Discrete Mathematics

Unit I Propositional and Predicate Calculus

What is proposition?
Solution:
A Proposition is a declarative sentence that is either true or false, but not both.
Eg: 2 > 1 [𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑒]
1 + 7 = 9 [𝐹𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑒]

What is atomic statement? Give an example.

Solution:
Declarative sentences which cannot be further split into simpler sentences are called
atomic statements.
Eg: Ram is a boy

What is compound statement? Give an example.

Solution:
Declarative sentences which can be further split into simpler sentences are called
compound statement. Compound statements are constructed by combining the
connectives ‘and’, ‘or’ , ‘but’ , etc.,

Write the truth table for negation?

Solution:
The negation of a statement is generally formed by introducing the word ‘not’ at a
proper place in the statement.
Truth table for negation
P ¬P
T F
F T

Without using table prove the following

𝑃 ⋀ ((¬𝑃⋀𝑄)⋁(¬𝑃⋀¬𝑄)) ⇔ 𝑅
Solution:
𝑃 ⋀ ((¬𝑃⋀𝑄)⋁(¬𝑃⋀¬𝑄)) ⇔ 𝑃⋀(¬𝑃⋀(𝑄⋁¬𝑄))
⇔ 𝑃⋀ (¬𝑃⋀𝑇)
⇔ 𝑃⋀¬𝑃
⇔ 𝐹
⇔ R
Express the statement “Good food is not cheap” in symbolic form.
Solution:
P: food is good.
Q: food is cheap
Symbolic form: 𝑃 → ¬𝑄

www.tranquileducation.weebly.com
Obtain PDNF for ¬𝑃⋁𝑄
Solution:
¬𝑃⋁𝑄 ⇔ (¬𝑃⋀(𝑄⋁¬𝑄))⋁((𝑃⋁¬𝑃)⋀𝑄)
⇔ ¬𝑃⋀𝑄 ⋁ ¬𝑃⋀¬𝑄 ⋁ 𝑃⋀𝑄 ⋁ ¬𝑃⋀𝑄
⇔ ¬𝑃⋀𝑄 ⋁ ¬𝑃⋀¬𝑄 ⋁ 𝑃⋀𝑄 which is PDNF

Write an equivalent formula for 𝑃 ⋀ (𝑄 ↔ 𝑅) which contains neither the biconditional

nor the conditional.
Solution:
𝑃 ⋀ (𝑄 ↔ 𝑅) ⇔ 𝑃⋀((𝑄 → 𝑅)⋀(𝑅 → 𝑄))
⇔ 𝑃⋀((¬𝑄⋁𝑅)⋀(¬𝑅⋁𝑄))
Write an equivalent formula for 𝑃 → (𝑄 → 𝑅)
Solution:
𝑃 → (𝑄 → 𝑅) ⇔ 𝑃 → (¬𝑄⋁𝑅) ⇔ ¬𝑃⋁(¬𝑄⋁𝑅)
Show that the propostion (𝑃⋁𝑄) ↔ (𝑄⋁𝑃) is a tautology
Solution:
𝑷 𝑸 𝑷⋁𝑸 𝑸⋁𝑷 ¬(𝑷⋁𝑸) ¬(𝑸⋁𝑷) (𝑷⋁𝑸) ↔ (𝑸⋁𝑷)
T T T T F F T
T F T T F F T
F T T T F F T
F F F F T T T
The last column contains only T.
Given proposition is tautology.

Show that 𝑄⋁(𝑃⋀¬𝑄)⋁(¬𝑃⋁¬𝑄) is a tautology.

Solution:

𝑷 𝑸 ¬𝑸 ¬𝑷 𝑷⋀¬𝑸 ¬𝑷⋁¬𝑸 𝑸⋁(𝑷⋀¬𝑸)⋁(¬𝑷⋁¬𝑸)

T T F T F T T
T F T T T T T
F T F F F F T
F F T F F T T

The last column contains only T.

Given statement is tautology.

Using the truth table verify (𝑃⋀𝑄)⋀ (¬(𝑃𝑉𝑄)) is contradiction.

Solution:

P Q P⋀Q P⋁Q ¬ (P⋁Q) (P⋀Q) ⋀ (¬ (P⋁Q))

T T T T F F

www.tranquileducation.weebly.com
 T F F T F F
F T F T F F
F F F F T F

The last column contains only F

Given statement is contradiction.

Define contrapositive.
Solution:
If 𝑃 → 𝑄 is an implication, then the converse of 𝑃 → 𝑄 is the implication 𝑄 → 𝑃 and the
contrapositive of 𝑃 → 𝑄 is the implication ¬𝑄 → ¬𝑃

Give the converse and the contrapositive of the implication “If it is raining, then I get
wet”
Solution: 𝑃: It is raining
𝑄: I get wet.
𝑄 → 𝑃 (Converse) If I get wet then it is raining
¬𝑄 → ¬𝑃(Contrapositive): If I do not get wet, then it is not raining.

Define the term “Logically equivalent”

Solution:
The propositions 𝑃 and 𝑄 are called logically equivalent if 𝑃 → 𝑄 is a tautology. It is
denoted by 𝑃 ≡ 𝑄

Write the Statement “ The crop will be destroyed if there is a flood” in symbolic form
Solution: 𝑃: Crop will be destroyed
𝑄: There is a flood
Symbolic form: 𝑄 → 𝑃

State and prove Duality principle theorem

Solution:
If 𝐴 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐴∗ be dual formulas and if 𝑝1 , 𝑝2 , … 𝑝𝑛 be simple variables that occur in
𝐴 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐴∗
ie) 𝐴 = 𝐴(𝑝1 , 𝑝2 , … 𝑝𝑛 ) and 𝐴∗ = 𝐴∗ (𝑝1 , 𝑝2 , … 𝑝𝑛 ) then
¬𝐴 𝑝1 , 𝑝2 , … 𝑝𝑛 ⇔ 𝐴∗ 𝑝1 , 𝑝2 , … 𝑝𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑
𝐴(¬𝑝1 , ¬𝑝2 , … ¬𝑝𝑛 ) ⇔ ¬𝐴∗ (𝑝1 , 𝑝2 , … 𝑝𝑛 )
That is the negation of a formula is equivalent to its dual in which every variable is
replaced by its negation.

Define functionally complete sets of connectives.

Any set of connectives in which every formula can be expressed as another equivalent
formula containing connectives from this set is called functionally complete set of
connective.

www.tranquileducation.weebly.com
Eg: The set of connectives { ⋀, ⋁}

Prove that{¬, ⋁} is a functionally complete set of connectives.

Solution:
It is enough to show that all formulas with other connectives, there exists a equivalent
formula which contains ¬ and ⋁ only.
Eg: i)𝑃 ↔ 𝑄 ⇔ (𝑃 → 𝑄) ⋀(𝑄 → 𝑃)
⇔ (¬𝑃⋁𝑄) ⋀(¬𝑄⋁𝑃)
ii)𝑃 → 𝑄 ⇔ ¬𝑃 ⋁𝑄
iii)𝑃 ⋀ 𝑄 ⇔ ¬(¬𝑃⋁¬𝑄)
Hence {¬, ⋁} is functionally complete set of connectives.

Show that { ⋀, ⋁} is not functionally complete.

Solution:
¬𝑃 cannot be expressed using the connectives { ⋀, ⋁}. Since no such contribution of
statement exist with { ⋀, ⋁} as input is T and the output is F.

Construct the truth table for NAND

Solution:

𝑷 𝑸 𝑷↑ 𝑸
T T F
T F T
F T T
F F T

Obtain disjunctive normal forms of 𝑃⋀(𝑃 → 𝑄)

Let 𝑆 ≡ 𝑃⋀(𝑃 → 𝑄)

⇔ 𝑃⋀(¬𝑃⋁𝑄)
⇔ (𝑃⋀¬𝑃)⋁ 𝑃⋀𝑄 which is DNF

Obtain a CNF for (𝑃 → (𝑄⋀𝑅))⋀(¬𝑃 → (¬𝑄⋀¬𝑅)

Solution: (𝑃 → (𝑄⋀𝑅))⋀(¬𝑃 → (¬𝑄 ⋀ ¬𝑅))
⇔ ((¬𝑃𝑉(𝑄⋀𝑅))⋀(𝑃⋁(¬𝑄⋀¬𝑅)
⇔ ((¬𝑃⋁𝑄)⋀(¬𝑃⋁𝑅))⋀((𝑃⋁¬𝑄)⋀(𝑃⋁¬𝑅)) (Distributive law)
This is CNF, as it is a product of elementary sums.

Define Valid argument

If a conclusion is derived from a set of premised by using the accepted rules of
reasoning, then such a process of derivation is called a deduction or a formal proof and
the argument or conclusion is called a valid argument or valid conclusion.
www.tranquileducation.weebly.com
Determine whether the conclusion c follows logically from the premised 𝐻1 , 𝐻2 and 𝐻3 :
𝐻1 : 𝑃 → 𝑄, 𝐻2 : 𝑃, 𝐻3 : 𝑄 . Are given premises valid?
Solution:
𝑷 𝑸 𝑷 → 𝑸 (𝑷 → 𝑸) ⋀ 𝑷 ((𝑷 → 𝑸)⋀𝑷) → 𝑸
T T T T T
T F F F T
F T T F T
F F T F T

The given premises are valid.

Write the rules for inference theory.

Rule P: A Premise may be introduced at any point in the derivation.
Rule T: A formula 𝑆 may be introduced in a derivation if 𝑆 is a tautologically implied by
any one or more of the preceding formulas in the derivation.
Rule CP: If we can derive 𝑆 from 𝑅 and a set of premised, then we can derive 𝑅 → 𝑆
from the set of premises alone.

Demonstrate that 𝑅 is valid inference from the premises 𝑃 → 𝑄, 𝑄 → 𝑅 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑃

Solution:
𝑖) 𝑃 → 𝑄 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑖𝑖) 𝑃 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑖𝑖𝑖) 𝑄 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇 𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 (𝑖), (𝑖𝑖) 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑃, 𝑃 → 𝑄 𝑄
𝑖𝑣) 𝑄 → 𝑅 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑉) 𝑅 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇 𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 (𝑖𝑖𝑖), (𝑖𝑣) 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑄, 𝑄 → 𝑅 𝑅

Show that the following sets of premises are inconsistent.

𝑃 → 𝑄 , 𝑃 → 𝑅, 𝑄 → ¬𝑅, 𝑃
Solution:
𝑖) 𝑃 → 𝑄 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑖𝑖) 𝑄 → ¬𝑅 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑖𝑖𝑖) 𝑃 → ¬𝑅 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇 𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 (𝑖), (𝑖𝑖) 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑃 → 𝑄, 𝑄 → 𝑅 𝑃→𝑅
𝑖𝑣) 𝑃 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑣 ) ¬𝑅 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇 𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 (𝑖𝑖𝑖), (𝑖𝑣)
𝑣𝑖) 𝑃 → 𝑅 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑣𝑖𝑖) 𝑅 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇 𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 (𝑖𝑣), (𝑣𝑖), 𝑃, 𝑃 → 𝑅 𝑅
𝑣𝑖𝑖𝑖)𝑅⋀¬𝑅 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇
Given premises are inconsistent

If premises 𝑃, 𝑄 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑅 are inconsistent, prove that ¬𝑅 is a conclusion from

𝑃 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑄.
Solution:

www.tranquileducation.weebly.com
Given 𝑃, 𝑄 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑅 are inconsistent, 𝑃⋀𝑄⋀𝑅 𝐹 where F is contradiction
To prove: 𝑃⋀𝑄 ¬𝑅
Assume 𝑃⋀𝑄 is true
If ¬𝑅 is false 𝑅 is true
Then only 𝑃⋀𝑄⋀𝑅 is true which is contradiction.
¬𝑅 is true.
Hence 𝑃⋀𝑄 ¬𝑅

What is duality law of logical expression? Give the dual of (𝑃⋁𝐹)⋀(𝑄⋁𝑇).

Solution:
In an expression, if we replace ⋁, ⋀, 𝑇, 𝐹 respectively by ⋀, ⋁, 𝐹, 𝑇. The resulting new
formula is the dual of the given expression.
Dual of given formula is (𝑃⋀𝑇)⋁(𝑄⋀𝐹).

Define statement function of one variable. When it will become a statement?

Statement function is an expression containing symbols and an individual variable. It
becomes a statement when the variable is replaced by particular value.

Use quantifiers to express the associative law for multiplication of real numbers.
∀𝑥 ∀𝑦 ∀𝑧 ((𝑥. 𝑦). 𝑧 = 𝑥. (𝑦. 𝑧)) where the universe of discourse for 𝑥, 𝑦 and 𝑧 is the
set of real numbers.

Let the universe of discourse be 𝐸 = {5,6,7}. Let 𝐴 = {5,6} 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐵 = {6,7}.

𝐿𝑒𝑡 𝑃 𝑥 : 𝑥 𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝐴, 𝑄 𝑥 : 𝑥 𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝐵 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑅 𝑥, 𝑦 : 𝑥 + 𝑦 < 12.
𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑡𝑕𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑡𝑕 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 (∃𝑥)(𝑃(𝑥) → 𝑄(𝑥)) → 𝑅(5,6)
Solution:
𝑅(5,6) is true.
𝑃(5) is true and 𝑄(5) is false
𝑃(5) → 𝑄(5) is false
𝑃(6) is true and 𝑄(6) is true.
𝑃(6) → 𝑄(6) is true.
𝑃(7) is false and 𝑄(7) is true.
𝑃(7) → 𝑄(7) is false.
(∃𝑥)(𝑃(𝑥) → 𝑄(𝑥) is true.
Hence (∃𝑥)(𝑃(𝑥) → 𝑄(𝑥)) → 𝑅(5,6) is true

Give an example in which (∃𝑥)𝑃(𝑥) → (∃𝑥)𝑄(𝑥) is false.

Let the universe of discourse be 𝐸 = {3,4,5}
Let 𝑃(𝑥): 𝑥 < 5; 𝑄(𝑥) ∶ 𝑥 > 7
𝑃(3) is true.
(∃𝑥)𝑃(𝑥) is true.
For any 𝑥 𝑖𝑛 𝐸, 𝑄(𝑥) is false.
Hence (∃𝑥)𝑃(𝑥) → (∃𝑥)𝑄(𝑥) is false

www.tranquileducation.weebly.com
𝑃(6) is false and 𝑄(6) is false
𝑃(6) → 𝑄(6) is true.
(∃𝑥)(𝑃(𝑥) → 𝑄(𝑥)) is true.

Find the truth value of (𝑥)(𝑃 → 𝑄(𝑥))⋁ (𝑥)𝑅(𝑥) where 𝑃: 2 > 1, 𝑄(𝑥): 𝑥 > 3,
𝑅(𝑥) ∶ 𝑥 > 4 with the universe of discourse being 𝐸 = {2,3,4}.
Solution:
𝑃 is true and 𝑄(4) is false, 𝑃 → 𝑄(4) is false
(x) (P→Q(x)) is false.
Since 𝑅(2), 𝑅(3), 𝑅(4) are all false.
(𝑥)𝑅(𝑥) is false.
Hence (𝑥)(𝑃 → 𝑄(𝑥))⋁ (∃𝑥)𝑅(𝑥) is false.

Define compound statement function.

A compound statement function is obtained by combining one or more simple
statement functions by logical connectives.
Eg: 𝑀(𝑥) ⋀ 𝐻(𝑥), 𝑀(𝑥) → 𝐻(𝑥), 𝑀(𝑥)⋀ ¬𝐻(𝑥)

Define Free and Bound variables.

When a quantifier is used on the variable x or when we assign a value to this variable,
we say that this occurrence of the variable is bound. An occurrence of a variable that is
not bound by a quantifier or set equal to a particular value is said to be free.
All the variables can be done using a combination of universal quantifiers, existential
quantifiers and value assignments.
Eg: (𝑥) 𝑃(𝑥, 𝑦)
Here 𝑃(𝑥, 𝑦) is the scope of the quantifier and both occurrence of 𝑥 are bound
occurrences, while the occurrence of 𝑦 is a free occurrence.

Let 𝑃(𝑥): 𝑥 is a person

𝐹(𝑥, 𝑦): 𝑥 is the father of 𝑦
𝑀(𝑥, 𝑦): 𝑥 is the mother of 𝑦.
Write the predicate “ 𝑥 is the father of the mother of 𝑦”.
We symbolize the predicate the name a person called 𝑧 as the mother of 𝑦.
It is assumed that such a person 𝑧 exists. We symbolize the predicate as
(∃𝑧)𝑃(𝑧) ⋀𝐹(𝑥, 𝑧) ⋀ 𝑀(𝑧, 𝑦)

Symbolize the expression “All the world loves a mother”

Let 𝑃(𝑥) ∶ 𝑥 is a person
𝑀(𝑥): 𝑥 is a mother
𝑅(𝑥, 𝑦) ∶ 𝑥 loves 𝑦
The required expression is (𝑥)(𝑃(𝑥) → (𝑦)(𝑃(𝑦)⋀ 𝑀(𝑦) → 𝑅(𝑥, 𝑦))

Symbolize the statement “ All men are giants:

𝐺(𝑥): 𝑥 is a gaint

www.tranquileducation.weebly.com
𝑀(𝑥): 𝑥 is a man
Symbolically, (𝑥) (𝑀(𝑥) → 𝐺(𝑥))

Symbolize: For every 𝑥, there exists a 𝑦 such that 𝑥 2 + 𝑦 2 ≤ 100.

(𝑥) ( ∃𝑦) (𝑥 2 + 𝑦 2 ≤ 100)

Consider the statement “ Give any positive integer, there is a greater positive integer”.
For all x, there exists a y such that y is greater than x. If 𝐺(𝑥, 𝑦) is “ 𝑥 is greater than 𝑦”
then the given statement is (𝑥)( ∃𝑦) 𝐺(𝑦, 𝑥)
If we do not impose the restriction on the universe of discourse and if we write 𝑃(𝑥) for
“ 𝑥 is a positive integer” , then we can symbolize the given statement is
(𝑥)(𝑃(𝑥) → (∃𝑦)(𝑃(𝑦)⋀𝐺(𝑦, 𝑥)))

Give the symbolic form of the statement “ Every book with a blue cover is a
mathematics book”
Let 𝐵(𝑥) ∶ 𝑥 is every book with a blue cover
𝑀(𝑥) ∶ 𝑥 is mathematics book.
(𝑥) ((𝐵(𝑥) → 𝑀(𝑥))

Write each of the following in symbolic form

i) All men are good.
ii) No men are good.
Solution:
i) All men are good.
𝑀(𝑥) ∶ 𝑥 is a man
𝐺(𝑥) ∶ 𝑥 is good
(𝑥) [𝑀(𝑥) → 𝐺(𝑥)]
ii) No men are good
This can be written as, “For all x, if x is a man, then x is not good”
(𝑥)[𝑀(𝑥) → ¬𝐺(𝑥)]

Write each of the following in symbolic form

𝑖)𝑆𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑚𝑒𝑛 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑔𝑜𝑜𝑑.
𝑖𝑖)𝑆𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑚𝑒𝑛 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑔𝑜𝑜𝑑.
Solution:
i)Some men are good.
Let 𝑀(𝑥) ∶ 𝑥 is a man
𝐺(𝑥) ∶ 𝑥 is good
(∃𝑥)(𝑀(𝑥)⋀𝐺(𝑥))
ii) Some men are not good.
(∃𝑥)(𝑀(𝑥)⋀¬𝐺(𝑥))

www.tranquileducation.weebly.com
Show that (𝑥)(𝐻(𝑥) → 𝑀(𝑥) ⋀ 𝐻(𝑠)) 𝑀(𝑠). Note that this problem is a symbolic
translation of a well-known argument known as “Socrates argument” which is given by
,All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, Therefore Socrates is a mortal.
If we denote 𝐻(𝑥) ∶ 𝑥 is a man, 𝑀(𝑥) ∶ 𝑥 is a mortal, 𝑠 : Socrates
We can put the argument in the above form.
𝑖) (𝑥)(𝐻(𝑥) → 𝑀(𝑥)) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑖𝑖) 𝐻(𝑠) → 𝑀(𝑠) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑈𝑆 𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑖)
𝑖𝑖𝑖) 𝐻(𝑠) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑖𝑣) 𝑀(𝑠) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇

Verify the validity of the following argument.

All men are intelligent.
Krishna is a man.
Therefore Krishna is a intelligent.
Solution:
𝑃(𝑥) ∶ 𝑥 is man
𝑄(𝑥) ∶ 𝑥 is intelligent
𝑆 ∶ Krishna
We need to show (𝑥)(𝑃(𝑥) → 𝑄(𝑥)) ⋀ 𝑃(𝑠) 𝑄(𝑠)
𝑖) (𝑥)(𝑃(𝑥) → 𝑄(𝑥)) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑖𝑖)𝑃(𝑠) → 𝑄(𝑠) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑈𝑆
𝑖𝑖𝑖) 𝑃(𝑠) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑖𝑣)𝑄(𝑠) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇 𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑖𝑖) & 𝑖𝑖𝑖).

Define universe of discourse.

The variables which are quantified stand for only those objects which are members of a
particular set or class. Such a restricted class is called the universe of discourse or the
domain of individuals or simply the universe.

Consider the statement “ Given any positive integer, there is a greater positive integer”
. Symbolize this statement with and without using the set of positive integers as the
universe of discourse.
For all 𝑥, there exists a 𝑦 such that 𝑦 is greater than 𝑥. If 𝐺(𝑥, 𝑦) is “ 𝑥 is greater than 𝑦”,
then the given statement is (𝑥)( ∃ 𝑦) 𝐺(𝑦, 𝑥).
If we do not impose the restriction on the universe of discourse and if we writer 𝑃(𝑥)
for “ 𝑥 is a positive integer”, then we can symbolize the given statement is
(𝑥)(𝑃(𝑥) → (∃𝑦)(𝑃(𝑦) ^ 𝐺(𝑦, 𝑥)))

Define Universal quantifiers

The universal quantification of 𝑃(𝑥) is the proposition. “𝑃(𝑥) is true for all values of 𝑥
in the universe of discourse”
The notation (𝑥)𝑃(𝑥) denotes the universal quantification of 𝑃(𝑥). Here (𝑥) is called
the universal quantifier.

www.tranquileducation.weebly.com
Define existential quantifier.
The existential quantification of 𝑃(𝑥) is the proposition. “There exists an element x in
the universe of discourse such that P(x) is true”
We use the notation (∃𝑥)(𝑃(𝑥)) for the existential quantification of 𝑃(𝑥). Here ∃ is
called the existential quantifier.

Write the universal specification in quantifiers.

From (𝑥) 𝐴(𝑥) one can conclude 𝐴(𝑦). If (𝑥) 𝐴(𝑥) is true for every element 𝑥 in the
universe, then 𝐴(𝑦) is true.
(𝑥)𝐴(𝑥) 𝐴(𝑦)

Define Existential specification in quantifiers

From (∃𝑥) 𝐴(𝑥) one can conclude 𝐴(𝑦). If (∃𝑥) 𝐴(𝑥) is true for some element 𝑥 in the
universe, then 𝐴(𝑦) is true.
(∃𝑥)𝐴(𝑥) 𝐴(𝑦)

Define Existential Generalization.

From 𝐴(𝑥) one can conclude (∃𝑦) 𝐴(𝑦). If 𝐴(𝑥) is true for some element 𝑥 in the
universe, then (∃𝑦) 𝐴(𝑦) is true.
𝐴(𝑥) (∃𝑦)𝐴(𝑦)

Define Universal Generalization

From 𝐴(𝑥) one can conclude (𝑦)𝐴(𝑦). If 𝐴(𝑥) is true for every element 𝑥 in the
universe, then (𝑦) 𝐴(𝑦) is true.

𝐴(𝑥) (𝑦)𝐴(𝑦)
Show that ¬𝑃(𝑎, 𝑏) follows logically from (𝑥)(𝑦)(𝑃(𝑥, 𝑦) → 𝑤(𝑥, 𝑦)) and ¬𝑤(𝑎, 𝑏)
Solution:
i) (𝑥)(𝑦)(𝑃(𝑥, 𝑦) → 𝑤(𝑥, 𝑦)) Given premise
ii)(𝑦) 𝑃(𝑎, 𝑦) → 𝑤(𝑎, 𝑦) US
iii)𝑃(𝑎, 𝑏) → 𝑤(𝑎, 𝑏) US
iv)¬𝑤(𝑎, 𝑏) Rule P
v) ¬𝑃(𝑎, 𝑏) (iii),(iv), Modus tollens
If the universe of discourse is finite, then show that ¬[(∃𝑥)𝑃(𝑥)] ⇔ (𝑥)[¬𝑃(𝑥)].
Solution:
Let the universe of discourse be 𝑈 = {𝑥1 , 𝑥2 , … , 𝑥𝑛 } be finite.
By using DeMorgan’s Law of propositional calculus, we have
¬[(∃𝑥)𝑃(𝑥)] ⇔ ¬[𝑃(𝑥1 )⋁𝑃(𝑥2 ) … ⋁𝑃(𝑥𝑛 )]
⇔ ¬𝑃(𝑥1 )⋀¬𝑃(𝑥2 )⋀ … ⋀¬𝑃(𝑥𝑛 )
⇔ (𝑥)[¬𝑃(𝑥)]

www.tranquileducation.weebly.com
 Part B

Without using truth table, show that (¬𝑃⋀(¬𝑄⋀𝑅))⋁(𝑄⋀𝑅)⋁(𝑃⋀𝑅) ⇔ 𝑅

Solution:
(¬𝑃⋀(¬𝑄⋀𝑅))⋁(𝑄⋀𝑅)⋁(𝑃⋀𝑅)
⇔ ¬𝑃⋀ ¬𝑄⋀𝑅 ⋁ 𝑄 ⋁𝑃 ⋀𝑅 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑤
⇔ ¬𝑃⋀¬𝑄 ⋀𝑅 ⋁ 𝑄 ⋁𝑃 ⋀𝑅 𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑤
⇔ ¬ 𝑃⋁𝑄 ⋀𝑅 ⋁ 𝑄 ⋁𝑃 ⋀𝑅 𝐷𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑔𝑎𝑛′𝑠 𝑙𝑎𝑤
⇔ ¬ 𝑃⋁𝑄 ⋀𝑅 ⋁ 𝑃 ⋁𝑄 ⋀𝑅 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑤
⇔ ¬ 𝑃⋁𝑄 ⋁ 𝑃 ⋁𝑄 ⋀𝑅 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑤
⇔ 𝑇⋀𝑅 ¬𝑃⋀ 𝑃 𝑇
⇔𝑅 𝑇⋀𝑃 𝑃

Without using truth table, show that (𝑃⋁𝑄)⋀(¬𝑃⋀(¬𝑃⋀𝑄)) ⇔ (¬𝑃 ⋀ 𝑄)

Solution:
(𝑃⋁𝑄)⋀(¬𝑃⋀(¬𝑃⋀𝑄))
⇔ (𝑃⋁𝑄)⋀( ¬𝑃⋀¬𝑃 ⋀𝑄) 𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑤
⇔ (𝑃⋁𝑄)⋀(¬𝑃⋀𝑄) 𝐼𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑙𝑎𝑤
⇔ (𝑃⋀(¬𝑃⋀𝑄))⋁(𝑄⋀(¬𝑃⋀𝑄)) 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑤
⇔ ( 𝑃⋀¬𝑃 ⋀𝑄)⋁( 𝑄⋀¬𝑃 ⋀𝑄) 𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑤
⇔ 𝑃⋀¬𝑃 ⋁ 𝑄⋀¬𝑃 ⋀𝑄 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑤
⇔ 𝐹 ⋁ 𝑄⋀¬𝑃 ⋀𝑄 𝑃⋀¬𝑃 𝐹
⇔ 𝑄⋀¬𝑃 ⋀𝑄 𝐹⋁𝑃 𝑃
⇔ ¬𝑃⋀𝑄 ⋀𝑄 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑤
⇔ ¬𝑃⋀ 𝑄⋀𝑄 𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑤
⇔ ¬𝑃⋀𝑄 𝐼𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑙𝑎𝑤

Without using truth table obtain disjunctive normal forms of

¬(𝑃 ⋁ 𝑄) ↔ (𝑃 ⋀ 𝑄)
Solution:
¬(𝑃 ⋁ 𝑄) ↔ (𝑃 ⋀ 𝑄)
≡ ¬(𝑃 ⋁ 𝑄) → (𝑃 ⋀ 𝑄) ⋀ (𝑃 ⋀ 𝑄) → ¬(𝑃 ⋁ 𝑄)
≡ ¬¬(𝑃 ⋁ 𝑄) ⋁ (𝑃 ⋀ 𝑄) ⋀ ¬(𝑃 ⋀ 𝑄) ⋁ ¬(𝑃 ⋁ 𝑄)
≡ (𝑃 ⋁ 𝑄) ⋁ (𝑃 ⋀ 𝑄) ⋀ (¬𝑃 ⋁ ¬𝑄) ⋁ (¬𝑃 ⋀¬ 𝑄)
≡ (𝑃 ⋁ 𝑄) ⋁ 𝑃 ⋀ (𝑃 ⋁ 𝑄) ⋁ 𝑄 ⋀ (¬𝑃 ⋁ ¬𝑄⋁¬𝑃) ⋀ (¬𝑃 ⋁ ¬𝑄⋁¬𝑄)
≡ (𝑃 ⋁ 𝑄) ⋀(𝑃 ⋁ 𝑄) ⋀( ¬𝑃 ⋁ ¬𝑄) ⋀ (¬𝑃 ⋁ ¬𝑄)
≡ (𝑃 ⋁ 𝑄) ⋀(¬𝑃 ⋁ ¬𝑄)
www.tranquileducation.weebly.com
 ≡ ( 𝑃 ⋁ 𝑄 ⋀¬𝑃) ⋁( 𝑃 ⋁ 𝑄 ⋀¬𝑄)
≡ 𝑃 ⋀¬𝑃 ⋁ 𝑄⋀¬𝑃 ⋁ 𝑃⋀¬𝑄 ⋁ 𝑄⋀¬𝑄
≡ 𝐹⋁ 𝑄⋀¬𝑃 ⋁ 𝑃⋀¬𝑄 ⋁ 𝐹
𝑄⋀¬𝑃 ⋁ 𝑃⋀¬𝑄

Without using truth table obtain conjunctive normal forms of

𝑃 → ((𝑃 → 𝑄) ⋀ ¬(¬𝑄⋁¬𝑃))
Solution:
𝑃 → ((𝑃 → 𝑄) ⋀ ¬(¬𝑄⋁¬𝑃))
≡ 𝑃 → ((¬𝑃⋁𝑄) ⋀ ¬(¬𝑄⋁¬𝑃))
≡ 𝑃 → ((¬𝑃⋁𝑄) ⋀ (𝑄⋀𝑃))
≡ 𝑃 → (¬𝑃 ⋀ (𝑄⋀𝑃))⋁(𝑄 ⋀ (𝑄⋀𝑃))
≡ 𝑃 → (¬𝑃 ⋀ (𝑃⋀𝑄))⋁(𝑄 ⋀ (𝑄⋀𝑃))
≡ 𝑃 → ( ¬𝑃 ⋀ 𝑃 ⋀𝑄)⋁( 𝑄 ⋀ 𝑄 ⋀𝑃)
≡ 𝑃 → 𝐹⋁(𝑄⋀𝑃)
≡ 𝑃 → (𝑄⋀𝑃)
≡ ¬𝑃⋁ (𝑄⋀𝑃)
≡ ¬𝑃⋁ 𝑄 ⋀(¬𝑃⋁𝑃)
≡ ¬𝑃⋁ 𝑄 ⋀𝑇
≡ ¬𝑃⋁ 𝑄 which is CNF
Without constructing the truth table obtain the product of sums canonical form of the
formula (¬𝑃 → 𝑅) ⋀ (𝑄 ↔ 𝑅)
Solution:
(¬𝑃 → 𝑅) ⋀ (𝑄 ↔ 𝑅)
≡ (¬¬𝑃⋁𝑅) ⋀ (𝑄 → 𝑅)⋀ (𝑅 → 𝑄)
≡ (𝑃⋁𝑅) ⋀ (𝑄 → 𝑅)⋀ (𝑅 → 𝑄)
≡ (𝑃⋁𝑅) ⋀ (¬𝑄 ⋁ 𝑅)⋀ (¬𝑅 ⋁ 𝑄)
≡ (𝑃⋁𝑅⋁ 𝑄⋀¬𝑄 ) ⋀ ( 𝑃⋀¬𝑃 ⋁¬𝑄 ⋁ 𝑅)⋀ ( 𝑃⋀¬𝑃 ⋁¬𝑅 ⋁ 𝑄)
≡ (𝑃⋁𝑅⋁𝑄) ⋀ (𝑃⋁𝑅⋁¬𝑄)⋀ 𝑃⋁¬𝑄 ⋁ 𝑅 ⋀ ¬𝑃⋁¬𝑄 ⋁ 𝑅
⋀ (𝑃⋁¬𝑅 ⋁ 𝑄)⋀ (¬𝑃⋁¬𝑅 ⋁ 𝑄)
≡ (𝑃⋁𝑅⋁𝑄) ⋀ 𝑃⋁¬𝑄 ⋁ 𝑅 ⋀ ¬𝑃⋁¬𝑄 ⋁ 𝑅
⋀ (𝑃⋁¬𝑅 ⋁ 𝑄)⋀ (¬𝑃⋁¬𝑅 ⋁ 𝑄) writing the repeating terms only once
which is the PCNF of (¬𝑃 → 𝑅) ⋀ (𝑄 ↔ 𝑅)

Without using truth table obtain the product of sums canonical form of
(𝑃⋀𝑄⋀𝑅)⋁(¬𝑃⋀𝑄⋀𝑅)⋁(¬𝑃⋀¬𝑄⋀¬𝑅)
Solution:
𝐿𝑒𝑡 𝑆 ≡ (𝑃⋀𝑄⋀𝑅)⋁(¬𝑃⋀𝑄⋀𝑅)⋁(¬𝑃⋀¬𝑄⋀¬𝑅) which is PDNF
¬𝑆 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑡𝑕𝑒 𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑃𝐷𝑁𝐹
¬𝑆 ≡ (𝑃⋀¬𝑄⋀𝑅)⋁(𝑃⋀𝑄⋀¬𝑅)⋁(¬𝑃⋀¬𝑄⋀𝑅)⋁(¬𝑃⋀𝑄⋀¬𝑅)
⋁(𝑃⋀¬𝑄⋀¬𝑅)
¬¬𝑆 ≡ ¬(𝑃⋀¬𝑄⋀𝑅)⋀¬(𝑃⋀𝑄⋀¬𝑅)⋀¬(¬𝑃⋀¬𝑄⋀𝑅)⋀¬(¬𝑃⋀𝑄⋀¬𝑅)
⋀¬(𝑃⋀¬𝑄⋀¬𝑅)
www.tranquileducation.weebly.com
𝑆 ≡ (¬𝑃⋁𝑄⋁¬𝑅)⋀(¬𝑃⋁¬𝑄⋁𝑅)⋀(𝑃⋁𝑄⋁¬𝑅)⋀(𝑃⋁¬𝑄⋁𝑅)
⋀(¬𝑃⋁𝑄⋁𝑅) which is PCNF
Without constructing the truth table obtain PDNF of (𝑃⋀𝑄)⋁(¬𝑃⋀𝑅)⋁(𝑄⋀𝑅). Also
find PCNF.
Solution:
𝐿𝑒𝑡 𝑆 ≡ (𝑃⋀𝑄)⋁(¬𝑃⋀𝑅)⋁(𝑄⋀𝑅)
≡ ( 𝑃⋀𝑄 ⋀ 𝑅⋁¬𝑅 )⋁(¬𝑃⋀ 𝑄⋁¬𝑄 ⋀𝑅)⋁( 𝑃⋁¬𝑃 ⋀ 𝑄⋀𝑅 )
≡ 𝑃⋀𝑄⋀𝑅 ⋁ 𝑃⋀𝑄⋀¬𝑅 ⋁ ¬𝑃⋀𝑄 ⋁ ¬𝑃⋀¬𝑄 ⋀𝑅
⋁ 𝑃⋀𝑄⋀𝑅 ⋁ ¬𝑃⋀𝑄⋀𝑅
≡ 𝑃⋀𝑄⋀𝑅 ⋁ 𝑃⋀𝑄⋀¬𝑅 ⋁ ¬𝑃⋀𝑄⋀𝑅 ⋁ ¬𝑃⋀¬𝑄⋀𝑅
⋁ 𝑃⋀𝑄⋀𝑅 ⋁ ¬𝑃⋀𝑄⋀𝑅
≡ 𝑃⋀𝑄⋀𝑅 ⋁ 𝑃⋀𝑄⋀¬𝑅 ⋁ ¬𝑃⋀𝑄⋀𝑅 ⋁ ¬𝑃⋀¬𝑄⋀𝑅
which is PDNF
¬𝑆 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑡𝑕𝑒 𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑃𝐷𝑁𝐹
¬𝑆 ≡ 𝑃⋀¬𝑄⋀𝑅 ⋁ 𝑃⋀¬𝑄⋀¬𝑅 ⋁ ¬𝑃⋀𝑄⋀¬𝑅 ⋁ ¬𝑃⋀¬𝑄⋀¬𝑅
¬¬𝑆 ≡ ¬ 𝑃⋀¬𝑄⋀𝑅 ⋀¬ 𝑃⋀¬𝑄⋀¬𝑅 ⋀¬ ¬𝑃⋀𝑄⋀¬𝑅 ⋀¬ ¬𝑃⋀¬𝑄⋀¬𝑅
𝑆 ≡ ¬𝑃⋁𝑄⋁¬𝑅 ⋀ ¬𝑃⋁𝑄⋁𝑅 ⋀ 𝑃⋁¬𝑄⋁𝑅 ⋀ 𝑃⋁𝑄⋁𝑅
which is PCNF

Without constructing the truth table show that

¬(𝑃⋀𝑄) → (¬𝑃⋁(¬𝑃⋁𝑄)) ⇔ (¬𝑃⋁𝑄)
Solution:
¬(𝑃⋀𝑄) → (¬𝑃⋁(¬𝑃⋁𝑄))
⇔ ¬(𝑃⋀𝑄) → ( ¬𝑃⋁¬𝑃 ⋁𝑄)
⇔ ¬(𝑃⋀𝑄) → (¬𝑃⋁𝑄)
⇔ ¬¬(𝑃⋀𝑄)⋁(¬𝑃⋁𝑄)
⇔ (𝑃⋀𝑄)⋁(¬𝑃⋁𝑄)
⇔ (𝑃⋁ ¬𝑃⋁𝑄 )⋀(𝑄⋁ ¬𝑃⋁𝑄 )
⇔ ((𝑃⋁¬𝑃)⋁𝑄)⋀(𝑄⋁ ¬𝑃⋁𝑄 )
⇔ (𝑇⋁𝑄)⋀(𝑄⋁ ¬𝑃⋁𝑄 )
⇔ 𝑇⋀(𝑄⋁ ¬𝑃⋁𝑄 )
⇔ 𝑄⋁ ¬𝑃⋁𝑄
⇔ ¬𝑃⋁𝑄 ⋁ 𝑄
⇔ ¬𝑃⋁(𝑄⋁ 𝑄)
⇔ ¬𝑃⋁𝑄

Without constructing the truth table show that (𝑃⋀𝑄) → (𝑃⋁𝑄) is a tautology.
Solution:
(𝑃⋀𝑄) → (𝑃⋁𝑄)
¬(𝑃⋀𝑄)⋁(𝑃⋁𝑄)

www.tranquileducation.weebly.com
 (¬𝑃⋁¬𝑄)⋁(𝑃⋁𝑄)
¬𝑃⋁(¬𝑄⋁𝑃)⋁𝑄
¬𝑃⋁(𝑃⋁¬𝑄)⋁𝑄
(¬𝑃⋁𝑃)⋁(¬𝑄⋁𝑄)
𝑇⋁𝑇
𝑇
(𝑃⋀𝑄) → (𝑃⋁𝑄) is a tautology

Without constructing the truth table obtain the PDNF of ¬𝑃⋁𝑄. Also find PCNF.
Solution:
Let 𝑆 ≡ ¬𝑃⋁𝑄
≡ ¬𝑃⋀ 𝑄⋁¬ 𝑄 ⋁ 𝑃 ⋁¬𝑃 ⋀𝑄
≡ ¬𝑃⋀𝑄 ⋁ ¬𝑃⋀¬𝑄 ⋁ 𝑃⋀𝑄 ⋁ ¬𝑃⋀𝑄
≡ ¬𝑃⋀𝑄 ⋁ ¬𝑃⋀¬𝑄 ⋁ 𝑃⋀𝑄 𝑖𝑠 𝑎 PDNF
¬𝑆 ≡ 𝑃⋀¬𝑄
¬¬𝑆 ≡ ¬ 𝑃⋀¬𝑄
𝑆 ≡ ¬𝑃⋁𝑄 is a PCNF

Without constructing the truth table show that 𝑅 ⋁ 𝑆 from the following premises,
𝐶⋁𝐷, (𝐶⋁𝐷) → ¬𝐻 , ¬𝐻 → (𝐴⋀¬𝐵) 𝑎𝑛𝑑 (𝐴⋀¬𝐵) → (𝑅⋁𝑆).
Solution:
𝑖) 𝐶⋁𝐷 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑖𝑖) (𝐶⋁𝐷) → ¬𝐻 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑖𝑖𝑖) ¬𝐻 → (𝐴⋀¬𝐵) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑖𝑣) (𝐶⋁𝐷) → (𝐴⋀¬𝐵) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑖𝑖 , 𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑕𝑦𝑝𝑜𝑡𝑕𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑦𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑠𝑚
𝑣) (𝐴⋀¬𝐵) → (𝑅⋁𝑆) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑣𝑖) (𝐶⋁𝐷) → (𝑅⋁𝑆) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑖𝑣 , 𝑣 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑕𝑦𝑝𝑜𝑡𝑕𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑦𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑠𝑚
𝑣𝑖𝑖) 𝑅⋁𝑆 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑖, 𝑣𝑖 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑠

Without constructing the truth table show that 𝑅 ⋀ (𝑃⋁𝑄) is a valid conclusion from the
premises 𝑃⋁𝑄, 𝑄 → 𝑅, 𝑃 → 𝑀 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ¬𝑀.
𝑖) 𝑃⋁𝑄 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑖𝑖) 𝑃 → 𝑀 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑖𝑖𝑖) ¬𝑀 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑖𝑣) ¬𝑃 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑖𝑖, 𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑠 𝑡𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑠
𝑣) 𝑄 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑖, 𝑖𝑣 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑗𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑠𝑦𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑠𝑚
𝑣𝑖) 𝑄 → 𝑅 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑣𝑖𝑖) 𝑅 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑣, 𝑣𝑖 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑠
𝑣𝑖𝑖𝑖) 𝑅 ⋀ 𝑃⋁𝑄 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑣𝑖𝑖, 𝑖 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

Show that the following premises are inconsistent.

If Jack misses many classes through illness, then he fails high school.

www.tranquileducation.weebly.com
If Jack fails high school, then he is uneducated
If Jack reads a lot of books, then he is not uneducated.
Jack misses many classes through illness and reads a lot of books.
Solution:
Let 𝐶 represents Jack misses many classes through illness
Let 𝐹 represents Jack fails high school
Let 𝐸 represents Jack is uneducated
Let 𝐵 represents Jack reads lot of books
The symbolic representation of the problem is
𝐶 → 𝐹, 𝐹 → 𝐸, 𝐵 → ¬𝐸, 𝐶⋀𝐵 are inconsistent.

𝑖) 𝐶⋀𝐵 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑖𝑖) 𝐶 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑖, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑆𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑖𝑖𝑖) 𝐵 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑖 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑆𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑖𝑣) 𝐶 → 𝐹 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑣) 𝐹 → 𝐸 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑣𝑖) 𝐶 → 𝐸 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑖𝑣, 𝑣 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑕𝑦𝑝𝑜𝑡𝑕𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑦𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑠𝑚
𝑣𝑖𝑖) 𝐵 → ¬𝐸 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑝
𝑣𝑖𝑖𝑖) ¬𝐸 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑖𝑖𝑖, 𝑣𝑖𝑖 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑠
𝑖𝑥) 𝐸 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑖𝑖, 𝑣𝑖 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑠
𝑥) 𝐸⋀¬𝐸 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑣𝑖𝑖𝑖, 𝑥𝑖 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑥𝑖) 𝐹 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑥 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑛𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑙𝑎𝑤
The set of given premises are inconsistent.

Show that the following set of premises is inconsistent.

If the contract is valid, then John is liable for penalty. If John is liable for penalty, he
will go bankrupt. If the bank will loan him money, he will not go bankrupt. As a matter of
fact, the contract is valid and bank will loan him money.
Solution:
Let 𝐶 represents the contract is valid
Let 𝑃 represents John is liable for penalty
Let 𝐵 represents John will go bankrupt
Let 𝑀 represents bank will loan him money
The symbolic representation of the problem is
𝐶 → 𝑃, 𝑃 → 𝐵, 𝑀 → ¬𝐵, 𝐶⋀𝑀 are inconsistent.

𝑖) 𝐶⋀𝑀 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑖𝑖) 𝐶 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑖, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑆𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑖𝑖𝑖) 𝑀 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑖, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑆𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑖𝑣) 𝐶 → 𝑃 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑣) 𝑃 → 𝐵 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑣𝑖) 𝐶 → 𝐵 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑖𝑣, 𝑣 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑕𝑦𝑝𝑜𝑡𝑕𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑦𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑠𝑚

www.tranquileducation.weebly.com
𝑣𝑖𝑖) 𝑀 → ¬𝐵 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑝
𝑣𝑖𝑖𝑖) ¬𝐵 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑖𝑖𝑖, 𝑣𝑖𝑖 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑠
𝑖𝑥) 𝐵 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑖𝑖, 𝑣𝑖 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑠
𝑥) 𝐵⋀ ¬𝐵 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑣𝑖𝑖𝑖, 𝑥𝑖 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑥𝑖) 𝐹 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑥 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑛𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑙𝑎𝑤
The set of given premises are inconsistent.

By Indirect proof, Show that 𝑃 → 𝑄, 𝑄 → 𝑅, 𝑃⋁𝑅 𝑅.

Solution:
𝐿𝑒𝑡 𝑢𝑠 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑡𝑕𝑎𝑡 ¬𝑅 𝑏𝑒 𝑡𝑕𝑒 𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑
𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑒 𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑖) ¬𝑅 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝐴𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑃
𝑖𝑖) 𝑄 → 𝑅 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑖𝑖𝑖) ¬𝑄 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑖, 𝑖𝑖 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑠 𝑡𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑠
𝑖𝑣) 𝑃 → 𝑄 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑣) ¬𝑃 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑖𝑖𝑖, 𝑖𝑣 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑠 𝑡𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑠
𝑣𝑖) ¬𝑃⋀¬𝑅 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑖𝑖𝑖, 𝑣 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑣𝑖𝑖) ¬ 𝑃⋁𝑅 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑣𝑖 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑔𝑎𝑛𝑠 𝑙𝑎𝑤
𝑣𝑖𝑖𝑖) 𝑃⋁𝑅 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑖𝑥) ¬ 𝑃⋁𝑅 ⋀ 𝑃⋁𝑅 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑣𝑖𝑖, 𝑣𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑥) 𝐹 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑖𝑥 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑁𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

Without using truth tables, show that 𝑄 ⋁(𝑃⋀¬𝑄)⋁(¬𝑃⋀¬𝑄) is tautology.

Solution:
𝑄 ⋁(𝑃⋀¬𝑄)⋁(¬𝑃⋀¬𝑄)
𝑄 ⋁𝑃 ⋀(𝑄⋁¬𝑄) ⋁(¬𝑃⋀¬𝑄) 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑤
𝑄 ⋁𝑃 ⋀ 𝑇 ⋁(¬𝑃⋀¬𝑄) 𝑄⋁¬𝑄 = 𝑇
𝑄 ⋁𝑃 ⋁(¬𝑃⋀¬𝑄) 𝑄⋀𝑇 = 𝑄
𝑄 ⋁𝑃 ⋁ ¬𝑃 ⋀ 𝑄 ⋁𝑃 ⋁ ¬𝑄 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑤
𝑄 ⋁ 𝑃 ⋁ ¬𝑃 ⋀ 𝑃 ⋁𝑄 ⋁ ¬𝑄 𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 & 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑤
𝑄 ⋁ 𝑃 ⋁ ¬𝑃 ⋀ 𝑃 ⋁ 𝑄 ⋁ ¬𝑄 𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑤
𝑄⋁𝑇 ⋀ 𝑃⋁𝑇 𝑄⋁¬𝑄 = 𝑇
𝑇⋀ 𝑇 𝑄⋁𝑇 =𝑇
𝑇
𝑄 ⋁(𝑃⋀¬𝑄)⋁(¬𝑃⋀¬𝑄) is tautology

Without constructing the truth table show that 𝑆 is valid inference from the
premises 𝑃 → ¬𝑄, 𝑄⋁𝑅, ¬𝑆 → 𝑃 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ¬𝑅.
Solution:
𝑖) 𝑄⋁𝑅 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑖𝑖) ¬𝑅 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃

www.tranquileducation.weebly.com
𝑖𝑖𝑖) 𝑄 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑖, 𝑖𝑖 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑗𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑠𝑦𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑠𝑚
𝑖𝑣) 𝑃 → ¬𝑄 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑣) ¬𝑃 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑖𝑖𝑖, 𝑖𝑣 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑠 𝑡𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑠
𝑣𝑖) ¬𝑆 → 𝑃 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
𝑣𝑖𝑖) ¬¬𝑆 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑣, 𝑣𝑖 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑠 𝑡𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑠
𝑣𝑖𝑖𝑖) 𝑆 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 𝑣𝑖𝑖 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑁𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

Show that (𝑥) (𝑃(𝑥) → 𝑄(𝑥)) ⋀(𝑄(𝑥) → 𝑅(𝑥) (𝑥)(𝑃(𝑥) → 𝑅(𝑥))

Solution:
1. 𝑥 (𝑃(𝑥) → 𝑄(𝑥)) ⋀(𝑄(𝑥) → 𝑅(𝑥) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
2. (𝑃(𝑎) → 𝑄(𝑎)) ⋀(𝑄(𝑎) → 𝑅 𝑎 ) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑈𝑆 ,1
3. 𝑃 𝑎 → 𝑄 𝑎 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇 ,2
4. 𝑄(𝑎) → 𝑅 𝑎 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇 ,2
5. 𝑃 𝑎 → 𝑅 𝑎 𝑆𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, 3,4
6. (𝑥)(𝑃(𝑥) → 𝑅(𝑥)) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑈𝐺 ,5

Show that (∃𝑥) 𝑀(𝑥) follows logically from the premises.

(𝑥)(𝐻(𝑥) → 𝑀(𝑥)) 𝑎𝑛𝑑 (∃𝑥)𝐻(𝑥)
Solution:
1. 𝑥 𝐻 𝑥 → 𝑀 𝑥 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
2. 𝐻 𝑎 → 𝑀 𝑎 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑈𝑆 ,1
3. ∃𝑥 𝐻 𝑥 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
4. 𝐻 𝑎 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝐸𝑆, 3
5. 𝑀 𝑎 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑠 ,2,4
6. ∃𝑥 𝑀 𝑥 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝐸𝐺 ,5

Prove that ∃𝑥 𝑃 𝑥 ⋀𝑄 𝑥 ∃𝑥 𝑃 𝑥 ⋀ ∃𝑥 𝑄 𝑥
Solution:
1. (∃𝑥)(𝑃(𝑥)⋀𝑄(𝑥)) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
2. 𝑃(𝑎)⋀𝑄(𝑎) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝐸𝑆 ,1
3. 𝑃 𝑎 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 2
4. (∃𝑥)𝑃(𝑥) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝐸𝐺, 3
5. 𝑄 𝑎 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 2
6. ∃𝑥 𝑄 𝑥 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝐸𝐺 ,5
7. ∃𝑥 𝑃 𝑥 ⋀ ∃𝑥 𝑄 𝑥 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ,4,6

Show that from ∃𝑥 𝐹 𝑥 ⋀𝑆 𝑥 → 𝑦 𝑀 𝑦 → 𝑤 𝑦 ,

(∃𝑦)(𝑀(𝑦) ⋀ ¬𝑤(𝑦)) (𝑥)𝐹(𝑥) → ¬𝑆(𝑥)
Solution:
1. (∃𝑦)(𝑀(𝑦) ⋀ ¬𝑤(𝑦)) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
2. 𝑀(𝑎) ⋀ ¬𝑤(𝑎) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝐸𝑆 ,1
3. ¬ ¬𝑀(𝑎) ⋁ 𝑤(𝑎) 2, 𝐷𝑒 𝑀𝑜𝑟𝑔𝑎𝑛′𝑠 𝑙𝑎𝑤
4. ¬ 𝑀 𝑎 → 𝑤 𝑎 3, 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑗𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙
5. ∃𝑥 𝐹 𝑥 ⋀𝑆 𝑥 → 𝑦 𝑀 𝑦 → 𝑤 𝑦 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃

www.tranquileducation.weebly.com
 6. 𝐹 𝑏 ⋀𝑆 𝑏 → 𝑀 𝑎 → 𝑤 𝑎 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝐸𝑆 ,5
7. ¬ 𝐹 𝑏 ⋀𝑆 𝑏 𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑠 𝑡𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑠 ,4,6
8. ¬𝐹 𝑏 ⋁¬𝑆 𝑏 7, 𝐷𝑒 𝑀𝑜𝑟𝑔𝑎𝑛′𝑠 𝑙𝑎𝑤
9. 𝐹 𝑏 → ¬𝑆 𝑏 8, 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑗𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙
10. 𝑥 𝐹 𝑥 → ¬𝑆 𝑥 9, 𝑈𝐺

Show that (𝑥) (𝑃(𝑥) ⋁ 𝑄(𝑥)) 𝑥 𝑃 𝑥 ⋁ (∃𝑥)𝑄(𝑥)

Solution:
Let us prove this by indirect method
Let us assume that ¬ 𝑥 𝑃 𝑥 ⋁ (∃𝑥)𝑄(𝑥) as additional premise
1. ¬ 𝑥 𝑃 𝑥 ⋁ ∃𝑥 𝑄 𝑥 𝐴𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑒
2. ¬ 𝑥 𝑃 𝑥 ⋀ ¬ ∃𝑥 𝑄 𝑥 1, 𝐷𝑒 𝑀𝑜𝑟𝑔𝑎𝑛′𝑠 𝑙𝑎𝑤
3. ¬ 𝑥 𝑃 𝑥 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 2
4. ∃𝑥 ¬ 𝑃 𝑥 3, 𝐷𝑒 𝑀𝑜𝑟𝑔𝑎𝑛′𝑠 𝑙𝑎𝑤
5. ¬ 𝑃 𝑎 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝐸𝑆, 4
6. ¬ ∃𝑥 𝑄 𝑥 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 2
7. 𝑥 ¬ 𝑄 𝑥 6, 𝐷𝑒 𝑀𝑜𝑟𝑔𝑎𝑛′𝑠 𝑙𝑎𝑤
8. ¬𝑄 𝑎 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑈𝑆, 7
9. ¬ 𝑃 𝑎 ⋀ ¬𝑄 𝑎 5,8, 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
10. ¬ 𝑃 𝑎 ⋁ 𝑄 𝑎 9, 𝐷𝑒 𝑀𝑜𝑟𝑔𝑎𝑛′𝑠 𝑙𝑎𝑤
11. (𝑥) (𝑃(𝑥) ⋁ (𝑄(𝑥)) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
12. 𝑃 𝑎 ⋁ 𝑄 𝑎 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑈𝑆, 11
13. ¬ 𝑃 𝑎 ⋁ 𝑄 𝑎 ⋀ 𝑃 𝑎 ⋁ 𝑄 𝑎 11,12, 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
14. 𝐹 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 13

There is mistake in the following derivation. Find it. Is the conclusion valid?. If so, obtain
a correct derivation.
1. (𝑥)(𝑃(𝑥) → 𝑄(𝑥)) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
2. 𝑃(𝑦) → 𝑄(𝑦) 𝑈𝑆
3. ∃𝑥 𝑃 𝑥 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
4. 𝑃 𝑦 𝐸𝑆
5. 𝑄(𝑦) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 2,4
6. (∃𝑥)𝑄(𝑥) 𝐸𝐺
Solution:
1. (𝑥)(𝑃(𝑥) → 𝑄(𝑥)) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
2. 𝑃(𝑎) → 𝑄(𝑎) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑈𝑆 ,2
3. (∃𝑦)𝑃(𝑦) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
4. 𝑃(𝑎) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝐸𝑆 ,3
5. 𝑄 𝑎 𝑇, 2,4, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑠
6. (∃𝑧)𝑄(𝑧) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝐸𝐺 ,5
Therefore (∃𝑧)𝑄(𝑧) is validly derivable from the premises
𝑥 𝑃 𝑥 → 𝑄 𝑥 , (∃𝑦)𝑃(𝑦)

Obtain the following implication by indirect method.

www.tranquileducation.weebly.com
 (𝑥)(𝑃(𝑥) → 𝑄(𝑥)), (𝑥)(𝑅(𝑥) → ¬𝑄(𝑥)) (𝑥)(𝑅(𝑥) → ¬𝑃(𝑥))
Solution:
Contrapositive method:
Let us assume that ¬(𝑥)(𝑅(𝑥) → ¬𝑃(𝑥)) as additional premise.
1. ¬ 𝑥 𝑅 𝑥 → ¬𝑃 𝑥 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑃
2. ∃𝑥 ¬ 𝑅 𝑥 → ¬𝑃 𝑥 Demorgan′ s law ,1
3. ¬ 𝑅 𝑎 → ¬𝑃 𝑎 2, 𝐸𝑆
4. ¬ ¬𝑅 𝑎 ⋁ ¬𝑃 𝑎 𝑇, 2, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
′
5. 𝑅 𝑎 ⋀𝑃 𝑎 Demorgan s law ,4
6. 𝑅 𝑎 𝑇, 5
7. 𝑃 𝑎 𝑇, 5
8. (𝑥)(𝑅(𝑥) → ¬𝑄(𝑥)) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
9. 𝑅(𝑎) → ¬𝑄(𝑎) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑈𝑆 ,3
10. ¬𝑄 𝑎 𝑇, 6,9, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑠
11. 𝑃 𝑎 ⋀¬𝑄 𝑎 𝑇, 7,10, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 conjuction
12. ¬ ¬𝑃 𝑎 ⋁𝑄 𝑎 𝑇, 6, Demorgan′ s law
13. ¬ 𝑃(𝑎) → 𝑄(𝑎) 𝑇, 12, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
14. (𝑥)(𝑃(𝑥) → 𝑄(𝑥)) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
15. 𝑃(𝑎) → 𝑄(𝑎) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑈𝑆 ,14
16. ¬ 𝑃(𝑎) → 𝑄(𝑎) ⋀ 𝑃(𝑎) → 𝑄(𝑎) 𝑇, 13,15 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
17. 𝐹 𝑇, 16 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑛𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑙𝑎𝑤

Is the following conclusion validly derivable from the premises given?

𝑥 𝑃 𝑥 → 𝑄 𝑥 , (∃𝑦)𝑃(𝑦) (∃𝑧)𝑄(𝑧).
Solution:
1. (𝑥)(𝑃(𝑥) → 𝑄(𝑥)) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
2. 𝑃(𝑎) → 𝑄(𝑎) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑈𝑆 ,2
3. (∃𝑦)𝑃(𝑦) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
4. 𝑃(𝑎) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝐸𝑆 ,3
5. 𝑄 𝑎 𝑇, 2,4, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑠
6. (∃𝑧)𝑄(𝑧) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝐸𝐺 ,5
Therefore (∃𝑧)𝑄(𝑧) is validly derivable from the premises
𝑥 𝑃 𝑥 → 𝑄 𝑥 , (∃𝑦)𝑃(𝑦)

Use indirect method of proof show that

(∃𝑥)(𝐴(𝑥) ⋁𝐵(𝑥)) ⇔ (∃𝑥)𝐴(𝑥) ⋁ (∃𝑥)𝐵(𝑥)
Solution:
Let us assume that ¬ (∃𝑥)𝐴(𝑥) ⋁ (∃𝑥)𝐵(𝑥) as additional premise
1. ¬ (∃𝑥)𝐴(𝑥) ⋁ (∃𝑥)𝐵(𝑥) 𝐴𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑒
2. ¬(∃𝑥)𝐴(𝑥) ⋀ ¬(∃𝑥)𝐵(𝑥) 1, 𝐷𝑒 𝑀𝑜𝑟𝑔𝑎𝑛′𝑠 𝑙𝑎𝑤
3. (𝑥)¬𝐴(𝑥) ⋀ (𝑥)¬𝐵(𝑥) 2, 𝐷𝑒 𝑀𝑜𝑟𝑔𝑎𝑛′𝑠 𝑙𝑎𝑤
4. ¬𝐴(𝑎) ⋀ ¬𝐵(𝑎) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑈𝑆, 3
5. ¬ 𝐴(𝑎) ⋁ 𝐵(𝑎) 4, 𝐷𝑒 𝑀𝑜𝑟𝑔𝑎𝑛′𝑠 𝑙𝑎𝑤

www.tranquileducation.weebly.com
 6. (∃𝑥)(𝐴(𝑥) ⋁𝐵(𝑥)) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
7. 𝐴(𝑎) ⋁ 𝐵(𝑎) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝐸𝑆, 6
8. ¬ 𝐴(𝑎) ⋁ 𝐵(𝑎) ⋀ 𝐴(𝑎) ⋁ 𝐵(𝑎) 5,7, 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
9. 𝐹 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 8 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑛𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑙𝑎𝑤

Obtain the following implication.

(𝑥)(𝑃(𝑥) → 𝑄(𝑥)), (𝑥)(𝑅(𝑥) → ¬𝑄(𝑥)) (𝑥)(𝑅(𝑥) → ¬𝑃(𝑥))
Solution:

1. (𝑥)(𝑃(𝑥) → 𝑄(𝑥)) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃

2. 𝑃(𝑎) → 𝑄(𝑎) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑈𝑆 ,1
3. (𝑥)(𝑅(𝑥) → ¬𝑄(𝑥)) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
4. 𝑅(𝑎) → ¬𝑄(𝑎) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑈𝑆 ,3
5. 𝑄 𝑎
→ ¬𝑅 𝑎 𝑇, 4, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
6. 𝑃 𝑎 → ¬𝑅 𝑎 𝑇, 2,5, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 hypothetical syllogism
7. 𝑅(𝑎) → ¬𝑃(𝑎) 𝑇, 6, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
8. (𝑥)(𝑅(𝑥) → ¬𝑃(𝑥)) 7, 𝑈𝐺

Prove that (∃𝑥)(𝑃(𝑥) ⋀ 𝑆(𝑥)), (𝑥) (𝑃(𝑥) → 𝑅(𝑥)) (∃𝑥)(𝑅(𝑥) ⋀ 𝑆(𝑥))

Solution:
1. (𝑥)(𝑃(𝑥) → 𝑅(𝑥)) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
2. 𝑃(𝑎) → 𝑅(𝑎) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑈𝑆 ,2
3. (∃𝑥)(𝑃(𝑥) ⋀ 𝑆(𝑥)) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
4. 𝑃(𝑎) ⋀ 𝑆(𝑎) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝐸𝑆 ,3
5. 𝑃 𝑎 𝑇, 4, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
6. 𝑆(𝑎) 𝑇, 4, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
7. 𝑅 𝑎 𝑇, 2,5, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑠
8. 𝑅 𝑎 ⋀𝑆 𝑎 𝑇, 6,7 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
9. ∃𝑥 𝑅 𝑥 ⋀𝑆 𝑥 𝐸𝐺, 8

By indirect method prove that (𝑥) (𝑃(𝑥) → 𝑄(𝑥)), (∃𝑥)𝑃(𝑥) (∃𝑥)𝑄(𝑥)

Solution:
Let us assume that ¬(∃𝑥)𝑄(𝑥) as additional premise
1. ¬(∃𝑥)𝑄(𝑥) 𝐴𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑒
2. (𝑥)¬𝑄(𝑥) 1, 𝐷𝑒 𝑀𝑜𝑟𝑔𝑎𝑛′𝑠 𝑙𝑎𝑤
3. ¬𝑄(𝑎) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑈𝑆, 2
4. (∃𝑥)𝑃(𝑥) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
5. 𝑃(𝑎) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝐸𝑆, 4
6. 𝑃 𝑎 ⋀¬𝑄 𝑎 5,3 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
7. ¬ ¬𝑃 𝑎 ⋁𝑄 𝑎 6, 𝐷𝑒 𝑀𝑜𝑟𝑔𝑎𝑛′𝑠 𝑙𝑎𝑤
8. ¬ 𝑃 𝑎 → 𝑄 𝑎 𝑇, 7, 𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
9. 𝑥 𝑃 𝑥 → 𝑄 𝑥 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
10. 𝑃 𝑎 → 𝑄 𝑎 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑈𝑆, 9

www.tranquileducation.weebly.com
 11. ¬ 𝑃 𝑎 → 𝑄 𝑎 ⋀𝑃 𝑎 →𝑄 𝑎 8,10 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
12. 𝐹 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 11 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑛𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑙𝑎𝑤

(𝑥)(𝐻(𝑥) → 𝐴(𝑥)) (𝑥) (∃𝑦) 𝐻(𝑦) ⋀ 𝑁(𝑥, 𝑦) → (∃𝑦)(𝐴(𝑦) ⋀ 𝑁(𝑥, 𝑦))

Solution:
Let us assume that ¬(𝑥) (∃𝑦) 𝐻(𝑦) ⋀ 𝑁(𝑥, 𝑦) → (∃𝑦)(𝐴(𝑦) ⋀ 𝑁(𝑥, 𝑦))
as additional premise.
1. ¬(𝑥) (∃𝑦) 𝐻(𝑦) ⋀ 𝑁(𝑥, 𝑦) → (∃𝑦)(𝐴(𝑦) ⋀ 𝑁(𝑥, 𝑦)) Additional premise
2. (∃𝑥)¬ (∃𝑦) 𝐻(𝑦) ⋀ 𝑁(𝑥, 𝑦)
→ (∃𝑦)(𝐴(𝑦) ⋀ 𝑁(𝑥, 𝑦)) 1, 𝐷𝑒 𝑀𝑜𝑟𝑔𝑎𝑛′𝑠 𝑙𝑎𝑤
3. ¬ (∃𝑦) 𝐻(𝑦) ⋀ 𝑁(𝑎, 𝑦) → (∃𝑦)(𝐴(𝑦) ⋀ 𝑁(𝑎, 𝑦)) 2, 𝐸𝑆
4. ¬ ¬(∃𝑦) 𝐻(𝑦) ⋀ 𝑁(𝑎, 𝑦) ⋁ (∃𝑦)(𝐴(𝑦) ⋀ 𝑁(𝑎, 𝑦)) 𝑇, 3, 𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
5. (∃𝑦) 𝐻(𝑦) ⋀ 𝑁(𝑎, 𝑦) ⋀ ¬(∃𝑦)(𝐴(𝑦) ⋀ 𝑁(𝑎, 𝑦)) 4, 𝐷𝑒 𝑀𝑜𝑟𝑔𝑎𝑛′𝑠 𝑙𝑎𝑤
6. ∃𝑦 𝐻 𝑦 ⋀𝑁 𝑎, 𝑦 𝑇, 5, 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
7. 𝐻 𝑏 ⋀𝑁 𝑎, 𝑏 𝐸𝑆, 6
8. 𝐻 𝑏 𝑇, 7, 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
9. 𝑁 𝑎, 𝑏 𝑇, 7, 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
10. ¬(∃𝑦)(𝐴(𝑦) ⋀ 𝑁(𝑎, 𝑦)) 𝑇, 5, 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
11. (𝑦)(¬𝐴(𝑦) ⋁ ¬𝑁(𝑎, 𝑦)) 10, 𝐷𝑒 𝑀𝑜𝑟𝑔𝑎𝑛′𝑠 𝑙𝑎𝑤
12. (¬𝐴(𝑏) ⋁ ¬𝑁(𝑎, 𝑏)) 11, 𝑈𝑆
13. 𝐴 𝑏 → ¬𝑁 𝑎, 𝑏 𝑇, 12, 𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
14. ¬𝐴 𝑏 𝑇, 9,13, 𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑠 𝑡𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑠
15. 𝐻 𝑏 ⋀¬𝐴 𝑏 𝑇, 8,14, 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
16. ¬ ¬𝐻 𝑏 ⋁𝐴 𝑏 15, 𝐷𝑒 𝑀𝑜𝑟𝑔𝑎𝑛′𝑠 𝑙𝑎𝑤
17. ¬ 𝐻 𝑏 → 𝐴 𝑏 𝑇, 16, 𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
18. 𝑥 𝐻 𝑥 → 𝐴 𝑥 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
19. 𝐻 𝑏 → 𝐴 𝑏 𝑈𝑆, 18
20. ¬ 𝐻 𝑏 → 𝐴 𝑏 ⋀ 𝐻 𝑏 → 𝐴 𝑏 𝑇, 17,19 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
21. 𝐹 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 20 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑛𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑙𝑎𝑤

Prove that (∃𝑥)𝐴(𝑥) → (𝑥)𝐵(𝑥) (𝑥)(𝐴(𝑥) → 𝐵(𝑥))

Solution:
Let us assume that ¬(𝑥)(𝐴(𝑥) → 𝐵(𝑥)) as additional premise.
1. ¬ 𝑥 𝐴 𝑥 → 𝐵 𝑥 Additional premise
2. (∃𝑥)¬ 𝐴 𝑥 → 𝐵 𝑥 1, 𝐷𝑒 𝑀𝑜𝑟𝑔𝑎𝑛′𝑠 𝑙𝑎𝑤
3. ¬ 𝐴 𝑎 → 𝐵 𝑎 2, 𝐸𝑆
4. ∃𝑥 𝐴 𝑥 → 𝑥 𝐵 𝑥 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
5. 𝐴 𝑎 → 𝐵 𝑎 4, 𝐸𝑆
6. ¬ 𝐴 𝑎 → 𝐵 𝑎 ⋀ 𝐴 𝑎 → 𝐵 𝑎 𝑇, 3, 5 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
7. 𝐹 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑇, 6 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑛𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑙𝑎𝑤
Obtain the following implication.
(𝑥)(𝑃(𝑥) → 𝑄(𝑥)), (𝑥)(𝑅(𝑥) → ¬𝑄(𝑥)) (𝑥)(𝑅(𝑥) → ¬𝑃(𝑥))
Solution:

www.tranquileducation.weebly.com
1. (𝑥)(𝑃(𝑥) → 𝑄(𝑥)) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
2. 𝑃(𝑎) → 𝑄(𝑎) 2, 𝑈𝑆
3. (𝑥)(𝑅(𝑥) → ¬𝑄(𝑥)) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃
4. 𝑅(𝑎) → ¬𝑄(𝑎) 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑈𝑆 ,3
5. 𝑄 𝑎 → ¬𝑅 𝑎 Rule T, 4
6. 𝑃 𝑎 → ¬𝑅 𝑎 𝑇, 2,5, 𝑕𝑦𝑝𝑜𝑡𝑕𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑦𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑠𝑚
7. 𝑅(𝑎) → ¬𝑃(𝑎) Rule T ,6
8. 𝑥 𝑅 𝑥 → ¬𝑃 𝑥 𝑅𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑈𝐺, 7

www.tranquileducation.weebly.com