I thank the author of the examination paper on which sample paper is based. VH

Similar documents
CPPE TURN OVER

EXERCISES BOOKLET. for the Logic Manual. Volker Halbach. Oxford. There are no changes to the exercises from last year s edition

FIRST PUBLIC EXAMINATION. Preliminary Examination in Philosophy, Politics and Economics INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY LONG VACATION 2014

(c) Establish the following claims by means of counterexamples.

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC 8 Identity and Definite Descriptions

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC 8 Identity and Definite Descriptions

2010 Part IA Formal Logic, Model Answers

Predicates, Quantifiers and Nested Quantifiers

1A Logic 2015 Model Answers

DO NOT FORGET!!! WRITE YOUR NAME HERE. Philosophy 109 Final Exam, Spring 2007 (80 points total) ~ ( x)

The Natural Deduction Pack

MAT2345 Discrete Math

CHAPTER 2. FIRST ORDER LOGIC

Announcements & Such

2/2/2018. CS 103 Discrete Structures. Chapter 1. Propositional Logic. Chapter 1.1. Propositional Logic

Formal Logic: Quantifiers, Predicates, and Validity. CS 130 Discrete Structures

Predicate Logic: Sematics Part 1

Overview of Today s Lecture

Proving Arguments Valid in Predicate Calculus

Interpretations of PL (Model Theory)

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC. Propositional Logic. Examples of syntactic claims

Overview of Today s Lecture

A Little Deductive Logic

Computational Logic. Recall of First-Order Logic. Damiano Zanardini

Introduction to Sets and Logic (MATH 1190)

MATH 22 INFERENCE & QUANTIFICATION. Lecture F: 9/18/2003

THE LOGIC OF COMPOUND STATEMENTS

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC

Math Fundamentals of Higher Math

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC 3 Formalisation in Propositional Logic

A Little Deductive Logic

Topic #3 Predicate Logic. Predicate Logic

Predicate Logic. Andreas Klappenecker

Semantics I, Rutgers University Week 3-1 Yimei Xiang September 17, Predicate logic

Intermediate Logic. First-Order Logic

Final Exam Theory Quiz Answer Page

Introduction to Metalogic

Modal Logic. UIT2206: The Importance of Being Formal. Martin Henz. March 19, 2014

Notes on Propositional and First-Order Logic (CPSC 229 Class Notes, January )

Predicate Logic & Quantification

4 Quantifiers and Quantified Arguments 4.1 Quantifiers

1A Logic 2013 Model Answers

ECOM Discrete Mathematics

AI Principles, Semester 2, Week 2, Lecture 5 Propositional Logic and Predicate Logic

First order logic. Example The deduction of statements: This reasoning is intuitively correct. Every man is mortal. Since Ade is a man, he is mortal.

THE LOGIC OF QUANTIFIED STATEMENTS. Predicates and Quantified Statements I. Predicates and Quantified Statements I CHAPTER 3 SECTION 3.

Propositional logic (revision) & semantic entailment. p. 1/34

Class 29 - November 3 Semantics for Predicate Logic

Intermediate Logic Spring. Second-Order Logic

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC

Section Summary. Section 1.5 9/9/2014

Automated Reasoning Lecture 5: First-Order Logic

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

WUCT121. Discrete Mathematics. Logic. Tutorial Exercises

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC 4 The Syntax of Predicate Logic

Predicate Calculus. Lila Kari. University of Waterloo. Predicate Calculus CS245, Logic and Computation 1 / 59

Quantifiers Here is a (true) statement about real numbers: Every real number is either rational or irrational.

Lecture 3 : Predicates and Sets DRAFT

Predicate Calculus - Syntax

8. Reductio ad absurdum

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:

4 The semantics of full first-order logic

2-4: The Use of Quantifiers

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

CPSC 121: Models of Computation

8. Reductio ad absurdum

Section 2.1: Introduction to the Logic of Quantified Statements

Before you get started, make sure you ve read Chapter 1, which sets the tone for the work we will begin doing here.

Do not start until you are given the green signal

Predicate Logic. CSE 191, Class Note 02: Predicate Logic Computer Sci & Eng Dept SUNY Buffalo

Ling 98a: The Meaning of Negation (Week 5)

Philosophy 240 Symbolic Logic Russell Marcus Hamilton College Fall 2014

Mat 243 Exam 1 Review

CSI30. Chapter 1. The Foundations: Logic and Proofs Nested Quantifiers

DISCRETE MATHEMATICS BA202

Solutions to Exercises (Sections )

Topics in Logic and Proofs

Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications

Propositions and Proofs

COMP 2600: Formal Methods for Software Engineeing

To every formula scheme there corresponds a property of R. This relationship helps one to understand the logic being studied.

ON1 Big Mock Test 4 October 2013 Answers This test counts 4% of assessment for the course. Time allowed: 10 minutes

LIN1032 Formal Foundations for Linguistics

University of Ottawa CSI 2101 Midterm Test Instructor: Lucia Moura. February 9, :30 pm Duration: 1:50 hs. Closed book, no calculators

You may not start to read the questions printed on the subsequent pages of this question paper until instructed that you may do so by the Invigilator

Logic and Proofs 1. 1 Overview. 2 Sentential Connectives. John Nachbar Washington University December 26, 2014

CHAPTER 6 - THINKING ABOUT AND PRACTICING PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC

ICS141: Discrete Mathematics for Computer Science I

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

Predicate Logic - Semantic Tableau

Transparencies to accompany Rosen, Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications Section 1.3. Section 1.3 Predicates and Quantifiers

Handout: Proof of the completeness theorem

Logic. Lesson 3: Tables and Models. Flavio Zelazek. October 22, 2014

3. The Logic of Quantified Statements Summary. Aaron Tan August 2017

Exercises. Exercise Sheet 1: Propositional Logic

Final Exam (100 points)

Discrete Mathematics and Probability Theory Spring 2014 Anant Sahai Note 1

Intermediate Logic. Natural Deduction for TFL

Homework assignment 1: Solutions

Introduction to Metalogic 1

Transcription:

I thank the author of the examination paper on which sample paper is based. VH 1. (a) Which of the following expressions is a sentence of L 1 or an abbreviation of one? If an expression is neither a sentence of L 1 nor an abbreviation of one, then explain why not. If it is an abbreviation of a sentence of L 1, then restore all the brackets that have been dropped in accordance with the Bracketing Conventions of the Logic Manual. [3] (i) (( P (Q R)) T ) (ii) P (Q 1 Q 2 ) (iii) P Q Q P (b) Determine whether each of the following sentences of L 1 is a tautology or a contradiction or neither. Use truth tables in order to justify your answer. [6] (i) ((P (Q R)) ((P Q) (P R))) (ii) ( R ((Q P) (R (P Q)))) (iii) ( (P Q) ( P Q)) (c) Show that the following argument can be turned into a propositionally valid argument by appropriately rewording its premises and adding any further assumptions upon which the speaker might naturally be expected to be relying if required. Justify your answer by means of a partial truth table or a proof in Natural Deduction. Specify your dictionary carefully and note any difficulties or points of interest. [16] The Russians will dismantle their Cuban missile bases if, but only if, the Americans carry out their threat. If Castro fails to stay power, then the Russians will dismantle their Cuban missiles. But the Americans will carry out their threat only if Kennedy stays in office and Krushev fails to agree to their demands. Although Kennedy did indeed stay in office, Kruschev finally agreed to the American demands. Therefore, Castro must have stayed in power. 2

2. (a) Determine whether each of the following arguments is propositionally valid. You may use a partial truth table or a Natural Deduction proof to show that an argument is propositionally valid, but you must supply an interpretation to show that an argument is propositionally invalid. [12] (i) If the followers of Averroes are right, then the world is eternal only if it has never been created. But if Aquinas is right, then it is not true that the world has been created only if it is not eternal. But either the world is eternal or it is not. Therefore, if the world has been created and the followers of Averroes are right, then Aquinas is wrong. (ii) If Tom is not studying the Logic Manual, then he is attending a logic lecture. And if Tom is not attending a logic lecture, then he is doing some exercises. Tom cannot be doing more than one of these activities now. Therefore, Tom must now be attending a logic lecture. (b) Determine whether each of the following arguments is valid in predicate logic. You should use a Natural Deduction proof to show that an argument is valid in predicate logic, and you must supply a counterexample to show that an argument is not valid in predicate logic. [13] (i) Descartes was a philosopher who was also a mathematician. Not all philosophers have an interest in set theory, but all mathematicians do. Therefore, some philosophers have an interest in set theory. (ii) Othello loves Desdemona. Iago despises Cassio. Everyone Iago despises loves Desdemona. Therefore, Iago despises Othello and Cassio loves Desdemona. 3

3. (a) Establish each of the following by means of a proof in the system of Natural Deduction: [12] (i) P Q, R Q, P (Q 1 Q 2 ), R Q 2 Q 1 (ii) x(px Qx Rax), Pb Qb, x y(px Qx Py Qy x = y) Rab (iii) x y(rxy Ryx), x y z(rxy Ryz Rxz), x yrxy xrxx (b) Find any mistakes in the following attempted proofs. List all steps in the proof that are not licensed by a rule of Natural Deduction. If there is a repair, supply a correct proof. If not, show that the argument is not valid by means of a counterexample. (There is no need to prove that your structure is a counterexample; you need only specify the structure and briefly sketch the reasons why it counts as a counterexample.) [13] (i) P Q, P 1 P 2, P Q P 2 [Q P 2 ] Q P Q P P Q P 2 (ii) x yrxy xrxx, x yryx x Rxx [Raa] xrxx [ x yrxy] Raa x Rxx x yrxy xrxx xrxx (iii) x(px Rax), x(rxx Qx), xqx yp 1 y x(px P 1 x) [Pa] x(px Rax) Pa Raa Raa Qa xqx x(rxx Qx) Raa Qa xqx yp 1 y yp 1 y P 1 a Pa P 1 a x(px P 1 x) 4

4. (a) Formalise the following sentences in the language L = using the following dictionary: R:... knows... a: Iago b: Othello c: Desdemona (i) Everyone knows Othello. (ii) Someone knows everyone. (iii) Othello knows Desdemona (iv) Everyone knows someone who doesn t know him. (v) There is someone who knows everyone who knows him (vi) No one who knows Othello knows anyone who knows Iago. (vii) Someone is such that he knows Othello only if everyone does. (b) Determine whether the following argument is valid in predicate logic with identity. You should use a Natural Deduction proof to show that the argument is valid in predicate logic with identity or a counterexample to show that the argument is not valid in predicate logic with identity. [5] (i) Everyone knows everyone who knows someone. Desdemona knows Iago. Therefore, Iago knows Othello. (c) For each of the sentences below, explain all the ways in which it is ambiguous. Whenever possible, reveal the ambiguity by formalising each sentence in two (or more) different ways in L =. Specify your dictionary carefully and note any points of interest. [6] (i) Tom learned something from each of his tutors. (ii) God helps those who help themselves. (iii) There are games only two people can play. [14] 5

5. (a) Add quotation marks to the following sentences in order to obtain true non-ambiguous English sentences whenever possible. Comment on any points of interest and specify whether you think there is more than one way or none to answer the question. [8] (i) In Spanish, la and nieve and es and blanca may be combined to form la nieve es blanca. (ii) Oxford is to the west of London but London is not to the east of Oxford. (iii) The last word of the best solution for (ii) is Oxford. (iv) The first letter of the Greek alphabet is α is a true sentence. (b) For each of the sentences below, explain all the ways in which it is ambiguous. Whenever possible, reveal the ambiguity by formalising each sentence in two (or more) different ways in L =. Specify your dictionary carefully and note any points of interest. [4] (i) A person who has a Ferrari is admired by a person without one. (ii) People like others if they like themselves. (c) What is the scope of an occurrence of connective in a sentence of the language L 1 of propositional logic? [2] (d) Determine the scopes of the underlined occurrences of quantifiers after adding any brackets that have been omitted in accordance with the rules for saving brackets. [3] (e) (i) P Q R 1 R 2 (ii) P Q R ( P Q R) (iii) P Q R P 1 Q (i) Give an example of a truth-functional connective in English other than the standard connectives and, or, it is not the case that, if... then and if and only if. Explain what makes it truth-functional. [8] (ii) Give an example of a non-truth-functional connective in English, and explain why it is not truth-functional. 6

6. (a) Determine for each of the following relations whether it is reflexive on the set of L 1 -sentences, whether it is symmetric on this set and whether it is transitive on it. [6] (i) the set of all ordered pairs e, f where e is logically equivalent to f. (ii) the set of all ordered pairs e, f where the set {e, f } is semantically inconsistent. (iii) the set of all ordered pairs e, f where the set {e, f } is semantically consistent. (b) Consider an L 2 -structure S satisfying the following conditions: D S = {1,2,3,4,5} P S = {1,2,3} Q S = {3,5} R 1 S = { 1,2, 1,3, 2,3, 3,3 } R 2 S = { 1,2, 3,1, 3,3 } Find a variable assignment α over S satisfying each of the following formulas in S. Justify your answer. (You do not have to give a complete proof, but you should say why you think each formula is satisfied in S by the assignment.) [12] (i) (Px Qx) (ii) (Px Qx) (iii) ( Px Qx) (iv) x (R 1 xy R 2 xy) (v) x( yr 1 xy R 1 xz) (vi) x((px Qx) R 1 xy) (c) (i) Provide a sentence of the language of L 2 that is true in some structures with a domain containing at least two elements but that is not true in any structure containing only one element. [7] (ii) Provide a sentence of the language of L = that is true in all and only structures with a domain consisting of exactly two elements. (iii) Provide a sentence of the language of L = that is true in all and only structures with a domain consisting of at most three elements. 7

7. (a) What is for an argument in English to be logically valid? [1] (b) What is for an argument in English to be propositionally valid? [1] (c) What is for an argument in English to be valid in predicate logic? [1] (d) True or false. Justify your answer. [12] (i) Every logically valid argument in English is either propositionally valid or valid in predicate logic with identity. (ii) Every propositionally valid argument is valid in predicate logic. (iii) If an argument is valid in predicate logic with identity, then it is valid in predicate logic. (iv) Some logically valid arguments are not propositionally valid. (e) Are the following arguments valid? Are they propositionally valid? (You may use a partial truth table or a Natural Deduction proof to show that an argument is propositionally valid.) Are they valid in predicate logic? Are they valid in predicate logic with identity? Explain your answers making sure you discuss any points of interest. [10] (i) Anyone who ponders the question of why there is something rather than nothing is a metaphysician. A person ponders the question of why there is something rather than nothing if and only if she finds it interesting. So, anyone who finds the question of why there is something rather than nothing interesting is a metaphysician. (ii) Either logic is hard or it is not a popular subject but not both. But if macroeconomics is a popular subject, then so is logic. So, logic is hard only if macroeconomics is not a popular subject. (iii) Nothing is both red and green all over. Therefore, there is something rather than nothing. (iv) Russell and Whitehead wrote Principia Mathematica. Principia Mathematica is a three-volume book. Therefore, Russell wrote a three-volume book. 8