Discrete Structures RULES OF INFERENCE

Amina Asghar

FUIEMS

Road map
Introduction
what

is a proof? of quantified expressions

Valid arguments in Propositional Logic

Rules of Inference in Propositional Logic

rules using rules of inference to build argument

Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements

Proof
In mathematics, a proof is a correct (well reasoned, logically valid) and complete (clear, detailed) argument that rigorously & undeniably establishes the truth of a mathematical statement. Why must the argument be correct & complete?
Correctness

prevents us from fooling ourselves. Completeness allows anyone to verify the result.

Terminology
Theorem:

A statement that has been proven to be true. A theorem is true with the sequence of statements that form an argument, called proof. Assumptions defining the structures about which we are reasoning. Patterns of logically valid deductions from hypotheses to conclusions.

Proof:

Axioms, postulates, hypotheses, premises:

Rules of inference:

Contd..
Lemma:

A minor theorem used as a stepping-stone to proving a major theorem. A minor theorem proved as an easy consequence of a major theorem. A statement whose truth value has not been proven. (A conjecture may be widely believed to be true, regardless.) The set of all theorems that can be proven from a given set of axioms.

Corollary:

Conjecture:

Theory:

Rules of Inference
Consider the statements: If you did not sleep last night, you will sleep during the lecture. You did not sleep last night We can conclude that you will sleep during the lecture.

Contd
Let P be you did not sleep last night and Q be you will sleep during the lecture The form of our argument is:

P Q P____ Q
which reflects tautology:
((p

q)

p)

Rules of Inference
An Inference Rule is A pattern establishing that if we know that a set of antecedent statements of certain forms are all true, then we can validly deduce that a certain related consequent statement is true.
antecedent 1 antecedent 2 consequent
Each valid logical inference rule corresponds to an implication that is a tautology. Corresponding tautology: ((ante. 1) (ante. 2) ) consequent

Example
Suppose the implication if it snows today, then we will go skiing and its hypothesis, it is snowing are true. Then by modus pones, it follows that the conclusion we will go skiing is true.

Example
Assume that the implication if n is greater than 3 then n2 is greater than 9 is true. Consequently if n is greater then 3, then by nodus pones, it follows that n2 is greater than 3.

Important rules for inference

Example
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. Let p= it is below freezing now. q= it is raining now. Then this argument is form of p Rule of Addition p q

Example
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 Let p= it is below freezing now. q= it is raining now. Then this argument is form of p q Rule of simplification p

Example
State which rule of inference is used in the argument If it rain today, then will not have 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. Let p = It is raining today, q= We will not have a barbecue today, and let r = we will have a barbecue tomorrow. p q _q r_ p r hypothetical syllogism

Valid Arguments
An argument form is called valid if whenever all the hypothesis are true, the conclusion is also true. Consequently showing that q logically follows from the hypothesis p1,p2,.pn is as same as showing the implication (p1 p2 .. pn) q is true. When all propositions used in argument are true, it leads to correct conclusion. If any proposition is false, it leads to incorrect conclusion.

Example
Consider the following hypotheses/premises It is not sunny today 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. Given these premises, prove the theorem We will be home sunset using inference rules.

Contd
Let p= it is sunny this afternoon, q=It is colder than yesterday, r=We will go swimming , s=We will take a canoe trip, t= we will home by sunset. Then the hypotheses become p q r p r s s t The conclusion is simply t.

Contd..
We construct an argument to show our hypotheses lead to desired conclusion as follows Step Reason p q Hypothesis p Simplification using step 1 r p Hypothesis r Modus tollens using step 2 and 3 r s Hypothesis s Modus pones using steps 4 and 5 s t Hypothesis t Modus pones using steps 6 and 7

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Example
Consider the following hypotheses If you send me an email message then I will finish writing the program If you do not send me a email message then I will do to sleep early If I go to sleep early, then I will wake up feeling refreshed Prove If I do not finish writing the program , then I will wake up feeling refreshed from the above premises.

Contd
Let p= You send me an email, q= I will finish writing the program, r= I will go to sleep early, s= I will wake up feeling refreshed. Then the hypotheses become p q p r r s The desired conclusion is q s

Contd
We construct an argument to show our hypotheses lead to desired conclusion as follows Steps Reasons P q Hypothesis q p Contrapositive of Step 1 p r Hypothesis q r Hypothesis syllogism using steps 2 and 3 R s Hypothesis q s Hypothesis syllogism using steps 4 and 5

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Example
Consider that: If it does not rain or if is not foggy, then the sailing race will be held and the lifesaving demonstration will go on. If the sailing race is held, then the trophy will be awarded. The trophy was not awarded. Show that above premises implies It rained

Contd
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

(R F) S T T S S L R F R

(S L) hypothesis hypothesis hypothesis modus tollens 2 & 3 addition to 4 modus tollens 1 & 5 simplification of 6

What can be concluded?

Resolution
The rule p q p r ------q r is called resolution and is used in computer (automatic) theorem proving/reasoning also basis of logical programming languages like Prolog If all hypotheses and the conclusion are expressed as clauses (disjunction of variables or their negations), we can use resolution as the only rule of inference.

Example
Use resolution to how that the hypothesis Jasmine is skiing or it is not snowing and It is snowing or Bart is plying hockey imply that Jasmine is skiing or Bart is playing hockey. Let p= It is snowing, q= Jasmine is skiing, r=Bart is playing hockey Hypothesis are represented as pVq pVr Conclusion using resolution is qVr

Example
Show that hypotheses (p q) Vr and r s imply the conclusion pV s Rewriting (p q) V r pVr and qVr Replacing r s by rVs Using the two clauses pVr and rVs , we use resolution to conclude pVs

Rules for inference for quantified statements

Examples
Show that premises Everyone in this discrete mathematics class has taken a course in computer science. Marla is a student in this class. They imply Marla has taken a course in computer science. Let D(x) is x in this discrete mathematics class C(x) represents x has taken a course in computer science Then the premises are x(D(x) C(x)) D(Marla) And the conclusion is C(Marla)

Contd
1. 2.

3. 4.

x(D(x) C(x)) Premise D(Marla) C(Marla) Universal instantiation from 1 D(Marla) Premise C(Marla) Modus pones from 2 and 3

Example
Show that premises A student in this class has not read the book, and Everyone in this class passed first exam, imply the conclusion, someone who has passed the first exam has not read the book. let C(x) be x is in this class, B(x) x has read the book, P(x) x passed the first exam, Then the premises are x( C(x) B(x)) x ( C(x) P(x)) The conclusion is x (P(x) B(x))

Contd..
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

x( C(x) B(x)) Premise C(a) B(a) Existential instantiation from 1 C(a) Simplification from 2 x ( C(x) P(x)) Premise C(a) P(a) Universal instantiation from 4 P(a) Modus pones from 3 and 5 B(a) Simplification from 2 P(a) B(a) Conjunction from 6 and 7 x( P(x) B(x)) Existential generalization from 8