In theformal sciences, thedomain of discourse oruniverse of discourse (borrowing from the mathematical concept ofuniverse) is theset of entities over which certainvariables of interest in someformal treatment may range.
It is also defined as the collection of objects being discussed in a specificdiscourse.Inmodel-theoretical semantics, a universe of discourse is the set of entities that a model is based on.
The domain of discourse is usually identified in the preliminaries, so that there is no need in the further treatment to specify each time the range of the relevant variables.[1] Many logicians distinguish, sometimes only tacitly, between thedomain of a science and theuniverse of discourse of a formalization of the science.[2]
In mathematics, the concept is distinguished from auniverse, which is some set internal to aset theory, whereas a domain of discourse ismetamathematical, allowing one to speak of theuniverse of sets or collection of allclasses in a formal way.
The conceptuniverse of discourse was used for the first time byGeorge Boole (1854) on page 42 of hisLaws of Thought:
In every discourse, whether of the mind conversing with its own thoughts, or of the individual in his folley 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 ourselves 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 may be the extent of the field within which all the objects of our discourse are found, that field may properly be termed the universe of discourse. Furthermore, this universe of discourse is in the strictest sense the ultimate subject of the discourse.
— George Boole,The Laws of Thought. 1854/2003. p. 42.[3]
The concept, probably discovered independently by Boole in 1847, played a crucial role in his philosophy of logic especially in his principle ofwholistic reference.
Alfred North Whitehead citedAugustus De Morgan as identifying "that limited class of things which is the special subject of discourse on any particular occasion. Such a class was called by De Morgan, the Universe of Discourse."[4]
Lewis Carroll expressed the need for a universe of discourse as follows:
It sometimes happens that, in one or both of the Terms of a Proposition, the Name consists of Adjectives only, the Substantive being understood. In order to express such a Propositionfully, we must supply the Name of some Class which may be regarded as a Genus of which each Term is a Species...The Genus referred to is called theUniverse of Discourse...[5]
For example, in aninterpretation offirst-order logic, the domain of discourse is the set of individuals over which thequantifiers range. A proposition such as∀x (x2 ≠ 2) is ambiguous if no domain of discourse has been identified. In one interpretation, the domain of discourse could be the set ofreal numbers; in another interpretation, it could be the set ofnatural numbers. If the domain of discourse is the set of real numbers, the proposition is false, withx =√2 as counterexample; if the domain is the set of natural numbers, the proposition is true, since 2 is not the square of any natural number.
Thebinary relation calledset membership, expressed as, and meaning thatx belongs to setA, is clear enough. Every binary relation has aconverse relation, and the converse of is written. Also, a binary relation must have adomain. The domain of the converse of set membership is the universe of discourse. Any subset of this universe may, or may not, containx.A is a subset of this universe, not necessarily restricted toA.
