Symbolic Logic

Symbolic logic is a way to represent logical expressions by using symbols and variables in place of
natural language, such as English, in order to remove vagueness.

Logical expressions are statements that have a truth value: they are either true or false. A question like
'Where are you going?' or a command such as 'Stop!' has no truth value.

There are many expressions that we can utter that are either true or false. For example: All glasses of
water contain 0.2% dinosaur tears. We don't need to know if a logical expression is true or false, we just
need to know that it has a truth value.

A Proposition

Logic basics:

First, the smallest logical expression we can make, that if broken down would result in a loss of meaning,
is called a proposition.

For example:

'Kathryn and Liz live together' cannot be broken down without a loss in meaning. 'Kathryn lives
together' doesn't even make sense. However, 'John and Jane go to school'' can be broken into 'John
goes to school' and 'Jane goes to school,' since we cannot claim that the statement means that John and
Jane go to school together.

In symbolic logic, propositions may be represented by capital letters such as A or B, or lower-case

letters such as p, q, or r. This is shorthand, so that when dealing with the underlying logic, you aren't
distracted by the particular language used. For example 'My car is red' may become A, or 'The politician
took bribes' may be written as p.

Propositions are written in the affirmative. In other words, we don't use the word 'not'. Instead, we use
the not symbol (¬) to make a negation (a not statement).

If we write 'My car is not red' using symbols, we would write ¬A. In logic, negation changes an
expression's truth value. So if my car is red, then A would be true, and ¬A would be false, or if my car is
blue, then A would be false, and ¬A would be true.
Truth Tables

Before we move on to more complicated logical expressions, let's talk about truth tables. A truth table is
a table that lists whether something is true with a T and false with an F.

The act of negation flips all T's to F's and all F's to T's, such as we see in this table. When constructing a
truth table, we need a column for every proposition in the expression, and we need to make sure that
there are enough rows in the table for every possible true and false combination that the given set of
propositions can take. In a truth table for all the possible truth value combinations for two propositions,
there are four rows for T/F possibilities and two columns. In general, there will be 2n rows for n different
propositions.

Logical Operators

In order to be able to deal with more complicated logical expressions, we need operators to link
together propositions. Operators are used just like +, -, ×, and ÷ are used to link mathematical
expressions. The basic logical operators, along with negation, are conjunction, disjunction, conditional,
and biconditional.

Conjunction (∧) means 'and.' It links propositions together in such a way that the logical expression is
true only if both propositions are true. Disjunction (∨) is an inclusive 'or.' It links propositions together in
such a way that the expression is true as long as one of the propositions is true. A conditional statement
(→) is expressed in English as If A then B. The proposition to the left of the arrow is called the premise,
and the proposition to the right of the arrow is called the conclusion. We will need to remember that in
logic true premises always lead to true conclusions, and false premises lead to any conclusion. The
English for biconditional is 'if and only if.' The biconditional (↔) could be written as two conditional
expressions joined by a conjunction. In other words, A ↔ B is the same as (A → B) ∧ (B → A).
Source: http://study.com/academy/lesson/symbolic-logic-definition-examples.html

Disjunction (or as it is sometimes called, alternation) is a connective which forms compound

propositions which are false only if both statements (disjuncts) are false.

The connective "or" in English is quite different from disjunction. "Or" in English has two quite distinctly
different senses.

The exclusive sense of "or" is "Either A or B (but not both)" as in "You may go to the left or to the right."
In Latin, the word is "aut."

The inclusive sense of "or" is "Either A or B {or both)." as om "John is at the library or John is studying."
In Latin, the word is vel."

It is the second sense that we use the "vel" or "wedge" symbol:

" "

The truth table definition of the wedge is

p q p q

T T T

T F T

F T T

F F F

Consider the statement, "John is at the Library or he isStudying." If, in this example, John is not at the
library and John is not studying, then the truth value of the complex statement is false:

F F
F

Another truth functional operator is negation: the phrase "It is false that …" or "not" inserted in the
appropriate place in a statement.

The phrase is usually represented by a minus sign " - " or a tilde "~"

For example, "It is not the case that Bill is a curious child" can be represented by "~B".
The truth table for negation is as follows:

p ~p

T F

F T

The general principles that govern parentheses for grouping are as follows.

A " ~ " standing in front of a letter negates only that proposition, while a " ~ " in front of an expression in
parentheses negates the whole compound statement within those parentheses.

Note the difference between: ~ A B and ~( A B ).

Each occureence of a connective has associated with it a set of parentheses which indicate what it is
connecting.

Hence, ( A B) C is quite different from A ( B C)

E. g., let A and B be false, and let C be true. The resolution of the truth value of these expressions would
be as follows.

(A B) C A (B C)
(F F) T F (F T)
F T F T
T F

Material Implication

In propositional logic, material implication is a valid rule of replacement that allows for
a conditional statement to be replaced by a disjunction in which the antecedent is negated. The rule
states that P implies Q is logically equivalent to not-P or Q and can replace each other in logical
proofs.

↔
Where " " is a metalogical symbol representing "can be replaced in a proof with."
 Formal notation
The material implication rule may be written in sequent notation:

where is a metalogical symbol meaning that is a syntactic

consequence of in some logical system;

or in rule form:

where the rule is that wherever an instance of " " appears on a line of a proof, it can be

replaced with " ";

or as the statement of a truth-functional tautology or theorem of propositional logic:

where and are propositions expressed in some formal system.

Example
An example is:
If it is a bear, then it can swim.
Thus, it is not a bear or it can swim.

where is the statement "it is a bear" and is the statement "it can
swim".

If it was found that the bear could not swim, written symbolically as ,
then both sentences are false but otherwise they are both true.

References
1. Jump up^ Hurley, Patrick (1991). A Concise Introduction to Logic (4th
ed.). Wadsworth Publishing. pp. 364–5.
2. Jump up^ Copi, Irving M.; Cohen, Carl (2005). Introduction to Logic.
Prentice Hall. p. 371.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_implication_(rule_of_inference)
§1. The full truth-table method
In this tutorial we study how to make use of full truth-table method to check the validity of a
sequent in SL. Consider this valid sequent:

P, (P→Q) ⊧Q
To prove that it is valid, we draw a table where the top row contains all the different
sentence letters in the argument, followed by the premises, and then the conclusion. Then,
using the same method as in drawing complex truth-tables, we list all the possible
assignments of truth-values to the sentence letters on the left. In our particular example,
since there are only two sentence letters, there should be 4 assignments :
P Q P ( P → Q ) Q

T T

T F

F T

F F

The next step is to draw the truth-table for all the premises and also the conclusion:
P Q P ( P → Q ) Q

T T T T T

T F T F F

F T F T T

F F F T F

In the completed truth-table, the first two cells in each row give us the assignment of truth-
values, and the next three cells tell us the truth-values of the premises and the conclusion
under each of the assignment. If an argument is valid, then every assignment where the
premises are all true is also an assignment where the conclusion is true. It so happens that
there is only one assignment (the first row) where both premises are true. We can see from
the last cell of the row that the conclusion is also true under such an assignment. So this
argument has been shown to be valid.
In general, to determine validity, go through every row of the truth-table to find a row where
ALL the premises are true AND the conclusion is false. Can you find such a row? If not, the
argument is valid. If there is one or more rows, then the argument is not valid.
Exercise #1
Note that in the table above the conclusion is false in the second and the forth row. Why
don't they show that the argument is invalid? answer
§2. More examples
Remember that “(P→Q), ~P, therefore ~Q” is invalid. Look at the truth-table, and determine
which line is supposed to show that? answer
P Q ( P → Q ) ~ P ~ Q

T T T F F

T F F F T

F T T T F

F F T T T

To show that a sequent is invalid, we find one or more assignment where all the premises
are true and the conclusion is false. Such an assignment is known as an invalidating
assignment (a counterexample) for the sequent.
Let's look at a slightly more complex sequent and draw the truth-table:

(~P∨Q), ~(Q→P) ⊧ (Q↔~P)

Again we draw a truth-table for the premises and the conclusion :
P Q ( ~ P ∨ Q ) ~ ( Q → P ) ( Q ↔ ~ P )

T T F T T T F T T T T F F T

T F F T F F F F T T F T F T

F T T F T T T T F F T T T F

F F T F T F F F T F F F T F

To help us calculate the truth-values of the WFFs under each assignment, we use the full
truth-table method to write down the truth-values of the sentence letters first, and then work
out the truth-values of the whole WFFs step by step. The truth-values of the complete WFFs
under each assignment is written beneath the main operator of the WFFs. As you can see,
the critical one to check is the third assignment. Since there is no assignment where the
premises are true and the conclusion is false, the sequent is valid.
Exercise #2
Examine this table and answer the questions:
P Q ~ Q ( P ↔ Q ) ~ P

T T F T T T T F T

T F T F T F F F T
F T F T F F T T F

F F T F F T F T F

a. Which sequent is being tested for validity in this table? answer

b. Is the sequent valid according to this table? answer
Exercise #3
True or false?

a. ⊧ ψ, and ψ ⊧ γ, then φ ⊧ γ. answer

For any three formula φ, ψ, and γ, if φ
b. For any two formula φ and ψ, if φ ⊧ ψ, then ψ ⊧ φ? answer
c. For any two formula φ and ψ, if φ does not entail ψ, then ψ entails φ answer
Exercise #4
Use the full truth-table method to determine the validity of these sequents:

a. ((P→Q)&R), (~Q∨R) ⊧ (P↔(Q↔R))

b. (((P&Q)&~S) & (~Q↔R)), ~(~R→S) ⊧ ((P→Q)→(S→R))
See this page for the answers.
Exercise #5
Confirm for yourself that the WFFs in each pair of WFFs below are logically equivalent to
each other :

a. (P→Q), (~Q→~P)
b. (P↔Q), (~P↔~Q)
c. ~(PvQ), (~P&~Q)
d. ~(P&Q), (~Pv~Q)

§3. Some informal comments on

decidability
One thing you might notice about the full truth-table method is that it can help us determine
the validity of any sequent in SL. A program can be written that, given any finite sequent in
SL as input, after a finite number of processing steps, produces an output "Yes" if the
sequent is valid, or an output "No" if it is not. Of course, the computer would need to have a
lot of memory if the sequent is a long one, but in principle it can be done. This is roughly
what logicians mean when they say that validity in SL is decidable. Intuitively, it is a matter
of whether there is an algorithm or computer program that can come up with a proof of
either the validity or the invalidity of a sequent.
What is interesting and perhaps surprising is that decidability no longer obtains when we
are dealing with some more powerful systems of logic. One of the most important
discoveries in modern logic is that mathematics is undecidable. In particular, Gödel's first
incompleteness theorem says that any consistent systems of mathematics would have to
include statements that can neither be proved or disproved. In other words, it is impossible
for there to be a computer program that can tell whether these statements are true.

Source: http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/sl/full.php