22CDT45A

MODULE-1
FUNDAMENTALS OF LOGICS
Basic connectives and truth tables, Logical equivalence – The laws of Logic, Logical
implication – Rules of Inference. Fundamentals of Logic contd.: The Use of Quantifiers-
Quantifiers, Definitions, and the Proofs of Theorems.

Basic Connectives and Truth Tables

Definitions:
❖ A proposition (or statements) is a declarative sentence (that is, a sentence that declares a
fact) that is either true or false, but not both. we use the lowercase letters of the alphabet
(such as p, q, and r) to represent these propositions.
❖ The truth value of a proposition is true, denoted by T, if it is a true proposition, and the truth
value of a proposition is false, denoted by F, if it is a false proposition.
❖ Let p be a proposition. The negation of p, denoted by “¬ 𝑝” (also denoted by 𝑝 ̅), is the
statement “It is not the case that p.” The proposition ¬ 𝑝 is read “not p.” The truth value of
the negation of p, ¬ 𝑝, is the opposite of the truth value of p.
Example: Let p: Michael’s PC runs Linux, then ¬ 𝑝 will be “Michael’s PC does not run
Linux.”

TABLE 1 TABLE 2 TABLE 3

The Truth Table for The Truth Table for the The Truth Table for the
the Negation of a Conjunction of two Disjunction of two
Proposition. Propositions. Propositions.
𝒑 𝒒 𝒑∧𝒒 𝒑 𝒒 𝒑∨𝒒
𝒑 ¬𝒑 T T T T T T
T F
T F F T F T
F T
F T F F T T
F F F F F F

❖ New propositions, called compound propositions, are formed from existing propositions
using logical operators. These logical operators are also called connectives.
• Let p and q be propositions. The conjunction of p and q, denoted by “𝑝 ∧ 𝑞”, is the
proposition “p and q.” The conjunction 𝑝 ∧ 𝑞 is true when both p and q are true and is false
otherwise.
Example: Let p: Today is Friday, q: It is raining today, then,
𝑝 ∧ 𝑞: Today is Friday and it is raining today.
• Let p and q be propositions. The disjunction of p and q, denoted by 𝑝 ∨ 𝑞, is the proposition
“p or q.” The disjunction 𝑝 ∨ 𝑞 is false when both p and q are false and is true otherwise.
Example: Let p: Today is Friday, q: It is raining today, then,
𝑝 ∨ 𝑞: Today is Friday or it is raining today.

1
 22CDT45A

• Let p and q be propositions. The exclusive or of p and q, denoted by 𝑝 ⊕ 𝑞 sometimes by

, is the proposition that is true when exactly one of p and q is true and is false
otherwise.
• Let p and q be propositions. The conditional statement 𝑝 → 𝑞 is the proposition “if p, then
q.” The conditional statement 𝑝 → 𝑞 is false when p is true and q is false, and true otherwise.
In the conditional statement 𝑝 → 𝑞, p is called the hypothesis (or antecedent or premise)
and q is called the conclusion (or consequence).
Example: Let p: Maria learns discrete mathematics, q: Maria will find a good job, then,
𝑝 → 𝑞: If Maria learns discrete mathematics, then she will find a good job.

TABLE 4 TABLE 5
The Truth Table for the The Truth Table for the
Exclusive or of two Conditional Statement
Propositions. 𝒑 𝒒 𝒑→𝒒
𝒑 𝒒 𝒑⊕𝒒 T T T
T T F
T F F
T F T
F T T
F T T
F F T
F F F

• Consider the conditional statement 𝑝 → 𝑞. In particular, there are three related

conditional statements that occur so often that they have special names. The proposition
𝑞 → 𝑝 is called the converse of 𝑝 → 𝑞. The contrapositive of 𝑝 → 𝑞 is the proposition
¬ 𝑞 → ¬ 𝑝. The proposition ¬ 𝑝 → ¬ 𝑞 is called the inverse of 𝑝 → 𝑞.
Example: Let 𝑝 → 𝑞: If it is raining, then the home team wins. Then,
𝑞 → 𝑝 : If the home team wins, then it is raining
¬ 𝑞 → ¬ 𝑝: If the home team does not win, then it is not raining
¬ 𝑝 → ¬ 𝑞: If it is not raining, then the home team does not win.
• Let p and q be propositions. The biconditional statement 𝑝 ⟷ 𝑞 is the proposition “p
if and only if q.” The biconditional statement 𝑝 ⟷ 𝑞 is true when p and q have the
same truth values, and is false otherwise. Biconditional statements are also called bi-
implications.
Example: Let p: You can take the flight, q: You buy a ticket, then,
𝑝 ⟷ 𝑞: You can take the flight if and only if you buy a ticket.
TABLE 6
The Truth Table for the
Biconditional
𝒑 𝒒 𝒑⟷𝒒
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F T

2
 22CDT45A

• A bit can be used to represent a truth value, because there are only two truth values, namely,
1 and 0. We will use a “1” bit to represent true and a “0” bit to represent false. That is, 1
represents T (true), 0 represents F (false).

Problems:

1. Let 𝑝, 𝑞 and 𝑟 denote the following statements about a particular triangle ABC.
𝑝: Triangle ABC is Isosceles.
𝑞: Triangle ABC is Equilateral.
𝑟: Triangle ABC is Equiangular.
Translate each of the following into English statements.
a) 𝑞 → 𝑝
b) ¬𝑝 → ¬𝑞
c) 𝑞 ↔ 𝑟
d) 𝑝 ∧ ¬𝑞
e) 𝑟 → 𝑝
Sol:
a) If triangle ABC is equilateral, then it is isosceles.
b) If triangle ABC is not isosceles, then it is not equilateral.
c) Triangle ABC is equilateral, if and only if it is equiangular.
d) Triangle ABC is equilateral, but it is not equilateral.
e) If triangle ABC is equiangular, then it is isosceles.

2. Let s, t, and u denote the following primitive statements:

s: Phyllis goes out for a walk.
t: The moon is out.
u: It is snowing.
(i) Translate each of the symbolic form into an English sentence.
a) (𝑡 ∧ ¬ 𝑢) → 𝑠
b) 𝑡 → (¬ 𝑢 → 𝑠)
c) ¬( 𝑠 ↔ (𝑢 ∨ 𝑡))
Sol: a) If the moon is out and it is not snowing, then Phyllis goes out for a walk.
b) If the moon is out, then if it is not snowing Phyllis goes out for a walk. [So ¬ 𝑢 → 𝑠 is
understood to mean (¬ 𝑢) → 𝑠 as opposed to ¬( 𝑢 → 𝑠).]
c) It is not the case that Phyllis goes out for a walk if and only if it is snowing or the moon is
out.

3
 22CDT45A

(ii) Write the following in symbolic form.

a) Phyllis will go out walking if and only if the moon is out.
b) If it is snowing and the moon is not out, then Phyllis will not go out for a walk.
c) It is snowing but Phyllis will still go out for a walk.
Sol: a) Here the words "if and only if" indicate that we are dealing with a biconditional. In
symbolic form this becomes 𝑠 ↔ 𝑡.
b) This compound statement is an implication where the hypothesis is also a compound
statement. One may express this statement in symbolic form as (𝑢 ∧ ¬ 𝑡) → ¬𝑠.
c) Now we come across a new connective — namely, but. In our study of logic we shall follow
the convention that the connectives but and and convey the same meaning. Consequently, this
sentence may be represented as 𝑢 ∧ 𝑠.

3. Let 𝑝 and 𝑞 be the propositions “Swimming at the New Jersey shore is allowed” and “Sharks
have been spotted near the shore”, respectively. Express each of these compound
propositions as an English sentence.
a) ¬𝑞 b) 𝑝 ∧ 𝑞 c) ¬𝑝 ∨ 𝑞 d) 𝑝 → ¬𝑞 e) ¬𝑞 → 𝑝 f) ¬𝑝 → ¬𝑞
g) 𝑝 ↔ ¬𝑞 h) ¬𝑝 ∧ (𝑝 ∨ ¬𝑞).
Sol: a) ¬𝑞: Sharks have not been spotted near the shore.
b) 𝑝 ∧ 𝑞: Swimming at the New Jersey shore is allowed, and sharks have been spotted near the
shore.
c) ¬𝑝 ∨ 𝑞: Swimming at the New Jersey shore is not allowed, or sharks have been spotted near
the shore.
d) 𝑝 → ¬𝑞: If swimming at the New Jersey shore is allowed, then sharks have not been spotted
near the shore.
e) ¬𝑞 → 𝑝: If sharks have not been spotted near the shore, then swimming at the New Jersey
shore is allowed.
f) ¬𝑝 → ¬𝑞: If swimming at the New Jersey shore is not allowed, then sharks have not been
spotted near the shore.
g) 𝑝 ↔ ¬𝑞: Swimming at the New Jersey shore is allowed if and only if sharks have not been
spotted near the shore.
h) ¬𝑝 ∧ (𝑝 ∨ ¬𝑞): Swimming at the New Jersey shore is not allowed, and either swimming at
the New Jersey shore is allowed or sharks have not been spotted near the shore.

4. Let p, q, and r be the propositions

p: Grizzly bears have been seen in the area.
q: Hiking is safe on the trail.
r: Berries are ripe along the trail.
Write these propositions using p, q, and r and logical connectives (including negations).
a) Berries are ripe along the trail, but grizzly bears have not been seen in the area.
b) Grizzly bears have not been seen in the area and hiking on the trail is safe, but berries are
ripe along the trail.
c) If berries are ripe along the trail, hiking is safe if and only if grizzly bears have not been
seen in the area.
d) It is not safe to hike on the trail, but grizzly bears have not been seen in the area and the
berries along the trail are ripe.

4
 22CDT45A

e) Hiking is not safe on the trail whenever grizzly bears have been seen in the area and
berries are ripe along the trail.
Sol: a) 𝑟 ∧ ¬𝑝
b) ¬𝑝 ∧ 𝑞 ∧ 𝑟
c) 𝑟 ⟶ (𝑞 ⟷ ¬𝑝)
d) ¬𝑞 ∧ ¬𝑝 ∧ 𝑟
e) (𝑝 ∧ 𝑟) ⟶ ¬𝑞.

5. Construct a truth table for each of these compound propositions.

a) ¬(𝑝 ∨ ¬𝑞) → ¬ 𝑝
b) 𝑝 → (𝑞 → 𝑟)
c) (𝑝 ∨ ¬ 𝑞) → 𝑞
d) (𝑝 ∧ (𝑝 → 𝑞)) → 𝑞

Sol:
a)
𝒑 𝒒 𝒑 ∨ ¬𝒒 ¬(𝒑 ∨ ¬𝒒) → ¬ 𝒑
T T T T
T F T T
F T F T
F F T T
b)
𝑝 𝑞 𝑟 𝑞→𝑟 𝑝 → (𝑞 → 𝑟)
F F F T T
F F T T T
F T F F T
F T T T T
T F F T T
T F T T T
T T F F F
T T T T T

c)
𝒑 𝒒 ¬𝒒 𝒑 ∨ ¬𝒒 (𝒑 ∨ ¬ 𝒒) → 𝒒
T T F T T
T F T T F
F T F F T
F F T T F

5
 22CDT45A

d)
𝒑 𝒒 𝒑→ 𝒒 𝒑 ∧ (𝒑 → 𝒒) (𝒑 ∧ (𝒑 → 𝒒)) → 𝒒
T T T T T
T F F F T
F T T F T
F F T F T

6. Write the truth tables for the compound statement.

(i) 𝑝 ∨ (𝑞 ∧ 𝑟) and (𝑝 ∨ 𝑞) ∧ 𝑟.
(ii) 𝑞 ∧ (¬𝑟 → 𝑝).
Sol:
(i) 𝑝 𝑞 𝑟 𝑞∧𝑟 𝑝 ∨ (𝑞 ∧ 𝑟) 𝑝∨𝑞 (𝑝 ∨ 𝑞) ∧ 𝑟
F F F F F F F
F F T F F F F
F T F F F T F
F T T T T T T
T F F F T T F
T F T F T T T
T T F F T T F
T T T T T T T
(ii)
𝑝 𝑞 𝑟 ¬𝑟 ¬𝑟 → 𝑝 𝑞 ∧ (¬𝑟 → 𝑝)
F F F T F F
F F T F T F
F T F T F F
F T T F T T
T F F T T F
T F T F T F
T T F T T T
T T T F T T

Home work
1. Let p and q be the propositions, p: It is below freezing, q: It is snowing. Write the logical
connectives.
a) It is below freezing and snowing.
b) It is below freezing but not snowing.
c) It is not below freezing and it is not snowing.
d) It is either snowing or below freezing (or both).
e) If it is below freezing, it is also snowing.
f) It is either below freezing or it is snowing, but it is not snowing if it is below freezing.
g) That it is below freezing is necessary and sufficient for it to be snowing.
2. Construct a truth table for each of these compound propositions.
a) 𝑞 ↔ (¬ 𝑝 ∨ ¬ 𝑞)
b) [(𝑝 → 𝑞) ∧ (𝑞 → 𝑟)] → (𝑝 → 𝑟)
c) [(𝑝 ∧ 𝑞) ∨ (¬𝑟)] ↔ 𝑝

6
 22CDT45A

Logical equivalence

❖ A compound proposition that is always true, no matter what the truth values of the
propositional variables that occur in it, is called a tautology (𝑇0 𝑜𝑟 𝑇). A compound
proposition that is always false is called a contradiction (𝐹0 𝑜𝑟 𝐹). A compound proposition
that is neither a tautology nor a contradiction is called a contingency.
❖ The compound propositions p and q are called logically equivalent if 𝑝 ⟷ 𝑞 is a tautology,
i.e p and q are called logically equivalent, when p is true (respectively, false) if and only if
the q is true (respectively, false). The notation 𝑝 ≡ 𝑞 or 𝑝 ⇔ 𝑞 denotes that p and q are
logically equivalent.
❖ De Morgan’s Laws.
¬(𝑝 ∧ 𝑞) ≡ ¬𝑝 ∨ ¬𝑞 and ¬(𝑝 ∨ 𝑞) ≡ ¬𝑝 ∧ ¬𝑞
❖ Dual: Let s be a statement. If s contains no logical connectives other than ∧ and ∨, then the
dual of s, denoted sd, is the statement obtained from s by replacing each occurrence of ∧ and
∨ by ∨ and ∧, respectively, and each occurrence of 𝑇0 and 𝐹0 by 𝐹0 and 𝑇0 , respectively.
Example: Given the primitive statements 𝑝, 𝑞, 𝑟 and the compound statement
𝑠: (𝑝 ∧ ¬𝑞) ∨ (𝑟 ∧ 𝑇0 ),
then, dual of s is 𝑠 𝑑 : (𝑝 ∨ ¬𝑞) ∧ (𝑟 ∨ 𝐹0 ).
❖ The Principle of Duality. Let s and t be statements that contain no logical connectives other
than ∧ and ∨. If 𝑠 ≡ 𝑡, then 𝑠 𝑑 ≡ 𝑡 𝑑 .

7
 22CDT45A

1. Show that the implication ¬(𝑝 → 𝑞) → ¬𝑞 is a tautology.

Sol: The truth table for this implication
𝑝 𝑞 𝑝 → 𝑞 ¬(𝑝 → 𝑞) ¬𝑞 ¬(𝑝 → 𝑞) → ¬𝑞
T T T F F T
T F F T T T
F T T F F T
F F T F T T
We see that the truth values of the implication is all T’s, hence it is a tautology.

2. Show that
(i) 𝑝 → (𝑝 ∨ 𝑞) is a tautology
(ii) 𝑝 ∧ (¬𝑝 ∧ 𝑞) is a contradiction.
Sol:
𝑝 𝑞 𝑝∨𝑞 𝑝 → (𝑝 ∨ 𝑞) ¬𝑝 ¬𝑝 ∧ 𝑞 𝑝 ∧ (¬𝑝 ∧ 𝑞)
F F F T T F F
F T T T T T F
T F T T F F F
T T T T F F F

8
 22CDT45A

3. Prove that for any propositions 𝑝, 𝑞, 𝑟, the compound proposition is a tautology

[(𝑝 → 𝑞) ∧ (𝑞 → 𝑟)] → (𝑝 → 𝑟).
Sol:
𝑝 𝑞 𝑟 𝑝 → 𝑞 𝑞 → 𝑟 (𝑝 → 𝑞) ∧ (𝑞 → 𝑟) 𝑝 → 𝑟 [(𝑝 → 𝑞) ∧ (𝑞 → 𝑟)] → (𝑝 → 𝑟)
T T T T T T T T
T T F T F F F T
T F T F T F T T
T F F F T F F T
F T T T T T T T
F T F T F F T T
F F T T T T T T
F F F T T T T T

4. Show that ¬ (𝑝 ∨ 𝑞) and ¬ 𝑝 ∧ ¬ 𝑞 are logically equivalent.

Sol:
𝑝 𝑞 𝑝∨𝑞 ¬(𝑝 ∨ 𝑞) ¬𝑝 ¬𝑞 ¬𝑝 ∧¬𝑞
T T T F F F F
T F T F F T F
F T T F T F F
F F F T T T T

5. Show that 𝑝 ∨ (𝑞 ∧ 𝑟 ) and (𝑝 ∨ 𝑞) ∧ (𝑝 ∨ 𝑟 ) are logically equivalent.

Sol:
𝑝 𝑞 𝑟 𝑞 ∧ 𝑟 𝑝 ∨ (𝑞 ∧ 𝑟 ) 𝑝 ∨ 𝑞 𝑝 ∨ 𝑟 (𝑝 ∨ 𝑞) ∧ (𝑝 ∨ 𝑟 )
T T T T T T T T
T T F F T T T T
T F T F T T T T
T F F F T T T T
F T T T T T T T
F T F F F T F F
F F T F F F T F
F F F F F F F F

6. Prove that for any propositions 𝑝, 𝑞, 𝑟, [(𝑝 ∨ 𝑞) → 𝑟] ⟺ [(𝑝 → 𝑟) ∧ (𝑞 → 𝑟)].

Sol:
𝑝 𝑞 𝑟 𝑝 ∨ 𝑞 (𝑝 ∨ 𝑞) → 𝑟 𝑝 → 𝑟 𝑞 → 𝑟 (𝑝 → 𝑟) ∧ (𝑞 → 𝑟)
T T T T T T T T
T T F T F F F F
T F T T T T T T
T F F T F F T F
F T T T T T T T
F T F T F T F F
F F T F T T T T
F F F F T T T T

9
 22CDT45A

7. Show that ¬ (𝑝 → 𝑞) and 𝑝 ∧ ¬ 𝑞 are logically equivalent by developing a series of logical

equivalence.
Sol: ¬ (𝑝 → 𝑞) ≡ ¬ (¬𝑝 ∨ 𝑞) by the logical equivalence involving conditional statements
≡ ¬ (¬𝑝) ∧ ¬𝑞 by the second De-Morgan law
≡𝑝 ∧¬𝑞 by the double negation law.

8. Show that ¬ (𝑝 ∨ (¬𝑝 ∧ 𝑞) ) and ¬ 𝑝 ∧ ¬𝑞 are logically equivalent by developing a series

of logical equivalence.
Sol: ¬ (𝑝 ∨ (¬𝑝 ∧ 𝑞)) ≡ ¬ 𝑝 ∧ ¬(¬𝑝 ∧ 𝑞) by the second De-Morgan law
≡ ¬ 𝑝 ∧ [¬(¬𝑝) ∨ ¬𝑞] by the first De-Morgan law
≡ ¬ 𝑝 ∧ (𝑝 ∨ ¬𝑞) by the double negation law
≡ (¬ 𝑝 ∧ 𝑝) ∨ (¬𝑝 ∧ ¬𝑞) by the second distribution law
≡ 𝐹 ∨ (¬𝑝 ∧ ¬𝑞) because ¬ 𝑝 ∧ 𝑝 ≡ 𝐹
≡ (¬𝑝 ∧ ¬𝑞) ∨ 𝐹 by the commutative law for disjunction
≡ ¬𝑝 ∧ ¬𝑞 by the identity law for F.

9. Show that (𝑝 ∧ 𝑞) → (𝑝 ∨ 𝑞) is a tautology by developing a series of logical equivalence.

Sol: (𝑝 ∧ 𝑞) → (𝑝 ∨ 𝑞) ≡ ¬(𝑝 ∧ 𝑞) ∨ (𝑝 ∨ 𝑞) by the logical equivalence involving
conditional statements
≡ (¬𝑝 ∨ ¬ 𝑞) ∨ (𝑝 ∨ 𝑞) by the first De-Morgan law
≡ (¬𝑝 ∨ 𝑝) ∨ (¬𝑞 ∨ 𝑞) by the associative and commutative law
for disjunction
≡𝑇∨𝑇 by negation law
≡𝑇 by domination law.

10. Negate and simplify the compound statement (𝑝 ∨ 𝑞) → 𝑟 by developing a series of

logical equivalence.
Sol: (𝑝 ∨ 𝑞) → 𝑟 ≡ ¬(𝑝 ∨ 𝑞) ∨ 𝑟 by the logical equivalence involving
conditional statements
≡ ¬[¬(𝑝 ∨ 𝑞) ∨ 𝑟] by taking the negation
≡ ¬¬(𝑝 ∨ 𝑞) ∧ ¬𝑟 by the first De-Morgan law
≡ (𝑝 ∨ 𝑞) ∧ ¬𝑟 by the double negation law.

Homework
Let 𝑝, 𝑞, 𝑟 denote the primitive statements.
1.Use truth tables to verify the following logical equivalence.
(i) 𝑝 → (𝑞 ∧ 𝑟) ≡ (𝑝 → 𝑞) ∧ (𝑝 → 𝑟).
(ii)[𝑝 → (𝑞 ∨ 𝑟)] ≡ [¬𝑟 → (𝑝 → 𝑞)].
(iii) (𝑝 ∨ 𝑞) ∧ ¬(¬𝑝 ∧ 𝑞) ≡ 𝑝.
(iv) ¬[¬[(𝑝 ∨ 𝑞) ∧ 𝑟] ∨ ¬𝑞] ≡ 𝑞 ∧ 𝑟.

10
 22CDT45A

Logical implication: Rules of Inference

❖ If p, q are arbitrary statements such that 𝑝 → 𝑞 is a tautology, then we say that p logically
implies q and we write 𝑝 ⇒ 𝑞 to denote this situation.
❖ 𝑝 ⇏ 𝑞 indicate that 𝑝 → 𝑞 is not a tautology, so the given implication (namely, 𝑝 → 𝑞) is
not a logical implication.
❖ If 𝑝 ≡ 𝑞, then the statement 𝑝 ⟷ 𝑞 is a tautology, so the statements p, q have same truth
values. Under these conditions the statements 𝑝 → 𝑞, 𝑞 → 𝑝 are tautologies and we have
𝑝 ⇒ 𝑞 and 𝑞 ⇒ 𝑝. Conversely, if 𝑝 ⇒ 𝑞 and 𝑞 ⇒ 𝑝 then, 𝑝 ≡ 𝑞.

Rules of inference:

❖ An argument in propositional logic is a sequence of propositions. All but the final

proposition in the argument are called premises and the final proposition is called the
conclusion.
❖ An argument is valid if the truth of all its premises implies that the conclusion is true.
❖ An argument form in propositional logic is a sequence of compound propositions involving
propositional variables.
❖ An argument form is valid no matter which particular propositions are substituted for the
propositional variables in its premises, the conclusion is true if the premises are all true.
❖ From the definition of a valid argument form we see that the argument form with premises
𝑝1 , 𝑝2 , . . . , 𝑝𝑛 and conclusion 𝑞 is valid, when (𝑝1 ∧ 𝑝2 ∧ ···∧ 𝑝𝑛 ) → 𝑞 is a tautology.

11
 22CDT45A

1. Show that the premises “It is not sunny this afternoon and it is colder than yesterday,” “We
will go swimming only if it is sunny,” “If we do not go swimming, then we will take a canoe
trip,” and “If we take a canoe trip, then we will be home by sunset” lead to the conclusion
“We will be home by sunset.”
Sol: Let the propositions be,
𝑝 -“It is sunny this afternoon,” 𝑞 - “It is colder than yesterday,” 𝑟 - “We will go swimming,”
𝑠 - “We will take a canoe trip,” and 𝑡 - “We will be home by sunset.”
Then the premises become ¬ 𝑝 ∧ 𝑞, 𝑟 → 𝑝, ¬ 𝑟 → 𝑠, and 𝑠 → 𝑡.
The conclusion is simply “𝑡”.

We construct an argument to show that our premises lead to the desired conclusion as follows.

12
 22CDT45A

Step Reason
1. ¬ 𝑝 ∧ 𝑞 Premise
2. ¬ 𝑝 Simplification using (1)
3. 𝑟 → 𝑝 Premise
4. ¬ 𝑟 Modus tollens using (2) and (3)
5. ¬ 𝑟 → 𝑠 Premise
6. 𝑠 Modus ponens using (4) and (5)
7. 𝑠 → 𝑡 Premise
8. 𝑡 Modus ponens using (6) and (7) .

2. Show that the premises “If you send me an e-mail message, then I will finish writing the
program,” “If you do not send me an e-mail message, then I will go to sleep early,” and “If
I go to sleep early, then I will wake up feeling refreshed” lead to the conclusion “If I do not
finish writing the program, then I will wake up feeling refreshed.”
Sol: Let the proposition be, 𝑝 -“You send me an e-mail message,” 𝑞 - “I will finish writing the
program,” 𝑟 - “I will go to sleep early,” and 𝑠 - “I will wake up feeling refreshed.”
Then the premises are 𝑝 → 𝑞, ¬ 𝑝 → 𝑟 , and 𝑟 → 𝑠.
The desired conclusion is ¬ 𝑞 → 𝑠.

This argument form shows that the premises lead to the desired conclusion.

Step Reason
1. 𝑝 → 𝑞 Premise
2. ¬ 𝑞 → ¬𝑝 Contrapositive of (1)
3. ¬ 𝑝 → 𝑟 Premise
4. ¬ 𝑞 → 𝑟 Law of syllogism using (2) and (3)
5. 𝑟 → 𝑠 Premise
6. ¬ 𝑞 → 𝑠 Law of syllogism using (4) and (5)

3. Establish the validity of the argument

𝑝∧𝑞
𝑝 → (𝑟 ∧ 𝑞)
𝑟 → (𝑠 ∨ 𝑡)
¬𝑠
∴ 𝑡.
Sol: Step Reason
1. 𝑝 ∧ 𝑞 Premise
2. 𝑝 Rule of Conjunctive Simplification using (1)
3. 𝑝 → (𝑟 ∧ 𝑞) Premise
4. 𝑟 ∧ 𝑞 Rule of Detachment using (2), (3)
5. 𝑟 Rule of Conjunctive Simplification using (4)
6. 𝑟 → (𝑠 ∨ 𝑡) Premise
7. 𝑠 ∨ 𝑡 Rule of Detachment using (5), (6)
8. ¬𝑠 Premise
9. ∴ 𝑡 Rule of Disjunctive Syllogism using (7), (8).

13
 22CDT45A

4. Establish the validity of the argument

𝑝 → ( 𝑞 → 𝑟)
¬𝑞 →¬𝑝
𝑝
∴ 𝑟.
Sol: Step Reason
1. 𝑝 Premise
2. ¬ 𝑞 → ¬ 𝑝 Premise
3. 𝑝 → 𝑞 𝑝 → 𝑞 ≡ ¬ 𝑞 → ¬ 𝑝 using (2)
4. 𝑞 Rule of Detachment using (1), (3)
5. 𝑝 ∧ 𝑞 Rule of Conjunction using (1), (4)
6. 𝑝 → ( 𝑞 → 𝑟) Premise
7. (𝑝 ∧ 𝑞) → 𝑟 𝑝 → ( 𝑞 → 𝑟) ≡ (𝑝 ∧ 𝑞) → 𝑟 using (6)
8. ∴ 𝑟 Rule of Detachment using (5), (7)

5. Prove that the following are valid arguments

¬𝑝 ↔ 𝑞
𝑞→𝑟
¬𝑟
∴ 𝑝
Sol: Step Reason
1. 𝑞 → 𝑟 Premise
2. ¬𝑟 Premise
3. ¬𝑞 Modus tollens using (1) and (2)
4. ¬𝑝 ↔ 𝑞 Premise
5. (¬𝑝 → 𝑞) ∧ (𝑞 → ¬𝑝) by the logical equivalence involving biconditional statements
using (4)
6. ¬𝑝 → 𝑞 Rule of Conjunctive Simplification using (5)
7. ¬¬𝑝 Modus tollens using (3) and (6)
8. ∴ 𝑝 Rule of double negation law for (7)

6. Provide the reasons for the steps verifying the following argument.
𝑝→𝑞
𝑞 → (𝑟 ∧ 𝑠)
¬𝑟 ∨ (¬𝑡 ∨ 𝑢)
𝑝∧𝑡
∴ 𝑢.
Step Sol: Reason
1. 𝑝 → 𝑞 Premise
2. 𝑞 → (𝑟 ∧ 𝑠) Premise
3. 𝑝 → (𝑟 ∧ 𝑠) Law of syllogism using (1) and (2)
4. 𝑝 ∧ 𝑡 Premise
5. 𝑝 Conjunctive simplification using (4)
6. 𝑟 ∧ 𝑠 Rule of detachment using (5) and (3)
7. 𝑟 Rule of conjunctive simplification using (6)

14
 22CDT45A

8. ¬𝑟 ∨ (¬𝑡 ∨ 𝑢) Premise
9. ¬(𝑟 ∧ 𝑡) ∨ 𝑢 Associative law of ∨ and De Morgans Law using (8)
10. 𝑡 Rule of conjunctive simplification using (4)
11. 𝑟 ∧ 𝑡 Rule of conjunction using (7) and (10)
12. ∴ 𝑢 Law of double negation and Rule of Disjunctive syllogism using
(9) and (11).
Home work

1. Show that the premises “If Rochelle gets the supervisor's position and works hard then she
gets a raise”, “If she gets a raise, then she’ll buy a new car”, “She has not purchased a new
car”, lead to the conclusion “Rochelle did not get the supervisor's position or she did not work
hard”.
2. Establish the validity of the argument
(i) 𝑝 → 𝑟 (ii) (¬𝑝 ∨ 𝑞) → 𝑟 (iii) (¬𝑝 ∨ ¬𝑞) → (𝑟 ∧ 𝑠)
¬𝑝→𝑞 𝑟 → (𝑠 ∨ 𝑡) 𝑟→𝑡
𝑞→𝑠 ¬𝑠∧ ¬𝑢 ¬𝑡
∴ ¬ 𝑟 → 𝑠. ¬𝑢 →¬𝑡 ∴𝑝
∴𝑝

The Use of Quantifiers

❖ A declarative sentence is an open statement if

(i) it contains one or more variables, and
(ii) it is not a statement, but
(iii) it becomes a statement when the variables in it are replaced by certain allowable choice.
Example: “The number 𝑥 + 2 is an even integer” is an open statement that contains the single
variable 𝑥.
❖ “Certain allowable choice” constitutes the universe or the universe of discourse for the open
statement.
❖ The open statement is denoted by 𝑝(𝑥) [𝑞(𝑥) 𝑜𝑟 𝑟(𝑥), 𝑒𝑡𝑐] and 𝑞(𝑥, 𝑦) to represent open
statement that contains two variables.
Example: 𝑝(𝑥): The number 𝑥 + 2 is an even integer.
¬𝑝(𝑥): The number 𝑥 + 2 is not an even integer.
𝑞(𝑥, 𝑦): 𝑥 − 𝑦 is an even integer.
❖ The variable 𝑥 in each open statements 𝑝(𝑥) is called the free variable.
❖ Quantification expresses the extent to which an open statement is true over a range of
elements. In English, the words for all, some, many, none, and few are used in
quantifications.
❖ Two types of quantifiers: existential quantifiers and universal quantifiers.
❖ The existential quantifiers: “For some 𝑥”, “For at least one 𝑥” or “There exists an 𝑥 such
that.” We use the notation ∃𝑥.
Ex: “For some 𝑥, 𝑝(𝑥)” in symbolic form “∃𝑥 𝑝(𝑥).”
❖ The universal quantifiers: “For all 𝑥”, “For any 𝑥”, “For each 𝑥”, “For every 𝑥”. We use the
notation ∀𝑥. “For all 𝑥,𝑦”, “For any 𝑥,𝑦”, “For each 𝑥, 𝑦”, “For every 𝑥,𝑦” We use the
notation ∀𝑥, 𝑦.

15
 22CDT45A

❖ Let 𝑝(𝑥), 𝑞(𝑥) be open statements defined for a given universe.

➢ The open statements 𝑝(𝑥) and 𝑞(𝑥) are called (logically) equivalent, denoted as
∀𝑥 [𝑝(𝑥) ≡ 𝑞(𝑥)] when the biconditional 𝑝(𝑎) ↔ 𝑞(𝑎) is true for each replacement 𝑎
from the universe (i.e. 𝑝(𝑎) ≡ 𝑞(𝑎) for each 𝑎 in the universe).
➢ If the implication 𝑝(𝑎) → 𝑞(𝑎) is true for each 𝑎 in the universe, we say 𝑝(𝑥) logically
implies 𝑞(𝑥) and denoted as ∀𝑥 [𝑝(𝑥) → 𝑞(𝑥)].
❖ For open statements 𝑝(𝑥), 𝑞(𝑥) defined for a prescribed universe and the universally
quantified statement ∀𝑥 [𝑝(𝑥) → 𝑞(𝑥)], we define:
1) The contrapositive as ∀𝑥 [¬𝑞(𝑥) → ¬𝑝(𝑥)]
2) The converse as ∀𝑥 [𝑞(𝑥) → 𝑝(𝑥)]
3) The inverse as ∀𝑥 [¬𝑝(𝑥) → ¬𝑞(𝑥)].

❖ Theorems are the statements of mathematical interest, statements that are known to be true.
❖ A theorem may be the universal quantification of a conditional statement with one or more
premises and a conclusion.
❖ Sometimes the term theorem is used only to describe major results that have many and
varied consequences. Certain of these consequences that follow rather immediately from a
theorem are termed corollaries.
❖ Less important theorems sometimes are called propositions.
❖ We demonstrate that a theorem is true with a proof. A proof is a valid argument that
establishes the truth of a theorem.
❖ The statements used in a proof can include axioms (or postulates), which are statements we
assume to be true, the premises, if any, of the theorem, and previously proven theorems.
❖ A less important theorem that is helpful in the proof of other results is called a lemma (plural
lemmas or lemmata).
❖ A conjecture is a statement that is being proposed to be a true statement, usually on the basis
of some partial evidence, a heuristic argument, or the intuition of an expert.

16
 22CDT45A

❖ The Rule of universal specification:

If 𝑝(𝑥) is an open statement for a given universe, and if ∀𝑥 𝑝(𝑥) is true, then 𝑝(𝑎) is true
for each 𝑎 in the universe.

❖ The Rule of universal generalization:

If an open statement 𝑝(𝑥) is proved to be true when 𝑥 is replaced by any arbitrarily chosen
element 𝑐 from our universe, then the universally quantified statements ∀𝑥 𝑝(𝑥) is true.
Note: The rule extends beyond a single variable.
For example, we have an open statement 𝑞(𝑥, 𝑦) that is proved to be true when 𝑥 and 𝑦 are
replaced by any arbitrarily chosen element from the same universe, then the universally
quantified statements ∀𝑥, 𝑦 𝑞(𝑥, 𝑦) is true.

Definition I: The integer 𝑛 is even if there exists an integer 𝑎 such that 𝑛 = 2𝑎, and 𝑛 is odd
if there exists an integer 𝑎 such that 𝑛 = 2𝑎 + 1.

Problems
1. Consider the open statements. 𝑝(𝑡): 𝑡 has two sides of equal length. 𝑞(𝑡): 𝑡 is an isosceles
triangle. 𝑟(𝑡): 𝑡 has two angles of equal measure. Then the arguments:
In the triangle XYZ there is no pair of angles of equal measure.
If a triangle has two sides of equal length, then it is isosceles.
If a triangle is isosceles, then it has two angles of equal measure.
Therefore triangle XYZ has no two sides of equal length.
Write the arguments symbolically and validate the arguments.

17
 22CDT45A

Sol: Symbolically- ¬𝑟(𝑐)

∀𝑡 [𝑝(𝑡) → 𝑞(𝑡)]
∀𝑡 [𝑞(𝑡) → 𝑟(𝑡)]
∴ ¬𝑝(𝑐)
Sol: Step Reason
1) ∀𝑡 [𝑝(𝑡) → 𝑞(𝑡)] Premise
2) 𝑝(𝑐) → 𝑞(𝑐) Rule of universal specification using (1)
3) ∀𝑡 [𝑞(𝑡) → 𝑟(𝑡)] Premise
4) 𝑞(𝑐) → 𝑟(𝑐) Rule of universal specification using (3)
5) 𝑝(𝑐) → 𝑟(𝑐) Law of the syllogism using (2) and (4)
6) ¬𝑟(𝑐) Premise
7) ∴ ¬𝑝(𝑐) Modus Tollens using (5) and (6)

2. Let 𝑗(𝑥), 𝑠(𝑥), and 𝑝(𝑥) be open statements that are defined for a given universe. Establish
the validity of the argument.
∀𝑥 [(𝑗(𝑥) ∨ 𝑠(𝑥)) → ¬𝑝(𝑥)]
𝑝(𝑚)
∴ ¬𝑠(𝑚)
Sol: Step Reason
1) ∀𝑥 [(𝑗(𝑥) ∨ 𝑠(𝑥)) → ¬𝑝(𝑥)] Premise
2) 𝑝(𝑚) Premise
3) (𝑗(𝑚) ∨ 𝑠(𝑚)) → ¬𝑝(𝑚) Rule of universal specification using (1)
4) 𝑝(𝑚) → ¬(𝑗(𝑚) ∨ 𝑠(𝑚)) Law of double negation,(𝑞 → 𝑡) ≡ (¬𝑡 → ¬𝑞) using (3)
5) 𝑝(𝑚) → (¬𝑗(𝑚) ∧ ¬𝑠(𝑚)) DeMorgan’s law using (4)
6) ¬𝑗(𝑚) ∧ ¬𝑠(𝑚) Modus Ponens using (2) and (5)
7) ¬𝑠(𝑚) Rule of Conjunctive simplification using (6)

3. Let 𝑝(𝑥), 𝑞(𝑥), and 𝑟(𝑥) be open statements that are defined for a given universe. Establish
the validity of the argument.
∀𝑥 [𝑝(𝑥) → 𝑞(𝑥)]
∀𝑥 [𝑞(𝑥) → 𝑟(𝑥)]
∴ ∀𝑥 [𝑝(𝑥) → 𝑟(𝑥)]
Sol: Step Reason
1) ∀𝑥 [𝑝(𝑥) → 𝑞(𝑥)] Premise
2) 𝑝(𝑐) → 𝑞(𝑐) Rule of universal specification using (1)
3) ∀𝑥 [𝑞(𝑥) → 𝑟(𝑥)] Premise
4) 𝑞(𝑐) → 𝑟(𝑐) Rule of universal specification using (3)
5) 𝑝(𝑐) → 𝑟(𝑐) Law of the syllogism using (2) and (4)
6) ∴ ∀𝑥 [𝑝(𝑥) → 𝑟(𝑥)] Rule of universal generalization using (5)

4. Prove that the following argument is valid.

∀𝑥, [𝑝(𝑥) → {𝑞(𝑥) ∧ 𝑟(𝑥)}]
∀𝑥, [𝑝(𝑥) ∧ 𝑠(𝑥)]
∴ ∀𝑥, [𝑟(𝑥) ∧ 𝑠(𝑥)]

18
 22CDT45A

Sol: Step Reason

1) ∀𝑥, [𝑝(𝑥) → {𝑞(𝑥) ∧ 𝑟(𝑥)}] Premise
2) 𝑝(𝑐) → {𝑞(𝑐) ∧ 𝑟(𝑐)} Rule of universal specification using (1)
3) ∀𝑥, [𝑝(𝑥) ∧ 𝑠(𝑥)] Premise
4) 𝑝(𝑐) ∧ 𝑠(𝑐) Rule of universal specification using (3)
5) 𝑝(𝑐) Rule of Conjunctive simplification using (4)
6) 𝑞(𝑐) ∧ 𝑟(𝑐) Modus Ponens using (2) and (5)
7) 𝑟(𝑐) Law of commutative and Rule of Conjunctive simplification
using (6)
8) 𝑠(𝑐) Law of commutative and Rule of Conjunctive simplification
using (4)
9) 𝑟(𝑐) ∧ 𝑠(𝑐) Rule of conjunction using (7) and (8)
10) ∴ ∀𝑥, [𝑟(𝑥) ∧ 𝑠(𝑥)] Rule of universal generalization using (9)

Theorem: For all integers k and l, if k, l are both odd, then k+l is even.
Proof: Since k and l are odd, we may write 𝑘 = 2𝑎 + 1 and 𝑙 = 2𝑏 + 1, for some integers a,
b, by Definition I. Then, 𝑘 + 𝑙 = (2𝑎 + 1) + (2𝑏 + 1) = 2(𝑎 + 𝑏 + 1).
Since a, b are integers, 𝑎 + 𝑏 + 1 = 𝑐 is an integer, 𝑘 + 𝑙 = 2𝑐. By Definition I, 𝑘 + 𝑙 is even.

Theorem: For all integers k and l, if k, l are both odd, then their product kl is also odd.
Proof: Since k and l are odd, we may write 𝑘 = 2𝑎 + 1 and 𝑙 = 2𝑏 + 1, for some integers a,
b, by Definition I.
Then, 𝑘𝑙 = (2𝑎 + 1)(2𝑏 + 1) = 4𝑎𝑏 + 2𝑎 + 2𝑏 + 1 = 2(2𝑎𝑏 + 𝑎 + 𝑏) + 1.
Since a, b are integers, 2𝑎𝑏 + 𝑎 + 𝑏 = 𝑐 is an integer, 𝑘𝑙 = 2𝑐 + 1. By Definition I, 𝑘𝑙 is odd.

Theorem: Give (i) a direct proof (ii) an indirect proof (iii) a contradiction proof, of the
following statement. “If m is an even integer, then 𝑚 + 7 is odd.”
Proof: (i)Since m is even, we have 𝑚 = 2𝑎 for some integer 𝑎.
Then, 𝑚 + 7 = 2𝑎 + 7 = 2𝑎 + 6 + 1 = 2(𝑎 + 3) + 1. Since 𝑎 + 3 is an integer, we know
that 𝑚 + 7 is odd (by Definition I).
(ii)Suppose that 𝑚 + 7 is not odd, hence even. Then 𝑚 + 7 = 2𝑏 for some integer b and 𝑚 =
𝑏 − 7 = 2𝑏 − 8 + 1 = 2(𝑏 − 4) + 1, where 𝑏 − 4 is an integer. Hence 𝑚 is odd. (because
∀𝑚[𝑝(𝑚) → 𝑞(𝑚)] ≡ ∀𝑚[¬𝑞(𝑚) → ¬𝑝(𝑚)]).
(iii)Now assume that 𝑚 is even and that 𝑚 + 7 is also even. Then 𝑚 + 7 even implies that
𝑚 + 7 = 2𝑐 for some integer 𝑐. And 𝑚 = 2𝑐 − 7 = 2𝑐 − 8 + 1 = 2(𝑐 − 4) + 1 with 𝑐 − 4
an integer, so 𝑚 is odd, which is a contradiction. Since the assumption is false, its negation is
true. Hence 𝑚 + 7 is odd.

Theorem: Give (i) an indirect proof (ii) a contradiction proof, of the following statement. “For
every integer 𝑛, if 𝑛2 is odd, then 𝑛 is odd.”
Proof: Let 𝑛 be any integer.
Then the given statement reads 𝑝 → 𝑞, where 𝑝: 𝑛2 is odd and 𝑞: 𝑛 is odd.
(i) We prove by contraposition i..e ¬𝑞 → ¬𝑝 is true.

19
 22CDT45A

Assume that ¬𝑞 is true, that is assume that 𝑛 is not an odd integer. Then, 𝑛 = 2𝑘, where 𝑘 is
an integer. Consequently, 𝑛2 = (2𝑘)2 = 2(2𝑘 2 ), so that 𝑛2 is not odd. That is, 𝑝 is false or
equivalently, ¬𝑝 is true. This proves the contrapositive statement ¬𝑞 → ¬𝑝.
(ii) Assume that 𝑝 → 𝑞 is false, that is, assume that 𝑝 is true and 𝑞 is false. Now, 𝑞 is false
means: 𝑛 is even, so that 𝑛 = 2𝑘 for some integer 𝑘. This yields 𝑛2 = (2𝑘)2 = 4𝑘 2 from which
it is evident that 𝑛2 is even, that is, 𝑝 is false. This contradicts the assumption that 𝑝 is true.
This proves 𝑝 → 𝑞 is true (for any integer 𝑛).

Theorem: For all positive real numbers 𝑥 and 𝑦, if the product 𝑥𝑦 exceeds 25, then 𝑥 > 5 or
𝑦 > 5.
Proof: Consider the negation of the conclusion that is, 0 < 𝑥 ≤ 5 and 0 < 𝑦 ≤ 5. Under these
circumstances we find that 0 = 0.0 < 𝑥 . 𝑦 ≤ 5 . 5 = 25, so the product 𝑥𝑦 does not exceed
25. Hence the proof. (Proof by contrapositive: ∀𝑥 [¬𝑞(𝑥) → ¬𝑝(𝑥)]).

Homework
1. For the universe of all people, consider the open statements 𝑚(𝑥): 𝑥 is a mathematics
professor; 𝑐(𝑥): 𝑥 has studied calculus. Consider the argument.
All mathematics professors have studied calculus.
Leona is a mathematics professor.
Therefore Leona has studied calculus.
Write the symbolic form of argument and validate.

2.Find whether the following argument is valid:

No engineering student of first or second semester studies logic.
Anil is an engineering student who studied Logic.
∴ Anil is not in second semester.

3. Give a direct proof for each of the following.

a) for all integers 𝑘 and 𝑙, if 𝑘, 𝑙 are both even, then 𝑘 + 𝑙 is even.
b) for all integers 𝑘 and 𝑙, if 𝑘, 𝑙 are both even, then 𝑘𝑙 is even.

4. Give (i) a direct proof (ii) an indirect proof (iii) a contradiction proof, of the following
statement. “If n is an odd integer, then 𝑛 + 11 is an even integer.”

20