Introduction to Logic Alex Kaiserman

Introduction to Logic
In this course, you will learn the syntax, semantics and proof theories of three logics: L1 (aka
propositional logic), L2 (aka predicate logic), and L= (aka predicate logic with identity). You
will also learn how to analyse natural language arguments by formalising them in these logical
languages.

The set text for this course is Volker Halbach’s The Logic Manual. You should bring a copy of
it to every class. The university puts on lectures on the material in The Logic Manual in
Michaelmas term every year – you should go to them.

We will meet twice a week: Tuesdays 3-4 and Fridays 1.30-3.30. For the Tuesday class,
you are required to read the relevant section of the Logic Manual and come prepared to ask
any questions. For the Friday class, you should complete that week’s exercises. Please hand
your solutions in at your tutor’s college by the end of Thursday.

There are many resources, including additional questions and worked examples, available
here: http://logicmanual.philosophy.ox.ac.uk.

Please email alexander.kaiserman@balliol.ox.ac.uk if you have any questions.

Good luck! 
Introduction to Logic Alex Kaiserman

Week 1: Validity and Relations

Reading

Read chapter 1 of The Logic Manual.

Exercises

Q. 1 For each of the following arguments, say whether they are (i) modally valid; (ii)
formally valid. (Just as important, explain why, in as much detail as is necessary (but no more)
to explain to your reader.)

(a) All unicorns are beautiful. Orcs hate anything beautiful. So orcs hate all unicorns.
(b) Diamond is hard. So diamond is not soft.
(c) 8 is a prime number. Therefore, all frogs are pink.
(d) All Balliol students are clever. Brunhilda is a Balliol student. So Brunhilda is clever.
(e) Everything is coloured red all over. So nothing is coloured blue all over.
(f) All cows are green. All cows are not green. So all pigs are purple.

From now on where you see the word ‘valid’, you should take it to mean ‘formally valid’.

Q. 2 Are there any valid arguments with the following features:

(a) false premises and a true conclusion?

(b) false premises and a false conclusion?
(c) some true premises, some false premises and a false conclusion?
(d) some true premises, some false premises and a true conclusion?
(e) an inconsistent set of premises?
(f) a contradictory conclusion?

In each case either give examples or explain why not.

Q. 3 P.J. Mangler of Christ Church argues as follows in his logic work:

It is true that David is a philosopher, and false that he is a werewolf. So the argument which goes
“David is a philosopher. All philosophers are werewolves. Therefore David is a werewolf” is invalid
in this possible world. But there is a possible world in which all philosophers – including David –
are werewolves. In that world, the argument is valid.

What exactly has Mangler has got wrong? Be as brief as possible, but no briefer.
Introduction to Logic Alex Kaiserman

Q. 4 Consider the following relations:

(i) {⟨Hydrogen, Oxygen⟩, ⟨Oxygen, Hydrogen⟩, ⟨Hydrogen, Hydrogen⟩}

(ii) {⟨Mercury, Oxygen>, ⟨Oxygen, Nitrogen⟩, ⟨Mercury, Nitrogen⟩}
(iii) {⟨Mercury, Mercury⟩, ⟨Oxygen, Oxygen⟩, ⟨Nitrogen, Nitrogen⟩}
(iv) ∅ (the empty set)

Let S be the set with the chemical elements Hydrogen, Oxygen, Mercury and Nitrogen as (set-
theoretic) elements. Determine for each of the relations (i)–(iv)

(a) whether it is reflexive on S,

(b) whether it is symmetric,
(c) whether it is transitive, and
(d) whether it is a function.

Q. 5 (a) Specify a relation that is symmetric but not transitive. Try to find such a relation with
a minimal number of elements.

(b) Specify a relation and a set S such that the relation is reflexive on S and asymmetric.

(c) Is the relation {⟨Paris, London⟩, ⟨London, Rome⟩, ⟨London, the capital of Italy⟩} a function?

Q. 6 Consider the relation containing the ordered pairs ⟨Germany, Italy⟩, ⟨Germany,
Germany⟩, ⟨Italy, Italy⟩, ⟨France, France⟩ but no other pairs.

(a) Is this relation reflexive on the set {Germany, Italy, France}?

(b) Is this relation transitive on {Germany, Italy, France}?
(c) Is this relation symmetric on {Germany, Italy, France}?
(d) Is it an equivalence relation on {Germany, Italy, France}?
(e) Is it an equivalence relation on {Germany, France}? answer.

Q. 7 Consider the following relations, where d and e are persons:

(i) the set of all ordered pairs ⟨d, e⟩ such that d is taller than e.
(ii) {⟨d, e⟩∶ d loves e}
(iii) the relation with all ordered pairs ⟨d, e⟩ as members such that d is the father of e.
(iv) the relation with all ordered pairs ⟨d, e⟩ as members such that e is the father of d.
(v) the relation of being of a similar age.

Determine for each of these relations whether it is (a) symmetric, (b) transitive, and (c) a
function.
Introduction to Logic Alex Kaiserman

Week 2: Syntax and Semantics of

Propositional Logic
Reading

Chapter 2 of The Logic Manual.

Exercises

Q. 1 Add quotation marks to the following sentences so that true English sentences are
obtained. In some cases there is more than one solution – try to find all solutions.

(i) Potassium designates a chemical element.

(ii) Snow is white if and only if snow is white.
(iii) John, Jane and Jeremy all have J as their first letter.
(iv) George is the quotation of George.
(v) Brexit means Brexit.
(vi) Brexit means Brexit is false, for Brexit means Brexit is true if and only if Brexit means
Brexit, and Brexit doesn't mean Brexit; but Brexit means Brexit is true, for Brexit
means Brexit is true if and only if Brexit means Brexit, and Brexit does mean Brexit,
although Brexit certainly isn't Brexit.

Q. 2 Explain whether the following expressions are sentences of L1. No bracketing

conventions are applied in the expressions.

(i) (((P1 → P1) → P1) ∨ Q)

(ii) (((P2 ∧ R)) → Q4)
(iii) (P → ¬P)
(iv) (P¬ → P) (∨) (¬P → P)
(v) (P → ¬¬¬(R ∨ ¬R))
(vi) ¬((P → (P → ¬Q)) ↔ ¬¬(R2 ↔ ¬(P ∨ R7)))

Q. 3 The following expressions are abbreviations of L1-sentences. Restore the brackets that
have been dropped in accordance with the Bracketing Conventions of Section 2.3.

(i) ¬P ∧ Q
(ii) P ∧ ¬Q ∧ R ↔ ¬P3 ∨ P ∨ R5
(iii) ¬¬¬(P → Q) ↔ P
Introduction to Logic Alex Kaiserman

Q. 4 Drop as many brackets as possible from the following L1-sentences by applying the
Bracketing Conventions from Section 2.3.

(i) (((¬P → ¬Q) ∨ Q2) ∧ P)

(ii) (((¬P→ ¬Q) ∧ Q2) ∧ P)
(iii) ¬(((P ∧ (P → ¬Q)) ∧ Q1) ∧ P)

Q. 5 For each of the following sentences, specify the scope of the highlighted symbol:

(i) (¬R  Q)
(ii) (¬R  Q)
(iii) ¬(R  Q)
(iv) ¬¬Q
(v) ((P  Q)  (¬P  Q))
(vi) ((P  Q)  (¬P  Q))

Q. 6 Show that the following sentences are tautologies. You may use partial truth tables.

(i) P ∧ (P → Q) → Q (modus ponens)

(ii) ¬Q ∧ (P → Q) → ¬P (modus tollens)
(iii) P ∨ ¬P (law of excluded middle)
(iv) ¬(P ∧ ¬P) (law of contradiction)
(v) (¬P → P) → P (consequentia mirabilis)
(vi) (P → Q) ∧ (¬P → Q) → Q (classical dilemma)
(vii) ¬(P ∧ Q) ↔ (¬P ∨ ¬Q) (de Morgan-law)
(viii) ¬(P ∨ Q) ↔ (¬P ∧ ¬Q) (de Morgan-law)
(ix) P ∧ ¬P → Q (ex falso quodlibet)

Q. 7 Classify the following L1-sentences as tautologies, contradictions or as sentences that

are neither.

(i) P∧P
(ii) ((P → Q) → R) ↔ (P → (Q → R))
(iii) (P ↔ (Q ↔ R)) ↔ ((P ↔ Q) ↔ R)
(iv) ¬(P → Q) ↔ (P ∧ ¬Q)

Q. 8 In the definition of truth in an L1-interpretation, conditions are specified under which

a sentence is true in an L1-interpretation. These conditions also determine when a sentence is
false because a sentence of L1 is false if and only if it is not true. Write down analogous clauses
Introduction to Logic Alex Kaiserman

that indicate the conditions under which non-atomic sentences are false. The first clause (for
¬) is as follows:

(i) ∣¬φ∣A = F if and only if ∣φ∣A =T.

Complete the list with clauses for ∧, ∨, →, and ↔.

Introduction to Logic Alex Kaiserman

Week 3: Validity and Natural Deduction for

Propositional Logic
Reading

Read sections 2.4 and 6 to 6.1 of The Logic Manual.

Exercises

Q. 1 Use (full) truth-tables to test the truth of the following statements. Give
counterexample structures where the statement is false.

(i) ¬P |= (P  Q)
(ii) ¬Q |= (P  Q)
(iii) P, ¬P |= P
(iv) P, ¬P |= Q
(v) |= (P ∨ Q)
(vi) P, Q |= ¬(P  Q)
(vii) (P  Q), (R ∨ ¬Q) |= (Q  (P  R))
(viii) (P  Q) |= ((P  R)  (Q  R))
(ix) ((P  Q)  Q) |= (P  Q)
(x) |= ((P  (Q  R)) ↔ (R  (Q  P)))

Q. 2 Use partial truth-tables to test the truth of the following statements. Give
counterexample structures where the statement is false.

(i) (P  (Q ∨ R)), (Q  R) |= (P  R)

(ii) ((P ∨ Q)  (R ∧ P1)) |= (P  R)

(iii) ((P ∨ Q)  (R ∧ P1)), (R ∧ R1)  ¬R1) |= P

Q. 3 Where φ and all elements of Γ are L1-sentences, prove that Γ ⊧ φ if and only if the set
containing all sentences in Γ and ¬φ is semantically inconsistent.

Q. 4 How many different possible truth tables are there for sentences of L1 containing one
sentence letter? How many for sentences containing two sentence letters? Three sentence
letters? n sentence letters? Explain your reasoning.
Introduction to Logic Alex Kaiserman

Q. 5 Establish the following claims by producing proofs in Natural Deduction. At least for
this week, it’s compulsory to note which rules you are applying, e.g.

P
-------- vIntro
(P  Q)

(i) ├ (P → (R  P))
(ii) (Q  R) ├ (R  Q)
(iii) (P → Q) ├ (¬Q → ¬P)
(iv) (P ↔ Q), ¬Q ├ ¬P
(v) ((P  Q) → R) ├ (P → (Q → R))
(vi) ¬ P ├ (P → Q)
(vii) ├ ((P → ¬P) → ¬P)
(viii)├ (P ↔ ¬¬P)
(ix) (P → Q), (Q → R), (R → P1) ├ (P → P1)
(x) ├ (P → ((P  Q) ↔ Q))
(xi) ├ (P  (P → Q))
(xii) (P → (Q  R)), (Q → R), ¬R ├ ¬P
(xiii) (P → Q) ├ (¬P  Q)
Introduction to Logic Alex Kaiserman

Week 4: Formalisation in Propositional

Logic
Reading

Read chapter 3 of The Logic Manual.

Exercises

Q. 1 By drawing truth-tables showing the result of substituting ‘A’ and ‘B’ for true or false
English sentences in the expressions below, determine whether the corresponding English
connectives are truth-functional. Explain your answers. Some of these are controversial.

(i) Robin believes that A

(ii) Robin knows that A
(iii) Robin knows that A, but it’s not true that A
(iv) The infallible pope believes that A
(v) A, but B
(vi) Suppose A; then B

Q. 2 For each of the following sentences, if it can be formalised with reasonable accuracy
using , provide the formalisation (don’t forget to include a dictionary!). Otherwise, explain
briefly why this cannot be done:

(i) If God can create the soul without the body, then soul and body are different.
(ii) The rise in interest rates is a sufficient reason for a house price crash.
(iii) The boy and the general are the same person, only if the general can remember what
he did as a boy.
(iv) My believing that the wall is yellow is a necessary condition for my knowing that the
wall is yellow.
(v) He said that if you come he will be happy.
(vi) If Oswald didn’t kill JFK, somebody else did.
(vii) If Oswald hadn’t killed JFK, somebody else would have.

Q. 3 Formalise the following sentences in the language of propositional logic. Your

formalisation should be as detailed as possible.

(i) Russell and Whitehead wrote Principia Mathematica.

(ii) Peter likes both coffee and tea.
(iii) Somebody likes both coffee and tea.
Introduction to Logic Alex Kaiserman

(iv) The neighbour is a female teacher.

(v) The building is a fake barn.
(vi) Philosophers who are cool study logic.
(vii) Philosophers, who are cool, study logic.

Q. 4 Discuss whether the following argument is propositionally valid.

If Jones arrives at the airport after the scheduled departure time, the plane will wait
for him. Therefore, if Jones arrives at the airport after the scheduled departure time
and nobody notices that he arrives at the airport after the scheduled departure time,
the plane will wait for Jones.

Q. 5 Show that the following argument becomes propositionally valid after adding
assumptions upon which the speaker might naturally be expected to be relying. You should do
this by formalizing the argument and proving that it is propositionally valid using either a
partial truth table or a proof in natural deduction (preferably both). At every stage, note any
difficulties or points of interest.

Many students will be either in Hegel’s or in Schopenhauer’s lectures, if they are

scheduled at the same time. And of course Schopenhauer will schedule them at the
same time as Hegel’s. If Hegel’s lectures are entertaining, then many students will go
to them. That means of course many students will go to Hegel’s but not many will go
to Schopenhauer’s lectures. For if Schopenhauer’s lectures are entertaining, Hegel’s
must be entertaining as well; and of course many students will only come to
Schopenhauer’s lectures if they are entertaining.
Introduction to Logic Alex Kaiserman

Week 5: Syntax and Semantics of Predicate

Logic

Reading

Read chapters 4 and 5 of The Logic Manual.

Exercises

Q. 1 Determine whether the following expressions are formulae of L2 and say which of those
are also sentences of L2. Add the omitted arity indices to all predicate letters and mark all free
occurrences of variables. Bracketing conventions are not applied.

(i) ∀x (P1x → Qy)

(ii) ∃x ¬(¬¬∃y Py ∧ ¬¬¬¬¬Rxa)
(iii) P
(iv) ∀x ∃y ∃z (R25xyz)
(v) ∀x ∃x Qxx
(vi) ¬(¬(∃x Px ∧ ∃y Qy))
(vii) ∀x (∃y (Pxy ∧ Px) ∨ Qxyx)

Q. 2 The following expressions are abbreviations of formulae of L2. Supply all brackets and
indices that have been omitted according to the notational conventions and mark all free
occurrences of variables.

(i) ∀x ∀y (P4xy → P4yx ∧ Rx)

(ii) ∀x Rxxz ∧ ∃y Rxzx
(iii) ¬∀z2 Rxz
(iv) ∀x ¬¬(Pxy ∨ Ryx ∨ Rzy)

Q. 3 Consider an L2-structure S with the domain DS and the following semantical values of a,
b, P, and R:

DS ={1, 2, 3}
∣a∣S = 1
∣b∣S = 3
∣P1∣S = {2}
∣R2∣S ={<1, 2>,<2, 3>,<1, 3>}
Introduction to Logic Alex Kaiserman

Are the following sentences true or false in this structure? Provide proofs of your
answers.

(i) Pa
(ii) Rab
(iii) Rba
(iv) Rab ↔ Rba
(v) Rbb ∨ (¬Pa ∧ ¬Raa)
(vi) ∃x Rax
(vii) ∃x (Rax ∧ Rxb)
(viii) Pb ∨ ∃x Rxx
(ix) ∀x ∃y Rxy
(x) ∀x (Px → (∃y Ryx ∧ ∃y Rxy))
(xi) ∀x (Px → ∃y (Ryx ∧ Rxy))

As an example, I will show that (viii) is false in S:

First I show that ∣P1b∣b = F:

3 ∉ {2}

∣b∣S ∉ ∣P1∣S

∣Pb∣S = F

In the next step I prove ∣∃x Rxx∣S = F. Let α be a variable assignment over S. Then ∣x∣Sα is 1 or
2 or 3. But neither <1, 1> nor <2, 2> nor <3, 3> is in ∣R∣S , that is, in {<1, 2>, <2, 3>, <1, 3>}.
Therefore, there following holds:

<∣x∣Sα, ∣x∣Sα > ∉ ∣R2∣S

∣ Rxx ∣Sα = F

∣∃xRxx∣S = F

The last line holds because ∃x Rxx is false if and only if Rxx is satisfied by no variable
assignment. Since ∣Pb∣S = F and ∣∃x Rxx∣S = F, it follows that ∣Pb ∨ ∃x Rxx∣S = F.

Q. 4 (i) Provide a sentence that contains no other than unary predicate letters and that is true
in some structure with a domain containing at least three elements, but that is not true in any
structure with a domain containing less than three elements.

(ii) Provide a sentence containing no constants and predicate letters other than R2 that is true
in some structure with a domain containing at least two objects but that is not true in any
Introduction to Logic Alex Kaiserman

structure with a domain containing only one object.

(iii) Provide a sentence containing no constants and predicate letters other than R2 that is true
in some structure with a domain containing at least three objects but that is not true in any
structure with a domain containing less than three objects.

(iv) Provide a sentence that is true in some structure with an infinite domain but not in any
structure with a finite domain.
Introduction to Logic Alex Kaiserman

Week 6: Validity and Natural Deduction in

Predicate Logic
Reading

Read §6.2 and chapter 7 of The Logic Manual.

Exercises

Q. 1 Justify the following claims by providing counterexamples. You do not have to prove that
your structures are actually counterexamples, that is, you do not have to prove that the
premisses are true and the conclusions false in the respective structures.

(i) Pa |≠ ∃x (Px ∧ Qx)

(ii) ∀y (Py → ∃x Ryx) |≠ ∀x (Px → ∃y Ryy)
(iii) ∀y Ryy |≠ ∀x Rax
(iv) ¬∀xPx → ∀x¬Qx |≠ ∀x(Qx → Px)
(v) ∀x∀y(Px ∧ Qy  Rxy), ∀x(Px  ¬Qx) |≠ ¬∃x∃y(Rxy ∧ ¬Ryx)

Q. 2 Construct proofs in Natural Deduction to show the following claims are correct.

(i) x (Px → Qx), Pa |- Qa

(ii) x (Px → Qx), Pa |- x Qx
(iii) x (Px → Qx), x (Qx → Rx) |-x (Px → Rx)
(iv) x (Px → Qx), x Px |- x Qx
(v) x Px |- y Py
(vi) x Px |- y Py
(vii) x Px |- x Px
(viii) x Px |- x Px
(ix) x Pxa |- x y Pyx
(x) y x Rxy |- x y Rxy
(xi) x y (Rxy   Ryy) |- P

Q. 3 Are the following claims true or false? Justify your answers by providing a
counterexample or a proof in natural deduction, as appropriate.

(i) |- ∀x (Px → Qx) → (∃xPx → ∃xQx)

(ii) |- (∀xPx → ∀xQx) → ∀x(Px → Qx)
(iii) |- (¬∀xPx → ∀x¬Qx) → ∀x(Qx → Px)
Introduction to Logic Alex Kaiserman

Week 7: Formalisation in Predicate Logic

Reading

Read chapter 7 of The Logic Manual

Exercises

Q. 1 Formalise the following, using the dictionary provided.

Predicates: P: ... is a Gryffindor

Q: ... plays Quidditch
P 1: ... is smart
R: ... likes __

Designators: a: Harry
b: Hermione
c: Ron
a 1: Snape

(i) Although Hermione is smart, she doesn’t play Quidditch

(ii) Everyone who Ron likes is smart
(iii) Snape likes everyone who plays Quidditch
(iv) All non-quidditch players are smart
(v) Only non-Gryffindors are smart
(vi) Only smart people like themselves
(vii) If a Gryffindor likes Harry, Hermione likes Ron.
(viii) If a Gryffindor likes Harry, Hermione likes them.
(ix) Harry only likes smart Gryffindors.
(x) If a Gryffindor likes Snape, someone smart likes Snape.
(xi) Ron likes any smart Quidditch player who likes Harry.
(xii) If any Quidditch players are smart, Harry is smart.
(xiii) If any Quidditch players are smart, Harry likes them.
(xiv) Anyone smart likes either Hermione or Ron.

Q. 2 Reveal the ambiguities in the following sentences by formalizing each sentence in two (or
more) different ways:

(i) Tony despises a logician.

(ii) Harry slanders Ron and his parents.
Introduction to Logic Alex Kaiserman

(iii) A student is better than a tutor.

(iv) Only rich Germans buy houses in Munich.
(v) James likes a fast car.
(vi) Some mistakes were made by everyone.

Q. 3 The following exercise deals with a paradox that shows that certain assumptions about
sets and properties lead to a contradiction.

(i) Using the dictionary

R: ... is an element of __

translate the sentence ∃x ∀y (Ryx  ¬Ryy) into an English sentence.

(ii) Using the dictionary

R: ... has __ (as its property)

translate the sentence ∃x ∀y (Ryx  ¬Ryy) into an English sentence.

(iii) In Q.3 (xi) last week, we asked for a proof of the following claim:

∃x ∀y (Ryx  ¬Ryy) ⊢ P.

Show that any set of sentences containing the sentence ∃x ∀y (Ryx  ¬Ryy) is syntactically
inconsistent.

(iv) The expression {x∶ A} is used as an abbreviation for ‘the set of all x such that A’, where A
is a claim about x. What is the problem of defining sets in this way?

Q. 4 Formalise each of the following arguments in L2. (In each case assume that the relation
is implicitly restricted to the background domain). Say whether the claim in question is
correct. If it is, prove it using ND. If it isn’t, provide a counterexample structure.

(i) R is reflexive. Therefore, R is non-empty.

(ii) R is symmetric and transitive. Therefore, if R is non-empty, R is reflexive.
(iii) R is symmetric and R is asymmetric. Therefore, R is empty
(iv) R is antisymmetric. Therefore, R is asymmetric.

Q. 4 (a) Using the dictionary provided, and implicitly assuming the domain is the set of
sentences of L1, formalise the following (valid) argument in the language of L=:
Introduction to Logic Alex Kaiserman

Dictionary:
Tx: x is a tautology
Exy: x semantically entails y

Argument:
A sentence is a tautology if and only if it is entailed by every sentence. Entailment is a
transitive relation. Hence any sentence entailed by a tautology is a tautology.

(b) Use Natural Deduction to show that the argument you formalised in (a) is valid.

(c) Are the premises of the argument true? Explain your answer.
Introduction to Logic Alex Kaiserman

Week 8: Predicate Logic with Identity

Reading

Read chapter 8 of The Logic Manual.

Exercises

Q. 1 Add the brackets that have been omitted in accordance with the bracketing
conventions to the following sentence:

∀x ∀y ∀z ( Px ∧ Py ∧ Pz → x=y ∨ y=z ∨ x=z )

Q. 2 Prove the following claims by means of counterexamples:

(i) Qab, Qba |≠ a=b

(ii) ∀x ∀y (Px → (Py → ¬x=y)) |≠ ∃x ∃y ¬x=y

You do not have to show that the premisses are true and the conclusions are false in the
models. Specifying the counterexample will suffice.

Q. 3 Establish the following claims by means of proofs in Natural Deduction.

(i) ⊢ ∃y y=y
(ii) ∃x Px, ∃x ¬Px ⊢ ∃x ∃y ¬x=y

Q. 4 Show that the following two sentences are logically equivalent in predicate logic with
identity:

(i) ∃x (∀y (Py → x=y) ∧ Px)

(ii) ∃x ∀y (Py ↔ x=y)

Prove the equivalence by constructing a proof in Natural Deduction of (i) using (ii) as a
premise and a proof in Natural Deduction of (ii) using (i) as a premise.

Q. 5 Formalise the following sentences as L=-sentences using the following dictionary:

P: ... is clever
Q: ... is a tutor
Q1: ... is a philosophy student
R: ... is better than ...
Introduction to Logic Alex Kaiserman

(i) There are two philosophy students.

(ii) The clever tutor is better than any philosophy student.
(iii) The philosophy student who is better than all tutors is clever.
(iv) There are fewer than three tutors.

Q. 6 The following sentence is to be formalized in L=:

Paolo is a philosopher.

The following two formalisations are proposed:

(i) Pa
(ii) ∃x (x=a ∧ Px)

Formalisation (ii) is arrived at by reasoning as follows: The ‘is’ in the original sentence can be
replaced by ‘is identical to’, so the logical form of the sentence is:

There is an x ((x is identical to Paolo) and (x is a philosopher))

Is there any reason to prefer one formalisation over the other?