E XE RCISE S B O OKLET

for the
Logic Manual
2023/2024
There are no changes to the exercises
from last year’s edition

Volker Halbach

Oxford
23rd August 2023
 1

preface

The most recent version of this Exercises Booklet can be downloaded from
http://logicmanual.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/index.html, the web page
of the Logic Manual. I have also uploaded some files with partial truth
tables tables, proofs in Natural Deduction, past papers with solutions and
lecture slides. Peter Fritz has supplied a full set of exercises with solutions.
For self-study I recommend Peter’s exercises, while the version you are
looking at is intended for use in tutorials and classes.

© Volker Halbach 2023/2024

 1 Sets, Relations and Arguments

exercise 1.1. Consider the following relations:

(i) {⟨Hydrogen, Oxygen⟩, ⟨Oxygen, Hydrogen⟩,
⟨Hydrogen, Hydrogen⟩}
(ii) {⟨Mercury, Oxygen⟩, ⟨Oxygen, Nitrogen⟩, ⟨Mercury, Nitrogen⟩}
(iii) {⟨Mercury, Mercury⟩, ⟨Oxygen, Oxygen⟩, ⟨Nitrogen, Nitrogen⟩}
(iv) ∅, that is the set without elements
Let S be the set with the chemical elements Hydrogen, Oxygen, Mercury
and Nitrogen as (set-theoretic) elements. Determine for each of the
relations (i)–(iv)
(a) whether it is reflexive on S,
(b) whether it is symmetric,
(c) whether it is transitive, and
(d) whether it is a function.
exercise 1.2. Specify a relation that is symmetric but not transitive. Try
to find such a relation with a minimal number of elements.
exercise 1.3. Specify a relation and a set S such that the relation is reflex-
ive on S and asymmetric.
exercise 1.4. Is the relation {⟨Paris, London⟩, ⟨London, Rome⟩, ⟨London,
the capital of Italy⟩} a function?

© Volker Halbach 2023/2024

 1 Sets, Relations and Arguments 3

exercise 1.5. Consider the relation containing the ordered pairs ⟨Germany,
Italy⟩, ⟨Germany, Germany⟩, ⟨Italy, Italy⟩, ⟨France, France⟩ but no other
pairs.
(a) Is this relation reflexive on the set {Germany, Italy, France}?
(b) Is this relation transitive on {Germany, Italy, France}?
(c) Is this relation symmetric on {Germany, Italy, France}?
(d) Is it an equivalence relation on {Germany, Italy, France}?
(e) Is it an equivalence relation on {Germany, France}?
exercise 1.6. Consider the following relations, where d and e are per-
sons:
(i) the set of all ordered pairs ⟨d, e⟩ such that d is taller than e
(ii) {⟨d, e⟩ ∶ d loves e}
(iii) the relation with all ordered pairs ⟨d, e⟩ as members such that d is
the father of e
(iv) the relation with all ordered pairs ⟨d, e⟩ as members such that e is
the father of d
(v) the relation of being of a similar age
Determine for each of these relations whether it is symmetric, whether it
is transitive, and whether it is a function.
exercise 1.7. Identify premisses and conclusions in the following argu-
ments. Are the arguments logically valid?
(i) All men are mortal, Socrates is a man. Thus, Socrates is mortal.
(ii) Houses become cheaper only if interest rates are falling. Now
houses are actually becoming cheaper, although interest rates are
not falling. So the Prime Minister will become the king of France.
(iii) Tom will move to Edinburgh. This is because he got a job there and
he can’t find another job where he is living now.
(iv) Alfred can see the house. So he must have at least one eye.
(v) If the mind is immortal, it’s not identical with the body. So if the
mind is identical to the body, the mind is not immortal.
(vi) This must be a Manx cat: it hasn’t got a tail.

© Volker Halbach 2023/2024

 1 Sets, Relations and Arguments 4

exercise 1.8. Identify the premisses and the conclusion in the following
argument:

Many students will be either in Hegel’s or in Schopenhauer’s

lectures, if they are scheduled at the same time. And of course
Schopenhauer will schedule them at the same time as Hegel’s.
If Hegel’s lectures are entertaining, then many students will
go to them. That means of course many students will go to
Hegel’s but not many will go to Schopenhauer’s lectures. For
if Schopenhauer’s lectures are entertaining, Hegel’s must be
entertaining as well; and of course many students will only
come to Schopenhauer’s lectures if they are entertaining.

© Volker Halbach 2023/2024

 2 Syntax and Semantics of Propositional Logic

exercise 2.1. Add quotation marks to the following sentences so that

true English sentences are obtained. In some cases there is more than
one solution. Try to find all solutions.
(i) Potassium designates a chemical element.
(ii) Snow is white is true if and only if snow is white.
(iii) John, Jane and Jeremy all have J as their first letter.
(iv) George is the quotation of George.
(v) Tom is monosyllabic and Reginald is polysyllabic.
exercise 2.2. Check whether the following expressions are sentences of
L1 .
(i) (((P1 → P1 ) → P1 ) ∨ Q)
(ii) (((P2 ∧ R)) → Q4 )
(iii) (P → ¬P)
(iv) (P¬ → P)
(v) (¬P → P)
(vi) (P → ¬¬¬(R ∨ ¬R))
(vii) ¬((P → (P → ¬Q)) ↔ ¬¬(R2 ↔ ¬(P ∨ R7 )))
No bracketing conventions are applied in the expressions.

© Volker Halbach 2023/2024

 2 Syntax and Semantics of Propositional Logic 6

exercise 2.3. The following expressions are abbreviations of L1 -sentences.

Restore the brackets that have been dropped in accordance with the Brack-
eting Conventions of Section 2.3.
(i) ¬P ∧ Q
(ii) P ∧ ¬Q ∧ R ↔ ¬P3 ∨ P ∨ R5
(iii) ¬¬¬(P → Q) ↔ P
exercise 2.4. Drop as many brackets as possible from the following
L1 -sentences by applying the Bracketing Conventions from Section 2.3.
(i) (((¬P → ¬Q) ∨ Q2 ) ∧ P)
(ii) (((¬P → ¬Q) ∧ Q2 ) ∧ P)
(iii) ¬(((P ∧ (P → ¬Q)) ∧ Q1 ) ∧ P)
exercise 2.5. Show that the following sentences are tautologies. You may
use partial truth tables. Examples of calculations of partial truth tables
can be found on WebLearn.
(i) P ∧ (P → Q) → Q (modus ponens)
(ii) ¬Q ∧ (P → Q) → ¬P (modus tollens)
(iii) P ∨ ¬P (law of excluded middle)
(iv) ¬(P ∧ ¬P) (law of contradiction)
(v) (¬P → P) → P (consequentia mirabilis)
(vi) (P → Q) ∧ (¬P → Q) → Q (classical dilemma)
(vii) ¬(P ∧ Q) ↔ (¬P ∨ ¬Q) (de Morgan-law)
(viii) ¬(P ∨ Q) ↔ (¬P ∧ ¬Q) (de Morgan-law)
(ix) P ∧ ¬P → Q (ex falso quodlibet)
exercise 2.6. Classify the following L1 -sentences as tautologies, contra-
dictions or as sentences that are neither.
(i) P ∧ P
(ii) ((P → Q) → R) ↔ (P → (Q → R))
(iii) (P ↔ (Q ↔ R)) ↔ ((P ↔ Q) ↔ R)
(iv) ¬(P → Q) ↔ (P ∧ ¬Q)

© Volker Halbach 2023/2024

 2 Syntax and Semantics of Propositional Logic 7

exercise 2.7. In the definition of truth in an L1 -interpretation I have spec-

ified conditions under which a sentence is true in an L1 -interpretation.
These conditions also determine when a sentence is false because a sen-
tence of L1 is false if and only if it is not true. Write down analogous
clauses that indicate the conditions under which non-atomic sentences
are false. The first two clauses (for ¬ and ∧) are as follows:
(i) ∣¬ϕ∣A = F if and only if ∣ϕ∣A = T.
(ii) ∣ϕ ∧ ψ∣A = F if and only if ∣ϕ∣A = F or ∣ψ∣A = F.
Complete the list with clauses for ∨, →, and ↔.
exercise 2.8. Prove Theorem 2.12, that is, prove the following claim
assuming that ϕ and all elements of Γ are L1 -sentences:

Γ ⊧ ϕ if and only if the set containing all sentences in Γ

and ¬ϕ is semantically inconsistent.

© Volker Halbach 2023/2024

 3 Formalisation in Propositional Logic

exercise 3.1. Discuss whether the following argument is propositionally

valid.

If Jones arrives at the airport after the scheduled departure

time, the plane will wait for him. Therefore, if Jones arrives
at the airport after the scheduled departure time and no-
body notices that he arrives at the airport after the scheduled
departure time, the plane will wait for Jones.

exercise 3.2. Determine the scopes of the underlined occurrences of

connectives in the following sentences, which have been abbreviated in
accordance with the bracketing conventions.
(i) P → ¬(P44 ∨ ¬(Q3 ∧ ¬Q3 ))
(ii) P∧Q ∧ ¬R ∧ Q
(iii) P → Q ∧ ¬R2 ∧¬(P2 ↔ P1 )
exercise 3.3. Draw truth tables for the following English expressions in
the style of the truth table for ‘A because B’ in Section 3.1 of the Manual.
That is, determine for (i)–(iv) below whether substituting a true sentence
for A yields only true sentences or only false sentences or true and false
sentences. Then check the result of substituting false sentences. Proceed
in a similar way for phrases (v)–(vi), which contain A and B.
(i) Robin believes that A
(ii) Robin knows that A
(iii) Robin knows that A, but it’s not true that A
(iv) The infallible clairvoyant believes that A
(v) A, but B

© Volker Halbach 2023/2024

 3 Formalisation in Propositional Logic 9

(vi) Suppose A; then B

exercise 3.4. Formalise the following sentences as accurately as possible
using the arrow →.
(i) If God can create the soul without the body, then soul and body
are different.
(ii) The rise in interest rates is a sufficient reason for a house price crash.
(iii) The boy and the general are the same person, only if the general
can remember what he did as a boy.
(iv) My believing that the wall is yellow is a necessary condition for my
knowing that the wall is yellow.
exercise 3.5. Formalise the following sentences in the language of propo-
sitional logic. Your formalisations should be as detailed as possible.
(i) Russell and Whitehead wrote Principia Mathematica.
(ii) The traffic light turned green, and Bill pulled away.
(iii) Ben, who hates logic, is a philosophy student.
exercise 3.6. Show that the following argument becomes propositionally
valid after adding assumptions upon which the speaker might naturally
be expected to be relying. Note any difficulties or points of interest.

Many students will be either in Hegel’s or in Schopenhauer’s

lectures, if they are scheduled at the same time. And of course
Schopenhauer will schedule them at the same time as Hegel’s.
If Hegel’s lectures are entertaining, then many students will
go to them. That means of course many students will go to
Hegel’s but not many will go to Schopenhauer’s lectures. For
if Schopenhauer’s lectures are entertaining, Hegel’s must be
entertaining as well; and of course many students will only
come to Schopenhauer’s lectures if they are entertaining.

© Volker Halbach 2023/2024

 4 The Syntax of Predicate Logic

exercise 4.1. Determine whether the following expressions are formulae

of L2 and say which of those are also sentences of L2 . Add the omitted arity
indices to all predicate letters and mark all free occurrences of variables.
Bracketing conventions are not applied.
(i) ∀x (P1 x → Q y)
(ii) ∃x ¬(¬¬∃y P y ∧ ¬¬¬¬¬Rxa)
(iii) P
(iv) ∀x ∃y ∃z (R25 x yz)
(v) ∀x ∃x Qxx
(vi) ¬(¬(∃x Px ∧ ∃y Q y))
(vii) ∀x (∃y (Px y ∧ Px) ∨ Qx yx)
exercise 4.2. The following expressions are abbreviations of formulae of
L2 . Supply all brackets and indices that have been omitted according to
the notational conventions and mark all free occurrences of variables.
(i) ∀x ∀y (P4 x y → P4 yx ∧ Rx)
(ii) ∀x Rxxz ∧ ∃y Rxzx
(iii) ¬∀z2 Rxz
(iv) ∀x ¬¬(Px y ∨ Ryx ∨ Rz y)
exercise 4.3. Provide L2 -formalisations for the following English sen-
tences. Make them as detailed as possible.
(i) London is big and ugly.
(ii) Culham is a large village.
(iii) A city has a city hall.
(iv) Material objects are divisible.
(v) Tom owns at least one car.

© Volker Halbach 2023/2024

 4 The Syntax of Predicate Logic 11

(vi) Tom owns at least one car and he won’t sell it.
(vii) One man has visited every country.
exercise 4.4. Translate the L2 -sentences below into English using the
following dictionary:

a: Tom
P1: . . . is a person
Q 1: . . . acts freely
(i) Qa
(ii) (Qa ∨ ¬Pa)
(iii) ∀x (Px → Qx)
(iv) ∀x (Px ↔ Qx)
(v) ¬∃z1 Qz1
exercise 4.5. Translate the L2 -sentences below into English using the
following dictionary:

P1: . . . is a set
R2 : . . . is an element of . . .
(i) ¬∃z Pz
(ii) ¬∀x(Px → ∃y Ryx)
(iii) ∃x (Px ∧ ¬∃y Ryx)
(iv) ¬∃z (Pz ∧ ∀x Rxz)

© Volker Halbach 2023/2024

 5 The Semantics of Predicate Logic

exercise 5.1. Consider an L2 -structure S with the domain DS and the

following semantical values of a, b, P, and R:

DS = {1, 2, 3}
∣a∣S =1
∣b∣S =3
∣P 1 ∣S = {2}
∣R 2 ∣S = {⟨1, 2⟩, ⟨2, 3⟩, ⟨1, 3⟩}

Are the following sentences true or false in this structure? Sketch proofs
of your answers.
(i) Pa
(ii) Rab
(iii) Rba
(iv) Rab ↔ Rba
(v) Rbb ∨ (¬Pa ∧ ¬Raa)
(vi) ∃xRax
(vii) ∃x(Rax ∧ Rxb)
(viii) Pb ∨ ∃x Rxx
(ix) ∀x ∃y Rx y
(x) ∀x(Px → (∃y Ryx ∧ ∃y Rx y))
(xi) ∀x(Px → ∃y (Ryx ∧ Rx y))
As an example I will show that (viii) is false in S:

© Volker Halbach 2023/2024

 5 The Semantics of Predicate Logic 13

First I show that ∣P 1 b∣S = F:

3 ∉ {2}
∣b∣S ∉ ∣P 1 ∣S
∣Pb∣S = F
In the next step I prove ∣∃x Rxx∣S = F. Let α be a variable assignment
over S. Then ∣x∣Sα is 1 or 2 or 3. But neither ⟨1, 1⟩ nor ⟨2, 2⟩ nor ⟨3, 3⟩ is in
∣R∣S , that is, in {⟨1, 2⟩, ⟨2, 3⟩, ⟨1, 3⟩}. Therefore, there following holds:
⟨∣x∣Sα , ∣x∣Sα ⟩ ∉ ∣R 2 ∣S
∣Rxx∣Sα = F
∣∃x Rxx∣S = F
The last line holds because ∃x Rxx is false if and only if Rxx is satisfied
by no variable assignment.
Since ∣Pb∣S = F and ∣∃x Rxx∣S = F it follows that ∣Pb ∨ ∃x Rxx∣S = F.
exercise 5.2. Justify the following claims by providing counterexamples.
You do not have to prove that your structures are actually counterexamples,
that is, you do not have to prove that the premisses are true and the
conclusions false in the respective structures.
(i) Pa ⊭ ∃x (Px ∧ Qx)
(ii) ∀y (P y → ∃x Ryx) ⊭ ∀x(Px → ∃y Ry y)
(iii) ∀y Ry y ⊭ ∀x Rax
exercise 5.3. Prove the following claim assuming that ϕ and all elements
of Γ are sentences of the language L2 :
Γ ⊧ ϕ if and only if the set containing ¬ϕ and all elements of
Γ is semantically inconsistent.
exercise 5.4. (i) Provide a sentence that contains no other than unary
predicate letters and that is true in some structure with a domain
containing at least three elements, but that is not true in any struc-
ture with a domain containing less than three elements.

© Volker Halbach 2023/2024

 5 The Semantics of Predicate Logic 14

(ii) Provide a sentence containing no constants and predicate letters

other than R2 that is true in some structure with a domain contain-
ing at least two objects but that is not true in any structure with a
domain containing only one object.
(iii) Provide a sentence containing no constants and predicate letters
other than R2 that is true in some structure with a domain contain-
ing at least three objects but that is not true in any structure with a
domain containing less than three objects.
(iv) Provide a sentence that is true in some structure with an infinite
domain but not in any structure with a finite domain.

© Volker Halbach 2023/2024

 6 Natural Deduction

Further examples of proofs and hints for constructing proofs can be found
on WebLearn.
Exercises 6.1–6.2 are on propositional logic only.
As there may be too many many exercises, I suggest that Exercises
6.2 and 6.5 and possibly some of the other exercises are postponed to the
two remaining weeks.
exercise 6.1. Establish the following claims by providing proofs in Natu-
ral Deduction.
(i) ⊢ P → (R ∨ P)
(ii) R ∧ Q ⊢ Q ∧ R
(iii) P → Q ⊢ ¬Q → ¬P
(iv) ⊢ (P → ¬P) → ¬P
(v) P ↔ Q, ¬Q ⊢ ¬P
(vi) P ∧ Q → R ⊢ P → (Q → R)
(vii) ¬(P → Q) ⊢ P
exercise 6.2. The solution to Exercise 3.6 consists in the formalisation
of an English argument (plus additional premisses) in the language L1 of
propositional logic and in a proof of the validity of the resulting argument
in L1 . There the task was to prove the validity of the sentence with an
incomplete truth table. Alternatively one can show its validity by a proof
in Natural Deduction. The English argument in Exercise 3.6 can be
formalised as follows:

P →(Q ∨ R) ∧ ¬(Q ∧ R), P1 , P1 → P,

Q1 → Q, P2 → Q1 , R → P2 ⊧ Q ∧ ¬R

© Volker Halbach 2023/2024

 6 Natural Deduction 16

Establish this claim by proving the following claim by means of a proof

in Natural Deduction:

P →(Q ∨ R) ∧ ¬(Q ∧ R), P1 , P1 → P,

Q1 → Q, P2 → Q1 , R → P2 ⊧ Q ∧ ¬R

exercise 6.3. Prove the following claims.

(i) ∀x (Px → P1 x), ¬P1 a ⊢ ¬Pa
(ii) ∀x (Px → Qx), Pa ⊢ ∃y Q y
(iii) ¬∀x Qx ⊢ ∃x ¬Qx
(iv) ∃x ¬Pxa ⊢ ∃z ¬∀y P yz
(v) ∃x ∃y ∀z ∀x1 Px yzx1 ⊢ ∀z ∃x ∀x1 ∃y Px yzx1
exercise 6.4. Formalise the following argument in L2 :

All philosophers who have studied logic know Gödel. There-

fore, if all philosophers have studied logic they all know
Gödel.

Show that the resulting argument in L2 is valid.

exercise 6.5. Establish ∃x ∀y (Rx y ↔ ¬Ry y) ⊢ P by means of a proof
in Natural Deduction (P is the sentence letter).

© Volker Halbach 2023/2024

 7 Formalisation in Predicate Logic

exercise 7.1. Find the mistakes in the following proofs, that is, list all
steps in the proof that are not licensed by a rule of the system of Natural
Deduction. If possible, repair the proof by providing a correct proof. If
the argument is not valid, provide a counterexample.
(i) ∃x (Px ∧ Qx) ⊢ ∃x Px ∧ ∃x Qx

[Pa ∧ Qa] [Pa ∧ Qa]

∃x(Px ∧ Qx) Pa ∃x(Px ∧ Qx) Qa
Pa Qa
∃xPx ∃xQx
∃x Px ∧ ∃x Qx
(ii) ∀x ∃y Rx y ⊢ ∃y ∀x Rx y

∀x ∃y Rx y
∃y Ray [Rab]
Rab
∀x Rxb
∃y ∀x Rx y
(iii) ∃y (P y → Q y) ⊢ ∀x(Px → Qx)

[Pa] [Pa → Qa]

Qa
Pa → Qa
∃y (P y → Q y) ∀x(Px → Qx)
∀x(Px → Qx)

© Volker Halbach 2023/2024

 7 Formalisation in Predicate Logic 18

exercise 7.2. Formalise the following sentences in the language of L2 .

The formalisations should be as detailed as possible. Provide a dictionary
for your translations.
(i) Not every book author is famous.
(ii) Some books are famous.
(iii) A book is famous if and only if it’s well written.
(iv) Tom does not believe that not every book author is famous.
exercise 7.3. Reveal the ambiguities in the following sentences by for-
malising each sentence in two (or more) different ways:
(i) Ben despises a logician.
(ii) Harry slanders Ron and his parents.
(iii) A student is better than a tutor.
(iv) Only rich Germans buy houses in Munich.
(v) James likes a fast car.
(vi) Some mistakes were made by everyone.
exercise 7.4 (Russell’s paradox). The following exercise deals with a
paradox that shows that certain assumptions about the existence of sets
and properties lead to a contradiction.
(i) Using the dictionary
R: . . . is an element of . . .
translate the sentence ∃x ∀y (Ryx ↔ ¬Ry y) into an English sen-
tence.
(ii) Using the dictionary
R: . . . has . . . (as its property)
translate the sentence ∃x ∀y (Ryx ↔ ¬Ry y) into an English sen-
tence.
(iii) In Exercise 6.5 I asked for a proof of the following claim:

∃x ∀y (Ryx ↔ ¬Ry y) ⊢ P.

© Volker Halbach 2023/2024

 7 Formalisation in Predicate Logic 19

Show that any set of sentences containing the sentence

∃x ∀y (Ryx ↔ ¬Ry y)

is syntactically inconsistent.
(iv) The expression {x ∶ A} is used as an abbreviation for ‘the set of all
x such that A’, where A is a claim about x. What is the problem of
defining sets in this way?
exercise 7.5. Consider the following argument:

Everything has a cause. Therefore there is a cause of every-

thing.

Is the argument valid in predicate logic? Substantiate your answer by

proving or disproving the validity of the formalisation of the argument.
Is the argument logically valid?

© Volker Halbach 2023/2024

 8 Identity and Definite Descriptions

exercise 8.1. Add the brackets that have been omitted in accordance
with the bracketing conventions to the following sentence:

∀x∀y∀z(Px ∧ P y ∧ Pz → x = y ∨ y = z ∨ x = z)

exercise 8.2. Prove the following claims by means of counterexamples:

(i) Qab, Qba ⊧ / a=b
(ii) ∀x∀y(Px → (P y → ¬x = y)) ⊧ / ∃x∃y¬x = y
You do not have to show that the premisses are true and the conclusions
are false in the models. Specifying the counterexample will suffice.
exercise 8.3. The following sentence is to be formalised in L= :
Paolo is a philosopher.
The following two formalisations are proposed:
(i) Pa
(ii) ∃x(x = a ∧ Px)
(ii) is arrived at by reasoning as follows: The ‘is’ in the original sentence
can be replaced by ‘is identical to’, so the logical form of the sentence is:
There is an x ((x is identical to Paolo) and (x is a philoso-
pher))
Is there any reason to prefer one formalisation over the other?
exercise 8.4. Establish the following claims by means of proofs in Natu-
ral Deduction.
(i) ⊢ ∃y y = y

© Volker Halbach 2023/2024

 8 Identity and Definite Descriptions 21

(ii) ∃x Px, ∃x ¬Px ⊢ ∃x ∃y ¬x = y

exercise 8.5. Show that the following two sentences are logically equiva-
lent in predicate logic with identity:
(i) ∃x (∀y(P y → x = y) ∧ Px)
(ii) ∃x ∀y (P y ↔ x = y) Prove the equivalence by establishing the
following two claims:
(i) ∃x (∀y (P y → x = y) ∧ Px) ⊢ ∃x ∀y (P y ↔ x = y)
(ii) ∃x∀y (P y ↔ x = y) ⊢ ∃x(∀y (P y → x = y) ∧ Px)
exercise 8.6. Formalise the following sentences as L= -sentences using
the following dictionary:

P: ... is clever
Q: ... is a tutor
Q1 : ... is a philosophy student
R: ... is better than . . .
(i) There are two philosophy students.
(ii) The clever tutor is better than any philosophy student.
(iii) The philosophy student who is better than all tutors is clever.
(iv) There are fewer than three tutors.

© Volker Halbach 2023/2024