1
UNIT 2 CONDITIONAL PROOF
Contents
2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Conditional Proof (C.P.)
2.3 Exercises I
2.4 The Strengthened Rule of C. P.
2.5 Exercises II
2.6 Let Us Sum Up
2.7 Key Words
2.8 Further Readings and References
1.0 OBJECTIVES
There are as many kinds of techniques as there are arguments. This unit is designed
to introduce you to two new Rules which help you to compare the new technique or
techniques with the earlier techniques. This comparative appraisal is possible only
when you use both methods and consider suitable examples. This is the main
objective of this unit. This unit enables you to understand that what is regarded as
elementary valid argument forms or Rules of Inference and Rules of Replacement are
also fundamental and hence indispensable. This is the second objective intended to be
achieved.
2.1 INTRODUCTION
It is wrong to think that there is a single technique which is applicable on all occasions
irrespective of the structure of arguments. On some occasions Rules of Inference and
Replacement are useful and on some other occasions the technique known as Conditional
Proof (C. P.) is useful. But there is no single method which is indispensable for all
occasions. It is important to recognize this simple fact which prevents us from following a
particular method blindly. When the advantage of new technique becomes clear, the
significance of new Rule or Rules also becomes clear and it will be put into use. When we
know that it is disadvantageous, we refrain from using that particular method. This means
that a method is not to be used just because it has worked on earlier occasions. Instead, we
try to apply a different method which is thought to be useful. The method of Conditional
Proof (C.P.) is different in kind from the Rules of Inference or Replacements in one sense.
There are a certain types of arguments, which can be tested with any of the Rules discussed
in the previous chapters only with great difficulty or it may be practically impossible to test
them at all. In all such cases C. P. comes to our rescue. Let us apply these methods and
compare the results in order to understand the fact that the relevance of method is
determined by the structure of argument.
2
1).
1 (A v B) => (C Λ D)
2 (D v E) => F/ ∴ A => F
3 ¬ (A v B) v (C Λ D) 1, Impl.
4 (¬ A Λ ¬ B) v (C Λ D) 3, De. M.
5 (¬ A v C) Λ ( ¬ A v D) Λ (¬ B v C) Λ (¬ B v D) 4, Dist.
6 ¬ (D v E) v F 2, Impl.
7 ¬AvD 5, Simp.
8 (¬D Λ ¬ E) v F 6, De. M.
9 (¬D v F) Λ (¬E v ¬ F) 8, Dist.
10 ¬D v F 9, Simp.
11 A => D 7, Impl.
12 D => F 10, Impl.
13 ∴ A => F ` 11, 12, H. S.
It is obvious that we have used at present only Rules of Inference and Rules of
Replacement. What is the position? It may be noted that from 3rd line to 13th line there are
one hundred and twelve words and five Rules are used on eleven occasions. These figures
become significant when we use new set of Rules and then calculate the length of proof
construction which helps us to compare the length, number of words and others involved in
these methods mentioned above. An important restriction is that the Rules of Inference are
useful generally only when the arguments, have unconditional conclusions. So an
argument, which has conditional conclusion, falls out of their purview on many occasions
if simplicity is the yardstick. The most familiar example for conditional proposition is
implicative proposition. Since implicative propositions have equivalent disjunctive and
negation forms, they are also to be regarded as conditional propositions. Therefore if the
conclusion is any one of these forms, then either the construction of proof may be very
long and complex or may even be impossible. On such occasions we are likely to err.
Therefore in order to insulate ourselves against highly probable errors we have to look for
safer routes. C. P. is one such path. Again, C.P is not a system of proof, which is absolutely
independent of nineteen Rules. Only, the number increases to twenty. Among them one
Rule is called Rule of C. P. which is compulsorily used to test the validity when the
conclusion is conditional. This Rule is unique in the sense that nowhere else it is used.
There are two Rules under this category. They are known as C. P., and the Strengthened
Rule of C. P. This classification does not imply that the former is weak. The difference lies
only in scope. We shall begin with the former first.
2.2 CONDITIONAL PROOF (C.P.)
Any deductive argument, whether valid or invalid, can be expressed in the form of a
conditional proposition. What is more important to know is that the original argument is
valid only when the corresponding conditional statement satisfies a condition known as
„tautology‟. Otherwise, the argument is invalid. Consider this example:
3
2).
All A are B
All B are C / ∴ All A are C
Its corresponding conditional form is as follows:
“If all A are B and all A are C, then all A are C”. (1)
Let the first premise be symbolized as P1 and second as P2. Conclusion is symbolized as C.
Now (1) becomes:
(P1 Λ P2) => C (2)
(2) is said to be tautologous because its corresponding proposition form is tautologous. A
proposition form is said to be tautologous when it has only true substitution. There are two
conditions to be satisfied if C. P. should be used to show that the argument is valid.
1) Conclusion must be a conditional proposition.
2) It should be possible to deduce a conditional proposition from a conjunction of premises
by a sequence of elementary valid arguments, which satisfy the relevant Rules of
Inference. That is, all premises in C.P. should be supported by these Rules. The additional
premise, which is a characteristic mark of C. P., is always the antecedent of the conclusion
and the construction of proof always begins with antecedent of the conclusion as the
premise. This premise itself is called C.P. An example of argument, which requires C.P.,
is given below.
P => (A => B) (3)
When P stands for the conjunction of premises, one of the Rules of Replacement, i.e.,
Exportation Rule permits us to rewrite (3) as:
(P Λ A) => B (4)
It is obvious that the conclusion of (4) is the consequent of the conclusion of (3). Since
you start with an assumed premise, the proof is known as C.P. Here is the difference. All
other premises are taken as true. The assumption should not really matter. Even if the
assumed premise is false, it is possible to deduce a valid conclusion. If B can be validly
drawn from P Λ A, then not only (4) is valid its corresponding original argument (3) also
must be valid because (3) and (4) are logically equivalent.
Now consider the argument considered above.
3)
1. (A v B) => (C Λ D)
2. (D v E) => F / ∴ A => F
3. A /∴ F C. P.
4. AvB 3, Add.
5. CΛD 1, 4, M.P.
6. D 5, Simp.
7. DvE 6, Add.
4
8. ∴ F 2, 7, M.P.
Now compare the lengths of 1 and 3. In 3 there are thirty five words whereas in 1 there are
one hundred and twelve words and in 3 four Rules are used on six occasions whereas in 1
five Rules are used on eleven occasions. This comparison helps us to know the advantage
of new technique.
A brief explanation of steps involved in proof construction in this method is necessary.
You should start from assuming A which is the antecedent of the conclusion. Always the
first line must have this structure in C. P. Slash against line 3 in, ∴ and (C.P) indicate that
the method of C. P. is being used.
If there is only one condition in the conclusion, then C.P is used once. If there are two
conditions in the consequent component of the conclusion, then C.P. is used twice. It
means that the number of times the C. P. has to be used is equivalent to the number of
conditions that appear in the consequent of the conclusion. Now it is plain that the
complexity of argument increases with the increase in the number of conditions in the
conclusion. The following example illustrates the procedure to be followed in such cases.
4)
1 A => (B => C)
2 B => (C => D) /∴ A => (B => D)
3 A /∴ B => D (C.P.)
4 B /∴ D (C.P.)
5 B => C 1, 4, M.P.
6 C 5, 4, M.P.
7 C => D 2, 4, M.P.
8 ∴D 7, 6, M.P.
The student is advised to use the Rules of Inference or Replacement or both depending
upon the need and compare the lengths of proof construction.
Consider an argument with a disjunctive conclusion and use both the methods without
making any presumption to compare the lengths and complexity of proof construction. we
shall begin with earlier method.
5)
1 A=>B
2 C=>D
3 (¬ B v ¬ D) (¬ A v ¬ B) /∴ (¬ A v ¬ C)
4 (A = > B) Λ (C = > D) 1, 2, Conj.
5 ¬Bv¬D 3, Simp.
6 ∴¬Av ¬C 4, 5, D. D.
A = > ¬ C is equivalent to the original conclusion. Therefore if C. P. method has
to be used, then A = > ¬ C must replace ¬ A v ¬ C. Now you shall construct proof
using C. P. method.
5
4 A /∴ ¬ C (C.P.)
5 ¬Bv¬D 3, Simp.
6 B 1, 4, M. P.
7 ¬D 5, 6, D.S.
8 ∴¬C 2, 7, M.T.
In the former method thirty three words, three lines and three Rules are involved whereas in the
latter thirty four words, five lines and four Rules are involved. This comparison illustrates the
fact that just because the conclusion is conditional the method of C. P. is not necessarily
preferable.
Now let us consider a more complex example with multiple variables and more number of
premises. Again we will begin with the Rules of Inference.
1 H => (I => J) `
2 K => ( I => J)
3 (¬ H Λ ¬ K) => (¬ L v ¬ M)
4 (¬ L => ¬ N) Λ (¬ M => ¬ O)
5 (P => N) Λ (Q => O)
6 ¬ (I => J) /∴ ¬ P v ¬ Q
7 ¬H 1,6, M.T.
8 ¬K 2,6, M.T.
9 ¬HΛ¬K 7,8, Conj.
10 ¬Lv¬M 3,9, M.P.
11 ¬Nv¬O 4,10, C.D.
12 ∴ ¬ P v ¬ Q 5,11, D.D.
In this method there are forty three words, six lines and five Rules. Now apply the method of
C.P. Before we do so the conclusion must be transformed into implicatory form. Hence the
conclusion is P => ¬ Q.
6) ¬ (I => J) / P => ¬ Q
7) P / ∴ ¬ Q (C. P.)
8) P => N 5, Simp.
9) N 5, 7, M. P.
10) ¬ L => ¬ N 4, Simp.
11) L 10, 9, M.T.
12) ¬H 1, 6, M.T.
13) ¬K 2, 6, M.T.
14) ¬H Λ ¬K 12, 13, Conj.
15) ¬Lv¬M 3, 14, M.P.
16) L => ¬ M 14, Impl.
17) ¬M 16, 11, M.P.
18) ¬ M => ¬ O 4, Simp.
19) ¬O 18, 17, M.P.
20) Q => O 5, Simp.
6
21) ∴¬Q 20, 19, M.T.
We know prima facie that this method is very long with ninety seven words, fifteen lines
and five Rules and we know that with the exception of Conjunction other Rules recur again
and again. Therefore C.P. must be used only when it is economical in terms of space and
effort.
2.3 EXERCISES I
I. Some arguments are considered below which are tested using the method of C. P.
1)
1. P => (Q => R) /∴ (P => Q) => (P => R)
2. P => Q /∴ P => R (C.P.)
3. P /∴ R (C.P.)
4. (P => Q) => R 1, Exp.
5. ∴R 4, 2, M.P.
2)
1. P => (Q => R) / ∴ Q => (P => R)
2. Q /∴ P => R (C.P.)
3. P /∴ R (C.P.)
4. Q => R 1, 3, M.P.
5. ∴R 4, 2, M.P.
3)
1. P => Q / ∴ ¬ Q => ¬ P
2. ¬ Q /∴ ¬P (C.P.)
3. ∴¬P 2, 1, M.T.
4)
1. P => ¬ ¬ P
2. ¬ ¬ P /∴ P (C.P.)
3. ∴ P 2, D.N.
5)
1. A => B / (B => C) => (A => C)
2. B => C /∴ A => C (C.P.)
3. A /∴C (C.P.)
4. B 1, 3, M.P.
5. ∴C 2, 4, M.P.
6)
1. (A => B) Λ (A => C) /∴ A => (B v C)
7
2. A /∴B v C (C.P.)
3. A => B 1, Simp.
4. B 3, 2, M.P.
5. ∴B v C 4, Add.
7)
1. (A => B) Λ (A => C) / ∴ A => (B Λ C)
2. A /∴B Λ C (C.P.)
3. A => B 1, Simp.
4. B 3, 2, M.P.
5. A => C 1,Simp.
6. C 5, 2, M.P.
7. ∴B Λ C 4, 6, Conj.
8)
1. A => B /∴ (¬ A => B) => B
2. (¬ A => B) /∴B (C.P.)
3. ¬A /∴B (C.P.)
4. ∴B 2, 3, M.P.
9)
1. (A => B) /∴ (A Λ C) => (B Λ C)
2. AΛC /∴B Λ C (C.P.)
3. A 2, Simp.
4. B 1, 3, M.P.
5. C 2, Simp.
6. ∴B Λ C 4, 5, Conj.
10)
1. B => C /∴ (A v B) => (C v A)
2. AvB /∴C v A (C.P.)
3. ¬ A => B 2, Impl.
4. ¬ A => C 3, 1, H.S.
5. AvC 4, Impl.
6. ∴C v A 5, Com.
11)
1. (A v B) => C /∴ [(C v D) => E] => (A => E)
2. (C v D) => E / ∴ A => E (C.P.)
3. A /∴ E (C.P.)
4. AvB 3, Add.
5. C 1, 4, M.P.
6. CvD 2, Add.
7. ∴E 2, 6, M. P.
12)
1. (P Λ Q) => P
8
2. P / ∴ Q => P
3. Q /∴P (C.P.)
4. P Λ Q 2, 3, Conj.
5. ∴P 4, Simp.
[Note: You can apply M. P. to 1 and 4 to obtain the same result.]
13)
1. P => Q /∴ (¬ Q v R) => ¬ (R Λ P)
2. (R Λ P) => (Q Λ R) 1, Trans.
3. RΛP /∴Q Λ R (C.P.)
4. P 3, Simp.
5. Q 1, 4, M.P.
6. R 3 Simp.
7. ∴Q Λ R 5, 6, Conj.
Check your progress I.
Note: Use the space provided for your answer.
1. Explain the significance of Conditional Proof.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What is the advantage of C. P. method?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.4 THE STRENGTHENED RULE OF C. P.
In Conditional Proof method, the conclusion depends upon the antecedent of the conclusion.
There is another method, which is called the Strengthened Rule of Conditional Proof. In this
method, the construction of proof does not necessarily assume the antecedent of the conclusion.
The structure of this method needs some elaboration. An assumption is made initially. There is
no need to know the truth-status of the assumption because an assumption may be false, but the
conclusion can still be true. Further, the assumption can be any component of any premise or
conclusion. This method is called the Strengthened Rule because we enjoy more freedom in
making assumption or assumptions which means that plurality of assumptions is allowed. It
strengthens our repertoire of testing equipments. In this sense, this method is called the
Strengthened Rule of C.P. Another feature of this method is the limit of assumption. The last
step is always outside the limits of assumption. If there are two or more than two assumptions in
an argument, then there will be a separate last step for each assumption. This last step can be
9
regarded as the conclusion relative to that particular assumption. It shows that the last step is
deduced with the help of assumption in conjunction with the previous steps in such a way that
the Rules of Inference permit such conjunction. Before the conclusion is reached the function of
assumption also ceases. Then it will have no role to play. Then, automatically, the assumption is
said to have been discharged. When the Strengthened Rule of C. P. is used adjacent to the line of
assumption, the word assumption is not mentioned unlike as in the case of C.P. Here the head of
the bent arrow points to „assumption‟. In case of the Strengthened Rule of C.P., the conclusion is
always a conditional statement which consists of statements from the sequence itself.
Thus the range of the application of condition is defined. In order to easily identify the range of
its application, a slightly different method is used. An arrow is used to indicate what is assumed
and with the help of the same arrow its range also is defined. The application of C.P. is restricted
to the space covered by the arrows. All steps, which are outside this arrow, are also independent
of the condition. While the head of the arrow makes the assumption, its terminus separates the
lines, which depend upon the condition from the line, which does not depend. Since the
conclusion does not depend upon its own antecedent, it has to depend upon the first assumption
only. In this sense, it is a strengthened condition. In this case there is no reason to mention C.P.
because the arrow helps us to identify the assumption. Consider this example:
1).
1 (A v B) =>{(C v D) =>E} /∴ A=>[(CΛD) => E]
2 A
3 AvB 2, Add.
4 (C v D)=>E 1, 3, M.P.
5 (CΛD)
6 C 5, Simp.
7 CvD 6, Add.
8E 4, 7, M.P.
9 (C v D)=>E 5, 8, C.P.
10 ∴ A=> [CΛD) =>E] 2, 9, C.P.
Rules mentioned on the RHS make it clear that all lines from 3 to 9 depend on A either directly
or through lines which depend A. In lines 9 and 10 implication makes them C.P.
One advantage of C.P. in its strengthened form is that it has an extended application. It can be
used in all those cases where conclusions are conditional but do not appear to be so. Using the
strengthened Rule of C. P. let us solve some problems.
10
2).
1. (E v F) = > G
2. H => (I ∧ G) / ∴ (E => G) ∧ (H ∧ I)
3. E
4. EvF 3, Add
5. G 4, 3, M. P.
6. E => G 3, 5, C. P.
7. H
8. I∧G 2, 7, M. P.
9. I 8, Simp.
10. H => I 7, 9, C. P.
11. ∴ (E => G) ∧ (H => I) 6, 10, Conj.
3).
1. Q v (R => S)
2. {R => (R ∧ S)} => (T v U)
3. (T => Q) ∧ (U => V) / ∴ Q v V
In this argument, in reality, the conclusion is conditional. We know that disjunction can be
translated to implication form. When it so translated, the conclusion becomes
¬ Q => V
Now let us construct proof for this argument.
4. ¬ Q
5. R => S 1, 4, D. S.
6. R
7. S 5, 6, M. P.
8. R ∧ S 6, 8, Conj.
9. R => (R ∧ S) 6, 8, C. P.
10. T v U 2, 9, M. P.
11. ∴Q v V 3, 10, C. D.
11
4).
1. (C v D) => (E => F)
2. {E => (E ∧ F)} => G
3. G => {(¬ H v ¬ ¬ H)} => (C ∧ H)} / ∴ C ≡ G
4. C
5. C v D 4, Add
6. E => F 1, 5, M. P.
7. E
8. F 6, 7, M. P.
9. E ∧ F 7, 8, Conj.
10. E => (E ∧ F) 7, 9, C. P.
11. G 2, 10, M. P.
12. H
13. ¬ ¬ H 12, D. N.
14. ¬ ¬ H v ¬ H 13, Add
15. ¬ H v ¬ ¬ H 14, Com.
16. G => (¬ H v ¬ ¬ H) 11, 15, C. P.
17. C ∧ H 3, 16, M. P.
18. C 17, Simp.
19. C => G 18, 11, C. P.
20. G => C 11, 18, C. P.
21. (C => G) ∧ (G => C) 19, 20, Conj.
22. ∴C ≡ G 21, Equiv.
5)
1. (E v F) = > G
2. H => (I ∧ G) / ∴ (E => G) ∧ (H ∧ I)
3. E
4. EvF 3, Add
5. G 4, 3, M. P.
6. E => G 3, 5, C. P.
7. H
8. I∧G 2, 7, M. P.
9. I 8, Simp.
10. H => I 7, 9, C. P.
11. ∴ (E => G) ∧ (H => I) 6, 10, Conj.
12
6)
1. (C v D) => (E => F)
2. {E => (E ∧ F)} => G
3. G => {(¬ H v ¬ ¬ H)} => (C ∧ H)} / ∴ C ≡ G
4. C
5. C v D 4, Add
6. E => F 1, 5, M. P.
7. E
8. F 6, 7, M. P.
9. E ∧ F 7, 8, Conj.
10. E => (E ∧ F) 7, 9, C. P.
11. G 2, 10, M. P.
12. H
13. ¬ ¬ H 12, D. N.
14. ¬ ¬ H v ¬ H 13, Add
15. ¬ H v ¬ ¬ H 14, Com.
16. G => (¬ H v ¬ ¬ H) 11, 15, C. P.
17. C ∧ H 3, 16, M. P.
18. C 17, Simp.
19. C => G 18, 11, C. P.
20. G => C 11, 18, C. P.
21. (C => G) ∧ (G => C) 19, 20, Conj.
22. ∴C ≡ G 21, Equiv.
13
7).
1 ¬ P (Q => R)
¬ Q (¬ R D) / ∴P => (Q => D)
1. ¬ P (Q => R)
2. ¬ Q (¬ R D) / P => (Q => D)
3. P / (Q => D)
4. Q / D
5. ¬ ¬ Q D.N 4.
6. ¬ R D D.S. 2 &5
7. ¬ ¬ P D.N 3
8. Q => R D.S 1&7
9. R M.P. 8&4
10. ¬ ¬ R D.N. 9
11. D D.S.6&10
12. Q => D C.P. 4-11
13. ∴P => (Q => D) C.P. 3-12
8)
(P => ¬ Q) R
(R => S)
¬ S / ∴Q => ¬ P
1. (P => ¬ Q) R
2. (R => S)
3. ¬ S / Q => ¬ P
4. Q / ¬ P
5. ¬ R M.T 2&3.
6. R (P => ¬ Q) Com 1.
7. (P => ¬ Q) D.S 6&5
8. ¬ ¬ Q D.N 4.
9. ¬ P M.T. 7&8
10. ∴Q => ¬ P C.P 4&9
14
9)
¬ A(B => C)
¬ B (¬ C D) Q => ¬ P / A => (B => D)
1. ¬ A (B => C)
2. ¬ B (¬ C D) / A => (B => D)
3. A / (B => D)
4. B / D
5. ¬ ¬ B D.N 4.
6. ¬ C D D.S. 2 &5
7. ¬ ¬ A D.N 3
8. B => C D.S 1&7
9. C M.P. 8&4
10. ¬ ¬ C D.N. 9
11. D D.S.6&10
12. B => D C.P. 4-11
13. => (B => D) C.P. 3-12
10)
¬P (Q => R)
¬Q (¬R S) /P => (Q => S)
1. ¬P (Q => R)
2. ¬Q (¬R S) / P => (Q => S)
3. P / (Q => S)
4. Q / S
5. ¬ ¬ Q D.N 4.
6. ¬R S D.S. 2 &5
7. ¬ ¬ P D.N 3
8. Q => R D.S 1&7
9. R M.P. 8&4
10. ¬ ¬ R D.N. 9
11. S D.S.6&10
12. Q => S C.P. 4-11
13. P => (Q => S) C.P. 3-12
Check your progress II.
Note: Use the space provided for your answer.
15
1. Write a brief note on the salient aspects of the Rule of Strengthened Proof.
----------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What do you mean by „discharging of assumption‟?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.5 EXERCISES II
1. (A B) => (C∧D)
(D E) => F / (A => F)
2. [A => (B => C)]
[B => (C => D)] / [A => (B => D)]
3. C => D / [(D => E) => (C => E)]
4. (N => P) ∧ (B => S) / [(N ∧ B) => (P ∧S)]
5. (E => F
[E => ( F => G )]
[E => ( G => H )] / (E => H)
6. [¬ (P Q) (R∧S)]
[¬ (S T) U] / (P => U)
7. [P => (¬Q R)]
[Q => (¬S =>¬R)] / [P => (Q => S)]
8. ¬C D / [(¬D E) => (C => E)]
9. (M => Q) ∧ (B => S) / [(M ∧ B) => (Q ∧S)]
10. (p => q)
[P => ( Q => R )]
[P => ( R => S )] / (P => S)
11. (¬A B) => (C∧D)
(D E) => ¬ F / (¬A => ¬ F)
16
12. [A => (~B => C)]
[¬ B => (C => D)] / [A => (¬ B => D)]
13. ¬ X => ¬ D / [(¬ D => E) => (¬ X => E)]
14. (B => S) ∧ (N => P) / [(N ∧ B) => (P ∧S)]
15. (X => F)
[X => ( F => G )]
[X => ( G => H )] / (X => H)
16. [¬ (V Q) (R∧X)]
[¬ (X T) U] / (V => U)
17. [¬P => (¬ X R)]
[X => (¬ S => ¬ R)] / [¬ P => (X => S)]
18. ¬ Y Z / [(¬Z E) => (Y => E)]
19. (B => S) ∧ (M => Q) / [(M ∧ B) => (Q ∧S)]
20. (P => M)
[P => ( M => R )]
[P => ( R => ¬ S )] / (P => ¬ S)
2.6 LET US SUM UP
In this unit we have tried to understand the significance of Conditional Proof. Its advantages and
limitations were assessed in comparison with Rules of Inference and Replacement. A distinction
was made between C. P. and the Strengthened Rule of C. P. We have learnt that logicians allow
us to assume or introduce any proposition and not necessarily the antecedent of a conditional as a
conditional assumption. But all assumptions must be discharged by applying the Rule of
conditional proof.
2.7 KEY WORDS
Discharging the assumption: Ending an assumption when its truth is no longer being assumed
as a maneuver within the proof.
2.8 FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES
17
Balasubramanian, P. An Invitation to Symbolic Logic. Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Mission
Vivekananda College, 1977.
________________. Symbolic Logic and Its Decision Procedures. Madras: University of
Madras, 1980.
Chhanda, Chakraborthi. Logic: Informal, Symbolic and Inductive. Second Edition. New Delhi:
Prentice-Hall of India Pvt., Ltd., 2007.
Copi, M. Irvin. Symbolic Logic. Fourth edition. New York: Macmillian Publishing Co., 1965.
_____________. Introduction to Logic. Third Edition. New York: Macmillian Publishing Co.,
1968.
_____________ & James A. Gould. Readings on Logic. Second Edition. New York: The
Macmillan Co., 1972.
