PHIL12A Section answers, 14 February 2011

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "PHIL12A Section answers, 14 February 2011"

Transcription

1 PHIL12A Section answers, 14 February 2011 Julian Jonker 1 How much do you know? 1. You should understand why a truth table is constructed the way it is: why are the truth values listed in the order they are? In principle, it doesn t matter how they are listed, but there is a natural way to list them systematically, which we use. (a) My favourite slot machine gives me money if I line up four cherries in a row. When I pull the lever, each of the four displayed items can come up as either a cherry or a banana. How many different combinations can the machine display? List them. This is exactly like listing all possible truth values for four atomic sentences, except with say, cherry for True and banana for False. There are = 2 4 = 16 possible combinations. Think of it in the following way: Suppose you were betting on just one item. It could come up as a cherry or banana, so there are two possible combinations. Now suppose you were betting on two items. The first item can be a cherry, but there are two possible ways for it to be a cherry if we include the possible values of the second item: cherry cherry cherry banana But this is true also if it comes up as a banana. banana cherry banana banana So there are four possible combinations. More particularly, we have 2 2 = 2 2 = 4 possibilities. If we add a third item, then the first item can come up in four different ways: if it comes up as a cherry, then there are two different ways the second item can come up (cherry or banana), and for each way the second item comes up there are two different ways the third item can come up. So all in all there are = 2 3 = 8 possibilities. The same holds for a truth table. If you have n atomic sentences, you will have 2 n rows in your truth table. In other words, the number of rows grows exponentially, which is why you will never be asked to do a truth table for more than a handful of atomic sentences! 1

2 (b) Suppose the machine displays three different items at a time my goal is to line up three cherries. But each item could be either a cherry, a banana, a palm tree or a robot. How many combinations are possible? It would take a long time to list them all, but convince yourself that there is a way to list them systematically so that you are sure you don t leave any out. What would the 17th item on your list be? There are = 4 3 = 64 possible combinations. Think of the list as a sort of tree. For the first item, draw four branches for the different possibilities: cherry, banana, palm tree, robot. At the end of the cherry branch, draw another four branches for the possible values of the second item (cherry, banana, palm tree, robot), and then do this three more times at the end of each of the other branches. You should now have sixteen end points. At the end of each end point, draw four branches for the possible values of the third item. All in all you should have 64 end points now, which you could number if you wish. If you drew the branches in the order I mentioned them here (you didn t have to, but you should have stuck with some kind of order), your 17th possibility would have been: banana cherry cherry 2. Draw up truth tables for the following sentences, and say whether they are tautologies or not. (a) (A B) ( A B) A B (A B) ( A B) T T T T F T T F T T T T F T T T F T F T T F F T F F F T T T F T T F F F T T F T T F T F (b) (Ex 4.4) (B C B) B C ( B C B) T T T T F F T F F T T F T T T T F F F T F T T F F F T F T F F F T F F T F F T F 2

3 (c) ( A ( B C)) ( (A B) C) A B C ( A ( B C)) ( (A B) C) T T T F T T F T T T T F T T T T T T T F F T F F T F F F F T T T F F T F T F T T T F T T T T T F F T T T F F F T T T F T F T T T F F T F F T T T F T F T T T T T F F T T T F T F T F T F T F F T T F F T T F F F T T F T T F T T T T F F F T T F F F T F T T F T F T T F F F T F (d) (Ex 4.6) [ A (B C) (A B)] A B C [ A (B C) (A B)] T T T F F T F F T T T T T T T T T F F F T T T T F F T T T T T F T F F T T T F F T T T F F T F F F F T T T F F F T T F F F T T F T F T F T T T T F F T F T F F T F T T T F F T F F T F F T F T F T T F F T T F F F F F F F T F T T F F F T F F F 2 Something slightly harder, if there s time. A sentence S is tautological if and only if every row of its truth table assigns True to S. S is logically necessary if and only if it is true in every logically possible circumstance. S is TW-necessary if and only it is true in every world that could possibly be constructed in Tarski s World. 1. Is the following sentence a tautology? It is not the case that both all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, otherwise Socrates is mortal. Is it logically necessary? The sentence is logically necessary, since there is no possible world in which it is false. There may be some possible worlds in which Socrates is mortal, and in that case the sentence is true. In the other worlds, at least one of the following must be true: not all men are mortal (since Socrates isn t), or Socrates isn t a man and isn t mortal like them. So in these cases the sentence is true. Now consider whether the sentence is a tautology or not. The atomic sentences are: all men are mortal, Socrates is a man, and Socrates is mortal, and they are combined by the connectives, and. So we 3

4 could abbreviate the sentence in the following way: (P Q) R, where P stands for all men are mortal, Q stands for Socrates is a man, and R stands for Socrates is mortal. This sentence is not a tautology, as drawing up a truth table will show. The moral of the story is that our truth table method is not fine-grained enough to capture the meanings of predicates and names. There is logical structure embedded within the atomic sentences that cannot be captured using truth tables. (In fact, many logic textbooks teach logic in two stages: propositional logic, dealing only with complex sentences made up of atomic sentences connected by truth-functional connectives; and predicate logic, which allows you to get into the structure of atomic sentences by working with predicates, names and quantifiers. Truth tables are taught in propositional logic, but drop out of the picture with predicate logic.) 2. Name at least two sentences that are logically necessary but not tautological. For example: (a) All bachelors are unmarried men. (b) There are infinitely many prime numbers. 3. Name at least two sentences that are TW-necessary but not logically necessary. For example: (a) Cube(a) Tet(a) Dodec(a) (b) (Large(a) Large(b)) Adjoins(a,b) 4. For each of the following, determine whether the sentence is a tautology, a logical necessity, or a TW necessity. (a) a=b b=c c=c This is not a necessity of any sort, though it is logically possible. (b) BackOf(a,b) BackOf(a,b) This is a tautology, and therefore also a logical necessity and a TW necessity. (c) (Cube(b) Cube(e)) Cube(b) A truth table shows that this is a tautology, and therefore also a logical necessity and a TW necessity. (d) (Cube(b) Cube(e)) SameShape(b,e) This is a TW necessity, since in Tarski s World there are one of two possibilities: either b and e are the same kind of block, for example they are both tetrahedrons or they are both cubes, in which case the sentence is true; or they are different shapes. But if they are different shapes, then they are certainly not both cubes, which means that the sentence is true. The sentence is not a tautology, as a truth table will show; however it is a logical necessity, as far as I can tell. 4

5 (e) SameRow(a,b) (FrontOf(a,b) BackOf(a,b)) This is a TW necessity. Either a and b are in the same row; or it is not the case that either a is in front of b or b is in front of a. I believe this is a logical necessity; it is not a tautology. (f) SameCol(a,b) SameRow(a,b) a=b This is not a necessity of any kind, since it is false if a and b are not in the same place. The following would be a TW necessity: SameCol(a,b) SameRow(a,b) (a=b), but it would not be a logical necessity. (Why?) 5. (Based on Ex 4.10) A sentence S is a logically possibility if it is true in some logically possible circumstances. S is a TW-possibility if there is at least one world that can be constructed in Tarski s World and in which S is true. S is a TT-possibility if at least one row of its truth table assigns True to S. Draw a set of nested circle indicating the relationship between logical necessities, logical possibilities, TW-possibilities, TT-possibilities, and sentences which do not belong to any of these kinds. Give an example of each kind of sentence. You should have drawn three nested circles, with the innermost being the TW possibilities, the middle circle comprising the logical possibilities, and the outer circle comprising the TT possibilities. Beyond this are those sentences which are not TT possible, and thus not logically possible and not TW possible (sentences such as a a). Here s a TW possibility (and therefore also a logical possibility and a TT possibility): SameRow(a,b) SameCol(a,b) a=b. Here s a logical possibility (and therefore also a TT possibility) that is not a TW possibility: SameRow(a,b) SameCol(a,b) (a=b). Here s a TT possibility that is not a logical possibility: SameRow(a,b) SameCol(a,b) a=b. You might want to think about these relationships along the following lines: truth tables don t look at the logical structure embedded within atomic sentences, and so they simply consider what is possible in terms of the structure of the logical connectives. The meanings of names and predicates add additional constraints: think of these as the constraints placed upon logical truths by our language. The constraints narrow the sphere of TT possibilities to the logical possibilities.the structure of the world itself then adds extra constraints on the true things we can say about the world. These constraints narrow the sphere of the logical possibilities to the TW possibilities. 3 Challenge questions 1. When determining whether a sentence is a tautology, you typically draw up a truth table and assign all possible combinations of truth values to its atomic sentences. This is pretty laborious once you have more 5

6 than three atomic sentences. Can you come up with a quicker way to determine whether a sentence is a tautology? You should try your method with the following sentence: ( ( ( ( A B) C) D) E) (A E). A tautology is true in every row of its truth table. If we try to make a tautology false, we will end up with a contradiction. On the other hand, if the sentence is not a tautology, we will end up with a valid assignment of truth values to its atomic sentences. So let s try this, starting with the connective that has widest scope: ( ( ( ( A B) C) D) E) (A E) F We know that for a disjunction to be false both of its disjuncts must be false, so we now fill these in: ( ( ( ( A B) C) D) E) (A E) F F F The disjunction on the left with the widest scope is false, so we need two false disjuncts again. On the right hand side, we have another false disjunction, allowing us to find values for A and E: ( ( ( ( A B) C) D) E) (A E) F F F F F F F T You should see the problem immediately. We need to make E on the right hand side true, but on the left hand side E comes out false. Since an atomic sentence must have the same truth value wherever it appears in a complex sentence, we have discovered a contradiction. All this means not only that we have failed to make the sentence false, but that we cannot do so. So it is a tautology. 2. The textbook says that the notion of logical necessity is annoyingly vague. Why? Can you think of a sentence whose status as a logical necessity is controversial? A concept is vague if there are borderline cases which the concept does not help us to settle. Such cases may arise for various reasons. One problem with our definition of logical necessity is its circularity. We said that a sentence is logically necessary just in case there is no logical possible circumstance in which it is false. But now we have based our definition of logical necessity on the notion of a logically possible circumstance, and in particular, on the notion of logical possibility. Which circumstances are logically possible? Those which are compatible with what is logically necessary. Another problem is that there are a number of ways in which a set of circumstances can be possible or impossible. It is not possible that 2+2=5, but this kind of impossibility is not the kind of impossibility that prohibits faster than light speed travel. Potentially, then, our notion of necessity is ambiguous. There are further kinds of impossibility: sentences that can t be true because of the logical relations between their words ( There is an unmarried person who is married. ), and sentences which can t be true because of the meanings of their words ( There is a bachelor who is married. ) Quine famously thought that it was too difficult to come up with a precise identification of the latter class of sentences, and that while our sentences are made true both by our 6

7 language and the way the world is, it is not possible to sort out the contributions of language and world sentence by sentence. Consider a sentence such as: A square has four equal sides. This, you might venture, is not true of Tahrir Square. How can I convince you that I did not mean to include Tahrir Square amongst the things I referred to as squares? Only by saying that what I meant by square was shape with four equal sides. And that would be begging the question. There is another problem with logical necessity, separate from the Quine s doubts that we can get clear on what it is for a sentence to be true in virtue of its meaning. For one might forego such sentences as logically necessary, and point simply to those sentences that are true in virtue of their logical structure. We know that a a is tautological, and thus the clearest case of a logical necessity. But we can doubt that every sentence that follows this schema is logically necessary. John has a beard or John does not have a beard follows the schema, but how could we deny that there are interesting intermediate cases in which John neither has a proper beard nor lacks one entirely? Or consider the schema (a a) - again, as clear cut a case of a logical necessity as one could possibly find. But it is not the case that the particle is spin up and the particle is spin down is an instantiation of the schema, and quantum physics seems to tell us that such sentences are often false. There are deep problems here about what counts as a possibility, and about what counts as a possible circumstance. Formal languages, such as First Order Logic, help us make these ideas more precise, but they do not necessarily solve the problems for natural language. 7

PHIL12A Section answers, 16 February 2011

PHIL12A Section answers, 16 February 2011 PHIL12A Section answers, 16 February 2011 Julian Jonker 1 How much do you know? 1. Show that the following sentences are equivalent. (a) (Ex 4.16) A B A and A B A B (A B) A A B T T T T T T T T T T T F

More information

Symbolic Logic 3. For an inference to be deductively valid it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true.

Symbolic Logic 3. For an inference to be deductively valid it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true. Symbolic Logic 3 Testing deductive validity with truth tables For an inference to be deductively valid it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true. So, given that truth tables

More information

Final Exam Theory Quiz Answer Page

Final Exam Theory Quiz Answer Page Philosophy 120 Introduction to Logic Final Exam Theory Quiz Answer Page 1. (a) is a wff (and a sentence); its outer parentheses have been omitted, which is permissible. (b) is also a wff; the variable

More information

PHIL12A Section answers, 28 Feb 2011

PHIL12A Section answers, 28 Feb 2011 PHIL12A Section answers, 28 Feb 2011 Julian Jonker 1 How much do you know? Give formal proofs for the following arguments. 1. (Ex 6.18) 1 A B 2 A B 1 A B 2 A 3 A B Elim: 2 4 B 5 B 6 Intro: 4,5 7 B Intro:

More information

A Little Deductive Logic

A 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 information

A Little Deductive Logic

A 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 information

3 The Semantics of the Propositional Calculus

3 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 information

Chapter 9. Modal Language, Syntax, and Semantics

Chapter 9. Modal Language, Syntax, and Semantics Chapter 9 Modal Language, Syntax, and Semantics In chapter 6 we saw that PL is not expressive enough to represent valid arguments and semantic relationships that employ quantified expressions some and

More information

Discrete Mathematics & Mathematical Reasoning Predicates, Quantifiers and Proof Techniques

Discrete Mathematics & Mathematical Reasoning Predicates, Quantifiers and Proof Techniques Discrete Mathematics & Mathematical Reasoning Predicates, Quantifiers and Proof Techniques Colin Stirling Informatics Some slides based on ones by Myrto Arapinis Colin Stirling (Informatics) Discrete Mathematics

More information

Supplementary Logic Notes CSE 321 Winter 2009

Supplementary 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 information

Introducing Proof 1. hsn.uk.net. Contents

Introducing 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 information

Choosing Logical Connectives

Choosing Logical Connectives Choosing Logical Connectives 1. Too Few Connectives?: We have chosen to use only 5 logical connectives in our constructed language of logic, L1 (they are:,,,, and ). But, we might ask, are these enough?

More information

Part I: Propositional Calculus

Part I: Propositional Calculus Logic Part I: Propositional Calculus Statements Undefined Terms True, T, #t, 1 False, F, #f, 0 Statement, Proposition Statement/Proposition -- Informal Definition Statement = anything that can meaningfully

More information

cis32-ai lecture # 18 mon-3-apr-2006

cis32-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 information

CS 124 Math Review Section January 29, 2018

CS 124 Math Review Section January 29, 2018 CS 124 Math Review Section CS 124 is more math intensive than most of the introductory courses in the department. You re going to need to be able to do two things: 1. Perform some clever calculations to

More information

Direct Proof and Counterexample I:Introduction

Direct Proof and Counterexample I:Introduction Direct Proof and Counterexample I:Introduction Copyright Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. Goal Importance of proof Building up logic thinking and reasoning reading/using definition interpreting :

More information

Logik für Informatiker Proofs in propositional logic

Logik für Informatiker Proofs in propositional logic Logik für Informatiker Proofs in propositional logic WiSe 009/10 al consequence Q is a logical consequence of P 1,, P n, if all worlds that make P 1,, P n true also make Q true Q is a tautological consequence

More information

Direct Proof and Counterexample I:Introduction. Copyright Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Direct Proof and Counterexample I:Introduction. Copyright Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. Direct Proof and Counterexample I:Introduction Copyright Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. Goal Importance of proof Building up logic thinking and reasoning reading/using definition interpreting statement:

More information

CHAPTER 4 CLASSICAL PROPOSITIONAL SEMANTICS

CHAPTER 4 CLASSICAL PROPOSITIONAL SEMANTICS CHAPTER 4 CLASSICAL PROPOSITIONAL SEMANTICS 1 Language There are several propositional languages that are routinely called classical propositional logic languages. It is due to the functional dependency

More information

Logik für Informatiker Logic for computer scientists

Logik für Informatiker Logic for computer scientists Logik für Informatiker Logic for computer scientists Till Mossakowski WiSe 2013/14 Till Mossakowski Logic 1/ 24 Till Mossakowski Logic 2/ 24 Logical consequence 1 Q is a logical consequence of P 1,, P

More information

Propositional Logic Not Enough

Propositional Logic Not Enough Section 1.4 Propositional Logic Not Enough If we have: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Does it follow that Socrates is mortal? Can t be represented in propositional logic. Need a language that talks

More information

1.1 Statements and Compound Statements

1.1 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 information

Chapter 4: Classical Propositional Semantics

Chapter 4: Classical Propositional Semantics Chapter 4: Classical Propositional Semantics Language : L {,,, }. Classical Semantics assumptions: TWO VALUES: there are only two logical values: truth (T) and false (F), and EXTENSIONALITY: the logical

More information

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC L. MARIZZA A. BAILEY 1. The beginning of Modern Mathematics Before Euclid, there were many mathematicians that made great progress in the knowledge of numbers, algebra and geometry.

More information

Review. Propositional Logic. Propositions atomic and compound. Operators: negation, and, or, xor, implies, biconditional.

Review. Propositional Logic. Propositions atomic and compound. Operators: negation, and, or, xor, implies, biconditional. Review Propositional Logic Propositions atomic and compound Operators: negation, and, or, xor, implies, biconditional Truth tables A closer look at implies Translating from/ to English Converse, inverse,

More information

Propositional Logic. Argument Forms. Ioan Despi. University of New England. July 19, 2013

Propositional 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 information

Section 2.1: Introduction to the Logic of Quantified Statements

Section 2.1: Introduction to the Logic of Quantified Statements Section 2.1: Introduction to the Logic of Quantified Statements In the previous chapter, we studied a branch of logic called propositional logic or propositional calculus. Loosely speaking, propositional

More information

Introduction to Metalogic

Introduction to Metalogic Philosophy 135 Spring 2008 Tony Martin Introduction to Metalogic 1 The semantics of sentential logic. The language L of sentential logic. Symbols of L: Remarks: (i) sentence letters p 0, p 1, p 2,... (ii)

More information

Deep Metaphysical Indeterminacy

Deep Metaphysical Indeterminacy Deep Metaphysical Indeterminacy Bradford Skow Abstract A recent theory of metaphysical indeterminacy says that metaphysical indeterminacy is multiple actuality. That is, we have a case of metaphysical

More information

Propositional Logic Review

Propositional 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 information

Propositional Logic. Fall () Propositional Logic Fall / 30

Propositional 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 information

Announcements CompSci 102 Discrete Math for Computer Science

Announcements CompSci 102 Discrete Math for Computer Science Announcements CompSci 102 Discrete Math for Computer Science Read for next time Chap. 1.4-1.6 Recitation 1 is tomorrow Homework will be posted by Friday January 19, 2012 Today more logic Prof. Rodger Most

More information

Foundation of proofs. Jim Hefferon.

Foundation of proofs. Jim Hefferon. Foundation of proofs Jim Hefferon http://joshua.smcvt.edu/proofs The need to prove In Mathematics we prove things To a person with a mathematical turn of mind, the base angles of an isoceles triangle are

More information

What is proof? Lesson 1

What is proof? Lesson 1 What is proof? Lesson The topic for this Math Explorer Club is mathematical proof. In this post we will go over what was covered in the first session. The word proof is a normal English word that you might

More information

Logik für Informatiker Logic for computer scientists

Logik für Informatiker Logic for computer scientists Logik für Informatiker Logic for computer scientists Till Mossakowski WiSe 2013/14 Till Mossakowski Logic 1/ 29 The language of PL1 Till Mossakowski Logic 2/ 29 The language of PL1: individual constants

More information

THE LOGIC OF COMPOUND STATEMENTS

THE LOGIC OF COMPOUND STATEMENTS CHAPTER 2 THE LOGIC OF COMPOUND STATEMENTS Copyright Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. SECTION 2.1 Logical Form and Logical Equivalence Copyright Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. Logical Form

More information

Proofs: A General How To II. Rules of Inference. Rules of Inference Modus Ponens. Rules of Inference Addition. Rules of Inference Conjunction

Proofs: 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 information

Propositional Logic George Belic

Propositional Logic George Belic 1 Symbols and Translation (Ch 6.1) Our aim for the rest of the course is to study valid (deductive) arguments in symbolic systems. In this section, (Ch. 6-7) we look at the symbolic system of propositional

More information

Introduction to Sets and Logic (MATH 1190)

Introduction to Sets and Logic (MATH 1190) Introduction to Sets Logic () Instructor: Email: shenlili@yorku.ca Department of Mathematics Statistics York University Sept 18, 2014 Outline 1 2 Tautologies Definition A tautology is a compound proposition

More information

Logic. Quantifiers. (real numbers understood). x [x is rotten in Denmark]. x<x+x 2 +1

Logic. Quantifiers. (real numbers understood). x [x is rotten in Denmark]. x<x+x 2 +1 Logic One reason for studying logic is that we need a better notation than ordinary English for expressing relationships among various assertions or hypothetical states of affairs. A solid grounding in

More information

Announcements For Methods of Proof for Boolean Logic Proof by Contradiction. Outline. The Big Picture Where is Today? William Starr

Announcements For Methods of Proof for Boolean Logic Proof by Contradiction. Outline. The Big Picture Where is Today? William Starr Announcements For 09.22 Methods of for Boolean Logic William Starr 1 HW1 grades will be on Bb by end of week 2 HW4 is due on Tuesday This one is mostly written Feel free to type it out! 3 If you have problems

More information

Mathematics 114L Spring 2018 D.A. Martin. Mathematical Logic

Mathematics 114L Spring 2018 D.A. Martin. Mathematical Logic Mathematics 114L Spring 2018 D.A. Martin Mathematical Logic 1 First-Order Languages. Symbols. All first-order languages we consider will have the following symbols: (i) variables v 1, v 2, v 3,... ; (ii)

More information

Syllogistic Logic and its Extensions

Syllogistic Logic and its Extensions 1/31 Syllogistic Logic and its Extensions Larry Moss, Indiana University NASSLLI 2014 2/31 Logic and Language: Traditional Syllogisms All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal. Some men

More information

Theorem. For every positive integer n, the sum of the positive integers from 1 to n is n(n+1)

Theorem. For every positive integer n, the sum of the positive integers from 1 to n is n(n+1) Week 1: Logic Lecture 1, 8/1 (Sections 1.1 and 1.3) Examples of theorems and proofs Theorem (Pythagoras). Let ABC be a right triangle, with legs of lengths a and b, and hypotenuse of length c. Then a +

More information

Proofs. Introduction II. Notes. Notes. Notes. Slides by Christopher M. Bourke Instructor: Berthe Y. Choueiry. Fall 2007

Proofs. 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 information

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC 3 Formalisation in Propositional Logic

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC 3 Formalisation in Propositional Logic Introduction INRODUCION O LOGIC 3 Formalisation in Propositional Logic Volker Halbach If I could choose between principle and logic, I d take principle every time. Maggie Smith as Violet Crawley in Downton

More information

HOW TO WRITE PROOFS. Dr. Min Ru, University of Houston

HOW TO WRITE PROOFS. Dr. Min Ru, University of Houston HOW TO WRITE PROOFS Dr. Min Ru, University of Houston One of the most difficult things you will attempt in this course is to write proofs. A proof is to give a legal (logical) argument or justification

More information

Chapter 1 Review of Equations and Inequalities

Chapter 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 information

Phil 110, Spring 2007 / April 23, 2007 Practice Questions for the Final Exam on May 7, 2007 (9:00am 12:00noon)

Phil 110, Spring 2007 / April 23, 2007 Practice Questions for the Final Exam on May 7, 2007 (9:00am 12:00noon) Phil 110, Spring 2007 / April 23, 2007 Practice Questions for the Final Exam on May 7, 2007 (9:00am 12:00noon) (1) Which of the following are well-formed sentences of FOL? (Draw a circle around the numbers

More information

Truth-Functional Logic

Truth-Functional Logic Truth-Functional Logic Syntax Every atomic sentence (A, B, C, ) is a sentence and are sentences With ϕ a sentence, the negation ϕ is a sentence With ϕ and ψ sentences, the conjunction ϕ ψ is a sentence

More information

PHIL 422 Advanced Logic Inductive Proof

PHIL 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 information

CM10196 Topic 2: Sets, Predicates, Boolean algebras

CM10196 Topic 2: Sets, Predicates, Boolean algebras CM10196 Topic 2: Sets, Predicates, oolean algebras Guy McCusker 1W2.1 Sets Most of the things mathematicians talk about are built out of sets. The idea of a set is a simple one: a set is just a collection

More information

For all For every For each For any There exists at least one There exists There is Some

For all For every For each For any There exists at least one There exists There is Some Section 1.3 Predicates and Quantifiers Assume universe of discourse is all the people who are participating in this course. Also let us assume that we know each person in the course. Consider the following

More information

Proof Techniques (Review of Math 271)

Proof Techniques (Review of Math 271) Chapter 2 Proof Techniques (Review of Math 271) 2.1 Overview This chapter reviews proof techniques that were probably introduced in Math 271 and that may also have been used in a different way in Phil

More information

Lecture 7. Logic. Section1: Statement Logic.

Lecture 7. Logic. Section1: Statement Logic. Ling 726: Mathematical Linguistics, Logic, Section : Statement Logic V. Borschev and B. Partee, October 5, 26 p. Lecture 7. Logic. Section: Statement Logic.. Statement Logic..... Goals..... Syntax of Statement

More information

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC 1 Sets, Relations, and Arguments. Why logic? Arguments

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC 1 Sets, Relations, and Arguments. Why logic? Arguments The Logic Manual INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC 1 Sets, Relations, and Arguments Volker Halbach Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry The Logic Manual web page for the book: http://logicmanual.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/

More information

3 The language of proof

3 The language of proof 3 The language of proof After working through this section, you should be able to: (a) understand what is asserted by various types of mathematical statements, in particular implications and equivalences;

More information

The Converse of Deducibility: C.I. Lewis and the Origin of Modern AAL/ALC Modal 2011 Logic 1 / 26

The Converse of Deducibility: C.I. Lewis and the Origin of Modern AAL/ALC Modal 2011 Logic 1 / 26 The Converse of Deducibility: C.I. Lewis and the Origin of Modern Modal Logic Edwin Mares Victoria University of Wellington AAL/ALC 2011 The Converse of Deducibility: C.I. Lewis and the Origin of Modern

More information

First Order Logic: Syntax and Semantics

First Order Logic: Syntax and Semantics CS1081 First Order Logic: Syntax and Semantics COMP30412 Sean Bechhofer sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk Problems Propositional logic isn t very expressive As an example, consider p = Scotland won on Saturday

More information

Examples: P: it is not the case that P. P Q: P or Q P Q: P implies Q (if P then Q) Typical formula:

Examples: 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 information

Axiomatic set theory. Chapter Why axiomatic set theory?

Axiomatic set theory. Chapter Why axiomatic set theory? Chapter 1 Axiomatic set theory 1.1 Why axiomatic set theory? Essentially all mathematical theories deal with sets in one way or another. In most cases, however, the use of set theory is limited to its

More information

Mathematical induction

Mathematical induction Mathematical induction Notes and Examples These notes contain subsections on Proof Proof by induction Types of proof by induction Proof You have probably already met the idea of proof in your study of

More information

Introduction to Logic

Introduction to Logic Introduction to Logic L. Marizza A. Bailey June 21, 2014 The beginning of Modern Mathematics Before Euclid, there were many mathematicians that made great progress in the knowledge of numbers, algebra

More information

Logic. Propositional Logic: Syntax

Logic. Propositional Logic: Syntax 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 information

Chapter 2. Mathematical Reasoning. 2.1 Mathematical Models

Chapter 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 information

Introduction to Metalogic

Introduction to Metalogic Introduction to Metalogic Hans Halvorson September 21, 2016 Logical grammar Definition. A propositional signature Σ is a collection of items, which we call propositional constants. Sometimes these propositional

More information

Logik für Informatiker Logic for computer scientists

Logik für Informatiker Logic for computer scientists Logik für Informatiker for computer scientists WiSe 2009/10 Rooms Monday 12:00-14:00 MZH 1400 Thursday 14:00-16:00 MZH 5210 Exercises (bring your Laptops with you!) Wednesday 8:00-10:00 Sportturm C 5130

More information

A Primer on Logic Part 2: Statements, Truth Functions, and Argument Schemas Jason Zarri. 1. Introduction

A Primer on Logic Part 2: Statements, Truth Functions, and Argument Schemas Jason Zarri. 1. Introduction A Primer on Logic Part 2: Statements, Truth Functions, and Argument Schemas Jason Zarri 1. Introduction In this Part our goal is to learn how to determine the validity of argument schemas, abstract forms

More information

Russell s logicism. Jeff Speaks. September 26, 2007

Russell s logicism. Jeff Speaks. September 26, 2007 Russell s logicism Jeff Speaks September 26, 2007 1 Russell s definition of number............................ 2 2 The idea of reducing one theory to another.................... 4 2.1 Axioms and theories.............................

More information

Logic - recap. So far, we have seen that: Logic is a language which can be used to describe:

Logic - recap. So far, we have seen that: Logic is a language which can be used to describe: Logic - recap So far, we have seen that: Logic is a language which can be used to describe: Statements about the real world The simplest pieces of data in an automatic processing system such as a computer

More information

DEEP METAPHYSICAL INDETERMINACY

DEEP METAPHYSICAL INDETERMINACY The Philosophical Quarterly June 2010 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9213.2010.672.x The Scots Philosophical Association and the University of St Andrews DEEP METAPHYSICAL INDETERMINACY BY BRADFORD SKOW A recent

More information

3/29/2017. Logic. Propositions and logical operations. Main concepts: propositions truth values propositional variables logical operations

3/29/2017. 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 information

Lecture 3 : Predicates and Sets DRAFT

Lecture 3 : Predicates and Sets DRAFT CS/Math 240: Introduction to Discrete Mathematics 1/25/2010 Lecture 3 : Predicates and Sets Instructor: Dieter van Melkebeek Scribe: Dalibor Zelený DRAFT Last time we discussed propositions, which are

More information

Philosophy 220. Truth-Functional Equivalence and Consistency

Philosophy 220. Truth-Functional Equivalence and Consistency Philosophy 220 Truth-Functional Equivalence and Consistency Review Logical equivalency: The members of a pair of sentences [of natural language] are logically equivalent if and only if it is not [logically]

More information

MA103 STATEMENTS, PROOF, LOGIC

MA103 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 information

HANDOUT AND SET THEORY. Ariyadi Wijaya

HANDOUT AND SET THEORY. Ariyadi Wijaya HANDOUT LOGIC AND SET THEORY Ariyadi Wijaya Mathematics Education Department Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science Yogyakarta State University 2009 1 Mathematics Education Department Faculty of Mathematics

More information

INTENSIONS MARCUS KRACHT

INTENSIONS MARCUS KRACHT INTENSIONS MARCUS KRACHT 1. The Way Things Are This note accompanies the introduction of Chapter 4 of the lecture notes. I shall provide some formal background and technology. Let a language L be given

More information

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC. Propositional Logic. Examples of syntactic claims

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC. Propositional Logic. Examples of syntactic claims Introduction INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC 2 Syntax and Semantics of Propositional Logic Volker Halbach In what follows I look at some formal languages that are much simpler than English and define validity of

More information

8. Reductio ad absurdum

8. Reductio ad absurdum 8. Reductio ad absurdum 8.1 A historical example In his book, The Two New Sciences, Galileo Galilea (1564-1642) gives several arguments meant to demonstrate that there can be no such thing as actual infinities

More information

4.1 Real-valued functions of a real variable

4.1 Real-valued functions of a real variable Chapter 4 Functions When introducing relations from a set A to a set B we drew an analogy with co-ordinates in the x-y plane. Instead of coming from R, the first component of an ordered pair comes from

More information

Deduction by Daniel Bonevac. Chapter 3 Truth Trees

Deduction 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 information

Revisit summer... go to the Fitzwilliam Museum!

Revisit summer... go to the Fitzwilliam Museum! Revisit summer... go to the Fitzwilliam Museum! Faculty of Philosophy Formal Logic Lecture 5 Peter Smith Peter Smith: Formal Logic, Lecture 5 2 Outline Propositional connectives, and the assumption of

More information

Propositional Logic and Semantics

Propositional Logic and Semantics Propositional Logic and Semantics English is naturally ambiguous. For example, consider the following employee (non)recommendations and their ambiguity in the English language: I can assure you that no

More information

PUZZLE. You meet A, B, and C in the land of knights and knaves. A says Either B and I are both knights or we are both knaves.

PUZZLE. You meet A, B, and C in the land of knights and knaves. A says Either B and I are both knights or we are both knaves. PUZZLE You meet A, B, and C in the land of knights and knaves. A says Either B and I are both knights or we are both knaves. B says C and I are the same type. C says Either A is a knave or B is a knave.

More information

Tautological equivalence. entence equivalence. Tautological vs logical equivalence

Tautological equivalence. entence equivalence. Tautological vs logical equivalence entence equivalence Recall two definitions from last class: 1. A sentence is an X possible sentence if it is true in some X possible world. Cube(a) is TW possible sentence. 2. A sentence is an X necessity

More information

Philosophy of Mathematics Structuralism

Philosophy of Mathematics Structuralism Philosophy of Mathematics Structuralism Owen Griffiths oeg21@cam.ac.uk St John s College, Cambridge 17/11/15 Neo-Fregeanism Last week, we considered recent attempts to revive Fregean logicism. Analytic

More information

Unary negation: T F F T

Unary negation: T F F T Unary negation: ϕ 1 ϕ 1 T F F T Binary (inclusive) or: ϕ 1 ϕ 2 (ϕ 1 ϕ 2 ) T T T T F T F T T F F F Binary (exclusive) or: ϕ 1 ϕ 2 (ϕ 1 ϕ 2 ) T T F T F T F T T F F F Classical (material) conditional: ϕ 1

More information

Gödel s Incompleteness Theorems

Gödel s Incompleteness Theorems Seminar Report Gödel s Incompleteness Theorems Ahmet Aspir Mark Nardi 28.02.2018 Supervisor: Dr. Georg Moser Abstract Gödel s incompleteness theorems are very fundamental for mathematics and computational

More information

First Order Logic (1A) Young W. Lim 11/18/13

First Order Logic (1A) Young W. Lim 11/18/13 Copyright (c) 2013. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software

More information

Arguments and Proofs. 1. A set of sentences (the premises) 2. A sentence (the conclusion)

Arguments 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 information

Introduction to fuzzy logic

Introduction to fuzzy logic Introduction to fuzzy logic Andrea Bonarini Artificial Intelligence and Robotics Lab Department of Electronics and Information Politecnico di Milano E-mail: bonarini@elet.polimi.it URL:http://www.dei.polimi.it/people/bonarini

More information

Discrete Mathematics for CS Fall 2003 Wagner Lecture 3. Strong induction

Discrete Mathematics for CS Fall 2003 Wagner Lecture 3. Strong induction CS 70 Discrete Mathematics for CS Fall 2003 Wagner Lecture 3 This lecture covers further variants of induction, including strong induction and the closely related wellordering axiom. We then apply these

More information

Intermediate Logic. Natural Deduction for TFL

Intermediate 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 information

Math 13, Spring 2013, Lecture B: Midterm

Math 13, Spring 2013, Lecture B: Midterm Math 13, Spring 2013, Lecture B: Midterm Name Signature UCI ID # E-mail address Each numbered problem is worth 12 points, for a total of 84 points. Present your work, especially proofs, as clearly as possible.

More information

Logic for Computer Science - Week 2 The Syntax of Propositional Logic

Logic for Computer Science - Week 2 The Syntax of Propositional Logic Logic for Computer Science - Week 2 The Syntax of Propositional Logic Ștefan Ciobâcă November 30, 2017 1 An Introduction to Logical Formulae In the previous lecture, we have seen what makes an argument

More information

1 Propositional Logic

1 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 information

8. Reductio ad absurdum

8. 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 information

Non-normal Worlds. Daniel Bonevac. February 5, 2012

Non-normal Worlds. Daniel Bonevac. February 5, 2012 Non-normal Worlds Daniel Bonevac February 5, 2012 Lewis and Langford (1932) devised five basic systems of modal logic, S1 - S5. S4 and S5, as we have seen, are normal systems, equivalent to K ρτ and K

More information

cse541 LOGIC FOR COMPUTER SCIENCE

cse541 LOGIC FOR COMPUTER SCIENCE cse541 LOGIC FOR COMPUTER SCIENCE Professor Anita Wasilewska Spring 2015 LECTURE 2 Chapter 2 Introduction to Classical Propositional Logic PART 1: Classical Propositional Model Assumptions PART 2: Syntax

More information

Williamson s Modal Logic as Metaphysics

Williamson s Modal Logic as Metaphysics Williamson s Modal Logic as Metaphysics Ted Sider Modality seminar 1. Methodology The title of this book may sound to some readers like Good as Evil, or perhaps Cabbages as Kings. If logic and metaphysics

More information