LECTURE NOTES

ON
Discrete Mathematics
(15AO5302)

[Link] II YEAR , I SEMESTER

(JNTUA-R15)

DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE & ENGINEERING

Page 1
 UNIT -1
Mathematical Logic

Page 2
1. Discrete Mathematics -Introduction

Discrete Mathematics is a branch of mathematics involving discrete elements that uses algebra and
arithmetic. It is increasingly being applied in the practical fields of mathematics and computer science. It
is a very good tool for improving reasoning and problem-solving capabilities.

Types of Mathematics.

Mathematics can be broadly classified into two categories −

 Continuous Mathematics
 Discrete Mathematics

Continuous Mathematics is based upon continuous number line or the real numbers. It is
characterized by the fact that between any two numbers, there are almost always an infinite set of
numbers. For example, a function in continuous mathematics can be plotted in a smooth curve
without breaks.

Discrete Mathematics, on the other hand, involves distinct values; i.e. between any two points,
there are a countable number of points. For example, if we have a finite set of objects, the
function can be defined as a list of ordered pairs having these objects, and can be presented as a
complete list of those pairs.

2. Propositional Logic
The rules of mathematical logic specify methods of reasoning mathematical statements. Greek
philosopher, Aristotle, was the pioneer of logical reasoning. Logical reasoning provides the
theoretical base for many areas of mathematics and consequently computer science. It has many
practical applications in computer science like design of computing machines, artificial
intelligence, definition of data structures for programming languages etc.

Propositional Logic is concerned with statements to which the truth values, “true” and “false”,
can be assigned. The purpose is to analyze these statements either individually or in a composite
manner.

Propositional Logic – Definition

A proposition is a collection of declarative statements that has either a truth value "true” or a
truth value "false". A propositional consists of propositional variables and connectives. We
denote the propositional variables by capital letters (A, B, etc). The connectives connect the
propositional variables.

Some examples of Propositions are given below −

 "Man is Mortal", it returns truth value “TRUE”

 "12 + 9 = 3 − 2", it returns truth value “FALSE”

Page 3
The following is not a Proposition −

 "A is less than 2". It is because unless we give a specific value of A, we cannot say
whether the statement is true or false.

3. Connectives

In propositional logic generally we use five connectives which are − OR (∨), AND (𝖠),
Negation/ NOT (¬), Implication / if-then (→), If and only if (⇔).

OR (∨) − The OR operation of two propositions A and B (written as A ∨ B) is true if at

least any of the propositional variable A or B is true.

The truth table is as follows −

A B A∨B
True True True
True False True
False True True
False False False

AND (𝖠) − The AND operation of two propositions A and B (written as A 𝖠 B) is

true ifboth the propositional variable A and B is true.

The truth table is as follows −

A B A𝖠B
True True True
True False False
False True False
False False False

Negation (¬) − The negation of a proposition A (written as ¬A) is false when A is true
and istrue when A is false.

The truth table is as follows −

A ¬A
True False
False True

Page 4
 Implication / if-then (→) − An implication A→B is False if A is true and B is false. The
rest cases are true.

The truth table is as follows −

A B A→B
True True True
True False False
False True True
False False True

Biconditional / If and only if (⇔) − A⇔B is bi-conditional logical connective which is

truewhen p and q are both false or both are true.

The truth table is as follows −

A B A⇔B
True True True
True False False
False True False
False False True

4. Tautologies

A Tautology is a formula which is always true for every value of its propositional variables.

Example − Prove [(A → B) 𝖠 A] → B is a tautology

The truth table is as follows –

A B A → B (A → B) 𝖠 A [(A → B) 𝖠 A] → B
True True True True True
True False False False True
False True True False True
False False True False True

As we can see every value of [(A → B) 𝖠 A] → B is “True”, it is a tautology.

Page 5
5. Contradictions

A Contradiction is a formula which is always false for every value of its propositional variables.

Example − Prove (A ∨ B) 𝖠 [(¬A) 𝖠 (¬B)] is a contradiction

The truth table is as follows −

A B A ∨ B ¬A ¬B (¬A) 𝖠 (¬B) (A ∨ B) 𝖠 [(¬A) 𝖠 (¬B)]

True True True False False False False
True False True False True False False
False True True True False False False
False False False True True True False

As we can see every value of (A ∨ B) 𝖠 [(¬A) 𝖠 (¬B)] is “False”, it is a contradiction.

6. Contingency

A Contingency is a formula which has both some true and some false values for every value of
its propositional variables.

Example − Prove (A ∨ B) 𝖠 (¬A) a contingency

The truth table is as follows –

A B A ∨ B ¬A (A ∨ B) 𝖠 (¬A)
True True True False False
True False True False False
False True True True True
False False False True False

As we can see every value of (A ∨ B) 𝖠 (¬A) has both “True” and “False”, it is a contingency.

7. Propositional Equivalences

Two statements X and Y are logically equivalent if any of the following two conditions −

 The truth tables of each statement have the same truth values.
 The bi-conditional statement X ⇔ Y is a tautology.

Example − Prove ¬(A ∨ B) and [(¬A) 𝖠 (¬B)] are equivalent

Page 6
Testing by 1st method (Matching truth table)
A B A ∨ B ¬ (A ∨ B) ¬A ¬B [(¬A) 𝖠 (¬B)]
True True True False False False False
True False True False False True False
False True True False True False False
False False False True True True True

Here, we can see the truth values of ¬ (A ∨ B) and [(¬A) 𝖠 (¬B)] are same, hence the statements
are equivalent.
Testing by 2nd method (Bi-conditionality)
A B ¬ (A ∨ B) [(¬A) 𝖠 (¬B)] [¬ (A ∨ B)] ⇔ [(¬A) 𝖠 (¬B)]
True True False False True
True False False False True
False True False False True
False False True True True

As [¬ (A ∨ B)] ⇔ [(¬A) 𝖠 (¬B)] is a tautology, the statements are equivalent.

8. Inverse, Converse, and Contra-positive

A conditional statement has two parts − Hypothesis and Conclusion.

Example of Conditional Statement − “If you do your homework, you will not be punished.”
Here, "you do your homework" is the hypothesis and "you will not be punished" is the
conclusion.

Ex: P->Q ¬PvQ

Inverse − An inverse of the conditional statement is the negation of both the hypothesis and the
conclusion. If the statement is “If p, then q”, the inverse will be “If not p, then not q”. The
inverse of “If you do your homework, you will not be punished” is “If you do not do your
homework, you will be punished.”

Ex: Inverse Of P->Q Is ¬P->¬Q

Converse − The converse of the conditional statement is computed by interchanging the

hypothesis and the conclusion. If the statement is “If p, then q”, the inverse will be “If q, then p”.
The converse of "If you do your homework, you will not be punished" is "If you will not be
punished, you do not do your homework”.

Ex: Converse of P->Q Is Q->P

Page 7
Contra-positive − The contra-positive of the conditional is computed by interchanging the
hypothesis and the conclusion of the inverse statement. If the statement is “If p, then q”, the
inverse will be “If not q, then not p”. The Contra-positive of "If you do your homework, you will
not be punished” is "If you will be punished, you do your homework”.

Ex: Contra-Positive Of P->Q Is ¬Q->¬P

9. Duality Principle

Duality principle set states that for any true statement, the dual statement obtained by
interchanging unions into intersections (and vice versa) and interchanging Universal set into Null
set (and vice versa) is also true. If dual of any statement is the statement itself, it is said self-dual
statement.

Example − The dual of (A ∩ B) 𝖴 C is (A 𝖴 B) ∩ C

10. Normal Forms

We can convert any proposition in two normal forms −

 Conjunctive normal form

 Disjunctive normal form

Conjunctive Normal Form

A compound statement is in conjunctive normal form if it is obtained by operating AND among

variables (negation of variables included) connected with ORs.

Examples

 (P 𝖴 Q) ∩ (Q 𝖴 R)
 (¬P 𝖴 Q 𝖴 S 𝖴¬T)

Disjunctive Normal Form

A compound statement is in disjunctive normal form if it is obtained by operating OR among

variables (negation of variables included) connected with ANDs.

Examples

 (P ∩ Q) 𝖴 (Q ∩ R)
 (¬P ∩ Q ∩ S ∩¬T)

Page 8
 11. Predicate Logic

Predicate Logic – Definition

A predicate is an expression of one or more variables defined on some specific domain. A

predicate with variables can be made a proposition by either assigning a value to the variable or
by quantifying the variable. The following are some examples of predicates −

 Let E(x, y) denote "x = y"

 Let X(a, b, c) denote "a + b + c = 0"
 Let M(x, y) denote "x is married to y"

Predicate calculus

we'll symbolize the word "every" (or equivalently "all", "any", etc.) with an upside down 'A': .
And we'll use a backwards-E for "some" and it's synonyms: .

Symbolizing "All" and "Some"

Example1:( x)W(x): read this as "every x is such that it is valid" or as "all x make 'W(x)' true" or
“every x, every member of the universe of discourse, is a valid argument:”

Example2:( x)W(x): read this "there is an x such that x is valid" or as "there is an x making 'Wx'
true.", or “some x, some member of the universe of discourse, is a valid argument.”

Symbolizing "No" meaning "None"

We have two logically equivalent ways to think about our "no" statement: "No cats are reptiles".
This statement can be understood to be it's not true that some cat is a reptile ('~( x)R(x)') or it
can be equivalently rendered as all cats are non- reptiles ('( x)~R(x)'). (To say that all cats are
non-reptiles is to say that every cat fails to be a reptile.)

We will see these two ways of expressing "no" again and again, so let's put it in a box:

QN: "no cats are reptiles" can be symbolized '~( x)R(x)' or, equivalently, '( x)~R(x)'.

We will return to the PL symbolizations later. For now keep in mind that "no", "some", and "all"
have this complicated relation just called 'QN'.

3.2.3. Categorical Statements

These three examples are of categorical statements. They relate categories. For example, "All
dogs are mammals" takes the subject term "dogs" and relates it to the predicate term "mammals".

a) A categorical statement of this form...

Page 9
All S are P

we call a "universal categorical statement". We'll call the form "universal".

b) A statement of this "existential form":

Some S are P :is an existential categorical statement.

c) A statement of the last or "negative form":

No S are P is a negative categorical statement.

d) Obversion has two forms to remember:

"All S are P" is logically equivalent to "No S are non-P".

"No S are P" is logically equivalent to "All S are non-P".

e)Conversion has two forms for equivalence:

"Some S are P" is logically equivalent to "Some P are S".

"No S are P" is logically equivalent to "No P are S".

f)Contraposition:

"All S are P" is logically equivalent to "All non-P are non-S".

11.4. Venn diagrams

Venn diagrams are the easy way to go to understand the meaning of categorical sentences. Think
of everything in the universe (of discourse) as being
contained within the box just below.

Everything that falls into the category S is located in a

circle (the left one). Everything falling into category P is
located in the other circle (the right one).

If something is both S and P, then it's located in the area of

overlap of the two circles: the area in green.

Anything which is neither S nor P, is outside both circles

and in the white area.

Page 10
Now, let's use these diagrams for understanding categorical statements.

We have three "official" categorical forms.

a) universal categorical form:

All S are P

The lines mean that the area inside S but outside P is

empty. So, any S is P. Thus we have a diagram of our
universal form.

b) existential categorical form:

Some S are P

The 'x' is an arbitrary stand-in for an object. The diagram

simply says that there is something in the green area of
overlap between S and P.

c) negative categorical form:

No S are P

This diagram represents there being nothing in the overlap.

So, there is nothing that is both S and P.

Symbolization into strict categorical form

Page 11
d)When we first wrote up a Venn Diagram for the universal form, we put it this way:

This diagram specifies the meaning of "All S are P". The

idea is that everything that is in P is also in S. I.e., there is
nothing in S that is not also in P. This last just means:

No S are non-P.

There is nothing in the overlap of S and non-P.

Second, a little thought shows that we've also justified the

logical equivalence for this similar transposition:

"No S are P" is logically equivalent to "All S are non-P".

Quantifiers-Types
1. Existential Form can be manifested in English with phrases not including "some". For
example, if one says any of...

There is a whale in Ohio.

There is at least one whale in Ohio.
Whales exist (or live) in Ohio.

one could be taken to mean

Some W are O

Where 'W' stands for the category of whales, 'O' for things in Ohio.

2. Trickier cases include:

A whale lives in Ohio.

Whales are in Ohio.

These clearly are also existential. But see below for similar case that are universal. Think about
this one:

Some dogs are not pets.

This doesn't fit our existential categorical form only because "not a pet" is not itself a category
phrase. But we can easily turn it into one: "not a pet" goes to "non-pet". So, we can symbolize
this one as

Page 12
Some D are N

where 'N' stands for the collection of non-pets. (Warning: Traditional logic recognizes a forth
form: "Some S are not P". Let's call this existential negation. It's easy to see it's meaning. Now,
how would you diagram it?)

2. Negative Forms to come in different styles that are logically equivalent:

No S are P
Nothing is both S and P
None of S are P

3. Universal Forms

For example, any of the following could be symbolized as a universal form statement:

1. Every whale is a mammal.

2. Each whale is a mammal.
3. Any whale is a mammal.

So, when your job is to symbolize is standard form, you will take such English and change them
into

All W are M.

Where 'W' is interpreted as the predicate naming whales, 'M' for mammals.

Here are two more tougher ones:

4. Whales are mammals.

5. A whale is a mammal.
6. If a thing is a whale, then it's a mammal.

Usually these two, 4 and 5, would also be symbolized as of universal form, the same way as for
1-3.

All W are M.

If you say "whales are mammals" you are pretty clearly thinking about all whales.

When "a whale is a mammal" is used, this is normally about an arbitrary whale. So, 5 too is
universal.

6 is similarly about any thing. Keep 6 in mind; it will help us symbolize categorical statements
into English.

Page 13
7. All losers complain.

7 is missing a category term for the predicate. But this is easy to fix. Let 'C' stand for "people
who complain".

All L are C.

8. Tom always comes in late.

8 doesn't even look like a categorical statement at first. But it's about all times. "All times when
Tom comes are times when he's late".

All C are L.

9. Wherever one goes one finds competition.

This is "All places one goes are places one finds competition":

All G are F.

where 'G' stands for "places one goes" and 'F' for "places one finds competition".And another
similar one:

10. Whoever didn't pass should study harder.

This is "All people who did not pass should study harder".

All N are H.

The next few are trickier:

11. Only humans are rational.

12. None but humans are rational.

These say that nothing else is rational besides humans: All rational beings are human.

All R are H.

But they do not say that all humans are rational! So, "Only S are P" and "None but S are P"
amount to "All P are S". Note the subject-predicate switch!.However, adding the word "The"
makes all the difference!:

Page 14
13. The only rational creatures are humans.

which is symbolized with no "switching":

All R are H.

In general, "The only S are P" is logically equivalent to "All S are P".And, here's a last universal
form symbolization:

14. One pays taxes unless one is lucky.

Unless means "if not" (you can prove this in SD). So, any person who is unlucky pays taxes.

All U are P.

Negations can be tricky too.

15. Not a single life should be wasted.

15 means that all life should be saved, not wasted.

All L are S.

Note that 15 is a negation of an existential: "Some life should be wasted". But 16 is different, it's
the negation

16. Not all politicians are crooks.

This is "Some politicians are non-crooks":

Some P are N.

where now 'N' stands for "non-crook".

Exercises

Example1:Take the syllogism

All dogs are mammals.

All mammals are animals.
therefore
All dogs are animals.

To symbolize this argument using predicate logic, let's take each statement separately. The first
statement "all dogs are mammals" says predicates doghood of some things, mammalhood of
some things, and then says that all things that have doghood also have mammalhood. In other

Page 15
words, for all things, if it is has doghood then it has mammalhood. We can give a similar
analysis for the other two statements. Using "D" for "doghood," "M" for "mammalhood," "A" for
"animalhood," "x" for "thing," "(x)" for "all things," and "→" for the "if. then" aspect, we have

Statement Symbolization Interpretation

All dogs are mammals. (x) (Dx → Mx) For all things, if it is a dog, then it is a mammal.
All mammals are animals. (x) (Mx →Ax) For all things, if it is a mammal, then it is an animal.
therefore
All dogs are animals. (x) (Dx → Ax) For all things, if it is a dog, then it is an animal.

Line no Quantifiers Rule

1. (x) (D(x) → M(x)) P

2. D(x) → M(x) US,1

3. (x) (M(x) →A(x)) P

4. M(x) →A(x) US,3

5. D(x) → A(x) Hypothetical Syllosim,2,4

6. (x) (D(x) → A(x)) UG,5

All dogs are animals.

Example2:

Similarly, we can symbolize arguments involving statements such as "some mammals are dogs"
by using "(Эx)" to stand for "some things" in place of "(x)" for "all things. Instead of ">" for the
"if. then" aspect, for some types of statements we might use "^" for "and" and "v" for "or." And
negation could be captured with a "-."

Statement Symbolization Interpretation

There is some thing, such that it is a mammal
Some mammals are dogs. (Эx) (Mx ^ Dx)
and a dog.
All dogs are barkers. (x) (Dx →Bx) For all things, if it is a dog, then it is a barker.
therefore
Some mammals are There is some thing, such that it is a mammal
(Эx) (Mx ^ Bx)
barkers. and a barker.

Page 16
Line no Quantifiers Rule
1. (Эx) (M(x)^D(x)) p

2. M(x) ^D(x) ES,1

3. M(x) and D(x) Simplication ,2

4. (x) (D(x)→B(x)) P

5. D(x)→B(x) US,4

6. B(x) Moduspones,3,5

7. M(x)^B(x) Conjunction,3,6

8. (Эx)(M(x)^B(x)) EG,7
Some mammals are barkers

Example3:

For reasons we cannot go into, logicians use an "^" for "and" to capture the "some mammals are
dogs" type of statement instead of an "→" to characterize it as an "if. ...then."

All dogs are mammals. (x) D(x)→M(x)

All cats are mammals. (x) C(x)→M(x)
therefore
All dogs are cats. (x) D(x)→C(x)

Solution:

Line no Quantifiers Rule

1. (x) D(x)→M(x) P

2. D(x)→M(x) US,1

3. (x) C(x)→M(x) P

4. C(x)→M(x) US,3

5. D(x)→C(x) Hypothetical Syllosim,2,4

6. (x) D(x)→C(x) UG,5

All dogs are cats.

Page 17
Example4:
All turkeys are birds.: (x) T(x)→B(x)
No birds are mammals. (x) Bx →┐M(x)
therefore
No turkeys are mammals. (x) T(x) → ┐ M(x)

Solution:
Line no Quantifiers Rule
7. (x) T(x)→B(x) P

8. T(x)→B(x) US,1

9. (x) Bx →┐M(x) P

10. Bx →┐M(x) US,3

11. T(x) → ┐M(x) Hypothetical Syllosim,2,4

12. (x) T(x) → ┐M(x) UG,5

No turkeys are mammals

Example5:
All turkeys are birds. (x) T(x) → B(x)
Some birds are not mammals. (Эx) B(x) ^ ┐M(x)
therefore
No turkeys are mammals. (x) T(x) → ┐M(x)

Solution:

Line No Quantifiers Rules

1. (Эx)B(x) ^┐M(x) P

2. B(x) ^┐M(x) ES ,1

3. B(x) and ┐M(x) simplification ,2

4. B(x)

5. ‫ ךּ‬B(x) Negation,4

6. (x) T(x) → B(x) P

7. T(x) → B(x) US,5

8. T(x) Modusponens,5,7

Page 18
 9. T(x) →┐M(x) Conjunction,3,8

10. (x) T(x) → ┐M(x) UG,9

No turkeys are mammals.

Examples of Valid & Invalid Logical Reasoning

Problem solving

Example 1

1. If all dogs are mammals, then all dogs are reptiles.

2. All dogs are mammals.
3. Therefore, all dogs are reptiles.

Answers

1. If all dogs are mammals, then all dogs are reptiles.

2. All dogs are mammals.
3. Therefore, all dogs are reptiles.

This argument is valid. The fact that the first premise and conclusion are false doesn’t mean the
argument form is logically invalid. This same argument form can be used to make good
arguments. The argument form is “If A, then B. A. Therefore, B.” A good argument with this
argument form is the following:

1. If all dogs are mammals, then all dogs are animals.

2. All dogs are mammals.
3. Therefore, all dogs are animals.

How can we prove the argument is valid? We can show that it’s impossible to form a formal
counterexample. We can assume the argument is invalid and prove that such an assumption is
impossible because it will lead to self-contradiction.

The easiest way to realize that this argument form is valid is to realize what it means to say “If
A, then B.” This statement means “If A is true, then B is true” or “B is true whenever A is true).
That also implies that if B is false, then A must be false.

We can prove the argument form is valid using the following reasoning:

1. The counterexample must have true premises, and a false conclusion.

2. In that case we assume that “If A, then B” is true because it’s a premise, A is true because it’s a
premise, and B is false because it’s our conclusion.

Page 19
 3. In that case ‘A’ must be false because “if A, then B” is assumed to be true, and ‘B’ is assumed to
be false. (Consider the statement, “If dogs are mammals, then dogs are animals.” If we find out
that dogs aren’t animals, then they can’t be mammals. If the second part of a conditional
statement is false, then the first part must be false.)
4. Therefore, ‘A’ is true and false. That’s a contradiction.
5. The assumption that the argument is has true premises and a false conclusion leads to a
contradiction.
6. Therefore, the argument form can’t be invalid.
7. Therefore, the argument must be valid.

Example 2

1. If all dogs are mammals, then all dogs are animals.

2. All dogs are animals.
3. Therefore, all dogs are mammals.

Answer:

1. If all dogs are mammals, then all dogs are animals.

2. All dogs are animals.
3. Therefore, all dogs are mammals.

Although the premises and conclusion are true, the argument form is invalid. The argument form
is the following:

1. If A, then B.
2. B.
3. Therefore, A.

We can then replace the variables to create a counterexample that uses this argument form with
true premises and a false conclusion. The variables will be replaced with the following
statements:

A: All dogs are reptiles.

B: All dogs are mammals.

This leads to the following counterexample:

1. If all dogs are reptiles, then all dogs are animals.

2. All dogs are animals.
3. Therefore, all dogs are reptiles.

Both premises are true, but the conclusion is false. Therefore, the argument form must be invalid.

Page 20
Example 3

1. Either it’s wrong to indiscriminately kill people, or it’s not wrong to kill someone just because
she has red hair.
2. It’s wrong to kill someone just because she has red hair.
3. Therefore, it’s wrong to indiscriminately kill people.

Answer:

1. Either it’s wrong to indiscriminately kill people, or it’s not wrong to kill someone just
because she has red hair.
2. It’s wrong to kill someone just because she has red hair.
3. Therefore, it’s wrong to indiscriminately kill people.

This time the premises are true, the conclusion is true, and the argument form is valid. The
argument form is the following:

1. Either A or not-B. (“Not-B” means “B is false.”)

2. B (is true).
3. Therefore A.

An example of a good argument with this argument form is the following:

1. Either dogs are warm-blooded or dogs aren’t mammals.

2. Dogs are mammals.
3. Therefore, dogs are warm-blooded.

Let’s try to prove this argument is valid by proving it’s impossible to provide a counterexample.
We can assume it’s invalid only to find out that such an assumption will lead to a contradiction.

1. We assume the premises are true and the conclusion is false.

2. We assume ‘A’ is false because it’s the conclusion.
3. We assume ‘B’ is true because it’s a premise.
4. We assume “Either A or not-B” is true.
5. “Either A or not-B” requires that either A is true or not-B is true.
6. We know A is false, so not-B must be true.
7. Therefore, B and not-B are both true. That’s a contradiction.
8. Therefore, the the assumption that the premises are true and conclusion is false leads to a
contradiction.
9. Therefore, the argument form can’t be invalid.
10. Therefore, the argument form is valid.

Page 21
Example 4

1. Either disciplining people is always wrong or it’s not always wrong to discipline people for
committing crimes.
2. Disciplining people hurts them.
3. Therefore, disciplining people is always wrong.

Answer:

1. Either disciplining people is always wrong or it’s not always wrong to discipline people
for committing crimes.
2. Disciplining people hurts them.
3. Therefore, disciplining people is always wrong.

This argument is invalid, and it’s already a counterexample because the premises are true and the
conclusion is false. The argument form is the following:

1. Either A or not-B.
2. C
3. Therefore, B.

Another counterexample is the following:

1. Either murder is always appropriate or it’s not always appropriate to murder people for making
you angry.
2. Murdering people hurts them.
3. Therefore, murder is always appropriate.

Example 5

1. It’s often good to give to charity.

2. If it’s often good to give to charity, then the Earth is round.
3. Therefore, the Earth is round.

Answer:

1. It’s often good to give to charity.

2. If it’s often good to give to charity, then the Earth is round.
3. Therefore, the Earth is round.

This argument is logically valid, even though the premises seem to lack relevance. Logical
validity doesn’t guarantee relevance.

Page 22
The argument form is the following:

1. A.
2. If A, then B.
3. Therefore, B.

This is basically the same argument form as the first example, so no further proof of validity is
required.

Example 6

1. The death penalty sometimes leads to the death of innocent people.

2. Therefore, the death penalty sometimes leads to the death of innocent people.

Answer:

1. The death penalty sometimes leads leads to the death of innocent people.
2. Therefore, the death penalty sometimes leads to the death of innocent people.

This argument is circular, but it’s still logically valid. The argument structure is the following:

1. A.
2. Therefore, A.

We can prove the argument is valid by proving that it’s impossible to have a counterexample.
Such an argument looks like the following:

1. We must assume the premise is true and the conclusion is false.

2. We assume ‘A’ is false because it’s the conclusion.
3. We assume ‘A’ is true because it’s the premise.
4. Therefore, ‘A’ is true and false.
5. The assumption that the premise is true and conclusion is false leads to a contradiction.
6. Therefore, the argument form can’t be invalid.
7. Therefore, the argument form must be vaild.

Example 7

1. Murder is always wrong.

2. Sometimes murder isn’t wrong.
3. Therefore, the death penalty should be illegal.

Answer:

1. Murder is always wrong.

2. Sometimes murder isn’t wrong.
3. Therefore, the death penalty should be illegal.

Page 23
The premises contradict each other, but the argument is still valid because it’s impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion to be false at the same time. We can tell that both
premises can’t be true at the same time, so it’s impossible to make a counterexample because
that would require both premises to be true. The argument form looks like the following:

1. A.
2. Not-A
3. Therefore, B.

We can prove this argument to be valid by showing why a counterexample can’t be given:

1. We assume the premises are true and the conclusion is false.

2. ‘A’ is assumed to be true.
3. Not-A is assumed to be true.
4. ‘B’ is assumed to be false.
5. Therefore, ‘A’ is true and false.
6. Therefore, the assumption that the premises are true and conclusion is false leads to a
contradiction.
7. Therefore, the argument form can’t be invalid.
8. Therefore, the argument form must be valid.

Example 8

1. It’s wrong to refuse to hire the most qualified applicant due to irrelevant criteria.
2. Therefore, it’s wrong to refuse to hire the most qualified applicant due to the color of her skin.

Answer:

1. It’s wrong to refuse to hire the most qualified applicant due to irrelevant criteria.
2. Therefore, it’s wrong to refuse to hire the most qualified applicant due to the color of her
skin.

This argument might sound like it’s valid, but it’s technically invalid with the following
argument form:

1. A.
2. Therefore, B.

A counterexample would be the following:

1. It’s good to help people.

2. Therefore, it’s good to help prisoners escape from prison.

The reason why the argument might sound valid is because we have an assumption that the color
of an applicant’s skin is irrelevant criteria. We could then make the argument valid using the
following reasoning:

Page 24
 1. It’s wrong to refuse to hire the most qualified applicant due to irrelevant criteria.
2. If it’s wrong to refuse to hire the most qualified applicant due to irrelevant criteria, then it’s
wrong to refuse to hire the most qualified applicant due to the color of her skin (because skin
color is irrelevant criteria).
3. Therefore, it’s wrong to refuse to hire the most qualified applicant due to the color of her skin.

The argument form is now:

1. A.
2. If A, then B.
3. Therefore, B.

This argument form is the same as was used in example 1 and has already been proven to be
valid.

Example 9

1. We should try to keep an open mind.

2. Therefore, either rocks exist or rocks don’t exist.

Answer:

1. We should try to keep an open mind.

2. Therefore, either rocks exist or rocks don’t exist.

This argument has a premise that seems irrelevant to the conclusion, but it’s still logically valid
because the conclusion will be true no matter what. It can’t be invalid because a counterexample
requires the conclusion to be false. The argument form looks like the following:

1. A.
2. Therefore, B or not-B.

We can prove this argument is valid by proving that we can’t have a counterexample using the
following reasoning:

1. Let’s assume that we can develop a counterexample, so the premise is assumed to be true and
the conclusion is assumed to be false.
2. We assume ‘A’ is true because it’s a premise.
3. We assume “B or not-B” to be false because it’s a conclusion.
4. B or not-B is true. (If ‘B’ is false, then “B or not-B” is true. If ‘B’ is true, then “B or not-B is true.)
5. Therefore ‘B’ is true and false.
6. The assumption that the premise is true and conclusion is false leads to a contraction.
7. Therefore, the argument form can’t be invalid.
8. Therefore, the argument form is valid.

Page 25
Example 10

1. All cats are mammals.

2. Therefore, some cats are mammals.

Answer:

1. All cats are mammals.

2. Therefore, some cats are mammals.

This argument is invalid despite the fact that it might look valid. The statement “All cats are
mammals” is equivalent to “if something is a cat, then it’s a mammal” and the statement “some
cats are mammals” is equivalent to “there is at least one cat and it’s a mammal.” We can then
reveal the logical structure as the following:

1. If X exists then it’s a Y.

2. Therefore, an X exists and it’s a Y.

The problem here is that it’s the existential fallacy—we can’t assume that something exists in a
conclusion when no premise claims something to exist. In this case we can’t assume a cat exists
just because all cats are mammals. A counterexample could be the following:

1. If you are found guilty for killing everyone on Earth in a court of law, then you will go to prison.
2. Therefore, someone was found guilty for killing everyone on Earth in a court of law, and that
person went to prison.

The main difference between these two arguments is that we know that cats exist. That’s the
hidden premise that can be used to fix the argument:

1. If something is a cat, then it’s a mammal.

2. A cat exists right now.
3. Therefore, a cat exists and it’s a mammal.

Example 11:

(a) All babies are illogical.

(b) Nobody is despised who can manage a crocodile.
(c) Illogical persons are dispised.
As the subjects of this puzzle are people, we take the universe as the set of all people. We will
rewrite each statement in the puzzle as an implication. First we define simpler statements,

B : it is a baby L : it is logical
M : it can manage a crocodile D : it is despised ,

Page 26
where “it” in this context refers to a general person. Then the three statements can be rephrased
as
(a) B → ~L : If it is a baby then it is not logical.
(b) M → ~D : If it can manage a crocodile then it is not despised.
(c) ~L → D : If it is not logical then it is despised.

Our aim is to use transitive reasoning several times, stringing together a chain of implications
using all the given statements. We have an arrow pointing from B to ~L, and likewise an arrow
pointing from ~L to D; thus we are able to start with B and arrive at the conclusion D. However,
the second statement is still not utilized. But since any implication is equivalent to its
contrapositive, we may replace the second statement with its contrapositive D → ~M. Then we
get the transitive reasoning chain
B → ~L → D → ~M .
We reason that if B is true, then ~L is true, hence D is true, and therefore ~M is true. Our
ultimate conclusion is the statement
B → ~M : If it is a baby then it cannot manage a crocodile .
In ordinary language we would more likely rephrase this answer to the puzzle as
“No baby can manage a crocodile.”
Alternatively, we could write the answer as the contrapositive statement
M → ~B : If it can manage a crocodile then it is not a baby.
The translation into words then would be something like
“Anyone who can manage a crocodile is not a baby.”

Well Formed Formula

Well Formed Formula (wff) is a predicate holding any of the following −

 All propositional constants and propositional variables are wffs

 If x is a variable and Y is a wff, ∀x Y and ∃x Y are also wff
 Truth value and false values are wffs
 Each atomic formula is a wff
 All connectives connecting wffs are wffs

Quantifiers

The variable of predicates is quantified by quantifiers. There are two types of quantifier in
predicate logic − Universal Quantifier and Existential Quantifier.

Universal Quantifier

Universal quantifier states that the statements within its scope are true for every value of the
specific variable. It is denoted by the symbol ∀. ∀x P(x) is read as for every value of x, P(x) is
true.

Page 27
Example − "Man is mortal" can be transformed into the propositional form ∀x P(x) where P(x)
is the predicate which denotes x is mortal and the universe of discourse is all men.

Existential Quantifier

Existential quantifier states that the statements within its scope are true for some values of the
specific variable. It is denoted by the symbol ∃.

∃x P(x) is read as for some values of x, P(x) is true.

Example − "Some people are dishonest" can be transformed into the propositional form ∃x P(x)
where P(x) is the predicate which denotes x is dishonest and the universe of discourse is some
people.

Nested Quantifiers

If we use a quantifier that appears within the scope of another quantifier, it is called nested
quantifier.

Example

 ∀a ∃b P (x, y) where P (a, b) denotes a + b = 0

 ∀a ∀b ∀c P (a, b, c) where P (a, b) denotes a + (b+c) = (a+b) +c

Note − ∀a ∃b P (x, y) ≠ ∃a ∀b P (x, y)

Inference Theory On the predicate Calculus.

In order to use the equivalence and implications, we need some rules on how to eliminate
quantifiers during the course of derivation. This elimination is done by rules of specification
called rules US and ES. Once the quantifiers are eliminated, the derivation proceeds as in the
case of the statement calculus and the conclusion is reached.

The Rules of generalization called rules UG and EG, which can be used to attach a quantifiers.

Quantifiers Rules Examples

Universal Specification US (x) A(x) → A(y)
Existential Specification ES (Эx) A(x) → A(y)
Universal Generalization UG A(x) → (x) A(y)
Existential Generalization EG A(x) →(Эx) A(y)

Page 28
4. Rules of Inference

To deduce new statements from the statements whose truth that we already know, Rules of
Inference are used.

What are Rules of Inference for?

Mathematical logic is often used for logical proofs. Proofs are valid arguments that determine the
truth values of mathematical statements.

An argument is a sequence of statements. The last statement is the conclusion and all its
preceding statements are called premises (or hypothesis). The symbol “∴”, (read therefore) is
placed before the conclusion. A valid argument is one where the conclusion follows from the
truth values of the premises.

Rules of Inference provide the templates or guidelines for constructing valid arguments from the
statements that we already have.

Addition

If P is a premise, we can use Addiction rule to derive P ∨ Q.

P
Q

∴P∨Q

Example

Let P be the proposition, “He studies very hard” is true

Therefore − "Either he studies very hard Or he is very bad student." Here Q is the proposition
“he is a very bad student”.

Conjunction

If P and Q are two premises, we can use Conjunction rule to derive P 𝖠 Q.

P
Q

∴P𝖠Q

Page 29
Example

Let P − “He studies very hard”

Let Q − “He is the best boy in the class”

Therefore − "He studies very hard and he is the best boy in the class"

Simplification

If P 𝖠 Q is a premise, we can use Simplification rule to derive P.

P𝖠Q

∴P

Example

"He studies very hard and he is the best boy in the class"

Therefore − "He studies very hard"

Modus Ponens

If P and P→Q are two premises, we can use Modus Ponens to derive Q.

P→Q
P

∴Q

Example

"If you have a password, then you can log on to facebook"

"You have a password"

Therefore − "You can log on to facebook"

Modus Tollens

If P→Q and ¬Q are two premises, we can use Modus Tollens to derive ¬P.

Page 30
 P→Q
¬Q

∴ ¬P

Example

"If you have a password, then you can log on to facebook"

"You cannot log on to facebook"

Therefore − "You do not have a password "

Disjunctive Syllogism

If ¬P and P ∨ Q are two premises, we can use Disjunctive Syllogism to derive Q.

¬P
P∨Q

∴Q

Example

"The ice cream is not vanilla flavored"

"The ice cream is either vanilla flavored or chocolate flavored"

Therefore − "The ice cream is chocolate flavored”

Hypothetical Syllogism

If P→Q and Q→R are two premises, we can use Hypothetical Syllogism to derive P→R

P→Q
Q→R

∴P→R

Example

"If it rains, I shall not go to school”

"If I don't go to school, I won't need to do homework"

Page 31
 Therefore − "If it rains, I won't need to do homework"

Constructive Dilemma

If ( P→Q ) 𝖠 (R→S) and P ∨ R are two premises, we can use constructive dilemma to derive Q ∨
S.

( P → Q ) 𝖠 (R → S)
P∨R

∴Q∨S

Example

“If it rains, I will take a leave”

“If it is hot outside, I will go for a shower”

“Either it will rain or it is hot outside”

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

Destructive Dilemma

If (P→Q) 𝖠 (R→S) and ¬Q ∨ ¬S are two premises, we can use destructive dilemma to derive P ∨
R.

(P → Q ) 𝖠 (R → S)
¬Q ∨ ¬S

∴P∨R

Example “If it rains, I will take a leave”

“If it is hot outside, I will go for a shower”

“Either I will not take a leave or I will not go for a shower”

Therefore − "It rains or it is hot outside".

Examples are Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens.

In the case of arguments exemplifying such patterns, we say they are "truth functionally valid"
because their validity depends on the way the form of the argument involves the truth functional
connectives. Here are some arguments exemplifying some other common argument forms or
"rules of inference.". See if you can test PT-Thinker to determine the validity of the arguments
that use them. (Give it the premises and ask it about the conclusion.)

Page 32
 Modus Ponens
If dinosaurs are really birds, Neanderthals wore
metal hats. Dinosaurs are really birds.
therefore
Neanderthals wore metal hats.

Modus Tollens
If logic is worth studying, then logic is worth
studying well. It's not the case that logic is worth
studying well.
therefore
It's not the case that logic is worth studying

Hypothetical Syllogism
If bears are happy campers, then bears won't bother human campers.
If bears won't bother real campers, then human campers will be happy
campers. therefore
If bears are happy campers, then human campers will be happy campers.

Examples are "denying the antecedent" and "affirming the consequent."

See if you can see what is wrong with the following arguments. It may be a little tricky
to see; remember that it is not whether the premises and conclusion are true that
matters, but whetherthe truth of the conclusion would follow necessarily from the truth
of all the premises.

Denying the antecedent

If some cigarettes are worth smoking then some cigarettes are worth
dying for. It's not the case that some cigarettes are worth smoking.
therefore
It's not the case that some cigarettes are worth dying for.

Affirming the consequent.

If some cigarettes are worth smoking then some cigarettes are worth
dying for. Some cigarettes are worth dying for.
therefore
Some cigarettes are worth smoking.

See what PT-Thinker has to say about whether the above arguments are valid.

Page 33