# Semantics for the Predicate Calculus: Part I

Save this PDF as:

Size: px
Start display at page:

## Transcription

1 Semantics for the Predicate Calculus: Part I (Version 0.3, revised 6:15pm, April 14, Please report typos to The study of formal logic is based on the fact that the validity of an argument depends only on its logical form; for the purposes of logical investigation, we can ignore that argument s content. In particular, if two arguments have the same logical form, then either they are both valid, or they are both invalid. Our main goal in this course is to figure out what it means to say that an argument is valid; or, in other words, to define what a valid argument form is. As an aid in achieving this goal, we have developed two ways for representing argument forms: First we developed the propositional calculus, which is supposed to give a perspicuous representation of the role of (truth functional) sentence connectives in sentences and arguments. Then we developed the predicate calculus, which also represents the role of quantifiers such as all and some. Now, since the sentences of the propositional and predicate calculi have no content, they are not, by themselves, either true or false. But our definition of validity makes use of the notion of truth-preservation: An argument form is valid just in case: In any situation where its premises are true, its conclusion is also true. We make precise this notion of situation by means of the concept of an interpretation. In the propositional calculus, an interpretation of a sentence is just a line in that sentence s truth table; or, it other words, it is an assignment of truth values to the elementary sentences that occur in that sentence. We now need a notion of interpretation for sentences in the predicate calculus. But truth tables will not do the trick: in the predicate calculus, we cannot arbitrarily assign truth values to truth-functionally simple sentences. For example, the sentence ( x)(f x & F x) is truth-functionally simple, but we do not want to say that this sentence could be true! So, an interpretation of a predicate calculus sentence must start at a more primitive level than the level of truth-functionally simple sentences. Rather, it must start at the level of names and predicates. A predicate calculus interpretation includes three things: (a) a specification of the PHI 201, Introductory Logic p. 1 of 15

2 class of objects that we will be talking about; (b) an assignment of names to objects; (c) an assignment of predicate letters to predicates, or classes of objects. 1 Informal Counterexamples Let s begin by looking at an example. You will share my intuition that: (x)(f x Gx) (x)f x (x)gx is not a valid argument form. And if asked to justify your claim, you would most likely think of examples of predicates to replace F and G so that the premise comes out as true, and the conclusion comes out as false. For example, you might present the following argument as a counterexample: All numbers are either even or odd Either all numbers are even, or all numbers are odd. Since this argument has true premises and a false conclusion, it certainly cannot have a valid form. What you have done here is to give an interpretation of the argument form. Here are the details of your interpretation: (a.) The domain is the natural numbers: 1, 2,... ( Domain is just a fancy name for the collection of things that you are talking about.) (b.) The predicate letter F is interpreted as the predicate is even, and the predicate letter G is interpreted as the predicate is odd. 2 Interlude: predicates and their extensions Definition. The extension of a predicate is just the collection of those things to which the predicate truly applies. PHI 201, Introductory Logic p. 2 of 15

3 Example. The extension of the predicate is even (relative to the domain of natural numbers) is just the collection of even numbers. Example. Suppose that our domain consists of just the numbers 1,2 and 3. Then the extension of the predicate is even consists of just the number 2. 3 Interlude: elementary set theory To be more precise about predicate calculus interpretations, we are going to have to learn a bit of elementary set theory. Set theory is the science of collections of objects; and a collection of objects is called a set. Elementary set theory does not require any knowledge that you do not already have it only requires learning some notation to make your reasoning more perspicuous and efficient. Here are three numbers: 2, 6, 17. The set of those three numbers is {2, 6, 17}. That is, we use brackets around the objects to indicate the set that consists of those objects. The number 2 is a member of the set {2, 6, 17}. We can indicate this fact by writing 2 {2, 6, 17}, where is shorthand for is a member of. Every member of the set {2, 17} is also a member of the set {2, 6, 17}. So, we say that {2, 17} is a subset of {2, 6, 17}. And if we don t feel like writing out the words, we might just write {2, 17} {2, 6, 17} as a shorthand. Notice that is does not make sense to write 2 {2, 6, 17}, because 2 is not itself a set. It does make sense to write {2} {2, 6, 17}. Two sets A and B are equal, written A = B, just in case they have the same members (and order does not matter). So, for example, {2, 6, 17} and {17, 2, 6} are the same set. There is one (and only one) set that does not contain anything at all. This set is called the empty set, and it is sometimes denoted by. Question. Is the empty set a subset of {2, 6, 17}? If A and B are sets, we use A B to denote the set that consists of those things that are in both A and B. We use A B to denote the set that consists of those things that are in either A or B. PHI 201, Introductory Logic p. 3 of 15

4 4 Formal Counterexamples Now we revisit the concept of counterexamples and interpretations, this time with an eye toward precision and rigor. Definition. An interpretation of a sentence (or sentences) of the predicate calculus consists of: (a.) A set X, called the domain of quantification. (b.) An assignment Ref of names to elements of X. (c.) An assignment Ext of predicate letters to subsets of X. Definition. A formal counterexample to an argument in the predicate calculus is an interpretation where the premises of the argument are true, and the conclusion of the argument is false. I have not yet given a precise definition of when a sentence is true relative to an interpretation. I have not done so because the definition turns out to be quite complicated, and your intuitions will be sufficient for many cases. Example. Consider the interpretation with domain X = {1, 2, 3, 4} and Ref(m) = 1, Ref(n) = 1, Ref(o) = 2, Ext(F x) = {1, 2, 3} Ext(Gx) = {3, 4} Ext(Hx) =. Then, it follows that: ( x)(f x & Gx) is true relative to this interpretation, since the element 3 is in both Ext(F x) and Ext(Gx). (x)(f x Gx) is false relative to this interpretation, since the element 1 is in Ext(F x) but not in Ext(Gx). PHI 201, Introductory Logic p. 4 of 15

5 (x)(f x Gx) is true relative to this interpretation, since every element in the domain is in either Ext(F x) or Ext(Gx). (x)(hx Gx) is true relative to this interpretation, since Ext(Hx) is the empty set. Problem. Give a formal counterexample to the argument: (x)(f x Gx) ((x)f x (x)gx). Solution: Let X = {1, 2}, let Ext(F x) = {1} and Ext(Gx) = {2}. Since all elements of X are either in Ext(F x) or Ext(F x), (x)(f x Gx) is true relative to this interpretation. But since Ext(F x) is not equal to X, (x)f x is not true relative to this interpretation. Similarly, (x)gx is not true relative to this interpretation, and so (x)f x (x)gx is not true relative to this interpretation. Problem. Give a formal counterexample to the argument with no premises and conclusion (x)(y)(f x F y). 4.1 Specifying interpretations with tables It can be boring to write out the interpretations of a bunch of predicates. So, in order to spice up life, we give here an alternative way to specify the interpretation of predicate letters. (This method only works when the domain X is a finite set.) First we list the predicate letters in the top row of the table, and we list the elements of the domain in the first column of the table. We then write + in cell (i, j) if the predicate in column j applies to the object on row i. Otherwise, we write in cell (i, j). Problem. Give an interpretation for a problem involving the predicate letters F, G, H, and the names m, n, o. Solution: X = {1, 2, 3}, Ref(m) = 1, Ref(n) = 1, Ref(o) = 2. PHI 201, Introductory Logic p. 5 of 15

6 F G H Instead of drawing the table, we could have just written: Ext(F x) = {1, 2, 3}, Ext(Gx) = {2}, Ext(Hx) =. But don t underestimate how fun it can be to draw tables. When giving an interpretation, you must be clear and explicit about which subsets are assigned to which predicate letters. But given that you satisfy the requirements of clarity and explicitness, you can use whatever method you want to specify your interpretation. Note. An interpretation must assign the same subset of the domain to both F x and F y, even though they have different variables. In other words, the interpretation gives the extension of the predicate letter F, and doesn t care about what variable we put after F. We will deal later with the tricky case of sentences that involve the same predicate letter with different variables e.g., (x)(y)(f x F y) and ( x)(f x (y)f y). 5 Semantic properties of sentences, relations between sentences Recall that when we were doing the propositional calculus, we defined a bunch of special kinds of sentences (e.g., tautologies, inconsistencies), and a bunch of special logical relationships between sentences (e.g., implies, is subcontrary to). Actually, each of those concepts was defined in terms interpretations, and so they can be naturally extended to predicate calculus sentences. For example, a predicate calculus sentence is tautologous just in case it is true relative to every interpretation. Definition. If φ is false relative to some interpretation, then φ is said to be falsifiable. PHI 201, Introductory Logic p. 6 of 15

7 If φ is false relative to every interpretation, then φ is said to be inconsistent. If φ is true relative to some interpretation, then φ is said to be consistent. Let Γ be a set of sentences. If there is an interpretation relative to which every sentence in Γ is true, then Γ is said to be consistent. Otherwise, Γ is said to be inconsistent. A set Γ of sentences logically implies a sentence ψ if there is no interpretation that makes all of Γ true while making ψ false. That is, there is no formal counterexample. In that case, the argument with premises Γ and conclusion ψ is valid. Two sentences φ, ψ are logically equivalent if they have the same truth value relative to every interpretation. Example. (x)(f x F x) is tautologous, because in any interpretation, each object in the domain is either in Ext(F x), or is not in Ext(F x). Example. ( x)(f x & F x) Gm is tautologous, because ( x)(f x & F x) is inconsistent. 6 Semantic problems and answers An answer to a problem requiring the presentation of an interpretation is best seen as having two parts, as follows: (1) state the domain of your proposed interpretation, and present (using one of the above methods) the interpretation of the names and predicate symbols; (2) state the truth values of the various sentences, defend your claim that they have those truth values, and (most importantly) be explicit as to how this information solves the problem you began with. Let s consider a couple of examples of solved problems. Problem. Show that ( x)f x (x)f x is not tautologous. Solution: 1. Let X = {1, 2}, and let Ext(F x) = {1}. 2. The sentence is false relative to this interpretation: Since 1 is in Ext(F x), ( x)f x is true relative to this interpretation. However, since 2 is not in Ext(F x), (x)f x is false relative to this interpretation. Therefore (by truth PHI 201, Introductory Logic p. 7 of 15

8 tables) ( x)f x (x)f x is false relative to this interpretation. Since the sentence is false relative to some interpretation, it is not tautologous. Problem. Show that the sentence from the previous problem is consistent (true relative to some interpretation). Solution: 1. Let X = {1}, and let Ext(F x) = {1}. 2. Since Ext(F x) = X, it follows that (x)f x is true relative to this interpretation, and therefore (by truth tables) ( x)f x (x)f x is true relative to this interpretation. Since the sentence is true relative to some interpretation, it is consistent. 6.1 Is there an algorithm for finding interpretations? Solving a semantic problem (e.g., is the argument with premises Γ and conclusion φ valid? ) requires one to check all possible interpretations. But there are infinitely many interpretations. So, it seems that your next homework assignment will take a long time to finish! Joking aside, it is generally quite difficult to figure out if a predicate calculus argument is valid. Moreover, the difficulty cannot be fully resolved as it is in the propositional calculus, where truth tables providing a completely reliable test for validity. Indeed, logicians have proven that the task of deciding if a predicate calculus argument is valid cannot be reduced to a routine algorithm. (This interesting result would be discussed in an advanced logic course, such as PHI 312 or PHI 321.) However, in the special case where our sentences contain only monadic predicates (i.e., no relation symbols ), we can transform this hard task into a routine algorithm. That will be our next topic. PHI 201, Introductory Logic p. 8 of 15

9 7 Decision procedures for monadic predicate calculus 7.1 Algorithm A The truth table method is an algorithm for testing the consistency of sentences. In the spirit of inflationary terminology, we shall henceforth call the truth table method Algorithm A. 7.2 Algorithm B Definition. Suppose that we put together some predicate letters with the same variable using truth functional connectives. For example: (F x & Gx) Hx. Suppose that we then put a quantifier in front, yielding a sentence. For example: (x)((f x & Gx) Hx). The result is called a simple monadic sentence. So, a simple monadic sentence is a sentence with only one quantifier at the very front. Definition. If φ is a simple monadic sentence, we let φ a denote the instance of φ that is obtained by taking off the initial quantifier and replacing all instances of the variable with the name a. We now show how to determine if a collection φ 1,..., φ n of simple monadic sentences is consistent. We assume that the first m sentences are existential, and the remaining sentences are universal. PHI 201, Introductory Logic p. 9 of 15

10 1. If m = 0, then choose one arbitrary name a. Perform a truth table test for consistency on φ a 1,..., φa n. If the truth table test says consistent, then output Yes. If the truth table test says inconsistent, then output No. 2. If m 1, then choose m arbitrary names a 1,..., a m. Perform a truth table test for consistency on: φ a 1 1,..., φam m φ a 1 m+1,..., φam m+1. φ a 1 n,..., φ am n If the truth table test says consistent, then output Yes. If the truth table test says inconsistent, then output No. 7.3 Algorithm C Before you read this section, you need to know how to transform a sentence into a disjunctive normal form equivalent. Please read Appendix A of Lemmon s book. Definition. A pure monadic sentence is a sentence that is a truth-functional combination of simple monadic sentences. For example: ( x)f x & (y)(gy F y), is a pure monadic sentence. The following algorithm will determine if a collection φ 1,..., φ n of pure monadic sentences is consistent. PHI 201, Introductory Logic p. 10 of 15

11 1. Transform φ 1,..., φ n into disjunctive normal form. The result will be of the form ψ 1 ψ m, where each ψ i is a conjunction of simple monadic sentences and negated simple monadic sentences. 2. Within each disjunct ψ 1,..., ψ n, change each negated simple monadic sentence into a simple monadic sentence using the quantifier-negation equivalences. 3. Test each disjunct using Algorithm B. If Algorithm B answers Yes for one of the disjuncts, then output Yes. If Algorithm B answers No for each of the disjuncts, then output No. 7.4 The small domain method Although Algorithm C always gives the correct answer, it has the drawback that it does not match the way that we normally reason when we try to decide if some sentences are consistent. So, here I give you another method to test for consistency. The small domain method is based on the following fact that has been proven by paid logicians: Fact: If a pure monadic sentence is consistent, then it is true relative to some small domain. (In fact, the size of the domain needed is a function of the number of predicates and variables in the sentences.) Thus, to test a pure monadic sentence for consistency, do the following: Find a quantifier-free sentence that is equivalent to the original sentence relative to a domain with one object; test this resulting sentence for consistency using ordinary truth tables. If the resulting sentence is consistent, you are done the original sentence is true in that domain. If the resulting sentence is inconsistent, then start over again with a domain with two individuals. If the resulting sentence is consistent, you are done the original sentence is true in that domain. If the resulting sentence is inconsistent, then repeat the procedure in a domain with three individuals, etc., until either you find an interpretation relative to which the sentence is true, or you conclude that there is no such interpretation. For when you are entitled to draw the latter conclusion, see the last section. PHI 201, Introductory Logic p. 11 of 15

12 7.4.1 Finding equivalent quantifier-free sentences Suppose that the domain X has only three objects 1, 2, 3. In this case, the universal statement (x)f x is equivalent to a conjunction: 1 is an F, 2 is an F, and 3 is an F. Similarly, the existential statement Something is a F is equivalent to the disjunction Either 1 is an F, or 2 is an F, or 3 is an F. In sum, when there are only finitely many things, we can (by naming each object) translate every simple monadic sentence into a sentence without quantifiers. The same sort of equivalences also hold for truth-functional combinations of simple monadic sentences (i.e., pure monadic sentences). For example, if we take the standard association of names with numbers: Ref(a) = 1 Ref(b) = 2 Ref(c) = 3, then (x)f x ( x)f x is equivalent to: (F a & F b & F c) (F a F b F c). Generally, in order to obtain a quantifier-free sentence that is equivalent (relative to some finite domain) to a sentence φ, you should: 1. Disassemble φ into truth-functionally simple components; 2. If any of these components are quantified statements, expand them into equivalent conjunctions or disjunctions; 3. Put the expanded statements back together again using the original truthfunctional connectives. Problem. Find a quantifier-free sentence that is equivalent in a domain with three objects to (x)(f x Gx) ( x)(hx & Mx). Solution: Since the main operator is a disjunction, we separate the original sentence into (x)(f x Gx) and ( x)(hx & Mx). Since these two statements are quantified statements, we expand them as follows: (x)(f x Gx) (F a Ga) & (F b Gb) & (F c Gc) ( x)(hx & Mx) (Ha & Ma) (Hb & Mb) (Hc & Mc) PHI 201, Introductory Logic p. 12 of 15

13 Finally, we put these back together again using to obtain: [(F a Ga) & (F b Gb) & (F c Gc)] [(Ha & Ma) (Hb & Mb) (Hc & Mc)]. Problem. For each of the sentences (x)f x, ( x)f x ( x)gx, (x)(gx Gx), find a quantifier-free sentence that is equivalent relative to a domain containing two individuals. Solution: (x)f x F a & F b ( x)f x ( x)gx (F a F b) (Ga Gb) (x)(gx F x) (Ga F a) & (Gb F b) Testing for consistency Relative to domains with a finite number of individuals, we can test the consistency of a sentence of monadic PC using ordinary truth tables: Just translate the sentence into an equivalent quantifier-free sentence. Problem. Could ( x)f x & ( x) F x be true relative to a domain with only one object? Solution: If there were only one thing in the universe, then ( x)f x & ( x) F x would be equivalent to F a & F a, which is a contradiction. So, no; it couldn t be true if there were only only object in the domain. Problem. Could ( x)f x & ( x) F x be true if there were exactly two objects in the domain? Solution: In this case ( x)f x & ( x) F x would be equivalent to: (F a F b) & ( F a F b). A truth table test shows that this sentence is consistent e.g., choose v(f a) = T and v(f b) = F. So, yes; ( x)f x & ( x) F x could be true if there were two things in the domain. PHI 201, Introductory Logic p. 13 of 15

14 7.4.3 Putting it all together Problem. Use the small domain method to show that (x)(f x F x) is consistent. Solution: In a domain with one individual, the original statement becomes F a F a. This is true when F a is false. So, (x)(f x F x) can be true in a domain with one individual. In particular, here is an interpretation which shows explicitly that (x)(f x F x) is consistent: X = {1}, Ext(F x) =. Problem. Use the small domain method to determine if the following argument is valid: 1. ( x)hx (x)(f x Gx) 2. ( x)f x // ( x)hx (x)gx Solution: Relative to a domain with one member, we get the argument: 1. Ha (F a Ga) 2. F a // Ha Ga A truth table test shows that if the two premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. So, we now try a domain with two members. Relative to a domain with two members, we get the argument: 1. (Ha Hb) ((F a Ga) & (F b Gb)) 2. F a F b // (Ha Hb) (Ga & Gb) PHI 201, Introductory Logic p. 14 of 15

15 A truth table test shows that the premises can be true while the conclusion is false. For example, we could choose the truth-assignment: v(ha) = T v(ga) = T v(f a) = T v(hb) = F v(gb) = F v(f b) = F Therefore, the original argument is invalid Decision procedures Suppose that you need to determine whether a sentence φ is consistent. You check a domain with one individual, and φ is false. You check a domain with two individuals and φ is false. You check a domain with three individuals and φ is false. Surely you cannot check domains of all sizes! When, if ever, are you entitled to conclude that there is no interpretation relative to which φ is true? Amazingly, it has been shown that: Suppose that φ is a pure monadic sentence with n predicate letters. If φ is consistent, then there is an interpretation I whose domain has less than or equal to 2 n elements, and φ is true relative to I. 1 So, to take a specific case, if φ has two predicate letters, then for φ to be consistent, it must be true in some domain with at most 4 objects! It follows that the small domain method is a decision procedure for the consistency of pure monadic sentences: it will answer any question you have about consistency in a finite amount of time. 1 Compare with Boolos and Jeffrey, Computability and Logic, p PHI 201, Introductory Logic p. 15 of 15

### Invalidity in Predicate Logic

Invalidity in Predicate Logic So far we ve got a method for establishing that a predicate logic argument is valid: do a derivation. But we ve got no method for establishing invalidity. In propositional

### 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

### Logic, Sets, and Proofs

Logic, Sets, and Proofs David A. Cox and Catherine C. McGeoch Amherst College 1 Logic Logical Statements. A logical statement is a mathematical statement that is either true or false. Here we denote logical

### 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

### 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

### 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

### CS 2336 Discrete Mathematics

CS 2336 Discrete Mathematics Lecture 2 Logic: Predicate Calculus 1 Outline Predicates Quantifiers Binding Applications Logical Equivalences 2 Predicates In mathematics arguments, we will often see sentences

### 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

### Section 7.1 First-Order Predicate Calculus predicate Existential Quantifier Universal Quantifier.

Section 7.1 First-Order Predicate Calculus Predicate calculus studies the internal structure of sentences where subjects are applied to predicates existentially or universally. A predicate describes a

### 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)

### 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

### 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

### Chapter 1. Logic and Proof

Chapter 1. Logic and Proof 1.1 Remark: A little over 100 years ago, it was found that some mathematical proofs contained paradoxes, and these paradoxes could be used to prove statements that were known

### 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

### 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

### INTRODUCTION TO PROOFS: HOMEWORK SOLUTIONS

INTRODUCTION TO PROOFS: HOMEWORK SOLUTIONS STEVEN HEILMAN Contents 1. Homework 1 1 2. Homework 2 6 3. Homework 3 10 4. Homework 4 16 5. Homework 5 19 6. Homework 6 21 7. Homework 7 25 8. Homework 8 28

### Valid formulas, games and network protocols

Valid formulas, games and network protocols Jean-Louis Krivine & Yves Legrandgérard Paris VII University, CNRS November 14, 2007 Introduction We describe a remarkable relation between a fundamental notion

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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 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

### 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

### 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,

### (Refer Slide Time: 1:41)

Discrete Mathematical Structures Dr. Kamala Krithivasan Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Madras Lecture # 10 Sets Today we shall learn about sets. You must

### Sets and functions. {x R : x > 0}.

Sets and functions 1 Sets The language of sets and functions pervades mathematics, and most of the important operations in mathematics turn out to be functions or to be expressible in terms of functions.

### 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

### LECTURE 10: FIRST-ORDER LOGIC. Software Engineering Mike Wooldridge

LECTURE 10: FIRST-ORDER LOGIC Mike Wooldridge 1 Why not Propositional Logic? Consider the following statements: all monitors are ready; X12 is a monitor. We saw in an earlier lecture that these statements

### 4. FIRST-ORDER LOGIC

4. FIRST-ORDER LOGIC Contents 4.1: Splitting the atom: names, predicates and relations 4.2: Structures 4.3: Quantification:, 4.4: Syntax 4.5: Semantics 4.6: De Morgan s laws for and 4.7: Truth trees for

### 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

### 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

### Predicate Logic. Lucia Moura. Winter Predicates and Quantifiers Nested Quantifiers Using Predicate Calculus

Predicate Logic Winter 2010 Predicates A Predicate is a declarative sentence whose true/false value depends on one or more variables. The statement x is greater than 3 has two parts: the subject: x is

### 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.

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

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

### 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

### 3. Predicates and Quantifiers

3. PREDICATES AND QUANTIFIERS 45 3. Predicates and Quantifiers 3.1. Predicates and Quantifiers. Definition 3.1.1. A predicate or propositional function is a description of the property (or properties)

### 1. R In this and the next section we are going to study the properties of sequences of real numbers.

+a 1. R In this and the next section we are going to study the properties of sequences of real numbers. Definition 1.1. (Sequence) A sequence is a function with domain N. Example 1.2. A sequence of real

### Introduction to Predicate Calculus

Introduction to Predicate Calculus 1 Motivation Last time, we discuss the need for a representation language that was declarative, expressively adequate, unambiguous, context-independent, and compositional.

### 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

### A set is an unordered collection of objects.

Section 2.1 Sets A set is an unordered collection of objects. the students in this class the chairs in this room The objects in a set are called the elements, or members of the set. A set is said to contain

### 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

### Subjects, Predicates and The Universal Quantifier

Introduction to Logic Week Sixteen: 14 Jan., 2008 Subjects, Predicates and The Universal Quantifier 000. Office Hours this term: Tuesdays and Wednesdays 1-2, or by appointment; 5B-120. 00. Results from

### 10.4 Traditional Subject Predicate Propositions

M10_COPI1396_13_SE_C10.QXD 10/22/07 8:42 AM Page 445 10.4 Traditional Subject Predicate Propositions 445 Continuing to assume the existence of at least one individual, we can say, referring to this square,

### DISCRETE MATH: LECTURE 4

DISCRETE MATH: LECTURE 4 DR. DANIEL FREEMAN 1. Chapter 3.1 Predicates and Quantified Statements I A predicate is a sentence that contains a finite number of variables and becomes a statement when specific

### Foundations of Artificial Intelligence

Foundations of Artificial Intelligence 7. Propositional Logic Rational Thinking, Logic, Resolution Wolfram Burgard, Bernhard Nebel and Martin Riedmiller Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg Contents 1 Agents

### INTRODUCTORY SET THEORY

M.Sc. program in mathematics INTRODUCTORY SET THEORY Katalin Károlyi Department of Applied Analysis, Eötvös Loránd University H-1088 Budapest, Múzeum krt. 6-8. CONTENTS 1. SETS Set, equal sets, subset,

### Propositional Logic. A proposition is a declarative sentence (a sentence that declares a fact) that is either true or false, but not both.

irst Order Logic Propositional Logic A proposition is a declarative sentence (a sentence that declares a fact) that is either true or false, but not both. Are the following sentences propositions? oronto

### 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

### Discrete Mathematics, Chapter : Predicate Logic

Discrete Mathematics, Chapter 1.4-1.5: Predicate Logic Richard Mayr University of Edinburgh, UK Richard Mayr (University of Edinburgh, UK) Discrete Mathematics. Chapter 1.4-1.5 1 / 23 Outline 1 Predicates

### 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

### 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:

### To formulate more complex mathematical statements, we use the quantifiers there exists, written, and for all, written. If P(x) is a predicate, then

Discrete Math in CS CS 280 Fall 2005 (Kleinberg) Quantifiers 1 Quantifiers To formulate more complex mathematical statements, we use the quantifiers there exists, written, and for all, written. If P(x)

### Section 1.3: Predicate Logic

1 Section 1.3: Purpose of Section: To introduce predicate logic (or first-order logic) which the language of mathematics. We see how predicate logic extends the language of sentential calculus studied

### The Predicate Calculus in AI

Last time, we: The Predicate Calculus in AI Motivated the use of Logic as a representational language for AI (Can derive new facts syntactically - simply by pushing symbols around) Described propositional

### 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)........................................

### 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

### Predicates and Quantifiers. Niloufar Shafiei

Predicates and Quantifiers Niloufar Shafiei Review Proposition: 1. It is a sentence that declares a fact. 2. It is either true or false, but not both. Examples: 2 + 1 = 3. True Proposition Toronto is the

### 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

### 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

### Logic and Reasoning Practice Final Exam Spring 2015. Section Number

Logic and Reasoning Practice Final Exam Spring 2015 Name Section Number The final examination is worth 100 points. 1. (5 points) What is an argument? Explain what is meant when one says that logic is the

### 1.4 Predicates and Quantifiers

Can we express the following statement in propositional logic? Every computer has a CPU No 1 Can we express the following statement in propositional logic? No Every computer has a CPU Let's see the new

### 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

### 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

### Real Roots of Univariate Polynomials with Real Coefficients

Real Roots of Univariate Polynomials with Real Coefficients mostly written by Christina Hewitt March 22, 2012 1 Introduction Polynomial equations are used throughout mathematics. When solving polynomials

Mathematics 0N1 Solutions 1 1. Write the following sets in list form. 1(i) The set of letters in the word banana. {a, b, n}. 1(ii) {x : x 2 + 3x 10 = 0}. 3(iv) C A. True 3(v) B = {e, e, f, c}. True 3(vi)

### 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

### Predicate Logic. PHI 201 Introductory Logic Spring 2011

Predicate Logic PHI 201 Introductory Logic Spring 2011 This is a summary of definitions in Predicate Logic from the text The Logic Book by Bergmann et al. 1 The Language PLE Vocabulary The vocabulary of

### Proofs are short works of prose and need to be written in complete sentences, with mathematical symbols used where appropriate.

Advice for homework: Proofs are short works of prose and need to be written in complete sentences, with mathematical symbols used where appropriate. Even if a problem is a simple exercise that doesn t

### CS532, Winter 2010 Lecture Notes: First-Order Logic: Syntax and Semantics

CS532, Winter 2010 Lecture Notes: First-Order Logic: Syntax and Semantics Dr Alan Fern, afern@csorstedu January 8, 2010 1 Limits of Propositional Logic Propositional logic assumes that the world or system

### (LMCS, p. 317) V.1. First Order Logic. This is the most powerful, most expressive logic that we will examine.

(LMCS, p. 317) V.1 First Order Logic This is the most powerful, most expressive logic that we will examine. Our version of first-order logic will use the following symbols: variables connectives (,,,,

### 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

### Predicate Calculus. There are certain arguments that seem to be perfectly logical, yet they cannot be expressed by using propositional calculus.

Predicate Calculus (Alternative names: predicate logic, first order logic, elementary logic, restricted predicate calculus, restricted functional calculus, relational calculus, theory of quantification,

### MATH20302 Propositional Logic. Mike Prest School of Mathematics Alan Turing Building Room

MATH20302 Propositional Logic Mike Prest School of Mathematics Alan Turing Building Room 1.120 mprest@manchester.ac.uk April 10, 2015 Contents I Propositional Logic 3 1 Propositional languages 4 1.1 Propositional

### Florida State University Course Notes MAD 2104 Discrete Mathematics I

Florida State University Course Notes MAD 2104 Discrete Mathematics I Florida State University Tallahassee, Florida 32306-4510 Copyright c 2011 Florida State University Written by Dr. John Bryant and Dr.

### Proof: A logical argument establishing the truth of the theorem given the truth of the axioms and any previously proven theorems.

Math 232 - Discrete Math 2.1 Direct Proofs and Counterexamples Notes Axiom: Proposition that is assumed to be true. Proof: A logical argument establishing the truth of the theorem given the truth of the

### 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

### You know from calculus that functions play a fundamental role in mathematics.

CHPTER 12 Functions You know from calculus that functions play a fundamental role in mathematics. You likely view a function as a kind of formula that describes a relationship between two (or more) quantities.

### Announcements. CompSci 230 Discrete Math for Computer Science Sets. Introduction to Sets. Sets

CompSci 230 Discrete Math for Computer Science Sets September 12, 2013 Prof. Rodger Slides modified from Rosen 1 nnouncements Read for next time Chap. 2.3-2.6 Homework 2 due Tuesday Recitation 3 on Friday

### Section 3 Sequences and Limits

Section 3 Sequences and Limits Definition A sequence of real numbers is an infinite ordered list a, a 2, a 3, a 4,... where, for each n N, a n is a real number. We call a n the n-th term of the sequence.

### 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?...........................

### the lemma. Keep in mind the following facts about regular languages:

CPS 2: Discrete Mathematics Instructor: Bruce Maggs Assignment Due: Wednesday September 2, 27 A Tool for Proving Irregularity (25 points) When proving that a language isn t regular, a tool that is often

### Math 4310 Handout - Quotient Vector Spaces

Math 4310 Handout - Quotient Vector Spaces Dan Collins The textbook defines a subspace of a vector space in Chapter 4, but it avoids ever discussing the notion of a quotient space. This is understandable

### CHAPTER 3 Numbers and Numeral Systems

CHAPTER 3 Numbers and Numeral Systems Numbers play an important role in almost all areas of mathematics, not least in calculus. Virtually all calculus books contain a thorough description of the natural,

### This asserts two sets are equal iff they have the same elements, that is, a set is determined by its elements.

3. Axioms of Set theory Before presenting the axioms of set theory, we first make a few basic comments about the relevant first order logic. We will give a somewhat more detailed discussion later, but

### This section demonstrates some different techniques of proving some general statements.

Section 4. Number Theory 4.. Introduction This section demonstrates some different techniques of proving some general statements. Examples: Prove that the sum of any two odd numbers is even. Firstly you

### Basic Set Theory. 1. Motivation. Fido Sue. Fred Aristotle Bob. LX 502 - Semantics I September 11, 2008

Basic Set Theory LX 502 - Semantics I September 11, 2008 1. Motivation When you start reading these notes, the first thing you should be asking yourselves is What is Set Theory and why is it relevant?

### First-Order Predicate Logic (2)

First-Order Predicate Logic (2) Predicate Logic (2) Understanding first-order predicate logic formulas. Satisfiability and undecidability of satisfiability. Tautology, logical consequence, and logical

### 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 =

Section 5.1 Climbing an Infinite Ladder Suppose we have an infinite ladder and the following capabilities: 1. We can reach the first rung of the ladder. 2. If we can reach a particular rung of the ladder,

### MAT2400 Analysis I. A brief introduction to proofs, sets, and functions

MAT2400 Analysis I A brief introduction to proofs, sets, and functions In Analysis I there is a lot of manipulations with sets and functions. It is probably also the first course where you have to take

### Pythagorean Triples. Chapter 2. a 2 + b 2 = c 2

Chapter Pythagorean Triples The Pythagorean Theorem, that beloved formula of all high school geometry students, says that the sum of the squares of the sides of a right triangle equals the square of the

### 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

### Chapter 11 Number Theory

Chapter 11 Number Theory Number theory is one of the oldest branches of mathematics. For many years people who studied number theory delighted in its pure nature because there were few practical applications

### Solutions to Math 51 First Exam January 29, 2015

Solutions to Math 5 First Exam January 29, 25. ( points) (a) Complete the following sentence: A set of vectors {v,..., v k } is defined to be linearly dependent if (2 points) there exist c,... c k R, not

### 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