Introduction to Logic

Propositional Analysis

Michael Genesereth
Computer Science Department
Stanford University
 Syntax and Semantics

Syntax of Propositional Logic

¬p
(p ∧ q)
(p ∨ q)
(p ⇒ q)
(p ⇔ q)

Semantics of Propositional Logic

φ ¬φ φ ψ φ ∧ψ φ ψ φ ∨ψ φ ψ φ ⇒ψ φ ψ φ ⇔ψ
T F T T T T T T T T T T T T
F T T F F T F T T F F T F F
F T F F T T F T T F T F
F F F F F F F F T F F T
 Evaluation versus Satisfaction

Evaluation:
pi = T ( p ∨ q)i = T
qi = F (¬q)i = T

Satisfaction:

( p ∨ q)i = T pi = T
(¬q)i = T qi = F
 Programme for Today

Properties of Sentences
Validity, Contingency, Unsatisfiability
Satisfiability and Falsifiability

Relationships between Sentences

Equivalence, Entailment, Consistency

Useful "Metatheorems"
Equivalence, Unsatisfiability, Deduction, Consistency
Substitution, Monotonicity, Ramification
Properties of Sentences
 Truth Tables
A truth table is a table of all possible interpretations
for the propositional constants in a language.
p q r
T T T
T T F One column per constant.
T F T
T F F One row per interpretation.
F T T
F T F For a language with n constants,
there are 2n interpretations.
F F T
F F F
Example
Oddities
 Properties of Sentences

A sentence is valid if and only if

Valid
every interpretation satisfies it.

A sentence is contingent if and only if

Contingent some interpretation satisfies it and
some interpretation falsifies it.

A sentence is unsatisfiable if and

Unsatisfiable
only if no interpretation satisfies it.
 Properties of Sentences

Valid
A sentences is satisfiable if and only
} if it is either valid or contingent.
Contingent
A sentences is falsifiable if and only
} if it is contingent or unsatisfiable.
Unsatisfiable
Possible Worlds
Possible Worlds
Possible Worlds
Possible Worlds
Possible Worlds
Possible Worlds
 Valid Equivalences
Double Negation:
p ⇔ ¬¬p

deMorgan's Laws:
¬(p ∧ q) ⇔ (¬p ∨ ¬q)
¬(p ∨ q) ⇔ (¬p ∧ ¬q)

Implications:
(p ⇒ q) ⇔ (¬p ∨ q)

Biconditionals:
(p ⇔ q) ⇔ ((p ⇒ q) ∧ (q ⇒ p))
 Valid Implications

Implication Introduction:
p ⇒ (q ⇒ p)

Implication Distribution
(p ⇒ (q ⇒ r)) ⇒ ((p ⇒ q) ⇒ (p ⇒ r))

Implication Reversal
(¬q ⇒ ¬p) ⇒ (p ⇒ q)
Relationships Between Sentences
Comparison of Sentences
 Logical Equivalence

A sentence φ is logically equivalent to a sentence ψ if

and only they have the same value for every
propositional interpretation.

(p ⇒ q) is logically equivalent to (¬p ∨ q)

p is logically equivalent to ¬¬p

(p ∧ q) is not logically equivalent to (p ∨ q)

Another Comparison of Sentences
 Logical Entailment

A premise ϕ logically entails a conclusion ψ (written as

ϕ ⊨ ψ) if and only if every interpretation that satisfies ϕ
also satisfies ψ.

(p ∧ q) ⊨ (p ∨ q)
p ⊨ (p ∨ q)
(p ∧ q) ⊨ p

p ⊭ (p ∧ q)
Logical Entailment ≠ Logical Equivalence

p ⊨ (p ∨ q)

(p ∨ q) ⊭ p

Analogy in arithmetic: inequalities rather than equations

 Sets of Premises

A set of premises Δ logically entails a conclusion ϕ

(written as Δ ⊨ ϕ) if and only if every interpretation that
satisfies all of the premises also satisfies the conclusion.

{p, q} ⊨ (p ∧ q)
 Sets of Conclusions

A premise ϕ logically entails a set of conclusions if and

only if every interpretation that satisfies the premise
satisfies all of the conclusions.

(p ∧ q) ⊨ {p, q}
 Validities

If {} ⊨ ϕ , then ϕ is valid.

Examples:
{} ⊨ p ∨ ¬p
{} ⊭ p
{} ⊭ p ∧ ¬p

The empty set of premises is satisfied by every

interpretation. Consequently, if it entails a sentence, that
sentence must be true in every interpretation, i.e. it is valid.
 Vacuity

If Δ is unsatisfiable, then Δ ⊨ ϕ for all ϕ.

Examples:
{p, ¬p} ⊨ p
{p, ¬p} ⊨ ¬p
{p, ¬p} ⊨ q

By definition, an unsatisfiable set of sentences is not

satisfied by any interpretation. Consequently, it is trivially
true that every interpretation that satisfies that set satisfies
every sentence.

Unsatisfiable assumptions entail everything!!!

 Monotonicity

If Γ ⊨ ϕ and Γ ⊆ Δ, then Δ ⊨ ϕ.

Example: {p, q} ⊨ p ∧ q
Therefore {p, q, r} ⊨ p ∧ q

The more you know, the more is entailed.

 Ramification

If Ω ⊨ Δ and Γ ⊆ Δ, then Ω ⊨ Γ.

Example: {p ∧ q} ⊨ {p, q}.

Therefore {p ∧ q} ⊨ {p}.

If you can conclude more, you can conclude less.

Third Comparison of Sentences
 Logical Consistency

A sentence φ is consistent with a sentence ψ if and only

if there is a truth assignment that satisfies both φ and ψ.

p is logically consistent with q

(p ∨ q) is logically consistent with (¬p ∨ ¬q)
(p ⇒ q) is logically consistent with (¬p ∨ q)

p is not consistent with ¬p

Is (p ∧ ¬p) logically consistent with (q ∧ ¬q)?

Is (p ∧ ¬p) logically consistent with (p ∧ ¬p)?
Connections
 Propositional Metatheorems

A metatheorem is a theorem about logic.

Monotonicity Theorem
Ramification Theorem

Equivalence Theorem
Substitution Theorem
Deduction Theorem

Unsatisfiability Theorem
Consistency Theorem
 Monotonicity Theorem

If Γ ⊨ ϕ and Γ ⊆ Δ, then Δ ⊨ ϕ.

Example: {p, q} ⊨ p ∧ q
Therefore {p, q, r} ⊨ p ∧ q

The more you know, the more is entailed.

 Ramification Theorem

If Ω ⊨ Δ and Γ ⊆ Δ, then Ω ⊨ Γ.

Example: {p ∧ q} ⊨ {p, q}
Therefore {p ∧ q} ⊨ {p}

If you can conclude more, you can conclude less.

 Equivalence Theorem
Theorem: A sentence φ and a sentence ψ are logically
equivalent if and only if the sentence (φ ⇔ ψ) is valid.

¬(p ∧ q) is logically equivalent to (¬p ∨ ¬q)

if and only if
(¬(p ∧ q) ⇔ (¬p ∨ ¬q)) is valid

Upshot: We can determine equivalence of sentences by

checking validity of a single sentence.

Upshot: We can demonstrate validity of a biconditional by

checking equivalence of the constituents.
Equivalence Theorem
 Substitution Theorem

Let χϕ←ψ stand for a copy of χ where zero or more

occurrences of ϕ have been replaced by ψ.

Example: Let χ = (¬¬p ∨ q), then χ¬¬p←p = (p ∨ q).

Substitution Theorem: If(ϕ ⇔ ψ) is valid, then the

sentence χϕ←ψ is logically equivalent to χ.

Example: Since (p ⇔ ¬¬p) is valid, we know that the

sentence (¬¬p ∨ q) is logically equivalent to (p ∨ q).
Substitution Example
 Deduction Theorem
Theorem: A sentence φ logically entails a sentence ψ if
and only if (φ ⇒ ψ) is valid.

More generally, a finite set of sentences {φ1, ... , φ}

logically entails φ if and only if the compound sentence
(φ1 ∧ ... ∧ φn ⇒ φ) is valid.

Is ((p⇒q) ∧ (m ⇒ p∨q) ⇒ (m⇒q)) valid?

{(p⇒q), (m ⇒ p∨q)} ⊨ (m⇒q)?

Upshot: We can determine logical entailment between

sentences by checking validity of a single sentence. And
vice versa.
 Deduction Theorem
{(m ⇒ p∨q), (p⇒q)} ⊨ (m⇒q)?
Is ((m ⇒ p∨q) ∧ (p⇒q) ⇒ (m⇒q)) valid?
 Unsatisfiability Theorem
Theorem: Δ ⊨ ϕ if and only if Δ ∪ {¬ϕ} is unsatisfiable.
Proof: Suppose that Δ ⊨ ϕ. If an interpretation satisfies Δ, then it
must also satisfy ϕ. But then it cannot satisfy ¬ϕ. Therefore, Δ ∪
{¬ϕ} is unsatisfiable.

Suppose that Δ ∪ {¬ϕ} is unsatisfiable. Then every interpretation

that satisfies Δ must fail to satisfy ¬ϕ, i.e. it must satisfy ϕ.
Therefore, Δ ⊨ ϕ.

Upshot: We can determine logical entailment between

sentences by checking unsatisfiability of a set of sentences.
Translation: Assume false and show contradiction.
 Consistency Theorem
Theorem: A sentence φ is logically consistent with a
sentence ψ if and only if the sentence (φ ∧ ψ) is
satisfiable. More generally, a sentence φ is logically
consistent with a finite set of sentences {φ1, ... , φn} if and
only if the compound sentence (φ1 ∧ ... ∧ φn ∧ φ) is
satisfiable.

Is (p ∨ q) consistent with (¬p ∨ ¬q)?

Is ((p ∨ q) ∧ (¬p ∨ ¬q)) satisfiable?

Upshot: We can determine consistency of sentences by

checking satisfiability of a single sentence.
Metareasoning
 CS 157 Quiz Question #1

Is the sentence (p ⇒ q) ⇔ (p ⇒ (q ⇒ p)) valid, contingent,

or unsatisfiable?
 CS 157 Quiz Question #1

Is the sentence (p ⇒ q) ⇔ (p ⇒ (q ⇒ p)) valid, contingent,

or unsatisfiable?

p q (p ⇒ q) ⇔ (p ⇒ (q ⇒ p))
1 1 1
1 0 0
0 1 1
0 0 1
 CS 157 Quiz Question #1

Is the sentence (p ⇒ q) ⇔ (p ⇒ (q ⇒ p)) valid, contingent,

or unsatisfiable?

(p ⇒ q) is sometimes true and sometimes false.

(p ⇒ (q ⇒ p)) is always true, i.e. it is a valid sentence.

(p ⇒ q)i = (p ⇒ (q ⇒ p))i for some i.

(p ⇒ q)i ≠ (p ⇒ (q ⇒ p))i for some i.

(p ⇒ q) ⇔ (p ⇒ (q ⇒ p)) is contingent.
 CS 157 Quiz Question #2

Is the sentence ((p ⇔ ¬q) ⇒ (¬p | ¬q)) valid, contingent,

or unsatisfiable?
 CS 157 Quiz Question #2

Is the sentence ((p ⇔ ¬q) ⇒ (¬p | ¬q)) valid, contingent,

or unsatisfiable?

p q ((p ⇔ ¬q) ⇒ (¬p | ¬q))

1 1 1
1 0 1
0 1 1
0 0 1
 CS 157 Quiz Question #2

Is the sentence ((p ⇔ ¬q) ⇒ (¬p | ¬q)) valid, contingent,

or unsatisfiable?
((p ⇔ ¬q) ⇒ (¬p | ¬q))
 CS 157 Quiz Question #2

Is the sentence ((p ⇔ ¬q) ⇒ (¬p | ¬q)) valid, contingent,

or unsatisfiable?
(p ⇔ ¬q) ⇒ (¬p | ¬q)
(p ⇔ ¬q) ⇒ (p ⇒ ¬q)

Substitution Theorem
and
(p ⇒ ¬q) ⇔ (¬p | ¬q)
 CS 157 Quiz Question #2

Is the sentence ((p ⇔ ¬q) ⇒ (¬p | ¬q)) valid, contingent,

or unsatisfiable?
((p ⇔ ¬q) ⇒ (¬p | ¬q))
(p ⇔ ¬q) ⇒ (p ⇒ ¬q)
(p ⇒ ¬q) ∧ (¬q ⇒ p) ⇒ (p ⇒ ¬q)

Substitution Theorem
and
(p ⇔ ¬q) ⇔ (p ⇒ ¬q) ∧ (¬q ⇒ p)
 CS 157 Quiz Question #2

Is the sentence ((p ⇔ ¬q) ⇒ (¬p | ¬q)) valid, contingent,

or unsatisfiable?
((p ⇔ ¬q) ⇒ (¬p | ¬q))
(p ⇔ ¬q) ⇒ (p ⇒ ¬q)
(p ⇒ ¬q) ∧ (¬q ⇒ p) ⇒ (p ⇒ ¬q)
(p ⇒ ¬q) ∧ (¬q ⇒ p) ⊨ (p ⇒ ¬q)

Deduction Theorem
 CS 157 Quiz Question #2

Is the sentence ((p ⇔ ¬q) ⇒ (¬p | ¬q)) valid, contingent,

or unsatisfiable?
((p ⇔ ¬q) ⇒ (¬p | ¬q))
(p ⇔ ¬q) ⇒ (p ⇒ ¬q)
(p ⇒ ¬q) ∧ (¬q ⇒ p) ⇒ (p ⇒ ¬q)
(p ⇒ ¬q) ∧ (¬q ⇒ p) ⊨ (p ⇒ ¬q)
{(p ⇒ ¬q), (¬q ⇒ p)} ⊨ (p ⇒ ¬q)

Definition of Entailment
Definition of Conjunction
 CS 157 Quiz Question #2

Is the sentence ((p ⇔ ¬q) ⇒ (¬p | ¬q)) valid, contingent,

or unsatisfiable?
((p ⇔ ¬q) ⇒ (¬p | ¬q))
(p ⇔ ¬q) ⇒ (p ⇒ ¬q)
(p ⇒ ¬q) ∧ (¬q ⇒ p) ⇒ (p ⇒ ¬q)
(p ⇒ ¬q) ∧ (¬q ⇒ p) ⊨ (p ⇒ ¬q)
{(p ⇒ ¬q), (¬q ⇒ p)} ⊨ (p ⇒ ¬q)
{(p ⇒ ¬q)} ⊨ (p ⇒ ¬q)

Monotonicity Theorem
 CS 157 Quiz Question #3a

Let Γ and Δ be arbitrary sets of sentences.

Let ϕ be an arbitrary sentence.
If Γ ⊨ ϕ and Δ ⊨ ϕ, does Γ ∪ Δ ⊨ ϕ?
 CS 157 Quiz Question #3a

Let Γ and Δ be arbitrary sets of sentences.

Let ϕ be an arbitrary sentence.
Is Γ ⊨ ϕ and Δ ⊨ ϕ, does Γ ∪ Δ ⊨ ϕ?

Let Γ be {p} and Δ be {q} and ϕ be (p ∨ q).

Obviously {p} ⊨ p ∨ q
Obviously {q} ⊨ p ∨ q
But {p} ∪ {q} = {p, q} and {p, q} ⊨ p ∨ q

Does this work for all Γ and Δ and ϕ?

Yes, by Monotonicity Theorem.
 CS 157 Quiz Question #3b

Let Γ and Δ be arbitrary sets of sentences.

Let ϕ be an arbitrary sentence.
Is Γ ⊨ ϕ and Δ ⊨ ϕ, does Γ ∩ Δ ⊨ ϕ?
 CS 157 Quiz Question #3b

Let Γ and Δ be arbitrary sets of sentences.

Let ϕ be an arbitrary sentence.
Is Γ ⊨ ϕ and Δ ⊨ ϕ, does Γ ∩ Δ ⊨ ϕ?

Let Γ be {p} and Δ be {q} and ϕ be (p ∨ q).

Obviously {p} ⊨ p ∨ q
Obviously {q} ⊨ p ∨ q
But {p} ∩ {q} = {} and {} ⊭ p ∨ q.

Answer to our question: No.

Tools
 Course Website

http://logica.stanford.edu