Scribd
Upload
16 views

Lecture 04

The document discusses rules of inference in propositional logic. It defines an argument as a sequence of statements that ends with a conclusion. An argument is valid if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Rules of inference like modus ponens allow deducing new statements from existing ones. Modus ponens states that if premises p → q and p are true, then conclusion q must be true. Several examples demonstrate valid and invalid arguments using propositional logic and rules of inference.

Uploaded by

Mowliid Ahmed
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
16 views

Lecture 04

The document discusses rules of inference in propositional logic. It defines an argument as a sequence of statements that ends with a conclusion. An argument is valid if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Rules of inference like modus ponens allow deducing new statements from existing ones. Modus ponens states that if premises p → q and p are true, then conclusion q must be true. Several examples demonstrate valid and invalid arguments using propositional logic and rules of inference.

Uploaded by

Mowliid Ahmed
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 13

Discrete Mathematics

Abdurrahman Yusuf Haydar


Faculty of Computer Science and IT
Benadir University

1
1.6 Rules of Inference
• Proof: valid arguments that establish the truth
of a mathematical statement
• Argument: a sequence of statements that end
with a conclusion
• Valid: the conclusion or final statement of the
argument must follow the truth of proceeding
statements or premise of the argument

2
Argument and inference
• An argument is valid if and only if it is
impossible for all the premises to be true and
the conclusion to be false
• Rules of inference: use them to deduce
(construct) new statements from statements
that we already have
• Basic tools for establishing the truth of
statements

3
Valid arguments in propositional
logic
• Consider the following arguments involving
propositions
“If you have a correct password, then you can
log onto the network”
“You have a correct password” premises
therefore,
“You can log onto the network” conclusion
pq
p
q 4
Valid arguments
• (( p  q)  p)  q is tautology
• When ((p→q)˄p) is true, both p→q and p are
ture, and thus q must be also be true
• This form of argument is true because when
the premises are true, the conclusion must be
true

5
Example
• p: “You have access to the network”
• q: “You can change your grade”
• p→q: “If you have access to the network, then
you can change your grade”
“If you have access to the network, then you
can change your grade” (p→q)
“You have access to the network” (p)
so “You can change your grade” (q)
6
Example
“If you have access to the network, then you
can change your grade” (p→q)
“You have access to the network” (p)
so “You can change your grade” (q)
• Valid arguments
• But the conclusion is not true
• Argument form: a sequence of compound
propositions involving propositional variables
7
Rules of inference for propositional
logic
• Can always use truth table to show an
argument form is valid
• For an argument form with 10 propositional
variables, the truth table requires 210 rows
• The tautology (( p  q)  p)  q is the rule of
inference called modus ponens (mode that
affirms), or the law of detachment
p
pq
q
8
Example
• If both statements “If it snows today, then we
will go skiing” and “It is snowing today” are
true.
• By modus ponens, it follows the conclusion
“We will go skiing” is true

9
Example
3 3 3
If 2 then ( 2 ) 2  ( ) 2 . We know that 2 
2 2 2
3 9
Consequently, ( 2 ) 2  2  ( ) 2 
2 4
Is it a valid argument? Is conclusion true?

• The premises of the argument are p→q and p,


and q is the conclusion
• This argument is valid by using modus ponens
• But one of the premises is false, consequently
we cannot conclude the conclusion is true
• Furthermore, the conclusion is not true
10
11
Example
– “It is not sunny this
afternoon and it is colder
than yesterday” p  q 1)p  q hypothesis
– “We will go swimming only if 2)p simplication using (1)
it is sunny” rp 3)r  p hypothesis
– “If we do not go swimming, 4)r modus tollens using (2) and (3)
then we will take a canoe 5)r  s hypothesis
trip” r  s 6) s modus ponens using (4)
– “If we take a canoe trip, then 7) s  t hypothesis
we will be home by sunset”
8)t modus ponens using (6) and (7)
st
Can we conclude
“We will be home byt sunset”?

12
Example
– “If you send me an email
message, then I will finish
my program” p  q
– “If you do not send me an 1) p  q hypothesis
email message, then I will 2)q  p contrapositive of (1)
go to sleep early” p  r 3)p  r hypothesis
– “If I go to sleep early, then I 4)  q  r hypotheical syllogism using (2) and (3)
will wake up feeling 5)r  s hypothesis
refreshed” r  s 6)  q  s hypothetical syllogism using (4) and (5)

– “If I do not finish writing the


program, then I will wake
up feeling refreshed”q  s
13

You might also like