Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    Fallacies

    Uploaded by

    Francine Kye DelaCruz
    The document defines rules of inference in propositional logic and quantified statements. It lists common rules of inference like modus ponens, modus tollens, and addition. It also discusses fallacies in reasoning like affirming the conclusion. For quantified statements, it covers universal and existential instantiation and generalization. Examples are given to demonstrate applying these rules of inference to prove statements.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Fallacies

    Uploaded by

    Francine Kye DelaCruz
    6 views2 pages
    The document defines rules of inference in propositional logic and quantified statements. It lists common rules of inference like modus ponens, modus tollens, and addition. It also discusses fallacies in reasoning like affirming the conclusion. For quantified statements, it covers universal and existential instantiation and generalization. Examples are given to demonstrate applying these rules of inference to prove statements.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document defines rules of inference in propositional logic and quantified statements. It lists common rules of inference like modus ponens, modus tollens, and addition. It also discusses fallacies in reasoning like affirming the conclusion. For quantified statements, it covers universal and existential instantiation and generalization. Examples are given to demonstrate applying these rules of inference to prove statements.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    6 views2 pages

    Fallacies

    Uploaded by

    Francine Kye DelaCruz
    The document defines rules of inference in propositional logic and quantified statements. It lists common rules of inference like modus ponens, modus tollens, and addition. It also discusses fallacies in reasoning like affirming the conclusion. For quantified statements, it covers universal and existential instantiation and generalization. Examples are given to demonstrate applying these rules of inference to prove statements.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    1 The Foundations: Logic and Proofs

    1.6 Rules of Inference

    Rules of Inference

    1. an argument in propositional logic is a sequence of propositions that take the


    premise(s) to prove the conclusion(s) (an argument works for particular proposi-
    tions)

    2. an argument form in propositional logic is a sequence of propositions involving


    propositional variables that take the premise(s) to prove the conclusion(s) (an ar-
    gument form is true no matter what particular propositions are used for the propo-
    sitional variables, it is like a “rule” that works for all propositional variables used)

    3. a rule of inference is a simple valid argument form that can be used as laws

    4. rules of inference

    (a) law of detachment (modus ponens): [p ∧ (p → q)] → q


    (b) modus tollens: [¬q ∧ (p → q)] → ¬p
    (c) hypothetical syllogism: [(p → q) ∧ (q → r)] → (p → r)
    (d) disjunctive syllogism: [(p ∨ q) ∧ ¬p] → q
    (e) addition: p → (p ∨ q) or similarly: q → (p ∨ q)
    (f) simplification: [p ∧ q] → q or similarly [p ∧ q] → p
    (g) conjunction: [(p) ∧ (q)] → (p ∧ q) (if we know p and also q, then we have p ∧ q)
    (h) resolution: [(p ∨ q) ∧ (¬p ∨ r)] → (q ∨ r)

    5. a fallacy of affirming the conclusion is an incorrect reasoning in proving p → q by


    starting with assuming q and proving p. For example: Show that if x+y is odd, then
    either x or y is odd, but not both. A fallacy of affirming the conclusion argument
    would start with: “Assume that either x or y is odd, but not both. Then..”

    6. a fallacy of denying the hypothesis is an incorrect reasoning in proving p → q by


    starting with assuming ¬p and proving ¬q. For example: Show that if x is irrational,
    then x/2 is irrational. A fallacy of denying the hypothesis argument would start
    with: “Assume that x is rational. Then...”

    1
    Definition: We define x to be an even integer if x = 2k, ∃k ∈ Z. Similarly, we define
    x to be an odd integer if x = 2k + 1, ∃k ∈ Z.

    Rules of Inference for Quantified statements

    1. universal instantiation: knowing ∀x, P (x) we can deduce P (a) for any value a that
    we need.

    2. universal generalization: knowing P (a) for an arbitrary a we can deduce that ∀xP (x)
    since a was arbitrary.

    Example: Prove that the square of an even integer is also even.


    Proof: Let a be an even integer (this is the universal instantiation). Then a =
    2k, ∃k ∈ Z. (the definition of an even integer) Then a2 = (2k)2 = 4k 2 = 2(2k 2 ),
    which is even (reasoning). Thus a2 is even, and so there is the square of an even
    integer is also even (universal generalization).

    3. existential instantiation: knowing ∃x, P (x) we can deduce P (a) for some value a
    (sometimes you don’t know the value of a but we know of its existence)

    4. existential generalization: knowing P (a) for some value of a we can deduce that
    ∃xP (x) since there is at least one value for which it is true, for example the value a

    Example: Prove that there is an even integer who is the sum of two odd
    numbers.
    Proof: Let 1 and 5 be the two odd numbers (existential instantiation). Note that
    1 + 5 = 6 is even (reasoning). Since the even number 6 can be written as the sum
    of two odd numbers, it follows that there is an even integer who is the sum of two
    odd numbers.

    You might also like