LESSON 4

Discrete Mathematics - Predicate Logic

Predicate Logic deals with predicates, which are propositions containing variables.

Predicate Logic – Definition

A predicate is an expression of one or more variables defined on some specific
domain. A predicate with variables can be made a proposition by either assigning a
value to the variable or by quantifying the variable.
The following are some examples of predicates −

 Let E(x, y) denote "x = y"

 Let X(a, b, c) denote "a + b + c = 0"
 Let M(x, y) denote "x is married to y"

Well Formed Formula

Well Formed Formula (wff) is a predicate holding any of the following −
 All propositional constants and propositional variables are wffs
 If x is a variable and Y is a wff, ∀xY and ∃xY are also wff
 Truth value and false values are wffs
 Each atomic formula is a wff
 All connectives connecting wffs are wffs

Quantifiers
The variable of predicates is quantified by quantifiers. There are two types of quantifier
in predicate logic − Universal Quantifier and Existential Quantifier.

Universal Quantifier
Universal quantifier states that the statements within its scope are true for every value
of the specific variable. It is denoted by the symbol ∀.
∀xP(x) is read as for every value of x, P(x) is true.

Example − "Man is mortal" can be transformed into the propositional

form ∀xP(x) where P(x) is the predicate which denotes x is mortal and the universe of
discourse is all men.
Existential Quantifier
Existential quantifier states that the statements within its scope are true for some
values of the specific variable. It is denoted by the symbol ∃.
∃xP(x) is read as for some values of x, P(x) is true.
Example − "Some people are dishonest" can be transformed into the propositional
form ∃xP(x) where P(x) is the predicate which denotes x is dishonest and the
universe of discourse is some people.

Nested Quantifiers
If we use a quantifier that appears within the scope of another quantifier, it is called
nested quantifier.
Example
 ∀ a ∃bP(x,y) where P(a,b) denotes a + b = 0
 ∀ a∀b∀cP(a,b,c) where P(a,b) denotes a+(b+c)=(a+b)+c
Note − ∀a ∃bP(x,y)≠∃a∀bP(x,y)

To deduce new statements from the statements whose truth that we already
know, Rules of Inference are used.

What are Rules of Inference for?

Mathematical logic is often used for logical proofs. Proofs are valid arguments that
determine the truth values of mathematical statements.
An argument is a sequence of statements. The last statement is the conclusion and all
its preceding statements are called premises (or hypothesis). The symbol “ ∴∴”, (read
therefore) is placed before the conclusion. A valid argument is one where the
conclusion follows from the truth values of the premises.
Rules of Inference provide the templates or guidelines for constructing valid arguments
from the statements that we already have.

Table of Rules of Inference

Rule of Name Rule of Inference Name
Inference

P P∨Q
Addition Disjunctive Syllogism
 ∴P∨Q ¬P

∴Q

P P→Q

Q Q→R Hypothetical
Conjunction
Syllogism
∴P∧Q ∴P→R

P∧Q (P→Q) ∧ (R→S)

∴P P∨R Constructive
Simplification
Dilemma
∴Q∨S

P→Q (P→Q) ∧ (R→S)

P Modus ¬Q∨¬S Destructive Dilemma

Ponens
∴Q ∴¬P∨¬R

P→Q

¬Q Modus Tollens
∴¬P

Addition
If P is a premise, we can use Addition rule to derive P∨Q.
P
∴P∨Q
Example
Let P be the proposition, “He studies very hard” is true
Therefore − "Either he studies very hard Or he is a very bad student." Here Q is the
proposition “he is a very bad student”.

Conjunction
If P and Q are two premises, we can use Conjunction rule to derive P∧.
P
 Q
∴P∧Q
Example
Let P − “He studies very hard”
Let Q − “He is the best boy in the class”
Therefore − "He studies very hard and he is the best boy in the class"

Simplification
If P∧QP∧Q is a premise, we can use Simplification rule to derive P.
P∧Q
∴P
Example
"He studies very hard and he is the best boy in the class", P∧QP∧Q
Therefore − "He studies very hard"

Modus Ponens
If P and P→Q are two premises, we can use Modus Ponens to derive Q.
P→Q
P∴Q
Example
"If you have a password, then you can log on to facebook", P→Q
"You have a password", P
Therefore − "You can log on to facebook"
Modus Tollens
If P→Q and ¬Q are two premises, we can use Modus Tollens to derive ¬P.
P→Q
¬Q
∴¬P
Example
"If you have a password, then you can log on to Facebook", P→Q
"You cannot log on to Facebook", ¬Q
Therefore − "You do not have a password "

Disjunctive Syllogism
If ¬P and P∨Q are two premises, we can use Disjunctive Syllogism to derive Q.
¬P
P∨Q
∴Q
Example
"The ice cream is not vanilla flavored", ¬P
"The ice cream is either vanilla flavored or chocolate flavored", P∨Q
Therefore − "The ice cream is chocolate flavored”

Hypothetical Syllogism
If P→Q and Q→R are two premises, we can use Hypothetical Syllogism to
derive P→R
P→Q
∴P→R
Example
"If it rains, I shall not go to school”, P→Q
"If I don't go to school, I won't need to do homework", Q→R
Therefore − "If it rains, I won't need to do homework"
Constructive Dilemma
If (P→Q)∧(R→S) and P∨R are two premises, we can use constructive dilemma to
derive Q∨S.

(P→Q)∧(R→S)
P∨R
∴Q∨S
Example
“If it rains, I will take a leave”, (P→Q)
“If it is hot outside, I will go for a shower”, (R→S)
“Either it will rain or it is hot outside”, P∨R
Therefore − "I will take a leave or I will go for a shower"

Destructive Dilemma
If (P→Q)∧(R→S) and ¬Q∨¬S¬ are two premises, we can use destructive dilemma
to derive ¬P∨¬R.
(P→Q)∧(R→S)
¬Q∨¬S
∴¬P∨¬R
Example
“If it rains, I will take a leave”, (P→Q)
“If it is hot outside, I will go for a shower”, (R→S)
“Either I will not take a leave or I will not go for a shower”, ¬Q∨¬S
Therefore − "Either it does not rain or it is not hot outside"