Propositional Logic

Logic and Problem solving

MA4001
Lecture Week 2
Agenda
 Review of week 1
 Week 2 lecture coverage
• Basic laws of propositional logic
• Conditional and bi-conditional
• Inverse converse and contra positive
• Logical consequences
• Arguments and its validity
Fast Math Tricks….
Review of Week 1

 Proposition
 Compound Proposition
 Logical Connectives
 Truth tables
 Tautology , Contradiction & Contingency
Review of Week 1
Question:

Write the truth table for the followings :

a.  p ∧  q
b. (p ∧ q) ∨  r
c. p ∧ (false ∧  q)
Review of Week 1
Question:

Define the following terms with suitable example :

a. Tautology
b. Contradiction
c. Contingency
d. Conditional of two proposition
e. Biconditional of two proposition
Review of Week 1
Question:

Show that p ∧ (q ∨ r) ≡ (p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r)
Review of Week 1
Question:

Write the truth table for p  (q  r)

Review of Week 1
Question:

Write the inverse , converse and contra positive of the

following implication.

If I am strong then I will succeed.

If Ram is honest then he will tell the truth.
Any Questions?
Five Basic Laws of Propositional Logic:

1. pqqp Commutative Laws

pqqp

2. (p  q)  r  p  (q  r) Associative Laws
(p  q)  r  p  (q  r)

3. p  (q  r)  (p  q)  (p  r) Distributive Laws
p  (q  r)  (p  q)  (p  r)

4. p  FALSE  p Identity Laws

p  TRUE  p

5. p  p  TRUE Complement Laws

p  p  FALSE
Six More Laws:
FALSE  TRUE
6. Negation Laws
TRUE  FALSE
ppp
7. Idempotent Laws
ppp
p  TRUE  TRUE
8. Domination Laws
p  FALSE  FALSE
p  (p  q)  p
9. Absorption Laws
p  (p  q)  p
10. p)  p Double Negation Law
(p  q)  p  q
11. De Morgan’s Laws
(p  q)  p  q
Example:
Prove Idempotent law, p ∨ p ≡ p

p  p  (p  p)  TRUE (Identity law)

 (p  p)  (p  p) (Complement law)
 p  (p  p) (Distributive law)
 p  FALSE (Complement Law)
p (Identity law)
Example:
Using laws, prove that :[(p∨ ¬ q) ∧ q] ∨ (p ∧ q) ≡ (p ∧ q)
LHS:[(p ∨ ¬q) ∧ ] ∨ (p ∧ q)
= [ q ∧ (p ∨ ¬q)] ∨ (p ∧ q) [Commutative law]
= [(q ∧ p ) ∨ (q ∧ ¬q)] ∨ (p ∧ q) [Distributive law]
= [(q ∧ p ) ∨ F] ∨ (p ∧ q) [Complement law]
= (q ∧ p ) ∨ (p ∧ q) [Identity law]
= (p ∧ q) [Idempotent law]
=RHS
Example:
Example:
Any Questions?
Logical Consequence:

Definition:

If P1, P2, …, Pn and Q are compound propositions and Q is true whenever all the
propositions P1, P2, …, Pn are true we say Q is a Logical Consequence of
P1, P2, …, Pn.

We write P1, P2, …, Pn Q


Logical Consequence (Continued):
Consider the following Truth table:
Notice that whenever both  p  q and q   p are true (i.e. in lines 1 and 2)
p  q is also true.
We say p  q is a Logical Consequence of the two propositions  p  q and
p   q and we write,
 p  q, p  q ├ p  q is a valid logical consequence.
p q pq qp pq
T T T T T
T F T T T
F T T F T
F F F T F
Logical Consequence (Contd…)
Show that  p  q, q  r ├ p  r is a valid logical consequence.
The truth tables for p  q, q  r and p  r are as below:

We see that both p  q and q  r are true in lines 1, 5, 7 and 8. In all

cases p  r is true also.
 p  q, q  r ├ p  r is a valid logical consequence
Any Questions?
Arguments:

An argument is a relationship between a set of P1, P2, …, Pn

propositions, P1, P2, …, Pn called premises, and another
proposition Q, called the conclusion.

An argument is denoted by P1, P2, …, Pn ├ Q

An argument P1, P2, …, Pn ├ Q is said to be valid if and only if

(P1  P2  …  Pn )  Q is a tautology.
Argument Exercises:

Question :
Determine the validity of the following argument.

p → q, q → r ├ p → r
Solution,
In order to show that the above argument is valid ,we need to show that

X = [ (p → q) (q → r ) ]  (p → r) is a Tautology.
Argument Exercises:
Truth Table :
p q r pq q r (p  q)  (q r) p r X

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

Here from the truth table its proved that x = [ (p → q) (q → r )] (p → r) is a Tautology.
Hence the given argument is valid.
Argument Exercises:

Determine the validity of the following Argument:

If I am not in Malaysia, then I am not happy; if I am happy,

then I am singing; I am into singing; therefore, I am not in
Malaysia.
Argument Exercises:
If I am not in Malaysia, then I am not happy; if I am happy, then I am singing; I am into singing;

therefore, I am not in Malaysia.

Let ,

p = I am not in Malaysia

q = I am not happy

r = I am singing

The argument in symbolic form ,

p  q , q r , r ├ p
Argument will be valid if [(p  q) ˄ (q r) ˄ r ] → p is a tautology.
Argument Exercises:
Truth Table :
p q r q pq  q r X=(p  q)  (q r) ˄ r X P

T T T F T T T T
T T F F T T F T
T F T T F T F T
T F F T F F F T
F T T F T T T F
F T F F T T F T
F F T T T T T F
F F F T T F F T

Here from the truth table its proved that X = [ (p → q) (q → r )] (p → r) is NOT a
Tautology. Hence the given argument is invalid.
Questions:
Determine the validity of the following arguments:
1. p v q ,  p ├ q
2. p → q , q → r ,  r ├  p
3. If you do not study you will fail your examination. You failed therefore you
did not study.
4. If I am not in my village, then I am not happy; if I am happy, then I am
dancing; I am into dancing; therefore, I am not in my village.
Any Questions?
Summary: Week 1 and 2 Lecture
• Logic and proposition
• Logical Connectives
• Truth tables
• Tautology and contradiction
• Logical equivalence
• Logical consequences
• Argument and its validity
What to Expect: Week 2 Tutorials

•Review and practice Logic problems through in-class

assignments to actually acquire them.

•Practice problems to know how Propositional logic can be

useful in solving various mathematical problems.
Thank you