Part III: Rules of Inference

Proofs
Normal Forms

Copyright © McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
Summary
 Valid Arguments and Rules of Inference

 Proof Methods and Strategies

 Normal Forms
 Disjunctive Normal Form (DNF)
 Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF)
Section Summary
 Valid Arguments
 Inference Rules for Propositional Logic
 Using Rules of Inference to Build Arguments
 Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements
 Building Arguments for Quantified Statements
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?

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

 We will see shortly that this is a valid argument.

Valid Arguments
 We will show how to construct valid arguments in
two stages; first for propositional logic and then for
predicate logic. The rules of inference are the
essential building block in the construction of valid
arguments.
1. Propositional Logic
Inference rules

2. Predicate Logic
Inference rules for propositional logic plus additional
inference rules to handle variables and quantifiers.
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 truth of all its premises implies that
the conclusion is true.

 An argument form is an argument that is valid no matter which

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 simple argument forms that will be used to
construct more complex argument forms.
Rules of Inference for Propositional Logic:
Modus Ponens (law of detachment)
Corresponding Tautology:
(p ∧ (p →q)) → q

Example:
Let p be “It is raining.”
Let q be “I will study discrete math.”

“If it is raining, then I will study discrete math.”

“It is raining.”

“Therefore , I will study discrete math.”

Modus Tollens
Corresponding Tautology:
(¬q∧(p →q))→¬p

Example:
Let p be “it is raining.”
Let q be “I will study discrete math.”

“If it is raining, then I will study discrete math.”

“I will not study discrete math.”

“Therefore , it is not raining.”

Hypothetical Syllogism
Corresponding Tautology:
((p →q) ∧ (q→r))→(p→ r)

Example:
Let p be “it rains.”
Let q be “I will study discrete math.”
Let r be “I will get an A.”

“If it rains, then I will study discrete math.”

“If I study discrete math, I will get an A.”

“Therefore , If it rains, I will get an A.”

Disjunctive Syllogism
Corresponding Tautology:
(¬p∧(p ∨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.”

Addition
Corresponding Tautology:
p →(p ∨q)

Example:
Let p be “I will study discrete math.”
Let q be “I will visit Dhanbad.”

“I will study discrete math.”

“Therefore, I will study discrete math or I will

visit Dhanbad.”
Simplification

Corresponding Tautology:
(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.”

Conjunction
Corresponding Tautology:
((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.”
Resolution Resolution plays an important role
in AI and is used in Prolog.

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.”
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
Valid Arguments
Example 1: From the single proposition

Show that q is a conclusion.

Solution:
Valid Arguments
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 go for a trip.”
“If we go for a trip, then we will be in hostel by sunset.”
 Using the inference rules, construct a valid argument for the conclusion:
“We will be in hostel by sunset.”

Solution:
1. Choose propositional variables:
p : “It is sunny this afternoon.” r : “We will go swimming.”
q : “It is colder than yesterday.” s : “We will go for a trip.”
t : “We will be in hostel by sunset.”

2. Translation into propositional logic:

Valid Arguments
3. Construct the Valid Argument
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
Universal Instantiation (UI)
It states that 𝑃(𝑐) is true, where
𝑐 is a particular member of the
domain, given the premise
∀𝑥 𝑃(𝑥).

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

“Therefore, Fido is cuddly.”

Universal Generalization (UG)
It states that ∀𝑥 𝑃(𝑥) is true,
given the premise that 𝑃(𝑐) is
true for all elements 𝑐 in the
domain.

Used often implicitly in Mathematical Proofs.

Existential Instantiation (EI)
It states that there is an element
𝑐 in the domain for which 𝑃(𝑐) is
true if we know that ∃𝑥 𝑃(𝑥) is
true.

Example:

“There is someone who got an A in the course.”

“Let’s call her a and say that a got an A”
Existential Generalization (EG)
It states that ∃𝑥 𝑃(𝑥) is true
when a particular element 𝑐 with
𝑃(𝑐) true is known.

Example:

“Sounak got an A in the course.”

“Therefore, someone got an A in the course.”
Using Rules of Inference
Example 1: Using the rules of inference, construct a valid argument to
show that
“Ankit has two legs”
is a consequence of the premises:
“Every man has two legs.”
“Ankit is a man.”

Solution: Let M(x) denote “x is a man” and L(x) “x has two legs” and let
Ankit be a member of the domain.
Valid Argument:
Using Rules of Inference
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.
Using Rules of Inference
Valid Argument:
Returning to the Socrates Example
Solution for Socrates Example
Valid Argument
Universal Modus Ponens
Universal Modus Ponens combines universal
instantiation and modus ponens into one rule.

This rule could be used in the Socrates example.

Section Summary
 Mathematical Proofs

 Forms of Theorems

 Direct Proofs

 Indirect Proofs
 Proof of the Contrapositive
 Proof by Contradiction
Proofs of Mathematical Statements
 A proof is a valid argument that establishes the truth of a
statement.
 In math, CS, and other disciplines, informal proofs which are
generally shorter, are generally used:
 More than one rule of inference are often used in a step.
 Steps may be skipped.
 The rules of inference used are not explicitly stated.
 Easier for to understand and to explain to people.
 But it is also easier to introduce errors.

 Proofs have many practical applications:

 verification that computer programs are correct
 establishing that operating systems are secure
 enabling programs to make inferences in artificial intelligence
 showing that system specifications are consistent
Definitions
 A theorem is a statement that can be shown to be true using:
 definitions
 other theorems
 axioms (statements which are given as true)
 rules of inference

 A lemma is a ‘helping theorem’ or a result which is needed to

prove a theorem.
 A corollary is a result which follows directly from a theorem.
 Less important theorems are sometimes called propositions.
 A conjecture is a statement that is being proposed to be true.
Once a proof of a conjecture is found, it becomes a theorem. It
may turn out to be false.
Forms of Theorems
 Many theorems assert that a property holds for all elements
in a domain, such as the integers, the real numbers, or
some of the discrete structures.
 Often the universal quantifier (needed for a precise
statement of a theorem) is omitted by standard
mathematical convention.
For example, the statement:
“If x > y, where x and y are positive real numbers, then x2 > y2 ”
really means
“For all positive real numbers x and y, if x > y, then x2 > y2 .”
Proving Theorems
 Many theorems have the form:

 To prove them, we show that where c is an arbitrary

element of the domain,

 By universal generalization the truth of the original

formula follows.

 So, we must prove something of the form:

Proving Conditional Statements: p → q
 Trivial Proof: If we know q is true, then
p → q is true as well.

“If it is raining then 1=1.”

 Vacuous Proof: If we know p is false then

p → q is true as well.
“If I am both rich and poor then 2 + 2 = 5.”

[Even though these examples seem silly, both trivial and vacuous proofs
are often used in mathematical induction. ]
Even and Odd Integers
Definition: The integer n is even if there exists an
integer k such that n = 2k, and n is odd if there exists
an integer k, such that n = 2k + 1. Note that every
integer is either even or odd and no integer is both
even and odd.

We will need this basic fact about the integers in some

of the example proofs to follow.
Proving Conditional Statements: p → q
 Direct Proof: Assume that p is true. Use rules of inference,
axioms, and logical equivalences to show that q must also be
true.
Example: Give a direct proof of the theorem “If n is an odd
integer, then n2 is odd.”
Solution: Assume that n is odd. Then n = 2k + 1 for an integer k.
Squaring both sides of the equation, we get:
n2 = (2k + 1)2 = 4k2 + 4k +1 = 2(2k2 + 2k) + 1= 2r + 1,
where r = 2k2 + 2k , an integer.

We have proved that if n is an odd integer, then n2 is an odd

integer.
Proving Conditional Statements: p → q
Definition: The real number r is rational if there exist
integers p and q where q≠0 such that r = p/q
Example: Prove that the sum of two rational numbers
is rational.
Solution: Assume r and s are two rational numbers.
Then there must be integers p, q and also t, u such
that
where v = pu + qt
w = qu ≠ 0
Thus the sum is rational.
Proving Conditional Statements: p → q
 Proof by Contraposition: Assume ¬q and show ¬p is true also. This is
sometimes called an indirect proof method. If we give a direct proof of
¬q → ¬p then we have a proof of p → q.

Example: Prove that if n is an integer and 3n + 2 is odd, then n is

odd.
Solution: Assume n is even. So, n = 2k for some integer k. Thus
3n + 2 = 3(2k) + 2 =6k +2 = 2(3k + 1) = 2j for j = 3k +1

Therefore 3n + 2 is even. Since we have shown ¬q → ¬p , p → q

must hold as well. If n is an integer and 3n + 2 is odd (not even) ,
then n is odd (not even).
Proving Conditional Statements: p → q
Example: Prove that for an integer n, if n2 is odd, then n is
odd.
Solution: Use proof by contraposition.

Assume n is even (i.e., not odd). Therefore, there exists an

integer k such that n = 2k. Hence,
n2 = 4k2 = 2 (2k2)
and n2 is even(i.e., not odd).
We have shown that if n is an even integer, then n2 is even.
Therefore by contraposition, for an integer n, if n2 is odd,
then n is odd.
Proving Conditional Statements: p → q
 Proof by Contradiction:
To prove p, assume ¬p and derive a contradiction such as
p ∧ ¬p. (an indirect form of proof). Since we have shown
that ¬p →F is true , it follows that the contrapositive T→p
also holds.
Example: Prove that if you pick 22 days from the calendar,
at least 4 must fall on the same day of the week.
Solution: Assume that no more than 3 of the 22 days fall
on the same day of the week. Because there are 7 days of
the week, we could only have picked 21 days. This
contradicts the assumption that we have picked 22 days.
Proof by Contradiction
Example: Use a proof by contradiction to give a proof that √2 is
irrational.

Solution: Suppose √2 is rational. Then there exists integers a and b

with √2 = a/b, where b≠ 0 and a and b have no common factors. Then

Therefore a2 must be even. If a2 is even then a must be even. Since a is

even, a = 2c for some integer c. Thus,

Therefore b2 is even. Again then b must be even as well.

But then 2 must divide both a and b. This contradicts our assumption
that a and b have no common factors. We have proved by contradiction
that our initial assumption must be false and therefore √2 is
irrational.
Theorems that are Biconditional
Statements
 To prove a theorem that is a biconditional statement,
that is, a statement of the form p ↔ q, we show that
p → q and q →p are both true.
Example: Prove the theorem: “If n is an integer, then n is
odd if and only if n2 is odd.”

Solution: We have already shown (previous slides) that

both p →q and q →p. Therefore we can conclude p ↔ q.
What is wrong with this?
“Proof” that 1 = 2

Solution: Step 5. a - b = 0 by the premise and division by 0 is undefined.

Looking Ahead
 If direct methods of proof do not work:
 We may need a clever use of a proof by contraposition.

 Or a proof by contradiction.

 In the next section, we will see strategies that can be

used when straightforward approaches do not work.

 Later, we will see mathematical induction and related

techniques as well as combinatorial proofs.
Section Summary
 Proof by Cases
 Proof by Without Loss of Generality
 Constructive Existence Proofs
 Disproof by Counterexample
 Proving Universally Quantified Assertions
 Role of Open Problems
Proof by Cases
 To prove a conditional statement of the form:

 Use the tautology

 Each of the implications is a case.

Proof by Cases
Example: Let a @ b = max{a, b} = a if a ≥ b, otherwise
a @ b = max{a, b} = b.
Show that for all real numbers a, b, c
(a @b) @ c = a @ (b @ c)
(This means the operation @ is associative.)
Proof: Let a, b, and c be arbitrary real numbers.
Then one of the following 6 cases must hold.
1. a ≥ b ≥ c
2. a ≥ c ≥ b
3. b ≥ a ≥c
4. b ≥ c ≥a
5. c ≥ a ≥ b
6. c ≥ b ≥ a
Proof by Cases
Case 1: a ≥ b ≥ c
(a @ b) = a, a @ c = a, b @ c = b
Hence (a @ b) @ c = a = a @ (b @ c)
Therefore the equality holds for the first case.

A complete proof requires that the equality be shown

to hold for all 6 cases. But the proofs of the
remaining cases are similar.
Without Loss of Generality
Example: Show that if x and y are integers and both x∙y and x+y are even,
then both x and y are even.

Proof: Use a proof by contraposition. Suppose x and y are not both even.
Then, one or both are odd. Without loss of generality, assume that x is odd.
Then x = 2m + 1 for some integer m.
Case 1: y is even. Then y = 2n for some integer n, so
x + y = (2m + 1) + 2n = 2(m + n) + 1 is odd.

Case 2: y is odd. Then y = 2n + 1 for some integer n, so

x ∙ y = (2m + 1) (2n + 1) = 2(2m ∙ n +m + n) + 1 is odd.

We only cover the case where x is odd because the case where y is odd is
similar. The use phrase without loss of generality (WLOG) indicates this.
Existence Proofs
 Proof of theorems of the form .
 Constructive existence proof:
 Find an explicit value of c, for which P(c) is true.
 Then is true by Existential Generalization (EG).

Example: Show that there is a positive integer that can be

written as the sum of cubes of positive integers in two
different ways.

Proof: 1729 is such a number since

1729 = 103 + 93 = 123 + 13
Counterexamples
 Recall .

 To establish that is true (or is false)

find a c such that P(c) is true or P(c) is false.

 In this case c is called a counterexample to the

assertion .

Example: “Every positive integer is the sum of the

squares of 3 integers.” The integer 7 is a
counterexample. So the claim is false.
Universally Quantified Assertions
 To prove theorems of the form , assume x is an
arbitrary member of the domain and show that P(x)
must be true. Using UG it follows that .
Example: An integer x is even if and only if x2 is even.
Solution: The quantified assertion is
x [x is even  x2 is even]
We assume x is arbitrary.
Recall that is equivalent to
So, we have two cases to consider. These are
considered in turn.
Universally Quantified Assertions
Case 1. We show that if x is even then x2 is even using
a direct proof (the only if part or necessity).
If x is even then x = 2k for some integer k.
Hence x2 = 4k2 = 2(2k2 ) which is even since it is an
integer divisible by 2.
This completes the proof of case 1.
Universally Quantified Assertions
Case 2. We show that if x2 is even then x must be even (the
if part or sufficiency). We use a proof by contraposition.
Assume x is not even and then show that x2 is not even.
If x is not even then it must be odd. So, x = 2k + 1 for some
k. Then x2 = (2k + 1)2 = 4k2 + 4k + 1 = 2(2k2 + 2k) + 1
which is odd and hence not even. This completes the proof
of case 2.
Since x was arbitrary, the result follows by UG.
Therefore we have shown that x is even if and only if x2 is
even.
The Role of Open Problems
 Unsolved problems have motivated much work in
mathematics. Fermat’s Last Theorem was conjectured
more than 300 years ago. It has only recently been
finally solved.
Fermat’s Last Theorem: The equation xn + yn = zn
has no solutions in integers x, y, and z, with xyz≠0
whenever n is an integer with n > 2.

A proof was found by Andrew Wiles in the 1990s.

Disjunctive Normal Form (DNF)
 A propositional formula is in disjunctive normal form
if it consists of a disjunction of (1, … ,n) disjuncts
where each disjunct consists of a conjunction of (1, …,
m) atomic formulas or the negation of an atomic
formula.
 Yes

 No

 Every compound proposition can be put in an

equivalent DNF.
 Disjunctive Normal Form is important for the circuit
design methods.
Disjunctive Normal Form (DNF)
Example: Find the Disjunctive Normal Form (DNF) of
(p∨q)→¬r

Solution: (¬ p∧ ¬ q) ∨ ¬r

Example: Find the Disjunctive Normal Form (DNF) of

¬(p ∧ q)↔ (𝑝 ∨q)

Solution: (¬ p∧ p) ∨ (¬q ∧ p) ∨ (¬p ∧ q) ∨ (¬q ∧ q) ∨

(p ∧ q ∧ ¬p ∧ ¬q)
Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF)
 A compound proposition is in Conjunctive Normal
Form (CNF) if it is a conjunction of disjunctions.

 Every proposition can be put in an equivalent CNF.

 Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF) can be obtained by

eliminating implications, moving negation inwards,
and using the distributive and associative laws.
Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF)
 Important in resolution theorem proving used in
Artificial Intelligence (AI).

 A compound proposition can be put in conjunctive

normal form through repeated application of the
logical equivalences covered earlier.
Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF)
Example: Put the following into CNF:

Solution:
1. Eliminate implication signs:

2. Move negation inwards; eliminate double negation:

3. Convert to CNF using associative/distributive laws