Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Standard view
Full view
of .
×
0 of .
Results for:
P. 1
Chen W

# Chen W

Ratings: (0)|Views: 314|Likes:

### Availability:

See More
See less

06/16/2009

pdf

text

original

DISCRETE MATHEMATICS
W W L CHEN
c
\ue000W W L Chen, 1982.

This work is available free, in the hope that it will be useful.
Any part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, with or without permission from the author.

Chapter 1
LOGIC AND SETS
1.1. Sentences
In this section, we look at sentences, their truth or falsity, and ways of combining or connecting sentences
to produce new sentences.

A sentence (or proposition) is an expression which is either true or false. The sentence \u201c2 + 2 = 4\u201d is true, while the sentence \u201c\u03c0 is rational\u201d is false. It is, however, not the task of logic to decide whether any particular sentence is true or false. In fact, there are many sentences whose truth or falsity nobody has yet managed to establish; for example, the famous Goldbach conjecture that \u201cevery even number greater than 2 is a sum of two primes\u201d.

There is a defect in our de\ufb01nition. It is sometimes very di\ufb03cult, under our de\ufb01nition, to determine whether or not a given expression is a sentence. Consider, for example, the expression \u201cI am telling a lie\u201d; am I?

Since there are expressions which are sentences under our de\ufb01nition, we proceed to discuss ways of
connecting sentences to form new sentences.
Letp andq denote sentences.
Definition.(CONJUNCTION) We say that the sentencep\u2227 q (p andq) is true if the two sentences
p, qare both true, and is false otherwise.
Example 1.1.1.The sentence \u201c2 + 2 = 4 and 2 + 3 = 5\u201d is true.
Example 1.1.2.The sentence \u201c2 + 2 = 4 and\u03c0 is rational\u201d is false.
Definition.(DISJUNCTION) We say that the sentencep\u2228 q (p orq) is true if at least one of two
sentencesp,q is true, and is false otherwise.
Example 1.1.3.The sentence \u201c2 + 2 = 2 or 1 + 3 = 5\u201d is false.
\u2020This chapter was \ufb01rst used in lectures given by the author at Imperial College, University of London, in 1982.
1\u20132
W W L Chen : Discrete Mathematics
Example 1.1.4.The sentence \u201c2 + 2 = 4 or\u03c0 is rational\u201d is true.
Remark.To prove that a sentencep\u2228 q is true, we may assume that the sentencep is false and use
this to deduce that the sentenceq is true in this case. For if the sentencep is true, our argument is
already complete, never mind the truth or falsity of the sentenceq.
Definition.(NEGATION) We say that the sentencep(not p) is true if the sentence pis false, and
is false if the sentencep is true.
Example 1.1.5.The negation of the sentence \u201c2 + 2 = 4\u201d is the sentence \u201c2 + 2\ue001= 4\u201d.
Example 1.1.6.The negation of the sentence \u201c\u03c0 is rational\u201d is the sentence \u201c\u03c0 is irrational\u201d.
Definition.(CONDITIONAL) We say that the sentencep\u2192 q (ifp, thenq) is true if the sentence
pis false or if the sentence qis true or both, and is false otherwise.
Remark.It is convenient to realize that the sentencep\u2192 q is false precisely when the sentencep is

true and the sentenceq is false. To understand this, note that if we draw a false conclusion from a true assumption, then our argument must be faulty. On the other hand, if our assumption is false or if our conclusion is true, then our argument may still be acceptable.

Example 1.1.7.The sentence \u201cif 2 + 2 = 2, then 1 + 3 = 5\u201d is true, because the sentence \u201c2 + 2 = 2\u201d
is false.
Example 1.1.8.The sentence \u201cif 2 + 2 = 4, then\u03c0 is rational\u201d is false.
Example 1.1.9.The sentence \u201cif\u03c0 is rational, then 2 + 2 = 4\u201d is true.
Definition.(DOUBLE CONDITIONAL) We say that the sentencep\u2194 q (p if and only ifq) is true
if the two sentencesp,q are both true or both false, and is false otherwise.
Example 1.1.10.The sentence \u201c2 + 2 = 4 if and only if\u03c0 is irrational\u201d is true.
Example 1.1.11.The sentence \u201c2 + 2\ue001= 4 if and only if\u03c0 is rational\u201d is also true.
If we use the letterT to denote \u201ctrue\u201d and the letterF to denote \u201cfalse\u201d, then the above \ufb01ve
de\ufb01nitions can be summarized in the following \u201ctruth table\u201d:
p
q
p\u2227 q
p\u2228 q
p
p\u2192 q
p\u2194 q
T
T
T
T
F
T
T
T
F
F
T
F
F
F
F
T
F
T
T
T
F
F
F
F
F
T
T
T
Remark.Note that in logic, \u201cor\u201d can mean \u201cboth\u201d. If you ask a logician whether he likes tea or co\ufb00ee,
do not be surprised if he wants both!
Example 1.1.12.The sentence (p\u2228 q)\u2227 (p\u2227 q) is true if exactly one of the two sentencesp,q is true,
and is false otherwise; we have the following \u201ctruth table\u201d:
p
q
p\u2227 q
p\u2228 q
p\u2227 q
(p\u2228 q)\u2227 (p\u2227 q)
T
T
T
T
F
F
T
F
F
T
T
T
F
T
F
T
T
T
F
F
F
F
T
F
Chapter 1 : Logic and Sets
1\u20133
1.2. Tautologies and Logical Equivalence
Definition.A tautology is a sentence which is true on logical ground only.
Example 1.2.1.The sentences (p\u2227 (q\u2227 r))\u2194 ((p\u2227 q)\u2227r) and (p\u2227 q)\u2194 (q\u2227 p) are both tautologies.
This enables us to generalize the de\ufb01nition of conjunction to more than two sentences, and write, for
example,p\u2227 q\u2227 r without causing any ambiguity.
Example 1.2.2.The sentences (p\u2228 (q\u2228 r))\u2194 ((p\u2228 q)\u2228r) and (p\u2228 q)\u2194 (q\u2228 p) are both tautologies.
This enables us to generalize the de\ufb01nition of disjunction to more than two sentences, and write, for
example,p\u2228 q\u2228 r without causing any ambiguity.

Example 1.2.3.The sentencep\u2228pis a tautology.
Example 1.2.4.The sentence (p\u2192 q)\u2194 (q\u2192 p) is a tautology.
Example 1.2.5.The sentence (p\u2192 q)\u2194 (p\u2228 q) is a tautology.

Example 1.2.6.The sentence(p\u2194 q)\u2194 ((p\u2228 q)\u2227 (p\u2227 q)) is a tautology; we have the following \u201ctruth
table\u201d:
p
q
p\u2194 q
(p\u2194 q)
(p\u2228 q)\u2227 (p\u2227 q)
(p\u2194 q)\u2194 ((p\u2228 q)\u2227 (p\u2227 q))
T
T
T
F
F
T
T
F
F
T
T
T
F
T
F
T
T
T
F
F
T
F
F
T
The following are tautologies which are commonly used. Letp,q andr denote sentences.
DISTRIBUTIVE LAW.The following sentences are tautologies:
(a)(p\u2227 (q\u2228 r))\u2194 ((p\u2227 q)\u2228 (p\u2227 r));
(b)(p\u2228 (q\u2227 r))\u2194 ((p\u2228 q)\u2227 (p\u2228 r)).
DE MORGAN LAW.The following sentences are tautologies:
(a)(p\u2227 q)\u2194 (p\u2228 q);
(b)(p\u2228 q)\u2194 (p\u2227 q).
INFERENCE LAW.The following sentences are tautologies:

(a)(MODUS PONENS) (p\u2227(p\u2192 q))\u2192q;
(b)(MODUS TOLLENS) ((p\u2192 q)\u2227q)\u2192 p;
(c)(LAW OF SYLLOGISM) ((p\u2192 q)\u2227 (q\u2192 r))\u2192 (p\u2192 r).

These tautologies can all be demonstrated by truth tables. However, let us try to prove the \ufb01rst
Distributive law here.

Suppose \ufb01rst of all that the sentencep\u2227 (q\u2228 r) is true. Then the two sentencesp,q\u2228 r are both true. Since the sentenceq\u2228 r is true, at least one of the two sentencesq,r is true. Without loss of generality, assume that the sentenceq is true. Then the sentencep\u2227 q is true. It follows that the sentence (p\u2227 q)\u2228 (p\u2227 r) is true.

Suppose now that the sentence (p\u2227 q)\u2228 (p\u2227 r) is true. Then at least one of the two sentences (p\u2227 q),
(p\u2227 r) is true. Without loss of generality, assume that the sentencep\u2227 q is true. Then the two sentences
p, qare both true. It follows that the sentence q\u2228 ris true, and so the sentence p\u2227(q\u2228 r) is true.

It now follows that the two sentencesp\u2227 (q\u2228 r) and (p\u2227 q)\u2228 (p\u2227 r) are either both true or both false, as the truth of one implies the truth of the other. It follows that the double conditional (p\u2227 (q\u2228 r))\u2194 ((p\u2227 q)\u2228 (p\u2227 r)) is a tautology.

## Activity (1)

### Showing

AllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikes