Lecture 3

Predicates and Quantifiers. Nested Quantifiers.

Rules of Inference.

A. B. Dauletiyarova

email: [email protected]

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
HW

Book: Kenneth H. Rosen, Discrete Mathematics and Its

Applications, 7th Edition.

HW 3
Section 1.4: 11-18, p.53-57.
Section 1.5: 1-40 (even numbers), p.64-68.
Section 1.6: 1-28 (even numbers), p.78-80.

Note. Students must submit their homework to the lecturer in paper

form (green school copybook or A4 paper) at each lecture, meaning the
deadline for each assignment is the following week’s lecture.

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Predicates

The statement ”x is greater than 3” has two parts. The first

part, the variable x, is the subject of the statement. The second
part – the predicate, ”is greater than 3” – refers to a property that
the subject of the statement can have. We can denote the
statement ”x is greater than 3” by P(x), where P denotes the
predicate ”is greater than 3” and x is the variable.
The statement P(x) is also said to be the value of the
propositional function P at x. Once a value has been assigned to
the variable x, the statement P(x) becomes a proposition and has
a truth value.

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Example

Example 1. Let P(x) denote the statement ”x > 3.” What

are the truth values of P(4) and P(2)?

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Example

Example 1. Let P(x) denote the statement ”x > 3.” What

are the truth values of P(4) and P(2)?

Solution: We obtain the statement P(4) by setting x = 4 in

the statement “x > 3.” Hence, P(4), which is the statement
“4 > 3,” is true. However, P(2), which is the statement “2 > 3,”
is false.

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Binary Predicate

We can also have statements that involve more than one

variable. For instance, consider the statement “x = y + 3.” We
can denote this statement by Q(x, y ), where x and y are variables
and Q is the predicate. When values are assigned to the variables
x and y , the statement Q(x, y ) has a truth value.

Example 2. Let Q(x, y ) denote the statement “x = y + 3.”

What are the truth values of the propositions Q(1, 2) and Q(3, 0)?

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Binary Predicate

We can also have statements that involve more than one

variable. For instance, consider the statement “x = y + 3.” We
can denote this statement by Q(x, y ), where x and y are variables
and Q is the predicate. When values are assigned to the variables
x and y , the statement Q(x, y ) has a truth value.

Example 2. Let Q(x, y ) denote the statement “x = y + 3.”

What are the truth values of the propositions Q(1, 2) and Q(3, 0)?

Solution: To obtain Q(1, 2), set x = 1 and y = 2 in the

statement Q(x, y ). Hence, Q(1, 2) is the statement “1 = 2 + 3,”
which is false. The statement Q(3, 0) is the proposition
“3 = 0 + 3,” which is true.

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
n-ary predicate

In general, a statement involving the n variables x1 , x2 , . . . , xn

can be denoted by
P(x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ).
A statement of the form P(x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) is the value of the
propositional function P at the n-tuple (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ), and P is
also called an n-place predicate or a n-ary predicate.

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
THE UNIVERSAL QUANTIFIER
Definition 1. The universal quantification of P(x) is the
statement

”P(x) for all values of x in the domain.”

The notation ∀xP(x) denotes the universal quantification of

P(x). Here ∀ is called the universal quantifier. An element for
which P(x) is false is called a counterexample of ∀xP(x).

We read ∀xP(x) as
”for all x P(x)”
”for every x P(x).”

Statement When True? When False?

There is an x for which
∀xP(x) P(x) is true for every x.
P(x) is false.

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Examples

Example 3.

(i) Let P(x) be the statement “x + 1 > x.” What is the truth
value of the quantification ∀xP(x), where the domain consists of
all real numbers?

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Examples

Example 3.

(i) Let P(x) be the statement “x + 1 > x.” What is the truth
value of the quantification ∀xP(x), where the domain consists of
all real numbers?

Solution: Because P(x) is true for all real numbers x, the

quantification ∀xP(x) is true.

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Examples

Example 3.

(i) Let P(x) be the statement “x + 1 > x.” What is the truth
value of the quantification ∀xP(x), where the domain consists of
all real numbers?

Solution: Because P(x) is true for all real numbers x, the

quantification ∀xP(x) is true.

(ii) Let Q(x) be the statement “x < 2.” What is the truth
value of the quantification ∀xQ(x), where the domain consists of
all real numbers?

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Examples

Example 3.

(i) Let P(x) be the statement “x + 1 > x.” What is the truth
value of the quantification ∀xP(x), where the domain consists of
all real numbers?

Solution: Because P(x) is true for all real numbers x, the

quantification ∀xP(x) is true.

(ii) Let Q(x) be the statement “x < 2.” What is the truth
value of the quantification ∀xQ(x), where the domain consists of
all real numbers?

Solution: Q(x) is not true for every real number x, because,

for instance, Q(3) is false. That is, x = 3 is a counterexample for
the statement ∀xQ(x). Thus ∀xQ(x) is false.

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Examples

(iii) What is the truth value of ∀x(x 2 ≥ x) if the domain

consists of all real numbers? What is the truth value of this
statement if the domain consists of all integers?

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Examples

(iii) What is the truth value of ∀x(x 2 ≥ x) if the domain

consists of all real numbers? What is the truth value of this
statement if the domain consists of all integers?

Solution: The universal quantification ∀x(x 2 ≥ x), where the

domain consists of all real numbers, is false. For example,
( 12 )2 ̸≥ ( 21 ). Note that x 2 ≥ x if and only if x 2 − x = x(x − 1) ≥ 0.
Consequently, x 2 ≥ x if and only if x ≤ 0 or x ≥ 1. It follows that
∀x(x 2 ≥ x) is false if the domain consists of all real numbers
(because the inequality is false for all real numbers x with
0 < x < 1). However, if the domain consists of the integers,
∀x(x 2 ≥ x) is true, because there are no integers x with 0 < x < 1.

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 When all the elements in the domain can be listed—say,
x1 , x2 , . . . , xn – it follows that the universal quantification ∀xP(x)
is the same as the conjunction

P(x1 ) ∧ P(x2 ) ∧ · · · ∧ P(xn ),

because this conjunction is true if and only if

P(x1 ), P(x2 ), . . . , P(xn ) are all true.

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Example

Example 4. What is the truth value of ∀xP(x), where P(x)

is the statement “x 2 < 10” and the domain consists of the positive
integers not exceeding 4?

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Example

Example 4. What is the truth value of ∀xP(x), where P(x)

is the statement “x 2 < 10” and the domain consists of the positive
integers not exceeding 4?

Solution: The statement ∀xP(x) is the same as the

conjunction
P(1) ∧ P(2) ∧ P(3) ∧ P(4),
because the domain consists of the integers 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Because P(4), which is the statement “42 < 10,” is false, it follows
that ∀xP(x) is false.

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
THE EXISTENTIAL QUANTIFIER
Definition 2. The existential quantification of P(x) is the
proposition
“There exists an element x in the domain such that P(x).”
We use the notation ∃xP(x) for the existential quantification of
P(x). Here ∃ is called the existential quantifier.

The existential quantification ∃xP(x) is read as

“There is an x such that P(x),”
“There is at least one x such that P(x),”
“For some x P(x).”

Statement When True? When False?

There is an x for which
∃xP(x) P(x) is false for every x.
P(x) is true.

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Constructing New Logical Equivalence

Example 5.
(i) Let P(x) denote the statement “x > 3.” What is the truth
value of the quantification ∃xP(x), where the domain consists of
all real numbers?

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Constructing New Logical Equivalence

Example 5.
(i) Let P(x) denote the statement “x > 3.” What is the truth
value of the quantification ∃xP(x), where the domain consists of
all real numbers?

Solution: Because “x > 3” is sometimes true – for instance,

when x = 4 – the existential quantification of P(x), which is
∃xP(x), is true.

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Constructing New Logical Equivalence

Example 5.
(i) Let P(x) denote the statement “x > 3.” What is the truth
value of the quantification ∃xP(x), where the domain consists of
all real numbers?

Solution: Because “x > 3” is sometimes true – for instance,

when x = 4 – the existential quantification of P(x), which is
∃xP(x), is true.

(ii) Let Q(x) denote the statement “x = x + 1.” What is the

truth value of the quantification ∃xQ(x), where the domain
consists of all real numbers?

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Constructing New Logical Equivalence

Example 5.
(i) Let P(x) denote the statement “x > 3.” What is the truth
value of the quantification ∃xP(x), where the domain consists of
all real numbers?

Solution: Because “x > 3” is sometimes true – for instance,

when x = 4 – the existential quantification of P(x), which is
∃xP(x), is true.

(ii) Let Q(x) denote the statement “x = x + 1.” What is the

truth value of the quantification ∃xQ(x), where the domain
consists of all real numbers?

Solution: Because Q(x) is false for every real number x, the

existential quantification of Q(x), which is ∃xQ(x), is false.

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 When all elements in the domain can be listed—say,
x1 , x2 , . . . , xn – the existential quantification ∃xP(x) is the same as
the disjunction

P(x1 ) ∨ P(x2 ) ∨ · · · ∨ P(xn ),

because this disjunction is true if and only if at least one of

P(x1 ), P(x2 ), . . . , P(xn ) is true.

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Example

Example 6. What is the truth value of ∃xP(x), where P(x)

is the statement “x 2 > 10” and the universe of discourse consists
of the positive integers not exceeding 4?

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Example

Example 6. What is the truth value of ∃xP(x), where P(x)

is the statement “x 2 > 10” and the universe of discourse consists
of the positive integers not exceeding 4?

Solution: Because the domain is {1, 2, 3, 4}, the proposition

∃xP(x) is the same as the disjunction

P(1) ∨ P(2) ∨ P(3) ∨ P(4).

Because P(4), which is the statement “42 > 10,” is true, it follows
that ∃xP(x) is true.

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
THE UNIQUENESS QUANTIFIER

Definition 3. The uniqueness quantification of P(x) is the

proposition

“There exists a unique x such that P(x) is true.”

We use the notation ∃!xP(x) for the existential quantification of

P(x). Here ∃! is called the uniqueness quantifier.

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Example

Example 7. For instance, ∃!x(x − 1 = 0), where the domain

is the set of real numbers, states that there is a unique real
number x such that x − 1 = 0. This is a true statement, as x = 1
is the unique real number such that x − 1 = 0.

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Nested Quantifiers

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Examples

Example 8. (i) Let Q(x, y ) denote “x + y = 0.” What are

the truth values of the quantifications ∃y ∀xQ(x, y ) and
∀x∃yQ(x, y ), where the domain for all variables consists of all real
numbers?

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Examples

Example 8. (i) Let Q(x, y ) denote “x + y = 0.” What are

the truth values of the quantifications ∃y ∀xQ(x, y ) and
∀x∃yQ(x, y ), where the domain for all variables consists of all real
numbers?

Solution: The quantification ∃y ∀xQ(x, y ) denotes the

proposition
“There is a real number y such that for every real number x,
Q(x, y ).”

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Examples

Example 8. (i) Let Q(x, y ) denote “x + y = 0.” What are

the truth values of the quantifications ∃y ∀xQ(x, y ) and
∀x∃yQ(x, y ), where the domain for all variables consists of all real
numbers?

Solution: The quantification ∃y ∀xQ(x, y ) denotes the

proposition
“There is a real number y such that for every real number x,
Q(x, y ).”
No matter what value of y is chosen, there is only one value
of x for which x + y = 0. Because there is no real number y such
that x + y = 0 for all real numbers x, the statement ∃y ∀xQ(x, y )
is false.

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 The quantification ∀x∃yQ(x, y ) denotes the proposition
“For every real number x there is a real number y such that
Q(x, y ).”

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 The quantification ∀x∃yQ(x, y ) denotes the proposition
“For every real number x there is a real number y such that
Q(x, y ).”
Given a real number x, there is a real number y such that
x + y = 0; namely, y = −x. Hence, the statement ∀x∃yQ(x, y ) is
true.

(ii) Let Q(x, y , z) be the statement “x + y = z.” What are

the truth values of the statements ∀x∀y ∃zQ(x, y , z) and
∃z∀x∀yQ(x, y , z), where the domain of all variables consists of all
real numbers?

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 The quantification ∀x∃yQ(x, y ) denotes the proposition
“For every real number x there is a real number y such that
Q(x, y ).”
Given a real number x, there is a real number y such that
x + y = 0; namely, y = −x. Hence, the statement ∀x∃yQ(x, y ) is
true.

(ii) Let Q(x, y , z) be the statement “x + y = z.” What are

the truth values of the statements ∀x∀y ∃zQ(x, y , z) and
∃z∀x∀yQ(x, y , z), where the domain of all variables consists of all
real numbers?

Solution: Suppose that x and y are assigned values. Then,

there exists a real number z such that x + y = z. Consequently,
the quantification ∀x∀y ∃zQ(x, y , z), which is the statement

“For all real numbers x and for all real numbers y there is a
real number z such that x + y = z,”

is true.
A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 The order of the quantification here is important, because the
quantification ∃z∀x∀yQ(x, y , z), which is the statement

“There is a real number z such that for all real numbers x

and for all real numbers y it is true that x + y = z,”

is false, because there is no value of z that satisfies the equation

x + y = z for all values of x and y .

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Logical Equivalences Involving Quantifiers

Definition 4. Statements involving predicates and quantifiers

are logically equivalent if and only if they have the same truth
value no matter which predicates are substituted into these
statements and which domain of discourse is used for the variables
in these propositional functions. We use the notation S ≡ T to
indicate that two statements S and T involving predicates and
quantifiers are logically equivalent.

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Logical Equivalences Involving Quantifiers

(1) ¬∀xP(x) ≡ ∃x¬P(x)

(2) ¬∃xP(x) ≡ ∀x¬P(x)
(3) ∀xP(x) ∧ ∀xQ(x) ≡ ∀x(P(x) ∧ Q(x))
(4) ∃xP(x) ∨ ∃xQ(x) ≡ ∃x(P(x) ∨ Q(x))

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Translating English Sentences into Logical Expressions
Example 9. Express the statement “Every student in this
class has studied calculus” using predicates and quantifiers.

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Translating English Sentences into Logical Expressions
Example 9. Express the statement “Every student in this
class has studied calculus” using predicates and quantifiers.

Solution: First, we rewrite the statement so that we can

clearly identify the appropriate quantifiers to use. Doing so, we
obtain:
“For every student in this class, that student has studied calculus.”

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Translating English Sentences into Logical Expressions
Example 9. Express the statement “Every student in this
class has studied calculus” using predicates and quantifiers.

Solution: First, we rewrite the statement so that we can

clearly identify the appropriate quantifiers to use. Doing so, we
obtain:
“For every student in this class, that student has studied calculus.”
Next, we introduce a variable x so that our statement becomes
“For every student x in this class, x has studied calculus.”

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Translating English Sentences into Logical Expressions
Example 9. Express the statement “Every student in this
class has studied calculus” using predicates and quantifiers.

Solution: First, we rewrite the statement so that we can

clearly identify the appropriate quantifiers to use. Doing so, we
obtain:
“For every student in this class, that student has studied calculus.”
Next, we introduce a variable x so that our statement becomes
“For every student x in this class, x has studied calculus.”
Continuing, we introduce C (x), which is the statement “x has
studied calculus.”

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Translating English Sentences into Logical Expressions
Example 9. Express the statement “Every student in this
class has studied calculus” using predicates and quantifiers.

Solution: First, we rewrite the statement so that we can

clearly identify the appropriate quantifiers to use. Doing so, we
obtain:
“For every student in this class, that student has studied calculus.”
Next, we introduce a variable x so that our statement becomes
“For every student x in this class, x has studied calculus.”
Continuing, we introduce C (x), which is the statement “x has
studied calculus.” Consequently, if the domain for x consists of the
students in the class, we can translate our statement as
∀xC (x)
.
A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 We may be interested in a wider group of people than only
those in this class. If we change the domain to consist of all
people, we will need to express our statement as

“For every person x, if person x is a student in this class then x

has studied calculus.”

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 We may be interested in a wider group of people than only
those in this class. If we change the domain to consist of all
people, we will need to express our statement as

“For every person x, if person x is a student in this class then x

has studied calculus.”

If S(x) represents the statement that person x is in this class, we

see that our statement can be expressed as

∀x(S(x) → C (x)).

[Caution! Our statement cannot be expressed as

∀x(S(x) ∧ C (x))

because this statement says that all people are students in this
class and have studied calculus!]

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 Finally, when we are interested in the background of people in
subjects besides calculus, we may prefer to use the two-variable
quantifier Q(x, y ) for the statement “student x has studied subject
y .” Then we would replace C (x) by Q(x, calculus) in both
approaches to obtain

∀xQ(x, calculus)

if the domain for x consists of the students in the class, or

∀x(S(x) → Q(x, calculus))

if the domain for x consist of all people.

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 Example 10. Express the statement “Some student in this
class has visited Mexico” using predicates and quantifiers.

Solution: First, we rewrite the statement so that we can

clearly identify the appropriate quantifiers to use. Doing so, we
obtain:

“There is a student in this class with the property that the student
has visited Mexico.”

We can introduce a variable x, so that our statement becomes

“There is a student x in this class having the property that x has

visited Mexico.”

We introduce M(x), which is the statement “x has visited

Mexico.” If the domain for x consists of the students in this class,
we can translate this first statement as

∃xM(x).

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 However, if we are interested in people other than those in
this class, we look at the statement a little differently. Our
statement can be expressed as

“There is a person x having the properties that x is a student in

this class and x has visited Mexico.”

In this case, the domain for the variable x consists of all people.
We introduce S(x) to represent “x is a student in this class.” Our
solution becomes
∃x(S(x) ∧ M(x))
because the statement is that there is a person x who is a student
in this class and who has visited Mexico.
[Caution! Our statement cannot be expressed as

∃x(S(x) → M(x)),

which is true when there is someone not in the class.]

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 Example 11. Express the statement ”Nancy can fool exactly
two people.” as a logical expression involving predicates, quantifiers
with a domain consisting of all people, and logical connectives.

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 Example 11. Express the statement ”Nancy can fool exactly
two people.” as a logical expression involving predicates, quantifiers
with a domain consisting of all people, and logical connectives.

Solution: Let F (x, y ) be the statement “x can fool y ,” where

the domain consists of all people in the world. The original
statement can be represented as

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 Example 11. Express the statement ”Nancy can fool exactly
two people.” as a logical expression involving predicates, quantifiers
with a domain consisting of all people, and logical connectives.

Solution: Let F (x, y ) be the statement “x can fool y ,” where

the domain consists of all people in the world. The original
statement can be represented as

∃y1 ∃y2 (F (Nancy , y1 ) ∧ F (Nancy , y2 ) ∧ y1 ̸= y2 ∧

∧ ∀y (F (Nancy , y ) → (y = y1 ∨ y = y2 )))

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 Example 12. Express the statement ”There is a student in
this class who has chatted with exactly one other student.” as a
logical expression involving predicates, quantifiers with a domain
consisting of all students in this class, and logical connectives.

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 Example 12. Express the statement ”There is a student in
this class who has chatted with exactly one other student.” as a
logical expression involving predicates, quantifiers with a domain
consisting of all students in this class, and logical connectives.

Solution: Let C (x, y ) mean that person x has chatted with

person y . The given statement is

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 Example 12. Express the statement ”There is a student in
this class who has chatted with exactly one other student.” as a
logical expression involving predicates, quantifiers with a domain
consisting of all students in this class, and logical connectives.

Solution: Let C (x, y ) mean that person x has chatted with

person y . The given statement is

∃x∃y (y ̸= x ∧ ∀z(z ̸= x → (z = y ↔ C (x, z)))).

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 Example 13. Express the statement ”No student in this class
has sent e-mail to exactly two other students in this class.” as a
logical expression involving predicates, quantifiers with a domain
consisting of all students in this class, and logical connectives.

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 Example 13. Express the statement ”No student in this class
has sent e-mail to exactly two other students in this class.” as a
logical expression involving predicates, quantifiers with a domain
consisting of all students in this class, and logical connectives.

Solution: Let E (x, y ) mean that person x has sent e-mail to

person y . The given statement is

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 Example 13. Express the statement ”No student in this class
has sent e-mail to exactly two other students in this class.” as a
logical expression involving predicates, quantifiers with a domain
consisting of all students in this class, and logical connectives.

Solution: Let E (x, y ) mean that person x has sent e-mail to

person y . The given statement is

¬∃x∃y ∃z(y ̸= z ∧ x ̸= y ∧ x ̸= z ∧
∧ ∀w (w ̸= x → (E (x, w ) ↔ (w = y ∨ w = z)))).

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Valid Arguments in Propositional Logic

An argument in propositional logic is a sequence of

propositions. All but the final proposition in the argument are
called premises and the final proposition is called the conclusion.
An argument is valid if the truth of all its premises implies that the
conclusion is true.
An argument form in propositional logic is a sequence of
compound propositions involving propositional variables. An
argument form is valid no matter which particular propositions are
substituted for the propositional variables in its premises, the
conclusion is true if the premises are all true.
However, there are many incorrect arguments that treat this
as a tautology. In other words, they treat the argument with
premises p → q and q and conclusion p as a valid argument form,
which it is not. This type of incorrect reasoning is called the
fallacy of affirming the conclusion.

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Rules of Inference

1. Modus ponens
p
p→q
∴ q

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Rules of Inference

1. Modus ponens
p
p→q
∴ q
2. Modus tollens
¬q
p→q
∴ ¬p

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Rules of Inference

1. Modus ponens
p
p→q
∴ q
2. Modus tollens
¬q
p→q
∴ ¬p
3. Hypothetical
syllogism
p→q
q→r
∴ p→r

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Rules of Inference

1. Modus ponens 4. Disjunctive

p syllogism
p→q p∨q
∴ q ¬p
∴ q
2. Modus tollens
¬q
p→q
∴ ¬p
3. Hypothetical
syllogism
p→q
q→r
∴ p→r

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Rules of Inference

1. Modus ponens 4. Disjunctive

p syllogism
p→q p∨q
∴ q ¬p
∴ q
2. Modus tollens
¬q
p→q 5. Addition
∴ ¬p p
∴ p∨q
3. Hypothetical
syllogism
p→q
q→r
∴ p→r

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Rules of Inference

1. Modus ponens 4. Disjunctive

p syllogism
p→q p∨q
∴ q ¬p
∴ q
2. Modus tollens
¬q
p→q 5. Addition
∴ ¬p p
∴ p∨q
3. Hypothetical
syllogism
p→q 6. Simplification
q→r p∧q
∴ p→r ∴ p

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Rules of Inference

1. Modus ponens 4. Disjunctive 7. Conjunction

p syllogism p
p→q p∨q q
∴ q ¬p ∴ p∧q
∴ q
2. Modus tollens
¬q
p→q 5. Addition
∴ ¬p p
∴ p∨q
3. Hypothetical
syllogism
p→q 6. Simplification
q→r p∧q
∴ p→r ∴ p

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Rules of Inference

1. Modus ponens 4. Disjunctive 7. Conjunction

p syllogism p
p→q p∨q q
∴ q ¬p ∴ p∧q
∴ q
2. Modus tollens 8. Resolution
¬q p∨q
p→q 5. Addition ¬p ∨ r
∴ ¬p p ∴ q∨r
∴ p∨q
3. Hypothetical
syllogism
p→q 6. Simplification
q→r p∧q
∴ p→r ∴ p

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Example
Example 14. Show that the premises
“It is not sunny this afternoon and it is colder than
yesterday,”
“We will go swimming only if it is sunny,”
“If we do not go swimming, then we will take a canoe trip,”
and
“If we take a canoe trip, then we will be home by sunset”
lead to the conclusion
“We will be home by sunset.”

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Example
Example 14. Show that the premises
“It is not sunny this afternoon and it is colder than
yesterday,”
“We will go swimming only if it is sunny,”
“If we do not go swimming, then we will take a canoe trip,”
and
“If we take a canoe trip, then we will be home by sunset”
lead to the conclusion
“We will be home by sunset.”

Solution: Let
p be the proposition “It is sunny this afternoon,”
q the proposition “It is colder than yesterday,”
r the proposition “We will go swimming,”
s the proposition “We will take a canoe trip,”
t the proposition “We will be home by sunset.”
A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 Then the premises are ¬p ∧ q, r → p, ¬r → s, and s → t.
The desired conclusion is t.

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 Then the premises are ¬p ∧ q, r → p, ¬r → s, and s → t.
The desired conclusion is t.

Step Reason

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 Then the premises are ¬p ∧ q, r → p, ¬r → s, and s → t.
The desired conclusion is t.

Step Reason
1. ¬p ∧ q Premise

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 Then the premises are ¬p ∧ q, r → p, ¬r → s, and s → t.
The desired conclusion is t.

Step Reason
1. ¬p ∧ q Premise
2. ¬p Simplification using (1)

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 Then the premises are ¬p ∧ q, r → p, ¬r → s, and s → t.
The desired conclusion is t.

Step Reason
1. ¬p ∧ q Premise
2. ¬p Simplification using (1)
3. r → p Premise

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 Then the premises are ¬p ∧ q, r → p, ¬r → s, and s → t.
The desired conclusion is t.

Step Reason
1. ¬p ∧ q Premise
2. ¬p Simplification using (1)
3. r → p Premise
4. ¬r Modus tollens using (2) and (3)

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 Then the premises are ¬p ∧ q, r → p, ¬r → s, and s → t.
The desired conclusion is t.

Step Reason
1. ¬p ∧ q Premise
2. ¬p Simplification using (1)
3. r → p Premise
4. ¬r Modus tollens using (2) and (3)
5. ¬r → s Premise

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 Then the premises are ¬p ∧ q, r → p, ¬r → s, and s → t.
The desired conclusion is t.

Step Reason
1. ¬p ∧ q Premise
2. ¬p Simplification using (1)
3. r → p Premise
4. ¬r Modus tollens using (2) and (3)
5. ¬r → s Premise
6. s Modus ponens using (4) and (5)

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 Then the premises are ¬p ∧ q, r → p, ¬r → s, and s → t.
The desired conclusion is t.

Step Reason
1. ¬p ∧ q Premise
2. ¬p Simplification using (1)
3. r → p Premise
4. ¬r Modus tollens using (2) and (3)
5. ¬r → s Premise
6. s Modus ponens using (4) and (5)
7. s → t Premise

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 Then the premises are ¬p ∧ q, r → p, ¬r → s, and s → t.
The desired conclusion is t.

Step Reason
1. ¬p ∧ q Premise
2. ¬p Simplification using (1)
3. r → p Premise
4. ¬r Modus tollens using (2) and (3)
5. ¬r → s Premise
6. s Modus ponens using (4) and (5)
7. s → t Premise
8. t Modus ponens using (6) and (7)

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Fallacy

The proposition ((p → q) ∧ q) → p is not a tautology,

because it is false when p is false and q is true. However, there are
many incorrect arguments that treat this as a tautology. In other
words, they treat the argument with premises p → q and q and
conclusion p as a valid argument form, which it is not. This type of
incorrect reasoning is called the fallacy of affirming the conclusion.
The proposition ((p → q) ∧ ¬p) → ¬q is not a tautology,
because it is false when p is false and q is true. Many incorrect
arguments use this incorrectly as a rule of inference. This type of
incorrect reasoning is called the fallacy of denying the hypothesis.

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Examples

Example 15. Is the following argument valid?

If you do every problem in this book, then you will learn
discrete mathematics. You learned discrete mathematics.
Therefore, you did every problem in this book.

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Examples

Example 15. Is the following argument valid?

If you do every problem in this book, then you will learn
discrete mathematics. You learned discrete mathematics.
Therefore, you did every problem in this book.

Solution: Let
p be the proposition “You did every problem in this book.”
q be the proposition “You learned discrete mathematics.”
Then this argument is of the form: if p → q and q, then p. This is
an example of an incorrect argument using the fallacy of affirming
the conclusion. Indeed, it is possible for you to learn discrete
mathematics in someway other than by doing every problem in this
book. (You may learn discrete mathematics by reading, listening to
lectures, doing some, but not all, the problems in this book, and so
on.)

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements
1. Universal instantiation

∀xP(x)
∴ P(c)

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements
1. Universal instantiation

∀xP(x)
∴ P(c)
2. Universal generalizationn

P(c) for an arbitrary c

∴ ∀xP(x)

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements
1. Universal instantiation

∀xP(x)
∴ P(c)
2. Universal generalizationn

P(c) for an arbitrary c

∴ ∀xP(x)
3. Existential instantiation

∃xP(x)
∴ P(c) for some element c

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements
1. Universal instantiation

∀xP(x)
∴ P(c)
2. Universal generalizationn

P(c) for an arbitrary c

∴ ∀xP(x)
3. Existential instantiation

∃xP(x)
∴ P(c) for some element c
4. Universal generalizationn

P(c) for some element c

∴ ∃xP(x)
A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Example

Example 16. Show that the premises

“A student in this class has not read the book,”
and
“Everyone in this class passed the first exam”
imply the conclusion
“Someone who passed the first exam has not read the book.”

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Example

Example 16. Show that the premises

“A student in this class has not read the book,”
and
“Everyone in this class passed the first exam”
imply the conclusion
“Someone who passed the first exam has not read the book.”

Solution: Let
C (x) be “x is in this class,”
B(x) be “x has read the book,”
and
P(x) be “x passed the first exam.”

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Example

Example 16. Show that the premises

“A student in this class has not read the book,”
and
“Everyone in this class passed the first exam”
imply the conclusion
“Someone who passed the first exam has not read the book.”

Solution: Let
C (x) be “x is in this class,”
B(x) be “x has read the book,”
and
P(x) be “x passed the first exam.”

The premises are ∃x(C (x) ∧ ¬B(x)) and ∀x(C (x) → P(x)). The
conclusion is ∃x(P(x) ∧ ¬B(x)).

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Step Reason

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Step Reason
1.∃x(C (x) ∧ ¬B(x)) Premise

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Step Reason
1.∃x(C (x) ∧ ¬B(x)) Premise
2.C (a) ∧ ¬B(a) Existential instantiation from (1)

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Step Reason
1.∃x(C (x) ∧ ¬B(x)) Premise
2.C (a) ∧ ¬B(a) Existential instantiation from (1)
3.C (a) Simplification from (2)

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Step Reason
1.∃x(C (x) ∧ ¬B(x)) Premise
2.C (a) ∧ ¬B(a) Existential instantiation from (1)
3.C (a) Simplification from (2)
4.∀x(C (x) → P(x)) Premise

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Step Reason
1.∃x(C (x) ∧ ¬B(x)) Premise
2.C (a) ∧ ¬B(a) Existential instantiation from (1)
3.C (a) Simplification from (2)
4.∀x(C (x) → P(x)) Premise
5.C (a) → P(a) niversal instantiation from (4)

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Step Reason
1.∃x(C (x) ∧ ¬B(x)) Premise
2.C (a) ∧ ¬B(a) Existential instantiation from (1)
3.C (a) Simplification from (2)
4.∀x(C (x) → P(x)) Premise
5.C (a) → P(a) niversal instantiation from (4)
6.P(a) Modus ponens from (3) and (5)

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Step Reason
1.∃x(C (x) ∧ ¬B(x)) Premise
2.C (a) ∧ ¬B(a) Existential instantiation from (1)
3.C (a) Simplification from (2)
4.∀x(C (x) → P(x)) Premise
5.C (a) → P(a) niversal instantiation from (4)
6.P(a) Modus ponens from (3) and (5)
7.¬B(a) Simplification from (2)

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Step Reason
1.∃x(C (x) ∧ ¬B(x)) Premise
2.C (a) ∧ ¬B(a) Existential instantiation from (1)
3.C (a) Simplification from (2)
4.∀x(C (x) → P(x)) Premise
5.C (a) → P(a) niversal instantiation from (4)
6.P(a) Modus ponens from (3) and (5)
7.¬B(a) Simplification from (2)
8.P(a) ∧ ¬B(a) Conjunction from (6) and (7)

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Step Reason
1.∃x(C (x) ∧ ¬B(x)) Premise
2.C (a) ∧ ¬B(a) Existential instantiation from (1)
3.C (a) Simplification from (2)
4.∀x(C (x) → P(x)) Premise
5.C (a) → P(a) niversal instantiation from (4)
6.P(a) Modus ponens from (3) and (5)
7.¬B(a) Simplification from (2)
8.P(a) ∧ ¬B(a) Conjunction from (6) and (7)
9.∃x(P(x) ∧ ¬B(x)) Existential generalization from (8)

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 Example 17. For the collection of premises, what relevant
conclusion or conclusions can be drawn? Explain the rules of
inference used to obtain each conclusion from the premises.
“All rodents gnaw their food.”
“Mice are rodents.”
“Rabbits do not gnaw their food.”
“Bats are not rodents.”

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
 Example 17. For the collection of premises, what relevant
conclusion or conclusions can be drawn? Explain the rules of
inference used to obtain each conclusion from the premises.
“All rodents gnaw their food.”
“Mice are rodents.”
“Rabbits do not gnaw their food.”
“Bats are not rodents.”

Solution: Let
R(x) be “x is a rodent,”
F (x) be “x gnaws their food,”

Then premises are ∀x(R(x) → F (x)), R(Mice), ¬F (Rabbits),

and ¬R(Bats).

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Step Reason

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Step Reason
1.∀x(R(x) → F (x)) Premise

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Step Reason
1.∀x(R(x) → F (x)) Premise
2.R(Mouse) Premise

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Step Reason
1.∀x(R(x) → F (x)) Premise
2.R(Mouse) Premise
3.R(Mouse) → F (Mouse) Universal instantiation from (1)

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Step Reason
1.∀x(R(x) → F (x)) Premise
2.R(Mouse) Premise
3.R(Mouse) → F (Mouse) Universal instantiation from (1)
4.F (Mouse) Modus ponens from (2) and (3)

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Step Reason
1.∀x(R(x) → F (x)) Premise
2.R(Mouse) Premise
3.R(Mouse) → F (Mouse) Universal instantiation from (1)
4.F (Mouse) Modus ponens from (2) and (3)
5.¬F (Rabbit) Premise

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Step Reason
1.∀x(R(x) → F (x)) Premise
2.R(Mouse) Premise
3.R(Mouse) → F (Mouse) Universal instantiation from (1)
4.F (Mouse) Modus ponens from (2) and (3)
5.¬F (Rabbit) Premise
6.R(Rabbit) → F (Rabbit) Universal instantiation from (1)

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Step Reason
1.∀x(R(x) → F (x)) Premise
2.R(Mouse) Premise
3.R(Mouse) → F (Mouse) Universal instantiation from (1)
4.F (Mouse) Modus ponens from (2) and (3)
5.¬F (Rabbit) Premise
6.R(Rabbit) → F (Rabbit) Universal instantiation from (1)
7.¬R(Rabbit) Modus tollens from (5) and (6)

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3
Thank you for attention!

A. B. Dauletiyarova Lecture 3