Logic

• Statement • Conditional Statement

• Negations • If-then , If-Only 
• Quantified Statement • Biconditional Statement
• Compound Statement and • If and only if ↔
Conjunction “and “p ^ q • Symbolic statement with
• Compound Statement and Parentheses ( )
Disjunction “or” p  q • Truth Table
Conjunction
The statement p ^ q is true if both p and q are true;
otherwise p ^ q is false

Truth Table for Conjunction:

p q p˄q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F
2
Conjunction
The statement p ^ q is true if both p and q are
true; otherwise p ^ q is false
p q p˄q
T T T
So if statement “p” is: “It is Sunday”, and
T F F
“q” is: “John is working.”
F T F
Then p  q is equivalent to the statement, It F F F
is Sunday, and John is working.

This can only be true if both statement “p”

(It is Sunday) and statement “q” (John is
working) are true.
3
Disjunction
The statement p  q is true if at least one of the statements p and q
is true; otherwise p  q is false.

Truth Table for Disjunction:

p q pq
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F
4
 Disjunction
The statement p  q is true if at least one of
the statements p and q is true; otherwise p p q pq
 q is false. T T T
T F T
So if statement “p” is: “Rasha teaches F T T
GNED courses”, and “q” is: “Rasha teaches F F F
physiology courses”
This can only be false if both
Then p  q is equivalent to the statement, statement “p” (Rasha teaches
GNED courses) and statement
Rasha teaches GNED courses, or she “q” (Rasha teaches Physiology
teaches Physiology courses. courses) are false.
5
Condition or Implication
Truth table for the conditional statement p  q
(if p then q)

p q pq
T T T
T F F Note, if p is false, the p  q statement
F T T really makes no claims whatsoever about
F F T q. Hence, it cannot be said to be false, so
it is deemed true.

6
Condition or Implication
p q pq
T T T Note, if p is false, the p  q statement
T F F really makes no claims whatsoever about
q. Hence, it cannot be said to be false, so
F T T
it is deemed true.
F F T

Example: if statement “p” is: “You invest…”, and “q” is: “You get rich”
Then p  q is saying (If you invest in Widget, then you’ll get rich).

However, if you don’t invest in Widget in the first place (p is false), then
you’ve got nothing to say about p  q.

If you can’t say for sure it’s false, it’s deemed true. 7
Condition or Implication
If I win the lottery, then I will travel
around the world.
p: I win the lottery
I win the lottery (T) and I travel
q: I travel around the world
around the world (T): p  q (T)
pq
p q pq I win the lottery (T) and I travel
T T T around the world (F): p  q (F)
T F F
I win the lottery (F) and I travel
F T T
around the world (T): p  q (T)
F F T
I win the lottery (F) and I travel
around the world (F): p  q (T)
8
 1) If you invest in Widget Incorporated, then you get rich.
2) You didn't invest in Widget Incorporated.
Therefore, you didn’t get rich.
Step 1) Break the premises into several statements (usually denoted by p, q, r, etc….)
p: You invest in Widget Incorporated.
q: You get rich.
Step 2) You express the premises and conclusion symbolically
pq
~p
\ ~q
• the premises are written above the line, the conclusion below
• p  q means “If p, then q” …called a “conditional statement”
• ~ q (or ¬q) means “not q” …..a “negation statement”
• \ means “therefore”
 Step 3) Construct a truth table
Step 4) Interpret the truth table
1) If you invest in Widgets Incorporated, then you get rich. pq
2) You didn't invest in Widgets Incorporated. ~p Premises
Therefore, you didn’t get rich.
\ ~q Conclusion
p: You invest in Widgets Incorporated.
q: You get rich.
Write a symbolic statement of the form:
[(premise 1)˄(premise 2)]  Conclusion In this case, the argument is
invalid !!!
p q p q ~p ~q [(p q)˄(~p)] [(p q)˄(~p)]  ~q
T T T F F F T
T F F F T F T
F T T T F T F
F F T T T T T
Table Interpretation
1) If you invest in Widgets Incorporated, then you get rich.
pq
2) You didn't invest in Widgets Incorporated.
~p
Therefore, you didn’t get rich.
p: You invest in Widgets Incorporated. \ ~q
q: You get rich.
p q p q ~p ~q
T T T F F
T F F F T In this case,
F T T T F the argument
F F T T T is invalid !!!
If there is any row for which all the premises are true, but the
conclusion is false, then the argument is invalid.
Section 3.7
In Exercises 15-42, page 194, translate each argument into
symbolic form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or
invalid.

15.
• If it is cold, my motorcycle will not start.
• My motorcycle started.

• \ It is not cold.
If it is cold, my motorcycle will not start.
My motorcycle started. p  ~q
q Premises
\ It is not cold.
p: It is cold \ ~p Conclusion
q: My motorcycle will start

p q ~q p~q ~p
T T F F F
T F T T F The argument
F T F T T is valid !!!
F F T T T

If there is any row for which all the premises are true, but the conclusion is false, then the
argument is invalid. I cannot find such a row, therefore the argument is valid.
If it is cold, my motorcycle will not start.
My motorcycle started. p  ~q
q Premises
\ It is not cold.
p: It is cold \ ~p Conclusion
q: My motorcycle will start

p q ~q p~q ~p
T T F F F
T F T T F The argument
F T F T T is valid !!!
F F T T T

If there is any row for which all the premises are true, but the conclusion is false, then the
argument is invalid. I cannot find such a row, therefore the argument is valid.
Or:
If it is cold, my motorcycle will not start. p  ~q
q Premises
My motorcycle started.
\ It is not cold. \ ~p Conclusion
p: It is cold
q: My motorcycle will start

p q ~q p~q ~p [(p~q)˄(q)] [(p~q)˄(q)]  ~p

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

The argument is valid !!!

One final note, if you have a complicated premise
Example: p  (~q  r )
To build the truth table, you would build it in several steps.
Eg. 1) Start with columns p, q, and r
2) Add a column for ~q
3) Add a column for (~q  r)
4) Then finally add a column for p  (~q  r )

p q r ~q (~q ^ r) p  (~ q ^ r)
T T T F F F
T T F F F F
T F T T T T
T F F T F F
F T T F F T
F T F F F T
F F T T T T
F F F T F T
One final note, if you have a complicated premise
Example: p  (~q  r )
To build the truth table, you would build it in several steps.
Eg. 1) Start with columns p, q, and r
2) Add a column for ~q
3) Add a column for (~q  r)
4) Then finally add a column for p  (~q  r )

p q r ~q (~q ^ r) p  (~ q ^ r)
T T T F F F
T T F F F F
T F T T T T
T F F T F F
F T T F F T
F T F F F T
F F T T T T
F F F T F T
Question

Consider the following sentences:

g: Global warming will increase
a: We will develop alternate energy sources
c: Congress will pass new energy legislation

Write each statement in symbolic form:

• Global warming will increase or Congress will not pass new energy legislation
• We will not develop alternative energy sources and global warming will
increase
• If global warming does not increase then: Congress will not pass new energy
legislation and we will not develop alternative energy sources.
• If Congress will not pass new energy legislation then: global warming will
increase or we will develop alternative energy sources.
 g: Global warming will increase
a: We will develop alternate energy sources
c: Congress will pass new energy legislation

Write each statement in symbolic form:

• Global warming will increase or Congress will not pass new energy legislation
g  ~c
• We will not develop alternative energy sources and global warming will increase
(~a) ^ g
• If global warming does not increase then: Congress will not pass new energy
legislation and we will not develop alternative energy sources.
(~g)  (~c ^ ~a)
• If Congress will not pass new energy legislation then: global warming will
increase or we will develop alternative energy sources.
(~c)  (g  a)
Question

Is the following a valid argument?

If the tire is flat then I will have to remove it and take it

to the gas station.

Tire is not flat. Therefore, I will not remove it and I will

not take it to the gas station.
If the tire is flat then I will have to remove it and take it to the gas station.

Tire is not flat. Therefore, I will not remove it and I will not take it to the gas
station.
Step 1: Break the premises into several statements
p: The tire is flat.
q: I have to remove the tire.
r: I have to take the tire to the gas station.

Step 2: Write the argument in symbolic form.

p  (q ^ r)
Premises
~p

\ ~q ^ ~r Conclusion
• Step 3: Construct a truth table
• Step 4: Interpret the truth table
Premises Conclusion
p q r q^r p  (q ^ r) ~p ~q ~r ~q ^ ~r
T T T T T F F F F
T T F F F F F T F
T F T F F F T F F
T F F F F F T T T
F T T T T T F F F
F T F F T T F T F
F F T F T T T F F
F F F F T T T T T

If there is any row for which all the premises are true, but the conclusion is false,
then the argument is invalid. This argument is INVALID.
• Step 3: Construct a truth table
• Step 4: Interpret the truth table
Premises Conclusion
p q r q^r p  (q ^ r) ~p ~q ~r ~q ^ ~r
T T T T T F F F F
T T F F F F F T F
T F T F F F T F F
T F F F F F T T T
F T T T T T F F F
F T F F T T F T F
F F T F T T T F F
F F F F T T T T T

If there is any row for which all the premises are true, but the conclusion is false,
then the argument is invalid. This argument is INVALID.
Take home Question

Is the conclusion a valid argument?

If the tire is flat then I will have to remove it and take it

to the gas station.

I did not remove the tire or I did not take it to the gas
station. Therefore, the tire is not flat.
Biconditional
Truth table for the biconditional statement p ↔ q (if and only if)

p q p↔q
T T T
T F F A biconditional is true only when
F T F the component statements have the
F F T same truth value.

26
Logically Equivalent Statements

• Two statements are logically equivalent if they

have the same variables and when their truth
tables are computed, the final columns in the
tables are identical.
Logically Equivalent Statements
• Two statements are logically equivalent if they have the same
variables and when their truth tables are computed, the final
columns in the tables are identical.

Assume that you have discount coupons for restaurants and other leisure
activities. Do the following two statements say the same thing?

a) It is not true that: the Pasta Bar accepts coupons and the Deli accepts
coupons
b) The Pasta Bar doesn’t accept coupons or the Deli does not accept
coupons.
Logically Equivalent Statements
Assume that you have discount coupons for restaurants and other
leisure activities. Do the following two statements say the same
thing?

a) It is not true that: the Pasta Bar accepts coupons and the Deli
accepts coupons
~ (p ^ q)

b) The Pasta Bar doesn’t accept coupons or the Deli does not accept
coupons.
(~p)  (~q)
Logically Equivalent Statements
a) It is not true that: the Pasta Bar accepts coupons and the
Deli accepts coupons
~ (p ^ q)

b) The Pasta Bar doesn’t accept coupons or the Deli does not
accept coupons.
(~p)  (~q)

To decide whether these statements say the same thing, we

make two truth tables
Truth Tables: Rules
~ (p ^ q) ~p~q

p q p ^ q ~(p ^ q) p q ~p ~q ~p~q

T T T F T T F F F
T F F T T F F T T
F T F T F T T F T
F F F T F F T T T
Truth Tables: Rules

p q ~p ~q p^q pq pq p↔q

T T F F T T T T
T F F T F T F F
F T T F F T T F
F F T T F F T T
Do the following two statements say the same thing?

• If you enter Rasha’s office then you need to pet her cat
(Mango). p → q

• You enter Rasha’s office and you don’t pet her cat
(Mango). p ^ ~q
• If you enter Rasha’s office then you need to pet her cat
(Mango). p → q

• You enter Rasha’s office and you don’t pet her cat (Mango).
p ^ ~q
p q p→q ~q p ^ ~q
T T T F F
T F F T T
F T T F F
F F T T F
Exercises 16-42, page 194, translate each argument into symbolic
form. Then determine whether the argument is valid or invalid.