i.e. The conclusion to the following argument says If you had an A, then you d have a ~(B v Z).
|
|
- Christina Cooper
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 7.5 Conditional Proof (CP): Conditional Proof is a different way to do proofs. Using CP will always get you a horseshoe statement, so the best time to use it is when your conclusion is either a horseshoe or triplebar. A Conditional statement is a horseshoe statement (p q). It says If you had a p, then you d have a q. i.e. The conclusion to the following argument says If you had an A, then you d have a ~(B v Z). We are going to test this conclusion by assuming we do have the A (assuming the p of the p q ), and seeing if we can get ~(B v Z) (which is the q ). Any time you make an assumption, to show that you re doing something different than the regular proof, you need to indent (tab in). 1. A ~B 2. A ~Z / A ~(B v Z) 3. A (Assumption for CP) 4. ~B 1,3 MP 5. ~Z 2,3 MP 6. ~B ~Z 4,5 conj. 7. ~(B v Z) 6 DM 8. A ~(B v Z) 3-7 CP (the whole indented area) Line 7 shows that by assuming the A (saying if we had A ), that we could then get the ~(B v Z). So leaving the indented area (tabbing out) automatically gives us the first line of the indented area (our assumption) horseshoed to the last line of the indented area (wherever we decide to step back out). If we had left the indented area after line 5, CP would give us A ~Z (because we would have proven that if we had an A, we could get a ~Z). CP always automatically gives you your assumption horseshoed to where you leave. In the next proof, notice that the main connective of the conclusion is a horseshoe, but also that the q of that statement is another horseshoe statement. So it is saying If you had a ~Z then if you had an M, then you d have ~O. We are going to make 2 assumptions for this proof, one right after the other, because we have more horseshoe statements after our first assumption. 1. (M K) Z 2. ~O v (K v Z) / ~Z (M ~O) 3. ~Z 4. M 5. ~(M K) 1,3 MT 6. ~M v ~K 5 DM 7. ~K 4,6 DS 8. ~K ~Z 3,7 conj.
2 9. ~(K v Z) 8 DM 10. ~O 2,9 DS 11. M ~O 4-10 CP 12. ~Z (M ~O) 3-11 CP Your first assumption is always the p or left side of the main connective horseshoe in the conclusion. Cover that up and look at what s left. If it s another horseshoe statement then assume the p or left side of that one. Keep doing that until you run out of horseshoe statements. Never assume the last statement since it s the one you re trying to find. i.e. If this were your conclusion, this is how you d make your assumptions: / (O J) {(A F) ((~K U) [~O (M Z)])} O J A F ~K U ~O M 1. ~Z R 2. Z ~(O ~T) / (R Z) (~T ~O) 3. R Z 4. ~T 5. ~Z Z 1,3 HS 6. Z v Z 5 Impl. 7. Z 6 taut. 8. ~(O ~T) 2,7 MP 9. ~O v T 8 DM 10. ~O 4,9 DS 11. ~T ~O 4-10 CP 12. (R Z) (~T ~O) 3-11 CP Normally I draw a line from line 4 down to line 10, and then another line from line 3 down to line 11 showing the two indented areas. (I couldn t figure out how to do that in the Word doc). I draw the line for the indented area for 2 reasons. One is to line things up neatly, but the second and most important reason is to remind yourself that once you LEAVE an indented area, every line in that indented area becomes off limits. Doing CP with the triplebar: When you have a triplebar ( ) statement as your conclusion, you ll want to do 2 separate CP s (not one within another). Equivalence your conclusion on scrap paper using the horseshoe/dots one. You are going to do a CP to each half of that statement.
3 If you have a triplebar statement as one of your premises, equiv it first before you make your assumption. If you don t, then you ll have to redo it again for the second half of your CP. 1. ~M O 2. (M K) v Y 3. (~M v B) Z / (~M Z) (O Y) 4. (~M O) (O ~M 1 equiv. 5. ~M O 4 simp. 6. O ~M 4 simp. 7. ~M Z 8. ~M 7 simp. 9. O 5,8 MP 10. ~M v ~K 8 Add 11. ~(M K) 10 DM 12. Y 2,11 DS 13. O Y 9,12 conj. 14. (~M Z) (O Y) 7-13 CP 15. O Y 16. O 15 simp. 17. ~M 6,16 MP 18. ~M v B 17 Add 19. Z 3,18 MP 20. ~M Z 17,19 conj. 21. (O Y) (~M Z) CP 22. [(~M Z) (O Y)] [(O Y) (~M Z)] 14,21 conj 23. (~M Z) (O Y) 22 equiv. 7.6 Indirect Proof (IP): This is another different way to do proofs. IP can be used on any proof (although it s trickier than CP for triplebar conclusions). With IP the assumption you re going to make is always the OPPOSITE of the conclusion (by doing this, it s like you re rendering the proof invalid). Then you will break the statements down until you find a pair of contradictory statements (something and its opposite). The last line within the indented area will be the conjunction of the two opposites. This proves that your assumption lead to a logical impossibility (which is bad), therefore instead of your assumption, you will get the opposite of it (which if you assumed the opposite of your conclusion, will then be your conclusion.)
4 A note on opposites: Remember that the opposite of something is always ONE tilde on the outside of it. Here are some examples: B ~B B H ~(B H) ~Y ~W ~(~Y ~W) ~H v M ~(~H v M) ~[~U v (N A)] ~U v (N A) In each case, the ONLY difference between the 2 statements is that one of them has a (red) tilde on the outside of it. Otherwise they are exactly the same. 1. ~B (B v Y) 2. (Z v O) ~(Y v M) / B v ~Z 3. ~(B v ~Z) AIP (assumption for IP) 4. ~B Z 3 DM 5. ~B 4 simp. 6. Z 4 simp. 7. B v Y 1,5 MP 8. Y 5,7 DS 9. Z v O 6 add 10. ~(Y v M) 2,9 MP 11. ~Y ~M 10 DM 12. ~Y 11 simp. 13. Y ~Y 8,12 conj (the contradiction) 14. B v ~Z 3-13 IP (it gives the opposite of your assumption) IP will always give you the OPPOSITE of your assumption once you find a pair of contradictory statements. Unlike CP, you cannot leave the indented area whenever you want. The last line of the indented area must be the conjunction (with a dot) of the two opposites. 1. (T B) (Y O) 2. (~Z M) (O ~Y) / (M ~T) v (B Z) 3. ~[(M ~T) v (B Z)] AIP 4. ~(M ~T) ~(B Z) 3 DM 5. ~(M ~T) 4 simp. 6. ~(B Z) 4 simp. 7. ~(~M v ~T) 5 Impl. 8. M T 7 DM 9. M 8 simp. 10. T 8 simp. 11. ~(~B v Z) 6 Impl. 12. B ~Z 11 DM
5 13. B 12 simp. 14. ~Z 12 simp. 15. T B 10,13 conj. 16. Y O 1,15 MP 17. Y 16 simp. 18. O 16 simp. 19. ~Z M 9,14 conj. 20. O ~Y 2,19 MP 21. ~Y 18,20 MP 22. Y ~Y 17,21 conj. 23. (M ~T) v (B Z) 3-22 IP If you want, you can use both CP and IP in the same proof: Ex. 1. (M E) v (Z v ~A) 2. (T T) (K A) / ~M (K Z) 3. ~M 4. K 5. ~Z AIP (assume the opposite of what you want) 6. ~M v ~E 3 Add 7. ~(M E) 6 DM 8. Z v ~A 1,7 DS 9. ~A 5,8 DS 10. K ~A 4,9 conj. 11. ~(~K v A) 10 DM 12. ~(K A) 11 Impl. 13. ~(T T) 2,12 MT 14. ~(~T v T) 13 Impl. 15. T ~T 14 DM (the contradiction) 16. Z 5-15 IP (get opposite of your assumption) 17. K Z 4-16 CP 18. ~M (K Z) 3-17 CP
Natural 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 informationFor a horseshoe statement, having the matching p (left side) gives you the q (right side) by itself. It does NOT work with matching q s.
7.1 The start of Proofs From now on the arguments we are working with are all VALID. There are 18 Rules of Inference (see the last 2 pages in Course Packet, or front of txt book). Each of these rules is
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 information(ÀB Ä (A Â C)) (A Ä ÀC) Á B. This is our sample argument. Formal Proofs
(ÀB Ä (A Â C)) (A Ä ÀC) Á B This is our sample argument. Formal Proofs From now on, formal proofs will be our main way to test arguments. We ll begin with easier proofs. Our initial strategy for constructing
More information3.0. OBJECTIVES 3.1.INTRODUCTION
1 UNIT 3 INDIRECT PROOF Contents 1.0 Objectives 3.1.Introduction 3.2.The Meaning of Indirect Proof 3.3.Application of Indirect Proof 3.4.Examples 3.5.Exercises on Indirect Proof 3.6 Indirect Proof and
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 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 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 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 informationManual 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 informationCHAPTER 6 - THINKING ABOUT AND PRACTICING PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC
1 CHAPTER 6 - THINKING ABOUT AND PRACTICING PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC Here, you ll learn: what it means for a logic system to be finished some strategies for constructing proofs Congratulations! Our system of
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 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 informationLogical Form 5 Famous Valid Forms. Today s Lecture 1/26/10
Logical Form 5 Famous Valid Forms Today s Lecture 1/26/10 Announcements Homework: --Read Chapter 7 pp. 277-298 (doing the problems in parts A, B, and C pp. 298-300 are recommended but not required at this
More informationPHIL12A 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 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 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 informationPropositional Logic. Chrysippos (3 rd Head of Stoic Academy). Main early logician. AKA Modern Logic AKA Symbolic Logic. AKA Boolean Logic.
Propositional Logic. Modern Logic. Boolean Logic. AKA Modern Logic AKA Symbolic Logic. AKA Boolean Logic. Chrysippos (3 rd Head of Stoic Academy). Main early logician Stoic Philosophers Zeno ff301bc. Taught
More informationSymbolic 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 information8. 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 informationSingle-Predicate Derivations
Single-Predicate Derivations Let s do some derivations. Start with an easy one: Practice #1: Fb, Gb Ⱶ (ꓱx)(Fx Gx) Imagine that I have a frog named Bob. The above inference might go like this: Bob is friendly.
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 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 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 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 informationTruth Tables for Arguments
ruth ables for Arguments 1. Comparing Statements: We ve looked at SINGLE propositions and assessed the truth values listed under their main operators to determine whether they were tautologous, self-contradictory,
More informationPredicate Logic combines the distinctive features of syllogistic and propositional logic.
Predicate Logic combines the distinctive features of syllogistic and propositional logic. The fundamental component in predicate logic is the predicate, which is always symbolized with upper case letters.
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 informationCS 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 informationOne sided tests. An example of a two sided alternative is what we ve been using for our two sample tests:
One sided tests So far all of our tests have been two sided. While this may be a bit easier to understand, this is often not the best way to do a hypothesis test. One simple thing that we can do to get
More informationSolving with Absolute Value
Solving with Absolute Value Who knew two little lines could cause so much trouble? Ask someone to solve the equation 3x 2 = 7 and they ll say No problem! Add just two little lines, and ask them to solve
More informationPhil 2B03 (McMaster University Final Examination) Page 1 of 4
Phil 2B03 (McMaster University Final Examination) Page 1 of 4 1. [SL proof] (a) Prove the formal validity of the following sequent: (F & G), F H, H G H (1) (F & G) Prem (2) F H Prem (3) H G Prem (4) H
More informationLogic and Truth Tables
Logic and Truth Tables What is a Truth Table? A truth table is a tool that helps you analyze statements or arguments in order to verify whether or not they are logical, or true. There are five basic operations
More informationCSCI.6962/4962 Software Verification Fundamental Proof Methods in Computer Science (Arkoudas and Musser) Chapter p. 1/33
CSCI.6962/4962 Software Verification Fundamental Proof Methods in Computer Science (Arkoudas and Musser) Chapter 4.1-4.8 p. 1/33 CSCI.6962/4962 Software Verification Fundamental Proof Methods in Computer
More informationExam Question 10: Differential Equations. June 19, Applied Mathematics: Lecture 6. Brendan Williamson. Introduction.
Exam Question 10: June 19, 2016 In this lecture we will study differential equations, which pertains to Q. 10 of the Higher Level paper. It s arguably more theoretical than other topics on the syllabus,
More informationPropositional Logic: Syntax
4 Propositional Logic: Syntax Reading: Metalogic Part II, 22-26 Contents 4.1 The System PS: Syntax....................... 49 4.1.1 Axioms and Rules of Inference................ 49 4.1.2 Definitions.................................
More informationAnnouncements 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 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 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 informationSTEP Support Programme. Hints and Partial Solutions for Assignment 1
STEP Support Programme Hints and Partial Solutions for Assignment 1 Warm-up 1 You can check many of your answers to this question by using Wolfram Alpha. Only use this as a check though and if your answer
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 informationCHAPTER 10: SYMBOLIC TRAILS AND FORMAL PROOFS OF VALIDITY, PART 2
Essential Logic Ronald C. Pine CHAPTER 10: SYMBOLIC TRAILS AND FORMAL PROOFS OF VALIDITY, PART 2 Introduction In the previous chapter there were many frustrating signs that something was wrong with our
More informationMath 1 Variable Manipulation Part 5 Absolute Value & Inequalities
Math 1 Variable Manipulation Part 5 Absolute Value & Inequalities 1 ABSOLUTE VALUE REVIEW Absolute value is a measure of distance; how far a number is from zero: 6 is 6 away from zero, and " 6" is also
More informationMI 4 Mathematical Induction Name. Mathematical Induction
Mathematical Induction It turns out that the most efficient solution to the Towers of Hanoi problem with n disks takes n 1 moves. If this isn t the formula you determined, make sure to check your data
More informationInduction 1 = 1(1+1) = 2(2+1) = 3(3+1) 2
Induction 0-8-08 Induction is used to prove a sequence of statements P(), P(), P(3),... There may be finitely many statements, but often there are infinitely many. For example, consider the statement ++3+
More informationPropositional Logic. CS 3234: Logic and Formal Systems. Martin Henz and Aquinas Hobor. August 26, Generated on Tuesday 31 August, 2010, 16:54
Propositional Logic CS 3234: Logic and Formal Systems Martin Henz and Aquinas Hobor August 26, 2010 Generated on Tuesday 31 August, 2010, 16:54 1 Motivation In traditional logic, terms represent sets,
More informationMathematical 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 informationMathmatics 239 solutions to Homework for Chapter 2
Mathmatics 239 solutions to Homework for Chapter 2 Old version of 8.5 My compact disc player has space for 5 CDs; there are five trays numbered 1 through 5 into which I load the CDs. I own 100 CDs. a)
More informationPhilosophy 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 informationMITOCW watch?v=t6tqhnxy5wg
MITOCW watch?v=t6tqhnxy5wg PROFESSOR: So what are we trying to do? We're going to try to write a matter wave. We have a particle with energy e and momentum p. e is equal to h bar omega. So you can get
More informationDERIVATIONS IN SENTENTIAL LOGIC
5 DERIVATIONS IN SENTENTIAL LOGIC 1. Introduction... 142 2. The Basic Idea... 143 3. Argument Forms and Substitution Instances... 145 4. Simple Inference Rules... 147 5. Simple Derivations... 151 6. The
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 informationPredicate Logic. 1 Predicate Logic Symbolization
1 Predicate Logic Symbolization innovation of predicate logic: analysis of simple statements into two parts: the subject and the predicate. E.g. 1: John is a giant. subject = John predicate =... is a giant
More informationTest 6A. Chapter 6 Test A
Logic Chapter 6 Test A Name: Except for the truth table questions (which are double credit), each question is worth 2 points. Write your answer on the form provided. Erasure marks may cause the grading
More informationCPSC 121: Models of Computation
CPSC 121: Models of Computation Unit 4 Propositional Logic Proofs Based on slides by Patrice Belleville and Steve Wolfman Coming Up Pre-class quiz #5 is due Wednesday October 4th at 21:00 Assigned reading
More informationSupplementary exercises in propositional logic
Supplementary exercises in propositional logic The purpose of these exercises is to train your ability to manipulate and analyze logical formulas. Familiarize yourself with chapter 7.3-7.5 in the course
More informationPartial Fractions. June 27, In this section, we will learn to integrate another class of functions: the rational functions.
Partial Fractions June 7, 04 In this section, we will learn to integrate another class of functions: the rational functions. Definition. A rational function is a fraction of two polynomials. For example,
More informationIsomorphisms and Well-definedness
Isomorphisms and Well-definedness Jonathan Love October 30, 2016 Suppose you want to show that two groups G and H are isomorphic. There are a couple of ways to go about doing this depending on the situation,
More informationCMPSCI 250: Introduction to Computation. Lecture 11: Proof Techniques David Mix Barrington 5 March 2013
CMPSCI 250: Introduction to Computation Lecture 11: Proof Techniques David Mix Barrington 5 March 2013 Proof Techniques Review: The General Setting for Proofs Types of Proof: Direct, Contraposition, Contradiction
More informationLogik 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 informationIntroduction to Isabelle/HOL
Introduction to Isabelle/HOL 1 Notes on Isabelle/HOL Notation In Isabelle/HOL: [ A 1 ;A 2 ; ;A n ]G can be read as if A 1 and A 2 and and A n then G 3 Note: -Px (P x) stands for P (x) (P(x)) -P(x, y) can
More informationUnary 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 informationThe Importance of Being Formal. Martin Henz. February 5, Propositional Logic
The Importance of Being Formal Martin Henz February 5, 2014 Propositional Logic 1 Motivation In traditional logic, terms represent sets, and therefore, propositions are limited to stating facts on sets
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 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 informationThe paradox of knowability, the knower, and the believer
The paradox of knowability, the knower, and the believer Last time, when discussing the surprise exam paradox, we discussed the possibility that some claims could be true, but not knowable by certain individuals
More informationWhat 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 informationMaking Measurements. On a piece of scrap paper, write down an appropriate reading for the length of the blue rectangle shown below: (then continue )
On a piece of scrap paper, write down an appropriate reading for the length of the blue rectangle shown below: (then continue ) 0 1 2 3 4 5 cm If the measurement you made was 3.7 cm (or 3.6 cm or 3.8 cm),
More informationLogik 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 informationExp 08: Organic Molecules
Exp 08: Organic Molecules 109.5 109.5 Exp 08: Organic Molecules Part A: Representing Organic Molecules Part E: Functional Groups Formula to Model Explore different ways to draw and sketch, to represent
More informationPHIL12A 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 informationFour Basic Logical Connectives & Symbolization
PHI2LOG Topic 2 LOGIC Norva Y S Lo Produced by Norva Y S Lo Four Basic Logical Connectives & 1 Summary Under Topic 2, we will learn to: 1. Recognize four basic Logical Connectives and their correspinding
More informationWarm-Up Problem. Is the following true or false? 1/35
Warm-Up Problem Is the following true or false? 1/35 Propositional Logic: Resolution Carmen Bruni Lecture 6 Based on work by J Buss, A Gao, L Kari, A Lubiw, B Bonakdarpour, D Maftuleac, C Roberts, R Trefler,
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 informationBASIC NOTIONS. x + y = 1 3, 3x 5y + z = A + 3B,C + 2D, DC are not defined. A + C =
CHAPTER I BASIC NOTIONS (a) 8666 and 8833 (b) a =6,a =4 will work in the first case, but there are no possible such weightings to produce the second case, since Student and Student 3 have to end up with
More informationProofs. Joe Patten August 10, 2018
Proofs Joe Patten August 10, 2018 1 Statements and Open Sentences 1.1 Statements A statement is a declarative sentence or assertion that is either true or false. They are often labelled with a capital
More informationLogic and Truth Tables
Logic and ruth ables What is a ruth able? A truth table is a tool that helps you analyze statements or arguments in order to verify whether or not they are logical, or true. here are five basic operations
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 informationDerivations, part 2. Let s dive in to some derivations that require the use of the last four rules:
Derivations, part 2 Let s dive in to some derivations that require the use of the last four rules: 1. I Derivations: Let s start with some derivations that use conditional-introduction. (a) Here s an easy
More informationIntroduction to Basic Proof Techniques Mathew A. Johnson
Introduction to Basic Proof Techniques Mathew A. Johnson Throughout this class, you will be asked to rigorously prove various mathematical statements. Since there is no prerequisite of a formal proof class,
More informationSection 8.3 Higher-Order Logic A logic is higher-order if it allows predicate names or function names to be quantified or to be arguments of a
Section 8.3 Higher-Order Logic A logic is higher-order if it allows predicate names or function names to be quantified or to be arguments of a predicate. Example. The sentence, There is a function with
More informationMACM 101 Discrete Mathematics I. Exercises on Predicates and Quantifiers. Due: Tuesday, October 13th (at the beginning of the class)
MACM 101 Discrete Mathematics I Exercises on Predicates and Quantifiers. Due: Tuesday, October 13th (at the beginning of the class) Reminder: the work you submit must be your own. Any collaboration and
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 informationACCESS TO SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND AGRICULTURE: MATHEMATICS 1 MATH00030 SEMESTER / Lines and Their Equations
ACCESS TO SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND AGRICULTURE: MATHEMATICS 1 MATH00030 SEMESTER 1 017/018 DR. ANTHONY BROWN. Lines and Their Equations.1. Slope of a Line and its y-intercept. In Euclidean geometry (where
More informationValid Reasoning. Alice E. Fischer. CSCI 1166 Discrete Mathematics for Computing February, Outline Truth and Validity Valid Reasoning
Alice E. Fischer CSCI 1166 Discrete Mathematics for Computing February, 2018 Alice E. Fischer Reasoning... 1/23 1 Truth is not the same as Validity 2 Alice E. Fischer Reasoning... 2/23 Truth is not the
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 information4 Quantifiers and Quantified Arguments 4.1 Quantifiers
4 Quantifiers and Quantified Arguments 4.1 Quantifiers Recall from Chapter 3 the definition of a predicate as an assertion containing one or more variables such that, if the variables are replaced by objects
More informationA Guide to Proof-Writing
A Guide to Proof-Writing 437 A Guide to Proof-Writing by Ron Morash, University of Michigan Dearborn Toward the end of Section 1.5, the text states that there is no algorithm for proving theorems.... Such
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 informationSituation 29: Trigonometric Identities
MAC-CPTM Situations Project Situation 29: Trigonometric Identities Prepared at University of Georgia Center for Proficiency in Teaching Mathematics 28 Jun 2005 Bob Allen Revised at University of Georgia
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 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 informationLogarithms and Exponentials
Logarithms and Exponentials Steven Kaplan Department of Physics and Astronomy, Rutgers University The Basic Idea log b x =? Whoa...that looks scary. What does that mean? I m glad you asked. Let s analyze
More informationMATH CSE20 Homework 5 Due Monday November 4
MATH CSE20 Homework 5 Due Monday November 4 Assigned reading: NT Section 1 (1) Prove the statement if true, otherwise find a counterexample. (a) For all natural numbers x and y, x + y is odd if one of
More informationUnderstanding Exponents Eric Rasmusen September 18, 2018
Understanding Exponents Eric Rasmusen September 18, 2018 These notes are rather long, but mathematics often has the perverse feature that if someone writes a long explanation, the reader can read it much
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 informationPropositional Logic Basics Propositional Equivalences Normal forms Boolean functions and digital circuits. Propositional Logic.
Propositional Logic Winter 2012 Propositional Logic: Section 1.1 Proposition A proposition is a declarative sentence that is either true or false. Which ones of the following sentences are propositions?
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 informationCS 173: Induction. Madhusudan Parthasarathy University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. February 7, 2016
CS 173: Induction Madhusudan Parthasarathy University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 1 Induction February 7, 016 This chapter covers mathematical induction, and is an alternative resource to the one in
More informationSymbolising Quantified Arguments
Symbolising Quantified Arguments 1. (i) Symbolise the following argument, given the universe of discourse is U = set of all animals. Animals are either male or female. Not all Cats are male, Therefore,
More information