# Likewise, we have contradictions: formulas that can only be false, e.g. (p p).

Save this PDF as:

Size: px
Start display at page:

## Transcription

1 CHAPTER 4. STATEMENT LOGIC 59 The rightmost column of this truth table contains instances of T and instances of F. Notice that there are no degrees of contingency. If both values are possible, the formula is contingent. We also have formulas that can only be true: tautologies. For example, p p is a tautology. (4.24) p (p p) T F T T Even though p can be either true or false, the combination can only bear the value T. A similar tautology can be built using the biconditional. (4.25) p (p p) T F T T Likewise, we have contradictions: formulas that can only be false, e.g. (p p). (4.26) p p (p p) T F F T F F Again, even though p can have either value, this combination of connectives can only be false. 4.7 Proof We can now consider proof and argument. Notice first that tautologies built on the biconditional entail that the two sides of the biconditional are logical equivalents. That is, each side is true just in case the other side is true and each side is false just in case the other side is false. For example, ((p q) ( p q)) has this property. (p q) is logically equivalent to ( p q).

2 CHAPTER 4. STATEMENT LOGIC 60 If we did truth tables for these two WFFs, we would see that they bear the same truth values. Conditionals are similar, though not as powerful. For example: ((p q) p). The atomic statement p is a logical consequence of (p q), and is true whenever the latter is true. However, the converse is not the case; (p q) does not follow from p. We can see this in the following truth table. (4.27) p q (p q) ((p q) p) T T T T T F F T F T F T F F F T The rightmost column has only instances of T, so this WFF is a tautology. However, comparison of the second and third columns shows that the two sides of the formula do not bear the same value in all instances; they are not logical equivalents. In particular, row two of the table shows that the left side can be false when the right side is true. This, of course, is allowed by a conditional, as opposed to a biconditional, but it exemplifies directly that the values of the two sides need not be identical for the whole WFF to be a tautology. We can use these relationships along with a general notion of substitution to build arguments. The basic idea behind substitution is that if some formula A contains B as a subformula, and B is logically equivalent to C, then C can be substituted for B in A. For example, we can show by truth table that p (p p). (4.28) p (p p) T F T F It therefore follows that p and (p p) are logical equivalents. Hence, any formula containing p can have all instances of p replaced with (p p) without altering its truth value. For example, (p q) has the same truth value as ((p p) q). This is shown in the following truth table.

3 CHAPTER 4. STATEMENT LOGIC 61 (4.29) p q (p p) (p q) ((p p) q) T T T T T T F T F F F T F T T F F F T T The values for the fourth and fifth columns are the same. Substitution for logical consequence is more restricted. If some formula A contains B as a subformula, and C is a logical consequence of B, then C cannot be substituted for B in A. A logical consequence can only be substituted for the entire formula. Consider this example: (p p) q). First, we can show that this is a tautology by inspection of the truth table. (4.30) p q p (p p) ((p p) q) T T F F T T F F F T F T T F T F F T F T The rightmost column contains only instances of T; hence the WFF is a tautology. The last connective is a conditional and the values of the two sides do not match in all cases in particular rows one and three; hence the second half of the formula q is a logical consequence of the first (p p). Now, by the same reasoning ((p p) r) is also a tautology. However, if we erroneously do a partial substitution on this second formula, substituting q for (p p) based on the first formula, the resulting formula (q r) is certainly not a tautology. (4.31) p q (p q) T T T T F F F T T F F T

4 CHAPTER 4. STATEMENT LOGIC 62 Hence, though partial substitution based on logical equivalence preserves truth values, partial substitution based on logical consequences does not. There are a number of logical equivalences and consequences that can be used for substitution. We will refer to these as the Laws of Statement Logic. The most interesting thing to note about them is that they are very much like the laws for set theory in section 3.4. In all of the following we use the symbol to indicate explicitly that the subformulas to each side can be substituted for each other in any WFF. Idempotency says that the disjunction or conjunction of identical WFFs is identical to the WFF itself. This can be compared with set-theoretic idempotency in (3.9). (4.32) Idempotency (p p) p (p p) p Associativity says that the order in which successive conjunctions or successive disjunctions are applied can be switched. This can be compared with (3.11). (4.33) Associativity ((p q) r) (p (q r)) ((p q) r) (p (q r)) Commutativity says that the order of conjuncts and disjuncts is irrelevant. Compare with (3.10). (4.34) Commutativity (p q) (q p) (p q) (q p) Distributivity can lower a conjunction into a disjunction or lower a disjunction into a conjunction. This an be compared with (3.12). (4.35) Distributivity (p (q r)) ((p q) (p r)) (p (q r)) ((p q) (p r))

5 CHAPTER 4. STATEMENT LOGIC 63 The truth value T is the identity element for conjunction and the value F is the identity element for disjunction. This is analogous to the roles of and U in union and intersection, respectively: (3.13). (4.36) Identity (p F) p (p T) T (p F) F (p T) p The Complement Laws govern the role of negation and can be compared with (3.14). (4.37) Complement Laws (p p) T p p (p p) F DeMorgan s Laws allow us to use negation to relate conjunction and disjunction, just as set complement can be used to relate intersection and union: (3.15). (4.38) DeMorgan s Laws (p q) ( p q) (p q) ( p q) The Conditional and Biconditional Laws allow us to define conditionals and biconditionals in terms of the other connectives. (4.39) Conditional Laws (p q) ( p q) (p q) ( q p) (p q) (p q)

6 CHAPTER 4. STATEMENT LOGIC 64 (4.40) Biconditional Laws (p q) ((p q) (q p)) (p q) (( p q) (p q) We can build arguments with these. For example, we can use these to show that this statement is a tautology: (((p q) p) q). First, we know this is true because of the truth table. (4.41) p q (p q) ((p q) p) (((p q) p) q) T T T T T T F F F T F T T F T F F T F T We can also show that it s a tautology using the Laws of Statement Logic above. We start out by writing the WFF we are interested in. We then invoke the different laws one by one until we reach a T. (4.42) 1 (((p q) p) q) Given 2 ((( p q) p) q) Conditional 3 ( (( p q) p) q) Conditional 4 (( ( p q) p) q) DeMorgan 5 ( ( p q) ( p q)) Associativity 6 (( p q) ( p q)) Commutativity 7 T Complement The first two steps eliminate the conditionals using the Conditional Laws. We then use DeMorgan s Law to replace the conjunction with a disjunction. We rebracket the expression using Associativity and reorder the terms using Commutativity. Finally, we use the Complement Laws to convert the WFF to T. Here s a second example: (p ( q p)). We can show that this is tautologous by truth table:

7 CHAPTER 4. STATEMENT LOGIC 65 (4.43) p q q ( q p) (p ( q p)) T T F T T T F T T T F T F F T F F T T T We can also show this using substitution and the equivalences above. (4.44) 1 (p ( q p)) Given 2 ( p ( q p)) Conditional 3 (( q p) p) Commutativity 4 ( q (p p)) Associativity 5 ( q T) Complement 6 T Identity First, we remove the conditional with the Conditional Laws and reorder the disjuncts with Commutativity. We then rebracket with Associativity. We use the Complement Laws to replace (p p) with T, and Identity to pare this down to T. So far, we have done proofs that some particular WFF is a tautology. We can also do proofs of one formula from another. In this case, the first line of the proof is the first formula and the last line of the proof must be the second formula. For example, we can prove (p q) from ( q p) as follows. (4.45) 1 ( q p) Given 2 ( q p) DeMorgan 3 (q p) Complement 4 (q p) Complement 5 (p q) Commutativity First we use DeMorgan s Law to eliminate the disjunction. We then use the Complement Laws twice to eliminate the negations and Commutativity to reverse the order of the terms.

8 CHAPTER 4. STATEMENT LOGIC 66 We interpret such a proof as indicating that the the ending WFF is true if the starting WFF is true, in this case, that if ( q p) is true, (p q) is true. We will see in section 4.9 that it follows that ( ( q p) (p q)) must be tautologous. Finally, let s consider an example where we need to use a logical consequence, rather than a logical equivalence. First, note that ((p q) p) has p as a logical consequence of (p q). That is, if we establish that ((p q) p), we will have that p can be substituted for (p q). We use = to denote that a term can be substituted by logical consequence: (p q) = p. We can do this by truth table: (4.46) p q (p q) ((p q) p) T T T T T F F T F T F T F F F T It now follows that (p q) = p. Incidentally, note that the following truth table shows that the biconditional version of this WFF, ((p q) p), is not a tautology. (4.47) p q (p q) ((p q) p) T T T T T F F F F T F T F F F T We now have: (p q) = p. We can use this in conjunction with the Laws of Statement Logic to prove q from ((p q) p).

9 CHAPTER 4. STATEMENT LOGIC 67 (4.48) 1 ((p q) p) Given 2 (( p q) p) Conditional 3 (( p p) (q p)) Distributivity 4 ((p p) (q p)) Commutativity 5 (F (q p)) Complement 6 ((q p) F) Commutativity 7 (q p) Identity 8 q Established just above First, we remove the conditional with the Conditional Laws. We lower the conjunction using Distributivity and reorder terms with Commutativity. We use the Complement Laws to replace (p p) with F and reorder again with Commutativity. We now remove the F with Identity and use our newly proven logical consequence to replace (q p) with q. Summarizing thus far, we ve outlined the basic syntax and semantics of propositional logic. We ve shown how WFFs can be categorized into contingencies, tautologies, and contradictions. We ve also shown how certain WFFs are logical equivalents and others are logical consequences. We ve used the Laws of Statement Logic to construct simple proofs. 4.8 Rules of Inference The Laws of Statement Logic allow us to progress in a proof from one WFF to another, resulting in a WFF or truth value at the end. For example, we now know that we can prove q from ((p q) p). We can also show that (((p q) p) q) is a tautology. The Laws do not allow us to reason over sets of WFFs, however. The problem is that they do not provide a mechanism to combine the effect of separate WFFs. For example, we do not have a mechanism to reason from (p q) and p to q. There are Rules of Inference that allow us to do this. We now present some of the more commonly used ones. Modus Ponens allows us to deduce the consequent of a conditional from the conditional itself and its antecedent.

10 CHAPTER 4. STATEMENT LOGIC 68 (4.49) Modus Ponens P Q M.P. P Q Modus Tollens allows us to conclude the negation of the antecedent from a conditional and the negation of its consequent. (4.50) Modus Tollens P Q M.T. Q P Hypothetical Syllogism allows us to use conditionals transitively. (4.51) Hypothetical Syllogism P Q H.S. Q R P R Disjunctive Syllogism allows us to conclude the second disjunct from a disjunction and the negation of its first disjunct. (4.52) Disjunctive Syllogism P Q D.S. P Q Simplification allows us to conclude that the first conjunct of a conjunction must be true. Note that this is a logical consequence and not a logical equivalence. (4.53) Simplification P Q Simp. P Conjunction allows us to assemble two independent WFFs into a conjunction.

11 CHAPTER 4. STATEMENT LOGIC 69 (4.54) Conjunction P Conj. Q P Q Finally, Addition allows us to disjoin a WFF and anything. (4.55) Addition P Add. P Q Note that some of the Rules have funky Latin names and corresponding abbreviations. These are not terribly useful, but we ll keep them for conformity with other treatments. Let s consider a very simple example. Imagine we are trying to prove q from (p q) and p. We can reason from the two premises to the conclusion with Modus Ponens (M.P.). The proof is annotated as follows. (4.56) 1 (p q) Given 2 p Given 3 q 1,2 M.P. There are two formulas given at the beginning. We then use them and Modus Ponens to derive the third step. Notice that we explicitly give the line numbers that we are using Modus Ponens on. Here s a more complex example. We want to prove t from (p q), (p s), (q r), (s t), and r. (4.57) 1 (p q) Given 2 (p s) Given 3 (q r) Given 4 (s t) Given 5 r Given 6 q 3,5 M.T. 7 p 1,6 M.T. 8 s 2,7 D.S. 9 t 4,8 M.P.

12 CHAPTER 4. STATEMENT LOGIC 70 First, we give the five statements that we are starting with. We then use Modus Tollens on the third and fifth to get r. We use Modus Tollens again on the first and sixth to get p. We can now use Disjunctive Syllogism to get s and Modus Ponens to get t, as desired. Notice that the Laws and Rules are redundant. For example, we use Modus Tollens above to go from steps 3 and 5 to step 6. We could instead use one of the Conditional Laws to convert (q r) to ( r q), and then use Modus Ponens on that and r to make the same step. That is, Modus Tollens is unnecessary if we already have Modus Ponens and the Conditional Laws. Here s another example showing how the Laws of Statement Logic can be used to massage WFFs into a form that the Rules of Inference can be applied to. Here we wish to prove (p q) from (p (q r)) and r. (4.58) 1 (p (q r)) Given 2 r Given 3 ( p (q r)) 1 Cond. 4 (( p q) r) 3 Assoc. 5 (r ( p q)) 4 Comm. 6 ( p q) 2,5 D.S. 7 (p q) 6 Cond. As usual, we first eliminate the conditional with the Conditional Laws. We then rebracket with Associativity and reorder with Commutativity. We use Disjunctive Syllogism on lines 2 and 5 and then reinsert the conditional. 4.9 Conditional Proof A special method of proof is available when you want to prove a conditional to be tautologous. Imagine you have a conditional of the form (A B) that you want to prove is tautologous. What you do is assume A and attempt to prove B from it. If you can, then you can conclude (A B). Here s an example showing how to prove (p q) from (p (q r)) and r.

13 CHAPTER 4. STATEMENT LOGIC 71 (4.59) 1 (p (q r)) Given 2 r Given 3 p Auxiliary Premise 4 (q r) 1,3 M.P. 5 (r q) 4 Comm. 6 q 2,5 D.S. 7 (p q) 3 6 Conditional Proof We indicate a Conditional Proof with a left bar. The bar extends from the assumption of the antecedent of the conditional the Auxiliary Premise to the point where we invoke Conditional Proof. The key thing to keep in mind is that we cannot refer to anything to the right of that bar below the end of the bar. In this case, we are only assuming p to see if we can get q to follow. We cannot conclude on that basis that p is true on its own. We can show that this is the case with a fallacious proof of p from no assumptions. First, here s an example of Conditional Proof used correctly: we prove (p p) from no assumptions. (4.60) 1 p Auxiliary Premise 2 p 1 Repeated 3 (p p) 1 2 Conditional Proof Now we add an incorrect step, referring to material to the right of the bar below the end of the bar. (4.61) 1 p Auxiliary Premise 2 p 1 Repeated 3 (p p) 1 2 Conditional Proof 4 p 1 Repeated Wrong! Intuitively, this should be clear. The proof above does not establish the truth of p. Here s another very simple example of Conditional Proof. We prove ((p q) ( p q)).

14 CHAPTER 4. STATEMENT LOGIC 72 (4.62) 1 (p q) Auxiliary Premise 2 ( p q) 1 Cond. 3 ((p q) ( p q)) 1 2 Conditional Proof The important thing is to understand the intuition behind Conditional Proof. If you want to show that p follows from q, assume that q is true and see if you get p. Let s use it now to prove (p q) from q. (4.63) 1 q Given 2 p Auxiliary Premise 3 q 1, Repeated 4 (p q) 2 3 Conditional Proof Notice in this last proof that when we are to the right of the bar we can refer to something above and to the left of the bar Indirect Proof A proof technique with a similar structure to Conditional Proof that has wide applicability is Indirect Proof or Reductio ad Absurdum. Imagine we are attempting to prove q. We assume q and try to prove a contradiction from it. If we succeed, we have proven q. The reasoning is like this. If we can prove a contradiction from q, then there s no way q can be true. If it s not true, it must be false. 2 Here s a simple example, where we attempt to prove (p q) from (p q). (4.64) 1 (p q) Given 2 (p q) Auxiliary Premise 3 ( p q) 2 DeMorgan 4 p 1 Simp. 5 p 3 Simp. 6 (p p) 4,5 Conj. 7 (p q) 2 6 Indirect Proof 2 Note that this is only true if there are only two values to our logic!

15 CHAPTER 4. STATEMENT LOGIC 73 The indirect portion of the proof is notated just like in Conditional Proof. As with Conditional Proof, the material to the right of the bar cannot be referred to below the bar. Notice too that when we are in the indirect portion of the proof, we can refer to material above the bar and to the left. The restriction on referring to material to the right of the bar is therefore one-way, just as with Conditional Proof. Here s another example of Indirect Proof. We prove r from (p q), q, and (r p). First, here is one way to prove this via a direct proof. (4.65) 1 (p q) Given 2 q Given 3 (r p) Given 4 (q p) 1 Comm. 5 p 2,4 D.S. 6 ( p r) 3 Cond. 7 (p r) 6 Comp. 8 r 5,7 M.P. The proof begins as usual with the three assumptions. We then reverse the disjuncts and use Disjunctive Syllogism to extract the second disjunct. We reverse the third conditional with the Conditional Laws and remove the double negation with the Complement Laws. Finally, we use Modus Ponens to get r. Following we prove the same thing using indirect proof. (4.66) 1 (p q) Given 2 q Given 3 (r p) Given 4 r Auxiliary Premise 5 r 4 Comp. 6 p 3,5 M.P. 7 q 1,6 D.S. 8 (q q) 7,2 Conj. 9 r 4 8 Indirect Proof We begin with the same three assumptions. Since we are interested in proving

16 CHAPTER 4. STATEMENT LOGIC 74 r, we assume the negation of that, r, and attempt to prove a contradiction from it. First, we remove the double negation with the Complement Laws and use Modus Ponens to extract p. We can then use Disjunctive Syllogism to extract q, with contradicts our second initial assumption. That contradiction completes the Indirect Proof, allowing us to conclude r Language There are three ways in which a system like this is relevant to language. First, we can view sentence logic as a primitive language with a very precise syntax and semantics. The system differs from human language in several respects, but it can be seen as an interesting testbed for hypotheses about syntax, semantics, and the relation between them. Second, we can use the theory of proof as a model for grammatical description. In fact, this is arguably the basis for modern generative grammar. We ve set up a system where we can use proofs to establish that some statement is or is not a tautology. For example, we can show that something like (p p) is tautologous as follows. (4.67) 1 (p p) Given 2 ( p p) 1 DeMorgan 3 ( p p) 2 Compl. 4 ( p p) 3 Compl. 5 (p p) 4 Commut. 6 T 5 Compl. The steps are familiar from preceding proofs. The key intuition, however, is that these steps demonstrate that our Laws and Rules of Inference will transform the assumptions that the proof begins with into the conclusion at the end. We will see later that a similar series of steps can be used to show that some particular sentence is well-formed in a language with respect to a grammatical description.

17 CHAPTER 4. STATEMENT LOGIC Summary This chapter has introduced the basic syntax and semantics of sentential, or statement, logic. We provided a simple syntax and semantics for atomic statements and the logical connectives that can build on them. The system was very simple, but has the virtue of being unambiguous syntactically. In addition, the procedure for computing the truth value of a complex WFF is quite straightforward. We also introduced the notion of truth table. These can be used to compute the truth value of a complex WFF. We saw that there are three basic kinds of WFFs: tautologies, contradictions, and contingencies. Tautologies can only be true; contradictions can only be false; and contingencies can be either. We examined the logical connectives more closely. We saw that, while they are similar in meaning to some human language constructions, they are not quite the same. In addition, we saw that we don t actually need as many connectives as we have. In fact, we could do with a single connective, e.g. the Sheffer stroke. We then turned to proof, showing how we could reason from one WFF to another and that this provided a mechanism for establishing that some particular WFF is tautologous. We proposed sets of Laws and Rules of Inference to justify the steps in proofs. Last, we considered two special proof techniques. We use Conditional Proof to establish that some conditional expression is tautologous. We use Indirect Proof to establish that the negation of some WFF is tautologous Exercises 1. Construct truth tables for the remaining WFFs on page Express (p q), (p q), and (p q) using only the Sheffer stroke. 3. Give a contradictory WFF, using different techniques from those exemplified in the chapter. 4. Give a tautologous WFF, using different techniques from those exemplified in the chapter. 5. Prove p from (p q), (q r) and r.

18 CHAPTER 4. STATEMENT LOGIC Prove q from p, r, and ((p r) q). 7. Prove (p q) from (p q) using Conditional Proof. 8. Prove (p s) from (p q), (r q), and ( r s). 9. There are other ways than the Sheffer stroke to reduce the connectives to a single connective. Can you work out another that would work and show that it does? (This is difficult). 10. Prove r from (p p). 11. Prove r from (p p). 12. Explain your answers to the two preceding questions.

### Definition 10. A proposition is a statement either true or false, but not both.

Chapter 2 Propositional Logic Contrariwise, continued Tweedledee, if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn t, it ain t. That s logic. (Lewis Carroll, Alice s Adventures

### DISCRETE MATHEMATICS W W L CHEN

DISCRETE MATHEMATICS W W L CHEN c W W L Chen, 1982, 2008. This chapter originates from material used by the author at Imperial College, University of London, between 1981 and 1990. It is available free

### def: An axiom is a statement that is assumed to be true, or in the case of a mathematical system, is used to specify the system.

Section 1.5 Methods of Proof 1.5.1 1.5 METHODS OF PROOF Some forms of argument ( valid ) never lead from correct statements to an incorrect. Some other forms of argument ( fallacies ) can lead from true

### Discrete Mathematics Lecture 1 Logic of Compound Statements. Harper Langston New York University

Discrete Mathematics Lecture 1 Logic of Compound Statements Harper Langston New York University Administration Class Web Site http://cs.nyu.edu/courses/summer05/g22.2340-001/ Mailing List Subscribe at

### DISCRETE MATH: LECTURE 3

DISCRETE MATH: LECTURE 3 DR. DANIEL FREEMAN 1. Chapter 2.2 Conditional Statements If p and q are statement variables, the conditional of q by p is If p then q or p implies q and is denoted p q. It is false

### Chapter I Logic and Proofs

MATH 1130 1 Discrete Structures Chapter I Logic and Proofs Propositions A proposition is a statement that is either true (T) or false (F), but or both. s Propositions: 1. I am a man.. I am taller than

### The Foundations: Logic and Proofs. Chapter 1, Part III: Proofs

The Foundations: Logic and Proofs Chapter 1, Part III: Proofs Rules of Inference Section 1.6 Section Summary Valid Arguments Inference Rules for Propositional Logic Using Rules of Inference to Build Arguments

### 2. Propositional Equivalences

2. PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES 33 2. Propositional Equivalences 2.1. Tautology/Contradiction/Contingency. Definition 2.1.1. A tautology is a proposition that is always true. Example 2.1.1. p p Definition

### Discrete Mathematics, Chapter : Propositional Logic

Discrete Mathematics, Chapter 1.1.-1.3: Propositional Logic Richard Mayr University of Edinburgh, UK Richard Mayr (University of Edinburgh, UK) Discrete Mathematics. Chapter 1.1-1.3 1 / 21 Outline 1 Propositions

### n logical not (negation) n logical or (disjunction) n logical and (conjunction) n logical exclusive or n logical implication (conditional)

Discrete Math Review Discrete Math Review (Rosen, Chapter 1.1 1.6) TOPICS Propositional Logic Logical Operators Truth Tables Implication Logical Equivalence Inference Rules What you should know about propositional

### CS 441 Discrete Mathematics for CS Lecture 5. Predicate logic. CS 441 Discrete mathematics for CS. Negation of quantifiers

CS 441 Discrete Mathematics for CS Lecture 5 Predicate logic Milos Hauskrecht milos@cs.pitt.edu 5329 Sennott Square Negation of quantifiers English statement: Nothing is perfect. Translation: x Perfect(x)

### Truth Conditional Meaning of Sentences. Ling324 Reading: Meaning and Grammar, pg

Truth Conditional Meaning of Sentences Ling324 Reading: Meaning and Grammar, pg. 69-87 Meaning of Sentences A sentence can be true or false in a given situation or circumstance. (1) The pope talked to

### Fundamentals of Mathematics Lecture 6: Propositional Logic

Fundamentals of Mathematics Lecture 6: Propositional Logic Guan-Shieng Huang National Chi Nan University, Taiwan Spring, 2008 1 / 39 Connectives Propositional Connectives I 1 Negation: (not A) A A T F

### CSE 191, Class Note 01 Propositional Logic Computer Sci & Eng Dept SUNY Buffalo

Propositional Logic CSE 191, Class Note 01 Propositional Logic Computer Sci & Eng Dept SUNY Buffalo c Xin He (University at Buffalo) CSE 191 Discrete Structures 1 / 37 Discrete Mathematics What is Discrete

### Inference Rules and Proof Methods

Inference Rules and Proof Methods Winter 2010 Introduction Rules of Inference and Formal Proofs Proofs in mathematics are valid arguments that establish the truth of mathematical statements. An argument

### CHAPTER 3. Methods of Proofs. 1. Logical Arguments and Formal Proofs

CHAPTER 3 Methods of Proofs 1. Logical Arguments and Formal Proofs 1.1. Basic Terminology. An axiom is a statement that is given to be true. A rule of inference is a logical rule that is used to deduce

### 31 is a prime number is a mathematical statement (which happens to be true).

Chapter 1 Mathematical Logic In its most basic form, Mathematics is the practice of assigning truth to welldefined statements. In this course, we will develop the skills to use known true statements to

### Chapter 6: Formal Proofs and Boolean Logic

Chapter 6: Formal Proofs and Boolean Logic The Fitch program, like the system F, uses introduction and elimination rules. The ones we ve seen so far deal with the logical symbol =. The next group of rules

### Propositional Logic. Definition: A proposition or statement is a sentence which is either true or false.

Propositional Logic Definition: A proposition or statement is a sentence which is either true or false. Definition:If a proposition is true, then we say its truth value is true, and if a proposition is

### Beyond Propositional Logic Lukasiewicz s System

Beyond Propositional Logic Lukasiewicz s System Consider the following set of truth tables: 1 0 0 1 # # 1 0 # 1 1 0 # 0 0 0 0 # # 0 # 1 0 # 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 # # 1 # # 1 0 # 1 1 0 # 0 1 1 1 # 1 # 1 Brandon

### Handout #1: Mathematical Reasoning

Math 101 Rumbos Spring 2010 1 Handout #1: Mathematical Reasoning 1 Propositional Logic A proposition is a mathematical statement that it is either true or false; that is, a statement whose certainty or

### 22C:19 Discrete Math. So. What is it? Why discrete math? Fall 2009 Hantao Zhang

22C:19 Discrete Math Fall 2009 Hantao Zhang So. What is it? Discrete mathematics is the study of mathematical structures that are fundamentally discrete, in the sense of not supporting or requiring the

### Deductive Systems. Marco Piastra. Artificial Intelligence. Artificial Intelligence - A.A Deductive Systems [1]

Artificial Intelligence Deductive Systems Marco Piastra Artificial Intelligence - A.A. 2012- Deductive Systems 1] Symbolic calculus? A wff is entailed by a set of wff iff every model of is also model of

### 3. Mathematical Induction

3. MATHEMATICAL INDUCTION 83 3. Mathematical Induction 3.1. First Principle of Mathematical Induction. Let P (n) be a predicate with domain of discourse (over) the natural numbers N = {0, 1,,...}. If (1)

### CHAPTER 1. Logic, Proofs Propositions

CHAPTER 1 Logic, Proofs 1.1. Propositions A proposition is a declarative sentence that is either true or false (but not both). For instance, the following are propositions: Paris is in France (true), London

### CSL105: Discrete Mathematical Structures. Ragesh Jaiswal, CSE, IIT Delhi

Propositional Logic: logical operators Negation ( ) Conjunction ( ) Disjunction ( ). Exclusive or ( ) Conditional statement ( ) Bi-conditional statement ( ): Let p and q be propositions. The biconditional

### LOGICAL INFERENCE & PROOFs. Debdeep Mukhopadhyay Dept of CSE, IIT Madras

LOGICAL INFERENCE & PROOFs Debdeep Mukhopadhyay Dept of CSE, IIT Madras Defn A theorem is a mathematical assertion which can be shown to be true. A proof is an argument which establishes the truth of a

### Chapter 1 LOGIC AND PROOF

Chapter 1 LOGIC AND PROOF To be able to understand mathematics and mathematical arguments, it is necessary to have a solid understanding of logic and the way in which known facts can be combined to prove

### 1 Proposition, Logical connectives and compound statements

Discrete Mathematics: Lecture 4 Introduction to Logic Instructor: Arijit Bishnu Date: July 27, 2009 1 Proposition, Logical connectives and compound statements Logic is the discipline that deals with the

### CHAPTER 2. Logic. 1. Logic Definitions. Notation: Variables are used to represent propositions. The most common variables used are p, q, and r.

CHAPTER 2 Logic 1. Logic Definitions 1.1. Propositions. Definition 1.1.1. A proposition is a declarative sentence that is either true (denoted either T or 1) or false (denoted either F or 0). Notation:

### Problems on Discrete Mathematics 1

Problems on Discrete Mathematics 1 Chung-Chih Li 2 Kishan Mehrotra 3 Syracuse University, New York L A TEX at January 11, 2007 (Part I) 1 No part of this book can be reproduced without permission from

### CS 441 Discrete Mathematics for CS Lecture 2. Propositional logic. CS 441 Discrete mathematics for CS. Course administration

CS 441 Discrete Mathematics for CS Lecture 2 Propositional logic Milos Hauskrecht milos@cs.pitt.edu 5329 Sennott Square Course administration Homework 1 First homework assignment is out today will be posted

### Logic in general. Inference rules and theorem proving

Logical Agents Knowledge-based agents Logic in general Propositional logic Inference rules and theorem proving First order logic Knowledge-based agents Inference engine Knowledge base Domain-independent

### CHAPTER 7 GENERAL PROOF SYSTEMS

CHAPTER 7 GENERAL PROOF SYSTEMS 1 Introduction Proof systems are built to prove statements. They can be thought as an inference machine with special statements, called provable statements, or sometimes

### 1 Propositional Logic

1 Propositional Logic Propositions 1.1 Definition A declarative sentence is a sentence that declares a fact or facts. Example 1 The earth is spherical. 7 + 1 = 6 + 2 x 2 > 0 for all real numbers x. 1 =

### 2. Methods of Proof Types of Proofs. Suppose we wish to prove an implication p q. Here are some strategies we have available to try.

2. METHODS OF PROOF 69 2. Methods of Proof 2.1. Types of Proofs. Suppose we wish to prove an implication p q. Here are some strategies we have available to try. Trivial Proof: If we know q is true then

### Hypothetical Syllogisms 1

Phil 2302 Intro to Logic Dr. Naugle Hypothetical Syllogisms 1 Compound syllogisms are composed of different kinds of sentences in their premises and conclusions (not just categorical propositions, statements

### Resolution in Propositional and First-Order Logic

Resolution in Propositional and First-Order Logic Inference rules Logical inference creates new sentences that logically follow from a set of sentences (KB) An inference rule is sound if every sentence

### Propositional Logic. 1. Semantics and Propositions. LX Semantics September 19, 2008

Propositional Logic LX 502 - Semantics September 19, 2008 1. Semantics and Propositions Natural language is used to communicate information about the world, typically between a speaker and an addressee.

### What is logic? Propositional Logic. Negation. Propositions. This is a contentious question! We will play it safe, and stick to:

Propositional Logic This lecture marks the start of a new section of the course. In the last few lectures, we have had to reason formally about concepts. This lecture introduces the mathematical language

### MATHS 315 Mathematical Logic

MATHS 315 Mathematical Logic Second Semester, 2006 Contents 2 Formal Statement Logic 1 2.1 Post production systems................................. 1 2.2 The system L.......................................

### Symbolic Logic on the TI-92

Symbolic Logic on the TI-92 Presented by Lin McMullin The Sixth Conference on the Teaching of Mathematics June 20 & 21, 1997 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 1 Lin McMullin Mathematics Department Representative, Burnt

### WUCT121. Discrete Mathematics. Logic

WUCT121 Discrete Mathematics Logic 1. Logic 2. Predicate Logic 3. Proofs 4. Set Theory 5. Relations and Functions WUCT121 Logic 1 Section 1. Logic 1.1. Introduction. In developing a mathematical theory,

### CS510 Software Engineering

CS510 Software Engineering Propositional Logic Asst. Prof. Mathias Payer Department of Computer Science Purdue University TA: Scott A. Carr Slides inspired by Xiangyu Zhang http://nebelwelt.net/teaching/15-cs510-se

### Applications of Methods of Proof

CHAPTER 4 Applications of Methods of Proof 1. Set Operations 1.1. Set Operations. The set-theoretic operations, intersection, union, and complementation, defined in Chapter 1.1 Introduction to Sets are

### Problems on Discrete Mathematics 1

Problems on Discrete Mathematics 1 Chung-Chih Li 2 Kishan Mehrotra 3 L A TEX at July 18, 2007 1 No part of this book can be reproduced without permission from the authors 2 Illinois State University, Normal,

### Schedule. Logic (master program) Literature & Online Material. gic. Time and Place. Literature. Exercises & Exam. Online Material

OLC mputational gic Schedule Time and Place Thursday, 8:15 9:45, HS E Logic (master program) Georg Moser Institute of Computer Science @ UIBK week 1 October 2 week 8 November 20 week 2 October 9 week 9

### Review Name Rule of Inference

CS311H: Discrete Mathematics Review Name Rule of Inference Modus ponens φ 2 φ 2 Modus tollens φ 2 φ 2 Inference Rules for Quantifiers Işıl Dillig Hypothetical syllogism Or introduction Or elimination And

### Section 1. Statements and Truth Tables. Definition 1.1: A mathematical statement is a declarative sentence that is true or false, but not both.

M3210 Supplemental Notes: Basic Logic Concepts In this course we will examine statements about mathematical concepts and relationships between these concepts (definitions, theorems). We will also consider

### Math 3000 Running Glossary

Math 3000 Running Glossary Last Updated on: July 15, 2014 The definition of items marked with a must be known precisely. Chapter 1: 1. A set: A collection of objects called elements. 2. The empty set (

### Math 55: Discrete Mathematics

Math 55: Discrete Mathematics UC Berkeley, Fall 2011 Homework # 1, due Wedneday, January 25 1.1.10 Let p and q be the propositions The election is decided and The votes have been counted, respectively.

### A Few Basics of Probability

A Few Basics of Probability Philosophy 57 Spring, 2004 1 Introduction This handout distinguishes between inductive and deductive logic, and then introduces probability, a concept essential to the study

### 1.2 Forms and Validity

1.2 Forms and Validity Deductive Logic is the study of methods for determining whether or not an argument is valid. In this section we identify some famous valid argument forms. Argument Forms Consider

### Statements, negations, connectives, truth tables, equivalent statements, De Morgan s Laws, arguments, Euler diagrams

Logic Statements, negations, connectives, truth tables, equivalent statements, De Morgan s Laws, arguments, Euler diagrams Part 1: Statements, Negations, and Quantified Statements A statement is a sentence

### MATH 55: HOMEWORK #2 SOLUTIONS

MATH 55: HOMEWORK # SOLUTIONS ERIC PETERSON * 1. SECTION 1.5: NESTED QUANTIFIERS 1.1. Problem 1.5.8. Determine the truth value of each of these statements if the domain of each variable consists of all

### Quine on truth by convention

Quine on truth by convention March 8, 2005 1 Linguistic explanations of necessity and the a priori.............. 1 2 Relative and absolute truth by definition.................... 2 3 Is logic true by convention?...........................

### Predicate Logic. For example, consider the following argument:

Predicate Logic The analysis of compound statements covers key aspects of human reasoning but does not capture many important, and common, instances of reasoning that are also logically valid. For example,

### Introduction to Proofs

Chapter 1 Introduction to Proofs 1.1 Preview of Proof This section previews many of the key ideas of proof and cites [in brackets] the sections where they are discussed thoroughly. All of these ideas are

### Introduction to mathematical arguments

Introduction to mathematical arguments (background handout for courses requiring proofs) by Michael Hutchings A mathematical proof is an argument which convinces other people that something is true. Math

### 1.2 Truth and Sentential Logic

Chapter 1 Mathematical Logic 13 69. Assume that B has m left parentheses and m right parentheses and that C has n left parentheses and n right parentheses. How many left parentheses appear in (B C)? How

### Solutions Q1, Q3, Q4.(a), Q5, Q6 to INTLOGS16 Test 1

Solutions Q1, Q3, Q4.(a), Q5, Q6 to INTLOGS16 Test 1 Prof S Bringsjord 0317161200NY Contents I Problems 1 II Solutions 3 Solution to Q1 3 Solutions to Q3 4 Solutions to Q4.(a) (i) 4 Solution to Q4.(a)........................................

### SJÄLVSTÄNDIGA ARBETEN I MATEMATIK

SJÄLVSTÄNDIGA ARBETEN I MATEMATIK MATEMATISKA INSTITUTIONEN, STOCKHOLMS UNIVERSITET Automated Theorem Proving av Tom Everitt 2010 - No 8 MATEMATISKA INSTITUTIONEN, STOCKHOLMS UNIVERSITET, 106 91 STOCKHOLM

### Predicate Logic. Example: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal.

Predicate Logic Example: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal. Note: We need logic laws that work for statements involving quantities like some and all. In English, the predicate is

### Discrete Mathematics and Probability Theory Fall 2009 Satish Rao, David Tse Note 2

CS 70 Discrete Mathematics and Probability Theory Fall 2009 Satish Rao, David Tse Note 2 Proofs Intuitively, the concept of proof should already be familiar We all like to assert things, and few of us

### Introduction to Logic: Argumentation and Interpretation. Vysoká škola mezinárodních a veřejných vztahů PhDr. Peter Jan Kosmály, Ph.D. 9. 3.

Introduction to Logic: Argumentation and Interpretation Vysoká škola mezinárodních a veřejných vztahů PhDr. Peter Jan Kosmály, Ph.D. 9. 3. 2016 tests. Introduction to Logic: Argumentation and Interpretation

### Semantics for the Predicate Calculus: Part I

Semantics for the Predicate Calculus: Part I (Version 0.3, revised 6:15pm, April 14, 2005. Please report typos to hhalvors@princeton.edu.) The study of formal logic is based on the fact that the validity

### Consistency, completeness of undecidable preposition of Principia Mathematica. Tanmay Jaipurkar

Consistency, completeness of undecidable preposition of Principia Mathematica Tanmay Jaipurkar October 21, 2013 Abstract The fallowing paper discusses the inconsistency and undecidable preposition of Principia

### A set is a Many that allows itself to be thought of as a One. (Georg Cantor)

Chapter 4 Set Theory A set is a Many that allows itself to be thought of as a One. (Georg Cantor) In the previous chapters, we have often encountered sets, for example, prime numbers form a set, domains

### Fuzzy Implication Rules. Adnan Yazıcı Dept. of Computer Engineering, Middle East Technical University Ankara/Turkey

Fuzzy Implication Rules Adnan Yazıcı Dept. of Computer Engineering, Middle East Technical University Ankara/Turkey Fuzzy If-Then Rules Remember: The difference between the semantics of fuzzy mapping rules

### Mathematics for Computer Science/Software Engineering. Notes for the course MSM1F3 Dr. R. A. Wilson

Mathematics for Computer Science/Software Engineering Notes for the course MSM1F3 Dr. R. A. Wilson October 1996 Chapter 1 Logic Lecture no. 1. We introduce the concept of a proposition, which is a statement

### Generalized Modus Ponens

Generalized Modus Ponens This rule allows us to derive an implication... True p 1 and... p i and... p n p 1... p i-1 and p i+1... p n implies p i implies q implies q allows: a 1 and... a i and... a n implies

### It is time to prove some theorems. There are various strategies for doing

CHAPTER 4 Direct Proof It is time to prove some theorems. There are various strategies for doing this; we now examine the most straightforward approach, a technique called direct proof. As we begin, it

### Rules of Inference Friday, January 18, 2013 Chittu Tripathy Lecture 05

Rules of Inference Today s Menu Rules of Inference Quantifiers: Universal and Existential Nesting of Quantifiers Applications Old Example Re-Revisited Our Old Example: Suppose we have: All human beings

### Development of a computer system to support knowledge acquisition of basic logical forms using fairy tale "Alice in Wonderland"

Development of a computer system to support knowledge acquisition of basic logical forms using fairy tale "Alice in Wonderland" Antonija Mihaljević Španjić *, Alen Jakupović *, Matea Tomić * * Polytechnic

### Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.

Chapter 3 Predicate Logic Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere. A. Einstein In the previous chapter, we studied propositional logic. This chapter is dedicated to another

### Logical Agents. Explorations in Artificial Intelligence. Knowledge-based Agents. Knowledge-base Agents. Outline. Knowledge bases

Logical Agents Explorations in Artificial Intelligence rof. Carla. Gomes gomes@cs.cornell.edu Agents that are able to: Form representations of the world Use a process to derive new representations of the

### Predicate logic Proofs Artificial intelligence. Predicate logic. SET07106 Mathematics for Software Engineering

Predicate logic SET07106 Mathematics for Software Engineering School of Computing Edinburgh Napier University Module Leader: Uta Priss 2010 Copyright Edinburgh Napier University Predicate logic Slide 1/24

### 196 Chapter 7. Logical Agents

7 LOGICAL AGENTS In which we design agents that can form representations of the world, use a process of inference to derive new representations about the world, and use these new representations to deduce

### Artificial Intelligence. 4. Propositional Logic

rtificial Intelligence rtificial Intelligence 4. Propositional Logic Lars Schmidt-Thieme Information Systems and Machine Learning Lab (ISMLL) Institute of Economics and Information Systems & Institute

### Mathematical Induction

Mathematical Induction In logic, we often want to prove that every member of an infinite set has some feature. E.g., we would like to show: N 1 : is a number 1 : has the feature Φ ( x)(n 1 x! 1 x) How

### PHILOSOPHY 101: CRITICAL THINKING

PHILOSOPHY 101: CRITICAL THINKING [days and times] [classroom] [semester] 20YY, [campus] [instructor s name] [office hours: days and times] [instructor s e-mail] COURSE OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES 1. Identify

### Perfect being theology and modal truth

Perfect being theology and modal truth Jeff Speaks February 9, 2016 Perfect being theology is the attempt to use the principle that God is the greatest possible being to derive claims about the divine

### Truth Trees for Sentence Logic

Truth Trees for Sentence Logic Applications what the rules are supposed to do. Our objective is to make line 1 true, in all the minimally sufficient ways that this can be done. Because line 1 is a disjunction,

### Boolean or Propositional Logic

Boolean or Propositional Logic SET07106 Mathematics for Software Engineering School of Computing Edinburgh Napier University Module Leader: Uta Priss 2010 Copyright Edinburgh Napier University Boolean

### Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God S. Clarke

Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God S. Clarke [Modified Fall 2009] 1. Large class of arguments. Sometimes they get very complex, as in Clarke s argument, but the basic idea is simple. Lets

### WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? ARGUMENTATIO N. Intro to Philosophy, Summer 2011 Benjamin Visscher Hole IV

WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? ARGUMENTATIO N Intro to Philosophy, Summer 2011 Benjamin Visscher Hole IV PHILOSOPHY CONSISTS IN CRITICAL ENGAGEMENT The philosophers we re reading have developed arguments to try to

### Math 3000 Section 003 Intro to Abstract Math Homework 2

Math 3000 Section 003 Intro to Abstract Math Homework 2 Department of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences University of Colorado Denver, Spring 2012 Solutions (February 13, 2012) Please note that these

### Logic in Computer Science: Logic Gates

Logic in Computer Science: Logic Gates Lila Kari The University of Western Ontario Logic in Computer Science: Logic Gates CS2209, Applied Logic for Computer Science 1 / 49 Logic and bit operations Computers

### AI Principles, Semester 2, Week 2, Lecture 4 Introduction to Logic Thinking, reasoning and deductive logic Validity of arguments, Soundness of

AI Principles, Semester 2, Week 2, Lecture 4 Introduction to Logic Thinking, reasoning and deductive logic Validity of arguments, Soundness of arguments Formal systems Axioms, Inference, and Proof Propositional

### Logic Appendix. Section 1 Truth Tables CONJUNCTION EXAMPLE 1

Logic Appendix T F F T Section 1 Truth Tables Recall that a statement is a group of words or symbols that can be classified collectively as true or false. The claim 5 7 12 is a true statement, whereas

### Correspondence analysis for strong three-valued logic

Correspondence analysis for strong three-valued logic A. Tamminga abstract. I apply Kooi and Tamminga s (2012) idea of correspondence analysis for many-valued logics to strong three-valued logic (K 3 ).

### First Steps in Symbolization

2 First Steps in Symbolization 1 The sentential connectives The premises and the conclusions of the arguments of Chapter One are complete sentences of English, but some of these sentences themselves consist

### 6.080/6.089 GITCS Feb 12, 2008. Lecture 3

6.8/6.89 GITCS Feb 2, 28 Lecturer: Scott Aaronson Lecture 3 Scribe: Adam Rogal Administrivia. Scribe notes The purpose of scribe notes is to transcribe our lectures. Although I have formal notes of my

### Lecture 2: Moral Reasoning & Evaluating Ethical Theories

Lecture 2: Moral Reasoning & Evaluating Ethical Theories I. Introduction In this ethics course, we are going to avoid divine command theory and various appeals to authority and put our trust in critical

### Discrete Math I Practice Problems for Exam I

Discrete Math I Practice Problems for Exam I The ucoming exam on Thursday, January 12 will cover the material in Sections 1 through 6 of Chater 1. There may also be one question from Section 7. If there

### Predicate Logic Review

Predicate Logic Review UC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016 John MacFarlane 1 Grammar A term is an individual constant or a variable. An individual constant is a lowercase letter from the beginning

Lecture Notes in Discrete Mathematics Marcel B. Finan Arkansas Tech University c All Rights Reserved 2 Preface This book is designed for a one semester course in discrete mathematics for sophomore or junior

### DEDUCTIVE & INDUCTIVE REASONING

DEDUCTIVE & INDUCTIVE REASONING Expectations 1. Take notes on inductive and deductive reasoning. 2. This is an information based presentation -- I simply want you to be able to apply this information to