Scribd
Upload
26 views40 pages

Inferences

Uploaded by

Preeshay Jutt
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
26 views40 pages

Inferences

Uploaded by

Preeshay Jutt
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/ 40

INFERENCES

RULES OF INFERENCES
GROUP MEMBERS:
AYESHA ASLAM
17631556-007
KANWAL BATOOL
17631556-003
AIMEN IRFAN
17631556-025
Definitions
By an argument, we mean a sequence of
statements that ends with a conclusion.
The conclusion is the last statement of the
argument.
The premises are the statements of the
argument preceding the conclusion.
 A valid argument is one that, if all its
premises are true, then the conclusion is
true
Valid Arguments
 Ex: “If it rains, I drive to school.”
“It rains.”
therefore “I drive to school.”
• In this example, the argument belongs to the
following form:
p q
p
therefore q
Valid Argument Form
 An argument form is an argument that is
valid no matter what propositions are
substituted into its propositional variables.
 Some simple valid argument forms, called
rules of inference, are derived and can be
used to construct complicated argument form
Inferences
Rules of Inference provide the templates or
guidelines for constructing valid arguments
from the statements
Rule of Inference

Some tautologies are rules of inference. The


general form of a rule of inference is
(p1 ∧ p2 ∧··· ∧ pn) → c

where
pi are the premises
c is the conclusion.
Notation

A rule of inference is written as


p1
p2
.
.

∴c
pn

where the symbol ∴ denotes “therefore”.


Using this notation, the hypotheses are written in a
column, followed by a horizontal bar, followed by a
line that begins with the therefore symbol and ends
with the conclusion.
Modus Ponens
The rule of inference
p→q

∴q
p

is denoted the law of detachment or modus


ponens (Latin for mode that affirms). If a
conditional statement and the hypothesis of the
conditional statement are both true, therefore the
conclusion must also be true.
The basis of the modus ponens is the tautology
((p→q)∧p)→q
modus ponens

Truth Table:
Example of modus ponens
If it rains, then it is cloudy.
It rains.
Therefore, it is cloudy.
r is the proposition “it rains.”
c is the proposition “it is cloudy.”
r→c

∴c
r
Modus Tollens
The rule of inference
p→q

∴ ¬p
¬q

is denoted the modus tollens (Latin for mode


that denies). This rule of inference is based
on the contrapositive. The basis of the modus
ponens is the tautology
( ( p → q ) ∧ ¬q )→ ¬p.
Modus Tollens
Truth Table:
Example Of Modus Tollens:
If it rains, then it is cloudy.
It is not cloudy.
Therefore, it is not the case that it rains.
r is the proposition “it rains.”
c is the proposition “it is cloudy.”
r→c

∴ ¬r
¬c
Disjunctive Syllogism

The rule of inference


p∨q

∴q
¬p

is the rule of disjunctive syllogism.


This rule comes from the 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 or I will study


English literature.” “I will not study discrete
math.”

“Therefore , I will study English literature.”


Hypothetical Syllogism

The rule of inference


p→q

∴p→r
q→r

is the rule of hypothetical syllogism (syllogism


means “argument made of three propositions
where the last one, the conclusion, is necessarily
true if the two firsts, the hypotheses, are true”).
This rule comes from the 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.”


Addition
The rule of inference

∴p∨q
P

is the rule of addition.


This rule comes from the 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

The rule of inference

∴p
p∧q

is the rule of simplification.


This rule comes from the 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
The rule of inference
p

∴p∧q
q

is the rule of conjunction.


This rule comes from the 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
The rule of inference
p∨q

∴q∨r
¬p ∨ r

is the rule of resolution


This rule comes from the tautology
( ( p ∨ q ) ∧ ( ¬p ∨ r ) ) → ( q ∨ r ).
Example:
Let p be “I will study discrete math.”
Let q be “I will study databases.”
Let r be “I will study English literature.”

“I will study discrete math or I will study


databases.”
“I will not study discrete math or I will study
English literature.”

“Therefore, I will study databases or I will English


literature.”
Constructive Dilemma
Dilemma:
Constructive Dilemma
If (P→Q)∧(R→S)(P→Q)∧(R→S) and P∨R are
two premises, we can use constructive
dilemma to derive Q∨S:
(P→Q)∧(R→S)

∴Q∨S
P∨R
Constructive Dilemma
Example
“If it rains, I will take a leave”, (P→Q)
“If it is hot outside, I will go for a
shower”, (R→S)
“Either it will rain or it is hot outside”, P∨

Therefore − "I will take a leave or I will go


for a shower"
D

Destructive Dilemma

If (P→Q)∧(R→S) and ¬Q∨¬S are two


premises, we can use destructive dilemma to
derive ¬P∨¬R.

(P→Q)∧(R→S)

∴¬P∨¬R
¬Q∨¬S
Destructive Dilemma
Example:
“If it rains, I will take a leave”, (P→Q)
“If it is hot outside, I will go for a
shower”, (R→S)
“Either I will not take a leave or I will not go
for a shower”, ¬Q∨¬S

Therefore − "Either it does not rain or it is


not hot outside"
Rules of Inference for Quantified
Statements:
Some important rules of inference for
statements involving quantifiers.
Universal Instantiation:
It is the rule of inference used to conclude
that P(c)is true, where c is a particular
member of the domain, given the premise ∀ x
P(x).
Universal instantiation is used when we
conclude from the statement “All women are
wise” that “Lisa is wise,” where Lisa is a
member of the domain of all women.
Universal Generalization:
 is the rule of inference that states that ∀x
P(x) is true, given the premise that P(c)is true
for all elements c in the domain.
Universal generalization is used when we
show that
∀x P(x) is true by taking an arbitrary
element c from the domain and showing that
P(c) is true.
 The element c that we select must be an
arbitrary, and not a specific, element of the
domain
Existential Instantiation
is the rule that allows us to conclude that
there is an element c in the domain for which
P(c) is true if we know that ∃x P(x) is true.
We cannot select an arbitrary value of c here,
but rather it must be a c for which P(c)is true.
Usually we have no knowledge of what c is,
only that it exists.
Because it exists, we may give it a name (c)
and continue our argument.
Existential Generalization
It is the rule of inference that is used to
conclude that ∃x P(x) is true when a
particular element c with P(c)true is known.
That is, if we know one element c in the
domain for which P(c)is true, then we know
that ∃x P(x) is true.
ANY QUESTION ?

You might also like