CPPE TURN OVER

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

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

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

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

Propositional Logic Not Enough

2010 Part IA Formal Logic, Model Answers

2-4: The Use of Quantifiers

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

Proposi'onal Logic Not Enough

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC 3 Formalisation in Propositional Logic

Introduction to Sets and Logic (MATH 1190)

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC. Propositional Logic. Examples of syntactic claims

1A Logic 2015 Model Answers

Section Summary. Predicate logic Quantifiers. Negating Quantifiers. Translating English to Logic. Universal Quantifier Existential Quantifier

Interpretations of PL (Model Theory)

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

THE LOGIC OF COMPOUND STATEMENTS

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

Learning Goals of CS245 Logic and Computation

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC 8 Identity and Definite Descriptions

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

Chapter 1 Elementary Logic

Predicate Calculus - Syntax

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC 8 Identity and Definite Descriptions

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

The Natural Deduction Pack

Logic and Propositional Calculus

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

Introduction to Metalogic

Logical Agents. Knowledge based agents. Knowledge based agents. Knowledge based agents. The Wumpus World. Knowledge Bases 10/20/14

Handout #7 Predicate Logic Trees

ICS141: Discrete Mathematics for Computer Science I

Predicate Logic. Andreas Klappenecker

INF3170 Logikk Spring Homework #8 For Friday, March 18

CHAPTER 2. FIRST ORDER LOGIC

Class 29 - November 3 Semantics for Predicate Logic

Overview of Today s Lecture

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:

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

Predicates, Quantifiers and Nested Quantifiers

Why Learning Logic? Logic. Propositional Logic. Compound Propositions

Overview of Today s Lecture

Logic: The Big Picture

Section 3.1: Direct Proof and Counterexample 1

Introduction to Metalogic 1

A Little Deductive Logic

Announcements CompSci 102 Discrete Math for Computer Science

Logic and Propositional Calculus

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

It rains now. (true) The followings are not propositions.

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

WUCT121. Discrete Mathematics. Logic. Tutorial Exercises

PREDICATE LOGIC. Schaum's outline chapter 4 Rosen chapter 1. September 11, ioc.pdf

ECOM Discrete Mathematics

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

Final Exam (100 points)

Logik für Informatiker Formal proofs for propositional logic

Logic: Propositional Logic Truth Tables

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC

Section 2.1: Introduction to the Logic of Quantified Statements

Syllogistic Logic and its Extensions

4 Quantifiers and Quantified Arguments 4.1 Quantifiers

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

Do not start until you are given the green signal

Doc112: Hardware. Department of Computing, Imperial College London. Doc112: Hardware Lecture 1 Slide 1

Philosophy 240 Symbolic Logic Russell Marcus Hamilton College Fall 2014

CS 2740 Knowledge Representation. Lecture 4. Propositional logic. CS 2740 Knowledge Representation. Administration

COMP 2600: Formal Methods for Software Engineeing

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

! Predicates! Variables! Quantifiers. ! Universal Quantifier! Existential Quantifier. ! Negating Quantifiers. ! De Morgan s Laws for Quantifiers

Section Summary. Predicate logic Quantifiers. Negating Quantifiers. Translating English to Logic. Universal Quantifier Existential Quantifier

1A Logic 2013 Model Answers

Exercises. Exercise Sheet 1: Propositional Logic

A Little Deductive Logic

Announcements & Such

COMP 182 Algorithmic Thinking. Proofs. Luay Nakhleh Computer Science Rice University

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC

Propositional Logic: Part II - Syntax & Proofs 0-0

1 Implication and induction

Proving Arguments Valid in Predicate Calculus

The statement calculus and logic

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

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

Discrete Mathematics

FOUNDATION OF COMPUTER SCIENCE ETCS-203

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

Propositional Logic: Syntax

DISCRETE MATHEMATICS BA202

Section 1.1 Propositions

CS103 Handout 09 Fall 2012 October 19, 2012 Problem Set 4

Logic for Computer Science - Week 4 Natural Deduction

MAT2345 Discrete Math

Logic, Human Logic, and Propositional Logic. Human Logic. Fragments of Information. Conclusions. Foundations of Semantics LING 130 James Pustejovsky

Math Fundamentals of Higher Math

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.

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

COMP219: Artificial Intelligence. Lecture 19: Logic for KR

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

HW1 graded review form? HW2 released CSE 20 DISCRETE MATH. Fall

Final Exam Theory Quiz Answer Page

Transcription:

[4] [1] [4] [16] The solutions are highly incomplete and only intended to give a rough idea. 1. (a) Which of the following expressions is an abbreviation of a sentence of L 1? If an expression is an abbreviation of a L 1 -sentence, then restore all the brackets that have been dropped in accordance with the Bracketing Conventions of the Logic Manual. If not, explain why not. (i) P Q R ( P Q R) (ii) P Q R P (Q R) (b) What is it for two L 1 -sentences to be logically equivalent? (c) Which of the following are pairs of logically equivalent L 1 -sentences? Use truth tables in order to justify your answer. (i) (P Q) Q, P Q Q (ii) P (Q R), R ( Q P) (d) 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. I just raised my hand. Either determinism is false or the laws of nature being what they in fact are and the events in the remote past being what they in fact are entailed my raising my hand just now. But if the laws of nature being what they are together with the events in the remote past being what they are entailed my raising my hand, then I only had any control over my doing so if I had any control over the laws of nature being what they in fact are or the events in the remote past being what they in fact are. It is plain that I had no control whatever over the laws of nature being what they in fact are. Nor did I had any control over the events in the remote past being what they in fact are. It follows that I had no control whatever over my raising my hand. For determinism is true after all. CPPE 4266 2

2. (a) Show that each of the following arguments is in fact propositionally valid. You may use a partial truth table or a Natural Deduction proof to show that an argument is propositionally valid. [9] (i) If Brown decides to visit Spain, then he will not visit Barcelona. Therefore, if Brown visits Barcelona, then Brown will not decide to visit Spain. (ii) It is not the case that, if God exists, then human life is the product of random chance. So, God exists. (iii) If I turn the ignition on, then the engine will start. Therefore, if I turn the ignition on and there is no petrol in the tank, then the engine will start. (b) Write a brief essay discussing the question of whether we should conclude that is inadequate for the formalisation of if... then... in English or whether we could still argue that, despite appearances to the contrary, provides an appropriate translation for the use of if... then... in the previous three arguments. [16] 3. (a) Write an essay comparing and contrasting the following two rival characterisations of logical validity. Are there any reasons to prefer one over the other? [13] (A) An argument is logically valid if and only if there is no interpretation under which the premises are true and the conclusion is false. (B) An argument is logically valid if and only if it is impossible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false. (b) Which of the following arguments are logically valid? If an argument has a valid formalisation in L 1, L 2 or L =, then specify your dictionary and use a partial truth table in the case of arguments in L 1 or a Natural Deduction proof in the case of arguments in L 2 or L = to show the validity of the resulting argument. If an argument cannot be formalised into a valid argument in L =, then specify your dictionary and provide 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.) Finally, explain whether your formalisation is adequate. [12] (i) Some apples are red all over and some apples are green all over. As a consequence, some apples are both red and green all over. (ii) Nothing is both red and green all over. CPPE 4266 3 TURN OVER

(iii) Most tutors hold their tutorials in the afternoon. Most tutors hold their tutorials in College. Therefore, some tutors must hold their tutorials in College in the afternoon. (iv) If God is perfectly good, then there is evil in the world only if God cannot prevent it. If there is evil in the world, and God cannot prevent it, then God is not omnipotent. But there is evil in the world. Therefore, God is not both omnipotent and perfectly good. [12] [13] 4. (a) Establish each of the following by means of a proof in the system of Natural Deduction: (i) P 1 P 2 Q R, (P 1 Q) P 2 R (ii) x(px (Q 1 x Q 2 x)), x(q 1 x Rx), x(px Rx) xq 2 x (iii) xrxx, x y(rxx Rxy x = y) x y(rxy x = y) (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.) (i) R, (P Q R), P R P 1 P 2 Q P 1 P 2 R [Q] Q R [P] P Q R (P Q R) P P R P R P 1 P 2 P 1 P 2 Q P 1 P 2 (ii) ( xpx xpx) ( x Px xpx) x Px [ xpx] Pa Pa xpx xpx xpx xpx xpx xpx [ xpx] CPPE 4266 4

(iii) xrxx, x y(rxy Ryy x = y) x y(ryy x = y) xrxx x y(rxy Ryy x = y) Raa y(ray Ryy a = y) Raa Raa Raa Raa a = a a = a Raa a = a y(ryy a = y) x y(ryy x = y) x y(ryy x = y) 5. (a) Use the following dictionary to translate each of the following sentences of L 2 into idiomatic English: [7] P:... is a critic Q:... is knowledgeable R:... admires... (1) x( y(rxy Py) Px) (2) x(px Qx) (3) x(qx y (Rxy Py)) (4) xrxx (5) x Rxx (b) Find any L 2 -structures satisfying each of the following conditions. There is no need to prove that your structure satisfies the relevant condition; you need only specify the structure and briefly sketch the reasons why your proposed structure satisfies the condition. If there is no structure satisfying the relevant condition, then justify your answer. [18] (i) Each of (1), (3) and (5) in part (a) are true and (2) and (4) are false. (ii) Each of (1), (2) and (4) in part (a) are true and (3) and (5) are false. (iii) Each of (2), (3) and (4) in part (a) are true and (1) and (5) are false. (iv) Each of (2), (4) and (5) in part (a) are true and (1) and (3) are false. (v) Every L 2 -sentence in part (a) is true. (vi) Every L 2 -sentence in part (a) is false. CPPE 4266 5 TURN OVER

[8] [5] [6] [6] 6. (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. (i) α, β, and γ are Greek letters. (ii) Paris is identical to London is a sentence. (iii) and are quotation marks. (iv) This is the first word of this incomplete sentence. (b) Define the notion of a sentence of the language L 1 of propositional logic. (c) The negation of a L 1 -sentence is the sentence preceded by the symbol. 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. (i) the set of all ordered pairs e, f where f is the negation of e (ii) the set of all ordered pairs e, f where f is the negation of e or e is the negation of f (iii) the set of all ordered pairs e, f where the set {e, f } is semantically consistent. (d) For each of the sentences below, explain the ways in which it is ambiguous. Whenever possible, reveal the ambiguity by formalising each sentence in two (or more) different ways in L 2. Specify your dictionary carefully and note any points of interest. (i) All that glitters is not gold. (ii) There is a solution to every problem. (iii) No one is allowed to have ice cream and cake. [8] 7. (a) Formalise the following sentences in L = using the following dictionary: P:... is an English county Q:... is in the South West R:... is adjacent to... a: Oxfordshire b: Berkshire c: Cumbria (i) Cumbria is an English county which is not adjacent to Oxfordshire or Berkshire. CPPE 4266 6

(ii) No English county is adjacent both to Cumbria and to Oxfordshire, though some English counties are adjacent both to Oxfordshire and Berkshire. (iii) Every English county has at least two adjacent counties. (iv) One English county in the South West has only one adjacent county. (b) Consider an L = -structure S satisfying the following conditions: Let α be a variable assignment with: D S = {x : x is an English county} P S = {x : x is in the South East} R S = { e,d : e is adjacent to d} x α S = Oxfordshire y α S = Berkshire z α S = Cumbria Does α satisfy any of the following formulae in S? Justify your answer. (You do not have to give a complete proof, but you should say why you think each formula is or not satisfied in S by the assignment.) [9] (i) x yrxy (ii) x yrxy Px (iii) x( yrxy Px) (c) For each of the sentences below, explain the ways in which it is ambiguous. Whenever possible, reveal the ambiguity by formalising each sentence in two (or more) different ways in L =. Make sure to specify your dictionary carefully and note any points of interest. [8] (i) No two people own the same car. (ii) The man on the moon is not an astronaut. CPPE 4266 7 TURN OVER