Rules of Inference

ARGUMENTS
DEFINITION 1 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 is an assertion that a given set of propositions P1, P2,

… ,Pn, called premises, yields (has a consequence) another proposition
Q, called the conclusion. Such an argument is denoted by,
P1, P2, . . . , P ┤Q

An argument P1, P2, . . . , Pn ┤ Q is said to be valid if Q is true

whenever all the premises P1, P2, . . . , Pn are true.

An argument which is not valid is called fallacy.

 Valid Arguments in Propositional Logic
Consider the following argument involving propositions (which, by
definition, is a sequence of propositions):

“If you have a current password, then you can log onto the network.”

“You have a current password.”

Therefore,
“You can log onto the network.”

We would like to determine whether this is a valid argument. That is,

we would like to determine whether the conclusion “You can log
onto the network” must be true when the premises “If you have a
current password, then you can log onto the network” and “You have
a current password” are both true.
Before we discuss the validity of this particular argument, we will
look at its form. Use p to represent “You have a current password”
and q to represent “You can log onto the network.” Then, the
argument has the form
p→q
P
∴q
where ∴ is the symbol that denotes “therefore.”

The argument we obtain by substituting these values of p and q

into the argument form is

“If you have access to the network, then you can change your grade.”
“You have access to the network.”
_______________________________________________________
∴ “You can change your grade.”
We know that when p and q are propositional variables, the
statement ((p → q) ∧ p) → q is a tautology (shown in previous
lecture). In particular, when both p → q and p are true, we know
that q must also be true. We say this form of argument is valid
because whenever all its premises (all statements in the argument
other than the final one, the conclusion) are true, the conclusion
must also be true.
Rules of Inference for Propositional Logic
We can always use a truth table to show that an argument form
is valid. We do this by showing that whenever the premises are
true, the conclusion must also be true.

However, this can be a tedious approach. For example, when an

argument form involves 10 different propositional variables, to use
a truth table to show this argument form is valid requires 210 =
1024 different rows.

Fortunately, we do not have to resort to truth tables. Instead, we

can first establish the validity of some relatively simple argument
forms, called rules of inference.
The tautology (p ∧ (p → q)) → q is the basis of the rule of inference
called modus ponens. (Modus ponens is Latin for mode that
affirms.) This tautology leads to the following valid argument form,
which we have already seen in our initial discussion about
arguments (where, as before, the symbol ∴ denotes “therefore”):
p
p→q
∴q
Example-1
Show that the following argument is a fallacy: p → q, ￢ p ┤ ￢ q.

Ans.
Construct the truth table for [(p → q)∧ ￢ p] → ￢ q as in Fig.
below. Since the proposition [(p → q)∧ ￢ p] → ￢ q
is not a tautology, the argument is a fallacy. Equivalently, the
argument is a fallacy since in the third line of the truth
table p → q and ￢ p are true but ￢ q is false.
Example-2
Prove the following argument is valid: p → ￢ q, r → q, r ┤ ￢ p.

Construct the truth table of the premises and conclusions as in Fig.

below. Now, p → ￢ q, r → q, and r are true simultaneously only
in the fifth row of the table, where ￢ p is also true. Hence the
argument is valid
EXAMPLE 3 Consider the following argument:
S1 : If a man is a bachelor, he is unhappy.
S2 : If a man is unhappy, he dies young.
___________________________________________________________________

S : Bachelors die young

Here the statement S below the line denotes the conclusion of the
argument, and the statements S1 and S2 above the line denote the
premises. We claim that the argument S1, S2 ┤ S is valid. For the
argument is of the form
p → q, q → r ┤ p → r
where p is “He is a bachelor,” q is “He is unhappy” and r is “He dies
young;” this argument (Law of Syllogism) is valid.
EXAMPLE 4
Determine the validity of the following argument:
If 7 is less than 4, then 7 is not a prime number.
7 is not less than 4.
-------------------------------------------------------------
∴ 7 is a prime number.
First translate the argument into symbolic form. Let p be “7 is less than
4” and q be “7 is a prime number.” Then the argument is of the form
p → ￢ q, ￢ q ┤ q
Now, we construct a truth table as shown below. The above argument is
shown to be a fallacy since, in the fourth line of the truth table, the
premises p → ￢ q and ￢ p are true, but the conclusion q is false.
 EXAMPLE 5
Test the validity of the following argument:
If two sides of a triangle are equal, then the opposite angles are equal.
Two sides of a triangle are not equal.
------------------------------------------------------------
∴ The opposite angles are not equal.

First translate the argument into the symbolic form p → q, ￢ p ┤ ￢

q, where p is “Two sides of a triangle are equal” and q is “The
opposite angles are equal.” By previous exampe-1, this argument is a
fallacy.
Example-6
EXAMPLE 7 State which rule of inference is the basis of the
following argument: “It is below freezing now. Therefore, it is
either below freezing or raining now.”

Solution: Let p be the proposition “It is below freezing now” and q

the proposition “It is raining now.” Then this argument is of the
form
p
∴p∨q
This is an argument that uses the addition rule.

Rule
EXAMPLE 8 State which rule of inference is the basis of the
following argument: “It is below freezing and raining now.
Therefore, it is below freezing now.”

Solution: Let p be the proposition “It is below freezing now,” and

let q be the proposition “It is raining now.” This argument is of the
form
p∧q
∴p
This argument uses the simplification rule.
EXAMPLE 9 State which rule of inference is used in the
argument:
If it rains today, then we will not have a barbecue today. If we do
not have a barbecue today, then we will have a barbecue
tomorrow. Therefore, if it rains today, then we will have a
barbecue tomorrow.
Solution: Let p be the proposition “It is raining today,” let q be the
proposition “We will not have a barbecue today,” and let r be the
proposition “We will have a barbecue tomorrow.” Then this
argument is of the form
p→q
q→r
∴p→r
Hence, this argument is a hypothetical syllogism.
EXAMPLE 10 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.”

Solution: Let p be the proposition “It is sunny this afternoon,” q the

proposition “It is colder than yesterday,” r the proposition “We will
go swimming,” s the proposition “We will take a canoe trip,” and t
the proposition “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 need to give a valid argument with premises ￢ p ∧ q,
r → p, ￢ r → s, and s → t and conclusion t . We construct an
argument to show that our premises lead to the desired conclusion as
follows.
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)
Note that we could have used a truth table to show that whenever
each of the four hypotheses is true, the conclusion is also true.
However, because we are working with five propositional variables,
p, q, r, s, and t , such a truth table would have 32 rows.
EXAMPLE 11 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.”

Solution: Let p be the proposition “You send me an e-mail

message,” q the proposition “I will finish writing the program,” r
the proposition “I will go to sleep early,” and s the proposition “I
Will wake up feeling refreshed.” Then the premises are p → q, ￢ p
→ r, and r → s. The desired conclusion is ￢ q → s.We need to
give a valid argument with premises p → q, ￢ p → r, and r → s
and conclusion ￢ 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 Hypothetical syllogism using (2) and (3)
5. r → s Premise
6. ￢ q → s Hypothetical syllogism using (4) and (5)
EXAMPLE 12 Use resolution to show that the hypotheses
“Jasmine is skiing or it is not snowing” and “It is snowing or
Bart is playing hockey” imply that “Jasmine is skiing or Bart is
playing hockey.”

Solution: Let p be the proposition “It is snowing,” q the

proposition “Jasmine is skiing,” and r the proposition “Bart is
playing hockey.”We can represent the hypotheses as ￢ p ∨ q
and p ∨ r, respectively. Using resolution, the proposition q ∨ r,
“Jasmine is skiing or Bart is playing hockey,” follows.
Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements
We have discussed rules of inference for propositions. We will
nowdescribe some important rules of inference for statements
involving quantifiers. These rules of inference are used extensively
in mathematical arguments, often without being explicitly
mentioned.
EXAMPLE 13 Show that the premises “Everyone in this discrete mathematics
class has taken a course in computer science” and “Marla is a student in this class”
imply the conclusion “Marla has taken a course in computer science.”

Solution: Let D(x) denote “x is in this discrete mathematics class,” and let C(x)
denote “x has taken a course in computer science.” Then the premises are ∀x(D(x)
→ C(x)) and D(Marla). The conclusion is C(Marla). The following steps can be
used to establish the conclusion from the premises.

Step Reason
1. ∀x(D(x) → C(x)) Premise
2. D(Marla)→C(Marla) Universal instantiation from (1)
3. D(Marla) Premise
4. C(Marla) Modus ponens from (2) and (3)
EXAMPLE 14: Show that the premises “A student in this class
has not read the book,” and “Everyone in this class passed the first
exam” imply the conclusion “Someone who passed the first exam
has not read the book.”
Solution: Let C(x) be “x is in this class,” B(x) be “x has read the
book,” and P(x) be “x passed the first exam.” The premises are
∃x(C(x)∧ ￢ B(x)) and ∀x(C(x) → P(x)). The conclusion
is ∃x(P(x)∧ ￢ B(x)). These steps can be used to establish the
conclusion from the premises.
Step Reason
1. ∃x(C(x)∧ ￢ B(x)) Premise
2. C(a)∧ ￢ B(a) Existential instantiation from (1)
3. C(a) Simplification from (2)
4. ∀x(C(x) → P(x)) Premise
5. C(a) → P(a) Universal instantiation from (4)
6. P(a) Modus ponens from (3) and (5)
7. ￢ B(a) Simplification from (2)
8. P(a)∧ ￢ B(a) Conjunction from (6) and (7)
9. ∃x(P(x)∧ ￢ B(x)) Existential generalization from (8)
Methods of Proving Theorems
Direct Proofs
A direct proof shows that a conditional statement p → q is true by
showing that if p is true, then q must also be true, so that the
combination p true and q false never occurs.

EXAMPLE 1 Give a direct proof of the theorem “If n is an odd

integer, then n2 is odd.”
By the definition of an odd integer, it follows that n = 2k + 1,
where k is some integer. We want to show that n2 is also odd. We
can square both sides of the equation n = 2k + 1 to obtain a new
equation that expresses n2. When we do this, we find that n2 =
(2k + 1)2 = 4k2 + 4k + 1 = 2(2k2 + 2k) + 1. By the definition of an
odd integer, we can conclude that n2 is an odd integer (it is one
more than twice an integer). Consequently, we have proved that
if n is an odd integer, then n2 is an odd integer.
Proof by contraposition
Proofs by contraposition make use of the fact that the conditional
statement p → q is equivalent to its contrapositive, ￢ q → ￢ p.
This means that the conditional statement p → q can be proved by
showing that its contrapositive, ￢ q → ￢ p, is true.
EXAMPLE 2 Prove that if n is an integer and 3n + 2 is odd, then n
is odd.

Solution: The first step in a proof by contraposition is to assume

that the conclusion of the conditional statement “If 3n + 2 is odd,
then n is odd” is false; namely, assume that n is even. Then, by the
definition of an even integer, n = 2k for some integer k. Substituting
2k for n, we find that 3n + 2 = 3(2k) + 2 = 6k + 2 = 2(3k + 1). This
tells us that 3n + 2 is even (because it is a multiple of 2), and
therefore not odd. This is the negation of the premise of the
theorem. Because the negation of the conclusion of the conditional
statement implies that the hypothesis is false, the original
conditional statement is true. Our proof by contraposition
succeeded; we have proved the theorem “If 3n + 2 is odd, then n is
odd.”
Proofs by Contradiction
Suppose we want to prove that a statement p is true. we can
conclude that ￢ p is false, which means that p is true.
Example-3
Prove that √2 is irrational by giving a proof by contradiction.

Solution: To start a proof by contradiction, we suppose that ￢ p is

true. Note that ￢ p is the statement “It is not the case that √2 is
irrational,” which says that √2 is rational. If √2 is rational, there exist
integers a and b with √2 = a/b, where b ≠ 0 and a and b have no
common factors (so that the fraction a/b is in lowest terms.) (Here,
we are using the fact that every rational number can be written in
lowest terms.)
Note that the statement that √2 = a/b, where a and b have no
common factors, means, in particular, that 2 does not divide both a
and b. Because our assumption of ￢ p leads to the contradiction
that 2 divides both a and b and 2 does not divide both a and b, ￢ p
must be false. That is, the statement p, “√2 is irrational,” is true.
We have proved that √2 is irrational.
EXHAUSTIVEPROOF Some theorems can be proved by examining a
relatively small number of examples. Such proofs are called exhaustive
proofs, or proofs by exhaustion because these proofs proceed by
exhausting all possibilities. An exhaustive proof is a special type of
proof by cases where each case involves checking a single example.
We now provide some illustrations of exhaustive proofs.

EXAMPLE 1 Prove that (n + 1)3 ≥ 3n if n is a positive integer with n ≤

4.
Solution: We use a proof by exhaustion. We only need verify the
inequality (n + 1)3 ≥ 3n when n = 1, 2, 3, and 4. For n = 1, we have (n +
1)3 = 23 = 8 and 3n = 31 = 3; for n = 2, we have (n + 1)3 = 33 = 27 and 3n
= 32 = 9; for n = 3, we have (n + 1)3 = 43 = 64 and 3n = 33 = 27; and for
n = 4, we have (n + 1)3 = 53 = 125 and 3n = 34 = 81. In each of
these four cases, we see that (n + 1)3 ≥ 3n. We have used the method of
exhaustion to prove that (n + 1)3 ≥ 3n if n is a positive integer with n ≤
4.