Scribd
Upload
55 views70 pages

Rule of Inference

This document discusses different types of proofs in mathematics, including direct proofs and indirect proofs. Direct proofs establish that a statement is true by starting with the hypothesis and using logical steps together with previously established results to arrive at the conclusion. Indirect proofs include proofs by contraposition and proof by contradiction, which establish that a statement is true by showing that if it were false, it would lead to a logical contradiction. The document also defines key terms like theorem, lemma, corollary, conjecture, and axiom. It provides examples of applying different proof techniques to specific mathematical statements.

Uploaded by

Harshitha Devi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
55 views70 pages

Rule of Inference

This document discusses different types of proofs in mathematics, including direct proofs and indirect proofs. Direct proofs establish that a statement is true by starting with the hypothesis and using logical steps together with previously established results to arrive at the conclusion. Indirect proofs include proofs by contraposition and proof by contradiction, which establish that a statement is true by showing that if it were false, it would lead to a logical contradiction. The document also defines key terms like theorem, lemma, corollary, conjecture, and axiom. It provides examples of applying different proof techniques to specific mathematical statements.

Uploaded by

Harshitha Devi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 70

Rules of Inference

Section 1.6
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
Rules of Inference for Propositional Logic:
Modus Ponens
Corresponding Tautology:
(p ∧ (p →q)) → q

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

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


“It is snowing.”

“Therefore , I will study discrete math.”


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

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

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


“I will not study discrete math.”

“Therefore , it is not snowing.”


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

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

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


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

“Therefore , If it snows, 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 Las Vegas.”

“I will study discrete math.”

“Therefore, I will study discrete math or I will visit


Las Vegas.”
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 take a canoe trip.”
“If we take a canoe trip, then we will be home by sunset.”
 Using the inference rules, construct a valid argument for the conclusion:
“We will be home by sunset.”
Solution:
1. Choose propositional variables:
p : “It is sunny this afternoon.” r : “We will go swimming.” t : “We will be home by sunset.”
q : “It is colder than yesterday.” s : “We will take a canoe trip.”
2. Translation into propositional logic:

Continued on next slide 


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
The rules of inference for quantified statements are
introduced in the next several slides.
Universal Instantiation (UI)

Example:

Our domain consists of all dogs and Fido is a dog.

“All dogs are cuddly.”

“Therefore, Fido is cuddly.”


Universal Generalization (UG)

Used often implicitly in Mathematical Proofs.


Existential Instantiation (EI)

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)

Example:

“Michelle got an A in the class.”


“Therefore, someone got an A in the class.”
Using Rules of Inference
Example 1: Using the rules of inference, construct a valid argument to show
that
“John Smith has two legs”
is a consequence of the premises:
“Every man has two legs.” “John Smith is a man.”
Solution: Let M(x) denote “x is a man” and L(x) “ x has two legs” and let John
Smith 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.

Continued on next slide 


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.


Question 1:
Question 2:
Question 3:
Solution:
Question 4:
Solution:
Question 5:
Solution:
Introduction to Proofs
Section 1.7
Section Summary
Mathematical Proofs
Forms of Theorems
Direct Proofs
Indirect Proofs
Proof of the Contrapositive
Proof by Contradiction
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.
Axiom: is a statement which is universally true. As for example-
2+5=7, 3-7=-4 etc.
There is no proof to write next no. is 15. Based on
Structure of the sequence we write the next no. Here we
using some logic.
Here direct method is not applicable so we
prove it by contraposition.

You might also like