Rules of Inference

Section 1.6

© 2019 McGraw-Hill Education

 Revisiting the Socrates Example
We have the two premises:
• “All men are mortal.”
• “Socrates is a man.”
And the conclusion:
• “Socrates is mortal.”
How do we get the conclusion from the
premises?

© 2019 McGraw-Hill Education

 The Argument
We can express the premises (above the line)
and the conclusion (below the line) in predicate
logic as an argument:

x  Man  x   Mortal  x  
Man  Socrates 
 Mortal  Socrates 

We will see shortly that this is a valid argument.

© 2019 McGraw-Hill Education

 Arguments in Propositional Logic
A argument in propositional logic is a sequence of propositions.
All but the final proposition are called premises. The last
statement is the conclusion.
The argument is valid if the premises imply the conclusion. An
argument form is an argument that is valid no matter what
propositions are substituted into its propositional variables.
If the premises are p1 ,p2, …,pn and the conclusion is q then
(p1 p2 … pn ) → q is a tautology.
Inference rules are all argument simple argument forms that will
be used to construct more complex argument forms.

© 2019 McGraw-Hill Education

 Rules of Inference for Propositional
Logic: Modus Ponens
pq Corresponding Tautology:
p (q  ( p  q))  q
q
Example:
Let p be “It is snowing.”
Let q be “I will study discrete math.”
“If it is snowing, then I will study discrete math.”
“It is snowing.”
“Therefore , I will study discrete math.”

© 2019 McGraw-Hill Education

 Modus Tollens

pq Corresponding Tautology:

p (q  ( p  q))  q
q
Example:
Let p be “it is snowing.”
Let q be “I will study discrete math.”
“If it is snowing, then I will study discrete math.”
“I will not study discrete math.”
“Therefore , it is not snowing.”

© 2019 McGraw-Hill Education

 Hypothetical Syllogism

pq Corresponding Tautology:

qr  p  q   q  r    p  r 
pr
Example:
Let p be “it snows.”
Let q be “I will study discrete math.”
Let r be “I will get an A.”
“If it snows, then I will study discrete math.”
“If I study discrete math, I will get an A.”
“Therefore , If it snows, I will get an A.”
© 2019 McGraw-Hill Education
 Disjunctive Syllogism
pq Corresponding Tautology:
p  p   p  q    q
q
Example:
Let p be “I will study discrete math.”
Let q be “I will study English literature.”
“I will study discrete math or I will study English
literature.”
“I will not study discrete math.”
“Therefore , I will study English literature.”
© 2019 McGraw-Hill Education
 Addition

Corresponding Tautology:
p
p   p  q
 pq

Example:
Let p be “I will study discrete math.”
Let q be “I will visit Las Vegas.”
“I will study discrete math.”
“Therefore, I will study discrete math or I will
visit
Las Vegas.”
© 2019 McGraw-Hill Education
 Simplification

Corresponding Tautology:
pq
p
 p  q  p

Example:
Let p be “I will study discrete math.”
Let q be “I will study English literature.”
“I will study discrete math and English
literature”
“Therefore, I will study discrete math.”

© 2019 McGraw-Hill Education

 Conjunction
p Corresponding Tautology:
q  p   q   p  q
pq
Example:
Let p be “I will study discrete math.”
Let q be “I will study English literature.”
“I will study discrete math.”
“I will study English literature.”
“Therefore, I will study discrete math and I will
study English literature.”
© 2019 McGraw-Hill Education
 Resolution
 pr Resolution plays an important role in AI
and is used in Prolog.
pq
q  r Corresponding Tautology:
  p  r    p  q     q  r 
Example:
Let p be “I will study discrete math.”
Let r be “I will study English literature.”
Let q be “I will study databases.”
“I will not study discrete math or I will study English literature.”
“I will study discrete math or I will study databases.”
“Therefore, I will study databases or I will study English
literature.”
© 2019 McGraw-Hill Education
 Using the Rules of Inference to Build
Valid Arguments
A valid argument is a sequence of statements. Each statement is
either a premise or follows from previous statements by rules of
inference. The last statement is called conclusion.
A valid argument takes the following form:
S1
S2
.
.
.
Sn
C
© 2019 McGraw-Hill Education
 Valid Arguments 2

Example 1: From the single proposition

p   p  q

Show that q is a conclusion.

Solution:
Step Reason
1. p   p  q  Premise
2. p Simplification using 1
3. p  q Simplification using 1
4. q Modus Ponens using  2 and  3

© 2019 McGraw-Hill Education

 Valid Arguments 3

Example 2:
With these hypotheses:
“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.”
“If we take a canoe trip, then we will be home by sunset.”
Using the inference rules, construct a valid argument for the conclusion:
“We will be home by sunset.”
Solution:
1. Choose propositional variables:
p : “It is sunny this afternoon.” r : “We will go swimming.” t : “We will be home by sunset.”
q : “It is colder than yesterday.” s : “We will take a canoe trip.”
2. Translation into propositional logic:

Hypotheses: p  q, r  p, r  s, s  t
Conclusion: t
Continued on next slide 
© 2019 McGraw-Hill Education
 Valid Arguments 4

3. Construct the Valid Argument

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

© 2019 McGraw-Hill Education

 Handling Quantified Statements
Valid arguments for quantified statements are a
sequence of statements. Each statement is either
a premise or follows from previous statements
by rules of inference which include:
• Rules of Inference for Propositional Logic
• Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements
The rules of inference for quantified statements
are introduced in the next several slides.

© 2019 McGraw-Hill Education

 Universal Instantiation (UI)
xP  x
 P  c

Example:
Our domain consists of all dogs and Fido is a dog.
“All dogs are cuddly.”
“Therefore, Fido is cuddly.”

© 2019 McGraw-Hill Education

 Universal Generalization (UG)
P  c  for an arbitrary c
xP  x

Used often implicitly in Mathematical Proofs.

© 2019 McGraw-Hill Education

 Existential Instantiation (EI)
xP  x
 P  c for some element c

Example:
“There is someone who got an A in the course.”
“Let’s call her a and say that a got an A”

© 2019 McGraw-Hill Education

 Existential Generalization (EG)
P  c for some element c
xP  x

Example:
“Michelle got an A in the class.”
“Therefore, someone got an A in the class.”

© 2019 McGraw-Hill Education

 Using Rules of Inference 1

Example 1: Using the rules of inference, construct a valid argument to show that
“John Smith has two legs”
is a consequence of the premises:
“Every man has two legs.” “John Smith is a man.”
Solution: Let M(x) denote “x is a man” and L(x) “ x has two legs” and let John
Smith be a member of the domain.
Valid Argument:

Step Reason
1. x  M  x  L  x   Premise
2. M  J   L  J  UI from 1
3. M  J  Premise
4. L  J  Modus Ponens using  2 and  3
© 2019 McGraw-Hill Education
 Using Rules of Inference 2

Example 2: Use the rules of inference to construct a valid argument showing that the conclusion
“Someone who passed the first exam has not read the book.”
follows from the premises
“A student in this class has not read the book.”
“Everyone in this class passed the first exam.”
Solution: Let C(x) denote “x is in this class,” B(x) denote “ x has read the book,” and P(x) denote
“x passed the first exam.”
First we translate the
premises and conclusion
into symbolic form.
x  C  x   B  x  
x  C  x   P  x  
x  P  x  B  x 

Continued on next slide 

© 2019 McGraw-Hill Education
 Using Rules of Inference 3

Valid Argument:

Step Reason
1. x  C  x   B  x  Premise
2. C  a   B  a  EI from 1
3. C  a  Simplification from  2
4. x  C  x   P  x   Premise
5. C  a   P  a  UI from  4
6. P  a  MP from  3 and  5
7. B  a  Simplification from  2
8. P  a   B  a  Conj from  6 and  7
9. x  P  x  B  x  EG from  8
© 2019 McGraw-Hill Education
 Returning to the Socrates Example

x  Man  x   Mortal  x 
Man  Socrates 
 Mortal  Socrates

© 2019 McGraw-Hill Education

 Solution for Socrates Example
Valid Argument

Step Reason
1. x  Man  x  Mortal  x  Premise
2. Mam  Socrates  Mortal  Socrates UI from 1
3. Mam  Socrates  Premise
4. Mortal  Socrates MP from  2 and  3

© 2019 McGraw-Hill Education

 Universal Modus Ponens
Universal Modus Ponens combines universal
instantiation and modus ponens into one rule.

x  P  x   Q  x  
P  a  , where a is a particular
element in the domain
 Q  a

This rule could be used in the Socrates example.

© 2019 McGraw-Hill Education