Outline

Rules of Inferences Discrete Mathematics I MATH/COSC 1056E

Julien Dompierre
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science Laurentian University

Rules of Inference Motivation Denitions Rules of Inference Fallacies Using Rules of Inference to Build Arguments Rules of Inference and Quantiers

Sudbury, August 6, 2008

Outline

Example: Existence of Superman

Rules of Inference Motivation Denitions Rules of Inference Fallacies Using Rules of Inference to Build Arguments Rules of Inference and Quantiers

If Superman were able and willing to prevent evil, then he would so. If Superman were unable to prevent evil, then he would be impotent; if he were unwilling to prevent evil, then he would be malevolent. Superman does not prevent evil. If Superman exists, he is neither impotent nor malevolent. Therefore, Superman does not exist. Is this argument valid ?

Outline

Denitions

Rules of Inference Motivation Denitions Rules of Inference Fallacies Using Rules of Inference to Build Arguments Rules of Inference and Quantiers

By an argument, we mean a sequence of statements that ends with a conclusion. The conclusion is the last statement of the argument. The premises are the statements of the argument preceding the conclusion. By a valid argument, we mean that the conclusion must follow from the truth of the premises.

Rule of Inference

Notation

Some tautologies are rules of inference. The general form of a rule of inference is (p1 p2 pn ) c where pi are the premises and c is the conclusion.

A rule of inference is written as p1 p2 . . .

pn c where the symbol denotes therefore. Using this notation, the hypotheses are written in a column, followed by a horizontal bar, followed by a line that begins with the therefore symbol and ends with the conclusion.

Outline

modus ponens
The rule of inference

Rules of Inference Motivation Denitions Rules of Inference Fallacies Using Rules of Inference to Build Arguments Rules of Inference and Quantiers

pq p q is denoted the law of detachment or modus ponens (Latin for mode that arms ). If a conditional statement and the hypothesis of the conditional statement are both true, therefore the conclusion must also be true. The basis of the modus ponens is the tautology ((p q ) p ) q .

modus ponens

Example of modus ponens

p T T F F

q T F T F

pq T F T T

p (p q ) T F F F

(p (p q )) q T T T T

If it rains, then it is cloudy. It rains. Therefore, it is cloudy. r is the proposition it rains. c is the proposition it is cloudy. r c r c

modus tollens

modus tollens

The rule of inference pq q p is denoted the modus tollens (Latin for mode that denies ). This rule of inference is based on the contrapositive. The basis of the modus ponens is the tautology ((p q ) q ) p . p T T F F q T F T F pq T F T T q F T F T (p q ) q F F F T p F F T T ((p q ) q ) p T T T T

Example of modus tollens

The Addition

If it rains, then it is cloudy. It is not cloudy. Therefore, it is not the case that it rains. r is the proposition it rains. c is the proposition it is cloudy. r c c r

The rule of inference p pq is the rule of addition. This rule comes from the tautology p (p q ).

The Simplication

The Hypothetical Syllogism

The rule of inference

The rule of inference pq p is the rule of simplication. This rule comes from the tautology (p q ) p .

pq qr pr is the rule of hypothetical syllogism (syllogism means argument made of three propositions where the last one, the conclusion, is necessarily true if the two rsts, the hypotheses, are true). This rule comes from the tautology ((p q ) (q r )) (p r ).

The Disjunctive Syllogism

The Conjunction

The rule of inference pq p q is the rule of disjunctive syllogism. This rule comes from the tautology ((p q ) p ) q .

The rule of inference p q pq is the rule of conjunction. This rule comes from the tautology ((p ) (q )) (p q ).

The Resolution

Outline

The rule of inference pq p r qr is the rule of resolution. This rule comes from the tautology ((p q ) (p r )) (q r ). Rules of Inference Motivation Denitions Rules of Inference Fallacies Using Rules of Inference to Build Arguments Rules of Inference and Quantiers

Fallacies

The Fallacy of Arming the Conclusion

The wrong rule of inference Fallacies are incorrect arguments. Fallacies resemble rules of inference but are based on contingencies rather than tautologies. pq q p is denoted the fallacy of arming the conclusion. The basis of this fallacy is the contingency (q (p q )) p that is a misuse of the modus ponens and is not a tautology.

Fallacy of Arming the Conclusion

Example of the Fallacy of Arming the Conclusion

p T T F F

q T F T F

pq T F T T

q (p q ) T F T F

(q (p q )) p T T F T

If it rains, then it is cloudy. It is cloudy. Therefore, it rains (wrong). r is the proposition it rains. c is the proposition it is cloudy. r c c r (wrong)

The Fallacy of Denying the Hypothesis

Fallacy of Denying the Hypothesis

The wrong rule of inference pq p q is denoted the fallacy of denying the hypothesis. The basis of this fallacy is the contingency (p (p q )) q that is a misuse of the modus tollens and is not a tautology.

p T T F F

q T F T F

pq T F T T

p F F T T

(p q ) p F F T T

q F T F T

((p q ) p ) q T T F T

Example of the Fallacy of Denying the Hypothesis

Outline

If it rains, then it is cloudy. It is not the case that it rains. Therefore, it is not cloudy (wrong). r is the proposition it rains. c is the proposition it is cloudy. r c r c (wrong)

Rules of Inference Motivation Denitions Rules of Inference Fallacies Using Rules of Inference to Build Arguments Rules of Inference and Quantiers

Example: Existence of Superman

If Superman were able and willing to prevent evil, then he would so. If Superman were unable to prevent evil, then he would be impotent; if he were unwilling to prevent evil, then he would be malevolent. Superman does not prevent evil. If Superman exists, he is neither impotent nor malevolent. Therefore, Superman does not exist. w is Superman is willing to prevent evil a is Superman is able to prevent evil i is Superman is impotent m is Superman is malevolent p is Superman prevents evil x is Superman exists

Example: Existence of Superman

If Superman were able and willing to prevent evil, then he would so. If Superman were unable to prevent evil, then he would be impotent; if he were unwilling to prevent evil, then he would be malevolent. Superman does not prevent evil. If Superman exists, he is neither impotent nor malevolent. Therefore, Superman does not exist. h1. h2. h3. h4. h5. h6. (a w ) p a i w m p x i x m

Example: Existence of Superman

Outline

Argument: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Q.E.D. i a x a m w x w x (a w ) x p x contrapositive of h2 . h5 and step 1 with hyp. syll. contrapositive of h3 . h6 ans step 3 with hyp. syll. Step 2 and 4 with conjunction. Step 5 and h1 with hyp. syll. Step 6 and h4 with modus tollens. Rules of Inference Motivation Denitions Rules of Inference Fallacies Using Rules of Inference to Build Arguments Rules of Inference and Quantiers

Rules of Inference and Quantiers

Universal Instantiation

There are four rules of inference for quantiers:

Universal instantiation (UI), Universal generalization (UG), Existential instantiation (EI), Existential generalization (EG).

x P (x ) P (c ) If a propositional function is true for all element x of the universe of discourse, then it is true for a particular element c of the universe of discourse.

Universal Instantiation and modus ponens

The universal instantiation and the modus ponens are used together to form the universal modus ponens. Example: All humans have two legs. John Smith is a human. Therefore, John Smith has two legs.

Universal Generalization

P (c ) for an arbitrary c x P (x ) We must rst dene the universe of discourse. Then, we must show that P (c ) is true for an arbitrary, and not a specic, element c of the universe of discourse. We have no control over c and we can not make any other assumptions about c other than it comes from the domain of discourse. The error of adding unwarranted assumptions about the arbitrary element c is common and is an incorrect reasoning.

H (x ) is x is a human. L(x ) is x has two legs. j is John Smith, a element of the universe of discourse. 1. 2. 3. x (H (x ) L(x )) H (j ) L(j ) H (j ) L(j ) Premise. Universal instantiation from 1. Premise. Modus ponens from 2. et 3.

Existential Instantiation

Existential Generalization

x P (x ) P (c ) for some element c The existential instantiation is the rule that allow us to conclude that there is an element c in the universe of discourse for which P (c ) is true if we know that xP (x ) is true. We can not select an arbitrary value of c here, but rather it must be a c for which P (c ) is true.

P (c ) for some element c x P (x ) If we know one element c in the universe of discourse for which P (c ) is true, therefore we know that x P (x ) is true.