Mathematical Logic

Dr. Ambika P S
Assistant Professor

Amrita School of Artificial Intelligence,

Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Coimbatore, India
10 October 2023
 Recapitulation

➢Propositional logic ➢Rules of Inference

➢Definition of propositions or statements ➢Predicate logic
➢Atomic and Molecular propositions ➢Predicates
➢Logical operators ➢Quantifiers
➢Negation of Conjunction and Disjunction
➢Implication
Which one of these seem to be a statement?
➢Converse
➢Contrapositive
➢Biconditional
➢Tautology, Contradiction and Contingency
➢Logical Equivalence
2
 Outline

➢Nested Quantifiers
➢Method of Proofs

Which one of these seem to be a statement?

3
 Introduction to Nested Quantifiers
Definition: Two quantifiers are said to be nested if one is within the scope of
the other.
For example:
ꓯx ꓱy Q(x, y)
ꓱ is within the scope of ꓯ

Different combinations of Nested Quantifiers:

1. ꓯx ꓯy Q(x, y) Order of quantifiers does not matter
2. ꓯx ꓱy Q(x, y)
3. ꓱy ꓯx Q(x, y)
4. ꓱx ꓱy Q(x, y) Order of quantifiers does not matter

i.e. ꓯx ꓯy Q(x, y) ≡ ꓯy ꓯx Q(x, y) Also, ꓯx ꓱy Q(x, y) ꓱy ꓯx Q(x, y)

ꓱx ꓱy Q(x, y) ≡ ꓱy ꓱx Q(x, y)
4
Example-1: Let x and y be the real numbers and P(x, y) denotes ‘x+y = 0’.
Find the truth values of-
a) ꓯx ꓯy P(x, y) False
b) ꓯx ꓱy P(x, y) True
c) ꓱy ꓯx P(x, y) False
d) ꓱx ꓱy P(x, y) True

Example-2: Let x and y be the real numbers and P(x, y) denotes ‘x.y = 0’.
Find the truth values of-
a) ꓯx ꓯy P(x, y) False
b) ꓯx ꓱy P(x, y) True
c) ꓱy ꓯx P(x, y) True
d) ꓱx ꓱy P(x, y) True
5
Example-3: Let Q(x, y, z) be the statement “x+y = z”. What are the truth values
of the statements ꓯx ꓯy ꓱz Q(x, y, z) and ꓱz ꓯx ꓯy Q(x, y, z), where the domain
of all variables consists of all real numbers?

6
 Nested Quantifiers: Translating English Statements
Example-1: The sum of two positive integers is always positive.

“For every two integers x and y, if x and y are positive then x+y is also
positive.”
ꓯx ꓯy[((x>0)Ʌ(y>0)) → (x+y >0)]

7
 Nested Quantifiers: Translating English Statements
Example-2: Every student of XYZ University has a laptop or has a friend who
has a laptop.

8
 Negating Nested Quantifiers
Q.1: What is the negation of the expression ꓱx P(x)?
~ꓱx P(x) ≡ ꓯx ~P(x)
Q.2: What is the negation of the expression ꓯx P(x)?
~ ꓯx P(x) ≡ ꓱx ~P(x)
Negating nested quantifiers is as simple as negating single quantifier.
We have to successively apply the rules of negating single quantifiers to nested
quantifiers.
Ex.1: Express the negation of the statement ꓯx ꓱy (xy = 1) so that no negation
precedes a quantifier.
Solution: Move the negation inside quantifiers by applying De Morgan’s laws
for negating single quantifiers, P(x,y): xy = 1, ꓱy P(x,y) = Q(x,y).
~[ꓯx ꓱy P(x,y)] ≡ ~[ꓯx Q(x,y)] ≡ ꓱx ~Q(x,y) ≡ ꓱx ~ [ꓱy P(x,y)] ≡ ꓱx ꓯy (xy ≠ 1) 9
 Negating Nested Quantifiers
Ex.2: Express the statement “Someone has visited every country in the world
except Libya” using quantifiers. Then form the negation of the statement so
that no negation is to the left of a quantifier. Next, express the negation in
simple English. (Do not simply use the words “It is not the case that.”)
Solution: Let V(x,y) denotes x has visited country y, domain of x is “all people”,
and of y is “all countries”.
ꓱx ꓯy (V(x, y)↔ y ≠ Libya)
Negation:
ꓯx ꓱy (V(x, y)↔ y = Libya)
Every person has either visited Libya or has not visited any other country except
Libya.

10
 Fallacies
Definition: There are some arguments which are invalid. Though at first
glance, they seem right. Such a type of argument is known as fallacy.
For example: p→ q
fallacy of affirming the conclusion.
q
_______
∴p

If today is Monday, then John will go to work.

John will go to work.
Therefore, today is Monday.

11
 Fallacies
Also: p→ q
~p
_______ fallacy of denying the hypothesis.
∴ ~q

Example:
If Socrates is human, then Socrates is mortal.
Socrates is not human.
Therefore, Socrates is not mortal.
12
 Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements
Rules:
1. Universal Instantiation: This rule is used to conclude that P(c) is true when
ꓯx P(x) is true.

Problem: Determine whether the argument “All students in this class

understand logic. David is a student in this class. Therefore, David understands
logic.” is valid or not
Let us assume that, P(x) denotes “x is a student in this class” and Q(x) denotes
“x understands logic”
1. ꓯx (P(x)→ Q(x))…………………Premise
2. P(David)…………………………..Premise
3. P(David) → Q(David)……….By Universal Instantiation from 1
4. Q(David)………………………….By Modus Ponen from (2) and (3) 13
 Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements
Rules:
2. Universal Generalization: This rule states that ꓯx P(x) is true, given P(c) is true for an arbitrary c.

In other words, if P(c) holds for any arbitrary element c, then we can conclude ꓯx (P(x) is true.
Problem: Justify that if ꓯx (P(x)→Q(x)) and ꓯx (Q(x)→R(x)) are true, then ꓯx (P(x)→R(x)) is true, where
the domain of all quantifiers are same.
Let c be some arbitrary element.
1. ꓯx (P(x)→Q(x))…………………………..Premise
2. ꓯx (Q(x)→R(x))…………………………..Premise
3. P(c) → Q(c)…………………………………By Universal Instantiation from 1
4. Q(c) → R(c)…………………………………By Universal Instantiation from 2
5. P(c) → R(c)…………………………………By Hypothetical Syllogism from (3) and (4)
6. ꓯx (P(x)→R(x))………………………….Universal Generalization from (5)
14
 Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements
Rules:
3. Existential Instantiation: This rule allows us to conclude that there is some element c for which
P(c) is true when ꓱx P(x) is true

4. Existential Generalization: This rule states that ꓱx P(x) is true when for a particular element c,
P(c) is true.

15
 Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements
Problem: Show that the premises “A student in this class has not read the book,” and “Everyone in this
class passed the first exam” imply the conclusion “Someone who passed the first exam has not read the
book.”
Let C(x) be “x is in this class,” B(x) be “x has read the book,” and P (x) be “x passed the first exam.”
1. ∃ x (C(x) ∧ ¬B(x))…………………………..Premise
2. C(a) ∧ ¬B(a)…………………………………..Existential instantiation from 1
3. C(a) ………………………………………………Simplification from (2)
4. ∀ x (C(x) → P (x))……………………………Premise
5. C(a) → P (a)……………………………………Universal instantiation from (4)
6. P (a)…………………..…………………………. Modus ponens from (3) and (5)
7. ¬B(a)…………………………………………….. Simplification from (2)
8. P (a) ∧ ¬B(a)…………………………………..Conjunction from (6) and (7)
9. ∃ x (P (x) ∧ ¬B(x))……………………………Existential generalization from (8)

16
 Recap of a few definitions and concepts
Definition-1: An integer number ‘n’ is even if and only if there exists an integer ‘k’ such that n = 2k.

Definition-2: An integer number ‘n’ is odd if and only if there exists an integer ‘k’ such that n = 2k+1.

Definition-3: Two integers ‘a’ and ‘b’ are consecutive if and only if b = a+1

Contrapositive: The contrapositive of an implication P→Q is the statement  Q →  P.

Contradiction: A proposition which is always false irrespective of the truth value of the
underlying variables.

17
 Methods of Proof
➢ Direct proof
➢ Proof by Contraposition
➢ Proof by Contradiction
➢ Proof of Equivalences
➢ Proof by Cases
➢ Existence Proofs
➢ Counterexamples

18