Scribd
Upload
8 views20 pages

Week2-Natural Deduction

Uploaded by

omarahmedoa141
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
8 views20 pages

Week2-Natural Deduction

Uploaded by

omarahmedoa141
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/ 20

Propositional Logic

Introduction
• Example 1.2 If it is raining and Jane does not have her umbrella with
her, then she will get wet. Jane is not wet. It is raining. Therefore, Jane
has her umbrella with her.

The argument in each example could be stated without talking about trains and rain,
as follows:

If p and not q, then r. Not r. p. Therefore, q.

In developing logics, we are not concerned with what the sentences really mean, but
only in their logical structure. Of course, when we apply such reasoning, as done
above, such meaning will be of great interest.
Introduction
• Example 1.1:
If the train arrives late and there are no taxis at the station, then John
is late for his meeting. John is not late for his meeting. The train did
arrive late. Therefore, there were taxis at the station.
Logical Thinking:
Intuitively, the argument is valid, since if we put the first sentence and
the third sentence together, they tell us that if there are no taxis, then
John will be late. The second sentence tells us that he was not late, so it
must be the case that there were taxis.
Introduction
Natural deduction
• Let’s see how this works. Suppose we have a set of formulas φ1, φ2, φ3, . . . , φn,
which we will call premises, and another formula, ψ, which we will call a conclusion. By
applying proof rules to the premises, we hope to get some more formulas, and by
applying more proof rules to those, to eventually obtain the conclusion. This intention
we denote by
φ1, φ2, . . . , φn ├ ψ.
This expression is called a sequent; it is valid if a proof for it can be found.
• So the sequent for Examples 1.1 and 1.2 is: p ∧ ￢ q → r, ￢ r , p ├ q.
Rules for natural deduction
• The rules for
conjunction
1- and-introduction
It allows us to conclude φ ∧ ψ, given that we have already concluded φ and ψ separately.
We write this rule as
premises

name of the rule

2- and-elimination conclusion
Example 1.4
• Let’s use these rules to prove that p ∧ q, r ├ q ∧ r is valid.
Solve the following:
•p∧q├q∧p (Forward reasoning)
commutative

• (p ∧ q) ∧ r ├ p ∧ (q ∧ r) (Backward reasoning)
Associative
Solve the following:
•p∧q├q∧p (Forward reasoning)
commutative
Solve the following:
• (p ∧ q) ∧ r ├ p ∧ (q ∧ r) (Backward reasoning)
Associative
Rules for natural deduction
• Double negation
Intuitively, there is no difference between a formula φ and its double negation ￢￢ φ,
which expresses no more and nothing less than φ itself. The sentence
‘It is not true that it does not rain.’
is just a more contrived way of saying
‘It rains.’
1- double negation-introduction

2- double negation-elimination
Example 1.5
The proof of the sequent p, ￢￢ (q ∧ r) ├ ￢￢ p ∧ r below uses
Example 1.6
Now prove the sequent (p ∧ q) ∧ r, s ∧ t ├ q ∧ s
Solve the following:
• ￢￢ p ∧ q ├ p ∧ q

• ( ￢￢ p ∧ ￢￢ q ├ q ∧ p
The rule for eliminating
implication
• There is one rule to introduce → and one to eliminate it. The latter is one of the best
known rules of propositional logic and is often referred to by its Latin name modus
ponens We will usually call it by its (sometimes
• also referred to as arrow-elimination). This rule states that, given φ and knowing that φ
implies ψ, we may rightfully conclude ψ.
1- implies-elimination (modus ponens )

Explanation: Let us justify this rule by spelling out instances of some declarative sentences p and
q. Suppose that
p : It rained.
p → q : If it rained, then the street is wet.

so q is just ‘The street is wet.’ Now, if we know that it rained and if we know that the street is wet in
the case that it rained, then we may combine these two pieces of information to conclude that the
Example 1.7
Example 1.8
• given p, p → q and p → (q → r), we may infer r:
The rule for eliminating
implication
2- implies-elimination (modus tollens (MT))

Explanation: let us see an example of this rule in the natural language setting:

‘If Abraham Lincoln was Ethiopian, then he was African. Abraham


Lincoln was not African; therefore he was not Ethiopian.’
Example 1.9
In the following proof of
p → (q → r), p, ￢ r ├ ￢ q
Examples 1.10
Here are two example proofs which combine the rule MT with either ￢￢ e or ￢￢ i:

You might also like