0
Preliminaries: Logical deduction
We begin with a rather wordy proof listed in steps, to illustrate a variety of proof techniques. Proposition 0.1. pP
_ pQ ^ Rqq ppP _ Qq ^ pP _ Rqq.
Proof. We prove the if and only if statement by proving implications in each direction. For the rst direction, we prove pP _ pQ ^ Rqq ppP _ Qq ^ pP _ Rqq. To start, we assume the hypothesis, pP _ pQ ^ Rqq. We continue the proof by an analysis of cases. Case 1. P is true. Then pP _ Qq, since one of the statements (disjuncts) is true. Also pP _ Rq, by the same reason. Thus ppP _ Qq ^ pP _ Rqq, since both statements (conjuncts) are true. Case 2. pQ ^ Rq is true. Then Q, since it is one of the conjuncts. So pP _ Qq, since one of the two statements is true. Also R, since we assumed pQ ^ Rq. So pP _ Rq, since one of the two statements is true. Thus ppP _ Qq ^ pP _ Rqq, since both conjuncts are true. By assumption, one of the cases must hold. Thus ppP _ Qq ^ pP _ Rqq, since it is true in both cases. Therefore, pP _ pQ ^ Rqq ppP _ Qq ^ pP _ Rqq. (We assumed the hypothesis and proved the conclusion.) For the opposite direction, we prove ppP _ Qq ^ pP _ Rqq pP _ pQ ^ Rqq. Assume the hypothesis, ppP _ Qq ^ pP _ Rqq. Then pP _ Qq, since it is one of the conjuncts. Now continue the proof by an analysis of cases. Case 1. P is true. Then pP _ pQ ^ Rqq, since P is one of the disjuncts. Case 2. Q is true. Also pP _ Rq, since it is a conjunct of our hypothesis for this direction of the proof. Sub-Case 2a. P is true. Then pP _ pQ ^ Rqq, since we have assumed P . Sub-Case 2b. R is true. Then pQ ^ Rq. Thus pP _ pQ ^ Rqq. In both sub-cases, pP _ pQ ^ Rqq. Since pP _ Rq, one of the sub-cases must hold. Consequently, pP _ pQ ^ Rqq in this case. In both cases, pP _ pQ ^ Rqq. Since pP _ Qq, one of the cases must hold. 2
Therefore ppP _ Qq ^ pP _ Rqq pP _ pQ ^ Rqq. (We assumed the hypothesis and proved the conclusion.) Since we have both pP _ pQ ^ Rqq ppP _ Qq ^ pP _ Rqq and ppP _ Qq ^ pP _ Rqq pP _ pQ ^ Rqq, it follows that pP _ pQ ^ Rqq ppP _ Qq ^ pP _ Rqq. The second example brings in negations and is an example of a proof by contradiction. It is presented in a minimalist style. Proposition 0.2.
Qq
pP _ Qq.
Proof. Assume p P ^ Qq. Then P . Also Q. Assume pP _ Qq, by way of contradiction. Proof by Cases. Case 1. P . Then P ^ P , a contradiction. Case 2. Q. Then Q ^ Q, a contradiction. In either case, we have a contradiction. Thus pP _ Qq. Therefore, p P ^ Qq pP _ Qq. The third example includes an existential quantier and is written in paragraph form.
DxpP pxq _ Qpxqq. Proof. Start by assuming the hypothesis, Dx P pxq. Let a be a witness, so that P paq. Then P paq _ Qpaq, since one of the disjuncts is true. Thus DxpP pxq _ Qpxqq, since a is a witness. Therefore Dx P pxq DxpP pxq _ Qpxqq.
The nal example includes a universal quantier, and exemplies the technique of using an arbitrary element and applying universal generalization. Proposition 0.4. @xpP pxq ^ Qpxqq
Proposition 0.3. Dx P pxq
Proof. Let x be arbitrary. Then P pxq ^ Qpxq. Thus P pxq, since it is one of the conjuncts. Since x was arbitrary, @x P pxq. Therefore, @xpP pxq ^ Qpxqq @x P pxq. 3
@x P pxq. Start by assuming the hypothesis, @xpP pxq ^ Qpxqq.
Project Zero: Logical Proofs
Give logical deductions for the following:
@x P pxq Dx P pxq 0.2. Dx P pxq @x P pxq 0.3. DxpP pxq ^ Qpxqq pDx P pxq ^ Dx Qpxqq 0.4. pDx P pxq DxQpxqq DxpP pxq Qpxqq 0.5. DxpP pxq _ Qpxqq pDx P pxq _ Dx Qpxqq 0.6. @xpP pxq Qpxqq p@x P pxq @x Qpxqq 0.7. p@x P pxq _ @x Qpxqq @xpP pxq _ Qpxqq 0.8. @xpP pxq ^ Qpxqq p@x P pxq ^ @x Qpxqq 0.9. @xpP pxq Qpxqq p@x P pxq @x Qpxqq 0.10. @xpP pxq Qpxqq pDx P pxq Dx Qpxqq 0.11. p@x P pxq ^ Dx Qpxqq DxpP pxq ^ Qpxqq 0.12. p@x P pxq _ Dx Qpxqq DxpP pxq _ Qpxqq 0.13. pDx P pxq @x Qpxqq @xpP pxq Qpxqq 0.14. p@x P pxq Dx Qpxqq DxpP pxq Qpxqq
0.1. In each case where the implication only goes in one direction, explain why by giving an example in which the converse implication is false.
