Proof strategies, or, a manual of logical style
|
|
- Bernadette Bishop
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Proof strategies, or, a manual of logical style Dr Holmes September 27, 2017 This is yet another version of the manual of logical style I have been working on for many years This semester, instead of posting one of my old versions, I am going to develop the manual section by section as I lecture bits to you I m probably also going to add some coverage of things we have already talked about The basic idea behind this document is that there is a set of stereotyped strategies for proving statements of given logical forms and using statements of given logical forms which are assumed in a proof The purpose here is to list the basic ones The application is that one can form a good idea how the process of writing a proof of a given statement will start from the way the statement is written There will be a point where you have to apply some creativity to complete an argument, of course, but if you know standard strategies a lot of the work of writing a proof can be made mechanical 1 Implication Our author tells us the basic strategy for proving an implication: To prove A B assume A for the sake of argument and prove B If you succeed in proving B with the extra assumption, then you have proved A B An outline is given on the next page 1
2 Goal: A B Assume (1): A Goal: B (these dots stand for many proof steps) (n): B (n+1): A B, by deduction, lines 1 n It is important to notice that the indented lines from the assumption of A to the conclusion B will not be referred to again in the proof, since they depend on the assumption A made strictly for the sake of argument, and so are no longer available once we are no longer making that assumption Notice that we give this proof strategy the name deduction There will be another proof strategy for proving implications which we will discuss later To use an assumption which is an implication the basic rule has the Latin name modus ponens: A A B B If we can assume A and we can assume A B, then we can conclude B This is an example of a convenient general format for a logical rule: if one has statements of the form listed above the line, one can deduce the statement written below the line There is another rule for using an implication, modus tollens, which we will see in due course 2
3 2 Conjunction The rules for conjunction are so transparent that you may not realize you are doing anything when you use them To prove a conjunction A B, prove A then prove B This can be called the rule of conjunction If you can assume A B, you can further conclude A If you can assume A B, you can further conclude B The last two rules can be called rules of simplification In the handy format given above, conjunction is and the rules of simplification are A B A B and A B A A B A 3 Biconditional A statement A B is equivalent to (A B) (B A), and this equivalence indicates how to prove it: first prove A B then prove B A Here is an outline (next page): 3
4 Goal: A B Part I: Assume (1): A Goal: B (n): B (The dots stand for many proof lines) Part II: Assume (n+1): B Goal: A (many proof steps) (n+k): A (n+k+1): A B, biconditional proof, 1-n, n+1-n+k We also have these rules to use a biconditional, suspiciously like modus ponens: P P Q Q Q P Q P 4 A sample proof using just implication, conjunction and biconditional You may recall that we proved this theorem using truth tables Main Goal: Prove ((P Q) R) (P (Q R)) This statement is a biconditional, so its proof will have two parts Part I begins on the next page 4
5 Part I: Assume (1): ((P Q) R) Goal (of part I): (P (Q R)) The form of the goal tells us what to do! Assume (2): P Goal: Q R and again! Assume (3): Q Goal: R Now we have unpacked everythingwe should pause and take stock of what we have Line (1), ((P Q) R), would give us our goal Rif we had P Q And we can have this (4): P Q by conjunction, lines 2,3 (5): R by modus ponens, lines 1,4 [I do not care which order the line numbers are given in] (6): Q R by deduction lines 3-5 [this is by the entire block of lines, I do mean a hyphen not a comma] (7): (P (Q R)) by deduction lines 2-6 This completes our work for Part I We could state an implication as proved here, but we do not have to Part II is on the next page 5
6 Part II: Assume (8): (P (Q R)) note that while I numbered this line 8, to avoid conflict with the part of the proof already given, I in fact have no lines available to me but line 8 for my argument at this point: the argument of Part I is over, and everything in lines 1-7 depends on the assumption in line 1 which we are no longer making here Goal (of part II): ((P Q) R) The form of the goal tells us what to do! Assume (9): P Q Goal: R We are now as unpacked as we can get, so we have to look at our resources If we had P, we could apply modus ponens with line 8 and get Q R And we can have P (10): P simplification line 9 (11): Q R mp lines 9,10 (mp is an allowed abbreviation for modus ponens ) Since we have Q R, it is natural to think about whether we have Q And we do (12): Q simplification line 9 [we could have unpacked this at the same time we unpacked P above: the line order here is a little flexible] (13): R by mp lines 11,12 (14): ((P Q) R) by deduction lines 9-13 This completes the argument for Part II (15): The Main Goal to be proved follows by biconditional introduction, lines 1-7, 8-14 I could say ((P Q) R) (P (Q R)) follows by biconditional introduction, lines 1-7, 8-14, but this is a situation where it is natural (since the statement of the Main Goal is long) to refer to it by name 6
7 5 Negation To make presentation of the rules for negation easier, we introduce a special symbol, which we read the absurd, for a false statement First of all, we have the rule of double negation: P P We can argue from P to P as well, but this is not a basic rule (we can prove it) We have the rule of contradiction: P P If we have assumed both P and P we are on the wrong track! We have the proof technique which we call negation introduction : to prove P, assume P and deduce Goal: P Assume (1): P Goal: (you can write contradiction where your goal is to prove an absurdity) (n): (many proof lines) (n+1): P by negation introduction, lines 1-n 7
8 This is not quite the same as the famous proof technique proof by contradiction or reductio ad absurdum: Goal: P Assume (1): P Goal: (you can write contradiction where your goal is to prove an absurdity) (n): (many proof lines) We could say here that we have proved P by negation introduction then P by double negation, but we shorten this to (n+1): P by reductio ad absurdum, lines 1-n The strategy of proof by contradiction is unusual because it doesn t rely on the statement to be proved having any particular logical form It is often effective as a last resort when you see nothing else to do Notice that it is not a basic rule: it is derivable from negation introduction and double negation But it s very useful From a contradiction, anything follows We already know that this is our official position, from the truth table for implication Here is how we prove it here Main Goal: P Assume (1): Goal: P Assume (2): P (for proof by contradiction) Goal: (3): copied from line 1 (4): P reductio ad absurdum 1-3 (5): Main goal, deduction, lines 1-4 8
9 We give the (too?) easy proof that given P we can deduce P Assume (1): P Goal: P We set up for a proof by negation introduction: Assume (2): P Goal: (3):, by contradiction, 1,2 (4): P negation introduction lines 2-3 You may use this result and call it double negation as well (if you have P as a line, you may introduce P as a line, and vice versa) 9
10 6 Disjunction (or) The basic rules for proving a disjunction are only useful in special circumstances We can prove P Q (obviously) if we can either prove P or prove Q P P Q Q P Q These two rules are called the rules of addition The basic rule for using an assumption which is a disjunction is proof by cases Suppose that we have assumed P Q, and from P we can prove R and from Q we can prove R: since in either case R follows, we can tell that R follows from P Q (without needing to decide which of P or Q is true) The format is presented on the next page 10
11 The format for a proof by cases is as follows: (1): P Q Goal: R Case 1: assume (k): P Goal: R (many proof steps) (k+n): R at this point we will not refer to individual statements in the block k-k+n again, as they rely on the special assumption P Case 2: assume (k+n+1): Q Goal: R (many proof steps) (k+n+m+1): R (k+n+m+2): R, proof by cases, lines 1, k-k+n, (k+n+1)-(k+n+m+1) This rule has the most complex line justification of any of the rules of the system (a line and two blocks of lines) The weird line numbering is due to the fact that of course we cannot tell how long the blocks will be Also, I want to signal clearly that the disjunction (line 1) can be used for proof by cases much later in the proof (so the next line we see is line k rather than line 2) 11
12 7 Some proofs of useful theorems We prove the equivalence of an implication with its contrapositive This proof justifies the use of more powerful rules combining implication and negation which are given in the next section Theorem: (P Q) ( Q P ) Observations: We need to prove the implication (P Q) ( Q P ) (Part I) then the implication ( Q P ) (P Q) (Part II) Part I: Assume (1): P Q Goal: Q P Assume (2): Q Goal: P (We set up for a proof by negation introduction) Assume (3): P Goal: (4): Q by 1,3 modus ponense (5): 2,4 contradiction (6): P 3-5 negation introduction (7): Q P 2-6 deduction (8): (P Q) ( Q P ) deduction 1-7 We continue with the proof of Part II on the next page 12
13 Part II: Assume (9): Q P Goal: P Q Assume (10): P Goal: Q (At this point we may feel that we have no leverage on Q at all: this is a good point to try reduction ad absurdum) Assume (11): Q Goal: (12): P 9,11 mp (13): 10, 12 contradiction (14): Q reductio ad absurdum (15): P Q deduction (16): ( Q P ) (P Q) deduction 9-14 (17): The main theorem (P Q) ( Q P ), by biconditional introduction 8, 15 (this is an alternative style of justifying an if and only if proof, using explicit references to the two implications instead of references to the blocks which prove them: the usual style would be biconditional introduction 1-7, 9-15; you may use either approach) 13
14 8 Additional rules combining implication and disjunction with negation Additional rules for implication follow from the equivalence of P Q with Q P This equivalence can be verified with a truth table it can also be proved with the earlier given rules, as we showed in the previous section, and this proof can be used to justify the new rules combining implication and negation that we give Additional rules for disjunction follow from the equivalence of P Q with both P Q and Q P (you can check this with a truth table; these equivalences are also provable using the earlier given rules) The rule of proof by contrapositive for implication: Main Goal: P Q We set up to prove Q P instead: Assume (1): Q Goal: P (many proof steps) (n): P (n+1): P Q, proof by contrapositive 1-n The rule of modus tollens: P Q Q P You should notice that both of the preceding rules are derived simply by reading P Q as equivalent to Q P 14
15 We present our usual format for proving a disjunction: Main Goal: P Q The key is that we are setting up a proof of P Q Assume (1): P Goal: Q (many proof steps) (n): Q (n+1): P Q alternative exclusion, lines 1-n The name alternative exclusion is mine: we exclude an alternative and show that the other follows An alternative approach (this has nothing to do with cases, you do not need to write both of these proofs to prove P Q, just one of them) Main Goal: P Q The key is that we are setting up a proof of Q P Assume (1): Q Goal: P (many proof steps) (n): P (n+1): P Q alternative exclusion, lines 1-n Here is a famous theorem (excluded middle) with a blindingly short proof: Goal: P P Assume (1): P Goal: P (2): P P alternative exclusion 1-1 One could copy line 1 to a line 2 and have alternative exclusion 1-2, but it seems to me that when the assumption is the goal one can stop right there! 15
16 Additional rules for use of disjunctions, called rules of disjunctive syllogism are derived from the same equivalences: P Q P Q P Q Q P P Q P Q P Q Q P The first two are the actual rules of disjunctive syllogism: the second two may also be called disjunctive syllogism, but also involve an application of double negation They happen often in formal proofs, so I allow them to be viewed as single steps 16
17 9 A proof of a disjunction from algebra Zero factor theorem: If xy = 0 then x = 0 or y = 0 Proof: Let x, y be arbitrary Assume x 0 Then xy = 0, so x 1 (xy) = x 1 0, so (x 1 x)y = 0, so 1y = 0, so y = 0 Thus x = 0 or y = 0 The reason that this example is here is that you should notice this logical form: Goal: x = 0 y = 0 Assume(1): x = 0 (some proof steps) (n): y = 0 (n+1): x = 0 y = 0 (by alternative exclusion) And more generally, the point of all these forms of argument is that they really happen, in English, in mathematical arguments in this book and in all subsequent books you will read This is not to say that my particular presentation of the rules is universal: there are lots of different ways to articulate the rules of logic 17
18 10 Quantifiers 18
19 11 Exercises 1 Prove ((P Q) (Q R)) (P R) using the style given here This should be straightforward 2 Prove ((P R) (Q R)) (Q P ) You will want to use the additional rules involving negation 3 Prove ((P R) (Q R)) ((P Q) R) This should be relatively straightforward proof by cases is needed 4 Prove ((P Q) ( Q R)) (P R) I see one approach using excluded middle and proof by cases, but I think there is a simpler way using the rules of alternative exclusion and disjunctive syllogism 5 Prove ((P Q) R) ((P R) (Q R)) This is quite tricky You should recognize this problem and a previous one as the two directions of a biconditional you proved using truth tables 6 Prove (P Q) ( P Q) This is one of demorgan s laws Notice that this is a biconditional so you have two directions of argument to complete You can t use a demorgan law to prove it; just the rules in this handout 19
Manual of Logical Style (fresh version 2018)
Manual of Logical Style (fresh version 2018) Randall Holmes 9/5/2018 1 Introduction This is a fresh version of a document I have been working on with my classes at various levels for years. The idea that
More informationManual of Logical Style
Manual of Logical Style Dr. Holmes January 9, 2015 Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Conjunction 3 2.1 Proving a conjunction...................... 3 2.2 Using a conjunction........................ 3 3 Implication
More informationNatural deduction for truth-functional logic
Natural deduction for truth-functional logic Phil 160 - Boston University Why natural deduction? After all, we just found this nice method of truth-tables, which can be used to determine the validity or
More informationIntermediate Logic. Natural Deduction for TFL
Intermediate Logic Lecture Two Natural Deduction for TFL Rob Trueman rob.trueman@york.ac.uk University of York The Trouble with Truth Tables Natural Deduction for TFL The Trouble with Truth Tables The
More informationSupplementary Logic Notes CSE 321 Winter 2009
1 Propositional Logic Supplementary Logic Notes CSE 321 Winter 2009 1.1 More efficient truth table methods The method of using truth tables to prove facts about propositional formulas can be a very tedious
More informationAxiomatic systems. Revisiting the rules of inference. Example: A theorem and its proof in an abstract axiomatic system:
Axiomatic systems Revisiting the rules of inference Material for this section references College Geometry: A Discovery Approach, 2/e, David C. Kay, Addison Wesley, 2001. In particular, see section 2.1,
More informationSection 1.2: Propositional Logic
Section 1.2: Propositional Logic January 17, 2017 Abstract Now we re going to use the tools of formal logic to reach logical conclusions ( prove theorems ) based on wffs formed by some given statements.
More informationPropositional natural deduction
Propositional natural deduction COMP2600 / COMP6260 Dirk Pattinson Australian National University Semester 2, 2016 Major proof techniques 1 / 25 Three major styles of proof in logic and mathematics Model
More informationWarm-Up Problem. Write a Resolution Proof for. Res 1/32
Warm-Up Problem Write a Resolution Proof for Res 1/32 A second Rule Sometimes throughout we need to also make simplifications: You can do this in line without explicitly mentioning it (just pretend you
More information4 Derivations in the Propositional Calculus
4 Derivations in the Propositional Calculus 1. Arguments Expressed in the Propositional Calculus We have seen that we can symbolize a wide variety of statement forms using formulas of the propositional
More information1.1 Statements and Compound Statements
Chapter 1 Propositional Logic 1.1 Statements and Compound Statements A statement or proposition is an assertion which is either true or false, though you may not know which. That is, a statement is something
More informationLogic. Definition [1] A logic is a formal language that comes with rules for deducing the truth of one proposition from the truth of another.
Math 0413 Appendix A.0 Logic Definition [1] A logic is a formal language that comes with rules for deducing the truth of one proposition from the truth of another. This type of logic is called propositional.
More informationIntroducing Proof 1. hsn.uk.net. Contents
Contents 1 1 Introduction 1 What is proof? 1 Statements, Definitions and Euler Diagrams 1 Statements 1 Definitions Our first proof Euler diagrams 4 3 Logical Connectives 5 Negation 6 Conjunction 7 Disjunction
More informationTHE LOGIC OF COMPOUND STATEMENTS
THE LOGIC OF COMPOUND STATEMENTS All dogs have four legs. All tables have four legs. Therefore, all dogs are tables LOGIC Logic is a science of the necessary laws of thought, without which no employment
More informationProving Things. Why prove things? Proof by Substitution, within Logic. Rules of Inference: applying Logic. Using Assumptions.
1 Proving Things Why prove things? Proof by Substitution, within Logic Rules of Inference: applying Logic Using Assumptions Proof Strategies 2 Why Proofs? Knowledge is power. Where do we get it? direct
More informationProof Worksheet 2, Math 187 Fall 2017 (with solutions)
Proof Worksheet 2, Math 187 Fall 2017 (with solutions) Dr. Holmes October 17, 2017 The instructions are the same as on the first worksheet, except you can use all the rules in the strategies handout. We
More informationTopic 1: Propositional logic
Topic 1: Propositional logic Guy McCusker 1 1 University of Bath Logic! This lecture is about the simplest kind of mathematical logic: propositional calculus. We discuss propositions, which are statements
More informationPropositional logic (revision) & semantic entailment. p. 1/34
Propositional logic (revision) & semantic entailment p. 1/34 Reading The background reading for propositional logic is Chapter 1 of Huth/Ryan. (This will cover approximately the first three lectures.)
More informationPROPOSITIONAL CALCULUS
PROPOSITIONAL CALCULUS A proposition is a complete declarative sentence that is either TRUE (truth value T or 1) or FALSE (truth value F or 0), but not both. These are not propositions! Connectives and
More informationMath 300 Introduction to Mathematical Reasoning Autumn 2017 Proof Templates 1
Math 300 Introduction to Mathematical Reasoning Autumn 2017 Proof Templates 1 In its most basic form, a mathematical proof is just a sequence of mathematical statements, connected to each other by strict
More informationNatural Deduction for Propositional Logic
Natural Deduction for Propositional Logic Bow-Yaw Wang Institute of Information Science Academia Sinica, Taiwan September 10, 2018 Bow-Yaw Wang (Academia Sinica) Natural Deduction for Propositional Logic
More informationLogic for Computer Science - Week 5 Natural Deduction
Logic for Computer Science - Week 5 Natural Deduction Ștefan Ciobâcă November 30, 2017 1 An Alternative View of Implication and Double Implication So far, we have understood as a shorthand of However,
More informationIn this chapter, we specify a deductive apparatus for PL.
Handout 5 PL Derivations In this chapter, we specify a deductive apparatus for PL Definition deductive apparatus A deductive apparatus for PL is a set of rules of inference (or derivation rules) that determine
More informationArguments and Proofs. 1. A set of sentences (the premises) 2. A sentence (the conclusion)
Arguments and Proofs For the next section of this course, we will study PROOFS. A proof can be thought of as the formal representation of a process of reasoning. Proofs are comparable to arguments, since
More informationPropositional Logic: Part II - Syntax & Proofs 0-0
Propositional Logic: Part II - Syntax & Proofs 0-0 Outline Syntax of Propositional Formulas Motivating Proofs Syntactic Entailment and Proofs Proof Rules for Natural Deduction Axioms, theories and theorems
More informationChapter 1 Elementary Logic
2017-2018 Chapter 1 Elementary Logic The study of logic is the study of the principles and methods used in distinguishing valid arguments from those that are not valid. The aim of this chapter is to help
More informationExample. Logic. Logical Statements. Outline of logic topics. Logical Connectives. Logical Connectives
Logic Logic is study of abstract reasoning, specifically, concerned with whether reasoning is correct. Logic focuses on relationship among statements as opposed to the content of any particular statement.
More informationChapter 1: The Logic of Compound Statements. January 7, 2008
Chapter 1: The Logic of Compound Statements January 7, 2008 Outline 1 1.1 Logical Form and Logical Equivalence 2 1.2 Conditional Statements 3 1.3 Valid and Invalid Arguments Central notion of deductive
More information15414/614 Optional Lecture 1: Propositional Logic
15414/614 Optional Lecture 1: Propositional Logic Qinsi Wang Logic is the study of information encoded in the form of logical sentences. We use the language of Logic to state observations, to define concepts,
More informationLanguage of Propositional Logic
Logic A logic has: 1. An alphabet that contains all the symbols of the language of the logic. 2. A syntax giving the rules that define the well formed expressions of the language of the logic (often called
More informationPropositional Logic. Spring Propositional Logic Spring / 32
Propositional Logic Spring 2016 Propositional Logic Spring 2016 1 / 32 Introduction Learning Outcomes for this Presentation Learning Outcomes... At the conclusion of this session, we will Define the elements
More informationLogic and Proofs 1. 1 Overview. 2 Sentential Connectives. John Nachbar Washington University December 26, 2014
John Nachbar Washington University December 26, 2014 Logic and Proofs 1 1 Overview. These notes provide an informal introduction to some basic concepts in logic. For a careful exposition, see, for example,
More informationMATH 22 INFERENCE & QUANTIFICATION. Lecture F: 9/18/2003
MATH 22 Lecture F: 9/18/2003 INFERENCE & QUANTIFICATION Sixty men can do a piece of work sixty times as quickly as one man. One man can dig a post-hole in sixty seconds. Therefore, sixty men can dig a
More informationLogic, Sets, and Proofs
Logic, Sets, and Proofs David A. Cox and Catherine C. McGeoch Amherst College 1 Logic Logical Operators. A logical statement is a mathematical statement that can be assigned a value either true or false.
More informationIntroduction Logic Inference. Discrete Mathematics Andrei Bulatov
Introduction Logic Inference Discrete Mathematics Andrei Bulatov Discrete Mathematics - Logic Inference 6-2 Previous Lecture Laws of logic Expressions for implication, biconditional, exclusive or Valid
More informationLogic As Algebra COMP1600 / COMP6260. Dirk Pattinson Australian National University. Semester 2, 2017
Logic As Algebra COMP1600 / COMP6260 Dirk Pattinson Australian National University Semester 2, 2017 Recap: And, Or, and Not x AND y x y x y 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 x OR y x y x y 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
More informationMathematical Writing and Methods of Proof
Mathematical Writing and Methods of Proof January 6, 2015 The bulk of the work for this course will consist of homework problems to be handed in for grading. I cannot emphasize enough that I view homework
More information2.2: Logical Equivalence: The Laws of Logic
Example (2.7) For primitive statement p and q, construct a truth table for each of the following compound statements. a) p q b) p q Here we see that the corresponding truth tables for two statement p q
More informationA Little Deductive Logic
A Little Deductive Logic In propositional or sentential deductive logic, we begin by specifying that we will use capital letters (like A, B, C, D, and so on) to stand in for sentences, and we assume that
More informationMACM 101 Discrete Mathematics I. Exercises on Propositional Logic. Due: Tuesday, September 29th (at the beginning of the class)
MACM 101 Discrete Mathematics I Exercises on Propositional Logic. Due: Tuesday, September 29th (at the beginning of the class) SOLUTIONS 1. Construct a truth table for the following compound proposition:
More informationNatural Deduction is a method for deriving the conclusion of valid arguments expressed in the symbolism of propositional logic.
Natural Deduction is a method for deriving the conclusion of valid arguments expressed in the symbolism of propositional logic. The method consists of using sets of Rules of Inference (valid argument forms)
More informationLogic for Computer Science - Week 4 Natural Deduction
Logic for Computer Science - Week 4 Natural Deduction 1 Introduction In the previous lecture we have discussed some important notions about the semantics of propositional logic. 1. the truth value of a
More information1 Tautologies, contradictions and contingencies
DEDUCTION (I) TAUTOLOGIES, CONTRADICTIONS AND CONTINGENCIES & LOGICAL EQUIVALENCE AND LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE October 6, 2003 1 Tautologies, contradictions and contingencies Consider the truth table of the
More informationA Little Deductive Logic
A Little Deductive Logic In propositional or sentential deductive logic, we begin by specifying that we will use capital letters (like A, B, C, D, and so on) to stand in for sentences, and we assume that
More informationLecture 2. Logic Compound Statements Conditional Statements Valid & Invalid Arguments Digital Logic Circuits. Reading (Epp s textbook)
Lecture 2 Logic Compound Statements Conditional Statements Valid & Invalid Arguments Digital Logic Circuits Reading (Epp s textbook) 2.1-2.4 1 Logic Logic is a system based on statements. A statement (or
More informationBefore you get started, make sure you ve read Chapter 1, which sets the tone for the work we will begin doing here.
Chapter 2 Mathematics and Logic Before you get started, make sure you ve read Chapter 1, which sets the tone for the work we will begin doing here. 2.1 A Taste of Number Theory In this section, we will
More information2. The Logic of Compound Statements Summary. Aaron Tan August 2017
2. The Logic of Compound Statements Summary Aaron Tan 21 25 August 2017 1 2. The Logic of Compound Statements 2.1 Logical Form and Logical Equivalence Statements; Compound Statements; Statement Form (Propositional
More informationConjunction: p q is true if both p, q are true, and false if at least one of p, q is false. The truth table for conjunction is as follows.
Chapter 1 Logic 1.1 Introduction and Definitions Definitions. A sentence (statement, proposition) is an utterance (that is, a string of characters) which is either true (T) or false (F). A predicate is
More informationFormal Logic. Critical Thinking
ormal Logic Critical hinking Recap: ormal Logic If I win the lottery, then I am poor. I win the lottery. Hence, I am poor. his argument has the following abstract structure or form: If P then Q. P. Hence,
More informationPacket #1: Logic & Proofs. Applied Discrete Mathematics
Packet #1: Logic & Proofs Applied Discrete Mathematics Table of Contents Course Objectives Page 2 Propositional Calculus Information Pages 3-13 Course Objectives At the conclusion of this course, you should
More informationcis32-ai lecture # 18 mon-3-apr-2006
cis32-ai lecture # 18 mon-3-apr-2006 today s topics: propositional logic cis32-spring2006-sklar-lec18 1 Introduction Weak (search-based) problem-solving does not scale to real problems. To succeed, problem
More informationFormal (natural) deduction in propositional logic
Formal (natural) deduction in propositional logic Lila Kari University of Waterloo Formal (natural) deduction in propositional logic CS245, Logic and Computation 1 / 67 I know what you re thinking about,
More informationHandout on Logic, Axiomatic Methods, and Proofs MATH Spring David C. Royster UNC Charlotte
Handout on Logic, Axiomatic Methods, and Proofs MATH 3181 001 Spring 1999 David C. Royster UNC Charlotte January 18, 1999 Chapter 1 Logic and the Axiomatic Method 1.1 Introduction Mathematicians use a
More informationDiscrete Structures of Computer Science Propositional Logic III Rules of Inference
Discrete Structures of Computer Science Propositional Logic III Rules of Inference Gazihan Alankuş (Based on original slides by Brahim Hnich) July 30, 2012 1 Previous Lecture 2 Summary of Laws of Logic
More informationNotes from How to Prove it: A Structured Approach by Daniel J. Velleman
Notes from How to Prove it: A Structured Approach by Daniel J. Velleman DeMorgan s laws: (P Q) is equivalent to P Q) (P Q) is equivalent to P Q) Commutative laws: (P Q) is equivalent to (Q P ) (P Q) is
More informationFORMAL PROOFS DONU ARAPURA
FORMAL PROOFS DONU ARAPURA This is a supplement for M385 on formal proofs in propositional logic. Rather than following the presentation of Rubin, I want to use a slightly different set of rules which
More information3 The Semantics of the Propositional Calculus
3 The Semantics of the Propositional Calculus 1. Interpretations Formulas of the propositional calculus express statement forms. In chapter two, we gave informal descriptions of the meanings of the logical
More informationDiscrete Mathematics and Its Applications
Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications Lecture 1: Proposition logic MING GAO DASE @ ECNU (for course related communications) mgao@dase.ecnu.edu.cn Sep. 12, 2017 Outline 1 Propositions 2 Connectives
More information1 Propositional Logic
1 Propositional Logic Required reading: Foundations of Computation. Sections 1.1 and 1.2. 1. Introduction to Logic a. Logical consequences. If you know all humans are mortal, and you know that you are
More informationPHIL012. SYMBOLIC LOGIC PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC DERIVATIONS
HIL012 SYMBOLIC LOGIC ROOSITIONL LOGIC DERIVTIONS When we argue, what we want are (i) clearly specifiable rules, (ii) that apply to any particular subject matter, and (iii) that legitimate transitions
More informationChapter 2. Mathematical Reasoning. 2.1 Mathematical Models
Contents Mathematical Reasoning 3.1 Mathematical Models........................... 3. Mathematical Proof............................ 4..1 Structure of Proofs........................ 4.. Direct Method..........................
More informationProofs: A General How To II. Rules of Inference. Rules of Inference Modus Ponens. Rules of Inference Addition. Rules of Inference Conjunction
Introduction I Proofs Computer Science & Engineering 235 Discrete Mathematics Christopher M. Bourke cbourke@cse.unl.edu A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It s a proof. A proof is a proof. And when
More informationCITS2211 Discrete Structures Proofs
CITS2211 Discrete Structures Proofs Unit coordinator: Rachel Cardell-Oliver August 13, 2017 Highlights 1 Arguments vs Proofs. 2 Proof strategies 3 Famous proofs Reading Chapter 1: What is a proof? Mathematics
More informationMATH 135 Fall 2006 Proofs, Part IV
MATH 135 Fall 006 s, Part IV We ve spent a couple of days looking at one particular technique of proof: induction. Let s look at a few more. Direct Here we start with what we re given and proceed in a
More informationCollins' notes on Lemmon's Logic
Collins' notes on Lemmon's Logic (i) Rule of ssumption () Insert any formula at any stage into a proof. The assumed formula rests upon the assumption of itself. (ii) Double Negation (DN) a. b. ( Two negations
More informationSample Problems for all sections of CMSC250, Midterm 1 Fall 2014
Sample Problems for all sections of CMSC250, Midterm 1 Fall 2014 1. Translate each of the following English sentences into formal statements using the logical operators (,,,,, and ). You may also use mathematical
More informationChapter 1 Review of Equations and Inequalities
Chapter 1 Review of Equations and Inequalities Part I Review of Basic Equations Recall that an equation is an expression with an equal sign in the middle. Also recall that, if a question asks you to solve
More informationDeduction by Daniel Bonevac. Chapter 3 Truth Trees
Deduction by Daniel Bonevac Chapter 3 Truth Trees Truth trees Truth trees provide an alternate decision procedure for assessing validity, logical equivalence, satisfiability and other logical properties
More informationToday s Lecture 2/25/10. Truth Tables Continued Introduction to Proofs (the implicational rules of inference)
Today s Lecture 2/25/10 Truth Tables Continued Introduction to Proofs (the implicational rules of inference) Announcements Homework: -- Ex 7.3 pg. 320 Part B (2-20 Even). --Read chapter 8.1 pgs. 345-361.
More informationExamples: P: it is not the case that P. P Q: P or Q P Q: P implies Q (if P then Q) Typical formula:
Logic: The Big Picture Logic is a tool for formalizing reasoning. There are lots of different logics: probabilistic logic: for reasoning about probability temporal logic: for reasoning about time (and
More informationNumbers that are divisible by 2 are even. The above statement could also be written in other logically equivalent ways, such as:
3.4 THE CONDITIONAL & BICONDITIONAL Definition. Any statement that can be put in the form If p, then q, where p and q are basic statements, is called a conditional statement and is written symbolically
More informationWhat is the decimal (base 10) representation of the binary number ? Show your work and place your final answer in the box.
Question 1. [10 marks] Part (a) [2 marks] What is the decimal (base 10) representation of the binary number 110101? Show your work and place your final answer in the box. 2 0 + 2 2 + 2 4 + 2 5 = 1 + 4
More informationPHIL 422 Advanced Logic Inductive Proof
PHIL 422 Advanced Logic Inductive Proof 1. Preamble: One of the most powerful tools in your meta-logical toolkit will be proof by induction. Just about every significant meta-logical result relies upon
More informationSeminaar Abstrakte Wiskunde Seminar in Abstract Mathematics Lecture notes in progress (27 March 2010)
http://math.sun.ac.za/amsc/sam Seminaar Abstrakte Wiskunde Seminar in Abstract Mathematics 2009-2010 Lecture notes in progress (27 March 2010) Contents 2009 Semester I: Elements 5 1. Cartesian product
More informationPropositional Logic. Fall () Propositional Logic Fall / 30
Propositional Logic Fall 2013 () Propositional Logic Fall 2013 1 / 30 1 Introduction Learning Outcomes for this Presentation 2 Definitions Statements Logical connectives Interpretations, contexts,... Logically
More informationMAT2345 Discrete Math
Fall 2013 General Syllabus Schedule (note exam dates) Homework, Worksheets, Quizzes, and possibly Programs & Reports Academic Integrity Do Your Own Work Course Web Site: www.eiu.edu/~mathcs Course Overview
More informationInference and Proofs (1.6 & 1.7)
EECS 203 Spring 2016 Lecture 4 Page 1 of 9 Introductory problem: Inference and Proofs (1.6 & 1.7) As is commonly the case in mathematics, it is often best to start with some definitions. An argument for
More informationSection 1.1 Propositions
Set Theory & Logic Section 1.1 Propositions Fall, 2009 Section 1.1 Propositions In Chapter 1, our main goals are to prove sentences about numbers, equations or functions and to write the proofs. Definition.
More informationPropositional Logic. Jason Filippou UMCP. ason Filippou UMCP) Propositional Logic / 38
Propositional Logic Jason Filippou CMSC250 @ UMCP 05-31-2016 ason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Propositional Logic 05-31-2016 1 / 38 Outline 1 Syntax 2 Semantics Truth Tables Simplifying expressions 3 Inference
More informationAnnouncements. CS311H: Discrete Mathematics. Propositional Logic II. Inverse of an Implication. Converse of a Implication
Announcements CS311H: Discrete Mathematics Propositional Logic II Instructor: Işıl Dillig First homework assignment out today! Due in one week, i.e., before lecture next Wed 09/13 Remember: Due before
More informationProofs. Introduction II. Notes. Notes. Notes. Slides by Christopher M. Bourke Instructor: Berthe Y. Choueiry. Fall 2007
Proofs Slides by Christopher M. Bourke Instructor: Berthe Y. Choueiry Fall 2007 Computer Science & Engineering 235 Introduction to Discrete Mathematics Sections 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7 of Rosen cse235@cse.unl.edu
More informationCHAPTER 1 - LOGIC OF COMPOUND STATEMENTS
CHAPTER 1 - LOGIC OF COMPOUND STATEMENTS 1.1 - Logical Form and Logical Equivalence Definition. A statement or proposition is a sentence that is either true or false, but not both. ex. 1 + 2 = 3 IS a statement
More information3/29/2017. Logic. Propositions and logical operations. Main concepts: propositions truth values propositional variables logical operations
Logic Propositions and logical operations Main concepts: propositions truth values propositional variables logical operations 1 Propositions and logical operations A proposition is the most basic element
More informationPropositional Logic Review
Propositional Logic Review UC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016 John MacFarlane The task of describing a logical system comes in three parts: Grammar Describing what counts as a formula Semantics Defining
More informationLogic. Propositional Logic: Syntax. Wffs
Logic Propositional Logic: Syntax Logic is a tool for formalizing reasoning. There are lots of different logics: probabilistic logic: for reasoning about probability temporal logic: for reasoning about
More informationLecture 5 : Proofs DRAFT
CS/Math 240: Introduction to Discrete Mathematics 2/3/2011 Lecture 5 : Proofs Instructor: Dieter van Melkebeek Scribe: Dalibor Zelený DRAFT Up until now, we have been introducing mathematical notation
More informationSection 1.2 Propositional Equivalences. A tautology is a proposition which is always true. A contradiction is a proposition which is always false.
Section 1.2 Propositional Equivalences A tautology is a proposition which is always true. Classic Example: P P A contradiction is a proposition which is always false. Classic Example: P P A contingency
More informationMA103 STATEMENTS, PROOF, LOGIC
MA103 STATEMENTS, PROOF, LOGIC Abstract Mathematics is about making precise mathematical statements and establishing, by proof or disproof, whether these statements are true or false. We start by looking
More informationMathematical Logic Prof. Arindama Singh Department of Mathematics Indian Institute of Technology, Madras. Lecture - 15 Propositional Calculus (PC)
Mathematical Logic Prof. Arindama Singh Department of Mathematics Indian Institute of Technology, Madras Lecture - 15 Propositional Calculus (PC) So, now if you look back, you can see that there are three
More informationPacket #2: Set Theory & Predicate Calculus. Applied Discrete Mathematics
CSC 224/226 Notes Packet #2: Set Theory & Predicate Calculus Barnes Packet #2: Set Theory & Predicate Calculus Applied Discrete Mathematics Table of Contents Full Adder Information Page 1 Predicate Calculus
More information8. Reductio ad absurdum
8. Reductio ad absurdum 8.1 A historical example In his book, The Two New Sciences, 10 Galileo Galilea (1564-1642) gives several arguments meant to demonstrate that there can be no such thing as actual
More informationCOMP 182 Algorithmic Thinking. Proofs. Luay Nakhleh Computer Science Rice University
COMP 182 Algorithmic Thinking Proofs Luay Nakhleh Computer Science Rice University 1 Reading Material Chapter 1, Section 3, 6, 7, 8 Propositional Equivalences The compound propositions p and q are called
More informationPropositional Logic. Argument Forms. Ioan Despi. University of New England. July 19, 2013
Propositional Logic Argument Forms Ioan Despi despi@turing.une.edu.au University of New England July 19, 2013 Outline Ioan Despi Discrete Mathematics 2 of 1 Order of Precedence Ioan Despi Discrete Mathematics
More informationLogic Overview, I. and T T T T F F F T F F F F
Logic Overview, I DEFINITIONS A statement (proposition) is a declarative sentence that can be assigned a truth value T or F, but not both. Statements are denoted by letters p, q, r, s,... The 5 basic logical
More informationn 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
More information- 1.2 Implication P. Danziger. Implication
Implication There is another fundamental type of connectives between statements, that of implication or more properly conditional statements. In English these are statements of the form If p then q or
More informationCOMP 2600: Formal Methods for Software Engineeing
COMP 2600: Formal Methods for Software Engineeing Dirk Pattinson Semester 2, 2013 What do we mean by FORMAL? Oxford Dictionary in accordance with convention or etiquette or denoting a style of writing
More informationLogic and Proof. On my first day of school my parents dropped me off at the wrong nursery. There I was...surrounded by trees and bushes!
Logic and Proof On my first day of school my parents dropped me off at the wrong nursery. There I was...surrounded by trees and bushes! 26-Aug-2011 MA 341 001 2 Requirements for Proof 1. Mutual understanding
More informationFoundations of Mathematics MATH 220 FALL 2017 Lecture Notes
Foundations of Mathematics MATH 220 FALL 2017 Lecture Notes These notes form a brief summary of what has been covered during the lectures. All the definitions must be memorized and understood. Statements
More informationMAT 243 Test 1 SOLUTIONS, FORM A
t MAT 243 Test 1 SOLUTIONS, FORM A 1. [10 points] Rewrite the statement below in positive form (i.e., so that all negation symbols immediately precede a predicate). ( x IR)( y IR)((T (x, y) Q(x, y)) R(x,
More information