[FOM] Why inclusive disjunction?

[Charles Silver]

On Jan 9, 2007, at 10:38 PM, John Baldwin wrote:

>
> I am preparing to teach a course in `proof'.
>
> Can anyone provide a principled reason for why logicians choose to
>   interpret "or" as inclusive disjunction?

	It looks to me that the set consisting of the "exclusive or" and  
"not" is not "adequate" (in the sense of all truth functions being  
definable from just these two), while the standard set {~, v} is  
adequate (as well as several other sets of connectives).  Perhaps,  
though, this would not be a "principled reason".


Charlie Silver