This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

Introduction to logic

What is logic? Why is it useful? Types of logic Propositional logic Predicate logic

Introduction to logic

What is logic? Why is it useful? Types of logic Propositional logic Predicate logic

What is logic?

³Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end´

What is logic?

Logic : The branch of philosophy concerned with analysing the patterns of reasoning by which a conclusion is drawn from a set of premises, without reference to meaning or context

Why study logic?

**Logic is concerned with two key skills, which any computer engineer or scientist should have:
**

Abstraction Formalisation

**Why is logic important?
**

Logic is a formalisation of reasoning. Logic is a formal language for deducing knowledge from a small number of explicitly stated premises (or hypotheses, axioms, facts) Logic provides a formal framework for representing knowledge Logic differentiates between the structure and content of an argument

What is proposition?

Def: A proposition is a statement that is either true or false. or A proposition is a declarative sentence that is either true or false,but not both. e.g. ³It is raining in Delhi.´ e.g. ³The square of 5 is 16´. Some propositions may not be easily verified: e.g. ³The universe is infinite.´

Topic #1.0 ± Propositional Logic: Operators

**The Negation Operator
**

The negation operator ³¬´ (NOT) transforms a prop. into its logical negation. E.g. If p = ³I have brown hair.´ then ¬p = ³I do not have brown hair.´ The truth table for NOT: p p T F T : True; F : False F T ³: ´ means ³is defined as´

Operand column Result column

Logic

Notation for propositions: Truth Values

± If it¶s true, denoted by T; ± If it¶s false, denoted by F ± Used in truth tables:

P P

Compound Propositions

Composite Composed of subpropositions & various connectives Primitive or not composite E.g. This book is good and cheap

Propositional Variable

Symbol representing any proposition real variable (x) not propositon but can be replaced by a proposition

**Basic Logical Operators
**

1. Conjunction , pq (and) 2. Disjunction, pq (or) 3. Negation p(not)

Topic #1.0 ± Propositional Logic: Operators

**The Conjunction Operator
**

The binary conjunction operator (AND) combines two propositions to form their logical conjunction. E.g. If p= I will have salad for lunch. and q= I will have soup for dinner. , then pq= I will have salad for lunch and I will have soup for dinner.

Logic

More with Truth Tables: conjunction If you have propositions p and q, the proposition ³p and q´ is true when they¶re both true, and false otherwise:

P Q P^ Q T F F F T T T F F T F F

Topic #1.0 ± Propositional Logic: Operators

**The Disjunction Operator
**

The binary disjunction operator ³´ (OR) combines two propositions to form their logical disjunction. p=³My car has a bad engine.´ q=³My car has a bad carburetor.´ pq=³Either my car has a bad engine, or my car has a bad carburetor.´

After the downwardpointing ³axe´ of ³´ splits the wood, you can take 1 piece OR the other, or both.

Logic

More with Truth Tables: disjunction If you have propositions p and q, the proposition ³p or q´ is false when they¶re both false, and true otherwise:

P Q Pv Q T T T F T T T F F T F F

Propositional calculus.

truth tables for logical connectives

P ~P P T F F T

Q

PQ PQ T F F F T T T F

T T T F F F T F

Example

If p represents ³ This book is good´ and q represents This book is cheap´, write the following sentences in symbolic form: (a) This book is good and cheap. (b) This book is costly but good (c) This book is neither good nor cheap (d) This book is not good but cheap (e) This book is good or cheap (a) pq (b)( q) p (c)( p) ( q) (d)( p)q (e)pq

The Implication (conditional) Operator

Topic #1.0 ± Propositional Logic: Operators

The implication p p q states that p implies q. I.e., If p is true, then q is true; but if p is not true, then q could be either true or false. E.g., let p = ³You study hard.´ q = ³You will get a good grade.´ p p q = ³If you study hard, then you will get a good grade.´

Logic

More with Truth Tables: implication p q If you have propositions p and q, the implication p q of p and q is false when p is true and q is false and is true otherwise:

p q p T F T T q

T T T F F T F F

Logic

More with Truth Tables: implication p

q

Other ways to refer to this implication: ± q if p if p, q q whenever p ± p only if q q is necessary for p ± If p, then q p is sufficient for q p implies q p q p T F T T q

T T T F F T F F

Logic

More with Truth Tables: implication p q In other words, p is the hypothesis (or antecedent or premise); and q is the conclusion (or consequence)

p

q

p T F T T

q

T T T F F T F F

Topic #1.0 ± Propositional Logic: Operators

**The biconditional operator
**

The biconditional p m q states that p is true if and only if (IFF) q is true. p = ³Bush wins the 2005 election.´ q = ³Bush will be president for all of 2006.´ p m q = ³If, and only if, Bush wins the 2005 election, Bush will be president for all of 2006.´

2005 2006 I·m still here!

More with Tables: biconditional p q True when p and q have the same truth values and is false otherwise Other ways to express it: p IFF q; p is necessary and sufficient for q; if p then q, and vice versa

p q p T F F T q

T T T F F T F F

Proposition

Let P(p,q,........) denote an expression constructed from logical variables p,q,......., which take on the value True(T) or False(F), and the logical connectives , , and E.g. P(p,q) = (p q) (p q) p q p q q T T F F T F T F F T F T F T F F T F T T

**Well-Formed Formulas(wff)
**

(i) If P is a propositional variable then it is wff. (ii) If x is wff , then ~ x is a wff. (iii) If x and y are wff , then (xy), (xy), (x y), (xy)are wffs. (iv) A string of symbols is a wff iff it is obtained by finitely many applications of (i)-(iii) A wff is not a proposition , but if we substitute the proposition in place of propositional variable , we get a proposition.

**Another method of constructing a truth table
**

p T T F F step q T F T F T F T T 4 (p T T F F 1 F T F F 3 F T F T 2 q) T F T F 1

**Propositional calculus cont.
**

Truth tables for common sentences (P Q)=(~Q ~P) /contrapositive equivalence P Q ~Q ~P P Q ~Q ~P T T T F F T F F F T F T F F T T T F T T T F T T

**Propositional calculus cont.
**

Truth tables for common sentences (~P Q)=(PQ) and (P Q)=(~P Q)

/disjunctive equivalence

P Q ~P ~P Q PQ P Q ~PQ T T T F F T F F F F T T T T T F T T T F T F T T T F T T

Construct truth table for pq and (pq)

Logic - Equivalences

Propositional Equivalences In mathematical arguments, you can replace a statement or proposition with another statement or proposition with the same truth value Tautology: A compound proposition (combination of propositions using logical operators) that is always True, no matter what the truth values of the propositions that are in it Contradiction: a compound proposition that is always false Contingency: proposition that is neither a tautology or a contradiction

Logic - Equivalences

Propositional Equivalences

p T F F T p pv T T p F F p^ p

Contingency

tautology

contradiction

Principle of Substitution

Let P(p,q,.......) be a tautology , and let P1(p,q,......),P2(p,q,......),...... be any propositions. Since P(p,q,........) does not depend upon the particular truth values of its variables p,q,..., we can substitute P1 for p , P2 for q, in the tautology P(p,q,.....) and still have tautology.

Theorem- If P(p,q,....) is a tautology, then P(P1,P2,.....) is a tautology for any propositions P1,P2,..........

Logical Equivalence

P(p,q,.....) | Q(p,q,........) (if identical truth tables) e.g. p | p, pp|p

Show that (pq) (p q) | p

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Show ¬( p V q ) using truth tables. and ¬ p 0 ¬ q are logically equivalent

p T T F F

q T F T F

pVq T T T F

¬(p V q) F F F T

¬p ¬q F F T T F T F T

(¬p 0 ¬ q) F F F T

Logically equivalent using truth tables

Logic - Equivalences

Logical Equivalences: compound propositions

that have the same truth value in all possible cases words, denotes logical equivalence between p and q, for example.

p q pvq T T T F F T F F T T T F (p v q) F F F T F F T T p F T F T q p^ F F F T q Truth Table for (p v q) and p ^ q

These are logically equivalent

other tautologies:

commutative law:

PQ = Q P PQ=QP

associative law:

P(QR) = (PQ)R P(QR) = (PQ)R

distributive law:

P(QR) = (PQ)(PR) P(QR) = (PQ)(PR)

deMorgan's Law:

b(PQ) = (bPbQ) b(PQ) = (bPbQ)

**Logic - Equivalences(Laws of Algebra) Logical Equivalences: (T denotes any proposition that
**

is always true, F denotes one that is always false) p^T p identity laws pvF p pvT T domination laws p^F F pvp p idempotent laws p^p p ( p) p double negation laws pvq qvp commutative laws p^q q^p

**Logic - Equivalences(Laws of Algebra)
**

Logical Equivalences: (T denotes any proposition that is always true, F denotes one that is always false)

(p v q) v r (p ^ q) ^ r (p v (q ^ r) p ^ (q v r) (p ^ q) (p v q)

p v (q v r) p ^ (q ^ r) (p v q) ^ (p v r) (p ^ q) v (p ^ r) pv q p^ q

Associative laws Distributive laws DeMorgan¶s Laws

These laws can be used to prove whether different compound propositions are logically equivalent

Useful Law # 1

p V ¬ p T

Useful Law # 2

p0¬ p F

Useful Law # 3

p

q¬ pVq

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove

¬ (p V (¬p 0 q)) ¬ p 0 ¬q,

This is easy to prove using the truth table. But now we want to prove it using the logical equivalences.

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove

¬ (p V (¬p 0 q)) ¬ p 0 ¬q,

Some guidance in proving using logical equivalences. 1. Do implication first Note: How many laws have to do with implies??? When trying to decide which laws to use in a proof, first ask yourself, are there any implications to prove. If there are then use the third useful law

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove

¬ (p V (¬p 0 q)) ¬ p 0 ¬q,

2. Do DeMorgan¶s second

Next ask yourself, are there any negations with and/or operators? If there are, then use DeMorgan¶s Law.

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove

¬ (p V (¬p 0 q)) ¬ p 0 ¬q,

3. Use Distributative Law

Next ask yourself, are there both and & or operators? If there are, then use the Distributive Law.

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove

¬ (p V (¬p 0 q)) ¬ p 0 ¬q,

4. Use Double Negation Anytime 5. Use Other Laws as they Apply

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove

¬ (p V (¬p 0 q)) ¬ p 0 ¬q,

We are trying to make both sides equivalent. Begin with the left hand side. Try to make it expressed as the right hand side by using your laws.

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove

¬ (p V (¬p 0 q)) ¬ p 0 ¬q,

**Do we have any implications? no Can we use DeMorgan¶s law? Yes
**

¬ (p V (¬p 0 q))

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove

¬ (p V (¬p 0 q)) ¬ p 0 ¬q,

**How do we use DeMorgan¶s law?
**

DeMorgan¶s Law ¬ (p V (¬p 0 q)) ¬ p 0 ¬ (¬p 0 q) ( p V q) ¬p 0 ¬q

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove

¬ (p V (¬p 0 q)) ¬ p 0 ¬q,

Now we have ¬ (p V (¬p 0 q)) ¬ p 0 ¬ (¬p 0 q)) DeMorgan¶s Law

**Do we have any implications? no Can we use DeMorgan¶s law? yes
**

¬ (¬p 0 q)

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove

¬ (p V (¬p 0 q)) ¬ p 0 ¬q,

**How do we use DeMorgan¶s law?
**

DeMorgan¶s Law ¬ (¬p 0 q)

¬( p V q)

¬p

0

¬q

¬ (¬ p)

V ¬q

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove

¬ (p V (¬p 0 q)) ¬ p 0 ¬q,

Now we have ¬ (p V (¬p 0 q)) ¬ p 0 ¬ (¬p 0 q)) DeMorgan¶s Law ¬ p 0 [¬ (¬p) V ¬q)] ) DeMorgan¶s Law

**Now we can use the double negation.
**

¬ p 0 [¬ (¬p) V ¬q)] ¬p0 ( p V ¬q)

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Now we have ¬ (p V (¬p 0 q)) ¬ p 0 ¬ (¬p 0 q)) ¬ p 0 [¬ (¬p) V ¬q)] ) ¬ p 0 (p V ¬q)

DeMorgan¶s Law DeMorgan¶s Law Double negation

**Do we have any implications? Can we use DeMorgan¶s law? Can we use the distributive law?
**

¬ p 0 (p V ¬q)

no no Yes

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

How do we use the distributive law?

Distributive Law

p 0 (q V r)

(p 0 q) V (p

0 r)

¬ p 0 (p V ¬q)

(¬p 0 p) V (¬p 0 ¬q )

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Now we have ¬ (p V (¬p 0 q)) ¬ p 0 ¬ (¬p 0 q)) ¬ p 0 [¬ (¬p) V ¬q)] ) ¬ p 0 (p V ¬q)

DeMorgan¶s Law DeMorgan¶s Law Double negation

(¬ p 0 p) V (¬ p 0 ¬q) Distributative Law

Do we have any implications? Can weuse DeMorgan¶s law? Can we use the distributive law? Can we use any of the useful laws? Yes Useful Law # 2

no no no

p0¬ p F

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

How do we use Useful Law #2?

Useful Law #2

p 0 ¬ p

F

(¬ p

0 F

p)

V (¬ p 0 ¬q) V (¬ p 0 ¬q)

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

N e ( V( e

0

))

¬

0 ( 0 )) 0 [¬ (¬p) V ¬q)] )

e e

r ¶s Law r an¶s Law le negati n

¬ p 0 (p V ¬q) (¬ p 0 p) V (¬ p 0 ¬q)

istri

tati e Law

( )

V (¬ p 0 ¬q)

we have any implicati ns? Can we use DeMorgan¶s law? Can we use the distri utive law? Can we use any of the useful laws? No

no no no

Now weneed to look at the result and determine how we might get to that answer.

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Now we have ¬ (p V (¬p 0 q))

¬ p 0 ¬ (¬p 0 q)) ¬ p 0 [¬ (¬p) V ¬q)] ) ¬ p 0 (p V ¬q) (¬ p 0 p) V (¬ p 0 ¬q)

DeMorgan¶s Law DeMorgan¶s Law Double negation Distributative Law

( )

V (¬ p 0 ¬q)

What do we have? What are we trying to get?

( ) V (¬ p 0 ¬q) ¬ p 0 ¬q

**What do we need to get this result?
**

We need the identity law. How can we get there?

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

How do we get to the identity law?

Commutative Laws p V q q V p

F V (¬ p 0 ¬q) (¬ p 0 ¬q) V F

**Now apply the identity law?
**

Identity Law p (¬ p 0 ¬q) V V F F p (¬ p 0 ¬q)

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove

¬ (p V (¬p 0 q)) ¬ p 0 ¬q, ¬ p 0 ¬ (¬p 0 q)) ¬ p 0 [¬ (¬p) V ¬q)] ) ¬ p 0 (p V ¬q)

DeMorgan¶s Law DeMorgan¶s Law Double negation

¬ (p V (¬p 0 q))

(¬ p 0 p) V (¬ p 0 ¬q) Distributive Law (F) V (¬ p 0 ¬q) (F) Commutative Law Identity Law

(¬ p 0 ¬q) V ¬ p 0 ¬q

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove (p 0 q) p ( p V q) is a Tautology.

How do we express this?

Prove (p 0 q) p ( p V q)

T

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove (p 0 q) p ( p V q) T

(p 0 q) p ( p V q) T

**Do we have any implications?
**

(p 0 q) p ( p V q) T

Yes

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

How do you use Useful Law #3?

Useful Law #3 (

p

p

q

) ¬

p

V

q

(p 0 q) p ( p V q) ¬ ( p 0 q) V ( p V q)

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove (p 0 q) p ( p V q) is a Tautology.

Now we have (p0q)p(pVq) ¬( p 0 q) V ( p V q)

Do we have any implications? Can we use DeMorgan¶s law?

no Yes

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

**How do we use DeMorgan¶s law?
**

DeMorgan¶s Law ¬ ( p 0 q) ¬ p V ¬q

¬( p 0 q) V ( p V q) ( ¬ p V ¬ q) V ( p V q)

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Now we have (p 0 q) p ( p V q) T ¬( p 0 q) V ( p V q) ( ¬ p V ¬ q) V ( p V q)

DeMorgan¶s Law

Do we have any implications? Can we use DeMorgan¶s law? Can we use the distributive law? Can we use any of the useful laws? No

no no no

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Now we have (p 0 q) p ( p V q) T ¬( p 0 q) V ( p V q) ( ¬ p V ¬ q) V ( p V q)

DeMorgan¶s Law

**What do we have? ( ¬ p V ¬ q) V ( p V q) What are we trying to get? T What do weneed to get this result?
**

We need UL #1 or Identity law or Domination Law.

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Since we have all V (ors), we will try UL#1. How can we get there? Use the Associative Law

Associative Laws

(p V q) V r p V (q V r) ¬ p V (¬ q V p) V q

( ¬ p V ¬ q) V ( p V q)

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Then Use the Commulative Law

Commulative Laws

pVq qVp

¬ p V (¬ q V p) V q

¬ p V (p V ¬ q) V q

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Then Again use the Associative Law

Associative Laws

(p V q) V r p V (q V r)

¬ p V (p V ¬ q) V q

(¬ p V p)

V

(¬ q V q)

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Then we can use Useful Law #1.

Useful Law#1

pV¬ p T

(¬ p V p) V (¬ q V q) T

V

T

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

And finally the Domination Law.

Domination Laws

pVTT

T

V

T

T

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove (p 0 q) p ( p V q) is a Tautology.

(p 0 q) p ( p V q) T ¬( p 0 q) V ( p V q) ( ¬ p V ¬ q) V ( p V q) ( ¬ p V p) V (¬ q V q) ( ¬ p V p) V (¬ q V q) ( T ) V ( T )

DeMorgan¶s Law

Associative Law Commulative Law Useful Law # 1 Domination Law

T V T

Prove ¬(p p q) (p 0 ¬q)

Show that ((pq) 0¬(¬p 0(¬q ¬r))) (¬p 0 ¬q) (¬p 0¬r) is a tautology.

Arguments

In logical reasoning , a certain number of propositions are assumed to be true and based on the assumption some other proposition is derived(deduced or inferred) premises conclusion Definition - An argument p1,p2,p3,.......,pn q is said to be valid if q is true whenever all premises p1,p2,......,pn are true. valid argument fallacy

Theorem - The argument p1,p2,p3,.......,pn

q q

is valid iff the proposition (p1p2 ........... pn) is a tautology

**Inference Rules - General Form
**

An Inference Rule is

± A pattern establishing that if we know that a set of antecedent statements of certain forms are all true, then we can validly deduce that a certain related consequent statement is true.

antecedent 1 antecedent 2 « @ consequent ³therefore´

³@´ means

**Some Inference Rules
**

p @ pq pq @p p q @ pq Rule of Addition Rule of Simplification Rule of Conjunction

**Some Inference Rules
**

p ppq @q q ppq @p (law of detachment)

³the mode of affirming´

³the mode of denying´

**Syllogism Inference Rules
**

ppq qpr @ppr Rule of hypothetical syllogism

pq p @q

Rule of disjunctive syllogism

**Formal Proof Example
**

Suppose we have the following premises: ³It is not sunny and it is cold.´ ³We will swim only if it is sunny.´ ³If we do not swim, then we will play.´ ³If we play, then we will be home early.´ Given these premises, prove the theorem ³We will be home early´ using inference rules.

**Proof Example cont.
**

Let us adopt the following abbreviations:

± p = ³It is sunny´; q = ³It is cold´; r = ³We will swim´; s = ³We will play´; t = ³We will be home early´.

Then, the premises can be written as: (1) p q (2) r p p (3) r p s (4) sp t

**Proof Example cont.
**

Step 1. p q 2. p 3. rpp 4. r 5. rps 6. s 7. spt 8. t Proved by Premise #1. Simplification of 1. Premise #2. rules 2,3. Premise #3. rules 4,5. Premise #4. rules 6,7.

Example

Consider the following argument: S1:If a man is a bachelor, he is unhappy S2:If a man is unhappy, he dies young ---------------------------------------------------S:Bachelors die young

Predicate Calculus

* Ram is a student * Shyam is a student * x is a student * µ is a student µ - Predicate e.g. ³2x + 3y = 4z´ Definition- A part of a declarative sentence describing the properties of an object or relation among objects is called a predicate.

Predicate Calculus

* Let A be a given set . A propositional function(or an open sentence or condition) defined on A is an expression p(x) which has property that p(a) is true or false for each a A. *A - domain of p(x) *Tp - all elements of A for which p(a) is true is called the truth set of p(x) *Tp= {x:x A, p(x) is true}or T p = {x:p(x)}

Predicate Calculus

e.g.- 1. x is the father of y - P(x,y) 2. 2x+3y = 4z - S(x,y,z) P(x,y) , S(x,y,z) are not propositions but if x=2 , y=0 and z =1 in S(x,y,z) or S(2,0,1) is proposition with truth value T e.g. Find the truth set of each propositional function p(x) defined on the set N of positive integers. (a) Let p(x) be ³x+2>7´ (b) Let p(x) be ³x+5<3´ (c) Let p(x) be ³x+5>1´ (a) {x:xN, x+2 >7} = {6,7,8,.......}, (c) {x:xN, x+5>1} = N (b) {x:xN, x+5<3} = J

Predicate Calculus

Definition - For a declarative sentence involving a predicate , the universe of discourse , or simply the universe, is the set of all possible values which can be assigned to variables. e.g. -1. For p(x): ³x is a student ³ the universe of discourse is the set of all human names. e.g. - E(n): ³n is an even integer´

Logic - Quantifiers

Let¶s say you have a predicate like P(x) and you want to apply a statement for all possible values of x. You can use quantifiers to do this. The notation x P(x) shows the universal quantification of P(x), with the upside-down A as the universal quantifier.

± It says, FOR ALL x P(x) or FOR EVERY x P(x)

Logic - Quantifiers

An example: Every student in JUIT has studied Maths could be expressed as:

± x (S(x) P(x)) Where P(x) denotes that x has studied Maths And S(x) denotes that x is in JUIT And the arrow denotes ³then´

Logic - Quantifiers

± Existential Quantifier of a proposition: there exists an element x in the universe of discourse such that P(x) is true ± That is, there is AN x, or at least ONE x, such that P(x) is true ± In this case, one would use the backwards E to denote this type quantifier rather than the all inclusive upside down A:

x P(x) For example, if P(x) was the statement x > 89, and your data set included test scores of 65, 72, 85, 88, and 95 what would be the existential quantification of P(x)? ± TRUE!

Example

³For all x there is a y such that x is greater than y and less than y+1´. In the universe of rational numbers, with the usual interpretation of ³+´ and ³<³, this sentence is true. In the universe of integers, this sentence is false.

Further Examples

1) Similar quantifiers are order independent

2) Different quantifiers are not

3) If P is true of an object, so is Q

4) This is the negation of the above: for some object, P is true but Q is false.

**Relations between negation, universal and existential quantifiers
**

~X p(X) = X ~p(X) ~ X p(X) = X ~ p(X) X p(X) = Y p(Y) X q(X) = Y q(Y) X (p(X) q(X)) = X p(X) Y q(Y) X (p(X) q(X)) = X p(X) Y q(Y)

**Negation of Quantified Statements
**

³All math majors are male´ ³It is not the case that all math majors are male´ or ³There exists at least one math major who is a female´ M- the set of math majors ( x M)(x is a male) | (x M)(x is not male) ( x M)p(x) | (x M) p(x) or x p(x) | x p

**De Morgans Law
**

(xA)p(x) | ( xA) p(x) ( xA) p(x) | (xA) p(x) e.g. ³For all positive integers n we have n+2 >8´ ³There exists a positive integer n such that n+2not>8´

**Negating Quantified Statements with More than One Variable
**

e.g. [(x y z, p(x,y,z)] | x [y z, p(x,y,z)] | x y [ z, p(x,y,z)] | x y z, p(x,y,z)] e.g. L is the limit of a sequence

a1 ,.............. follows I " 0, n0 N , n " n0 , a n L I

**L is not the limit of the sequence
**

a1 , a 2 ,......... ... when I " 0, n0 N , n " n 0 , a n L u I

- 11 most common job Interview Questions
- Lithium Ion Battery
- Special Theory of Relativity
- J2EE Interview Questions and Answers
- Java Questions
- Virtual Memory
- Router Commands (Introduction)
- Interrupts
- Synchronous and Asynchronous I-O
- Comparison of Windows and Linux
- MCQ's of Operating System (OS)
- Seminar Skills
- Add Two matrixes
- Templates in C++
- File Handling in C++
- Exception Handling in C++
- MCQ of C++
- HCI_Visually Pleasing Composition
- Human Computer Interface_Unit 4
- Human Computer Interface_Unit 8
- Human Computer Interface_Unit 7
- Human Computer Interface_Unit 6
- Human Computer Interface_Unit 5
- Human Computer Interface_Unit 3

Propositional Logic, Predicate Logic (Deatiled)

Propositional Logic, Predicate Logic (Deatiled)

- Logic Gates
- logic gates
- Logic Gates
- study of logic gates
- Logic Gates
- 48025049-logic-gates
- Important C Programs
- Logic Gates
- Logic Gates
- logic
- logic gates
- Logic
- 2-Lecture Notes Lesson2 6
- logic gates
- Some Important programs on Strings(in C)
- 206 C1 Lab Report
- Logic Gates Ppt
- LOGIC EXP 2
- Discussion an Conclusion Logic Lab
- Introduction to Logic Gates
- 27632305-Logic-Gates
- Digital Electronics Lab Report No. 01
- C Interview Programs to Print Number Patterns
- Report on the Logic Gates
- 100 C Programming Exercises
- Demonstration Project File
- Modeling Derivatives in C Tqw Darksiderg
- Rachev S.T. Financial Eco No Metrics (LN, Karlsruhe 2006)(146s)_FL
- Complete Newbie s Guide to Online Forex Trading
- OR

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd