Intro to Logic Notes

Part 1
Knowledge <- Causation

We attempt to patterns using causations. We use functions to prove them.

Any fact is known to be many causes behind the scene E=f(C1…Cn)

Notion of a function has dependent and independent variables, E=dependent, C= independent

By knowing C, we know E Therefore E is dependent of C.

This is the essence of rationalization. This happens because this happened.

Conclusion is function of the premises.

An argument, the object of inquiry for logic, is defined as a set of premises and a conclusion where the
conclusion and the premises are separated by some trigger word, phrase, or mark known as a turnstile.

Socrates is Mortal (conclusion) is split up into two premises: 1. Socrates is a man, 2. all men are mortal.

The argument is the vehicle to express ideas and rationality. But it has to have this function that the
conclusion consists of 2+ premises.

Ideal properties of argument: Truth + Validity == Soundness

Both premises must be true for conclusion to be true.

Inference is internal process of premises that reflect on to the conclusion

Sentence as linguistic entity

Truth as its primary virtue

Declarative kind

Deductive- Premises are defined clearly, thus so is conclusion.

Inductive- Premises not guaranteed, however, pattern suggests the conclusion.

Question-Begging Fallacy: e.g. God exists, because the bible says so.

A QB fallacy is when a premise that is supposed to be the common ground is too close to the
conclusion. Thus group 2 will not accept the premise as true because it is too close to the truth that is
exclusive to group 1.
Interactivity: Dynamic nature of discourse, this raises these two questions:
[08.1] What does it mean to say that a rational
argumentation in a civilized society takes place in
an "interactive" environment?

When rationalizing an argument, it is necessary to have premises that are either true or
false to present the conclusion. However, taking in mind the uniqueness of a civilized
society, not every person has the same cognitive spectrum of truths and validities; e.g.
The premise "God exists" is true for those who believe in God. For those who do not
believe in God, that premise is false thus yielding a different conclusion than the person
who believes in God. First, there has to be premises that other groups are able to
understand and accept. The group attempting to prove the case will use the notion of
interest of the other group by letting them accept the mutual premises as true. Then, if
the premises are accepted as true, by using rationality and logic, the conclusion must
also be true. In this case, if the group that believes in God has a case with the premises:
There is a constant battle between good and evil in the universe, the Bible speaks of
God as good and the devil as evil, and the Bible is irrefutable truth, then if the Atheist
agrees with those premises, then God must exist since the Bible says that God exists.
Conversely, the Atheist could present the case with these premises: We, as humans,
use our five senses to discern reality, we cannot feel god with any of our five senses,
thus God does not exist. The myriad of different opinions encourage interactivity
when other people’s truths are not your truths. Finding a common ground using mutual
premises can lead to an inference to your own conclusion with very little opposition.

[08.2] When does an argument become fallacious in a way

that it "begs the question"?

When the premise that is supposed to use the notion of interest of another party is too
close to the conclusion or beyond the validity of the conclusion that it is trying to prove,
then this becomes a question-begging fallacy. Party one will not be able to convince
party two since the conclusion “God exists” under the premise that “God is real” is too
close to one another with very little logic and rationality involved in the process. This is
not acceptable in an interactive space. The premise is immediately rejected by party two
and the inference cannot be connected since there is no proof of stand.

Rational vs Logical: http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-logical-and-vs-rational/

Part 2
The sentence is derived from the soundness of the premises. Truth does not guaranteed validity and
vice versa. But requires both truth and validity to have soundness. Truth requires semantics and validity
requires syntax. Then this is a sentence.
Semantics – conditions for something to be true

Tool: Truth Tables

Syntax- what makes inference good enough for argument to be valid

Tool: Proofs

-Sentential Logic

-Predicate Logic

Sentences are truth values which are binary (T/F).

The main ingredients for sentence: Subject and predicate which considered 1 unit.

Atomic Sentence has at least one unit of a sentence.

Compound Sentence has multiple units.

The truth table is a function mechanism in which the truth value of the atomic is used to find the truth
value of the compound. Y=f(x) | y= TV of CS and x = TV of AS

So, in semantics, we take for granted the atomic sentence (Primitive information) since we could find
more questions and truths using that atomic truth.

Truth functional – using “and(A)/or(V)” on AS to make CS

Non-truth functional- using “because” on AS to make CS

e.g. P-The streets are wet (true), Q- It rained(true) then P because Q is true, however

P-The streets are wet(true), Q-I am a man(true), then P because Q is false.

Conjunction- Combine AS using “and” to make a new CS

Two AS will make 4 states of affairs. Which means TT, TF, FT, and FF.

For P Λ Q, Truth table values are T, F, F, and F. Since the only way for that statement to be true is for
both P and Q to be simultaneously true.

State of affairs will always be 2^n where n= elements

Example of sentence with and that is NOT a conjunction: A and B were teammates.

Example of sentence without and that IS a conjunction: Many fought bravely but some lost their lives.

So “but” is connecting A= many fought bravely, and B= some lost their lives.

Disjunction- Combines AS using “or” to make new CS

For P V Q, truth table values are T, T, T, F, since at least 1 of the elements has to be true.

However, in an extra-ordinary (exclusive) disjunction like “The exam will be on Tuesday or Thursday.”

Then only value can be true. So F, T, T, F.

Comparable- inclusive, both can be true PVQ

Incomparable- exclusive, both cannot be true simultaneously. (P V Q) = (P V Q) Λ ~(P Λ Q)

Negation (~)- proposition that denies the truth of another proposition

P is false, therefore ~P is true

Conditionality- the existence of one event depends on the existence of another. Combines 2 or more AS.

Ex: If P is true, then Q is true. Where P is the antecedent, Q is the consequent.

This is how we derive basic events. “Oh, the streets are wet. It must have rained.”

Material Conditional- The material is truth functional, however the conditional is non-truth functional.

In Row 3, Q is still true thus P->Q is still true. And in Row 4, P->Q is true so ~P->~Q is also true.

Email Exercises
Exercise 11 ... (Non-credit)

How is truth table set up as a functional mechanism?

Dependent Variable: Atomic sentence

Independent Variable: Compound Sentence

Function: uses “and” and “or” to connect atomic sentences to derive conclusion

Why is it set up that particular way?

To better get conclusion?

===================================================================
Exercise 12 ... (Non-credit)

When does a compound sentence become "non-truth-functional"?

Answer it as elaborately as you can.

When A and B is a statement, you can determine the validity if you know if A=T or B=T. However, if A because
B, then it is not guaranteed that A or B is true because of one another. In other words, both values can be true
but the statement can be false.
===================================================================
Exercise 13 ... (Non-credit)

Which of the following are truth-functional compound sentences

that can correctly be symbolized by using the dot? Explain.

[13.1] Bonny and Eugene were classmates.

Nope, only one element here.

[13.2] We'll always have death and taxes.

Same as 13.1

[13.3] Beethoven and Mozart were great composers.

Same as past 2 problems

[13.4] Although she loved him, she left him.

Yes, A=She loved him, B= She left him therefore (A*B or A Λ B)

*. taken from textbook, Exercise 2-1

===================================================================
Exercise 14 ... (Non-Credit)

Symbolize the following so as to reveal as much structure

as possible. (Specify the abbreviations you use.)

NB: Make a distinction between the 2 kinds of disjunction,

 inclusive & exclusive

[14.1] The greatest basketball player ever to play the

game is either Michael Jordan or Kareem Abdul
Jabbar.

Exclusive disjunction because there can only be one best player. Either M or K, that is M V K

[14.2] It's going to snow on Christmas eve or on New

Year's eve.

Inclusive disjunction because it can snow on both days. C V N

[14.3] Either this sentence is true or it's false.

Exclusive disjunction since the sentence can only be one value or the other (binary). T V F

[14.4] Abortion is either murder or it's a harmless form of birth control. Exclusive.

*. taken from textbook, Exercise 2-3

===================================================================
Exercise 15 ... (Non-Credit)

Explain why negation is not a connective in a strict sense,

but still it is truth-functional.

Negation does not connect two atomic sentences; however, it Is still truth-functional because it relies
on the element’s value. Whatever binary value that the element holds (P is true), then the negated element is
the opposite value (~P is false).

===================================================================
Exercise 16 ... (For-Credit: 5 points)

[16-1] Explain why the truth-table for conditional is called

"Material" Conditional by explaining the difference between:

(1) using a conditional as non-truth-functional, and

(2) using it as truth-functional.

In a truth-functional conditional, the truth value of the compound sentence is fully reliant
on the truth value of the components. That is, PQ is false iff P is true and Q is false. The rest of
the time, PQ is true in these circumstances. All that matters are the values of P and Q to derive
the conclusion.
However, in a non-truth-functional conditional, PQ has other components that
contribute to its validity. One of those differences is timing. P iff Q is true when P and Q have
the individual truth values of false or true. In a non-truth-functional conditional, P(F)Q(T) is a
false statement since it requires both values to be true. This dependency is why it is called the
material conditional.
 [16-2] Determine the truth value of the following conditional
statement used as a material conditional:

If the earth is flat,

then the earth stops rotating around the sun.

P- The earth is flat

Q- The earth stops rotating around the sun

P Q PQ
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

The conclusion is only false when the earth is flat, yet the earth continues to rotate around the sun.

===================================================================
Exercise 17 ... (Non-Credit)

Let X be "Adam is mortal."

Let Y be "Adam is a human being."

Complete the followings sentences with "sufficient" or

"necessary":

X is sufficient for Y. (Adam could be a dolphin. They are mortal too)

Y is necessary for X. (All humans are mortal)

===================================================================
Exercise 18 ... (Non-Credit)

Come up with a pair of sentences where its corresponding

biconditional is true.

===================================================================
Exercise 21 ... (Non-Credit)

Take on a few questions in Exercise 2-4 in the textbook

===================================================================
Exercise 22 ... (Non-Credit)

*. taken from Textbook, Exercise 2-6., #1 through #7:

 Use this key to symbolize the following sentences:

A = Art attends class.

G = Art graduates.
H = Art completes his homework.
L = Art does well in logic.
M = Art does well in math.
P = Art does well in philosophy.
T = Art pays tuition.
W = Art does well in all of his classes.

1. Art does not do well in either logic or math.

2. If Art completes his homework,

he does well in both logic and math.

3. If Art does not complete his homework,

he does well in neither logic nor math.

4. If Art does well in logic or math,

he graduates.

5. Art graduates only if he does well in logic or math.

6. If Art neither pays tuition nor attends classes,

he does not graduate.

7. Art does well in logic

if he completes his homework and attends class.

===================================================================
Exercise 23 ... (Non-Credit)

(Extracted from Textbook Exercise 3-1)

If A and B are true, and C, D, and E are false, what are the
truth-values of the following compound sentences? Show your
result in Truth-Tables.

[23-1] (A V D) -> E

[23-2] B -> (A -> C)

 [23-5] (A <-> B) <-> (D <-> E)

===================================================================
Exercise 24 ... (For-Credit: 5 points)

[24-1] Explain what the three dichotomies of modality are; and

Explain why there are discordance as well as harmony
among them.

The three dichotomies of modality are metaphysical, epistemological, and linguistic

modalities. Metaphysical refers to what is necessary for a premise to be true. These are universal
truths that could not have been otherwise. Moreover, this includes contingency in some
arguments as well. Epistemology uses well founded inferences to understand an argument and
find the conclusion. This means one must know an absolute truth to derive the information a
priori, or they could use the current information to make a rationalization a posteriori. In
linguistics, the analytical could refer to the exact meaning of a sentence. This again refers to
what is necessary and what is sufficient. E.g. “The US president is the one-man part of the
executive branch”. That is true by definition. But if we say “The US president is very
intelligent”. Well that might or might not be true. He could simply rely on manipulation and
render logic and rationality useless. This is called synthetic where we are adding something new
to the realm of absolute truth.
These three models are harmonious because usually they involve each other. Premises are
most likely necessary, a priori, and analytical, or they are contingent, a postperiri, and synthetic.
They are in discord when the they are not in harmony. The pieces do not really add up and it
models are mixed in the argument arbitrarily.

[24-2] Determine which of the following sentences are

tautologies, which are contradictions, and which are
contingent.

Show your results in Truth Tables.

(extracted from textbook exercise 3-6)

1. ~(A & ~A)

A and not A is a complete contradiction.

A ~A A&~A ~(A&~A)
T F T|F|F T
F T F|F|T T

2. A V (A -> B)

This is a tautology.
 A B (AB) A V (AB)
T T T T
T F F T
F T T T
F F T T

===================================================================
Exercise 25 ... (Non-Credit)

Determine whether the following pair of the two sentences are

logically equivalent or not by showing how Truth Table can be
utilized for the analysis:

P -> Q ~Q -> ~P

===================================================================
Exercise 26 ... (Non-Credit)

(partially adopted from textbook exercise 3-8)

Determine whether the following argument is valid or not

by showing how truth tables are utilized and interpreted:

[26-1] P1: P -> Q

P2: Q -> R
P3: ~R
----------------
C: ~P

[26-2] P1: ~D V ~F
P2: G -> (D & F)
-------------------
C: ~G

==================================================================
Exercise 27 ... (For-Credit: 15 points)

Do the three things with the argument given below:

1. Identify atomic sentences employed in the argument and assign

the sentence constants (P, Q, R) to those atomic sentences
(in their order of appearance in the argument).

2. Symbolize the whole argument by employing those sentence

constants and the proper connectives.
 3. Determine whether the following argument is valid or not by
demonstrating how Truth Tables can be employed and
interpreted:

P1: If things are caused to exist,

then the infinite regress of existence is not possible.

P2: God is not the ultimate cause of existence,

'only if' the infinite regress of existence is possible.

P3: By the way, things are caused to exist.

C: Therefore, God is the ultimate cause of existence.

P-Things are caused to exist

Q- The infinite regress of existence is possible

R- God is the ultimate cause of existence

P1: P~Q

P2: ~R <-> Q

P3: P

C: R

P Q R ~R P~Q ~R  Q
T T T F F F
T T F T F T
T F T F T T
T F F T T F
F T T F F F
F T F T F T
F F T F T T
F F F T T F

P is true. P implies not Q thus not Q is true. Thus, Q is false. Since Q is biconditional with not R, not R
is false. Therefore, R is true.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. alternative notations & drawing Truth-Table:

Logic is known for its unusual symbols which are difficult to

use; but we shall adopt the following set of alternative
notations for the sake of ease. Of course, it is for your
convenience in submitting answers, as these are all based on
simple ASCII characters of keyboard:

Conjunction ... & ... (alternative to dot)

 Disjunction ... V ... (same)

Conditional ... --> ... (alternative to horseshoe)

Biconditional ... <-> ... (alternative to 3 bars)

Negation ........ ~ ... (same)

You're advised to use a spreadsheet program (such as MS Excel) to

work on answers that require Truth-Tables, which can be easily
copied onto your email.

Part 3
Transition from semantics to syntax

The term syntax refers to grammatical structure whereas the term semantics refers to the meaning of
the vocabulary symbols arranged with that structure.

Semantics is the primary concern for the conditions of the truth.

-Confined by truth functional connectives, limits truth tables

Inference Rule (1): Modus Ponens

P1: PQ, P2: P, C: Q

P1: If it rains, then the streets are wet.

P2: It rained.

-------------------------

C: the Streets are wet.

Inference Rule (2): Modus Tollens

P1: PQ, P2: ~Q, C: ~P

P1: If it rains, then the streets are wet.

P2: The streets are NOT wet.

-------------------------

C: It did not rain.

Example of using these two in a simple proof.

P1: If human beings as moral agents are deprived of free will, human beings are not
morally responsible for their behaviors.
 P2: Death penalty can be a legitimate punishment, only if human beings are morally
responsible for their behaviors.
P3: Human beings are deprived of free will.
C: therefore, death penalty is not a legitimate punishment.

P1: H~M
P2: DM
P3: H
-------------------------
C:~D

4: ~M because of Modus Ponens (P1, P3)

Explanation: Since we know that H is true, then ~M must be true.
5: ~D because of Modus Tollens (P2, 4)
Explanation: Since we know ~M is true, then D must be false.
Topic neutrality- MP and MT will yield conclusions. It is exclusively reliant on the nature of
logistics and rationality.

Inference Rule (3): Disjunctive Syllogism

In the statement P V Q, one of them must be false, making the other true.
P1: PVQ, P2: ~Q, C:P
P1: Either Obama will in or Romney will win.
P2: Romney did not win
------------------
C: Obama won.

Inference Rule (4): Hypothetical Syllogism

P1: PQ, P2: QR, C: PR
P1: If it rains, then the streets are wet.
P2: If the streets are wet, then the streets are slippery.
-------------

C: If it rains, then the streets are slippery.

There is a bit of argument whether transitivity (PR) is rational.

Inference Rule (5): Simplification

P1: P * Q
---
C: P or C:Q

Inference Rule (6): Conjunction

P1: P
P2:Q
-----
C: P*Q

Inference Rule (7): Addition

You can add any disjunction.
P1: P
P2: P V Q (disjunction add on)

Inference Rule (8): Constructive Dilemma

Case of making choice between options in light of the consequences that each of the lead to.
P1: PVQ (Choose between P or Q as a truth value)
P2: PR
P3: QS
-------------------
C: R V S (Since R or S can be true depending if you choose P or Q)

Deductive Regress Thinking- Working backwards

C: ~D Find in the premises where ~D is implemented
 1. BA
2. ~DVB
3. ~A

4. ~B/ 1,3 MT
5. ~D/ 2,4 DS

Email Exercises
Exercise 28 ... (Non-Credit)

Explain the basic differences between the two branches of formal

logic that we are studying, namely, semantics and syntax, in
terms of the followings:

1. purpose, aim, i.e., the property being inquired into

2. apparatus, tool, i.e., the method of inquiry

==================================================================
Exercise 29 ... (Non-Credit)

Come up with an instance of a simple argument that

conforms to the pattern of MP.

==================================================================
Exercise 30 ... (Non-Credit)

Come up with an instance of a simple argument that

conforms to the pattern of MP.

==================================================================
Exercise 31 ... (Non-Credit)

---------------------------------------------------------------
[31-1] Do the following 3 things to do a Proof for the
following argument:

NB: This is the same argument that you worked on

in Exercise 27 to use TT for testing
validity. Follow the three steps:

1. Assign P, Q, and R to the atomic sentences in the

order of appearance in the argument.

2. Formalize the argument.

3. Derive the conclusion from the premises by

 using the rules of inference.

P1: If things are caused to exist,

then the infinite regress of existence is not possible.

P2: God is not the ultimate cause of existence,

only if the infinite regress of existence is possible.

P3: By the way, things are caused to exist.

C: Therefore, God is the ultimate cause of existence.

--------------------------------------------------------------
[31-2] "Derive" the conclusion (C) from the 3 premises
(1 to 3) in a formalized argument below by
employing rules of inference (i.e., proof, where
you need to come up with additional steps beyond
3 below to lead you to the conclusion):

C. ~T

-----------------------------
1. (R V S) -> (T -> K)

2. ~K

3. R V S
-----------------------------

==================================================================
Exercise 32 ... (Non-Credit)

Come up with a (sensible or meaningful) argument that

conforms to the pattern of DS.

==================================================================
Exercise 33 ... (Non-Credit)

------------------------------------------------------------------
[33-1] Come up with an instance of argument that conforms to HS.

-------------------------------------------------------------
[33-2] Derive the conclusion from the given premises in
the argument below by utilizing the rules of
inference (hint: use HS, MT, DS, or some other
combination, as an alternative is available
here).
 C: B

-------------------
1: A V B

2: C -> D

3: A -> C

4: ~D
-------------------

==================================================================
Exercise 34 ... (Non-Credit)

Derive the conclusion from the premises in the argument below

by utilizing inference rules:

C: A & C
--------------
P1: A & B
P2: B -> C
--------------

==================================================================
Exercise 35 ... (Non-Credit)

Derive the conclusion from the premises in the argument below

by utilizing inference rules:

C: (A V E) & (C V D)
--------------------------
P1: A & C
--------------------------

==================================================================
Exercise 36 ... (Non-Credit)

Come up with an instance of argument that conforms to the

pattern of CD.

==================================================================
Exercise 37 (*) ... (For-Credit of 25 Points)

(based on Textbook Exercises, 4-2 & 4-5)

Derive the conclusions from the premises in the arguments below

by utilizing inference rules:
 ======================================
[37-1]

C: G
---------------------
1: ~M
2: N -> G
3: N v M
---------------------

4. N / 1,3 DS
5. G / 2,4 MP

======================================
[37-2] Revised

C: D
-----------------------
1: ~G -> (A v B)
2: ~B
3: A -> D
4: ~G
-----------------------
5. A V B / 1,4 MP

6. A / 2,5 DS

7. D / 3,6 MP

======================================
[37-3]

C: ~B
------------------------
1: A -> (B -> C)
2: ~C
3: ~D -> A
4: C V ~D
------------------------

5. ~D / 2,4 DS

6. A / 3,5 MP

7. BC / 1,6 MP

8. ~B / 2, 7 MT

======================================
[37-4] Revised
 C: D & E
-----------------------
1: A -> (~B & C)
2: C -> D
3: E v B
4: A
5. ~B Λ C / 1,4 MP

6. ~B / Simplification

7. C / Simplification

8. D / 2,7 MP

9. E / 3,6 DS

10. D Λ E / 8, 9 Conjunction

======================================
[37-5] Revised

C: ~F
-----------------------
1: (F -> G) v H
2: ~G
3: ~H
-----------------------
4. FG / 1,3 DS

5. ~F / 2, 4 MT

======================================
[37-6] Revised

C: L
----------------------
1: ~A
2: (C v A) -> L
3: A v D
4: (D v U) -> C
----------------------

5. D / 1,3 DS
6. D V U / 4, 5 DS

7. C / 4, 6 MP

8. C V A / 2, 7 DS

9. L / 2, 8 MP

============================
[37-2]

C: D

P1: ~G -> (A v B)

P2: ~B

P3: A -> D

P4: ~G

5. AVB / P4, P1 MP

6. A / P2, P1 DS

7. D / P6, P3 MP
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. convention for proof

Unlike using TT for validity, doing proof is more detailed in that

it provides a series of steps extending the truth values stored in
premises all the way to the conclusion; each step is to be
justified by reference to the two things:

1. the inference rules employed for the new step

2. the premises (or statements produced at previous stages)

employed for the new step

The reference to these two items should be accompanied to each

step. Follow and adopt the convention for proof shown in lecture (as
well as in textbook) when you produce your own proof.

This is the most distinctively powerful phase of studying

formal logic (equivalent or similar to algorithmic thinking in
computer science and math). It is absolutely critical that you
firmly grasp this concept and know how to apply to the exercises.
Part 4
So far, these inference rules are unidirectional, since they are argument based. They cannot be
implemented backwards. However, there are inference rules that are bi-directional and they are based
on equivalence.

Inference Rule (9): Double Negation (DN)

P Ξ ~(~P) Ξ is equivalent

"~" adds a value of binary. If P is true, then ~P is 1(true) +1 (~) that is 0 (False). Add another negation to
that (+1) and its 0+1 which is 1 that is true.

Inference Rule (10): De Morgan's Theorem (DeM)

Equivalence based inference rule on negation, conjunction, and disjunction.

~P & ~Q Ξ ~(PVQ) and ~P V ~Q Ξ ~(P&Q)

Inference Rule (11): Contraposition (Contra)

Equivalence based inference rule on conditionals, like MT.

P--> Q Ξ ~Q--> ~P

If it rains, then the streets are wet. If the streets are not wet, then it has not rained.

Inference Rule (12): Implication (Impl)

Inference rule based on equivalence between disjunction and conditional, like DS.

P V Q Ξ ~P-->Q

Either Blue or Red. It’s not blue, so it is red.

Maintain correct binary values.

~P V Q Ξ P --> Q or ~P --> Q Ξ P V Q or P --> ~Q Ξ ~P V ~Q

Inference Rule (13): Equivalence (Equiv)

Equivalence defined as conjunction of two conditionals.

Can be used as either premise or conclusion.

(P Ξ Q) Ξ (P  Q) & (Q  P)

This means if you can prove PQ is true, and then prove QP is true, then P Ξ Q

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other inference rules not used as often:

Tautology: PVP or PΛP

Commutation: PVQ Ξ QVP

Association: P V (QVR) Ξ (PVQ) V R

Distribution: P Λ (Q V R) Ξ (P Λ Q) V (P Λ R)

Exportation: (P&Q)R Ξ P(QR)

Ex with these extra inference rules:

A ∨ (B • ~C)

A ⊃ D

~D ⊃ C
____________

D
So long as each step is justified by reference to an earlier step (or steps) in the proof
and to one of the nineteen rules, it must be a valid derivation. Next, let's work with the
third premise a bit:
1. A ∨ (B • ~C) premise
2. A ⊃ D premise
3. ~D ⊃ C premise
4. (A ∨ B) • (A ∨ ~C) 1 Dist.
5. (A ∨ ~C) • (A ∨ B) 4 Comm.
6. A ∨ ~C 5 Simp.
7. ~C ⊃ ~~D 3 Trans.
8. ~C ⊃ D 7 D.N.
Again, each step is justified by application of one of the rules of replacement to all or
part of a preceding line in the proof. Now conjoin the second premise with our eighth
line, and we've set up a constructive dilemma:
1. A ∨ (B • ~C) premise
2. A ⊃ D premise
3. ~D ⊃ C premise
4. (A ∨ B) • (A ∨ ~C) 1 Dist.
5. (A ∨ ~C) • (A ∨ B) 4 Comm.
 6. A ∨ ~C 5 Simp.
7. ~C ⊃ ~~D 3 Trans.
8. ~C ⊃ D 7 D.N.
9. (A ⊃ D) • (~C ⊃ D) 2, 8 Conj.
10. D ∨ D 9, 6 C.D.
All that remains is to apply Tautology in order to reach our intended conclusion, so
the entire proof will look like this:
1. A ∨ (B • ~C) premise
2. A ⊃ D premise
3. ~D ⊃ C premise
4. (A ∨ B) • (A ∨ ~C) 1 Dist.
5. (A ∨ ~C) • (A ∨ B) 4 Comm.
6. A ∨ ~C 5 Simp.
7. ~C ⊃ ~~D 3 Trans.
8. ~C ⊃ D 7 D.N.
9. (A ⊃ D) • (~C ⊃ D) 2, 8 Conj.
10. D ∨ D 9, 6 C.D.
11. D 10 Taut.
Two subsets of Inference rules with rationality at core.

- Arguent based, unidirectional (MP, MT, DS, HS, Simp, Conj, Add, CD)

-Equivalence based, bi-directional (DN, DeM, Contra, Impl, Equiv, Taut, Com, Asso, Distri, Exp

Examples:

C:~F

1. F-->G

2. ~(H&G)

3. H

-----------

4. ~H V ~G / 2 DeM

5. ~G / 3,4 DS

6. ~F / 1,5 MT

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conditional Proof (CP)

-Using assumed premise (AP) temporarily based on conditional context of the conclusion

P1: If it rains, then the streets are wet.

C: Thus, if it rains, then it rains and the streets are wet.

We can use the conclusion as a premise by assumption.

C: R--> (R&W)

P1: R-->W

-----------

P2. R / AP Though it is not guaranteed R is true, we assume for the sake of the argument.

P3. W /1,2 MP

P4. R&W /2,3 Conj

P5. R-->(R&W) / 2,3,4 or 2-4 CP

Another Example:

C: A-->E Since the conclusion is a conditional, we should use Assumed Premise (AP)

1. A-->(B&C)

2. (BVD) -->E

----------

3. A / AP

4. B&C / 1,3 MP

5. B / 4 Simp

6. BVD / 5 Add

7. E / 2,6 MP

8. A-->E / 3-7 CP

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Direct, Indirect, and in between

A direct proof of the implication p \to q proceeds by assuming that p is true and showing that this
implies that q must also be true. That is, in a direct proof, you assume that the hypothesis is true and try
to reason from this assumption that the conclusion of the implication must also be true. When you try
to prove a theorem, you usually try a direct proof as the first method of attack, and if this does not seem
to go through, you move on to a different proof method.

An indirect proof of the implication p \to q proceeds by assuming that q is false and show that this
implies that p must also be false. That is, in an indirect proof, you assume that the conclusion is false and
try to reason from this assumption that the hypothesis must also be false. Another way to look at this is
to note that an indirect proof is a direct proof of the contrapositive \neg q\to\neg p of the original
implication. It is usually worthwhile to see whether an indirect proof will work once you can determine
that there is no clear or easy direct proof.

Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM): P V~P, there is truth, then false. This law implies the middle of those
two. that is neither one of them.

Trying to solve this proof using direct:

C:B

1. ~A

2. CVB

3. C-->(AVB)

--------------

Thought process: Were looking for B, ok its in the second premise. Now looking for C, its in P3. Now
have to prove ~(AVB) to prove ~C to prove B. We know ~(AVB) is ~A ^ ~B using DeM. And we have ~A in
P1, but ~B is the opposite of the conclusion... Can't prove B.

Using indirect method (Start with the assumption of the opposite):

4. ~B / AP

5. C /2,4 DS

6. AVB / 3,5 MP

Now try to contradict the premise.

7. A / 4,6 DS

8. A & ~A / 1,7 Conj

Now that we know that ~B leads to a contradiction, then it must be B.

9. B / 4-8 IP

CP and IP Combination

C: CVB Can’t get C or B so use Impl by finding ~CB since it is equivalent to CVB

1. H (AB)

2. ~C  (HVB)

3. HA

------------------

4. ~C / AP (CP)

5. ~B / AP (IP)

6. HVB / 2,4 MP

7. H / 5,6 DS

8. A / 3,7 MP

9. AB /1,7 MP

10. B / 8,9 MP

11. ~B ^ B / 5,10 Conj

12. B / 5-11 IP

13. ~CB / 4-12 CP

14. CVB / 13 Impl

IP was implemented inside CP

Email Exercises
Exercise 44 (*) ... (For-Credit of 10 points)

Derive the conclusion from the premises:

--------------------------------------------------------
[44-1] Exercise designed to appreciate comparative merit of
CP with the same argument below,

[44-1.1] do the 1st proof without using CP; &

[44-1.2] do the 2nd proof by using CP:

C: M -> R

1: ~M V N
2: ~R -> ~N
Without CP:

1.

With CP:

3. M / AP

4. N / 1,3 DS

5. R / 2,4 MT

6. MR / CP

--------------------------------------------------------
[44-2] Exercise designed to employ CP as part of the whole
process:

with the same argument below,

[44-2.1] do the 1st proof by using CP with ~P as AP

[44-2.2] do the 2nd proof by using CP with R as AP; & then

Contra

C: ~P -> ~R

1: R -> (L & S)
2: (L V M) -> P
44-2.1---------------

3. ~P / AP

4.~ (L V M) / 2, 3 MT

5. ~L & ~M / 4 DeM

6. ~L / 5 Simp

7. ~(L&S) / 6 Addition

8. ~R / 1,7 MT

9. ~P~R / 3-9 CP

44-2.2----------------

3. R / AP

4. (L & S) / 1,3 MP

5. L / 4 Simp

6. L V M / 5 Addition

7. P / 2,6 MP

8. R—>P / 3-8 CP
9. ~P~R / 8 Contra
--------------------------------------------------------
[44-3] Exercise designed to see CP as a self-contained
module:

use CP to the get the 1st part of conjunction; use the

conditional as a premise to get the 2nd part; & be
careful not to take the 2nd part of conjunction from CP

C: (H -> M) & ~F

1: ~H V ~F
2: ~M -> F
3: (~H V M) -> ~F

4. ~F /AP

5. M / 2,4 MT

6. H / 1,4 DS

7. (~HVM) / 3,4 MP

8. HM / 7 Impl

9. (HM) & ~F/ Is this 4-8 CP or is it 4,8 Conj?

--------------------------------------------------------
[44-4] Exercise designed to employ CP twice to get an
equivalence

*. 1st proof for A -> B by CP

*. 2nd proof for B -> A by CP
*. combine them by Conj
*. then use Equiv

C: A <-> B

1: A -> ~C
2: ~B -> C
3: A V ~B
4. A / AP

5. ~C / 1,4 MP

6. B / 2,5 MT

7. AB / 4-6 CP

------

8. B / AP

9. ~C / 2,8 MT

10. A / 1,9 MP
11. BA / 8-10 CP

-----

12. AB / 7,11Equiv

=============================================================
Exercise 45 (*) ... (For-Credit of 15 Points)

=================================================
[45-1]
C: ~A

1: A -> (B & C)
2: ~B

3. A / AP

4. B & C / 1,3 MP

5. B / 4 Simp

6. B & ~B / 2,5 Contra

7. ~A / 3-6 IP

=================================================
[45-2]
C: C

1: A -> ~B
2: B V C
3: A V C

4. ~C / AP

5. B / 2, 4 DS

6. A / 3,4 DS

7. ~B / 1, 6 MP

8. B & ~B / 5, 7 Contra

9. C / 4-8 IP

=================================================
[45-3]
C: ~(A V C)

1: A -> B
2: C -> D
3: (B V D) -> E
4: ~E

5. A & C / AP (ID DeM)

6. A / 5 Simp

7. B / 1, 6 MP
9. B V D / 7 Addition

10. E / 3, 9 MP

11. E & ~E / 4, 10 Contra

12. ~ A & ~C/ 5-11 IP

13. ~(A V C) / 12 DeM

=================================================
[45-4]
C: ~(C & D)

1: ~A
2: (A V B) <-> C
3: ~B

4. C & D / AP (IP)

5. C / 4 Simp

6. A V B / 2, 5 MP

7. B / 1,6 DS

8. B &~B / 3,7 Contra

9. ~(C&D) 4-8 IP

Part 5
Predicate Logic

Its basic elements (entities) correspond to things in the world and their properties (predicates).

"The table is brown" where the element "table" is property "brown".

"Table" is the subject and "Brown" is the predicate.

Quantification- The predication can be put into a quantity value

Universal- All humans are mortal.

-There is no exception that humans are mortal

Existential- Some men are bald.

-This means that there exist some humans that are bald and some that are not. This is a limited
predication.

Particular- Henry is annoying.

- One particular being, that is Henry is annoying. The property "annoying" is confined to only Henry.

--------------------------
Symbolization in predicate logic

Particular:

"Arthur is Happy"

H(a) where H is happy and a is Arthur. The property of being happy is the focal point and the entities
are just part of the properties.

"Paul is either a doctor or a layer".

P(d) V P(l)

"Henry will do well in logic only if he studies hard"

W(h)H(s)

Universal:

"All humans are mortal"

For all x, if x is human, then x is mortal.

(x) (HxMx) where the (x) is the universal quantifier and it means "for all x".

Existential:

"Some diseases are contagious"

Two properties coexist here: 1. Disease 2. Contagious disease (Since if it’s not one, then it’s the other)

There is some x, where x belongs to the class of disease and belongs to the class of contagious.

(Ǝx)(Dx & Cx)

Universal Negation:

"No dogs are frogs"

For all x, if x belongs to the class of dogs, then x is not a frog.

(x)(Dx~Fx)

Existential Negation:

"Some diseases are not contagious"

(Ǝx)(Dx & ~Cx)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYxYEW2zSlk should help

Inference Rule (1) - Quantifier Negation

All event have causes, so every event has a cause.
Not all events have causes. ~(x)(ExCx) Ξ Some events have no causes. (Ǝx)( Ex Λ ~Cx)

First
Negation

All events have causes Not all events have causes

(x)(ExCx) ~(x)(Ex  Cx)
There is no event that has no causes Some events have no causes
~(Ǝx)(Ex Λ ~Cx) Second (Ǝx)(Ex Λ ~Cx)
Negation

Double negation on this statement above^. So DN turns the statement back to original value.
Rules of thumb to apply QN:

 Negation in front of quantifier

 Change quantifier
 Change connective ( Λ,  , V)
 Negation in front of 2nd predicate (in this case C)
Example:
 All maples are trees.
Two properties: being a maple, and being a tree.
 (x)(Mx  Tx) (For all x, if that x is a maple, then it is a tree) QN
 ~(Ǝx)(Mx Λ ~Tx)
 There is no maple which is not a tree.
Inference Rule (2) – Universal Instantiation
An “instance” where x shares same characteristics.
“All humans are mortal” or (x)(HxMx)
This implies many instances.
Case 1: H1M1
Case 2: H2M2
Case 3: etc…

UI allows us to take one instant out of this.

Socrates is a human being; therefore, he must be mortal.
HsMs or HaMa where a is any x. Then we can implement other inference rules for proofs.
Inference Rule (3) – Universal Generalization
This goes the other way around as UI.
Ha Ma given
Therefore: (x)(HxMx)
UG can only be used if UI has already been used since UI is unidirectional.
Inference Rule (4) – Existential Generalization
Fa Λ Ga Given
Therefore: (Ǝx) (Fx Λ Gx)
If there is an instant where F and G are true, that means that there exists an instant.
Inference Rule (5) – Existential Instantiation
(Ǝx) (Fx Λ Gx) Given
Therefore: Fa Λ Ga
EG must have occurred before EI can be implemented.
Examples:
Case of Socrates
C: Socrates is mortal

 All humans are mortal

 Socrates is a human
------------------------------------------
 (x)(HxMx)
 Hs
 HsMs / 1 UI

 Ms / 2,3 MP QED (quod erat demonstrandum or “ to be demonstrated”)

Case of Divine Attributes

 God is perfect.
 Only real being can be perfect. (only is in front, try putting in middle: Perfect only if real being)
C. Therefore, God is real. (Rg)
------------

 Pg
 (x)(PxRx)
  PgRg / 2 UI
 Rg / 1,3 MP QED
Case of Human Mortality
 All Rutgers students are human
 All humans are mortal
C: Therefore, all Rutgers students are mortal (x)(RxMx)
---------------------
1. (x)(RxHx)
2. (x)(HxMx)
3. RaHa /1 UI
4. HaMa / 2 UI
5. RaMa / 3,4 HS
6. (x)(RxMx) / 5 UG QED
Case of Human Value (You can use CP under predicate logic)
1. Only humans have inherent values.
2. No chimps are humans.
C: So, no chumps have inherent values. (x)(Cx~Vx)
-----------------------
1. (x)(VxHx)
2. (x)Cx~Hx)
3. VaHa / 1 UI
4. Ca ~Ha / 2 UI
5. Ca / AP
6. ~Ha / 4,5 MP
7. ~Va / 3, 6 MT
8. Ca ~Va / 5-7 CP
9. (x)(Cx~Vx) / 8 UG QED
Without CP:
4. Ha~Ca / 4 Contrapositive
5. Va~Ca / 3,5 HS
6. Ca ~Va / 6 Contra
7. (x)(Cx~Vx) / 7 UG QED
Case of Math and Logic
1. All students take math.
2. Not all students take logic.
C: Some students who take math do not take logic. (Ǝx)[Sx Λ (Mx Λ ~Lx)]
1. (x)(SxMx)
2. ~(x)(SxLx)
3. SaMa / 1 UI
4. (Ǝx)(Sx Λ ~Lx) / 2 QN
5. Sa Λ ~La / 4 EI
6. Sa / 5 Simp
7. Ma / 3,6 MP
8. ~La / 5 Simp
9. Ma Λ ~La / 6,7 Conj
10. [Sa Λ (Ma Λ ~La)] / 6,9 Conj
11. (Ǝx)[Sx Λ (Mx Λ ~Lx)] / 10 EG QED

Email Exercises
Exercise 48 ... (Non-Credit)

Explain (1) where the deficiency of sentential logic lies, and

(2) what is the source of strength of predicate logic that would
enable us to overcome the very limitation of sentential logic

 The deficiency of sentimental logic lies in the disability to express the depth of its premises. Concisely,
it does not utilize quantifiers.

=================================================================
Exercise 49 ... (Non-Credit)

Explain three different degrees of quantification in the

predication of declarative sentences, i.e., ascription of
properties to the subject.

=================================================================
 Exercise 50 ... (Non-Credit)

Translate the following sentences under Predicate Logic

framework.

1. All scrapers are tall.’

(x)(SxTx)

2. Some jobs do not pay well.

(Ǝx)(Jx Λ Px)

3. No politicians are honest.

(x)(Px~Hx)

4. Some exercises are difficult.

(Ǝx)(Ex Λ Dx)

5. While Joseph Stiglitz is an economist,

John Rawls is a philosopher.

Es Λ Pr I think

=================================================================
Exercise 51 (*) ... (For-Credit of 5 Points)

Come up with a series of the 3 items for each of the following

sentences:

(a) Predicate Logic symbolization of the original sentence

(b) result of applying QN to (a), i.e., with different quantifier
(c) restatement of (b) back into a plain English sentence
which should be different from the original English
sentence in its utterance, but still the same in its
meaning

--------------------------------------------------------------
1. Anything that leads to violence is wrong.

 (x)(VxWx)

 ~(Ǝx)(Vx Λ ~Wx)

 There are no things that lead to violence that are not wrong.
-------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Not every smile is genuine.

a. ~(x)(SxGx)

b. (Ǝx)(Sx Λ ~Gx)

c. Some smiles are not genuine.

--------------------------------------------------------------
3. Terrorists are neither rational nor empathetic.

 (x)[Tx~(Rx Λ Ex)]

 ~(Ǝx)[Tx Ʌ (Rx V Ex)]

 There are no terrorists that are rational or empathetic.

(hint: two predicates as one unit are ascribed to the

subject)

NB: compare the two different sentences in question 4 below

while doing the same tasks respectively as above

--------------------------------------------------------------
4. (1) Humans are spiritual.
(2) Only humans are spiritual. (Humans only are spiritual)

1a. (x)(HxSx)

1b. ~(Ǝx)(Hx Λ ~Sx)

1c. There is no human that is not spiritual

2a. (x)(SxHx)

2b. ~(Ǝx)(Sx Λ ~Hx)

2c. There are no spiritual beings that it not human.

NB: Of course, these are not the same, as "only" makes the
predicate a consequent of the conditional

=================================================================
Exercise 52 ... (Non-Credit)

1. Come up with a pair of concrete sentences, whereby the 1st

one is an universally quantified statement, and the 2nd one
is a product of applying UI to the 1st one.
 2. Think about why UI cannot be an equivalence-based inference
rule.

=================================================================
Exercise 53 ... (Non-Credit)

Explain why and under what condition UG can be employed in a

proof.

=================================================================
Exercise 54 ... (Non-Credit)

Explain why EG as an inference rule can be considered as

"independent," in spite of the fact it is a generalization,
unlike UG.

=================================================================
Exercise 55 ... (Non-Credit)

Explain which one of the two inference rules on existential

statements, i.e., EG & EI, is dependent upon the other, and why.

=================================================================
Exercise 56 ... (Non-Credit)

(1) Symbolize the following argument with predicates;

(2) Show that it is valid by a proof:

1. All economists are social scientists.

2. Paul Krugman is an economist.
C. Therefore, Paul Krugman is a social scientist.

=================================================================
Exercise 57 ... (Non-Credit)

(1) Symbolize the following argument with predicates;

(2) Show that it is valid by a proof:

P1. God is not perceived by our senses.

C. Therefore, God does not exist.

(Hint: the argument is incomplete, i.e., something called an

 "Enthymeme." Thus, a tacit premise, P2, has to be filled in.)

Optional: Evaluate the argument as well by subjecting the

critical premise (in this case, the tacit premise) to
counter-examples.

=================================================================
Exercise 58 ... (Non-Credit)

(1) Symbolize the following argument,

(2) Establish its validity by a proof, and
(3) "Evaluate" the argument as well.

1. All the beings that have wings can fly.

2. All birds have wings.
C. Therefore, all birds can fly.

=================================================================
Exercise 59 ... (Non-Credit)

Symbolize and Prove the following argument

under Predicate Logic framework:

1. Oranges are sweet.

2. Oranges are also fragrant.
C. Therefore, oranges are sweet and fragrant.

=================================================================
Exercise 60 (*) ... (For-Credit of 15 points)

Symbolize & Prove the following argument:

1. All criminals are vicious.

2. Some humans are criminals.
C. Thus some humans are vicious. (Ǝx)(Hx Λ Vx)

 (x)(Cx Vx)

 (Ǝx)(Hx Λ Cx)

 Ca  Va / 1 UI

 Ha Λ Ca / 2 EI

 Ca / 4 Simp

 Va / 3,5 MP

 Ha / 4 Simp
  Ha Λ Va / 6,7 Conj

 (Ǝx)(Hx Λ Vx) / 8 EG QED

Conclusions for Exam