 Multiply (1) by a;, and we have 
 
 / (1) * = 0, (3) 
 
 and let us seek by the forms of ordinary algebra to eliminate x 
 from this equation and (1). 
 
 Now if we have two algebraic equations of the form 
 
 ax + b = 0, 
 a'x + b' = 0 ; 
 
 it is well known that the result of the elimination of x is 
 
 ab’ - ab - 0. (4) 
 
 But comparing the above pair of equations with (1) and (3) 
 respectively, we find 
 
 WO) -/(«)’ W(»): 
 
 WO) 
 
 which, substituted in (4), give 
 
 /( l )/( 0 )- 0 , 
 
 as before. In this form of the demonstration, the fundamental 
 equation *(1 - x) = 0, makes its appearance in the derivation of 
 (3) from (1). 
 
 7. I shall add yet another form of the demonstration, par- 
 taking of a half logical character, and which may set the demon- 
 stration of this important theorem in a clearer light. 
 
 We have as before 
 
 /( l ) x + /(°)( 1 - #) = 0 . 
 
 Multiply this equation first by x , and secondly by 1 - x, we get 
 /(1)* = 0, /(0) (1 - x) = 0. 
 
 From these we have by solution and development, 
 
CHAP. VII.] 
 
 OF ELIMINATION. 
 
 103 
 
 /(1) = - = ^(1-#), on development, 
 
 CC l> 
 
 0 0 
 
 The direct interpretation of these equations is — 
 
 1st. Whatever individuals are included in the class repre- 
 sented by /(l), are not x’s. 
 
 2nd. Whatever individuals are included in the class repre- 
 sented by/(0), are a?’s. 
 
 Whence by common logic, there are no individuals at once 
 in the class /(l) and in the class / (0), i.e. there are no indivi- 
 duals in the class/ (1) /( 0). Hence, 
 
 /(l)/(0)-0. (5) 
 
 Or it would suffice to multiply together the developed equa- 
 tions, whence the result would immediately follow. 
 
 8. The theorem (5) furnishes us with the following Rule : 
 
 TO ELIMINATE ANY SYMBOL FROM A PROPOSED EQUATION. 
 
 Rule. — The terms of the equation having been brought , by trans- 
 position if necessary , to the first side, give to the symbol successively 
 the values 1 and 0, and multiply the resulting equations together. 
 
 The first part of the Proposition is now proved. 
 
 9. Consider in the next place the general equation 
 
 /O, y) = 0; 
 
 the first member of which represents any function of x, y, and 
 other symbols. 
 
 By what has been shown, the result of the elimination of y 
 from this equation will be 
 
 f(x, 1 )/(>, 0) = 0 ; 
 
 for such is the form to which we are conducted by successively 
 changing in the given equation y into 1, and y into 0, and multi- 
 plying the results together. 
 
 Again, if in the result obtained we change successively a: into 
 1, and x into 0, and multiply the results together, we have 
 /(1,1)/(1,0)/(G, 1) / (0, 0) --= 0 ; 
 as the final result of elimination. 
 
 (6) 
 
104 
 
 OF ELIMINATION. 
 
 [CHAP. VII. 
 
 But the four factors of the first member of this equation are 
 the four coefficients of the complete expansion of / ( x , y), the 
 first member of the original equation ; whence the second part of 
 the Proposition is manifest. 
 
 EXAMPLES. 
 
 10. Ex. 1. — Having given the Proposition, “All men are 
 mortal,” and its symbolical expression, in the equation, 
 
 y = vx, 
 
 in which y represents “ men,” and x “ mortals,” it is required to 
 eliminate the indefinite class symbol v , and to interpret the 
 result. 
 
 Here bringing the terms to the first side, we have 
 y - vx = 0. 
 
 When v = 1 this becomes 
 
 y-x = 0; 
 
 and when v = 0 it becomes 
 
 y = 0; 
 
 and these two equations multiplied together, give 
 
 y-yx = 0, 
 
 or y (1 - x) = 0, 
 
 it being observed that y 2 = y. 
 
 The above equation is the required result of elimination, and 
 its interpretation is, Men who are not mortal do not exist , — an 
 obvious conclusion. 
 
 If from the equation last obtained we seek a description of 
 beings who are not mortal, we have 
 
 • • 1 ” X — • 
 
 y 
 
 Whence, by expansion, 1 - x = ^ ( 1 - y), which interpreted gives, 
 They who are not mortal are not men. This is an example of 
 
OF ELIMINATION. 
 
 105 
 
 CHAP. VII.] 
 
 what in the common logic is called conversion by contraposition, 
 or negative conversion.* 
 
 Ex. 2. — Taking the Proposition, “ No men are perfect,” as 
 represented by the equation 
 
 y = v{\ - x), 
 
 wherein y represents “ men,” and x “ perfect beings,” it is re- 
 quired to eliminate v, and find from the result a description both 
 of perfect beings and of imperfect beings. W e have 
 y - v { 1 - x) = 0. 
 
 Whence, by the rule of elimination, 
 
 {y ~ (i -*)} x y = o, 
 
 or y - y (1 - x) = 0, 
 
 or yx = 0 ; 
 
 which is interpreted by the Proposition, Perfect men do not exist. 
 From the above equation we have 
 
 0 
 
 x - - 
 
 y 
 
 = - (1 - y) by development; 
 
 whence, by interpretation, No perfect beings are men. 
 larly, 
 
 , . 0 w 0 N 
 
 "y"i' ! ' + o C y) ' 
 
 Simi- 
 
 which, on interpretation, gives, Imperfect beings are all men with 
 an indefinite remainder of beings, which are not men. 
 
 11. It will generally be the most convenient course, in the 
 treatment of propositions, to eliminate first the indefinite class 
 symbol v, wherever it occurs in the corresponding equations. 
 This will only modify their form, without impairing their signifi- 
 cance. Let us apply this process to one of the examples of 
 Chap. iv. For the Proposition, “ No men are placed in exalted 
 stations and free from envious regards,” we found the expression 
 
 y = v (1 - xz ), 
 
 and for the equivalent Proposition, “ Men in exalted stations are 
 not free from envious regards,” the expression 
 yx = w(l - z); 
 
 Whately’s Logic, Book II. chap. II. sec. 4. 
 
106 
 
 OF ELIMINATION. 
 
 [CHAP. VII. 
 
 and it was observed that these equations, v being an indefinite 
 class symbol, were themselves equivalent. To prove this, it is 
 only necessary to eliminate from each the symbol v. The first 
 equation is 
 
 y - v (1 - xz ) = 0, 
 
 whence, first making v = 1 , and then v = 0, and multiplying the 
 results, we have 
 
 (y - 1 + xz) y = 0, 
 
 Or yxz = 0. 
 
 Now the second of the given equations becomes on transposition 
 yx - v (1 - z) = 0 ; 
 whence (yx - 1 + z) yx = 0, 
 
 or yxz = 0, 
 
 as before. The reader will easily interpret the result. 
 
 12. Ex. 3. — As a subject for the general method of this 
 chapter, we will resume Mr. Senior’s definition of wealth, viz. : 
 “ Wealth consists of things transferable, limited in supply, and 
 either productive of pleasure or preventive of pain.” We shall 
 consider this definition, agreeably to a former remark, as including 
 all things which possess at once both the qualities expressed in 
 the last part of the definition, upon which assumption we have, 
 as our representative equation, 
 
 
 tv = st [pr + p ( 1 - r) + r (1 - p ) } , 
 
 or 
 
 tv = 
 
 st {p + r( 1 -jo)), 
 
 wherein 
 
 
 
 
 w stands for wealth. 
 
 
 
 things limited in supply. 
 
 
 
 things transferable. 
 
 
 P 
 
 things productive of pleasure. 
 
 
 r „ 
 
 things preventive of pain. 
 
 From the above equation we can eliminate any symbols that 
 we do not desire to take into account, and express the result by 
 solution and development, according to any proposed arrange- 
 ment of subject and predicate. 
 
 Let us first consider what the expression lor tv, wealth, would 
 
OF ELIMINATION. 
 
 107 
 
 CHAP. VII.] 
 
 be If the element r, referring to prevention of pain, were elimi- 
 nated. Now bringing the terms of the equation to the first side, 
 we get 
 
 w - st (p + r - rp) = 0. 
 
 Making r = 1, the first member becomes w - st, and making 
 r = 0 it becomes w - stp ; whence we have by the Ride, 
 
 (w - st) (w - stp) = 0, (7) 
 
 or to - wstp - wst + stp = 0 ; (8) 
 
 whence stp 
 
 w = - ; 
 
 st + stp - 1 
 
 the development of the second member of which equation gives 
 
 w 
 
 = stp + - st (1 - p).] 
 
 ( 9 ) 
 
 Whence we have the conclusion, — Wealth consists of all things 
 limited in supply , transferable, and productive of pleasure, and an 
 indefinite remainder of things limited in supply, transferable, and 
 not productive of pleasure. This is sufficiently obvious. 
 
 Let it be remarked that it is not necessary to perform the 
 multiplication indicated in (7 ), and reduce that equation to the 
 form (8), in order to determine the expression of ic in terms of 
 the other symbols. The process of development may in all cases 
 be made to supersede that of multiplication. Thus if we de- 
 velop (7) in terms of w, we find 
 
 whence 
 
 (1 - st) (1 - stp) iv + stp (1 - w) = 0, 
 stp 
 
 to = 
 
 stp - (1 - st) (1 - stp) s 
 and this equation developed will give, as before, 
 
 w = stp + - st (1 - p). 
 
 13. Suppose next that we seek a description of things limited 
 in supply, as dependent upon their relation to wealth, transferable- 
 ness, and tendency to produce pleasure, omitting all reference to 
 the prevention of pain. 
 
108 OF ELIMINATION. [CHAP. VII. 
 
 From equation (8), which is the result of the elimination of 
 t from the original equation, we have 
 
 w - s (wt + wtp - tp) - 0 ; 
 
 whence w 
 
 s = 
 
 wt + wtp - tp 
 
 = ivlp + wt (1 -p) + i w (1 - t)p + (1 - t) (1 - p) 
 
 + 0 (1 -w)tp + jj(l - w) t (1 -p) + ^(l - w) (1 - t)p 
 
 + jjo ~ w ) C 1 -0 0 “ P )• 
 
 We will first give the direct interpretation of the above solution, 
 term by term ; afterwards we shall offer some general remarks 
 which it suggests ; and, finally, show how the expression of the 
 conclusion may be somewhat abbreviated. 
 
 First, then, the direct interpretation is, Things limited in 
 supply consist of All wealth transferable and productive of pleasure 
 — all wealth transferable, and not productive of pleasure, — an indefi- 
 nite amount of what is not wealth, but is either transferable, and not 
 productive of pleasure, or intransfer able and productive of pleasure, 
 or neither transferable nor productive of pleasure. 
 
 To which the terms whose coefficients are ^ permit us to add 
 the following independent relations, viz. : 
 
 1st. Wealth that is intransfer able, and productive of pleasure, 
 does not exist. 
 
 2ndly. Wealth that is intransf enable , and not productive of plea- 
 sure, does not exist. 
 
 14. Respecting this solution I suppose the following remarks 
 are likely to be made. 
 
 First, it may be said, that in the expression above obtained 
 for “ things limited in supply,” the term “ All wealth transfer- 
 able,” &c., is in part redundant ; since all wealth is (as implied 
 in the original proposition, and directly asserted in the indepen- 
 dent relations ) necessarily transferable. 
 
 I answer, that although in ordinary speech we should not 
 
CHAP. VII.] 
 
 OF ELIMINATION. 
 
 109 
 
 deem it necessary to add to “wealth” the epithet “ transferable,” 
 if another part of our reasoning had led us to express the con- 
 clusion, that there is no wealth which is not transferable, yet it 
 pertains to the perfection of this method that it in ail cases fully 
 defines the objects represented by each term of the conclusion, 
 by stating the relation they bear to each quality or element of dis- 
 tinction that we have chosen to employ. This is necessary in order 
 to keep the different parts of the solution really distinct and in- 
 dependent, and actually prevents redundancy. Suppose that the 
 pair of terms we have been considering had not contained the 
 word “ transferable,” and had unitedly been “All wealth,” we 
 could then logically resolve the single term “ All wealth” into 
 the two terms “ All wealth transferable,” and “ All wealth 
 intransferable.” But the latter term is shown to disappear by 
 the “independent relations.” Hence it forms no part of the de- 
 scription required, and is therefore redundant. The remaining 
 term agrees with the conclusion actually obtained. 
 
 Solutions in which there cannot, by logical divisions, be pro- 
 duced any superfluous or redundant terms, may be termed pure 
 solutions. Such are all the solutions obtained by the method of 
 development and elimination above explained. It is proper to 
 notice, that if the common algebraic method of elimination were 
 adopted in the cases in which that method is possible in the pre- 
 sent system, we should not be able to depend upon the purity of 
 the solutions obtained. Its want of generality would not be its 
 only defect. 
 
 15. In the second place, it will be remarked, that the con- 
 clusion contains two terms, the aggregate significance of which 
 would be more conveniently expressed by a single term. Instead 
 of “ All wealth productive of pleasure, and transferable,” and 
 “All wealth not productive of pleasure, and transferable,” we 
 might simply say, “ All wealth transferable.” This remark is 
 quite just. But it must be noticed that whenever any such sim- 
 plifications are possible, they are immediately suggested by the 
 form of the equation we have to interpret ; and if that equation 
 be reduced to its simplest form, then the interpretation to which 
 it conducts will be in its simplest form also. Thus in the original 
 solution the terms wtp and wt ( 1 - p), which have unity for their 
 
OF ELIMINATION. 
 
 110 
 
 [chap. VII. 
 
 coefficient, give, on addition, wt ; the terms w (1 - t) p and 
 ( 1 - t) ( 1 - p), which have - for their coefficient give to ( 1 - t) ; 
 and the terms (1 - w) (1 - t)p and (1 - w ) (1 - 1 ) (1 -p), which 
 have - for their coefficient, give (1 - w) (1 - t). Whence the 
 complete solution is 
 
 « = wt + C 1 _ w ) ( 1 0 + ^ (1 “ w ) t C 1 “ P)> 
 
 with the independent relation, 
 
 0 
 
 w ( 1 - t) = 0, or w = -f. 
 
 The interpretation would now stand thu3 : — 
 
 1st. Things limited in supply consist of all wealth transferable , 
 with an indefinite remainder of ichat is not wealth and not transfer- 
 able, and of transferable articles which are not wealth , and are not 
 productive of pleasure. 
 
 2nd. All wealth is transferable. 
 
 This is the simplest form under which the general conclusion, 
 with its attendant condition, can be put. 
 
 16. When it is required to eliminate two or more symbols 
 from a proposed equation we can either employ (6) Prop. I., or 
 eliminate them in succession, the order of the process being in- 
 different. From the equation 
 
 w = st(p + r - pr ), 
 we have eliminated r, and found the result, 
 
 w - wst - wstp + stp = 0. 
 
 Suppose that it had been required to eliminate both r and t, then 
 taking the above as the first step of the process, it remains to 
 eliminate from the last equation t. Now when t= 1 the first 
 member of that equation becomes 
 
 w - tos - ivsp + sp, 
 
 and when t = 0 the same member becomes iv. Whence we have 
 w ( w - ivs - wsp + sp) = 0, 
 or w - ws = 0, 
 
 for the required result of elimination. 
 
CHAP. VII.] 
 
 OF ELIMINATION. 
 
 Ill 
 
 If from the last result we determine w, we have 
 
 0 0 
 
 w = - = - 5 , 
 
 1 — s 0 
 
 whence “ All wealth is limited in supply.” As p does not enter 
 into the equation, it is evident that the above is true, irrespec- 
 tively of any relation which the elements of the conclusion bear 
 to the quality “ productive of pleasure.” 
 
 Resuming the original equation, let it be required to elimi- 
 nate s and t. We have 
 
 w = st (p + r - pr ). 
 
 Instead, however, of separately eliminating s and t according to 
 the Rule, it will suffice to treat st as a single symbol, seeing that 
 it satisfies the fundamental law of the symbols by the equation 
 
 st (1 - st) = 0. 
 
 Placing, therefore, the given equation under the form 
 w - st (p + r - pr) = 0 ; 
 
 and making st successively equal to 1 and to 0, and taking the 
 product of the results, we have 
 
 (w - p - r + pr) w - 0, 
 
 or w - wp - wr + wpr - 0, 
 
 for the result sought. 
 
 As a particular illustration, let it be required to deduce an 
 expression for “ things productive of pleasure” (p), in terms of 
 “ wealth” (ic), and “ things preventive of pain” (r)\ 
 
 We have, on solving the equation, 
 
 w ( 1 - r) 
 
 ^ in (l - r) 
 
 = ^w + ?/r(l _ r ) + ( l “ w ) r + ^ (1 ~ w ) (1 ~ r ) 
 
 = w (1 - r) + ^ wr + (1 - to). 
 
 Whence the following conclusion: — Things productive of plea- 
 
112 
 
 OF ELIMINATION. 
 
 [C 
 
 HAP. VII. 
 
 sure are, all wealth not preventive of pain, an indefinite amount 
 of wealth that is preventive of pain, and an indefinite amount of 
 what is not wealth. 
 
 From the same equation we get 
 
 i | »0-0 _ ° 
 
 w (1 - r) w (1 - rf 
 
 which developed, gives 
 
 w (1 ~ P ) = ^ wr + ^ 0 “ w ) • T + ^ (1 ~ w ) • (1 - r ) 
 
 0 0 
 
 'o w + o 
 
 Whence, Things not productive of pleasure are either wealth , pre- 
 ventive of pain, or what is not wealth. 
 
 Equally easy would be the discussion of any similar case. 
 
 17 . In the last example of elimination, we have eliminated 
 the compound symbol st from the given equation, by treating it 
 as a single symbol. The same method is applicable to any com- 
 bination of symbols which satisfies the fundamental law of indi- 
 vidual symbols. Thus the expression p + r - pr will, on being 
 multiplied by itself, reproduce itself, so that if we represent 
 p + r - pr by a single symbol as y, we shall have the fundamen- 
 tal law obeyed, the equation 
 
 V = y\ or y (l -y) = 0, 
 
 O - w )• 
 
 being satisfied. F or the rule of elimination for symbols is founded 
 upon the supposition that each individual symbol is subject to 
 that law ; and hence the elimination of any function or combina- 
 tion of such symbols from an equation, may be effected by a sin- 
 gle operation, whenever that law is satisfied by the function. 
 
 Though the forms of interpretation adopted in this and the 
 previous chapter show, perhaps better than any others, the di- 
 
 rect significance of the symbols 1 and 
 
 0 
 
 0 * 
 
 modes of expression 
 
 more agreeable to those of common discourse may, with equal 
 truth and propriety, be employed. Thus the equation (9) may 
 be interpreted in the following manner : Wealth is either limited 
 in supply, transferable, and productive of pleasure, or limited in sup- 
 
CHAP. VII.] 
 
 OF ELIMINATION. 
 
 113 
 
 ply, transferable , and not productive of pleasure. And reversely, 
 Whatever is limited in supply, transferable , and productive of plea- 
 sure, is wealth. Reverse interpretations, similar to the above, are 
 always furnished when the final development introduces terms 
 having unity as a coefficient. 
 
 18. Note. — The fundamental equation /(l)/(0) = 0, ex- 
 pressing the result of the elimination of the symbol x from any 
 equation f (.r) = 0, admits of a remarkable interpretation. 
 
 It is to be remembered, that by the equation /(x) = 0 is im- 
 plied some proposition in which the individuals represented by 
 the class x, suppose “ men,” are referred to, together, it may be, 
 with other individuals ; and it is our object to ascertain whether 
 there is implied in the proposition any relation among the other 
 individuals, independently of those found in the class men. Now 
 the equation /(l) = 0 expresses what the original proposition 
 would become if men made up the universe, and the equation 
 /(0) = 0 expresses what that original proposition would become 
 if men ceased to exist, wherefore the equation /( 1) /( 0) = 0 ex- 
 presses what in virtue of the original proposition would be 
 equally true on either assumption, i. e. equally true whether 
 “men” were “all things” or “nothing.” Wherefore the theo- 
 rem expresses that what is equally true, whether a given class of 
 objects embraces the whole universe or disappears from existence, 
 is independent of that class altogether, and vice versa. Herein 
 we see another example of the interpretation of formal results, 
 immediately deduced from the mathematical laws of thought, into 
 general axioms of philosophy. 
 
114 
 
 OF REDUCTION. 
 
 [CHAP. VIII. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 ON THE REDUCTION OF SYSTEMS OF PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 E TN the preceding chapters we have determined sufficiently 
 for the most essential purposes the theory of single pri- 
 mary propositions, or, to speak more accurately, of primary pro- 
 positions expressed by a single equation. And we have estab- 
 lished upon that theory an adequate method. We have shown 
 how any element involved in the given system of equations may 
 be eliminated, and the relation which connects the remaining 
 elements deduced in any proposed form, whether of denial, of af- 
 firmation, or of the more usual relation of subject and predicate. 
 It remains that we proceed to the consideration of systems of 
 propositions, and institute with respect to them a similar series 
 of investigations. We are to inquire whether it is possible from 
 the equations by which a system of propositions is expressed to 
 eliminate, ad libitum, any number of the symbols involved ; to 
 deduce by interpretation of the result the whole of the relations 
 implied among the remaining symbols ; and to determine in par- 
 ticular the expression of any single element, or of any inter- 
 pretable combination of elements, in terms of the other elements, 
 so as to present the conclusion in any admissible form that may 
 be required. These questions will be answered by showing that it 
 is possible to reduce any system of equations, or any of the equa- 
 tions involved in a system, to an equivalent single equation, to 
 which the methods of the previous chapters may be immediately 
 applied. It will be seen also, that in this reduction is involved 
 an important extension of the theory of single propositions, which 
 in the previous discussion of the subject we were compelled to 
 forego. This circumstance is not peculiar in its nature. There 
 are many special departments of science which cannot be com- 
 pletely surveyed from within, but require to be studied also from 
 an external point of view, and to be regarded in connexion with 
 
OF REDUCTION. 
 
 115 
 
 CHAP. VIII.] 
 
 other and kindred subjects, in order that then full proportions 
 may be understood. 
 
 This chapter will exhibit two distinct modes of reducing 
 systems of equations to equivalent single equations. The first 
 of these rests upon the employment of arbitrary constant multi- 
 pliers. It is a method sufficiently simple in theory, but it has the 
 inconvenience of rendering the subsequent processes of elimina- 
 tion and development, when they occur, somewhat tedious. It was, 
 however, the method of reduction first discovered, and partly on 
 this account, and partly on account of its simplicity, it has been 
 thought proper to retain it. The second method does not re- 
 quire the introduction of arbitrary constants, and is in nearly 
 all respects preferable to the preceding one. It will, therefore, 
 generally be adopted in the subsequent investigations of this 
 work. 
 
 2. We proceed to the consideration of the first method. 
 
 Proposition I. 
 
 Any system of logical equations may be reduced to a single equiva- 
 lent equation , by multiplying each equation after the first by a dis- 
 tinct arbitrary constant quantity , and adding all the results, including 
 the first equation, together . 
 
 By Prop. 2, Chap, vi., the interpretation of any single 
 equation, f(x, y . .) = 0 is obtained by equating to 0 those con- 
 stituents of the development of the first member, whose co- 
 efficients do not vanish. And hence, if there be given two equa- 
 tions, f(x,y..) = 0, and F(x, y . .) = 0, their united import will be 
 contained in the system of results formed by equating to 0 all 
 those constituents which thus present themselves in both, or in 
 either, of the given equations developed according to the Pule of 
 Chap. vi. Thus let it be supposed, that we have the two equations 
 
 xy - 2x = 0, ( 1 ) 
 
 x ~y = 0 ; (2) 
 
 The development of the first gives 
 
 - xy - 2x (1 - y) = 0 ; 
 xy = 0, x(l-y) = 0. 
 
 i 2 
 
 whence, 
 
 ( 3 ) 
 
116 
 
 OF REDUCTION. 
 
 [CHAP. VIII. 
 
 The development of the second equation gives 
 
 x 0 - y) - y 0 - x ) = 0 ; 
 
 whence, x (1 - y) = 0, y (1 - x) = 0. (4) 
 
 The constituents whose coefficients do not vanish in both deve- 
 lopments are xy, x (1 - y), and (1 - x)y, and these would to- 
 gether give the system 
 
 xy = 0, x (1 - y) = 0, (1 - x) y = 0 ; (5) 
 
 which is equivalent to the two systems given by the developments 
 separately, seeing that in those systems the equation x (1 - y) = 0 
 is repeated. Confining ourselves to the case of binary systems 
 of equations, it remains then to determine a single equation, 
 which on development shall yield the same constituents with 
 coefficients which do not vanish, as the given equations produce. 
 Now if we represent by 
 
 V 1 = 0, V 2 = 0, 
 
 the given equations, F, and V 2 being functions of the logical sym- 
 bols x, y, z, &c. ; then the single equation 
 
 V\ + cV 2 = 0, (6) 
 
 c being an arbitrary constant quantity, will accomplish the re- 
 quired object. For let At represent any term in the full de- 
 velopment Fj wherein i is a constituent and A its numerical 
 coefficient, and let Bt represent the corresponding term in the 
 full development of V 2 , then will the corresponding term in the 
 development of (6) be 
 
 (A + cB) t. 
 
 The coefficient of t vanishes if A and B both vanish, but not 
 otherwise. For if we assume that A and B do not both vanish, 
 and at the same time make 
 
 A + cB = 0, (7) 
 
 the following cases alone can present themselves. 
 
 1st. That A vanishes and B does not vanish. In this case 
 the above equation becomes 
 
 cB = 0, 
 
OF REDUCTION. 
 
 117 
 
 CHAF. VIII.] 
 
 and requires that c = 0. But this contradicts the hypothesis that 
 c is an arbitrary constant. 
 
 2nd. That B vanishes and A does not vanish. This assump- 
 tion reduces (7) to 
 
 A = 0, 
 
 by which the assumption is itself violated. 
 
 3rd. That neither A nor B vanishes. The equation (7) then 
 gives 
 
 - A 
 
 which is a definite value, and, therefore, conflicts with the hy- 
 pothesis that c is arbitrary. 
 
 Hence the coefficient A + cB vanishes when A and B both 
 vanish, but not otherwise. Therefore, the same constituents 
 will appear in the development of (6), with coefficients which do 
 not vanish, as in the equations V l =0, V 2 = 0, singly or together. 
 And the equation V x + cV 2 = 0, will be equivalent to the sys- 
 tem Fi = 0, F 2 = 0. 
 
 By similar reasoning it appears, that the general system of 
 equations 
 
 Fj = 0, F 2 = 0, V 3 = 0, &c. ; 
 may be replaced by the single equation 
 
 F, + cF 2 + c'F 3 + &c. = 0, 
 
 c, c, &c., being arbitrary constants. The equation thus formed 
 may be treated in all respects as the ordinary logical equations 
 of the previous chapters. The arbitrary constants c l5 c 2 , &c., are 
 not logical symbols. They do not satisfy the law, 
 
 Ci (1 - Cj) = 0, c 2 (1 - c 2 ) = 0. 
 
 But their introduction is justified by that general principle which 
 has been stated in (II. 15) and (V. 6), and exemplified in nearly 
 all our subsequent investigations, viz., that equations involving 
 the symbols of Logic may be treated in all respects as if those 
 symbols were symbols of quantity, subject to the special law 
 x (1 - x) = 0, until in the final stage of solution they assume a 
 form interpretable in that system of thought with which Logic 
 is conversant. 
 
118 OF REDUCTION, [cHAF.VIII. 
 
 3. The following example will serve to illustrate the above 
 method. 
 
 Ex. 1. — Suppose that an analysis of the properties of a parti- 
 cular class of substances has led to the following general conclu- 
 sions, viz. : 
 
 1st. That wherever the properties A and B are combined, 
 either the property C. or the property 1), is present also ; but 
 they are not jointly present. 
 
 2nd, That wherever the properties B and C are combined, 
 the properties A and D are either both present with them, or 
 both absent. 
 
 3rd. That wherever the properties A and B are both absent, 
 the properties C and D are both absent also; and vice versa , where 
 the properties C and I) are both absent, A and B are both absent 
 also. 
 
 Let it then be required from the above to determine what 
 may be concluded in any particular instance from the presence of 
 the property A with respect to the presence or absence of the 
 properties B and (7, paying no regard to the property D. 
 
 Represent the property A by x ; 
 
 „ the property B by y ; 
 
 „ the property C by z : 
 
 ,, the property B by w. 
 
 Then the symbolical expression of the premises will be 
 
 xy = v [w (1 - z) + z (1 - w ) j ; 
 yz = v [xw + (1 - x ) (1 - w ) } ; 
 
 (1 - x) (1 - y) = (1 - z) (1 - w). 
 
 From the first two of these equations, separately eliminating the 
 indefinite class symbol v, we have 
 
 xy {1 - w (1 - z) - z (1 - w)j = 0 ; 
 yz {1 - xw - (1 - x)(l - w )} = 0. 
 
 Now if we observe that by development 
 
 1 — w (1 — z) - z (1 - w) = wz + (1 - w) (1 - z), 
 
 1 - xw - (1 - x) ( 1 - tv) = x (1 - u>) + iv (1 - r). 
 
 and 
 
CHAP. VIII.] OF REDUCTION. 119 
 
 and in these expressions replace, for simplicity, 
 
 1 - x by x, l-ybjy, &c., 
 we shall have from the three last equations, 
 
 xy (wz + wz) - 0 ; (1) 
 
 yz (xw + xw) = 0 ; (2) 
 
 xy = wz; (3) 
 
 and from this system we must eliminate w. 
 
 Multiplying the second of the above equations by c, and the 
 third by d, and adding the results to the first, we have 
 
 xy (wz + wz) + cyz (xw + xw) + c' (xy - wz) = 0. 
 
 When w is made equal to 1, and therefore w to 0, the first mem- 
 ber of the above equation becomes 
 
 xyz + cxyz + dry. 
 
 And when in the same member w is made 0 and w = 1, it be- 
 comes 
 
 xyz + cxyz + dry - c'z. 
 
 Hence the result of the elimination of w may be expressed in the 
 form 
 
 (xyz + cxyz + cxy) (xyz + cxyz + cxy - cz) = 0 ; (4) 
 
 and from this equation x is to be determined. 
 
 Were we now to proceed as in former instances, we should 
 multiply together the factors in the first member of the above 
 equation ; but it may be well to show that such a course is not 
 at all necessary. Let us develop the first member of (4) with 
 reference to x, the symbol whose expression is sought, we find 
 
 yz (yz + cyz - cz) x + (cyz + c'y) (c'y - c'z) (1 - x) = 0 ; 
 
 or, cyzx + (cyz + c'y) (cy - cz) (1 - x) - 0 ; 
 
 whence we find, 
 
 (gyg + <fy) ( c 'y - 
 
 (cyz + c'y) (dy - c'z) - cyz ’ 
 
 and developing the second member with respect to y and 2 , 
 
120 
 
 OF REDUCTION. 
 
 [chap. VIII. 
 
 „ 0 _ c' 2 _ 0 . _ 
 
 ®=(l-y)*+jj^l-s)> jj(l-y)(l-z); 
 
 x = {\-y)z + ^(l-z)-, 
 
 the interpretation of which is, Wherever the property A is present, 
 there either C is present and B absent, or C is absent. And in- 
 versely, Wherever the property C is present, and the property B 
 absent, there the property A is present. 
 
 These results may be much more readily obtained by the 
 method next to be explained. It is, however, satisfactory to 
 possess different modes, serving for mutual verification, of ar- 
 riving at the same conclusion. 
 
 4. We proceed to the second method. 
 
 Proposition II. 
 
 If any equations, 1^ = 0, V 2 = 0, Sfc., are such that the develop- 
 ments of their first members consist only of constituents with positive 
 coefficients, those equations may be combined together into a single 
 equivalent equation by addition. 
 
 For, as before, let At represent any term in the development 
 of the function V lt Bt the corresponding term in the develop- 
 ment of V 2 , and so on. Then will the corresponding term in the 
 development of the equation 
 
 V 1 + V 2 + &c. = 0, (1) 
 
 formed by the addition of the several given equations, be 
 (A + B + &c.) t. 
 
 But as by hypothesis the coefficients A, B, &c. are none of them 
 negative, the aggregate coefficient A + B, &c. in the derived 
 equation will only vanish when the separate coefficients A, B, &c. 
 vanish together. Hence the same constituents will appear in the 
 development of the equation (1) as in the several equations 
 V, = 0, V 2 = 0, &c. of the original system taken collectively, and 
 therefore the interpretation of the equation ( 1 ) will be cquiva- 
 
CHAP. VIII.] 
 
 OF REDUCTION. 
 
 121 
 
 lent to the collective interpretations of the several equations from 
 which it is derived. 
 
 Proposition III. 
 
 5. If Vt = 0, V 2 = 0, Sfc. represent any system of equations, the 
 terms of which have by transposition been brought to the first side, 
 then the combined interpretation of the system will be involved in the 
 single equation, 
 
 + V 2 2 + Sfc. = 0, 
 
 formed by adding together the squares of the given equations. 
 
 For let any equation of the system, as F x = 0, produce on de- 
 velopment an equation 
 
 ail + a. 2 t 2 + &c. = 0, 
 
 in which t x , t 2 , &c. are constituents, and a u a 2 , &c. their corres- 
 ponding coefficients. Then the equation Vd = 0 will produce 
 on development an equation 
 
 ad ti + a-dt 2 + &c. = 0, 
 
 as may be proved either from the law of the development or by 
 squaring the function a x t x + a 2 t 2 , &c. in subjection to the con- 
 ditions 
 
 td = ti, td = t 2 , t\t 2 — 0, 
 
 assigned in Prop. 3, Chap. v. Hence the constituents which 
 appear in the expansion of the equation Vd = 0, are the same 
 with those which appear in the expansion of the equation V x = 0, 
 and they have positive coefficients. And the same remark ap- 
 plies to the equations V 2 = 0, &c. Whence, by the last Propo- 
 sition, the equation 
 
 Vd + Vd + &c. = 0 
 
 will be equivalent in interpretation to the system of equations 
 V x = 0, V 2 = 0, &c. 
 
 Corollary . — Any equation, V= 0, of which the first member 
 already satisfies the condition 
 
 V 2 = F, or F(1 - F) = 0, 
 
122 
 
 OF REDUCTION. 
 
 [CHAP. VIII. 
 
 does not need (as it would remain unaffected by) the process of 
 squaring. Such equations are, indeed, immediately developable 
 into a series of constituents, with coefficients equal to 1, Chap. v. 
 Prop. 4. 
 
 Proposition IV. 
 
 6. Whenever the equations of a system have by the above pro- 
 cess of squaring, or by any other process, been reduced to a form 
 such that all the constituents exhibited in their development have 
 positive coefficients, any derived equations obtained by elimination 
 will possess the same character, and may be combined with the 
 other equations by addition. 
 
 Suppose that we have to eliminate a symbol x from any 
 equation V = 0, which is such that none of the constituents, in 
 the full development of its first member, have negative coefficients. 
 That expansion may be written in the form 
 
 V x x + F 0 (1 - x) = 0, 
 
 V x and F„ being each of the form 
 
 a x t x -f- a 2 t 2 • . h- a n t n , 
 
 in which t x L . . t n are constituents of the other symbols, and 
 a x a 2 . . a n in each case positive or vanishing quantities. The re- 
 sult of elimination is 
 
 F x F, = 0; 
 
 and as the coefficients in V x and V 2 are none of them negative, 
 there can be no negative coefficients in the product V x V 2 . 
 Hence the equation F a F 2 = 0 may be added to any other equa- 
 tion, the coefficients of whose constituents are positive, and the 
 resulting equation will combine the full significance of those 
 from which it was obtained. 
 
 Proposition V. 
 
 7. To deduce from the previous Propositions a practical rule or 
 method for the reduction of systems of equations expressing propo- 
 sitions in Logic. 
 
 We have by the previous investigations established the fol- 
 lowing points, viz. : 
 
CHAr. VIII.] 
 
 OF REDUCTION. 
 
 123 
 
 1st. That any equations which are of the form V = 0, V sa- 
 tisfying the fundamental law of duality F(1 - F) = 0, may be 
 combined together by simple addition. 
 
 2ndly. That any other equations of the form F= 0 may be 
 reduced, by the process of squaring, to a form in which the same 
 principle of combination by mere addition is applicable. 
 
 It remains then only to determine what equations in the ac- 
 tual expression of propositions belong to the former, and what to 
 the latter, class. 
 
 Now the general types of propositions have been set forth in 
 the conclusion of Chap. iv. The division of propositions which 
 they represent is as follows : 
 
 1st. Propositions, of which the subject is universal, and the 
 predicate particular. 
 
 The symbolical type (IY. 15) is 
 
 X = v Y, 
 
 X and Y satisfying the law of duality. Eliminating v, we have 
 
 Y(1-Y) = 0, (1) 
 
 and this will be found also to satisfy the same law. No further 
 reduction by the process of squaring is needed. 
 
 2nd. Propositions of which both terms, are universal, and of 
 which the symbolical type is 
 
 X = Y, 
 
 X and Y separately satisfying the law of duality. Writing the 
 equation in the form X - Y = 0, and squaring, we have 
 
 X-2XY+ Y= 0, 
 
 or Y(1 - Y) + Y(1 - X) - 0. (2) 
 
 The first member of this equation satisfies the law of duality, as 
 is evident from its very form. 
 
 We may arrive at the same equation in a different manner. 
 The equation 
 
 X = Y 
 
 is equivalent to the two equations 
 
 X = v Y, Y=v X, 
 
124 
 
 OF REDUCTION. 
 
 [CHAP. VIII. 
 
 (for to affirm that A’s are identical with Ys is to affirm both that 
 All X’s are Y s, and that All Y’s are X’s). Now these equa- 
 tions give, on elimination of v, 
 
 A r (l-Y) = 0, Y(1 - X) = 0, 
 
 which added, produce (2). 
 
 3rd. Propositions of which both terms are particular. The 
 form of such propositions is 
 
 vX = vY, 
 
 but v is not quite arbitrary, and therefore must not be eliminated. 
 For v is the representative of some, which, though it may include 
 in its meaning all , does not include none. We must therefore 
 transpose the second member to the first side, and square the 
 resulting equation according to the rule. 
 
 The result will obviously be 
 
 vX(l - Y)+wY(l- X) = 0. 
 
 The above conclusions it may be convenient to embody in a 
 Rule, which will serve for constant future direction. 
 
 8. Rule. — The equations being so expressed as that the terms X 
 and Y in the following typical forms obey the law of duality , change 
 the equations 
 
 X = v Y into X (1 - Y) = 0, 
 
 X = Yinto X (1 - Y) + Y(1 - X) = 0. 
 vX = vY into vX (1 - Y) + ?;Y(1-X) = 0. 
 
 Any equation which is given in the form X = 0 will not need transfor- 
 mation , and any equation which presents itself in the form X = 1 
 may be replaced by 1 - X = 0, as appears from the second of the 
 above transformations. . 
 
 When the equations of the system have thus been reduced, 
 any of them, as well as any equations derived from them by the 
 process of elimination, may be combined by addition. 
 
 9. Note. — I t has been seen in Chapter iv. that in literally 
 translating the terms of a proposition, without attending to its 
 real meaning, into the language of symbols, we may produce 
 equations in which the terms X and Y do not obey the law of 
 duality. The equation w = st(p + r), given in (3) Prop. 3 of 
 
CHAP. VIII.] 
 
 OF REDUCTION. 
 
 125 
 
 the chapter referred to, is of this kind. Such equations, how- 
 ever, as it has been seen, have a meaning. Should it, for cu- 
 riosity, or for any other motive, be determined to employ them, 
 it will be best to reduce them by the Rule (VI. 5). 
 
 10. Ex. 2. — Let us take the following Propositions of Ele- 
 mentary Geometry : 
 
 1st. Similar figures consist of all whose corresponding angles 
 are equal, and whose corresponding sides are proportional. 
 
 2nd. Triangles whose corresponding angles are equal have 
 their corresponding sides proportional, and vice versa. 
 
 To represent these premises, let us make 
 s = similar. 
 t - triangles. 
 
 q = having corresponding angles equal. 
 r = having corresponding sides proportional. 
 
 Then the premises are expressed by the following equations : 
 
 s = qr, ( 1 ) 
 
 tq= tr. (2) 
 
 Reducing by the Rule, or, which amounts to the same thing, 
 bringing the terms of these equations to the first side, squaring 
 each equation, and then adding, we have 
 
 s + qr - 2 qrs + tq + tr - 2tqr = 0. (3) 
 
 Let it be required to deduce a description of dissimilar figures 
 formed out of the elements expressed by the terms, triangles , 
 having corresponding angles equal, having corresponding sides 
 proportional. 
 
 We have from (3), 
 
 tq -v qr + rt - 2tqr 
 S " ~ 2jr- 1 ’ 
 
 (4) 
 
 2 qr - 1 v ' 
 
 And fully developing the second member, we find 
 1 - s = 0 tqr + 2 tq (1 - r) + 2tr(l - q) + t (1 - q) (1 - r) 
 
 + 0(1 - t)qr + ( 1 - t) q (l - r) + (1 -<)r(l - q) 
 
 + ( 1 - 0(1 -?)(1 ->•)• ( 5 ) 
 
126 
 
 OF REDUCTION. 
 
 [CHAP. VIII. 
 
 In the above development two of the terms have the coefficient 
 2, these must be equated to 0 by the Rule, then those terms 
 whose coefficients are 0 being rejected, we have 
 
 1 - ^ =t(\ -q) (1 -r) + (1 -t)q (1 - r) + (1 - t)r (1 - q ) 
 
 + ( 1 - 00 -?)(!-»■); ( 6 ) 
 
 tq ( 1 - r) = 0 ; (7 ) 
 
 /r(l-9) = 0; (8) 
 
 the direct interpretation of which is 
 
 1st. Dissimilar figures consist of all triangles which have not their 
 corresponding angles equal and sides proportional . and of all figures 
 not being triangles which have either their angles equal , and sides not 
 proportional., or their corresponding sides proportional , and angles 
 not equal , or neither their corresponding angles equal nor corres- 
 ponding sides proportional. 
 
 2nd. There are no triangles whose corresponding angles are equal, 
 and sides not proportionals 
 
 3rd. There are no triangles whose corresponding sides are pro- 
 portional and angles not equal. 
 
 1 1 . Such are the immediate interpretations of the final equa- 
 tion. It is seen, in accordance with the general theory, that in 
 deducing a description of a particular class of objects, viz., dis- 
 similar figures, in terms of certain other elements of the original 
 premises, we obtain also the independent relations which exist 
 among those elements in virtue of the same premises. And that 
 this is not superfluous information, even as respects the imme- 
 diate object of inquiry, may easily be shown. For example, the 
 independent relations may always be made use of to reduce, if it 
 be thought desirable, to a briefer form, the expression of that re- 
 lation which is directly sought. Thus if we write (7) in the 
 form 
 
 0 = tq ( 1 - r), 
 
 and add it to (6), we get, since 
 
 t (1 - q) (1 - r) + tqil - r) = t(l - r), 
 
 1 - s = £(1 - r) + (1 - t)q (l - r) + (\ - t)r (l - q) 
 
 + (1 - t) (1 - q) (1 - r), 
 
OF REDUCTION. 
 
 127 
 
 CHAP. VIII.] 
 
 which, on interpretation, would give for the first term of the de- 
 scription of dissimilar. figures, <£ Triangles whose corresponding 
 sides are not proportional,” instead of the fuller description origi- 
 nally obtained. A regard to convenience must always determine 
 the propriety of such reduction. 
 
 12. A reduction which is always advantageous (VII. 15) con- 
 sists in collecting the terms of the immediate description sought, 
 as of the second member of (5) or (6), into as few groups as 
 possible. Thus the third and fourth terms of the second mem- 
 ber of (6) produce by addition the single term (1 - t) (1 - q ). 
 If this reduction be combined with the last, we have 
 
 1 - ^ = i(l - r) + (1 - t)q (1 -r) + (1 -t) (1 - q), 
 the interpretation of which is 
 
 Dissimilar figures consist of all triangles whose corresponding 
 sides are not proportional , and all figures not being triangles which 
 have either their corresponding angles unequal , or their corresponding 
 angles equals but sides not proportional. 
 
 The fulness of the general solution is therefore not a super- 
 fluity. While it gives us all the information that we seek, it 
 provides us also with the means of expressing that information 
 in the mode that is most advantageous. 
 
 13. Another observation, illustrative of a principle which has 
 already been stated, remains to be made. Two of the terms in 
 the full development of 1 - s in (5) have 2 for their coefficients, 
 
 instead of It will hereafter be shown that this circumstance 
 0 
 
 indicates that the two premises were not independent. To verify 
 this, let us resume the equations of the premises in their reduced 
 forms, viz., 
 
 s (1 - qr ) + qr (1 - s') - 0, 
 tq (1 - r) + tr (1 - q) = 0, 
 
 Now if the first members of these equations have any common 
 constituents, they will appear on multiplying the equations to- 
 gether. If we do this we obtain 
 
 stq (1 - r ) + str{ 1 - q) = 0. 
 
128 
 
 OF REDUCTION. 
 
 [CHAP. VIII. 
 
 Whence there will result 
 
 stq (1 - r) - 0, str (1 - q) = 0, 
 
 these being equations which are deducible from either of the 
 primitive ones. Their interpretations are — 
 
 Similar triangles which have their corresponding angles equal 
 have their corresponding sides proportional. 
 
 Similar triangles which have their corresponding sides propor- 
 tional have their corresponding angles equal. 
 
 And these conclusions are equally deducible from either pre- 
 miss singly. In this respect, according to the definitions laid 
 down, the premises are not independent. 
 
 14. Let us, in conclusion, resume the problem discussed in 
 illustration of the first method of this chapter, and endeavour to 
 ascertain, by the present method, what may be concluded from 
 the presence of the property C, with reference to the properties 
 A and B. 
 
 We found on eliminating the symbols v the following equa- 
 tions, viz. : 
 
 xy [xvz + wz) = 0, (1) 
 
 yz ( xw + xw) = 0, (2) 
 
 xy = wz. (3) 
 
 From these we are to eliminate w and determine 2 . Now (1) 
 and (2) already satisfy the condition F(1 - V) = 0. The third 
 equation gives, on bringing the terms to the first side, and 
 squaring 
 
 xy (1 - wz) + w z(l - xy) = 0. (4) 
 
 Adding (1) (2) and (4) together, we have 
 
 xy(wz + wz) + yz(xw +%w)+xy (1 - wz) + wz( 1 - xy) = 0. 
 Eliminating w, we get 
 
 {xyz + yzx + xy) { xyz + yzx + xyz + z ( 1 - xy)} = 0. 
 
 Now, on multiplying the terms in the second factor by those in 
 the first successively, observing that 
 
 xx = 0, yy = 0, 22 = 0, 
 
CHAP. VIII.] OF REDUCTION. 129 
 
 nearly all disappear, and we have only left 
 
 xyz + xyz = 0 ; (5) 
 
 whence 0 
 
 z — 
 
 xy + xy 
 
 n 0 . 0 _ 
 
 = Oxy + - xy + - xy + 0 xy 
 
 0 _ 
 
 = - xy + 
 0 y 
 
 furnishing the interpretation. Wherever the property C is found, 
 either the property A or the property B ivill be found with it, but 
 not both of them together. 
 
 From the equation (5) we may readily deduce the result ar- 
 rived at in the previous investigation by the method of arbitrary 
 constant multipliers, as well as any other proposed forms of the 
 relation between x, y, and z ; e. g. If the property B is absent, 
 either A and C will be jointly present, or C will be absent. And 
 conversely, If A and C are jointly present, B will be absent. 
 The converse part of this conclusion is founded on the presence 
 of a term xz with unity for its coefficient in the developed value 
 of y. 
 
130 
 
 METHODS OF ABBREVIATION. 
 
 [CHAP. IX. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 ON CERTAIN METHODS OF ABBREVIATION. 
 
 1 • 7 | ''HOUGH the three fundamental methods of development, 
 elimination, and reduction, established and illustrated in 
 the previous chapters, are sufficient for all the practical ends of 
 Logic, yet there are certain cases in which they admit, and espe- 
 cially the method of elimination, of being simplified in an im- 
 portant degree ; and to these I wish to direct attention in the 
 present chapter. I shall first demonstrate some propositions in 
 which the principles of the above methods of abbreviation are 
 contained, and I shall afterwards apply them to particular ex- 
 amples. 
 
 Let us designate as class terms any terms which satisfy the 
 fundamental law V (1 - V) = 0. Such terms will individually 
 be constituents ; but, when occurring together, will not, as do 
 the terms of a development, necessarily involve the same symbols 
 in each. Thus ax + bxy + cyz may be described as an expression 
 consisting of three class terms, x, xy, and yz, multiplied by the 
 coefficients a, b, c respectively. The principle applied in the two 
 following Propositions, and which, in some instances, greatly 
 abbreviates the process of elimination, is that of the rejection of 
 superfluous class terms ; those being regarded as superfluous 
 which do not add to the constituents of the final result. 
 
 Proposition I. 
 
 2. From any equation , F= 0, in which V consists of a series of 
 class terms having positive coefficients, we are permitted to reject any 
 term lohich contains another term as a factor, and to change every 
 positive coefficient to unity . 
 
 For the significance of this series of positive terms depends 
 only upon the number and nature of the constituents of its final 
 expansion, i. e. of its expansion with reference to all the symbols 
 
CHAP. IX.] METHODS OP ABBREVIATION. 131 
 
 which it involves, and not at all upon the actual values of the 
 coefficients (VI. 5). Now let x be any term of the series, and 
 xy any other term having x as a factor. The expansion of x Avith 
 reference to the symbols x and y will be 
 
 xy + x (l -y), 
 
 and the expansion of the sum of the terms x and xy will be 
 2xy + x (1 - y). 
 
 But by what has been said, these expressions occurring in the 
 first member of an equation, of which the second member is 0, 
 and of which all the coefficients of the first member are positive, 
 are equivalent ; since there must exist simply the two constituents 
 xy and x (1 - y) in the final expansion, whence will simply arise 
 the resulting equations 
 
 xy = 0, x (1 - y) = 0. 
 
 And, therefore, the aggregate of terms x + xy may be replaced by 
 the single term x. 
 
 The same reasoning applies to all the cases contemplated in 
 the Proposition. Thus, if the term x is repeated, the aggregate 
 2x may be replaced by x, because under the circumstances the 
 equation x = 0 must appear in the final reduction. 
 
 Proposition II. 
 
 3. Whenever in the process of elimination we have to multiply 
 together two factors, each consisting solely of positive terms, satisfying 
 the fundamental laic of logical symbols, it is permitted to reject from 
 both factors any common term , or from either factor any term which 
 is divisible by a term in the other factor ; provided always, that the 
 rejected term be added to the product of the resulting factors. 
 
 In the enunciation of this Proposition, the word “ divisible’ 1 
 is a term of convenience, used in the algebraic sense, in which xy 
 and x (1 - y) are said to be divisible by x. 
 
 To render more clear the import of this Proposition, let it be 
 supposed that the factors to be multiplied together are x + y + z 
 and x + yw + t. It is then asserted, that from these two factors 
 we may reject the term x, and that from the second factor we 
 may reject the term yw, provided that these terms be transferred 
 
132 METHODS OF ABBREVIATION. [CHAP. IX. 
 
 to the final product. Thus, the resulting factors being y + z 
 and t, if to their product yt + zt we add the terms x and yw, 
 we have • 
 
 x + yw + yt + zt, 
 
 as an expression equivalent to the product of the given factors 
 x + y + z and x + yw + t ; equivalent namely in the process of 
 elimination. 
 
 Let us consider, first, the case in which the two factors have 
 a common term x, and let us represent the factors by the expres- 
 sions x + P, x + Q, supposing P in the one case and Q in the 
 other to be the sum of the positive terms additional to x. 
 
 Now, 
 
 (x + P) (x + Q) = x + xP + x Q + P Q. ( 1 ) 
 
 But the process of elimination consists in multiplying certain 
 factors together, and equating the result to 0. Either then the 
 second member of the above equation is to be equated to 0, or it 
 is a factor of some expression which is to be equated to 0. 
 
 If the former alternative be taken, then, by the last Propo- 
 sition, we are permitted to reject the terms xP and rcQ, inasmuch 
 as they are positive terms having another term a; as a factor. 
 The resulting expression is 
 
 * + PQ, 
 
 which is what we should obtain by rejecting a; from both factors, 
 and adding it to the product of the factors which remain. 
 
 Taking the second alternative, the only mode in which the 
 second member of (1) can affect the final result of elimination 
 must depend upon the number and nature of its constituents, 
 both which elements are unaffected by the rejection of the terms 
 xP and xQ. For that development of a; includes all possible con- 
 stituents of which a; is a factor. 
 
 Consider finally the case in which one of the factors contains 
 a term, as xy, divisible by a term, x, in the other factor. 
 
 Let x + P and xy + Q be the factors. Now 
 
 (x + P) (xy + Q) = xy + xQ + xyP + PQ. 
 
 But by the reasoning of the last Proposition, the term xyP may be 
 rejected as containing another positive term xy as a factor, whence 
 we have 
 
CHAP. IX.] 
 
 METHODS OF ABBREVIATION. 
 
 133 
 
 xy + xQ + PQ 
 = xy + (x + P) Q. 
 
 But this expresses the rejection of the term xy from the second 
 factor, and its transference to the final product. Wherefore the 
 Proposition is manifest. 
 
 Proposition III. 
 
 4. If t be any symbol which is retained in the final result of the 
 elimination of any other symbols from any system of equations, the re- 
 sult of such elimination may be expressed in the form 
 
 Et + E (l-t) = 0, 
 
 iu which E is formed by maJdny in the proposed system t = 1, and eli- 
 minating the same other symbols ; and E' by making in the proposed 
 system t - 0, and eliminating the same other symbols. 
 
 For let (f> (t) = 0 represent the final result of elimination. 
 Expanding this equation, we have 
 
 </> (1 ) t + <p (0) (1 - t) = 0. 
 
 Now by whatever process we deduce the function <f> (<) from the 
 proposed system of equations, by the same process should we de- 
 duce <p (1), if in those equations t were changed into 1; and by 
 the same process should we deduce (p (0), if in the same equations 
 t were changed into 0. Whence the truth of the proposition is 
 manifest. 
 
 5. Of the three propositions last proved, it may be remarked, 
 that though quite unessential to the strict development or appli- 
 cation of the general theory, they yet accomplish important ends 
 of a practical nature. By Prop. 1 we can simplify the results 
 of addition ; by Prop. 2 we can simplify those of multiplication ; 
 and by Prop. 3 we can break up any tedious process of elimi- 
 nation into two distinct processes, which will in general be of a 
 much less complex character. This method will be very fre- 
 quently adopted, when the final object of inquiry is the determi- 
 nation of the value of t, in terms of the other symbols which remain 
 after the elimination is performed. 
 
 6. Ex. 1. — Aristotle, in the Nicomachean Ethics, Book ii. 
 Cap. 3, having determined that actions are virtuous, not as pos- 
 sessing in themselves a certain character, but as implying a cer- 
 
134 
 
 METHODS OF ABBREVIATION. 
 
 [CHAP. IX. 
 
 tain condition of mind in him who performs them, viz., that he 
 perform them knowingly, and with deliberate preference, and for 
 their own sakes, and upon fixed principles of conduct, proceeds 
 in the two following chapters to consider the question, whether 
 virtue is to be referred to the genus of Passions, or Faculties, or 
 Habits, together with some other connected points. He grounds 
 his investigation upon the following premises, from which, also, 
 he deduces the general doctrine and definition of moral virtue, of 
 which the remainder of the treatise forms an exposition. 
 
 PREMISES. 
 
 1. Virtue is either a passion (irdOog), or a faculty (Svva/ng), 
 or a habit (t£,ig). 
 
 2. Passions are not things according to which we are praised 
 or blamed, or in which we exercise deliberate preference. 
 
 3. Faculties are not things according to which we are praised 
 or blamed, and which are accompanied by deliberate preference. 
 
 4. Virtue is something according to which we are praised 
 or blamed, and which is accompanied by deliberate preference. 
 
 5. Whatever art or science makes its work to be in a good 
 state avoids extremes, and keeps the mean in view relative to 
 human nature (to ptaov . . . irpdg y)pdg'). 
 
 6. Virtue is more exact and excellent than any art or science. 
 
 This is an argument a fortiori. If science and true art shun 
 
 defect and extravagance alike, much more does virtue pursue the 
 undeviating line of moderation. If they cause their work to be 
 in a good state, much more reason have to we to say that Virtue 
 causeth her peculiar work to be “in a good state.” Let the 
 final premiss be thus interpreted. Let us also pretermit all re- 
 ference to praise or blame, since the mention of these in the pre- 
 mises accompanies only the mention of deliberate preference, and 
 this is an element which we purpose to retain. We may then 
 assume as our representative symbols — 
 
 v = virtue. 
 
 p - passions. 
 
 f = faculties. 
 
 h = habits. 
 
 d = things accompanied by deliberate preference. 
 
METHODS OF ABBREVIATION. 
 
 135 
 
 CHAP. IX.] 
 
 g = things causing their work to be in a good state. 
 m = things keeping the mean in view relative to human 
 nature. 
 
 Using, then, q as an indefinite class symbol, our premises will be 
 expressed by the following equations : 
 
 v = q {p( 1 -f) (I - A) +/(1 -p) (1 - A) + A(1 -p) (1 -/)}. 
 p=q(l - d), 
 
 /“?(!- d )• 
 v = qd . 
 g = qrric 
 v = qg. 
 
 And separately eliminating from these the symbols q, 
 
 » I i -p (i -/) 0 - *) -/( i -p)(\-h)-h(\- P ) (i -f) =o. (i) 
 
 pd = 0. 
 
 (2) 
 
 fd =0. 
 
 (3) 
 
 v (1 - d) = 0. 
 
 (4) 
 
 g(l-m)= 0. 
 
 (5) 
 
 v(i -p) = o. 
 
 (6) 
 
 We shall first eliminate from (2), (3), and (4) the symbol d, and 
 then determine v in relation to p, /, and A. Now the addition of 
 (2), (3), and (4) gives 
 
 (p +/) d + v (1 - d) = 0. 
 
 From which, eliminating d in the ordinary way, we find 
 
 (P+f)v = 0 . ( 7 ) 
 
 Adding this to (1), and determining v, we find 
 
 0 
 
 , ’- P +/+1- ) »(1-/)(1-/0-/(1-p)(1-A)-*(1 -/)(1-P) - 
 Whence by development, 
 
 ”- 5 *(i-/) (i-W- 
 
 The interpretation of this equation is : Virtue is a habit , and not 
 a faculty or a passion. 
 
136 
 
 METHODS OF ABBREVIATION. 
 
 [CHAP. IX. 
 
 Next, we will eliminate /, p, and g from the original system 
 of equations, and then determine v in relation to h, d, and m. 
 We will in this case eliminate p and /together. On addition of 
 (1), (2), and (3), we get 
 
 v [1-P(1-/)(1-^) "/( 1-p) (\-h)-h(\-p) (1-/)) 
 
 4 - pd +fd = 0. 
 
 Developing this with reference to p and /, we have 
 
 (u + 2 d)pf+ (vh + d)p(l-f) + (vh + d) (1 - p)f 
 
 + v(l-h)(l-p) (l-/) = 0. 
 
 Whence the result of elimination will be 
 
 (v + 2d) ( vh + d) ( vh + d) v (1 — /*) = 0. 
 
 Now v + 2d = v+ d+d, which by Prop. I. is reducible to v + d. 
 The product of this and the second factor is 
 
 (v + d) (vh + d), 
 
 which by Prop. II. reduces to 
 
 d + v (vh) or vh + d. 
 
 In like manner, this result, multiplied by the third factor, gives 
 simply vh + d. Lastly, this multiplied by the fourth factor, 
 v (1 - h), gives, as the final equation, 
 
 vd(l-h) = 0. (8) 
 
 It remains to eliminate g from (5) and (6). The result is 
 
 v (1 - m) - 0. (9) 
 
 Finally, the equations (4), (8), and (9) give on addition 
 
 v (1 - d) + vd (1 - h) + v (1 - m) = 0, 
 
 from which we have 
 
 0 
 
 V ~ 1 - d + d (1 - h) + 1 - m 
 And the development of this result gives 
 
 v = hdm , 
 
 f which the interpretation is, — Virtue is a habit accompanied bg 
 
CHAP. IX.] 
 
 METHODS OF ABBREVIATION. 
 
 137 
 
 deliberate preference , and keeping in vieio the mean relative to 
 human nature. 
 
 Properly speaking, this is not a definition, but a description 
 of virtue. It is all , however, that can be correctly inferred from 
 the premises. Aristotle specially connects with it the necessity 
 of prudence, to determine the safe and middle line of action ; and 
 there is no doubt that the ancient theories of virtue generally 
 partook more of an intellectual character than those (the theory 
 of utility excepted) which have most prevailed in modern days. 
 Virtue was regarded as consisting in the right state and habit of 
 the whole mind, rather than in the single supremacy of con- 
 science or the moral faculty. And to some extent those theories 
 were undoubtedly right. For though unqualified obedience to 
 the dictates of conscience is an essential element of virtuous con- 
 duct, yet the conformity of those dictates with those unchanging 
 principles of rectitude (aidma Socaia) which are founded in, or 
 which rather are themselves the foundation of the constitution of 
 things, is another element. And generally this conformity, in 
 any high degree at least, is inconsistent with a state of ignorance 
 and mental hebetude. Reverting to the particular theory of 
 Aristotle, it will probably appear to most that it is of too ne- 
 gative a character, and that the shunning of extremes does not 
 afford a sufficient scope for the expenditure of the nobler energies 
 of our being. Aristotle seems to have been imperfectly conscious 
 of this defect of his system, when in the opening of his seventh 
 book he spoke of an “ heroic virtue”* rising above the measure 
 of human nature. 
 
 7. I have already remarked (VIII. 1) that the theory of sin- 
 gle equations or propositions comprehends questions which can- 
 not be fully answered, .except in connexion with the theory of 
 systems of equations. This remark is exemplified when it is 
 proposed to determine from a given single equation the relation, 
 not of some single elementary class, but of some compound class, 
 involving in its expression more than one element, in terms of 
 the remaining elements. The following particular example, and 
 the succeeding general problem, are of this nature. 
 
 T>/v inrip •jjuag aptrir/v ripmKtjv riva icai Qtiav . — Nic. Etii. Book vii. 
 
138 
 
 METHODS OF ABBREVIATION. [CHAP. IX. 
 
 Ex. 2. — Let us resume the symbolical expression of the defi- 
 nition of wealth employed in Chap, vii., viz., 
 
 w = st [p + r(l - p)), 
 
 wherein, as before, 
 
 w - wealth, 
 
 $ = things limited in supply, 
 t - things transferable, 
 p = things productive of pleasure, 
 r = things preventive of pain ; 
 
 and suppose it required to determine hence the relation of things 
 transferable and productive of pleasure, to the other elements of 
 the definition, viz., wealth, things limited in supply, and things 
 preventive of pain. 
 
 The expression for things transferable and productive of plea- 
 sure is tp. Let us represent this by a new symbol y. We have 
 then the equations 
 
 w = st [p + r (1 - /?)}, 
 
 V = 
 
 from which, if we eliminate t and p, we may determine y as a 
 function of w, s, and r. The result interpreted will give the re- 
 lation sought. 
 
 Bringing the terms of these equations to the first side, we 
 have 
 
 w - stp - str (1 - p) = 0. , . 
 
 y -tp = o. ^ ' 
 
 And adding the squares of these equations together, 
 w + stp + str (1 - p ) - 2 wstp - 2 icstr (1 -p) + y + tp - 2ytp = 0. (4) 
 
 Developing the first member with respect to t and p, in order to 
 eliminate those symbols, we have 
 
 (w + s - 2 ws + 1 - y)tp + (w + sr - 2 wsr + y) t (1 -p) 
 
 + (w + y) (1 - t)p + (to + y) (1 - t) (1 -p); (5) 
 
 and the result of the elimination of t and p will be obtained by 
 equating to 0 the product of the four coefficients of 
 
 tp, t( 1 -p), (1 - t)p , and (1 - t) (1 - p)- 
 
CHAP. IX.] METHODS OF ABBREVIATION. 139 
 
 Or, by Prop. 3, the result of the elimination of t and p from the 
 above equation will be of the form 
 
 Ey + E' (l -y), 
 
 wherein E is the result obtained by changing in the given equa- 
 tion y into 1 , and then eliminating t and p ; and E' the result 
 obtained by changing in the same equation y into 0, and then 
 eliminating t and p. And the mode in each case of eliminating t 
 and p is to multiply together the coefficients of the four con- 
 stituents tp , t (1 - p) , &c. 
 
 If we make y = 1, the coefficients become — 
 
 1st. iv (1 - s) + s (1 - w ). 
 
 2nd. 1 + to (1 - sr) + s (1 - w) r, equivalent to 1 by Prop. I. 
 3rd and 4th. 1 + iv, equivalent to 1 by Prop. I. 
 
 Hence the value of E will be 
 
 w (1 - s) + s (l - w). 
 
 Again, in (5) making y = 0, we have for the coefficients — 
 1st. 1 + w (1 - s) + s (1 - w), equivalent to 1. 
 
 2nd. w (1 - sr) + sr (1 - w). 
 
 3rd and 4th. w. 
 
 The product of these coefficients gives 
 E' = w (1 - sr). 
 
 The equation from which y is to be determined, therefore, is 
 [w (1 - s) + s (1 - w)) y + iv (1 - sr) (1 - y) = 0 , 
 tv ( 1 - sr) 
 
 ' ' y xv (1 - sr) - w (1 - s) - s (1 - xv) 5 
 and expanding the second member, 
 
 0 11 
 
 y = - icsr + ws (1 - ?’) + - w (1 - s) r + -w(l- s) (1 - r) 
 
 + 0 (1 - w) sr + 0 (1 - w) s (1 - r) + ^ (1 - w) (1 - s) r 
 
 + 1 (i - w ) (! - s ) ( x - r ) ; 
 
 whence reducing 
 
140 
 
 METHODS OF ABBREVIATION. 
 
 [CHAP. IX. 
 
 y = ws (1 - r) + wsr + jj (1 - w) (1 - s), (6) 
 
 with w (1 - s) = 0. (7) 
 
 The interpretation of which is — 
 
 1st. Things transferable and productive of pleasure consist of 
 all wealth (limited in supply and ) not preventive of pain , an inde- 
 finite amount of wealth ( limited in supply and) preventive of pain, 
 and an indefinite amount of what is not wealth and not limited in 
 supply. 
 
 2nd. All wealth is limited in supply. 
 
 I have in the above solution written in parentheses that part 
 of the full description which is implied by the accompanying in- 
 dependent relation (7). 
 
 8. The following problem is of a more general nature, and 
 will furnish an easy practical rule for problems such as the last. 
 
 General Problem. 
 
 Given any equation connecting the symbols x, y . .w, z . . 
 
 Required to determine the logical expression of .any class ex- 
 pressed in any way by the symbols x, y . . in terms of the remaining 
 symbols , w, z, &c. 
 
 Let us confine ourselves to the case in which there are but 
 two symbols, x, y, and two symbols, w, z, a case sufficient to de- 
 termine the general Rule. 
 
 Let V= 0 be the given equation, and let <p ( x , y) represent 
 the class whose expression is to be determined. 
 
 Assume t = <p (x, y), then, from the above two equations, x 
 and y are to be eliminated. 
 
 Now the equation V= 0 may be expanded in the form 
 
 Axy + Bx (1 - y) + C(1 - x) y + D (1 - x) (1 - y) = 0, (1) 
 A, B, C, and D being functions of the symbols w and z. 
 
 Again, as cp (x, y) represents a class or collection of things, it 
 must consist of a constituent, or series of constituents, whose co- 
 efficients are 1. 
 
CHAP. IX.] METHODS OF ABBREVIATION. 141 
 
 Wherefore if the f ull development of $ (x, y) be represented 
 in the form 
 
 axy + bx (1 - y) + c (1 - x) y + d (1 - x) (1 - y), 
 
 the coefficients a , b, c, d must each be 1 or 0. 
 
 Now reducing the equation t = <p(x, y) by transposition and 
 squaring, to the form 
 
 t {l - cj> (x, y)} +<j>(x,y)(l-t) = 0; 
 
 and expanding with reference to x and y, we get 
 
 {t(\ - a) + a (\ - ()) xy + {£(l-&) + 6(l -£)} a; ( 1 - y) 
 
 + {* 0 ~0 + c(l - 0) (i - x )y 
 
 + [t{\- d) + d(\ -t)) (1 - x) (1 - y) = 0; 
 
 whence, adding this to (1), we have 
 
 {A + t (1 - a) + a (1 - 1 ) } xy 
 
 4- {J3 + £(l-6) + 6(l-^)j a- (1 -?/) + &c. = 0. 
 
 Let the result of the elimination of x and y be of the form 
 
 Et + E'(l - t) = 0, 
 
 then E will, by what has been said, be the reduced product of 
 what the coefficients of the above expansion become when t = 1 , 
 and E the product of the same factors similarly reduced by the 
 condition t = 0. 
 
 Hence E will be the reduced product 
 
 (A + 1 - a) (B+ 1 - b) (C + 1 -c) (Z>+ 1 - d). 
 
 Considering any factor of this expression, as A + 1 - a, we see 
 that when a = 1 it becomes A, and when a = 0 it becomes 1 + A, 
 which reduces by Prop. I. to 1. Hence we may infer that E will 
 be the product of the coefficients of those constituents in the de- 
 velopment of V whose coefficients in the development of <p ( x , y) 
 are 1. 
 
 Moreover E' will be the reduced product 
 
 (A + a) (B + b)(C+c)(D + d). 
 
 Considering any one of these factors, as A + a, we see that this 
 becomes A when a = 0, and reduces to 1 when a = 1 ; and so on 
 for the others. Hence E will be the product of the coefficients 
 
142 
 
 METHODS OF ABBREVIATION. 
 
 [C 
 
 HAP. IX. 
 
 of those constituents in the development of y, whose coefficients 
 in the development <£ ( x , y) are 0. Viewing these cases together, 
 we may establish the following Rule : 
 
 9. To deduce from a logical equation the relation of any class 
 expressed by a given combination of the symbols x, y, Sfc, to the 
 classes represented by any other symbols involved in the given 
 equation . 
 
 Rule. — Expand the given equation with reference to the sym- 
 bols x, y. Then form the equation 
 
 Et + E'{\ - t) = 0, 
 
 in ivhich E is the product of the coefficients of all those constituents 
 in the above development , whose coefficients in the expression of the 
 given class are 1, and E the product of the coefficients of those con- 
 stituents of the development whose coefficients in the expression of the 
 given class are 0. The value of t deduced from the above equation 
 by solution and interpretation will be the expression required. 
 
 Note. — Although in the demonstration of this Ride V is sup- 
 posed to consist solely of positive terms , it may easily be shown that 
 this condition is unnecessary, and the Rule general, and that no pre- 
 paration of the given equation is really required. 
 
 10. Ex. 3. — The same definition of wealth being given as in 
 Example 2, required an expression for things transferable, but not 
 productive of pleasure, £ (1 - p), in terms of the other elements 
 represented by iv, s, and r. 
 
 The equation 
 
 to - sip - sir ( 1 - p) = 0, 
 gives, when squared, 
 
 w + stp + str (1 - p) - 2wstp - 2 ivstr (1 - p) = 0 ; 
 
 and developing the first member with respect to t and p, 
 
 (■ w + s - 2 ws) tp + ( iv + sr - 2 wsr) t (1 - p) + w (1 - 1) p 
 
 + w (1 - t) (1 - p) = 0. 
 
 The coefficients of which it is best to exhibit as in the following 
 equation ; 
 
 {w>(l-s) + s(1^0)}(p + {?y(l-sr) + sr(l-w)) t(\-p) + w (f-t)p 
 
 + jo (1 - t) (1 - p) = 0. 
 
CHAP. IX.] 
 
 METHODS OF ABBREVIATION. 
 
 143 
 
 Let the function t (1 - p) to be determined, be represented by z ; 
 then the full development of z in respect of t and p is 
 
 z = 0 tp + t (1 - p) + 0 (1 - t) p + 0 (1 - t) (1 - p). 
 
 Hence, by the last problem, we have 
 Ez + E' (1 - z) = 0 ; 
 
 where E = to (1 — sr ) + sr (1 - to) ; 
 
 E' = { to (1 - s) + s (1 - to) } xtoxto = to(l-s); 
 
 .’. {iv (1 - sr) + sr (1 - to)} z + to (1 - s) (1 - z) = 0. 
 
 Hence, 
 
 to (1 - s) 
 
 Z = 4- 
 
 2wsr — ws - sr 
 
 = ^ icsr + 0 ivs (1 - r) + ^ w (1 - s) r + ^ to (1 - s) (1 - r), 
 
 + 0 (1 - w) sr + jj (1 - to) s (1 - r) + ^ (1 - to) (1 - s) r 
 
 + (1 - w) (1 - s) (1 - r). 
 
 0r ’ ' 2 U wsr + (! ~ «’) * U - r) + ^ (1 - to) (1 - s), 
 
 with to (1 - s) = 0. 
 
 Hence, Things transferable and not productive of pleasure are 
 either wealth ( limited in supply and preventive of pain) ; or things 
 which are not wealth , but limited in supply and not preventive of 
 pain; or things which are not wealth, and are unlimited in supply. 
 
 The following results, deduced in a similar manner, will be 
 easily verified : 
 
 Things limited in supply and productive of pleasure which are 
 not wealth, — are intransfer able. 
 
 Wealth that is not productive of pleasure is transferable, limited 
 in supply, and preventive of pain. 
 
 Things limited in supply which are either wealth, or are pro- 
 ductive of pleasure, but not both, — are either transferable and pre- 
 ventive of pain , or intransferable. 
 
 11. F rom the domain of natural history a large number of 
 curious examples might be selected. I do not, however, con- 
 
144 
 
 METHODS OF ABBREVIATION. 
 
 [CHAP. IX. 
 
 ceive that such applications would possess any independent va- 
 lue. They would, for instance, throw no light upon the true 
 principles of classification in the science of zoology. For the 
 discovery of these, some basis of positive knowledge is requisite* — 
 some acquaintance with organic structure, with teleological adap- 
 tation ; and this is a species of knowledge which can only be de- 
 rived from the use of external means of observation and analysis. 
 Taking, however, any collection of propositions in natural his- 
 tory, a great number of logical problems present themselves, 
 without regard to the system of classification adopted. Perhaps 
 in forming such examples, it is better to avoid, as superfluous, 
 the mention of that property of a class or species which is im- 
 mediately suggested by its name, e. g. the ring-structure in the 
 annelida, a class of animals including the earth-worm and the 
 leech. 
 
 Ex. 4. — 1*. The annelida are soft-bodied, and either naked or 
 enclosed in a tube. 
 
 2. The annelida consist of all invertebrate animals having 
 red blood in a double system of circulating vessels. 
 
 Assume a = annelida ; 
 
 s = soft-bodied animals ; 
 n = naked ; 
 
 t = enclosed in a tube ; 
 i = invertebrate ; 
 r = having red blood, <£c. 
 
 Then the propositions given will be expressed by the equations 
 a = vs [n (1 - t) + t (1 - ft)} ; (1) 
 
 a = ir; (2) 
 
 to which we may add the implied condition, 
 
 nt = 0. (3) 
 
 On eliminating v, and reducing the system to a single equation, 
 we have 
 
 a { 1 - sn (1 - t) - st ( 1 - n) } + a (1 - ir) + ir (1 - a) + nt - 0. (4) 
 
 Suppose that we wish to obtain the relation in which soft- 
 bodied animals enclosed in tubes are placed (by virtue of the 
 
CHAP. XX.] 
 
 METHODS OF ABBREVIATION. 
 
 145 
 
 premises) with respect to the following elements, viz., the pos- 
 session of red blood, of an external covering, and of a vertebral 
 column. 
 
 We must first eliminate a. The result is 
 
 ir { 1 - sn (1 - t) - st (1 - n)\ + nt = 0. 
 
 Then (IX. 9) developing with respect to s and t, and reducing 
 the first coefficient by Prop. 1, we have 
 
 nst + ?>(l-n)s(l- t ) + (ir + »)(!-)* + ?V(l-s)(l -/) = 0. (5) 
 
 Hence, if st = w, we find 
 
 nw + ir ( 1 - n) x (ir + n)xir(l-w) = 0; 
 or, nw + ir (1 - n) (1 - w) = 0 ; 
 
 ir (l - n) 
 
 ♦ W = r 
 
 ir ( 1 - n) - n 
 
 = 0 irn + ir (1 - n) + 0* (1 - r) n + i (1 - r) (1 - n ) 
 
 + 0(1-?) rn + jj (1 - i) r (1 - n) 4 0 ( 1 - i) (1 - r) n 
 
 w = ir (1 - n) + H i (1 - r) (1 - n) + (1 - i) (1 - n ). 
 
 Hence, soft-bodied animals enclosed in tubes consist of all 
 invertebrate animals having red blood and not naked, and an in- 
 definite remainder of invertebrate animals not having red blood and 
 not naked, and of vertebrate animals which are not naked. 
 
 And in an exactly similar manner, the following reduced equa- 
 tions, the interpretation of which is left to the reader, have been 
 deduced from the development (5). 
 
 s (1 - £) = irn + * (1 - n) + jj (l - i) 
 
 0 - *) t = l 0 - 0 r (1 “ n ) + (1 - r ) l 1 ~ n ) 
 
 (1 - «) (1 - 0 = 5 ? '0 “ r ) + 1 ( l -0- 
 
14b 
 
 METHODS OF ABBREVIATION. 
 
 CHAP. IX. 
 
 In none of the above examples has it been my object to ex- 
 hibit in any special manner the power of the method. That, 
 I conceive, can only be fully displayed in connexion with the 
 mathematical theory of probabilities. I would, however, suggest 
 to any who may be desirous of forming a correct opinion upon 
 this point, that they examine by the rules of ordinary logic the 
 following problem, before inspecting its solution ; remembering 
 at the same time, that whatever complexity it possesses might 
 be multiplied indefinitely, with no other effect than to render its 
 solution by the method of this work more operose, but not less 
 certainly attainable. 
 
 Ex. 5. Let the observation of a class of natural productions 
 be supposed to have led to the following general results. 
 
 1st, That in whichsoever of these productions the properties 
 A and C are missing, the property E is found, together with one 
 of the properties B and D, but not with both. 
 
 2nd, That wherever the properties A and D are found while 
 E is missing, the properties B and C will either both be found, 
 or both be missing. 
 
 3rd, That wherever the property A is found in conjunction 
 with either B or E , or both of them, there either the property 
 C or the property 1) will be found, but not both of them. And 
 conversely, wherever the property C or D is found singly, there 
 the property A will be found in conjunction with either B or E , 
 or both of them. 
 
 Let it then be required to ascertain, first, what in any parti- 
 cular instance may be concluded from the ascertained presence of 
 the property A, with reference to the properties B, C, and B ; 
 also whether any relations exist independently among the pro- 
 perties B, C, and D. Secondly, what may be concluded in like 
 manner respecting the property B, and the properties A, C, 
 and D. 
 
 It will be observed, that in each of the three data, the informa- 
 tion, conveyed respecting the properties A, B , C , and D, is com- 
 plicated with another element, E , about which we desire to say 
 nothing in our conclusion. It will hence be requisite to eliminate 
 the symbol representing the property E from the system of equa- 
 tions, by which the given propositions will be expressed. 
 
CHAP. IX.] METHODS OF ABBREVIATION. 147 
 
 Let us represent the property A by x, B by y, Chj z, D by 
 w, E by v. The data are 
 
 ~xz = qv (yw + wy); (1) 
 
 vxw = q (yz + yz)\ (2) 
 
 xy + xvy = wz + zw ; (3) 
 
 x standing for 1 - x, &c., and q being an indefinite class symbol. 
 Eliminating q separately from the first and second equations, 
 and adding the results to the third equation reduced by (5), 
 Chap/vm., we get 
 
 xz(l - vyw - vwy) + vxw {jyz + zy) + (xy + xvy) (wz + wz) 
 
 + (wz + zw) (1 - xy - xvy) = 0. (4) 
 
 From this equation v must be eliminated, and the value of x 
 determined from the result. For effecting this object 9 it will 
 be convenient to employ the method of Prop. 3 of the present 
 chapter. 
 
 Let then the result of elimination be represented by the 
 equation 
 
 Ex + E' (1 -x) - 0. 
 
 To find E make x = 1 in the first member of (4), we find 
 vw (yz + zy) + (y + vy) (wz + wz) + (wz + zw) vy. 
 E limin ating v, we have 
 
 (wz + wT) [w (yz + zy) + y (wz + wT) + y (wz + zw ) } ; 
 
 which, on actual multiplication, in accordance with the conditions 
 ww = 0, zz = 0, &c., gives 
 
 E = wz + ywz. 
 
 Next, to find E'make 2 = 0 in (4), we have 
 
 z (1 - vyw - vyw) + wz + zw . 
 
 whence, eliminating v , and reducing the result by Propositions 
 1 and 2, we find 
 
 E = wz + zw +ywz m , 
 and, therefore, finally we have 
 
 (wz + ywz) x + (wz + zw + ywz) 2 = 0; 
 
 from which 
 
 (5) 
 
148 
 
 METHODS OF ABBREVIATION. 
 
 [CHAP. IX. 
 
 wz + zio + y w z 
 wz + zw + ywz -wz - ywz ’ 
 wherefore, by development, 
 
 x = 0 yzw + yzw + yzw + 0 yzw 
 + 0 yzw + yzw + yzw + yzl", 
 or, collecting the terms in vertical columns, 
 
 x = zw + zw + yzw ; (6) 
 
 the interpretation of which is^ — 
 
 In whatever submances the property A is found , there will also 
 be found either the property C or the property D, but not both, or 
 else the properties B, C, and D, will all be wanting. And con- 
 versely, where either the property C or the property D is found 
 singly, or the properties B, C, and D, are together missing, there 
 the property A will be found. 
 
 It also appears that there is no independent relation among 
 the properties B, C, and D. 
 
 Secondly, we are to find y. Now developing (5) with respect 
 to that symbol, 
 
 ( xivz + x wz + xwz + xzw) y + ( xwz + xwz + xzw + xzw) y = 0 ; 
 whence, proceeding as before, 
 
 y = xwz + ^ (xwz + xwz + xzw), 
 
 (V) 
 
 xziv = 0 ; 
 
 (8) 
 
 xzw - 0 ; 
 
 0) 
 
 xzw - 0 ; 
 
 (10) 
 
 From (10) reduced by solution to the form 
 
 0 
 
 xz = - w ; 
 
 we have the independent relation , — If the property A is absent 
 and C present, D is present. Again, by addition and solution (8) 
 and (9) give 
 
 __ 0 _ 
 xz + xz = - w. 
 
 Whence wc have for the general solution and the remaining in- 
 dependent relation : 
 
METHODS OF ABBREVIATION. 
 
 149 
 
 CHAP. IX.] 
 
 1st. If the property B be present in one of the productions, either 
 tht properties A, C, and D, are all absent, or some one alone of them 
 is absent. And conversely, if they are all absent it may be con- 
 cluded that the property A is present (7). 
 
 2nd. If A and C are both present or both absent, D will be ab- 
 sent, quite independently of the presence or absence of B (8) and (9). 
 
 I have not attempted to verify these conclusions. 
 
150 
 
 CONDITIONS OF A PERFECT METHOD. [CHAP. X. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 OF THE CONDITIONS OF A PERFECT METHOD. 
 
 1. HPHE subject of Primary Propositions has been discussed at 
 length, and we are about to enter upon the consideration 
 of Secondary Propositions. The interval of transition between 
 these two great divisions of the science of Logic may afford a fit 
 occasion for us to pause, and while reviewing some of the past 
 steps of our progress, to inquire what it is that in a subject like 
 that with which we have been occupied constitutes perfection of 
 method. I do not here speak of that perfection only which con- 
 sists in power, but of that also which is founded in the conception 
 of what is fit and beautiful. It is probable that a careful analysis 
 of this question would conduct us to some such conclusion as the 
 following, viz., that a perfect method should not only be an effi- 
 cient one, as respects the accomplishment of the objects for which 
 it is designed, but should in all its parts and processes manifest 
 a certain unity and harmony. This conception would be most, 
 fully realized if even the very forms of the method were sugges- 
 tive of the fundamental principles, and if possible of the one fun- 
 damental principle, upon which they are founded. In applying 
 these considerations to the science of Reasoning, it may be well 
 to extend our view beyond the mere analytical processes, and to 
 inquire what is best as respects not only the mode or form of 
 deduction, but also the system of data or premises from which 
 the deduction is to be made. 
 
 2. As respects mere power, there is no doubt that the first 
 of the methods developed in Chapter vm. is, within its proper 
 sphere, a perfect one. The introduction of arbitrary constants 
 makes us independent of the forms of the premises, as well as of 
 any conditions among the equations by which they are repre- 
 sented. But it seems to introduce a foreign element, and while 
 it is a more laborious, it is also a less elegant form of solution 
 than the second method of reduction demonstrated in the same 
 
CHAI\ X.] CONDITIONS Of A PERFECT METHOD. 151 
 
 chapter. There are, however, conditions under which the latter 
 method assumes a more perfect form than it otherwise bears. To 
 make the one fundamental condition expressed by the equation 
 
 * (1 - a?) = 0, 
 
 the universal type of form, would give a unity of character to 
 both processes and results, which would not else be attainable. 
 Were brevity or convenience the only valuable quality of a me- 
 thod, no advantage would flow from the adoption of such a prin- 
 ciple. For to impose upon every step of a solution the character 
 above described, would involve in some instances no slight la- 
 bour of preliminary reduction. But it is still interesting to know 
 that this can be done, and it is even of some importance to be 
 acquainted with the conditions under which such a form of solu- 
 tion would spontaneously present itself. Some of these points 
 will be considered in the present chapter. 
 
 Proposition I. 
 
 3. To reduce any equation among logical symbols to the form 
 F = 0, in ivliich V satisfies the law of duality , 
 
 F(1 - F) = 0. 
 
 It is shown in Chap. v. Prop. 4, that the above condition is 
 satisfied whenever V is the sum of a series of constituents. And 
 it is evident from Prop. 2, Chap. vi. that all equations are equi- 
 valent which, when reduced by transposition to the form F = 0, 
 produce, by development of the first member, the same series of 
 constituents with coefficients which do not vanish ; the particular 
 numerical values of those coefficients being immaterial. 
 
 Hence the object of this Proposition may always be accom- 
 plished by bringing all the terms of an equation to the first side, 
 fully expanding that member, and changing in the result all the co- 
 efficients which do not vanish into unity, except such as have already 
 that value. 
 
 But as the development of functions containing many sym- 
 bols conducts us to expressions inconvenient from their great 
 
152 
 
 CONDITIONS OF A PERFECT METHOD. [CHAP. X. 
 
 length, it is desirable to show how, in the only cases which do 
 practically offer themselves to our notice, this source of com- 
 plexity may be avoided. 
 
 The great primary forms of equations have already been dis- 
 cussed in Chapter vm. They are — 
 
 X = vY, 
 
 x = y , 
 
 vX = vY. 
 
 Whenever the conditions X (1 - X) = 0, Y (1 - Y) = 0, are 
 satisfied, we have seen that the two first of the above equations 
 conduct us to the forms 
 
 X(1-Y) = 0, (1) 
 
 X(l- Y) + Y (1 - X) = 0 ; (2) 
 
 and under the same circumstances it may be shown that the last 
 of them gives 
 
 t> [X(l- Y)+ Y(l- X)} =0; (3) 
 
 all which results obviously satisfy, in their first members, the 
 condition 
 
 F(1 - V) = 0. 
 
 Now as the above are the forms and conditions under which the 
 equations of a logical system properly expressed do actually pre- 
 sent themselves, it is always possible to reduce them by the 
 above method into subjection to the law required. Though, 
 however, the separate equations may thus satisfy the law, their 
 equivalent sum (VIII. 4) may not do so, and it remains to 
 show how upon it also the requisite condition may be imposed. 
 
 Let us then represent the equation formed by adding the 
 several reduced equations of the system together, in the form 
 
 v + v + v", &c. = 0, (4) 
 
 this equation being singly equivalent tc the system from which 
 it was obtained. We suppose v, v', v", &c. to be class terms 
 (IX. 1 ) satisfying the conditions 
 
 v (1 - v) = 0, v (1 - v') = 0, &c. 
 
 Now the full interpretation of (4) would be found by deve- 
 
CHAP. X.] CONDITIONS OF A PERFECT METHOD. 
 
 153 
 
 loping the first member with respect to all the elementary symbols 
 x, y, &c. which it contains, and equating to 0 all the constituents 
 whose coefficients do not vanish ; in other words, all the consti- 
 tuents which are found in either v, ?/, v", &c. But those consti- 
 tuents consist of — 1st, such as are found in v ; 2nd, such as are 
 not found in v, but are found in v' ; 3rd, such as are neither found 
 in v nor v, but are found in v", and so on. Hence they will be 
 such as are found in the expression 
 
 v + (1 - v) v + (1 - v) (1 - v ) v" + &c., (5) 
 
 an expression in which no constituents are repeated, and which 
 obviously satisfies the law F(1 - V) = 0. 
 
 Thus if we had the expression 
 
 (1 - i) + v + (1 - z) + tzw, 
 
 in which the terms 1 - t, 1 - z are bracketed to indicate that they 
 are to be taken as single class terms, we should, in accordance 
 with (5), reduce it to an expression satisfying the condition 
 V (l - V) = 0, by multiplying all the terms after the first by t, 
 then all after the second by 1 - v ; lastly, the term which remains 
 after the third by z ; the result being 
 
 1 - t + tv + t (1 - v) (1 - z) + t (1 - v) zw. (6) 
 
 4. All logical equations then are reducible to the form V- 0, 
 V satisfying the law of duality. But it would obviously be a 
 higher degree of perfection if equations always presented them- 
 selves in such a form, without preparation of any kind, and not 
 only exhibited this form in their original statement, but retained 
 it unimpaired after those additions which are necessary in order 
 to reduce systems of equations to single equivalent forms. That 
 they do not spontaneously present this feature is not properly 
 attributable to defect of method, but is a consequence of the fact 
 that our premises are not always complete, and accurate, and in- 
 dependent. They are not complete when they involve material 
 (as distinguished from formal) relations, which are not expressed. 
 They are not accurate when they imply relations which are not 
 intended. But setting aside these points, with which, in the 
 present instance, we are less concerned, let it be considered in 
 what sense they may fail of being independent. 
 
154 
 
 CONDITIONS OF A PERFECT METHOD. [CHAP. X. 
 
 5. A system of propositions may be termed independent, 
 when it is not possible to deduce from any portion of the system 
 a conclusion deducible from any other portion of it. Supposing 
 the equations representing those propositions all reduced to the 
 form 
 
 7=0, 
 
 then the above condition implies that no constituent which can 
 be made to appear in the development of a particular function 7 
 of the system, can be made to appear in the development of any 
 other function V of the same system. When this condition is 
 not satisfied, the equations of the system are not independent. 
 This may happen in various cases. Let all the equations satisfy 
 in their first members the law of duality, then if there appears a 
 positive term x in the expansion of one equation, and a term xy 
 in that of another, the equations are not independent, for the 
 term x is further developable into xy + x ( 1 - y), and the equation 
 
 xy = 0 
 
 is thus involved in both the equations of the system. Again, let 
 a term xy appear in one equation, and a term xz ' in another. 
 Both these may be developed so as to give the common consti- 
 tuent xyz. And other cases may easily be imagined in which 
 premises which appear at first sight to be quite independent are 
 not really so. Whenever equations of the form 7=0 are thus 
 not truly independent, though individually they may satisfy the 
 law of duality, 
 
 7(1 - 7) = 0, 
 
 the equivalent equation obtained by adding them together will 
 not satisfy that condition, unless sufficient reductions by the me- 
 thod of the present chapter have been performed. When, on 
 the other hand, the equations of a system both satisfy the above 
 law, and are independent of each other, their sum will also sa- 
 tisfy the same law. I have dwelt upon these points at greater 
 length than would otherwise have been necessary, because it ap- 
 pears to me to be important to endeavour to form to ourselves, 
 and to keep before us in all our investigations, the pattern of an 
 ideal perfection, — the object and the guide of future efforts. In 
 
CHAP. X.] 
 
 CONDITIONS OF A PERFECT METHOD. 
 
 155 
 
 the present class of inquiries the chief aim of improvement of me- 
 thod should be to facilitate, as far as is consistent with brevity, 
 the transformation of equations, so as to make the fundamental 
 condition above adverted to universal. 
 
 In connexion with this subject the following Propositions are 
 deserving of attention. 
 
 Proposition II. 
 
 If the first member of any equation V = 0 satisfy the condition 
 F(1 - V) = 0, and if the expression of any symbol t of that equa- 
 tion be determined as a developed function of the other symbols , the 
 
 coefficients of the expansion can only assume the forms 1, 0 
 
 0 1 
 ’ 0 ’ 0 ‘ 
 
 For if the equation be expanded with reference to t, we ob- 
 tain as the result, 
 
 Et + E'(\-t), (1) 
 
 E and E' being what 1 ' becomes when t is successively changed 
 therein into 1 and 0. Hence E and E will themselves satisfy 
 the conditions 
 
 Now (1) gives 
 
 E(l-E) = 0, E\\ - E') = 0. 
 E' 
 
 l ~ E - E 
 
 ( 2 ) 
 
 the second member of which is to be expanded as a function of 
 the remaining symbols. It is evident that the only numerical 
 values which E and E' can receive in the calculation of the co- 
 efficients will be 1 and 0. The following cases alone can there- 
 
 fore arise : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1st. 
 
 E'= 1, 
 
 E= 1, 
 
 then 
 
 E' 
 
 l 
 
 E' - E~ 
 
 O' 
 
 2nd. 
 
 E = 1, 
 
 E= 0, 
 
 then 
 
 E' 
 
 1. 
 
 E - E 
 
 3rd. 
 
 ii 
 
 © 
 
 E= 1 , 
 
 then 
 
 E 
 
 0. 
 
 tq 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 4 th. 
 
 tq 
 
 II 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 II 
 
 then 
 
 E 
 
 0 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 o' 
 
 Whence the truth of the Proposition is manifest. 
 
156 
 
 CONDITIONS OF A PERFECT METHOD. [CHAP. X. 
 
 6. It may be remarked that the forms 1, 0, and ^ appear in 
 the solution of equations independently of any reference to the 
 condition F(1 - F) = 0. But it is not so with the coefficient 
 
 The terms to which this coefficient is attached when the above 
 condition is satisfied may receive any other value except the 
 
 three values 1, 0, and whfen that condition is not satisfied. It 
 
 is permitted, and it would conduce to uniformity, to change any 
 coefficient of a development not presenting itself in any of the 
 
 four forms referred to in this Proposition into regarding this 
 
 as the symbol proper to indicate that the coefficient to which it is 
 attached should be equated to 0. This course I shall frequently 
 adopt. 
 
 Proposition III. 
 
 7. The result of the elimination of any symbols x, y, 8fc.from 
 an equation V = 0, of which the first member identically satisfies 
 the law of duality , 
 
 V( 1 - F) = 0, 
 
 may be obtained by developing the given equation with reference to 
 the other symbols , and equating to 0 the sum of those constituents 
 whose coefficients in the expansion are equal to unity. 
 
 Suppose that the given equation F = 0 involves but three 
 symbols, x, y, and t, of which x and y are to be eliminated. Let 
 the development of the equation, with respect to t, be 
 
 At + B(\-t) = 0, (1) 
 
 A and B being free from the symbol t. 
 
 By Chap. ix. Prop. 3, the result of the elimination of* and y 
 from the given equation will be of the form 
 
 Et+ E(\ -t) = 0, (2) 
 
 in which E is the result obtained by eliminating the symbols x 
 and y from the equation A = 0, E' the result obtained by elimi- 
 nating from the equation B *= 0. 
 
157 
 
 CHAP. X.] CONDITIONS OF A PERFECT METHOD. 
 
 Now A and B must satisfy the condition 
 
 J(1-A) = 0, -B (1 - JB) = 0. 
 
 Hence A (confining ourselves for the present to this coefficient) 
 will either be 0 or 1, or a constituent, or the sum of a part of the 
 constituents which involve the symbols x and y. If A = 0 it is 
 evident that E = 0 ; if A is a single constituent, or the sum of a 
 part of the constituents involving x and y, E will be 0. For the 
 full development of A, with respect to x and y, will contain terms 
 with vanishing coefficients, and E is the product of all the co- 
 efficients. Hence when A = 1, E\s equal to A, but in other cases 
 E is equal to 0. Similarly, when B = 1, E is equal to B, but in 
 other cases E' vanishes. Hence the expression (2) will consist of 
 that part, if any there be, of (1) in which the coefficients A, B 
 are unity. And this reasoning is general. Suppose, for instance, 
 that F involved the symbols x, y, z, t, and that it were required 
 to eliminate x and y. Then if the development of V, with re- 
 ference to z and t, were 
 
 zt + xz{\ - t) + y (1 - z) t + (1 -£) (1 - t), 
 the result sought would be 
 
 zt + (1 - z ) (1 - 1) = 0, 
 
 this being that portion of the development of which the co- 
 efficients are unity. 
 
 Hence, if from any system of equations we deduce a single 
 equivalent equation F= 0, F satisfying the condition 
 
 F(1 - F) = 0, 
 
 the ordinary processes of elimination may be entirely dispensed 
 with, and the single process of development made to supply 
 their place. 
 
 8. It may be that there is no practical advantage in the me- 
 thod thus pointed out, but it possesses a theoretical unity and 
 completeness which render it deserving of regard, and I shall ac- 
 cordingly devote a future chapter (XIV.) to its illustration. The 
 progress of applied mathematics has presented other and signal 
 examples of the reduction of systems of problems or equations to 
 the dominion of some central but pervading law. 
 
158 
 
 CONDITIONS OF A PERFECT METHOD. [CHAP. X. 
 
 9. It is seen from what precedes that there is one class of 
 propositions to which all the special appliances of the above me- 
 thods of preparation are unnecessary. It is that which is cha- 
 racterized by the following conditions : 
 
 First, That the propositions are of the ordinary kind, implied 
 by the use of the copula is or are, the predicates being particular. 
 
 Secondly, That the terms of the proposition are intelligible 
 without the supposition of any understood relation among the 
 elements which enter into the expression of those terms. 
 
 Thirdly, That the propositions are independent. 
 
 W e may, if such speculation is not altogether vain, permit 
 ourselves to conjecture that these are the conditions which would 
 be obeyed in the employment of language as an instrument of 
 expression and of thought, by unerring beings, declaring simply 
 what they mean, without suppression on the one hand, and with- 
 out repetition on the other. Considered both in their relation 
 to the idea of a perfect language, and in their relation to the pro- 
 cesses of an exact method, these conditions are equally worthy 
 of the attention of the student. 
 
CHAP. XI.] 
 
 OF SECONDARY PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 159 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 OF SECONDARY PROPOSITIONS, AND OF THfe PRINCIPLES OF THEIR 
 SYMBOLICAL EXPRESSION. 
 
 1. r I ''HE docti’ine has already been established in Chap, iv., 
 that every logical proposition may be referred to one or 
 the other of two great classes, viz., Primary Propositions and 
 Secondary Propositions. The former of these classes has been 
 discussed in the preceding chapters of this work, and we are now 
 led to the consideration of Secondary Propositions, i. e. of Propo- 
 sitions concerning, or relating to, other propositions regarded as 
 true or false. The investigation upon which we are entering will, 
 in its general order and progress, resemble that which we have al- 
 ready conducted. The two inquiries differ as to the subjects of 
 thought which they recognise, not as to the formal and scientific 
 laws which they reveal, or the methods or processes which are 
 founded upon those laws. Probability would in some measure fa- 
 vour the expectation of such a result. It consists with all that we 
 know of the uniformity of Nature, and all that we believe of the im- 
 mutable const ancy of the Author of Nature, to suppose, that in the 
 mind, which has been endowed with such high capabilities, not 
 only for converse with surrounding scenes, but for the knowledge 
 of itself, and for reflection upon the laws of its own constitution, 
 there should exist a harmony and uniformity not less real than 
 that which the study of the physical sciences makes known to us. 
 Anticipations such as this are never to be made the primary rule 
 of our inquiries, nor are they in any degree to divert us from 
 those labours of patient research by which we ascertain what is 
 the actual constitution of things within the particular province 
 submitted to investigation. But when the grounds of resem- 
 blance have been properly and independently determined, it is 
 not inconsistent, even with purely scientific ends, to make that 
 resemblance a subject of meditation, to trace its extent, and to 
 receive the intimations of truth, yet undiscovered, which it may 
 
160 OF SECONDARY PROPOSITIONS. [CHAP. XI. 
 
 seem to us to convey. The necessity of a final appeal to fact is 
 not thus set aside, nor is the use of analogy extended beyond its 
 proper sphere, — the suggestion of relations which independent 
 inquiry must either verify or cause to be rejected. 
 
 2. Secondary Propositions are those which concern or relate to 
 Propositions considered as true or false. The relations of things 
 we express by primary propositions. But we are able to make 
 Propositions themselves also the subject of thought, and to ex- 
 press our judgments concerning them. The expression of any 
 such judgment constitutes a secondary proposition. There exists 
 no proposition whatever of which a competent degree of know- 
 ledge would not enable us to make one or the other of these two 
 assertions, viz., either that the proposition is true, or that it is 
 false ; and each of these assertions is a secondary proposition. “ It 
 is true that the sun shines “It is not true that the planets 
 shine by their own light are examples of this kind. In the 
 former example the Proposition “ The sun shines,” is asserted to 
 be true. In the latter, the Proposition, “ The planets shine by 
 their own light,” is asserted to be false. Secondary propositions 
 also include all judgments by which we express a relation or de- 
 pendence among propositions. To this class or division we may 
 refer conditional propositions, as, “If the sun shine the day will 
 be fair.” Also most disjunctive propositions, as, “ Either the sun 
 will shine, or the enterprise will be postponed.” In the former 
 example we express the dependence of the truth of the Propo- 
 sition, “ The day will be fair,” upon the truth of the Proposition, 
 “ The sun will shine.” In the latter we express a relation between 
 the two Propositions, “ The sun will shine,” “ The enterprise will 
 be postponed,” implying that the truth of the one excludes the 
 truth of the other. To the same class of secondary propositions we 
 must also refer all those propositions which assert the simultaneous 
 truth or falsehood of propositions, as, “ It is not true both that 
 ‘ the sun will shine’ and that 4 the journey will be postponed.’ ” 
 The elements of distinction which we have noticed may even be 
 blended together in the same secondary proposition. It may in- 
 volve both the disjunctive element expressed by either , or, and 
 the conditional element expressed by if; in addition to which, 
 the connected propositions may themselves be of a compound 
 
CHAP. XI.] 
 
 OF SECONDARY PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 161 
 
 character. If 11 the sun shine,” and “ leisure permit,” then either 
 “ the enterprise shall be commenced,” or “ some preliminary 
 step shall be taken.” In this example a number of propositions 
 are connected together, not arbitrarily and unmeaningly, but in 
 such a manner as to express a definite connexion between them, — a 
 connexion having reference to their respective truth or falsehood. 
 This combination, therefore, according to our definition, forms 
 a Secondary Proposition. 
 
 The theory of Secondary Propositions is deserving of at- 
 tentive study, as well on account of its varied applications, as 
 for that close and harmonious analogy, already referred to, which 
 it sustains with the theory of Primai’y Propositions. Upon each 
 of these points I desire to offer a few further observations. 
 
 3. I would in the first place remark, that it is in the form of 
 secondary propositions, at least as often as in that of primary pro- 
 positions, that the reasonings of ordinary life are exhibited. The 
 discourses, too, of the moralist and the metaphysician are perhaps 
 less often concerning things and their qualities, than concerning 
 principles and hypotheses, concerning truths and the mutual con- 
 nexion and relation of truths. The conclusions which our narrow 
 experience suggests in relation to the great questions of morals and 
 society yet unsolved, manifest, in more ways than one, the limi- 
 tations of their human origin ; and though the existence of uni- 
 versal principles is not to be questioned, the partial formulae 
 which comprise our knowledge of their application are subject 
 to conditions, and exceptions, and failure. Thus, in those de- 
 partments of inquiry which, from the nature of their subject- 
 matter, should be the most interesting of all, much of our actual 
 knowledge is hypothetical. That there has been a strong ten- 
 dency to the adoption of the same forms of thought in writers 
 on speculative philosophy, will hereafter appear. Hence the in- 
 troduction of a general method for the discussion of hypothetical 
 and the other varieties of secondary propositions, will open to us 
 a more interesting field of applications than we have before met 
 with. 
 
 4. The discussion of the theory of Secondary Propositions is 
 in the next place interesting, from the close and remarkable ana- 
 logy which it bears with the theory of Primary Propositions. It 
 
162 OF SECONDARY PROPOSITIONS. [CHAP. XI. 
 
 will appear, that the formal laws to which the operations of the mind 
 are subject, are identical in expression in both cases. The mathe- 
 matical processes which are founded on those laws are, therefore, 
 identical also. Thus the methods which have been investigated 
 in the former portion of this work will continue to be available 
 in the new applications to which we are about to proceed. But 
 while the laws and processes of the method remain unchanged, 
 the rule of interpretation must be adapted to new conditions. 
 Instead of classes of things, we shall have to substitute propo- 
 sitions, and for the relations of classes and individuals, we shall 
 have to consider the connexions of propositions or of events. 
 Still, between the two systems, however differing in purport and 
 interpretation, there will be seen to exist a pervading harmonious 
 relation, an analogy which, while it serves to facilitate the con- 
 quest of every yet remaining difficulty, is of itself an interesting 
 subject of study, and a conclusive proof of that unity of cha- 
 racter which marks the constitution of the human faculties. 
 
 Proposition I. 
 
 5. To investigate the nature of the connexion of Secondary Pro- 
 positions with the idea of Time. 
 
 It is necessary, in entering upon this inquiry, to state clearly 
 the nature of the analogy which connects Secondary with Primary 
 Propositions. 
 
 Primary Propositions express relations among things, viewed 
 as component parts of a universe within the limits of which, 
 whether coextensive with the limits of the actual universe or 
 not, the matter of our discourse is confined. The relations ex- 
 pressed are essentially substantive. Some, or all, or none, of the 
 members of a given class, are also members of another class. 
 The subjects to which primary propositions refer — the relations 
 among those subjects which they express — are all of the above 
 character. 
 
 But in treating of secondary propositions, we find ourselves con- 
 cerned with another class both of subjects and relations. For the 
 subjects with which we have to do are themselves propositions, so 
 that the question may be asked, — Can we regard these subjects 
 
CHAP. XI.] 
 
 OF SECONDARY PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 163 
 
 also as things, and refer them, by analogy with the previous 
 case, to a universe of their own ? Again, the relations among 
 these subject propositions are relations of coexistent truth or 
 falsehood, not of substantive equivalence. We do not say, when 
 expressing the connexion of two distinct propositions, that the 
 one is the other, but use some such forms of speech as the fol- 
 lowing, according to the meaning which we desire to convey ; 
 “ Either the proposition X is true, or the proposition Y is true 
 “ If the proposition X is true, the proposition Y is true “ The 
 propositions X and Y are jointly true and so on. 
 
 Now, in considering any such relations as the above, we are 
 not called upon to inquire into the whole extent of their possible 
 meaning (for this might involve us in metaphysical questions of 
 causation, which are beyond the proper limits of science) ; but it 
 suffices to ascertain some meaning which they undoubtedly pos- 
 sess, and which is adequate for the purposes of logical deduction. 
 Let us take, as an instance for examination, the conditional pro- 
 position, “If the proposition X is true, the proposition Y is 
 true.” An undoubted meaning of this proposition is, that the 
 time in which the proposition X is true, is time in which the pro- 
 position Y is true. This indeed is only a relation of coexistence, 
 and may or may not exhaust the meaning of the proposition, but 
 it is a relation really involved in the statement of the proposition, 
 and further, it suffices for all the purposes of logical inference. 
 
 The language of common life sanctions this view of the es- 
 sential connexion of secondary propositions with the notion of 
 time. Thus we limit the application of a primary proposition by 
 the word “ some,” but that of a secondary proposition by the 
 word “sometimes.” To say, “ Sometimes injustice triumphs,” 
 is equivalent to asserting that there are times in which the pro- 
 position “ Injustice now triumphs,” is a true proposition. There 
 are indeed propositions, the truth of which is not thus limited to 
 particular periods or conjunctures ; propositions which are true 
 throughout all time, and have received the appellation of “ eter- 
 nal truths.” The distinction must be familiar to every reader of 
 Plato and Aristotle, by the latter of whom, especially, it is em- 
 ployed to denote the contrast between the abstract verities of 
 science, such as the propositions of geometry which are always 
 
164 OF SECONDARY PROPOSITIONS. [CHAP. XI. 
 
 true, and those contingent or phenomenal relations of things 
 which are sometimes true and sometimes false. But the forms of 
 language in which both kinds of propositions are expressed ma- 
 nifest a common dependence upon the idea of time ; in the one 
 case as limited to some finite duration, in the other as stretched 
 out to eternity. 
 
 6. It may indeed be said, that in ordinary reasoning we are 
 often quite unconscious of this notion of time involved in the very 
 language we are using. But the remark, however just, only 
 serves to show that we commonly reason by the aid of words 
 and the forms of a well-constructed language, without attending 
 to the ulterior grounds upon which those very forms have been 
 established. The course of the present investigation will afford an 
 illustration of the very same principle. I shall avail myself of 
 the notion of time in order to determine the laws of the expression 
 of secondary propositions, as well as the laws of combination of 
 the symbols by which they are expressed. But when those 
 laws and those forms are once determined, this notion of time 
 (essential, as I believe it to be, to the above end) may practically 
 be dispensed with. We may then pass from the forms of com- 
 mon language to the closely analogous forms of the symbolical 
 instrument of thought here developed, and use its processes, and 
 interpret its results, without any conscious recognition of the idea 
 of time whatever. 
 
 Proposition II. 
 
 7. To establish a system of notation for the expression of 
 Secondary Propositions, and to show that the symbols which it 
 involves are subject to the same laivs of combination as the corres- 
 ponding symbols employed in the expression of Primary Propo- 
 sitions. 
 
 Let us employ the capital letters X , Y, Z, to denote the ele- 
 mentary propositions concerning which we desire to make some 
 assertion touching their truth or falsehood, or among which we 
 seek to express some relation in the form of a secondary propo- 
 sition. And let us employ the corresponding small letters x, y, z, 
 considered as expressive of mental operations, in the following 
 
CHAP. XI.] 
 
 OF SECONDARY PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 165 
 
 sense, viz. : Let x represent an act of the mind by which we fix 
 our regard upon that portion of time for which the proposition X 
 is true ; and let this meaning be understood when it is asserted 
 that x denotes the time for which the proposition X is true. Let 
 us further employ the connecting signs +, =, &c., in the fol- 
 
 lowing sense, viz. : Let x + y denote the aggregate of those por- 
 tions of time for which the propositions X and F are respectively 
 true, those times being entirely separated from each other. Si- 
 milarly let x - y denote that remainder of time which is left when 
 we take away from the portion of time for which X is true, that 
 (by supposition) included portion for which Fis true. Also, let 
 x = y denote that the time for which the proposition X is true, 
 is identical with the time for which the proposition Y is true. 
 We shall term x the representative symbol of the proposition A, &c. 
 
 From the above definitions it will follow, that we shall 
 always have 
 
 x + y = y + x, 
 
 for either member will denote the same aggregate of time. 
 
 Let us further represent by xy the performance in succession 
 of the two operations represented by y and x, i. e. the whole 
 mental operation which consists of the following elements, viz., 
 1st, The mental selection of that portion of time for which the 
 proposition Y is true. 2ndly, The mental selection, out of that 
 portion of time, of such portion as it contains of the time in 
 which the proposition X is true, — the result of these successive 
 processes being the fixing of the mental regard upon the whole 
 of that portion of time for which the propositions X and F are 
 both true. 
 
 From this definition it will follow, that we shall always have 
 
 xy = yx. (1) 
 
 For whether we select mentally, first that portion of time for 
 which the proposition F is true, then out of the result that con- 
 tained portion for which X is true ; or first, that portion of time 
 for which the proposition X is true, then out of the result that 
 contained portion of it for which the proposition F is true ; we 
 shall arrive at the same final result, viz., that portion of time for 
 which the propositions X and F are both true. 
 
166 OF SECONDARY PROPOSITIONS. [CHAP. XI. 
 
 By continuing this method of reasoning it may be established, 
 that the laws of combination of the symbols x, y, z, &c., in the 
 species of interpretation here assigned to them, are identical in 
 expression with the laws of combination of the same symbols, in 
 the interpretation assigned to them in the first part of this 
 treatise. The reason of this final identity is apparent. For in 
 both cases it is the same faculty, or the same combination of fa- 
 culties, of which we study the operations ; operations, the essen- 
 tial character of which is unaffected, whether we suppose them to 
 be engaged upon that universe of things in which all existence 
 is contained, or upon that whole of time in which all events are 
 realized, and to some part, at least, of which all assertions, 
 truths, and propositions, refer. 
 
 Thus, in addition to the laws above stated, we shall have by 
 (4), Chap, n., the law whose expression is 
 
 x (y + z) = xy + xz ; (2) 
 
 and more particularly the fundamental law of duality (2) Chap, n., 
 whose expression is 
 
 x? = x, or, x (1 - x) = 0 ; (3) 
 
 a law, which while it serves to distinguish the system of thought 
 in Logic from the system of thought in the science of quantity, 
 gives to the processes of the former a completeness and a gene- 
 rality which they could not otherwise possess. 
 
 8. Again, as this law (3) (as well as the other laws) is satis- 
 fied by the symbols 0 and 1, we are led, as before, to inquire 
 whether those symbols do not admit of interpretation in the pre- 
 sent system of thought. The same course of reasoning which we 
 before pursued shows that they do, and warrants us in the two 
 following positions, viz. : 
 
 1st, That in the expression of secondary propositions, 0 re- 
 presents nothing in reference to the element of time. 
 
 2nd, That in the same system 1 represents the universe, or 
 whole of time, to which the discourse is supposed in any manner 
 to relate. 
 
 As in primary propositions the universe of discourse is some- 
 times limited to a small portion of the actual universe of things, 
 and is sometimes co-extensive with that universe ; so in secon- 
 
CHAP. XI.] 
 
 OF SECONDARY PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 167 
 
 dary propositions, the universe of discourse may be limited to a 
 single day or to the passing moment, or it may comprise the 
 whole duration of time. It may, in the most literal sense, be 
 “ eternal.” Indeed, unless there is some limitation expressed or 
 implied in the nature of the discourse, the proper interpretation 
 of the symbol 1 in secondary propositions is “ eternity even as 
 its proper interpretation in the primary system is the actually 
 existent universe. 
 
 9. Instead of appropriating the symbols x, y, z, to the repre- 
 sentation of the truths of propositions, we might with equal pro- 
 priety apply them to represent the occurrence of events. In fact, 
 the occurrence of an event both implies, and is implied by, the 
 truth of a proposition, viz., of the proposition which asserts the 
 occurrence of the event. The one signification of the symbol x 
 necessarily involves the other. It will greatly conduce to con- 
 venience to be able to employ our symbols in either of these 
 really equivalent interpretations which the circumstances of a 
 problem may suggest to us as most desirable ; and of this liberty 
 I shall avail myself whenever occasion requires. In problems of 
 pure Logic I shall consider the symbols x, y, &c. as representing 
 elementary propositions, among which relation is expressed in 
 the premises. In the mathematical theory of probabilities, which, 
 as before intimated (I. 12), rests upon a basis of Logic, and 
 which it is designed to treat in a subsequent portion of this work, 
 I shall employ the same symbols to denote the simple events, 
 whose implied or required frequency of occurrence it counts 
 among its elements. 
 
 Proposition III. 
 
 10. To deduce general Rules for the expression of Secondary 
 Propositions. 
 
 In the various inquiries arising out of this Proposition, fulness 
 of demonstration will be the less necessary, because of the exact 
 analogy which they bear with similar inquiries already completed 
 with reference to primary propositions. We shall first consider 
 the expression of terms ; secondly, that of the propositions by 
 which they are connected. 
 
168 OF SECONDARY PROPOSITIONS. [CHAP. XI 
 
 As 1 denotes the whole duration of time, and x that portion 
 of it for which the proposition X is true, 1 - x will denote that 
 portion of time for which the proposition X is false. 
 
 Again, as xy denotes that portion of time for which the pro- 
 positions X and Y are both true, we shall, by combining this and 
 the previous observation, be led to the following interpretations, 
 viz. : 
 
 The expression x (1 - y) will represent the time during which 
 the proposition X is true, and the proposition Y false. The ex- 
 pression (1 - x) (1 - y) will represent the time during which the 
 propositions X and Y are simultaneously false. 
 
 The expression *(1 - y) + y ( 1 - x) will texpress the time 
 during which either X is true or Y true, but not both ; for that 
 time is the sum of the times in which they are singly and exclu- 
 sively true. The expression xy + (1 - «) (1 - y) will express the 
 time during which X and Y are either both true or both false. 
 
 If another symbol 2 presents itself, the same principles remain 
 applicable. Thus xyz denotes the time in which the propositions 
 X, Y, and Z are simultaneously true ; ( 1 - .z) (1 - y) (1 - 2 ) the 
 time in which they are simultaneously false; and the sum of 
 these expressions would denote the time in which they are either 
 true or false together. 
 
 The general principles of interpretation involved in the above 
 examples do not need any further illustrations or more explicit 
 statement. 
 
 11. The laws of the expression of propositions may now be 
 exhibited and studied in the distinct cases in which they present 
 themselves. There is, however, one principle of fundamental 
 importance to which I wish in the first place to direct attention. 
 Although the principles of expression which have been laid down 
 are perfectly general, and enable us to limit our assertions of the 
 truth or falsehood of propositions to any particular portions of 
 that whole of time (whether it be an unlimited eternity, or a pe- 
 riod whose beginning and whose end are definitely fixed, or the 
 passing moment) which constitutes the universe of our discourse, 
 yet, in the actual procedure of human reasoning, such limitation 
 is not commonly employed. When we assert that a proposition 
 is true, we generally mean that it is true throughout the whole 
 
CHAP. XI.] OF SECONDARY PROPOSITIONS. 169 
 
 duration of the time to which our discourse refers ; and when dif- 
 ferent assertions of the unconditional truth or falsehood of propo- 
 sitions are jointly made as the premises of a logical demonstration, 
 it is to the same universe of time that those assertions are re- 
 ferred, and not to particular and limited parts of it. In that 
 necessary matter which is the object or field of the exact sciences 
 every assertion of a truth may be the assertion of an “ eternal 
 truth.” In reasoning upon transient phienomena, (as of some 
 social conjuncture) each assertion may be qualified by an imme- 
 diate reference to the present time, “ Now.” But in both cases, 
 unless there is a distinct expression to the contrary, it is to the 
 same period of duration that each separate proposition relates. 
 The cases which then arise for our consideration are the fol- 
 lowing : 
 
 1st. To express the Proposition , “ The proposition X is true'' 
 
 We are here required to express that within those limits of 
 time to which the matter of our discourse is confined the propo- 
 sition X is true. Now the time for which the proposition X is 
 true is denoted by x, and the extent of time to which our dis- 
 course refers is represented by 1. Hence we have 
 
 x = 1 (4) 
 
 as the expression required. 
 
 2nd. To express the Proposition, 11 The proposition X is 
 false." 
 
 We are here to express that within the limits of time to which 
 our discourse relates, the proposition X is false ; or that within 
 those limits there is no portion of time for which it is true. Now 
 the portion of time for which it is true is x. Hence the required 
 equation will be 
 
 * = 0. (5) 
 
 This result might also be obtained by equating to the whole du- 
 ration of time 1 , the expression for the time during which the 
 proposition X is false, viz., 1 - x. This gives 
 
 1 - a? = 1, 
 
 whence x = 0. 
 
 3rd. To express the disjunctive Proposition, “ Either the pro- 
 
170 OF SECONDARY PROPOSITIONS. [CHAP. XI. 
 
 position X is true or the proposition Y is true it being thereby 
 implied that the said propositions are mutually exclusive, that is to 
 say, that one only of them is true. 
 
 The time for which either the proposition X is true or the 
 proposition Y is true, but not both, is represented by the ex- 
 pression x - y) + y - x). Hence we have 
 
 x(\-y)+y(l-x) = \, (6) 
 
 for the equation required. 
 
 If in the above Proposition the particles either, or, are sup- 
 posed not to possess an absolutely disjunctive power, so that the 
 possibility of the simultaneous truth of the propositions X and Y 
 is not excluded, we must add to the first member of the above 
 equations the term xy. We shall thus have 
 
 xy + x{\-y) + (\-x)y=\, 
 
 or x + (1 - x) y = 1. ^ ' 
 
 4th. To express the conditional Proposition, “ If the propo- 
 sition Y is true, the proposition X is true.” 
 
 Since whenever the proposition Y is true, the proposition X 
 is true, it is necessary and sufficient here to express, that the time 
 in which the proposition Y is true is time in which the propo- 
 sition X is true ; that is to say, that it is some indefinite portion 
 of the whole time in which the proposition X is true. Now the 
 time in which the proposition Y is true is y, and the whole time 
 in which the proposition X is true is x. Let v be a symbol of 
 time indefinite, then will vx represent an indefinite portion of the 
 whole time x. Accordingly, we shall have 
 
 y - vx 
 
 as the expression of the proposition given. 
 
 1 2. When v is thus regarded as a symbol of time indefinite, 
 vx may be understood to represent the whole, or an indefinite 
 part, or no part, of the whole time x ; for any one of these mean- 
 ings may be realized by a particular determination of the arbitrary 
 symbol v. Thus, if v be determined to represent a time in which 
 the whole time x is included, vx will represent the whole time x. 
 If v be determined to represent a time, some part of which is in- 
 
CHAP. XI.] 
 
 OF SECONDARY PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 171 
 
 eluded in the time x, but which does not fill up the measure of 
 that time, vx will represent a part of the time x. If, lastly, v is 
 determined to represent a time, of which no part is common with 
 any part of the time x, vx will assume the value 0, and will be 
 equivalent to “no time,” or “never.” 
 
 Now it is to be observed that the proposition, “ If Y is true, 
 X is true,” contains no assertion of the truth of either of the 
 propositions X and Y. It may equally consist with the suppo- 
 sition that the truth of the proposition Y is a condition indis- 
 pensable to the truth of the proposition X, in which case we 
 shall have v = 1 ; or with the supposition that although Y ex- 
 presses a condition which, when realized, assures us of the truth 
 of X , yet X may be true without implying the fulfilment of that 
 condition, in which case v denotes a time, some part of which is 
 contained in the whole time x ; or, lastly, with the supposition 
 that the proposition Y is not true at all, in which case v repre- 
 sents some time, no part of which is common with any part of 
 the time x. All these cases are involved in the general suppo- 
 sition that v is a symbol of time indefinite. 
 
 5th. To express a proposition in which the conditional and the 
 disjunctive characters both exist. 
 
 The general form of a conditional proposition is, “ If Y is 
 true, X is true,” and its expression is, by the last section, y = vx. 
 We may properly, in analogy with the usage which has been es- 
 tablished in primary propositions, designate Y and X as the 
 terms of the conditional proposition into which they enter ; and 
 we may further adopt the language of the ordinary Logic, which 
 designates the term Y, to which the particle //"is attached, the 
 “antecedent” of the proposition, and the term X the “conse- 
 quent.” 
 
 Now instead of the terms, as in the above case, being simple 
 propositions, let each or either of them be a disjunctive propo- 
 sition involving different terms connected by the particles either, 
 or, as in the following illustrative examples, in which X, Y, Z, 
 &c. denote simple propositions. 
 
 1st. If either X is true or Y is true, then Z is true. 
 
 2nd. If X is true, then either Y is true or Z true. 
 
172 OF SECONDARY PROPOSITIONS. [CHAP. XI. 
 
 3rd. If either X is true or Y is true, then either Z and W 
 are both true, or they are both false. 
 
 It is evident that in the above cases the relation of the ante- 
 cedent to the consequent is not affected by the circumstance that 
 one of those terms or both are of a disjunctive character. Ac- 
 cordingly it is only necessary to obtain, in conformity with the 
 principles already established, the proper expressions for the ante- 
 cedent and the consequent, to affect the latter with the indefinite 
 symbol v, and to equate the results. Thus for the propositions 
 above stated we shall have the respective equations, 
 
 1st. «(1 - y) + (1 -x)y = vz. 
 
 2nd. x = v [y (1 - z) + z (1 - y ) } . 
 
 3rd. x (1 - y) + y (1 - x) = v [zw + (1 - z) (1 -w)). 
 
 The rule here exemplified is of general application. 
 
 Cases in which the disjunctive and the conditional elements 
 enter in a manner different from the above into the expression of 
 a compound proposition, are conceivable, but I am not aware that 
 they are ever presented to us by the natural exigencies of human 
 reason, and I shall therefore refrain from any discussion of them. 
 No serious difficulty will arise from this omission, as the general 
 principles which have formed the basis of the above applications 
 are perfectly general, and a slight effort of thought will adapt 
 them to any imaginable case. 
 
 13. In the laws of expression above stated those of interpre- 
 tation are implicitly involved. The equation 
 
 x - 1 
 
 must be understood to express that the proposition X is true ; 
 the equation 
 
 x = 0, 
 
 that the proposition X is false. The equation 
 
 xy = 1 
 
 will express that the propositions X and Y are both true toge- 
 ther ; and the equation 
 
 xy = 0 
 
 that they are not both together true. 
 
CHAP. XI.] 
 
 OF SECONDARY PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 173 
 
 In like manner the equations 
 
 x{\-y) +y{\- x) = \, 
 
 - y) + y( i - ®) = o, 
 
 will respectively assert the truth and the falsehood of the disjunc- 
 tive Proposition, “Either X is true or Y is true.” The equa- 
 tions 
 
 y = vx 
 
 y = v(l - x) 
 
 will respectively express the Propositions, “If the proposition Y 
 is true, the proposition X is true.” “ If the proposition Y is 
 true, the proposition X is false.” 
 
 Examples will frequently present themselves, in the suc- 
 ceeding chapters of this work, of a case in which some terms of a 
 particular member of an equation are affected by the indefinite 
 symbol v, and others not so affected. The following instance 
 will serve for illustration. Suppose that we have 
 y = xz + vx (1 - z). 
 
 Here it is implied that the time for which the proposition Y is 
 true consists of all the time for which X and Z are together true, 
 together with an indefinite portion of the time for which X is 
 true and Z false. From this it may be seen, 1st, That if T~is 
 true, either X and Z are together true, or X is true and Z false ; 
 2ndly, If X and Z are together true, Y is true. The latter of 
 these may be called the reverse interpretation, and it consists in 
 taking the antecedent out of the second member, and the conse- 
 quent from the first member of the equation. The existence of 
 a term in the second member, whose coefficient is unity, renders 
 this latter mode of interpretation possible. The general principle 
 which it involves may be thus stated : 
 
 14. Principle. — Any constituent term or terms in a particular 
 member of an equation which have for their coefficient unity, may 
 be taken as the antecedent of a proposition, of which all the terms 
 in the other member form the consequent. 
 
 Thus the equation 
 
 y = xz + vx (1 - z) + (1 - x) (1 - z) 
 would have the following interpretations : 
 
174 
 
 OF SECONDARY PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 [CHAP. XI. 
 
 Direct Interpretation. — If the proposition Y is true, then 
 either X and Z are true, or X is true and Z false, or X and Z 
 are both false. 
 
 Reverse Interpretation. — If either X and Z are true, or 
 X and Z are false, 5 r is true. 
 
 The aggregate of these partial interpretations will express 
 the whole significance of the equation given. 
 
 15. We may here call attention again to the remark, that 
 although the idea of time appears to be an essential element in 
 the theory of the interpretation of secondary propositions, it may 
 practically be neglected as soon as the laws of expression and of 
 interpretation are definitely established. The forms to which 
 those laws give rise seem, indeed, to correspond with the forms of 
 a perfect language. Let us imagine any known or existing lan- 
 guage freed from idioms and divested of superfluity, and let us 
 express in that language any given proposition in a manner the 
 most simple and literal, — the most in accordance with those 
 principles of pure and universal thought upon which all languages 
 are founded, of which all bear the manifestation, but from which 
 all have more or less departed. The transition from such a lan- 
 guage to the notation of analysis would consist of no more than 
 the substitution of one set of signs for another, without essential 
 change either of form or character. For the elements, whether 
 things or propositions, among which relation is expressed, we 
 should substitute letters ; for the disjunctive conjunction we 
 should write + ; for the connecting copula or sign of relation, we 
 should write =. This analogy I need not pursue. Its reality 
 and completeness will be made more apparent from the study of 
 those forms of expression which will present themselves in sub- 
 sequent applications of the present theory, viewed in more imme- 
 diate comparison with that imperfect yet noble instrument of 
 thought — the English language. 
 
 16. Upon the general analogy between the theory of Primary 
 and that of Secondary Propositions, I am desirous of adding a 
 few remarks before dismissing the subject of the present chapter. 
 
 We might undoubtedly, have established the theory of Pri- 
 mary Propositions upon the simple notion of space, in the same 
 
CHAP. XI.] OF SECONDARY PROPOSITIONS. 175 
 
 way as that of secondary propositions has been established upon 
 the notion of time. Perhaps, had this been done, the analogy 
 which we are contemplating would have been in somewhat closer 
 accordance with the view of those who regard space and time 
 as merely 41 forms of the human understanding,” conditions of 
 knowledge imposed by the very constitution of the mind upon 
 all that is submitted to its apprehension. But this view, while 
 on the one hand it is incapable of demonstration, on the other 
 hand ties us down to the recognition of 44 place,” to ttov, as an 
 essential category of existence. The question, indeed, whether 
 it is so or not, lies, I apprehend, beyond the reach of our faculties ; 
 but it may be, and I conceive has been, established, that the 
 formal processes of reasoning in primary propositions do not re- 
 quire, as an essential condition, the manifestation in space of the 
 things about which we reason ; that they would remain appli- 
 cable, with equal strictness of demonstration, to forms of exis- 
 tence, if such there be, which lie beyond the realm of sensible 
 extension. It is a fact, perhaps, in some degree analogous to this, 
 that we are able in many known examples in geometry and dy- 
 namics, to exhibit the formal analysis of problems founded upon 
 some intellectual conception of space different from that which is 
 presented to us by the senses, or which can be realized by the 
 imagination.* I conceive, therefore, that the idea of space is not 
 
 * Space Is presented to us in perception, as possessing the three dimensions 
 of length, breadth, and depth. But in a large class of problems relating to the 
 properties of curved surfaces, the rotations of solid bodies around axes, the vi- 
 brations of elastic media, &c., this limitation appears in the analytical investi- 
 gation to be of an arbitrary character, and if attention were paid to the processes 
 of solution alone, no reason could be discovered why space should not exist in 
 four or in any greater number of dimensions. The intellectual procedure in 
 the imaginary world thus suggested can be apprehended by the clearest light of 
 analogy. 
 
 The existence of space in three dimensions, and the views thereupon of the 
 religious and philosophical mind of antiquity, are thus set forth by Aristotle: — 
 Mfyidoc Si to fiiv zip iv, ypappp, to 5’ ziri Svo zttitzSov, to S' ztt'l Tpia <ruipa' 
 Kai 7rapa Tavra ovk zstiv aUo pzyzOug, Sea to rpid Tcdvra ei veil Kai to Tpig 
 KavTi). Kddarrzp yap <pa<n icai oi Hvdayopziot, to Trav Kai rd iravra t oig rpiaiv 
 wpiarai. TzXzvtt) yap Kai ptaov Kai apxv T °v apidpbv z\zi t'ov too iravTog' 
 ravra Si t'ov Trjg rpidSog. A 10 irapa rrjg ipvrrzwg ziXptporzg uxnrzp vopovg ZKtivrjg, 
 Kai npograg ayioTtiag xpuptda twv dziuv Tip dpiQpip ToiiTtp. — De Calo, 1. 
 
176 OF SECONDARY PROPOSITIONS. [CHAP. XI. 
 
 essential to the development of a theory of primary propositions, 
 but am disposed, though desiring to speak with diffidence upon 
 a question of such extreme difficulty, to think that the idea of 
 time is essential to the establishment of a theory of secondary 
 propositions. There seem to be grounds for thinking, that 
 without any change in those faculties which are concerned in 
 reasoning , the manifestation of space to the human mind might 
 have been different from what it is, but not (at least the same) 
 grounds for supposing that the manifestation of time could have 
 been otherwise than we perceive it to be. Dismissing, however, 
 these speculations as possibly not altogether free from presump- 
 tion, let it be affirmed that the real ground upon which the 
 symbol 1 represents in primary propositions the universe of 
 things, and not the space they occupy, is, that the sign of 
 identity = connecting the members of the corresponding equa- 
 tions, implies that the things which they represent are identical, 
 not simply that they are found in the same portion of space. 
 Let it in like manner be affirmed, that the reason why the symbol 
 1 in secondary propositions represents, not the universe of events, 
 but the eternity in whose successive moments and periods they 
 are evolved, is, that the same sign of identity connecting the 
 logical members of the corresponding equations implies, not that 
 the events which those members represent are identical, but that 
 the times of their occurrence are the same. These reasons appear 
 to me to be decisive of the immediate question of interpretation. In 
 a former treatise on this subject (Mathematical Analysis of Logic, 
 p. 49), following the theory of Wallis respecting the Reduction 
 of Hypothetical Propositions, I was led to interpret the symbol 1 
 in secondary propositions as the universe of “ cases” or “ conjunc- 
 tures of circumstances but this view involves the necessity of a 
 definition of what is meant by a “ case,” or “ conjuncture of 
 circumstances and it is certain, that whatever is involved in 
 the term beyond the notion of time is alien to the objects, and 
 restrictive of the processes, of formal Logic. 
 
CHAP. XI!.] METHODS IN SECONDARY PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 177 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 OF THE METHODS AND PROCESSES TO BE ADOPTED IN THE TREAT- 
 MENT OF SECONDARY PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 1. TT has appeared from previous researches (XI. 7) that the 
 laws of combination of the literal symbols of Logic are the 
 same, whether those symbols are employed in the expression of 
 primary or in that of secondary propositions, the sole existing 
 difference between the two cases being a difference of interpre- 
 tation. It has also been established (V. 6), that whenever dis- 
 tinct systems of thought and interpretation are connected with 
 the same system of formal laws, i. e., of laws relating to the com- 
 bination and use of symbols, the attendant processes, intermediate 
 between the expression of the primary conditions of a problem 
 and the interpretation of its symbolical solution, are the same in 
 both. Hence, as between the systems of thought manifested in 
 the two forms of primary and of secondary propositions, this com- 
 munity of formal law exists, the processes which have been es- 
 tablished and illustrated in our discussion of the former class of 
 propositions will, without any modification, be applicable to the 
 latter. 
 
 2. Thus the laws of the two fundamental processes of elimi- 
 nation and development are the same in the system of secondary 
 as in the system of primary propositions. Again, it has been 
 seen (Chap. vi. Prop. 2) how, in primary propositions, the inter- 
 pretation of any proposed equation devoid of fractional forms 
 may be effected by developing it into a series of constituents, and 
 equating to 0 every constituent whose coefficient does not vanish. 
 To the equations of secondary propositions the same method is 
 applicable, and the interpreted result to which it finally conducts 
 us is, as in the former case (VI. 6), a system of co-existent denials. 
 But while in the former case the force of those denials is ex- 
 pended upon the existence of certain classes of things, in the 
 latter it relates to the truth of certain combinations of the elc- 
 
178 METHODS IN SECONDARY PROPOSITIONS. [CHAP. XII. 
 
 mentary propositions involved in the terms of the given premises. 
 And as in primary propositions it was seen that the system of 
 denials admitted of conversion into various other forms of propo- 
 sitions (VI. 7), &c., such conversion will be found to be possible 
 here also, the sole difference consisting not in the forms of the 
 equations, but in the nature of their interpretation. 
 
 3. Moreover, as in primary propositions, we can find the ex- 
 pression of any element entering into a system of equations, in 
 terms of the remaining elements (VI. 10), or of any selected 
 number of the remaining elements, and interpret that expression 
 into a logical inference, the same object can be accomplished by 
 the same means, difference of interpretation alone excepted, in 
 the system of secondary propositions. The elimination of those 
 elements which we desire to banish from the final solution, the 
 reduction of the system to a single equation, the algebraic solu- 
 tion and the mode of its development into an interpretable form, 
 differ in no respect from the corresponding steps in the discussion 
 of primary propositions. 
 
 To remove, however, any possible difficulty, it may be de- 
 sirable to collect under a general Rule the different cases which 
 present themselves in the treatment of secondary propositions. 
 
 Rule. — Express symbolically the given propositions (XI. 11). 
 
 Eliminate separately from each equation in which it is found the 
 indefinite symbol v (VII. 5). 
 
 Eliminate the remaining symbols ivliich it is desired to banish 
 from the final solution : alivays before elimination reducing to a 
 single equation those equations in ivliich the symbol or symbols to 
 be eliminated are found (VIII. 7). Collect the resulting equa- 
 tions into a single equation V = 0. 
 
 Then proceed according to the particular form in ivhich it is 
 desired to express the final relation, as — 
 
 1st. If in the form of a. denial , or system of denials, develop the 
 function V, and equate to 0 all those constituents ichose coefficients 
 do not vanish. 
 
 2ndly. If in the form of a disjunctive proposition, equate to 1 
 the sum of those constituents ivhose coffiecients vanish. 
 
 3rdly. If in the form of a conditional proposition having a, sim- 
 
CHAP. XII.] METHODS IN SECONDARY PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 179 
 
 pie element , as x or 1 - x, for its antecedent , determine the alge- 
 braic expression of that element, and develop that expression. 
 
 4thly. If in the form of a conditional proposition having a 
 compound expression, as xy, xy + (1 - x) (1 - y), 8fc.,for its ante- 
 cedent, equate that expression to a new symbol t, and determine t 
 as a developed function of the symbols which are to appear in the 
 consequent, either by ordinary methods or by the special method 
 
 (IX. 9). 
 
 5thly. Interpret the results by (XI. 13, 14). 
 
 If it only be desired to ascertain whether a particular elemen- 
 tary proposition x is true or false , we must eliminate all the sym- 
 bols but x ; then the equation x- 1 will indicate that the proposition 
 is true, x = 0 that it is false, 0 = 0 that the premises are insufficient 
 to determine whether it is true or false. 
 
 4. Ex. 1. — The following prediction is made the subject of a 
 curious discussion in Cicero’s fragmentary treatise, De Fato : — 
 “ Si quis (Fabius) natus est oriente Canicula, is in mari non mo- 
 rietur.” I shall apply to it the method of this chapter. Let y 
 represent the proposition, “ Fabius was born at the rising of the 
 dogstar;” x the proposition, “Fabius will die in the sea.” 
 In saying that x represents the proposition, “Fabius, &c.,” it is 
 only meant that x is a symbol so appropriated (XI. 7) to the 
 above proposition, that the equation x = 1 declares, and the equa- 
 tion x = 0 denies, the truth of that proposition. The equation 
 we have to discuss will be 
 
 y = »(!-*). 
 
 0 ) 
 
 And, first, let it be required to reduce the given proposition to a 
 negation or system of negations (XII. 3). We have, on trans- 
 position, 
 
 y — v ( 1 - x') = 0. 
 
 Eliminating v, 
 
 y [y -0 - a?)} = 0, 
 
 or, 
 
 y-y( 1 -x) = 0. 
 
 or, 
 
 yx = 0. 
 
 ( 2 ) 
 
 The interpretation of this result is : — “ It is not true that Fabius 
 was born at the rising of the dogstar, and will die in the sea.” 
 
180 METHODS IN SECONDARY PROPOSITIONS. [CHAP. XII. 
 
 Cicero terms this form of proposition, “ Conjunctio ex repug- 
 nantibus and he remarks that Chrysippus thought in this way 
 to evade the difficulty which he imagined to exist in contingent 
 assertions respecting the future : “ Hoc loco Chrysippus aestuans 
 falli sperat Chaldajos casterosque divinos, neque eos usuros esse 
 conjunctionibus ut ita sua percepta pronuntient : Si quis natus 
 est oriente Canicula is in mari non morietur ; sed potius ita dicant: 
 Hon et natus est quis oriente Canicula, et in mari morietur. 
 O licentiam jocularem ! . . . . Multa genera sunt enuntiandi, nec 
 ullum distortius quam hoc quo Chrysippus sperat Chaldteos con- 
 tentos Stoicorum causa fore.” — Cic. De Fato, 7, 8. 
 
 5. To reduce the given proposition to a disjunctive form. 
 The constituents not entering into the first member of (2) are 
 
 x(\ - y ), (1 -x)y, (1 - *) (1 -y). 
 
 Whence we have 
 
 y{\ -tc) + x(l -y) + (l-«)(l - y) = 1. (3) 
 
 The interpretation of which is : — Either Fabius was born at the 
 rising of the dog star, and icill not perish in the sea ; or he teas not 
 born at the rising of the dog star, and will perish in the sea; or he 
 was not born at the rising of the dogstar, and will not perish in 
 the sea. 
 
 In cases like the above, however, in which there exist consti- 
 tuents differing from each other only by a single factor, it is, as 
 we have seen (VII. 15), most convenient to collect such consti- 
 tuents into a single term. If we thus connect the first and third 
 terms of (3), we have 
 
 (\ - y') x + \ ~ x = 1 ; 
 
 and if we similarly connect the second and third, we have 
 
 y{ i -*) + i -y = i- 
 
 These forms of the equation severally give the interpretations — 
 Either Fabius ivas not born under the dogstar , and will die in 
 the sea, or he ivill not die in the sea. 
 
 Either Fabius was born under the dogstar , and will not die in 
 the sea, or he was not born under the dogstar. 
 
CHAP. XII.] METHODS IN SECONDARY PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 181 
 
 It is evident that these interpretations are strictly equivalent 
 to the former one. 
 
 Let us ascertain, in the form of a conditional proposition, the 
 consequences which flow from the hypothesis, that “ Fabius will 
 perish in the sea.” 
 
 In the equation (2), which expresses the result of the elimi- 
 nation of v from the original equation, we must seek to determine 
 x as a function of y. 
 
 We have 
 
 0 0 x 
 
 x = - = 0 y + - (1-i/) on expansion, 
 
 or, 
 
 * = o c 1 ~y)> 
 
 the interpretation of which is , — If Fabius shall die in the sea , he 
 was not born at the rising of the dog star. 
 
 These examples serve in some measure to illustrate the con- 
 nexion which has been established in the previous sections be- 
 tween primary and secondary propositions, a connexion of which 
 the two distinguishing features are identity of process and analogy 
 of interpretation. 
 
 6. Ex. 2. — There is a remarkable argument in the second 
 book of the Republic of Plato, the design of which is to prove 
 the immutability of the Divine Nature. It is a very fine example 
 both of the careful induction from fatpiliar instances by which 
 Plato arrives at general principles, and of the clear and connected 
 logic by which he deduces from them the particular inferences 
 which it is his object to establish. The argument is contained 
 in the following dialogue : 
 
 “ Must not that which departs from its proper form be 
 changed either by itself or by another thing ? Necessarily so. 
 Are not things which are in the best state least changed and dis- 
 turbed, as the body by meats and drinks, and labours, and every 
 species of plant by heats and winds, and such like affections ? Is 
 not the healthiest and strongest the least changed ? Assuredly. 
 And does not any trouble from without least disturb and change 
 that soul which is strongest and wisest? And as to all made 
 vessels, and furnitures, and garments, according to the same 
 
182 METHODS IN SECONDARY PROPOSITIONS. [CHAP. XII. 
 
 principle, are not those which are well wrought, and in a good 
 condition, least changed by time and other accidents ? Even so. 
 And whatever is in a right state, either by nature or by art, or 
 by both these, admits of the smallest change from any other 
 thing. So it seems. But God and things divine are in every 
 sense in the best state. Assuredly. In this xvay, then, God 
 should least of all bear many forms ? Least, indeed, of all. 
 Again, should He transform and change Himself? Manifestly He 
 must do so, if He is changed at all. Changes He then Himself to 
 that which is more good and fair, or to that which is worse and 
 baser? Necessarily to the worse, if he be changed. For never 
 shall we say that God is indigent of beauty or of virtue. You 
 speak most rightly, said I, and the matter being so, seems it to 
 you, O Adimantus, that God or man willingly makes himself in 
 any sense worse ? Impossible, said he. Impossible, then, it is, 
 said I, that a god should wish to change himself; but ever being 
 fairest and best, each of them ever remains absolutely in the same 
 form.” 
 
 The premises of the above argument are the following : 
 
 1 st. If the Deity suffers change, He is changed either by Him- 
 self or by another. 
 
 2nd. If He is in the best state, He is not changed by another. 
 
 3rd. The Deity is in the best state. 
 
 4th. If the Deity is changed by Himself, He is changed to a 
 worse state. 
 
 5 th. If He acts willingly, He is not changed to a worse state. 
 
 6th. The Deity acts willingly. 
 
 Let us express the elements of these premises as follows : 
 
 Let x repi’esent, the proposition, “ The Deity suffers change.” 
 g, He is changed by Himself. 
 z, He is changed by another. 
 
 s, He is in the best state. 
 
 t, He is changed to a worse state. 
 w, He acts willingly. 
 
 Then the premises expressed in symbolical language yield, after 
 elimination of the indefinite class symbols v , the following equa- 
 tions : 
 
CHAP. XII.] 
 
 METHODS IN SECONDARY PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 183 
 
 xyz + «(l -y) (1 - z) = 0, (1) 
 
 sz = 0, (2) 
 
 * = 1 , ( 3 ) 
 
 y(l - if) = 0, (4) 
 
 wt = 0 , ( 5 ) 
 
 w = 1. (6) 
 
 Retaining x, I shall eliminate in succession z, s, y, t, and to (this 
 being the order in which those symbols occur in the above sys- 
 tem), and interpret the successive results. 
 
 Eliminating z from (1) and (2), we get 
 
 xs(l-y) = 0. (7) 
 
 Eliminating s from (3) and (7), 
 
 *( 1-30 = 0 - ( 8 ) 
 
 Eliminating y from (4) and (8), 
 
 *(1-0 = 0. (9) 
 
 Eliminating t from (5) and (9), 
 
 xw = 0. (10) 
 
 Eliminating w from (6) and (10), 
 
 * = 0. (11) 
 
 These equations, beginning with (8), give the following 
 results : 
 
 0 
 
 From (8) we have x - - y, therefore, If the Deity suffers 
 
 change, He is changed by Himself. 
 
 0 
 
 From (9), x = — t, If the Deity suffers change, He is changed 
 to a worse state. 
 
 From (10), x = ^ (1 - w ). If the Deity suffers change, He 
 does not act willingly. 
 
 From (11), The Deity does not suffer change. This is Plato’s 
 result. 
 
 Now I have before remarked, that the order of elimination 
 is indifferent. Let us in the present case seek to verify this fact 
 by eliminating the same symbols in a reverse order, beginning 
 with to. The resulting equations are, 
 
184 METHODS IN SECONDARY PROPOSITIONS. [CHAP. XII. 
 
 t = o, y = 0, z ( 1 - z) = 0, z = 0, x = 0 ; 
 
 yielding the following interpretations : 
 
 God is not changed to a worse state. 
 
 He is not changed by Himself. 
 
 If He suffers change. He is changed by another. 
 
 He is not changed by another. 
 
 He is not changed. 
 
 We thus reach by a different route the same conclusion. 
 
 Though as an exhibition of the power of the method, the 
 above examples are of slight value, they serve as well as more 
 complicated instances Avould do, to illustrate its nature and cha- 
 racter. 
 
 7. It may be remarked, as affinal instance of analogy between 
 the system of primary and that of secondary propositions, that 
 in the latter system also the fundamental equation, 
 
 x (1 - x) = 0, 
 
 admits of interpretation. It expresses the axiom, A proposition 
 cannot at the same time be true and false. Let this be compared 
 with the corresponding interpretation (III. 15). Solved under 
 the form 
 
 0 0 
 
 by development, it furnishes the respective axioms : “A thing is 
 what it is:” “ If a proposition is true, it is true forms of what has 
 been termed “ The principle of identity.” Upon the nature and 
 the value of these axioms the most opposite opinions have been 
 entertained. Some have regarded them as the very pith and mar- 
 row of philosophy. Locke devoted to them a chapter, headed, 
 “ On Trifling Propositions.” * In both these views there seems 
 to have been a mixture of truth and error. Regarded as sup- 
 planting experience, or as furnishing materials for the vain and 
 wordy janglings of the schools, such propositions are worse than 
 trifling. Viewed, on the other hand, as intimately allied with 
 the very laws and conditions of thought, they rise into at least a 
 speculative importance. 
 
 * Essay on the Human Understanding, Book IV. Chap. viii. 
 
CHAl’. XIII.] 
 
 CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 
 
 185 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 ANALYSIS OF A PORTION OF DR. SAMUEL CLARKE’S “DEMONSTRA- 
 TION OF THE BEING AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD,” AND OF A 
 PORTION OF THE “ ETHICA ORDINE GEOMETRICO DEMON- 
 STRATA” OF SPINOZA. 
 
 1 • HPHE general order which, in the investigations of the fol- 
 lowing chapter, I design to pursue, is the following. I 
 shall examine what are the actual premises involved in the de- 
 monstrations of some of the general propositions of the above 
 treatises, whether those premises be expressed or implied. By 
 the actual premises I mean whatever propositions are assumed 
 in the course of the argument, without being proved, and are 
 employed as parts of the foundation upon which the final conclu- 
 sion is built. The premises thus determined, I shall express in 
 the language of symbols, and I shall then deduce from them by 
 the methods developed in the previous chapters of this work, the 
 most important inferences which they involve, in addition to the 
 particular inferences actually drawn by the authors. I shall in 
 some instances modify the premises by the omission of some fact 
 or principle which is contained in them, or by the addition or 
 substitution of some new proposition, and shall determine how 
 by such change the ultimate conclusions are affected. In the 
 pursuit of these objects it will not devolve upon me to inquire, 
 except incidentally, how far the metaphysical principles laid down 
 in these celebrated productions are worthy of confidence, but 
 only to ascertain what conclusions may justly be drawn from 
 given premises ; and in doing this, to exemplify the perfect li- 
 berty which we possess as concerns both the choice and the 
 order of the elements of the final or concluding propositions, viz., 
 as to determining what elementary propositions are true or false, 
 and what are true or false under given restrictions, or in given 
 combinations. 
 
 2. The chief practical difficulty of this inquiry will consist, 
 
186 CLARKE AND SPINOZA. [CHAP. XIII. 
 
 not in the application of the method to the premises once deter- 
 mined, but in ascertaining what the premises are. In what are 
 regarded as the most rigorous examples of reasoning applied to 
 metaphysical questions, it will occasionally be found that different 
 trains of thought arc blended together; that particular but essen- 
 tial parts of the demonstration are given parenthetically, or out 
 of the main course of the argument; that the meaning of a pre- 
 miss may be in some degree ambiguous ; and, not unfrequently, 
 that arguments, viewed by the strict laws of formal reasoning, 
 are incorrect or inconclusive. The difficulty of determining and 
 distinctly exhibiting the true premises of a demonstration may, 
 in such cases, be very considerable. But it is a difficulty which 
 must be overcome by all who would ascertain whether a parti- 
 cular conclusion is proved or not, whatever form they may be 
 prepared or disposed to give to the ulterior process of reasoning. 
 It is a difficulty, therefore, which is not peculiar to the method 
 of this work, though it manifests itself more distinctly in con- 
 nexion with this method than with any other. So intimate, in- 
 deed, is this connexion, that it is impossible, employing the me- 
 thod of this treatise, to form even a conjecture as to the validity 
 of a conclusion, without a distinct apprehension and exact state- 
 ment of all the premises upon which it rests. In the more usual 
 course of procedure, nothing is, however, more common than to 
 examine some of the steps of a train of argument, and thence to 
 form a vague general impression of the scope of the whole, with- 
 out any such preliminary and thorough analysis of the premises 
 which it involves. 
 
 The necessity of a rigorous determination of the real pre- 
 mises of a demonstration ought not to be regarded as an evil ; 
 especially as, when that task is accomplished, every source of 
 doubt or ambiguity is removed. In employing the method of 
 this treatise, the order in which premises are arranged, the mode 
 of connexion which they exhibit, with every similar circumstance, 
 may be esteemed a matter of indifference, and the process of 
 inference is conducted with a precision which might almost be 
 termed mechanical. 
 
 3. The “ Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of 
 God,” consists of a scries of propositions or theorems, each 
 
CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 
 
 18T 
 
 CHAP. XIII.] 
 
 of them proved by means of premises resolvable, for the most 
 part, into two distinct classes, viz., facts of observation, such 
 as the existence of a material world, the phamomenon of mo- 
 tion, &c., and hypothetical principles, the authority and uni- 
 versality of which are supposed to be recognised a priori. It is, 
 of course, upon the truth of the latter, assuming the correctness 
 of the reasoning, that the validity of the demonstration really de- 
 pends. But whatever may be thought of its claims in this re- 
 spect, it is unquestionable that, as an intellectual performance, its 
 merits are very high. Though the trains of argument of which 
 it consists are not in general very clearly arranged, they are al- 
 most always specimens of correct Logic, and they exhibit a 
 subtlety of apprehension and a force of reasoning which have 
 seldom been equalled, never perhaps surpassed. We see in them 
 the consummation of those intellectual efforts which were awa- 
 kened in the realm of metaphysical inquiry, at a period when the 
 dominion of hypothetical principles was less questioned than it 
 now is, and when the rigorous demonstrations of the newly risen 
 school of mathematical physics seemed to have furnished a model 
 for their direction. They appear to me for this reason (not to 
 mention the dignity of the subject of which they treat) to be 
 deserving of high consideration ; and I do not deem it a vain 
 or superfluous task to expend upon some of them a careful 
 analysis. 
 
 4. The Ethics of Benedict Spinoza is a treatise, the object 
 of which is to prove the identity of God and the universe, and 
 to establish, upon this doctrine, a system of morals and of philo- 
 sophy. The analysis of its main argument is extremely difficult, 
 owing not to the complexity of the separate propositions which it 
 involves, but to the use of vague definitions, and of axioms which, 
 through a like defect of clearness, it is perplexing to determine 
 whether we ought to acceptor to reject. While the reasoning of 
 Dr. Samuel Clarke is in part verbal, that of Spinoza is so in a much 
 greater degree ; and perhaps this is the reason why, to some 
 minds, it has appeared to possess a formal cogency, to which in 
 reality it possesses no just claim. These points will, however, 
 be considered in the proper place. 
 
188 
 
 CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 
 
 [CHAP. XIII. 
 
 clarke’s demonstration. 
 
 Proposition I. 
 
 5. “ Something has existed from eternity .” 
 
 The proof is as follows : — 
 
 “ For since something now is, ’tis manifest that something 
 always was. Otherwise the things that now are must have risen 
 out of nothing, absolutely and without cause. Which is a 
 plain contradiction in terms. For to say a thing is produced, 
 and yet that there is no cause at all of that production, is to say 
 that something is effected when it is effected by nothing, that is, 
 at the same time when it is not effected at all. Whatever exists 
 has a cause of its existence, either in the necessity of its own 
 nature, and thus it must have been of itself eternal : or in the 
 will of some other being, and then that other being must, at least 
 in the order of nature and causality, have existed before it.” 
 
 Let us now proceed to analyze the above demonstration. Its 
 first sentence is resolvable into the following propositions : 
 
 1st. Something is. 
 
 2nd. If something is, either something always was, or the 
 things that now are must have risen out of nothing. 
 
 The next portion of the demonstration consists of a proof 
 that the second of the above alternatives, viz., “ The things that 
 now are have risen out of nothing,” is impossible, and it may 
 formally be resolved as follows : 
 
 3rd. If the things that now are have risen out of nothing, 
 something has been effected, and at the same time that some- 
 thing has been effected by nothing. 
 
 4th. If that something has been effected by nothing, it has 
 not been effected at all. 
 
 The second portion of this argument appears to be a mere 
 assumption of the point to be proved, or an attempt to make that 
 point clearer by a different verbal statement. 
 
 The third and last portion of the demonstration contains a dis- 
 tinct proof of the truth of either the original proposition to be 
 proved, viz., “ Something always was,” or the point proved in 
 the second part of the demonstration, viz., the untenable nature 
 
CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 
 
 189 
 
 CHAP. XIII.] 
 
 of the hypothesis, that “ the things that now are have risen out 
 of nothing.” It is resolvable as follows : — 
 
 5th. If something is, either it exists by the necessity of its 
 own nature, or it exists by the will of another being. 
 
 6th. If it exists by the necessity of its own nature, something 
 always was. 
 
 7th. If it exists by the will of another being, then the pro- 
 position, that the things which exist have arisen out of nothing, 
 is false. 
 
 The last proposition is not expressed in the same form in the 
 text of Dr. Clarke ; but his expressed conclusion of the prior ex- 
 istence of another Being is clearly meant as equivalent to a de- 
 nial of the proposition that the things which now are have risen 
 out of nothing. 
 
 It appears, therefore, that the demonstration consists of two 
 distinct trains of argument : one of those trains comprising what 
 I have designated as the first and second parts of the demonstra- 
 tion ; the other comprising the first and third parts. Let us con- 
 sider the latter train. 
 
 The premises are : — 
 
 1st. Something is. 
 
 2nd. If something is, either something always was, or the 
 things that now are have risen out of nothing. 
 
 3rd. If something is, either it exists in the necessity of its 
 own nature, or it exists by the will of another being. 
 
 4 th. If it exists in the necessity of its own nature, something 
 always was. 
 
 5 th. If it exists by the will of another being, then the hy- 
 pothesis, that the things which now are have risen out of nothing, 
 is false. 
 
 We must now express symbolically the above proposition. 
 
 Let x = Something is. 
 
 y = Something always was. 
 z = The things which now are have risen from 
 nothing. 
 
 jo = It exists in the necessity of its own nature 
 (i. e. the something spoken of above). 
 q - It exists by the will of another Being. 
 
190 
 
 CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 
 
 [CHAP. XIII. 
 
 It must be understood, that by the expression, Let x ~ 
 “Something is,” is meant no more than that x is the repre-* 
 sentative symbol of that proposition (XI. 7), the equations 
 x = 1, x = 0, respectively declaring its truth and its falsehood. 
 The equations of the premises are : — 
 
 1st. x = 1 ; 
 
 2nd. x = v [y (1 - z) + z (1 - ?/)}; 
 
 3rd. x = v\p(\- q) + q(\-p))-, 
 
 4th. p = vy; 
 
 5th. q = v (1 - z)’, 
 
 and on eliminating the several indefinite symbols v, we have 
 
 1 _^ = 0 ; ( 1 ) 
 
 x[yz+(l-y)(\-z)} = 0-, (2) 
 
 x \V<1 + (i -/>)(i - ?)} = 0; (3) 
 
 p( l ~y) = o» ( 4 ) 
 
 qz = 0. (5) 
 
 6. First, I shall examine whether any conclusions are dedu- 
 cible from the above, concerning the truth or falsity of the 
 single propositions represented by the symbols y, z, p, q, viz., of 
 the propositions, “ Something always was “ The things which 
 now are have risen from nothing;” “The something which is 
 exists by the necessity of its own nature “ The something 
 which is exists by the will of another being.” 
 
 For this purpose we must separately eliminate all the symbols 
 but y, all these but z, &c. The resulting equation will deter- 
 mine whether any such separate relations exist. 
 
 To eliminate x from (1), (2), and (3), it is only necessary to 
 substitute in (2) and (3) the value of x derived from (1). We 
 find as the results, 
 
 yz + (i -y) 0 - z ) = °- ( 6 ) 
 
 Pi + (i-p)(i-q) = o. (7) 
 
 To eliminate p we have from (4) and (7), by addition, 
 
 pO - y) +pq + 0-t) ( 1 -?) = °; ( 8 ) 
 
 whence we find, 
 
 (i -y) (1 " l) = °- 
 
 ( 9 ) 
 
CHAP. XIII.] CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 191 
 
 To eliminate q from (5) and (9), we have 
 whence we find 
 
 2 ( 1 - 3 /) = 0 . ( 10 ) 
 
 There now remain but the two equations (6) and (10), which, 
 on addition, give 
 
 yz + l - y = 0. 
 
 Eliminating from this equation z, we have 
 
 1 - V = 0, or, y = 1. (11) 
 
 Eliminating from the same equation y, we have 
 
 z = 0. (12) 
 
 The interpretation of (11) is 
 
 Something always was. 
 
 The interpretation of (12) is 
 
 The things which are have not risen from nothing. 
 
 Next resuming the system (6), (7), with the two equations 
 (4), (5), let us determine the two equations involving p and q 
 respectively. 
 
 To eliminate y we have from (4) and (6), 
 
 p (i - y) + yz + (i - y) 0 - *) = (o) ; 
 
 whence (p + 1 - 2 ) 2 = 0, or, pz = 0. (13) 
 
 To eliminate 2 from (5) and (13), we have 
 qz + pz = 0 ; 
 
 whence we get, 
 
 0 = 0 . 
 
 There remains then but the equation (7), from which elimi- 
 nating q, we have 0 = 0 for the final equation, in p. 
 
 Hence there is no conclusion derivable from the premises af- 
 firming the simple truth or falsehood of the proposition , “ The, 
 something which is exists in the necessity of its own nature And as, 
 on eliminating p, there is the same result, 0 = 0, for the ultimate 
 equation in q, it also follows, that there is no conclusion deducihle 
 from the premises as to the simple truth or falsehood of the propo- 
 sition, “ The something which is exists Inj the will of another Being.” 
 
192 
 
 CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 
 
 [CHAP. XIII. 
 
 Of relations connecting more than one of the propositions re- 
 presented by the elementary symbols, it is needless to consider 
 any but that which is denoted by the equation (7) connecting 
 p and q, inasmuch as the propositions represented by the remain- 
 ing symbols are absolutely true or false independently of any con- 
 nexion of the kind here spoken of. The interpretation of (7), 
 placed under the form 
 
 P( l ~Q) + ?(1 ~P) = 1> ls > 
 
 The something which is, either exists in the necessity of its 
 own nature, or by the viill of another being. 
 
 I have exhibited the details of the above analysis with a, 
 perhaps, needless fulness and prolixity, because in the examples 
 which will follow, I propose rather to indicate the steps by 
 which results are obtained, than to incur the danger of a weari- 
 some frequency of repetition. The conclusions which have re- 
 sulted from the above application of the method are easily verified 
 by ordinary reasoning. 
 
 The reader will have no difficulty in applying the method 
 to the other train of premises involved in Dr. Clarke’s first Pro- 
 position, and deducing from them the two first of the conclusions 
 to which the above analysis has led. 
 
 Proposition II. 
 
 7. Some one unchangeable and independent Being has existed 
 from eternity. 
 
 The premises from which the above proposition is proved 
 are the following : 
 
 1st. Something has always existed. 
 
 2nd. If something has always existed, either there has existed 
 some one unchangeable and independent being, or the whole of 
 existing things has been comprehended in a succession of change- 
 able and dependent beings. 
 
 3rd. If the universe has consisted of a succession of change- 
 able and dependent beings, either that series has had a cause from 
 without, or it has had a cause from within. 
 
 4th. It has not had a cause from without (because it includes, 
 by hypothesis, all things that exist). 
 
CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 
 
 193 
 
 CHAP. XIII.] 
 
 5 th. It has not had a cause from within (because no part is 
 necessary, and if no part is necessary, the whole cannot be ne- 
 cessary). 
 
 Omitting, merely for brevity, the subsidiary proofs contained 
 in the parentheses of the fourth and fifth premiss, we may repre- 
 sent the premises as follows : 
 
 Let x = Something has always existed. 
 
 y = There has existed some one unchangeable and in- 
 dependent being. 
 
 z = There has existed a succession of changeable and 
 dependent beings. 
 
 p = That series has had a cause from without. 
 q = That series has had a cause from within. 
 
 Then we have the following system of equations, viz. : 
 
 1st. x = 1 ; 
 
 2nd. x = v [y (\ - z) + z(\ - y)) ; 
 
 3rd. z = v [p (1 - q) + (1 - p) q ] ; 
 
 4th. p = 0 ; 
 
 5th. q '= 0 : 
 
 which, on the separate elimination of the indefinite symbols v. 
 
 gives 
 
 1 - a; = 0 ; (1) 
 
 *{y* + (i-y)(i-*)} = °; ( 2 ) 
 
 z lpq+ C 1 -p) (! - ?)} = 0 ; ( 3 ) 
 
 P = 0 ; (4) 
 
 q = 0. (5) 
 
 The elimination from the above system of x, p, q, and y, con- 
 ducts to the equation 
 
 z = 0. 
 
 And the elimination ofz, p, y, and z, conducts in a similar man- 
 ner to the equation 
 
 y = i- 
 
 Of which equations the respective interpretations are : 
 
 1st. The whole of existing things has not been comprehended 
 in a succession of changeable and dependent beings. 
 
 2nd. There has existed some one unchangeable and independent 
 being. 
 
194 
 
 CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 
 
 [CHAP. XIII. 
 
 The latter of these is the proposition which Dr. Clarke proves. 
 As, by the above analysis, all the propositions represented by the 
 literal symbols x, y, z, p, q, are determined as absolutely true or 
 false, it is needless to inquire into the existence of any further re- 
 lations connecting those propositions together. 
 
 Another proof is given of Prop, n., which for brevity I pass 
 over. It may be observed, that the “ impossibility of infinite 
 succession,” the proof of which forms a part of Clarke’s argu- 
 ment, has commonly been assumed as a fundamental principle of 
 metaphysics, and extended to other questions than that of causa- 
 tion. Aristotle applies it to establish the necessity of first prin- 
 ciples of demonstration ;* the necessity of an end (the good), in 
 human actions, &c.f There is, perhaps, no principle more fre- 
 quently referred to in his writings. By the schoolmen it was 
 similarly applied to prove the impossibility of an infinite subor- 
 dination of genera and species, and hence the necessary existence 
 of universals. Apparently the impossibility of our forming a 
 definite and complete conception of an infinite series, i. e. of 
 comprehending it as a whole, has been confounded with a logical 
 inconsistency, or contradiction in the idea itself. 
 
 8. The analysis of the following argument depends upon the 
 theory of Primary Propositions. 
 
 Proposition III. 
 
 That unchangeable and independent Being must he self-existent. 
 
 The premises are : — 
 
 1. Every being must either have come into existence out of 
 nothing, or it must have been produced by some external cause, 
 or it must be self-existent. 
 
 2. No being has come into existence out of nothing. 
 
 3. The unchangeable and independent Being has not been 
 produced by an external cause. 
 
 For the symbolical expression of the above, let us assume, 
 
 * Metaphysics, III. 4 ; Anal. Post. I. li), ct se <j. 
 f Nic. Ethics, Book I. Cap. n. 
 
CHAP. XIII.] 
 
 CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 
 
 195 
 
 x = Beings which have arisen out of nothing. 
 y = Beings which have been produced by an external 
 cause. 
 
 z = Beings which are self-existent. 
 w = The unchangeable and independent Being. 
 
 Then we have 
 
 *0 - y){ 1 ~ z ) + y(} -*)(l ~ z ) + z{\-x) (1 -y) = 1, (1) 
 
 x = 0, (2) 
 
 w = v( l-y), (3) 
 
 from the last of which eliminating v, 
 
 wy = 0. (4) 
 
 Whenever, as above, the value of a symbol is given as 0 or 1, it 
 is best eliminated by simple substitution. Thus the elimination 
 of x gives 
 
 y 0 - z ) + *0 -y) = 1 5 ( 5 ) 
 
 or, yz + (1 - y) (1 - z) = 0. (6) 
 
 Now adding (4) and (6), and eliminating y, we get 
 
 w ( 1 - z) = 0, 
 iv = vz ; 
 
 the interpretation of which is, — The unchangeable and indepen- 
 dent being is necessarily self-existing . 
 
 Of (5), in its actual form, the interpretation is, — Every being 
 has either been produced by an external cause , or it is self-existent. 
 
 9. In Dr. Samuel Clarke’s observations on the above propo- 
 sition occurs a remarkable argument, designed to prove that the 
 material world is not the self-existent being above spoken of. 
 The passage to which I refer is the following : 
 
 “ If matter be supposed to exist necessarily, then in that ne- 
 cessary existence there is either included the power of' gravitation, 
 or not. If not, then in a world merely material, and in which no 
 intelligent being presides, there never could have been any mo- 
 tion ; because motion, as has been already shown, and is now 
 granted in the question, is not necessary of itself. But if the 
 
19G 
 
 CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 
 
 [CHAP. XIII. 
 
 power of gravitation be included in the pretended necessary ex- 
 istence of matter : then, it following necessarily that there must 
 be a vacuum (as the incomparable Sir Isaac Newton has abun- 
 dantly demonstrated that there must, if gravitation be an uni- 
 versal quality or affection of matter), it follows likewise, that 
 matter is not a necessary being. For if a vacuum actually be, 
 then it is plainly more than possible for matter not to be.” — 
 (pp. 25, 2G). 
 
 It will, upon attentive examination, be found that the actual 
 premises involved in the above demonstration are the following : 
 
 1st. If matter is a necessary being, either the property of gra- 
 vitation is necessarily present, or it is necessarily absent. 
 
 2nd. If gravitation is necessarily absent, and the world is not 
 subject to any presiding Intelligence, motion does not exist. 
 
 3rd. If the property of gravitation is necessarily present, the 
 existence of a vacuum is necessary. 
 
 4th. If the existence of a vacuum is necessary, matter is not a 
 necessary being. 
 
 5th. If matter is a necessary being, the world is not subject 
 to a presiding Intelligence. 
 
 6th. Motion exists. 
 
 Of the above premises the first four are expressed in the de- 
 monstration ; the fifth is implied in the connexion of its first and 
 second sentences ; and the sixth expresses a fact, which the au- 
 thor does not appear to have thought it necessary to state, but 
 which is obviously a part of the ground of his reasoning. Let us 
 represent the elementary propositions in the following manner : 
 
 Let x = Matter is a necessary being. 
 
 y = Gravitation is necessarily present. 
 t = Gravitation is necessarily absent. 
 
 2 = The world is merely material, and not subject to 
 any presiding Intelligence. 
 w = Motion exists. 
 v = A vacuum is necessary. 
 
 Then the system of premises will be represented by the following 
 equations, in which <y is employed as the symbol ot time indefi- 
 nite : 
 
CHAI\ XIII.] 
 
 CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 
 
 197 
 
 x = <1 (y(! - 0 + 0 -y)*r 
 
 tz = q (1 - iv). 
 
 y = q v - 
 
 v = q (1 - xf 
 x = qz. 
 iv = 1 . 
 
 From which, if we eliminate the symbols q, we have the follow- 
 
 ing system, viz. : 
 
 * [yt+ (i -y) (i - 0 ) = (0 
 
 tzw = 0. (2) 
 
 y( i-») = o. (3) 
 
 vx = 0. (4) 
 
 a- (1 - 2 ) = 0. (5) 
 
 1 - iv = 0. (6) 
 
 Now if from these equations we eliminate iv, v, z, y, and t, we 
 obtain the equation 
 
 x = 0, 
 
 which expresses the proposition, Matter is not a necessary being. 
 This is Dr. Clarke’s conclusion. If we endeavour to eliminate 
 any other set of five symbols (except the set v, z, y, t, and x, 
 which would give iv - 1), Ave obtain a result of the form 0 = 0. 
 It hence appears that there are no other conclusions expressive of 
 the absolute truth or falsehood of any of the elementary propositions 
 designated by single symbols. 
 
 Of conclusions expressed by equations involving tAVO symbols, 
 there exists but the following, viz . : — If the world is merely mate- 
 rial and not subject to a presiding Intelligence , gravitation is not 
 necessarily absent. This conclusion is expressed by the equation 
 
 tz = 0, whence z = q (1 - t). 
 
 If in the above analysis we suppress the concluding premiss, ex- 
 pressing the fact of the existence of motion, and leave the hypo- 
 thetical principles Avhich are embodied in the remaining premises 
 untouched, some remarkable conclusions follow. To these I 
 shall direct attention in the folloAving chapter. 
 
 10. Of the remainder of Dr. Clarke’s argument I shall briefly 
 state the substance and connexion, dAvelling only on certain por- 
 
198 
 
 CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 
 
 [CHAP. XIII. 
 
 tions of it which are of a more complex character than the others, 
 and afford better illustrations of the method of this work. 
 
 In Prop. iv. it is shown that the substance or essence of the 
 self- existent being is incomprehensible. The tenor of the reason- 
 ing employed is, that we are ignorant of the essential nature of 
 all other things, — much more, then, of the essence of the self- 
 existent being. 
 
 In Prop. v. it is contended that “though the substance or 
 essence of the self-existent being is itself absolutely incompre- 
 hensible to us, yet many of the essential attributes of his nature 
 are strictly demonstrable, as well as his existence.” 
 
 In Prop. vi. it is argued that “the self-existent being must 
 of necessity be infinite and omnipresent and it is contended 
 that his infinity must be “an infinity of fulness as well as of 
 immensity.” The ground upon which the demonstration pro- 
 ceeds is, that an absolute necessity of existence must be inde- 
 pendent of time, place, and circumstance, free from limitation, 
 and therefore excluding all imperfection. And hence it is in- 
 ferred that the self-existent being must be “ a most simple, un- 
 changeable, incorruptible being, without parts, figure, motion, 
 or any other such properties as we find in matter.” 
 
 The premises actually employed may be exhibited as follows : 
 
 1. If a finite being is self-existent, it is a contradiction to 
 suppose it not to exist. 
 
 2. A finite being may, without contradiction, be absent from 
 one place. 
 
 3. That which may without contradiction be absent from one 
 place may without contradiction be absent from all places. 
 
 4. That which may without contradiction be absent from all 
 places may without contradiction be supposed not to exist. 
 
 Let us assume 
 x - Finite beings. 
 y = Things self-existent. 
 
 2 = Things which it is a contradiction to suppose not to exist. 
 w = Things which may be absent without contradiction from 
 one place. 
 
 t = Things which without contradiction may be absent from 
 every place. 
 
CHAP. XIII.] CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 199 
 
 We have on expressing the above, and eliminating the indefinite 
 symbols, 
 
 *y (i - 2) = o. 
 
 (1) 
 
 x (1 - io) =0. 
 
 (2) 
 
 w (1 - t) =0. 
 
 (3) 
 
 tz = 0. 
 
 (4) 
 
 Eliminating in succession t, iv, and z, we get 
 
 xy = 0, 
 
 = \ 0 -*); 
 
 the interpretation of which is, — Whatever is self-existent is in- 
 finite. 
 
 In Prop. vii. it is argued that the self-existent being must of 
 necessity be One. The order of the proof is, that the self-exis- 
 tent being is “necessarily existent,” that “necessity absolute in 
 itself is simple and uniform, and without any possible difference 
 or variety,” that all “ variety or difference of existence” implies 
 dependence ; and hence that “ whatever exists necessarily is the 
 one simple essence of the self-existent being.” 
 
 The conclusion is also made to flow from the following pre- 
 mises : — 
 
 1 . If there are two or more necessary and independent beings, 
 either of them may be supposed to exist alone. 
 
 2. If either may be supposed to exist alone, it is not a contra- 
 diction to suppose the other not to exist. 
 
 3. If it is not a contradiction to suppose this, there are not 
 two necessary and independent beings. 
 
 Let us represent the elementary propositions as follows : — 
 x = there exist two necessary independent beings. 
 y = either may be supposed to exist alone. 
 z = it is not a contradiction to suppose the other not to exist. 
 
 We have then, on proceeding as before, 
 
 
 © 
 
 ll 
 
 l 
 
 H 
 
 (0 
 
 2/(1 - z) = 0. 
 
 (2) 
 
 © 
 
 II 
 
 M 
 
 (3) 
 
‘200 
 
 CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 
 
 [CHAP. XIII. 
 
 Eliminating y and z, we have 
 
 x = 0. 
 
 Whence, There do not exist two necessary and independent beings. 
 
 1 1 . To the premises upon which the two previous propositions 
 rest, it is well known that Bishop Butler, who at the time of the 
 publication of the “ Demonstration,” was a student in a non- 
 conformist academy, made objection in some celebrated letters, 
 which, together with Dr. Clarke’s replies to them, are usually 
 ^appended to editions of the work. The real question at issue is 
 the validity of the principle, that “ whatsoever is absolutely ne- 
 •cessary at all is absolutely necessary in every part of space, and 
 in every point of duration,” — a principle assumed in Dr. Clarke’s 
 reasoning, and explicitly stated in his reply to Butler’s first let- 
 ter. In his second communication Butler says : “ I do not con- 
 ceive that the idea of ubiquity is contained in the idea of self- 
 existence, or directly follows from it, any otherwise than as what- 
 ever exists must exist someichere.” That is to say, necessary 
 existence implies existence in some part of space, but not in 
 every part. It does not appear that Dr. Clarke was ever able to 
 dispose effectually of this objection. The whole of the corres- 
 pondence is extremely curious and interesting. The objections 
 of Butler are precisely those which would occur to an acute mind 
 impressed with the conviction, that upon the sifting of first prin- 
 ciples, rather than upon any mechanical dexterity of reasoning, 
 the successful investigation of truth mainly depends. And the 
 replies of Dr. Clarke, although they cannot be admitted as satis- 
 factory, evince, in a remarkable degree, that peculiar intellectual 
 power which is manifest in the work from which the discussion 
 arose. 
 
 12. In Prop. viii. it is argued that the self-existent and ori- 
 ginal cause of all things must be an Intelligent Being. 
 
 The main argument adduced in support of this proposition is, 
 that as the cause is more excellent than the effect, the self- 
 existent being, as the cause and original of all things, must con- 
 tain in itself the perfections of all things ; and that Intelligence 
 is one of the perfections manifested in a part of the creation. It 
 is further argued that this perfection is not a modification of 
 
CHAP. XIII.] CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 201 
 
 figure, divisibility, or any of the known properties of matter ; 
 for these are not perfections, but limitations. To this is added 
 the a posteriori argument from the manifestation of design in the 
 frame of the universe. 
 
 There is appended, however, a distinct argument for the 
 existence of an intelligent self-existent being, founded upon the 
 phenomenal existence of motion in the universe. I shall briefly 
 exhibit this proof, and shall apply to it the method of the present 
 treatise. 
 
 The argument, omitting unimportant explanations, is as fol- 
 lows : — 
 
 “ ’Tis evident there is some such a thing as motion in the 
 world ; which either began at some time or other, or was eternal. 
 If it began in time, then the question is granted that the first 
 cause is an intelligent being. . . . On the contrary, if motion was 
 eternal, either it was eternally caused by some eternal intelligent 
 being, or it must of itself be necessary and self-existent, or else, 
 without any necessity in its own nature, and without any external 
 necessary cause, it must have existed from eternity by an endless 
 successive communication. If motion was eternally caused by 
 some eternal intelligent being, this also is granting the question 
 as to the present dispute. If it was of itself necessary and self- 
 existent, then it follows that it must be a contradiction in terms 
 to suppose any matter to be at rest. And yet, at the same time, 
 because the determination of this self-existent motion must be 
 every way at once, the effect of it would be nothing else but a 
 perpetual rest. . . . But if it be said that motion, without any ne- 
 cessity in its own nature, and without any external necessary 
 cause, has existed from eternity merely by an endless successive 
 communication, as Spinoza inconsistently enough seems to assert, 
 this I have before shown (in the proof of the second general 
 proposition of this discourse) to be a plain contradiction. It re- 
 mains, therefore, that motion must of necessity be originally 
 caused by something that is intelligent.” 
 
 The premises of the above argument may be thus disposed : 
 
 1. If motion began in time, the first cause is an intelligent 
 being. 
 
202 CLARKE AND SPINOZA. [CHAP. XIII. 
 
 2. If motion has existed from eternity, either it has been 
 eternally caused by some eternal intelligent being, or it is self- 
 existent, or it must have existed by endless successive communi- 
 cation. 
 
 3. If motion has been eternally caused by an eternal intelli- 
 gent being, the first cause is an intelligent being. 
 
 4 . If it is self-existent, matter is at rest and not at rest. 
 
 5. That motion has existed by endless successive communi- 
 cation, and that at the same time it is not self-existent, and has 
 not been eternally caused by some eternal intelligent being, is 
 false. 
 
 To express these propositions, let us assume — 
 x = Motion began in time (and therefore) 
 
 1 - x = Motion has existed from eternity. 
 y - The first cause is an intelligent being. 
 p = Motion has been eternally caused by some eternal intelli- 
 gent being. 
 
 q = Motion is self-existent. 
 
 r = Motion has existed by endless successive communication. 
 s = Matter is at rest. 
 
 The equations of the premises then are — 
 x — vy. 
 
 i -x = v {Ki-?)0 ~ r ) + <?( l ~P) 0 ~ r ) + r (! -p)0 -?)}• 
 
 p = v y- 
 
 q = vs (1 - s') - 0. 
 
 r (l ~ 9) 0 ~P) = °- 
 
 Since, by the fourth equation, <7 = 0, we obtain, on substituting 
 for q its value in the remaining equations, the system 
 
 x = vy, 1 - x = v {/> (1 - r) + r (1 -p)), 
 p = vy, r ( 1 - p) = 0, 
 
 from which eliminating the indefinite symbols v, we have the 
 final reduced system, 
 
 o' 
 
 II 
 
 1 
 
 (1) 
 
 (1 -x) {pr + (l -/>)(! -r)} =0, 
 
 (2) 
 
 p(i- y) = 0. 
 
 (3) 
 
 r (1 - p) = 0. 
 
 (4) 
 
CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 
 
 203 
 
 CHAP. XIII.] 
 
 We shall first seek the value of y, the symbol involved in Dr. 
 Clarke’s conclusion. First, eliminating x from (1) and (2), we 
 have 
 
 (1 -y) [P r + 0 - 7>)0 ~ r )) =0 - ( 5 ) 
 
 Next, to eliminate r from (4) and (5), we have 
 
 -p) + 0 -y) \p r + O -p ) 0 ~ r )\ = °> 
 
 ••• (1 -p + 0 -y)p) * C 1 -y) (i -p) = 0; 
 
 whence 
 
 (1 -y) 0 ~P) = 0 . ( 6 ) 
 
 Lastly, eliminating p from (3) and (6), we have - 
 i -y = o, 
 
 ••• y = L 
 
 which expresses the required conclusion, The first cause is an 
 intelligent being. 
 
 Let us now examine what other conclusions are deducible 
 from the premises. 
 
 If we substitute the value just found for y in the equations 
 (1), (2), {3), (4), they are reduced to the following pair of equa- 
 tions, viz., 
 
 (1 - x) (pr + (1 -p) (1 -r)} = 0, r(l-p) = 0. (7) 
 
 Eliminating from these equations x, we have 
 r (1 - p) = 0, whence r - vp, 
 
 which expresses the conclusion, If motion has existed by endless 
 successive communication, it has been eternally caused by an eter- 
 nal intelligent being. 
 
 Again eliminating, from the given pair, r, we have 
 (1 - x) (1 -p) = 0, 
 or, 1 - x - vp, 
 
 which expresses the conclusion, If motion has existed from eter- 
 nity, it has been eternally caused by some eternal intelligent being. 
 Lastly, from the same original pair eliminating p, we get 
 (1 - x) r = 0, 
 
 which, solved in the form 
 
 1 _ * = v (1 - r). 
 
CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 
 
 204 
 
 [chap. XIII. 
 
 gives the conclusion, If motion has existed from eternity , it has not 
 existed by an endless successive communication. 
 
 Solved under the form 
 
 r = vx, 
 
 the above equation leads to the equivalent conclusion, If motion 
 exists by an endless successive communication , it bey an in time. 
 
 13. Now it will appear to the reader that the first and last of 
 the above four conclusions are inconsistent with each other. The 
 two consequences drawn from the hypothesis that motion exists 
 by an endless successive communication, viz., 1st, that it has 
 been eternally caused by an eternal intelligent being ; 2ndly, that 
 it began in time, — are plainly at variance. Nevertheless, they are 
 both rigorous deductions from the original premises. The oppo- 
 sition between them is not of a logical , but of what is technically 
 termed a material character. This opposition might, however, 
 have been formally stated in the premises. We might have 
 added to them a formal proposition, asserting that “ whatever is 
 eternally caused by an eternal intelligent being, does not begin in 
 time.” Had this been done, no such opposition as now appears 
 in our conclusions could have presented itself. Formal logic 
 can only take account of relations which are formally expressed 
 (VI. 16); and it may thus, in particular instances, become ne- 
 cessary to express, in a formal manner, some connexion among 
 the premises which, without actual statement, is involved in the 
 very meaning of the language employed. 
 
 To illustrate what has been said, let us add to the equations 
 (2) and (4) the equation 
 
 px = 0, 
 
 which expresses the condition above adverted to. We have 
 
 (1 - x ) [pr + (1 - p) (1 - ?•)} + r (I - p) + px = 0. (8) 
 
 Eliminating p from this, we find, simply 
 
 r = 0, 
 
 which expresses the proposition, Motion does not exist by an end- 
 less successive communication. If now we substitute for r its value 
 in (8), we have 
 
 (1 - x) (1 - p) l px = 0, or, 1 - x = p; 
 
CHAP. XIII.] 
 
 CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 
 
 205 
 
 whence we have the interpretation, If motion has existed from 
 eternity , it has been eternally caused by an eternal intelligent being ; 
 together with the converse of that proposition. 
 
 In Prop. ix. it is argued, that “ the self-existent and original 
 cause of all things is not a necessary agent, but a being endued 
 with liberty and choice.” The proof is based mainly upon his 
 possession of intelligence, and upon the existence of final causes, 
 implying design and choice. To the objection that the supreme 
 cause operates by necessity for the production of what is best, it 
 is replied, that this is a necessity of fitness and wisdom, and not 
 of nature. 
 
 14. In Prop. x. it is argued, that “the self-existent being, 
 the supreme cause of all things, must of necessity have infinite 
 power.” The ground of the demonstration is, that as “ all the 
 powers of all things are derived from him, nothing can make any 
 difficulty or resistance to the execution of his will.” It is de- 
 fined that the infinite power of the self-existent being does not 
 extend to the “ making of a thing which implies a contradiction,” 
 or the doing of that “ which would imply imperfection (whether 
 natural or moral) in the being to whom such power is ascribed,” 
 but that it does extend to the creation of matter, and of an im- 
 material, cogitative substance, endued with a power of beginning 
 motion, and with a liberty of will or choice. Upon this doctrine 
 of liberty it is contended that we are able to give a satisfactory 
 answer to “that ancient and great question, ttoObv to kokov, 
 what is the cause and original of evil ?” The argument on this 
 head I shall briefly exhibit. 
 
 “ All that we call evil is either an evil of imperfection, as the 
 want of certain faculties or excellencies which other creatures 
 have ; or natural evil, as pain, death, and the like ; or moral evil, 
 as all kinds of vice. The first of these is not properly an evil ; 
 for every power, faculty, or perfection, which any creature enjoys, 
 being the free gift of God, . . it is plain the want of any certain 
 faculty or perfection in any kind of creatures, which never be- 
 longed to their natures is no more an evil to them, than their 
 never having been created or brought into being at all could pro- 
 perly have been called an evil. The second kind of evil, which 
 Ave call natural evil, is either a necessary consequence of the 
 
206 
 
 CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 
 
 [CHAP. XIII. 
 
 former, as death to a creature on whose nature immortality was 
 never conferred ; and then it is no more properly an evil than the 
 former. Or else it is counterpoised on the whole with as great 
 or greater good, as the afflictions and sufferings of good men, 
 and then also it is not properly an evil ; or else, lastly, it is a 
 punishment, and then it is a necessary consequence of the third 
 and last kind of evil, viz., moral evil. And this arises wholly 
 from the abuse of liberty which God gave to His creatures for 
 other purposes, and which it was reasonable and fit to give them 
 for the perfection and order of the whole creation. Only they, 
 contrary to God’s intention and command, have abused what was 
 necessary to the perfection of the whole, to the corruption and 
 depravation of themselves. And thus all sorts of evils have en- 
 tered into the world without any diminution to the infinite good- 
 ness of the Creator and Governor thereof.” — p. 112. 
 
 The main premises of the above argument may be thus 
 stated : 
 
 1st. All reputed evil is either evil of imperfection, or natural 
 evil, or moral evil. 
 
 2nd. Evil of imperfection is not absolute evil. 
 
 3rd. Natural evil is either a consequence of evil of imperfec- 
 tion, or it is compensated with greater good, or it is a conse- 
 quence of moral evil. 
 
 4th. That which is either a consequence of evil of imperfec- 
 tion, or is compensated with greater good, is not absolute evil. 
 
 5th. All absolute evils are included in reputed evils. 
 
 To express these premises let us assume — 
 
 iv = reputed evil. 
 x = evil of imperfection. 
 y = natural evil. 
 z = moral evil. 
 
 p = consequence of evil of imperfection. 
 q = compensated with greater good. 
 r = consequence of moral evil. 
 t = absolute evil. 
 
 Then, regarding the premises as Primary Propositions, of which 
 
 
CHAP. XIII.] 
 
 CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 
 
 207 
 
 all the predicates are particular, and the conjunctions either , or, 
 as absolutely disjunctive, we have the following equations : 
 
 w= v {ar(l -y) (1 - q) +y(l -x) (1 -z) + z{l - x) (1 - y)) 
 
 X = V (1 - t). 
 
 y = v{p(l-q) (1-r) + < 7(1 - />) (1 - r) +r(l -p) (1 - q)} 
 
 p - q) + q(l - p) = v - t ). 
 t = vw. 
 
 From which, if we separately eliminate the symbol v, we have 
 w {l - x (1 -y) (1 - z) - y (l -x) (1 - z) -z (1 - x) (l - y )} =0,(1) 
 
 xt = 0, (2) 
 
 y {l-p(l-q)(\-r)-q(\-p){\-r)-r(l-p) (l-?)}=0, (3) 
 
 (H 1 -q) + ?(1 ~P)} t= °, ( 4 ) 
 
 ^(1 - w) = 0. (5) 
 
 Let it be required, first, to find what conclusion the premises 
 warrant us in forming respecting absolute evils, as concerns their 
 dependence upon moral evils, and the consequences of moral 
 evils. 
 
 For this purpose we must determine t in terms of z and r. 
 The symbols w, x, y, p, q must therefore be eliminated. The 
 process is easy, as any set of the equations is reducible to a single 
 equation by addition. 
 
 Eliminating w from (1) and (5), we have 
 
 t[l-x(\-y)(l-z)-y (1-®)(1 -z)-z(l-x)(\-y)) = 0. (6) 
 The elimination of p from (3) and (4) gives 
 
 yqr + yqt + yt{i-r)(\-q) = o. (7) 
 
 The elimination of q from this gives 
 
 yt{\ - r) = 0. (8) 
 
 The elimination of x between (2) and (6) gives 
 
 *{y*+ (i-y) 0 -*)} = °- (9) 
 
 The elimination of y from (8) and (9) gives 
 t{l-z) (1 - r) = 0. 
 
 This is the only relation existing between the elements t , z, and r. 
 
208 
 
 CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 
 
 [chap. XIII. 
 
 We hence get 
 
 , = 0 
 
 (1 -z) (1 - r) 
 
 = ^ r + ^( 1-r ) + jj( I - 2 ) ? - + 0 ( 1 -2)( 1 -r) 
 
 0 0 
 
 ~0 3+ 0^ ~ z ) r > 
 
 the interpretation of which is, Absolute evil is either moral evil , or 
 it is, if not moral evil, a consequence of moral evil. 
 
 Any of the results obtained in the process of the above solu- 
 tion furnish us with interpretations. Thus from (8) we might 
 deduce 
 
 * ■ Jrr7) - 5 ’J r + °o ( 1 -■ S') r + 5 0 1 - C 1 - r > 
 
 o 0 ,, . 
 
 -o^ + o (1 *») ; 
 
 Avhence, Absolute evils are either natural evils, which are the con- 
 sequences of moral evils, or they are not natural evils at all. 
 
 A variety of other conclusions may be deduced from the given 
 equations in reply to questions which may be arbitrarily pro- 
 posed. Of such I shall give a few examples, without exhibiting 
 the intermediate processes of solution. 
 
 Quest. 1. — Can any relation be deduced from the premises 
 connecting the following elements, viz. : absolute evils, conse- 
 quences of evils of imperfection, evils compensated with greater 
 good ? 
 
 Ans. — No relation exists. If we eliminate all the symbols but 
 z, p, q, the result is 0 = 0. 
 
 Quest. 2. — Is any relation implied between absolute evils, 
 evils of imperfection, and consequences of evils of imperfection. 
 Ans. — The final relation between x, t, and p is 
 
 xt + pt = 0 ; 
 
 whence 
 
 t = — — = (1 -p) (1 -*). 
 
 p + x 0 N /v 
 
 Therefore, Absolute evils are neither evils of imperfection, nor con- 
 sequences of evils of imperfection. 
 
CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 
 
 209 
 
 CHAP. XIII.] 
 
 Quest. 3. — Required the relation of natural evils to evils of 
 
 imperfection and evils compensated with greater good. 
 
 We find n 
 
 pqij = 0, 
 
 0 0 \ 0 / 1 \ 
 
 Therefore, Natural evils are either consequences of evils of imper- 
 fection which are not compensated with greater good , or they are not 
 consequences of evils of imperfection at all. 
 
 Quest. 4. — In what relation do those natural evils which are 
 not moral evils stand to absolute evils and the consequences of 
 moral evils ? 
 
 If y (1 - z) = s, we find, after elimination, 
 ts ( 1 - r) = 0 ; 
 
 0 0 0 ,, 
 
 t (1 - r) 0 0 v ’ 
 
 Therefore, Natural evils , ivhich are not moral evils , are either abso- 
 lute evils , which are the consequences of moral evils, or they are not 
 absolute evils at all. 
 
 The following conclusions have been deduced in a similar 
 manner. The subject of each conclusion will show of what par- 
 ticular things a description was required, and the predicate will 
 show what elements it was designed to involve : — 
 
 Absolute evils, which are not consequences of moral evils, are 
 moral and not natural evils. 
 
 Absolute evils which are not moral evils are natural evils, ivhich 
 are the consequences of moral evils. 
 
 Natural evils which are not consequences of moral evils are not 
 absolute evils. 
 
 Lastly, let us seek a description of evils which are not abso- 
 lute, expressed in terms of natural and moral evils. 
 
 We obtain as the final equation, 
 
 1 - t = i/ z + Jy 0- ~ z ) + ^( l -y) 2 + C 1 -y) 0 ~ z )- 
 
 The direct interpretation of this equation is a necessary truth, 
 but the reverse interpretation is remarkable. Evils ivhich are both 
 
CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 
 
 210 
 
 [chap. XIII. 
 
 natural and moral, and evils which are neither natural nor moral, 
 are not absolute evils. 
 
 This conclusion, though it may not express a truth, is cer- 
 tainly involved in the given premises, as formally stated. 
 
 15. Let us take from the same argument a somewhat fuller 
 system of premises, and let us in those premises suppose that the 
 particles, either , or, are not absolutely disjunctive, so that in the 
 meaning of the expression, “ either evil of imperfection, or na- 
 tural evil, or moral evil,” we include whatever possesses one or 
 more of these qualities. 
 
 Let the premises be — 
 
 1. All evil ( w ) is either evil of imperfection (x), or natural 
 evil (y), or moral evil (z). 
 
 2. Evil of imperfection ( x ) is not absolute evil If). 
 
 3. Natural evil ( y ) is either a consequence of evil of imper- 
 fection (p), or it is compensated with greater good (q), or it is a 
 consequence of moral evil (r). 
 
 4. Whatever is a consequence of evil of imperfection ( p ) is 
 not absolute evil ( [t ). 
 
 5. Whatever is compensated with greater good (q) is not 
 absolute evil (t). 
 
 6. Moral evil (z) is a consequence of the abuse of liberty (u). 
 
 7. That which is a consequence of moral evil (r) is a conse- 
 quence of the abuse of liberty ( u ). 
 
 8. Absolute evils are included in reputed evils. 
 
 The premises expressed in the usual way give, after the elimi- 
 nation of the indefinite symbols v, the following equations : 
 
 © 
 
 II 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 1“^ 
 
 'h s 
 
 1 
 
 H 
 
 g 
 
 (1) 
 
 xt = 0, 
 
 (2) 
 
 << 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 h— 
 
 1 
 
 II 
 
 © 
 
 (3) 
 
 pt = 0, 
 
 (4) 
 
 qt = 0, 
 
 (5) 
 
 z (1 - u) = 0, 
 
 (6) 
 
 r (1 - «) = 0, 
 
 (7) 
 
 t (1 - w) = 0. 
 
 (8) 
 
 Each of these equations satisfies the condition F(1 - V) = 0. 
 
CHAP. XIII.] 
 
 CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 
 
 211 
 
 The following results are easily deduced — 
 
 Natural evil is either absolute evil , which is a consequence of mo- 
 ral evil , or it is not absolute evil at all. 
 
 All evils are either absolute evils, which are consequences of the 
 abuse of liberty, or they are not absolute evils. 
 
 Natural evils are either evils of imperfection, which are not ab- 
 solute evils, or they are not evils of imperfection at all. 
 
 Absolute evils are either natural evils, which are consequences of 
 the abuse of liberty, or they are not natural evils, and at the same 
 time not evils of imperfection. 
 
 Consequences of the abuse of liberty include all natural evils 
 which are absolute evils, and are not evils of imperfection , with an 
 indefinite remainder of natural evils which are not absolute, and of 
 evils which are not natural. 
 
 16. These examples Avill suffice for illustration. The reader 
 can easily supply others if they are needed. W e proceed now to 
 examine the most essential portions of the demonstration of 
 Spinoza. 
 
 DEFINITIONS. 
 
 1. By a cause of itself (causa sui ), I understand that of which 
 the essence involves existence, or that of which the nature can- 
 not be conceived except as existing. 
 
 2. That thing is said to be finite or bounded in its own kind 
 (in suo genere finita) which may be bounded by another thing of 
 the same kind ; e. g. Body is said to be finite, because we can 
 always conceive of another body greater than a given one. So 
 thought is bounded by other thought. But body is not bounded 
 by thought, nor thought by body. 
 
 3. By substance, I understand that which is in itself (in se), 
 and is conceived by itself ( per se concipitur), i. e., that whose 
 conception does not require to be formed from the conception of 
 another thing. 
 
 4. By attribute, I understand that which the intellect per- 
 ceives in substance, as constituting its very essence. 
 
 5. By mode, I understand the affections of substance, or that 
 which is in another thing, by which thing also it is conceived. 
 
 6. By God, I understand the Being absolutely infinite, that 
 
CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 
 
 212 
 
 [chap. XIII. 
 
 is the substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which 
 expresses an eternal and infinite essence. 
 
 Explanation . — I say absolutely infinite, not infinite in its 
 own kind. For to whatever is only infinite in its own kind we 
 may deny the possession of (some) infinite attributes. But when 
 a thing is absolutely infinite, whatsoever expresses essence and 
 involves no negation belongs to its essence. 
 
 7. That thing is termed free , which exists by the sole neces- 
 sity of its own nature, and is determined to action by itself alone ; 
 necessary , or rather constrained, which is determined by another 
 thing to existence and action, in a certain and determinate man- 
 ner. 
 
 8. By eternity, I understand existence itself, in so far as it is 
 conceived necessarily to follow from the sole definition of the 
 eternal thing. 
 
 Explanation . — For such existence, as an eternal truth, is con- 
 ceived as the essence of the thing, and therefore cannot be ex- 
 plained by mere duration or time, though the latter should be 
 conceived as without beginning and without end. 
 
 AXIOMS. 
 
 1 . All things which exist are either in themselves (in se) or 
 in another thing. 
 
 2. That which cannot be conceived by another thing ought 
 to be conceived by itself. 
 
 3. From a given determinate cause the effect necessarily fol- 
 lows, and, contrariwise, if no determinate cause be granted, it is 
 impossible that an effect should follow. 
 
 4. The knowledge of the effect depends upon, and involves, 
 the knowledge of the cause. 
 
 5. Things which have nothing in common cannot be under- 
 stood by means of each other ; or the conception of the one does 
 not involve the conception of the other. 
 
 6. A true idea ought to agree with its own object. ( Idea 
 vera debet cum suo ideato convenire.) 
 
 7. Whatever can be conceived as non-existing does not in- 
 volve existence in its essence. 
 
CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 
 
 213 
 
 CHAP. XIII.] 
 
 Other definitions are implied, and other axioms are virtually 
 assumed, in some of the demonstrations. Thus, in Prop. I., 
 “ Substance is prior in nature to its affections,” the proof of 
 which consists in a mere reference to Defs. 3 and 5, there seems 
 to be an assumption of the following axiom, viz., “ That by which 
 a thing is conceived is prior in nature to the thing conceived.” 
 Again, in the demonstration of Prop. v. the converse of this 
 axiom is assumed to be true. Many other examples of the same 
 kind occur. It is impossible, therefore, by the mere processes of 
 Logic, to deduce the whole of the conclusions of the first book of 
 the Ethics from the axioms and definitions which are prefixed to 
 it, and which are given above. In the brief analysis which will 
 follow, I shall endeavour to present in- their proper order what 
 appear to me to be the real premises, whether formally stated or 
 implied, and shall show in what manner they involve the conclu- 
 sions to which Spinoza was led. 
 
 17. I conceive, then, that in the course of his demonstration, 
 Spinoza effects several parallel divisions of the universe of pos- 
 sible existence, as, 
 
 1st. Into things which are in themselves, x, and things which 
 are in some other tiling, x ; whence, as these classes of thing toge- 
 ther make up the universe, we have 
 
 x + x' = 1 ; (Ax. i.) 
 or, x = 1 - x'. 
 
 2nd. Into things which are conceived by themselves, y, and 
 things which are conceived through some other thing, y\ 
 whence 
 
 y =\-y'. (Ax. ii.) 
 
 3rd. Into substance, z, and modes, z' ; whence 
 z = l - zf. (Def. hi. v.) 
 
 4th. Into things free,/, and things necessary,/; whence 
 /=!-/• (Def. vii.) 
 
 5th. Into things which are causes and self-existent, c, and 
 things caused by some other thing, e\ whence 
 
 e = 1 - e. (Def. i. Ax. vii.) 
 
214 CLARKE AND SPINOZA. [CHAP, XIII. 
 
 And his reasoning proceeds upon the expressed or assumed 
 principle, that these divisions are not only parallel, but equiva- 
 lent. Thus in Def. hi., Substance is made equivalent with that 
 which is conceived by itself ; whence 
 
 z=y- 
 
 Again, Ax. iv., as it is actually applied by Spinoza, estab- 
 lishes the identity of cause with that by which a tiling is con- 
 ceived; whence 
 
 V = e. 
 
 Again, in Def. vii., things free are identified with things 
 self-existent ; whence 
 
 /= e - 
 
 Lastly, in Def. v., mode is made identical with that which is 
 in another thing ; whence z = xf, and therefore, 
 
 z = x. 
 
 All these results may be collected together into the following 
 series of equations, viz. : 
 
 x - y = z =f - e - \ - x = 1 - y = 1 - f - 1 - z = 1 - e. 
 
 And any two members of this series connected together by the 
 sign of equality express a conclusion, whether drawn by Spinoza 
 or not, which is a legitimate consequence of his system. Thus 
 the equation 
 
 z = 1 - e, 
 
 expresses the sixth proposition of his system, viz., One substance 
 cannot be produced by another. Similarly the equation 
 
 z = e, 
 
 expresses his seventh proposition, viz., “ It pertains to the nature 
 of substance to exist.” This train of deduction it is unnecessary 
 to pursue. Spinoza applies it chiefly to the deduction according 
 to his views of the properties of the Divine Nature, having first 
 endeavoured to prove that the only substance is God. In the 
 steps of this process, there appear to me to exist some fallacies, 
 dependent chiefly upon the ambiguous use of words, to which it 
 will be necessary here to direct attention. 
 
CHAP. XIII.] CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 215 
 
 18 . In Prop. v. it is endeavoured to show, that “ There cannot 
 exist two or more substances of the same nature or attribute.” 
 The proof is virtually as follows : If there are more substances 
 than one, they are distinguished either by attributes or modes ; 
 if by attributes, then there is only one substance of the same at- 
 tribute ; if by modes, then, laying aside these as non-essential, 
 there remains no real ground of distinction. Hence there exists 
 but one substance of the same attribute. The assumptions here 
 involved are inconsistent with those which are found in other 
 parts of the treatise. Thus substance, Def. iv., is apprehended 
 by the intellect through the means of attribute. By Def. vi. it 
 may have many attributes. One substance may, therefore, con- 
 ceivably be distinguished from another by a difference in some of 
 its attributes, while others remain the same. 
 
 In Prop. viii. it is attempted to show that, All substance 
 is necessarily infinite. The proof is as follows. There ex- 
 ists but one substance, of one attribute, Prop. v. ; and it per- 
 tains to its nature to exist, Prop. vii. It will, therefore, be of its 
 nature to exist either as finite or infinite. But not as finite, for, 
 by Def. n. it would require to be bounded by another substance 
 of the same nature, which also ought to exist necessarily , Prop. 
 vii. Therefore, there would be two substances of the same 
 attribute, which is absurd, Prop. v. Substance, therefore, is 
 infinite. 
 
 In this demonstration the word “ finite” is confounded with 
 the expression, “ Finite in its own kind,” Def. ii. It is thus as- 
 sumed that nothing can be finite, unless it is bounded by another 
 thing of the same kind. This is not consistent with the ordi- 
 nary meaning of the term. Spinoza’s use of the term finite 
 tends to make space the only form of substance, and all existing 
 things but affections of space, and this, I think, is really one of 
 the ultimate foundations of his system. 
 
 The first scholium applied to the above Proposition is re- 
 markable. I give it in the original words * “ Quum finitum esse 
 revera sit ex parte negatio, et infinitum absoluta affirmatio exis- 
 tentige alicujus naturas, sequitur ergo ex sola Prop. vii. omnem 
 substantiam debere esse infinitam .” Now this is in reality an 
 assertion of the principle affirmed by Clarke, and controverted by 
 
216 CLARKE AND SPINOZA. [CHAP. XIII. 
 
 Butler (XIII. 11), that necessary existence implies existence 
 in every part of space. Probably this principle will be found to 
 lie at the basis of every attempt to demonstrate, a priori , the 
 existence of an Infinite Being. 
 
 From the general properties of substance above stated, and 
 the definition of God as the substance consisting of infinite at- 
 tributes, the peculiar doctrines of Spinoza relating to the Divine 
 Nature necessarily follow. As substance is self-existent, free, 
 causal in its very nature, the thing in which other things are, 
 and by which they are conceived ; the same properties are also 
 asserted of the Deity. He is self-existent, Prop. xi. ; indivi- 
 sible, Prop. xiii. ; the only substance, Prop. xiv. ; the Being in 
 which all things are, and by which all things are conceived, 
 Prop, xv.; free, Prop, xvii.; the immanent cause of all things, 
 Prop. xvm. The proof that God is the only substance is drawn 
 from Def. vi., which is interpreted into a declaration that “ God 
 is the Being absolutely infinite, of whom no attribute wlfich ex- 
 presses the essence of substance can be denied.” Every con- 
 ceivable attribute being thus assigned by definition to Him, and 
 it being determined in Prop. v. that there cannot exist two sub- 
 stances of the same attribute, it follows that God is the only 
 substance. 
 
 Though the “ Ethics” of Spinoza, like a large portion of his 
 other writings, is presented in the geometrical form, it does not 
 afford a good praxis for the symbolical method of this work. 
 Of course every train of reasoning admits, when its ultimate 
 premises are truly determined, of being treated by that method ; 
 but in the present instance, such treatment scarcely differs, ex- 
 cept in the use of letters for words, from the processes employed 
 in the original demonstrations. Reasoning which consists so 
 largely of a play upon terms defined as equivalent, is not often 
 met with ; and it is rather on account of the interest attaching to 
 the subject, than of the merits of the demonstrations, highly as 
 by some they are esteemed, that I have devoted a few pages 
 here to their exposition. 
 
 19. It is not possible, I think, to rise from the perusal of the 
 arguments of Clarke and Spinoza without a deep conviction of the 
 futility of all endeavours to establish, entirely a priori, the existence 
 
CHAP. XIII.] CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 217 
 
 of an Infinite Being, His attributes, and His relation to the uni- 
 verse. The fundamental principle of all such speculations, viz., that 
 whatever we can clearly conceive, must exist, fails to accomplish 
 its end, even when its truth is admitted. For how shall the finite 
 comprehend the infinite ? Yet must the possibility of such con- 
 ception be granted, and in something more than the sense of 
 a mere withdrawal of the limits of phenomenal existence, before 
 any solid ground can be established for the knowledge, a priori, 
 of things infinite and eternal. Spinoza’s affirmation of the re- 
 ality of such knowledge is plain and explicit : “ Mens humana 
 adaequatum habet cognitionem agternae et infinite essentia Dei” 
 (Prop, xlvii., Part 2nd). Let this be compared with Prop, 
 xxxiv., Part 2nd : “ Omnis idea quae in nobis est absoluta 
 sive adequata et perfect®, vera est and with Axiom vi., Part 
 1st, “ Idea vera debet cum suo ideato convenire.” Moreover, this 
 species of knowledge is made the essential constituent of all other 
 knowledge : “ De natura rationis est res sub quadam etemitatis 
 specie percipere” (Prop, xliv., Cor. 11 ., Part 2nd). Were it 
 said, that there is a tendency in the human mind to rise in con- 
 templation from the particular towards the universal, from the 
 finite towards the infinite, from the transient towards the eternal ; 
 and that this tendency suggests to us, with high probability, the 
 existence of more than sense perceives or understanding compre- 
 hends ; the statement might be accepted as true for at least a 
 a large number of minds. There is, however, a class of specu- 
 lations, the character of which must be explained in part by 
 reference to other causes, — impatience of probable or limited 
 knowledge, so often all that we can really attain to ; a desire for 
 absolute certainty where intimations sufficient to mark out before 
 us the path of duty, but not to satisfy the demands of the specu- 
 lative intellect, have alone been granted to us ; perhaps, too, 
 dissatisfaction with the present scene of things. With the 
 undue predominance of these motives, the more sober procedure 
 of analogy and probable induction falls into neglect. Yet the lat- 
 ter is, beyond all question, the course most adapted to our pre- 
 sent condition. To infer the existence of an intelligent cause 
 from the teeming evidences of surrounding design, to rise to the 
 conception of a moral Governor of the world, from the study of 
 
218 CLARKE AND SPINOZA. [CHAP. XIII. 
 
 the constitution and the moral provisions of our own nature ; — 
 these, though but the feeble steps of an understanding limited 
 in its faculties and its materials of knowledge, are of more avail 
 than the ambitious attempt to arrive at a certainty unattainable 
 on the ground of natural religion. And as these were the most 
 ancient, so are they still the most solid foundations, Revelation 
 being set apart, of the belief that the course of this world is not 
 abandoned to chance and inexorable fate. 
 
CHAP. XIV.] 
 
 EXAMPLE OF ANALYSIS. 
 
 219 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 EXAMPLE OF THE ANALYSIS OF A SYSTEM OF EQUATIONS BY THE 
 
 METHOD OF REDUCTION TO A SINGLE EQUIVALENT EQUATION 
 
 V = 0, WHEREIN V SATISFIES THE CONDITION V (1 - V) = 0. 
 
 1 • X ET us take the remarkable system of premises employed 
 in the previous Chapter, to prove that “ Matter is not a 
 necessary being and suppressing the 6th premiss, viz., Motion 
 exists, — examine some of the consequences which flow from the 
 remaining premises. This is in reality to accept as true Dr. 
 Clarke’s hypothetical principles ; but to suppose ourselves igno- 
 norant of the fact of the existence of motion. Instances may 
 occur in which such a selection of a portion of the premises of 
 an argument may lead to interesting consequences, though it is 
 with other views that the present example has been resumed. The 
 premises actually employed will be — 
 
 1. If matter is a necessary being, either the property of gravi- 
 tation is necessarily present, or it is necessarily absent. 
 
 2. If gravitation is necessarily absent, and the world is not 
 subject to any presiding intelligence, motion does not exist. 
 
 3. If gravitation is necessarily present, a vacuum is necessary. 
 
 4. If a vacuum is necessary, matter is not a necessary being. 
 
 5. If matter is a necessary being, the world is not subject 
 to a presiding intelligence. 
 
 If, as before, we represent the elementary propositions by the 
 following notation, viz. : 
 
 x = Matter is a necessary being. 
 y = Gravitation is necessarily present. 
 w= Motion exists. 
 
 t = Gravitation is necessarily absent. 
 z = The world is merely material, and not subject to a 
 presiding intelligence. 
 v •= A vacuum is necessary. 
 
220 
 
 EXAMPLE OF ANALYSIS. 
 
 [CHAP. XIV. 
 
 W e shall on expression of the premises and elimination of the 
 indefinite class symbols ( q ), obtain the following system of equa- 
 tions : 
 
 xyt + xyt = 0, 
 tzw = 0, 
 yv = 0, 
 vx = 0, 
 xz = 0 ; 
 
 in which for brevity y stands for 1 - y, t for 1 - t, and so on; whence, 
 also, 1 - t = t, 1 - y - y, &c. 
 
 As the first members of these equations involve only positive 
 terms, we can form a single equation by adding them together 
 (VIII. Prop. 2), viz. : 
 
 xyt + xyt + yv + vx + xz + tzio = 0, 
 
 end it remains to reduce the first member so as to cause it to 
 satisfy the condition V ( \ - V) = 0. 
 
 For this purpose we will first obtain its development with 
 reference to the symbols x and y. The result is — 
 
 (t + v + v + z + tzw) xy + (t + v + z + tzw) xy 
 + (v + tzw) xy + tzwxy = 0. 
 
 And our object will be accomplished by reducing the four coeffi- 
 cients of the development to equivalent forms, themselves satis- 
 fying the condition required. 
 
 Now the first coefficient is, since v + v = 1, 
 
 1 + t + z + tzw, 
 
 which reduces to unity (IX. Prop. 1). 
 
 The second coefficient is 
 
 t + v 4- z + tzw ; 
 and its reduced form (X. 3) is 
 
 t + tv + tvz + tvzw. 
 
 The third coefficient, v + tzw , reduces by the same method 
 to v +' tzwv ; and the last coefficient tzw needs no reduction. 
 Hence the development becomes 
 
CHAP. XIV.] 
 
 EXAMPLE OF ANALYSIS. 
 
 221 
 
 xy + (t + tv + tv z + tvzw ) xy + (y + tzwv ) xy + tzwxy = 0; (1) 
 
 and this is the form of reduction sought. 
 
 2. Now according to the principle asserted in Prop, hi., 
 Chap, x., the whole relation connecting any particular set of the 
 symbols in the above equation may be deduced by developing 
 that equation with reference to the particular symbols in question, 
 and retaining in the result only those constituents whose coef- 
 ficients are unity. Thus, if ^7 and y are the symbols chosen, we 
 are immediately conducted to the equation 
 
 xy = 0, 
 
 whence we have 
 
 0 , \ 
 
 y = o ( l - x )> 
 
 with the interpretation, If gravitation is necessarily present, mat- 
 ter is not a necessary being. 
 
 Let us next seek the relation between x and w. Developing 
 (1) with respect to those symbols, we get 
 
 (y + ty + tvy + tvzy + tvzy) xw + (y + ty + tvy + tvzy ) xw 
 
 + (yy + tzvy + tzy) xw + vyxw = 0. 
 
 The coefficient of xw, and it alone, reduces to unity. For 
 tvzy + tvzy = tvy, and tvy + tvy = ty, and ty + ty = y, and lastly, 
 y + y = 1. This is always the mode in which such reductions 
 take place. Hence we get 
 
 xw = 0, 
 
 0 n x 
 
 • • w = o 0 -*)» 
 
 of which the interpretation is, If motion exists, matter is not a ne- 
 cessary being. 
 
 If, in like manner, we develop (1) with respect to x and z, 
 we get the equation 
 
 xz = 0, 
 
 0 
 
 * “ o 
 
 with the interpretation, If matter is a necessary being, the world 
 is merely material, and without a presiding intelligence. 
 
222 
 
 EXAMPLE OF ANALYSIS. 
 
 [CHAP. XIV. 
 
 This, indeed, is only the fifth premiss reproduced, but it 
 shows that there is no other relation connecting the two elements 
 which it involves. 
 
 If we seek the whole relation connecting the elements x, w, 
 and y, we find, on developing (1) with reference to those sym- 
 bols, and proceeding as before, 
 
 xy + xwy = 0. 
 
 Suppose it required to determine hence the consequences of the 
 hypothesis, “ Motion does not exist,” relatively to the questions 
 of the necessity of matter, and the necessary presence of gravita- 
 tion. We find 
 
 - xy 
 iv = — 
 xy 
 
 . x l 0 _ 
 
 .-. 1 - w = — = - xy + xy + - x ; 
 xy 0 9 y 0 
 
 or, 1 - w - xy + x, with xy - 0. 
 
 The direct interpretation of the first equation is, If motion does 
 not exist, either matter is a necessary being , and gravitation is not 
 necessarily present , or matter is not a necessary being. 
 
 The reverse interpretation is, If matter is a necessary being, 
 and gravitation not necessary, motion does not exist. 
 
 In exactly the same mode, if we sought the full relation be- 
 tween x, z, and w , we should find 
 
 xzw + xz = 0. 
 
 From this we may deduce 
 
 z 
 
 _ 0 _ 
 xw + - X, 
 
 0 
 
 with xw = 0. 
 
 Therefore, If the world is merely material, and not subject to 
 any presiding intelligence, either matter is a necessary being, and 
 motion does not exist, or matter is not a necessary being. 
 
 Also, reversely, If matter is a necessary being, and there is no 
 such thing as motion, the ivorld is merely material. 
 
 3. We might, of course, extend the same method to the de- 
 
EXAMPLE OF ANALYSIS. 
 
 223 
 
 CHAP. XIV.] 
 
 termination of the consequences of any complex hypothesis u, 
 such as, “ The world is merely material, and without any pre- 
 siding intelligence (z), but motion exists” (w), with reference to 
 any other elements of doubt or speculation involved in the origi- 
 nal premises, such as, “ Matter is a necessary being” ( x ), “ Gra- 
 vitation is a necessary quality of matter,” ( y ). We should, for 
 this purpose, connect with the general equation (1) a new 
 equation, 
 
 u = wz, 
 
 reduce the system thus formed to a single equation, V= 0, in 
 which V satisfies the condition F(1 - V) = 0, and proceed as 
 above to determine the relation between u, x, and y , and finally u 
 as a developed function of x and y. But it is very much better 
 to adopt the methods of Chapters vm. and ix. I shall here 
 simply indicate a few results, with the leading steps of their de- 
 duction, and leave their verification to the reader’s choice. 
 
 In the problem last mentioned we find, as the relation con- 
 necting x , y, w, and z , 
 
 xw + xwy + xwyz = 0. 
 
 And if we write u = xy, and then eliminate the symbols x and y 
 by the general problem, Chap, ix., we find 
 
 xu + xyu = 0, 
 
 whence 1 „ _ 0 _ 
 
 u^-xy+Qxy + ^x-, 
 
 wherefore 0 _ ... 
 
 wz - - x with xy = 0. 
 
 0 y 
 
 Hence, If the world is merely material , and without a presiding 
 intelligence , and at the same time motion exists, matter is not a ne- 
 cessary being. 
 
 Now it has before been shown that if motion exists, matter is 
 not a necessary being , so that the above conclusion tells us even 
 less than we had before ascertained to be (inferentially) true. 
 Nevertheless, that conclusion is the proper and complete answer 
 to the question which was proposed, which was, to determine 
 simply the consequences of a certain complex hypothesis. 
 
224 
 
 EXAMPLE OF ANALYSIS. 
 
 [CHAP. XIV. 
 
 4. It would thus be easy, even from the limited system of 
 premises before us, to deduce a great variety of additional infe- 
 rences, involving, in the conditions which are given, any pro- 
 posed combinations of the elementary propositions. If the con- 
 dition is one which is inconsistent with the premises, the fact 
 will be indicated by the form of the solution. The value which 
 the method will assign to the combination of symbols expressive 
 of the proposed condition will be 0. If, on the other hand, the 
 fulfilment of the condition in question imposes no restriction upon 
 the propositions among which relation is sought, so that every 
 combination of those propositions is equally possible, — the fact 
 will also be n. Seated by the form of the solution. Examples 
 of each of these cas^s ai - e subjoined. 
 
 If in the ordinary way we seek the consequences which would 
 flow from the condition that matter is a necessary being, and at 
 the same time that motion exisis, as affecting the Propositions, 
 The world is merely material, and without a ■presiding intelligence, 
 and, Gravitation is necessarily present, we shall obtain the equa- 
 tion 
 
 xw = 0, 
 
 which indicates that the condition proposed is inconsistent with 
 the premises, and therefore cannot be fulfilled. 
 
 If we seek the consequences which would flow from the con- 
 dition that Matter is not a necessary being, and at the same time 
 that Motion does exist, with reference to the same elements as 
 above, viz., the absence of a presiding intelligence, and the neces- 
 sity of gravitation , — we obtain the following result, 
 
 (1 - X) W = ^ (1 -y)z + (1 -y) (1 - z), 
 
 which might literally be interpreted as follows : 
 
 If matter is not a necessary being, and motion exists, then 
 either the world is merely material and without a presiding intel- 
 ligence, and gravitation is necessary, or one of these two results fol- 
 lows without the other, or they both fail of being true. Wherefore 
 of the four possible combinations, of which some one is true of 
 necessity, and of which of necessity one only can be true, it is 
 
EXAMPLE OF ANALYSIS. 
 
 225 
 
 CHAP. XIV.] 
 
 affirmed that any one may be true. Such a result is a truism — - 
 a mere necessary truth. Still it contains the only answer which 
 can be given to the question proposed. 
 
 I do not deem it necessary to vindicate against the charge of 
 laborious trifling these applications. It may be requisite to en- 
 ter with some fulness into details useless in themselves, in order 
 to establish confidence in general principles and methods. When 
 this end shall have been accomplished in the subject of the pre- 
 sent inquiry, let all that has contributed to its attainment, but 
 has afterwards been found superfluous, be forgotten. 
 
22C 
 
 ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC. 
 
 [CHAP. XV. 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 THE ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC AND ITS MODERN EXTENSIONS, EX- 
 AMINED BY THE METHOD OF THIS TREATISE. 
 
 1 • r | ''HE logical system of Aristotle, modified in its details, 
 but unchanged in its essential features, occupies so im- 
 portant a place in academical education, that some account of its 
 nature, and some brief discussion of the leading problems which 
 it presents, seem to be called for in the present work. It is, I 
 trust, in no narrow or harshly critical spirit that I approach this 
 task. My object, indeed, is not to institute any direct compa- 
 rison between the time-honoured system of the schools and that 
 of the present treatise ; but, setting truth above all other con- 
 siderations, to endeavour to exhibit the real nature of the ancient 
 doctrine, and to remove one or two prevailing misapprehensions 
 respecting its extent and sufficiency. 
 
 That which may be regarded as essential in the spirit and 
 procedure of the Aristotelian, and of all cognate systems of Logic, 
 is the attempted classification of the allowable forms of inference, 
 and the distinct reference of those forms, collectively or indivi- 
 dually, to some general principle of an axiomatic nature, such as 
 the “ dictum of Aristotle Whatsoever is affirmed or denied of 
 the genus may in the same sense be affirmed or denied of any 
 species included under that genus. Concerning such general 
 principles it may, I thiuk, be observed, that they either stat 1 di- 
 rectly, but in an abstract form, the argument which they are 
 supposed to elucidate, and, so stating that argument, affirm its 
 validity ; or involve in their expression technical terms which, 
 after definition, conduct us again to the same point, viz., 
 the abstract statement of the supposed allowable forms of in- 
 ference. The idea of classification is thus a pervading element 
 in those systems. F urthermore, they exhibit Logic as resolvable 
 into two great branches, the one of which is occupied with the 
 treatment of categorical, the other with that of hypothetical or 
 
ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC. 
 
 227 
 
 CHAP. XV.] 
 
 conditional propositions. The distinction is nearly identical with 
 that of primary and secondary propositions in the present work. 
 The discussion of the theory of categorical propositions is, in all 
 the ordinary treatises of Logic, much more full and elaborate than 
 that of hypothetical propositions, and is occupied partly with 
 ancient scholastic distinctions, partly with the canons of deduc- 
 tive inference. To the latter application only is it necessary to 
 direct attention here. 
 
 2. Categorical propositions are classed under the four fol- 
 lowing heads, viz. : 
 
 TYPE. 
 
 1st. Universal affirmative Propositions : All F’s are X’s. 
 
 2nd. Universal negative „ No F’s are X’s. 
 
 3rd. Particular affirmative ,, Some F’s are A r ’s. 
 
 4th. Particular negative ,, Some F’s are not X’s. 
 
 To these forms, four others have recently been added, so as 
 to constitute in the whole eight forms (see the next article) sus- 
 ceptible, however, of reduction to six, and subject to relations 
 which have been discussed with great fulness and ability by Pro- 
 fessor De Morgan, in his Formal Logic. A scheme somewhat 
 different from the above has been given to the world by Sir W. 
 Hamilton, and is made the basis of a method of syllogistic in- 
 ference, which is spoken of with very high respect by authorities 
 on the subject of Logic.* 
 
 The processes of Formal Logic, in relation to the above system 
 of propositions, are described as of two kinds, viz., “ Conversion” 
 and “ Syllogism.” By Conversion is meant the expression of 
 any proposition of the above kind in an equivalent form, but with 
 a reversed order of terms. By Syllogism is meant the deduction 
 from two such propositions having a common term, whether 
 subject or predicate, of some third proposition inferentially in- 
 volved in the two, and forming the “ conclusion.” It is main- 
 tained by most writers on Logic, that these processes, and ac- 
 cording to some, the single process of Syllogism, furnish the 
 universal types of reasoning, and that it is the business of the 
 mind, in any train of demonstration, to conform itself, whether 
 
 Thomson’s Outlines of the Laws of Thought, p. 177. 
 
228 
 
 ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC. 
 
 [CHAP. XV. 
 
 consciously or unconsciously, to the particular models of the pro- 
 cesses which have been classified in the writings of logicians. 
 
 3. The course which I design to pursue is to show how 
 these processes of Syllogism and Conversion may be conducted 
 in the most general manner upon the principles of the present 
 treatise, and, viewing them thus in relation to a system of Logic, 
 the foundations of which, it is conceived, have been laid in the 
 ultimate laws of thought, to seek to determine their true place 
 and essential character. 
 
 The expressions of the eight fundamental types of proposi- 
 tion in the language of symbols are as follows : 
 
 1. All Y’s are X’s, 
 
 2. No Y’s are X’s, 
 
 3. Some Y’s are X’s, 
 
 4. Some Y’s are not-X’s, 
 
 5. All not- Y’s are X’s, 
 
 6. No not- Y’s are X’s, 
 
 7. Some not- Y’s are X’s, 
 
 8. Some not- Y’s are not-X’s, 
 
 y = vx. 
 y = v(\-x). 
 vy = vx. 
 vy = v (1 - x). 
 
 1 - y = vx. (1) 
 
 1 - y = v (1 - x). 
 v ( 1 - y) = vx. 
 v (1 -y) = v (1 - x). 
 
 In referring to these forms, it will be convenient to apply, in 
 a sense shortly to be explained, the epithets of logical quantity, 
 “universal” and “particular,” and of quality, “affirmative” and 
 “ negative,” to the terms of propositions, and not to the propo- 
 sitions themselves. We shall thus consider the term “ All Y’s,” 
 as universal-affirmative ; the term “ Y’s,” or “ Some Y’s,” as 
 particular-affirmative ; the term “ All not- Y’s,” as universal-ne- 
 gative ; the term “ Some not- Y’s,” as particular-negative. The 
 expression “ No Y’s,” is not properly a term of a proposition, for 
 the true meaning of the pi'oposition, “ No Y’s are X’s,” is “All 
 Y’s are not-X’s.” The subject of that proposition is, therefore, 
 universal-affirmative, the predicate particular-negative. That 
 there is a real distinction between the conceptions of “ men” and 
 “not men” is manifest. This distinction is all that I contem- 
 plate when applying as above the designations of affirmative and 
 negative, without, however, insisting upon the etymological pro- 
 priety of the application to the terms of propositions. The 
 designations positive and privative would have been more ap- 
 
ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC. 
 
 229 
 
 CHAP. XV.] 
 
 propriate, but the former term is already employed in a fixed 
 sense in other parts of this work. 
 
 4. From the symbolical forms above given the laws of con- 
 version immediately follow. Thus from the equation 
 
 V, = war, 
 
 representing the proposition, “ All Y’s are X’s,” we deduce, on 
 eliminating v, 
 
 y (i - x) = o, 
 
 which gives by solution with reference to 1 - x, 
 
 1 -* = ^( 1 - y ) ; 
 
 the interpretation of which is, 
 
 All not-X’s are not- Y’s. 
 
 This is an example of what is called S£ negative conversion.” 
 In like manner, the equation 
 
 y = v (1 - x). 
 
 representing the proposition, “ No Y’s are X’s,” gives 
 
 * = ? C 1 " y )» 
 
 the interpretation of which is, “ No X’s are Y’s.” This is an 
 example of what is termed simple conversion ; though it is in re- 
 ality of the same kind as the conversion exhibited in the previous 
 example. All the examples of conversion which have been noticed 
 by logicians are either of the above kind, or of that which con- 
 sists in the mere transposition of the terms of a proposition, with- 
 out altering their quality, as when we change 
 
 vy = vx, representing, Some Y’s are X’s, 
 
 into 
 
 vx = vy, representing, Some X’s are Y’s ; 
 
 or they involve a combination of those processes with some auxi- 
 liary process of limitation, as when from the equation 
 y = vx, representing, All Y’s are X’s, 
 we deduce on multiplication by v, 
 
 vy = vx, representing, Some Y’s are X’s, 
 
 and hence 
 
 vx = vy, representing, Some X’s are Y’s. 
 
230 ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC. [CHAP. XV. 
 
 In this example, the process of limitation precedes that of 
 transposition. 
 
 From these instances it is seen that conversion is a particu- 
 lar application of a much more general process in Logic, of which 
 many examples have been given in this work. That process has 
 for its object the determination of any element in any proposition, 
 however complex, as a logical function of the remaining elements. 
 Instead of confining our attention to the subject and predicate, 
 regarded as simple terms, we can take any element or any 
 combination of elements entering into either of them ; make that 
 element, or that combination, the “ subject” of a new proposition ; 
 and determine what its predicate shall be, in accordance with the 
 data afforded to us. It may be remarked, that even the simple 
 forms of propositions enumerated above afford some ground for 
 the application of such a method, beyond what the received laws 
 of conversion appear to recognise. Thus the equation 
 
 y = vx, representing, All F’s are X’s, 
 
 gives us, in addition to the proposition before deduced, the three 
 following : 
 
 1st. y (1 - x) = 0. There are no F’s that are not- X’s. 
 
 0 
 
 2nd. l-^=-a: + (l-F). Things that are not- F’s include all 
 
 things that are not-X’s, and an 
 indefinite remainder of things 
 that are X’s. 
 
 3rd. x = y + ^(l - y). Things that are X’s include all things 
 
 that are F’s, and an indefinite 
 remainder of things that are not- 
 F’s. 
 
 These conclusions, it is true, merely place the given propo- 
 sition in other and equivalent forms, — but such and no more is 
 the office of the received mode of “ negative conversion.” 
 
 Furthermore, these processes of conversion are not elemen- 
 tary, but they are combinations of processes more simple than 
 they, more immediately dependent upon the ultimate laws and 
 axioms which govern the use of the symbolical instrument of 
 
ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC. 
 
 231 
 
 CHAP. XV.] 
 
 reasoning. This remark is equally applicable to the case of 
 Syllogism, which we proceed next to consider. 
 
 5. The nature of syllogism is best seen in the particular in- 
 stance. Suppose that we have the propositions, 
 
 All Z’s are Y’s, 
 
 All Y’s are Z’s. 
 
 From these we may deduce the conclusion, 
 
 All Z’s are Z’s. 
 
 This is a syllogistic inference. The terms X and Z are called 
 the extremes, and Y is called the middle term. The function 
 of the syllogism generally may now be defined. Given two pro- 
 positions of the kind whose species are tabulated in (1), and in- 
 volving one middle or common term Y, which is connected in 
 one of the propositions with an extreme X, . in the other with an 
 extreme Z; required the relation connecting the extremes X and 
 Z. The term Y may appear in its affirmative form, as, All Y’s, 
 Some y’s ; or in its negative form, as, All not- y’s, Some not- 
 y’s ; in either proposition, without regard to the particular form 
 which it assumes in the other. 
 
 Nothing is easier than in particular instances to resolve the 
 Syllogism by the method of this treatise. Its resolution is, in- 
 deed, a particular application of the process for the reduction of 
 systems of propositions. Taking the examples above given, 
 we have, 
 
 x = vy , 
 y = vz; 
 
 whence by substitution, 
 
 x = vv'z, 
 
 which is interpreted into 
 
 AH Z’s are Z’s. 
 
 Or, proceeding rigorously in accordance with the method deve- 
 loped in (VIII. 7), we deduce 
 
 x (1 - y) = 0, y (1 - z) = 0. 
 
 Adding these equations, and eliminating y, we have 
 x (1 - z) - 0 ; 
 
232 
 
 ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC. 
 
 [chap. XV. 
 
 whence x = - z, or, All X’s are Z’s. 
 
 And in the same way may any other case be treated. 
 
 6. Quitting, however, the consideration of special examples, 
 let us examine the general forms to which all syllogism may be 
 reduced. 
 
 Proposition I. 
 
 To deduce the general rules of Syllogism. 
 
 By the general rules of Syllogism, I here mean the rules appli- 
 cable to premises admitting of every variety both of quantity 
 and of quality in their subjects and predicates, except the com- 
 bination of two universal terms in the same proposition. The 
 admissible forms of propositions are therefore those of which a 
 tabular view is given in (1). 
 
 Let X and Y be the elements or things entering into the first 
 premiss, Z and Y those involved in the second. Two cases, fun- 
 damentally different in character, will then present themselves. 
 The terms involving Y will either be of like or of unlike quality, 
 those terms being regarded as of like quality when they both 
 speak of “ Y’s,” or both of “ Not- Y’ s,” as of unlike quality when 
 one of them speaks of “ Y’s,” and the other of “ Not- Y’s.” Any 
 pair of premises, in which the former condition is satisfied, may 
 be represented by the equations 
 
 vx = v'y, (1) 
 
 wz = wy ; (2) 
 
 for we can employ the symbol y to represent either “ All Y’s,” 
 or “ All not- Y’s,” since the interpretation of the symbol is purely 
 conventional. If we employ y in the sense of “ All not- Y’s,” 
 then 1 -y will represent “All Y’s,” and no other change will 
 be introduced. An equal freedom is permitted with respect 
 to the symbols x and z , so that the equations (1) and (2) may, 
 by properly assigning the interpretations of x, y, and z, be made 
 to repi'esent all varieties in the combination of premises depen- 
 dent upon the quality of the respective terms. Again, by as- 
 suming proper interpretations to the symbols v, v 1 , w, w', in those 
 equations, all varieties with reference to quantity may also be 
 
CHAP. XV.] 
 
 ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC. 
 
 233 
 
 represented. Thus, if we take v= 1, and represent by v a class 
 indefinite, the equation (1) will represent a universal proposition 
 according to the ordinary sense of that term, i. e., a proposition 
 with universal subject and particular predicate. We may, in 
 fact, give to subject and predicate in either premiss whatever 
 quantities (using this term in the scholastic sense) we please, ex- 
 cept that by hypothesis, they must not both be universal. The 
 system (1), (2), represents, therefore, with perfect generality, 
 the possible combinations of premises which have like middle 
 terms. 
 
 7- That our analysis may be as general as the equations to 
 which it is applied, let us, by the method of this work, elimi- 
 nate y from (1) and (2), and seek the expressions for x, 1 - x, and 
 vx, in terms of 0 and of the symbols v, v, w, iv'. The above will 
 include all the possible forms of the subject of the conclusion. 
 The form v (1 -x) is excluded, inasmuch as we cannot from the 
 interpretation vx = Some X’s, given in the premises, interpret 
 v (1 - x) as Some not-X’s. The symbol v, when used in the sense 
 of “some,” applies to that term only with which it is connected 
 in the premises. 
 
 The results of the analysis are as follows : 
 x = [yv'ivw 1 + {w/(l -w) (l-t«')+ 2 i;w'(l-'y)(l-r')+(l-r)(l -w))]z 
 
 + || {w/(l-tr')+l-®} (1 -z), (I.) 
 
 1 -x = \y (1 - v) {ww + (1-m>)(1- iv ')) + v (1 - ui) iv 
 + ^ {ot'(1 - iv) (1 — «/) + ww’ (1 - u) (1 -i/) + (l - r) (1 - m >)}]2 
 
 + [u (1 - w) w + ^ \vv' (1 - iv') + 1 - vj] (1 - z), (II.) 
 
 vx = { vvww + vv (1 - w) (1 - tt/)} z + ^ (1 - W~) (1 -Z). (III.) 
 
 Each of these expressions involves in its second member two 
 terms, of one of which z is a factor, of the other 1 - 2 . But 
 syllogistic inference does not, as a matter of form, admit of con- 
 trary classes in its conclusion, as of Z’s and not-X’s together. 
 
234 
 
 ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC. 
 
 [CHAP. XV. 
 
 We must, therefore, in order to determine the rules of that 
 species of inference, ascertain under what conditions the second 
 members of any of our equations are reducible to a single term. 
 
 The simplest form is (III.), and it is reducible to a single 
 term if w = 1 . The equation then becomes 
 
 vx = vv'wz , (3) 
 
 the first member is identical with the extreme in the first pre- 
 miss; the second is of the same quantity and quality as the extreme 
 in the second premiss. For since w' = 1, the second member of 
 (2), involving the middle term y, is universal ; therefore, by the 
 hypothesis, the first member is particular, and therefore, the se- 
 cond member of (3), involving the same symbol w in its coeffi- 
 cient, is particular also. Hence we deduce the following law. 
 
 Condition of Inference. — One middle term, at least, uni- 
 versal. 
 
 Rule of Inference. — Equate the extremes. 
 
 From an analysis of the equations (I.) and (II.), it will further 
 appear, that the above is the only condition of syllogistic in- 
 ference when the middle terms are of like quality. Thus the 
 second member of (I.) reduces to a single term, if w = 1 and 
 v = 1 ; and the second member of (II.) reduces to a single term, 
 if w = 1 , v = 1 , w = 1 . In each of these cases, it is necessary that 
 w' = 1 , the solely sufficient condition before assigned. 
 
 Consider, secondly, the case in which the middle terms are 
 of unlike quality. The premises may then be represented un- 
 der the forms 
 
 vx = v'y, (4) 
 
 wz - w ( 1 - y) ; (5) 
 
 and if, as before, we eliminate y, and determine the expressions 
 of x, 1 - x, and vx, we get 
 
 x = [wu'(l - w) w' + H [ww'( 1 -v) + (1 -v) (1 - v) (1 - w) 
 
 + v' (1 - w) (1 - m/))] s 
 
 + [twV+2 {(l-o) (1-0 + F(1- «0)](l-z). (IV.) 
 
CHAP. XV.] ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC. 235 
 
 1 - x = \wiov + V (1 - v') (1 - w) + ^ [ww (1 - V ) 
 
 + (1 - v) (1 - v) (1 - w) + v'(l - w ) (1 - «/) j] z 
 
 + [»(1 - *0 + II w - 0 -«) ( x -”')}] C 1 " 2 )- ( V .) 
 
 vx = {uu'(l -w)w + jj vv (\ - to) (1 - w )} z 
 
 + [vv'w + ^ W(1 - ti/)} (1 - z ). (VI.) 
 
 Now the second member of (VI.) reduces to a single term rela- 
 tively to z y if w = 1, giving 
 
 TO = { w'w' + ^ VV ■(1-w/)} (1-2); 
 
 the second member of which is opposite, both in quantity and 
 quality, to the corresponding extreme, ivz, in the second premiss. 
 For since w = 1, wz is universal. But the factor vv' indicates 
 that the term to which it is attached is particular, since by hypo- 
 thesis v and v are not both equal to 1 . Hence we deduce the 
 following law of inference in the case of like middle terms : 
 
 First Condition of Inference. — At least one universal 
 extreme. 
 
 Rule of Inference. — Change the quantity and quality of 
 that extreme, and equate the result to the other extreme. 
 
 Moreover, the second member of (V.) reduces to a single term 
 if v' *= 1, w' = 1 ; it then gives 
 
 1 - x = [vw + ^ (1 - v) to} z. 
 
 Now since v =1, w' =\, the middle terms of the premises are 
 both universal, therefore the extremes vx, wz, are particular. 
 But in the conclusion the extreme involving x is opposite, both 
 in quantity and quality, to the extreme vx in the first premiss, 
 while the extreme involving 2 agrees both in quantity and qua- 
 lity with the corresponding extreme wz in the second premiss. 
 Hence the following general law : 
 
236 ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC. [CHAP. XV. 
 
 Second Condition of Inference. — Two universal middle 
 terms. 
 
 Rule of Inference. — Change the quantity and quality of 
 either extreme , and equate the result to the other extreme un- 
 changed. 
 
 There are in the case of unlike middle terms no other condi- 
 tions or rules of syllogistic inference than the above. Thus the 
 equation (IV.), though reducible to the form of a syllogistic con- 
 clusion, when w = 1 and v = 1 , does not thereby establish a new 
 condition of inference ; since, by what has preceded, the single 
 condition v = 1 , or iv = 1 , would suffice. 
 
 8. The following examples will sufficiently illustrate the ge- 
 neral rules of syllogism above given : 
 
 1 . All Y s are X’s. 
 
 All Z’s are Y’s. 
 
 This belongs to Case 1 . All Y’s is the universal middle term. 
 The extremes equated give as the conclusion 
 All Z’s are X’s ; 
 
 the universal term, All Z’s, becoming the subject; the particular 
 term (some) X’s, the predicate. 
 
 2. All X’s are Y’s. 
 
 No Z’s are Y s. 
 
 The proper expression of these premises is 
 All X’s are Y s. 
 
 All Z’s are not- Y’s. 
 
 They belong to Case 2, and satisfy the first condition of inference. 
 The middle term, Y’s, in the first premiss, is particular-affirma- 
 tive ; that in the second premiss, not- Y’ s, particular-negative. 
 If we take All Z’s as the universal extreme, and change its 
 quantity and quality according to the rule, we obtain the term 
 Some not-Z’s, and this equated with the other extreme, All X’s, 
 gives, 
 
 All X’s are not-Z’s, i. e., No X’s are Z’s. 
 
 If we commence with the other universal extreme, and proceed 
 similarly, we obtain the equivalent result, 
 
 No Z’s are X’s. 
 
CHAP. XV.] 
 
 ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC. 
 
 ' 237 
 
 3. All Fs are X’s. 
 
 All not- Y’s are Z’s. 
 
 Here also the middle terms are unlike in quality. The premises 
 therefore belong to Case 2, and there being two universal middle 
 terms, the second condition of inference is satisfied. If by the 
 rule we change the quantity and quality of the first extreme, 
 (some) X’s, we obtain All not- X’s, which, equated with the 
 other extreme, gives 
 
 All not- X’s are Z’s. 
 
 The reverse order of procedure would give the equivalent result, 
 All not-Z’s are X’s. 
 
 The conclusions of the two last examples would not be recog- 
 nised as valid in the scholastic system of Logic, which virtually 
 requires that the subject of a proposition should be affirmative. 
 They are, however, perfectly legitimate in themselves, and the 
 rules by which they are determined form undoubtedly the most 
 general canons of syllogistic inference. The process of investi- 
 gation by which they are deduced will probably appear to be of 
 needless complexity ; and it is certain that they might have been 
 obtained with greater facility, and without the aid of any sym- 
 bolical instrument whatever. It was, however, my object to 
 conduct the investigation in the most general manner, and by an 
 anal) sis thoroughly exhaustive. With this end in view, the 
 brevity or prolixity of the method employed is a matter of indif- 
 ferer ze. Indeed the analysis is not properly that of the syllogism, 
 but i f a much more general combination of propositions ; for we 
 are permitted to assign to the symbols v, v', w, io', any class-in- 
 terpretations that we please. To illustrate this remark, I will 
 apply the solution (I.) to the following imaginary case : 
 
 Suppose that a number of pieces of cloth striped with diffe- 
 rent colours were submitted to inspection, and that the two fol- 
 lowing observations were made upon them : 
 
 1st. That every piece striped with white and green was also 
 striped with black and yellow, and vice versa. 
 
 2nd. That every piece striped with red and orange was also 
 striped with blue and yelloAV, and vice versa. 
 
238 
 
 ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC. 
 
 [CHAP. XV. 
 
 Suppose it then required to determine how the pieces marked 
 with green stood affected with reference to the colours white, 
 black, red, orange, and blue. 
 
 Here if we assume v = white, x = green, v = black, y - yellow, 
 w = red, 2 = orange, w' = blue, the expression of our premises will 
 be 
 
 vx = vy, 
 wz= w'y. 
 
 agreeing with the system (1) (2). The equation (I.) then leads 
 to the following conclusion : 
 
 Pieces striped with green are either striped with orange, 
 white, black, red, and blue, together, all pieces possessing which 
 character are included in those striped with green ; or they are 
 striped with orange, white, and black, but not with red or blue ; 
 or they are striped with orange, red, and blue, but not with white 
 or black ; or they are striped with orange, but not with white or 
 red ; or they are striped with white and black, but not with blue 
 or orange ; or they are striped neither with white nor orange. 
 
 Considering the nature of this conclusion, neither the sym- 
 bolical expression (I.) by which it is conveyed, nor the analysis 
 by which that expression is deduced, can be considered as need- 
 lessly complex. 
 
 9. The form in which the doctrine of syllogism has been 
 presented in this chapter affords ground for an important obser- 
 vation. We have seen that in each of its two great divisions the 
 entire discussion is reducible, so far, at least, as concerns the de- 
 termination of rules and methods, to the analysis of a pair of 
 equations, viz., of the system (1), (2), when the premises have 
 like middle terms, and of the system (4), (5), when the middle 
 terms are unlike. Moreover, that analysis has been actually 
 conducted by a method founded upon certain general laws de- 
 duced immediately from the constitution of language, Chap, n., 
 confirmed by the study of the operations of the human mind, 
 Chap, hi., and proved to be applicable to the analysis of all sys- 
 tems of equations whatever, by which propositions, or combina- 
 tions of propositions, can be represented, Chap. vni. Here, then, 
 we have the means of definitely resolving the question, whether 
 syllogism is indeed the fundamental type of reasoning, — whether 
 
ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC. 
 
 239 
 
 CHAP. XV.] 
 
 the study of its laws is co-extensive with the study of deductive 
 logic. For if it be so, some indication of the fact must be given 
 in the systems of equations upon the analysis of which we have 
 been engaged. It cannot be conceived that syllogism should be 
 the one essential process of reasoning, and yet the manifestation 
 of that process present nothing indicative of this high quality of 
 pre-eminence. No sign, however, appears that the discussion of 
 all systems of equations expressing propositions is involved in 
 that of the particular system examined in this chapter. And yet 
 writers on Logic have been all but unanimous in their assertion, 
 not merely of the supremacy, but of the universal sufficiency of 
 syllogistic inference in deductive reasoning. The language of 
 Archbishop Whately, always clear and definite, and on the sub- 
 ject of Logic entitled to peculiar attention, is very express on 
 this point. “ For Logic,” he says, “ which is, as it were, the 
 Grammar of Reasoning, does not bring forward the regular Syl- 
 logism as a distinct mode of argumentation, designed to be substi- 
 tuted for any other mode ; but as the form to which all correct 
 reasoning may be ultimately reduced.”* And Mr. Mill, in a 
 chapter of his System of Logic, entitled, “ Of Ratiocination or 
 Syllogism,” having enumerated the ordinary forms of syllogism, 
 observes, “ All valid ratiocination, all reasoning by which from 
 general propositions previously admitted, other propositions, 
 equally or less general, are inferred, may be exhibited in some of 
 the above forms.” And again: “ We are therefore at liberty, 
 in conformity with the general opinion of logicians, to consider 
 the two elementary forms of the first figure as the universal types 
 of all correct ratiocination.” In accordance with these views it 
 has been contended that the science of Logic enjoys an immunity 
 from those conditions of imperfection and of progress to which 
 all other sciences are subject;! and its origin from the travail of 
 one mighty mind of old has, by a somewhat daring metaphor, 
 been compared to the mythological birth of Pallas. 
 
 As Syllogism is a species of elimination, the question before 
 us manifestly resolves itself into the two following ones: — 1st. 
 Whether all elimination is reducible to Syllogism ; 2ndly. Whe- 
 
 • Elements of Logic, p. 13, ninth edition, 
 f Introduction to Kant’s “Logik.” 
 
240 ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC. [CHAP. XV. 
 
 tlier deductive reasoning can with propriety be regarded as con- 
 sisting only of elimination. I believe, upon careful examination, 
 the true answer to the former question to be, that it is always 
 theoretically possible so to resolve and combine propositions that 
 elimination may subsequently be effected by the syllogistic ca- 
 nons, but that the process of reduction would in many instances 
 be constrained and unnatural, and would involve operations 
 which are not syllogistic. To the second question I reply, that 
 reasoning cannot, except by an arbitrary restriction of its mean- 
 ing, be confined to the process of elimination. No definition can 
 suffice which makes it less than the aggregate of the methods 
 which are founded upon the laws of thought, as exercised upon 
 propositions ; and among those methods, the process of elimina- 
 tion, eminently important as it is, occupies only a place. 
 
 Much of the error, as I cannot but regard it, which prevails 
 respecting the nature of the Syllogism and the extent of its 
 office, seems to be founded in a disposition to regard all those 
 truths in Logic as primary which possess the character of sim- 
 plicity and intuitive certainty, without inquiring into the relation 
 which they sustain to other truths in the Science, or to general 
 methods in the Art, of Reasoning. Aristotle’s dictum de omni et 
 nullo is a self-evident principle, but it is not found among those 
 ultimate laws of the reasoning faculty to which all other laws, 
 however plain and self-evident, admit of being traced, and from 
 which they may in strictest order of scientific evolution be de- 
 duced. For though of every science the fundamental truths are 
 usually the most simple of apprehension, yet is not that sim- 
 plicity the criterion by which their title to be regarded as funda- 
 mental must be judged. This must be sought for in the nature 
 and extent of the structure Avhich they are capable of supporting. 
 Taking this view, Leibnitz appears to me to have judged cor- 
 rectly when he assigned to the “ principle of contradiction” a 
 fundamental place in Logic;* for we have seen the consequences 
 of that law of thought of which it is the axiomatic expression 
 (III. 15). But enough has been said upon the nature of deduc- 
 tive inference and upon its constitutive elements. The subject of 
 
 * Nouveaux Essais sur l’entendement humain. Liv. IV. cap. 2. Theodicec 
 Pt. I. sec. 44. 
 
ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC. 
 
 241 
 
 CHAP. XV.] 
 
 induction may probably receive some attention in another part of 
 this work. 
 
 10. It has been remarked in this chapter that the ordinary 
 treatment of hypothetical, is much more defective than that of 
 categorical, propositions. What is commonly termed the hypo- 
 thetical syllogism appears, indeed, to be no syllogism at all. 
 Let the argument — 
 
 If ^4. is J5, C is D, 
 
 But A is B, 
 
 Therefore C is D, 
 
 be put in the form — 
 
 If the proposition X is true, Y is true, 
 
 But X is true, 
 
 Therefore Y is true ; 
 
 wherein by X is meant the proposition A is B, and by Y, the 
 proposition C is D. It is then seen that the premises contain 
 only two terms or elements, while a syllogism essentially involves 
 three. The following would be a genuine hypothetical syllogism : 
 
 If A 7- is true, Y is true ; 
 
 If Y is true, Z is true ; 
 
 .•. If A r is true, Z is true. 
 
 After the discussion of secondary propositions in a former 
 part of this work, it is evident that the forms of hypothetical 
 syllogism must present, in every respect, an exact counterpart to 
 those of categorical syllogism. Particular Propositions, such as, 
 “ Sometimes if X is true, Y is true,” may be introduced, and the 
 conditions and rules of inference deduced in this chapter for ca- 
 tegorical syllogisms may, without abatement, be interpreted to 
 meet the corresponding cases in hypothetical. 
 
 1 1. To what final conclusions are we then led respecting the 
 nature and extent of the scholastic logic? I think to the following : 
 that it is not a science, but a collection of scientific truths, too 
 incomplete to form a system of themselves, and not sufficiently 
 fundamental to serve as the foundation upon which a perfect 
 system may rest. It does not, however, follow, that because the 
 logic of the schools has been invested with attributes to which it 
 
242 
 
 ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC. 
 
 [CHAI\ XV. 
 
 has no just claim, it is therefore undeserving of regard. Asys- 
 tcm which has been associated with the very growth of language, 
 which has left its stamp upon the greatest questions and the 
 most famous demonstrations of philosophy, cannot be altogether 
 unworthy of attention. Memory, too, and usage, it must be ad- 
 mitted, have much to do with the intellectual processes ; and 
 there are certain of the canons of the ancient logic which have 
 become almost inwoven in the very texture of thought in cultured 
 minds. But whether the mnemonic forms, in which the particu- 
 lar rules of conversion and syllogism have been exhibited, possess 
 any real utility, — whether the very skill which they are supposed 
 to impart might not, with greater advantage to the mental 
 powers, be acquired by the unassisted efforts of a mind left to its 
 own resources, — are questions which it might still be not un- 
 profitable to examine. As concerns the particular results de- 
 duced in this chapter, it is to be observed, that they are solely 
 designed to aid the inquiry concerning the nature of the ordinary 
 or scholastic logic, and its relation to a more perfect theory of 
 deductive reasoning. 
 
CHAP. XVI.] 
 
 OF THE THEORY OF PROBABILITIES. 
 
 243 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 ON THE THEORY OF PROBABILITIES. 
 
 1. "DEFORE the expiration of another year just two centuries 
 will have rolled away since Pascal solved the first known 
 question in the theory of Probabilities, and laid, in its solution, 
 the foundations of a science possessing no common share of the 
 attraction which belongs to the more abstract of mathematical 
 speculations. The problem which the Chevalier de Mere, a re- 
 puted gamester, proposed to the recluse of Port Royal (not yet 
 withdrawn from the interests of science* by the more distracting 
 contemplation of the “ greatness and the misery of man”), was 
 the first of a long series of problems, destined to call into exis- 
 tence new methods in mathematical analysis, and to render va- 
 luable service in the practical concerns of life. Nor does the in- 
 terest of the subject centre merely in its mathematical connexion, 
 or its associations of utility. The attention is repaid which is 
 devoted to the theory of Probabilities as an independent object 
 of speculation, — to the fundamental modes in which it has been 
 conceived, — to the great secondary principles which, as in the 
 contemporaneous science of Mechanics, have gradually been an- 
 nexed to it, — and, lastly, to the estimate of the measure of per- 
 fection which has been actually attained. I speak here of that 
 perfection which consists in unity of conception and harmony of 
 processes. Some of these points it is designed very briefly to 
 consider in the present chapter. 
 
 2. A distinguished Avriterf has thus stated the fundamental 
 definitions of the science : 
 
 • See in particular a letter addressed by Pascal to Fermat, who had solicited 
 his attention to a mathematical problem (Port Royal, par M. de Sainte Beuve) ; 
 also various passages in the collection of Fragments published by M. Prosper 
 Faugere. 
 
 f Poisson, Recherches sur la Probability des Jugemens. 
 
244 
 
 OF THE THEORY OF PROBABILITIES. [CHAP. XVI. 
 
 “ The probability of an event is the reason we have to believe 
 that it has taken place, or that it will take place.” 
 
 “ The measure of the probability of an event is the ratio of 
 the number of cases favourable to that event, to the total num- 
 ber of cases favourable or contrary, and all equally possible” 
 (equally likely to happen). 
 
 From these definitions it follows that the word probability, in 
 its mathematical acceptation, has reference to the state of our 
 knowledge of the circumstances under which an event may hap- 
 pen or fail. With the degree of information which we possess 
 concerning the circumstances of an event, the reason we have to 
 think that it will occur, or, to use a single term, our expectation of 
 it, will vary. Probability is expectation founded upon partial 
 knowledge. A perfect acquaintance with all the circumstances 
 affecting the occurrence of an event would change expectation 
 into certainty, and leave neither room nor demand for a theory 
 of probabilities. 
 
 3. Though' our expectation of an event grows stronger with 
 the increase of the ratio of the number of the known cases fa- 
 vourable to its occurrence to the whole number of equally pos- 
 sible cases, favourable or unfavourable, it would be unphilosophical 
 to affirm that the strength of that expectation, viewed as an 
 emotion of the mind, is capable of being referred to any numerical 
 standard. The man of sanguine temperament builds high hopes 
 where the timid despair, and the irresolute are lost in doubt. 
 As subjects of scientific inquiry, there is some analogy between 
 opinion and sensation. The thermometer and the carefully pre- 
 pared photographic plate indicate, not. the intensity of the sen- 
 sations of heat and light, but certain physical circumstances 
 which accompany the production of those sensations. So also 
 the theory of probabilities contemplates the numerical measure 
 of the circumstances upon which expectation is founded ; and this 
 object embraces the whole range of its legitimate applications. 
 The rules which we employ in life-assurance, and in the other 
 statistical applications of the theory of probabilities, are altogether 
 independent of the mental phenomena of expectation. They are 
 founded upon the assumption that the future will bear a resem- 
 
245 
 
 CHAP. XVI.] OF THE THEORY OF PROBABILITIES. 
 
 blance to the past ; that under the same circumstances the same 
 event will tend to recur with a definite numerical frequency ; not 
 upon any attempt to submit to calculation the strength of human 
 hopes and fears. 
 
 Now experience actually testifies that events of a given species 
 do, under given circumstances, tend to recur with definite fre- 
 quency, whether their true causes be known to us or unknown. 
 Of course this tendency is, in general, only manifested when the 
 area of observation is sufficiently large. The judicial records of 
 a great nation, its registries of births and deaths, in relation to 
 age and sex, &c., present a remarkable uniformity from year to 
 year. In a given language, or family of languages, the same 
 sounds, and successions of sounds, and, if it be a written lan- 
 guage, the same characters and successions of characters recur 
 with determinate frequency. The key to the rude Ogham in- 
 scriptions, found in various parts of Ireland, and in which no 
 distinction of words could at first be traced, was, by a strict ap- 
 plication of this principle, recovered.* The same method, it is 
 understood, has been appliedf to the deciphering of the cuneiform 
 records recently disentombed from the ruins of Nineveh by the 
 enterprise of Mr. Layard. 
 
 4. Let us endeavour from the above statements and defini- 
 tions to form a conception of the legitimate object of the theory 
 of Probabilities. 
 
 Probability, it has been said, consists in the expectation 
 founded upon a particular kind of knowledge, viz., the know- 
 ledge of the relative frequency of occurrence of events. Hence 
 the probabilities of events, or of combinations of events, whether 
 deduced from a knowledge of the particular constitution of 
 things under which they happen, or derived from the long-con- 
 tinued observation of a past series of their occurrences and fai- 
 lures, constitute, in all cases, our data. The probability of some 
 
 * The discovery is due to the Rev. Charles Graves, Professor of Mathematics 
 
 in the University of Dublin Vide Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 
 
 Feb. 14, 1848. Professor Graves informs me that he has verified the principle 
 by constructing sequence tables for all the European languages, 
 t By the learned Orientalist, Dr. Edward llincks. 
 
246 
 
 OF THE THEORY OF PROBABILITIES. [CHAP. XVI. 
 
 connected event, or combination of events, constitutes the cor- 
 responding qucesitum, or object sought. Now in the most gene- 
 ral, yet strict meaning of the term “ event,” every combination 
 of events constitutes also an event. The simultaneous occur- 
 rence of two or more events, or the occurrence of an event under 
 given conditions, or in any conceivable connexion with other 
 events, is still an event. Using the term in this liberty of appli- 
 cation, the object of the theory of probabilities might be thus 
 defined. Given the probabilities of any events, of whatever 
 kind, to find the probability of some other event connected with 
 them. 
 
 5. Events may be distinguished as simple or compound, the 
 latter term being applied to such events as consist in a combina- 
 tion of simple events (I. 13). In this manner we might define it 
 as the practical end of the theory under consideration to deter- 
 mine the probability of some event, simple or compound, from 
 the given probabilities of other events, simple or compound, 
 with which, by the terms of its definition, it stands connected. 
 
 Thus if it is known from the constitution of a die that there 
 
 is a probability, measured by the fraction g, that the result of 
 
 any particular throw will be an ace, and if it is required to deter- 
 mine the probability that there shall occur one ace, and only one, 
 in two successive throws, we may state the problem in the order 
 of its data and its qucesitum, as follows : 
 
 First Datum. — Probability of the event that the first throw 
 will give an ace = -. 
 
 Second Datum. — Probability of the event that the second 
 throw will give an ace = g. 
 
 Qutesitum. — Probability of the event that either the first 
 throw will give an ace, and the second not an ace ; or the first 
 will not give an ace, and the second will give one. 
 
 Here the two data are the probabilities of simple events de- 
 fined as the first throw giving an ace, and the second throw 
 giving an ace. The qusesitum is the probability of a compound 
 event, — a certain disjunctive combination of the simple events 
 
CHAP. XVI.] OF THE THEORY OF PROBABILITIES. 
 
 247 
 
 involved or implied in the data. Probably it will generally hap- 
 pen, when the numerical conditions of a problem are capable of 
 being deduced, as above, from the constitution of things under 
 which they exist, that the data will be the probabilities of simple 
 events, and the qusesitum the probability of a compound event 
 dependent upon the said simple events. Such is the case with a 
 class of problems which has occupied perhaps an undue share of 
 the attention of those who have studied the theory of probabilities, 
 viz., games of chance and skill, in the former of which some 
 physical circumstance, as the constitution of a die, determines 
 the probability of each possible step of the game, its issue being 
 some definite combination of those steps ; Avhile in the latter, the 
 relative dexterity of the players, supposed to be known a priori , 
 equally determines the same element. But where, as in statisti- 
 cal problems, the elements of our knowledge are drawn, not from 
 the study of the constitution of things, but from the registered 
 observations of Nature or of human society, there is no reason 
 why the data which such observations afford should be the pro- 
 babilities of simple events. On the contrary, the occurrence of 
 events or conditions in marked combinations (indicative of some 
 secret connexion of a causal character") suggests to us the pro- 
 priety of making such concurrences, profitable for future instruc- 
 tion by a numerical record of their frequency. Now the data 
 which observations of this kind afford are the probabilities of 
 compound events. The solution, by some general method, of 
 problems in which such data are involved, is thus not only essen- 
 tial to the perfect development of the theory of probabilities, but 
 also a perhaps necessary condition of its application to a large 
 and practically important class of inquiries. 
 
 6. Before we proceed to estimate to what extent known me- 
 thods may be applied to the solution of problems such as the 
 above, it will be advantageous to notice, that there is another 
 form under which all questions in the theory of probabilities may 
 be viewed ; and this form consists in substituting for events the 
 propositions which assert that those events have occurred, or 
 will occur ; and viewing the element of numerical probability as 
 having reference to the truth of those propositions, not to the oc- 
 
248 
 
 OF THE THEORY OF PROBABILITIES. [CHAP. XVI. 
 
 currence of the events concerning which they make assertion. 
 Thus, instead of considering the numerical fraction p as ex- 
 pressing the probability of the occurrence of an event E, let it 
 be viewed as representing the probability of the truth of the 
 proposition X, which asserts that the event E will occur. Si- 
 milarly, instead of any probability, q, being considered as re- 
 ferring to some compound event, such as the concurrence of the 
 events E and F, let it represent the probability of the truth of 
 the pi’oposition which asserts that E and F will jointly occur; 
 and in like manner, let the transformation be made from disjunc- 
 tive and hypothetical combinations of events to disjunctive and 
 conditional propositions. Though the new application thus as- 
 signed to probability is a necessary concomitant of the old one, 
 its adoption will be attended with a practical advantage drawn 
 from the circumstance that we have already discussed the theory 
 of propositions, have defined their principal varieties, and estab- 
 lished methods for determining, in every case, the amount and 
 character of their mutual dependence. Upon this, or upon some 
 equivalent basis, any general theory of probabilities must rest. 
 I do not say that other considerations may not in certain cases of 
 applied theory be requisite. The data may prove insufficient for 
 definite solution, and this defect it may be thought necessary to 
 supply by hypothesis. Or, where the statement of large num- 
 bers is involved, difficulties may arise after the solution, from this 
 source, for which special methods of treatment are required. 
 But in eve.y instance, some form of the general problem as above 
 stated (Art. 4) is involved, and in the discussion of that problem 
 the proper and peculiar work of the theory consists. I desire it 
 to be observed, that to this object the investigations of the fol- 
 lowing chapters are mainly devoted. It is not intended to enter, 
 except incidentally, upon questions involving supplementary hy- 
 potheses, because it is of primary importance, even with reference 
 to such questions (I. 17), that a general method, founded upon 
 a solid and sufficient basis of theory, be first established. 
 
 7. The following is a summary, chiefly taken from Laplace, of 
 the principles which have been applied to the solution of questions 
 of probability. They are consequences of its fundamental defini- 
 
249 
 
 CHAP. XVI.] OF THE THEORY OF PROBABILITIES. 
 
 tions already stated, and may be regarded as indicating the degree 
 in which it has been found possible to render those definitions 
 available. 
 
 Principle 1st. If p be the probability of the occurrence of 
 any event, 1 - p will be the probability of its non-occurrence. 
 
 2nd. The probability of the concurrence of two independent 
 events is the product of the probabilities of those events. 
 
 3rd. The probability of the concurrence of two dependent 
 events is equal to the product of the probability of one of them 
 by the probability that if that event occur, the other will happen 
 also. 
 
 4th. The probability that if an event, E, take place, an event, 
 F, will also take place, is equal to the probability of the concur- 
 rence of the events E and F, divided by the probability of the 
 occurrence of E. 
 
 5th. The probability of the occurrence of one or the other of 
 two events which cannot concur is equal to the sum of their se- 
 parate probabilities. 
 
 6th. If an observed event can only result from some one of n 
 different causes which are a priori equally probable, the proba- 
 bility of any one of the causes is a fraction whose numerator is the 
 probability of the event, on the hypothesis of the existence of that 
 cause; and whose denominator is the sum of the similar proba- 
 bilities relative to all the causes. 
 
 7th. The probability of a future event is the sum of the pro- 
 ducts formed by multiplying the probability of each cause by 
 the probability that if that cause exist, the said future event 
 will take place. 
 
 8. Respecting the extent and the relative sufficiency of these 
 principles, the following observations may be made. 
 
 1st. It is always possible, by the due combination of these 
 principles, to express the probability of a compound event, de- 
 pendent in any manner upon independent simple events whose 
 distinct probabilities are given. A very large proportion of the 
 problems which have been actually solved are of this kind, and 
 the difficulty attending their solution has not arisen from the in- 
 sufficiency of the indications furnished by the theory of proba- 
 bilities, but from the need of an analysis which should render 
 
250 
 
 OF THE THEORY OF PROBABILITIES. [CHAP. XVI. 
 
 those indications available when functions of large numbers, or 
 series consisting of many and complicated terms, are thereby in- 
 troduced. It may, therefore, be fully conceded, that all pro- 
 blems having for their data the probabilities of independent 
 simple events fall within the scope of received methods. 
 
 2ndly. Certain of the principles above enumerated, and espe- 
 cially the sixth and seventh, do not presuppose that all the data 
 are the probabilities of simple events. In their peculiar applica- 
 tion to questions of causation, they do, however, assume, that the 
 causes of which they take account are mutually exclusive, so 
 that no combination of them in the production of an etfect is 
 possible. If, as before explained, we transfer the numerical pro- 
 babilities from the events with which they are connected to the 
 propositions by which those events are expressed, the most ge- 
 neral problem to which the aforesaid principles are applicable 
 may be stated in the following order of data and qucesita. 
 
 DATA. 
 
 1st. The probabilities of the n conditional propositions : 
 
 If the cause A i exist, the event E will follow ; 
 
 >> A-i ,, E ,, 
 
 A n 
 
 E 
 
 2nd. The condition that the antecedents of those propositions 
 are mutually conflicting. 
 
 REQUIREMENTS. 
 
 The probability of the truth of the proposition which declares 
 the occurrence of the event E; also, when that proposition is 
 known to be true, the probabilities of truth of the several pro- 
 positions which affirm the respective occurrences of the causes 
 Aj , A 2 . • A n . 
 
 Here it is seen, that the data are the probabilities of a series 
 of compound events, expressed by conditional propositions. But 
 the system is obviously a very limited and particular one. For 
 the antecedents of the propositions are subject to the condition of 
 being mutually exclusive, and there is but one consequent, the 
 event E, in the whole system. It does not follow, from our 
 
251 
 
 CHAP. XVI.] OF THE THEORY OF PROBABILITIES. 
 
 ability to discuss such a system as the above, that we are able to 
 resolve problems whose data are the probabilities of any system 
 of conditional propositions; far less that we can resolve problems 
 whose data are the probabilities of any system of propositions 
 whatever. And, viewing the subject in its material rather 
 than its formal aspect, it is evident, that the hypothesis of exclu- 
 sive causation is one which is not often realized in the actual 
 world, the phenomena of which seem to be, usually, the products 
 of complex causes, the amount and character of whose co-opera- 
 tion is unknown. Such is, without doubt, the case in nearly all 
 departments of natural or social inquiry in which the doctrine of 
 probabilities holds out any new promise of useful applications. 
 
 9. To the above principles we may add another, which has 
 been stated in the following terms by the Savilian Professor of 
 Astronomy in the University of Oxford.* 
 
 “ Principle 8. If there be any number of mutually exclusive 
 hypotheses, h lt h 2 , h 3 , . . of which the probabilities relative to a 
 particular state of information are p lt p 2 , p 3 , . . and if new infor- 
 mation be given which changes the probabilities of some of them, 
 suppose of h m+ 1 and all that follow, without having otherwise 
 any reference to the rest ; then the probabilities of these latter 
 have the same ratios to one another, after the new information, 
 that they had before, that is, 
 
 p\ : p\ : p\ . . . : p' m = Pi : p » : p» • . : Pm, 
 
 where the accented letters denote the values after the new infor- 
 mation has been acquired.” 
 
 This principle is apparently of a more fundamental character 
 than the most of those before enumerated, and perhaps it might, as 
 has been suggested by Professor Donkin, be regarded as axio- 
 matic. It seems indeed to be founded in the very definition of 
 the measure of probability, as “ the ratio of the number of cases 
 favourable to an event to the total number of cases favourable or 
 contrary, and all equally possible.” For, adopting this definition, 
 it is evident that in whatever proportion the number of equally 
 
 * On certain Questions relating to the Theory of Probabilities; by W. F. 
 Donkin, M. A., F. R. S., &c. Philosophical Magazine, May, 1851. 
 
252 
 
 OF THE THEORY OF PROBABILITIES. [CHAP. XVI. 
 
 possible cases is diminished, while the'number of favourable cases 
 remains unaltered, in exactly the same proportion will the pro- 
 babilities of any events to which these cases have refei*ence be 
 increased. And as the new hypothesis, viz., the diminution of 
 the number of possible cases without affecting the number of 
 them which are favourable to the events in question, increases 
 the probabilities of those events in a constant ratio, the relative 
 measures of those probabilities remain unaltered. If the principle 
 we are considering be then, as it appears to be, inseparably in- 
 volved in the very definition of probability, it can scarcely, of 
 itself, conduct us further than the attentive study of the defini- 
 tion would alone do, in the solution of problems. From these 
 considerations it appears to be doubtful whether, without some 
 aid of a different kind from any that has yet offered itself to our 
 notice, any considerable advance, either in the theory of proba- 
 bilities as a branch of speculative knowledge, or in the practical 
 solution of its problems can be hoped for. And the establish- 
 ment, solely upon the basis of any such collection of principles as 
 the above, of a method universally applicable to the solution of 
 problems, without regard either to the number or to the nature 
 of the propositions involved in the expression of their data, 
 seems to be impossible. For the attainment of such an object 
 other elements are needed, the consideration of which will occupy 
 the next chapter. 
 
CHAP. XVII.] GENERAL METHOD IN PROBABILITIES. 
 
 253 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 DEMONSTRATION OF A GENERAL METHOD FOR THE SOLUTION OF 
 PROBLEMS IN THE THEORY OF PROBABILITIES. 
 
 1. XT has been defined (XVI. 2), that “the measure of the 
 probability of an event is the ratio of the number of cases 
 favourable to that event, to the total number of cases favourable 
 or unfavourable, and all equally possible.” In the following in- 
 vestigations the term probability will be used in the above sense 
 of “ measure of probability.” 
 
 From the above definition we may deduce the following con- 
 clusions. 
 
 I. When it is certain that an event will occur, the probability 
 of that event, in the above mathematical sense, is 1. For the 
 cases which are favourable to the event, and the cases which are 
 possible, are in this instance the same. 
 
 Hence, also, ifjo be the probability that an event x will happen, 
 1 - p will be the probability that the said event will not happen. 
 To deduce this result directly from the definition, let m be the 
 number of cases favourable to the event x, n the number of cases 
 possible, then n-m is the number of cases unfavourable to the 
 event x. Hence, by definition, 
 
 771 
 
 — = probability that x will happen. 
 n — in 
 
 = probability that x will not happen. 
 
 But n-m m 
 
 II. The probability of the concurrence of any two events is 
 the product of the probability of either of those events by the 
 probability that if that event occur, the other will occur also. 
 
 Let m be the number of cases favourable to the happening 
 of the first event, and n the number of equally possible cases un- 
 favourable to it ; then the probability of the first event is, by defini- 
 
254 
 
 GENERAL METHOD IN PROBABILITIES. [CHAP. XVII. 
 
 tion, — — — . Of the m cases favourable to the first event, let l 
 m + n 
 
 cases be favourable to the conjunction of the first and second 
 events, then, by definition, — is the probability that if the first 
 
 event happen, the second also will happen. Multiplying these 
 fractions together, we have 
 
 mil 
 m + u m m + n 
 
 But the resulting fraction — - — has for its numerator the num- 
 
 m + n 
 
 ber of cases favourable to the conjunction of events, and for its 
 denominator, the number m + n of possible cases. Therefore, 
 it represents the probability of the joint occurrence of the two 
 events. 
 
 Hence, if p be the probability of any event x, and q the pro- 
 bability that if x occur y will occur, the probability of the con- 
 junction xy will be pq. 
 
 III. The probability that if an event x occur, the event y will 
 occur, is a fraction whose numerator is the probability of their 
 joint occurrence, and denominator the probability of the occur- 
 rence of the event x. 
 
 This is an immediate consequence of Principle 2nd. 
 
 IV. The probability of the occurrence of some one of a series 
 of exclusive events is equal to the sum of their separate proba- 
 bilities. 
 
 For let n be the number of possible cases ; m l the number of 
 those cases favourable to the first event ; m 2 the number of cases 
 favourable to the second, &c. Then the separate probabilities of 
 
 the events are — , — , &c. Again, as the events are exclusive, 
 n n 
 
 none of the cases favourable to one of them is favourable to 
 another; and, therefore, the number of cases favourable to some 
 one of the. seiies will be m, + m 2 . . , and the probability of some 
 
 ffl yyi 0 . . 
 
 one of the series happening will be — — . But this is the 
 
 sum of the previous fractions, — , &c. Whence the prin- 
 
 ciple is manifest. 
 
CHAP. XVII.] GENERAL METHOD IN PROBABILITIES. 255 
 
 2. Definition. — Two events are said to be independent 
 when the probability of the happening of either of them is 
 unaffected by our expectation of the occurrence or failure of 
 the other. 
 
 From this definition, combined with Principle II., we have 
 the following conclusion : 
 
 V. The probability of the concurrence of two independent 
 events is equal to the product of the separate probabilities of 
 those events. 
 
 For if p be the probability of an event x, q that of an event y 
 regarded as quite independent of x, then is q also the probability 
 that if x occur y will occur. Hence, by Principle II., pq is the 
 probability of the concurrence of x and y. 
 
 Under the same circumstances, the probability that x will 
 occur and y not occur will be p (1 - q). For p is the probability 
 that x will occur, and 1 - q the probability that y will not occur. 
 In like manner ( 1 - p) (1 - q) will be the probability that both 
 the events fail of occurring. 
 
 3. There exists yet another principle, different in kind from 
 the above, but necessary to the subsequent investigations of this 
 chapter, before proceeding to the explicit statement of which I 
 desire to make one or two preliminary observations. 
 
 I would, in the first place, remark that the distinction be- 
 tween simple and compound events is not one founded in the 
 nature of events themselves, but upon the mode or connexion in 
 which they are presented to the mind. How many separate par- 
 ticulars, for instance, are implied in the terms “ To be in health,” 
 “ To prosper,” &c., each of which might still be regarded as 
 expressing a “ simple event” ? The prescriptive usages of lan- 
 guage, which have assigned to particular combinations of events 
 single and definite appellations, and have left unnumbered other 
 combinations to be expressed by corresponding combinations of 
 distinct terms or phrases, is essentially arbitrary. When, then, 
 we designate as simple events those which are expressed by a 
 single verb, or by what grammarians term a simple sentence, we 
 do not thereby imply any real simplicity in the events them- 
 selves, but use the term solely with reference to grammatical 
 expression. 
 
256 GENERAL METHOD IN PROBABILITIES. [CHAP. XVII. 
 
 4. Now if this distinction of events, as simple or compound, is 
 not founded in their real nature, but rests upon the accidents of 
 language, it cannot affect the question of their mutual depend- 
 ence or independence. If my knowledge of two simple events is 
 confined to this particular fact, viz., that the probability of the 
 occurrence of one of them is p, and that of the other q ; then I re- 
 gard the events as independent, and thereupon affirm that the 
 probability of their joint occurrence is pq. But the ground of 
 this affirmation is not that the events are simple ones, but that 
 the data afford no information whatever concerning any connexion 
 or dependence between them. When the probabilities of events 
 are given, but all information respecting their dependence with- 
 held, the mind regards them as independent. And this mode of 
 thought is equally correct whether the events, judged according 
 to actual expression, are simple or compound, i. e., whether each 
 of them is expressed by a single verb or by a combination of 
 verbs. 
 
 5. Let it, however, be supposed that, together with the pro- 
 babilities of certain events, we possess some definite information 
 respecting their possible combinations. For example, let it be 
 known that certain combinations are excluded from happening, 
 and therefore that the remaining combinations alone are possible. 
 Then still is the same general principle applicable. The mode 
 in which we avail ourselves of this information in the calculation 
 of the probability of any conceivable issue of events depends not 
 upon the nature of the events whose probabilities and whose 
 limits of possible connexion are given. It matters not whether 
 they are simple or compound. It is indifferent from what source, 
 or by what methods, the knowledge of their probabilities and of 
 their connecting relations has been derived. We must regard 
 the events as independent of any connexion beside that of which 
 we have information, deeming it of no consequence whether such in- 
 formation has been explicitly conveyed to us in the data, or thence 
 deduced by logical inference. And this leads us to the statement 
 of the general principle in question, viz. : 
 
 VI. The events whose probabilities are given are to be re- 
 garded as independent of any connexion but such as is either 
 expressed, or necessarily implied, in the data ; and the mode in 
 
CHAP. XVII.] GENERAL METHOD IN PROBABILITIES. 257 
 
 which our knowledge of that connexion is to be employed is in- 
 dependent of the nature of the source from which such know- 
 ledge has been derived. 
 
 The practical importance of the above principle consists 
 in the circumstance, that whatever may be the nature of the 
 events whose probabilities are given, — whatever the nature of 
 the event whose probability is sought, we are always able, by an 
 application of the Calculus of Logic, to determine the expression 
 of the latter event as a definite combination of the former events, 
 and definitely to assign the whole of the implied relations con- 
 necting the former events with each other. In other words, we 
 can determine what that combination of the given events is whose 
 probability is required, and what combinations of them are alone 
 possible. It follows then from the above principle, that we can 
 reason upon those events as if they were simple events, whose 
 conditions of possible combination had been directly given by 
 experience, and of which the probability of some definite combi- 
 nation is sought. The possibility of a general method in proba- 
 bilities depends upon this reduction. 
 
 6. As the investigations upon which we are about to enter 
 are based upon the employment of the Calculus of Logic, it is 
 necessary to explain certain terms and modes of expression which 
 are derived from this application. 
 
 By the event x, I mean that event of which the proposition 
 which affirms the occurrence is symbolically expressed by the 
 equation 
 
 x - 1. 
 
 By the event <p (x, y, z, . .), I mean that event of which the 
 occurrence is expressed by the equation 
 
 0(r, y, z,..) = 1. 
 
 Such an event may be termed a compound event, in relation to 
 the simple events x, y, z, which its conception involves. Thus, 
 if x represent the event “ It rains,” y the event “ It thunders,” 
 the separate occurrences of those events being expressed by the 
 logical equations 
 
 x = 1, y = 1, 
 
 then will x (1 - y) + y (1 - x) represent the event or state of 
 
258 GENERAL METHOD IN PROBABILITIES. [CHAP. XVII. 
 
 things denoted by the Proposition, “ It either rains or thunders, 
 but not both the expression of that state of things being 
 
 *(i -y) + y(i-») = i. 
 
 If for brevity we represent the function <p (x, y, z, . .), used in 
 the above acceptation by V, it is evident (VI. 13) that the law 
 of duality 
 
 F(1-F) = 0, 
 
 will be identically satisfied. 
 
 The simple events x, y , z will be said to be “ conditioned” 
 Avhen they are not free to occur in every possible combination ; 
 in other words, when some compound event depending upon 
 them is precluded from occurring. Thus the events denoted by 
 the propositions, “ It rains,” “ It thunders,” are “ conditioned” 
 if the event denoted by the proposition, “ It thunders, but does 
 not rain,” is excluded from happening, so that the range of pos- 
 sible is less than the range of conceivable combination. Simple 
 unconditioned events are by definition independent. 
 
 Any compound event is similarly said to be conditioned if it 
 is assumed that it can only occur under a certain condition, that 
 is, in combination with some other event constituting, by its pre- 
 sence, that condition. 
 
 7. We shall proceed in the natural order of thought, from 
 simple and unconditioned, to compound and conditioned events. 
 
 Proposition I. 
 
 1st. If p, q, r are the respective probabilities of any uncon- 
 ditioned simple events x, y, z , the probability of any compound 
 event V will be [F], this function [F] being formed by changing, 
 in the function V, the symbols x, y, z into p, q, r, 8fC. 
 
 2ndly. Under the same circumstances, the probability that if 
 the event V occur , any other event V will also occur , will be 
 
 , wherein [ VV r j denotes the result obtained by multiplying 
 
 together the logical functions V and V', and changing in the result 
 x, y, z, &fc. into p, q, r, Sfc. 
 
 Let us confine our attention in the first place to the pos- 
 
 [FF] 
 
 m 
 
259 
 
 CHAP. XVII.] GENERAL METHOD IN PROBABILITIES. 
 
 sible combinations of the two simple events, x and y, of which the 
 respective probabilities are p and q. The primary combinations 
 of those events (V. 11), and their corresponding probabilities, are 
 as follows : 
 
 EVENTS. 
 
 PROBABILITIES. 
 
 xy, Concurrence of x and y, 
 
 x ( 1 - y), Occurrence of x without y, 
 
 (1 - x)y, Occurrence of y without x, 
 
 (1 - x) (1 - y), Conjoint failure of x and y, 
 
 pq. 
 
 P0-- ?)• 
 
 0 -p)q- 
 
 (! -p) (1 - q). 
 
 We see that in these cases the probability of the compound event 
 represented by a constituent is the same function of p and q as 
 the logical expression of that event is of x and y ; and it is obvious 
 that this remark applies, whatever may be the number of the 
 simple events whose probabilities are given, and whose joint ex- 
 istence or failure is involved in the compound event of which we 
 seek the probability. 
 
 Consider, in the second place, any disjunctive combination of 
 the above constituents. The compound event, expressed in or- 
 dinary language as the occurrence of “ either the event x without 
 the event y, or the event y without the event x,” is symbolically 
 expressed in the form x { \ - y) + y (\ - x), and its probability, 
 determined by Principles iv. and v., is p (1 - q) + q (1 - p). The 
 latter of these expressions is the same function of p and q as the 
 former is of x and y. And it is obvious that this is also a par- 
 ticular illustration of a general rule. The events which are ex- 
 pressed by any two or more constituents are mutually exclusive. 
 The only possible combination of them is a disjunctive one, ex- 
 pressed in ordinary language by the conjunction or , in the lan- 
 guage of symbolical logic by the sign +. Now the probability of 
 the occurrence of some one out of a set of mutually exclusive 
 events is the sum of their separate probabilities, and is expressed 
 by connecting the expressions for those separate probabilities by 
 the sign +. Thus the law above exemplified is seen to be general. 
 The probability of any unconditioned event V will be found by 
 changing in V the symbols x, y, z, . . into p, q, r, . . 
 
 8. Again, by Principle in., the probability that if the event 
 V occur, the event V' will occur Avith it, is expressed by a frac- 
 
260 
 
 GENERAL METHOD IN PROBABILITIES. [CHAP. XVII. 
 
 tion whose numerator is the probability of the joint occurrence 
 of V and V', and denominator the probability of the occurrence 
 of V. 
 
 Now the expression of that event, or state of things, which is 
 constituted by the joint occurrence of the events V and V', will 
 be formed by multiplying together the expressions V and V' ac- 
 cording to the rules of the Calculus of Logic ; since whatever 
 constituents are found in both V and V will appear in the pro- 
 duct, and no others. Again, by what has just been shown, the 
 probability of the event represented by that product will be de- 
 termined by changing therein x, y, z into p, q, r, . . Hence the 
 numerator sought will be what [FF] by definition represents. 
 And the denominator will be [F], wherefore 
 
 Probability that if F occur, V will occur with it = 
 
 [FF] 
 
 [r] ' 
 
 9. For example, if the probabilities of the simple events 
 x , y, z are p, q, r respectively, and it is required to find the pro- 
 bability that if either x or y occur, then either y or z will occur, 
 we have for the logical expressions of the antecedent and conse- 
 quent — 
 
 1st. Either x or y occurs, x (1 - y) + y (1 - x). 
 
 2nd. Either y or z occurs, y (1 - z) + z (1 - y). 
 
 If now we multiply these two expressions together according to 
 the rules of the Calculus of Logic, we shall have for the expres- 
 sion of the concurrence of antecedent and consequent, 
 
 xz{\-y) + y (\-x) (\ - z ). 
 
 Changing in this result x, y, z into p, q, r, and similarly trans- 
 forming the expression of the antecedent, we find for the proba- 
 bility sought the value 
 
 pr(l-q) + g( 1 -p) (1 - r) 
 
 P( l -?) + <7(1 ~P) 
 
 The special function of the calculus, in a case like the above, is 
 to supply the office of the reason in determining what are the 
 conjunctures involved at once in the consequent and the ante- 
 cedent. But the advantage of this application is almost entirely 
 
261 
 
 CHAP. XVII.] GENERAL METHOD IN PROBABILITIES. 
 
 prospective, and will be made manifest in a subsequent propo- 
 sition. 
 
 Proposition II. 
 
 10. It is known that the probabilities of certain simple events 
 x, y, z, . . are p, q,r, . . respectively when a certain condition V is 
 satisfied ; V being in expression a function of x, y, z, . . Required 
 the absolute probabilities of the events x, y, z, . . , that is, the 
 probabilities of their respective occurrence independently of the con- 
 dition V. 
 
 Let p, q', r, &c., be the probabilities required, i. e. the pro- 
 babilities of the events x, y, z, . . , regarded not only as simple, 
 but as independent events. Then by Prop. i. the probabilities 
 that these events will occur when the condition F, represented 
 by the logical equation V= 1 , is satisfied, are 
 
 M [yF] [zF] 
 
 [F]’ [F]» "[F]**®” 
 
 in which [x F] denotes the result obtained by multiplying F by 
 x, according to the rules of the Calculus of Logic, and changing 
 in the result x, y, z, into p, q, r, &c. But the above condi- 
 tioned probabilities are by hypothesis equal to p, q, r, . . re- 
 spectively. Hence we have, 
 
 MI 
 
 =p, 
 
 Ml 
 
 = ?» 
 
 MI 
 
 m 
 
 = r, &c., 
 
 from which system of equations equal in number to the quanti- 
 ties p', q, r, . . , the values of those quantities may be deter- 
 mined. 
 
 Now sF consists simply of those constituents in F of which 
 a; is a factor. Let this sum be represented by V x , and in like 
 manner let y V be represented by V y , &c. Our equations then 
 assume the form 
 
 mm ra_, &c . m 
 
 [F] [F] ~ ^ 5 vO 
 
 where [ FJ denotes the results obtained by changing in V x the 
 symbols x, y, z, &c., into p', q', r,' &c. 
 
 To render the meaning of the general problem and the prin- 
 
262 
 
 GENERAL METHOD IN PROBABILITIES. [CHAP. XVII. 
 
 ciple of its solution more evident, let us take the following ex- 
 ample. Suppose that in the drawing of balls from an urn 
 attention had only been paid to those cases in which the balls 
 drawn were either of a particular colour, “white,” or of a par- 
 ticular composition, “ marble,” or were marked by both these 
 characters, no record having been kept of those cases in which a 
 ball that was neither white nor of marble had been drawn. Let 
 it then have been found, that whenever the supposed condition 
 was satisfied, there was a probability p that a white ball would be 
 drawn, and a probability q that a marble ball would be drawn : and 
 from these data alone let it be required to find the probability 
 that in the next drawing, without reference at all to the condi- 
 tion above mentioned, a white ball will be drawn ; also the pro- 
 bability that a marble ball will be drawn. 
 
 Here if x represent the drawing of a white ball, y that of a 
 marble ball, the condition V will be represented by the logical 
 function 
 
 xy + ®(1 - y) + (1 - x) y. 
 
 Hence we have 
 
 V x = xy + x (1 - y) = x, V y = xy + (1 - x) y = y ; 
 whence 
 
 m=p, [py- g; 
 
 and the final equations of the problem are 
 
 P = = . 
 
 p'q' + p'(i-q') + q'(i-p) p ’ p'q+p'O- -q) + q' 0- -p r ) q ’ 
 
 from which we find 
 
 = p+q ~ 1 , = p+q-\ 
 
 p q ’ q P 
 
 It is seen that p and q are respectively proportional to p and 
 q, as by Professor Donkin’s principle they ought to be. The 
 solution of this class of problems might indeed, by a direct appli- 
 cation of that principle, be obtained. 
 
 To meet a possible objection, I here remark, that the above 
 reasoning does not require that the drawings of a white and a 
 marble ball should be independent, in virtue of the physical con- 
 stitution of the balls. The assumption of their independence is 
 indeed involved in the solution, but it does not rest upon any 
 
CHAP. XVII.] GENERAL METHOD IN PROBABILITIES. 263 
 
 prior assumption as to the nature of the balls, and their relations, 
 or freedom from relations, of form, colour, structure, &c. It is 
 founded upon our total ignorance of all these things. Probabi- 
 lity always has reference to the state of our actual knowledge, 
 and its numerical value varies with varying information. 
 
 Proposition III. 
 
 11. To determine in any question of probabilities the logical 
 connexion of the quossitum with the data; that is, to assign the event 
 whose probability is sought, as a logical function of the event whose 
 probabilities are given. 
 
 Let S, T, &c., represent any compound events whose pro- 
 babilities are given, S and T being in expression known func- 
 tions of the symbols x, y, z, &c., representing simple events. 
 Similarly let W represent any event whose probability is sought, 
 W being also a known function of x, y, z, &c. As S, T, . . W 
 must satisfy the fundamental law of duality, we are permitted 
 to replace them by single logical symbols, s, t, . . w. Assume 
 then 
 
 s = S, t - T, w = W. 
 
 These, by the definition of S, T, . . W, will be a series of 
 logical equations connecting the symbols s, t, . . w, with the sym- 
 bols x, y,z . . 
 
 By the methods of the Calculus of Logic we can eliminate 
 from the above system any of the symbols x, y, z, . . , repre- 
 senting events whose probabilities are not given, and determine 
 ic as a developed function of s, t, &c., and of such of the symbols 
 x, y, z, &c., if any such there be, as correspond to events whose 
 probabilities are given. The result will be of the form 
 
 w = A + 0B + °-C + ^D, 
 
 where A, B, C, and D comprise among them all the possible 
 constituents which can be formed from the symbols s, t, &c., i. e. 
 from all the symbols representing events whose probabilities are 
 given. 
 
 The above will evidently be the complete expression of the 
 relation sought. For it fully determines the event W, repre- 
 
264 GENERAL METHOD IN PROBABILITIES. [CHAP. XVII. 
 
 seated by the single symbol w, as a function or combination of 
 the events similarly denoted by the symbols s, t, &c., and it as- 
 signs by the laws of the Calculus of Logic the condition 
 
 Z> = 0, 
 
 as connecting the events s, t, &c., among themselves. We may, 
 therefore, by Principle vi., regard s, t, &c., as simple events, of 
 which the combination iv, and the condition with which it is as- 
 sociated D, are definitely determined. 
 
 Uniformity in the logical processes of reduction being de- 
 sirable, I shall here state the order which will generally be pur- 
 sued. 
 
 12. By (VIII. 8), the primitive equations are reducible to 
 the forms 
 
 5 (1 - S) + S (1 — s) = 0 ; 
 
 f(i-T)+T(l-f) = 0; (l) 
 
 w(l- W) + W(l - rv) = 0 ; 
 
 under which they can be added together without impairing then’ 
 significance. We can then eliminate the symbols x, y, z, either 
 separately or together. If the latter course is chosen, it is ne- 
 cessary, after adding together the equations of the system, to 
 develop the result with reference to all the symbols to be elimi- 
 nated, and equate to 0 the product of all the coefficients of the 
 constituents (VII. 9). 
 
 As w is the symbol whose expression is sought, we may also, 
 by Prop. hi. Chap, ix., express the result of elimination in the 
 form 
 
 Eio + E'{\ - w) = 0. 
 
 E and E being successively determined by making in the 
 general system (1), w = 1 and w- 0, and eliminating the symbols 
 x, y, z, . . Thus the single equations from which E and E are 
 to be respectively determined become 
 
 s(l-/S) + £(l- s ) + *(l-T) + ..+ 1-W=0; 
 
 s(\~S) + S(\ -s) + f(l- T) 4 T(l-t) + W= 0. 
 
 From these it only remains to eliminate x, y, z, &c., and to de- 
 termine w by subsequent development. 
 
CHAP. XVII.] GENERAL METHOD IN PROBABILITIES. 
 
 265 
 
 In the process of elimination we may, if needful, avail our- 
 selves of the simplifications of Props, i. and 11 . Chap. ix. 
 
 13. Should the data, beside informing us of the probabilities 
 of events, further assign among them any explicit connexion, such 
 connexion must be logically expressed, and the equation or equa- 
 tions thus formed be introduced into the general system. 
 
 Proposition IV. 
 
 14. Given the probabilities of any system of events ; to deter- 
 mine by a general method the consequent or derived probability of 
 any other event. 
 
 As in the last Proposition, let S, T, &c., be the events whose 
 probabilities are given, W the event whose probability is sought, 
 these being known functions of x, y, z, &c. Let us represent the 
 data as follows : 
 
 Probability of & = p ; 
 
 Probability of T = q ; ^ ^ 
 
 and so on, p, q, &c., being known numerical values. If then 
 we represent the compound event S by s, T by t, and W by w, 
 we find by the last proposition, 
 
 w = A + b B + Q -C +^D-, ( 2 ) 
 
 A , B, C, and D being functions of s, t, &c. Moreover the data 
 (1) are transformed into 
 
 Prob. s =p, Prob. t = q, &c. (3) 
 
 Now the equation (2) is resolvable into the system 
 
 w = A + qC 
 D = 0, 
 
 } 
 
 ( 4 ) 
 
 q being an indefinite class symbol (VI. 12). But since by the 
 properties of constituents (V. Prop, hi.), we have 
 
 A + B+ C+ D = l, 
 
 the second equation of the above system may be expressed in the 
 form 
 
 A + B + C= 1. 
 
266 GENERAL METHOD IN PROBABILITIES. [CHAP. XVII. 
 
 If we represent the function A + B + C by F, the system (4) 
 becomes 
 
 w = A + qC; (5) 
 
 V ~ !• («) 
 
 Let us for a moment consider this result. Since F is the sum 
 of a series of constituents of s, t, &c., it represents the compound 
 event in which the simple events involved are those denoted by 
 s , t, &c. Hence (6) shows that the events denoted by s, t, &c., 
 .and whose probabilities are p, q, &c., have such probabilities not 
 as independent events , but as events subject to a certain condition 
 F. Equation (5) expresses wasa similarly conditioned combi- 
 nation of the same events. 
 
 Now by Principle vi. the mode in which this knowledge of the 
 connexion of events has been obtained does not influence the mode 
 in which, when obtained, it is to be employed. We must reason 
 upon it as if experience had presented to us the events s, t, &c., 
 as simple events, free to enter into every combination, but pos- 
 sessing, when actually subject to the condition V, the probabili- 
 ties p, q, &c., respectively. 
 
 Let then p', q', . . , be the corresponding probabilities of such 
 events, when the restriction V is removed. Then by Prop. ii. 
 of the present chapter, these quantities will be determined by the 
 system of equations, 
 
 _ p - (7 &c • (7) 
 
 [F] -P’ £J7] ~ <KC - 5 \‘J 
 
 and by Prop. i. the probability of the event w under the same 
 condition V will be 
 
 Prob. w = 
 
 wherein V s denotes the sum of those constituents in V of which s 
 is a factor, and [ FJ what that sum becomes when s, t, . . , are 
 changed into p', q\ . . , respectively. The constant c represents 
 the probability of the indefinite event q; it is, therefore, arbitrary, 
 and admits of any value from 0 to 1 . 
 
 Now it will be observed, that the values of/)', q', &c., are de- 
 termined from (7 ) only in order that they may be substituted in 
 (8), so as to render Prob. tv a function of known quantities, p, q, 
 
CHAP. XVII.] GENERAL JETHOB IN PROBABILITIES. 
 
 267 
 
 &c. It is obvious, therefore, that instead of the letters pi, q, &c., 
 we might employ any others as s, t, &c., in the same quantitative 
 acceptations. This particular step would simply involve a change 
 of meaning of the symbols s, t, &c. — their ceasing to be logical, 
 and becoming quantitative. The systems (7) and (8) would then 
 become 
 
 F, V t 
 
 y~P’ y ~ V 
 
 Prob. w = 
 
 &c. 
 A + cC 
 
 ( 9 ) 
 
 ( 10 ) 
 
 In employing these, it is only necessary to determine from (9) 
 s, t, &c., regarded as quantitative symbols, in terms of p, q, &c., 
 and substitute the resulting values in (10). It is evident, that 
 s, t, &c., inasmuch as they represent probabilities, will be positive 
 proper fractions. 
 
 The system (9) may be more symmetrically expressed in the 
 form 
 
 V V, 
 
 — = — F. (11) 
 
 p q 
 
 Or we may express both (9) and (10) together in the symme- 
 trical system 
 
 = = t i± 2 C = F; (12) 
 
 p q u v ' 
 
 wherein u represents Prob. iv. 
 
 15. It remains to interpret the constant c assumed to repre- 
 sent the probability of the indefinite event q. Now the logical 
 equation 
 
 w = A + qC, 
 
 interpreted in the reverse order, implies that if either the event 
 A take place, or the event C in connexion with the event q, the 
 event w will take place, and not otherwise. Hence q represents 
 that condition under which, if the event C take place, the event 
 w will take place. But the probability of q is c. Hence, there- 
 fore, c = probability that if the event C take place the event w 
 will take place. 
 
 Wherefore by Principle ii., 
 
 Probability of concurrence of C and w 
 
 c = 
 
 Probability of C 
 
268 
 
 GENERAL METHOD IN PROBABILITIES. [CHAP. XVII. 
 
 We may hence determine the nature of that new experience 
 from which the actual value of c may be obtained. For if we 
 substitute in C for s, t, &c., their original expressions as func- 
 tions of the simple events x, y, z, &c., we shall form the ex- 
 pression of that event whose probability constitutes the denomi- 
 nator of the above value of c ; and if we multiply that expression 
 by the original expression of w, we shall form the expression of 
 that event whose probability constitutes the numerator of c, and 
 the ratio of the frequency of this event to that of the former one, de- 
 termined by new observations, will give the value of c. Let it be 
 remarked here, that the constant c does not necessarily make its 
 appearance in the solution of a problem. It is only when the 
 data are insufficient to render determinate the probability sought, 
 that this arbitrary element presents itself, and in this case it is 
 seen that the final logical equation (2) or (5) informs us how it 
 is to be determined. 
 
 If that new experience by which c may be determined can- 
 not be obtained, we can still, by assigning to c its limiting values 
 0 and 1, determine the limits of the probability of w. These 
 are 
 
 A 
 
 Minor limit of Prob. w = 
 
 Superior limit 
 
 A + C 
 
 Between these limits, it is certain that the probability sought 
 must lie independently of all new experience which does not ab- 
 solutely contradict the past. 
 
 If the expression of the event C consists of many constituents, 
 the logical value of w being of the form 
 
 w = A + — C\ + — Ci + &c., 
 
 we can, instead of employing their aggregate as above, present 
 the final solution in the form 
 
 T . , A 4* C\C/\ 4* CiC<i + &c. 
 
 Prob. w = 
 
 V 
 
CHAP. XVII.] GENERAL METHOD IN PROBABILITIES. 269 
 
 Here c x = probability that if the event C x occur, the event w will 
 occur, and so on for the others. Convenience must decide which 
 form is to be preferred. 
 
 16. The above is the complete theoretical solution of the 
 problem proposed. It may be added, that it is applicable equally 
 to the case in which any of the events mentioned in its original 
 statement are conditioned. Thus, if one of the data is the proba- 
 bility p, that if the event x occur the event y will occur ; the 
 probability of the occurrence of x not being given, we must as- 
 sume Prob. x = c (an arbitrary constant), then Prob. xy = cp, and 
 these two conditions must be introduced into the data, and em- 
 ployed according to the previous method. Again, if it is sought 
 to determine the probability that if an event x occur an event y 
 will occur, the solution will assume the form 
 
 Prob. sought = — , 
 
 6 Prob. x ’ 
 
 the numerator and denominator of which must be separately de- 
 termined by the previous general method. 
 
 17. We are enabled by the results of these investigations to 
 establish a general rule for the solution of questions in probabi- 
 lities. 
 
 General Rule. 
 
 Case I. — When all the events are unconditioned. 
 
 Form the symbolical expressions of the events whose proba- 
 bilities are given or sought. 
 
 Equate such of those expressions as relate to compound events 
 to a new series of symbols, s, t, &c., which symbols regard as re- 
 presenting the events, no longer as compound but simple, to 
 whose expressions they have been equated. 
 
 Eliminate from the equations thus formed all the logical sym- 
 bols, except those which express events, s, t, &c., whose respective 
 probabilities p, q, &c. are given, or the event w whose probability 
 is sought, and determine w as a developed function of s, t, &c. 
 in the form 
 
 w = A + OH + - C + ^ D. 
 
270 GENERAL METHOD IN PROBABILITIES. [CHAP. XVII. 
 
 Let A + B+ C = V, and let V s represent the aggregate of 
 those constituents in V which contain s as a factor, V t of those 
 which contain t as a factor, and thus for all the symbols whose 
 probabilities are given. 
 
 Then, passing from Logic to Algebra, form the equations 
 
 Prob. to = 
 
 A + cC 
 ~V~’ 
 
 ( 1 ) 
 
 ( 2 ) 
 
 from (1) determine s, t, &c. as functions of p, q, &c., and sub- 
 stitute their values in (2). The result will express the solution 
 required. 
 
 Or form the symmetrical system of equations 
 
 V s _V t _A + cC_ V 
 p q “ U 1’ W 
 
 where u represents the probability sought. 
 
 If c appear in the solution, its interpretation will be 
 
 Prob. Cw 
 Prob . c ’ 
 
 and this interpretation indicates the nature of the experience 
 which is necessary for its discovery. 
 
 Case II. — When some of the events are conditioned. 
 
 If there be given the probability p that if the event X occur, 
 the event Y will occur, and if the probability of the antecedent 
 X be not given, resolve the proposition into the two following, 
 viz. : 
 
 Probability of X = c, 
 
 Probability of AT = cp. 
 
 If the quacsitum be the probability that if the event W occur, 
 the event Z will occur, determine separately, by the previous 
 case, the terms of the fraction 
 
 Prob. WZ 
 Prob. W ’ 
 
 and the fraction itself will express the probability sought. 
 
CHAP. XVII.] GENERAL METHOD IN PROBABILITIES. 271 
 
 It is understood in this case that X, Y, W, Z may be any 
 compound events whatsoever. The expressions XY and WZ 
 represent the products of the symbolical expressions of X and Y 
 and of W and Z, formed according to the rules of the Calculus of 
 Logic. 
 
 The determination of the single constant c may in certain 
 cases be resolved into, or replaced by, the determination of a series 
 of arbitrary constants c lt c 2 . . according to convenience, as pre- 
 viously explained. 
 
 18. It has been stated (I. 12) that there exist two distinct de- 
 finitions, or modes of conception, upon which the theory of pro- 
 babilities may be made to depend, one of them being connected 
 more immediately with Number, the other more directly with 
 Logic. W e have now considered the consequences which flow 
 from the numerical definition, and have shown how it conducts 
 us to a point in which the necessity of a connexion with Logic 
 obviously suggests itself. We have seen to some extent what 
 is the nature of that connexion ; and further, in what manner the 
 peculiar processes of Logic, and the more familiar ones of quanti- 
 tative Algebra, are involved in the same general method of solu- 
 tion, each of these so accomplishing its own object that the two 
 processes may be regarded as supplementary to each other. It 
 remains to institute the reverse order of investigation, and, setting 
 out from a definition of probability in which the logical relation 
 is more immediately involved, to show how the numerical defini- 
 tion would thence arise, and how the same general method, 
 equally dependent upon both elements, would finally, but by a 
 different order of procedure, be established. 
 
 That between the symbolical expressions of the logical cal- 
 culus and those of Algebra there exists a close analogy, is a fact 
 to which attention has frequently been directed iii the course of 
 the present treatise. It might even be said that they possess a 
 community of forms, and, to a very considerable degree, a com- 
 munity of laws. With a single exception in the latter respect, 
 their difference is only one of interpretation. Thus the same 
 expression admits of a logical or of a quantitative interpretation, 
 according to the particular meaning which we attach to the sym- 
 
272 GENERAL METHOD IN PROBABILITIES. [CHAP. XVII. 
 
 bols it involves. The expression xy represents, under the former 
 condition, a concurrence of the events denoted by x and y ; under 
 the latter, the product of the numbers or quantities denoted by x 
 and y. And thus every expression denoting an event, simple or 
 compound, admits, under another system of interpretation, of a 
 meaning purely quantitative. Here then arises the question, 
 whether there exists any principle of transition, in accordance 
 with which the logical and the numerical interpretations of the 
 same symbolical expression shall have an intelligible connexion. 
 And to this question the following considerations afford an 
 answer. 
 
 19. Let it be granted that there exists such a feeling as ex- 
 pectation, a feeling of which the object is the occurrence of events, 
 and which admits of differing degrees of intensity. Let it also 
 be granted that this feeling of expectation accompanies our 
 knowledge of the circumstances under which events are produced, 
 and that it varies with the degree and kind of that knowledge. 
 Then, without assuming, or tacitly implying, that the intensity 
 of the feeling of expectation, viewed as a mental emotion, admits 
 of precise numerical measurement, it is perfectly legitimate to 
 inquire into the possibility of a mode of numerical estimation 
 which shall, at least, satisfy these following conditions, viz., that 
 the numerical value which it assigns shall increase when the 
 known circumstances of an event are felt to justify a stronger 
 expectation, shall diminish when they demand a weaker expec- 
 tation, and shall remain constant when they obviously require an 
 equal degree of expectation. 
 
 Now these conditions at least will be satisfied, if we assume 
 the fundamental principle of expectation to be this, viz., that the 
 laws for the expression of expectation, viewed as a numerical 
 element, shall be the same as the laws for the expression of the 
 expected event viewed as a logical element. Thus if <p (x, y, z) re- 
 present any unconditional event compounded in any manner of 
 the events x, y, 2, let the same expression <p (x, y, 2), according 
 to the above principle, denote the expectation of that event; 
 x, y, 2 representing no longer the simple events involved, but 
 the expectations of those events. 
 
CHAP. XVII.] GENERAL METHOD IN PROBABILITIES. 273 
 
 For, in the first place, it is evident that, under this hypothesis, 
 the probability of the occurrence of some one of a set of mutually 
 exclusive events will be equal to the sum of the separate proba- 
 bilities of those events. Thus if the alternation in question con- 
 sist of n mutually exclusive events whose expressions are 
 
 0i(*» */> z), tf>2 0, y,z), 0„ (x, y, z), 
 
 the expression of that alternation will be 
 
 01 (*, y , Z) + 02 (x, y,z) . . + 0 n (x, y, z) = 1 ; 
 
 the literal symbols x, y, z being logical, and relating to the sim- 
 ple events of which the three alternatives are compounded : 
 and, by hypothesis, the expression of the probability that some 
 one of those alternatives will occur is 
 
 0i (*, V, z ) + 02 (®, y,z).. + $n 0, y, z) t 
 
 x, y , z here denoting the probabilities of the above simple events. 
 Now this expression increases, cceteris paribus , with the increase 
 of the number of the alternatives which are involved, and di- 
 minishes with the diminution of their number ; which is agree- 
 able to the condition stated. 
 
 Furthermore, if we set out from the above hypothetical defi- 
 nition of the measure of probability, we shall be conducted, 
 either by necessary inference or by successive steps of suggestion, 
 which might perhaps be termed necessary , to the received nu- 
 merical definition. We are at once led to recognise unity (1) 
 as the proper numerical measure of certainty. For it is certain 
 that any event x or its contrary 1 - x will occur. The expres- 
 sion of this proposition is 
 
 x + (1 - x} = 1 , 
 
 whence, by hypothesis, x+ (1 - x), the measure of the proba- 
 bility of the above proposition, becomes the measure of certainty. 
 But the value of that expression is 1, whatever the particular 
 value of x may be. Unity, or 1, is therefore, on the hypothesis 
 in question, the measure of certainty. 
 
 Let there, in the next place, be n mutually exclusive, but 
 equally possible events, which we will represent by < 15 t 2 , . . t n . 
 
274 
 
 GENERAL METHOD IN PROBABILITIES. [CHAP. XVII. 
 
 The proposition which affirms that some one of these must occur 
 will be expressed by the equation 
 
 #1 + t 2 . . + t n — 1 } 
 
 and, as when we pass in accordance with the reasoning of the 
 last section to numerical probabilities, the same equation remains 
 true in form, and as the probabilities t x , t 2 . . t„ are equal, we 
 have 
 
 nt x = 1, 
 
 1 11 
 
 whence t x = -, and similarly t 2 ■=-,£„ = -. Suppose it then re- 
 quired to determine the probability that some one event of the 
 partial series t x , t 2 . . t m will occur, we have for the expression 
 required 
 
 t x + t . 2 . . + t m = - + to m terms 
 n n 
 
 m 
 
 n 
 
 Hence, therefore, if there are m cases favourable to the occur- 
 rence of a particular alternation of events out of n possible and 
 equally probable cases, the probability of the occurrence of that 
 
 JYI 
 
 alternation will be expressed by the fraction — . 
 
 Now the occurrence of any event which may happen in diffe- 
 rent equally possible ways is really equivalent to the occurrence 
 of an alternation, i. e., of some one out of a set of alternatives. 
 Hence the probability of the occurrence of any event may be 
 expressed by a fraction whose numerator represents the number 
 of cases favourable to its occurrence, and denominator the total 
 number of equally possible cases. But this is the rigorous nume- 
 rical definition of the measure of probability. That definition is 
 therefore involved in the more peculiarly logical definition, the 
 consequences of which we have endeavoured to trace. 
 
 20. From the above investigations it clearly appears, 1st, 
 that whether we set out from the ordinary numerical definition 
 of the measure of probability, or from the definition which assigns 
 to the numerical measure of probability such a law of value as 
 shall establish a formal identity between the logical expressions 
 
CHAP. XVII.] GENERAL METHOD IN PROBABILITIES. 275 
 
 of events and the algebraic expressions of their values, we shall 
 be led to the same system of practical results. 2ndly, that 
 either of these definitions pursued to its consequences, and con- 
 sidered in connexion with the relations which it inseparably in- 
 volves, conducts us, by inference or suggestion, to the other 
 definition. To a scientific view of the theory of probabilities 
 it is essential that both principles should be viewed together, in 
 their mutual bearing and dependence. 
 
276 
 
 ELEMENTARY ILLUSTRATIONS. [CHAP. XVIII. 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 ELEMENTARY ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE GENERAL METHOD IN PROBA- 
 BILITIES. 
 
 1. TT is designed here to illustrate, by elementary examples, 
 the general method demonstrated in the last chapter. 
 The examples chosen will be chiefly such as, from their sim- 
 plicity, permit a ready verification of the solutions obtained. 
 But some intimations will appear of a higher class of problems, 
 hereafter to be more fully considered, the analysis of which 
 would be incomplete without the aid of a distinct method deter- 
 mining the necessary conditions among their data, in order that 
 they may represent a possible experience, and assigning the cor- 
 responding limits of the final solutions. The fuller consideration 
 of that method, and of its applications, is reserved for the next 
 chapter. 
 
 2. Ex. 1. — The probability that it thunders upon a given 
 day is p, the probability that it both thunders and hails is q, but 
 of the connexion of the two phenomena of thunder and hail, no- 
 thing further is supposed to be known. Required the probability 
 that it hails on the proposed day. 
 
 Let x represent the event — It thunders. 
 
 Let y represent the event — It hails. 
 
 Then xy will represent the event — It thunders and hails ; and 
 the data of the problem are 
 
 Prob. x = p, Prob. xy = q. 
 
 There being here but one compound event xy involved, assume, 
 according to the rule, 
 
 xy = -u. (1) 
 
 Our data then become 
 
 Prob. x = p, Prob. w = q 
 and it is required to find Prob. y. Now (1) gives 
 
 ( 2 ) 
 
CHAP. XVIII.] ELEMENTARY ILLUSTRATIONS. 277 
 
 y = - = w;z + ^w(l-a;) + 0 (1 - w) a; + (1 - w) (1 - #). 
 
 Hence (XVII. 17) we find 
 
 V = ux + (1 - u) x + (1 - u) (1 -x), 
 
 V x = ux + (1 - u) x = x , V u = ux ; 
 and the equations of the General Rule, viz., 
 
 P 9 
 
 Prob . y = 
 
 A + cC 
 
 v~ 
 
 become, on substitution, and observing that A = ux, C= (1 - u) 
 (1 - x), and that V reduces to x + (1 - u) (1 - x), 
 
 x ux . 
 
 _ = _ = z + ( 1 - u ) (1 - x), 
 p q ' ' 
 
 Prob . y 
 
 ux + c ( 1 - u) ( 1 - x) 
 X 4 (1 - u) (1 - x) ’ 
 
 from which we readily deduce, by elimination of x and u, 
 Prob. y - q + c (1 - p). 
 
 (3) 
 
 (4) 
 
 (5) 
 
 In this result c represents the unknown probability that if the 
 event (1 -u) (1 - x) happen, the event y will happen. Now 
 (l-«)(l-a;) = (l - xy) (1 - x) = 1 - x, on actual multiplication. 
 Hence c is the unknown probability that if it do not thunder, it 
 will hail. 
 
 The general solution (5) may therefore be interpreted as fol- 
 lows : — The probability that it hails is equal to the probability 
 that it thunders and hails, q, together with the probability that it 
 does not thunder, 1 -p, multiplied by the probability c, that if it 
 does not thunder it will hail. And common reasoning verifies 
 this result. 
 
 If c cannot be numerically determined, we find, on assigning 
 to it the limiting values 0 and 1, the following limits of Prob. y, 
 viz. : 
 
 Inferior limit = q. 
 
 Superior limit -q+ 1 - p. 
 
278 ELEMENTARY ILLUSTRATIONS. [CHAP. XVIII. 
 
 3. Ex. 2. — The probability that one or both of two events 
 happen is p, that one or both of them fail is q. What is the 
 probability that only one of these happens ? 
 
 Let x and y represent the respective events, then the data 
 are — 
 
 Prob. xy + x (1 -y) + (1 - x) y = p, 
 
 Prob. x(l - y) + (1 -x)y + (1 - x) (1 - y) = q; 
 and we are to find 
 
 Prob. a: (1 - y) + y (l - x). 
 
 Here all the events concerned being compound, assume 
 
 xy + x (1 - y) + (1 -x)y = s, 
 x{\-y) + (1 ~x)y + (1 -x)(l - y ) = t, 
 r(l -,y) + (l - x) y = w. 
 
 Then eliminating x and y, and dete rmin ing w as a developed 
 function of s and t, we find 
 
 w = st + 0 5(1 - 1) + 0 (1 - s)t + ^ (1 - 5 ) (1 - 1). 
 
 Hence A = st, C= 0, V= st + s (1 - t) + (1 - s) t = s + (1 - s)t, 
 V s ^s, V t <=t; and the equations of the General Rule (XVII. 17) 
 become 
 
 (1) 
 
 pq 
 
 Prob. w = ; 
 
 s + (1 - s)t 
 
 whence we find, on eliminating s and t, 
 
 Prob. w = p + q - 1 . 
 
 Hence p + q - 1 is the measure of the probability sought. This 
 result may be verified as follows : — Since p is the probability that 
 one or both of the given events occur, 1 - p will be the proba- 
 bility that they both fail ; and since q is the probability that one 
 or both fail, 1 - q is the probability that they both happen. 
 Hence 1 - p + 1 - q, or 2 -p - q, is the probability that they 
 either both happen or both fail. But the only remaining alter- 
 native which is possible is that one alone of the events happens. 
 Hence the probability of this occurrence is 1 - (2 - p - q), or 
 p + q - 1, as above. 
 
ELEMENTARY ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 279 
 
 CHAP. XVIII.] 
 
 4. Ex. 3. — The probability that a witness A speaks the truth 
 is p, the probability that another witness B speaks the truth is q, 
 and the probability that they disagree in a statement is r. What 
 is the probability that if they agree, their statement is true ? 
 
 Let x represent the hypothesis that A speaks truth ; y that 
 B speaks truth ; then the hypothesis that A and B disagree in 
 their statement will be represented byar(l - y) + y(\~x)\ the 
 hypothesis that they agree in statement by xy + (1 - x) (1 - y), 
 and the hypothesis that they agree in the truth by xy. Hence 
 we have the following data : 
 
 Prob. x = p, Prob -y = q, Prob. x (1 - y) + y (1 - x) = r, 
 from which we are to determine 
 
 Prob .xy 
 
 Prob. xy + (1 - x) (1 - y)' 
 
 But as Prob. x (1 - y) + y (1 - x) = r, it is evident that Prob. 
 xy + (1 - x) (1 - y) will be 1 - r ; we have therefore to seek 
 
 Prob . xy 
 1 - r 
 
 Now the compound events concerned being in expression, 
 x (1 - y) + y (1 - x) and xy, let us assume 
 
 x(l -y) + y(l-x) = s 1 
 
 xy = w J ' 
 
 Our data then are Prob. x = p, Prob. y = q, Prob. s = r, and we 
 are to find Prob. w. 
 
 The system (1) gives, on reduction, 
 
 \x{\-y)+y{\-x)) (l-*) + j{ay+(l-a;) ( 1 - 2 /)} 
 
 + xy (1 - w) + w (1 - xy) = 0 ; 
 
 whence 
 
 ftp -y)(! -s) +y(l-a) O -j) + «cy + j(l - a;) (1 -y) + xy 
 
 2 xy - 1 
 
 = \ X V S + xy(\-s) +(h;(l - y) s + ^ x (1 - y) (1 - s) 
 
 1 1 
 
 + 0(l-*)y»+-(l-®)(l— y)* + -(l-a) y(l-s) 
 
 + 0(1-*) (l-y)(l -s). 
 
 ( 2 ) 
 
280 
 
 ELEMENTARY ILLUSTRATIONS. [CHAP. XVIII. 
 
 In the expression of this development, the coefficient - has been 
 made to replace every equivalent form (X. 6). Here we have 
 V = xy (1 - s) + x (1 - y) s + (1- x) ys + (1 - x) (1 - y) (1 - s') ; 
 whence, passing from Logic to Algebra, 
 xy (1 - s) + a;(l - y) s _ xy (1 - s) + (1 -x)ys 
 ~P ” ' 9 
 
 a? (1 - y) s + (1 - x) ys 
 r 
 
 = xy{\ -s) +«(1 -y) s + (1 - x)ys + (1 - a) (1 - y) (1 - s). 
 
 Prob . w 
 
 ay (1 - s ) 
 
 -y)«+(l-a) ys + (l-ar)(l-y)(l-«)* 
 
 from which we readily deduce 
 
 td u p + q - r 
 Prob. w = - — ; 
 
 Li 
 
 whence we have 
 
 Prob. xy p + q - r 
 1-r = 2 ( 1 - r) ( ' 
 
 for the value sought. 
 
 If in the same way we seek the probability that if A and B 
 agree in their statement, that statement will be false, we must 
 replace the second equation of the system (1) by the following, 
 viz. : 
 
 (1 - x) (1 - y) = w ; 
 the final logical equation will then be 
 
 1 1 
 
 w = - xys + Oxy (1 - s) + Ox (1 - y) s + ^x(l-y) (1-s) 
 
 + 0 (1 - x) ys + ^ (1 -x)y (1 - s) + i (1 - x) (1 - y)s 
 
 + (1 -*) (i -y) C 1 - s )’ ( 4 ) 
 
 whence, proceeding as before, we finally deduce 
 
 Prob , w AzJL-<LlL. (5) 
 
 A 
 
 Wherefore we have 
 
CHAP. XVIII.] ELEMENTARY ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 Prob. (1 - x) (1 - y) 2 - p - q - r 
 1 - r 2 (1 - r) 
 
 for the value here sought. 
 
 These results are mutually consistent. For since it is certain 
 that the joint statement of A and B must be either true or false, 
 the second members of (3) and (5) ought by addition to make 1. 
 Now we have identically, 
 
 p + q - r 2 - p - q - r 
 2(1 - r) + 2(1 -T) ' 
 
 It is probable, from the simplicity of the results (5) and (6), 
 that they might easily be deduced by the application of known 
 principles ; but it is to be remarked that they do not fall directly 
 within the scope of known methods. The number of the data 
 exceeds that of the simple events which they involve. M. Cour- 
 not, in his very able work, “ Exposition de la Theorie des 
 Chances,” has proposed, in such cases as the above, to select 
 from the original premises different sets of data, each set equal in 
 number to the simple events which they involve, to assume that 
 those simple events are independent, determine separately from 
 the respective sets of the data their probabilities, and comparing 
 the different values thus found for the same elements, judge how 
 far the assumption of independence is justified. This method 
 can only approach to correctness when the said simple events 
 prove, according to the above criterion, to be nearly or quite in- 
 dependent ; and in the questions of testimony and of judgment, 
 in which such an hypothesis is adopted, it seems doubtful whether 
 it is justified by actual experience of the ways of men. 
 
 5. Ex. 4. — From observations made during a period of gene- 
 ral sickness, there was a probability p that any house taken at 
 random in a particular district was visited by fever, a probability 
 q that it was visited by cholera, and a probability r that it es- 
 caped both diseases, and was not in a defective sanitary condition 
 as regarded cleanliness and ventilation. What is the probability 
 that any house taken at random was in a defective sanitary 
 condition ? 
 
 With reference to any house, let us appropriate the symbols 
 x, y, z, as follows, viz. : 
 
 281 
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
282 
 
 ELEMENTARY ILLUSTRATIONS. [CHAP. XVIII. 
 
 The symbol x to the visitation of fever. 
 
 y „ cholera. 
 
 z defective sanitary condition. 
 
 The events whose probabilities are given are then denoted by 
 x, y, and (l - a:) (1 - y) (1 - z), the event whose probability is 
 sought is z. Assume then, 
 
 (l-a:)(l-y)(l-z) = u>; 
 
 then our data are, 
 
 Prob. x = p, Prob. y = q, Prob. w = r, 
 and we are to find Prob. z. Now 
 
 (1 — aQO -y)- m 
 
 (l-x)(l-y) 
 
 = \*y w + ~w)+\x (l-y)to + £ x(l-y) (1 - u>) 
 
 + 5 (l-*)yw + ^(l-®)y(l -w) + 0 (l-*)(l-y) to 
 
 + (i-*) 0-y) (i-®)- 0) 
 
 The value of V deduced from the above is 
 
 V= xy (1 - w) + x (1 - y) (1 - w) + (1 — x) y (1 — w) 
 
 + (l - x) (l - y) w + (l - x) (l - y) (1- w) = l - w + w (l - x) (l - y) ; 
 and similarly reducing V x , V y , V w , we get 
 
 V x = x (1 - to), v y = y (1 - to), V w = w( l-x) (1 - y) ; 
 furnishing the algebraic equations 
 
 x(l-w) y(\ -w) w(\-x)(\ -y) , . ,, . 
 
 -X— = ^q — ~ = ~ r — = 1 - W, + M, ( 1 “ a; )( 1 “y)- ( 2 ) 
 
 As respects those terms of the development characterized by 
 the coefficients -, I shall, instead of collecting them into a single 
 
 term, present them, for the sake of variety (XVII. 18), in the 
 form 
 
 jj x(\ - io)+ ^(1 -x)y{\ - to); 
 the value of Prob. z will then be 
 
 ( 3 ) 
 
283 
 
 CHAP. XVIII.] ELEMENTARY ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 Prob . z = C 1 -^) (l-y)(l-to) + cg(l- io) + c f (l-a!)y (l-io) 
 
 1 - w + w ( 1 - X s ) ( 1 - y) 
 
 From (2) and (4) we deduce 
 
 -d i. (1 — /> — r)(l— — »*) ,?(1 -p-r) 
 
 Prob. z = - — - - + cp + c — ■ ■■ 
 
 1 — r 1 — r 
 
 as the expression of the probability required. If in this result 
 we make c = 0, and c = 0, we find for an inferior limit of its value 
 
 (\ — P — V) (\ — Q — 
 
 - - — - ; and if we make c = 1, c = 1, we obtain 
 
 1 - r 
 
 for its superior limit 1 - r. 
 
 6. It appears from inspection of this solution, that the pre- 
 mises chosen were exceedingly defective. The constants c and 
 c indicate this, and the corresponding terms (3) of the final 
 logical equation show how the deficiency is to be supplied. 
 Thus, since 
 
 x(l - w) = x (1 - (1 - x) (1 - y) (1 - z)} <= x, 
 
 we learn that c is the probability that if any house was visited by 
 fever its sanitary condition is defective, and that c is the proba- 
 bility that if any house Avas visited by cholera without fever, its 
 sanitary condition was defective. 
 
 If the terms of the logical development affected by the coeffi- 
 cient had been collected together as in the direct statement of 
 
 the general rule, the final solution would have assumed the fol- 
 lowing form : 
 
 Prob. z = + c(p + q- 
 
 c here representing the probability that if a house was visited by 
 either or both of the diseases mentioned, its sanitary condition 
 was defective. This result is perfectly consistent Avith the former 
 one, and indeed the necessary equivalence of the different forms 
 of solution presented in such cases may be formally established. 
 
 The above solution may be verified in particular cases. Thus, 
 taking the second form, if c = 1 we find Prob. z = 1 - r, a correct 
 result. For if the presence of either fever or cholera certainly 
 
284 
 
 ELEMENTARY ILLUSTRATIONS. [CHAP. XVIII. 
 
 indicated a defective sanitary condition, the probability that any 
 house would be in a defective sanitary state would be simply 
 equal to the probability that it was not found in that category 
 denoted by z, the probability of which would, by the data, be 1 - r. 
 Perhaps the general verification of the above solution would be 
 difficult. 
 
 The constants p, q, and r in the above solution are subject to 
 the conditions 
 
 P + r< 1, q + r<\. 
 
 7. Ex. 5. — Given the probabilities of the premises of a hypo- 
 thetical syllogism to find the probability of the conclusion. 
 
 Let the syllogism in its naked form be as follows : 
 
 Major premiss : If the proposition Y is true X is true. 
 Minor premiss : If the proposition Z is true Y is true. 
 Conclusion : If the proposition Z is true X is true. 
 
 Suppose the probability of the major premiss to be p, that of the 
 minor premiss q. 
 
 The data then are as follows, representing the proposition X 
 by x, &c., and assuming c and c as arbitrary constants : 
 
 Prob. y = c, Prob. xy = cp; 
 
 Prob. 2 = c', Prob. yz = c'q ; 
 from which we are to determine, 
 
 Prob. xz Prob. xz 
 Prob. z ° r c 
 
 Let us assume, 
 
 xy = u, yz = v, xz = w ; 
 
 then, proceeding according to the usual method to determine w 
 as a developed function of y, z, u, and v, the symbols corres- 
 ponding to propositions whose probabilities are given, we find 
 
 w = uzvy + Om (1 - z) (1 - v) y + 0 (1 - u) zvy 
 
 + ^(1 -u)z {\ -«)(1 -y)+ 0 (1 -u) (1 -z) (1 -v)y 
 
 + 0 (1 - u) (1 - z) (1 - v) ( 1 - y) + terms whose coeffi- 
 1 
 
 cients are - ; 
 
CHAP. XVIII.] ELEMENTARY ILLUSTRATIONS. 285 
 
 and passing from Logic to Algebra, 
 
 uzvy + u (l-*)0-r) y _uzvy + (1 - u)zvy + (1- u) z (1 - u)(l- V) 
 cp d 
 
 uzvy + ( 1 - u) zvy 
 Tq 
 
 uzvy + u (l - z) (l - v) y + - u) zvy + (l-u)(l-z) (l-v)y _y 
 
 c 
 
 Prob. to - , 
 
 wherein 
 
 V = uzvy + m (1- z )(1 -v)y + (\ - u ) zvy + (1 -u) z (1 - v) (1 - y) 
 + (1 - u) (1 -z) (1 - v) y + (1 - u ) (1 - z) (1 - v) (1 - y), 
 the solution of this system of equations gives 
 Prob. w = cpq + ac (1 - q), 
 
 whence 
 
 Prob. xy 
 c 
 
 = pq + a (1 - q), 
 
 the value required. In this expression the arbitrary constant a 
 is the probability that if the proposition Z is true and Y false, X 
 is true. In other words, it is the probability, that if the minor 
 premiss is false, the conclusion is true. 
 
 This investigation might have been greatly simplified by as- 
 suming the proposition Zto be true, and then seeking the proba- 
 bility of X. The data would have been simply 
 
 Prob. y = q, Prob. xy =pq\ 
 
 whence we should have found Prob. x = pq + a (1 - q). It is 
 evident that under the circumstances this mode of procedure 
 would have been allowable, but I have preferred to deduce the 
 solution by the direct and unconditioned application of the 
 method. The result is one which ordinary reasoning verifies, 
 and which it does not indeed require a calculus to obtain. Ge- 
 neral methods are apt to appear most cumbrous when applied to 
 cases in which their aid is the least required. 
 
 Let it be observed, that the above method is equally appli- 
 cable to the categorical syllogism, and not to the syllogism only, 
 
286 
 
 ELEMENTARY ILLUSTRATIONS. [CHAP. XVIII. 
 
 but to every form of deductive ratiocination. Given the proba- 
 bilities separately attaching to the premises of any train of ar- 
 gument ; it is always possible by the above method to determine 
 the consequent probability of the truth of a conclusion legitimately 
 drawn from such premises. It is not needful to remind th§ 
 reader, that the truth and the correctness of a conclusion are dif- 
 ferent things. 
 
 8. One remarkable circumstance which presents itself in such 
 applications deserves to be specially noticed. It is, that propo- 
 sitions which, when true, are equivalent, are not necessarily 
 equivalent when regarded only as probable. This principle will 
 be illustrated in the following example. 
 
 Ex. 6. — Given the probability p of the disjunctive proposition 
 “ Either the proposition Yis true, or both the propositions X and 
 Y are false,” required the probability of the conditional propo- 
 sition, “ If the proposition X is true, Y is true.” 
 
 Let x and y be appropriated to the propositions X and Y 
 respectively. Then we have 
 
 Prob. y + (1 - x ) (1 - y) = p, 
 
 from which it is required to find the value of . 
 
 ^ Prob.® 
 
 Assume y + (1 - x) (1 - y) = t. 
 
 Eliminating y we get 
 
 (1 - x) (1 - t) = 0. 
 
 0 ) 
 
 whence 
 
 0 
 
 and proceeding in the usual way, 
 
 Prob. x = 1 - p + cp. (2) 
 
 Where c is the probability that if either Y is true, or X and Y 
 false, X is true. 
 
 Next to find Prob. xy. Assume 
 xy = to. 
 
 Eliminating y from (1) and (3) we get 
 
 z (1 - t) = 0 ; 
 
 ( 3 ) 
 
CHAP. XVIII.] ELEMENTARY ILLUSTRATIONS. 287 
 
 whence, proceeding as above, 
 
 Prob. z = cp, 
 
 c having the same interpretation as before. Hence 
 
 Prob. xy cp 
 Prob. x 1 - p + cp ’ 
 
 for the probability of the truth of the conditional proposition 
 giv n. 
 
 Now in the science of pure Logic, which, as such, is conver- 
 sant only with truth and with falsehood, the above disjunctive 
 and conditional propositions are equivalent. They are true and 
 they are false together. It is seen, however, from the above in- 
 vestigation, that when the disjunctive proposition has a proba- 
 bility p, the conditional proposition has a different and partly in- 
 cp 
 
 definite probability - — Nevertheless these expressions 
 
 are such, that when either of them becomes 1 or 0, the other as- 
 sumes the same value. The results are, therefore, perfectly con- 
 sistent, and the logical transformation serves to verify the formula 
 deduced from the theory of probabilities. 
 
 The reader will easily prove by a similar analysis, that if the 
 probability of the conditional proposition were given as p, that 
 of the disjunctive proposition would be 1 - c + cp, where c is the 
 arbitrary probability of the truth of the proposition X. 
 
 9. Ex. 7. — Required to determine the probability of an event 
 x, having given either the first, or the first and second, or the 
 first, second, and third of the following data, viz. : 
 
 1st. The probability that the event x occurs, or that it alone 
 of the three events x, y, z, fails, is p. 
 
 2nd. The probability that the event y occurs, or that it alone 
 of the three events x, y, z, fails, is q. 
 
 3rd. The probability that the event z occurs, or that it alone 
 of the three events x , y, z , fails, is r. 
 
 SOLUTION OF THE FIRST CASE. 
 
 Here we suppose that only the first of the above data is 
 
288 
 
 ELEMENTARY ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 [chap. XVIII. 
 
 We have then, 
 
 to find Prob. x. 
 Let 
 
 Prob. [x + (1 - x) yz } = p , 
 x + (1 - x) yz = s, 
 
 then eliminating yz as a single symbol, we get, 
 
 x (1 - s) = 0. 
 
 Hence 
 
 whence, proceeding according to the rule, we have 
 
 Prob. x = cp, 
 
 0 ) 
 
 where c is the probability that if x occurs, or alone fails, the 
 former of the two alternatives is the one that will happen. The 
 limits of the solution are evidently 0 and p. 
 
 This solution appears to give us no information beyond what 
 unassisted good sense would have conveyed. It is, however, all 
 that the single datum here assumed really warrants us in infer- 
 ring. We shall in the next solution see how an addition to our 
 data restricts within narrower limits the final solution. 
 
 from the first of which we have, by (VIII. 7), 
 
 [x + (1 - x)yz) (l-s) + s{l-o:-(l- x)yz) = 0, 
 
 provided that for simplicity we write x for 1 - x, y for 1 - y, and 
 so on. Now, writing for 1 - yz its value in constituents, we 
 have 
 
 ( x + xyz ) s + sx (yz + yz + yz) = 0, 
 an equation consisting solely of positive terms. 
 
 SOLUTION OF THE SECOND CASE. 
 
 Here we assume as our data the equations 
 
 Prob. [x + (1 - x) yz) = p , 
 Prob. [y + (1 -y) xz } = q. 
 
 Let us write 
 
 x + (1 - x) yz = s, 
 y + (\-y)xz = f, 
 
 or 
 
 (x + xyz) s + sx (1 - yz) = 0 ; 
 
CHAP. XVIII.] ELEMENTARY ILLUSTRATIONS. 289 
 
 In like manner we have from the second equation, 
 
 (y + yxz) t + ty (xl + xz + xz) = 0 ; 
 
 and from the sum of these two equations we are to eliminate y 
 and z. 
 
 If in that sum we make y = 1, z = 1, we get the result 1 + 1. 
 If in the same sum we make y = 1, z = 0, we get the result 
 
 XS + SX + t. 
 
 If in the same sum we make y = 0, z = 1, we get 
 xl + sx + xt + tx. 
 
 And if, lastly, in the same sum we make y = 0, z = 0, we find 
 
 xl + sx + tx + tx, or xl + sx + t. 
 
 These four expressions are to be multiplied together. New 
 the first and third may be multiplied in the following manner : 
 
 (1 + t ) (x~s + sx + xt + tx) 
 
 = xs + xt + (s + t) (sx + tx) by (IX. Prop, ii.) 
 
 = xs + xt + Ixt + sxt. (2) 
 
 Again, the second and fourth give by (IX. Prop, i.) 
 
 (xl + sx + t) (xl + sx + t) 
 
 - x 1 + sx. (3) 
 
 Lastly, (2) and (3) multiplied together give 
 (xl + sx) (xl + sxt + xt + tx 1) 
 
 = xl + sx (sxt + xt + tx 1) 
 
 - xl + sxt. 
 
 Whence the final equation is 
 
 (1 - s) x + s (1 - t) (1 -x) = 0, 
 which, solved with reference to x, gives 
 
 « (1 - t) 
 
 X ~s(l-t)-(l-s) 
 
 = ^ st + s (1 _ 0 + 0 (1 - s) t + 0 (1 - s) (1 - t), 
 
290 ELEMENTARY ILLUSTRATIONS. [ciIAP. XVIII. 
 
 and, proceeding with this according to the rule, we have, finally, 
 
 Prob. x = p ( 1 - q) + cpq. (4) 
 
 where c is the probability that if the event st happen, x will 
 happen. Now if we form the developed expression of st by mul- 
 tiplying the expressions for s and t together, we find — 
 
 c = Prob. that if x and y happen together, or x and z happen 
 together, and y fail, or y and z happen together, and x fail, the 
 event x will happen. 
 
 The limits of Prob. x are evidently p (1 - q) and p. 
 
 This solution is more definite than the former one, inasmuch 
 as it contains a term unaffected by an arbitrary constant. 
 
 SOLUTION OF THE THIRD CASE. 
 
 Here the data are — 
 
 Prob. [x + (1 - x) yz) - p, 
 
 Prob. \y + (1 - y) xz) = q, 
 
 Prob. [z + (1 - z ) xy\ = r. 
 
 Let us, as before, write x for 1 - x , &c., and assume 
 
 x + xyz = s, 
 y + ijxz = t, 
 z + zxy = u. 
 
 On reduction by (VIII. 8) we obtain the equation 
 (x + xyz')! + sx {yz + yz + yz) 
 
 + (y + yxz) t + ty (zx + xz + xz) 
 
 + (z + zxy) u+ uz (xy + xy + xy) - 0. (5) 
 
 Now instead of directly eliminating y and z from the above 
 equation, let us, in accordance with (IX. Prop, hi.), assume the 
 result of that elimination to be 
 
 Ex + E ( 1 - x) = 0, 
 
 then E will be found by making in the given equation x = 1, 
 and eliminating y and 2 from the resulting equation, and E will 
 be found by making in the given equation x = 0, and eliminating 
 y and z from the result. First, then, making x = 1 , we have 
 
CHAP. XVIII.] 
 
 ELEMENTARY ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 291 
 
 s + (y + yz) t + tyz + (z + yz) u + uyz = 0 , 
 
 and making in the first member of this equation successively 
 y = 1, z = 1, y = l, s = 0, &c., and multiplying together the 
 results, we have the expression 
 
 (7 + t + u ) ( 7 + t + u) (7 + t + u) (7 + t + «), 
 
 which is equivalent to 
 
 (7 + t + u) (7 + t + u). 
 
 This is the expression for E. We shall retain it in its present 
 form. It has already been shown by example (VTII. 3), that 
 the actual reduction of such expressions by multiplication, though 
 convenient, is not necessary. 
 
 Again in (5), making x - 0, we have 
 
 yzs + s (yz + yz + yz) + yt + ty + zu + uz - 0 ; 
 
 from which, by the same process of elimination, we find for E the 
 expression 
 
 (7+ t + u) (s + t + u) (s + t + u) (s + t + u). 
 
 The final result of the elimination of y and z from (5) is there- 
 fore 
 
 (7+i+w)(7+<+ w):r+(7+2+w)(s + f+ w)(s+£+w)(s + £+ u)( 1 -x) = 0. 
 Whence we have 
 
 (7+?+w) (s+£+w) (s+£+w) (s + t+w) 
 x — — — — — j 
 
 (s+t + u) (s + t + m ) (s + t + u) (5 + 1 + u) -(s + t+ w)(s + £ + m ) 
 
 or, developing the second member, 
 
 0 1 - 1 _ 
 
 X = - stu + — stu + - stu + stu 
 
 .+ ^ 7 tu + 07£w + 07£w + OlTu. 
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 Hence, passing from Logic to Algebra, 
 
 stu 4 stu stu + 7 tu stu + stu 
 
 ~P q ~ r 
 
 = stu + stu +7 tu + stu + stii. 
 
 ( 7 ) 
 
292 
 
 ELEMENTARY ILLUSTRATIONS. [CHAP. XVIII. 
 
 Prob. x 
 
 stu + cstu 
 
 stu + stu + !tu + stu + stu 
 
 ( 8 ) 
 
 • • • • s t 
 
 To simplify this system of equations, change — into s, — into t, 
 
 s t 
 
 &c., and after the change let X stand for stu + s + t + 1 . We then 
 have 
 
 s + cstu , v 
 
 — , (9) 
 
 Prob. x = 
 
 with the relations 
 
 stu + s stu + t stu + u 
 
 = stu + s+ t + u+ 1=A. (10) 
 
 00 
 
 p q r 
 
 From these equations we get 
 
 stu + s - A p, 
 stu + s = X - t - u - 1, 
 
 • Ayj — A — u — t — 1, 
 u + t = X (1 — p) - 1. 
 
 Similarly, u + s = X (1 - q) - 1, 
 
 and s + £ = A (1 - r) -1. 
 
 From which equations we find 
 
 A(l+p-y-r)-l \(l + q-r-p)-l 
 
 s = 2 ’ 1 = ~2 ’ 
 
 u = 
 
 Now, by (10), 
 
 X(l + r- p-^)-l 
 
 stu - Xp - s. 
 
 ( 12 ) 
 
 Substitute in this equation the values of s, t, and u above deter- 
 mined, and we have 
 
 {(l+p-< 7 -r)X-l)((l- | - 5 , -p-r)A-l!{(l + r-^-^)X-l| 
 
 = 4((/> + ? + r-l)A + l), (13) 
 
 an equation which determines X. The values of s, t, and u, are 
 then given by (12), and their substitution in (9) completes the 
 solution of the problem. 
 
CHAP. XVIII.] ELEMENTARY ILLUSTRATIONS. 293 
 
 10. Now a difficulty, the bringing of which prominently be- 
 fore the reader has been one object of this investigation, here 
 arises. How shall it be determined, which root of the above 
 equation ought to taken for the value of X. To this difficulty 
 some reference was made in the opening of the present chapter, 
 and it was intimated that its fuller consideration was reserved for 
 the next one ; from which the following results are taken. 
 
 In order that the data of the problem may be derived from 
 a possible experience, the quantities p, q, and r must be subject 
 to the following conditions : 
 
 \+p-q-rS>0, 
 
 1 + ? ~P ~ r > (14) 
 
 \+r-p-q>0. 
 
 Moreover, the value of X to be employed in the general solution 
 must satisfy the following conditions : 
 
 X > t , X5. 1 , X > . (15) 
 
 \ + p - q - r \ + q - p - r 1 + r - p - q 
 
 Now these two sets of conditions suffice for the limitation of 
 the general solution. It may be shown, that the central equation 
 (13) furnishes but one value of X, which does satisfy these con- 
 ditions, and that value of X is the one required. 
 
 Let 1 + p - q - r be the least of the three coefficients of X 
 
 given above, then will be the greatest of those va- 
 
 ° i + p - q - r ° 
 
 lues, above which we are to show that there exists but one value 
 
 of X. Let us write (13) in the form 
 
 { ( 1 + p - q - r ) X - 1 ) { ( 1 + q - p - r) X - 1 ) { ( 1 + r - p - q ) X - 1 ) 
 
 -4 {(p + q +r-l) X + 1 } = 0 ; (16) 
 
 and represent the first member by V. 
 
 Assume X = , then V becomes 
 
 l + p - q - r 
 
 _ i ( P*i + r- ! +1 \ _ 4 / 2? \ 
 
 \1 +p-q-r j V+p-q-r) 
 
 which is negative. 
 
294 
 
 ELEMENTARY ILLUSTRATIONS. [CHAP. XVIII. 
 
 Let X = oo, then V is positive and infinite. 
 
 Again, 
 
 d-V 
 
 — = (1 +p - q - r) (1 + q -p- r) {(1 + r -p - q)\ - 1} 
 
 + similar positive terms, 
 
 which expression is positive between the limits X = 
 
 c \ + p - q - r 
 
 and X = oo. 
 
 If then we construct a curve whose abscissa shall be measured 
 by X, and whose ordinates by V, that curve will, between the 
 limits specified, pass from below to above the abscissa X, its con- 
 vexity always being downwards. Hence it will but once intersect 
 the abscissa X within those limits ; and the equation (16) will, there- 
 fore, have but one root thereto corresponding. 
 
 The solution is, therefore, expressed by (9), X being that 
 root of (13) which satisfies the conditions (15), and s, t, and u 
 being given by (12). The interpretation of c may be deduced 
 in the usual way. 
 
 It appears from the above, that the problem is, in all cases, 
 more or less indeterminate. 
 
CHAP. XIX.] 
 
 OF STATISTICAL CONDITIONS. 
 
 295 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 OF STATISTICAL CONDITIONS. 
 
 1 . T) Y the term statistical conditions, I mean those conditions 
 -U which must connect the numerical data of a problem in 
 order that those data may be consistent with each other, and 
 therefore such as statistical observations might actually have 
 furnished. The determination of such conditions constitutes an 
 important problem, the solution of which, to an extent sufficient 
 at least for the requirements of this work, I purpose to undertake 
 in the present chapter, regarding it partly as an independent ob- 
 ject of speculation, but partly also as a necessary supplement to 
 the theory of probabilities already in some degree exemplified. 
 The nature of the connexion between the two subjects may be 
 stated as follows : 
 
 2. There are innumerable instances, and one of the kind 
 presented itself in the last chapter, Ex. 7, in which the solution 
 of a question in the theory of probabilities is finally dependent 
 upon the solution of an algebraic equation of an elevated degree. 
 In such cases the selection of the proper root must be determined 
 by certain conditions, partly relating to the numerical values as- 
 signed in the data, partly to the due limitation of the element 
 required. The discovery of such conditions may sometimes be 
 effected by unaided reasoning. For instance, if there is a proba- 
 bility p of the occurrence of an event A, and a probability q of 
 the concurrence of the said event A, and another event B, it is 
 evident that we must have 
 
 P>B 
 
 But for the general determination of such relations, a distinct 
 method is required, and this we proceed to establish. 
 
 As derived from actual experience, the probability of any 
 event is the result of a process of approximation. It is the limit 
 of the ratio of the number of cases in which the event is observed 
 to occur, to the whole number of equally possible cases which 
 
296 
 
 OF STATISTICAL CONDITIONS. 
 
 [chap. XIX. 
 
 observation records, — a limit to which we approach the more 
 nearly as the number of observations is increased. Now let the 
 symbol n , prefixed to the expression of any class, represent the 
 number of individuals contained in that class. Thus, x represent- 
 ing men, and y white beings, let us assume 
 nx = number of men. 
 
 nxy = number of white men. 
 
 nx (1 - y) = number of men who are not white; and so on. 
 
 In accordance with this notation w(l) will represent the number 
 of individuals contained in the universe of discourse, and 
 
 » 0 ) 
 
 will represent the probability that any individual being, selected 
 out of that universe of being denoted by n (1), is a man. If ob- 
 servation has not made us acquainted with the total values of 
 n (x) and ?i(l), then the probability in question is the limit to 
 
 Tl ( X) 
 
 which approaches as the number of individual observations 
 n (1) 11 
 
 is increased. 
 
 In like manner if, as will generally be supposed in this chap- 
 ter, x represent an event of a particular kind observed, n (x) will 
 represent the number of occurrences of that event, n(l) the 
 number of observed events (equally probable) of all kinds, and 
 
 , or its limit, the probability of the occurrence of the 
 event x. 
 
 Hence it is clear that any conclusions which may be deduced 
 respecting the ratios of the quantities n ( x ), n (_?/), n (1), &c. may 
 be converted into conclusions respecting the probabilities of the 
 events represented by x, y, &c. Thus, if we should find such a 
 relation as the following, viz., 
 
 n(x) + n(y) < n( 1), 
 
 expressing that the number of times in which the event x occurs 
 and the number of times in which the event y occurs, are toge- 
 ther less than the number of possible occurrences n (1), we might 
 thence deduce the relation, 
 
 n (x) n(y) 
 n(lj n(l) 
 
 Prob. x + Prob. y < 1 . 
 
 n (x) 
 * 0 ) 
 
 or 
 
CHAP. XIX.] OF STATISTICAL CONDITIONS. 
 
 297 
 
 And generally any such statistical relations as the above will be 
 converted into relations connecting the probabilities of the events 
 concerned , by changing n(\) into 1, and any other symbol n (x) 
 into Prob. x. 
 
 3 . First, then, we shall investigate a method of determining 
 the numerical relations of classes or events, and more particularly 
 the major and minor limits of numerical value. Secondly, we 
 shall apply the method to the limitation of the solutions of ques- 
 tions in the theory of probabilities. 
 
 It is evident that the symbol n is distributive in its operation. 
 Thus we have 
 
 n [xy + (1 — x) (1 - y ) ) = nxy + n (1 - x) (1 - y ) 
 nx (1 - y) - nx - nxy, 
 
 and so on. The number of things contained in any class re- 
 solvable into distinct groups or portions is equal to the sum of 
 the numbers of things found in those separate portions. It is 
 evident, further, that any expression formed of the logical sym- 
 bols x , y, &c. may be developed or expanded in any way consis- 
 tent with the laws of the symbols, and the symbol n applied to 
 each term of the result, provided that any constant multiplier 
 which may appear, be placed outside the symbol n; without affect- 
 ing the value of the result. The expression n ( 1 ), should it ap- 
 pear, will of course represent the number of individuals contained 
 in the universe. Thus, 
 
 n (1-#) (1 — 3/) = w (1 - x - y + xy) 
 
 = n(\) - n O) -n(y) + n (xy). 
 
 Again, n [xy + (1 - x) (1 - y)} = n (1 - x - y + 2 xy) 
 
 = n (1) - nx - ny + 2 nxy). 
 
 In the last member the term 2 nxy indicates twice the number of 
 individuals contained in the class xy. 
 
 4 . We proceed now to investigate the numerical limits of 
 classes whose logical expression is given. In this inquiry the 
 following principles are of fundamental importance : 
 
 1st. If all the members of a given class possess a certain pro- 
 perty x, the total number of individuals contained in the class x 
 
OF STATISTICAL CONDITIONS. 
 
 298 
 
 [chap. XIX. 
 
 will be a superior limit of the number of individuals contained in 
 the given class. 
 
 2nd. A minor limit of the number of individuals in any class y 
 will be found by subtracting a major numerical limit of the con- 
 trary class, 1 - y, from the number of individuals contained in the 
 universe. 
 
 To exemplify these principles, let us apply them to the fol- 
 lowing problem : 
 
 Problem. — G iven, n(l), n (x), and n(y), required the su- 
 perior and inferior limits of nxy. 
 
 Here our data are the number of individuals contained in the 
 universe of discourse, the number contained in the class x, and 
 the number in the class y, and it is required to determine the 
 limits of the number contained in the class composed of the indi- 
 viduals that are found at once in the class x and in the class y. 
 
 By Principle i. this number cannot exceed the number con- 
 tained in the class x, nor can it exceed the number contained in 
 the class y. Its major limit will then be the least of the two va- 
 lues n (x) and (y). 
 
 By Principle n. a minor limit of the class xy will be given by 
 the expression 
 
 w(l) -major limit of {r(l -y) + y( 1 - x) + (1 - x) (1 - y )}, (1) 
 
 since x (1 - y) + y (1 - r) + (1 - x) (1 - y) is the complement of 
 the class xy, i. e. what it wants to make up the universe. 
 
 Now x{\ - y) + (1 - x) (1 - y) = 1 - y. We have there- 
 fore for (1), 
 
 n (l) - major limit of { 1 -y + y (1 - x)) 
 
 = n (1) - n (1 - y) - major limit of y (1 - x ). (2) 
 
 The major limit of y (1 - x) is the least of the two values n (y) 
 and n (1 - x). Let n ( y ) be the least, then (2) becomes 
 
 n(l)-n(l-y)-n(y) 
 
 = w(l) - w(l) + n(y ) - n(y ) = 0. 
 
 Secondly, let n (1 - x) be less than n (y), then 
 major limit of ny (1 - x~) = n{\ - x) ; 
 therefore (2) becomes 
 
CHAP. XIX.] 
 
 OF STATISTICAL CONDITIONS. 
 
 299 
 
 n (1) - n(\ - y) - n(\ - x) 
 
 = n (1) - n (1) + n ( y ) - n (1) + n ( x ) 
 
 = nx + ny - n (1). 
 
 The minor limit of nxy is therefore either 0 or n (x) + n (y) - w(l), 
 according as n ( y ) is less or greater than n (1 - x), or, which is an 
 equivalent condition, according as n ( x ) is greater or less than 
 n(\-y). 
 
 Now as 0 is necessarily a minor limit of the numerical value 
 of any class, it is sufficient to take account of the second of the 
 above expressions for the minor limit of n (xy). We have, there- 
 fore, 
 
 Major limit of n (xy) = least of values n (x) and n (y). 
 
 Minor limit of n (xy) - n (x) + n(y) - n(\).* • 
 
 Proposition I. 
 
 5. To express the major and minor limits of a class represented 
 by any constituent of the symbols x, y, z, frc., having given the va- 
 lues ofn(x), n(y), n(z), SfC;, and «(1). 
 
 Consider first the constituent xyz. 
 
 It is evident that the major numerical limit will be the least 
 of the values n(x), n(y), n(z). 
 
 The minor numerical limit may be deduced as in the previous 
 problem, but it may also be deduced from the solution of that 
 problem. Thus : 
 
 Minor limit of n (xyz) = n (xy) + n(z) - n( 1). (1) 
 
 Now this means that n (xyz) is at least as great as the expres- 
 sion n(xy) + n(z) - w(l). But n(xy) is at least as great as 
 n (x) + n(y) - n (1). Therefore n (xyz) is at least as great as 
 
 n (x) + n (y) - n (1) + n (z) - n (1), 
 or n (a’) + n (y) + n (z) - 2 n (1). 
 
 * The above expression for the minor limit of nxy is applied by Professor 
 De Morgan, by whom it appears to have been first given, to the syllogistic form : 
 Most men in a certain company have coats. 
 
 Most men in the same company have waistcoats. 
 
 Therefore some in the company have coats and waistcoats. 
 
300 
 
 OF STATISTICAL CONDITIONS. 
 
 [chap. XIX. 
 
 Hence we have 
 
 Minor limit of n ( xyz ) = n (x) + n (y) + n (z) - 2n (1). 
 
 By extending this mode of reasoning we shall arrive at the 
 following conclusions : 
 
 1st. The major numerical limit of the class represented by 
 any constituent will be found by prefixing n separately to each 
 factor of the constituent, and taking the least of the resulting 
 values. 
 
 2nd. The minor limit will be found by adding all the values 
 above mentioned together, and subtracting from the result as 
 many, less one, times the value of ra(l). 
 
 Thus we should have 
 
 Major limit of nxy (1 - z) = least of the values nx, ny , and n{\ -z). 
 Minor limit of nxy (1 - z) = n (x) + n (y) + n (1 - z) - 2n{\) 
 
 = nx + n(y) - n ( z ) - n{ 1). 
 
 In the use of general symbols it is perhaps better to regard all 
 the values n (x), n (y), n (1 - z), as major limits of n [xy (1 - z)}, 
 since, in fact, it cannot exceed any of them. I shall in the fol- 
 lowing investigations adopt this mode of expression. 
 
 Proposition II. 
 
 6. To determine the major numerical limit of a class expressed 
 by a series of constituents of the symbols x, y, z, Sfc., the values of 
 n (x), n (y), n(z ), §-c., and n (1), being given. 
 
 Evidently one mode of determining such a limit would be to 
 form the least possible sum of the major limits of the several con- 
 stituents. Thus a major limit of the expression 
 
 n{xy+ (1 - x) (1 - y)) 
 
 would be found by adding the least of the two values nx , ny , fur- 
 nished by the first constituent, to the least of the two values 
 n (1 - x), n (1 - y ), furnished by the second constituent. If we 
 do not know which is in each case the least value, we must form 
 the four possible sums, and reject any of these which are equal to 
 or exceed n (1). Thus in the above example we should have 
 
CHAP. XIX.] 
 
 OF STATISTICAL CONDITIONS. 
 
 301 
 
 nx + n(l - x) = n (1). 
 n(x ) + «(1 -y) = «(1) + n(x) - n(y). 
 n(y) +n(l-y) = n(\) + n(y) -n(x). 
 n(y) + «(1 - y) = ra(l). 
 
 Rejecting the first and last of the above values, we have 
 n (1) + n (x) - n (y), and n (1) + n {y) - n ( x ), 
 for the expressions required, one of which will (unless nx = ny) 
 be less than ra(l), and the other greater. The least must of 
 course be taken. 
 
 When two or more of the constituents possess a common fac- 
 tor, as x, that factor can only, as is obvious from Principle I., 
 furnish a single term n (x) in the final expression of the major 
 limit. Thus if n (x) appear as a major limit in two or more con- 
 stituents, we must, in adding those limits together, replace 
 nx + nx by nx, and so on. Take, for example, the expression 
 
 n [xy + x (1 - y)z) ■ The major limits of this expression, imme- 
 
 diately furnished by addition, would be — 
 
 1. nx. 4. ny + nx. 
 
 2. nx + n (1 - y). 5. ny + n (1 - y). 
 
 3. nx + n (z). 6. ny + nz. 
 
 Of these the first and sixth only need be retained ; the second, 
 third, and fourth being greater than the first ; and the fifth being 
 equal to n (1). The limits are therefore 
 
 n ( x ) and n (y) + n ( z ), 
 
 and of these two values the last, supposing it to be less than n (1), 
 must be taken. 
 
 These considerations lead us to the following Rule : 
 
 Rule. — Take one factor from each constituent, and prefx to 
 it the symbol n, add the several terms or results thus formed toge- 
 ther, rejecting all repetitions of the same term ; the sum thus ob- 
 tained will be a major limit of the expression, and the least of all 
 such sums ivill be the major limit to be employed. 
 
 Thus the major limits of the expression 
 
 xyz + #(1 -y) (l - z) + (1 - *) (1 - y) (1 - z) 
 would be 
 
302 
 
 OF STATISTICAL CONDITIONS. [CHAP. XIX. 
 
 n (#) + n (1 - y), and n(x) + n{ 1 - z), 
 or n (x) + n (1) - n (y), and n (x) + n (1) - n (z). 
 
 If we began with n (y), selected from the first term, and took 
 n (x) from the second, we should have to take n (1 -y) from the 
 third term, and this would give 
 
 n (y) + n (x) + n (1 - y), or n (1) + n (#). 
 
 But as this result exceeds n (1), which is an obvious major limit 
 to every class, it need not be taken into account. 
 
 Proposition III. 
 
 7. To find the minor numerical limit of any class expressed by 
 constituents of the symbols x, y, z, having given n(x), n(y), n(z) . . 
 n(l). 
 
 This object may be effected by the application of the pre- 
 ceding Proposition, combined with Principle ii., but it is better 
 effected by the following method : 
 
 Let any two constituents, which differ from one another only 
 by a single factor, be added, so as to form a single class term 
 as x (1 -y) + xy form x, and this species of aggregation having 
 been carried on as far as possible, i. e., there having been selected 
 out of the given series of constituents as many sums of this kind 
 as can be formed, each such sum comprising as many constituents 
 as can be collected into a single term, without regarding whether 
 any of the said constituents enter into the composition of other 
 terms, let these ultimate aggregates, together with those con- 
 stituents which do not admit of being thus added together, be 
 written down as distinct terms. Then the several minor limits 
 of those terms, deduced by Prop. I., will be the minor limits of 
 the expression given, and one only of those minor limits will at 
 the same time be positive. 
 
 Thus from the expression xy + (1 - x)y + (1 - x) (1 -y) we 
 can form the aggregates y and 1 - x, by respectively adding the 
 first and second terms together, and the second and third. 
 Hence n (y) and n(l - x) will be the minor limits of the expres- 
 sion given. Again, if the expression given were 
 
303 
 
 CRAP. XIX.] OF STATISTICAL CONDITIONS. 
 
 xyz + x (1 — y) z + (1 — x) yz + (1 - x) (1 - y) z 
 
 + xy (1 - z) + (1 - x) (1 - y ) (1 - z), 
 
 we should obtain by addition of the first four terms the single 
 term z, by addition of the first and fifth term the single term xy , 
 and by addition of the fourth and sixth terms the single term 
 (1 - X s ) (1 - y ) ; and there is no other way in which constituents 
 can be collected into single terms, nor are there are any consti- 
 tuents left which have not been thus taken account of. The 
 three resulting terms give, as the minor limits of the given ex- 
 pression, the values 
 
 n(z), n (x) + n(y) - «(1), 
 
 and n (1 - x) + n (1 - y) - n (1), or n (1) - n(x) - n (y). 
 
 8. The proof of the above rule consists in the proper appli- 
 cation of the following principles : — 1st. The minor limit of any 
 collection of constituents which admit of being added into a sin- 
 gle term, will obviously be the minor limit of that single term. 
 This explains the first part of the rule. 2nd. The minor limit 
 of the sum of any two terms which either are distinct constituents, 
 or consist of distinct constituents, but do not admit of being 
 added together, will be the sum of their respective minor limits, 
 if those minor limits are both positive ; but if one be positive, and 
 the other negative, it will be equal to the positive minor limit 
 alone. For if the negative one were added, the value of the limit 
 would be diminished, i. e. it would be less for the sum of two 
 terms than for a single term. Now whenever two constituents 
 dilfer in more than one factor, so as not to admit of being added 
 together, the minor limits of the two cannot be both positive. 
 Thus let the terms be xyz and ( 1 - x) ( 1 - y)z, which differ in 
 two factors, the minor limit of the first is n(x + y + z- 2), that 
 of the second n (1 - x + 1 - y + z - 2), or, 
 
 1st. n {x + y - 1 - (1,-z)). 2nd. n {1 - x - y - (1 - z)} . 
 
 If n(x + y - 1) is positive, n{\ - x - y) is negative, and the se- 
 cond must be negative. If n (x + y - 1) is negative, the first is 
 negative; and similarly for cases in which a larger number of 
 factors are involved. It may in this manner be shown that, ac- 
 cording to the mode in which the aggregate terms are formed in 
 
304 
 
 OF STATISTICAL CONDITIONS. [CHAP. XIX. 
 
 the application of the rule, no two minor limits of distinct terms 
 can be added together, for either those terms will involve some 
 common constituent, in which case it is clear that we cannot add 
 their minor limits together, — or the minor limits of the two will 
 not be both positive, in which case the addition would be useless. 
 
 Proposition IY. 
 
 9. Given the respective numbers of individuals comprised in 
 any classes, s, t, Sfc. logically defined, to deduce a system of nume- 
 rical limits of any other class w, also logically defined. 
 
 As this is the most general problem which it is meant to dis- 
 cuss in the present chapter, the previous inquiries being merely 
 introductory to it, and the succeeding ones occupied with its ap- 
 plication, it is desirable to state clearly its nature and design. 
 
 When the classes s, t . . w are said to be logically defined, it 
 is meant that they are classes so defined as to enable us to write 
 down their symbolical expressions, whether the classes in ques- 
 tion be simple or compound. By the general method of this 
 treatise, the symbol w can then be determined directly as a deve- 
 loped function of the symbols s, t, &c. in the form 
 
 0 1 
 
 iv = A + OB + - C + - D, 
 
 ( 1 ) 
 
 wherein A, B,C, and D are formed of the constituents of s, t, &c. 
 How from such an expression the numerical limits of w may in 
 the most general manner be determined, will be considered here- 
 after. At present we merely purpose to show how far this object 
 can be accomplished on the principles developed in the previous 
 propositions; such an inquiry being sufficient for the purposes of 
 this work. For simplicity, I shall found my argument upon the 
 particular development, 
 
 w = st + 0« (1 - t) + - (1 - s) t + - (1 - s) (l - t), (2) 
 
 in which all the varieties of coefficients present themselves. 
 
 Of the constituent (l - s) (1 - t), which has for its coeffi- 
 cient jj, it is implied that some, none, or all of the class denoted 
 
305 
 
 CHAP. XIX.] OF STATISTICAL CONDITIONS. 
 
 by that constituent are found in w. It is evident that n (w) will 
 have its highest numerical value when all the members of the 
 class denoted by (1 -s) (1 -t) are found in w. Moreover, as 
 none of the individuals contained in the classes denoted by 
 s (1 - 1) and (1 - s) t are found in to, the superior numerical limits 
 of tv will be identical with those of the class st + (1 - s) (1 - t). 
 They are, therefore, 
 
 ns + n (1 - t ) and nt + n (1 - s ). 
 
 In like manner a system of superior numerical limits of the 
 development A + OB + ^ C + - D, may be found from those of 
 A + C by Prop. 2. 
 
 Again, any minor numerical limit of tv will, by Principle n., 
 be given by the expression 
 
 n (1) - major limit of n (1 - to), 
 
 but the development ofw; being given by (1), that of 1 - to will 
 obviously be 
 
 1 -w = 0A + B + + ^Z>. 
 
 This may be directly proved by the method of Prop. 2, Chap. x. 
 Hence 
 
 Minor limit of n (w) = n (1) - major limit (H + C) 
 
 = minor limit of (A + D ), 
 
 by Principle ii., since the classes A -f I) and B + C are supple- 
 mentary. Thus the minor limit of the second member of (2) 
 would be n (f), and, generalizing this mode of reasoning, we have 
 the following result : 
 
 A system of minor limits of the development 
 A + OB + ^C+ 
 
 will be given by the minor limits of A + D. 
 
 This result may also be directly inferred. For of minor nu- 
 merical limits we are bound to seek the greatest. Now we ob- 
 tain in general a higher minor limit by connecting the class D 
 
306 
 
 OF STATISTICAL CONDITIONS* 
 
 [CHAP. XIX. 
 
 with A in the expression of w. a combination which, as shown in 
 various examples of the Logic we are permitted to make, than 
 we otherwise should obtain. 
 
 Finally, as the concluding term of the development of w in- 
 dicates the equation D = 0, it is evident that re (D) = 0. Hence 
 we have 
 
 Minor limit of re (IJ) < 0, 
 
 and this equation, treated by Prop. 3, gives the requisite condi- 
 tions among the numerical elements re(s), n(t ), &c., in order that 
 the problem may be real, and may embody in its data the re- 
 sults of a possible experience. 
 
 Thus from the term ^ ( 1 - s) t in the second member of (2) 
 we should deduce 
 
 re ( 1 - s) + re (t) - re (1) < 0, 
 
 •\ n ( l ) < re(s). 
 
 These conclusions may be embodied in the following rule : 
 
 10. Pule. — Determine the expression of the class w as a deve- 
 loped logical function of the symbols s, t, Sfc. in the form 
 
 w = A + 0B + yC+}-D. 
 
 0 0 
 
 Then will 
 
 Maj. lim, w = Maj. lim, A + C. 
 
 Min, lim. w = Min. lim. A + D. 
 
 The necessary numerical conditions among the data being given by 
 the inequality 
 
 Min. lim. J5 < w (1). 
 
 To apply the above method to the limitation of the solutions 
 of questions in probabilities, it is only necessary to replace in 
 each of the formula, n (x) by Prob. x, n (y) by Prob. y, &c., and, 
 finally, re (1) by 1. The application being, however, of great im- 
 portance, it may be desirable to exhibit in the form of a rule 
 the chief results of transformation. 
 
 11. Given the probabilities of any events s, t, &c., whereof 
 another event is a developed logical function, in the form 
 
 w = A + 0B + ? C + l D, 
 
 0 0 
 
OF STATISTICAL CONDITIONS. 
 
 CHAP. XIX.] 
 
 307 
 
 required the systems of superior and inferior limits of Prob. w, 
 and the conditions among the data. 
 
 Solution. — The superior limits of Prob. ( A + C ), and the 
 inferior limits of Prob. (A + D) will form two such systems as are 
 sought. The conditions among the constants in the data will be 
 given by the inequality, 
 
 Inf. lim. Prob. D < 0. 
 
 In the application of these principles we have always 
 Inf. lim. Prob. x x x 2 . . x„ = Prob. x x + Prob. x t ..+ Prob. x n - (n - 1 ). 
 
 Moreover, the inferior limits can only be determined from single 
 terms, either given or formed by aggregation. Superior limits 
 are included in the form S Prob. x, Prob. x applying only to 
 symbols which are different, and are taken from different terms in 
 the expression whose superior limit is sought. Thus the supe- 
 rior limits of Prob. xyz + x (1 - y) (1 - z) are 
 
 Prob. a;, Prob.?/ + Prob. (1 - z), and Prob. z + Prob. (1 -y). 
 
 Let it be observed, that if in the last case we had taken Prob. z 
 from the first term, and Prob. (1 - z) from the second, — a con- 
 nexion not forbidden, — we should have had as their sum 1, which 
 as a result would be useless because d priori necessary. It is 
 obvious that we may reject any limits which do not fall between 
 0 and 1. 
 
 Let us apply this method to Ex. 7, Case hi. of the last 
 chapter. 
 
 The final logical solution is 
 
 0 , 1 - 1 . 
 
 X - - stu + - stu + - stu + stu 
 0 0 0 
 
 + \-ltu+ 0 iftu+ b~stu + 0!tu, 
 
 0 
 
 the data being 
 
 Prob. s = p, Prob. t = q, Prob. u = r. 
 
 We shall seek both the numerical limits of x, and the condi- 
 tions connecting p, q, and r. 
 
308 OF STATISTICAL CONDITIONS. [CHAP. XIX. 
 
 The superior limits of x are, according to the rule, given by 
 those of stu + stu. They are, therefore, 
 
 p, q + 1 — r, r + 1 - q. 
 
 The inferior limits of x arc given by those of 
 stu + stu + stu + Itu. 
 
 We may collect the first and third of these constituents in the 
 single term st, and the second and third in the single term su. 
 The inferior limits of x must then be deduced separately from 
 the terms s ( l - £), 5 (1 - u), (1 - s) tu , which give 
 
 p+l-q-\, p+l-r-l, l-p + q + r-2, 
 or p - q, p - r , and q + r - p - 1 . 
 
 Finally, the conditions among the constants p, q, and r, are 
 given by the terms 
 
 stu, stu, stu , 
 
 from which, by the rule, we deduce 
 
 p+\-q + r-2<0, p + q + \-r-2<0, \ - p+ q + r -2<0. 
 or \ + q - p - r>0, 1 + r - p - q>0, 1 + p - q - r>0. 
 
 These are the limiting conditions employed in the analysis of 
 the final solution. The conditions by which in that solution A is 
 limited, were determined, however, simply from the conditions 
 that the quantities s, t, and u should be positive. Narrower 
 limits of that quantity might, in all probability, have been de- 
 duced from the above investigation. 
 
 12. The following application is taken from an important pro- 
 blem, the solution of which will be given in the next chapter. 
 There are given, 
 
 Prob. x = c { , Prob . y - c 2 , Prob. s = c x p x , Prob . t = c 2 p», 
 together with the logical equation 
 
 z = stocy + stxy + stxy + 07£ 
 
 1 f stxy + stxy + stxy + stxy + stxy 
 ® {_ + s txy + ~stxy + Itxy + stxy ; 
 
CHAP. XIX.] 
 
 OF STATISTICAL CONDITIONS. 
 
 309 
 
 and it is required to determine the conditions among the constants 
 Ci, c 2 , Pn Pz, and the major and minor limits of z. 
 
 First let us seek the conditions among the constants. Con- 
 
 fining our attention to the terms whose coefficients 
 
 1 
 
 are - , we 
 
 readily form, by the aggregation of constituents, the following 
 terms, viz. : 
 
 5(1-*), t(l-y), sy(\-t), ta(l-s); 
 
 nor can we form any other terms which are not included under 
 these. Hence the conditions among the constants are, 
 
 n (s) + n (1 - a) - n (1) < 0, 
 
 »(0 +»(1 - y ) ~ »( 1 ) < 0 , 
 
 n ( 5 ) + n ( y ) + n(\ - t) - 2n (1) < 0, 
 n(t) + n (a) + n (1 - s) - 2 n (1) < 0. 
 
 Now replace n (a) by c ls n (; y ) by c 2 , n ( s ) by c,/*!, n ( t ) by 
 c 2 p 2 , and w(l) by 1, and we have, after slight reductions, 
 
 C1P1 < Ci , c 2 y >2 < £25 
 
 C 1 P 1 < 1 - c 2 (1 -p 2 ), c 2 p 2 < 1 - Cj (1 -p v ). 
 
 Such are, then, the requisite conditions among the constants. 
 
 Again, the major limits of z are identical Avith those of the 
 expression 
 
 stxy + s ( \ - t) x ( \ - y) + - s) t ( \ - x) y\ 
 
 which, if Ave bear in mind the conditions 
 
 n (s) < n (a), n (t) < n (y), 
 
 above determined, will be found to be 
 
 n(s) + n ( t ), or, c L + c.,p 2 , 
 
 n (s) + n (1 - a), or, 1 - c 2 (1 - p x ) 
 n(t) + h (1 - y), or, 1 - c 2 (1 - p 2 ). 
 
 Lastly, to ascertain the minor limits of 2 , Ave readily form 
 from the constituents, Avhose coefficients are 1 or the single 
 terms s and t, nor can any other terms not included under these be 
 
OF STATISTICAL CONDITIONS. 
 
 310 
 
 [chap. XIX. 
 
 formed by selection or aggregation. Hence, for the minor limits 
 of z we have the values c x p x and c 2 p 2 . 
 
 13. It is to be observed, that the method developed above 
 does not always assign the narrowest limits which it is possible 
 to determine. But it in all cases, I believe, sufficiently limits the 
 solutions of questions in the theory of probabilities. 
 
 The problem of the determination of the narrowest limits of 
 numerical extension of a class is, however, always reducible to a 
 purely algebraical form,* Thus, resuming the equations 
 
 iv = A + OB + ^ C + ^ D, 
 
 0 0 
 
 let the highest inferior numerical limit of w be represented by 
 the formula an (&•) + bn (t) . . + dn (1), wherein a, b, c, .. d are 
 numerical constants to be determined, and s, f, &c., the logical 
 symbols of which A, B, C, D are constituents. Then 
 
 an (s) + bn (t) . . + dn (1) = minor limit of A subject 
 
 to the condition D = 0. 
 
 Hence if we develop the function 
 
 as + bt . . + <f, 
 
 reject from the result all constituents which are found in D , the 
 coefficients of those constituents which remain, and are found 
 also in A, ought not individually to exceed unity in value, and 
 the coefficients of those constituents which remain, and which 
 are not found in A, should individually not exceed 0 in value. 
 Hence we shall have a series of inequalities of the form f< 1 , 
 and another series of the form g < 0 ; , /’and g being linear func- 
 tions of a, b , c, &c. Then those values of a, b . . d, which, while 
 satisfying the above conditions, give to the function 
 
 an ( 5 ) + bn ( t ) . . + dn (1), 
 
 its highest value must be determined, and the highest value in 
 
 * The author regrets the loss of a manuscript, written about four years ago, 
 in which this method, he believes, was developed at considerable length. His 
 recollection of the contents is almost entirely confined to the impression that the 
 principle of the method was the same as above described, and that its suffici- 
 ency was proved. The prior methods of this chapter are, it is almost needless 
 to say, easier, though certainly less general. 
 
CHAP. XIX.] 
 
 OF STATISTICAL CONDITIONS. 
 
 311 
 
 question will be the highest minor limit of id. To the above we 
 may add the relations similarly formed for the determination of 
 the relations among the given constants n (s), n(t) . ,n (1). 
 
 14. The following somewhat complicated example will show 
 how the limitation of a solution is effected, when the problem 
 involves an arbitrary element, constituting it the representative 
 of a system of problems agreeing in their data, but unlimited in 
 their quaesita. 
 
 Problem. — O f n events x x x 2 . . x n , the following particulars 
 are known : 
 
 1st. The probability that either the event x x will occur, or 
 all the events fail, is p x . 
 
 2nd. The probability that either the event x 2 will occur, or 
 all the events fail, is p 2 . And so on for the others. 
 
 It is required to find the probability of any single event, or 
 combination of events, represented by the general functional form 
 $(x x . . x n ), or 0. 
 
 Adopting a previous notation, the data of the problem are 
 Prob. (x x + ij . . x n ) = Pi . . Prob. (x n + i x . . x n ) = p n . 
 
 And Prob. 0 (x x . . x n ) is required. 
 
 Assume generally 
 
 x r + x l . . x n = s r , (1) 
 
 <p = w. (2) 
 
 We hence obtain the collective logical equation of the problem 
 
 2 {(x r + x 1 . . x n ) J r + s r (x,. - x x . . •?„)} + <j>w + vity = 0. (3) 
 
 From this equation we must eliminate the symbols x x , . . x n , and 
 determine w as a developed logical function of s x . . s n . 
 
 Let us represent the result of the aforesaid elimination in the 
 form 
 
 Ew + A'(l - to) = 0 ; 
 
 then will E be the result of the elimination of the same symbols 
 from the equation 
 
 S {(ay + x x , . x„) J r + s r (x r -x l ..x n ))+ 1-0 = 0. (4) 
 
 Now E will be the product of the coefficients of all the con- 
 stituents (considered with reference to the symbols x 1} x. 2 . . x n ) 
 
312 OF STATISTICAL CONDITIONS. [CHAP. XIX. 
 
 which nre found in the development of the first member of the 
 above equation. Moreover, 0, and therefore 1-0, will consist 
 of a series of such constituents, having unity for their respective 
 coefficients. In determining the forms of the coefficients in the 
 development of the first member of (4), it will be convenient to 
 arrange them in the following manner : 
 
 1st. The coefficients of constituents found in 1 - 0. 
 
 2nd. The coefficient of i,, x 2 . . x„, if found in 0. 
 
 3rd. The coefficients of constituents found in 0, excluding the 
 constituent x x , x 2 . . x n . 
 
 The above is manifestly an exhaustive classification. 
 
 First then ; the coefficient of any constituent found in 1 - 0, 
 will, in the development of the first member of (4), be of the form 
 
 1 + positive terms derived from 2. 
 
 Hence, every such coefficient may be replaced by unity, Prop. i. 
 Chap. ix. 
 
 Secondly ; the coefficient of x x . . x n , if found in 0, in the 
 development of the first member of (4) will be 
 
 2s r , or h + i 2 . . + l n 
 
 Thirdly; the coefficient of any other constituent, a?! . . x h 
 xi +l . . x n , found in 0, in the development of the first member 
 of (4) will be ?! . . + + 5 i+1 . . + s n . 
 
 Now it is seen, that E is the product of all the coefficients 
 above determined ; but as the coefficients of those constituents 
 which are not found in 0 reduce to unity, E may be regarded as 
 the product of the coefficients of those constituents which are found 
 in 0. From the mode in which those coefficients are formed, we 
 derive the following rule for the determination of E, viz., in 
 each constituent found in 0, except the constituent x x x 2 . . x n , 
 for x x write s x , for x x write sj, and so on, and add the results; 
 but for the constituent:?!, x 2 ..x n , if it occur in0, write l x + s 2 ..+ s n ; 
 the product of all these sums is E. 
 
 To find E' we must in (3) make tv = 0, and eliminate x x , x 2 . . x n 
 from the reduced equation. That equation will be 
 
 2 [ (x r 4 ? 1 .. + Xn) Sr + S r (x r - X x ...?„)}+ 0 = 0. (5) 
 
CHAP. XIX.] OF STATISTICAL CONDITIONS. 
 
 313 
 
 Hence E' will be formed from tbe constituents in 1 - 0, i. e. 
 from the constituents not found in 0 in the same way as E is 
 formed from the constituents found in 0. 
 
 Consider next the equation 
 
 This gives 
 
 Ew + E' (1 - w) - 0. 
 
 E' 
 
 w = 
 
 E-E 
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 Now E and E are functions of the symbols s x , s 2 . . s n . The 
 expansion of the value of w will, therefore, consist of all the con- 
 stituents which can be formed out of those symbols, with their 
 proper coefficients annexed to them, as determined by the rule 
 of development. 
 
 Moreover, E and E are each formed by the multiplication of 
 factors, and neither of them can vanish unless some one of the 
 factors of which it is composed vanishes. Again, any factor, as 
 ?! . . + J n can only vanish when all the terms by the addition of 
 which it is formed vanish together, since in development we at- 
 tribute to these terms the values 0 and 1 , only. It is further evi- 
 dent, that no two factors differing from each other can vanish 
 together. Thus the factors 7 X + s 2 • • + 7„, and s 1 + s 2 . . + s n , can- 
 not simultaneously vanish, for the former cannot vanish unless 
 Si = 0, or Si = 1 ; but the latter cannot vanish unless Si = 0. 
 
 First, let us determine the coefficient of the constituent 
 si 7, . : s n in the development of the value of w. 
 
 The simultaneous assumption 7i = 1, s 2 = 1 . . J n = 1, would 
 cause the factor Si + s 2 . . + s n to vanish if this should occur in 
 E or E'; and no other factor under the same assumption would 
 vanish ; but Si + s 2 . . + s n does not occur as a factor of either 
 E or E'; neither of these quantities, therefore, can vanish; and, 
 
 therefore, the expression ^ ^ , is neither 1 , 0, nor ^ . 
 
 Wherefore the coefficient ofsi s 2 . . s„ in the expanded value 
 of io, may be represented by ^ . 
 
 Secondly, let us determine the coefficient of the constituent 
 
314 
 
 OF STATISTICAL CONDITIONS* 
 
 [CHAF. XIXo 
 
 The assumptions Si=l,s*=l,..« n = l, would cause the factor 
 h + So . • + s„ to vanish. Now this factor is found in E and not 
 in E' whenever 0 contains both the constituents x x x 2 . . x„. and 
 
 E' E' 
 
 a', x- . . x n - Here then — = becomes -77, or 1. The factor 
 
 E' - E E 
 
 Ji + 7 S . . + l n is found in E and not in E, if <p contains neither 
 of the constituents x, x 2 . . x n and Xi x 2 . . x„. Here then 
 
 becomes or 0. Lastly, the factor + s 2 . . + s n is 
 E — E — E 
 
 contained in both E and E', if one of the constituents x x x 2 . . x„ 
 
 E' 
 
 and x\x 2 . . x n is found in 0, and one is not. Here then 
 
 E'-E 
 
 becomes 
 
 0 
 
 The coefficient of the constituent s l s 2 . . s n , will therefore be 
 
 1 , 0, or according as 0 contains both the constituents x l x 2 . . x n 
 
 and x x x 2 . • x n , or neither of them , or one of them and not the 
 other. 
 
 Lastly, to determine the coefficient of any other constituent 
 
 3.S Si • • Si S [+ 1 • . S n • 
 
 The assumptions s r - 1, . . si = 1, s i+l = 0, s n = 0, would 
 cause the factor ?! . . + s* + s i+1 . . + s n to vanish. Now this fac- 
 tor is found in E, if the constituent x^_ . . x t x i+1 . . x n is found in 
 0 and in E\ if the said constituent is not found in 0. In the 
 E' E 
 
 former case we have 77, 77 = 777- = 1 ; in the latter case we have 
 
 E — E E 
 
 . . E ..— = — ° — = 0. 
 
 E'-E 0 -E 
 
 Hence the coefficient of any other constituent s l . . s h ~s Ul . . ~s n 
 is 1 or 0 according as the similar constituent x, . . n x i+1 . . x n 
 is or is not found in 0. 
 
 We may, therefore, practically determine the value of w in 
 the following manner. Rejecting from the given expression of 
 0 the constituents x x x 2 . . x n and and x\ x 2 . . x n , should both or 
 either of them be contained in it, let the symbols x 2 , . . x n , 
 in the result be changed into s 15 s 2 , . . s n respectively. Let the co- 
 efficients of the constituents Sj s 2 . . s n and . . ~s n be determined 
 
OF STATISTICAL CONDITIONS. 
 
 315 
 
 CHAP. XIX.] 
 
 according to the special rules for those cases given above, and let 
 every other constituent have for its coefficient 0. The result 
 will be the value of to as a function of Sj , s 2 , . . s „ . 
 
 As a particular case, let <p = x x . It is required from the 
 given data to determine the probability of the event x x . 
 
 The symbol x x , expanded in terms of the entire series of sym- 
 bols x x , x 2 , . . x n , will generate all the constituents of those 
 symbols which have x x as a factor. Among those constituents 
 will be found the constituent x x x 2 . . x n , but not the constituent 
 
 X \ X 2 • • Xji * 
 
 Hence in the expanded value of x x as a function of the sym- 
 bols Si , s 2 , . . s„ , the constituent s x s 2 . . s n will have the coefficient 
 
 0 . .1 
 
 - , and the constituent s x s 2 . . s n the coefficient - . 
 
 U 0 
 
 If from x x we reject the constituent x x x 2 . . x n , the result 
 will be x x - x x x 2 . . x„ , and changing therein X\ into s x , &c., we 
 have s x - s x s 2 < . s n for the corresponding portion of the expres- 
 sion of x\ as a function of s x , s 2 , . . s n . 
 
 Hence the final expression for x x is 
 
 0 1 __ _ 
 
 - 5l “ Sl S 2 . . S n + - Si + - 5i . . Sn ^ ^ 
 
 + constituents whose coefficients are 0. 
 
 The sum of all the constituents in the above expansion whose 
 
 0 
 
 coefficients are either 1, 0, or — , will be 1 - Si$s • • 
 
 u 
 
 We shall, therefore, have the following algebraic system for 
 the determination of Prob. x x , viz. : 
 
 73 U S x — S X S 2 
 
 Prob. x x = — 
 
 S n 4 * CS\S2 
 
 l -s x s 2 
 
 Sn 
 
 with the relations 
 
 ( 8 ) 
 
 S% Sn 
 
 Pi Pz ‘ ' ~ Pn (9) 
 
 = 1 — Si s 2 . . s n = X. 
 
 It will be seen, that the relations for the determination of 
 Si s 3 . . s„ are quite independent of the form of the function 
 and the values of these quantities, determined once, will serve 
 
316 
 
 OF STATISTICAL CONDITIONS. 
 
 [CHAP. XIX. 
 
 for all possible problems in which the data are the same, how- 
 ever the qucesita of those problems may vary. The nature of 
 that event, or combination of events, whose probability is sought, 
 will affect only the form of the function in which the determined 
 values of s, s 2 . . s n are to be substituted. 
 
 We have from (9) 
 
 Si = s 3 = p 2 \, . . s„ = p n A. 
 
 Whence 
 
 1 - (1 -pi\) (1 -.p,X) . . (1 -p n A) = A. 
 
 Or, 
 
 1 - A = (1 ~PiX) (1 -p 2 A) . . (1 -p„ A) ; (10) 
 
 from which equation the value of A is to be determined. 
 
 Supposing this value determined, the value of Prob. x x will be 
 
 Pl A - ( 1 - c) Pi p 2 . . p n X n 
 1 - (1 - Pi A) (1 - Pi A) . . (1 - p n A)’ 
 
 or, on reduction by (10), 
 
 Prob. x y = p x - (1 - c) p x p 2 . .p n \ n - 1 . (11) 
 
 Let us next seek the conditions which must be fulfilled 
 among the constants p { , p 2 , . . p n , and the limits of the value of 
 Prob. x x . 
 
 As there is but one term with the coefficient - , there is but 
 one condition among the constants, viz., 
 
 Minor limit, (1 - s,) (1 - s 2 ) . . (1 - s n ) < 0. 
 
 Or, n (1 - s x ) + n (1 - s 2 ) . .+n(l - s n ) - (n- 1) h(1)< 0. 
 
 Or, n (1 ) - n (s,) - n ( s 2 ) . . - n (s„) < 0. 
 
 Whence P\ + p 2 . . + p n > 
 
 the condition required. 
 
 The major limit of Prob. x x is the major limit of the sum of 
 those constituents whose coefficients are 1 or - . But that sum is s x . 
 Hence, 
 
 Major limit, Prob. x x = major limit s x = p y . 
 
CHAP. XIX.] 
 
 OF STATISTICAL CONDITIONS. 
 
 317 
 
 The minor limit of Prob. a?i will be identical with the minor 
 limit of the expression 
 
 s l ~ s l s 2 • • s n + (1 ~ $i) (1 — S 2 ) • • (1 — s n')’ 
 
 A little attention will show that the different aggregates, 
 terms which can be formed out of the above, each including the 
 greatest possible number of constituents, will be the following, 
 viz. : 
 
 Sl (1 — S 2 ), s 1 (1 — S 3 ), . . Sl (1 — S n ), (1 — S 2 ) (1 — S 3 ) . . (1 — Sn). 
 
 From these we deduce the following expressions for the minor 
 limit, viz. : 
 
 P 1 -P 2 , Pi -Pi • • P\ ~Pn, 1 - pt ~p 3 • • ~Pn- 
 The value of Prob. x x will, therefore, not fall short of any of 
 these values, nor exceed the value ofpi. 
 
 Instead, however, of employing these conditions, we may 
 directly avail ourselves of the principle stated in the demon- 
 stration of the general method in probabilities. The condition 
 that Si , s 2 , . . s n must each be less than unity, requires that A 
 
 should be less than each of the quantities — , . And 
 
 Pi Pi Pn 
 
 the condition that Si, s 2 , . . s„, must each be greater than 0, re- 
 quires that A should also be greater than 0. Now p x p 2 ■ . p n 
 being proper fractions satisfying the condition 
 
 Pi + Pi • • + Pn > 1, 
 
 it may be shown that but one positive value of A can be deduced 
 from the central equation (10) which shall be less than each of 
 
 the quantities — , That value of A is, therefore, the 
 
 P 1 Pi Pn 
 
 one required. 
 
 To prove this, let us consider the equation 
 
 (1 - j?iA) (1 - p 2 X) • • (1 - Pn\) - 1 + A = 0. 
 
 When A = 0 the first member vanishes, and the equation is 
 satisfied. Let us examine the variations of the first member 
 
 between the limits A = 0 and A = — , supposing p x the greatest of 
 
 Pi 
 
 the values j»i p 2 . . p n . 
 
OF STATISTICAL CONDITIONS. 
 
 318 
 
 [chap, XIX. 
 
 Representing the first member of the equation by F, we have 
 
 dV 
 
 dX 
 
 — Pi (f ,P?.A) • • PnX~) . . p n (1 — PiX ) . . (l ~/>7j-iA) + l, 
 
 which, when A = 0, assumes the form - pi - p 2 . . - p n + 1, and 
 is negative in value. 
 
 Again, we have 
 
 d 2 V 
 
 ^7= J3 1 j0 2 (l-jD 3 A)(l- J p n A)+&C.» 
 
 consisting of a series of terms which, under the given restrictions 
 with reference to the value of A, are positive . 
 
 | 
 
 Lastly, when A = — , we have 
 
 Pi 
 
 F = - 1 + 
 
 Pi 
 
 which is positive. 
 
 From all this it appears, that if we construct a curve, the or- 
 dinates of which shall represent the value of F corresponding to 
 the abscissa A, that curve will pass through the origin, and will 
 for small values of A lie beneath the abscissa. Its convexity will, 
 
 I 
 
 between the limits A = 0 and A = — be downwards, and at the 
 
 Pi 
 
 i 
 
 extreme limit — the curve will be above the abscissa, its ordinate 
 Pi 
 
 being positive. It follows from this description, that it will in- 
 tersect the abscissa once, and only once, within the limits sped- 
 
 1 
 
 bed, viz., between the values A = 0, and A = — . 
 
 Pi 
 
 The solution of the problem is, therefore, expressed by (11), 
 the value of A being that root of the equation (10), which lies 
 , 1 1 1 
 
 within the limits 0 and — , — , . . — . 
 
 Pi Pi Pn. 
 
 The constant c is obviously the probability, that if the events 
 Xi, x 2 , . . x n , all happen, or all fail, they will all happen. 
 
 This determination of the value of A suffices for all problems 
 in which the data are the same as in the one just considered. It 
 is, as from previous discussions we are prepared to expect, a de- 
 termination independent of the form of the function <p. 
 
OF STATISTICAL CONDITIONS. 
 
 319 
 
 CHAF. XIX.] 
 
 Let us. as another example 5 suppose 
 
 $ = or W = Xi (1 - X 2 ) . . (1 - X n ) . . + X n (1 - 2a) . . (1 - X n .i). ' 
 
 This is equivalent to requiring the probability, that of the events 
 , x 2 , . . x n one, and only one. will happen. The value of w will 
 obviously be 
 
 l 
 
 W = Si (^1 — S 2 ) " " (1 — Sn) • • + Sy; (I — 3j) ■ .( 1 — S n _j) + — . . (1 — Sn)f 
 
 from which we should have 
 
 Prob. [xi (1 -^..(1-*,).,+ x n (1 -a^) . . (1 -x n .i)} 
 
 _ Si (1 — Sz) . . (1 — S n ) . • + S n (1 — Si) . . (1 — 3fi-i) 
 
 1 ~{l-Si)..(l~S n ) 
 
 _pi\(l-p 2 \) . . (l-j» n A) ..+p n X(l-pi\) . . (1— pn-lX) 
 
 _ _ 
 
 Pi (1 - A) p 2 (1 - X) p n (1 - A) 
 
 1 - piX 1 - p%X " l-y>„A 
 
 This solution serves well to illustrate the remarks made in the 
 introductory chapter (I. 16) The essential difficulties of the 
 problem are founded in the nature of its data and not in that of 
 its qusesita. The central equation by which A is determined, and 
 the peculiar discussions connected therewith, are equally perti- 
 nent to every form, which that problem can be made to assume, 
 by varying the interpretation of the arbitrary elements in its 
 original statement. 
 
320 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 [CHAr. XX. 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 PROBLEMS RELATING TO THE CONNEXION OF CAUSES AND 
 EFFECTS. 
 
 ^0 to apprehend in all particular instances the relation of 
 cause and effect, as to connect the two extremes in thought 
 according to the order in which they are connected in nature 
 (for the modus operandi is, and must ever be, unknown to us), 
 is the final object of science. This treatise has shown, that there 
 is special reference to such an object in the constitution of the 
 intellectual faculties. There is a sphere of thought which com- 
 prehends things only as coexistent parts of a universe ; but 
 there is also a sphere of thought (Chap, xi.) in which they are 
 apprehended as links of an unbroken, and, to human appear- 
 ance, an endless chain — as having their place in an order con- 
 necting them both with that which has gone before, and with 
 that which shall follow after. In the contemplation of such 
 a series, it is impossible not to feel the pre-eminence which is due, 
 above all other relations, to the relation of cause and effect. 
 
 Here I propose to consider, in their abstract form, some pro- 
 blems in which the above relation is involved. There exists 
 among such problems, as might be anticipated from the nature 
 of the relation with which they are concerned, a wide diversity. 
 From the probabilities of causes assigned a priori , or given by 
 experience, and their respective probabilities of association with 
 an effect contemplated, it may be required to determine the pro- 
 bability of that effect ; and this either, 1st, absolutely, or 2ndly, 
 under given conditions. To such an object some of the earlier 
 of the following problems relate. On the other hand, it may be 
 required to determine the probability of a particular cause, or of 
 some particular connexion among a system of causes, from ob- 
 served effects, and the known tendencies of the said causes, singly 
 or in connexion, to the production of such effects. This class of 
 questions will be considered in a subsequent portion of the 
 
CHAP. XX.] PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 321 
 
 chapter, and other forms of the general inquiry will also be 
 noticed. I would remark, that although these examples are de- 
 signed chiefly as illustrations of a method , no regard has been 
 paid to the question of ease or convenience in the application of 
 that method. On the contrary, they have been devised, with 
 whatever success, as types of the class of problems which might 
 be expected to arise from the study of the relation of cause and 
 effect in the more complex of its actual and Visible manifestations. 
 
 2. Problem I. — The probabilities of two causes A x andM 2 
 are c x and c 2 respectively. The probability that if the cause A x 
 present itself, an event E will accompany it (whether as a conse- 
 quence of the cause A x or not) is p x , and the probability that if 
 the cause A 2 present itself, that event E will accompany it, 
 whether as a consequence of it or not, is p 2 . Moreover, the 
 event E cannot appear in the absence of both the causes A x and 
 A 2 .* Required the probability of the event E. 
 
 The solution of what this problem becomes in the case in 
 which the causes A x , A 2 are mutually exclusive, is well known 
 to be 
 
 Prob. E = c x p x + c 2 p 2 ; 
 
 and it expresses a particular case of a fundamental and very im- 
 portant principle in the received theory of probabilities. Here 
 it is proposed to solve the problem free from the restriction above 
 stated. 
 
 • The mode in which such data as the above might be furnished by expe- 
 rience is easily conceivable. Opposite the window of the room in which I write 
 is a field, liable to be overflowed from two causes, distinct, but capable of being 
 combined, viz., floods from the upper sources of the River Lee, and tides from 
 the ocean. Suppose that observations made on N separate occasions have 
 yielded the following results : On A occasions the river was swollen by freshets, 
 and on P of those occasions it was inundated, whether from this cause or not. 
 On B occasions the river was swollen by the tide, and on Qof those occasions it 
 was inundated, whether from this cause or not. Supposing, then, that the field 
 cannot be inundated in the absence of both the causes above mentioned, let it be 
 required to determine the total probability of its inundation. 
 
 Here the elements a, b, p, q of the general problem represent the ratios 
 A P J3 Q 
 N’ A’ N’ B' 
 
 or rather the values to which those ratios approach, as the value of N is indefi- 
 nitely increased. 
 
322 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 [chap. XX. 
 
 Let us represent 
 
 The cause A x by x. 
 
 The cause A 2 by y. 
 
 The effect E by z. 
 
 Then we have the following numerical data : 
 
 Prob. x = Ci, Prob. y = c 2 , 
 
 Prob. xz = Cip l} Prob. yz = c 2 p 2 . 
 
 Again, it is provided that if the causes A l} A 2 are both ab- 
 sent, the effect E does not occur ; whence we have the logical 
 equation 
 
 (1 - x) (1 - y) = v (1 - z). 
 
 Or, eliminating v, 
 
 z (1 - x) (1 - y) = 0. (2) 
 
 Now assume, 
 
 xz = s, yz = t. (3) 
 
 Then, reducing these equations (VIII. 7), and connecting the 
 result with (2), 
 
 xz(l- s)+ s(l- xz) + yz(l- 1) + t(l~yz)+z(l-x)(l-y) = 0. (4) 
 
 From this equation, z must be determined as a developed 
 logical function of x, y, s, and t, and its probability thence de- 
 duced by means of the data, 
 
 Prob .x-c ly Prob. y = c 2 , Prob .s = c l pi, Prob. t = c 2 p 2 , (5) 
 
 Now developing(4) with respect to z, and putting x for 1 - x, 
 y for 1 = y, and so on, we have 
 
 (xs + sx + yt + ty + xy ) z + (s + t) z = 0, 
 
 s+t 
 
 Z + — z 
 
 s + t -xs- sx -yt - ty - xy 
 
 1 _ 1 _ 1 __ 
 
 = stxy + - stxy + - stxy + - stxy 
 0 0 0 
 
 1 - - _ 1 1 
 
 + — stxy + stxy + —stxy + — stxy 
 
 1 _ 1 _ _ __ 1 
 
 + - stxy + - stxy + stxy + - stxy 
 
 + 07 txy + 0 7 txy + 0 stxy + 0 stxy. 
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
CHAP, XX.] 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 323 
 
 From this result we find (XVII. 17) 5 
 
 V= stxy + stxy 4 stxy + Itxy + Jtxy 
 4 Itxy 4 stxy 
 = stxy 4 stxy 4 stxy + st. 
 
 Whence, passing from Logic to Algebra, we have the following 
 system of equations, u standing for the probability sought : 
 
 stxy 4 stxy 4 Jtx stxy 4 stxy 4 Jty 
 
 _ stxy 4 stxy stxy \ stxy 
 c ifl c 2 p 2 
 
 stxy 4 stxy 4 Itxy stxy 4 stxy 4 stxy 4 It T/ 
 u = 1 ~ = ’ 
 
 from which we must eliminate s, t, x, y, and V. 
 
 Now if we have any series of equal fractions, as 
 
 (?) 
 
 a b c 
 
 -7 = Y? = “ . . = A 5 
 
 a b c 
 
 we know that 
 
 la 4 mb 4 nc 
 
 - = A. 
 
 la! 4 mb' 4 nc' 
 
 And thus from the above system of equations we may deduce 
 
 Itxy stxy It y 
 u - c l p l u - c 2 p 2 1 - u 
 
 whence we have, on equating the product of the three first mem- 
 bers to the cube of the last, 
 
 sJ 2 tt 2 xxyy 
 
 = V 3 . 
 
 (u-CipO (u - c 2 p 2 ) (1 -u) 
 
 Again, from the system ( 7 ) we have 
 
 Jtx sty stxy 
 
 ( 8 ) 
 
 1 — U — Ci 4 c x p x 1 - U - C 2 4 c 2 p 2 c l p 1 4 C 2 p 2 - U 
 whence proceeding as before 
 
 = V, 
 
 ss' z tt 2 xxyy 
 
 (I - Ci 4 Ci pi - u) (1 - c 2 4 c 2 p 2 - u) (c^i 4 c 2 p, - v) 
 
 = V 3 . (9) 
 
324 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 [CHAP. XX. 
 
 Equating the values of F 3 in (8) and (9), we have 
 (« - c, p x ) ( n - c 2 p 2 ) ( 1 -u) 
 
 = {1 -Cj(l -p x ) -u) { 1 — c 2 ( 1 -p 2 )-u) (<?! p\ + c 2 p 2 — m), 
 which may be more conveniently written in the form 
 (u-c lPl )(u-c 2 p 2 ) = { 1 - c, (1 -pQ-m) {l-c 2 (l-p 2 )-«) 
 
 From this equation the value of u may be found. It remains 
 only to determine which of the roots must be taken for this pur- 
 pose. 
 
 3. It has been shown (XIX. 12) that the quantity u, in 
 order that it may represent the probability required in the above 
 case, must exceed each of the quantities c 1 p l , c 2 p 2 , and fall 
 short of each of the quantities 1 - c, (1 - pd), 1 - c 2 (1 - p 2 ), and 
 Ci Pi + c 2 p 2 ; the condition among the constants, moreover, being 
 that the three last quantities must individually exceed each of 
 the two former ones. Now I shall show that these conditions 
 being satisfied, the final equation (10) has but one root which 
 falls within the limits assigned. That root will therefore be the 
 required value of u. 
 
 Let us represent the lower limits c x p L , c 2 p 2 , by a , b respec- 
 tively, and the upper limits 1 — ( 1 — y?i), l-c 2 (l - p 2 ), and 
 
 Ci pi + c 2 p 2 , by a, b', c' respectively. Then the general equation 
 may be expressed in the form 
 
 ( u - a) (u - b ) (1 - u ) - ( a ' - u) (p - u ) (c - u) = 0, (11) 
 or (1 — a - b') u 1 — { ab - a'b' + {\-a - b)c) u + ab - add = 0. 
 
 Representing the first member of the above equation by F, we 
 have 
 
 d 2 V 
 AT = 
 
 Now let us suppose a the highest of the lower limits of m, a the 
 lowest of its higher limits, and trace the progress of the values 
 of F between the limits u = a and u = a'. 
 
 When u = a, we see from the form of the first member of ( 1 1 ) 
 that F is negative, and when u = a we see that V is positive. 
 
CHAP. XX.] PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 325 
 
 Between those limits V varies continuously without becoming 
 
 d 2 V . 
 
 infinite, and — - is ahvays of the same sign. 
 
 Hence if u represent the abscissa V the ordinate of a plane 
 curve, it is evident that the curve will pass from a point below 
 the axis of u corresponding to u = a, to a point above the axis of 
 u corresponding to u = a, the curve remaining continuous, and 
 having its concavity or convexity always turned in the same di- 
 rection. A little attention -will show that, under these circum- 
 stances, it must cut the axis of u once, and only once. 
 
 Hence between the limits u = a, u = a', there exists one value 
 of u, and only one, which satisfies the equation (11). It will 
 further appear, if in thought the curve be traced, that the other 
 value of u will be less than a when the quantity 1 - a - b' is po- 
 sitive and greater than any one of the quantities a, b', d when 
 1 - a! - b' is negative. It hence follows that in the solution of 
 (11) the positive sign of the radical must be taken. We thus 
 find 
 
 ab - a'b' + ( 1 - a - V) c + J Q_ 
 
 2(1 -o'- ft') 
 
 where Q= [ab- a'b’+ (1 - a - b')c) 2 - 4(1 - a- b') (ab- a'b'c). 
 
 4. The results of this investigation may to some extent be 
 verified. Thus, it is evident that the probability of the event E 
 must in general exceed the probability of the concurrence of the 
 event E and the cause A 1 or A 2 . Hence we must have, as the 
 solution indicates, 
 
 u>c 1 p 1 , u>c 2 p 2 - 
 
 Again, it is clear that the probability of the effect E must in 
 general be less than it would be if the causes A lf A 2 were mu- 
 tually exclusive. Hence 
 
 u < c 1 p 1 + c 2 p 2 . 
 
 Lastly, since the probability of the failure of the effect E con- 
 curring with the presence of the cause A x must, in general, be 
 less than the absolute probability of the failure of E, we have 
 
 Ci (1 - pi) < 1 - u, 
 
 .-. U < 1 — Cl (1 - Pi). 
 
326 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 [chap. XX. 
 
 Similarly, 
 
 u < 3 — c 2 ( 1 - p 2 ). 
 
 And thus the conditions by which the general solution was 
 limited are confirmed. 
 
 Again, let p x = 1, p 2 = 1. This is to suppose that when either 
 of the causes A u A 2 is present, the event E will occur. We have 
 then a - c 1} b = c 2 , a = 1, b = 1, c'= c, + c 2 , and substituting in 
 (13) we get 
 
 _ Cl c 2 - Ci - c 2 - 1 + V { {C\ C 2 - Cl ~ c 2 - l) 2 + 4 (c, c 2 - Cl - c 2 ) j 
 “ “ ~2 
 
 = Ci + c 2 - CiC 2 on reduction 
 
 = 1 - (1 - Cl) (1 - c 2 ). 
 
 Now this is the known expression for thb probability that one 
 cause at least will be present, which, under the circumstances, is 
 evidently the probability of the event E. 
 
 Finally, let it be supposed that Ci and c 2 are very small, so 
 that their product may be neglected ; then the expression for u 
 reduces to c Y p x + c 2 p 2 . Now the smaller the probability of each 
 cause, the smaller, in a much higher degree, is the probability of 
 a conjunction of causes. Ultimately, therefore, such reduction 
 continuing, the probability of the event E becomes the same as 
 if the causes were mutually exclusive. 
 
 I have dwelt at greater length upon this solution, because it 
 serves in some respect as a model for those which follow, some of 
 which, being of a more complex character, might, without such 
 preparation, appear difficult. 
 
 5. Problem II. — In place of the supposition adopted in the 
 previous problem, that the event E cannot happen when both the 
 causes A j, A 2 are absent, let it be assumed that the causes A u A 2 
 cannot both be absent, and let the other circumstances remain as 
 before. Required, then, the probability of the event E. 
 
 Here, in place of the equation (2) of the previous solution, we 
 have the equation 
 
 (l-.r) (l-y) = 0. 
 
 The developed logical expression of z is found to be 
 
CHAP. XX.] 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 327 
 
 z - stxy + - stxy + - stxy + -"stxy 
 0 0 0 1 
 
 1 _ _ . I __ 1 
 
 + -stxy + stxy + - stxy + - stxy 
 0 '0 0 
 
 1 _ 1 _ . __ 1 
 
 + 0 stxy + - stxy + stxy + - stxy 
 
 1 
 
 + 0 stxy + 0 s txy + 0 s t xy + - s txy 
 
 and the final solution is 
 
 Prob. E = u: 
 
 the quantity u being determined by the solution of the equation 
 
 ( u -a) (u-b) _ (a! - u) (b -u) , . 
 
 a + b - u u - a - b + I s '' J 
 
 ■wherein a - c x p x , b = c. 2 p 2 , a = 1 - (1 - pi), V = 1 - c 2 (1 - p). 
 
 The conditions of limitation are the following That value 
 of u must be chosen which exceeds each of the three quantities 
 
 a, b 3 and a + b 1 - 1 , 
 
 and which at the same time falls short of each of the three quan- 
 tities 
 
 a', b. and a + b. 
 
 Exactly as in the solution of the previous problem, it may be 
 shown that the quadratic equation (1) will have one root, and 
 only one root, satisfying these conditions. The conditions them- 
 selves were deduced by the same rule as before, excepting that 
 the minor limit a' + b - I was found by seeking the major limit 
 of 1 - z. 
 
 It may be added that the constants in the data, beside satis- 
 fying the conditions implied above, viz., that the quantities a, b, 
 and a + b, must individually exceed a, b, and a + b - 1, must 
 also satisfy the condition c x + c 2 > 1. This also appears from the 
 application of the rule. 
 
 6. Problem III. — The probabilities of two events A and B 
 are a and b respectively, the probability that if the event A take 
 place an event E will accompany it is p, and the probability that 
 
328 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 [chap. XX 
 
 if the event B take place, the same event E will accompany it 
 is q. Required the probability that if the event A take place the 
 event B will take place, or vice versa, the probability that if B 
 take place, A will take place. 
 
 Let us represent the event A by x, the event B by y, and the 
 event E by z. Then the data are — 
 
 Prob. x = a, Prob. y = b. 
 
 Prob. xz = ap, Prob. yz = bq. 
 
 Whence it is required to find 
 
 Prob. xy Prob. xy 
 Prob.® Prob.y’ 
 
 Let xy = s, yz - t, xy = w. 
 
 Eliminating z, we have, on reduction, 
 
 sx + ty + syt + xts + xyw + (1 - xy) w = 0, 
 
 sx + ty + syl+ xts + xy 
 ’ ’ W 2xy - 1 
 
 1 _ 1 _ 1 __ 
 
 = xyst -t — xyst + - xyst + - xyst 
 
 1 _ _ __ 1 _ _ 1 
 
 + - xyst + 0 xyst + - xyst+ - xyst 
 
 + ^ xylt + ^ xyst + 0 xy~st + ^ xyst 
 
 + xyst + QxyJI + OxyHl + OxysJ. (1) 
 
 Hence, passing from Logic to Algebra, 
 
 „ , xyst + xyJl 
 
 Prob. xy = — y~^’ 
 
 x, y, s, and t being determined by the system of equations 
 
 xyst + xysl + xylT + xy Jt xyst + xyHt + xyll + xyJT 
 a b 
 
 xyst + xysl xyst + xylt 
 ap bq 
 
 = xyst + xysl + xylt + xyll + xyst + xyll + xy! t = V. 
 
CHAP. XX.] 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 329 
 
 To reduce the above system to a more convenient form, let every 
 member be divided by xy 77, and in the result let 
 
 xs yt , x y 
 
 — = m, — = m, = = ft, ^ = 77 . 
 
 xs yt x y 
 
 We then find 
 
 mm + m + nn + n mm + m + nn + n 
 
 a b 
 
 mm + 7n mm + m! 
 
 Also, 
 
 ap bq 
 
 = mm! + m + m! + nri+n + n! + 1 . 
 
 mm! + nn 
 
 Prob. xy = ; r— — ; 7 — =-. 
 
 J mm + 777 + 777+7777+77 + 77 + 1 
 
 These equations may be reduced to the form 
 
 mm! + m mm! + m! nn + n nn + ri 
 
 ap bq a(\-p) b{\-q) 
 
 = (to + 1) ( m ! + 1 ) + (ft+ 1) (ft'+ 1) - 1. 
 
 mm' + nn! 
 
 Prob. xy = 
 
 (m + 1) (m + 1) + (w + 1) (w' + 1 ) - I" 
 
 Now assume 
 
 (m + 1 ) (771' + 1 ) = — — (ft + 1 ) (ft'+ 1 ) = 
 
 v + y - 1 
 
 7ft (m! + 1) ( 777 + 1) 
 
 v + p ■ 
 m/x 
 
 T (2) 
 
 Then since mm + m - — . , 
 
 777+1 (»7 + 1) ( V + /JL - 1) 
 
 and so on for the other numerators of the system, we find, on 
 
 substituting and multiplying each member of the system by 
 
 v + y - 1, the following results : 
 
 my 
 
 my 
 
 nv 
 
 ft V 
 
 = 1. 
 
 (7ft+l)a/> (m + l)bq (ft + 1) a C 1 _ P) (»'+ 1)6(1 -q) 
 
 Prob. xy = (mm + nn) (v + y - 1). (3) 
 
 Prom the above system we have 
 
 777 
 
 777 + 1 y 
 
 = — , whence m = 
 
 ap 
 
 V- ~ a P' 
 
330 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 [CHAP. XX. 
 
 Similarly 
 
 m = 
 
 p - w 
 
 n = 
 
 Hence , u 
 
 m + 1 = 
 
 a(l ~P) 
 v - a (1 - p)’ 
 
 n + 1 = 
 
 n = 
 
 p- ap v - a ( 1 - p) 
 
 Substitute these values in (2) reduced to the form 
 
 p v 
 
 b ( l ~q) 
 v-b(\ - q y 
 
 , &c. 
 
 V + fl-l = 
 
 (m+l)(m'+l) (n+l)(n+l)’ 
 
 and we have 
 
 v + p - 1 = 
 
 Q*-gp) (m ~ b l) (v-a(l-p)} {v-ft(l-y)} 
 
 P V 
 
 Substitute also for m, m\ &c. their values in (3), and we have 
 
 Prob. xy 
 
 abpq ab{ 1 - p ) (1 - q) 
 
 (4) 
 
 = r : 
 
 Up - a\ 
 
 (ji - ap) (p - bq) {v-a(l-p)) {v-b(l-q)} 
 
 = a Jm j ab ( l -P) 0 ~g) by (4)> 
 
 y i/ 
 
 Now the first equation of the system (4) gives 
 
 i z. a iM 
 
 v + p- l= p-ap~bq + 
 
 
 («) 
 
 ab Pi ^ j . 
 
 = v - 1 + ap + bq. 
 
 Similarly, 
 
 «&(i -p) 0 - q) 
 
 = p- 1 + 0(1 -p)+ 6(1 -q). 
 
 Adding these equations together, and observing that the first 
 member of the result becomes identical with the expression just 
 found for Prob. xy , we have 
 
 Prob. xy = v + p + a+ b-2. 
 
 Let us represent Prob. xy by m, and let a + b - 2 = m, then 
 
 (i + v = u - m. ( 6 ) 
 
 Again, from (5) we have 
 
 pv = abpq - (ap + bq - \ ) p. 
 
 (7) 
 
PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 331 
 
 CHAP. XX.] 
 
 Similarly from the first and third members of (4) equated ayc 
 have 
 
 fiv = ab( 1 -p) (1 - q) - {a (1 - p) + b(l - q) - 1) Vo 
 
 Let us represent ap + bq - 1 by h, and a (1 - p) + b (1 - q) - 1 by 
 h'. We find on equating the above values of pv, 
 
 bp - h'v = ab [pq + (1 - p) (1 - q ) ) 
 
 = ab(p + q - 1). 
 
 Let ab(p + q - 1 ) = /, then 
 
 bp — h'v = /. (8) 
 
 Now from (6) and (8) we get 
 
 h' (u -m) + l h (u-rri) - l 
 
 p = . v - . 
 
 m m 
 
 Substitute these values in (7) reduced to the form 
 
 and we have 
 
 p (v + h ) = abpq, 
 
 (Jiu - l) [h‘ (u - m) + l } = abpqm 
 
 ( 9 ) 
 
 a quadratic equation, the solution of Avliich determines u, the va- 
 lue of Prob. xy sought. 
 
 The solution may readily be put in the form 
 
 ^ lb! + b(li'm - l) ± \J \_{lb! - h ( Jim - l) } 4 + 4hb'abpqm 2 ^\ 
 
 p = _ • 
 
 But if we further observe that 
 
 lb' - h ( h'm -1) - l (Ji + h') - hli'm = {l- bh') m ; 
 since h = ap + bq - 1, h' = a (1 - p) + b (I - q) - 1, 
 whence h + h'=a + b- 2 = m, 
 
 we find , 
 
 tj i ™ 7A' + h(hm -l) + m yj ( (7 - hli) 2 + 4 hh'abpq } 
 
 Prob, xy = 
 
 ( 10 ) 
 
 It remains to determine which sign must be given to the radi- 
 cal. We might ascertain this by the general method exemplified 
 in the last problem, but it is far easier, and it fully suffices in the 
 present instance, to determine the sign by a comparison of the 
 
332 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 [chap. XX. 
 
 above formula with the result proper to some known case. For 
 instance, if it were certain that the event A is always , and the 
 event B never , associated with the event E, then it is certain that 
 the events A and B are never conjoined. Hence if p = 1, q = 0, 
 we ought to have u = 0. Now the assumptions p= 1, q = 0, 
 give 
 
 h-a- 1, k = b ~ 1, 1=0, m=a+b- 2. 
 
 Substituting in (10) we have 
 
 Prob. xy 
 
 (a - 1) b - 1) (a + b - 2) + (a + b - 2) (a - 1) (b - 1) 
 2 (a - 1) (b - 1) 
 
 and this expression vanishes when the lower sign is taken. 
 Hence the final solution of the general problem will be expressed 
 in the form 
 
 Prob.a;i/ Ui + h ( h'm - l) - rrnj {(l - hti) 2 + 4 hh'abpq) 
 Prob. x ‘iahh ' 
 
 wherein h = ap + bq - 1, h' = a (1 - p) + b (1 - q) - 1, 
 l = ab(p + q - 1), m = a + b - 2. 
 
 As the terms in the final logical solution affected by the co- 
 efficient ^ are the same as in the first problem of this chapter, 
 the conditions among the constants will be the same, viz., 
 ap < 1 -b (1 - q), bq<\-a(\-p). 
 
 7. It is a confirmation of the correctness of the above solution 
 that the expression obtained is symmetrical with respect to the 
 two sets of quantities p, q, and 1 -p, 1 - q, i. e. that on changing 
 p into 1 - p, and q into 1 - q, the expression is unaltered This 
 is apparent from the equation 
 
 Prob. xy = ab {« + 0rP)Q-i> \ 
 t p v J 
 
 employed in deducing the final result. Now if there exist pro- 
 babilities p, q of the event E, as consequent upon a knowledge 
 of the occurrences of A and B, there exist probabilities 1 - p, 1 - q 
 of the contrary event, that is, of the non-occurrence of E under 
 the same circumstances. As then the data are unchanged in 
 
CHAP. XX.] 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 333 
 
 form, whether we take account in them of the occurrence or of 
 the non-occurrence of E, it is evident that the solution ought to 
 be, as it is, a symmetrical function of p, q and 1 - p, 1 - q. 
 
 Let us examine the particular case in which p - 1 , <7 = 1 . 
 We find 
 
 k = a + b - 1, hi = - 1, l = ab, m = a 4 b - 2, 
 and substituting 
 
 Prob. xy _ —ab + (a + 6-1) (2 - a - b- ab)-(a + b- 2) (a.b-a-b + 1) 
 Prob. x - 2a (a + b - 1) 
 
 - 2 ab(a + 6-1) 
 
 - 2a (a + b - 1) 
 
 It would appear, then, that in this case the events A and B are 
 virtually independent of each other. The supposition of their 
 invariable association with some other event E, of the frequency 
 of whose occurrence, except as it may be inferred from this par- 
 ticular connexion, absolutely nothing is known, does not establish 
 any dependence between the events A and B themselves. I ap- 
 prehend that this conclusion is agreeable to reason, though par- 
 ticular examples may appear at first sight to indicate a different 
 result. For instance, if the probabilities of the casting up, 1st, 
 of a particular species of weed, 2ndly, of a certain description of 
 zoophytes upon the sea-shore, had been separately determined, 
 and if it had also been ascertained that neither of these events 
 could happen except during the agitation of the waves caused by 
 a tempest, it would, I think, justly be concluded that the events 
 in question were not independent. The picking up of a piece of 
 seaweed of the kind supposed would, it is presumed, render more 
 probable the discovery of the zoophytes than it would otherwise 
 have been. But I apprehend that this fact is due to our know- 
 ledge of another circumstance not implied in the actual conditions 
 of the problem, viz., that the occurrence of a tempest is but an 
 occasional phenomenon. Let the range of observation be con- 
 fined to a sea ahoays vexed with storm. It would then, I sup- 
 pose, be seen that the casting up of the weeds and of the 
 zoophytes ought to be regarded as independent events. Now, 
 to speak more generally, there are conditions common to all phte- 
 
334 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 [CHAP. XX. 
 
 nomena, — conditions which, it is felt, do not affect their mutual 
 independence. I apprehend therefore that the solution indicates, 
 that when a particular condition has prevailed through the whole 
 of our recorded experience, it assumes the above character with 
 reference to the class of phenomena over which that experience 
 has extended. 
 
 8. Problem IV. — To illustrate in some degree the above 
 observations, let there be given, in addition to the data of the 
 last problem, the absolute probability of the event E, the com- 
 pleted system of data being 
 
 Prob. x= a, Prob. y = b, Prob. z = c, 
 
 Prob. xz = ap, Prob. yz = bq, 
 
 and let it be required to find Prob. xy. 
 
 Assuming, as before, xz = s, yz = t, xy - w, the final logical 
 equation is 
 
 w = xystz + xysTz + 0 ( xystz + xystz + xyz~s7 + xyzsl 
 
 + xyzJT + xyzsT). 
 
 + terms whose coefficients are (1) 
 
 The algebraic system having been formed, the subsequent elimi- 
 nations may be simplified by the transformations adopted in the 
 previous problem. The final result is 
 
 Prob. xy - ab (2) 
 
 The conditions among the constants are 
 
 c > ap, c > bq, c < 1 - a (1 - p), c <1 - b (1 - q). 
 
 Now ifp = 1, q = 1, we find 
 
 Prob. xy = 
 
 c not admitting of any value less than a or b. It follows hence 
 that if the event E is known to be an occasional one, its inva- 
 riable attendance on the events x and y increases the probability 
 of their conjunction in the inverse ratio of its own frequency. 
 
PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 335 
 
 CHAP. XX.] 
 
 The formula (2) may be verified in a large number of cases. 
 As a particular instance, let q - c, we find 
 
 Prob. xy = ab. (3) 
 
 Now the assumption q = c involves, by Definition (Chap. XVI.) 
 the independence of the events B and E. If then B and E are 
 independent, no relation which may exist between A and E can 
 establish a relation between A and B ; wherefore - A and B are 
 also independent, as the above equation (3) implies. 
 
 It may readily be shown from (2) that the value of Prob. z, 
 which renders Prob. xy a minimum, is 
 
 Prob. z = 
 
 V(P9) 
 
 V(pg ) + V(i -p) (i - q)' 
 
 If p = q, thi§ gives 
 
 Prob. z = p\ 
 
 a result, the correctness of which may be shown by the same con- 
 siderations which have been applied to (3). 
 
 Problem V. — Given the probabilities of any three events, 
 and the probability of their conjunction ; required the proba- 
 bility of the conjunction of any two of them. 
 
 Suppose the data to be 
 
 Prob. x = p, Prob. y - q, Prob. z = r, Prob. xyz - m, 
 
 and the quaesitum to be Prob. xy. 
 
 Assuming xyz = s, xy - t, we find as the final logical equa- 
 tion, 
 
 t = xyzs + xyz! + 0 (xy! + x!) + ^ (sum of all other constituents) ; 
 whence, finally, 
 
 Prob. xy . H ~ ^ ^ - ipjr* - 4fyF-) , 
 
 wherein p - 1 -p, &c. H= pq + (p + q)r. 
 
 This admits of verification when p = 1, when <7=1, when r = 0, 
 and therefore m = 0, &c. 
 
 Had the condition, Prob. z = r, been omitted, the solution 
 would still have been definite. We should have had 
 
336 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 [CHAP. XX. 
 
 Prob. xy , 
 
 * 1 - m 
 
 and it may be added, as a final confirmation of their correctness, 
 that the above results become identical when m = pqr. 
 
 9. The following problem is a generalization of Problem I., 
 and its solution, though necessarily more complex, is obtained by 
 a similar analysis. 
 
 Problem VI. — If an event can only happen as a conse- 
 quence of one or more of certain causes A x , A t , .. A„, and if 
 generally c- L represent the probability of the cause A t , and p t the 
 probability that if the cause A x exist, the event E will occur, 
 then the series of values of c t and pi being given, required the 
 probability of the event E * 
 
 Let the causes A x , A 2 , . . A„ be represented by x x , x 2 , . .x„, 
 and the event E by z. 
 
 Then we have generally, 
 
 Prob. xi = Prob. x x z = c t pi. 
 
 Further, the condition that E can only happen in connexion with 
 some one or more of the causes A x , A 2 , . . A n establishes the logi- 
 cal condition, 
 
 z{\ - x x ) (1 -x 2 ) . . (1 - x n ) = 0. (1) 
 
 * It may be proper to remark, that the above problem was proposed to the 
 notice of mathematicians by the author in the Cambridge and Dublin Mathema- 
 tical Journal, Nov. 1851, accompanied by the subjoined observations : 
 
 “ The motives which have led me, after much consideration, to adopt, with 
 reference to this question, a course unusual in the present day, and not upon 
 slight grounds to be revived, are the following : — First, I propose the question 
 as a test of the sufficiency of received methods. Secondly, I anticipate that its 
 discussion will in some measure add to our knowledge of an important branch 
 of pure analysis. However, it is upon the former of these grounds alone that I 
 desire to rest my apology. 
 
 “ While hoping that some may be found who, without departing from the line 
 of their previous studies, may deem this question worthy of their attention, I 
 wholly disclaim the notion of its being offered as a trial of personal skill or 
 knowledge, but desire that it may be viewed solely with reference to those pub- 
 lic and scientific ends for the sake of which alone it is proposed.” 
 
 The author thinks it right to add, that the publication of the above problem 
 led to some interesting private correspondence, but did not elicit a solution. 
 
CHAP. XX.] 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 337 
 
 Now let us assume generally 
 
 Xi z = ti, 
 
 which is reducible to the form 
 
 Xiz( 1 - ti) + ti( 1 - x t z) = 0, 
 
 forming the type of a system of n equations which, together with 
 (1), express the logical conditions of the problem. Adding all 
 these equations together, as after the previous reduction we are 
 permitted to do, we have 
 
 S [xiZ(l -ti) + ti(l-Xiz)}+z(l - x 0 (1 -x 2 )..(l -x n ) = 0, (2) 
 
 (the summation implied by 2 extending from i= 1 to i-n), and 
 this single and sufficient logical equation, together with the 2 n 
 data, represented by the general equations 
 
 Prob. Xi = ci, Prob. t t = £■;/>;, (3) 
 
 constitute the elements from which we are to determine Prob. z. 
 Let (2) be developed with respect to z. We have 
 
 [S{X;(1 - ti) + £;(1 - Xi)} + (1 - x^ (1 - x 2 ) . .(1 -x n )] z 
 
 + 2ti(l-z) = 0, 
 
 whence 
 
 ™ - (4) 
 
 2/j- 2 {aJi(l - ti) + ti(l - xi)) - (1 - XJ (1 - x 2 ) . . (1 -x„) v ' 
 
 Now any constituent in the expansion of the second member of 
 the above equation will consist of 2 n factors, of which n are taken 
 out of the set x 1} x- 2 , . . x n , 1 - x 1? 1 - x 2 , . . 1 - x n , and n out of 
 the set £„ t 2 , . .t n , 1 - t^ 1 - t 2 , . . 1 - t n , no such combination as 
 Xi (1 - x x ), #,(1 - t^, being admissible. Let us consider first 
 those constituents of which (1 - ti), (1 - t 2 ) . . (1 - t n ) forms the 
 /-factor, that is the factor derived from the set /„ . . 1 - t x . 
 
 The coefficient of any such constituent will be found by 
 changing t 2 , . . t n respectively into 0 in the second member of 
 (4), and then assigning to x 2 , x 2 , . . x n their values as dependent 
 upon the nature of the x-factor of the constituent. Now simply 
 substituting for /,, t 2 , . . t n the value 0, the second member be- 
 comes 
 
 0 
 
 - - (1 - x^ (1 - x 2 ) . . ( 1 - x n y 
 
338 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 [CHAP. XX. 
 
 and this vanishes whatever values, 0, 1, we subsequently assign . 
 to x u x 2 , . . x n . For if those values are not all equal to 0, the 
 term does not vanish, and if they are all equal to 0, the term 
 -(1 — a;,) . . (1 - x„) becomes - 1, so that in either case the denomi- 
 nator does not vanish, and therefore the fraction does. Hence 
 the coefficients of all constituents of which (1 - #i) . . (1 - t n ) is a 
 factor will be 0, and as the sum of all possible ^-constituents is 
 unity, there will be an aggregate term 0(1-^) . . (1 - t„) in the 
 development of z . 
 
 Consider, in the next place, any constituent of which the 
 ^-factor is t x t 2 . . t r ( l - £ r+1 ) . . (1 - t n ), r being equal to or greater 
 than unity. Making in the second member of (4), = 1, 1, 
 
 t r+ 1 = 0, . . t n = 0, we get the expression 
 
 r 
 
 + x r - x M . . - x n - (i - Xj) (i - x 2 ) .. (I - x n y 
 
 Now the only admissible values of the symbols being 0 and 1, 
 it is evident that the above expression will be equal to 1 when 
 xi = 1 . . x r = 1, x M = 0, . . x n = 0, and that for all other combi- 
 nations of value that expression will assume a value greater than 
 unity. Hence the coefficient 1 will be applied to all constituents 
 of the final development which are of the form 
 
 X\ • . Xr [1 — Xr+\) . • [1 X n) t\ . . t r [1 t r + 1) • • [1 ~ 
 
 the ^-factor being similar to the ^-factor, while other consti- 
 tuents included under the present case will have the virtual co- 
 efficient Also, it is manifest that this reasoning is independent 
 
 of the particular arrangement and succession of the individual 
 symbols. 
 
 Hence the complete expansion of z will be of the form 
 2 = S (XT) + 0 (1 - *,) (1 - t 2 ) . . (i - t „ ) 
 
 + constituents whose coefficients are -, (5) 
 
 where T represents any ^-constituent except (1 (1 - t n ), 
 
 and X the corresponding or similar constituent of x, . . x„. 
 
PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 339 
 
 CHAP. XX.] 
 
 For instance, if n = 2, we shall have 
 
 'J. ] — tP] tx 1 Xj X2 ^1 ^2 4" Xj 2/2 ^2J 
 x,, x 2 , &c. standing for 1 - Xj, 1 - X 2 , &c. ; whence 
 
 Z — 0C\ t\ ts£ “1" 0C\ X 2 t% "l - X\ X‘2 t\ t-2 
 
 + 0 (Xy X-2 l x 1 2 + X , X 2 1\ 1-2 + X\ %2 lx 1 + Xl li 1 Tl) ffi'l 
 + constituents whose coefficients are -. 
 
 This result agrees, difference of notation being allowed for, with 
 the developed form of z in Problem I. of this chapter, as it evi- 
 dently ought to do. 
 
 10. To avoid complexity, I purpose to deduce from the above 
 equation (6) the necessary conditions for the determination of 
 Prob. z for the particular case in which n = 2, in such a form as 
 may enable us, by pursuing in thought the same line of investi- 
 gation, to assign the corresponding conditions for the more gene- 
 ral case in which n possesses any integral value whatever. 
 
 Supposing then n = 2, we have 
 
 V — Xx X 2 tx 1 4" &X X 2 H 4* Xx X 2 1 1 4~ Xi X 2 1 t 2 4“ X) X 2 tx 1 
 + Xx X 2 t ] t 2 4“ X, X 2 tx t 2 » 
 
 Prob. z = 
 
 Xx X 2 tx t 2 4" Xj X 2 tx 1 2 "4" Xy X 2 t\t 2 
 
 V 
 
 » 
 
 the conditions for the determination of x 19 tx, &c., being 
 
 Xx x 2 t x t 2 + Xx x 2 t x l 2 + x, x 2 1x1 + x x x 2 7] 1 
 Cl 
 
 Xx X 2 tx t 2 4" Xj X 2 tx t 2 4" X] X 2 tx t 2 4 Xj X 2 tx t 2 
 C 2 
 
 Xj X 2 tx t 2 4- X| X 2 tx t 2 Xx X 2 1 1 to + Xx X 2 tx 1 2 y -r 
 
 CxPx c 2 p 2 
 
 Divide the members of this system of equations by l x 2 11, 
 and the numerator and denominator of Prob. z by the same quan- 
 tity, and in the results assume 
 
 Xx t\ X 2 t 2 Xx X 2 
 
 = W, , — r=T = ffl., — = «i, — = 
 
 Xx tx x 2 t 2 Xx X 2 
 
 ( 7 ) 
 
340 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 [CHAP. XX. 
 
 we find 
 
 Prob. z = 
 
 to,to 2 + to, + m 2 
 
 and 
 
 to,to 2 + m l + m% + n x n% + n x + n% + l’ 
 
 W*,TO 2 + TO, + 71x71% + Tlx 771x771% + 711% + 11x71% + 71% 
 
 c% 
 
 771x771% + TTlx 771x771% + 771% 
 
 = 771x771% + m, + 771% + 71x71% + 7l x + 71% + 1 , (8) 
 
 Clfl c%p% 
 
 whence, if we assume, 
 
 (ttix + 1) (m% + 1) = M, (nx + 1) ( ti% + 1) = N, (9) 
 we have, after a slight reduction, 
 
 Prob . z = — 
 
 M- 1 
 
 M + N- 1’ 
 
 »1 (n% + 1) = 7l%(7lx + 1) = TTlx ( 771 % ~t 1) _ 77 1 % (to, + 1) _ „ XT_ i . 
 c 2 (l-p 2 ) c,p, c 2 p 2 
 
 or, 
 
 TtlxM 
 
 M 
 
 7lxN 
 
 (jrix + 1) c x px (. m%+l)c%p% (nx + 1) Cx (l - px) 
 
 n%N 
 
 (n%+ 1) c 2 ( 1 - p % ) 
 
 = M+ N- 1. 
 
 Now let a similar series of transformations and reductions be 
 performed in thought upon the final logical equation (5). We 
 shall obtain for the determination of Prob. z the following ex- 
 pression : 
 
 Prob. z = 
 
 M - 1 
 
 wherein 
 
 m. 
 
 M+N- l 9 
 
 M = (TO, + 1) (771% + 1) . . (TO„+ 1), 
 
 N = (n x + 1) (n% + 1 )..(«„+ 1), 
 to„, nx, . . n n , being given by the system of equations, 
 
 ttixM m%M to„M 
 
 ( to ! + 1 ) Cxpx (m% + 1 ) c%p% ' ' ( to „ + 1 ) c n p n 
 
 tixN n n N 
 
 ( 10 ) 
 
 (Wi+ 1)^(1 -px) ‘ ' (n n + 1) c n (l - p n ) 
 Still further to simplify the results, assume 
 
 = M + N- 1. 
 
 (11) 
 
CHAP. XX.] 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 341 
 
 whence 
 
 We find 
 
 M+N - 11 M + N-l _ 1 
 M fj. ’ N v 
 
 M - 
 
 N = 
 
 fi + v — 1 JU + v - 1 
 
 772, 
 
 m„ 
 
 ( 772 , + l)c,/7, (m 2 + 1) c 2 p 2 (m n + 1) c n p n ft 
 
 77, 
 
 77 2 
 
 Mn 
 
 _ 1 
 
 (77,+ 1) C, (1 -/>,) (77 2 + 1)C 2 (1 -p 2 )' ' (lt n + l)c n (l-p n ) v’ 
 
 whence 
 
 C\P\ CnPn 
 
 777 1 = , .. 777 n = 
 
 and finally, 
 
 M 
 
 b~C n p n 
 
 , U fl 
 
 777, + 1 = — — , . . 77?„ + 1 = 
 
 77, + 1 = 
 
 /K - C,/7, 
 V 
 
 V-C j (1-/7,) 
 
 , . . 7?„ + 1 — 
 
 ^ C-nPn 
 
 V 
 
 v-c n (\-p n y 
 
 Substitute these values with those of ilf and N in (9), and 
 we have 
 
 = fi 
 
 (m - C,/7,) (fl - C 2 p 2 ) . . 0 - c„/7„) JU + V - 1 ’ 
 
 v n V 
 
 {v - c, (1-/7,)} |v - C 2 (1 -/7*)} . • {v- c n (1 -p n )) fl + V - 1 
 
 which may be reduced to the symmetrical form 
 
 M + 
 
 , (fl - Cl/7,) • . (fl - C n p n ) 
 v - 1 = 
 
 Finally, 
 
 [v - c, ( 1 - />,)} . . {v - c„ (1 - p„)j 
 
 ^ u M - 1 
 
 Jrrob. z = , - — — — - = 1 - v. 
 
 M+N-l 
 
 Let us then assume 1 - v = u, we have then 
 
 (fl - C, pi) . . (fl — C n Pn) 
 
 ( 12 ) 
 
 ( 13 ) 
 
 - u = 
 
 P 
 
 {1 -c, (1 -p x ) - u) .. {1 - c„(l -p n )-u) 
 (1 - u )’ 1 ' 1 
 
342 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 [CHAP. XX. 
 
 If we make for simplicity 
 
 = «n c n p n = a n , 1 -c x (1 -p x ) = b u &c., 
 the above equations may be written as follows : 
 
 wherein 
 
 .. 0 ~a x ) . . (p- a n ) 
 M p n ' 1 
 
 (14) 
 
 (b x - u) . . (b n - u) 
 ^ (1 - u) n ~ l 
 
 (15) 
 
 This value of p substituted in (14) will give an equation in- 
 volving only u, the solution of which will determine Prob. z, 
 since by (13) Prob. z = u. It remains to assign the limits of u. 
 
 11. Now the very same analysis by which the limitswere deter- 
 mined in the particular case in which n - 2, (XIX. 12) con- 
 ducts us in the present case to the following result. The quan- 
 tity u, in order that it may represent the value of Prob. z, must 
 must have for its inferior limits the quantities a x , a 2 , . . a n , and 
 for its superior limits the quantities b lt b 2 , . . b n , a x + a 2 . . + a n . 
 W e may hence infer, a priori , that there will always exist one 
 root, and only one root, of the equation (14) satisfying these 
 conditions. I deem it sufficient, for practical verification, to show 
 that there will exist one, and only one, root of the equation (14), 
 between the limits a x , a 2 , . . a n , and b x , b 2 , . .b n . 
 
 First, let us consider the nature of the changes to which p is 
 subject in (15), as u varies from a x , which we will suppose the 
 greatest of its minor limits, to b i} which we will suppose the least 
 of its major limits. When u = a 1} it is evident that p is positive 
 and greater than a x . When u = b x , we have p -b x , which is also 
 positive. Between the limits u = a l , u = b x , it may be shown 
 that p increases with u. Thus we have 
 
 dp = j _ {b z - u) . . (b n - u) _ (Z>, - u) (b 3 - u) . . (b n - u ) 
 du (l-w)"' 1 (1 — u) n ~ l 
 
 + (n _ n (fr - u ) (k -u)..(b n - u ) (16) 
 
 ' ' (1 - u) n 
 
 b x - u b n - u 
 
 1 - u 1 - u 
 
 Now let 
 
CHAP. XX.] 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 343 
 
 Evidently x lt x 2 , . . x n , will be proper fractions, and we have 
 
 ~^j-~ — 1 X 2 X% ■ . X n X\ X 3 . . X n . . — X\ X 2 • . X n -\ — 1) X\ X 2 . . Xji 
 
 = 1 - (1 - a;,) x 2 x 3 . . x n - x x (1 - x 2 ) x 3 . . x n . . 
 
 X\ X 2 . . X n _i (1 — X n ) — Xi x 2 . . x n . 
 
 Now the negative terms in the second member are (if we may 
 borrow the language of the logical developments) constituents 
 formed from the fractional quantities x lf x 2 , . . x n . Their sum 
 
 ft 
 
 cannot therefore exceed unity ; whence -J- is positive, and g in- 
 creases with u between the limits specified. 
 
 Now let (14) be written in the form 
 
 (n - a,) . . (g - a n ) 
 
 - (g- u) = 0, 
 
 ( 17 ) 
 
 (18) 
 
 and assume u = a v . The first member becomes 
 
 and this expression is negative in value. For, making the same 
 assumption in (15), we find 
 
 ( b x - u) . . (b n - u ) 
 
 M Ul (1 - u) n - 1 
 
 At the same time we have 
 
 = a positive quantity. 
 
 (g - a 2 ) . . (g - a„) g-a 2 g-a. n 
 
 n - 1 * * * 
 
 M M M- 
 
 and since the factors of the second member are positive fractions, 
 that member is less than unity, whence (18) is negative. Where- 
 fore the assumption u = a l makes the first member of (17) ne- 
 gative. 
 
 Secondly, let u - b x , then by (15) g = u = b l} and the first mem- 
 ber of (17) becomes positive. 
 
 Lastly, between the limits u-a x and u = bi, the first member 
 of (17) continuously increases. For the first term of that ex- 
 pression written under the form 
 
 ju - a, g- a n 
 
 (M ~ «i) 
 
 t 1 
 
344 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 [CHAP. XX. 
 
 increases, since p increases, and, with it, every factor contained. 
 Again, the negative term p - u diminishes with the increase of 
 u, as appears from its value deduced from (15), viz., 
 
 (6, - u) . . (b n - u ) 
 
 (1 - u) n ~ l 
 
 Hence then, between the limits u = u = b x , the first member 
 of ( 1 7 ) continuously increases, changing in so doing from a nega- 
 tive to a positive value. Wherefore, between the limits assigned, 
 there exists one value of u, and only one, by which the said 
 equation is satisfied. 
 
 12. Collecting these results together, we arrive at the follow- 
 ing solution of the general problem. 
 
 The probability of the event E will be that value of u de- 
 duced from the equation 
 
 wherein 
 
 p = u + 
 
 (jU - C lPl ) . . (fJL - c n p n ) 
 
 3^7 — » 
 
 r 
 
 { 1 - Cl (1 - p x ) - u) . . { 1 - c n (1 - p n ) - u) 
 ~~ (1 - u) n ~ l ’ 
 
 (19) 
 
 which (value) lies between the two sets of quantities, 
 
 c y p i, c 2 p 2 , . ,c n p„ and 1-^(1 -p x ), 1 - c 2 (1 -p 2 ) . . l-c„(l -/>„), 
 
 the former set being its inferior, the latter its superior, limits. 
 
 And it may further be inferred in the general case, as it has 
 been proved in the particular case of n = 2, that the value of u, 
 determined as above, will not exceed the quantity 
 
 Ci P i + c 2 p 2 . . + c n p n . 
 
 13. Particular verifications are subjoined. 
 
 1st. Let p x = 1, p 2 = 1, . . p n => 1. This is to suppose it cer- 
 tain, that if any one of the events A 2 . . A n , happen, the 
 event E will happen. In this case, then, the probability of the 
 occurrence of E will simply be the probability that the events or 
 causes A lf A 2 . . A n do not all fail of occurring, and its expression 
 will therefore be 1 - (1 - c,) (1 - c 2 ) . . (1 - c„). 
 
 Now the general solution (19) gives 
 
CHAP. XX.] 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 345 
 
 - u = 
 
 (p - C 0 • * (P - °n) 
 
 ,n - 1 
 
 wherein 
 
 Hence, 
 
 (1 - «) n . 
 
 1 - M = (1- C x ) . . (1 - C„), 
 
 U = 1 - (1 - Cj) . . (1 - C n ), 
 
 equivalent to the a 'priori determination above. 
 
 2nd. Letpj =0, p 2 = 0, p n = 0, then (19) gives 
 
 p - U = p, 
 
 .*. u = 0, 
 
 as it evidently ought to be. 
 
 3rd. Let c 1} c. 2 . .c n be small quantities, so that their squares 
 and products may be neglected. Then developing the second 
 members of the equation (19), 
 
 p n - (cipi + c 2 p 2 . . + c„p n ) p n - 1 
 
 p - u =- 
 
 — p - (CiPi + C 2 P 2 • • + c n p n ), 
 .*. u = c x p x + c 2 p 2 . . + c n p n . 
 
 Now this is what the solution would be were the causes 
 A 1 , A 2 . . A n mutually exclusive. But the smaller the proba- 
 bilities of those causes, the more do they approach the condition 
 of being mutually exclusive, since the smaller is the probability of 
 any concurrence among them. Hence the result above obtained 
 will undoubtedly be the limiting form of the expression for the 
 probability of E. 
 
 4th. In the particular case of n = 2, we may readily elimi- 
 nate p from the general solution. The result is 
 
 (u - c.p,) ( u - c 2 p 2 ) _ {1 - c x (1 -pQ - u) {1 - c 2 (1 - p 2 ) -u ] 
 CiPl + c 2 p 2 - u 1 -u 
 
 which agrees with the particular solution before obtained for this 
 case, Problem 1 . 
 
 Though by the system (19), the solution is in general made 
 to depend upon the solution of an equation of a high order, its 
 
346 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 [CHAP. XX. 
 
 practical difficulty will not be great. For the conditions relating 
 to the limits enable us to select at once a near value of u, and 
 the forms of the system (19) are suitable for the processes of suc- 
 cessive approximation. 
 
 14. Problem 7. — The data being the same as in the last pro- 
 blem, required the probability, that if any definite and given 
 combination of the causes ^4 1? A 2 , . . A n , present itself, the event 
 E will be realized. 
 
 The cases A x , A 2 , . . A n , being represented as before by 
 a?i, x 2 , . . x n respectively, let the definite combination of them, 
 referred to in the statement of the problem, be represented by 
 the <p (#!, x 2 . ■ x„) so that the actual occurrence of that combi- 
 nation will be expressed by the logical equation, 
 
 ('El 5 *2, . . #7t) = 1. 
 
 The data are 
 
 Prob Xi = Ci, . . Prob. x n = c n , 
 
 Prob. x x z = Cipx, Prob. x n z = c n p n ; 
 and the object of investigation is 
 
 Prob. <j) (#i, x 2 . . x n ) z 
 Prob. 0 (x x ,x 2 . . x n ) 
 
 We shall first seek the value of the numerator. 
 
 Let us assume, 
 
 X\ Z t \ • • Xn Z> = ^715 
 (j) (^1 j X 2 • . xA) Z — W. 
 
 Or, if for simplicity, we represent $ (x x , x 2 . . x n ) by 0, the last 
 equation will be 
 
 (pz = w, (5) 
 
 to which must be added the equation 
 
 X\ x<t • • Xn z = 0, (6) 
 
 Now any equation x r z = t r of the system (3) may be reduced 
 to the form 
 
 X r Zt r + t r (1 - X r Z) = 0. 
 
 Similarly reducing (5), and adding the different results together, 
 we obtain the logical equation 
 
 ( 1 ) 
 
 ( 2 ) 
 
 ( 3 ) 
 
 ( 4 ) 
 
PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 CHAP. XX.] 
 
 347 
 
 2 { XrZtr + t r (1 - X r z) } 4- . . X n Z 4- $ZW + W (1 - <f>Z ) = 0, (7) 
 
 from which z being eliminated, w must be determined as a de- 
 veloped logical function of x x , . . x n , t x , . . t„ . 
 
 Now making successively 2 = 1 , 2 = 0 in the above equation, 
 and multiplying the results together, we have 
 
 ( 2 (x T t r + x T t r ) + x x . . x n + <pw + w<p } x (27- + w) = 0. 
 
 Developing this equation with reference to w, and replacing 
 in the result 27- + 1 by l, in accordance with Prop. i. Chap, ix., 
 we have 
 
 Eio + E' (1 - w) = 0 ; 
 
 wherein 
 
 Ej = 2 ('Xytf "i" tfXr^ "T Xl . . Xjl "(“ 0, 
 
 And hence 
 
 Ei — 2 tf f 2 (i Xj-tf “f* tj-Xf^ 4“ X\ . . Xn 4" (j ) } . 
 
 w = 
 
 E 
 
 E'-E ‘ 
 
 ( 8 ) 
 
 The second member of this equation we must now develop 
 with respect to the double series of symbols x x , x 2 , . . x n , t lf t 2 , . . t n . 
 In effecting this object, it will be most convenient to arrange 
 the constituents of the resulting development in three distinct 
 classes, and to determine the coefficients proper to those classes 
 separately. 
 
 First, let us consider those constituents of which . . T n is a 
 factor. Making ti = 0 . . t n = 0, we find 
 
 E’ = 0, E - 2 X r 4 - Xi . . X n 4 - 0 . 
 
 It is evident, that whatever values (0, 1) are given to the «-sym- 
 bols, E does not vanish. Hence the coefficients of all constituents 
 involving J x . .J n are 0. 
 
 Consider secondly, those constituents which do not involve the 
 factor 7 . .T n , and which are symmetrical with reference to the two 
 sets of symbols x x . . x n and t x . .t n . By symmetrical constituents 
 is here meant those which would remain unchanged if x x were 
 converted into t x , x 2 into t 2 , &c., and vice versa. The constitu- 
 ents x x . . x n t x . . t n , x x . . x n Ti . . 7„, &c., are in this sense sym- 
 metrical. 
 
348 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 [CHAP. XX. 
 
 F or all symmetrical constituents it is evident that 
 2 (Xr tr t T 
 
 vanishes. For those which do not involve 7, . . 7„ , it is further 
 evident that 7, . . x„ also vanishes, whence 
 
 E=f, E' = 2t r (tf>), 
 
 2t r (<t>) 
 
 w = v 1 y __ - . 
 
 2it r (<f>) — <J> 
 
 For those constituents of which the ^-factor is found in <p the 
 second member of the above equation becomes 1 ; for those of 
 which the £ -factor is found in ip it becomes 0. Hence the coeffi- 
 cients of symmetrical constituents not involving 7, . . 7„, of which 
 the x-f actor is found in (j> ivill be 1 ; of those of which the x-factor 
 is not found in ip it will be 0. 
 
 Consider lastly, those constituents which are unsymmetrical 
 with reference to the two sets of symbols, and which at the same 
 time do not involve 7j . . 7„ . 
 
 Here it is evident, that neither E nor E' can vanish, whence 
 the numerator of the fractional value of w in (8) must exceed 
 the denominator. That value cannot therefore be represented 
 
 by 1, 0, or 
 
 0 
 
 O’ 
 
 It must then, in the logical development, be re- 
 
 presented by - . 
 
 Such then will be the coefficient of this class 
 
 of constituents. 
 
 15. Hence the final logical equation by which w is expressed 
 as a developed logical function of x x , . . x n , t x , . . t n , will be of 
 the form 
 
 w= 2, (XT) + 0 {S 2 (X7 7 ) + tf . . t n ] (sum of other con- . 
 
 ^ stituents), v*/ 
 
 wherein (X T) represents the sum of all symmetrical consti- 
 tuents of which the factor X is found in 0, and 2 2 (X T), the 
 sum of all symmetrical constituents of which the factor X is not 
 found in <p , — the constituent x t . .x n 7, . . 7„, should it appear, 
 being in either case rejected. 
 
 Passing from Logic to Algebra, it may be observed, that 
 
CHAP. XX.] 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 349 
 
 here and in all similar instances, the function V, by the aid of 
 which the algebraic system of equations for the determination of 
 the values of x if . . x n , t l} . . t„ is formed, is independent of the 
 nature of any function <p involved, not in the expression of the 
 data , but in that of the quasitum of the problem proposed. Thus 
 we have in the present example, 
 
 Prob. w 
 
 2, (XT) 
 V ’ 
 
 wherein V = 2| (X T) + S 2 ( X T) + f, . . t n 
 
 = 2 (XT) + 7i . . f„. (10) 
 
 Here 2 (XT) represents the sum of all symmetrical constituents 
 of the x and t symbols, except the constituent ~x { . . x n , 7, . . 7„. 
 This value of V is the same as that virtually employed in the so- 
 lution of the preceding problem, and hence we may avail our- 
 selves of the results there obtained . 
 
 If then, as in the solution referred to, we assume 
 
 X\t\ X n t n Xi „ 
 
 =-= = »*,, =-=■ = rn„, — = &c., 
 
 X\ Xji tji X\ 
 
 we shall obtain a result which may be thus written : 
 
 Mi 
 
 Prob . w = 
 
 M+N- 1’ 
 
 (H) 
 
 Mi being formed by rejecting from the function 0 the constituent 
 Xi . . x n , if it is there found, dividing the result by the same con- 
 
 stituent Xi . . x n , and then changing ~ into to,, — into m 2 , and 
 
 X\ X2 
 
 so on. The values of M and N are the same as in the preceding 
 problem. Reverting to these and to the corresponding values of 
 m l} m 2 , &c., we find 
 
 Prob . w = Mi(fj + v- 1), 
 
 the general values of m r , n r being 
 
 m r 
 
 c r p r 
 
 im - t r p T 
 
 C r (l -Pr) 
 
 H - C r (1 - Pr)’ 
 
 and fi and v being given by the solution of’ the system of equa- 
 tions, 
 
350 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. [CHAP. XX. 
 
 nil l- (t*- C iPi)"(f*-CnPn) { V~Cj ( 1 -joQ j . . { V- C„( 1 - p n ) } 
 
 /lT 1 v "- 1 
 
 The above value of Prob. w will be the numerator of the fraction 
 (2). It now remains to determine its denominator. 
 
 For this purpose assume 
 
 <P (®i, X 2 . . X n ) = U, 
 
 or <p = v ; 
 
 whence <pv + v$ =0. 
 
 Substituting the first member of this equation in (7 ) in place of 
 the corresponding form <pzw + w (1 - <f>z) we obtain as the primary 
 logical equation, 
 
 2 {x r z l r + t r ( 1 - x r z ) } + xi . . x n z + <pl + vlp - 0, 
 whence eliminating z, and reducing by Prop. n. Chap. IX., 
 
 (f)V + V^+ 2£ r ( 2 ( X r l r + t r X r ) + Xi . . x n } = 0. 
 
 Hence 
 
 <b + 2£ r { S,(x r 7r + t r X r ) + ~X\ . . X n ) 
 
 V = 2<p - 1 ’ 
 
 and developing as before, 
 
 w = Si (X T) + h . . T n 2i/X) + 0 { S 2 ( X T) + 1 , . . 7 n S 2 (X ) ) 
 
 + - (sum of other constituents). 
 
 ( 12 ) 
 
 Here 2i ( X ) indicates the sum of all constituents found in <p, 
 S 2 (X) the sum of all constituents not found in (j>. The expres- 
 sions are indeed used in place of $ and 1 - <j> to preserve sym- 
 metry. 
 
 It follows hence that Si (X) + S 2 (X) = 1, and that, as be- 
 fore, Si (X T) + S 2 (X T) = S ( X T). Hence V will have the 
 same value as before, and we shall have 
 
 Prob. v = 
 
 2, (XT) +7i..f„ Si (X) 
 V 
 
 Or transforming, as in the previous case, 
 
 + If i 
 
 Prob. v = 
 
 M+N- 1’ 
 
 (13) 
 
CHAP. XX.] PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 351 
 
 wherein N r is formed by dividing <p by x x . . x n , and changing in 
 oc oc 
 
 the result J- into n,. =? into n 2 , &c. 
 
 Xi x 2 
 
 Now the final solution of the problem proposed will be given 
 by assigning their determined values to the terms of the fraction 
 
 Prob. 6 (Xi , . . x n ) z Prob. w 
 
 1 1 Qp # 
 
 Prob. $ (x x , . . x„y Prob. v ' 
 
 Hence, therefore, by (11) and (13) we have 
 
 Prob. sought = r— . 
 
 6 Mi + Ni 
 
 A very slight attention to the mode of formation of the func- 
 tions Mi and Ni will show that the process may be greatly sim- 
 plified. We may, indeed, exhibit the solution of the general 
 problem in the form of a rule, as follows : 
 
 Reject from the function (p (ar ls x 2 . . x„) the constituent x x . .x n if 
 it is therein contained , suppress in all the remaining constituents 
 the factors x XJ x 2 , §*c., and change generally in the result x T into 
 
 — — — — . Call this result M x . 
 fl — C r Pr 
 
 Again , replace in the function <p (x x , x 2 . . x n ) the constituent 
 x x . . x n if it is therein found , by unity ; suppress in all the remaining 
 constituents the factors x x , x 2 , fyc., and change generally in the re- 
 sult x r into ■ ° r ^ 
 
 V — C r (l -p r ) 
 
 Then the solution required will be expressed by the formula 
 
 Mi 
 
 Mi + Nj 
 
 g and v being determined by the solution of the system of equations 
 
 I 1 •• (n~ c nPn) 
 
 / i ”' 1 
 
 = \ V-C n {\-Pn)) ^ 
 
 It may be added, that the limits of y and v are the same as in 
 the previous problem. This might be inferred from the general 
 principle of continuity; but conditions of limitation, which are 
 
PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 352 
 
 [chap. XX. 
 
 probably sufficient, may also be established by other conside- 
 rations. 
 
 Thus from the demonstration of the general method in pro- 
 babilities, Chap. XVII. Prop, iv., it appears that the quantities 
 x x , . . x n , t x , . . t n , in the primary system of algebraic equations, 
 must he positive proper fractions. Now 
 
 x r c r (1 — p r ) 
 
 1 = n r = V 
 
 1 Xp V Cp ^1 Pr) 
 
 Hence generally n r must be a positive quantity, and therefore 
 we must have 
 
 vjc r (l -p,). 
 
 In like manner since we have 
 
 X r tip Cp Pp 
 
 = JPI , — z 
 
 ( 1 — ar r ) [ 1 — ^r) fi — c r p r 
 
 we must have generally 
 
 fX > C r Pr • 
 
 16. It is probable that the two classes of conditions thus re- 
 presented are together sufficient to determine generally which of 
 the roots of the equations determining fx and v are to be taken. 
 Let us take in particular the case in which n = 2. Here we have 
 
 {fi-c x pi) (n~c 2 p 2 ) c x p x c 2 p 2 
 
 ju + v - 1 = — — — — = n - (c x p x + c 2 p 2 ) + — 
 
 fX p 
 
 C\ p x c 2 p 2 (n — Ci pi) c 2 p 2 
 
 .*. V = 1 - Cl Pi - c 2 p 2 + — — = 1 - CiPi - — — — . 
 
 q H 
 
 Whence, since fi>CiPi we have generally 
 
 v < 1 - Cipi. 
 
 In like manner we have 
 
 v<l-c 2 p 2 , n < l - Ci(l - pi), fi < 1 - c 2 (l -p 2 ). 
 
 Now it has already been shown that there will exist but one 
 value of fi satisfying the whole of the above conditions relative 
 to that quantity, viz. 
 
 fX > C r p r y fX < 1 — C r (l ~ p i f 
 
 whence the solution for this case, at least, is determinate. And I 
 
PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 353 
 
 CHAP. XX.] 
 
 apprehend that the same method is generally applicable and suf- 
 ficient. But this is a question upon which a further degree of 
 light is desirable. 
 
 To verify the above results, suppose <f> (r 15 . .x n ) = 1, which is 
 virtually the case considered in the previous problem. Now the 
 development of 1 gives all possible constituents of the symbols 
 Xi , . . x n . Proceeding then according to the Rule, we find 
 
 Mi = r - 1 = - — - - 1 by (15). 
 
 (n - Ci Pi) . . (,u - c n p n ) n + V - 1 J v ' 
 
 — l _ v ] 
 
 (v-CjO-JB,)} ..{v-C n (l-p n )} ‘ fjL+V- 1 
 
 Substituting in (14) we find 
 
 Prob. z = 1 - v, 
 
 which agrees with the previous solution. 
 
 Again, let <f> (x 1} . . x n ) = which, after development and sup- 
 pression of the factors x 2 , . . x n , gives x, (x 2 + 1) . . (x n +1), whence 
 we find 
 
 Mi = 
 Ni = 
 
 'Jluf , _*£!_ by (15). 
 
 (n-CipO . . (n~c n p n ) fi + V - 1 
 
 Cj{l-pi)v n -' = Ci (1 -p^ 
 
 {v-C^l -/?i)).. jv-C„(l -p n )) p+V-l 
 
 Substituting, we have 
 
 Probability that if the event A i occur, E will occur = p x . 
 
 And this result is verified by the data. Similar verifications 
 might easily be added. 
 
 Let us examine the case in which 
 
 < p (*Ti, . . a* n ) — X\ x 2 . . x n "I - x 2 X\ x 2 . . Xji . . X n X \ . . x n _\. 
 Here we find 
 
 HjT ^1 P 1 Pn 
 
 Mi = . . h , 
 
 p-CiPi p-C n p n 
 
 N = IC ‘Q ~PQ + c »(l ~P*) . 
 
 V — Ci (1 — pi ) V — c„ (1 — p n ) 
 
 whence we have the following result — 
 
354 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 [CHAP. XX. 
 
 Probability that if some one • 
 alone of the causes A u A 2 ..A n 1 
 present itself, the event E f 
 will follow. 
 
 2 Cr P r 
 
 H ~ C r p, 
 
 2 c r'Pr + ^ C r(l ~ fr) 
 
 P — C r p r V - Cr(l ” Pr ) 
 
 Let it be observed that this case is quite different from the 
 well-known one in which the mutually exclusive character of 
 the causes A x , . . A n is one of the elements of the data, expressing 
 a condition under which the very observations by which the pro- 
 babilities of A u A 2 , &c. are supposed to have been determined, 
 were made. 
 
 Consider, lastly, the case in which <j> (x lt ..x n ) = x 1 x 2 .. x n . 
 Here 
 
 M Cj p l . . c n p n = Ci pi . . c n p n 
 
 1 (p - Ci pi) . . (p - C n p n ) p n ' 1 (p + v- 1 )’ 
 
 Ci (1 - pi) . . C B (1 - p n ) = C'(l ~ Px) ■ -C»(l ~pn) 
 jv - Ci (1 -JOl)j .. {v-c„(l-p„)j v"' 1 {p + v - 1) 
 
 Hence the following result — 
 
 Probability that if all the " 
 
 causes Ai, . . A„ con- p , . .p n v n ~ l 
 
 spire, the event E will [ pi . . p n v n + (1 -pi) . . (1 -p n ) a t*" 1 ’ 
 follow. 
 
 This expression assumes, as it ought to do, the value 1 when any 
 one of the quantities p\, . .p n is equal to 1. 
 
 17. Problem VIII. — Certain causes Ai, A 2 ..A n being so 
 restricted that they cannot all fail, but still can only occur in cer- 
 tain definite combinations denoted by the equation 
 
 <p (-d-i, A 2 • • A n ^ = 1, 
 
 and there being given the separate probabilities c x , . . c„ of the 
 said causes, and the corresponding probabilities p x , . . p n that an 
 event E will follow if those respective causes are realized, re- 
 quired the probability of the event E. 
 
 This problem differs from the one last considered in several 
 particulars, but chiefly in this, that the restriction denoted by the 
 equation <p (^4 l5 . . A n ) = 1, forms one of the data, and is supposed 
 
PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 355 
 
 CHAP. XX.] 
 
 to be furnished by or to be accordant with the very experience 
 from which the knowledge of the numerical elements of the 
 problem is derived. 
 
 Representing the events A lt . . A n by x lt . . x n respectively, 
 and the event JE by 2 , we have — 
 
 Prob. x T = c r , Prob. x r z = c,p T . (1) 
 
 Let us assume, generally, 
 
 OC'p Z = 
 
 then combining the system of equations thus indicated with the 
 equations 
 
 x l . . x n = 0, # ( x x , . . x„) = 1, or 0 = 1, 
 
 furnished in the data, we ultimately find, as the developed ex- 
 pression of z, 
 
 z=2(XT) + 0ti7 2 ..7„Z(X), (2) 
 
 where X represents in succession each constituent found in <p, 
 and T a similar series of constituents of the symbols t u . . t n ; 
 2 (XT) including only symmetrical constituents with reference 
 to the two sets of symbols. 
 
 The method - of reduction to be employed in the present case 
 is so similar to the one already exemplified in former problems, 
 that I shall merely exhibit the results to which it leads. We 
 find 
 
 Prob. 2 
 
 M 
 
 M + N ’ 
 
 ( 3 ) 
 
 with the relations 
 
 Mi 
 
 C\fl 
 
 Mn_ = = 
 
 CnPn Ci(l ~ P\) C«(l — Pn) 
 
 M+N. 
 
 ( 4 ) 
 
 Wherein M is formed by suppressing in <p (x u . . x n ) all the fac- 
 tors xi, . .x n , and changing in the result X\ into m\, x n into m n , 
 while N is formed by substituting in M, n\ for m \ , &c. ; more- 
 over Mi consists of that portion of M of which mi is a factor, 
 Ni of that portion of N of which ri\ is a factor ; and so on. 
 
 Let us take, in illustration, the particular case in which the 
 causes A x . . A n are mutually exclusive. Here we have 
 
 (p (Xl, . . X n ) = X x X 2 . . Xn . . . + x„ Xl . . X n . x . 
 
356 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 [CHAP. XX. 
 
 Whence 
 
 M = my + m 2 . . + m n , 
 N = n x + n 2 . . + n „ , 
 M x - m x , Ny = riy, &c. 
 Substituting, we have 
 
 m \ _ m n ny n n 
 
 C\P\ ' ’ c n p n c,(l -pi) c„(l -p n ) 
 
 Hence we find 
 
 my + m 2 . . + m n 
 
 C\ P\ + c, p 2 . . + c n p n 
 
 = M+ N, 
 
 M+ N. 
 
 or 
 
 Hence, by (3), 
 
 M 
 
 C\p i • • + c n p n 
 
 M+ N. 
 
 Prob. Z = Cypy . . 4 c n p„, 
 
 a known result. 
 
 There are other particular cases in which the system (4) ad- 
 mits of ready solution. It is, however, obvious that in most 
 instances it would lead to results of great complexity. Nor does 
 it seem probable that the existence of a functional relation among 
 causes, such as is assumed in the data of the general problem, will 
 often be presented in actual experience ; if we except only the 
 particular cases above discussed. 
 
 Had the general problem been modified by the restriction 
 that the event E cannot occur, all the causes Ay. . A n being ab- 
 sent, instead of the restriction that the said causes cannot all fail, 
 the remaining condition denoted by the equation 0(^1 1 , . . A n ) = 1 
 being retained, we should have found for the final logical equation 
 
 2=2, (XT) + 0 2(X), 
 
 2 (X) being, as before, equal to $ (#„ . . x n ), but 2, (X T ) formed 
 by rejecting from (j> the particular constituent 5, . . x n if therein 
 contained, and then multiplying each ^-constituent of the result 
 by the corresponding ^-constituent. It is obvious that in the par- 
 ticular case in which the causes are mutually exclusive the value 
 of Prob. z hence deduced will be the same as before. 
 
 18. Problem IX. — Assuming the data of any of the pre- 
 
CHAP. XX.] 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 357 
 
 vious problems, let it be required to determine the probability 
 that if the event E present itself, it will be associated with the 
 particular cause A,.; in other words, to determine the a posteriori 
 probability of the cause A r when the event E has been observed 
 to occur. 
 
 In this case we must seek the value of the fraction 
 
 Prob. x T z 
 Prob. z ’ 
 
 or 
 
 C r p r 
 
 Prob. z’ 
 
 by the data. 
 
 (0 
 
 As in the previous problems, the value of Prob. z has been as- 
 signed upon different hypotheses relative to the connexion or 
 want of connexion of the causes, it is evident that in all those 
 cases the present problem is susceptible of a determinate solution 
 by simply substituting in (1) the value of that element thus de- 
 termined. 
 
 If the a priori probabilities of the causes are equal, we have 
 C[ = c 2 . . = c r . Hence for the different causes the value (1) will 
 vary directly as the quantity^?,.. Wherefore whatever the nature 
 of the connexion among the causes, the a posteriori probability of 
 each cause will be proportional to the probability of the observed 
 event E when that cause is known to exist. The particular case 
 of this theorem, which presents itself when the causes are mu- 
 tually exclusive, is well known. We have then 
 
 Prob. x r z _ c r p r p r 
 
 Prob. Z 2<?rPr Pl + Pi •■ + Pn 
 
 the values of c 15 . . c n being equal. 
 
 Although, for the demonstration of these and similar theo- 
 rems in the particular case in w'hich the causes are mutually ex- 
 clusive, it is not necessary to introduce the functional symbol 0, 
 which is, indeed, to claim for ourselves the choice of all possible 
 and conceivable hypotheses of the connexion of the causes, yet, 
 under every form, the solution by the method of this work of 
 problems, in which the number of the data is indefinitely great, 
 must always partake of a somewhat complex character. Whe- 
 ther the systematic evolution which it presents, first, of the logi- 
 cal, secondly, of the numerical relations of a problem, furnishes 
 any compensation for the length and occasional tediousness of its 
 
358 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 [CHAP. XX. 
 
 processes, I do not presume to inquire. Its chief value undoubt- 
 edly consists in its power, — in the mastery which it gives us over 
 questions which would apparently baffle the unassisted strength 
 of human reason. For this cause it has not been deemed super- 
 fluous to exhibit in this chapter its application to problems, some 
 of which may possibly be regarded as repulsive, from their diffi- 
 culty. without being recommended by any prospect of immediate 
 utility. Of the ulterior value of such speculations it is, I con- 
 ceive, impossible for us, at present, to form any decided judg- 
 ment. 
 
 19. The following problem is of a much easier description 
 than the previous ones. 
 
 Problem X. — The probability of the occurrence of a certain 
 natural phenomenon under given circumstances is p. Observation 
 has also recorded a probability a of the existence of a permanent 
 cause of that phenomenon, i.e. of a cause ivhich would always pro- 
 duce the event under the circumstances supposed. What is the 
 probability that if the phenomenon is observed to occur n times in 
 succession under the given circumstances , it will occur the n + l tA 
 time ? What also is the probability, after such observation , of the 
 existence of the permanent cause referred to ? 
 
 First Case. — Let t represent the existence of a permanent 
 cause, and x x , x 2 . . x n+l the successive occurrences of the natural 
 phaenomenon. 
 
 If the permanent cause exist, the events x x , x 2 . . x n+l are ne- 
 cessary consequences. Hence 
 
 t = vx x , t = vx 2 ,& c., 
 
 and eliminating the indefinite symbols, 
 
 #(l-a; 1 ) = 0, <(l-r 2 ) = 0, t (1 - x^ x ) = 0. 
 
 Now we are to seek the probability that if the combination 
 i)!,.. x n happen, the event x„ +x will happen, i. e. we are to seek 
 the value of the fraction 
 
 Prob. *i I, . . &Vi 
 Prob. x x x 2 . . x n 
 
 We will first seek the value of Prob. x x x z . . x n , 
 
PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 359 
 
 CHAP. XX.] 
 
 Represent the combination x 2 . .x n by w, then we have the 
 following logical equations : 
 
 £(1 - x x ) = 0, *(1 - x 2 ) = 0 . . t (1 - x„ ) = 0, 
 
 Xi X 2 . . Xn = w. 
 
 Reducing the last to the form 
 
 (a?! Xi . . Xn) (1 - w) + V) (1 - X 2 . . X n ) = 0, 
 
 and adding it to the former ones, we have 
 
 2£(1 - Xi) + Xj X 2 . . X n (1 - w) + W (1 - Xi x 2 ..x n ) = 0, (1) 
 
 wherein 2 extends to all values of i from 1 to n, for the one logi- 
 cal equation of the data. With this we must connect the nume- 
 rical conditions, 
 
 Prob. X\ = Prob. x 2 . . = Prob. x„ = p, Prob. t = a ; 
 and our object is to find Prob. w. 
 
 Prom (1) we have 
 
 2 1 (1 - Xi) + x x x 2 . . x n 
 
 w = ^ z ; 
 
 2 Xi X 2 . . X n - 1 
 
 2 (1 - Xi) + x 1 x 2 ..x n 
 2 x x x 2 . . x„ - 1 
 
 t + 
 
 X X X2 • • X\ 
 
 2 x x x 2 . . x n 
 
 
 ( 2 ) 
 
 on developing with respect to t. This result must further be 
 developed with respect to x 1} x 2 , . . x n . 
 
 Now if we make aj x = 1, x 2 = 1, . . x n = 1, the coefficients both 
 of t and of 1 - t become 1. If we give to the same symbols any 
 other set of values formed by the interchange of 0 and 1 , it is 
 evident that the coefficient of t will become negative, while that 
 of 1 - t will become 0. Hence the full development (2) will be 
 
 w - Xi x 2 . . x n t + x x x 2 . . x n (1 - t) + 0 (1 - Xi x 2 . . x n ) (1 - t) 
 
 + constituents whose coefficients are or equivalent to 
 Here we have 
 
 V = X! x 2 . . x n t + X x X 2 . . X n (1 - t) + (1 - Xi x 2 . . x n ) (1 - t) 
 
 = Xx x 2 . . x n t + 1 - t ; 
 
 whence, passing from Logic to Algebra, 
 
360 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 [chap. XX. 
 
 Xj X 2 . . X n t 4- 3?,(1 - t) _X x X 2 .. X n t + X 2 (1 - t ) 
 
 P ~ P 
 
 X\ X 2 . . X n t -j- Xji [1 t\ X\ X 2 . . X n t _ 
 
 = L = — = X x X 2 . . X n t + 1 
 
 p a 
 
 t. 
 
 Prob. w = 
 
 XjX-z . . X n 
 Xx X 2 . . X n t + 1 - t 
 
 From the forms of the above equations it is evident that we 
 have Xy = x 2 . . = x n . Replace then each of these quantities by x, 
 and the system becomes 
 
 x n t + (l-t)x x”t , 
 
 = — = x n t + 1 - t, 
 
 p a 
 
 ~jn 
 
 Prob. w = 
 
 x n t + 1 - t 
 
 from which we readily deduce 
 
 Prob. w = Prob. x x x 2 . . x„ = a + (p - a) ^ y — -J 
 If in this result we change n into n + 1, we get 
 
 Prob. x y x 2 .. x n+x = a + (p - a) ^ y-^ 
 Hence we find — 
 
 Prob. XxX 2 . . x n+1 _ a + ^ ~ a ^(l -g) 
 
 Prob. x x x 2 . . x„ 
 
 \n-i 
 
 
 ( 3 ) 
 
 as the expression of the probability that if the phsenomenon be n 
 times repeated, it will also present itself the n + X th time. By the 
 method of Chapter XIX. it is found that a cannot exceed p in 
 value. 
 
 The following verifications are obvious : — 
 
 1st. If a = 0, the expression reduces to p, as it ought to do. 
 For when it is certain that no permanent cause exists, the suc- 
 cessive occurrences of the phenomenon are independent. 
 
 2nd. If p= 1, the expression becomes 1, as it ought to do. 
 
 3rd. If p = a, the expression becomes 1, unless a = 0. If the 
 probability of a phenomenon is equal to the probability that there 
 
PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 361 
 
 CHAP. XX.] 
 
 exists a cause which under given circumstances would always 
 produce it, then the fact that that phenomenon has ever been no- 
 ticed under those circumstances, renders certain its re-appearance 
 under the same.* 
 
 4th. As n increases, the expression approaches in value to 
 unity. This indicates that the probability of the recurrence of 
 the event increases with the frequency of its successive appear- 
 ances, — a result agreeable to the natural laws of expectation. 
 
 Second Case. — We are now to seek the probability a. pos- 
 teriori of the existence of a permanent cause of the phenomenon. 
 This requires that we ascertain the value of the fraction 
 
 Prob.ta] x*. . x n 
 Prob. Xj x 2 . . x^ 
 
 the denominator of which has already been determined. 
 
 To determine the numerator assume 
 
 tx x x 2 . . x n = w, 
 
 then proceeding as before, we obtain for the logical develop- 
 ment, 
 
 w = tXi x 2 . . x n + 0 (1 - t). 
 
 Whence, passing from Logic to Algebra, we have at once 
 
 Prob. w = a, 
 
 a result which might have been anticipated. Substituting then 
 for the numerator and denominator of the above fraction their 
 values, we have for the a posteriori probability of a permanent 
 cause, the expression 
 
 * As we can neither re-enter nor recall the state of infancy, we are unable to 
 say how far such results as the above serve to explain the confidence with which 
 young children connect events whose association they have once perceived. 
 But we may conjecture, generally, that the strength of their expectations is 
 due to the necessity of inferring (as a part of their rational nature), and the 
 narrow hut impressive experience upon which the faculty is exercised. Hence 
 the reference of every kind of sequence to that of cause and effect. A little 
 friend of the author’s, on being put to bed, was heard to ask his brother the 
 pertinent question, — “ Why does going to sleep at night make it light in the 
 morning?” The brother, who was a year older, was able to reply, that it 
 would be light in the morning even if little boys did not go to sleep at night. 
 
362 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 [CHAP. XX. 
 
 a 
 
 a + (p - a) 
 
 p - a 
 l - a 
 
 It is obvious that the value of this expression increases with the 
 value of n. 
 
 I am indebted to a learned correspondent,* whose original 
 contributions to the theory of probabilities have already been re- 
 ferred to, for the following verification of the first of the above 
 results (3). 
 
 “ The whole a priori probability of the event (under the cir- 
 cumstances) being p , and the probability of some cause C which 
 would necessarily produce it, a, let x be the probability that it 
 will happen if no such cause as C exist. Then we have the 
 equation 
 
 p - a + (1 - a) x, 
 
 whence _ p-a 
 
 Now the phenomenon observed is the occurrence of the event n 
 times. The a priori probability of this would be — 
 
 1 supposing C to exist, 
 x n supposing C not to exist ; 
 
 whence the a posteriori probability that C exists is 
 
 a 
 
 a + (1 - a)*"’ 
 
 that C does not exist is 
 
 (1 - a) x n 
 a + (1 - a) x n ' 
 
 Consequently the probability of another occurrence is 
 a , ( 1 - a) x n 
 
 7- r X I + — r X a, 
 
 a + (1 - a) x n a + (1 - a) x n 
 
 or 
 
 a + (1 - a) x nn 
 a + (1 - a) x 11 ’ 
 
 * Professor Donkin. 
 
CHAP. XX.] 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 363 
 
 which, on replacing n by its value 
 
 p - a 
 1 - a 
 
 , will be found to agree 
 
 with (3).” 
 
 Similar verifications might, it is probable, also be found for 
 the following results, obtained by the direct application of the 
 general method. 
 
 The probability, under the same circumstances, that if, out of 
 n occasions, the event happen r times, and fail n - r times, it will 
 happen on the n + 1 <A time is 
 
 a + m (p - a) 
 
 a + m(p - la) 
 
 . . n(n-Y)..n-r+\ r 
 
 wherein m = -r—. and l = 
 
 1.2 . .r n 
 
 The probability of a permanent cause (r being less than n) 
 is 0. This is easily verified. 
 
 If p be the probability of an event, and c the probability that 
 if it occur it will be due to a permanent cause ; the probability 
 after n successive observed occurrences that it will recur on the 
 n + 1 th similar occasion is 
 
 wherein x = 
 
 ~ c) 
 
 1 - cp 
 
 c + ( 1 - c) x n 
 c + (1 - c) a:"" 1 ’ 
 
 20. It is remarkable that the solutions of the previous pro- 
 blems are void of any arbitrary element. W e should scarcely, 
 from the appearance of the data, have anticipated such a circum- 
 stance. It is, however, to be observed, that in all those problems 
 the probabilities of the causes involved are supposed to be known 
 a priori. In the absence of this assumed element of knowledge, 
 it seems probable that arbitrary constants would necessarily ap- 
 pear in the final solution. Some confirmation of this remark is 
 afforded by a class of problems to which considerable attention 
 has been directed, and which, in conclusion, I shall briefly 
 consider. 
 
364 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. [CHAP. XX. 
 
 It has been observed that there exists in the heavens a large 
 number of double stars of extreme closeness. Either these ap- 
 parent instances of connexion have some physical ground or they 
 have not. If they have not, we may regard the phamomenon of a 
 double star as the accidental result of a “ random distribution” of 
 stars over the celestial vault, i. e. of a distribution which would 
 render it just as probable that either member of the binary sys- 
 tem should appear in one spot as in another. If this hypothesis be 
 assumed, and if the number of stars of a requisite brightness be 
 known, we can determine what is the probability that two of 
 them should be found within such limits of mutual distance as 
 to constitute the observed phtenomenon. Thus Mitchell,* esti- 
 mating that there are 230 stars in the heavens equal in brightness 
 to j3 Capricorni, determines that it is 80 to 1 against such a 
 combination being presented were those stars distributed at ran- 
 dom. The probability, when such a combination has been ob- 
 served, that there exists between its members a physical ground 
 of connexion, is then required. 
 
 Again, the sum of the inclinations of the orbits of the ten 
 known planets to the plane of the ecliptic in the year 1801 was 
 9 1°‘4 187, according to the French measures. Were all inclina- 
 tions equally probable, Laplacej determines, that there would be 
 only the excessively small probability .00000011235 that the 
 mean of the inclinations should fall within the limit thus as- 
 signed. And he hence concludes, that there is a very high 
 probability in favour of a disposing cause, by which the inclina- 
 tions of the planetary orbits have been confined within such narrow 
 bounds. Professor De Morgan, J taking the sum of the inclina- 
 tions at 92°, gives to the above probability the value .00000012, 
 and infers that “ it is 1 : .00000012, that there was a necessary 
 cause in the formation of the solar system for the inclinations 
 being what they are.” An equally determinate conclusion has 
 been drawn from observed coincidences between the direction of 
 
 * Phil. Transactions, An. 1767. 
 f Theorie Analytique des Probabilites, p. 276. 
 t Encyclopaedia Metropolitana. Art. Probabilities. 
 
CHAP. XX.] 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 365 
 
 circular polarization in rock-crystal, and that of certain oblique 
 faces in its crystalline structure.* 
 
 These problems are all of a similar character. A certain hypo- 
 thesis is framed, of the various possible consequences of which 
 we are able to assign the probabilities with perfect rigour. Now 
 some actual result of observation being found among those con- 
 sequences, and its hypothetical probability being therefore known, 
 it is required thence to determine the probability of the hypo- 
 thesis assumed, or its contrary. In Mitchell’s problem, the hy- 
 pothesis is that of a “ random distribution of the stars,” — the 
 possible and observed consequence, the appearance of a close 
 double star. The very small probability of such a result is held 
 to imply that the probability of the hypothesis is equally small, 
 or, at least, of the same order of smallness. And hence the high 
 and, and as some think, determinate probability of a disposing 
 cause in the stellar arrangements is inferred. Similar remarks 
 apply to the other examples adduced. 
 
 21. The general problem, in whatsoever form it may be pre- 
 sented, admits only of an indefinite solution. Let a: represent the 
 proposed hypothesis, y a phtenomenon which might occur as one 
 of its possible consequences, and whose calculated probability, on 
 the assumption of the truth of the hypothesis, is p , and let it be re- 
 quired to determine the probability that if the phenomenon y is 
 observed, the hypothesis x is time. The very data of this pro- 
 blem cannot be expressed without the introduction of an arbi- 
 trary element. W e can only write 
 
 Prob. x = a, Prob. xy = ap; (1) 
 
 a being perfectly arbitrary, except that it must fall within the 
 limits 0 and 1 inclusive. If then P represent the conditional pro- 
 bability sought, we have 
 
 Prob. xy _ ap 
 
 Prob. y Prob. y ^ 
 
 It remains then to determine Prob. y. 
 
 • Edinburgh Review, No. 185, p. 32. This article, though not entirely free 
 from error, is well worthy of attention. 
 
366 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 [chap. XX. 
 
 Let xy = t, then 
 
 y = t ~x' =tX + \ t ( l ~ *) + °0 + (!-«)• ( 3 ) 
 
 Hence observing that Prob. x = a, Prob. t = ap, and passing from 
 Logic to Algebra, we have 
 
 -r, , tx + c(\-t) x 
 
 Prob. y = — - — 
 
 J tx + 1 - t 
 
 with the relations 
 
 tx + ( 1 - t) x tx 
 a ap 
 
 = tx + 1 - t. 
 
 Hence we readily find 
 
 Prob. y = ap + c (1 - a). (4) 
 
 Now recurring to (3), we find that c is the probability, that if 
 the event (1 - t) (1 - x) occur, the event y will occur. But 
 
 (1 — #) (1 — a?) = (1 — xy) (1 - x) = 1 - x. 
 
 Hence c is the probability that if the event x do not occur , 
 the event y will occur. 
 
 Substituting the value of Prob. y in (2), we have the follow- 
 ing theorem : 
 
 The calculated probability of any phcenomenon y, upon an as- 
 sumed physical hypothesis x, being p, the a posteriori probability P 
 of the physical hypothesis, when the phcenomenon has been observed, 
 is expressed by the equation 
 
 P= ^ ,, (5) 
 
 ap + c(l - a) v ' 
 
 where a and c are arbitrary constants , the former representing the 
 d priori probability of the hypothesis , the latter the probability that 
 if the hypothesis were false, the event y would present itself. 
 
 The principal conclusion deducible from the above theorem 
 is that, other things being the same, the value of P increases and 
 diminishes simultaneously with that of p. Hence the greater or 
 less the probability of the phenomenon when the hypothesis is 
 assumed, the greater or less is the probability of the hypothesis 
 when the phcenomenon has been observed. When p is very small, 
 then generally P also is small, unless either a is large or c small. 
 
CHAP. XX.] 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 367 
 
 Hence, secondly, if the probability of tbe phenomenon is very 
 small when the hypothesis is assumed, the probability of the hy- 
 pothesis is very small when the phenomenon is observed, unless 
 either the a priori probability a of the hypothesis is large, or the 
 probability of the phenomenon upon any other hypothesis small. 
 
 The formula (5) admits of exact verification in various cases, 
 as when c = 0, or a = 1, or a = 0. But it is evident that it does 
 not, unless there be means for determining the values of a and c, 
 yield a definite value of P. Any solutions which profess to ac- 
 complish this object, either are erroneous in principle, or involve 
 a tacit assumption respecting the above arbitrary elements. Mr. 
 De Morgan’s solution of Laplace’s problem concerning the ex- 
 istence of a determining cause of the narrow limits within which 
 the inclinations of the planetary orbits to the plane of the ecliptic 
 are confined, appears to me to be of the latter description. Having 
 found a probability p = .00000012, that the sum of the incli- 
 nations would be less than 92° were all degrees of inclination 
 equally probable in each orbit, this able writer remarks : “ If 
 there be a reason for the inclinations being as described, the 
 probability of the event is 1. Consequently, it is 1 : .00000012 
 (i. e. 1 :p), that there was a necessary cause in the formation of 
 the solar system for the inclinations being what they are.” Now 
 this result is what the equation (5) would really give, if, assigning 
 
 to p the above value, we should assume c - 
 
 should thus find, 
 
 P 
 
 1 + p 
 
 For we 
 
 .-. 1 - P : P : : 1 : p. (6) 
 
 But P representing the probability, a posteriori, that all 
 inclinations are equally probable, 1 - P is the probability, a pos- 
 teriori, that such is not the case, or, adopting Mr. De Morgan’s 
 alternative, that a determining cause exists. The equation (6), 
 therefore, agrees with Mr. De Morgan’s result. 
 
 22. Are we, however, justified in assigning to a and c parti- 
 cular values? I am strongly disposed to think that we are not. 
 
368 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 [CHAP. XX. 
 
 The question is of less importance in the special instance than 
 in its ulterior bearings. In the received applications of the theory 
 of probabilities, arbitrary constants do not explicitly appear ; 
 but in the above, and in many other instances sanctioned by the 
 highest authorities, some virtual determination of them has been 
 attempted. And this circumstance has given to the results of 
 the theory, especially in reference to questions of causation, a 
 character of definite precision, which, while on the one hand it 
 has seemed to exalt the dominion and extend the province of 
 numbers, even beyond the measure of their ancient claim to rule 
 the world ;* on the other hand has called forth vigorous protests 
 against their intrusion into realms in which conjecture is the only 
 basis of inference. The very fact of the appearance of arbitrary 
 constants in the solutions of problems like the above, treated 
 by the method of this work, seems to imply, that definite solution 
 is impossible, and to mark the point where inquiry ought to stop. 
 W e possess indeed the means of interpreting those constants, but 
 the experience which is thus indicated is as much beyond our 
 reach as the experience which would preclude the necessity of 
 any attempt at solution whatever. 
 
 Another difficulty attendant upon these questions, and inhe- 
 rent, perhaps, in the very constitution of our faculties, is that of 
 precisely defining what is meant by Order. The manifestations 
 of that principle, except in very complex instances, we have no 
 difficulty in detecting, nor do we hesitate to impute to it an al- 
 most necessary foundation in causes operating under Law. But 
 to assign to it a standard of numerical value would be a vain, 
 not to say a presumptuous, endeavour. Yet must the attempt be 
 made, before we can aspire to weigh with accuracy the probabi- 
 bilities of different constitutions of the universe, so as to deter- 
 mine the elements upon which alone a definite solution of the 
 problems in question can be established. 
 
 23. The most usual mode of endeavouring to evade the ne- 
 cessary arbitrariness of the solution of problems in the theory of 
 
 * Mundum regunt numcri. 
 
 t See an interesting paper by Prof. Forbes in the Philosophical Magazine, 
 Dec. 18.50; also Mill’s Logic, chap, xviii. 
 
PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 369 
 
 CHAP. XX.] 
 
 probabilities which rest upon insufficient data, is to assign to some 
 element whose real probability is unknown all possible degrees 
 of probability ; to suppose that these degrees of probability are 
 themselves equally probable ; and, regarding them as so many dis- 
 tinct causes of the phenomenon observed, to apply the theorems 
 which represent the case of an effect due to some one of a number 
 of equally probable but mutually exclusive causes (Problem 9). 
 For instance, the rising of the sun after a certain interval of 
 darkness having been observed m times in succession, the proba- 
 bility of its again rising under the same circumstances is deter- 
 mined, on received principles, in the following manner. Let p 
 be any unknown probability between 0 and 1 , and c (infinitesimal 
 and constant) the probability, that the probability of the sun’s 
 rising after an interval of darkness lies between the limits p and 
 p + dp. Then the probability that the sun will rise m times in 
 succession is 
 
 e p m dp ; 
 
 and the probability that he will do this, and will rise again, or, 
 which is the same thing, that he will rise m + 1 times in succes- 
 sion, is 
 
 c f p mtl dp, 
 
 J o 
 
 Hence the probability that if he rise m times in succession, he will 
 rise the m + 1 th time, is 
 
 'If'Jp m + l 
 
 c (p-dp m + 2 ' 
 
 the known and generally received solution. 
 
 The above solution is usually founded upon a supposed analogy 
 of the problem with that of the drawing of balls from an urn con- 
 taining a mixture of black and white balls, between which all 
 possible • numerical ratios are assumed to be equally probable. 
 And it is remarkable, that there are two or three distinct hypo- 
 theses which lead to the same final result. For instance, if the 
 balls are finite in number, and those which are drawn arc not 
 
370 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 [CHAP. XX. 
 
 replaced, or if they are infinite in number, whether those drawn 
 are replaced or not, then, supposing that in successive drawings 
 have yielded only white balls, the probability of the issue of a 
 white ball at the m + drawing is 
 
 m + 1 # 
 m + 2 
 
 It has been said, that the principle involved in the above 
 and in similar applications is that of the equal distribution of 
 our knowledge, or rather of our ignorance — the assigning to 
 different states of things of which we know nothing, and upon 
 the very ground that we know nothing, equal degrees of proba- 
 bility. I apprehend, however, that this is an arbitrary method of 
 procedure. Instances may occur, and one such has been adduced, 
 in which different hypotheses lead to the same final conclusion. 
 But those instances are exceptional. With reference to the par- 
 ticular problem in question, it is shown in the memoir cited, that 
 there is one hypothesis, viz., when the balls are finite in number 
 and not replaced, which leads to a different conclusion, and it is 
 easy to see that there are other hypotheses, as strictly involving 
 the principle of the “ equal distribution of knowledge or igno- 
 rance,” which would also conduct to conflicting results. 
 
 24. For instance, let the case of sunrise be represented by 
 the drawing of a white ball from a bag containing an infinite 
 number of balls, which are all either black or white, and let the 
 assumed principle be, that all possible constitutions of the system 
 of balls are equally probable. By a constitution of the system, I 
 mean an arrangement which assigns to every ball in the system 
 a determinate colour, either black or white. Let us thence seek 
 the probability, that if m white balls are drawn in m drawings, 
 a white ball will be drawn in the m + 1 th drawing. 
 
 First, suppose the number of the balls to be y, and let the 
 symbols * l5 x 2 , . . be appropriated to them in the following 
 manner. Let denote that event which consists in the i ,h ball 
 of the system being white, the proposition declaratory of such a 
 state of things being Xi = 1. In like manner the compound 
 
 See a memoir by Bishop Terrot, Edinburgh Phil. Trans, vol.xx. Part iv. 
 
CHAP. XX.] 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 371 
 
 symbol 1 - xi will represent the circumstance of the i th ball being 
 black. It is evident that the several constituents formed of the 
 entire set of symbols x ly x 2 , . . will represent in like manner 
 the several possible constitutions of the system of balls with 
 respect to blackness and whiteness, and the number of such con- 
 stitutions being 2 M , the probability of each will, in accordance 
 
 with the hypothesis, be ^ . This is the value which we should 
 
 find if we substituted in the expression of any constituent for 
 
 each of the symbols x u x 2 , . . x^, the value Hence, then, the 
 
 probability of any event which can be expressed as a series of 
 constituents of the above description, will be found by substi- 
 tuting in such expression the value ^ for each of the above 
 symbols. 
 
 Now the larger ju is, the less probable it is that any ball 
 which has been drawn and replaced will be drawn again. As fi 
 approaches to infinity, this probability approaches to 0. And 
 this being the case, the state of the balls actually drawn can be 
 expressed as a logical function of m of the symbols x lt . . x 2 . . a^, 
 and therefore, by development, as a series of constituents of the 
 said m symbols. Hence, therefore, its probability will be fonnd 
 by substituting for each of the symbols, whether in the unde- 
 
 1 
 
 veloped or the developed form, the value - . But this is the very 
 
 £ 
 
 substitution which it would be necessary, and which it would 
 suffice, to make, if the probability of a white ball at each drawing 
 
 were known, d priori, to be ^ . 
 
 JU 
 
 It follows, therefore, that if the number of balls be infinite, 
 and all constitutions of the system equally probable, the proba- 
 bility of drawing m white balls in succession will be and the 
 
 probability of drawing m + 1 white balls in succession 
 
 2 m+ i ’ 
 
 whence the probability that after m white balls have been drawn, 
 the next drawing will furnish a white one, will be In other 
 
PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 372 
 
 [chap. XX. 
 
 words, past experience does not in this case affect future ex- 
 pectation. 
 
 25. It may be satisfactory to verify this result by ordinary 
 methods. To accomplish this, we shall seek — 
 
 First : The probability of drawing r white balls, and p - r 
 black balls, in p trials, out of a bag containing p balls, every ball 
 being replaced after drawing, and all constitutions of the systems 
 being equally probable, d priori. 
 
 Secondly : The value which this probability assumes when 
 p becomes infinite. 
 
 Thirdly : The probability hence derived, that if m white 
 balls are drawn in succession, the m + I th ball drawn will be 
 white also. 
 
 The probability that r white balls and p - r black ones will be 
 drawn in p trials out of an urn containing ju balls, each ball 
 being replaced after trial, and all constitutions of the system as 
 above defined being equally probable, is equal to the sum of the 
 probabilities of the same result upon the separate hypotheses of 
 there being no white balls, 1 white ball, — lastly p white balls in 
 the urn. Therefore, it is the sum of the probabilities of this re- 
 sult on the hypothesis of there being n white balls, n varying 
 from 0 to p. 
 
 Now supposing that there are n white balls, the probability 
 
 of drawing a white ball in a single drawing is - , and the proba- 
 
 bility of' drawing r white balls and p - r black ones in a parti- 
 cular order in p drawings, is 
 
 (;)'(' 
 
 But there being as many such orders as there are combinations 
 of r things in p things, the total probability of drawing r white 
 balls in p drawings out of the system of p balls of which n are 
 white, is 
 
 (l) 
 
 Again, the number of constitutions of the system of p balls, which 
 admit of exactly n balls being white, is 
 
CHAP. XX.] 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 373 
 
 n(n-l) . . (ji-n+l) 
 
 1.2 ..n 
 
 and the number of possible constitutions of the system is 2 M . 
 Hence the probability that exactly n balls are white is 
 
 p(r*~ 1 ) • • (a* - n+ 1 ) 
 
 1.2.. n 2" 
 
 Multiplying (1) by this expression, and taking the sum of the 
 products from n = 0 to n = n, we have 
 
 p(p-\)..p-r+\ 
 1.2 ..r 
 
 n = 0 
 
 n (ju - 1) . . ju - « + i/»y/ 
 
 1.2..W2'* Vi“/V 
 
 > ( 2 ) 
 
 for the expression of the total probability, that out of a system 
 of fi balls of which all constitutions are equally probable, r white 
 balls will issue in p drawings. Now 
 
 ..(//-» + 1) 
 n- o 1 . 2 . . n . 2* 
 
 »=m . . (p-n+i) / » y , 
 
 »--o 1 . 2 . . n 2 M U/' 
 
 ..(0 = 0 ) 
 
 i z>v-^"=>( M -i)..(^-n + i) 
 
 s "*“ rraTT; 
 
 £ 
 
 
 (1+6^, 
 
 ( 3 ) 
 
 D standing for the symbol so that <p (D) e n6 = <p (w) t nS . But 
 by a known theorem, 
 
 * A 2 0 m A 3 0 m 
 
 a ! Oire 
 
 .-. Z) m (1 + £») ,1 = {1 + A0 m I> +- — — D(D- 1) + &c.) (1 + t 9 y. 
 
 1 . u 
 
 In the second member let e e = x, then 
 * d A 2 0 m d 1 
 
 Lr (1 + t e y = (1 + A 0 m £— + — + + X ) M ’ 
 
 since 
 
 * 
 
 ERRATA. — 3, 5, and 6 from bottom, for 1 read 0 m . 
 
374 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 [CHAP. XX. 
 
 In the second member of the above equation, performing the dif- 
 ferentiations and making x = 1 (since 0 = 0), we get 
 
 D m (1 + £ e y = n (A0 m ) 2 m-1 + — (A 2 0 m ) 2' 1 " 2 + &c. 
 
 I • A 
 
 The last term of the second member of this equation will be 
 n(ii- 1) • • l)A m 0" 
 
 1 . 2 ..m 
 
 = ..(p-m+1) 2 M_m ; 
 
 since A m 0 wl = 1 . 2 . . m. When p is a large quantity this term 
 exceeds all the others in value, and as fi approaches to infinity 
 tends to become infinitely great in comparison with them. And 
 as moreover it assumes the form 2 U ~ m , we have, on passing to 
 
 the limit, 
 
 D m (l + t 9 y = = f ^ ) 2 m . 
 
 Hence if $ (D) represent any function of the symbol D, which 
 is capable of being expanded in a series of ascending powers of D, 
 we have 
 
 *(D) (! + .•>- *(!)»■, (4) 
 
 if 0 = 0 and ju = oo. Strictly speaking, this implies that the ratio of 
 the two members of the above equation approaches a state of 
 equality, as n increases towards infinity, 0 being equal to 0. 
 
 By means of this theorem, the last member of (3) reduces to 
 the form 
 
 1 
 
 2m 
 
 Hence (2) gives 
 
 p (p - 1) . . (p - r + 1 / 1 V 
 1 .2..r \2) 5 
 
 as the expression for the probability that from an urn containing 
 an infinite number of black and white balls, all constitutions of 
 the system being equally probable, r white balls will issue in p 
 drawings. 
 
 Hence, making p = m,r = m, the probability that in m drawings 
 
 all the balls will be white 
 
 is 
 
 /l\ m 
 
 ( - j , and the pi’obability 
 
 that this 
 
CHAP. XX.] 
 
 PROBLEMS ON CAUSES. 
 
 375 
 
 will be the case, and that moreover the m + l' A drawing will 
 
 yield a white ball is , whence the probability, that if the 
 
 first m drawings yield white balls only, the m + \ th drawing will 
 also yield a white ball, is 
 
 and generally, any proposed result will have the same probability 
 as if it were an even chance whether each particular drawing 
 yielded a white or a black ball. This agrees with the conclusion 
 before obtained. 
 
 26. These results only illustrate the fact, that when the defect 
 of data is supplied by hypothesis, the solutions will, in general, 
 vary with the nature of the hypotheses assumed ; so that the 
 question still remains, only more definite in form, whether the 
 principles of the theory of probabilities serve to guide us in the 
 election of such hypotheses. I have already expressed my convic- 
 tion that they do not — a conviction strengthened by other reasons 
 than those above stated. Thus, a definite solution of a problem 
 having been found by the method of this work, an equally de- 
 finite solution is sometimes attainable by the same method when 
 one of the data, suppose Prob. x =p x is omitted. But I have not 
 been able to discover any mode of deducing the second solution 
 from the first by integration , with respect to p supposed variable 
 within limits determined by Chap. xix. This deduction would, 
 however, I conceive, be possible, were the principle adverted to 
 in Art. 23 valid. Still it is with diffidence that I express my 
 dissent on these points from mathematicians generally, and more 
 especially from one who, of English writers, has most fully en- 
 tered into the spirit and the methods of Laplace ; and I venture 
 to hope, that a question, second to none other in the Theory of 
 Probabilities in importance, will receive the careful attention 
 which it deserves. 
 
 J \m + i 
 2 ) 
 
 1Y* _ 1 
 2 / “ 2 
 
376 
 
 PROBABILITY OF JUDGMENTS. 
 
 [CHAP. XXI. 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 PARTICULAR APPLICATION OF THE PREVIOUS GENERAL METHOD 
 
 TO THE QUESTION OF THE PROBABILITY OF JUDGMENTS. 
 
 1 • the presumption that the general method of this treatise 
 
 for the solution of questions in the theory of probabilities, 
 has been sufficiently elucidated in the previous chapters, it is pro- 
 posed here to enter upon one of its practical applications selected 
 out of the wide field of social statistics, viz., the estimation of the 
 probability of judgments. Perhaps this application, if weighed 
 by its immediate results, is not the best that could have been 
 chosen. One of the first conclusions to which it leads is that of 
 the necessary insufficiency of any data that experience alone can 
 furnish, for the accomplishment of the most important object of 
 the inquiry. But in setting clearly before us the necessity of 
 hypotheses as supplementary to the data of experience, and in 
 enabling us to deduce with rigour the consequences of any hy- 
 pothesis which may be assumed, the method accomplishes all 
 that properly lies within its scope. And it may be remarked, 
 that in questions which relate to the conduct of our own species, 
 hypotheses are more justifiable than in questions such as those re- 
 ferred to in the concluding sections of the previous chapter. Our 
 general experience of human nature comes in aid of the scantiness 
 and imperfection of statistical records. 
 
 2. The elements involved in problems relating to criminal 
 assize are the following : — 
 
 1st. The probability that a particular member of the jury 
 Avill form a correct opinion upon the case. 
 
 2nd. The probability that the accused party is guilty. 
 
 3rd. The probability that he will be condemned, or that he 
 will be acquitted. 
 
 4th. The probability that his condemnation or acquittal will 
 be just. 
 
 5th. The constitution of the jury. 
 
CHAP. XXI.] PROBABILITY OF JUDGMENTS. 377 
 
 6 th. The data furnished by experience, such as the relative 
 numbers of cases in which unanimous decisions have been arrived 
 at, or particular majorities obtained ; the number of cases in 
 which decisions have been reversed by superior courts, &c. 
 
 Again, the class of questions under consideration may be 
 regarded as either direct or inverse. The direct questions of pro- 
 bability are those in which the probability of correct decision 
 for each member of the tribunal, or of guilt for the accused 
 party, are supposed to be known a priori , and in which the proba- 
 bility of a decision of a particular kind, or with a definite majority, 
 is sought. Inverse problems are those in which, from the data fur- 
 nished by experience, it is required to determine some element 
 which, though it stand to those data in the relation of cause to 
 effect, cannot directly be made the subject of observation; as 
 when from the records of the decisions of courts it is required to 
 determine the probability that a member of a court will judge 
 correctly. To this species of problems, the most difficult and 
 the most important of the whole series, attention will chiefly be 
 directed here. 
 
 3. There is no difficulty in solving the direct problems re- 
 ferred to in the above enumeration. Suppose there is but one 
 juryman. Let k be the probability that the accused person is 
 guilty; x the probability that the juryman will form a correct 
 opinion ; X the probability that the accused person will be con- 
 demned : then — 
 
 kx = probability that the accused party is guilty, and that the 
 juryman judges him to be guilty. 
 
 (l-A)(l-x) = probability that the accused person is inno- 
 cent, and that the juryman pronounces him guilty. 
 
 Now these being the only cases in which a verdict of con- 
 demnation can be given, and being moreover mutually exclusive, 
 we have 
 
 X = kx + (1 - k) (1 - x). (1) 
 
 In like manner, if there be n jurymen whose separate proba- 
 bilities of correct judgment are x 1} x 2 . . x„ , the probability of an 
 unanimous verdict of condemnation will be 
 
 X = kXi x 2 . . x n + (.1 - k) (1 - Xi) (1 - x 2 ) . . (1 - X*). 
 
378 
 
 PROBABILITY OF JUDGMENTS. [CHAP. XXI. 
 
 Whence, if the several probabilities Xi , x 2 . . x n are equal, and are 
 each represented by x, we have 
 
 X = kx n + (1 - k) (1 - x) n . (2) 
 
 The probability in the latter case, that the accused person is guilty, 
 will be 
 
 kx n 
 
 kx n + (1 - K) (1 - x) n 
 
 All these results assume, that the events whose probabilities 
 are denoted by k, r 15 x 2 , &c., are independent, an assumption 
 which, however, so far as we are concerned, is involved in the 
 fact that those events are the only ones of which the probabilities 
 are given. 
 
 The probability of condemnation by a given number of voices 
 may be found on the same principles. If a jury is composed of 
 three persons, whose several probabilities of correct decision are 
 x, x, of', the probability X 2 that the accused person will be de- 
 clared guilty by two of them will be 
 
 X 2 = k [xrf (1 - x') + xx" (1 - x’) + x o£' (1 - a:)} 
 
 + (1 - k) {(1 - x) (l-af)x" + (l-x) (1 -a/') X + (1 - af) (1 -aT) x), 
 
 which if x = x = x" reduces to 
 
 3kx 2 (1 - x) + 3 (1 - k) x (1 - x) 2 . 
 
 And by the same mode of reasoning, it will appear that if 
 Xi represent the probability that the accused person will be de- 
 clared guilty by i voices out of a jury consisting of n persons, 
 whose separate probabilities of correct judgment are equal, and 
 represented by x, then 
 
 Xi = n ( n "I) “ ~ 1 X ) (fee* ( 1 - x) n ' i + (1 - ^"^(l -x)*}. (3) 
 
 If the probability of condemnation by a determinate majority a 
 is required, we have simply 
 
 i - a = n - i, 
 
 7i + a 
 
 whence 
 
PROBABILITY OF JUDGMENTS. 
 
 379 
 
 CHAP. XXI.] 
 
 which must be substituted in the above formula. Of course a 
 admits only of such values as make i an integer. If n is even, 
 those values are 0, 2, 4, &c. ; if odd, 1, 3, 5, &c., as is otherwise 
 obvious. 
 
 The probability of a condemnation by a majority of at least a 
 given number of voices m, will be found by adding together the 
 following several probabilities determined as above, viz. : 
 
 1st. The probability of a condemnation by an exact ma- 
 jority m ; 
 
 2nd. The probability of condemnation by the next greater 
 majority m + 2 ; 
 
 and so on ; the last element of the series being the probability of 
 unanimous condemnation. Thus the probability of condemnation 
 by a majority of 4 at least out of 12 jurors, would be 
 
 -Xg + -X9 . . + -X"l25 
 
 the values of the above terms being given by (3) after making 
 therein n = 12. 
 
 4. When, instead of a jury, we are considering the case of a 
 simple deliberative assembly consisting of n persons, whose sepa- 
 rate probabilities of correct judgment are denoted by x, the above 
 formulae are replaced by others, made somewhat more simple by 
 the omission of the quantity k. 
 
 The probability of unanimous decision is 
 
 X = x n + (1 - x) n . 
 
 The probability of an agreement of i voices out of the whole 
 number is 
 
 Xi= n ( n - 1 ) ' ^ n ~[ + j) {^(l-^-i + a*-^!-®)*}. (4) 
 
 Of this class of investigations it is unnecessary to give any 
 further account. They have been pursued to a considerable ex- 
 tent by Condorcet, Laplace, Poisson, and other writers, who 
 have investigated in particular the modes of calculation and re- 
 duction which are necessary to be employed when n and i are 
 large numbers. It is apparent that the whole inquiry is of a very 
 speculative character. The values of x and k cannot be deter- 
 
380 
 
 PROBABILITY OF JUDGMENTS. [CHAP. XXI, 
 
 mined by direct observation. We can only presume that they 
 must both in general exceed the value that the former, x, must 
 
 increase with the progress of public intelligence ; while the latter, 
 k, must depend much upon those preliminary steps in the ad- 
 ministration of the law by which persons suspected of crime are 
 brought before the tribunal of their country. It has been re- 
 marked by Poisson, that in periods of revolution, as during the 
 Reign of Terror in France, the value of k may fall, if account be 
 
 taken of political offences, far below the limit ^ . The history of 
 
 Europe in days nearer to our own would probably confirm this 
 observation, and would show that it is not from the wild license 
 of democracy alone, that the accusation of innocence is to be 
 apprehended. 
 
 Laplace makes the assumption, that all values of x from 
 x = ^, to x = 1 , 
 
 are equally probable. He thus excludes the supposition that a 
 juryman is more likely to be deceived than not, but assumes that 
 within the limits to which the probabilities of individual cor- 
 rectness of judgment are confined, we have no reason to give 
 preference to one value of x over another. This hypothesis is 
 entirely arbitrary, and it would be unavailing here to examine 
 into its consequences. 
 
 Poisson seems first to have endeavoured to deduce the values 
 of x and k, inferentially, from experience. In the six years from 
 1825 to 1830 inclusively, the number of individuals accused of 
 crimes against the person before the tribunals of France was 
 11016, and the number of persons condemned was 5286. The 
 juries consisted each of 12 persons, and the decision was pro- 
 nounced by a simple majority. Assuming the above numbers 
 to be sufficiently large for the estimation of' probabilities, there 
 
 5286 
 
 would therefore be a probability measured by the fraction — — 
 
 or .4782 that an accused person would be condemned by a simple 
 majority. We should have the equation 
 
 X-, + A 6 . . + -X" 12 = .4782, 
 
 ( 5 ) 
 
CHAP. XXI.] 
 
 PROBABILITY OF JUDGMENTS. 
 
 381 
 
 the general expression for X t being given by (3) after making 
 therein n - 12. In the year 1831 the law, having received alte- 
 ration, required a majority of at least four persons for condemna- 
 tion, and the number of persons tried for crimes against the 
 person during that year being 2046, and the number condemned 
 7 43, the probability of the condemnation of an individual by the 
 743 
 
 above majority was or .3631. Hence we should have 
 
 X 8 + X 9 . . . + X 12 = .3631. (6) 
 
 Assuming that the values of k and x were the same for the 
 year 1831 as for the previous six years, the two equations (5) and 
 (6) enable us to determine approximately their values. Poisson 
 thus found, 
 
 & = .5354, x = .6786. 
 
 For crimes against property during the same periods, he 
 found by a similar analysis, 
 
 k = .6744, x - .7771. 
 
 The solution of the system (5) (6) conducts in each case to 
 two values of k, and to two values of x, the one value in each 
 
 pair being] greater, and the other less, than - . It was assumed, 
 
 that in each case the larger value should be preferred, it being 
 conceived more probable that a party accused , should be guilty 
 than innocent, and more probable that a juryman should form 
 a correct than an erroneous opinion upon the evidence. 
 
 5. The data employed by Poisson, especially those which were 
 furnished by the year 1831, are evidently too imperfect to permit 
 us to attach much confidence to the above determinations of x and 
 k ; and it is chiefly for the sake of the method that they are here 
 introduced. It would have been possible to record during the 
 six years, 1825-30, or during any similar period, the number of 
 condemnations pronounced with each possible majority of voices. 
 The values of the several elements X s , X 9 , . . X 12 , were there 
 no reasons of policy to forbid, might have been accurately ascer- 
 tained. Here then the conception of the general problem, of 
 which Poisson’s is a particular case, arises. How shall we, from 
 
382 
 
 PROBABILITY OF JUDGMENTS. [CHAP. XXI. 
 
 this apparently supernumerary system of data, determine the 
 values of x and k ? If the hypothesis, adopted by Poisson and 
 all other writers on the subject, of the absolute independence of 
 the events whose probabilities are denoted by x and k be retained, 
 we should be led to form a system of five equations of the type (3), 
 and either select from these that particular pair of equations which 
 might appear to be most advantageous, or combine together the 
 equations of the system by the method of least squares. There 
 might exist a doubt as to whether the latter method would be 
 strictly applicable in such cases, especially if the values of x and k 
 afforded by different selected pairs of the given equations were very 
 different from each other. M. Cournot has considered a somewhat 
 similar problem, in which, from the records of individual votes in 
 a court consisting of four judges, it is proposed to investigate the 
 separate probabilities of a correct verdict from each judge. For 
 the determination of the elements x, x, xf', x", he obtains eight 
 equations, which he divides into two sets of four equations, and 
 he remarks, that should any considerable discrepancy exist be- 
 tween the values of x , x', x", x", determined from those sets, it 
 might be regarded as an indication that the hypothesis of the in- 
 dependence of the opinions of the judges was, in the particular 
 case, untenable. The principle of this mode of investigation has 
 been adverted to in (XVIII. 4). 
 
 6. I proceed to apply to the class of problems above indicated, 
 the method of this treatise, and shall inquire, first, whether the 
 records of courts and deliberative assemblies, alone, can furnish 
 any information respecting the probabilities of correct judgment 
 for their individual members, and, it appearing that they cannot, 
 secondly, what kind and amount of necessary hypothesis will best 
 comport with the actual data. 
 
 Proposition I. 
 
 From the mere records of the decisions of a court or deliberative 
 assembly , it is not possible to deduce any definite conclusion re- 
 specting the correctness of the individual judgments of its members. 
 
 Though this Proposition may appear to express but the con- 
 viction of unassisted good sense, it will not be without interest to 
 show that it admits of rigorous demonstration. 
 
CHAP. XXI.] 
 
 PROBABILITY OF JUDGMENTS. 
 
 383 
 
 Let us suppose the case of a deliberative assembly consisting 
 of n members, no hypothesis whatever being made respecting 
 the dependence or independence of their judgments. Let the 
 logical symbols x 1} x 2 , . , x n be employed according to the fol- 
 lowing definition, viz. : Let the generic symbol X; denote that 
 event which consists in the uttering of a correct opinion by the 
 i th member, Ai of the court. We shall consider the values of 
 Prob. Xi, Prob. x 2 , . . Prob. x n , as the qucesita of a problem, the 
 expression of whose possible data we must in the next place 
 investigate. 
 
 Now those data are the probabilities of events capable of 
 being expressed by definite logical functions of the symbols x , , 
 x 2 , . .x n . Let Xi, X 2 , . . X m represent the functions in question, 
 and let the actual system of data be 
 
 Prob. X x = a x , Prob. X 2 = a 2 Prob. X m = a m . 
 
 Then from the very nature of the case it may be shown that 
 .Xx, X 2 , . . X m , are functions which remain unchanged if 
 Xi, x 2 , . . x n are therein changed into 1 - x x , 1 — x 2i . . 1 - x n 
 respectively. Thus, if it were recorded that in a certain pro- 
 portion of instances the votes given were unanimous, the event 
 whose probability, supposing the instances sufficiently numerous, 
 is thence determined, is expressed by the logical function 
 
 X\ x 2 . . x n + (1 - (1 ~ x 2 ) . . (1 — 
 
 a function which satisfies the above condition. Again, let it be 
 recorded, that in a certain proportion of instances, the vote of an 
 individual, suppose A r , differs from that of all the other mem- 
 bers of the court. The event, whose probability is thus given, 
 will be expressed by the function 
 
 x i (1 - x 2 ) . . (1 - x n ) + (1 - Xi) x 2 . . x n ; 
 
 also satisfying the above conditions. Thus, as agreement in 
 opinion may be an agreement in either truth or error ; and as, 
 when opinions are divided, either party may be right or wrong ; 
 it is manifest that the expression of any particular state, whether 
 of agreement or difference of sentiment in the assembly, will 
 depend upon a logical function of the symbols x lt x 2 , . . x„, 
 
384 
 
 PROBABILITY OF JUDGMENTS. 
 
 [CHAP. XXI. 
 
 which similarly involves the privative symbols 1 - x Xi 1 - x 2 , 
 . . 1 - x n . But in the records of assemblies, it is not presumed 
 to declare which set of opinions is right or wrong. Hence the 
 functions X x , X 2 , . . X m must be solely of the kind above de- 
 scribed. 
 
 7. Now in proceeding, according to the general method, to 
 determine the value of Prob. we should first equate the func- 
 
 tions X x , . . X m to a new set of symbols t . t m . From the 
 equations 
 
 X\ — t\) X 2 — t 2 , . . X m — t m , 
 
 thus formed, we should eliminate the symbols x 2 , x 3 , . . x n , and 
 then determine x x as a developed logical function of the symbols 
 ti, t. 2 , . . t m , expressive of events whose probabilities are given. 
 Let the result of the above elimination be 
 
 Ex i + E' (1 - Xi) = 0 ; 
 
 E and E' being function of t lf t 2 , . . t m . Then 
 
 E 
 
 Xl ~ E-E' 
 
 Now the functions X x , X 2 , . . X m are symmetrical with re- 
 ference to the symbols x x , . . x n and 1 - x x , . . 1 -x n . It is evi- 
 dent, therefore, that in the equation E must be identical with E. 
 Hence (2) gives 
 
 E 
 
 0 ) 
 
 ( 2 ) 
 
 and it is evident, that the only coefficients which can appear in. the 
 development of the second member of the above equation are 
 
 - and -. The former will present itself whenever the values 
 0 0 1 
 
 assigned to t x , . . t m in determining the coefficient of a constituent, 
 are such as to make E = 0, the latter, or an equivalent result, in 
 every other case. Hence we may represent the development 
 under the form 
 
 *-S c + 5 d ' 
 
 ( 3 ) 
 
 C and D being constituents, or aggregates of constituents, of the 
 symbols t x , t 2 , . . t m . 
 
385 
 
 CHAP. XXI.] PROBABILITY OF JUDGMENTS. 
 
 Passing then from Logic to Algebra, we have 
 
 -p i cC 
 Prob. ar, = = c, 
 
 the function V of the general Rule (XVII. 17) reducing in the 
 present case to C. The value of Prob. x x is therefore wholly ar- 
 bitrary, if we except the condition that it must not transcend 
 the limits 0 and 1 . The individual values of Prob. x 2 , . . Prob.x„ , 
 are in like manner arbitrary. It does not hence follow, that 
 these arbitrary values are not connected with each other by ne- 
 cessary conditions dependent upon the data. The investigation 
 of such conditions would, however, properly fall under the me- 
 thods of Chap. xix. 
 
 If, reverting to the final logical equation, we seek the inter- 
 pretation of c, we obtain but a restatement of the original pro- 
 blem. For since C and D together include all possible consti- 
 tuents of t x , t 2 , . . t m , we have 
 
 C + D = 1 ; 
 
 and since D is affected by the coefficient it is evident that on 
 
 substituting therein for t x , t 2 , . . t m , their expressions in terms of 
 Xi, x 2 , . . x „ , we should have D= 0. Hence the same substitution 
 would give C = 1. Now by the rule, c is the probability that if 
 the event denoted by C take place, the event x x will take place. 
 Hence C being equal to 1, and, therefore, embracing all possible 
 contingencies, c must be interpreted as the absolute probability of 
 the occurrence of the event Xi . 
 
 It may be interesting to determine in a particular case the 
 actual form of the final logical equation. Suppose, then, that the 
 elements from which the data are derived are the records of 
 events distinct and mutually exclusive. For instance, let the 
 numerical data a,, a 2 , . . a m , be the respective probabilities of 
 distinct and definite majorities. Then the logical functions 
 X x , X 2 , . . X m being mutually exclusive, must satisfy the con- 
 ditions 
 
 X x X 2 = 0, . . Aj X m = 0, X 2 X m — 0, &c. 
 
 Whence we have, 
 
 A t-i = 0, t x t m = 0, &c. 
 
386 
 
 PROBABILITY OF JUDGMENTS. [CHAP. XXI. 
 
 Under these circumstances it may easily be shown, that the 
 developed logical value of x x will be 
 
 0 , __ _ 
 
 Xl ~ 0 + ^ * * ^-0 j 
 
 + constitutents whose coefficients are - . 
 
 In the above equation ~t x stands for 1 - t x , &c. 
 
 These investigations are equally applicable to the case in 
 which the probabilities of the verdicts of a jury, so far as agree- 
 ment and disagreement of opinion are concerned, form the data 
 of a problem. Let the logical symbol w denote that event or 
 state of things which consists in the guilt of the accused person. 
 Then the functions X x , X 2 . . X m of the present problem are 
 such, that no change would therein ensue from simultaneously 
 converting w, x x , x 2 . . x n into w, x x , x 2 , . . x n respectively. 
 Hence the final logical value of w, as well as those o{x lt x 2 , . .x n 
 will be exhibited under the same form (3), and a like general 
 conclusion thence deduced. 
 
 It is therefore established, that from mere statistical docu- 
 ments nothing can be inferred respecting either the individual 
 correctness of opinion of a judge or counsellor, the guilt of an 
 individual, or the merits of a disputed question. If the deter- 
 mination of such elements as the above can be reduced within 
 the province of science at all, it must be by virtue either of 
 some assumed criterion of truth furnishing us with new data, or 
 of some hypothesis relative to the connexion or the independence 
 of individual judgments, which may warrant a new form of the 
 investigation. In the examination of the results of different 
 hypotheses, the following general Proposition will be of im- 
 portance. 
 
 Proposition II. 
 
 8. Given the probabilities of the n simple events x l} x 2 , . . x n , 
 viz . : — 
 
 Prob. x x = c,, Prob. x 2 = c 2 , . . Prob. x n - c„; (1) 
 
 also the probabilities of the m - 1 compound events X x , X 2 , . . X ,,^ , , 
 viz . : — 
 
 Prob. - a ! , Prob. X 2 - a 2 , . . Prob. X m . , = a „,. x ; (2) 
 
CHAP. XXI.] 
 
 PROBABILITY OF JUDGMENTS. 
 
 387 
 
 the latter events X x . . X m . x being distinct and mutually exclusive ; 
 required the 'probability of any other compound event X. 
 
 In this proposition it is supposed, that A x , X 2 , . . X m _ lt as 
 ■well as X, are functions of the symbols x u x 2 , . . x n alone. 
 Moreover, the events A 1} X 2 , . . X m _ lf being mutually exclusive, 
 we have 
 
 Ai X 2 = 0, . . Xi X m -i = 0, X 2 A 3 = 0, &c. ; (3) 
 
 the product of any two members of the system vanishing. Now 
 assume 
 
 Xi = ti, A m _i = t m _ j, X — t. (4) 
 
 Then t must be determined as a logical function of x x , . . x„, 
 
 • ■ t,ji - 1 * 
 
 Now by (3), 
 
 ^2 — o, ti t m _i — 0, t 2 1 2 — 0, Ac. 5 (5) 
 
 all binary products of £ x , . . t m _ x , vanishing. The developed ex- 
 pression for t can, therefore, only involve in the list of constitu- 
 ents which have 1 , 0, or ^ for their coefficients, such as contain 
 some one of the following factors, viz. : — 
 
 t\ t 2 
 
 t\ t 2 
 
 t\ 
 
 tm -2 tm-l 5 
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 Ti standing for 1 - t x , &c. It remains to assign that portion of 
 each constituent which involves the symbols x x . . x n ; together 
 with the corresponding coefficients. 
 
 Since Xi = t t (i being any integer between 1 and m - 1 inclu- 
 sive), it is evident that 
 
 A{ t x . . t m _ j = 0, 
 
 from the very constitution of the functions. Any constituent 
 included in the first member of the above equation would, there- 
 fore, have ^ for its coefficient. 
 
 Now let 
 
 X m = 1 - X x . . - X m . i ; (7) 
 
 and it is evident that such constituents as involve 7 X . . 7 m . x , as 
 a factor, and yet have coefficients of the form 1, 0, or must be 
 
388 
 
 PROBABILITY OF JUDGMENTS. 
 
 [CHAP. XXI. 
 
 included in the expression 
 
 X m ti . t m . i . 
 
 Now X„, may be resolved into two portions, viz., XX m and 
 (1 - X) X m , the former being the sum of those constituents of 
 X m which are found in X, the latter of those which are not found 
 in X. It is evident that in the developed expression of t, which 
 is equivalent to X , the coefficients of the constituents in the 
 former portion XX m will be l, while those of the latter portion 
 (1 - X) X m will be 0. Hence the elements we have now con- 
 sidered will contribute to the development of t the terms 
 
 XX m t\ . . T m .i + 0(1- X) X m ti . . t m . i . 
 
 Again, since Xi = ti , while X 2 t x = t 2 = 0, &c., it is evident 
 that the only constituents involving t x l 2 . . l m .\ as a factor which 
 
 0 
 
 have coefficients of the form 1, 0, or - , will be included in the ex- 
 pression 
 
 Xi ti~f 2 . . t m _ i ; 
 
 and reasoning as before, we see that this will contribute to the de- 
 velopment of t the terms 
 
 XXi tiT-2 . . fj/i-i + 0(1 — X s ) X\ tit-2 . . t m .\ 
 
 Proceeding thus with the remaining terms of (6), we deduce 
 for the final expression of t, 
 
 t = XX m ti . . tm-\ + + XX m -Ji.. 
 
 tm-2 tm - 1 
 
 + 0(1-X)X*7 1 ..7„- 1 + 0(l-X)X 1 f 1 F 8 ..7._ 1 + &e. (8) 
 
 + terms whose coefficients are i. 
 
 In this expression it is to be noted that XX m denotes the sum 
 of those constituents which are common to X and X M , that sum 
 being actually given by multiplying X and X m together, according 
 to the rules of the calculus of Logic. 
 
 In passing from Logic to Algebra, we shall represent by 
 (XX m ) what the above product becomes, when, after effecting 
 the multiplication, or selecting the common constituents, we 
 give to the symbols a? M . . x n , a quantitative meaning. 
 
CHAP. XXI.] PROBABILITY OF JUDGMENTS. 
 
 389 
 
 With this understanding we shall have, by the general Rule 
 (XVII. 17), 
 
 Prob. t 
 
 (XXm) tj . . t m . x + (XXi) t\ t% • • tm-x* • + (^XX m _ l) t\ .. 
 
 = _ 
 
 '> (») 
 
 V Xm t\ • . tm- j -}- -Xi t'2 * • t m . i • • + Xm _ i t\ • • t m -2 ^m-1 ( 1 0) 
 
 whence the relations determining x x , . . x n , t x , . . t m . x will be of 
 the following type (i varying from 1 to n), 
 
 (xj XJ) t x . . t m _ x + ( Xj X\) t x t z . . t m _ i . . + ( Xj A m ‘_i) t x . . t m . q t m _i 
 
 Ci 
 
 X\ t[ t'2 . . t m _ i X m - l 
 
 CL\ CL m -1 
 
 = v. 
 
 ( 11 ) 
 
 From the above system we shall next eliminate the symbols 
 
 t\ 5 • • tm - 1 • 
 
 We have 
 
 . - - Q i V ~1 ~I x a m-\ v /1£ , N 
 
 * 1 ?2 • • t m - 1 — „ , *1 • • - 2 6 n - 1 ~ -, r • (I") 
 
 ■JL-l JL.m-1 
 
 Substituting these values in (10), we find 
 
 V — X m 7 X . . tm - 1 + o. x V . . t Cl m _j 1 . 
 
 Hence, 
 
 __ _ (1 - a x . . - a m _i) V 
 
 t\ . . t m -\ — '• 
 
 -A-m 
 
 Now let 
 
 a. m =1 — a x . . — a m -i , (13) 
 
 then we have 
 
 — — F /, 
 
 ^1 • • - 1 y • ( 1 4 ) 
 
 -A- 771 
 
 Now reducing, by means of (12) and (14), the equation (9), 
 and the equation formed by equating the first line of ( 1 1 ) to the 
 symbol V ; writing also Prob. X for Prob. t , we have 
 
 Ai A 2 A W i 
 
 d\ (&iX i) CL m (xiXni) 
 
 xT~ + x 2 - ,+ xj 
 
 wherein A’ m and n m are given by (7) and (13) 
 
 (15) 
 
 — c i > 
 
 (16) 
 
390 PROBABILITY OF JUDGMENTS. [CHAP. XXI. 
 
 These equations involve the direct solution of the problem 
 under consideration. In (16) we have the type of n equations 
 (formed by giving to i the values 1, 2, . . n successively), from 
 which the values of Xi, x 2 , . . x n , will be found, and those values 
 substituted in (15) give the value of Prob. X as a function of 
 the constants a M c l5 &c. 
 
 One conclusion deserving of notice, which is deducible from 
 the above solution, is, that if the probabilities of the compound 
 events X ls . . X m _i, are the same as they would be were the 
 events x x , . . x n entirely independent, and with given probabi- 
 lities Ci, . . c n , then the probability of the event X will be the 
 same as if calculated upon the same hypothesis of the absolute 
 independence of the events x x , . . x n . For upon the hypothesis 
 supposed, the assumption x x = c 1} x n = c n , in the quantitative 
 system would give X 1 = a,, X m = a m , whence (15) and (16) 
 Would give 
 
 Prob. X = (XX.) + (XX S ) . . + (XX.), (17) 
 
 ( xi Xi) + ( xi X 2 ) . . + (xi X m ) = Ci . (18) 
 
 But since X, + X r 2 . . + X m = 1, it is evident that the second 
 member of (17) will be formed by taking all the constituents that 
 are contained in X, and giving them an algebraic significance. 
 And a similar remark applies to (18). Whence those equations 
 respectively give 
 
 Prob. X (logical) = X (algebraic), 
 
 Xi — Ci . 
 
 Wherefore, if X = 0 (x x , x 2 , ■ ■ x n ), we have 
 Prob. X = 0 (ci, .. c n ), 
 which is the result in question. 
 
 Hence too it would follow, that if the quantities c 15 . . c n 
 were indeterminate, and no hypothesis were made as to the 
 possession of a mean common value, the system (15) (16) would 
 be satisfied by giving to those quantities any such values, 
 Xi , x 2 , . . x n , as would satisfy the equations 
 
 Xi = fli • . A.., = O-m-l, X — a, 
 supposing the value of the element a, like the values of a,,. 
 to be given by experience. 
 
PROBABILITY OF JUDGMENTS. 
 
 391 
 
 CHAP. XXI.] 
 
 9. Before applying the general solution (15) (16), to the 
 question of the probability of judgments, it will be convenient to 
 make the following transformation. Let the data be 
 
 X\ = Ci .... X n = C713 
 
 Prob. Xi = a! .... Prob. X m _ 2 = a m - 2 ; 
 
 and let it be required to determine Prob. X, n _ 15 the unknown 
 value of which we will represent by a m _ l . Then in (15) and ( 1 6) 
 we must change 
 
 X into X m -\ , Prob. X into fl„ H , 
 
 X HI _i into X m _ 2 , <z m -i into a m - 2 . 
 
 X,„ into X. m _i + X_ ;n , d m into , 
 
 with these transformations, and observing that (!„., X r ) = 0, 
 except when r = m - 1, and that it is then equal to X m _ l5 the 
 equations (15) (16) give 
 
 _ (#771- 1 -f Clui) X m - 1 
 #77/ - l — v y 3 
 
 C; = 
 
 Cl\(Xi Ai) ^ #/7i-2 (%i A wl _ 2 ) ^ (#77i-l + #771) X m _ 1 + A" m ) ^ 20 ^ 
 
 
 
 A 777 - 1 + A 77/ 
 
 Now from (19) we find 
 
 X m _ 1 
 
 #771- 1 
 
 -A. 77 
 
 a m 
 
 -AT m _ i + A w 
 
 #7tt- 1 #7/i 
 
 by virtue of which the last term of (20) may be reduced to the 
 form 
 
 #771-1 (XiX m _i) ^ #777- (X‘l Atjj) 
 
 X m _i A 7/i 
 
 With these reductions the system (17) and (18) may be replaced 
 by the following symmetrical one, viz. : 
 
 Y 
 
 ^*-771-1 
 
 x m 
 
 9 
 
 #771 
 
 ( 21 ) 
 
 «i (*i X.) _ « 2 (afj X 2 ) a M (x i X m ) /ooN 
 
 v- + v '• 4 v “ c,: ‘ v^/ 
 
 Ai A 2 -A 771 
 
 These equations, in connexion with (7) and (13), enable 11 s to 
 
392 PROBABILITY OF JUDGMENTS. [CHAP. XXI 
 
 determine a,,,., as a function gf c t . . c n , a, . . a m . 2 , the numerical 
 data supposed to be furnished by experience. We now proceed 
 to their application. 
 
 Proposition III. 
 
 10. Given any system of probabilities drawn from recorded 
 instances of unanimity, or of assigned numerical majority in the 
 decisions of a deliberative assembly ; required, upon a certain deter- 
 minate hypothesis, the mean probability of correct judgment for a 
 member of the assembly. 
 
 In what way the probabilities of unanimous decision and of 
 specific numerical majorities may be determined from experience, 
 has been intimated in a former part of this chapter. Adopting 
 the notation of Prop. i. we shall represent the events whose pro- 
 babilities are given by the functions X,, X 2 , . . X m _ 1 . It has 
 appeared from the very nature of the case that these events are 
 mutually exclusive, and that the functions by which they are re- 
 presented are symmetrical with reference to the symbols ar 15 x 2 , . .x n . 
 Those symbols we continue to use in the same sense as in Prop. I., 
 viz., by xi we understand that event which consists in the for- 
 mation of a correct opinion by the i th member of the assembly. 
 
 Now the immediate data of experience are — 
 
 Prob. X i = a,, Prob. X 2 = a 2 , . . Prob. X m . 2 = a m _ 2 , (1) 
 Prob. X m . x = a m _,. (2) 
 
 X 2 . . X m . i being functions of the logical symbols x x , .. x n to the 
 probabilities of the events denoted by which, we shall assign the 
 indeterminate value c. Thus we shall have 
 
 Prob. X\ = Prob. x 2 . . = Prob. x n = c. (3) 
 
 Now it has been seen, Prop, i., that the immediate data(l) 
 (2), unassisted by any hypothesis, merely conduct us to a re- 
 statement of the problem. On the other hand, it is manifest that 
 if, adopting the methods of Laplace and Poisson, we employ the 
 system (3) alone as the data for the application of the method of 
 this work, finally comparing the results obtained with the expe- 
 rimental system (1) (2), we are relying wholly upon a doubtful 
 hypothesis, — the independence of individual judgments. But 
 
CHAP. XXI.] PROBABILITY OF JUDGMENTS. 393 
 
 though we ought not wholly to rely upon this hypothesis, we 
 cannot wholly dispense with it, or with some equivalent substi- 
 tute. Let us then examine the consequences of a limited inde- 
 pendence of the individual judgments ; the conditions of limitation 
 being furnished by the apparently superfluous data. From the 
 system (1) (3) let us, by the method of this work, determine 
 Prob. X m . x , and, comparing the result with (2), determine c. 
 Even here an arbitrary power of selection is claimed. But it is 
 manifest from Prop. i. that something of this kind is unavoidable, 
 if we would obtain a definite solution at all. As to the principle 
 of selection, I apprehend that the equation (2) reserved for final 
 comparison should be that which, from the magnitude of its nu- 
 merical element a m . x , is esteemed the most important of the pri- 
 mary series furnished by experience. 
 
 Now, from the mutually exclusive character of the events 
 denoted by the functions X x , X 2 , . . X n ^ x , the concluding equa- 
 tions of the previous proposition become applicable. On account 
 of the symmetry of the same functions, and the reduction of the 
 system of values denoted by c,- to a single value c, the equations 
 represented by (22) become identical, the values of x x , x t , . . x n 
 become equal, and may be replaced by a single value x, and we 
 have simply, 
 
 X m -l X„ 
 
 &m - 1 
 
 ( 4 ) 
 
 cii (xX i) a^^xX 2) cijji (x X m ) 
 
 ~~X i + ~X7~ ‘ ' + Xn 
 
 ( 5 ) 
 
 The following is the nature of the solution thus indicated : 
 
 The functions X x , . . X m . x , and the values a x . . a m _,, being 
 given in the data, we have first, 
 
 X m = 1 — X, . . - X m . x , 
 
 a m = !-«!••- a m- i- 
 
 From each of the functions X x , X 2 , . . X m thus given or de- 
 termined, we must select those constituents which contain a par- 
 ticular symbol, as x x , for a factor. This will determine the func- 
 tions (xX x ), (xX 2 ), &c., and then in all the functions we must 
 change x x , x 2 , . . x„ individually to x. Or we may regard any 
 
394 
 
 PROBABILITY OF JUDGMENTS. 
 
 [chap. XXI. 
 
 algebraic function Xi in the system (4) (5) as expressing the 
 probability of the event denoted by the logical function Xi, on 
 the supposition that the logical symbols x l , x 2 , , ,x n denote in- 
 dependent events whose common probability is x. On the same 
 supposition ( xX t ) would denote the probability of the concur- 
 rence of any particular event of the series x x , x 2 , . . x n with Xi. 
 The forms of Xi, (o;A r ;), &c. being determined, the equation (4) 
 gives the value of x, and this, substituted in (5), determines the 
 value of the element c required. Of the two values which its so- 
 lution will offer, one being greater, and the other less, than i, the 
 greater one must be chosen, whensoever, upon general conside- 
 rations, it is thought more probable that a member of the assembly 
 will judge correctly, than that he will judge incorrectly. 
 
 Here then, upon the assumed principle that the largest of 
 the values a m . x shall be reserved for final comparison in the 
 equation (2), we possess a definite solution of the problem pro- 
 posed. And the same form of solution remains applicable should 
 any other equation of the system, upon any other ground, as that 
 of superior accuracy, be similarly reserved in the place of (2). 
 
 1 1 . Let us examine to what extent the above reservation has 
 influenced the final solution. It is evident that the equation (5) 
 is quite independent of the choice in question. So is likewise 
 the second member of (4). Had we reserved the function X x , 
 instead of X m . x , the equation for the determination of# would 
 have been 
 
 stituted in the same final equation (5). We know that were 
 the events x x , x>, . . x n really independent, the equations (4), 
 (6), and all others of which they are types, would prove equi- 
 valent, and that the value of x furnished by any one of them 
 would be the true value of c. This affords a means of verifying 
 (5). For if that equation be correct, it ought, under the above 
 circumstances, to be satisfied by the assumption c = x. In other 
 words, the equation 
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 but the value of x thence determined would still have to be sub- 
 
 ( 7 ) 
 
CHAP. XXI.] PROBABILITY OF JUDGMENTS. 
 
 395 
 
 ought, on solution, to give the same value of x as the equation 
 (4) or (6). Now this will be the case. For since, by hypothesis, 
 
 X 1 = X 2 x m 
 
 «1 a 2 ” a m ’ 
 we have, by a known theorem, 
 
 X* = X, m m = = x 1 + x 2 ..+ x m = 1 
 
 «2 ’ * a-m Oi + a 2 . . + a m 
 
 Hence (7) becomes on substituting a l lor A,, &c. 
 
 (xX,) + (xX 2 ) . . + (xX m ) = x 
 
 a mere identity. 
 
 Whenever, therefore, the events x l} x 2 , . . x n are really inde- 
 pendent, the system (4) (5) is a correct one, and is independent 
 of the arbitrariness of the first step of the process by which it 
 was obtained. When the said events are not independent, the 
 final system of equations will possess, leaving in abeyance the 
 principle of selection above stated, an arbitrary element. But 
 from the persistent form of the equation (5) it may be inferred 
 that the solution is arbitrary in a less degree than the solutions 
 to which the hypothesis of the absolute independence of the in- 
 dividual judgments would conduct us. The discussion of the 
 limits of the value of c, as dependent upon the limits of the value 
 of x, would determine such points. 
 
 These considerations suggest to us the question whether the 
 equation (7), which is symmetrical with reference to the func- 
 tions X 1} X 2 , . . X m , free from any arbitrary elements, and rigo- 
 rously exact when the events x x , x 2 , . . x n are really independent, 
 might not be accepted as a mean general solution of the problem. 
 The proper mode of determining this point would, I conceive, be 
 to ascertain whether the value of x which it would afford would, 
 in general, fall within the limits of the value of c, as determined 
 by the systems of equations of which the system (4), (5), presents 
 the type. It seems probable that under ordinary circumstances 
 this would be the case. Independently of such considerations, 
 however, we may regard (7) as itself the expression of a certain 
 principle of solution, viz., that regarding A',, A\, . . A m as ex- 
 clusive causes of the event whose probability is x, we accept the 
 
39G 
 
 PROBABILITY OF JUDGMENTS. [CHAP. XXI. 
 
 probabilities of those causes a„ . . a m from experience, but form 
 the conditional probabilities of the event as dependent upon such 
 causes, 
 
 &c. (XVII. Prop, i.) 
 
 Ao 
 
 on the hypothesis of the independence of individual judgments, 
 and so deduce the equation (7). I conceive this, however, to be 
 a less rigorous, though possibly, in practice a more convenient 
 mode of procedure than that adopted in the general solution. 
 
 12. It now only remains to assign the particular forms which 
 the algebraic functions Xi, (xXi), &c. in the above equations as- 
 sume when the logical function Xi represents that event which 
 consists in r members of the assembly voting one way, and n-r 
 members the other way. It is evident that in this case the alge- 
 braic function Xi expresses what the probability of the supposed 
 event would be were the events x„ x 2 , . . x n independent, and 
 their common probability measured by x. Hence we should 
 have, by Art. 3, 
 
 
 n (n - 1) .. (n - r + 1) 
 
 1.2 ..r 
 
 + (1 -x) n ' r j. 
 
 Under the same circumstances ( xXi ) would represent the pro- 
 bability of the compound event, which consists in a particular 
 member of the assembly forming a correct judgment, conjointly 
 with the general state of voting recorded above. It would, 
 therefore, be the probability that a particular member votes cor- 
 rectly, while of the remaining n - 1 members, r - 1 vote cor- 
 rectly ; or that the same member votes correctly, while of the 
 remaining n - 1 members r vote incorrectly. Hence 
 
 (xXi) = 
 
 (n -1) (n - 2) . . [n - r + 1) 
 
 1 . 2 . . r - 1 
 
 • + fo-!) (w-2)..(»-r) ^ 
 1 .2 . . r 
 
 Proposition IV. 
 
 13. Given any system of probabilities drawn from recorded in- 
 stances of unanimity , or of assigned numerical majority in the de- 
 cisions of a criminal court of justice , required upon hypotheses 
 similar to those of the last proposition , the mean probability c of 
 
PROBABILITY OF JUDGMENTS. 
 
 397 
 
 CHAP. XXI.] 
 
 correct judgment for a member of the court, and the general pro- 
 bability k of guilt in an accused person. 
 
 The solution of this problem differs in but a slight degree 
 from that of the last, and may be referred to the same general 
 formulae, (4) and (5), or (7). It is to be observed, that as there 
 are two elements, c and k, to be determined, it is necessary to 
 reserve two of the functions X u X 2 , . . X m . x , let us suppose A", 
 and Xm.i, for final comparison, employing either the remaining 
 m - 3 functions in the expression of the data, or the two respec- 
 tive sets X 2 , X 3 , . . X m . u and X x , X 2 , . . ■ X m . 2 . In either case 
 it is supposed that there must be at least two original indepen- 
 dent data. If the equation (7) be alone employed, it would in 
 the present instance furnish two equations, which may thus be 
 written : 
 
 afxXj) a 2 (xX 2 ) a m (x X m ) 
 
 X , + x 2 • • X m 
 
 0 ) 
 
 afkXi) a 2 (kX 2 ) , , a m {kX m ) 7 
 
 v + + v k 
 
 -Ai A 2 
 
 These equations are to be employed in the following manner : — 
 Let x x , x 2 , . . x„ represent those events which consist in the for- 
 mation of a correct opinion by the members of the court respec- 
 tively. Let also w represent that event which consists in the 
 guilt of the accused member. By the aid of these symbols we 
 can logically express the functions X x , X 2 , . . X m _ 1} whose proba- 
 bilities are given, as also the function X m . Then from the func- 
 tion X x select those constituents which contain, as a factor, any . 
 particular symbol of the set x lf x 2 , . .x n , and also those consti- 
 tuents which contain as a factor w. In both results change 
 x lf x 2 , . . x n severally into x, and w into k. The above results 
 will give (xXj) and (AAj). Effecting the same transformations 
 throughout, the system (1), (2) will, upon the particular hypo- 
 thesis involved, determine x and h. 
 
 14. We may collect from the above investigations the fol- 
 lowing facts and conclusions : 
 
 1st. That from the mere records of agreement and disagree- 
 ment in the opinions of any body of men, no definite numerical 
 conclusions can be drawn respecting either the probability of cor- 
 
PROBABILITY OF JUDGMENTS. 
 
 398 
 
 [chap. XXI. 
 
 rect judgment in an individual member of the body, or the merit 
 of the questions submitted to its consideration. 
 
 2nd. That such conclusions may be drawn upon various dis- 
 tinct hypotheses, as — 1st, Upon the usual hypothesis of the abso- 
 lute independence of individual judgments ; 2ndly, upon certain 
 definite modifications of that hypothesis warranted by the actual 
 data ; 3rdly, upon a distinct principle of solution suggested by 
 the appearance of a common form in the solutions obtained by 
 the modifications above adverted to. 
 
 Lastly. That whatever of doubt may attach to the final re- 
 sults, rests not upon the imperfection of the method, which 
 adapts itself equally to all hypotheses, but upon the uncertainty 
 of the hypotheses themselves. 
 
 It seems, however, probable that with even the widest limits 
 of hypothesis, consistent with the taking into account of all the 
 data of experience, the deviation of the results obtained would be 
 but slight, and that their mean values might be determined with 
 great confidence by the methods of Prop. hi. Of those methods 
 I should be disposed to give the preference to the first. Such a 
 principle of mean solution having been agreed upon, other consi- 
 derations seem to indicate that the values of c and k for tribunals 
 and assemblies possessing a definite constitution, and governed 
 in their deliberations by fixed rules, would remain nearly con- 
 stant, subject, however, to a small secular variation, dependent 
 upon the progress of knowledge and of justice among mankind. 
 There exist at present few, if any, data proper for their determi- 
 nation. 
 
CHAP. XXII.] CONSTITUTION OF THE INTELLECT. 
 
 399 
 
 CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 ON THE NATURE OF SCIENCE, AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE 
 INTELLECT. 
 
 1* TTTHAT I mean by the constitution of a system is the 
 “ ' aggregate of those causes and tendencies which pro- 
 duce its observed character, when operating, without interference, 
 under those conditions to which the system is conceived to be 
 adapted. Our judgment of such adaptation must be founded 
 upon a study of the circumstances in which the system attains its 
 freest action, produces its most harmonious results, or fulfils in 
 some other way the apparent design of its construction. There 
 are cases in which we know distinctly the causes upon which the 
 operation of a system depends, as well as its conditions and its 
 end. This is the most perfect kind of knowledge relatively to 
 the subject under consideration. There are also cases in which 
 we know only imperfectly or partially the causes which are at 
 work, but are able, nevertheless, to determine to some extent 
 the laws of their action, and, beyond this, to discover general 
 tendencies, and to infer ulterior purpose. It has thus, I think 
 rightly, been concluded that there is a moral faculty in our na- 
 ture, not because we can understand the special instruments by 
 which it works, as we connect the organ with the faculty of sight, 
 nor upon the ground that men agree in the adoption of universal 
 rules of conduct ; but because while, in some form or other, the 
 sentiment of moral approbation or disapprobation manifests itself 
 in all, it tends, wherever human progress is observable, wherever 
 society is not either stationary or hastening to decay, to attach 
 itself to certain classes of actions, consentaneously, and after a 
 manner indicative both of permanency and of law. Always and 
 everywhere the manifestation of Order affords a presumption, not 
 measurable indeed, but real (XX. 22), of the fulfilment of an end 
 or purpose, and the existence of a ground of orderly causation. 
 
400 CONSTITUTION OF THE INTELLECT. [CHAP. XXII. 
 
 2. The particular question of the constitution of the intellect 
 has, it is almost needless to say, attracted the efforts of speculative 
 ingenuity in every age. For it not only addresses itself to that 
 desire of knowledge which the greatest masters of ancient thought 
 believed to be innate in our species, but it adds to the ordinary 
 strength of this motive the inducement of a human and personal 
 interest. A genuine devotion to truth is, indeed, seldom partial 
 in its aims, but while it prompts to expatiate over the fair fields of 
 outward observation, forbids to neglect the study of our own fa- 
 culties. Even in ages the most devoted to material interests, 
 some portion of the current of thought has been reflected in- 
 wards, and the desire to comprehend that by which all else is 
 comprehended has only been baffled in order to be renewed. 
 
 It is probable that this pertinacity of effort would not have 
 been maintained among sincere inquirers after truth, had the 
 conviction been general that such speculations are hopelessly 
 barren. W e may conceive that it has been felt that if something 
 of error and uncertainty, always incidental to a state of partial 
 information, must ever be attached to the results of such in- 
 quiries, a residue of positive knowledge may yet remain ; that 
 the contradictions which are met with are more often verbal than 
 real ; above all, that even probable conclusions derive here an in- 
 terest and a value from their subject, which render them not 
 unworthy to claim regard beside the more definite and more 
 splendid results of physical science. Such considerations seem 
 to be perfectly legitimate. Insoluble as many of the problems 
 connected with the inquiry into the nature and constitution of 
 the mind must be presumed to be, there are not wanting others 
 upon which a limited but not doubtful knowledge, others upon 
 which the conclusions of a highly probable analogy, are attain- 
 able. As the realms of day and night are not strictly contermi- 
 nous, but are separated by a crepuscular zone, through which the 
 light of the one fades gradually off into the darkness of the other, 
 so it may be said that every region of positive knowledge lies sur- 
 rounded by a debateable and speculative territory, over which it 
 in some degree extends its influence and its light. Thus there 
 may be questions relating to the constitution of the intellect 
 which, though they do not admit, in the present state of know- 
 
CHAP. XXXI.] 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE INTELLECT. 
 
 401 
 
 ledge, of an absolute decision, may receive so much of reflected 
 information as to render their probable solution not difficult ; and 
 there may also be questions relating to the nature of science, and 
 even to particular truths and doctrines of science, upon which 
 they who accept the general principles of this work cannot but be 
 led to entertain positive opinions, differing, it may be, from those 
 which are usually received in the present day.* In what fol- 
 lows I shall recapitulate some of the more definite conclusions 
 established in the former parts of this treatise, and shall then 
 indicate one or two trains of thought, connected with the gene- 
 ral objects above adverted to, which they seem to me calculated 
 to suggest. 
 
 3. Among those conclusions, relating to the intellectual con- 
 stitution, which may be considered as belonging to the realm of 
 positive knowledge, we may reckon the scientific laws of thought 
 and reasoning, which have formed the basis of the general me- 
 thods of this treatise, together with the principles, Chap, v., by 
 which their application has been determined. The resolution of 
 the domain of thought into two spheres, distinct but coexistent 
 (IV. XI.) ; the subjection of the intellectual operations within 
 those spheres to a common system of laws (XI.); the general 
 mathematical character of those laws, and their actual expression 
 (II. III.) ; the extent of their affinity with the laws of thought in 
 the domain of number, and the point of their divergence there- 
 from ; the dominant character of the two limiting conceptions of 
 universe and eternity among all the subjects of thought with 
 which Logic is concerned ; the relation of those conceptions to 
 the fundamental conception of unity in the science of number, — 
 these, with many similar results, are not to be ranked as merely 
 
 * The following illustration may suffice : — 
 
 It is maintained by some of the highest modern authorities in grammar that 
 conjunctions connect propositions only. Now, without inquiring directly whe- 
 ther this opinion is sound or not, it is obvious that it cannot consistently beheld 
 by any who admit the scientific principles of this treatise ; for to such it would 
 seem to involve a denial, either, 1st, of the possibility of performing , or 2ndly, of 
 the possibility of expressing , a mental operation, the laws of which, viewed in 
 both these relations, have been investigated and applied in the present work — 
 (Latham on the English Language; Sir John Stoddart’s Universal Gram- 
 mar, &c.) 
 
402 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE INTELLECT. [CHAP. XXII. 
 
 probable or analogical conclusions, but are entitled to be re- 
 garded as truths of science. Whether they be termed meta- 
 physical or not, is a matter of indifference. The nature of the 
 evidence upon which they rest, though in kind distinct, is not 
 inferior in value to any which can be adduced in support of the 
 general truths of physical science. 
 
 Again, it is agreed that there is a certain order observ- 
 able in the progress of all the exacter forms of knowledge. 
 The study of every department of physical science begins with 
 observation, it advances by the collation of facts to a presump- 
 tive acquaintance with their connecting law, the validity of 
 such presumption it tests by new experiments so devised as to 
 augment, if the presumption be well founded, its probability in- 
 definitely ; and finally, the law of the phenomenon having been 
 with sufficient confidence determined, the investigation of causes, 
 conducted by the due mixture of hypothesis and deduction, 
 crowns the inquiry. In this advancing order of knowledge, the 
 particular faculties and laws whose nature has been considered 
 in this work bear their part. It is evident, therefore, that if we 
 would impartially investigate either the nature of science, or 
 the intellectual constitution in its relation to science, no part of 
 the two series above presented ought to be regarded as isolated. 
 More especially ought those truths which stand in any kind of 
 supplemental relation to each other to be considered in their mu- 
 tual bearing and connexion. 
 
 4. Thus the necessity of an experimental basis for all positive 
 knowledge, viewed in connexion with the existence and the 
 peculiar character of that system of mental laws, and principles, 
 and operations, to which attention has been directed, tends to 
 throw light upon some important questions by which the world 
 of speculative thought is still in a great measure divided. How, 
 from the particular facts which experience presents, do we arrive 
 at the general propositions of science ? What is the nature of 
 these propositions ? Are they solely the collections of experi- 
 
 ence, or does the mind supply some connecting principle of its 
 own? In a word, what is the nature of scientific truth, and 
 what are the grounds of that confidence with which it claims to 
 be received? 
 
CHAP. XXII.] CONSTITUTION OF THE INTELLECT. 
 
 403 
 
 That to such questions as the above, no single and general 
 answer can be given, must be evident. There are cases in which 
 they do not even need discussion. Instances are familiar, in 
 which general propositions merely express per enumerationem 
 simplicem, a fact established by actual observation in all the 
 cases to which the proposition applies. The astronomer as- 
 serts upon this ground, that all the known planets move from 
 west to east round the sun. But there are also cases in which 
 general propositions are assumed from observation of their truth 
 in particular instances, and extension of that truth to instances 
 unobserved. No principle of merely deductive reasoning can 
 warrant such a procedure. When from a large number of ob- 
 servations on the planet Mars, Kepler inferred that it revolved 
 in an ellipse, the conclusion was larger than his premises, or in- 
 deed than any premises which mere observation could give. 
 What other element, then, is necessary to give even a prospective 
 validity to such generalizations as this ? It is the ability in- 
 herent in our nature to appreciate Order, and the concurrent pre- 
 sumption, however founded, that the phenomena of Nature are 
 connected by a principle of Order. Without these, the general 
 truths of physical science could never have been ascertained. 
 Grant that the procedure thus established can only conduct us 
 to probable or to approximate results ; it only follows, that the 
 larger number of the generalizations of physical science possess 
 but a probable or approximate truth. The security of the tenure 
 of knowledge consists in this, that wheresoever such conclusions 
 do truly represent the constitution of Nature, our confidence in 
 their truth receives indefinite confirmation, and soon becomes 
 undistinguishable from certainty. The existence of that prin- 
 ciple above represented as the basis of inductive reasoning 
 enables us to solve the much disputed question as to the neces- 
 sity of general propositions in reasoning. The logician affirms, 
 that it is impossible to deduce any conclusion from particular 
 premises. Modern writers of high repute have contended, that 
 all reasoning is from particular to particular truths. They in- 
 stance, that in concluding from the possession of a property by 
 certain members of a class, its possession by some other member, 
 it is not necessary to establish the intermediate general conclu- 
 
404 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE INTELLECT. [CHAP. XXII. 
 
 sion which affirms its possession by all the members of the class 
 in common. Now whether it is so or not, that principle of 
 order or analogy upon which the reasoning is conducted must 
 either be stated or apprehended as a general truth, to give vali- 
 dity to the final conclusion. In this form, at least, the necessity 
 of general propositions as the basis of inference is confirmed, — a 
 necessity which, however, I conceive to be involved in the very 
 existence, and still more in the peculiar nature , of those faculties 
 whose laws have been investigated in this work. For if the pro- 
 cess of reasoning be carefully analyzed, it will appear that ab- 
 straction is made of all peculiarities of the individual to which 
 the conclusion refers, and the attention confined to those pro- 
 perties by which its membership of the class is defined. 
 
 5. But besides the general propositions which are derived by 
 induction from the collated facts of experience, there exist others 
 belonging to the domain of what is termed necessary truth. Such 
 are the general propositions of Arithmetic, as well as theprojio- 
 sitions expressing the laws of thought upon which the general 
 methods of this treatise are founded; and these propositions 
 are not only capable of being rigorously verified in particular 
 instances, but are made manifest in all their generality from the 
 study of particular instances. Again, there exist general pro- 
 positions expressive of necessary truths, but incapable, from the 
 imperfection of the senses, of being exactly verified. Some, if 
 not all, of the propositions of Geometry are of this nature ; but 
 it is not in the region of Geometry alone that such propositions 
 are found. The question concerning their nature and origin 
 is a very ancient one, and as it is more intimately connected 
 with the inquiry into the constitution of the intellect than any 
 other to which allusion has been made, it will not be irrelevant 
 to consider it here. Among the opinions which have most 
 widely prevailed upon the subject are the following. It has 
 been maintained, that propositions of the class referred to exist 
 in the mind independently of experience, and that those concep- 
 tions which are the subjects of them are the imprints of eternal 
 archetypes. With such archetypes, conceived, however, to pos- 
 sess a reality of which all the objects of sense are but a faint 
 shadow or dim suggestion, Plato furnished his ideal world. It 
 
CHAP. XXII.] CONSTITUTION OF THE INTELLECT. 405 
 
 has, on the other hand, been variously contended, that the 
 subjects of such propositions are copies of individual objects of 
 experience ; that they are mere names ; that they are individual 
 objects of experience themselves ; and that the propositions which 
 relate to them are, on account of the imperfection of those objects, 
 bnt partially true; lastly, that they are intellectual products 
 formed by abstraction from the sensible perceptions of individual 
 things, but so formed as to become, what the individual things 
 never can be, subjects of science, i. e. subjects concerning which 
 exact and general propositions may be affirmed. And there ex- 
 ist, perhaps, yet other views, in some of which the sensible, in 
 others the intellectual or ideal, element predominates. 
 
 Now if the last of the views above adverted to be taken (for 
 it is not proposed to consider either the purely ideal or the 
 purely nominalist view) and if it be inquired what, in the 
 sense above stated, are the proper objects of science, objects in 
 relation to which its propositions are true without any mixture 
 of error, it is conceived that but one answer can be given. It 
 is, that neither do individual objects of experience, nor with all 
 probability do the mental images which they suggest, possess 
 any strict claim to this title. It seems to be certain, that neither 
 in nature nor in art do we meet with anything absolutely agreeing 
 with the geometrical definition of a straight line, or of a triangle, 
 or of a circle, though the deviation therefrom may be inappre- 
 ciable by sense ; and it may be conceived as at least doubtful, 
 whether we can form a perfect mental image, or conception, with 
 which the agreement shall be more exact. But it is not doubtful 
 that such conceptions, however imperfect, do point to something 
 beyond themselves, in the gradual approach towards which all 
 imperfection tends to disappear. Although the perfect triangle, 
 or square, or circle, exists not in nature, eludes all our powers of 
 representative conception, and is presented to us in thought 
 only, as the limit of an indefinite process of abstraction, yet, by 
 a wonderful faculty of the understanding, it may be made the 
 subject of propositions which are absolutely true. The domain of 
 reason is thus revealed to us as larger than that of imagination. 
 Should any, indeed, think that we are able to picture to ourselves, 
 with rigid accuracy, the scientific elements of form, direction, mag- 
 
406 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE INTELLECT. [CHAF. XXII. 
 
 nitude, &c., these things, as actually conceived, will, in the view 
 of such persons, be the proper objects of science. But if, as 
 seems to ine the more just opinion, an incurable imperfection 
 attaches to all our attempts to realize with precision these ele- 
 ments, then we can only affirm, that the more external objects 
 do approach in reality, or the conceptions of fancy by abstraction, 
 to certain limiting states, never, it may be, actually attained, the 
 more do the general propositions of science concerning those 
 things or conceptions approach to absolute truth, the actual devi- 
 ation therefrom tending to disappear. To some extent, the same 
 observations are applicable also to the physical sciences. What 
 have been termed the “fundamental ideas” of those sciences as 
 force, polarity, crystallization, &c.,* are neither, as I conceive, 
 intellectual products independent of experience, nor mere copies 
 of external things ; but while, on the one hand, they have a ne- 
 cessary antecedent in experience, on the other hand they require 
 for their formation the exercise of the power of abstraction, in 
 obedience to some general faculty or disposition of our nature, 
 which ever prompts us to the research, and qualifies us for the 
 appreciation, of order. f Thus we study approximately the effects 
 of gravitation on the motions of the heavenly bodies, by a re- 
 ference to the limiting supposition, that the planets are perfect 
 
 * Whe well’s Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, pp. 7b 77, ‘213. 
 f Of the idea of order it has been profoundly said, that it carries within itself 
 its own justification or its own control, the very trustworthiness of our faculties 
 being judged by the conformity of their results to an order which satisfies the 
 reason. “ L’idee de l’ordre a cela de singulier et d’eminent, qu’elle porte en elle 
 meme sa justification ou son controle. Pour trouver si nos autres faculty nous 
 trompent ou nous ne trompent pas, nous examinons si les notions qu'elles nous 
 donnent s’enchainent on ne s’enchainent pas suivant un ordre qui satisfasse la 
 raison.” — Cournot, Essai sur les fondements de nos Connaissanees. Admitting this 
 principle as the guide of those powers of abstraction which we undoubtedly pos- 
 sess, it seems unphilosophical to assume that the fundamental ideas of the 
 sciences are not derivable from experience. Doubtless the capacities which 
 have been given to us for the comprehension of the actual world would avail us 
 in a differently constituted scene, if in some form or other the dominion of 
 order was still maintained. It is conceivable that in such a new theatre of spe- 
 culation, the laws of the intellectual procedure remaining the same, the funda- 
 mental ideas of the sciences might be wholly different from those with which we 
 are at present acquainted. 
 
CHAP. XXII.] CONSTITUTION OF THE INTELLECT. 407 
 
 spheres or spheroids. We determine approximately the path 
 of a ray of light through the atmosphere, by a process in which 
 abstraction is made of all disturbing influences of temperature. 
 And such is the order of procedure in all the higher walks of 
 human knowledge. Now what is remarkable in connexion with 
 these processes of the intellect is the disposition, and the cor- 
 responding ability, to ascend from the imperfect representations 
 of sense and the diversities of individual experience, to the per- 
 ception of general, and it may be of immutable truths. Where- 
 ever this disposition and this ability unite, each series of con- 
 nected facts in nature may furnish the intimations of an order 
 more exact than that which it directly manifests. For it may 
 serve as ground and occasion for the exercise of those powers, 
 whose office it is to apprehend the general truths which are in- 
 deed exemplified, but never with perfect fidelity, in a world of 
 changeful phenomena. 
 
 6. The truth that the ultimate laws of thought are mathe- 
 matical in their form, viewed in connexion with the fact of the 
 possibility of error, establishes a ground for some remarkable con- 
 clusions. If we directed our attention to the scientific truth 
 alone, we might be led to infer an almost exact parallelism be- 
 tween the intellectual operations and the movements of external 
 nature. Suppose any one conversant with physical science, but 
 unaccustomed to reflect upon the nature of his own faculties, to 
 have been informed, that it had been proved, that the laws of 
 those faculties were mathematical ; it is probable that after the 
 first feelings of incredulity had subsided, the impression would 
 arise, that the order of thought must, therefore, be as neces- 
 sary as that of the material universe. We know that in the 
 realm of natural science, the absolute connexion between the 
 initial and final elements of a problem, exhibited in the mathe- 
 matical form, fitly symbolizes that physical necessity which binds 
 together effect and cause. The necessary sequence of states and 
 conditions in the inorganic world, and the necessary connexion 
 of premises and conclusion in the processes of exact demonstra- 
 tion thereto applied, seem to be co-ordinate. It may possibly be 
 a question, to which of the two series the primary application of 
 the term “necessary” is due; whether to the observed constancy of 
 
408 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE INTELLECT. [CHAP. XXII. 
 
 Nature, or to the indissoluble connexion of propositions in all valid 
 reasoning upon her works. Historically we should perhaps give 
 the preference to the former, philosophically to the latter view. 
 But the fact of the connexion is indisputable, and the analogy to 
 which it points is obvious. 
 
 Were, then, the laws of valid reasoning uniformly obeyed, a 
 very close parallelism would exist between the operations of the 
 intellect and those of external Nature. Subjection to laws ma- 
 thematical in their form and expression, even the subjection of 
 an absolute obedience, would stamp upon the two series one 
 common character. The reign of necessity over the intellectual 
 and the physical world would be alike complete and universal. 
 
 But while the observation of external Nature testifies with 
 ever-strengthening evidence to the fact, that uniformity of 
 operation and unvarying obedience to appointed laws prevail 
 throughout her entire domain, the slightest attention to the pro- 
 cesses of the intellectual world reveals to us another state of 
 things. The mathematical laws of reasoning are, properly speak- 
 ing, the laws of right reasoning only, and their actual transgres- 
 sion is a perpetually recurring phamomenon-. Error, which has 
 no place in the material system, occupies a large one here. We 
 must accept this as one of those ultimate facts, the origin of which 
 it lies beyond the province of science to determine. We must 
 admit that there exist laws which even the rigour of their ma- 
 thematical forms does not preserve from violation. We must 
 ascribe to them an authority the essence of which does not con- 
 sist in power, a supremacy which the analogy of the inviolable 
 order of the natural world in no way assists us to comprehend. 
 
 As the distinction thus pointed out is real, it remains un- 
 affected by any peculiarity in our views respecting other portions 
 of the mental constitution. If Ave regard the intellect as free, 
 and this is apparently the view most in accordance Avith the gene- 
 ral spirit of these speculations, its freedom must be vieAved as 
 opposed to the dominion of necessity, not to the existence of a 
 certain just supremacy of truth. The laws of correct inference 
 may be violated, but they do not the less truly exist on this ac- 
 count. Equally do they remain unaffected in character and au- 
 thority if the hypothesis of necessity in its extreme form be 
 
CHAP. XXII.] . CONSTITUTION OF THE INTELLECT. 
 
 409 
 
 adopted. Let it be granted that the laws of valid reasoning, 
 such as they are determined to be in this work, or, to speak more 
 generally, such as they would finally appear in the conclusions of 
 an exhaustive analysis, form but a part of the system of laws by 
 which the actual processes of reasoning, whether right or wrong, 
 are governed. Let it be granted that if that system were known 
 to us in its completeness, we should perceive that the whole in- 
 tellectual procedure was necessary, even as the movements of the 
 inorganic world are necessary. And let it finally, as a conse- 
 quence of this hypothesis, be granted that the phenomena of in- 
 correct reasoning or error, wheresoever presented, are due to the 
 interference of other laws with those laws of which right reason- 
 ing is the product. Still it would remain that there exist among 
 the intellectual laws a number marked out from the rest by this 
 special character, viz., that every movement of the intellectual 
 system which is accomplished solely under their direction is 
 right, that every interference therewith by other laws is not in- 
 terference only, but violation. It cannot but be felt that this 
 circumstance would give to the laws in question a character of 
 distinction and of predominance. They would but the more 
 evidently seem to indicate a final purpose which is not always 
 fulfilled, to possess an authority inherent and just, but not 
 always commanding obedience. 
 
 Now a little consideration will show that there is nothing: 
 analogous to this in the government of the world by natural law. 
 The realm of inorganic Nature admits neither of preference nor 
 of distinctions. We cannot separate any portion of her laws 
 from the rest, and pronounce them alone worthy of obedience, — 
 alone charged with the fulfilment of her highest purpose. On 
 the contrary, all her laws seem to stand co-ordinate, and the 
 larger our acquaintance with them, the more necessary does their 
 united action seem to the harmony and, so far as we can com- 
 prehend it, to the general design of the system. How often the 
 most signal departures from apparent order in the inorganic 
 world, such as the perturbations of the planetary system, the in- 
 terruption of the process of crystallization by the intrusion of a 
 foreign force, and others of a like nature, either merge into the 
 conception of some more exalted scheme of order, or lose to a 
 
410 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE INTELLECT. [CHAP. XXII. 
 
 more attentive and instructed gaze their abnormal aspect, it is 
 needless to remark. One explanation only of these facts can be 
 given, viz., that the distinction between true and/o/se, between 
 correct and incorrect , exists in the processes of the intellect, but 
 not in the region of a physical necessity. As we advance from 
 the lower stages of organic being to the higher grade of conscious 
 intelligence, this contrast gradually dawns upon us. Wherever 
 the phenomena of life are manifested, the dominion of rigid law 
 in some degree yields to that mysterious principle of activity. 
 Thus, although the structure of the animal tribes is conformable 
 to certain general types, yet are those types sometimes, perhaps, 
 in relation to the highest standards of beauty and proportion, 
 always, imperfectly realized. The two alternatives, between 
 which Art in the present day fluctuates, are the exact imitation 
 of individual forms, and the endeavour, by abstraction from all 
 such, to arrive at the conception of an ideal grace and expression, 
 never, it may be, perfectly manifested in forms of earthly mould. 
 Again, those teleological adaptations by which, without the or- 
 ganic type being sacrificed, species become fitted to new con- 
 ditions or abodes, are but slowly accomplished, — accomplished, 
 however, not, apparently, by the fateful power of external cir- 
 cumstances, but by the calling forth of an energy from within. 
 Life in all its forms may thus be contrasted with the passive fixity 
 of inorganic nature. But inasmuch as the perfection of the types 
 in which it is corporeally manifested is in some measure of an 
 ideal character, inasmuch as we cannot precisely define the 
 highest suggested excellency of form and of adaptation, the con- 
 trast is less marked here than that which exists between the in- 
 tellectual processes and those of the purely material world. For 
 the definite and technical character of the mathematical laws by 
 which both are governed, places in stronger light the fundamental 
 difference between the kind of authority which, in their capacity 
 of government, they respectively exercise. 
 
 7. There is yet another instance connected with the general 
 objects of this chapter, in which the collation of truths or facts, 
 drawn from different sources, suggests an instructive train of re- 
 flection. It consists in the comparison of the laws of thought, in 
 their scientific expression, with the actual forms which physical 
 
CHAP. XXII.] CONSTITUTION OF THE INTELLECT. 
 
 411 
 
 speculation in early ages, and metaphysical speculation in all 
 ages, have tended to assume. There are two illustrations of this 
 remark, to which, in particular, I wish to direct attention here. 
 
 1st. It has been shown (III. 13) that there is a scientific 
 connexion between the conceptions of unity in Number, and the 
 universe in Logic. They occupy in their respective systems the 
 same relative place, and are subject to the same formal laws. 
 Now to the Greek mind, in that early stage of activity, — a stage 
 not less marked, perhaps not less necessary, in the progression of 
 the human intellect, than the era of Bacon or of Newton, — when 
 the great problems of Nature began to unfold themselves, while 
 the means of observation were as yet wanting, and its necessity 
 not understood, the terms “ Universe” and “ The One” seem to 
 have been regarded as almost identical. To assign the nature of 
 that unity of which all existence was thought to be a manifesta- 
 tion, was the first aim of philosophy.* Thales sought for this 
 fundamental unity in water. Anaximenes and Diogenes con- 
 ceived it to be air. Hippasus of Metapontum, and Heraclitus 
 the Ephesian, pronounced that it was fire. Less definite or 
 less confident in his views, Parmenides simply declared that all 
 existing things were One; Melissus that the Universe was infi- 
 nite, unsusceptible of change or motion, One, like to itself, and 
 that motion was not, but seemed to be.f In a spirit which, to the 
 reflective mind of Aristotle, appeared sober when contrasted 
 with the rashness of previous speculation, Anaxagoras of Clazo- 
 mente, following, perhaps, the steps of his fellow-citizen, Hermo- 
 timus, sought in Intelligence the cause of the world and of its 
 order. | The pantheistic tendency which pervaded many of these 
 speculations is manifest in the language of Xenophanes, the 
 founder of the Eleatic school, who, “ surveying the expanse of 
 
 • See various passages in Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Book i. 
 
 ■f ’E^oicfi Si avTif to xdv axtipov tlvai, sat avaWoiuiTov, ical o.k'ivt)Tov, > :ai 
 tv, opioiov iavTip icai xXijptg. Kivgaiv Tt pi) tlvai SoKtiv St tlvai. — Diog. Laert. IX. 
 cap. 4. 
 
 J Not/v Sr] rig tixujv IvtTvai , xadaxtp iv rolg Zipoig, xai tv rg <pl)<rti, rbv 
 a’lTiov Toil Koapov icat rfjg ra^tiog xdatjg olov vrjifxov iipavr) Trap’ ting \iyovrag 
 Tovg xpOTtpov. $avtpH>g fitv ovv ’A vaZayopav iaptv atpapitvov tovtivv twv \o- 
 yiov, aiTiav S' l\ti xportpov 'EppoTipog 6 KXaZo/itviog tixtiv. — Arist. Met. I. 3. 
 
412 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE INTELLECT. [cHAP. XXII. 
 
 heaven, declared that the One was God.”* Perhaps there are few, 
 If any, of the forms in which unity can be conceived, in the ab- 
 stract as numerical or rational, in the concrete as a passive sub- 
 stance, or a central and living principle, of which we do not 
 meet with applications in these ancient doctrines. The writings 
 of Aristotle, to which I have chiefly referred, abound with allu- 
 sions of this nature, though of the larger number of those who 
 once addicted themselves to such speculations, it is probable that 
 the very names have perished. Strange, but suggestive truth, 
 that while Nature in all but the aspect of the heavens must have 
 appeared as little else than a scene of unexplained disorder, while 
 the popular belief was distracted amid the multiplicity of its gods, 
 — the conception of a primal unity, if only in a rude, material form, 
 should have struck deepest root ; surviving in many a thought- 
 ful breast the chills of a lifelong disappointment, and an endless 
 search !f 
 
 2ndly. In equally intimate alliance with that law of thought 
 which is expressed by an equation of the second degree, and 
 which has been termed in this treatise the law of duality, stands 
 the tendency of ancient thought to those forms of philosophical 
 speculation which are known under the name of dualism. The 
 theory of Empedocles, | which explained the apparent contradic- 
 tions of nature by referring them to the two opposing principles 
 
 * Etvo<pav7)g Si . . . tig tov bXov ovpavov axofSX'tipag, to tv tivai <pr)Oi t'ov 
 Qtov . — lb. 
 
 f The following lines, preserved by Sextus Empiricus, and ascribed to Timon 
 the Sillograph, are not devoid of pathos : — 
 
 otg ical eyibv bipiXov xvkivov voov avTi(io\ri<mi 
 aptyoTtpojiXtXTog (SoXiy S’ boip tXtxaTtidrjV, 
 xptofivytvfig tr iibv) Kai avafMpripiGTog axaopg 
 GKtnToavvpQ’ oxTrt] yap ipbv voov tipvaaipi, 
 tig iv r’ avro rt xav aviXvtTO. 
 
 I quote them from Ritter, and venture to give the following version: — 
 
 Be mine, to partial views no more confin’d 
 Or sceptic doubts, the truth-illumin’d mind ! 
 
 For, long deceiv’d, yet still on Truth intent, 
 
 Life’s waning years in wand’rings wild are spent. 
 
 Still restless thought the same high quest essays, 
 
 And still the One, the All, eludes my gaze. 
 
 J Arist. Met. t. 4. 6. 
 
CHAP. XXII.] CONSTITUTION OF THE INTELLECT. 
 
 413 
 
 of “strife” and “ friendship and the theory of Leucippus,* * * § 
 which resolved all existence into the two elements of a plenum 
 and a vacuum, are of this nature. The famous comparison of the 
 universe to a lyre or a bow,t its “recurrent harmony” being the 
 product of opposite states of tension, betrays the same origin. 
 In the system of Pythagoras, which seems to have been a combi- 
 nation of dualism with other elements derived from the study of 
 numbers, and of their relations, ten fundamental antitheses are 
 recognised: finite and infinite, even and odd, unity and multitude, 
 right and left, male and female, rest and motion, straight and 
 curved, light and darkness, good and evil, the square and the 
 oblong. In that of Alcmaeon the same fundamental dualism is 
 accepted, but without the definite and numerical limitation with 
 which it is connected in the Pythagorean system. The grand 
 development of this idea is, however, met with in that ancient 
 Manichaean doctrine, which not only formed the basis of the re- 
 ligious system of Persia, but spread widely through other regions 
 of the East, and became memorable in the history of the Christian 
 Church. The origin of dualism as a speculative opinion, not 
 yet connected with the personification of the Evil Principle, but 
 naturally succeeding those doctrines which had assumed the 
 primal unity of Nature, is thus stated by Aristotle : — “ Since 
 there manifestly existed in Nature things opposite to the good, 
 and not only order and beauty, but also disorder and deformity ; 
 and since the evil things did manifestly preponderate in number 
 over the good, and the deformed over the beautiful, some one 
 else at length introduced strife and friendship as the respective 
 causes of these diverse phienomena.”J And in Greece, indeed, 
 it seems to have been chiefly as a philosophical opinion, or as an 
 adjunct to philosophical speculation, that the dualistic theory ob- 
 tained ground. § The moral application of the doctrine most in 
 
 * Arist. Met. i. 4, 9. 
 
 f TraXivrpoirog appovit] OKoig Trip roZov Kai Xvpyg Heraclitus, quoted in 
 
 Oriyenis Philosophumena, IX. 9. Also Plutarch, He Iside et Osiride. 
 
 J ’Etti'i 8i <ai ravavria roTg ayaGolg Ivovra i<j>aivero iv rj? tpvtrn, Kai ov 
 pbvov raZig Kai to KaXov aXXa Kai araZia Kai to aiaxpov, Kai TrXiito ra KaKU 
 tuiv ayaduiv Kai ra tpavXa roi v KaXibv, ovrmg uXXog rig ipiXiav lioyviyKt Kai vei- 
 Kog, iKartpov iKaripuiu ainov tovtujv . — Arist. Metaphysica, I. 4. 
 
 § Witness Aristotle’s well-known derivation of the cdements from the quali- 
 
414 CONSTITUTION OF THE INTELLECT. [CHAP. XXII. 
 
 accordance with the Greek mind is preserved in the great Pla- 
 tonic antithesis of “ being and non-being,” — the connexion of the 
 former w ith whatsoever is good and true, with the eternal ideas, 
 and the archetypal world : of the latter with evil, with error, 
 with the perishable phenomena of the present scene. The two 
 forms of speculation which we have considered were here blended 
 together ; nor was it during the youth and maturity of Greek 
 philosophy alone that the tendencies of thought above described 
 were manifested. Ages of imitation caught up and adopted as 
 their own the same spirit. Especially wherever the genius of 
 Plato exercised sway was this influence felt. The unity of all 
 real being, its identity with truth and goodness considered 
 as to their essence ; the illusion, the profound unreality, of all 
 merely phaenomenal existence ; such were the views, — such the 
 dispositions of thought, which it chiefly tended to foster. Hence 
 that strong tendency to mysticism which, when the days of re- 
 nown, whether on the field of intellectual or on that of social en- 
 terprise, had ended in Greece, became prevalent in her schools 
 of philosophy, and reached their culminating point among the 
 Alexandrian Platonists. The supposititious treatises of Dionysius 
 the Areopagite served to convey the same influence, much modi- 
 fied by its contact with Aristotelian doctrines, to the scholastic 
 disputants of the middle ages. It can furnish no just ground of 
 controversy to say, that the tone of thought thus encouraged was 
 as little consistent with genuine devotion as with a sober phi- 
 losophy. That kindly influence of human affections, that homely 
 intercourse with the common things of life, which form so large 
 a part of the true, because intended, discipline of our nature, 
 would be ill replaced by the contemplation even of the highest 
 object of thought, viewed by an excessive abstraction as some- 
 thing concerning which not a single intelligible proposition could 
 either be affirmed or denied.* * I would but slightly allude to 
 those connected speculations on the Divine Nature which ascribed 
 
 ties “ warm,” and “ dry,” and their contraries. It is characteristic that Plato 
 connects their generation with mathematical principles. — Timaus, cap. xi. 
 
 • A vroc Kai inrip Q'tcnv Iitti Kai a<paipiaiv . — Dion. Areop. De Divinis No- 
 minibus, cap. II. 
 
415 
 
 CHAP. XXII.] CONSTITUTION OF THE INTELLECT. 
 
 to it the perfect union of opposite qualities,* * * § or to the remarkable 
 treatises of Anselm, designed to establish a theory of tbe universe 
 upon the analogies of thought and being. f The primal unity is 
 there represented as having its abode in the one eternal Truth. 
 The conformity of Nature to her laws, the obedience of moral 
 agents to the dictates of rectitude, are the same Truth seen in 
 action; the world itself being but an expression of the self-reflect- 
 ing thought of its Author.} Still more marked was the revival 
 of the older forms of speculation during the sixteenth and seven- 
 teenth centuries. The friends and associates of Lorenzo the 
 Magnificent, the recluses known in England as the Cambridge 
 Platonists, together with many meditative spirits scattered 
 through Europe, devoted themselves anew, either to the task of 
 solving the ancient problem, De Uno, Vero, Bono, or to that of 
 proving that all such inquiries are futile and vain. § The logical 
 elements which underlie all these speculations, and from which 
 they appear to borrow at least their form, it would be easy to 
 trace in the outlines of more modern systems, — more especially 
 in that association of the doctrine of the absolute unity with the 
 distinction of the ego and the non-ego as the type of Nature, 
 which forms the basis of the philosophy of Hegel. The attempts 
 of speculative minds to ascend to some high pinnacle of truth, 
 from which they might survey the entire framework and con- 
 
 • See especially the lofty strain of Hildebert beginning “ Alpha et Q magno 
 Deus.” (Trench’s Sacred Latin Poetry.) The principle upon which all these 
 speculations rest is thus stated in the treatise referred to in the last note. 
 OiiS'tv ovv aronov, apvbpiiv iucovwv ini to navroiv ainov avafiavrag, bmp- 
 Koopioig o<p6a\polg Qnopi]aai navra iv t tp navriov airily, Kai Ta a\\T)\oig ivav- 
 
 ria povouSCjg Kai yjvojptviog De Diviirs Novninibus , cap. v. • And the kind of 
 
 knowledge which it is thus sought to attain is described as a “ darkness beyond 
 light,” vmp<pCiTog yvo<pog. ( De Mystica Theologia, cap. I.) Milton has a simi- 
 lar thought — 
 
 “ Dark with excessive bright Thy skirts appear.” 
 
 Par. Lost, Book III. 
 
 Contrast with these the nobler simplicity of 1 John, i. 5. 
 
 f Monologium, Prosologium, and De Veritate. 
 
 J “ Idcirco cum ipse summus spiritus dicit seipsum dicit omnia quae facta 
 sunt.” — Monolog, cap. xxm. 
 
 § See dissertations in Spinoza, Picus of Mirandula, H. More, &c. Modern 
 discussions of this nature are chiefly in connexion with aesthetics, the ground of 
 the application being contained in the formula of Augustine : “ Omnis porro 
 pulchritudinis forma, unitas est.” 
 
416 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE INTELLECT. [cHAP. XXII. 
 
 nexion of things in the order of deductive thought , have differed 
 less in the forms of theory which they have produced, than 
 through the nature of the interpretations which have been as- 
 signed to those forms.* And herein lies the real question as to 
 the influence of philosophical systems upon the disposition and 
 the life. For though it is of slight moment that men should 
 agree in tracing back all the forms and conditions of being to a 
 primal unity, it is otherwise as concerns their conceptions of 
 what that unity is, and what are the kinds of relation, beside 
 that of mere causality, which it sustains to themselves. Herein 
 too may be felt the powerlessness of mere Logic, the insufficiency 
 of the profoundest knowledge of the laws of the understanding, 
 to resolve those problems which lie nearer to our hearts, as pro- 
 gressive years strip away from our life the illusions of its golden 
 dawn. 
 
 8. If the extremely arbitrary character of human opinion be 
 considered, it will not be expected, nor is it here maintained, that 
 the above are the only forms in which speculative men have 
 shaped their conjectural solutions of the problem of existence. 
 Under particular influences other forms of doctrine have arisen, 
 not unfrequently, however, masking those portrayed above.f 
 
 * For instance, the learned mysticism of Gioberti, widely as it differs in its 
 spirit and its conclusions from the pantheism of Hegel (both being, perhaps, 
 equally remote from truth), resembles it in applying both to thought and 
 to being the principles of unity and duality. It is asked Or non e egli 
 chiaro che ogni discorso si riduce in fine in fine alle idee di Dio, del raondo, e 
 della creazione, l’ultima delle quali e il legame delle due prime ?” And this ques- 
 tion being affirmatively answered in the formula, “ l'Ente crea le esistenze,” it 
 is said of that formula, — “ Essa abbraccia la realta universale nella dualita del 
 necessario e del contingente, esprime il vincolo di questi due ordini, e collocan- 
 dolo nella creazion sostanziale, riduce la dualita reale a un principio unico, all 
 unit& primordiale dell’ Ente non astratto, complessivo, e generico, ma concreto, 
 individuato, assoluto, e creatore .” — Del Bello e del Buono, pp. 30, 31. 
 
 f Evidence in support of this statement will be found in the remarkable 
 treatise recently published under the title (the correctness of which seems doubt- 
 ful) of Origenis Philosophumena. The early corruptions of Christianity of which 
 it contains the record, though many of them, as is evident from their Ophite 
 character, derived from the very dregs of paganism, manifest certain persistent 
 forms of philosophical speculation. For the most part they either belong to the 
 dualistic scheme, or recognise three principles, primary or derived, between two 
 of which the dualistic relation may be traced — Orig. Phil., pp. 135, 139, 150, 
 235, 253, 204. 
 
CHAP. XXII.] CONSTITUTION OF THE INTELLECT. 417 
 
 But the wide prevalence of the particular theories which we have 
 considered, together with their manifest analogy with the ex- 
 pressed laws of thought, may justly be conceived to indicate a 
 connexion between the two systems. As all other mental acts 
 and procedures are beset by their peculiar fallacies, so the opera- 
 tion of that law of thought termed in this work the law of duality 
 may have its own peculiar tendency to error, exalting mere want 
 of agreement into contrariety, and thus form a world which we 
 necessarily view as formed of parts supplemental to each other, 
 framing the conception of a world fundamentally divided by op- 
 posing powers. Such, with some large but hasty inductions from 
 phenomena, may have been the origin of dualism, — indepen- 
 dently of the question whether dualism is in any form a true 
 theory or not. Here, however, it is of more importance to con- 
 sider in detail the bearing of these ancient forms of speculation, 
 as revived in the present day, upon the progress of real know- 
 ledge ; and upon this point I desire, in pursuance of what has 
 been said in the previous section, to add the following remarks : 
 1st. All sound philosophy gives its verdict against such spe- 
 culations, if regarded as a means of determining the actual con- 
 stitution of things. It may be that the progress of natural 
 knowledge tends towards the recognition of some central Unity 
 in Nature. Of such unity as consists in the mutual relation of 
 the parts of a system there can be little doubt, and able men 
 have speculated, not without grounds, on a more intimate corre- 
 lation of physical forces than the mere idea of a system would 
 lead us to conjecture. Further, it may be that in the bosom of 
 that supposed unity are involved some general principles of di- 
 vision and re-union, the sources, under the Supreme Will, of much 
 of the related variety of Nature. The instances of sex and po- 
 larity have been adduced in support of such a view. As a sup- 
 position, I will venture to add, that it is not very improbable 
 that, in some such way as this, the constitution of things without 
 may correspond to that of the mind within. But such corres- 
 pondence, if it shall ever be proved to exist, will appear as the 
 last induction from human knowledge, not as the first principle 
 of scientific inquiry. The natural order of discovery is from the 
 particular to the universal, and it may confidently be affirmed 
 
418 CONSTITUTION OF THE INTELLECT. [CHAP. XXII. 
 
 that we have not yet advanced sufficiently far on this track to 
 enable us to determine what are the ultimate forms into which all 
 the special differences of Nature shall merge, and from which 
 they shall receive their explanation. 
 
 2ndly. Were this correspondence between the forms of thought 
 and the actual constitution of Nature proved to exist, whatso- 
 ever connexion or relation it might be supposed to establish be- 
 tween the two systems, it would in no degree affect the question 
 of their mutual independence. It would in no sense lead to the 
 consequence that the one system is the mere product of the other. 
 A too great addiction to metaphysical speculations seems, in 
 some instances, to have produced a tendency toward this species 
 of illusion. Thus, among the many attempts which have been 
 made to explain the existence of evil, it has been sought to assign 
 to the fact a merely relative character, — to found it upon a species 
 of logical opposition to the equally relative element of good. It 
 suffices to say, that the assumption is purely gratuitous. What 
 evil may be in the eyes of Infinite wisdom and purity, we ean at 
 the best but dimly conjecture; but to us, in all its forms, whe- 
 ther of pain or defect, or moral transgression, or retributory wo, 
 it can wear but one aspect, — that of a sad and stern reality, 
 against which, upon somewhat more than the highest order of 
 prudential considerations, the whole preventive force of our 
 nature may be exerted. Now what has been said upon the 
 particular question just considered, is equally applicable to many 
 other of the debated points of philosophy ; such, for instance, 
 as the external reality of space and time. We have no war- 
 rant for resolving these into mere forms of the understanding, 
 though they unquestionably determine the present sphere of 
 our knowledge. And, to speak more generally, there is no war- 
 rant for the extremely subjective tendency of much modem spe- 
 culation. Whenever, in the view of the intellect, different 
 hypotheses are equally consistent with an observed fact, the 
 instinctive testimony of consciousness as to their relative value 
 must be allowed to possess authority. 
 
 3rdly. If the study of the laws of thought avails us neither 
 to determine the actual constitution of things, nor to explain the 
 facts involved in that constitution which have perplexed the wise 
 
CHAP. XXII.] CONSTITUTION OF THE INTELLECT. 419 
 
 and saddened the thoughtful in all ages, — still less does it enable 
 us to rise above the present conditions of our being, or lend its 
 sanction to the doctrine which affirms the possibility of an in- 
 tuitive knowledge of the infinite, and the unconditioned, — whe- 
 ther such knoAvledge be sought for in the realm of Nature, or 
 above that realm. We can never be said to comprehend that 
 which is represented to thought as the limit of an indefinite 
 process of abstraction. A progression ad infinitum is impos- 
 sible to finite powers. But though we cannot comprehend the 
 infinite, there may be even scientific grounds for believing that 
 human nature is constituted in some relation to the infinite. We 
 cannot perfectly express the laws of thought, or establish in the 
 most general sense the methods of which they form the basis, with- 
 out at least the implication of elements which ordinary language 
 expresses by the terms “ Universe” and “ Eternity.” As in the 
 pure abstractions of Geometry, so in the domain of Logic it is 
 seen, that the empire of Truth is, in a certain sense, larger than 
 that of Imagination. And as there are many special departments 
 of knowledge which can only be completely surveyed from an ex- 
 ternal point, so the theory of the intellectual processes, as applied 
 only to finite objects, seems to involve the recognition of a 
 sphere of thought from which all limits are withdrawn. If then, 
 on the one hand, we cannot discover in the laws of thought and 
 their analogies a sufficient basis of proof for the conclusions of 
 a too daring mysticism ; on the other hand we should err in re- 
 garding them as wholly unsuggestive. As parts of our intellec- 
 tual nature, it seems not improbable that they should manifest 
 their presence otherwise than by merely prescribing the condi- 
 tions of formal inference. Whatever grounds we have for con- 
 necting them with the peculiar tendencies of physical speculation 
 among the Ionian and Italic philosophers, the same grounds 
 exist for associating them with a disposition of thought at once 
 more common and more legitimate. To no casual influences, at 
 least, ought we to attribute that meditative spirit which then 
 most delights to commune with the external magnificence of 
 Nature, when most impressed with the consciousness of sempi- 
 ternal verities, — which reads in the nocturnal heavens a bright 
 manifestation of order ; or feels in some wild scene among the 
 
420 CONSTITUTION OF THE INTELLECT. [CHAP. XXII. 
 
 hills, the intimations of more than that abstract eternity which 
 had rolled away ere yet their dark foundations were laid.* 
 
 9. Refraining from the further prosecution of a train of thought 
 which to some may appear to be of too speculative a character, 
 let us briefly review the positive results to which we have been led. 
 It has appeared that there exist in our nature faculties which 
 enable us to ascend from the particular facts of experience to the 
 general propositions which form the basis of Science ; as well as 
 faculties whose office it is to deduce from general propositions 
 accepted as true the particular conclusions which they involve. 
 It has been seen, that those faculties are subject in their opera- 
 tions to laws capable of precise scientific expression, but invested 
 with an authority which, as contrasted with the authority of the 
 laws of nature, is distinct, sui generis , and underived. Further, 
 there has appeared to be a manifest fitness between the intel- 
 lectual procedure thus made known to us, and the conditions of 
 that system of things by which we are surrounded, — such condi- 
 tions, I mean, as the existence of species connected by general 
 resemblances, of facts associated under general laws ; together 
 with that union of permanency with order, which while it gives 
 stability to acquired knowledge, lays a foundation for the hope 
 of indefinite progression. Human nature, quite independently 
 of its observed or manifested tendencies, is seen to be constituted 
 in a certain relation to Truth ; and this relation, considered as a 
 subject of speculative knowledge, is as capable of being studied 
 in its details, is, moreover, as worthy of being so studied, as are 
 the several departments of physical science, considered in the same 
 aspect. I would especially direct attention to that view of the 
 constitution of the intellect which represents it as subject to laws 
 determinate in their character, but not operating by the power of 
 necessity; which exhibits it as redeemed from the dominion of 
 fate, without being abandoned to the lawlessness of chance. We 
 cannot embrace this view without accepting at least as probable 
 the intimations which, upon the principle of analogy, it seems to 
 furnish respecting another and a higher aspect of our nature, — its 
 subjection in the sphere of duty as well as in that of knowledge to 
 
 * Psalm xc. 2. 
 
CHAP. XXII.] CONSTITUTION OF THE INTELLECT. 421 
 
 fixed laws whose authority does not consist in power, — its con- 
 stitution with reference to an ideal standard and a final purpose. 
 It has been thought, indeed, that scientific pursuits foster a dis- 
 position either to overlook the specific differences between the 
 moral and the material world, or to regard the former as in no pro- 
 per sense a subject for exact knowledge. Doubtless all exclusive 
 pursuits tend to produce partial views, and it may be, that a mind 
 long and deeply immersed in the contemplation of scenes over 
 which the dominion of a physical necessity is unquestioned and su- 
 preme, may admit with difficulty the possibility of another order of 
 things. But it is because of the exclusiveness of this devotion to a 
 particular sphere of knowledge, that the prejudice in question 
 takes possession, if at all, of the mind. The application of 
 scientific methods to the study of the intellectual phenomena, 
 conducted in an impartial spirit of inquiry, and without over- 
 looking those elements of error and disturbance which must be 
 accepted as facts , though they cannot be regarded as laws , in 
 the constitution of our nature, seems to furnish the materials of 
 a juster analogy. 
 
 10. If it be asked to what practical end such inquiries as the 
 above point, it may be replied, that there exist various objects, 
 in relation to which the courses of men’s actions are mainly de- 
 termined by their speculative views of human nature. Educa- 
 tion, considered in its largest sense, is one of those objects. The 
 ultimate ground of all inquiry into its nature and its methods 
 must be laid in some previous theory of what man is, what are 
 the ends for which his several faculties were designed, what 
 are the motives which have power to influence them to sustained 
 action, and to elicit their most perfect and most stable results. 
 It may be doubted, whether these questions have ever been 
 considered fully, and at the same time impartially, in the rela- 
 tions here suggested. The highest cultivation of taste by the 
 study of the pure models of antiquity, the largest acquaintance 
 with the facts and theories of modern physical science, viewed 
 from this larger aspect of our nature, can only appear as parts of 
 a perfect intellectual discipline. Looking from the same point 
 of view upon the means to be employed, we might be led to in- 
 quire, whether that all but exclusive appeal which is made in 
 
422 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE INTELLECT. [CHAP.XXIf. 
 
 the present day to the spirit of emulation or cupidity, does not 
 tend to weaken the influence of those more enduring motives 
 which seem to have been implanted in our nature for the imme- 
 diate end in view. Upon these, and upon many other questions, 
 the just limits of authority, the reconciliation of freedom of 
 thought with discipline of feelings, habits, manners, and upon 
 the whole moral aspect of the question, — what unfixedness of 
 opinion, what diversity of practice, do we meet with! Yet, in 
 the sober view of reason, there is no object within the compass 
 of human endeavours which is of more weight and moment than 
 this, considered, as I have said, in its largest meaning. Now, 
 whatsoever tends to make more exact and definite our view of 
 human nature, in any of its real aspects, tends, in the same pro- 
 portion, to reduce these questions into narrower compass, and 
 restrict the limits of their possible solution. Thus may even 
 speculative inquiries prove fruitful of the most important prin- 
 ciples of action. 
 
 11. Perhaps the most obviously legitimate bearing of such 
 speculations would be upon the question of the place of Mathe- 
 matics in the system of human knowledge, and the nature 
 and office of mathematical studies, as a means of intellectual 
 discipline. No one who has attended to the course of recent 
 discussions can think this question an unimportant one. Those 
 who have maintained that the position of Mathematics is in 
 both respects a fundamental one, have drawn one of their strongest 
 arguments from the actual constitution of things. The mate- 
 rial frame is subject in all its parts to the relations of number. 
 All dynamical, chemical, electrical, thermal, actions, seem not 
 only to be measurable in themselves, but to be connected with 
 each other, even to the extent of mutual convertibility, by nu- 
 merical relations of a perfectly definite kind. But the opinion 
 in question seems to me to rest upon a deeper basis than this. 
 The laws of thought, in all its processes of conception and of 
 reasoning, in all those operations of which language is the ex- 
 pression or the instrument, are of the same kind as are the laws 
 of the acknowledged processes of Mathematics. It is not con- 
 tended that it is necessary for us to acquaint ourselves with those 
 laws in order to think coherently, or, in the ordinary sense of 
 
CHAP XXIX.] CONSTITUTION OF THE INTELLECT. 423 
 
 the terms, to reason well. Men draw inferences without any 
 consciousness of those elements upon which the entire procedure 
 depends. Still less is it desired to exalt the reasoning faculty 
 over the faculties of observation, of reflection, and of judgment. 
 But upon the very ground that human thought, traced to its 
 ultimate elements, reveals itself in mathematical forms, we have 
 a presumption that the mathematical sciences occupy, by the 
 constitution of our nature, a fundamental place in human know- 
 ledge, and" that no system of mental culture can be complete or 
 fundamental, which altogether neglects them. 
 
 But the very same class of considerations shows with equal 
 force the error of those who regard the study of Mathematics, 
 and of their applications, as a sufficient basis either of knowledge 
 or of discipline. If the constitution of the material frame is ma- 
 thematical, it is not merely so. If the mind, in its capacity of 
 formal reasoning, obeys, whether consciously or unconsciously, 
 mathematical laws, it claims through its other capacities of sen- 
 timent and action, through its perceptions of beauty and of 
 moral fitness, through its deep springs of emotion and affection, 
 to hold relation to a different order of things. There is, more- 
 over, a breadth of intellectual vision, a power of sympathy with 
 truth in all its forms and manifestations, which is not measured 
 by the force and subtlety of the dialectic faculty. Even the 
 revelation of the material universe in its boundless magnitude, 
 and pervading order, and constancy of law, is not necessarily the 
 most fully apprehended by him who has traced with minutest 
 accuracy the steps of the great demonstration. And if we em- 
 brace in our survey the interests and duties of life, how little do 
 any processes of mere ratiocination enable us to comprehend the 
 weightier questions which they present ! As truly, therefore, as 
 the cultivation of the mathematical or deductive faculty is a part 
 of intellectual discipline, so truly is it only a part. The pre- 
 judice which would either banish or make supreme any one 
 department of knowledge or faculty of mind, betrays not only 
 error of judgment, but a defect of that intellectual modesty 
 which is inseparable from a pure devotion to truth. It assumes 
 the office of criticising a constitution of things which no human 
 appointment has established, or can annul. It sets aside the 
 
424 CONSTITUTION OF THE INTELLECT. [CHAP. XXII. 
 
 ancient and just conception of truth as one though manifold. 
 Much of this error, as actually existent among us, seems due 
 to the special and isolated character of scientific teaching — 
 which character it, in its turn, tends to foster. The study of 
 philosophy, notwithstanding a few marked instances of exception, 
 has failed to keep pace with the advance of the several depart- 
 ments of knowledge, whose mutual relations it is its province to 
 determine. It is impossible, however, not to contemplate the 
 particular evil in question as part of a larger system, and connect 
 it with the too prevalent view of knowledge as a merely secular 
 thing, and with the undue predominance, already adverted to, of 
 those motives, legitimate within their proper limits, which are 
 founded upon a regard to its secular advantages. In the extreme 
 case it is not difficult to see that the continued operation of 
 such motives, uncontrolled by any higher principles of action, 
 uncorrected by the personal influence of superior minds, must 
 tend to lower the standard of thought in reference to the objects 
 of knowledge, and to render void and ineffectual whatsoever ele- 
 ments of a noble faith may still survive. And ever in proportion 
 as these conditions are realized must the same effects follow. 
 Hence, perhaps, it is that we sometimes find juster conceptions 
 of the unity, the vital connexion, and the subordination to a 
 moral purpose, of the different parts of Truth, among those who 
 acknowledge nothing higher than the changing aspect of col- 
 lective humanity, than among those who profess an intellectual 
 allegiance to the Father of Lights. But these are questions 
 which cannot further be pursued here. To some they will ap- 
 pear foreign to the professed design of this work. But the 
 consideration of them has arisen naturally, either out of the 
 speculations which that design involved, or in the course of 
 reading and reflection which seemed necessary to its accomplish- 
 ment. 
 
 THE END. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' : J . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
160 B724A 
 
 595199