Scribd
Upload
16 views18 pages

ASHISH

The document discusses rules of inference for propositional logic and predicate logic. It defines quantifiers, types of quantifiers, and rules for quantifier introduction and elimination. It also provides examples of applying inference rules to derive conclusions from given premises involving quantified statements.

Uploaded by

saurabhthege
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
16 views18 pages

ASHISH

The document discusses rules of inference for propositional logic and predicate logic. It defines quantifiers, types of quantifiers, and rules for quantifier introduction and elimination. It also provides examples of applying inference rules to derive conclusions from given premises involving quantified statements.

Uploaded by

saurabhthege
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 18

PROJECT 2

Build valid arguments of a given set of


propositional logics and quantified statements
using rules of inferences

Presented by :- Dhaneswar Sahu (230101120258)


Yuvraj Sharma (230101120260)
Ashish Kumar Mandal (230101120262)
Swarup Nayak (230101120267)
Vishal Kumar (230101120269)
Prince Kumar (23010112070)

Guided by :- Dr . Aditya Kumar Pati


CONTENTS

 ARGUMENT
 RULE OF INFERENCE
 QUANTIFIERS
 TYPES OF QUANTIFIERS
 INFERENCE THEORY OF PREDICATE CALCULUS
 PROBLEM TO PROVE CONCLUSION FROM THE FOLLOWING PREMISES
 PROBLEM BASED ON CP RULE
QUANTIFIERS

When the variables in a propositional function are assigned values, the resulting statement becomes a
proposition with a certain truth value .However , there is an other important way, called quantification, to
create a proposition from a propositional function.

TYPES OF QUANTIFIERS

The universal quantification of P(x)is the statement “P(x)for all values of x in the domain.” The notation
∀x P(x) denotes the universal quantification of P(x). Here ∀ is called the universal quantifier. We read
∀x P(x) as “for all x P(x)” or “for every x P(x).”An element for which P(x)is false is called a counterexample
of ∀x P(x).

EXAMPLE : Let P(x)be the statement “x +1 >x.” What is the truth value of the quantification ∀ xP(x), where
the domain consists of all real numbers?
Solution : Because P(x)is true for all real numbers x, the quantification ∀x P(x) is true.

The existential quantification of P(x)is the proposition “There exists an element x in the domain such
that P(x).” We use the notation ∃x P(x) for the existential quantification of P(x). Here ∃ is called the
existential quantifier.

EXAMPLE : Let P(x)denote the statement “x>3.” What is the truth value of the quantification ∃ xP(x), where
the domain consists of all real numbers?
Solution: Because “x>3” is sometimes true—for instance, when x = 4—the existential quantification of
P(x),which is∃ x P(x),is true.
RULE US :-

Universal specification is the rule of inference which states that one can conclude that P(c) is true , if
∀x P(x) is true, where c is an arbitrary member of the universe of discourse . This rule is also called thee
universal instantiation.

RULE ES :-

Existential specification is the rule which allows us to know conclude that P(c) is true, If ∃x P(x) is true, where
c is not an arbitrary member of the universe , but one for Which P(c) is true. Usually we will not know what c is
but know that it exists. Since it exists we may call it as c. this rule is also called as the existential instantiation.

RULE UG :-

Universal generalisation is the rule which states that ∀x P(x) is true, if P(c) Is true, where c is an
arbitrary member (not a specific member) of the Universe of discourse.

RULE EG :-

Existential generalisation is the rule that is used to conclude that ∃x P(x)Is true when P(c)
is true, where c is a particular member of the universe of discourse.
Rules of inference :
The rules which are used to obtain a valid conclusion from a
set of premises are known as Rules of inference

1. Rule “P” : Supplying a premises at any step of derivation


2. Rule “T” : Deriving a new formula at any step of derivation
using its previous formulae.
3. Rule “CP” (Conditional proof) : A valid conclusion C => B can
be derive from a set of premises A1 , A2 , A3 …. An ,
if A1 ^ A2 ^ A3 ……^An ^ C => B is a tautology.
2. prove that R S is a valid conclusion from the following premises
P Q, P → R, Q → S
Solution:
PREMISES USED NO. OF INFERENCE RULES OF INFERENCE
{1} 1. P Q RULE P
{1} 2. ¬P→Q RULE T (1→2) BY E18
{3} 3. Q→S RULE P
{1,3} 4. ¬P→S RULE T (2 3→4)
{5} 5. P→R RULE P
{5} 6. ¬R→¬P RULE T (5→6)(CONTRAPOSITIVE)
{1,3,5} 7. ¬R→S RULE T (4 6→7)
{1,3,5} 8. R S RULE T(7→8)by E18

R S is a valid conclusion from the given premises


3. Show that “ S ” is a valid conclusion from the following

Premises : P → ¬ Q
Q R
¬S → P
¬R

Conclusion : S
Premises used Number of inference Rules of inference
{1} 1. Q R RULE P
{2} 2. ¬R RULE P
{1,2} 3. Q RULE T(1 2→3)
{4} 4. P→ ¬Q RULE P
{4} 5.Q→ ¬P RULE T(4→5(Contrapositive)
{6} 6. ¬S→P RULE P
{6} 7. ¬P→S RULE T (6→7(Contrapositive)
{4,6} 8. Q→S RULE T (5 7→8)
{1,2,4,6} 9. S RULE T (3 8 →9)

S is valid conclusion from the given premises


4. USING RULE CP( CONDITIONAL PROOF) ,

Show that R → S is a valid conclusion for a given premises

Premises : P →(Q → S),


¬ R P,
Q
Conclusion: R → S
Premises Used Number of Inference Rules Of Inference
{1} 1. ¬R P RULE P
{1} 2. R→P RULE T(1→2)
{3} 3. R RULE P (Assumed premise)
{1,3} 4. P RULE T(2 3→4)
{5} 5. P→(Q→S) RULE P
{1,3,5} 6. Q→S RULE T(4 5→6)
{7} 7. Q RULE P
{1,3,5,7} 8. S RULE T(6 7→8)
{1,3,5,7} 9. R→S RULE CP(3 8→9)

R → S is a valid conclusion from the premises


Premises used Number of inference Rules of inference

{1} 1. x(H(x) →M(x)) RULE P

{1} 2. H(x) →M(x) RULE US (1→2)

{3} 3. H(S) RULE P

{1,3} 4. M(S) RULE T (2 3→4)

M(S) IS A VALID CONCLUSION FROM THE GIVEN PREMISES


3. All canny integers are non slotty
3 is canny
All bumpy integers are slotty
Therefore, there is an integer that is not bumpy
SOL :
Let ,
C(x) : x is a canny integer
C : canny
B(x) : x is a bumpy
S(x) : x is a slotty

1. All canny integers are non slotty : ( x( C(x) → ¬S(x))


2. 3 is canny : C(3)
3. All bumpy integers are slotty : x( B(x) → S(x))
4. Therefore, there is an integer that is not bumpy
: x ¬B(x)
Premises used Number of premises Rules of inference
{1} 1. x( C(x) → ¬S(x)) RULE P
{1} 2. C(3) → ¬S(3) RULE US (1→2)
{3} 3. C(3) RULE P
{1,3} 4. ¬S(3) RULE T (2 3→4)
{5} 5. x( B(x) → S(x)) RULE P
{5} 6. B(3) → S(3)) RULE US (5→6)

{1,3,5} 7. ¬B(3) RULE T (4 6→7)

{1,3,5} 8. x ¬B(x) RULE EG (7→8)

x ¬B(x) is a valid conclusion from the premises

You might also like