Rules of Inference

Lecture 4, CMSC 56
Allyn Joy D. Calcaben
Rules of Inference
Templates for constructing valid arguments

Our basic tools for establishing the truth of statements

Fallacies
common forms of incorrect reasoning which lead to
invalid arguments
Rules of Inference
An argument in propositional logic is a sequence of
propositions.

All but the final proposition in the argument are called

premises and the final proposition is called the conclusion.

An argument is valid if the truth of all its premises

implies that the conclusion is true.
Rules of Inference
An argument form in propositional logic is a sequence of
compound propositions involving propositional variables.

An argument form is valid no matter which particular

propositions are substituted for the propositional variables in
its premises, the conclusion is true if the premises are all true.
 Valid Arguments
in Propositional Logic
Example
“If you have a current password,
then you can log onto the network.”
Example
“If you have a current password,
then you can log onto the network.”

“You have a current password.”

Example
“If you have a current password,
then you can log onto the network.”

“You have a current password.”

Therefore,
Example
“If you have a current password,
then you can log onto the network.”

“You have a current password.”

Therefore,
“You can log onto the network.”
Example
Argument form:

p→q
p
∴q

where ∴ is the symbol that denotes “therefore.”

Example
Argument form:

p→q
p
PREMISES
∴q CONCLUSION

where ∴ is the symbol that denotes “therefore.”

Example
To determine whether this is a valid argument,
determine whether the conclusion “You can log onto the
network” is true when the premises “If you have a current
password, then you can log onto the network” and “You have
a current password” are both true.
Example

“If you have a current password, then you can log onto the network.”
“You have a current password.”
∴ “ You can log onto the network.”
 RULE OF
TAUTOLOGY NAME
INFERENCE
p
p→q (p ∧ (p → q)) → q Modus Ponens
∴q
￢q
p→q (￢q ∧ (p → q))→￢p Modus Tollens
∴ ￢p
p→q
Hypothetical
q→r ((p → q) ∧ (q → r)) → (p → r)
∴p→r Syllogism
p∨q
Disjunctive
￢p ((p ∨ q)∧￢p) → q
∴q Syllogism
 RULE OF
TAUTOLOGY NAME
INFERENCE
p
∴p∨q
p → (p ∨ q) Addition
p∧q
∴p
(p ∧ q) → p Simplification
p
q ((p) ∧ (q)) → (p ∧ q) Conjunction
∴p∧q
p∨q
￢p∨r ((p ∨ q) ∧ (￢p ∨ r)) → (q ∨ r) Resolution
∴q∨r
Example
State which rule of inference is the basis of the following
argument:

“ It is below freezing now.

Therefore, it is either below freezing or raining now. ”
Solution
“ It is below freezing now.
Therefore, it is either below freezing or raining now. ”

Let p be the proposition “It is below freezing now. ”

and q be the proposition “It is raining now. ”
Solution
“ It is below freezing now.
Therefore, it is either below freezing or raining now. ”

Let p be the proposition “It is below freezing now. ”

and q be the proposition “It is raining now. ”

Then this argument is of the form

Solution
“ It is below freezing now.
Therefore, it is either below freezing or raining now. ”

Let p be the proposition “It is below freezing now. ”

and q be the proposition “It is raining now. ”

Then this argument is of the form

p
∴ pVq
Solution
“ It is below freezing now.
Therefore, it is either below freezing or raining now. ”

Let p be the proposition “It is below freezing now. ”

and q be the proposition “It is raining now. ”

Then this argument is of the form

p This is an argument that
∴ pVq uses the addition rule
Example
State which rule of inference is the basis of the following
argument:

“ It is below freezing and raining now.

Therefore, it is below freezing now. ”
Solution
“ It is below freezing and raining now.
Therefore, it is below freezing now. ”

Let p be the proposition “It is below freezing now. ”

and q be the proposition “It is raining now. ”
Solution
“ It is below freezing and raining now.
Therefore, it is below freezing now. ”

Let p be the proposition “It is below freezing now. ”

and q be the proposition “It is raining now. ”

Then this argument is of the form

p∧q
∴ p
Solution
“ It is below freezing and raining now.
Therefore, it is below freezing now. ”

Let p be the proposition “It is below freezing now. ”

and q be the proposition “It is raining now. ”

Then this argument is of the form

p∧q This is an argument that
∴ p uses the simplification rule
Example
State which rule of inference is used in the argument:

“ If it rains today, then we will not have a barbeque today.

If we do not have a barbeque today, then we will have a
barbecue tomorrow.
Therefore, if it rains today, then we will have a barbecue
tomorrow. ”
Solution
Let p be the proposition “It is raining today. ”
let q be the proposition “We will not have a barbecue today.”
and r be the proposition “We will have a barbecue tomorrow.”
Solution
Let p be the proposition “It is raining today. ”
let q be the proposition “We will not have a barbecue today.”
and r be the proposition “We will have a barbecue tomorrow.”

Then the argument is of the given form:

p→q
q→r
∴ p→r
Solution
Let p be the proposition “It is raining today. ”
let q be the proposition “We will not have a barbecue today.”
and r be the proposition “We will have a barbecue tomorrow.”

Then the argument is of the given form:

p→q
q→r
This argument is a
∴ p→r hypothetical syllogism
Formal Proof
Definition 2

A formal proof of a conclusion q given hypotheses p1, p2, . . . ,

pn is a sequence of steps, each of which applies some
inference rule to hypotheses or previously proven statements
(antecedents) to yield a new true statement (the consequent).
Formal Proof
Definition 2

A formal proof of a conclusion q given hypotheses p1, p2, . . . ,

pn is a sequence of steps, each of which applies some
inference rule to hypotheses or previously proven statements
(antecedents) to yield a new true statement (the consequent).

A formal proof demonstrates that if the premises are true,

then the conclusion is true.
Using Rules of Inference
to Build Arguments
Example
Show that the premises:
“It is not sunny this afternoon and it is colder than yesterday,”
“We will go swimming only if it is sunny,”
“If we do not go swimming, then we will take a canoe trip,”
and “If we take a canoe trip, then we will be home by sunset”

lead to the conclusion “We will be home by sunset.”

Solution
Let p be the proposition “It is sunny this afternoon,”
q the proposition “It is colder than yesterday,”
r the proposition “We will go swimming,”
s the proposition “We will take a canoe trip,”
and t the proposition “We will be home by sunset.”
Solution
Let p be the proposition “It is sunny this afternoon,”
q the proposition “It is colder than yesterday,”
r the proposition “We will go swimming,”
s the proposition “We will take a canoe trip,”
and t the proposition “We will be home by sunset.”

“It is not sunny this afternoon and it is colder than yesterday”

Solution
Let p be the proposition “It is sunny this afternoon,”
q the proposition “It is colder than yesterday,”
r the proposition “We will go swimming,”
s the proposition “We will take a canoe trip,”
and t the proposition “We will be home by sunset.”

“It is not sunny this afternoon and it is colder than yesterday”

￢p ∧ q
Solution
Let p be the proposition “It is sunny this afternoon,”
q the proposition “It is colder than yesterday,”
r the proposition “We will go swimming,”
s the proposition “We will take a canoe trip,”
and t the proposition “We will be home by sunset.”

“We will go swimming only if it is sunny.”

Solution
Let p be the proposition “It is sunny this afternoon,”
q the proposition “It is colder than yesterday,”
r the proposition “We will go swimming,”
s the proposition “We will take a canoe trip,”
and t the proposition “We will be home by sunset.”

“We will go swimming only if it is sunny.”

r→p
Solution
Let p be the proposition “It is sunny this afternoon,”
q the proposition “It is colder than yesterday,”
r the proposition “We will go swimming,”
s the proposition “We will take a canoe trip,”
and t the proposition “We will be home by sunset.”

“If we do not go swimming, then we will take a canoe trip.”

Solution
Let p be the proposition “It is sunny this afternoon,”
q the proposition “It is colder than yesterday,”
r the proposition “We will go swimming,”
s the proposition “We will take a canoe trip,”
and t the proposition “We will be home by sunset.”

“If we do not go swimming, then we will take a canoe trip.”

￢r → s
Solution
Let p be the proposition “It is sunny this afternoon,”
q the proposition “It is colder than yesterday,”
r the proposition “We will go swimming,”
s the proposition “We will take a canoe trip,”
and t the proposition “We will be home by sunset.”

“If we take a canoe trip, then we will be home by sunset.”

Solution
Let p be the proposition “It is sunny this afternoon,”
q the proposition “It is colder than yesterday,”
r the proposition “We will go swimming,”
s the proposition “We will take a canoe trip,”
and t the proposition “We will be home by sunset.”

“If we take a canoe trip, then we will be home by sunset.”

s→t
Solution
Let p be the proposition “It is sunny this afternoon,”
q the proposition “It is colder than yesterday,”
r the proposition “We will go swimming,”
s the proposition “We will take a canoe trip,”
and t the proposition “We will be home by sunset.”

Conclusion: “We will be home by sunset.”

Solution
Let p be the proposition “It is sunny this afternoon,”
q the proposition “It is colder than yesterday,”
r the proposition “We will go swimming,”
s the proposition “We will take a canoe trip,”
and t the proposition “We will be home by sunset.”

Conclusion: “We will be home by sunset.”

t
Solution
The premises become
￢p ∧ q
r→p
￢r → s
s→t

The conclusion is simply t

Solution
The premises become
￢p ∧ q
r→p
￢r → s
s→t

The conclusion is simply t

We need to give a valid argument with premises ￢p ∧ q, r → p,

￢r → s, and s → t and conclusion t .
Solution
We construct an argument to show that our premises lead to the desired conclusion as follows.

Step Reason
1. ￢p ∧ q Premise
Solution
We construct an argument to show that our premises lead to the desired conclusion as follows.

Step Reason
1. ￢p ∧ q Premise
2. ￢p Simplification using (1)
Solution
We construct an argument to show that our premises lead to the desired conclusion as follows.

Step Reason
1. ￢p ∧ q Premise
2. ￢p Simplification using (1)
3. r→p Premise
Solution
We construct an argument to show that our premises lead to the desired conclusion as follows.

Step Reason
1. ￢p ∧ q Premise
2. ￢p Simplification using (1)
3. r→p Premise
4. ￢r Modus tollens using (2) and (3)
Solution
We construct an argument to show that our premises lead to the desired conclusion as follows.

Step Reason
1. ￢p ∧ q Premise
2. ￢p Simplification using (1)
3. r→p Premise
4. ￢r Modus tollens using (2) and (3)
5. ￢r → s Premise
Solution
We construct an argument to show that our premises lead to the desired conclusion as follows.

Step Reason
1. ￢p ∧ q Premise
2. ￢p Simplification using (1)
3. r→p Premise
4. ￢r Modus tollens using (2) and (3)
5. ￢r → s Premise
6. s Modus ponens using (4) and (5)
Solution
We construct an argument to show that our premises lead to the desired conclusion as follows.

Step Reason
1. ￢p ∧ q Premise
2. ￢p Simplification using (1)
3. r→p Premise
4. ￢r Modus tollens using (2) and (3)
5. ￢r → s Premise
6. s Modus ponens using (4) and (5)
7. s→t Premise
Solution
We construct an argument to show that our premises lead to the desired conclusion as follows.

Step Reason
1. ￢p ∧ q Premise
2. ￢p Simplification using (1)
3. r→p Premise
4. ￢r Modus tollens using (2) and (3)
5. ￢r → s Premise
6. s Modus ponens using (4) and (5)
7. s→t Premise
8. t Modus ponens using (6) and (7)
Example
Show that the premises:
“If you send me an e-mail message, then I will finish writing
the program,”
“If you do not send me an e-mail message, then I will go to
sleep early,” and
“If I go to sleep early, then I will wake up feeling refreshed”

lead to the conclusion “If I do not finish writing the program,

then I will wake up feeling refreshed.”
Solution
Let p be the proposition “You send me an e-mail message,”
q the proposition “I will finish writing the program,”
r the proposition “I will go to sleep early,”
and s the proposition “I will wake up feeling refreshed.”
Solution
Let p be the proposition “You send me an e-mail message,”
q the proposition “I will finish writing the program,”
r the proposition “I will go to sleep early,”
and s the proposition “I will wake up feeling refreshed.”

“If you send me an e-mail message,

then I will finish writing the program”
Solution
Let p be the proposition “You send me an e-mail message,”
q the proposition “I will finish writing the program,”
r the proposition “I will go to sleep early,”
and s the proposition “I will wake up feeling refreshed.”

“If you send me an e-mail message,

then I will finish writing the program”

p→q
Solution
Let p be the proposition “You send me an e-mail message,”
q the proposition “I will finish writing the program,”
r the proposition “I will go to sleep early,”
and s the proposition “I will wake up feeling refreshed.”

“If you do not send me an e-mail message,

then I will go to sleep early”
Solution
Let p be the proposition “You send me an e-mail message,”
q the proposition “I will finish writing the program,”
r the proposition “I will go to sleep early,”
and s the proposition “I will wake up feeling refreshed.”

“If you do not send me an e-mail message,

then I will go to sleep early”

￢p → r
Solution
Let p be the proposition “You send me an e-mail message,”
q the proposition “I will finish writing the program,”
r the proposition “I will go to sleep early,”
and s the proposition “I will wake up feeling refreshed.”

“If I go to sleep early,

then I will wake up feeling refreshed”
Solution
Let p be the proposition “You send me an e-mail message,”
q the proposition “I will finish writing the program,”
r the proposition “I will go to sleep early,”
and s the proposition “I will wake up feeling refreshed.”

“If I go to sleep early,

then I will wake up feeling refreshed”

r→s
Solution
Let p be the proposition “You send me an e-mail message,”
q the proposition “I will finish writing the program,”
r the proposition “I will go to sleep early,”
and s the proposition “I will wake up feeling refreshed.”

Conclusion: “If I do not finish writing the program,

then I will wake up feeling refreshed”
Solution
Let p be the proposition “You send me an e-mail message,”
q the proposition “I will finish writing the program,”
r the proposition “I will go to sleep early,”
and s the proposition “I will wake up feeling refreshed.”

Conclusion: “If I do not finish writing the program,

then I will wake up feeling refreshed”

￢q → s
Solution
The premises are
p→q
￢p→r
r→s

The desired conclusion is ￢ q → s

Solution
The premises are
p→q
￢p→r
r→s

The desired conclusion is ￢ q → s

We need to give a valid argument with premises p → q, ￢p → r,

and r → s and conclusion ￢q → s
Solution
This argument form shows that the premises lead to the desired conclusion.

Step Reason
1. p→q Premise
Solution
This argument form shows that the premises lead to the desired conclusion.

Step Reason
1. p→q Premise
2. ￢p → r Premise
Solution
This argument form shows that the premises lead to the desired conclusion.

Step Reason
1. p→q Premise
2. ￢p → r Premise

No possible rule of inference!

Solution
This argument form shows that the premises lead to the desired conclusion.

Step Reason
1. p→q Premise
Solution
This argument form shows that the premises lead to the desired conclusion.

Step Reason
1. p→q Premise
2. ￢q →￢p Contrapositive of (1)
Solution
This argument form shows that the premises lead to the desired conclusion.

Step Reason
1. p→q Premise
2. ￢q →￢p Contrapositive of (1)
3. ￢p → r Premise
Solution
This argument form shows that the premises lead to the desired conclusion.

Step Reason
1. p→q Premise
2. ￢q →￢p Contrapositive of (1)
3. ￢p → r Premise
4. ￢q → r Hypothetical syllogism using (2) and (3)
Solution
This argument form shows that the premises lead to the desired conclusion.

Step Reason
1. p→q Premise
2. ￢q →￢p Contrapositive of (1)
3. ￢p → r Premise
4. ￢q → r Hypothetical syllogism using (2) and (3)
5. r→s Premise
Solution
This argument form shows that the premises lead to the desired conclusion.

Step Reason
1. p→q Premise
2. ￢q →￢p Contrapositive of (1)
3. ￢p → r Premise
4. ￢q → r Hypothetical syllogism using (2) and (3)
5. r→s Premise
6. ￢q → s Hypothetical syllogism using (4) and (5)
Resolution
Resolution
A rule of inference used by many Computer programs to
automate the task of reasoning and proving theorems.
Resolution
A rule of inference used by many Computer programs to
automate the task of reasoning and proving theorems.

((p ∨ q) ∧ (￢p ∨ r)) → (q ∨ r)

The final disjunction in the resolution rule, q ∨ r, is called the

resolvent.
Example
Show that the premises (p ∧ q) ∨ r and r → s imply the
conclusion p ∨ s.
Solution
Show that the premises (p ∧ q) ∨ r and r → s imply the conclusion p ∨ s.

We can rewrite the premises (p ∧ q) ∨ r as two clauses using the

Distributive laws:
Solution
Show that the premises (p ∧ q) ∨ r and r → s imply the conclusion p ∨ s.

We can rewrite the premises (p ∧ q) ∨ r as two clauses using the

Distributive laws: p ∨ r and q ∨ r
Solution
Show that the premises (p ∧ q) ∨ r and r → s imply the conclusion p ∨ s.

We can rewrite the premises (p ∧ q) ∨ r as two clauses using the

Distributive laws: p ∨ r and q ∨ r

We can also replace r → s using the implication equivalence

Solution
Show that the premises (p ∧ q) ∨ r and r → s imply the conclusion p ∨ s.

We can rewrite the premises (p ∧ q) ∨ r as two clauses using the

Distributive laws: p ∨ r and q ∨ r

We can also replace r → s using the implication equivalence

￢r∨s
Solution
Show that the premises (p ∧ q) ∨ r and r → s imply the conclusion p ∨ s.

We can rewrite the premises (p ∧ q) ∨ r as two clauses using the

Distributive laws: p ∨ r and q ∨ r

We can also replace r → s using the implication equivalence

￢r∨s

We can use resolution ((p ∨ q) ∧ (￢p ∨ r)) → (q ∨ r) to conclude p ∨ s.

 Rules of Inference
For Quantified Statements
Table 2 Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements
Rule of Inference Name
∀x P(x)
Universal Instantiation
∴ P(c)
P(c) for an arbitrary c
Universal Generalization
∴ ∀x P(x)
∃x P(x)
Existential Instantiation
∴ P(c) for some element c
P(c) for some element c
Existential Generalization
∴ ∃x P(x)
Example
Show that the premises

“Everyone in this discrete mathematics class has taken a course in

computer science” and
“Marla is a student in this class”

imply the conclusion “Marla has taken a course in computer science.”

Solution
Let D(x) denote “x is in this discrete mathematics class,”
and let C(x) denote “x has taken a course in computer science.”
Solution
Let D(x) denote “x is in this discrete mathematics class,”
and let C(x) denote “x has taken a course in computer science.”

“Everyone in this discrete mathematics class

has taken a course in computer science”
Solution
Let D(x) denote “x is in this discrete mathematics class,”
and let C(x) denote “x has taken a course in computer science.”

“Everyone in this discrete mathematics class

has taken a course in computer science”

∀x(D(x) → C(x)) and D(Marla)

Solution
Let D(x) denote “x is in this discrete mathematics class,”
and let C(x) denote “x has taken a course in computer science.”

“Marla is a student in this class”

Solution
Let D(x) denote “x is in this discrete mathematics class,”
and let C(x) denote “x has taken a course in computer science.”

“Marla is a student in this class”

D(Marla)
Solution
Let D(x) denote “x is in this discrete mathematics class,”
and let C(x) denote “x has taken a course in computer science.”

“Marla has taken a course in computer science.”

Solution
Let D(x) denote “x is in this discrete mathematics class,”
and let C(x) denote “x has taken a course in computer science.”

“Marla has taken a course in computer science.”

C(Marla)
Solution
Premises:
∀x(D(x) → C(x))
D(Marla)

Conclusion: C(Marla)
Solution
The following steps can be used to establish the conclusion from the
premises.

Step Reason
1. ∀x(D(x) → C(x)) Premise
Solution
The following steps can be used to establish the conclusion from the
premises.

Step Reason
1. ∀x(D(x) → C(x)) Premise
2. D(Marla) → C(Marla) Universal instantiation from (1)
Solution
The following steps can be used to establish the conclusion from the
premises.

Step Reason
1. ∀x(D(x) → C(x)) Premise
2. D(Marla) → C(Marla) Universal instantiation from (1)
3. D(Marla) Premise
Solution
The following steps can be used to establish the conclusion from the
premises.

Step Reason
1. ∀x(D(x) → C(x)) Premise
2. D(Marla) → C(Marla) Universal instantiation from (1)
3. D(Marla) Premise

You can use other rules of inference!

Solution
The following steps can be used to establish the conclusion from the
premises.

Step Reason
1. ∀x(D(x) → C(x)) Premise
2. D(Marla) → C(Marla) Universal instantiation from (1)
3. D(Marla) Premise
4. C(Marla) Modus ponens from (2) and (3)
Example
Show that the premises
“A student in this class has not read the book,” and
“Everyone in this class passed the first exam”

imply the conclusion “Someone who passed the first exam has not read
the book.”
Solution
Let C(x) be “x is in this class,”
B(x) be “x has read the book,” and
P(x) be “x passed the first exam.”
Solution
Let C(x) be “x is in this class,”
B(x) be “x has read the book,” and
P(x) be “x passed the first exam.”

“A student in this class has not read the book.”

Solution
Let C(x) be “x is in this class,”
B(x) be “x has read the book,” and
P(x) be “x passed the first exam.”

“A student in this class has not read the book.”

∃x(C(x)∧￢B(x))
Solution
Let C(x) be “x is in this class,”
B(x) be “x has read the book,” and
P(x) be “x passed the first exam.”

“Everyone in this class passed the first exam”

Solution
Let C(x) be “x is in this class,”
B(x) be “x has read the book,” and
P(x) be “x passed the first exam.”

“Everyone in this class passed the first exam”

∀x(C(x) → P(x))
Solution
Let C(x) be “x is in this class,”
B(x) be “x has read the book,” and
P(x) be “x passed the first exam.”

Conclusion: “Someone who passed the first exam

has not read the book.”
Solution
Let C(x) be “x is in this class,”
B(x) be “x has read the book,” and
P(x) be “x passed the first exam.”

Conclusion: “Someone who passed the first exam

has not read the book.”

∃x(P(x)∧￢B(x))
Solution
Premises:
∃x(C(x)∧￢B(x))
∀x(C(x) → P(x))

Conclusion: ∃x(P(x)∧￢B(x))
Solution
Step Reason
1. ∃x(C(x)∧￢B(x)) Premise
Solution
Step Reason
1. ∃x(C(x)∧￢B(x)) Premise
2. C(a)∧￢B(a) Existential instantiation from (1)
Solution
Step Reason
1. ∃x(C(x)∧￢B(x)) Premise
2. C(a)∧￢B(a) Existential instantiation from (1)
3. C(a) Simplification from (2)
Solution
Step Reason
1. ∃x(C(x)∧￢B(x)) Premise
2. C(a)∧￢B(a) Existential instantiation from (1)
3. C(a) Simplification from (2)
4. ∀x(C(x) → P(x)) Premise
Solution
Step Reason
1. ∃x(C(x)∧￢B(x)) Premise
2. C(a)∧￢B(a) Existential instantiation from (1)
3. C(a) Simplification from (2)
4. ∀x(C(x) → P(x)) Premise
5. C(a) → P(a) Universal instantiation from (4)
Solution
Step Reason
1. ∃x(C(x)∧￢B(x)) Premise
2. C(a)∧￢B(a) Existential instantiation from (1)
3. C(a) Simplification from (2)
4. ∀x(C(x) → P(x)) Premise
5. C(a) → P(a) Universal instantiation from (4)
6. P(a) Modus ponens from (3) and (5)
Solution
Step Reason
1. ∃x(C(x)∧￢B(x)) Premise
2. C(a)∧￢B(a) Existential instantiation from (1)
3. C(a) Simplification from (2)
4. ∀x(C(x) → P(x)) Premise
5. C(a) → P(a) Universal instantiation from (4)
6. P(a) Modus ponens from (3) and (5)
7. ￢B(a) Simplification from (2)
Solution
Step Reason
1. ∃x(C(x)∧￢B(x)) Premise
2. C(a)∧￢B(a) Existential instantiation from (1)
3. C(a) Simplification from (2)
4. ∀x(C(x) → P(x)) Premise
5. C(a) → P(a) Universal instantiation from (4)
6. P(a) Modus ponens from (3) and (5)
7. ￢B(a) Simplification from (2)
8. P(a)∧￢B(a) Conjunction from (6) and (7)
Solution
Step Reason
1. ∃x(C(x)∧￢B(x)) Premise
2. C(a)∧￢B(a) Existential instantiation from (1)
3. C(a) Simplification from (2)
4. ∀x(C(x) → P(x)) Premise
5. C(a) → P(a) Universal instantiation from (4)
6. P(a) Modus ponens from (3) and (5)
7. ￢B(a) Simplification from (2)
8. P(a)∧￢B(a) Conjunction from (6) and (7)
9. ∃x(P(x)∧￢B(x)) Existential generalization from (8)
 Combining Rules of Inference for
Propositions and Quantified Statements
Universal Modus Ponens
∀x(P(x) → Q(x))
P(a), where a is a particular element in the domain
∴ Q(a)

Universal Modus Tollens

∀x(P(x) → Q(x))
¬Q(a), where a is a particular element in the domain
∴ ¬P(a)
Any Question?
Announcement
Assignment will be posted later.
Deadline: September 7, 2018 (Friday)

1st Long Exam Schedule

Sept. 18 (Part 1) & Sept. 21 (Part 2),
4PM – 5:30PM @ CL2 and CL4
Assignment
A. Which rule of inference is used in each argument below?

1. Alice is a Math major. Therefore, Alice is either a Math major or a CSI major.
2. Jerry is a Math major and a CSI major. Therefore, Jerry is a Math major.
3. If it is rainy, then the pool will be closed. It is rainy. Therefore, the pool is closed.

B. Choose the correct interpretation of each of the following:

E(x) = “x is an earth-like planet.”
L(x) = “x supports life.”

1. ∀x(L(x) → E(x)) 4. ∃x(L(x) → E(x)) 7. ∀x(E(x)) V ∀x(￢E(x))

2. ∀x(E(x)) V ∀x(L(x)) 5. ∃x(E(x)) V ∃x(L(x)) 8. ∃x(E(x)) V ∃x(￢E(x))
3. ￢(∀x(E(x) V L(x))) 6. ￢(∃x(E(x) V L(x))) 9. ∀x(E(x)) V ∃x(￢E(x))
Assignment
C. Transform the informal argument below into predicate logic. Then give a formal proof

1. If it does not rain or if is not foggy, then the sailing race will be held and the lifesaving
demonstration will go on. If the sailing race is held, then the trophy will be awarded.
The trophy was not awarded. Therefore, it rained.

2. If I like Discrete Mathematics, then I will study. Either I don’t study or I pass Discrete
Mathematics. If I don’t pass Discrete Mathematics, then I don’t graduate. Therefore, if
I graduate then I like Discrete Mathematics.

3. All Computer Science majors are intelligent. Some Computer Science majors are logical
thinkers. Therefore, some intelligent are logical thinkers.