Previewpdf

INTRODUCTION TO
M AT H E M AT I CA L
PRO O F S
A TRANSITION
TEXTBOOKS in MATHEMATICS
Series Editor: Denny Gulick
PUBLISHED TITLES
COMPLEX VARIABLES: A PHYSICAL APPROACH WITH APPLICATIONS AND MATLAB®

Steven G. Krantz
INTRODUCTION TO ABSTRACT ALGEBRA
Jonathan D. H. Smith
INTRODUCTION TO MATHEMATICAL PROOFS: A TRANSITION
Charles E. Roberts, Jr.
LINEAR ALBEBRA: A FIRST COURSE WITH APPLICATIONS
Larry E. Knop
MATHEMATICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MODELING OF PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES
H. T. Banks and H. T. Tran
FORTHCOMING TITLES
ENCOUNTERS WITH CHAOS AND FRACTALS

Denny Gulick
TEXTBOOKS in MATHEMATICS
INTRODUCTION TO
M AT HE M AT I C A L
P RO O F S
A TRANSITION
Charles E. Roberts, Jr.

Chapman & Hall/CRC
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742
© 2010 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

Chapman & Hall/CRC is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
No claim to original U.S. Government works
Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
International Standard Book Number: 978-1-4200-6955-6 (Hardback)
This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts
have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume
responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers
have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to
copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has
not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any future reprint.
Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmit-
ted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without written permission from the publishers.
For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.
com (http://www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood
Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and
registration for a variety of users. For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC,
a separate system of payment has been arranged.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used
only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging‑in‑Publication Data
Roberts, Charles E., 1942-

Introduction to mathematical proofs : a transition / Charles Roberts.
p. cm. -- (Textbooks in mathematics)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4200-6955-6 (hardcover : alk. paper)
1. Proof theory--Textbooks. 2. Logic, Symbolic and mathematical--Textbooks. I.
Title. II. Series.
QA9.54.R63 2009
511.3’6--dc22 2009019726
Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at

http://www.taylorandfrancis.com
and the CRC Press Web site at

http://www.crcpress.com
Contents
Preface vii
1 Logic 1
1.1 Statements, Negation, and Compound Statements . . . . . . 2
1.2 Truth Tables and Logical Equivalences . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3 Conditional and Biconditional Statements . . . . . . . . . 21
1.4 Logical Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1.5 Open Statements and Quantifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
1.6 Chapter Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2 Deductive Mathematical Systems and Proofs 69

2.1 Deductive Mathematical Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
2.2 Mathematical Proofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
2.2.1 Techniques for Proving the Conditional Statement P ⇒ Q 81
2.2.2 Additional Proof Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
2.2.3 Conjectures, Proofs, and Disproofs . . . . . . . . . . 100
2.2.3 The System of Rational Numbers and the System of Real
Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
2.3 Chapter Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
3 Set Theory 125

3.1 Sets and Subsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
3.2 Set Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
3.3 Additional Set Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
3.4 Generalized Set Union and Intersection . . . . . . . . . . 159
3.5 Chapter Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
4 Relations 175
4.1 Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
4.2 The Order Relations <, ≤, >, ≥ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
4.3 Reflexive, Symmetric, Transitive, and Equivalence Relations . . 197
4.4 Equivalence Relations, Equivalence Classes, and Partitions . . 205
4.5 Chapter Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
v
vi
5 Functions 219
5.1 Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
5.2 Onto Functions, One-to-One Functions, and One-to-One
Correspondences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
5.3 Inverse of a Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
5.4 Images and Inverse Images of Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
5.5 Chapter Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
6 Mathematical Induction 261

6.1 Mathematical Induction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
6.2 The Well-Ordering Principle and the Fundamental Theorem of
Arithmetic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
7 Cardinalities of Sets 275

7.1 Finite Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
7.2 Denumerable and Countable Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
7.3 Uncountable Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
8 Proofs from Real Analysis 297

8.1 Sequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
8.2 Limit Theorems for Sequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
8.3 Monotone Sequences and Subsequences . . . . . . . . . . 313
8.4 Cauchy Sequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
9 Proofs from Group Theory 325

9.1 Binary Operations and Algebraic Structures . . . . . . . . 325
9.2 Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
9.3 Subgroups and Cyclic Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
A Reading and Writing Mathematical Proofs 349
Answers to Selected Exercises 357
References 415
Index 417
Preface
This text is written for undergraduate mathematics majors and minors

who have taken only computationally oriented, problem solving mathematics
courses previously. Usually these students are freshmen and sophomores. The
primary objectives of the text are to teach the reader: (1) to reason logically,
(2) to read the proofs of others critically, and (3) to write valid mathematical
proofs. We intend to help students develop the skills necessary to write cor-
rect, clear, and concise proofs. Ultimately, we endeavor to prepare students
to succeed in more advanced mathematics courses such as abstract algebra,
analysis, and geometry where they are expected to write proofs and construct
counterexamples instead of perform computations and solve problems. The
aim of the text is to facilitate a smooth transition from courses designed to
develop computational skills and problem solving abilities to courses which
emphasize theorem proving.
Logic is presented in Chapter 1 because logic is the underlying language of
mathematics, logic is the basis of all reasoned argument, and logic developed
earliest historically. This text may well be the only place in the undergraduate
mathematics curriculum where a student is introduced to the study of logic.
Knowing logic should benefit students not only in future mathematics courses
but in other facets of their lives as well. Formal proofs are included, because
each step in a formal proof requires a justification. And students need to
understand that when they write an informal proof, each statement should be
justified unless the justification is apparent to the reader.
In Chapter 2, deductive mathematical systems are defined and discussed.
Various proof techniques are presented and each proof technique is illustrated
with several examples. Some theorems are proven using more than one proof
technique, so that the reader may compare and contrast the techniques. The
role of conjectures in mathematics is introduced, and proofs and disproofs of
conjectures are explored. Interesting conjectures, which recently have been
proved true or disproved, and conjectures, which still remain open, are stated
and discussed. The integers and their properties are developed from the ax-
ioms and properties of the natural numbers; the rational numbers and their
properties are derived from the integers; and, finally, the method for develop-
ing the system of real numbers from the rational numbers is described.
Elementary topics in set theory are presented in Chapter 3. A thorough
understanding of basic set theory is necessary for success in advanced mathe-
matics courses. In addition, using set notation promotes precision and clarity
when communicating mathematical ideas.
vii
viii
Relations and functions play a major role in many branches of mathematics

and the sciences. Therefore, in Chapters 4 and 5, relations and functions are
defined and their various properties are examined in detail.
In Chapter 6, proof by mathematical induction, in its various forms, is
introduced, and several theorems are proven using induction.
The last three chapters, which are optional, introduce the reader to the
concept of cardinalities of sets (Chapter 7) and to the concepts and proofs in
real analysis (Chapter 8) and in group theory (Chapter 9).
Appendix A discusses reading and writing proofs and includes some basic
guidelines to follow when writing proofs. We encourage students to read
Appendix A more than once during the semester and to use it as a reference
when writing proofs.
Several different syllabi can be designed for this text depending upon the
previous preparation and mathematical maturity of the students and the
goals, objectives, and preferences of the instructor. Chapters 1 through 6
constitute the core of the course we teach during one semester. When time
permits, we present some additional topics from Chapters 7, 8, and 9.
Features of the Text. This text is written in a friendly, conversational
style, yet, it maintains the proper level of mathematical rigor. Most sections
are of appropriate length for presentation in one lecture session. Several bio-
graphical sketches and historical comments have been included to enrich and
enliven the text. Generally, mathematics is presented as a continually evolving
discipline, and the material presented should fulfill the needs of students with
a wide range of backgrounds. Numerous technical terms, which the student
will encounter in more advanced courses, are defined and illustrated. Many
theorems from different disciplines in mathematics and of varying degrees of
complexity are stated and proved. Numerous examples illustrate in detail
how to write proofs and show how to solve problems. These examples serve
as models for students to emulate when solving exercises. Exercises of varying
difficulty appear at the end of each section.
Acknowledgments. This text evolved from lecture notes for a course
which I have taught at Indiana State University for a number of years. I would
like to thank my students and my colleagues for their support, encouragement,
and constructive criticisms. Also, I would like to thank Mr. Robert Stern
of Taylor and Francis/CRC Press for his assistance in bringing this text to
fruition.
Charles Roberts
Chapter 1
Logic
There are many definitions of logic; however, we will consider logic to be

the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish valid reasoning
from invalid reasoning. Logic is a part of mathematics; moreover, in a broad
sense, it is the language of mathematics.
In this chapter, we will study elementary symbolic logic. Logic is the basis of
all reasoned argument; and, therefore, logic is the basis for valid mathematical
proofs. The study of logic as a body of knowledge in Western Civilization
originated with Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), one of the greatest philosophers of
ancient Greece. He was a student of Plato for twenty years (from 367 to
347 B.C. when Plato died). Later, Aristotle tutored Alexander the Great,
and in 334 B.C. he founded his own school of philosophy in the Lyceum.
After his death, Aristotle’s writings on reasoning were collected together in a
body of work called the Organon. The contents of the Organon is the basis
for the subject of logic, although the word “logic” did not acquire its current
meaning until the second century A.D. The word “logic” is a derivative of
the Greek word logos, which translates into English as “word,”“speech,” or
“reason.”
Aristotle was the first to develop rules for correct reasoning. However, he
expressed logic in ordinary language; and, consequently, it was subject to the
ambiguities of natural language. At an early age, the German philosopher,
mathematician, and logician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) was not
satisfied with Aristotelian logic and began to develop his own ideas. He had
a lifelong goal of developing a universal language and a calculus of reasoning.
His idea was that the principles of reasoning could be reduced to a formal
symbolic system in which controversy (not just mathematical ones) could be
settled by calculations. Thus, Leibniz envisioned an algebra or calculus of
thought. He made some strides toward his goal, but his work was largely
forgotten.
The English mathematician and logician August De Morgan (1806-1871)
presented ideas for improving classical logic in the 1840’s. The key ideas he
contributed in his text Formal Logic (1847) include the introduction of the
concept of a universe of discourse; names for contraries; disjunction, con-
junction, and negation of propositions; abbreviated notation for propositions;
compound names; and notation for syllogisms. De Morgan intended to im-
prove the syllogism and use it as the main device in reasoning. In order to
1
2 Introduction to Mathematical Proofs
insure there were names for the contraries of compound names, he stated the
famous De Morgan Laws. By creating some of the most basic concepts of
modern logic, De Morgan contributed substantially to the change that was
taking place in logic in the mid-1800’s. However, his notational system was
viewed as too complex, so he received little credit for the development of
modern logic.
The English mathematician George Boole (1815-1864) is generally credited
with founding the modern algebra of logic and, hence, symbolic logic. At the
age of sixteen, Boole was an assistant teacher. In 1835, he opened his own
school and began to study mathematics on his own. He never attended an
institution of higher learning. He taught himself all of the higher mathematics
he knew. In 1840, he began to publish papers on analysis in the Cambridge
Mathematical Journal. In 1847, Boole published the text The Mathematical
Analysis of Logic. Initially, Boole wanted to express all the statements of
classical logic as equations, and then apply algebraic transformations to derive
the known valid arguments of logic. Near the end of writing the text, Boole
realized that his algebra of logic applied to any finite collection of premises
with any number of symbols. Boole’s logic was limited to what is presently
called the propositional calculus. It is the propositional calculus we will
study in this chapter.
1.1 Statements, Negation, and Compound Statements

In the English language, sentences are classified according to their usage.
A declarative sentence makes a statement. An imperative sentence
gives a command or makes a request. An interrogative sentence asks a
question. And an exclamatory sentence expresses strong feeling. Consider
the following sentences:
(1) Indianapolis is the capital of Indiana.
(2) Tell Tom I will be home later.
(3) What time is it?
(4) I wish you were here!
Sentence (1) is declarative, sentence (2) is imperative, sentence (3) is inter-
rogative, and sentence (4) is exclamatory. However, the same sentence can be
written to be declarative, interrogative, or exclamatory. For instance,
We won the game. [declarative]
We won the game? [interrogative]
We won the game! [exclamatory]
The declarative sentence (1) is “true” while the following declarative sentence
is “false”:
Minneapolis is the capital of Indiana.
Logic 3
Symbolic logic only applies to special declarative sentences which are state-
ments or propositions as defined below:
DEFINITION Statement or Proposition
A statement or proposition is a declarative sentence that is either true

or false, but not both true and false.
The terms true and false are left undefined, but it is assumed that their
meaning is intuitively understood. Some declarative sentences might be true
or false depending on the context or circumstance. Such sentences are not
considered to be statements. For example, the sentences “She is hungry.”,
“He is handsome.”, and “Chicago is far away.” depend upon one’s definition
of “hungry,” “handsome,” and “far away.” Consequently, such sentences are
not statements, because they do not have a “truth value”—that is, because
it is not possible to determine whether they are true or false. There are
statements for which we do not know the truth value. For example, we do
not know the truth value of Goldbach’s conjecture which states:
“Every even integer greater than two can be written as the sum
of two prime numbers.”
(Recall that a prime number is a natural number greater than one which is
divisible only by itself and one. On the other hand, a composite number
is a natural number which can be written as the product of two or more
prime numbers.) To date, mathematicians have not been able to prove or
disprove Goldbach’s conjecture; however, it is a declarative sentence that is
either true or false and not both true and false. Thus, Goldbach’s conjecture
is a statement or proposition in symbolic logic. Christian Goldbach made his
famous conjecture in a letter written to Leonhard Euler on June 7, 1742.
EXAMPLE 1 Identifying a Statement
Determine which of the following sentences is a statement.

(a) How old are you?
(b) x + 3 = 5
(c) 2300 is a large number.
(d) Help!
(e) The author of this text was born in Washington, D. C.
(f) This sentence is false.
SOLUTION
(a) The sentence is a question (an interrogative sentence); and, therefore, it
is not a statement.
(b) The declarative sentence “x + 3 = 5” is true for x = 2 and false for all
other values of x, so it is not a statement.
(c) The declarative sentence “2300 is a large number.” is not a statement,
because the definition of “a large number” is not well-defined.
(d) The sentence “Help!” is exclamatory; and, hence, it is not a statement.
(e) The declarative sentence “The author of this text was born in Wash-
ington, D. C.” is true or false, but not both true and false; so it is a
statement even though few people would know whether the statement
is true or false.
(f) The declarative sentence “This sentence is false.” is an interesting sen-
tence. If we assign the truth value “true” or the truth value “false”
to this sentence, we have a contradiction. Hence, the sentence is not
a statement. Because the sentence “This sentence is false.” is neither
“true” nor “false,” it is called a paradox.
All statements can be divided into two types, simple and compound.
DEFINITION Simple Statement and Compound Statement
A simple statement (simple proposition) is a statement which does

not contain any other statement as a component part.
Every compound statement (compound proposition) is a statement
that does contain another statement as a component part.
Every statement we have examined thus far is a simple statement. Com-

pound statements are formed from simple statements using the logical con-
nectives “and,” “or,” and “not.”
DEFINITION Negation of a Statement
Let P denote a statement. The negation of P, denoted by ¬ P, is the

statement “not P.” The negation of P is false when P is true, and the
negation of P is true when P is false.
Logic 5
For example, the negation of the statement “Five is a prime.” is the state-
ment “Five is not a prime.” And the negation of the statement “Six is an odd
number.” is the statement “Six is not an odd number.” In English, it is also
possible to indicate the negation of a statement by prefixing the statement
with the phrase “it is not the case that,” “it is false that,” or “it is not true
that.” For instance, the statement “It is not true that gold is heavier than
lead.” is true.
DEFINITION The Conjunction of Two Statements
The conjunction of two statements P, Q, denoted by P ∧ Q, is the

statement “P and Q.” The conjunction of P and Q is true if and only if
both P and Q are true.
Let M be the statement “It is Monday.” and let R be the statement “It
is raining.” The statement M ∧ R is “It is Monday, and it is raining.” In
English, several other words such as “but,” “yet,” “also,” “still,” “although,”
“however,” “moreover,” “nonetheless,” and others, as well as the comma and
semicolon, can mean “and” in their conjunctive sense. For instance, the state-
ment “It is Monday; moreover, it is raining.” should be translated to symbolic
logic as M ∧ R.
DEFINITION The Disjunction of Two Statements
The disjunction of two statements P, Q, denoted by P ∨ Q, is the

statement “P or Q.” The disjunction of P and Q is true if P is true, if Q is
true, or if both P and Q are true.
In English, the word “or” has two related but distinguishable meanings.
The “or” appearing in the definition of disjunction is the inclusive or. The
inclusive or means “one or the other or both.” In legal documents, the
meaning of the inclusive “or” is often made more explicit by using the phrase
“and/or.” For example, the statement “This contract may be signed by John
and/or Mary.” means the contract is legally binding when signed by John, by
Mary, or by both. On the other hand, the exclusive or means “one or the
other but not both.” For example, the statement “Ann will marry Ben or Ann
will marry Ted.” means either Ann will marry Ben or Ann will marry Ted
but not both. In Latin there are two different words for the word “or.” The
word vel denotes the inclusive or, while the word aut denotes the exclusive or.
In the following two examples, we show how to write English statements in

symbolic form and how to write symbolic statements in English.
EXAMPLE 2 Translate English Statements to Symbolic Form
Write the following statements in symbolic form using ¬ , ∧ , and ∨.

(a) Madrid is the capital of Spain and Paris is the capital of France.
(b) Rome is the capital of Italy or London is the capital of England.
(c) Rome is the capital of Italy, but London is not the capital of England.
(d) Madrid is not the capital of Spain or Paris is not the capital of France.
(e) Paris is the capital of France, but London is not the capital of England
or Madrid is the capital of Spain.
SOLUTION
Let M stand for the statement “Madrid is the capital of Spain.”
Let P stand for the statement “Paris is the capital of France.”
Let R stand for the statement “Rome is the capital of Italy.”
Let L stand for the statement “London is the capital of England.”
The statement (a) is written in symbolic form as M ∧ P .
The statement (b) written in symbolic form is R ∨ L.
The statement (c) in symbolic form is R ∧ (¬L).
The statement (d) in symbolic form is (¬M ) ∨ (¬P ).
The statement (e) in symbolic form is P ∧ ((¬L) ∨ M ).
EXAMPLE 3 Translate Symbolic Statements to English
Let C be the statement “Today the sky is clear.”

Let R be the statement “It did rain.”
Let S be the statement “It did snow.”
Let Y be the statement “Yesterday it was cloudy.”
Write the following symbolic statements in English.
(a) ¬Y (b) R ∨ S (c) Y ∧ S (d) C ∧ (¬R) ∧ (¬S) (e) Y ∧ (C ∨ R)
SOLUTION
The symbolic statement (a) can be written as “Yesterday it was not cloudy.”
The symbolic statement (b) can be written as “It did rain or it did snow.”
Logic 7
The statement (c) can be written as “Yesterday it was cloudy and it did
snow.”
The statement (d) can be written as “Today the sky is clear and it did not
rain and it did not snow.”
The statement (e) can be written as “Yesterday it was cloudy, and today
the sky is clear or it did rain.”
EXERCISES 1.1
In exercises 1-10, determine whether the given sentence is a state-

ment or not.
1. The integer 6 is a prime.
2. Divide 256 by 4.
3. This is a difficult problem.
4. He lives in San Francisco, California.
5. Where are you going?
6. x2 + 9 = 0
7. The number π is rational.
8. Three factorial is denoted by 3!
9. That was easy!
10. George Washington never went to England.
In exercises 11-15, write the negation of each sentence.
√
11. The number 2 is rational.
12. Roses are not red.
13. 7 ≤ 5
14. It is false that π is rational.
15. Every even integer greater than two can be written as the sum of two
prime numbers.
16. Let W represent the statement “We won the game.” and let P represent
the statement “There was a party.”
a. Write the following statements symbolically.
(1) It is false that we won the game.
(2) We won the game, and there was a party.
(3) We did not win the game, and there was no party.
(4) There was no party; however, we won the game.
(5) We won the game, or there was no party.
b. Write the following symbolic statements in English.

(1) ¬P (2) W ∨P (3) (¬P )∨W (4) (¬W )∧P (5) (¬W )∧(¬P )
17. Let T denote the statement “ABC is a triangle.” and let I denote the
statement “ABC is isosceles.”
(1) ABC is not isosceles.

(2) ABC is a triangle, but ABC is not isosceles.
(3) ABC is a triangle, and ABC is isosceles.
(4) ABC is an isosceles triangle.
(5) ABC is a triangle; however, ABC is not isosceles.

(1) ¬T (2) T ∨I (3) (¬T )∧(¬I) (4) ¬(T ∧I) (5) (¬T )∨(¬I)
18. Let T be the statement “I drink tea for breakfast.”, let S be the statement
“I eat soup for lunch.”, and let D be the statement “I eat dessert after dinner.”
(1) I drink tea for breakfast and I eat soup for lunch and I eat dessert
after dinner.
(2) I drink tea for breakfast and I eat soup for lunch, or I eat dessert
after dinner.
(3) I drink tea for breakfast, and I eat soup for lunch or I eat dessert
after dinner.
(4) I drink tea for breakfast and I eat soup for lunch, or I drink tea for
breakfast and I eat dessert after dinner.
(5) I do not drink tea for breakfast or I do not eat soup for lunch or I
do not eat dessert after dinner.

(1) ((¬T ) ∨ S) ∧ D (2) (¬T ) ∨ (S ∧ D) (3) (T ∨ S) ∧ (S ∨ D)
(4) ¬(T ∧ S ∧ D) (5) ¬((¬T ∧ ¬S) ∨ (¬D))
Logic 9
1.2 Truth Tables and Logical Equivalences

Recall from section 1.1 that a statement or proposition is a declarative
sentence that is either true or false, but not both true and false.
DEFINITION Truth Value and Truth Table
The truth value of a statement is true (denoted by T) if the statement

is true and is false (denoted by F) if the statement is false.
A truth table is a table which shows the truth values of a statement
for all possible combinations of truth values of its simple statement com-
ponents.
The German mathematician and philosopher Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob

Frege (1848-1925) is considered to be one of the founders of modern symbolic
logic. Frege believed that mathematics was reducible to logic. In 1879, he
published his first major work Begriffsschrift, eine der arithmetischen nachge-
bildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens (Conceptual notation, a formal lan-
guage modeled on that of arithmetic, for pure thought). In this work, Frege
introduced a logical system with negation, implication, universal quantifiers,
and the idea of a truth table, although it was not presented in our current
notational form. Later in 1893, Frege published Die Grundgesetze der Arith-
metik, I. (The Basic Laws of Arithmetic, I.). Here, he introduced the terms
“True” and “False” and described the truth value of the statement “P implies
Q” for each of the four possible combinations of truth values of P, Q. That is,
he verbally described the truth table for P implies Q (which we will study in
the next section); but he did not display an actual truth table.
Let P represent a statement. P may have the truth value T or the truth
value F. By definition, the negation of P, ¬ P, is false when P is true and true
when P is false. Consequently, the truth table for ¬ P is as follows:
Negation
P ¬P
T F
F T
Since this truth table explains completely the result of negating the state-
ment P, it may be taken as the definition of ¬ P, the negation of P. The nega-
tion symbol “¬” is a unary logical operator. The term “unary” means the
operator acts on a single statement.
Let S be a compound statement which contains only the one simple state-
ment P. In order to list all of the possible combinations of truth values for P,
the truth table for S must have exactly two rows. In this case, the standard
truth table form for the statement S is
P ··· S
T ··· ·
F ··· ·
The first entry in the column labeled P must be T and the second entry in the
column must be F. The dots, · · · , indicate the possible presence of columns
of truth values with appropriate headings needed to “build-up” the statement
S.
Next let P and Q represent two simple statements. In order to list all of
the possible combinations of truth values of P, Q, the truth table for any
compound statement S containing exactly the two simple statements P and
Q will have exactly four rows. In this case, the standard truth table form
for the statement S is
P Q ··· S
T T ··· ·
T F ··· ·
F T ··· ·
F F ··· ·
To be in standard form, the truth value entries must be exactly as shown in

the first two columns.
Since the conjunction of P, Q, the statement P ∧ Q, is true if and only if
both P and Q are true, the truth table for P ∧ Q is as follows:
Conjunction
P Q P∧Q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F
Since this truth table explains completely the result of conjuncting the state-
ment P with the statement Q, it may be taken as the definition of P ∧ Q. The
conjunction symbol “∧” is a binary logical operator. The term “binary”
means the operator acts on two statement.
Logic 11
The disjunction symbol “∨” is also a binary logical operator and its defining
truth table is
Disjunction
P Q P∨Q
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F
EXAMPLE 1 Determining Truth Values
Given that A and B are true statements and C and D are false statements,
use the definitions of ¬ , ∧ , and ∨ to determine the truth value of each of
the statements:
(a) (¬ A) ∧ B (b) ¬ (A ∧ B) (c) (¬ A) ∨ B
(d) ¬ (A ∨ C) (e) (A ∨ C) ∧ (B ∧( ¬ D))
SOLUTION
(a) Since A is true, ¬ A is false. Since the conjunction of a false state-

ment, ¬ A, and a true statement, B, is a false statement, the statement
(¬ A) ∧ B is false.
(b) Since A is true and B is true, their conjunction A ∧ B is true. Because
the negation of a true statement is a false statement,¬ (A ∧ B) is a false.
(c) Since A is true, ¬ A is false. Because the disjunction of a false state-
ment, ¬ A, and a true statement, B, is a true statement, the statement
(¬ A) ∨ B is true.
(d) Since A is true and C is false, their disjunction A ∨ C is true. Since
the negation of a true statement is a false statement, the statement
¬ (A ∨ C) is false
(e) Since A is true and C is false, (A ∨ C) is true. Since D is false, ¬ D is
true. Since B is true and ¬ D is true, their conjunction (B ∧( ¬ D)) is
true. Because (A ∨ C) is true and (B ∧( ¬ D)) is true, their conjunction
(A ∨ C) ∧ (B ∧( ¬ D)) is true.
Now let us consider the following question: “How many different truth
tables are possible for statements which contain exactly one simple sentence
P?” Notice that the truth table for negation contains the two different columns
(1)
T F
F T
The only other possible columns which can occur in a truth table for a state-
ment which contains exactly one simple statement are
(2)
T F
T F
We know that the second column in (1) is the negation of the first column,
since these columns came from the truth table for negation. Taking the nega-
tion of the first column in (2), we get the second column is (2). So if we
could write a statement containing P which is true when P is true and also
true when P is false, then we would have a statement that was always true
regardless of the truth value of P. By negating that statement we would ob-
tain a statement which is always false regardless of the truth value of P. Let
us construct a truth table for the statement P ∨ (¬ P). As shown in (3), we
start with the truth table for ¬ P and add a new column on the right of the
table labeled P ∨ (¬ P) .
(3) P ¬P P ∨ (¬ P)
T F
F T
In the first row of the truth table (3), the statement P has truth value T and
the statement ¬ P has the truth value F, so the disjunction P ∨ ( ¬ P) has the
truth value T. In the second row of the truth table (3), the statement P has
truth value F and the statement ¬ P has the truth value T, so the disjunction
P ∨ ( ¬ P ) has the truth value T. Thus, the truth table for the statement
P ∨ ( ¬ P) is as shown in (4).
(4) P ¬P P ∨ ( ¬ P)
T F T
F T T
Notice that regardless of the truth value of the statement P, the truth value
of the statement P ∨ (¬ P) is true and the truth value of the negation of the
statement P ∨ (¬ P) is false.
Logic 13
DEFINITIONS Tautology and Contradiction
A tautology is a statement that is true for every assignment of truth

values of its component statements.
A contradiction is a statement that is false for every assignment of truth
values of its component statements. Thus, a contradiction is the negation
of a tautology.
The statement P ∨ (¬ P) is the simplest example of a tautology and its

negation, ¬ ( P ∨ (¬ P)) is an example of a contradiction, but it is not written
in the simplest possible form. We will show how to simplify this expression
later in this section.
DEFINITION Truth Value Equivalent or Logically Equivalent
Two statements are truth value equivalent or logically equivalent

if and only if they have the same truth values for all assignments of truth
values to their component statements.
It follows from the definition above that two statements which appear in
the same truth table are logically equivalent if and only if their truth value
columns are identical. Two statements which appear in different truth tables
are logically equivalent if and only if both tables are in standard form, both
tables are for statements with the same components, and their truth value
columns are identical.
We need to develop an algebra for symbolic logic, so we can make calcu-
lations similar to the way in which we make algebraic calculations for real
numbers. One algebraic property of real numbers is that −(−x) = x. So
let us produce a truth value table for the statement ¬ (¬ P). We start our
truth table with a row of column headings labeled P, ¬ P, and ¬ (¬ P). In
the column labeled P, we enter as the first entry T and as the second entry
F. (See 5a.) Then using the negation truth table, we compute the entries for
the second column labeled ¬ P. Since negation changes the truth value T to
F and the truth value F to T, the first entry in the second column is F and
the second entry is T. (See 5b.) Applying negation to the second column, the
column labeled ¬ P, we obtain T for the first entry in the third column and
F for the second entry. (See 5c.)
(5a) (5b)
P ¬P ¬ ( ¬ P) P ¬P ¬ ( ¬ P)
T T F
F F T
P ¬P ¬ ( ¬ P)
(5c) T F T
F T F
Observe that the truth value entries in the first column are identical to the
truth value entries in the third column. Hence, we have shown that the
statements P and ¬ (¬ P) are truth value equivalent. In order to denote
that P and ¬(¬P ) are truth value equivalent or logically equivalent, we write
P ≡ ¬(¬P ), which is read “P is truth value equivalent to ¬(¬P )” or “P is
logically equivalent to ¬(¬P )” Thus, we have used a truth table to prove the
Double Negation Law.
Double Negation Law: ¬(¬P ) ≡ P
Let t represent a statement which is a tautology, let f represent a statement

which is a contradiction, and let P represent any statement. We state the
following useful laws involving tautologies and contradictions. You can prove
these laws by considering appropriate truth tables.
Tautology Laws: ¬t≡f P∧t≡P P∨t≡t

Contradiction Laws: ¬f≡t P∧f≡f P∨f≡P
The following six laws can easily be proven using truth tables.
Idempotent Law for Conjunction: P ∧P ≡P

Idempotent Law for Disjunction: P ∨P ≡P
Commutative Law for Conjunction: P ∧Q ≡ Q∧P
Commutative Law for Disjunction: P ∨Q ≡Q∨P
Absorption Laws: P ∧ (P ∨ Q) ≡ P
P ∨ (P ∧ Q) ≡ P
Logic 15
Earlier, we proved that ¬(¬P ) was logically equivalent to P—that is,

¬(¬P ) ≡ P. We noted that this property was analogous to the algebraic
property −(−x) = x for real numbers. We would now like to determine what
statement is logically equivalent to the negation of the conjunction of P and
Q. Thus, we would like to be able to complete the statement ¬(P ∧ Q) ≡
. A possible analogy from algebra for the real numbers might be
−(x + y) = (−x) + (−y). That is, we might anticipate that the statement
¬(P ∧ Q) is logically equivalent to the statement (¬P ) ∧ (¬Q). To determine
if this is true or not, we construct two standard form truth tables—one for
¬(P ∧ Q) and one for (¬P ) ∧ (¬Q)—and then see if the truth value column
for ¬(P ∧ Q) is identical to the truth value column for (¬P ) ∧ (¬Q) or not.
The standard form truth table for ¬(P ∧ Q), which appears in (6a), was con-
structed by adjoining a new fourth column labeled ¬(P ∧ Q) on the right
hand side of the conjunction truth table and then negating the truth values
appearing in the third column—the column labeled P ∧ Q. The standard
form truth table for (¬P ) ∧ (¬Q), which appears in (6b), was constructed by
making column headings P, Q, ¬ P, ¬ Q, and (¬P ) ∧ (¬Q). The truth values
for the columns labeled P and Q were filled in as usual. Then the truth values
for the third column were calculated by negating the truth values appearing
in the first column. The truth values for the fourth column were calculated
by negating the truth values appearing in the second column. Finally, the
truth values for the fifth column were calculated from the conjunction of the
truth values appearing in the third and fourth columns.
P Q P ∧Q ¬(P ∧ Q)
(6a) T T T F
T F F T
F T F T
F F F T
P Q ¬P ¬Q (¬P ) ∧ (¬Q)
(6b) T T F F F
T F F T F
F T T F F
F F T T T
Because the right most column of the two tables in (6a) and (6b) are not
identical, ¬(P ∧ Q) is not logically equivalent to (¬P ) ∧ (¬Q) as we had
anticipated it might be. Assuming a statement which is logically equivalent
to ¬(P ∧ Q) ought to include the statement (¬P ) and the statement (¬Q), we
decided to compute the truth table for (¬P ) ∨ (¬Q). To produce this truth
table, we simply change the column heading appearing in the fifth column of
(6b) from (¬P ) ∧ (¬Q) to (¬P ) ∨ (¬Q) and compute the truth values for the
new fifth column from the disjunction of the truth values appearing in the
third and fourth columns. The required truth table appears in (7).
P Q ¬P ¬Q (¬P ) ∨ (¬Q)
(7) T T F F F
T F F T T
F T T F T
F F T T T
Observe that the column of truth values labeled ¬(P ∧Q) in (6a) is identical to
the column of truth values labeled (¬P ) ∨ (¬Q) in table (7). Hence, ¬(P ∧ Q)
is logically equivalent to (¬P ) ∨ (¬Q)—that is, ¬(P ∧ Q) ≡ (¬P ) ∨ (¬Q). We
have just proved the first of the two De Morgan laws stated below.
De Morgan Laws: ¬(P ∧ Q) ≡ (¬P ) ∨ (¬Q)

¬(P ∨ Q) ≡ (¬P ) ∧ (¬Q)
EXAMPLE 2 Negating a Compound Statement
Negate the statement “I will get up and I will go to school.”

SOLUTION
It is correct to say: “It is not the case that I will get up and I will go to
school.” However, using the De Morgan ¬(P ∧ Q) ≡ (¬P ) ∨ (¬Q), we can
express the negation better as “I will not get up or I will not go to school.”
In order to prove logical equivalences algebraically, we need the following

Rule of Substitution.
Rule of Substitution
Let P and Q be statements. Let C(P ) be a compound statement con-

taining the statement P . And let C(Q) be the same compound statement
in which each occurrence of P is replaced by Q. If P and Q are logically
equivalent, then C(P ) and C(Q) are logically equivalent. That is,
If P ≡ Q, then C(P ) ≡ C(Q).

Logic 17
EXAMPLE 3 Proving a Logical Equivalence Algebraically
Using stated laws and the rule of substitution, prove algebraically that
P ∧ Q ≡ ¬((¬P ) ∨ (¬Q))
SOLUTION
1. P ∧ Q ≡ ¬(¬(P ∧ Q)) By the Double Negation Law
2. ¬(P ∧ Q) ≡ (¬P ) ∨ (¬Q) By a De Morgan Law
3. P ∧ Q ≡ ¬((¬P ) ∨ (¬Q)) By the Rule of Substitution

(Substituting 2. into 1.)
This example proves that it is logically possible to eliminate the conjunction

operator, ∧ , because the operator can be expressed in terms of the negation
operator, ¬ , and the disjunction operator, ∨. Hence, all statements could
be written using ¬ and ∨ only. If we were to write the statement “I will get
up and I will go to school.” using only “not” and “or” as indicated in 3, we
would have to write “It is not the case that I will not get up or I will not go to
school.” Clearly, you can see why we prefer to use all three logical operators
“not,” “and,” and “or.” A proof similar to the one presented in example 3
can be constructed to show that P ∨ Q ≡ ¬((¬P ) ∧ (¬Q)). Consequently,
every statement could be written in terms of ¬ and ∧ only.
EXAMPLE 4 Simplifying a Statement Algebraically
Earlier in this section, we showed that the statement ¬(P ∨ (¬P )) was a
contradiction. Simplify this contradiction using stated laws and the rule of
substitution.
SOLUTION
1. ¬(P ∨ (¬P )) ≡ (¬P ) ∧ (¬(¬P )) By a De Morgan Law
2. ¬(¬P ) ≡ P By the Double Negation Law
3. ¬(P ∨ (¬P )) ≡ (¬P ) ∧ P By the Rule of Substitution

Since ¬(P ∨ (¬P )) is a contradiction, its logical equivalent (¬P ) ∧ P is a

contradiction also. The contradiction (¬P ) ∧ P is called the law of the
excluded middle. The fact that the statement (¬P ) ∧ P is always false
simply means that “not P” and “P” can not both be true simultaneously.
One algebraic property of the real numbers is the distributive law. The
distributive law for real numbers says: “For all real numbers x, y, and z,
x · (y + z) = (x · y) + (x · z).” Thus, “multiplication distributes over addition.”
Analogously in logic, if disjunction is to distribute over conjunction, we must
be able to prove P ∨ (Q ∧ R) ≡ (P ∨ Q) ∧ (P ∨ R). We have seen that
a truth table for a compound statement which contains exactly one simple
statement P has two rows and that a truth table for a compound statement
which contains exactly two simple statements P and Q has four rows. Thus,
a truth table for a compound statement which contains exactly three simple
statements P, Q, and R has eight rows, since P can assume two values (T or
F), Q can assume two values, R can assume two values, and 2 × 2 × 2 = 8. We
construct two truth tables in standard form—one for P ∨ (Q ∧ R) and one for
(P ∨ Q) ∧ (P ∨ R). Hence, we construct one truth table with column headings
P , Q, R, Q ∧ R, and P ∨ (Q ∧ R). And, we construct a second truth table with
column headings P , Q, R, (P ∨ Q), (P ∨ R), and (P ∨ Q) ∧ (P ∨ R). In each
table, we fill in the columns for P, Q, and R as shown and, then, successively
calculate the columns of the table.
P Q R Q∧R P ∨ (Q ∧ R)
T T T T T
T T F F T
T F T F T
T F F F T
F T T T T
F T F F F
F F T F F
F F F F F
P Q R P ∨Q P ∨R (P ∨ Q) ∧ (P ∨ R)
T T T T T T
T T F T T T
T F T T T T
T F F T T T
F T T T T T
F T F T F F
F F T F T F
F F F F F F
Since the truth values appearing in the column P ∨ (Q ∧ R) are identical to

the truth values appearing in the column (P ∨ Q) ∧ (P ∨ R), we have proven
the distributive law for disjunction: P ∨ (Q ∧ R) ≡ (P ∨ Q) ∧ (P ∨ R). The
Logic 19
distributive law for conjunction and the associative laws for disjunction and
conjunction stated below can easily be proved using truth tables.
Distributive Law for Disjunction: P ∨ (Q ∧ R) ≡ (P ∨ Q) ∧ (P ∨ R)

Distributive Law for Conjunction: P ∧ (Q ∨ R) ≡ (P ∧ Q) ∨ (P ∧ R)
Associative Law for Disjunction: (P ∨ Q) ∨ R ≡ P ∨ (Q ∨ R)
Associative Law for Conjunction: (P ∧ Q) ∧ R ≡ P ∧ (Q ∧ R)
EXERCISES 1.2
In exercises 1-14 determine the truth value of the statement given

that A and B are true statements and C and D are false statements.
1. ¬A 2. ¬C
3. A∨C 4. C ∨D
5. A∧B 6. B∧C
7. (¬A) ∧ B 8. (¬A) ∨ (¬B)
9. A ∨ (C ∧ D) 10. (A ∨ C) ∧ D)
11. A ∨ (B ∧ (¬C)) 12. (A ∨ B) ∧ (¬D)
13. (¬(A ∧ (¬B))) ∧ ((¬C) ∨ D) 14. ((¬A) ∨ B) ∧ (C ∨ (¬D))
15. Given that P is a true statement, what can you say about the truth
value of the following statements?
a. P ∨ (Q ∧ R) b. P ∧R c. (¬P ) ∧ (Q ∧ R)
16. Given that P is a false statement, what can you say about the truth
value of the following statements?
a. P ∧ R b. P ∨ (¬R) c. (¬P ) ∨ (Q ∧ R)
In exercises 17-21, use a truth table to prove the given logical equiv-
alences.
17. P ∧P ≡P idempotent law for conjunction

18. P ∨Q≡Q∨P commutative law for disjunction
19. P ∧ (P ∨ Q) ≡ P an absorption law
20. P ∧ (Q ∨ R) ≡ (P ∧ Q) ∨ (P ∧ R) distributive law for conjunction
21. (P ∧ Q) ∧ R ≡ P ∧ (Q ∧ R) associative law for conjunction
In exercises 22-27, construct a truth table for the given compound

statement and identify tautologies and contradictions.
22. (¬P ) ∨ Q 23. ¬(P ∧ (¬Q))

24. P ∨ (Q ∨ (¬P )) 25. P ∧ (¬(Q ∨ (¬Q)))
26. P ∨ (¬(Q ∨ (¬Q))) 27. (P ∧ (Q ∨ (¬R))) ∨ ((¬P ) ∨ R)
28. Find compound statements involving simple statements P, Q which have

the following truth tables. For example, a statement for (f) is ¬P .
P Q (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)

T T T F T T T F F
T F T T F T T F T
F T T T T F T T F
F F T T T T F T T
P Q (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n)

T T F T F F F T F
T F T F F F T F F
F T T F F T F F F
F F F T T F F F F
In exercises 29-34, use De Morgan’s laws to negate the given state-

ment.
29. I sweeten my tea with sugar, or I sweeten my tea with honey.
30. I sweeten my tea with sugar, but I do not sweeten my tea with honey.
31. I do not drink my coffee with sugar, and I do not drink my coffee with
cream.
32. I drink my coffee with sugar; however, I do not drink my coffee with
cream.
33. Although I do not go to the opera, I do go to the theater.
34. Alice did not go to France, or Alice did not go to Italy.
In exercises 35-40, use the stated laws and the rule of substitution
to simplify the given expressions.
35. ¬(P ∨ (¬Q)) 36. ¬(P ∧ (¬Q)) ∨ Q

37. P ∧ ((¬P ) ∨ Q) 38. Q ∨ (P ∧ (¬Q))
39. (P ∧ Q) ∨ (P ∧ (¬Q)) 40. (P ∧ Q) ∨ ((¬Q) ∧ (P ∨ R))
Logic 21
As noted earlier, in English, the word “or” has two related but
distinguishable meanings. The “inclusive or,” ∨, is the “or” used
most generally in mathematics and it means “one or the other or
both”. The “exclusive or” means “one or the other but not both”.
We will let denote the “exclusive or” which is defined by the
truth table
Exclusive Disjunction
P Q P Q
T T F
T F T
F T T
F F F
In exercises 41-44 identify the disjunction as inclusive or exclusive.
41. Ted will walk to Mary’s house or Ted will drive to Mary’s house.
42. I will eat dinner or I will go to a movie.
43. Dinner starts with soup or dinner starts with a salad.

44. Coffee is served after dinner with sugar or coffee is served after dinner
with cream.
45. Construct a standard form truth table for (P ∨ Q) ∧ (¬(P ∧ Q)).

Compare this truth table with the exclusive disjunction table. What
do you conclude?
46. (i) Construct standard form truth tables for the following:
(a) (¬P ) Q (b) P (¬Q) (c) ¬(P Q) (d) (¬P ) (¬Q)
(ii) Which of the expressions in (i) are logically equivalent and which
are equivalent to P Q?
1.3 Conditional and Biconditional Statements

Statements of the form “If P, then Q.” occur often and are very impor-
tant in mathematics. The statement “If P, then Q.” is called a conditional
statement, the statement P is called the hypothesis or antecedent of
the conditional statement, and the statement Q is called the conclusion or
consequent of the conditional statement. For example, in the conditional
statement “If n is a prime number greater than two, then n is odd.”, the
hypothesis is “n is a prime number greater than two” and the conclusion is
“n is odd.” Of course, conditional statements occur in every day life as well.

For instance, you might recall conditional statements such as “If you clean
your room, then you may go to a movie.” or “If you mow the grass, I will pay
you twenty-five dollars.”
A conditional statement asserts that its hypothesis implies its conclusion.
The conditional statement, itself, does not assert that its hypothesis is true,
but only that if its hypothesis is true, then its conclusion is true. Further-
more, the conditional statement does not assert that its conclusion is true,
but only that its conclusion is true if its hypothesis is true. Thus, when the
hypothesis and conclusion of a conditional statement are both true, we want
the conditional statement to be true. And when the hypothesis is true and
the conclusion is false, we want the conditional statement to be false. We
denote the statement “If P, then Q.” symbolically by P ⇒ Q which is read
“P implies Q” or “If P, then Q.” Just as with negation, conjunction, and
disjunction, the conditional statement is defined by its truth table. From the
discussion above, the first two rows of the standard truth table for P ⇒ Q
should be as follows.
Conditional
P Q P⇒Q
T T T
T F F
F T
F F
The essential meaning of the conditional statement appears in the partial

truth table above. Earlier, we indicated that in English the word “or” has
two meanings—the meaning of the “inclusive or” and the meaning of the
“exclusive or.” Since we have two missing truth values in the truth table
for the conditional statement, there are four possible ways to complete the
truth table. The question is: “For use in mathematical discussions, what
truth value assignments should we make in the last two rows of the truth
table?” Observe that when the hypothesis, P , is true, the truth value of the
conditional statement P ⇒ Q is identical to the truth value of the conclusion,
Q. Also observe that when P is true, the truth value of the statement (¬P )∨Q
is identical to the truth value of Q. Hence, we define P ⇒ Q to be logically
equivalent to (¬P ) ∨ Q. That is, we take P ⇒ Q to be an abbreviation for
(¬P ) ∨ Q. Below, we have constructed the standard truth table for (¬P ) ∨ Q
and have attached at the right a column labeled P ⇒ Q. Since we have
defined the conditional statement P ⇒ Q to be logically equivalent to the
statement (¬P ) ∨ Q, the column of truth values for P ⇒ Q is identical to the
column of truth values for (¬P ) ∨ Q.
Logic 23
Conditional
P Q ¬P (¬P ) ∨ Q P ⇒Q
T T F T T
T F F F F
F T T T T
F F T T T
Let P stand for√ the statement “3 = 4” which is false, and let Q stand for
the statement “ 2 is rational.” which is false.√ It is easier to see that the
conditional statement P ⇒ Q, “If 3 = 4, then 2 is rational.”, is true √ when
form (¬P ) ∨ Q, “Not 3 = 4 or 2 is
it is written in the logically equivalent √
rational.” In the form “Not 3 = 4 or 2 is rational.” it is √ clear that “Not
3 = 4” is true and, therefore, the conjunction “Not 3 = 4 or 2 is rational.”
is true.
We have defined P ⇒ Q to be logically equivalent to (¬P ) ∨ Q, and we can
see from the truth table for the conditional statement that it may be defined
as follows also.
DEFINITION The Conditional Statement
Given two statements P and Q, the conditional statement P ⇒ Q

(read “P implies Q”) is the statement “If P, then Q.” The conditional
statement P ⇒ Q is true unless P is true and Q is false, in which case it is
false.
Later, in constructing some proofs and counterexamples, we will need the

negation of the conditional statement. Since the columns of truth values for
P ⇒ Q and (¬P ) ∨ Q are identical, the columns of truth values for their
negations will be identical also. Hence,
1. ¬(P ⇒ Q) ≡ ¬((¬P ) ∨ Q) By definition of logically equivalence
2. ¬((¬P ) ∨ Q) ≡ (¬(¬P )) ∧ (¬Q) By a De Morgan Law
3. ¬(P ⇒ Q) ≡ (¬(¬P )) ∧ (¬Q) By the Rule of Substitution
4. ¬(¬P ) ≡ P By the Double Negation Law
5. ¬(P ⇒ Q) ≡ P ∧ (¬Q) By the Rule of Substitution
Thus, we have proven the following logical equivalence for the negation of
the conditional statement.
Negation of the Conditional Statement
¬(P ⇒ Q) ≡ P ∧ (¬Q)
There are many different ways to express the conditional statement, P ⇒ Q,

in words. The following is a nonexhaustive list.
Alternative Expressions for the Conditional Statement P ⇒ Q
If P, then Q Q, if P
P implies Q Q is implied by P
P only if Q Q provided P
P is sufficient for Q Q is necessary for P
EXAMPLE 1 Analyzing Conditional Statements and Writing

Their Negations
For each of the following conditional statements:

(1) identify the hypothesis and conclusion;
(2) determine the truth value of the hypothesis, the conclusion, and the
conditional statement; and
(3) write the negation of the conditional statement.
(a) If 1 + 1 = 2, then 1 + 2 = 3.
(b) If 1 + 1 = 2, then 1 + 2 = 4.
√
(c) The number 2 is rational, if 2 + 2 = 5.
√
(d) The number 2 is irrational, if 2 + 2 = 5.
(e) The moon is made of green cheese is necessary for the golden gate
bridge to be in California.
Logic 25
(f) The moon is made of green cheese is sufficient for the golden gate
bridge to be in California.
SOLUTION
(a) The hypothesis is “1 + 1 = 2” which is true and the conclusion is

“1+2 = 3” which is true. Since the hypothesis is true and the conclusion
is true, the conditional statement “If 1 + 1 = 2, then 1 + 2 = 3.” is
true. The negation of a conditional statement is the conjunction of the
hypothesis and the negation of the conclusion. Thus, the negation of “If
1 + 1 = 2, then 1 + 2 = 3.” is “1 + 1 = 2 and not 1 + 2 = 3.”
(b) The hypothesis is “1 + 1 = 2” which is true and the conclusion is

“1+2 = 4” which is false. Since the hypothesis is true and the conclusion
is false, the conditional statement “If 1 + 1 = 2, then 1 + 2 = 4.” is false.
The negation of the conditional statement “If 1 + 1 = 2, then 1 + 2 = 4.”
is “1 + 1 = 2 and not 1 + 2 = 4.”
(c) The hypothesis

√ is “2 + 2 = 5” which is false and the conclusion is “the
number 2 is rational” which is false.√Since the hypothesis is false, the
conditional statement “The number 2 is rational, if 2 + 2 = 5.” is
true. The
√ negation of this conditional statement is “2 + 2 = 5 and the
number 2 is not rational.”
(d) The hypothesis

√ is “2 + 2 = 5” which is false and the conclusion is “the
number 2 is irrational” which is true. √Since the hypothesis is false,
the conditional statement “The number 2 is irrational, if 2 + 2 = 5.”
is true. The√negation of this conditional statement is “2 + 2 = 5 and
the number 2 is not irrational.”
(e) The hypothesis is “The golden gate bridge is in California.” which is

true and the conclusion is “The moon is made of green cheese.” which
is false. Since the hypothesis is true and the conclusion is false, the
conditional statement “The moon is made of green cheese is necessary
for the golden gate bridge to be in California.” is false. The negation
of this conditional statement is “The golden gate bridge is in California
and the moon is not made of green cheese.”
(f) The hypothesis is “The moon is made of green cheese.” which is false
and the conclusion is “The golden gate bridge is in California.” which
is true. Since the hypothesis is false, the conditional statement “The
moon is made of green cheese is sufficient for the golden gate bridge to
be in California.” is true. The negation of this conditional statement is
“The moon is made of green cheese and the golden gate bridge is not in
California.”
Every conditional statement has associated with it three other statements:

the converse, the inverse, and contrapositive.
DEFINITION Converse, Inverse, and Contrapositive
The converse of P ⇒ Q is Q ⇒ P .
The inverse of P ⇒ Q is (¬P ) ⇒ (¬Q).
The contrapositive of P ⇒ Q is (¬Q) ⇒ (¬P ).
EXAMPLE 2 The Converse, Inverse, and Contrapositive of a

Conditional Statement
Write the converse, inverse, and contrapositive of the conditional statement

“If we win the game, we will celebrate.”
SOLUTION
The converse is “If we celebrate, we will win the game.”
The inverse is “If we do not win the game, we will not celebrate.”
The contrapositive is “If we do not celebrate, we will not win the game.”
We constructed the following truth table for the conditional statement,

P ⇒ Q ; its converse, Q ⇒ P ; its inverse, (¬P ) ⇒ (¬Q) ; and its contraposi-
tive, (¬Q) ⇒ (¬P ) .
P Q P ⇒Q Q⇒P ¬P ¬Q (¬P ) ⇒ (¬Q) (¬Q) ⇒ (¬P )

T T T T F F T T
T F F T F T T F
F T T F T F F T
F F T T T T T T
Examining the columns of truth values, we find that P ⇒ Q is logically

equivalent to (¬Q) ⇒ (¬P ), since their columns of truth values are identical
and that Q ⇒ P is logically equivalent to (¬P ) ⇒ (¬Q) since their columns
of truth values are identical.
Logic 27
DEFINITION The Biconditional Statement
Given two statements P and Q, the biconditional statement P ⇔ Q

is the statement “P if and only if Q.” The biconditional statement P ⇔ Q
is true when P and Q have the same truth values and false when P and Q
have different truth values.
In mathematics, the phrase “if and only if” is often abbreviated by “iff”
and sometimes “if and only if” is expressed in the alternate form “is necessary
and sufficient for.” The truth table for the biconditional statement appears
below.
Biconditional
P Q P⇔Q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F T
EXAMPLE 3 Constructing a Truth Table for (P ⇒ Q)∧(Q ⇒ P )
Construct the standard truth table for (P ⇒ Q) ∧ (Q ⇒ P ) and adjoin the

column of truth values for the biconditional statement P ⇔ Q at the right.
What can you conclude about (P ⇒ Q) ∧ (Q ⇒ P ) and (P ⇔ Q)?
SOLUTION
We make column headings P , Q, P ⇒ Q, Q ⇒ P , (P ⇒ Q) ∧ (Q ⇒ P ),
and (P ⇔ Q). We fill in the appropriate truth value columns for P and Q,
and then we determine and enter the remaining truth values by column from
left to right. Thus, we obtain the following standard truth table.
P Q P ⇒Q Q⇒P (P ⇒ Q) ∧ (Q ⇒ P ) (P ⇔ Q)
T T T T T T
T F F T F F
F T T F F F
F F T T T T
Since the truth value columns for (P ⇒ Q) ∧ (Q ⇒ P ) and (P ⇔ Q) are
identical,(P ⇒ Q) ∧ (Q ⇒ P ) is logically equivalent to (P ⇔ Q)—that is,
(P ⇒ Q) ∧ (Q ⇒ P ) ≡ (P ⇔ Q) .
In algebra, we have an established hierarchy for operations. For algebraic

expression with no parentheses, the operation of exponentiation is performed
first and from left to right; next, the operations of multiplication and division
are performed from left to right; and finally, the operations of addition and
subtraction are performed from left to right. Thus, it is understood that
x + y ∗ z written without any additional parentheses means x + (y ∗ z) and
not (x + y) ∗ z. The hierarchy for connectives in symbolic logic for expressions
with no parentheses is: negation ¬ is performed first, next conjunction ∧ and
disjunction ∨ are performed, and lastly the conditional ⇒ and biconditional
⇔ connectives are performed. Hence, by this convention ¬P ⇒ Q ∧ R means
(¬P ) ⇒ (Q∧R). However, without parentheses the meaning of the expression
P ∧ Q ∨ R is ambiguous. Does it mean (P ∧ Q) ∨ R or P ∧ (Q ∨ R)? So in this
case, a set of parentheses is necessary to indicate which expression is intended.
EXERCISES 1.3
In exercises 1-8, (1) identify the hypothesis and the conclusion;

(2) determine the truth value of the hypothesis, the conclusion,
and the conditional statement; and (3) write the negation of the
conditional statement.
1. If New York City is on the East Coast, then Los Angeles is on the West
Coast.
2. New York City is on the East Coast, provided Los Angeles is on the
West Coast. √
3. The number π is rational, if the number 2 is√irrational.
4. The number π is rational, only if the number 2 is irrational.
5. 23 > 32 is implied by 2 < 3.
6. 23 > 32 is necessary for 2 < 3.
7. 23 > 32 is sufficient for 2 < 3.
8. 2 < 3 implies 23 > 32 .
In exercises 9-16 write the converse, inverse, and contrapositive of
statements 1-8 respectively.
In exercises 17-20 determine the truth value of the given bicondi-
tional statement.
17. The Leaning Tower of Pisa is in Germany if and only if the Eiffel Tower
is in Spain.
18. The Leaning Tower of Pisa is in Italy if and only if the Eiffel Tower is in
France.
Logic 29
19. The number 3 is even if and only if the number 4 is even.

√
20. The number 2 is irrational iff the number π is rational.
21. Given that the truth value of the implication (P ∨ Q) ⇒ (¬R) is false
and that the truth value of P is false, what are the truth values of Q
and R?
In exercises 22-33 construct truth tables for the given statement.

Identify tautologies and contradictions.
22. P ⇒ (P ∨ Q) 23. P ⇒ (P ∧ Q)
24. (P ∨ Q) ⇒ P 25. (P ∧ Q) ⇒ P
26. (P ∧ Q) ⇒ (P ∨ Q) 27. (P ∨ Q) ⇒ (P ∧ Q)
28. (P ∧ (P ⇒ Q)) ⇒ Q 29. (Q ∧ (P ⇒ Q)) ⇒ P
30. ((¬Q) ∧ (P ⇒ Q)) ⇒ (¬P ) 31. (P ∨ Q) ⇔ P
32. P ⇔ (P ∧ (P ∨ Q)) 33. (P ⇒ Q) ⇔ (Q ⇒ P )
In exercises 34-39 simplify each statement by replacing condi-

tional statement such as H ⇒ C by the logically equivalent state-
ment (¬H) ∨ C and using stated laws and the rule of substitution.
34. (¬P ) ⇒ Q 35. P ⇒ (Q ∨ R)

36. ¬((¬P ) ⇒ (¬Q)) 37. (P ⇒ Q) ⇒ P
38. (P ⇒ Q) ⇒ Q 39. (P ⇒ Q) ∧ (Q ⇒ P )
1.4 Logical Arguments

Proofs play a major role in mathematics, and deductive reasoning is the
foundation on which proofs rest. In mathematics, as in law, a logical argu-
ment is a claim that from certain premises (statements that are assumed to
be true) one can infer a certain conclusion (statement) is true. Logic is con-
cerned with the connections between statements and with what deductions
can be made, assuming that the premises are true. Let the symbol .· . stand
for the word “therefore.” The symbolic form of a logical argument written in
horizontal form is
P1 , . . . , Pn .· . C
and written in vertical form is
P1
..
.
Pn
——
.· . C
where P1 , . . . , Pn are premises and C is the conclusion. In logic, we study

the methods and principles used in distinguishing valid (“correct”) arguments
from invalid (“incorrect”) arguments. Notice that statements are said to be
true or false, while arguments are said to be valid or invalid. We make the
following definitions regarding arguments.
DEFINITION Valid and Invalid Arguments
An argument P1 , . . . , Pn .· . C with premises P1 , . . . , Pn and conclusion

C is valid if and only if P1 ∧ P2 ∧ . . . ∧ Pn ⇒ C is a tautology.
If an argument is not valid, it is called invalid.
Thus, an argument is valid if and only if when the premises are all true, the
conclusion must be true. Stated another way, an argument is valid if and only
if it is not possible for the conclusion to be false unless at least one of the
premises is false. Validity concerns the relationship between the premises and
the conclusion, and not the truth values of the premises and conclusions.
Let us consider the argument
The sun is shining.
———————————————————–
Therefore, the sun is shining or it is raining.
Let P denote the premise “The sun is shining.” And let Q denote the state-
ment “It is raining.” Then this argument can be written symbolically as
P
———–
.· . P ∨ Q
We construct the following standard truth table for P ⇒ (P ∨ Q).
P Q P ∨Q P ⇒ (P ∨ Q)
T T T T
T F T T
F T T T
F F F T
Observe that the statement P ⇒ (P ∨ Q) is a tautology and, consequently,

P
———–
.· . P ∨ Q
is a valid argument. Thus, we have just proven the rule of disjunction.
Logic 31
Rule of Disjunction
The argument P .· . P ∨ Q is a valid argument known as the rule of

disjunction.
Now, let us consider the symbolic argument
P
———–
.· . P ∧ Q
We construct the following standard truth table for P ⇒ (P ∧ Q).
P Q P ∧Q P ⇒ (P ∧ Q)
T T T T
T F F F
F T F T
F F F T
Observe that the statement P ⇒ (P ∧ Q) is not a tautology and; therefore,
P
———–
.· . P ∧ Q
is an invalid argument. In order to show that an argument is invalid, it is not

necessary to construct an entire truth table. It is sufficient to show how to
choose the truth values of the component statements in such a way that the
premises are true and the conclusion is false. Thus, to show that the argument
P .· . P ∧ Q is invalid, we need to show only the first three columns of row two
of the proceeding truth table. That is,
P Q P ∧Q
T F F
shows that the argument P .· . P ∧ Q is invalid.

The following three arguments are valid.
Rule of Conjunction
The argument P, Q .· . P ∧ Q is a valid argument known as the rule of

conjunction.
Rule of Conjunctive Simplification
The argument P ∧ Q .· . P is a valid argument called the rule of con-

junctive simplification.
Rule of Disjunctive Syllogism
The argument P ∨ Q, ¬P .· . Q is a valid argument called the rule of

disjunctive syllogism.
Truth tables which verify that these arguments are valid appear below.
Rule of Conjunction
P Q P ∧Q (P ∧ Q) ⇒ (P ∧ Q)
T T T T
T F F T
F T F T
F F F T
Rule of Conjunctive Simplification
P Q P ∧Q (P ∧ Q) ⇒ P
T T T T
T F F T
F T F T
F F F T
Logic 33
Rule of Disjunctive Syllogism

P Q ¬P P ∨Q (P ∨ Q) ∧ (¬P ) (P ∨ Q) ∧ (¬P ) ⇒ Q
T T F T F T
T F F T F T
F T T T T T
F F T F F T
When an argument contains three or more different simple statements, it

becomes tedious to determine the validity of the argument by making a truth
table. A more convenient way to prove an argument is valid is to deduce its
conclusion from its premises by a sequence of elementary arguments which are
known to be valid. Hence, a formal proof of a given argument is a sequence of
statements such that each statement is either: (1) a premise of the argument,
or (2) a statement which follows from preceding statements by an elementary
valid argument, or (3) a statement which is logically equivalent to a preceding
statement in the sequence, or (4) the last statement in the sequence—the
conclusion of the argument. The proper way to write a formal proof is to list
the premises and the sequence of statements deduced from them along with a
justification for each statement. The justification of each deduced statement
specifies the preceding statement or statements from which it was deduced
and the rule of inference which was used. Thus far, we have proved by the use
of truth tables that four elementary arguments are valid—namely, the rule
of disjunction, the rule of conjunction, the rule of conjunctive simplification,
and the rule of disjunctive syllogism.
EXAMPLE 1 A Formal Proof of a Valid Argument
Give a formal proof that the argument P ⇒ Q, P .· . Q is a valid argument.
SOLUTION
1. P ⇒ Q premise
2. P premise
3. (¬P ) ∨ Q 1, logical equivalence (definition of ⇒)
4. ¬(¬P ) 2, logical equivalence (double negation law)
5. Q 3, 4, disjunctive syllogism
Example 1 is a formal proof of the following rule known as the rule of

detachment or modus ponens
Rule of Detachment or Modus Ponens
The argument P ⇒ Q, P .· . Q is a valid argument known as the rule

of detachment or modus ponens.
EXAMPLE 2 A Formal Proof of a Valid Argument
Give a formal proof that the argument P ⇒ Q, ¬Q .· . ¬P is a valid

argument.
SOLUTION
1. P ⇒ Q premise
2. ¬Q premise
3. (¬Q) ⇒ (¬P ) 1, logical equivalence (the contrapositive of P ⇒ Q)
4. ¬P 2, 3, rule of detachment
Example 2 is a formal proof of the rule of contrapositive inference or modus

tollens.
Rule of Contrapositive Inference or Modus Tollens
The argument P ⇒ Q, ¬Q .· . ¬P is a valid argument known as the

rule of contrapositive inference or modus tollens.
The rule of detachment and the rule of contrapositive inference are both
valid arguments which contain exactly two simple statements, one of which
is the conditional statement P ⇒ Q. Two commonly used invalid arguments
which contain exactly two simple statements, one of which is the conditional
statement P ⇒ Q, are the Fallacy of the Converse and the Fallacy of
the Inverse.
Logic 35
Two Invalid Arguments
The argument P ⇒ Q, Q .· . P is a invalid argument called the fallacy

of the converse.
The argument P ⇒ Q, ¬P .· . ¬Q is a invalid argument called the
fallacy of the inverse.
Recall that an argument is valid if and only if when the premises are all
true, the conclusion must be true. Thus, in order to prove that the fallacy of
the converse is an invalid argument, all we need to do is determine truth values
for P and Q such that both premises P ⇒ Q and Q have the truth value T
and the conclusion P has the truth value F. Assigning P the truth value F
and Q the truth value T achieves the required result. Likewise, to prove that
the fallacy of the inverse is an invalid argument, we need to determine truth
values for P and Q such that both premises P ⇒ Q and ¬P have the truth
value T and the conclusion ¬Q has the truth value F. Again, assigning P the
truth value F and Q the truth value T achieves the required result.
In the following two examples, we determine the validity of two arguments.
EXAMPLE 3 Determining the Validity of an Argument
Write the following argument in symbolic form. Determine if the argument

is valid or invalid and state the name of the argument form.
I took a nap, or I watched television.
I did not watch television.
————————————————
Therefore, I took a nap.
SOLUTION
Let N denote the statement “I took a nap.” And let T denote the
statement “I watched television.” Then the symbolic form of the argument is
N ∨T
¬T
———
.· . N
This argument has the form of the disjunctive syllogism and it is a valid
argument.
EXAMPLE 4 Determining the Validity of an Argument
Write the following argument in symbolic form. Determine if the argument

is valid or invalid and state the name of the argument form.
If I went out to eat dinner, then I ate dessert.

I ate dessert.
————————————————————
Therefore, I went out to eat dinner.
SOLUTION
Let D denote the statement “I went out to eat dinner.” And let P denote
the statement “I ate dessert.” Then the symbolic form of the given argument
is
D⇒P
P
———
.· . D
This argument has the form of the fallacy of the converse and it is an invalid
argument.
The conditional statement has the following transitive property.
Rule of Transitive Inference or Hypothetical Syllogism
The argument P ⇒ Q, Q ⇒ R .· . P ⇒ R is a valid argument called

the rule of transitive inference or hypothetical syllogism.
The following truth table establishes the validity of the rule of transitive
inference.
Let A denote the statement (P ⇒ Q) ∧ (Q ⇒ P) and let B denote the
statement [(P ⇒ Q) ∧ (Q ⇒ P)] ⇒ (P ⇒ R).
Logic 37
Rule of Transitive Inference

P Q R P⇒Q Q⇒R A P⇒R B
T T T T T T T T
T T F T F F F T
T F T F T F T T
T F F F T F F T
F T T T T T T T
F T F T F F T T
F F T T T T T T
F F F T T T T T
In the following example we show in more detail how to analyze an argument

and how to construct a formal proof.
EXAMPLE 5 Analyzing an Argument and Constructing a

Formal Proof
Write the following argument in symbolic form and construct a formal proof
of its validity.
If I study, I make good grades.
If I do not study, I have fun.
———————————————————–
Therefore, I make good grades or I have fun.
SOLUTION
Let S denote the statement “I study.” Let G denote the statement “I
make good grades.” And let F denote the statement “I have fun.” Then the
symbolic form of the given argument is
S⇒G
(1) (¬S) ⇒ F
————–
.· . G ∨ F
Both premises are conditional statements. One contains S as a hypothesis
and the other contains ¬S as a hypothesis. Because a conditional statement
and its contrapositive are logically equivalent, we could replace the first or sec-
ond premise by its contrapositive. Since the conclusion contains the statement
F and since the second premise contains the statement F as a conclusion, we
decided to replace the first premise S ⇒ G by its contrapositive (¬G) ⇒ (¬S).
From the true statements (¬G) ⇒ (¬S) and (¬S) ⇒ F we deduce by the rule
of transitive inference (¬G) ⇒ F . From the definition of the conditional
statement, (¬G) ⇒ F is logically equivalent to the statement (¬(¬G)) ∨ F .
Since (¬(¬G)) ≡ G, we obtain the desired conclusion G ∨ F . Hence, we have

developed the following formal proof that (1) is a valid argument.
1. S ⇒ G premise
2. (¬S) ⇒ F premise
3. (¬G) ⇒ (¬S) 1, logical equivalence (contrapositive of 1)
4. (¬G) ⇒ F 2, 3, transitivity of inference
5. (¬(¬G)) ∨ F 4, logical equivalence (definition of ⇒)
6. (¬(¬G)) ≡ G logical equivalence (double negation law)
7. G ∨ F 5, 6, rule of substitution
In addition to using symbolic logic to prove that an argument is valid,

symbolic logic may be used to deduce a valid consequence or consequences
from a collection of premises. When possible, one tries to use all of the given
premises to deduce a valid conclusion. When it is not possible to use all
the premises to deduce a valid conclusion, then one generally uses as large a
subcollection of premises as possible to deduce a valid conclusion.
EXAMPLE 6 Deducing a Valid Conclusion
Deduce a valid conclusion for the following argument.

Ursula went to the conference by train or by airplane.
If Ursula went to the conference by train or drove her own car,

then she arrived late and she missed the opening ceremony.
Ursula did not arrive late.

———————————————————————————–
Therefore,
SOLUTION
Let T denote the statement “Ursula went to the conference by train.” Let
A denote the statement “Ursula went to the conference by airplane.” Let C
denote the statement “Ursula drove her own car.” Let L denote the statement
“Ursula arrived late.” And let M denote the statement “Ursula missed the
opening ceremony.” Then the symbolic form of the given argument is
Logic 39
T ∨A
(T ∨ C) ⇒ (L ∧ M )
¬L
————————–
.· .
The third premise ¬L is true by assumption. Hence, L is false and L ∧ M is

false. Consequently, ¬(L∧M ) is true. From ¬(L∧M ) and the second premise,
(T ∨ C) ⇒ (L ∧ M ), it follows using the rule of contrapositive inference that
¬(T ∨ C). Then by a De Morgan law, we have (¬T ) ∧ (¬C) and by the rule
of conjunctive simplification, we get (¬T ). From (¬T ) and the first premise,
T ∨ A, we conclude A using the rule of disjunctive syllogism. Hence, “Ursala
went to the conference by airplane.” is a valid conclusion, which we deduced
using all of the given premises.
EXAMPLE 7 Deducing a Valid Conclusion
Deduce a valid conclusion for the following argument.

If Rob studies medicine, Rob prepares to earn a good living.
If Rob studies humanities, Rob prepares to live the good life.
If Rob prepares to earn a good living or Rob prepares to live a

good life, then Rob’s years at the university are well spent.
Rob’s years at the university are not well spent.

————————————————————————————-
Therefore,
SOLUTION
Let M denote the statement “Rob studies medicine.” Let E denote the
statement “Rob prepares to earn a good living.” Let H denote the statement
“Rob studies humanities.” Let L denote the statement “Rob prepares to live
a good life.” And let U denote the statement “Rob’s years at the university
are well spent.” Then the symbolic form of the given argument is
M ⇒E
H ⇒L
(E ∨ L) ⇒ U
¬U
————————–
.· .
Applying the rule of contrapositive inference (modus tollens) to the third

and fourth premises, we infer ¬(E ∨ L) which is logically equivalent to (¬E) ∧
(¬L). Using the rule of conjunctive simplification twice, yields ¬E and ¬L.
From the first premise M ⇒ E and ¬E, we conclude by modus tollens ¬M .
Likewise, from ¬L and the second premise H ⇒ L we conclude ¬H by modus
tollens. Hence, two valid conclusions we can deduce are ¬M (“Rob does not
study medicine.”) and ¬H (“Rob does not study humanities.”).
It should be noted we can deduce three valid conclusions from the first
two premises alone—namely, (M ∨ H) ⇒ (E ∨ L), (M ∧ H) ⇒ (E ∧ L), and
(M ∧ H) ⇒ (E ∨ L). However, in doing so, we have not made use of the
remaining two premises.
EXERCISES 1.4
In exercises 1-5, construct an appropriate truth table in standard

form to determine if the given argument is valid or invalid.
1. P ∧ Q, P ⇒ ¬Q .· . P ∧ (¬Q) 2. P, (¬P ) ⇒ Q .· . ¬Q
3. P ∧ Q, R ⇒ P .· . Q ∨ R 4. ¬P, Q ⇒ (P ∧ R) .· . ¬Q
5. P ⇒ Q, Q ⇒ R, ¬Q .· .¬R
In exercises 6-10, prove each argument is invalid by choosing truth

values for the component statements in such a way that all the
premises are true and the conclusion is false.
6. P ∨ (¬Q), ¬Q .· . P 7. (¬P ) ⇒ Q, P .· . ¬Q
8. P ⇒ Q, (¬P ) ⇒ Q, Q .· . P 9. P ⇒ Q, Q ⇒ R, R .· . Q
10. P ⇒ Q, R ⇒ S, Q ∨ R .· . P ∨ S
In exercises 11-18, write each argument in symbolic form by letting

M denote the statement “I go to a movie.” and P denote the
statement “I eat popcorn.” Determine if the argument is valid or
invalid and state the name of the argument form.
11. I go to a movie.
———————————————————–
Therefore, I go to a movie, or I eat popcorn.
12. I go to a movie, and I eat popcorn.

———————————————–
Therefore, I eat popcorn.
Logic 41
13. I go to a movie.
I eat popcorn.
————————————————————–
Therefore, I go to a movie, and I eat popcorn.
14. If I go to a movie, then I eat popcorn.

I eat popcorn.
————————————————–
Therefore, I go to a movie.
15. If I go to a movie, I eat popcorn.

I go to a movie.
——————————————
Therefore, I eat popcorn.
16. I go to a movie, or I eat popcorn.

I do not eat popcorn.
——————————————–
Therefore, I go to a movie.

I do not eat popcorn.
——————————————–
Therefore, I do not go to a movie.

I do not go to a movie.
——————————————
Therefore, I do not eat popcorn.
In exercises 19-24, a formal proof of the validity of an argument is

given. State a justification for each step in the proof.
19. A ∧ B .· . A ∨ B
1. A∧B premise
2. A 1,
3. B 1,
4. A∨B 2, 3,
20. C ∨ (D ∧ E), ¬E .· . C
1. C ∨ (D ∧ E) premise
2. ¬E premise
3. (C ∨ D) ∧ (C ∨ E) 1,
4. C∨E 3,
5. C 2, 4,
21. F ⇒ G, G ⇒ H, F ∧ I .· . H ∧ I
1. F ⇒G premise
2. G⇒H premise
3. F ∧I premise
4. F ⇒H 1, 2,
5. F 3,
6. H 4, 5,
7. I 3,
8. H ∧I 6, 7,
22. J ⇒ K, J ⇒ L .· . J ⇒ (K ∧ L)
1. J⇒K premise
2. J⇒L premise
3. (¬J) ∨ K 1,
4. (¬J) ∨ L 2,
5. [(¬J) ∨ K] ∧ [(¬J) ∨ L] 3, 4,
6. (¬J) ∨ (K ∧ L) 5,
7. J ⇒ (K ∧ L) 6,
23. M ⇒ (N ⇒ O) .· . N ⇒ (M ⇒ O)
1. M ⇒ (N ⇒ O) premise
2. (¬M ) ∨ (N ⇒ O) 1,
3. (N ⇒ O) ≡ (¬N ) ∨ O
4. (¬M ) ∨ ((¬N ) ∨ O) 2, 3,
5. ((¬M ) ∨ (¬N )) ∨ O 4,
6. ((¬M ) ∨ (¬N )) ≡ ((¬N ) ∨ (¬M ))
7. ((¬N ) ∨ (¬M )) ∨ O 5, 6,
8. (¬N ) ∨ ((¬M ) ∨ O) 7,
9. ((¬M ) ∨ O) ≡ (M ⇒ O)
10. (¬N ) ∨ (M ⇒ O) 8, 9,
11. N ⇒ (M ⇒ O) 10,
Logic 43
24. a. The following is a formal proof of a valid argument known as the

constructive dilemma:
P ⇒ Q, R ⇒ S, P ∨R .· . Q ∨ S
1. P ⇒Q premise
2. R⇒S premise
3. P ∨R premise
4. ¬P ∨ Q 1,
5. (¬P ∨ Q) ∨ S 4,
6. ¬P ∨ (Q ∨ S) 5,
7. ¬R ∨ S 2,
8. (¬R ∨ S) ∨ Q 7,
9. ¬R ∨ (S ∨ Q) 8,
10. (S ∨ Q) ≡ (Q ∨ S)
11. ¬R ∨ (Q ∨ S) 9,10
12. [¬P ∨ (Q ∨ S)] ∧ [¬R ∨ (Q ∨ S)] 6,11,
13. [(¬P ) ∧ (¬R)] ∨ (Q ∨ S) 12,
14. [(¬P ) ∧ (¬R)] ≡ ¬(P ∨ R)
15. ¬(P ∨ R) ∨ (Q ∨ S) 13,14
16. (P ∨ R) ⇒ (Q ∨ S) 15,
17. Q∨S 3,16,
b. The following is a formal proof of a valid argument known as the

destructive dilemma:
P ⇒ Q, R ⇒ S, ¬Q ∨ ¬S .· . ¬P ∨ ¬R
(HINT: The constructive dilemma (see part a.) occurs as one justification.)
1. P ⇒Q premise
2. R⇒S premise
3. ¬Q ∨ ¬S premise
4. ¬Q ⇒ ¬P 1,
5. ¬S ⇒ ¬R 2,
6. ¬P ∨ ¬R 3, 4, 5
In exercises 25-33, construct a formal proof of the validity of each

argument.
25. A .· . B ⇒ A 26. ¬C .· . C ⇒ D
27. E ∧ F .· . E ∨ F 28. G ⇒ H .· . G ⇒ (H ∨ I)
29. J ⇒ (K ∧ L) .· . J ⇒ K 30. M ⇒ N .· . M ∧ O ⇒ N
31. (P ∨ Q) ⇒ R .· . P ⇒ R 32. S ⇒ (T ∨ U ), ¬T .· . S ⇒ U
33. V ⇒ W, V ∨ W .· . W
In exercises 34-38, write each argument in symbolic form using the

letters indicated and construct a formal proof of the validity of each
argument.
34. If Jerry uses an artificial lure (L), then if the fish are biting (B), then
Jerry catches the legal limit of fish (F). Jerry uses an artificial lure, but
Jerry does not catch the legal limit of fish. Therefore, the fish are not
biting.
35. If Alex attends class (A) or Bob attends class (B), then Charles does
not attend class (¬C). Bob attends class or Charles attends class. If
Bob attends class or Alex does not attend class, then Don attends class
(D). Alex attends class. Therefore, Bob does not attend class or Don
attends class.
36. If Emery studies (S), Emery will graduate (G). If Emery graduates,
Emery will travel (T) or Emery will work for his uncle (U). Emery
studies, but Emery does not work for his uncle. Therefore, Emery will
travel.
37. I will take a vacation (V), provided I have time (T) and I have money
(M). I have time or I have aspirations (A). Therefore, if I do not have
aspirations, I have no money or I will take a vacation.
38. If Robin goes to the state park (P), Robin hikes (H) and Robin fishes
(F). Robin did not hike or Robin did not fish or Robin did camp (C).
Robin did not camp. Therefore, Robin did not go to the state park.
In exercises 39-43, write each argument in symbolic form using the

letters indicated and deduce a valid conclusion for the argument.
39. Elsa will attend (A), if she receives the e-mail (E), provided she is
interested (I). Although Elsa did not attend, she is interested. There-
fore, .
40. If the supply of gold remains fixed (F) and the use of gold increases
(I), then the price of gold will rise (R). The price of gold does not rise.
Therefore, .
41. If Alice attends the meeting (A), Betty attends the meeting (B). If
Betty attends the meeting, Carol will not attend the meeting (¬C). If
Carol attends the meeting, Donna does not attend the meeting (¬D).
If Betty attends the meeting, Eve does not attend the meeting (¬E).
If Donna does not attend the meeting, Fay attends the meeting (F).
Eve does not attend the meeting or Fay does not attend the meeting.
Therefore, .
Logic 45
42. If Imogene goes to the picnic (P), then Imogene wears blue jeans (J).
If Imogene wears blue jeans, then Imogene does not attend both the
banquet (B) and the dance (D). Imogene attended the dance. If Imogene
did not attend the banquet, then she has her banquet ticket (T), but she
does not have her ticket. Therefore, .
43. He will be interested (I) if and only if he is an acquaintance (A) or he is

curious (C). If he is in management (M) or he is a shareholder (S), he is
curious. He is a shareholder, but he is not an acquaintance. Therefore,
.
1.5 Open Statements and Quantifiers

Chapter 3 is devoted to the study of sets; however, at this point we need to
introduce some very basic concepts related to sets and some notation used in
conjunction with sets. The German mathematician Georg Cantor (1845-1918)
initiated the theory of sets in the 1870s and 1880s. According to Cantor,
“A set is any collection of definite, distinguishable objects of our
intuition or our intellect to be conceived as a whole.”
The objects of a set are called the elements or members of the set. Every
day we use words which convey the meaning of a set. For example, when
we say “The committee recommended a course in logic be required for grad-
uation.”, we are considering the committee to be a set and the members of
the committee are the members (elements) of the set. When we mention a
“flock” of geese, we are regarding a particular set of geese as a single entity
and any individual goose in that flock is a member of that set. Thus, the
essential point of Cantor’s concept of a set is that the collection of objects is
to be regarded as a single entity. The word “definite” in Cantor’s concept of
a set means given a set and an object, it is possible to determine whether the
object belongs to the set or not. And the word “distinguishable” means given
any two pair of objects qualified to appear as elements of a set, one must be
able to determine whether the objects are the same or different. As a result,
a set is completely determined by its members.
Generally, we will denote sets by capital letters and will use the conventional
notation “x ∈ A” to denote that “x is an element of the set A” or “x is an
member of the set A.” Also, we will use the notation “x, y ∈ A” to indicate
“x and y are elements of the set A.” The Italian mathematician Giuseppe
Peano (1858-1932) introduced the symbol ∈ for “is an element of” in 1889.
The symbol comes from the first letter of the Greek word for “is.” In order to
indicate that “x is not an element of the set A”, we will write “x ∈ / A”. For
example, let A denote the set of letters in the English alphabet. Then b ∈ A;
e, f ∈ A; a, e, i, o, u ∈ A; but 5 ∈
/ A.
Sets are usually described by one of two notations—roster notation (also

called enumeration notation) or set-builder notation. In roster nota-
tion, the elements of the set are enclosed in braces, { }, and separated by
commas. The order in which the elements are listed within the braces is im-
material. For example, the set of one digit prime numbers may be written
using roster notation as {2, 3, 5, 7}, or {5, 7, 2, 3}, or {7, 3, 5, 2}, etc. These are
just different representations of the same set. Of course, roster notation is ap-
propriate for finite sets. However, this notation can also be used to represent
infinite sets. For instance, we may represent the set of positive integers, P , by
P = {1, 2, 3, . . .}. When representing sets in this manner the dots . . . (called
ellipsis) indicate that the pattern used to obtain the elements listed previously
is to be followed to obtain the remaining elements of the set. This convention
may be used to represent finite sets which have a relatively large number of
elements as well. For example, F = {2, 4, 6, . . . , 100} is a representation of
the set of all positive even integers less than or equal to 100.
Throughout the text, we will let N denote the set of natural numbers,
which are also sometimes called the counting numbers or the positive integers.
Thus,
N = {1, 2, 3, . . .}
The set of integers will be represented by Z, so
Z = {. . . , −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, . . .}
The symbol Z comes from the German word for number, Zählen. We will use
Q to denote the set of rational numbers. Recall that a rational number is
any number of the form p/q where p and q are integers and q = 0. The set of
real numbers will be denoted by R.
Using set-builder notation the set, F , of all even integers less than or equal
to 100 would be written as
F = {x | x is an even integer less than or equal to 100}
The vertical bar, | , in the definition above is read “such that.” Hence, the
set-builder definition of the set F given above is read “F equals the set of all
x such that x is an even integer less than or equal to 100.” Another example
of a set specified using set-builder notation is
O = {x | x is an odd integer}
Observe that set-builder notation is very appropriate for representing both

infinite sets and finite sets with a relatively large number of elements.
The set with no elements is called the empty set or null set. The empty
set is symbolized by ∅. The symbol ∅ is last letter of the Danish-Norwegian
alphabet. The empty set is not denoted by { }. The empty set is
not the set {0}. The set {0} is a set with one element, namely 0. Thus,
Logic 47
0 ∈ {0}. And the empty set is not the set {∅}. The set {∅} is a set with
one element, namely ∅. That is, ∅ ∈ {∅}.
Many sentences in mathematics involve one or more variables, and, there-
fore, are not statements.
DEFINITIONS Variable, Universal Set, and Open Statement
A variable is a symbol, say x, which represents an unspecified object

from a given set U .
The set of values, U , that can be assigned to the variable x is called the
universe, universal set, or universe of discourse.
An open statement in one variable is a sentence that involves one
variable and that becomes a statement (a declarative sentence that is true
or false) when values from the universal set are substituted for the variable.
An open statement in the variable x is denoted by P (x).
It should be noted that an open statement in one variable is not a statement,

because the sentence is not true or false until a specific value from the universal
set is substituted into the sentence making it a statement—that is, making
it true or false. Thus, the truth value of an open statement remains “open”
until a specific value for the variable is substituted into the statement. Let
P (x) denote the open statement “The natural number x is a prime number.”
Observe that P (x) is neither true nor false; the statement P (5) is a true; and
the statement P (4) is a false.
DEFINITION Truth Set of an Open Statement
The truth set of an open statement is the set of all values from the
universal set that make the open statement a true statement.
Let P (x) be an open statement with the specified nonempty universal
set U . Then in set-builder notation, the truth set of P (x) is the set
TP = {x ∈ U | P (x)}
The following example illustrates that the truth set of an open statement
depends on the choice of the universal set. Let P (x) be the open statement
“x2 < 9.” Then {x ∈ N | x2 < 9} = {1, 2, 3}, {x ∈ Z | x2 < 9} =
{−3, −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, 3}, and {x ∈ R | x2 < 9} = {x ∈ R | − 3 < x < 3}.
EXAMPLE 1 Finding Truth Sets
Find the following truth sets.

a. {x ∈ N | 2x2 − x = 0} b. {x ∈ Z | 2x2 − x = 0}
c. {x ∈ Q | 2x2 − x = 0}
SOLUTION
Factoring the equation 2x2 − x = 0 which appears in a., b., and c., we find
x(2x − 1) = 0. Recall from algebra that in the set of real numbers, if ab = 0,
then either a = 0 or b = 0. Since x(2x − 1) = 0, it follows that x = 0 or
2x − 1 = 0. Solving the last equation, we find x = 1/2. Thus, the two real
roots of the equation 2x2 − x = 0 are x = 0 and x = 1/2. Therefore, the
required truth sets are as follows:
a. {x ∈ N | 2x2 − x = 0} = ∅
b. {x ∈ Z | 2x2 − x = 0} = {0}
c. {x ∈ Q | 2x2 − x = 0} = {0, 12 }
Often we want to indicate how many values of the variable x make the open
statement P (x) true. Specifically, we would like to know if P (x) is true for
every x in the universe U or if P (x) is true for at least one x ∈ U . Thus, we
introduce two quantifiers.
DEFINITIONS Universal Quantifier and

Existential Quantifier
The symbol ∀ is called the universal quantifier and represents the

phrase “for all,” “for each,” or “for every.” The statement (∀x ∈ U )(P (x))
is read “for all x ∈ U, P (x)” and is true precisely when the truth set
TP = {x ∈ U | P (x)} = U .
The symbol ∃ is called the existential quantifier and represents the
phrase “there exists,” “there is,” or “for some.” The statement
(∃x ∈ U )(P (x)) is read “there exists an x ∈ U such that P (x)” and is
true precisely when the truth set TP = {x ∈ U | P (x)} = ∅.
Several comments are in order. First of all, to prove that the statement
(∃x ∈ U )(P (x)) is true, it is necessary to find only a single value of x ∈ U
for which P (x) is true. On the other hand, to prove that the statement
Logic 49
(∀x ∈ U )(P (x)) is true, it is necessary to prove that P (x) is true for all
x ∈ U . Second, the conditional statement
(∀x ∈ U )(P (x)) ⇒ (∃x ∈ U )(P (x))
is true, since an open statement which is true for all values of x in a universe
U is true for some (any) value of x ∈ U . On the contrary, the conditional
statement
(∃x ∈ U )(P (x)) ⇒ (∀x ∈ U )(P (x))
is false, since an open statement can be true for some x in a universe and
false for other x in the universe. And finally, the truth value of a quantified
statement depends on the universe as the following examples show. Let P (x)
denote the statement “x2 > 0.”. The quantified statement (∀x ∈ N)(P (x))
is true; while the quantified statement (∀x ∈ Z)(P (x)) is false, because
P (0) is false. Now let Q(x) represent the statement “x ≤ 0.” The quan-
tified statement (∃x ∈ N)(Q(x)) is false; while the quantified statement
(∃x ∈ Z)(Q(x)) is true, because Q(0) is true.
EXAMPLE 2 Writing English Sentences Symbolically
Translate the following English sentences into symbolic statements contain-

ing one quantifier. Indicate the truth value of each statement.
a. For every natural number x, 2x + 1 > 0.
b. For every integer x, 2x + 1 > 0.
c. There exists an integer x such that 2x + 1 < 0.
d. There exists a natural number x such that x2 + x+ 41 is a prime number.
e. For every natural number x, x2 + x + 41 is a prime number.
SOLUTION
The corresponding symbolic statements are as follows.
a. (∀x ∈ N)(2x + 1 > 0). This statement is true, since for x ∈ N, x > 0;
therefore, 2x > 0 and 2x + 1 > 1 > 0.
b. (∀x ∈ Z)(2x + 1 > 0). This statement is false, since −1 ∈ Z and

2(−1) + 1 = −2 + 1 = −1 < 0.
c. (∃x ∈ Z)(2x + 1 < 0). This statement is true, since it is true for x = −1.
See the computation in part b. In fact, this statement is true for all
integers x ≤ −1.
d. (∃x ∈ N)(x2 + x + 41 is a prime number.) This statement is true, since

for x = 1, 12 + 1 + 41 = 43 which is a prime number.
e. (∀x ∈ N)(x2 + x + 41 is a prime number.) This statement is false. Can

you find one specific natural number x such that x2 + x + 41 is not a
prime number?
The symbolic statement (∀x ∈ A)(P (x)) which is read “For all x ∈ A, P (x).”
can also be stated as “For all x, if x ∈ A, then P (x).” and symbolized by
(∀x)((x ∈ A) ⇒ P (x)). Likewise, the symbolic statement (∃x ∈ A)(P (x)) can
be written as (∃x)((x ∈ A) ⇒ P (x)) which is read “There exists an x such
that if x ∈ A, then P (x).” The following example illustrates these usages.
EXAMPLE 3 Translating Symbolic Statements

with One Quantifier into English
In this example, let the universe of discourse be the set of integers, Z.

Translate the following symbolic statements which involve one quantifier into
English and indicate the truth value of each statement.
a. (∀x)((x ∈ N) ⇒ (x ∈ Z)) b. (∀x)((x ∈ Z) ⇒ (x ∈ N))
c. (∃x)((x ∈ Z) ∧ (x ∈ N)) d. (∃x)((x ∈ Z) ∧ (x ∈
/ N))
e. (∃x)((x ∈ N) ∧ (x ∈/ Z))
f. (∀x)((x is a prime) ⇒ (x is not a composite))
SOLUTION
a. (∀x)((x ∈ N) ⇒ (x ∈ Z)) translates into English as “For all x, if x is a

natural number, then x is an integer.” This translation can be shortened
to “Every natural number is an integer.” The symbolic statement and
the equivalent English translations are true.
b. (∀x)((x ∈ Z) ⇒ (x ∈ N)) translates as “For all x, if x is an integer, then
x is a natural number.” This translation can be shortened to “Every
integer is a natural number.” This statement is false, because x = −1
makes the statement x ∈ Z true and the statement x ∈ N false. Hence,
for x = −1, the conditional statement (x ∈ Z) ⇒ (x ∈ N) is false.
c. (∃x)((x ∈ Z) ∧ (x ∈ N)) means “There is a number x which is an integer
and a natural number.” This symbolic statement and its translation are
true, since 1 is both an integer and a natural number.
d. (∃x)((x ∈ Z) ∧ (x ∈ / N)) translates into English as “For some x, x is
an integer and x is not a natural number.” A condensed translation is
“Some integer is not a natural number.” This symbolic statement and
its translations are all true, since x = −1 is an integer which is not a
natural number.
Logic 51
e. (∃x)((x ∈ N)) ∧ (x ∈ / Z)) translates as “For some x, x is a natural

number and x is not an integer.” A shortened translation is “Some
natural number is not an integer.” This symbolic statement and its
translations are all false.
f. (∀x)((x is a prime) ⇒ (x is not a composite)) translates as “For all x, if

x is a prime, then x is not a composite.” A shortened translation is “No
prime is a composite.” This symbolic statement and its translations are
all true.
Traditional logic emphasized four basic types of statements involving a sin-

gle quantifier: the universal affirmative, the universal denial, the particular
affirmative, and the particular denial. Examples of these four types of state-
ments appear in example 3. We now provide a general summary for these
types of statements. Let a universe for the variable x be specified and let
P (x) and Q(x) be appropriate statements. Then the symbolic statement and
English translation of the four statements of traditional logic are as follows.
Statement Type
Symbolic Statement English Sentence
1. Universal Affirmative
(∀x)(P (x) ⇒ Q(x)) All P (x) are Q(x).
2. Universal Denial
(∀x)(P (x) ⇒ (¬Q(x))) No P (x) are Q(x).
3. Particular Affirmative
(∃x)(P (x) ∧ Q(x)) Some P (x) are Q(x).
4. Particular Denial
(∃x)(P (x) ∧ (¬Q(x))) Some P (x) are not Q(x).
If the statement (∃x ∈ U )(P (x)) is true, then we know that there is at
least one x in the universe U such that P (x) is true. However, in mathemat-
ics, it is often the case that there exists exactly one x in the universe for
which P (x) is true. For example, for the set of integers there exists exactly
one additive identity—namely, the number 0. (That is, the number 0 is the
unique number in Z such that x + 0 = 0 + x = x for all x ∈ Z.) For the set of
natural numbers there exists exactly one multiplicative identity—namely, the
number 1. (The number 1 is the unique number in N such that x·1 = 1·x = x
for all x ∈ N .) To indicate that there exists a unique element in a universe

with a specific property, we define the unique existential quantifier, ∃!, as
follows.
DEFINITION Unique Existential Quantifier
The symbol ∃! is called the unique existential quantifier and repre-

sents the phrase “there exists a unique,” or “there exists exactly one.” The
statement (∃!x ∈ U )(P (x)) is read “there exists a unique x ∈ U such that
P (x)” or “there exists exactly one x ∈ U such that P (x).” The statement
(∃!x ∈ U )(P (x)) is true precisely when the truth set TP = {x ∈ U | P (x)}
has exactly one element.
It follows directly from the definitions of the quantifiers ∃ and ∃! that the
conditional statement (∃!x ∈ U )(P (x)) ⇒ (∃x ∈ U )(P (x)) is true, while the
conditional statement (∃x ∈ U )(P (x)) ⇒ (∃!x ∈ U )(P (x)) is false.
EXAMPLE 4 Determining the Truth Value of Statements

Containing the Unique Existential Quantifier
Find the truth value of the following statements which contain the unique
existential quantifier.
a. (∃!x ∈ N)(|x + 4| = 1) b. (∃!x ∈ N)(|x − 4| = 5)
c. (∃!x ∈ N)(|x − 4| = 3)
SOLUTION
Notice that an equation of the form |y| = a where a is positive appears in
a., b., and c. Recall from algebra that in the set of real numbers, if |y| = a
where a is positive, then either y = a or y = −a.
a. It follows from the discussion above, that if |x + 4| = 1, then either
x + 4 = 1 or x + 4 = −1. Adding −4 to both of the last two equations,
we find if |x + 4| = 1, then either x = −3 or x = −5. Since −3 ∈ / N
and −5 ∈ / N, the statement (∃!x ∈ N)(|x + 4| = 1) is false, because the
truth set of {x ∈ N | |x + 4| = 1} is the empty set, which contains no
element.
b. If |x − 4| = 5, then either x − 4 = 5 or x − 4 = −5. Adding 4 to both
of the last two equations, we find if |x − 4| = 5, then either x = 9 or
x = −1. Since 9 ∈ N and −1 ∈ / N, the statement (∃!x ∈ N)(|x + 4| = 1)
is true, because the truth set of {x ∈ N | |x − 4| = 5} = {9}, which
contains exactly one element.
Logic 53
c. If |x − 4| = 3, then either x − 4 = 3 or x − 4 = −3. Adding 4 to both of

the last two equations, we find if |x − 4| = 3, then either x = 7 or x = 1.
Since 7 ∈ N and 1 ∈ N, the statement (∃!x ∈ N)(|x + 4| = 1) is false,
because the truth set of {x ∈ N | |x − 4| = 3} = {7, 1}, which contains
two elements.
Observe that if the universal set in a., b., and c. were changed from the set of
natural numbers, N, to the set of integers, Z, the set of rational numbers, Q, or
the set of real numbers, R, then all three statements a., b., and c. containing
the unique existential quantifier would be false, since each corresponding truth
set would contain exactly two elements.
Example 4 illustrates that the statement (∃!x ∈ U )(P (x)) can be proven
to be false by showing that the truth set of {x ∈ U | P (x)} is either the
empty set or a set with two or more elements. In order to prove that the
statement (∃!x ∈ U )(P (x)) is true, it is necessary to show that the truth set
of {x ∈ U | P (x)} contains exactly one element.
In mathematics, it is very important to be able to negate quantified state-
ments such as definitions and theorems. However, before we can negate quan-
tified statements it is necessary to define equivalence for two quantified state-
ments.
DEFINITIONS Equivalent Quantified Statements
Let P (x) and Q(x) be two quantified statements with nonempty universe
U.
Two statements P (x) and Q(x) are equivalent in the universe U
if and only if P (x) and Q(x) have the same truth value for all x ∈ U .
That is, P (x) and Q(x) are equivalent in the universe U if and only if
(∀x ∈ U )(P (x) ⇔ Q(x)).
The two quantified statements P (x) and Q(x) are equivalent if and only
if they are equivalent in every universe U .
Let A(x) denote the statement “x2 = x” and let B(x) denote the statement
“x = 1.” The quantified statement (∀x)(A(x)) is equivalent to the quantified
statement (∀x)(B(x)) in the universe of natural numbers, N, since in N
{x | x2 = x} = {1} = {x | x = 1}.
However, the quantified statement (∀x)(A(x)) is not equivalent to the quan-
tified statement (∀x)(B(x)) in the universe of integers, Z, since in Z
{x | x2 = x} = {0, 1} = {1} = {x | x = 1}.
Consequently, the quantified statements (∀x)(A(x)) and (∀x)(B(x)) are not

equivalent.
Let P (x) and Q(x) be open sentences in x with nonempty universe U . Since
the conditional statement P ⇒ Q is logically equivalent to ¬P ∨ Q,
(∀x ∈ U )((P (x) ⇒ Q(x)) ⇔ (¬P (x) ∨ Q(x))) for any nonempty universe U .
Hence, the quantified statements (∀x)((P (x) ⇒ Q(x)) and (∀x)(¬P (x)∨Q(x))
are equivalent. Other important equivalent statements are
1. (∀x)((P (x) ∧ Q(x)) and (∀x)(Q(x) ∧ P (x))
2. (∀x)((P (x) ∨ Q(x)) and (∀x)(Q(x) ∨ P (x))
3. (∀x)((P (x) ⇒ Q(x)) and (∀x)(¬Q(x) ⇒ ¬P (x))
4. (∀x)(¬(P (x) ∨ Q(x))) and (∀x)((¬P (x)) ∧ (¬Q(x)))
5. (∀x)(¬(P (x) ∧ Q(x))) and (∀x)((¬P (x)) ∨ (¬Q(x)))
Additional equivalent pairs of quantified statements may be obtained by re-

placing each occurrence of ∀ in the above statements by ∃.
Now we consider the negation of the quantified statement (∀x)(P (x)). Let
a nonempty universe U be given. The negation of (∀x)(P (x)) is
¬(∀x)(P (x)) is true ⇔ (∀x)(P (x)) is false

⇔ {x ∈ U | P (x)} = U
⇔ {x ∈ U | ¬P (x)} = ∅
⇔ (∃x)(¬P (x))
Thus, ¬(∀x)(P (x)) is equivalent to (∃x)(¬P (x)). In a like manner, it can be

shown that ¬(∃x)(P (x)) is equivalent to (∀x)(¬P (x)). Consequently, we have
the following theorem regarding the negation of quantified statements.
THEOREM The Negation of Quantified Statements
Let P (x) be an open statement in the variable x. Then ¬(∀x)(P (x)) is

equivalent to (∃x)(¬P (x)) and ¬(∃x)(P (x)) is equivalent to (∀x)(¬P (x)).
Henceforth, we will use the symbol ≡ to denote the phrase “is equivalent to.”
Thus, the conclusion of the last theorem may be written as ¬(∀x)(P (x)) ≡
(∃x)(¬P (x)) and ¬(∃x)(P (x)) ≡ (∀x)(¬P (x)).
Logic 55
EXAMPLE 5 Negating a Quantified Statement
Negate the universal affirmative statement, (∀x)(P (x) ⇒ Q(x)), and trans-
late the negation into English.
SOLUTION
The negation of the universal affirmative statement is
¬(∀x)(P (x) ⇒ Q(x)) ≡ ¬(∀x)((¬P (x)) ∨ Q(x))

Definition of Conditional Statement
≡ (∃x)¬((¬P (x)) ∨ Q(x))

Negation of Quantified Statement Theorem
≡ (∃x)(¬(¬P (x)) ∧ (¬Q(x))) De Morgan’s Law
≡ (∃x)(P (x) ∧ (¬Q(x))) Double Negation
The statement (∃x)(P (x) ∧ (¬Q(x))) is the particular denial statement and
its English translation is “Some P (x) are not Q(x). Thus, the negation of
the universal affirmative statement is the particular denial statement and
by double negation, the negation of the particular denial statement is the
universal affirmative statement. As one might anticipate, the negation of
the universal denial statement is the particular affirmative statement and
the negation of the particular affirmative statement is the universal denial
statement.
Thus far, we have discussed only quantified statements in one variable.

Sentences in mathematics often contain quantified statements in two or more
variables. Moreover, the variables may not appear explicitly in the sentence;
and, initially, it may not be apparent exactly how many variables the sentence
actually contains. To make matters even more challenging, phrases such as
“for all,” “for each,” “for every,” “there exists,” “there is,” or “for some”
may not appear in the sentence either. Thus, it is often difficult to translate
English sentences regarding mathematics into symbolic statements. On the
other hand, it is usually fairly easy to translate quantified symbolic statements
from mathematics into English.
First, let us consider the sentence, “For every real number there is a natural
number greater than the real number.” This sentence contains the quantifiers
“for every” and “there is” and the key words “real number” and “natural
number.” Thus, we are reasonably certain there are two variables in this
sentence. Let us use r for the variable denoting a real number and n for
the variable denoting a natural number. Then the translation of the given
sentence into a symbolic statement in mathematics is
(∀r ∈ R)(∃n ∈ N)(n > r)
The negation of this statement is
¬((∀r ∈ R)(∃n ∈ N)(n > r)) ≡ (∃r ∈ R)(¬((∃n ∈ N)(n > r)))
≡ (∃r ∈ R)(∀n ∈ N)(¬(n > r))
≡ (∃r ∈ R)(∀n ∈ N)(n ≤ r)
Translating the last quantified statement into English, we find that the nega-
tion of sentence “For every real number there is a natural number greater
than the real number.” is the sentence “There exists a real number such
that all natural numbers are less than or equal to the real number.” Clearly,
the negation of the original sentence is false, since it says that the natural
numbers are bounded above by some real number. Consequently, the original
statement is true.
The following examples illustrate that the order of the quantifiers in a state-
ment is very important. Let us consider the following five symbolic statements
with the universe of discourse being the integers, Z.
1. (∀x)(∀y)(x + y = 0)
2. (∀y)(∀x)(x + y = 0)
3. (∀x)(∃y)(x + y = 0)
4. (∃y)(∀x)(x + y = 0)
5. (∃x)(∃y)(x + y = 0)
The first statement (∀x)(∀y)(x + y = 0) says “For all integers x and for all
integers y, x + y = 0. This statement is false, since x = 2 ∈ Z and y = 3 ∈ Z,
but x + y = 2 + 3 = 5 = 0. The second statement has the same meaning as
the first. It says “For all integers y and for all integers x, x + y = 0.” and it
is false. Thus, we note that (∀x)(∀y)(x + y = 0) ≡ (∀y)(∀x)(x + y = 0). The
third statement (∀x)(∃y)(x + y = 0) says “For every integer x there exists an
integer y such that x + y = 0.” or “Every integer has an additive inverse.”
Given an integer x, the integer y = −x satisfies the equation x + y = 0. Thus,
the third statement is true. Notice that in the fourth statement the order
of the quantifiers are reversed from the order in which they appear in the
third statement. The fourth statement says “There exists an integer y such
that for all integers x, x + y = 0.” This statement is false, since for x = 2,
y must be −2 in order to satisfy x + y = 0, while for x = 3, y must be −3 in
order to satisfy x + y = 0 and, of course, −2 = −3. Since the third statement
is true and the fourth statement is false, we see that (∀x)(∃y)(x + y = 0)
Logic 57
is not equivalent to (∃y)(∀x)(x + y = 0). The fifth statement says “There

exists an integer x and there exists an integer y such that x + y = 0.” We
can easily verify that this statement is true by choosing x = 2 and y = −2.
If we reverse the quantifiers appearing in the fifth statement, we obtain the
statement (∃y)(∃x)(x + y = 0) which is equivalent to the fifth statement.
The examples presented above illustrate the following facts which we state
without proof. Let x and y be distinct variables and let P (x, y) be an open
statement in x and y. Then
(∀x)(∀y)P (x, y) ≡ (∀y)(∀x)P (x, y)
(∃x)(∃y)P (x, y) ≡ (∃y)(∃x)P (x, y)
and (∃x)(∀y)P (x, y) ⇒ (∀y)(∃x)P (x, y)
EXAMPLE 6 Translating a Sentence Into a Quantified

Statement
Translate the sentence “Any nonzero real number has a multiplicative in-
verse.” into a quantified symbolic statement.
SOLUTION
An initial translation is (∀x ∈ R)((x = 0) ⇒ (x has a multiplicative in-
verse)). At first glance, it appears that the quantified statement contains
only one variable, namely x. However, by definition, a real number y is a
multiplicative inverse of a nonzero real number x if and only if xy = 1. Using
this definition, our translation into a quantified symbolic statement in two
variables, becomes
(∀x ∈ R)((x = 0) ⇒ ((∃y ∈ R)(xy = 1))).
EXERCISES 1.5
In exercises 1-10, write the truth set of the given set. When possi-
ble, use roster notation.
1. {x ∈ N | x is an even prime number} 2. {x ∈ N | x is a multiple of 4}
3. {x ∈ Z | x is a multiple of 4} 4. {x ∈ N | x < 5}
5. {x ∈ Z | x < 5} 6. {x ∈ N | 3x > x}
7. {x ∈ Z | 3x > x} 8. {x ∈ N | 3x
√ < x}
9. {x ∈ Z | 3x < x} 10. {x ∈ N | x ∈ N}
In exercises 11-20, let the universal set, U, be the set of all triangles.
Let E(x) denote the open statement “x is an equilateral triangle.”,
let I(x) denote “x is an isosceles triangle.”, and let R(x) denote “x
is a right triangle.” Translate each English sentence into a symbolic
statement with one quantifier and indicate the truth value of each
statement.
11. All isosceles triangles are equilateral triangles.

12. All equilateral triangles are isosceles triangles.
13. All isosceles triangles are not right triangles.
14. Some isosceles triangles are equilateral triangles.
15. Some isosceles triangles are not right triangles.
16. Some right triangles are equilateral triangles.
17. Some right triangles are isosceles triangles.
18. No equilateral triangle is a right triangle.
19. No right triangle is an isosceles triangle.
20. No equilateral triangle is not an isosceles triangle.
21. Write the negation of exercises 11-20.
In exercises 22-31, translate the given symbolic statement into

English and indicate the truth value of the statement.
22. (∀x ∈ R)(2x > 0) 23. (∃x ∈ N)(2x > 0)

24. (∀x ∈ N)((x is a prime) ⇒ (x is odd)) 25. (∃x ∈ N)(2x ≤ 0)
26. (∀x ∈ N)(((x is a prime) ∧ (x = 2)) ⇒ (x is odd)) 27. (∃!x ∈ Z)(x2 = 0)
28. (∃!x ∈ N)((x is a prime) ∧ (x is not odd)) 29. (∃!x ∈ Z)(x2 =√x)
30. (∃!x ∈ R)(e = 1)
x
31. (∃!x ∈ R)(x = 7)
32. An equivalent form of the unique existential quantifier (∃!x ∈ U )(P (x))
is (*) (∃x ∈ U )(P (x) ∧ ((∀y ∈ U )(P (y) ⇒ (y = x))))
Write the negation of (*) and observe that the unique existential quantifier
(∃!x ∈ U )(P (x)) is false when, for every x, either P (x) is false or for some y,
P (y) is true for y = x.
In exercises 33-36, write the given English sentence symbolically

and indicate the truth value of the statement.
33. All primes are odd.

34. Some primes are even.
35. There exists a unique even prime.
36. There is a unique smallest natural number.
Logic 59
37. Write the negation of exercises 22-31 and 33-36.
In exercises 38-52, translate each sentence into a quantified symbolic

statement and indicate the truth value of the statement.
38. There exist natural numbers m and n such that m is greater than n.
39. There exists a natural number m such that for all natural numbers n,
m is greater than n.
40. For all natural numbers m there exists a natural number n such that
m is greater than n.
41. For all natural numbers m and n, m is greater than n.
42. For every integer x there exists an integer y such that y = 2x.
43. For every integer x there exists an integer y such that x = 2y.
44. There exists an integer y such that y = 2x for every integer x.
45. There exists a unique rational number x such that x + y = 0 for all
rational numbers y.
46. There exists a unique rational number x such that xy = 1 for all rational
numbers y.
47. For all rational numbers x there exists a unique rational number y such
that x + y = 0.
48. For all nonzero rational numbers x there exists a unique rational number
y such that xy = 1.
49. For every positive real number x there exists a natural number n such
that n1 < x.
50. For all real numbers x, y, and z, (x + y) + z = x + (y + z).
51. For all real numbers x, y, and z, if x < y, then x + z < y + z.
52. For all real numbers x there exists a unique real number y such that
xy = yz for all real numbers z.
1.6 Chapter Review

Definitions
A statement or proposition is a declarative sentence that is either true

or false, but not both true and false.
A simple statement (simple proposition) is a statement which does

not contain any other statement as a component part.
Every compound statement (compound proposition) is a statement

that does contain another statement as a component part.
Let P denote a statement. The negation of P, denoted by ¬ P, is the

statement “not P.” The negation of P is false when P is true, and the negation
of P is true when P is false.
The conjunction of two statements P, Q, denoted by P ∧ Q, is the state-

ment “P and Q.” The conjunction of P and Q is true if and only if both P
and Q are true.
The disjunction of two statements P, Q, denoted by P ∨ Q, is the state-

ment “P or Q.” The disjunction of P and Q is true if P is true, if Q is true,
or if both P and Q are true.
The truth value of a statement is true (denoted by T) if the statement is

true and is false (denoted by F) if the statement is false.
A truth table is a table which shows the truth values of a statement for
all possible combinations of truth values of its simple statement components.
A tautology is a statement that is true for every assignment of truth values

of its component statements.
A contradiction is a statement that is false for every assignment of truth

values of its component statements. Thus, a contradiction is the negation of
a tautology.
Two statements are truth value equivalent or logically equivalent if

and only if they have the same truth values for all assignments of truth values
to their component statements.
The statement “If P, then Q.” is called a conditional statement, the

statement P is called the hypothesis or antecedent of the conditional state-
ment, and the statement Q is called the conclusion or consequent of the
conditional statement.
Logic 61
Given two statements P and Q, the conditional statement P ⇒ Q (read

“P implies Q”) is the statement “If P, then Q.” The conditional statement
P ⇒ Q is true unless P is true and Q is false, in which case it is false.
Alternative expressions for the conditional statement P ⇒ Q are
If P, then Q Q, if P
P implies Q Q is implied by P
P only if Q Q provided P
P is sufficient for Q Q is necessary for P
The converse of P ⇒ Q is Q ⇒ P .
The inverse of P ⇒ Q is (¬P ) ⇒ (¬Q).
The contrapositive of P ⇒ Q is (¬Q) ⇒ (¬P ).
Given two statements P and Q, the biconditional statement P ⇔ Q is
the statement “P if and only if Q.” The biconditional statement P ⇔ Q is
true when P and Q have the same truth values and false when P and Q have
different truth values.
An argument P1 , . . . , Pn .· . C with premises P1 , . . . , Pn and conclusion
C is valid if and only if P1 ∧ P2 ∧ . . . ∧ Pn ⇒ C is a tautology.
If an argument is not valid, it is called invalid.
Sets are usually described by one of two notations—roster notation (also
called enumeration notation) or set-builder notation. In roster notation,
the elements of the set are enclosed in braces, { }, and separated by commas.
The set with no elements is called the empty set or null set.
A variable is a symbol, say x, which represents an unspecified object from
a given set U .
The set of values, U , that can be assigned to the variable x is called the
universe, universal set, or universe of discourse.
An open statement in one variable is a sentence that involves one
variable and that becomes a statement (a declarative sentence that is true or
false) when values from the universal set are substituted for the variable. An
open statement in the variable x is denoted by P (x).
The truth set of an open statement is the set of all values from the
universal set that make the open statement a true statement.
The symbol ∀ is called the universal quantifier and represents the phrase
“for all,” “for each,” or “for every.” The statement (∀x ∈ U )(P (x)) is read “for
all x ∈ U, P (x)” and is true when the truth set TP = {x ∈ U | P (x)} = U .
The symbol ∃ is called the existential quantifier and represents the phrase
“there exists,” “there is,” or “for some.” The statement (∃x ∈ U )(P (x)) is
read “there exists an x ∈ U such that P (x)” and is true when the truth set
TP = {x ∈ U | P (x)} = ∅.
The symbol ∃! is called the unique existential quantifier and repre-
sents the phrase “there exists a unique,” or “there exists exactly one.” The
statement (∃!x ∈ U )(P (x)) is read “there exists a unique x ∈ U such that
P (x)” or “there exists exactly one x ∈ U such that P (x).” The statement
(∃!x ∈ U )(P (x)) is true precisely when the truth set TP = {x ∈ U | P (x)}
has exactly one element.
Two statements P (x) and Q(x) are equivalent in the universe U if and
only if P (x) and Q(x) have the same truth value for all x ∈ U . That is, P (x)
and Q(x) are equivalent in the universe U if and only if (∀x ∈ U )(P (x) ⇔
Q(x)).
The two quantified statements P (x) and Q(x) are equivalent if and only
if they are equivalent in every universe U .
Useful Laws
Let t represent a statement which is a tautology, let f represent a statement
which is a contradiction, and let P represent any statement.
Double Negation Law: ¬(¬P ) ≡ P
Tautology Laws: ¬t≡f P∧t≡P P∨t≡t
Contradiction Laws: ¬f≡t P∧f≡f P∨f≡P
Idempotent Law for Conjunction: P ∧P ≡P
Idempotent Law for Disjunction: P ∨P ≡P
Commutative Law for Conjunction: P ∧Q≡Q∧P
Commutative Law for Disjunction: P ∨Q ≡ Q∨P
Absorption Laws: P ∧ (P ∨ Q) ≡ P
P ∨ (P ∧ Q) ≡ P
De Morgan Laws: ¬(P ∧ Q) ≡ (¬P ) ∨ (¬Q)
¬(P ∨ Q) ≡ (¬P ) ∧ (¬Q)
Law of the Excluded Middle: (¬P ) ∧ P
Distributive Law for Disjunction: P ∨ (Q ∧ R) ≡ (P ∨ Q) ∧ (P ∨ R)
Distributive Law for Conjunction: P ∧ (Q ∨ R) ≡ (P ∧ Q) ∨ (P ∧ R)
Logic 63
Associative Law for Disjunction: (P ∨ Q) ∨ R ≡ P ∨ (Q ∨ R)
Associative Law for Conjunction: (P ∧ Q) ∧ R ≡ P ∧ (Q ∧ R)
Negation of the Conditional Statement ¬(P ⇒ Q) ≡ P ∧ (¬Q)
Rules of Logic
Rule of Substitution
Let P and Q be statements. Let C(P ) be a compound statement con-

taining the statement P . And let C(Q) be the same compound statement
in which each occurrence of P is replaced by Q. If P and Q are logically
equivalent, then C(P ) and C(Q) are logically equivalent. That is,
If P ≡ Q, then C(P ) ≡ C(Q).
The argument P .· . P ∨ Q is a valid argument known as the rule of

disjunction.
The argument P, Q .· . P ∧ Q is a valid argument known as the rule of

conjunction.
The argument P ∧ Q .· . P is a valid argument called the rule of conjunc-

tive simplification.
The argument P ∨ Q, ¬P .· . Q is a valid argument called the rule of

disjunctive syllogism.
The argument P ⇒ Q, P .· . Q is a valid argument known as the rule of

detachment or modus ponens.
The argument P ⇒ Q, ¬Q .· . ¬P is a valid argument known as the rule

of contrapositive inference or modus tollens.
Two Invalid Arguments
The argument P ⇒ Q, Q .· . P is a invalid argument called the fallacy

of the converse.
The argument P ⇒ Q, ¬P .· . ¬Q is a invalid argument called the
fallacy of the inverse.
The argument P ⇒ Q, Q ⇒ R .· . P ⇒ R is a valid argument called the

rule of transitive inference or hypothetical syllogism.
THEOREM The Negation of Quantified Statements
Let P (x) be an open statement in the variable x. Then ¬(∀x)(P (x)) is

equivalent to (∃x)(¬P (x)) and ¬(∃x)(P (x)) is equivalent to (∀x)(¬P (x)).
Statements of Traditional Logic

Statement Type
Symbolic Statement English Sentence
1. Universal Affirmative
(∀x)(P (x) ⇒ Q(x)) All P (x) are Q(x).
2. Universal Denial
(∀x)(P (x) ⇒ (¬Q(x))) No P (x) are Q(x).
3. Particular Affirmative
(∃x)(P (x) ∧ Q(x)) Some P (x) are Q(x).
4. Particular Denial
(∃x)(P (x) ∧ (¬Q(x))) Some P (x) are not Q(x).
Review Exercises
In exercises 1-5, determine if the given sentence is a statement or
not.
1. Multiply 8 by 7.
2. What time is it?
3. The number √ 47 is a composite number.
4. The number 11 is an irrational number.
5. Alice is very intelligent.
6. Let T denote the statement “I pass the test.” Let C be the statement
“I pass the course.” And, let D stand for the statement “I make the
dean’s list.”

(1) I did not make the dean’s list.
(2) I passed the test, but I did not pass the course.
(3) Either I pass the test, or I do not pass the course.
Logic 65
(4) If I pass the test, then I pass the course.

(5) If I pass the test and I pass the course, then I make the dean’s
list.
(6) I make the dean’s list if and only if I pass the course.
b. Write the following statements in English.
(1) C ∧D (2) (T ∧C)∧(¬D) (3) C ⇔ T (4) (¬C) ⇒ (¬D)
(5) (T ⇒ C) ∧ (C ⇒ D)
In exercises 7-13, write the negation of the given statement.
7. The number π is rational.

8. I did not go to the game.
9. It is cloudy, or the sun is shining.
10. I went home, but I did not read the newspaper.
11. If 2 + 3 = 4, then 5 + 6 = 7.
12. The number π is even if and only if the number e is odd.
13. If I finish my homework, I play tennis unless it rains.
14. Construct a truth table for the following statements. Identify tautolo-
gies and contradictions.
a. P ⇔ (¬P ) b. P ⇒ (P ∨ Q) c. P ⇒ (P ∧ Q)
d. (P ⇒ Q)∨(Q ⇒ P ) e. P ⇒ [(¬P ) ⇒ (Q∧(¬Q))]
f. {[(P ∧ Q) ⇒ R] ⇒ (P ⇒ R)} ⇔ (P ⇒ Q)
15. Rewrite each of the following statements in the conditional form

P ⇒ Q. That is, rewrite each statement in the form “If P , then Q.”
a. You may vote provided you are old enough.
b. The gasoline engine is running implies there is fuel in the tank.
c. You may run for the United States Senate only if you are at least
thirty-five years of age.
d. Rain is necessary for a garden.
e. A triangle is equilateral is sufficient for the triangle to be isosceles.
f. Today is Friday is implied by yesterday being Thursday.
16. Write the negation of the statements in exercise 15.
17. Write the converse, inverse, and contrapositive of the statements in

exercise 15.
18. Determine the truth value of the following biconditional statements.

√ √
a. The number 3 is negative if and only if the number − 3 is pos-
itive.
b. −1 > 0 iff 0 < 1.
19. Which of the following arguments are valid?

a. P .· . P ∧ Q b. P ∨ Q, ¬P .· . Q
c. P ⇒ Q, ¬Q .· . ¬P d. P ⇒ Q, Q .· . P
e. P ⇒ Q, R ⇒ Q .· . P ⇔ R
20. Write the following argument in symbolic form using the letters indi-
cated and deduce a valid conclusion for the argument.
If Allen attends the meeting (A), then Barbar attends the meeting (B).
If Allen and Barbar attend the meeting, then Carly will be elected (C)
or Dave will be elected (D). If Carly or Dave is elected, Earl will resign
(E). If Allen’s attendance implies Earl will not resign, then Fae will be
the new chairperson (F). Therefore, .
21. Complete the given logical equivalences.

a. ¬(P ∧ Q) ≡ b. P ∨ (Q ∧ R) ≡
c. (¬P ) ∧ (¬Q) ≡ d. (P ∧ Q) ∨ (P ∧ R) ≡
e. ¬(P ⇒ Q) ≡ f. P ∨ (P ∧ Q) ≡
22. Write the truth set of each of the following sets.

a. {x ∈ N | x2 + 3x = 0} b. {x ∈ Z | x2 + 3x = 0}
c. {x ∈ N | 2x2 + 3x + 1 = 0} d. {x ∈ Z | 2x2 + 3x + 1 = 0}
e. {x ∈ Q | 2x2 + 3x + 1 = 0}
In exercises 23-27, let M (x) denote the open statement “x is a math-

ematician.” and let P (x) denote the open statement “x is a philoso-
pher.” Write each statement symbolically.
23. No mathematician is a philosopher.
24. Some philosophers are mathematicians.
25. All mathematicians are not philosophers.
26. No philosophers are not mathematicians.
27. Some mathematicians are philosophers.

Logic 67
28. Write the negation of exercises 23-27 both symbolically and in English.
In exercises 29-30, translate each sentence into a quantified state-
ment.
29. For any integer x there exists a unique integer y such that x + y = 0.
30. There exists a natural number x such that xy = 0 for all natural
numbers y.
31. There exists a unique real number x such that x + y = x for all real
numbers y.
32. Write the negation of exercises 29-31.
References
Boyer, C. B. 1968. A History of Mathematics. Princeton: Princeton Univer-

sity Press.
Bunt, L. N. H., Jones, P. S., and Bedient, J. D. 1976. The Historical Roots of
Elementary Mathematics. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Chartrand, G., Polimeni, A. D., and Zhang, P. 2003. Mathematical Proofs: A
Transition to Advanced Mathematics. Boston: Addison Wesley.
Copi, I. M. 1982. Introduction to Logic. New York: Macmillan Publishing
Co., Inc.
Eves, H. 1983. Great Moments in Mathematics (After 1650). The Mathemat-
ical Association of America.
Eves, H. 1983. Great Moments in Mathematics (Before 1650). The Mathe-
matical Association of America.
Fujii, J. N. 1961. An Introduction to the Elements of Mathematics. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Gallian, J. A. 2002. Contemporary Abstract Algebra. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company.
Gordon, R. A. 2002. Real Analysis: A First Course. Boston: Addison Wesley.
Lin, S. T. and Lin, Y. 1974. Set Theory: An Intuitive Approach. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
McCoy, N. H. 1960. Introduction to Modern Algebra. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon, Inc.
Morash R. P. 1987. Bridge to Abstract Mathematics: Mathematical Proof and
Structures. New York: Random House, Inc.
Olmsted, John M. H. 1959. Real Variables, An Introduction to the Theory of
Functions. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc.
Smith, D., Eggen, M., and St. Andre, R. 2006. A Transition to Advanced
Mathematics. Belmont: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
Smith, D. E. 1958. History of Mathematics, Volume I. New York: Dover
Publications, Inc.
415
Smith, D. E. 1958. History of Mathematics, Volume II. New York: Dover

Publications, Inc.
Stahl, S. 1999. Real Analysis: A Historical Approach. New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
Stoll, M. 2001. Introduction to Real Analysis. Boston: Addison Wesley.
Stoll, R. R. 1961. Sets, Logic, and Axiomatic Theories. San Francisco:
W. H. Freemen and Company.
Suzuki, J. 2002. A History of Mathematics. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-
Hall, Inc.

Previewpdf

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Previewpdf

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Previewpdf

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTRODUCTION TO

COMPLEX VARIABLES: A PHYSICAL APPROACH WITH APPLICATIONS AND MATLAB®

ENCOUNTERS WITH CHAOS AND FRACTALS

Charles E. Roberts, Jr.

© 2010 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

No claim to original U.S. Government works

Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper

International Standard Book Number: 978-1-4200-6955-6 (Hardback)

Library of Congress Cataloging‑in‑Publication Data

Roberts, Charles E., 1942-

Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at

and the CRC Press Web site at

2 Deductive Mathematical Systems and Proofs 69

3 Set Theory 125

6 Mathematical Induction 261

7 Cardinalities of Sets 275

8 Proofs from Real Analysis 297

9 Proofs from Group Theory 325

A Reading and Writing Mathematical Proofs 349

Answers to Selected Exercises 357

This text is written for undergraduate mathematics majors and minors

Relations and functions play a major role in many branches of mathematics

There are many deﬁnitions of logic; however, we will consider logic to be

1.1 Statements, Negation, and Compound Statements

DEFINITION Statement or Proposition

A statement or proposition is a declarative sentence that is either true

EXAMPLE 1 Identifying a Statement

Determine which of the following sentences is a statement.

DEFINITION Simple Statement and Compound Statement

A simple statement (simple proposition) is a statement which does

Every statement we have examined thus far is a simple statement. Com-

DEFINITION Negation of a Statement

Let P denote a statement. The negation of P, denoted by ¬ P, is the

DEFINITION The Conjunction of Two Statements

The conjunction of two statements P, Q, denoted by P ∧ Q, is the

DEFINITION The Disjunction of Two Statements

The disjunction of two statements P, Q, denoted by P ∨ Q, is the

In the following two examples, we show how to write English statements in

EXAMPLE 2 Translate English Statements to Symbolic Form

Write the following statements in symbolic form using ¬ , ∧ , and ∨.

EXAMPLE 3 Translate Symbolic Statements to English

Let C be the statement “Today the sky is clear.”

In exercises 1-10, determine whether the given sentence is a state-

b. Write the following symbolic statements in English.

a. Write the following statements symbolically.

(1) ABC is not isosceles.

b. Write the following symbolic statements in English.

a. Write the following statements symbolically.

b. Write the following symbolic statements in English.

1.2 Truth Tables and Logical Equivalences

DEFINITION Truth Value and Truth Table

The truth value of a statement is true (denoted by T) if the statement

The German mathematician and philosopher Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob

To be in standard form, the truth value entries must be exactly as shown in

EXAMPLE 1 Determining Truth Values

(a) Since A is true, ¬ A is false. Since the conjunction of a false state-

DEFINITIONS Tautology and Contradiction