SUMMARY OF RULES OF INFERENCE
Modus Ponens (M.P.)
p~q

ModusToliens (M.T.)
p~q
~q

Hypothetical Syllogism (H. S.)
p~q q~r

P
/.'.q /.'.

~p

/.'.p

~ r

Simplification (Simp.)
p.q p.q

Conjunction (Conj.)

Dilemma (Dil.)
p~q r~s

/.'. P

/.'. q

p q /.'.p. q

pvr

/.'. q v
Disjunctive Syllogism (D. S.)
pvq
~p

S

pvq
~q

P
/.'. pvq

q
/.'. pvq

/.'. q

/.'. P

SUMMARY OF REPLACEMENT RULES
Double Negation (D.N.) Duplication (Dup.) p::(pvp) p :: (p . p) Association (Assoc.) ((p v q) v r) :: (p v (q v r» ((p . q) . r) :: (p. (q . r» DeMorgan's (DeM.)
~(pvq):: (~p. ~q) ~

p::

~

~p

Commutation (Comm.)
(pvq):: (qvp) (p. q) :: (q. p)

Contraposition (Contrap.)
(p~q)::(~q~~p)

(p . q) ::

(~

pv

~

q)

Biconditional Exchange (B.E.)
(p

== q)

:: ((p

~

q). (q

~

Conditional Exchange (C.E.) (p~q):: (~pv q) Exportation (Exp.)
((p . q)
~

Distribution (Dist.)
(p. (q v r» :: ((p. q) v (p . r» (p v (q. r» :: ((p v q) . (p v r»

r) :: (p

~

(q

~

SUMMARY OF RULES OF CONDITIONAL PROOF (C.P.) AND INDIRECT PROOF (I.P.) A. Conditional Proof (C.P.)

[
p-:Jq
~p

If, given the assumption p we are able to derive q, then we are allowed to infer (p ::J q), citing all the steps from p to q inclusive.

B. Indirect Proof (I.P.)

If, given an assumption p we are able to derive a contradiction q . ~ q, then we may infer the negation of our assumption, ~ p, citing all the steps from p to q . ~ q inclusive.

C. Restrictions on the Use of C.P. and I.P.
I. 2. 3. Every assumption made in a proof must eventually be discharged. Once an assumption has been discharged, neither it nor any step that falls within its scope may be used in the proof again. Assumptions inside the scope of other assumptions must be discharged in the reverse order in which they were made; that is, no two scope markers may cross.

D. General Instructions for Using C.P. and I.P.
1. 2. For both c.P. and LP., an assumption may be introduced at any point in the proof, provided it is justified as such, that is, provided we label it as an assumption. In using C.P., we assume the antecedent of the conditional to be proved and then derive the consequent. In using LP., we assume the opposite of what we want to prove and then derive a contradiction. All the steps from the assumption to the consequent (for C.P.) or the contradiction (for I.P.) are said to be within the scope of the assumption. The sequence of steps within the scope of an assumption is called a subprooj. We indicate the scope of an assumption and set off the subproof by an arrow (pointing to the assumption) and a vertical line that runs to the left of the subproof and includes every step in the subproof. This arrow with the vertical line is called the scope marker for the assumption. We also set in or indent every step in the subproof. There is no limit to the number of assumptions we may introduce in a given proof, and we may make one assumption inside the scope of another. The scope of the assumption ends immediately prior to the step in which we infer the conditional or negation. We say that the assumption is discharged at this point. Thus neither the conditional nor the negation, the result of applying c.P. or I.P., falls within the scope of the assumption. We indicate that the assumption has been discharged by cutting off the vertical line (the scope marker) at this point.

3. 4.

5. 6.

Understanding Symbolic logic
Fifth Edition

Virginia Klenk

Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458

library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Klenk, Virginia, Understanding symbolic logic / Virginia Klenk. -- 5th ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-0-13-205152-1 ISBN-1 0: 0-13-205152-4 1. Logic, Symbolic and mathematical. I. Title. BC135.K532007 160--dc22 2007005294

Editor-in-Chief: Sarah Touborg Senior Acquisitions Editor: Mical Moser Editorial Assistant: Carla Worner Director of Marketing: Brandy Dawson Associate Marketing Manager: Sasha Anderson-Smith Senior Managing Editor: Joanne Riker Production liaison: Joanne Hakim Manufacturing Buyer: Christina Amato Cover Art Director: Jayne Conte Cover Design: Bruce Kenselaar Full-Service Project Management: John Shannon/Pine Tree Composition, Inc. Composition: Laserwords Private Limited Printer/Binder: RR Donnelley & Sons Company

Copyright © 2008, 2002, 1994, 1989, 1983 by Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 07458. Pearson Prentice Hall. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. This publication is protected by Copyright and permission should be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or likewise. For information regarding permission(s), write to: Rights and Permissions Department. Pearson Prentice Hall"" is a trademark of Pearson Education, Inc. Pearson® is a registered trademark of Pearson pic Prentice Hall® is a registered trademark of Pearson Education, Inc. Pearson Education LTD., London Pearson Education Singapore, Pte. Ltd Pearson Education, Canada, Ltd Pearson Education-Japan Pearson Education Australia PTY, Limited Pearson Education North Asia Ltd Pearson Educaci6n de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. Pearson Education Malaysia, Pte. Ltd Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey

-----PEARSON

Prentice Hall

10

9

8

7

6

5

432

ISBN 0-13-205152-4

To the memory of my mother, Helen Crooker Klenk and my sister, Nancy Klenk Hill

Contents

PREFACE PART ONE

xv
SENTENTIAL LOGIC

1

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC

1

1. 2. 3. 4.

5.
6. 7.

Why Study Logic? 2 What Logic Is All About 4 Induction and Deduction 6 Form and Validity 8 Truth and Validity 12 The Nature of Symbolic Logic 14 The Scope of Symbolic Logic 15 Definitions 17 Study Questions 17 Exercises 18
21

2

THE STRUCTURE OF SENTENTIAL LOGIC

1. 2.

Simple and Compound Sentences Sentential Operators 26

22

vii

2.viii Contents 3. 4. 3. 2. 2. Truth Tables for the Operators 34 Computing Truth Values 42 Truth-functional Operators 45 Non-truth-functionaIOperators 46 Definitions 48 Study Questions 49 Exercises 49 51 4 SYMBOLIZING ENGLISH SENTENCES 1. Simple Sentences 52 Truth-functional and Non-truth-functional Compounds Symbolizing Truth-functional English Operators 55 Symbolizing Multiply Complex Sentences 65 Exercises 69 54 5 TRUTH TABLES FOR TESTING VALIDITY 74 1. The Structure and Symbolism of Sentential Logic Definitions 30 Study Questions 31 Exercises 31 28 3 COMPUTING TRUTH VALUES 33 1. 4. 3. 4. Constructing Base Columns for Truth Tables The Truth Table Test for Validity 79 Shortcut Validity Tests 84 Mechanical Decision Procedures 89 Definitions 91 Study Questions 91 Exercises 92 75 . 3.

Logical Implication. 2. 4. 5. and Logical Equivalence 103 Consistency 104 Four Kinds of Truth Table Problems and the Relations Between Them 106 Definitions 107 Study Questions 108 Exercises 108 7 THE PROOF METHOD: EIGHT BASIC INFERENCE RULES 113 1. 6. 3. 4. 5. Form and Substitution Instance 115 The Proof Process 118 Eight Basic Inference Rules 120 Derivations and Proofs 128 Constructing Simple Proofs 130 Constructing More Complex Proofs 135 Summary of Rules of Inference 138 Definitions 138 Exercises 139 147 8 REPLACEMENT RULES 1. 3. and Contingencies 96 Logical Implication and Logical Equivalence 100 Rules of Inference. 4. 2. The Structure of Replacement Rules 148 The Ten Replacement Rules 149 Constructing Simple Proofs with Replacement Rules Strategies for More Complex Proofs 162 Summary of Replacement Rules 167 Exercises 168 158 . 2. Contradictions. Tautologies. 3.Contents ix 6 FURTHER APPLICATIONS OF THE TRUTH TABLE METHOD 95 1.

Discharging Assumptions. The Four Categorical Propositions 226 Individuals.P. Invalidity 191 7. 2. Restrictions on C. U ni versal and Existential Quantifiers 213 Free and Bound Variables. 2. 4. and I. 3. 185 5. Truth and Proof 192 Summary of Rules of Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof 193 Definitions 195 Exercises 195 184 PART TWO MONADIC PREDICATE lOGIC 10 SINGULAR SENTENCES 201 1. Singular Sentences and Propositional Functions Symbolizing Singular Sentences 206 Definitions 209 Exercises 209 212 203 11 QUANTIFIERS 1.P.P. Proofs of Theorems 189 6. Conditional Proof 176 2. Indirect Proof 180 3.P. and Properties 229 . Scope of a Quantifier 217 Negated Quantifiers 218 Definitions 222 Exercises 222 225 12 CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS 1. and I. Sets. Using c. 2.x Contents 9 CONDITIONAL PROOF AND INDIRECT PROOF 175 1.

2.) 277 The Rules of Existential Instantiation (E. 5. 6.). 4.I. Preliminary Statement of the Four Quantifier Rules 274 Instances of Quantified Formulas 276 The Rules of Universal Instantiation (U. 4. Complex Subjects and Predicates Equivalent Symbolizations 254 Exercises 258 250 14 QUANTIFIER FORM AND TRUTH-FUNCTIONAL COMPOUNDS OF QUANTIFIER STATEMENTS 263 1.Q. Quantifier Form 264 Truth-functional Compounds and Quantifier Symbolizing Truth-functional Compounds 267 Definitions 268 Exercises 269 273 Form 265 15 PROOFS IN PREDICATE LOGIC 1.G. Venn Diagrams 230 Symbolizing Categorical Propositions 233 Negated Categorical Propositions 236 Deriving C.I.N. Flagging Restrictions 278 Constructing Proofs for "Pure" Quantifier Arguments 285 Constructing Proofs for Arguments Containing Truth-functional Compounds 290 .Contents xi 3. 3.N. 2. 5. Rules 238 Symbolizing English Categorical Sentences 238 Summary of Categorical Propositions 244 Definitions 245 Exercises 245 249 13 COMPLEX SUBJECTS AND PREDICATES 1.) and Universal Generalization (U. 3. 6. Rules from Q.) and Existential Generalization (E.G. 7. 2.

2. Constructing Proofs of Quantifier Theorems 292 Statement of the Quantifier Rules. 3. 3. Relational Predicates and Singular Sentences 314 Multiple Quantifiers 317 Quantifier Negation 324 Categorical Relational Statements. 5. with All Necessary Restrictions 294 Exercises 295 299 16 INVALIDITY IN QUANTIFIER LOGIC 1. Identity Statements and Their Negations 356 Exceptives and "Only" Statements 357 .XII Contents 7. The Natural Interpretation Method 300 Truth Conditions for Quantifier Statements The Model Universe Method 304 Definitions 311 Exercises 311 303 PART THREE RELATIONAL PREDICATE LOGIC 17 SYMBOLIZATION IN RELATIONAL PREDICATE LOGIC 313 1. 2. Complex Subjects and Predicates 327 Symbolizing English Sentences 331 Exercises 335 18 PROOFS AND INVALIDITY FOR RELATIONAL PREDICATE LOGIC 341 1. Proofs in Relational Predicate Logic 342 Invalidity in Relational Predicate Logic 349 Exercises 353 355 19 IDENTITY AND DEFINITE DESCRIPTIONS 1. 2. 4. 2.

5. 2.Contents xiii 3. Superlatives 360 Numerical Statements 361 Definite Descriptions 364 Exercises 366 20 PROOFS INVOLVING IDENTITY 371 1. 4. Rules for Identity 371 Proofs Containing Identity Statements Summary of Identity Rules 379 Exercises 380 375 PART FOUR EXTRA CREDIT UNITS 21 WELL-FORMED FORMULAS FOR SENTENTIAL LOGIC 383 Exercises 385 387 22 PROOF TREES FOR SENTENTIAL LOGIC Exercises 392 393 23 USING VENN DIAGRAMS TO PROVE VALIDITY Exercises 397 398 24 PROOF TREES FOR PREDICATE LOGIC Exercises 408 ANSWER TO STARRED EXERCISES 409 INDEX 459 .

.

so that. 8. In Units 10 and 11. 13. I have clarified the process of testing specific statements (as opposed to forms) to determine their logical status. the next uses just the horseshoe and conjunction rules.Preface This new edition of Understanding Symbolic Logic has given me the opportunity to make some changes that I hope will clarify various topics. and generally make for a better book. This should make it easier for students to thoroughly master the rules in small batches. and I have added a section on necessary and sufficient conditions in the discussion of the conditional. In Units 7 and 8.4. 12. I have also added a section relating the concepts of logical implication and logical equivalence to the rules of inference discussed in Units 7 and 8. I have also xv . for instance. I have rearranged some of the early exercise sets on proof construction. and so on. 7. In Unit 4. 9. I have added material clarifying the nature of propositional functions and emphasizing their difference from other expressions such as singular sentences. adding a section on the distinction between arguments and assertions and augmenting the section on the difference between deductive and inductive arguments. I have expanded the material on truth-functional and non-truth-functional compounds. I have added and updated numerous examples and have provided additional exercises for Units 1. 14. I have expanded the discussion of arguments. one set needs only the rules for the horseshoe. in Unit 1. and 19. lead to a greater understanding of the material. More specifically. 10. rather than having to cope with the entire set all at once. In Unit 6.

The book was written in the conviction that any student can master symbolic logic. Because of the step-by-step approach and the numerous examples and exercises. in a semester course. The book is intended as a comprehensive introduction to symbolic logic. and it is designed to give the student as much help as possible in attaining that mastery. a great many detailed. I have tried to give as detailed explanations as possible. the book can also be used in self-paced classes. and 18. such as drawing up truth tables or constructing proofs. and in this book I have tried to supply the "whys" as well as the "hows. Aside from the detailed explanations. independently of relational predicate logic. however. and identity is presented in two separate units. each of which has an introduction and a statement of study objectives so that the student has an overview of what is to come and knows exactly what is required in order to master the unit. One-variable predicate logic is developed. It presupposes no prior acquaintance with either logic or mathematics. and for the rationale behind these techniques. the extensive coverage. Problems for which answers are given are indicated by stars. supply the "hows" in abundance. 17. The main part of the book is divided into twenty units. each of which has a specific function and covers one relatively small. Because of the detailed explanations. in detail. semester. as is the semantics for sentential logic. It can be used in either freshman courses or upper-division courses and is suitable for quarter. the book is extremely flexible. . In addition. and in a twoquarter course one might cover the entire book. both for specific techniques. and it includes all the standard topics through relational predicate logic with identity. The clear separation of topics and the division into easily comprehended small "bites" allow the student to master the material step by step without being overwhelmed by an indigestible mass of information. The semantics of predicate logic is also developed in a separate unit. and over fifty fully worked out proofs. step-by-step symbolizations. and the clear division of topics. In numerous units I have added material emphasizing the difference between forms and substitution instances. there are numerous examples worked out in the text: various types of truth tables. clearly defined topic. or even two-quarter courses. which provide a glimpse into alternative methods of logic and more advanced topics. with answers to fully half of these provided at the back of the book. It seems to me as important for a student to understand why things are done in a certain way as to learn the techniques themselves." The book does.xvi Preface added material on bound variables. Units 1 through 15. In addition to the basic material. In one quarter. one might cover just Units 1 through 14. including the supplementary units. The explanatory material for each unit is divided into several subsections. there are several "extra credit" units. for instance. there are copious exercises.

In addition to these general contributions. and my sister. VIRGINIA KLENK . who was my mentor and friend. Special thanks are due to the diligent students in Richard Shedenhelm's Symbolic Logic class at the University of Georgia during Fall 2005 and Summer 2006. Belnap. I would also like to thank the following individuals for their many valuable comments and suggestions in reviewing the manuscript for this fifth edition: Marya Bower. from whom I absorbed most of what I know about logic and much of my interest in pedagogy. North Harris Montgomery Country Community College. who always encouraged my interest in formal studies. this book is dedicated to the memory of my mother. Jr. and Nick Oweyssi.Preface XVII It is a great pleasure to acknowledge at this point my considerable debt to Nuel D. Earlham College. which I now have the opportunity to correct. California State University-Pomona. Burke Townshend. Without him the book would not have been written. the rule system for predicate logic is a slightly modified version of one of his systems. Helen Crooker Klenk. Peter Ross.. and without his astute commentary it would not have been as useful as I hope it will be. they identified numerous misprints in the previous edition. Finally. Nancy Klenk Hill. University of Montana.

.

You may even wonder what the point is of being "logical". we may all be annihilated. and even less idea of what is involved in symbolic logic. What. that a young patient has a high fever. rather than geese. and in the process you will be developing your reasoning ability. however. INTRODUCTION If you have never had a course in logic before. for instance. then. and it is very important that we understand how to do this correctly. By the end of the course. A doctor may observe. and why should you be concerned with developing it? The ability to reason. and generally looks miserable. and this reasoning ability is extremely important in our daily lives because it is the source of most of our knowledge. but can also be fun. for instance. that spots on the radar are enemy missiles. I think you will find that many of the procedures you learn here are intrinsically interesting. Most of our knowledge is inferential. it sometimes appears to be a rather cold. it is a way of expanding our knowledge.) 1 . however. Inferring is a process of going from what we do know (the premises) to what we previously didn't know (the conclusion). is reasoning ability. is simply the ability to draw appropriate conclusions from given evidence. you may think of them as puzzles or games. or infer. and on the basis of this inference will perhaps prescribe antibiotics in time to ward off more serious consequences. spots on his throat. is that the patient has a strep infection. dispassionate approach to life and doesn't really sound terribly appealing. it is gained not through direct observation. you probably have little idea of what it is all about.Part 1 Sentential logic UNIT 1 Introduction to logic A. What he or she may infer. that is. but by inferring one thing from another. I hope you will have discovered that the study of logic is not only extremely useful. (If the Pentagon incorrectly infers.

Every time you draw a conclusion on the basis of certain evidence. Suppose you can get into law school only if you do well on the LSATs and your G. for instance. provided your joint income does not exceed \$50. Logic is a matter of what follows from what. a preliminary definition of a valid deductive argument. intuition and perception are appropriate in certain sorts of situations. the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning. and the instructions read as follows: "You may take an education credit if you claim your child as a dependent and he or she is at least a half-time student. C.A. reasoning. Let us look at a few examples.5. intuitive.5. In this introductory unit you will learn what reasoning is.2 Unit 1 Introduction to Logic Logic is primarily about inferring. but a course in logic will lower your grade point average to below 3. Why Study logic? To take first things first. is at least 3. suppose your parents are making out their income tax returns. there need be no conflict between intuition and logic. to be spontaneous. UNIT 1 OBJECTIVES • Be able to answer all the study questions at the end of the unit. in the first place. that is. the better you are at reasoning correctly-the more likely you are to come up with the right decision in practical situations. to take a more complicated example. or try to figure out the consequences of a certain course of action. you may only claim your child as a dependent if he or she is either under 19 years of age or . and the crucial role of the concept ofform in the study oflogic. in figuring out the instructions on your income tax return. why should you be taking a course in symbolic logic? What (aside from fulfilling a requirement) can you expect to get out of it? Will it really teach you to think logically. perhaps. • Learn the definitions at the end of the unit. perceptive? Well. continually. However. in particular. it is the study of what constitutes correct reasoning.000 per year. for instance. about reasoning. What you may not realize is that you are using logic. B. and logic is necessary in other situations. Can you get into law school? Or. and the better you are at figuring this out-that is. in creating or appreciating a work of art.P. UNIT 1 TOPICS 1. You will do well on the LSATs only if you have a course in logic. infer one thing from another. and is there any advantage in that? Isn't it better. you are using logic. The last two sections contain a discussion of the role of symbols in logic and a general overview of the discipline of symbolic logic.

Is the defense attorney right in asserting that the defendant could not have committed the crime? It is in situations like this that logic is indispensable. but at least you should have a good understanding of why they are accepted by so many logicians. You may.Unit 1 Introduction to Logic 3 is both under age 25 and a full-time student. For instance. Furthermore. you will learn to recognize and use certain very common forms of correct logical inference. you should be able to avoid them." Now. if all conservatives oppose gun control. and what you learn in logic should help you with this sort of complex reasoning. you can correctly infer that John is not a conservative. you may have to consider a number of options. In the second place. You will be learning not just how to reason correctly. In addition to the practical advantages of learning to reason more effectively. This erroneous inference involves a very common fallacy. and once you become aware of such logical mistakes. logic should increase your ability to construct extended chains of reasoning and to deal with more complex problems. the better the decisions you will be able to make. But will taking a course in logic really improve your reasoning ability? It should. where success depends in large part on the ability to think ahead. but also why certain forms of inference are correct and others incorrect. just that they all do. who also oppose gun control. however. the premises don't say that conservatives are the only people who oppose gun control. you will certainly want to be asking why things are done in a certain way. to plan moves several steps in advance. But he never touches drugs and he did not have a gun. the better our decisions will be. and you will come to recognize and avoid certain common logical errors. there is also a theoretical side to the study of logic. . A good example of this occurs in chess. consequences of each of those options. Can you infer that he is a conservative? Many people would. The more clearheaded you can be about these inferences. In the first place. from all parts of the political spectrum. and your parents' joint income is \$45.000 a year. are enrolled for three-quarters of full-time credits. we need to reason our way through to a decision. and the better we are at reasoning. can they take the education credit? Or suppose you are on a jury and the following evidence has been presented: the defendant could not have committed the murder unless he had the cash to hire someone or was in possession of both a car and a gun. in at least two important respects. but this would be a mistake. It would hardly be appropriate in a course designed to help you learn to think things through to tell you to take it all on authority. if you really learn to think logically. he would not have committed the crime unless he was either drunk or on drugs. Such situations occur as well in real life. if you are 21 years old. not accept all the presuppositions of modern symbolic logic (logic is not as cut and dried as you may think). in the end. and John is infavor of gun control. and consequences of the consequences. Suppose David opposes gun control. It is quite possible that there are many others.

Jane works at Casey's Diner. ASSERTIONS ARGUMENTS Jane makes less than \$10 an hour. lIt should be noted that for stylistic reasons. An argument must contain not only the statement being made. The term that we will use for this verbal expression of reasoning is argument. As noted earlier. Rather. reasons are given to support the claim that John will fail the logic exam. since these are not directly observable by anyone else. Often. "John will fail the logic exam and disappoint his parents. since the temperature is dropping and heavy clouds are moving in." "so. the premises of an argument are the sentences or clauses containing the evidence. Exercise 1 at the end of the unit will give you practice in identifying arguments and picking out their premises and conclusion. in fact. while the conclusion is the claim that is supposed to follow from the premises. and we have. The following is an argument: "Because John watched TV all night instead of studying. the intended conclusion is not the last clause." Here. (Note also that not all the arguments are good arguments. or expressing an opinion or belief. who work so hard to put him through school. Note that in many cases. An argument." A few examples of assertions and arguments follow. which contain the evidence. but also the reasons. since this is the only thing that is publicly ascertainable. for purposes of logic." However. the conclusion of an argument will be preceded by a word such as "therefore.) In general. such arguments can always be rephrased using separate sentences for the premises and conclusion." Premises are often preceded by words such as "because" or "since." or "thus. but rather a set of sentences consisting of one or more premises. is not an argument. since it is impossible to pass logic exams without studying. no way of really knowing what goes on there. we must say that logic is concerned with the verbal expression of reasoning. but we need to be somewhat more precise than this. 1 It is very important to distinguish between arguments and mere assertions. inferring one thing from another. . is just a statement. which is supposed to follow from the premises. with premises and conclusion contained as independent clauses rather than being separated into individual sentences. An example might be "It is going to snow. and they don't pay anyone as much as \$10 an hour. What logic Is All About You have just learned that logic is about reasoning. so Jane makes less than \$10 an hour. you will have to analyze arguments to determine what are premises and what is the intended conclusion. it would not do to say that logic is about the reasoning processes that go on in your head. which is not enough to pay both her rent and her tuition. the evidence for the assertion. arguments may be phrased as compound sentences. though not always. he will fail the logic exam. is not a quarrel or disagreement. the conclusions of the arguments are in italics. and a conclusion. For one thing. Simply making a statement." for instance. the claim must be backed up.4 Unit 1 Introduction to Logic 2.

on whether the premises do in fact support. for an argument to be good or bad. John did not study hard for this exam. 17. its job is to evaluate arguments. 35.'. 17. " is often used to stand for "therefore. In logic it is customary to write an argument with premises above a line and conclusion below.35. My lucky numbers are 3. and 43.'. 27. An argument can. correct or incorrect. on the basis of whether this evidential claim is correct. the conclusion. a claim is being made that there is some sort of evidential relationship between premises and conclusion: the conclusion is supposed to follow from the premises. and you will not fully understand for several more units.27. and the principles of logic apply equally well to any expression of reasoning. We will evaluate an argument. but for obvious reasons we will here be concerned primarily with written arguments. be spoken as well as written." The following is an example of the sort of argument we will be concerned with in this book: John will not get an A on this exam unless he studied hard for it. My new car won't need many repairs. since it's a Subaru and all the consumer magazines say Subarus are very reliable. since I bought a ticket with those numbers. and 43. John will not get an A on this exam. then. Just write them down? Count the number of words? Admire the calligraphy or typesetting? Try them out on our friends? Do experiments to determine which arguments people think are good or which they use most frequently? Try to figure out the psychological reasons why people argue as they do? None of this is the province of logic. It is extremely important to realize that the correctness of an argument depends on the connection between premises and conclusion and not on whether the . equivalently. This indicates that the correctness of an argument is a matter of the connection between premises and conclusion and concerns the strength of the relation between them. The only thing logic is concerned with is whether arguments are good or bad.Unit 1 Introduction to Logic 5 My new car won't need any repairs for at least two years. and this is primarily what you will be learning in this course. correct or incorrect? What are the grounds on which we evaluate arguments? The answer is somewhat complex. This is still not enough for a definition of logic. but we may begin by noting that in an argument. so I'm going to win the lottery. or. for it does not tell us what we are supposed to do with arguments. / . the premises are supposed to imply the conclusion. What does it mean. then. however. or provide evidence for. of course. Logic is a normative enterprise. and the sign "I . My fortune cookie said my lucky numbers are 3.

but only makes it probable to some degree. however. we may correctly infer that the next airplane we take will almost certainly arrive safely. in which the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Induction and Deduction The distinction between a deductive and an inductive argument lies in the intended strength of the connection between premises and conclusion. the conclusion will be true as well. It is generally the task of other disciplines to assess the truth or falsity of particular statements-biology. there is always some "slippage" or "logical gap" between the premises and the conclusion. whereas in an inductive argument the premises are only supposed to provide some degree of support for the conclusion. even though the premises are all true. for instance. this distinction is not very precise. it would be absolutely impossible to have all the premises true with the conclusion false. Before we go into more detail about deductive validity. one might say. (This is. This does not make inductive arguments bad arguments. Since we cannot always be sure what the intention is. why some people refuse to fly. of course. 3. Another way to put this is to say that in any situation in which the premises are all true. But it is important to note that in these arguments we cannot be absolutely sure of the conclusion even though we know the premises to be true. It is always possible for the conclusion to turn out false. In inductive logic. Such arguments are called inductive and will be discussed in the next section. The conclusion of an inductive argument is thus often indicated by the term "probably. but for our limited purposes it will be enough to say that in a deductive argument the premises are intended to provide total support for the conclusion. we must mention briefly a kind of argument in which the evidential relationship is not this strong.) In an inductive argument. we may conclude that he will probably get an A on this exam.99% of commercial airline flights are completed without incident. Or from the fact that 99. that is. In a valid deductive argument. is concerned with the truth of statements about living organisms-whereas logic explores only the relationship between premises and conclusion. This connection may be extremely strong even though the premises and conclusion are all false. This is the nature of induction as opposed to deduction. or a bird may fly into an engine. we are perfectly justified (at . we have the strongest conceivable kind of logical relationship: true premises. if we have as premises that John gets A's on 95% of the exams for which he studies and that he did study for this exam." or some such word.6 Unit 1 Introduction to Logic premises are true or not. however. the truth of the premises absolutely guarantees the truth of the conclusion. In other words. force the conclusion to be true. There may be an unexpected question on the exam that trips John up. and it may be very weak even though the premises and conclusion are all true. for instance.

either the premises do provide absolute support for the conclusion. would be more appropriately discussed in the philosophy of science. we can be absolutely sure that the conclusion will be true. If we know. for instance. we may be 99% sure of the conclusion. that some philosophers. The strength of inductive arguments ranges over an infinitely variable scale. there is no doubt that a deductive argument. It won't snow in Alabama tomorrow. I don't see any rats in the dining room. since it's August. the premises supply differing degrees of support for the conclusion. as in predicting the safe landing of an airplane. while extremely interesting. Here there is no possible gap between premises and conclusion. are inductive rather than deductive. in which case it is invalid. the argument is logically tight (unfortunately for John). deductive argument. however. that our plane will land safely. It should be noted that in deductive logic we have an either/or situation. The use of induction in science and ordinary life seems to be essential. for instance. as in the case of our next airplane trip. in particular Sir Karl Popper. as in predicting a lottery win when the odds are 50. so if! buy some now.Unit 1 Introduction to Logic 7 least according to most philosophers) in using inductive arguments for practical purposes and in concluding. whenever the premises are all true. in which case the argument is valid. even though we cannot really be 100% sure. 2 Nevertheless. Most of the arguments we use in everyday life. and we know that he did not score well on the exam. It won't snow in Minnesota tomorrow. For 2It should be noted. in fact. and we would be unnecessarily restricting our inferential powers if we refused to use them. on the other hand. or valid. In the following examples. so if I eat here. In inductive logic. This is because in a correct.000 to 1. This TV costs more than that one. so if! eat here I probably won't get food poisoning. or the premises may provide considerably less support for the conclusion. then we can be sure that he will not get into law school. since it's August. the "goodness" of an argument is a matter of degree. is the argument of choice. I probably won't get food poisoning. The price of gold has been rising for two months. I'll probably make a good profit. when available. from close to 100% probable. This restaurant always earns the highest ratings for cleanliness.000. that John cannot get into law school unless he scores well on the LSAT exam. This controversy. have argued that there is no such thing as induction and that all knowledge is based on deductive reasoning. . to nearly impossible. so it will probably last longer. Given the premises. or they do not.

we probably want pretty good evidence that it won't fall apart in a year. no such thing as a good inductive argument. or valid. is one in which it is possible for the premises all to be true but the conclusion false. once again. . 4. we want the premises to provide a very high degree of support for the conclusion-the closer to 100%. is one in which the truth of the premises absolutely guarantees the truth of the conclusion. the better. necessarily. of course. we may be willing to rely on a weather report with just a 60% chance of being accurate. Do we have to be 99. many people think that odds of 50. however. if the premises are all true. there is really no point at which we can say that an inductive argument is acceptable. at which we can put our confidence in the conclusion. Another way of putting this is to say that. And.000 to 1 are acceptable if what's at risk is only a dollar. or invalid. An invalid argument. in particular. for instance. and if we take particular examples of arguments. there are only two sorts of arguments: good. and we will confine our interests to the relatively4 undisputed areas of deductive logic. there are still some disputes." Alternatives to the standard approach might be studied in a second course in logic. Not all logicians accept all the results of the "standard" logic we will be discussing in this book.99% sure? 90% sure? 70% sure? Or is better than 50-50 good enough? It depends on the situation. Inductive logic is not clear cut. If we're planning a picnic. there are many questions about the interpretation of "if-then. This kind of controversy need not concern us. 3Inductive logic needs to be sharply distinguished from probability theory. and the second is invalid. If it's a matter of spending tens of thousands of dollars for a car. partly because it is so clear cut.000. Form and Validity In deductive logic. In this book we will be concerned exclusively with deductive logic.8 Unit 1 Introduction to Logic practical purposes. 3 Some philosophers even claim that there is no such thing as correct induction. by contrast. and. If our life depends on it. even among those who do believe in it. A valid deductive argument. which is a deductive. is valid. then the conclusion will be true as well. mathematical system about which there is no disagreement. and from applied statistics. there are no sharp boundaries between good and bad arguments. there is widespread disagreement on how it should be formulated. on which there is at least practical agreement. 4Although there is less disagreement about deductive logic than there is about inductive logic. and partly because there is at present no generally accepted system of inductive logic. however. partly because it is easier and thus better suited to an introductory course in logic. these definitions may seem somewhat puzzling. The first argument below. But this is all rather abstract. and bad. in which there is no possible way the premises could all be true but the conclusion false.

the pattern. that it is the form of an argument that determines its logical validity. Here it is impossible for the premise to be true and the conclusion false because being a bachelor means being unmarried. / . in the second example.. that there could be no possible way for premises to be true and conclusion false? How could we ever prove such a thing? The answer to all these questions lies in the concept ofform. All green things are plastic. just as two houses built from the same blueprint may look very different when finished and furnished. when in fact the conclusion is true? And what could it mean. a form that admits no instances of that sort. To say that an argument could not possibly have true premises with a false conclusion is simply to say that it has a certain kind of form. 5It should be noted that there are some arguments whose validity depends on the meaning of certain key words. All horses are green. and how does this concept help us determine questions about validity? It might help to think of logical form as something like a blueprint for arguments.. how can we ever be sure. on the other hand. then Gore was vice-president in 1999. An example would be: John is a bachelor. Consider the two arguments below. . then the conclusion would be true as well..Unit 1 Introduction to Logic 9 1. 5 What.. It cannot be emphasized enough. it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. It is only logical validity that we will be discussing in this book. Now. If Clinton was president. validity that depends on meanings. We might call this definitional validity. or blueprint.. but they clearly have something in common. then. which means (for a man) having no wife. then. so two arguments with the same form may refer to totally different things and have totally different meanings. is to say that the argument has aform for which there are (other) possible instances that do have true premises with a false conclusion. John has no wife. Clinton was president in 1999. Gore was vice-president in 1999. is logical form. To say that it could have true premises with a false conclusion. And. lacks the specifics of meaning. 2. Just as a blueprint for a house lacks specifics such as the color or texture of the walls. so the logical blueprint of an argument. the outline of the bare structure. for example. / . Their subject matter is completely different. as opposed to what we will call logical validity. and symbolic logic turns out to be primarily the study of the abstract forms and structures used in argumentation. of argumentation.. when in fact both premises and conclusion are false? Furthermore. to say that ifboth the premises were true. which depends on the form of an argument. in a valid argument. the form. or structure. All horses are plastic. / . namely. what can it mean to say that. in the first example.

Either the cat has eaten the mouse or the mouse is in the trap. The pattern of both arguments is "Either p or q. The following. the idea is the same: the form of a sentence is the way in which certain specified logical words are combined with the other elements of the sentence. In sentential logic. therefore p. such as subjects and predicates. therefore p. Either it snows or we won't go skiing. not q. such as "The cat has eaten the mouse" and "John is at home. Either Andrew starts studying or he won't graduate. such as "and. Either my car starts or I won't get to class on time. which you will be studying in Units 2 through 9. Some reptiles are poisonous. represent complete sentences. John is at the movies." where p and q.'.10 Unit 1 Introduction to Logic 3. not q. / . again. presidents have been male." The type of logic being used here is sentential logic. although the form here contains the predicate logic words "all" and "some. is somewhat more complex than in sentential logic. Each of the specific sentences is considered an instance of the sentence form. and simple sentences are analyzed into their component parts.'.'.S." "or. It should be clear that the following two arguments in predicate logic have the same form. . / ." where the lowercase letters p and q stand for simple sentences. 5. Either you finish your homework or you can't go out.S. any number of different sentences can have the same form. which you will be studying in Units 10-20. The cat has eaten the mouse. Some snakes are poisonous." Note that the tense is irrelevant. Similarly. / . Some males are generals. All U. Either John is at the movies or John is at home. Either Henry campaigns or he won't get elected. The logical structure is a matter of how these simple sentences are combined with certain logical words. The mouse is not in the trap." Clearly. all have the form "either p or not q. there are a few more logical words. John is not at home. All snakes are reptiles. complete simple sentences such as "John is at home" are taken as unbroken units and are not further analyzed into their component parts." into compound sentences such as "Either John is not at home or the doorbell is broken and the phone is out of order." The analysis of form in predicate logic. presidents have been generals. Some U. 6. for instance." and "not. 4. / . the specific arguments 3 and 4 are both instances of the argument form "Either p or q.'. However.

7. and C represent class terms." where p and q stand for the simple sentences. and C. Coal is black. or structure. we must be very clear about the distinction between aform and its instances. The author of this book is a monkey. / . which abstracts from all specific subject matter. Having made the distinction between form and instance. Some B's are C's. again. from predicate logic. common nouns that serve as subjects and predicates of the sentences. whereas in predicate logic instances are obtained by substituting class terms for the capital letters A. 8. or has. B. argument 8 actually does have all the premises true but the conclusion false. is also invalid. / . We can see that it is invalid by extracting its form and then finding class terms for A. will be called a counterexample to that form. is the general pattern.Unit 1 Introduction to Logic 11 Here the common form is "All A's are B's. therefore p. If the author of this book is a monkey. a valid form. '. whereas the instances are the particular meaningful examples that exhibit that form. an instance is obtained from a form by substituting meaningful sentences (consistently) for the p's and q's. both arguments have the same form. The common . In order to see how form determines validity. "If p then q. Consider the following two arguments from sentential logic. Again. just in case there is an instance of that form with all true premises and a false conclusion. we can now be a little more precise in our definition of validity." But in this case we can see that there is an invalidating instance of the form. The author of this book is a mammal.'. which have the same form as argument 2. Given these definitions. and any form that has a counterexample will be invalid. An argument form will be valid if and only if there are no instances of that form in which all the premises are true and the conclusion is false. An argument (particular instance) will be said to be valid if and only if it is an instance of. therefore. some A's are C's. We will need to distinguish between the validity of an argument (instance) and the validity of a form. as in argument 10. an instance with all true premises but a false conclusion. In sentential logic. in this case. '. A form will be invalid. B. and C that give us true premises with a false conclusion. / . Theform. Argument 9 below. such as "Snow is white. then snow is white. B.) Such an invalidating instance of a form. we are now in a position to explain how it is possible to demonstrate that an argument form is invalid. If coal is black. Snow is white. then the author of this book is a mammal. (You will have to take the author's word for this." where A. and the former definition will depend on the latter. q.

S.) All other combinations are possible. / . so some A's are C's. have more or fewer than two premises. a particular argument will be valid if and only if its form is valid. An argument form will be valid. / . Some U. Truth and Validity The single most important moral of the above story is that the validity of a particular argument (the instance) depends on its form. as noted.'. / . Some fur-bearing mammals are black.'. argument 9 initially looks quite plausible. again. are given below. its content. We will not be able to show that argument forms are valid until we have the means of systematically examining all possible instances. presidents have been on the moon. (F) (F) (T) . and so the argument. be a counterexample and thus would make the argument form. (Arguments may. presidents have been males. the truth or falsity of the specific premises and conclusion is also irrelevant to the validity of an argument. All cats are immortal. Furthermore. that is. Note also that it is not obvious at first glance whether an argument is valid or invalid. 10. All cats are green. Some cats are black. no instance with true premises and a false conclusion. All cats are fur-bearing mammals.) VALID ARGUMENTS 1. by definition.'. All cats are reptiles. invalid. (This would. and weighty-sounding arguments may be invalid. Some males have been on the moon. All green things are immortal. All reptiles have fur. Silly-sounding arguments may be valid. Since form has nothing to do with subject matter.) 9. S. and a more detailed explanation of validity will have to be deferred until we reach that unit. some B's are C's. All cats have fur. if and only if it has no counterexample. of course.S." (The similarity of this form to the valid predicate form of examples 5 and 6 shows how careful we must be in using logic.12 Unit 1 Introduction to Logic (invalid) form is "All A's are B's. you will learn how to do this in Unit 5. it follows that what an argument says. A seemingly minor change in form can mean the difference between validity and invalidity. All U. (F) (F) (F) 2. Some examples of valid and invalid arguments.'. is irrelevant to its validity. with various combinations. Note that some are from sentential logic and some are from predicate logic. the ones below all have two for the sake of uniform comparison. with one exception: a valid argument may never have true premises and a false conclusion. / .

(T) (T) (F) (F) (T) (T) (F) (T) / . Oregon is not on the West Coast. Some Democrats are not Republicans. Some Democrats are not wealthy.'. some valid arguments do have true premises. but in fact we very often want to see what follows-what can be deduced from-false premises. / . A scientist may try to figure out. as when we are testing some unknown chemical compound or a new engineering design.'. Either dogs bark or cats bark. If dogs don't bark. are said to be sound.'. No wealthy people have visited Mars. with true premises (and therefore also with true conclusions). Either Texas or Oregon is on the West Coast. A sound argument is "one up" on a valid argument. and this is obviously essential in all kinds of situations. then cats meow. Cats bark. (T) (F) (F) 4. If that tree with acorns is a maple. an aeronautical engineer had to actually build an example of each new design he or she thought up and test it out! Of course. instead of sitting down at a computer and simply deducing the flight characteristics of certain designs. / . More optimistically. That tree with acorns is a maple. (T) (T) (T) 6. and a special term is used for these cases.'. then it's deciduous. The use of logic allows us to figure out ahead of time what would happen if certain hypotheses or premises were true. logicians are not concerned with the truth of the premises of particular arguments.Unit 1 Introduction to Logic 13 3. / . / . 8. an economist may try to deduce the economic consequences of a breakthrough in solar energy technology. / . again. although unfortunately none has yet occurred. No Democrats are wealthy people. their job is to determine validity. although we certainly hope that won't happen. Think how expensive it would be if. In general. Dogs bark. Sometimes we simply do not know whether the premises are true or not. (T) It may seem a bit strange to talk about valid arguments with false premises and false conclusions. Some Republicans are wealthy. but of the connection . Cats do not meow. Dogs bark. however. This. No Democrats have visited Mars. for instance. since in addition to being valid it also has true premises and a true conclusion.'. what would happen if there were a meltdown in a nuclear reactor. is not a matter of the truth or falsity of premises and conclusion. Texas is on the West Coast. 7. (T) (F) (T) INVALID ARGUMENTS 5. Such arguments. That tree with acorns is deciduous.'.

C. In fact." In fact. do symbolic work without difficulty. rather than serve as just an intellectual fetter. especially those who have had trouble with mathematics. but symbolic logic is largely an invention of the twentieth century. since the development of symbolic logic there has been an explosion of knowledge in this area and fascinating developments that would not have been possible without it. the material in this book presupposes no previous acquaintance with symbol systems. such as "Jane is blond. and they allow us to see at a glance the overall structure of a sentence. such as "and. students frequently find that a course in symbolic logic actually helps them with mathematics. By using symbols. so no student is at a disadvantage. They may be convinced that they are "just no good with symbols" or that they simply can't understand formal material." "not. after all. can be a highly creative enterprise and (as you will see when you come to proofs) can require the exercise of considerable ingenuity. they provide an economical shorthand. Furthermore. falsity. whether we recognize it or not. Logic is concerned solely with whether the conclusionfollowsfrom the premises.14 Unit 1 Introduction to Logic between them. the use of symbols should facilitate rather than impede your understanding of logic. For the first half of the book. (In some of the extra-credit sections you will be introduced to some of these more advanced topics." "if-then. it builds from the ground up. 6. as we have seen. we use an extremely easy symbolic system consisting only of (1) single letters to stand for simple sentences. For one thing. The Nature of Symbolic Logic Detailed systems of logic have existed at least since the time of Aristotle (384 to 322 B." "or. without the ability to reason correctly. is a matter of the form." and "if and only . it can actually enhance your creative powers. or content of an argument." (2) special symbols for the five logical terms "and. we would not survive for long.) Beginning students. since they learn to be systematic in analyzing and solving problems. In any case. In this book we use two sets of symbols." "or. and this. sometimes worry about whether they will be able to cope with a course in symbolic logic. corresponding to the kinds of logic we will be investigating.). we are able to deal with much more complicated arguments and thus take logic much further than we otherwise could. The advantages of using symbols in logic are the same as in mathematics. logic itself. Thus. Some students may feel that logic is unnecessary or is just an unwelcome constraint on the free flow of their imaginations. rather than of the truth. like mathematics. logic is fundamental to our very existence. which covers sententiallogic. But without logic. symbols are easier to manipulate. they also learn that they can." and "not. the kinds of symbols we will be using are quite simple and are really just abbreviations for common terms in English. Furthermore. These fears are unfounded.

" and "not. that are used to state a relationship between two or more individuals. Examples of such predicates are "is . At the simplest level. We have individual terms to represent single individual objects. Since we have only five symbols to represent ways of compounding sentences. and this will mean. and you will probably appreciate the ease of manipulating the logical system." In one-variable predicate logic. We will be concerned only with how simple sentences are compounded into more complex sentences by using the five logical terms." "or. The Scope of Symbolic logic a. and instead of single letters to represent complete sentences. As noted earlier. violating the full sense of the sentence on many occasions. our logical analysis goes deeper. the symbols are quickly grasped. In the second half of the book. In this book. something is bound to be lost in translation. but the symbolism will remain surprisingly simple. 7." and "is over six feet tall." There are many predicates. and we will not attempt an internal analysis of the simple sentences themselves. we go a bit deeper into sentence structure and analyze the simple sentences into their component parts. examples of such predicates are "is blond. sentential logic is discussed in Units 2 through 9. sentential or propositional logic. predicate letters to represent predicates (roughly. unfortunately. What logic lacks in subtlety. we analyze only how complete sentences are compounded with others by means of logical words such as "and. however." With these new symbols we can represent the internal structure of sentences such as "John is mortal" and "All men are mortal. presented in Units 10 through 16." which are called sentential operators. however. Even students who have "hang-ups" about symbols need not worry about symbolic logic." "is mortal. what is said about an individual object). it more than makes up for in clarity. and two new logical words." and (3) grouping symbols such as parentheses. or you will be disappointed. there are various kinds of logic. which covers predicate logic. In one-variable predicate logic. and they are simply a way of making logic much easier than it would otherwise be. We are going to have to squeeze all the richness of English into just a few symbols. the predicates used make sense only when applied to single individuals. Just don't look for poetry. There are some limitations to the use of symbols. We do not attempt an internal analysis of simple sentences in terms of their grammatical parts such as subjects and predicates. Levels of Logical Structure. into the internal structure of the simple sentences. For this we need a few additional symbols. we have various symbols to represent the various parts of a sentence.Unit 1 Introduction to Logic 15 if. and English is an extremely subtle and complex language. such as subject and predicate. depending on how deeply we analyze the structure of the English sentences. the very important quantifiers "all" and "some.

and the grammars of one-variable predicate logic. Here we must make very clear exactly which symbols are to be used and how they fit together properly into meaningful formulas. the fourth and last level we discuss is relational predicate logic with identity. relational predicate logic is simply an extension of one-variable predicate logic. Finally. and 19. There are a great many other logical concepts that can be explained in semantic terms. Four Kinds of Logical Investigation. respectively. such an investigation might be called the logical grammar of the system. The only new symbol needed is the familiar symbol for identity. as the title indicates. We might call this the application of the logical system. and "between. In Unit 4. 17. The grammar of sentential logic is discussed in Unit 2. We have already seen that validity is defined in terms of the possible truth combinations for premises and conclusion: an argument form is valid if and only if there is no possible instance of the form that has all the premises true with the conclusion false. h. and here we just add one more element: the very important logical relation of identity. relational predicate logic. For each of the four levels of logic described above. and predicate logic with identity are explored. somewhat diffusely. We must first ask what is the formal structure of the logical language. we simply add these relational predicates to the already existing machinery of one-variable predicate logic. that is. the "equals" sign." which is a three-place predicate used to state a relation between three things. we give the logical meaning of "and. we must see how it is reflected in ordinary English sentences and arguments. . For this you will always be provided with a "dictionary" that links simple symbolic elements with their English counterparts. the third level we discuss. we cover various aspects of the application of predicate logic to English. "=". by saying that a conjunction "p and q" is to be true if and only if each of the components p and q is true. Once we know the structure of the symbolic system. Relational logic with identity is covered in Units 19 and 20. Here. we explain exactly what our logical words such as "and." for instance." and "all" mean." which are two-place predicates used to state a relation between two things. These meanings are given by stating precisely the conditions under which sentences containing them will be true or false.16 Unit 1 Introduction to Logic taller than" and "lives next to. as well as being able to read off from the symbolic form the appropriate English sentence. in Units 10 through 12. Relational predicate logic is the topic of Units 17 and 18." "not. In relational predicate logic. and it includes being able to put the English sentences into symbolic form. and in Units 10 through 14 and 17 through 20. The third kind of inquiry we must undertake for any branch of logic is its semantics. there are four kinds of inquiry that must be undertaken. Other semantic concepts are consistency. we undertake a careful analysis of the application of sentential logic to English. Thus. in terms of their truth conditions.

8. 5. An argument is a set of sentences consisting of one or more premises. What is a valid deductive argument? What is the difference between deductive and inductive arguments? . The proof methods for sentential logic are developed in Units 7. 2. 4. and 6 and discuss the semantics for predicate logic in Unit 16. and 9. which should follow from the premises. or has. which you might study in a more advanced course. and a conclusion. 3. The material covered in Units 1 through 20-the grammars. and 20. proving. Here we set out formal rules for deriving. 5. What is the advantage of thinking logically? What are the two ways in which the study of logic can improve your reasoning ability? What theoretical aspect of logic can you expect to learn in this course? Give a brief statement of what logic is about. 4. predicate logic proof methods are discussed in Units 15. and proof methods of the four branches of logic-forms the solid core of symbolic logic. which contain the evidence. STUDY QUESTIONS 1. A sound argument is a valid deductive argument in which all the premises are true. a valid form. the fourth part of a study of any branch of logic is its proof methods. 6. A deductive argument is an argument in which the premises are intended to provide absolute support for the conclusion. DEFINITIONS 1. applications. We examine the semantics for sentential logic in considerable detail in Units 3. 7. In Unit 9. 18. 3. An argument (particular instance) is valid if and only if it is an instance of. A counterexample to an argument form is an instance of that form (a particular example) in which all the premises are true and the conclusion is false. An inductive argument is an argument in which the premises are intended to provide some degree of support for the conclusion. It is interesting that this procedure is theoretically independent of any semantics-we can learn to do proofs of formulas without even knowing what they mean. Finally. 6. certain symbolic formulas from others. 2. that is. semantics.Unit 1 Introduction to Logic 17 equivalence. An argument form is valid if and only if there are no instances of that form in which all premises are true and the conclusion is false. 5. there are many extensions of and alternatives to this basic logic. As noted earlier. and contingency. we discuss the relationship between proof methods and semantics for the various branches of logic.

EXERCISES* 1. 13. 12. 11. *c. b. some reptiles are man-eaters. For each of the following. Since crocodiles are reptiles. so it is probably hungry. and what are the fundamental differences among them? What are the four areas of investigation for a branch of logic? Describe each briefly. Anyone who goes into the cage of a hungry crocodile is extremely foolish. since it was 104°. Yesterday's heat broke a record. *a. and it is known to have a "greenhouse" effect. *The answers to all exercises preceded by an asterisk appear in the back of the book. What are the advantages of using symbols in logic? What is one disadvantage of using symbols in logic? What are the four branches or levels of logic. so it is likely that global warming is the result of burning fossil fuels. and (3) indicate whether it is inductive or deductive. 9. Atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased substantially since 1800. Give an example of your own of a valid argument with false premises and a false conclusion. with its huge teeth and mean eyes. 14. That eight-foot crocodile looks ferocious. If it is an argument. (1) determine whether it is an argument. h. but it is supposed to be cooler today. It was so hot yesterday that I couldn't work in the garden. Although many people think that global warming is caused by humans.18 Unit 1 Introduction to Logic 7. 8. Give an example of two different arguments with the same form. it is really just a part of Earth's natural cycle. 10. and that crocodile is a man-eater. . How is the form of an argument related to its validity or invalidity? Can a valid argument have false premises with a true conclusion? What other combinations are possible? Give an example of your own of an invalid argument with true premises and a true conclusion. and the previous high was only 102°. *g. then (2) identify the premises and conclusion. f. *e. That crocodile hasn't eaten for two weeks. d.

j. *m. Anyone who either insults his or her boss or can't use email properly deserves to be fired. 2. h. and it definitely wasn't caused by lightning. try to give a counterexample. Therefore. The forest fire was caused by arson. I can't use email properly.Unit 1 Introduction to Logic 19 *i. My car insurance rates will probably go up. YOU ARE NOT REALLY EXPECTED AT THIS POINT TO DO WELL. so I'll pay a lot for either rent or gas. Rather. After you have completed the assignment (and only after). I accidentally emailedan insulting joke about the boss to everyone in the office. If you think it is invalid. since I got a speeding ticket and was thrown in jail for evading an officer. so I deserve to be fired. these are designed to demonstrate that there is a real need for the systematic study of logic. so I probably won't get that big raise I was expecting. Tinker is not a male cat. Therefore. I will neither gain weight nor lose muscle tone. Decide whether each of the arguments below is valid or invalid. since it could only have been caused by arson or lightning. Not both Clinton and Gore were president in 1999. \. Tinker is not a male cat. Tinker is a male cat. if I exercise. if I do not diet. If I ride my bicycle to school instead of driving. Therefore. I will gain weight. c. 1. Therefore. Not both Clinton and Dole were president in 1999. If I take up smoking. if Tinker is a cat. g. Tinker will have kittens. If I exercise. Clinton was not president in 1999. Tinker will not have kittens. NOTE: DO NOT WORRY IF YOU HAVE DIFFICULTY WITH THESE EXERCISES. I can probably save \$lO a week in gas. If Tinker is a male cat. . Therefore. n. If Tinker is a male cat. k. then Tinker is a fur-bearing mammal. then Tinker is a fur-bearing mammal. Therefore. f. Dole was not president in 1999. If I neither diet nor exercise. check the answer section to see which of these are valid. I will gain weight. If I live close to school I'll pay a lot in rent. Therefore. e. then Tinker will not have kittens. If Tinker is either a cat or a dog. Tinker will have kittens. Dole was not president in 1999. Therefore. Clinton was president in 1999. d. then Tinker will not have kittens. Our intuitions are often wrong! (l) *Arguments in sentential logic: a. Therefore. and if I don't live close to school I'll pay a lot for gas. Gore was not president in 1999. If Tinker is a male cat. my health insurance rates will go up and I'll also get sick. I will not lose muscle tone. b. Clinton was president in 1999. *0. Either Clinton or Dole was president in 1999. then Tinker will not have kittens.

Not all corporate executives are men. some frogs are poisonous. All great works of art are controversial. if I don't gain weight. Therefore. f. Andy Warhol's creations are great works of art. no U. presidents have been men. I will gain weight and lose muscle tone. Some preachers are wealthy people. Therefore. Some reptiles are poisonous. Therefore. president has experienced childbirth. Not all corporate executives are men. All U. Therefore. No one who gets to heaven has committed a mortal sin. All corporate executives are wealthy people. no cats are horses. some Republicans are not Democrats. no man has experienced childbirth. g. d. All corporate executives are wealthy people. Therefore. Anyone who commits murder has committed a mortal sin.S. I have exercised. No U. . Therefore. c. (2) *Arguments in predicate logic: a. e. Therefore. Some wealthy people will get to heaven. No cats are dogs.S. Andy Warhol's creations are controversial.20 Unit 1 Introduction to Logic j. some murderers are not wealthy. b. Therefore. some preachers will get to heaven. Some Republicans are wealthy. Some wealthy people are not Democrats.S. All wealthy people will get to heaven. some wealthy people are not corporate executives. 1. h. Therefore. All frogs are reptiles. j. All U. If I don't exercise. No man has experienced childbirth. president has experienced childbirth. No dogs are horses. Therefore. presidents have been men.S. Therefore. some wealthy people are not men.

or valid. Although there are potentially an infinite number of ways of forming compound sentences in English-that is. what is generally called sentential. deductive logic is about correct.UNIT2 The Structure of Sentential logic A. an infinite number of sentential operators-we will be using only five. for which 21 . or propositional. of course. inference. or structure. it should be understood that we are referring to declarative sentences. Whenever the word "sentence" is used hereafter. and the first half of the book is devoted to these relatively simple structures." There is a very large class of arguments whose validity depends solely on this kind of compound structure. The names derive from the fact that in this part of logic our most basic or elementary unit is the complete sentence. or grammar. such as "Jane is blond" or "Swans are graceful. when we begin truth tables. false). INTRODUCTION As we saw in Unit 1. logic. of one branch of symbolic logic. those that are definitely either true or false. In this unit you will learn the basic structure. More will be said about this in Unit 5. we will be confining ourselves to the logic of declarative sentences. such as "Salamanders are mammals" (which is. then the housing industry is in trouble. It is important to note that although there are such studies as the logic of questions and the logic of commands. Any expression that is used to build up a compound sentence out of simpler sentences will be called a sentential operator. These five operators. and validity is a matter of form." What you will be studying is the way in which these complete sentences are compounded into more complex sentences. such as "If interest rates rise and the price of lumber continues to escalate. because it "operates" on sentences to produce more complex forms.

are "and." and "if and only if. in predicate logic). we are going to do only the most elementary sort of analysis." In this unit. are "Either I study hard for this exam or I won't get an A. you will learn about the basic structure and symbolism of sentential logic. We are going to be concerned only with how complete sentences are compounded with others by words such as "and" and "or" into more complex forms. UNIT 2 TOPICS 1. and how compound sentences are constructed from their components by the use of our five operators. Our discussion includes the difference between simple and compound sentences. then John is not a math major. We begin by defining "compound sentence" and then define a simple sentence as one that is not compound. our smallest units. but for the first half of the book. What you will need to learn is stated somewhat more explicitly in the "Objectives" section below. the definition of "sentential operator." "If math majors can add. Of course. The first step in analyzing sentential structure is to be able to distinguish between simple sentences and compound sentences and to be able to identify the simple components of compound sentences." the five sentential operators we will be using. • Be able to give examples of operators other than the five we will be using. compound sentence. • Learn how compound formulas are constructed out of more elementary parts." Some examples of sentences using these five operators." and "I will go to a movie tonight if and only if I finish my homework and there is nothing good on TV. • Learn our five sentential operators and the symbols for them. there are various levels of structural analysis.22 Unit 2 The Structure of Sentential Logic we will have special symbols. UNIT 2 OBJECTIVES • Be able to distinguish between simple and compound sentences and be able to identify the simple components of compound sentences." "if-then. or structure. but will take them as unbroken wholes. such as subjects and predicates (this will come later. • Learn the definitions of sentential operator. . B. Simple and Compound Sentences It is absolutely essential in logic to be able to analyze the structure of sentences and arguments. C. with the operators italicized. since validity is a matter of form." "not. then. We will not analyze sentences into their "inner" elements. and simple sentence." "or.

" on the other hand. is one that is not compound." It is important to realize that rather complicated-looking sentences may still be simple in our sense of the word." "Mary is a good student. . since it contains the sentence "Mary loves Bill" as a component. as noted earlier. "John likes Mary and Mary likes John.Unit 2 The Structure of Sentential Logic 23 A declarative sentence will be considered to be compound if it contains another complete declarative sentence as a component." "It is not true that Mary won first place in the race. whenever the first sentence is replaced by another declarative sentence. "John loves Mary and Mary loves David" is compound because it contains the two complete sentences "John loves Mary" and "Mary loves David" as components. The sentence "The person who ate the cake has a guilty conscience." "Manx cats are friendly. one that does not contain another complete sentence as a component." for instance." "Nixon resigned after the incriminating tapes were made public." and "Dolphins are highly intelligent. the result is still a grammatical sentence. we can say that one sentence occurs as a component of a second if. "The person worms have souls has a guilty conscience. in the sentence "John believes that Mary loves Bill." "John believes that worms have souls. It is not possible. "John believes that the Earth stands still twice a day. for one sentence to be a component of another? This notion is closely related to the concept of a sentential operator. to replace "who ate the cake" in the sentence "The person who ate the cake has a guilty conscience" with any arbitrary sentence. and the predicate may say something rather intricate. What does it mean. The following is an example of a rather lengthy but simple sentence: "The odd-looking person standing to the right of the woman with the weird hat with the flowers and cherries on it is the one who infuriated the chairman of the board by complaining in public about the high prices ofthe company's inferior products." and "John believes that 4 + 25 = 100" are all grammatical sentences (although most probably false). as we shall see. not all short sentences are simple." we can replace "Mary loves Bill" with any other declarative sentence and still have a grammatical sentence. A few other examples of proper compound sentences are given next." A simple sentence. with their simple components italicized. which will be defined in the next section. The subject may be modified in various ways." "It is raining because the clouds were seeded. is simply nonsense. The criterion of a simple sentence is decidedly not its length." Not all simple sentences are short. then. requiring lengthy phrases. on the other hand. the sentence is still logically simple. containing no other sentences as components." "Either you tell me the truth or we're through. Some examples of simple sentences are "John is going to New York. "John believes that Mary loves Bill" is also compound. and. The phrase "who ate the cake" cannot be a component since it is not a complete declarative sentence. Thus. is not compound because it has no sentential components. but as long as no other complete sentence appears as a component. For now.

which literally contain other sentences as components." which explicitly contains ." A compound subject is one that includes more than one individual or group. sentences may contain both compound subjects and compound predicates." Of course." "Joggers and tennis players have to be in good physical condition. (The exceptions will be noted below. Thus." with the compound subject "John and Mary. It is not always such an easy matter." "Cats and dogs. such as "Mary likes Bob and Bob likes Jane. and Siberia. we need to know a little more about the structure of our logic. but this is not a grammatical sentence." Most sentences with compound subjects or predicates can be considered to be compound rather than simple. Examples of compound predicates are "is lucky or intelligent" and "loves puppies and kittens. if the predicates of the components of a compound sentence are the same." Examples of sentences with compound subjects (with the subjects italicized) are "Dogs and cats make good pets. to determine whether a sentence is simple or compound. "John and Mary like fish. we tend to compress. our previous sentence "John and Mary like fish" is compound because it can be paraphrased into the longer version "John likes fish and Mary likes fish. instead of saying "John went to France and John went to Italy and John went to Spain and John went to Siberia." it is relatively easy to see that the sentences are compound and to pick out their components. "John went to France. we would probably use the more graceful form "John and Mary went to New York." Sentences with compound predicates (with the predicates italicized) are "Mary will be a good student or a good tennis player" and "John will take first place in the race but will be sick for days afterward. Thus. In English. ("Mary like fish" perhaps comes closest. we may condense the compound sentence by using a compound predicate." "Johnson or Nixon resigned in disgrace. however. does not literally contain another sentence as a component. such as "John and Mary." or "Bill or John. the compound by using a compound subject. and extend our notion of. in place of the sentence above. but for now we can say roughly that it is one that says more than one thing or that makes a compound claim about the subject. rather than repeating the predicate for each subject. Italy." If the subjects of the independent clauses are the same. as in "John went to New York and Mary went to New York" (where the predicates "went to New York" are identical).24 Unit 2 The Structure of Sentential Logic With some sentences.) To clarify the concept of a compound sentence." To say precisely what a compound predicate is. Thus.) Sentences with compound subjects and/or predicates will be considered to be compound if they can be paraphrased into sentences that are explicitly compound. using a compound predicate." for example. we need to be a little more precise about." we would usually say. An example of such a sentence would be "The Democratic presidential and vice-presidential candidates will either be defeated or will win by a narrow margin. Spain. what it means for one sentence to contain another as a component. or condense.

The third president of the United States liked to have complete silence during his many long. In some cases you may not be able to tell whether the sentence is genuinely compound or is just stating a relationship between two individuals. tedious speeches about the virtues of democratic government." It does not state facts about John and Mary separately. Dogs like bones. The sentence "Kennedy and Mondale are Democrats and liberals. because not all such sentences can be paraphrased into explicitly compound sentences. This demonstrates that the art of paraphrase is not exact. however. John likes bananas on his cereal. Although it may seem a little strange at first. it will be important to remember that all negated sentences are to be considered compound. The man standing by the door is a doctor. in Unit 4." "Kennedy is a liberal.Unit 2 The Structure of Sentential Logic 25 the two clauses "John likes fish" and "Mary likes fish." for instance." We may say that one sentence logically contains another if it literally contains the other as a component. in which case it would be a compound sentence." for instance. or if it can be paraphrased into an explicitly compound sentence that contains the other as a component. has as its simple component "John is happy. might mean simply that they both have spouses." for instance." When we come to symbolizing. In many cases. but rather states that there is a relationship between them. is compound and logically contains the following as components: "Kennedy is a Democrat. not every sentence with a compound subject can be considered to be compound. The ambiguous sentence "John and Mary are married. has a compound subject (by most grammatical reckoning). We may now define a compound sentence as one that logically contains another sentence as a component. as well as those with compound subjects and predicates (except for the relational sentences mentioned above)." for instance. or it might mean that they are married to each other. negated sentences." since it can be paraphrased into the longer expression "It is not the case that John is happy. but it cannot be correctly paraphrased as the conjunction "John is related and Mary is related. you will simply have to use your own best judgment in determining whether a sentence with a compound subject can be paraphrased as a compound sentence or is simply stating a relation. Children fight a lot. "John and Mary are related." and "Mondale is a liberal." As noted. will be considered to be compound." "Mondale is a Democrat. only positive sentences will be considered simple. . in which case it would be stating a relationship between them and would not be a compound sentence. The following sentences are all simple because they logically contain no complete sentences as separately meaningful components: John is happy. "John is not happy.

" As we noted in the introduction to this unit. A few of these operators are listed below. (John likes cats. There are also many other } phrases that will yield similar operators). there are an indefinite number of sentential operators in English. (John is cheating on his girlfriend) It is not snowing. Mary likes cats) John likes cats and snakes. 2. The conjunction operator. Mary likes lobster. We now need to explain more precisely what a sentential operator is. (It is snowing) If there are flying saucers. John believes that Johns knows that John hopes that _ _ John heard that (Clearly. We have indicated that it is an expression used to build up more complex sentences from simpler ones. (John likes cats. (The earth is flat) It is possible that John is cheating on his girlfriend. An operator should really be written with blanks to indicate where the sentences should be placed to form a proper compound. John likes Big Macs. Their simple components are listed in parentheses immediately following the sentence. then." and an example of a sentence using this operator would be (with the component sentences italicized) "The college is bankrupt and all the faculty are laid off. with blanks. Harvey likes Big Macs) Exercises at the end of the unit will give you practice in recognizing simple and compound sentences and picking out the components of the compound sentences. (There are flying saucers. Harvey likes lobster. if they go in the wrong place and combine in the wrong way with the operator. since. Mary. then fish live in trees. although we will be using only five in our development of sentential logic. . Sentential Operators Sentential logic is concerned only with the way in which simple sentences are combined by means of sentential operators into more complex sentences. Thus. (John likes lobster. John likes snakes) Harvey thinks that the earth is flat. John and Mary like cats. we will formally define "sentential operator" in the following way: a sentential operator is an expression containing blanks such that when the blanks are filled with complete sentences.26 Unit 2 The Structure of Sentential Logic The following sentences are all compound. to give you some idea of the variety. would be " _ _ and _ _ . Mary likes Big Macs. fish live in trees) John. we can get an indefinite number of other similar operators from these simply by substituting a different proper name. the result will be nonsense. the result is a sentence. but this is somewhat vague. and Harvey like lobster and Big Macs.

whereas the last nine have two blanks. for instance.") Either or Neither or and If _ _ . but we have little use for these in English. or formed into conditionals or biconditionals. truth-functional logic) only five operators are particularly important: "and. as you might expect. are called two-place operators. -- ) ) v . The former are called one-place operators. believing. and the latter. then _ _ _ _ if and only if _ _ unless after _ _ onlyif _ _ because Note that the first eight of these operators contain only one blank... and any two sentences can be conjoined. such as "it is 56." "if and only if. thinking.or stand for "if then stand for " _ _ if and only if _ _" will stand for "not It is important to note that any declarative sentences may be inserted into the blank spaces of sentential operators: any sentence can be negated. four-place operators. for a single sentence. Modal logic. and related operators. and so combine two sentences. we will not be studying all the possible operators in the English language.-) ::J -- ) (the dot) (the wedge) (the horseshoe) (the triple bar) (the tilde) will will will will stand for". while epistemic logic examines concepts such as knowing. The five operators we use are listed below with the special symbols that will represent them. disjoined. In fact. and so on. for the type of symbolic logic that is usually covered in an introductory course (classical two-valued. since our time is finite." and "not.and stand for"." "or.Unit 2 The Structure of Sentential Logic It is possible that _ _ It is necessary that _ _ 27 It is likely that _ _ It is not true that } (We could get an infinite number of operators here simply by substituting different numerical values. An example of a three-place operator would be "Neither _ _ nor nor " Fortunately." Some of the other operators are studied in more specialized areas of logic. It is possible to have three-place operators.3% probable that. ." "if-then. investigates the concepts of possibility and necessity.

In addition. We can now see what the formulas. of sentential logic will look like. Our simplest formulas. are as follows. and biconditionals. Gore or Bush is president. the ones that will serve as building blocks for all the other formulas of sentential logic. The part to the left of the horseshoe is called the antecedent (what comes before). then Bush is president. we will have only five basic kinds of compound sentences. In Unit 4 we consider the relationship between the English sentences and the symbolic formulas. and the part to the right of the horseshoe is called the consequent (what comes after). again. such as (p v q). q) ~ r). we have negations. ((p . There are no special names for the components of negations and biconditionals. These five kinds of sentences. For now we will just say that the lowercase letters are used to represent statement forms. B) (G v B) (L == G) (C ~ B) Cheney is vice-president and Bush is president. symbolized as ~ p. In this section our discussion will focus on instances rather than forms. its major components are called disjuncts. is called a conjunction. which will be symbolized as (p . we use Band C as above. The Structure and Symbolism of Sentential Logic Sentential operators.28 Unit 2 The Structure of Sentential Logic 3." we can then form the following elementary compounds: (C. and its two major components are called conjuncts. The "or" sentence is called a disjunction and will be symbolized as (p v q). in the introductory remarks on validity. to symbolize "Bush is president. . and G and so on. We will generally use the first letter of the sentence being symbolized. and r. and capital letters A. symbolized as (p == q). Lieberman is vice-president if and only if Gore is president. or at least some letter that reminds us of the meaning of the sentence. The "if-then" sentence is called a conditional and will be symbolized as (p :::J q). where p and q are variables representing arbitrary sentences. Since we will be using only five operators. 'In later units we will discuss in some detail the distinction between the lowercase letters from the middle of the alphabet. B. q). we may combine them by placing one of our two-place operators between them and enclosing the result in parentheses. such as p. with some special terms used to describe and discuss them. L. We might use B. or symbolic expressions. are used to build up compound sentences from simpler components. actual English sentences. The distinction between argument forms and specific instances of argument forms was discussed in Unit 1. If Cheney is vice-president. while capital letters are used as abbreviations for specific meaningful instances. for instance." and C to symbolize "Cheney is vice-president." We will build up more complex formulas in the following ways: given any two formulas (not necessarily simple). will be single capital letters. but for now we will simply try to understand the structure of the formulas. which will abbreviate simple (noncompound) English sentences. 1 The "and" sentence. for example. q. If. and (p ~ (q == r». G to represent "Gore is president" and L to represent "Lieberman is vice-president.

ink. which would be properly symbolized as (A· (B :J C)). which would yield ((E == F)· ~G). G. . a meaningful formula that occurs as a part of another formula. ~E. where the capital letters are again abbreviations for simple (but here undesignated) English sentences. H. to get ((B· C) v (G· L)). without using extra parentheses. will say that Cheney is not vice-president. We might then disjoin these two formulas to get (((A· B) :J (C v D)) v ((E == F)· ~G)). for instance. and ~ (G· B) will say that not both Gore and Bush are president. then C is true. theoretically. Obviously. it says only "If A and B are both true. but this should be enough for illustrative purposes. it would say "A is definitely true. such as the availability of paper. We could disjoin (B· C) with (G· L). which is. and if we are negating a compound. The situation here is just like what we have in arithmetic. We may build formulas of any degree of complexity using only our five operators. which is -4. we could first construct (A • B). it is just as important in logic. which would be read "Either Bush is president and Cheney is vice-president or Gore is president and Lieberman is vice-president. we could go on like this indefinitely. (~E v H). then (C v D). we would not be able to tell whether the formula A • B :J C was a conjunction or a conditional. A couple of useful terms should be introduced here.Unit 2 The Structure of Sentential Logic 29 We can negate a formula simply by placing a tilde in front of it. and ((~ E v H) == (~G· F)) are all subformulas of (( ~ E v H) == (~G· F))." As a conditional. properly symbolized as ((A· B) :J C). then C will be true. we clearly do not need parentheses. it should already be enclosed in parentheses. for instance. since they will make it easier to discuss certain things later on. which is 6.2) + 5." The formula (L == ~ B) would be read "Lieberman is vice-president if and only if Bush is not president. roughly. or 3 . and energy! The possibility of these multiply compound formulas makes the use of parentheses absolutely essential in order to avoid ambiguity." but it asserts nothing about whether A is actually true. and join them with a conditional to get ((A· B) :J (C v D)). F. although there are certainly some practical limits. E. We could then put E and F together in a biconditional and conjoin the result to the negation of G. Without parentheses. and if B is true. ~G. A subformula is really just a component of a symbolized sentence. It could mean either (3 . for example. As a conjunction. The first is the term subformula. (Any formula is a subformula of itself. time. (~G· F). unlike the first reading. and this makes an enormous difference in what it says." To take another example. to the length of formulas you can construct in this way.) ~C. (If we are negating a single letter. without parentheses the expression 3 .2 + 5 is ambiguous and has no definite value.(2 + 5). quite a difference! The necessity of using parentheses should be clear in arithmetic. then Bush is not president. There is no upper limit." ((G· L) :J ~B) would be read "If Gore is president and Lieberman is vice-president.) As an example.

Keep in mind that these brackets have exactly the same function as parentheses and are used only to clarify the structure of the formulas.30 Unit 2 The Structure of Sentential Logic Another useful and very important term is major operator. and so the formula is a disjunction. A sentence is compound if it logically contains another complete sentence as a component. that the form of «A· B) v (C = D)) is a disjunction. 2. One way to do this is to pair parentheses. which makes that formula a conditional even though a conjunction and a disjunction occur as subformulas (respectively. With a little practice. Often when we speak of "the form" of a formula or sentence. for instance. If we take the formula above again. The major operator of «(A· B) :::) (C v D)) v «E = F)· ~G)) is the second wedge. with more complicated formulas. even though it contains all the other operators. . The last operator you cover in this process will be the major operator. practice is supplied in Exercise 2. the last to be joined up. this will become second nature to you. is the second horseshoe. we may say. Thus the major operator of «A· B) :::) (C v D)) is the horseshoe. starting with the smallest formulas and working your way up to the largest. we will be referring simply to its major operator.--' "-----~~ This makes it clear that the major operator. A sentence is simple if and only if it is not compound. DEFINITIONS 1. Since the form of a sentence plays such a crucial role in logic. The use of brackets [ ] in place of some of the parentheses will make formulas a bit easier to read. The major operator of a formula is the one that determines the overall form of the sentence and is the operator introduced last in the process of constructing the formula from its more elementary components. and we will use this notation where appropriate in the rest of the book. as the antecedent and consequent of the conditional). With simple sentences you will be able to see this at a glance. it is important that you be able to recognize the major operator of any given formula. it is a little more difficult. ~ "-----~ ~. such as «(A· B) v «C :::) D) v F)) :::) «H· E) v C)). we can pair parentheses as follows: «(A· B) v «C :::) D) v F)) :::) «H· E) v C)). at the end of the unit.

9. 5. *c. 5. *a. f. d. Give an example of a simple sentence with more than 10 words. What are the five operators we will be using (in English) and what are the symbols for them? What are the other symbols we will be needing in sentential logic? Why is this called sentential logic? What is our main interest in sentential logic? What are five operators other than the five we will be using? Make up a four-place operator. b. 11. whenever the first sentence is replaced by any other declarative sentence. 31 One sentence is a component of another sentence if. What are the names of the five compound formulas we will be using. the result is still a grammatical sentence. Mary hit a home run and a triple. 4. Dogs with fleas make poor house pets. No one can survive for long on junk food. 7. the result is a sentence. state all the simple components. STUDY QUESTIONS 4. *g. 8. 10. and what are their components called? What is a subformula? What is the major operator of a formula? EXERCISES 1. One sentence logically contains another if it either literally contains the other as a component or can be paraphrased into an explicitly compound sentence that contains the other as a component. State whether the following sentences are simple or compound and. A sentential operator is an expression containing blanks such that. when the blanks are filled with complete sentences. Give an example of a sentence with a compound subject and predicate. 3.Unit 2 The Structure of Sentential Logic 3. John's wife tries to keep him from eating junk food. Mary told John that he was gaining weight. Give an example of a sentence with a compound subject and a simple predicate. *e. 2. for those that are compound. . 6. Dogs don't like bumblebees. John will get cancer or have a heart attack if he doesn't stop eating fatty beef. 1. John enjoys a baseball game if he can have popcorn. Give an example of a sentence with a simple subject and a compound predicate. h.

j. n. *m. John will have to either sink or swim if his father stops supporting him. Identify the major operator in the following formulas. *e. *k. ([[(A v B)' (C v D)] == [(A' B) v (C' D)]] ::J [[(G v H) ::J (P v Q)] • RD . f. *0. h. John likes to play games for money with people who are a bit dim. l. *m. John and Mary are close friends. r. Whatever John does is all right with Mary. [([(F' ~ G) ::J C] B::J ~~C) == D) v (B ::J C)] ([(B::J C) v (D v F)] • E) [([(A v B) • C] v D) • [E v (F' D)]] ([(A' B) • C] v [(D' E)' FD == G) == HD «««A::J B) ::J C) ::J D) ::J E) ::J F) ::J G) (A::J (B ::J (C ::J (D ::J (E ::J (F ::J G)))))) ([(A == B) == (C == D)] == [(F *0. t. *s. j. Neither John nor Mary likes gooseberries. n." "the third dot. *i. (You may have to specify "the second horseshoe. John will probably lose weight if Mary quits teasing him. «A v B) • C) «A'B) v~(B'C)) (~A == ~(B v C)) ::J (C ~[B (A v (B v C)) ([(A v ~ B) == D)] ::J ~E) ::J (C.32 Unit 2 The Structure of Sentential Logic *i." and so on. Human beings will die out or be mutated if there is an atomic war. p. 2. in very complex formulas. *k. Either Mike or John will have to clean up the kitchen after dinner. Nobody likes John. b. John and David are enemies. *q. Life on Earth is doomed if the pollutants are not reduced.) *a. l. *c. John lay down and had a nap. d. D)]) «A • ~ B) ::J (~~ *g.

For reasons that need not concern us now. the truth values of the component sentences. We will now see that one very good reason for choosing these five. this will be done for us. which will indicate. is afunction of. out of which we have chosen just five. is that they have a very special property. INTRODUCTION In Unit 1 it was emphasized that an argument form is valid if and only if it has no instances with true premises and a false conclusion. to determine the truth value of a compound sentence given the truth values of its components. These rules will be given by means of schematic truth tables for the operators. these five operators are all truthfunctional. for each possible 33 . Another way of putting this is to say that for these five operators the truth value of the compound sentence is completely determined by. which means that the truth or falsity of the compound sentences that they form can always be determined just by knowing the truth or falsity of their component parts. then. which means we must be able to determine the truth value of the compound sentence once we are given the truth values of its component parts. we will not have to worry about determining the truth values of the simple sentences. If we are ever to be able to determine whether or not a form is valid. aside from the fact that they are very common. In Unit 2 we saw that there are an infinite number of possible sentential operators. we obviously must be able to tell whether the premises and conclusions of the instances are true or false. Of course. That is. which sets them off from a great many other ways of combining sentences in the English language and which will be of great importance for our logical purposes. you will have to know the rules of computation for each of our five sentential operators.UNIT 3 Computing Truth Values A.

The rule for conjunction. • Be able to compute the truth value of compound sentences of any degree of complexity. In this unit. given the truth values of the simple sentences they contain. Such rules. the truth value of the compound that they form can be determined solely by the truth values of their components. is that a conjunction will be true only if both conjuncts are true. This means that there will be a rule telling us exactly what the value of the compound must be for each combination of values for the components. What we have. is a two-valued logic. that is. then. then. can be given more formally by means of a little truth table for each operator. if one or both of the conjuncts is false. B. to compute the truth value of compound formulas by working your way up from smaller subformulas to larger ones. What you will need to know is stated more explicitly in the "Objectives" section below. • Learn the definition of truth functional. UNIT 3 TOPICS 1. which will list systematically all possible combinations of truth values for the components and the result of the computation for each of these possibilities. and how to compute the truth value of a compound formula given the truth values of the components. and thus. One of the very important presuppositions of this procedure is that a sentence must be either true or false. as we shall see. • Be able to show that an operator is not truth functional. which . what truth value must be assigned to the compound. a very important property of the operators we will be using is that they are all truth functional. the truth tables for the five operators. given the truth values of the elementary components. Once you learn the truth tables for each operator. we now go a little further to say that (1) our sentences must have a truth value (they cannot be indeterminate) and (2) the truth value must be either true or false (we will have no such value as "nearly true"). the entire conjunction must be counted false. you will be able. C. Truth Tables for the Operators As noted above. for instance. We noted in the Introduction to Unit 2 that in elementary logic we will be dealing only with declarative sentences.34 Unit 3 Computing Truth Values combination of truth values for the components of the formula. UNIT 3 OBJECTIVES • Memorize the truth tables for the five sentential operators and be able to state informally the computation rules for each operator. you will be learning the meaning of the term truth functional (and what it means for an operator not to be truth functional).

"and. (Note that another very important assumption we will be making is that the truth values of the simple sentences are independent of each other. false. and undetermined). for example. what the value of the compound must be. for each combination. as noted. l In the formula «A :::J B) • (A v B)). a. . It should be mentioned that there are logical systems (many-valued logics) that investigate the logical properties of sentences that have three possible values (for instance." The rule for computing the truth value of conjunctions is just what you would expect given the meaning of "and. contingently true. T T F F B T F T F The fact that we can systematically list all these combinations is one of the things that makes it possible to give rules for the computation of our compound formulas. But these are specialized disciplines. true. it is more cumbersome for the higher-valued logics. if lIt is also possible in a three-valued. and standard logic assumes.) We may indicate these four possibilities in a little schematic table. contingently false. Given that we have a two-valued logic. for example. and. or any finite-valued logic to list all possible combinations. and 64 different combinations (instead of 8) for 3. 3. The rules of computation for the five operators are given below. we will have stated a complete rule. we know that A must be true or false. so the first row is the only row in which the conjunction will be considered true. and that B may be either true or false when A is true. each of the four possibilities will be referred to as a row in the truth table. 2. four possible values (for instance. since the number of possibilities gets very large very fast. and necessarily false). since these are the only possible combinations given that we have a two-valued logic. that each sentence is either true or false. there are 16 possibilities (instead of 4) for 2 different sentence letters.Unit 3 Computing Truth Values 35 simply means that whatever sentences we use in our logical operations must have one of the truth values true or false. or even more. 4. and may also be true or false when A is false. four-valued. Going through each of the possibilities. we can draw up a list of all possible combinations of truth values for the simple components of a compound formula." When we say "p and q" we mean to assert that both p and q are true. However. In a four-valued logic. A 1. We can say. necessarily true. that the sentences it uses are simply true or simply false.

If one or the other. and if both are false.36 Unit 3 Computing Truth Values p and q are both true. This indicates that the conjuncts may be any formulas." and of course she might very well be both. in which the top row of the truth table comes out true. since we count the sentence true when both of the disjuncts are true. and we must make a decision as to which one we will use here. "or. Inclusive disjunction allows the possibility that both disjuncts are true. Or if we see Mary at a university function we might say "Mary is either a student or the wife of a student. It is easy to say what must happen in the last three rows. where p and q are both true. Note that we use the variables p and q here. the only question is what happens in the top row. or both." It is the inclusive sense of disjunction. whereas in exclusive disjunction it comes out false." The truth table for disjunction will be very nearly what we would expect from the meaning of the English "or". q) T T T T F T F F F F F F We can summarize this table by saying that a conjunction is to be counted true in only one case: where both conjuncts are true. of the disjuncts is true. Both senses of "or" occur in English. the disjunction as a whole will be true. (p • q) is false. (p • q) is false." Even though he was both. b. ~(D v E)). if p is true and q is false. while exclusive disjunction rules this out and declares that only one or the other. this will be true only if «A v B) :::J C) is true and also ~ (D v E) is true. the conjunction will be false. Its computation rule is given by means of the following truth tablefor "or": . These are two different operators. Thus. simple or complex. of the conjuncts is false. if p is false and q is true. if one disjunct is true and one is false. One example would be "Ronald Reagan was either a movie actor or a politician. however? What happens if both p and q are true? Here we need to distinguish between inclusive disjunction and exclusive disjunction. that we will be using in this book. the disjunction will be false. What about the top row. in which case we would still count the disjunction as true. in inclusive disjunction the top row in the truth table comes out true. then (p • q) is false. Instances of exclusive disjunction would be "Either coffee or tea is included in the price of the meal" (where it is clear that you would pay extra if you wanted both). but not both. One instance of (p' q) is the more complex formula «(A v B) :::J C) . In many cases it is clear that the inclusive sense is intended. and "John is married to either Josephine or Carolyn. then (p • q) is true. we would still count the sentence true. We can give the rule for computing the value of conjunctions by means of the following truth table for "and": p q (p. and if p and q are both false.

" A biconditional statement says that one thing happens if and only if (in just the same circumstances in which) another takes place. where both of the disjuncts are true. where p and q are the two disjuncts. and this is how we complete the truth table. What if they are both defeated? This would correspond to the last row of the table. we will be using (exclusively) the inclusive sense of "or. we will not be including this as one of our operators because we can always say the same thing by combining some of our other operators. is a two-way conditional." and this means that whenever you are computing the value of a disjunction. This would give us the following symbolization: ((l v B)· ~(l· B». then. or both. Surely we would then consider the biconditional (M == F) to be true. then Mary will be elected. will be considered true. or. which would correspond to the top row in our truth table.) Now. that they will stand or fall together. then. can always be symbolized as ((p v q) • ~ (p • q». was false. which asserted that one would be elected if and only if the other was elected. as the name indicates. we can simply conjoin the "not both" phrase to the inclusive disjunction. the top row of the truth table. roughly. they have fallen together. it will turn out to be true when both components are false. Since the biconditional says that one will be elected if and only if the other is elected. then Fred will be elected treasurer. An instance of this would be "Mary will be elected student body president if and only if Fred is elected treasurer. If we want to say.) Thus the top and bottom rows of the truth table. and so a separate operator is not needed. (Note that the biconditional. will be as follows: . of the disjuncts is true. ~~if and only if. The exclusive sense of "or" is also a truth-functional operator. If one or the other. in which the truth values of the components are different? These would correspond to the cases in which one of the candidates was elected and the other defeated. the disjunction will be considered true. then both M and F are true. for instance. The truth table for the biconditional. the exclusive sense of disjunction. What about the middle two rows. In general. It is sometimes symbolized with a bar above the wedge: v. where the truth values of the components are the same. except that the top row comes out false instead of true.Unit 3 Computing Truth Values p q (p V 37 q) T T F F T F T F T T T F We can summarize this table by saying that an inclusive "or" is to be counted false in only one case: where both disjuncts are false. (In this case. the sentence above asserts both that if Mary is elected student body president. will always turn out to be true. but not both. c." which could be symbolized as (M == F). and its truth table is the same as that for the inclusive sense. and that if Fred is elected. that either John or Bob will be promoted. in which both M and F are false. However. But in these cases we would surely say that the biconditional. what should be the truth table for this operator? Suppose both Fred and Mary are elected. In this book.

however. This is why double negations. A negation. the conditional will always be false. We can begin by noting. then the Democrats would be reelected in a landslide. because the negation sign is placed in front of a single formula (which may be complex as well as simple) instead of joining two formulas together. as in the second and third rows. d." Since Reagan was elected and the stock market did climb. cancel each other out. "if-then. the conditional (p ::J q) will be false whenever p is true and q is false.") e. and if they are different. as in the first and fourth rows. "If Reagan is elected. simply reverses the truth value of the formula being negated. the biconditional will be false. since unemployment rates did remain low (the antecedent is true). What happens if p and q are both true? Suppose we had said in 1984. The inner negation reverses the truth value once. means "I do have some bad habits." The two negations cancel each other out. and if p is false. . such as ~ ~ p. " We have left the conditional until last because its truth table is the least intuitive and the most difficult to justify of any of our five operators. for instance. If we had predicted in 2000.) Again. then ~p is false. the prediction would now be seen to be false. right back to where it started. ~p turns out to be true. and the previous example corresponds to the second row. (This is why your elementary school teachers always warned you not to say things like "I ain't got no bad habits. so that the sentence literally. A single formula can be only true or false. and the outer negation reverses it again. but the Democrats were not reelected in a landslide (the consequent is false. the stock market will climb. although probably not colloquially.38 Unit3 Computing Truth Values p T T F F q T F T F (p == q) T F F T We can summarize this truth table by saying that if the truth values of the components are the same. The truth table for negation is just what you would expect: if p is true. This example corresponds to the top row in the truth table. we would count this sentence as true. the biconditional will be true. that if unemployment rates remained low. "not. in other words. This is schematized in the following truth table for negation: p ~p T F F T This can be summarized by saying that the negation of p will have the truth value opposite that ofp. so we need consider only two cases: we must say what happens to ~ p when p is true and what happens to ~ p when p is false. that if the antecedent of a conditional is true and its consequent is false." The truth table for negation will contain only two rows instead of four.

dispose of the matter rather neatly simply by declaring that any conditional with a false antecedent will be counted true. they produce great novels. then California experienced a severe earthquake in 1990 and has dropped into the Pacific Ocean. whether or not there is any connection between antecedent and consequent. since the conditional will be true whenever the antecedent is false. if the "if-then" is taken as the horseshoe. the conditional is true. we will have to say.Unit 3 Computing Truth Values 39 What happens when p is false. then men landed on the moon in 1969. Whenever the antecedent is false. If no one landed on the moon in 1969. however? Suppose we let B stand for the false sentence "Bush was reelected in 1992." What would be the truth values of (B =:J C) ("If Bush was reelected in 1992. It also follows from the truth table that whenever the consequent of a conditional is true (the first and third rows) the conditional as a whole is true. which would correspond to the fourth row? How do we decide cases like this. Classicallogicians. then 5 + 7 = 12. then the conditional will be true or false according to the truth value of the consequent. If Lincoln was president in 1993. For instance. whose lead we will be following in this book. in which we can never observe the antecedent condition (in this case. then Christmas comes but once a year"). then there was a Martian invasion in 1993"). she discovered highly intelligent moon men and produced one of their offspring." M stand for "There was an invasion from Mars in 1993. will look like this: p q (p =:J q) T T F F T F T F T F T T This table can be summarized by saying that the only time a conditional is to be considered false is when the antecedent is true and the consequent is false. then.9. then cats sleep a lot. If cats speak Farsi. as we have seen earlier. that all of the following are true: If cats speak French. This means that all the following sentences must also be counted as true: If my cat sleeps a lot. then 7T is greater than 3. and (B =:J M) ("If Bush was reelected in 1992. If Jupiter is a planet. then dinosaurs were discovered alive and well in South Dakota. . and whenever the consequent is true. The truth table for the conditional. the conditional is true. who is now masquerading as the Queen of England. This table has some very odd consequences. If we have found intelligent beings on Mars. Bush being reelected in 1992)? There seems to be no way of judging. If a woman landed on the moon in 1963. which would correspond to the third row of our truth table. If the antecedent is true." and C stand for "Christmas comes but once a year.

so that we can always tell whether an argument is valid or . If an atomic bomb was dropped on New York City in May 2001. you may very well wonder what gives logicians the right to make up such rules as "whenever the antecedent of a conditional is false. which is sometimes called the material conditional. so just a few observations will have to suffice here. then no one was hurt and everyone benefited? A satisfactory reply to this sort of perplexity would take us far afield into the philosophy of logic. if we have a false antecedent. then millions were killed and that if a bomb was dropped. the horseshoe. all of the following are true: If an atomic bomb was dropped on New York City in May 2001. is simply that it is not the case that the antecedent is true and the consequent false." The logical operator. For instance. then no one was hurt and everyone benefited. since this is a twovalued logic. then we must count it as true. At this point. when we keep in mind that the "if-then" is intended to be simply the material conditional." This common logical content. then millions of people were killed. provided the antecedents are false. We want to be able to determine the truth values of compound sentences in all cases. Thus. There is one very good reason. The horseshoe is a very weak operator. then no one was hurt and most people benefited greatly from the strong dose of radiation. is not the same as the ordinary English "if-then.40 Unit 3 Computing Truth Values What is perhaps most disconcerting about this truth table is that conditionals that seem to contradict each other both have to be considered true. however." especially when they lead to such odd results. the conditional as a whole is true. But if a sentence is not false. If cats speak all Western European languages. then they speak French. a sentence with a false antecedent must be true. then we have not said anything false. Isn't it obviously false rather than true that if a bomb was dropped on New York. If cats speak all Western European languages. since in both cases the antecedent is false. which is reflected in the truth table for the horseshoe. One way to think of it might be the following: since the only time the conditional is false is when the antecedent is true and the consequent is false. the appearance of paradox in the previous examples vanishes. Thus. Both conditionals are true simply because in neither case do we have a true antecedent with a false consequent. we may properly claim both that if a bomb was dropped. which captures only the common logical content ofthe various uses of the English "if-then. The most important thing to keep in mind is that the logical operator. for filling in those blanks by making a decision one way or the other. which says nothing more than is indicated in its truth table. One possibility that may have occurred to you is that we might simply leave the third and fourth rows blank in the truth table for the horseshoe. is a kind of "minimal" if-then. then they do not speak French.

The logical systems with stronger "if-then" operators are considerably more complex than our truth-functional version. respectively. and even if you eventually decide that one of them is more nearly correct. Finally. One final comment on the use of the horseshoe." Similarly. ifwe are going to have a truthfunctional. as follows: OUR VERSION OTHER POSSIBLE VERSIONS P q l. We will make no judgment on this point. There are alternative logics that use a stronger "if-then" operator. including the top two rows as well and outlining the bottom two rows. you will probably not be able to understand it unless you have first thoroughly mastered the simpler system. and we certainly want "if p then q" to mean something different from-be true in different circumstances than-"p and q. to have rules determining in every case what the truth value of the compound will be. It is fairly clear that the top two rows must be T and F. and we certainly want "if p then q" to mean something different from just q. they may both be false. (p ~ q) T T F F T F T F T F T F [i] [:J m T F T F [i] Notice that we could not use the second version for the horseshoe because that is the truth table for conjunction. (p ~ q) 2. except to say that it may well be true and that these stronger systems of logic deserve close study. many of our sentences would have unknown truth values. the only possible truth table for the horseshoe is the one we have given. and we can have this only if all our truth tables are complete. as in the truth table we have. For the bottom two rows. there are only four possibilities: they may both be true. we could justify the use of the . We can list these possibilities. or the fourth row could be true with the third false. it turns out that the rule we have given for the horseshoe is the only acceptable candidate. however. two-valued logic in which all operators have complete rules for computation. (p ~ q) 4.Unit 3 Computing Truth Values 41 not. we see that it simply represents q. we could not use the fourth version because that is the truth table for the biconditional. If we left blanks. then. We want all our operators. Not. Given that we want complete truth tables for our operators. and so we could never determine whether the argument forms containing them had instances with true premises and a false conclusion. (p ~ q) 3. then. if we compare the third version with the list of possibilities on the far left. Many logicians claim that these stronger operators are closer to our English "if-then" and are thus better candidates for an accurate system of logic. the third row could be true with the fourth false. If nothing else. in an elementary textbook. Thus. We want a complete decision procedure for sentential logic.

andC are true. We could represent the computation for the formula above in the following way: T (~ A v ~ T B) ::J T ~ C F ~I F F I F~J T It will help to adopt the following conventions: We will place the truth values of the simple sentences immediately above the sentence letters. and that will be the topic of this section. is true. We will also adopt the convention of occasionally dropping the outside parentheses on our formulas if this makes them easier to read. The truth value for the whole. Y. we will here assume that A. then. and by consulting the truth table for" ::J . without including the outermost pair. How. would we compute the truth value of ((~ A v ~ B) ::J ~C)? Since we are counting A. ~ B. while X. then.) The arrows indicate how the truth values of the subformulas "feed into" the computation of the value of the next-largest formula. The disjunction (~A v ~B) will then be false. since no ambiguity results as long as we do not use such a formula as a part of another." we see that F ::J F turns out to be true. in order to clarify what formulas are being used in the later computations. connected by dotted lines. there will be enough parentheses as it is. that a disjunction is false only if both disjuncts are false. and ~ C will all be false. You are now in a position to see how it is possible to compute the truth value of any compound formula given the truth values of the simple component sentences. We will place the truth values of the various subformulas (formulas that occur as a part of a larger formula) immediately below the major operator for that subformula.42 Unit 3 Computing Truth Values horseshoe in elementary logic on the grounds that it is the most easily understood version of "if-then" and is thus the most suitable for an introduction to logic. and C as true. Both antecedent and consequent. ~ A. since both the disjuncts are false. Our computation procedure will be to fIrst determine the truth values of the smallest subformulas. then . We will begin our computations with a fairly simple example. are false. and is otherwise true). Computing Truth Values By now you should have memorized the truth tables for the five operators and should be able to state informally their computation rules (for instance. As in the exercises at the end of the unit. B. for instance. In longer formulas. B. and Z are false. (These may be repeated. 2.

The formula as a whole. Both conditionals are false. T ~((A F T (~A F == Z) ::J F == ~ Z)) T I i \1 F F J J ~/ F T T / T T ~/ Since A is true. the negation operator. what is the scope of. is false. and since Z is false. and so on. antecedent is true and consequent is false. The disjunction is false since both disjuncts are false. If there are . one side is true and the other false. the negation of the conditional. A == Z and ~A == ~ Z are both false. that is. The formula as a whole. The tilde will operate on. since both antecedent and consequent are false. since the conditional is true.Unit 3 Computing Truth Values 43 use these to compute the values of the next-largest subformulas. since the disjunction is false. Negations can be confusing. The following formula is even more complex: F T F ~ T A) ~ ((A v B) ::J Z) v ((B v Z) ::J \/ T ~ F i \J T /F ~/ "V F I Since A and B are true. The conditional is true. or negate (and thus reverse the truth value of). Another example will illustrate this procedure for a slightly more complex formula: ~ ((A == Z) ::J (~A == ~ Z)). the first complete formula following it. since in both. and ~ A is false. ~ A is false. ~ Z is true. is true. that is. the negated disjunction. since in both cases. this will be indicated by the use of parentheses. and it is essential that you understand what formula is affected by. (AvB) and (BvZ) are true. until we reach the value of the sentence as a whole.

Remember that the procedure must always be to work from the inside out. all with different scopes. Reading from left to right. will give you practice in this sort of computation. then it negates only the sentence letter immediately following. The major operator of this fonnula is the first negation. The conjunction will be false. if you find that one side is true. go back and review the truth tables for the operators. we have three tildes. then it negates the fonnula contained between the left parenthesis immediately following it and the right parenthesis that is paired with it. For instance. The sentence would be read "Either not A or else B" and would be true since B is true. for instance. as in ~(A v B). \/ T T ~F ~ If you do not understand the results of the computations above. There are some shortcuts you can use if you know your truth table rules well. the first tilde negates the entire fonnula (and hence will be the last operator to be computed). so the sentence would be read "It is not the case that either A or B" or. (2 v Y) will be false. we would be negating only A. and 2 are false. ~A WI·11 be A false and (B v C) will be true. if you find one . the second negates only the A.44 Unit 3 Computing Truth Values no parentheses immediately following the tilde. in other words. You will need to know them very thoroughly so that you can compute the results for the subfonnulas with a minimum of effort. Since X. In the more complex fonnula ~[(~ A == (B v C)). at the end of the unit. Similarly. The computation would be as follows: T F \ T T F F F ~ [(~A=(BvC)) '~(X::::>(2vY))] I / F \1 T ~ / i F \FI S·mce" B an d C are true. In ~(A v B). and the third negates the conditional (X::::> (2 v Y)). If the tilde is followed by a parenthesis. but can conclude without further ado that the entire disjunction is true. In (~A v B). since it takes only one true disjunct to make a disjunction true. you need make no other calculations. Exercise 1. since one conjunct is false. This will be true." and would be false since (A v B) is true. which it negates. is false. for instance. "Neither A nor B. ~(X ::::> (2 v Y))]. The biconditional will be false and the conditional will be true. to start with the smallest subfonnulas and work your way up step by step to the larger ones. since the conjunction. the tilde negates the whole fonnula (A v B). Y.

given the value of the components. you may conclude that the conditional itself is true. the conditional is true. we know that ~A ::J [((Z v y). the important thing to remember is that it is the truth values only that determine the value of the compound and not. the conditional is true. for instance. for instance. Similarly. And if either the antecedent is false or the consequent is true in a conditional. the entire disjunction is true. for which this is not the case. In the system of logic we will be using. perhaps most. and X. (A v ~ B» == ((A v ~Z) v (X v B»] is true as soon as we see that ~ A is false. There are many systems of . We might say. you are in a position to understand this concept in a little more depth. We need not bother at all with the very complex consequent! A summary of these shortcut rules is as follows: If one disjunct is true. identical truth-value input yields identical truth-value output. As we noted in the introduction. Knowing these shortcuts will considerably facilitate your work when it comes to truth tables in Units 5 and 6. Given that A and B are true.Unit 3 Computing Truth Values 4S conjunct false. since B is true and this makes the second disjunct true. which means that we have a truth-functional logic. That is. 3. There are other ways in which this could be stated. we know almost immediately that (~(A v B) ::J (~Z ::J ~Y» v ((Z' A) v B) is true. As we shall see in the next section. This also means that the truth value of the compounds will be the same whenever the truth values of their respective components are the same. and Z are false. or we could say that the truth value of the compound is a function solely of the truth values of the components. for instance. since a false antecedent always yields a true conditional. Truth-functional Operators The concept of truth functionality was discussed briefly in the Introduction to this unit. all our operators are truth functional. If the antecedent is false. Exercise 2 at the end of the unit will give you practice in using these shortcuts. If one conjunct is false. what it means for an operator to be truth functional is that the truth value of the compound that it forms is completely determined by the truth values of the component parts. the entire conjunction is false. A system of logic is truth functional if and only if each of its operators is truth functional. the meanings of or the relations between the sentences. All we need to know is the truth values of the components in order to determine the value of the compound. Now that you know the truth tables for the five operators and are able to do the computations. Y. However we put it. If the consequent is true. there are many operators. you may conclude that the conjunction as a whole is false. that there are rules that tell us what the value of the compound must be.

that is." It is particularly important not to confuse this strong nontruth-functional operator with our weak truth-functional "if-then. what it means for an operator not to have this property." the truth value of the components does not determine the truth value of the compound. which explore the concepts of possibility and necessity. and one that raises some very interesting philosophical questions." With "because. by contrast." "it is possible that _ _. in October 2000. to be truth functional. no rule that determines the truth value of sentences of the form "x believes that _ _ . after _ _ . Some examples of non-truth-functional operators are "John believes that _ _." "_ _ because _ _. We cannot determine the truth value of "John believes that _ _" just by knowing the truth value of the sentence that goes into the blank. in short. every operator in the logical system must have a complete rule for determining the truth value of the compounds. for instance. Of course. Non-truth-functional Operators You will have a better grasp of what it means for an operator to be truth functional if you understand. we would need the times at which the stated actions took place. We all believe all sorts of false things (although we may not believe that we do). unfortunately) believes it. or we. some outside information. won't believe it. That two sentences are true. and it is also . Something else is needed as well. for instance. simply ask people what they believe. simply an operator for which we cannot determine the truth value of a compound given the truth values of the components. for instance." "it is necessary that _ _. given just the truth values of the components. A typical example of a non-truth-functional operator involves the concept of belief." In fact. It is true. we may determine the truth values of belief sentences by other means. Such systems are not considered to be truth functional even though some of the operators have this property." and "_ _ ." unlike our "if-then. systems of modal logic. That a sentence is true does not guarantee that John (or any of us. What we cannot do is to determine whether they believe something simply on the basis of whether or not it is true." for instance." given only the truth values of the component sentences. in the case of "after. does not guarantee that the corresponding "because" statement is true (although it would guarantee the truth of the material conditional). for instance. is "because. A non-truth-functional operator is by definition. we might.46 Unit 3 Computing Truth Values logic in which some operators are truth functional and others are not. 4. of course. most of the operators in general use in English are non-truth-functional. Another example. to determine the truth value of the whole. Minnesota. it does not determine the value of the compound sentence. With none of these operators is it possible. There is. that it rained in Moorhead. Nor does the fact that a sentence is false guarantee that John.

The error is so common." resulting in T. that it has been given a special name: post hoc ergo propter hoc (after the thing. you will always get the same end result. since it would show that identical truth-value input does not imply the same truth-value output. No doubt in some cases the dance was done and rain followed. both the negated sentences "Gore was not president in 2001" and "Toyotas are not made in Liechtenstein" are true. given the same truth values for two different sets of components. This suggests that if we could come up with pairs of component sentences with identical truth values and show that the results of compounding them were different. especially if one event happened after another. then. that one thing caused another. using a truth-functional operator. Identical input implies identical output. however. we need to be able to show that the truth values of the components do not determine the truth value of the compound. therefore because of the thing). that the sentence "Toyotas are made in Japan because Lincoln was president during the Civil War" is false (and even safer to say that "Lincoln was president during the Civil War because Toyotas are made in 2In less silly cases. and in particular we need to show how we can demonstrate that it is not." for instance. we have "T because T. or worse. To show that an operator is not truth functional. and thus that the value of the compound is not a function solely of the truth values of the components. But how do we do this? We could begin by noting that to sayan operator is truth functional-to say that the value of the compound is determined solely by the values of the components-is to say. to suppose that the Yankees won the World Series because it rained in Moorhead in October. that." It is true that much ofthe state of Washington was covered with ash on May 20. In this case. But it would be absurd. . in what it means to say that an operator such as "because" is not truth functional. And it is obviously true that the state was covered with ash because the volcano erupted. 1980." It is safe to say. It is also true that Mt.2 We need to be more precise. however. thus it was believed.Unit 3 Computing Truth Values 47 true that the Yankees won the World Series in 2000. this would be a demonstration of non-truth-functionality. is false. and so is "Toyotas are made in Liechtenstein. fallaciously. that the rain occurred because of the rain dance. people do sometimes make the mistake of thinking that because two statements are true. Helens erupted in the middle of May 1980. St. however. among other things. in fact." If we negate the two sentences. "Gore was president in 2001. we get the same results in both cases. This kind of error is probably the source of all sorts of superstitions. The question of when (or even if) causal statements are justified is one of the most interesting questions in the philosophy of science. such as the belief in the efficacy of the rain dance. This is exactly what we do to show that an operator is not truth functional. We will use this method to demonstrate the non-truth-functionality of "because. Another pair of true sentences is "Toyotas are made in Japan" and "Lincoln was president during the Civil War.

temporal operators. A system of logic is truth functional if and only if each operator of that system is truth functional. however. followed by the one about Lincoln. while in the other case two true components yield a false compound. 2.S. we get the false compound sentence "Truman was a U. all of which are truth functional. since we can always find out for any of its instances whether or not it has true premises with a false conclusion. To show that an operator is not truth functional. identical truthvalue input yields different truth-value outputs. that are not truth functional. president. "because" is not a truthfunctional operator." If we put the sentence about Truman in the first blank. in our system of logic we will be using five operators. president." "Lincoln was a U. It is even easier to show that the operator " _ _ before _ _" is not truth functional.S.S. Now try. possibility and necessity operators." Thus. DEFINITIONS 1. president. This shows that the truth value of the output is not a function solely of the truth values of the input. president. however. What these four sentences show is that the same truth-value input does not yield the same truth-value output for the "because" operator. president before Lincoln was a U. president before Lincoln was a U. The following sentences are all true: "Washington was a U. including causal operators. There are a great many operators in English." and "Truman was a U. and operators using terms such as "believes" and "hopes. in that order. since in one case two true components yield a true compound. president." If we put the first two sentences. just for the fun of it. The advantage of a truth-functional sentential logic is that it makes it possible to determine the validity of any given argument form. This we have done for all our operators by using the little truth tables. .S. to answer the following question: could you ever yourself show that "I believe that _ _" is not truth functional? Why or why not? In summary.48 Unit 3 Computing Truth Values Japan" is false).S. In this case we have "T because T" coming out false." To show that an operator is truth functional. so the "before" operator is not truth functional.S. we need to come up with a rule for computing the truth value of the compound given the truth values of the components. An operator is truth functional if and only if the truth value of the compound that it forms is completely determined by the truth values of the component parts. we get the true compound sentence "Washington was a U. we need to come up with examples that show that the same truth values for the components may result in different truth values for the compound. into the blanks. therefore.S.

3. (You may make one up if you wish. *s. *e. *c. and C are true and X. X) v (B· Y) (X v A) ~ ::J~B ~B::J ~(X v Y) (A v B) ::J (X v Y) (A (A == B) == (Z == X) == X) == (B == Y) == (A ::J~(X· *i. as our "if-then" operator? EXERCISES 1. (X::J (Y ::J Z» ::J ((Z ::J X) ::J Y) (~X· ~Y) Y» ~((A ~((A l. Write down the truth tables for the five operators we will be using. the horseshoe.) What does it mean for an operator not to be truth functional? Give two or three examples of your own. Y. t. and write down the truth table for it. given that A. *a. Compute the truth values of the following. n. *k. v B) ::J C) ::J ((X v Y) ::J Z) v B) v C) v (C ::J ~(X v ~ A» ::J (~B ~[A::J (~A v X))] ~[((A::J ~B) ::J~C) ::J~X] ~(~A v ~(B v ~(C v ~ X») ~~(A· ~(B ::J ~(C ::J ~(X v ~B» Y»» ((X· A) v ~(X • B» ::J ((A v X)· Y) r. 6. ::J ((X v A)· (Y v~B» ~ [~(A v ~B) v ~(~A v X)] ::J ~(X v A) [(((A::J B) ::J X) ::J Z) ::J Y] ::J [((X ::J Z) ::J A) ::J X] ((X· Y) v (A· . ~A v ~B b. *0.Unit 3 Computing Truth Values 49 STUDY QUESTIONS 1. h. f. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using material implication. 5. What does it mean for a logic to be two valued? What is the advantage of using a two-valued (or at least a finite-valued) logic? Give an example of a truth-functional operator other than the ones we will be using. 7. p. ~A::J ~C (A . State informally the rules for computing the values of our five operators. 2. *q. *g. and Z are false. *m. 4. j. d. B.

j. b. but without being given the values of G. 1. *c. after It is logically possible that _ _ It is logically necessary that _ _ It is unfortunate that It is likely that _ _ . *e. (G v H) ·~A (B v G)· (A v H) ~~Av(X·(G:J~A)) (A v B) == «G v H) :J A) ~(A *e. f. *c. h. *. f. *c. Show that the following operators are not truth functional. Given the values from Exercise 2. can you figure out the values of the following? Why or why not? *a. v B) :J ~(G v H) (X v Y) :J «G v A) :J ~(X v Z)) ~(X v ~Y) :J (G == (~H ·f)) (G == (H· A)):J ~ [A ~[(G «~H v I) :J (X:J Z)) *i.50 Unit 3 Computing Truth Values 2. v (G == [(H· I) v (X· Y)])l :J (A :J X) v (H == ~A))·~Al 3. Compute the truth values of the following. d. e. or f. *a. using the values given in Exercise 1. *g. *a. H. b. j. *g. d. d. (A· G) v (B· H) ~(X v G) H:J (G :J H) (A v G) • (B v H) ~ (A v G) ·~G) H:J (G (H == G) :J (A == B) (H == A) :J (G == B) G) ~(X· G) ~(A· 4. b. h.

Since an argument is valid if and only if its form is valid. we need to be able to determine the logical form of arguments. sometimes a good bit. that is. there is just no way to symbolize an English 51 . and this means giving the logical structure of. Something. INTRODUCTION Learning the techniques of formal symbolic logic would not have much point (except as an intellectual exercise or perhaps a computer game) if you did not learn as well how to apply them in particular cases.UNIT4 Symbolizing English Sentences A. there will necessarily be a fair bit of "squeezing" involved to get the English to fit our simple logical language. the English sentences that make them up. in fact. how to put them into their logical form. will always be translated into a conjunction). symbolizing." for instance. those that contain several operators. The first thing you will need to do is to refresh your memory on the relationship between simple and compound sentences and be able to pick out the simple components of the compounds. Since we have only the five operators and since English is an extremely rich and complex language. Finally. You will then need to learn how certain English operators are symbolized by means of our logical operators (the sentential operator "but. with any number of ways of forming compound sentences. Since in this unit we will be talking about sentential logic. and the first step in application is learning how to symbolize English sentences. you will learn how to symbolize multiply compound sentences. the only sort of structure we need to consider is the way in which compound sentences are constructed out of their simple components by means of our five sentential operators. In some cases. is bound to be lost in translation.

• Be able to distinguish between non-truth-functional compounds. which cannot be symbolized with our operators. "John has a TV set and either Mary has an iPod or David has an FM radio. you must first pick out the simple sentences that go into the compound. for instance. we . in order to make clearer the structure of the English sentence." Having set off the components. Thus. Once you have identified them. that is. then. but Fred will have the best sound system of all if he loves music. B. But there are a great many cases where the fit between English and the symbolic language is very close. We will be symbolizing simple sentences by means of single capital letters. It is these cases with which we will be concerned. perhaps by underlining or putting them in parentheses. To start symbolizing. you may want to set them off in some way. for the above sentence. Once you have identified the simple sentences. Also keep in mind that most sentences with compound subjects and/or predicates must be considered to be compound. it is helpful to choose letters that remind you in some way of the meaning of the sentence. one in which another sentence logically occurs as a component. and it will be your task in this unit to learn to recognize and symbolize the logical structure of the English sentences. C. • Be able to symbolize multiply compound sentences. you must pick out capital letters to stand for them. since they are equivalent to "expanded" sentences in which the simpler sentences are literally contained. particularly in those cases in which the English operator is not truth functional. and a great many arguments whose validity depends on the logical structure reflected in the logical language. the simple components are in italics. In the following compound sentence. which can be. A simple sentence is just one that is not compound. a sentence that does not logically contain other sentences as components. we can get a better picture of how the operators combine these sentences into the compound. UNIT 4 TOPICS 1. When you can. UNIT 4 OBJECTIVES • Be able to pick out the simple components of compound sentences. and truth-functional compounds. Simple Sentences Remember from Unit 2 that a compound sentence is one that logically contains another.52 Unit 4 Symbolizing English Sentences compound by means of one of our five logical operators. • Learn the English words and phrases that are associated with and can be symbolized by our five sentential operators.

It is also important to remember that the capital letters should always be used to abbreviate simple. D." You must use N to stand for "Nixon IThus the triple bar will do double duty: as a symbol for "if and only if' and as a symbol indicating abbreviations. since it will always be clear from the context which sense is being used. M." and "John is going to the party. Thus we would symbolize "Either John has a TV set or David has an FM radio. ~ J). It is important to use different letters for different simple sentences. that is. to stand for "Nixon is not president. and of course you must use the same letter for repeated occurrences of the same simple sentence. in order. J. for instance." but none of these occurs separately in the compound sentence. and John are all going to the party. You would never use N. as it almost always will be. F. There should be no confusion between the two. respectively. It will be extremely important to remember that compacted sentences. however. since the components do not occur separately. What you need to do in such cases is to work out the "expanded" version of the sentence and then identify and choose capital letters for the simple components that are literally contained in the expanded version. when checking your answers. When this dictionary is given to you in the exercises. unnegated sentences. It is sometimes not possible just to underline the simple sentences in a compound as we have suggested. J == John is going to the party. It will always be important in symbolizing to be very explicit about which capital letter stands for which simple sentence. We will adopt the convention in this book of using a triple bar between a capital letter and an English sentence to indicate that the capital letter is the abbreviation for." for instance. and L.Unit 4 Symbolizing English Sentences 53 might use the letters. M == Mary is going to the party. must be considered to be compound sentences and must be symbolized accordingly. for instance. since otherwise it will be impossible. and we could then symbolize the compound sentence as «T' M)' J). the symbolization of. Compound sentences that are "compacted" by the use of compound subjects and/or predicates do not lend themselves to this treatment." "Mary is going to the party. . to stand for the simple components. We might abbreviate the simple components. In the sentence "Tom. sentences with compound subjects and/or predicates. the simple components are "Tom is going to the party." Such an explicit statement of abbreviations can be considered a kind of "dictionary. Mary." which makes possible a translation between the English sentence and its symbolic counterpart. as T. 1 We might have written above. and J. but John doesn't have a TV set" as «J v D) . The expanded version of the above sentence would be "Tom is going to the party and Mary is going to the party and John is going to the party" (where the simple components have been italicized). that English sentence. to tell whether you have done the problems correctly. "T == Tom is going to the party. you should use exactly those abbreviations. M.

" for instance. with particular truth values. The capital letter is not to be considered a variable. shorter ways of writing them. but is to be thought of as a constant. so we must represent them as noncompound. As we saw in Unit 2. In particular. thus they may not be symbolized by means of a single capital letter. which may seem theoretical now but which will be important later. 2. is that the capital letters are to be considered as abbreviations for the simple sentences. The question is how to symbolize non-truth-functional compounds. which stands for no sentence in particular. It's possible that cats have their own language. such as "John went to the party because Mary was going to be there. Thus their status is that of ordinary. the truth value of compound sentences using "because" cannot be so computed. sentences that have a major operator such as "because" or "after. since they contain simple sentences as components. shorter way of writing down the English sentence. with operators such as "because" or "possibly"? We may distinguish between truth-functional and non-truth-functional compounds. a definite. Truth-functional and Non-truth-functional Compounds Not every English compound sentence can be symbolized by means of our five sentential operators. I think that's a UFO up there. We might symbolize "Mary went to the party because she did not feel like studying. All of the sentences below are of this sort: non-truthfunctional compounds that cannot be represented as truth-functional compounds and so must be symbolized using a single capital letter. . such as the horseshoe. the former have a truth-functional major operator and the latter have a non-truthfunctional major operator. meaningful English sentences. Thus we will symbolize them by means of a single capital letter. negated sentences must be considered to be compound. But.54 Unit 4 Symbolizing English Sentences is president" (the positive version) and then symbolize that Nixon is not president by using the negation sign. Again. would be to claim erroneously that the truth value of the compound could be determined by the truth value of the components. One final point. The correct symbolization for "Nixon is not president" would thus be ~ N. just as M. simple sentences. we simply cannot represent their structure at all. and these truth-functional operators are all we have in classical logic. meaningful entity. as we saw in Unit 3. we will not be able to represent the structure of sentences whose major operators are not truth functional." Since we cannot represent their structure by means of truth-functional operators." To represent this by means of a truth-functional operator. the capital letter should be considered as simply an easier. What do we do. Andrew hopes he will get a raise. then.

because their major operators are troth functional. he'll probably buy a Kia. though they have non-troth-functional compounds as components. (R· ~ P) Either I'll get a ticket because I was speeding or I'll be late to work because I drove too slowly. John got a raise because he worked hard. A few of these other operators are "but. which are also troth functional and which can also be symbolized by the dot. If we say. a." we could symbolize the sentence as (J. There is. but it's not likely that I'll be promoted. any operator in English that has the same logical force can be symbolized as a conjunction. in the ordinary . and I'm going to a party after class is over." "only if." we are making two separate claims: that John likes TV and that Mary hates TV. The sentences below. (W·P) It's possible I'll get a raise. horseshoe. The truth-functional operator "and. (T v L) Exercise I at the end of the unit will give you more practice in distinguishing truth-functional from non~truth-functional compounds. such as "John went to the party because Mary was going to be there." and "if and only if') and the symbols commonly used to represent them." and "not both." "still. M). tilde. a great many operators in English." "not." "or. Conjunction." as its truth table indicates. If John thinks that Audi costs too much. Symbolizing Truth-functional English Operators In Unit 2 you learned about the five basic truth-functional operators of sententiallogic ("and. can be symbolized as truth-functional compounds. however. It's likely that Priscilla will major in Physics.Unit 4 Symbolizing English Sentences Bob thinks he can get a raise by flattering his boss. 3. and Mary went to the party because Fred was going to be there. if we let J stand for "John went to the party because Mary was going to be there" and M stand for "Mary went to the party because Fred was going to be there. for instance." You will be learning how to symbolize these and many more in the following paragraphs. in addition to these five. 55 It may happen that we have two non-truth-functional compounds joined to- gether with a truth-functional operator." In this case. wedge. The non-truth-functional components are italicized and a suggested symbolization is given in parentheses." "unless. has the logical force of stating that both conjuncts are true. Thus. or triple bar. "John likes TV but Mary hates it." "if-then." "neither. of course. There are. and the sentence could be symbolized as (L· H). (A => K) I'm going to work before I go to class.

or usually. (F· L) I know it's a beautiful day. but also a first-rate scientist." "while" (used as an operator). "Still.56 Unit 4 Symbolizing English Sentences meaning of "but" more than just conjunction. or style." "and also. in fact. we would have no use for a separate word. "but still. (J • ~ T) I won't give up. it indicates not only that both things were done. or rhetoric. "despite the fact that. (B • ~ C) Anne will marry John. It would be impossible (unless perhaps one were Webster) to come up with a complete list of such words and phrases. the "while" is used as a nontruth-functional compound. also. are given below." and so on. (~G· ~ S) John is a sweety. however. In the sentence "John waited in the car while Mary cashed a check. Many operators in English have the same logical force as "and" and can therefore be symbolized with the dot. nevertheless. John loves Mary. however. which would be symbolized with the dot. (C • R) Mary is not only a musician. however." for instance. otherwise. (A . T) It's raining. sometimes." for instance. although he didn't wear a tie to the interview. (S· R) Mary likes classical music and also rock." Sentences like this. I like him. (J. he can't cook. It would not be correct to symbolize . rather than a matter of logical content. the words are not even used as operators. we will go on a picnic. even though it is not certain that I will succeed." "still" (used as an operator rather than an adverb). is often used as an adverb. But what more there is in the term is a matter of suggestion.~C) John doesn't have ajob. she barely tolerates him." "nevertheless. despite the fact that he can't cook. still." "also. he's rich. and this is why we can symbolize it as a conjunction. along with their symbolizations. but also that they were done simultaneously. (B· S) John got the job." "moreover. What is a little trickier is the use in non-truth-functional compounds of operators that are often. (R· P) John is a bit flaky. (M • S) "But" is truth functional. while "because" is not. The logical content of "but" is simply that both of the component sentences are true. Some examples of sentences using these operators. I want to stay home and read. but still. moreover. (~J ·~C) This should give you some idea of the wide variety of English sentences that can be translated as conjunctions. but some of the most common are the following: "however. should give you little trouble. since it is clear that the function of the word in this case is not that of an operator." "although. One thing you must be careful about. is that some uses of these operators are not truth functional." "not only-but also." "even though. as in "It is still raining. truth functional.

you will have little difficulty recognizing when to symbolize a sentence by means of the v. As noted in Unit 2.Unit 4 Symbolizing English Sentences 57 these sentences with the dot. for instance. Thus. We may not use sentence letters alone to symbolize negated sentences. as noted in Unit 3." An example of this might be the following: "John wants to be a lawyer or a physician. however. h. which means "one or the other but not both." or in the form "or else. and "It's hot in here. "Either you get out of here or I'll call the police" (G v P). negations of simple sentences." We could symbolize this. it is not always crystal clear whether it is the whole sentence that is being negated. . For the sentence to be true. c. where L means "John is lucky. and this is simply not the case. but." for instance. however. so that we must consider it a compound. There may be other phrases where disjunction is indicated as well." If we say "John is unlucky. Examples would be "Gore or Bush was president in 2001" (G v B). Almost any sentence that contains an "or. In the sentence above. or whether it is just a particular predicate that is being negated. such as "John is not a good student. and we need to discuss some special problems that come up with negated simple sentences and some that arise with negated compounds. paired with an "either. "And" and "or" are quite straightforward and will probably provide few challenges. this should probably not be interpreted as ~ L." must be symbolized by means of a tilde prefixed to a simple sentence letter. but not both. by conjoining to the inclusive disjunction (L v P) a clause that explicitly says "not both." can be symbolized as a disjunction. In general. Disjunction." which in this case would be ~(L • P). since negated sentences are compounds. Negation. and our capital letters are supposed to stand only for simple sentences (or non-truth-functional compounds). we could let J stand for "John is a good student" and then symbolize the compound "John is not a good student" as ~J. can be tricky. you should symbolize the "or" as an inclusive disjunction. as exceptions to the general rule. not only must both conjuncts be true." which might simply mean that he doesn't win sweepstakes. however. or else I'm getting sick" (H v S). you should have no trouble symbolizing conjunctions." ~ L would then say "John is not lucky. such as "unusual. "Not." either alone. there is an exclusive sense of "or" as well." however. We could then symbolize the entire sentence as (L v P) • ~(L' P). When negations occur in a sentence. as indicated in Unit 3. We will usually be interpreting "or" sentences in the inclusive sense. Unless there is a phrase explicitly indicating that an exclusive disjunction is intended. If you keep these special cases in mind. but you should have little trouble spotting them. it would be wrong to represent it with the dot. but the two events mentioned must have occurred at the same time. because that would imply that so long as both sentences were true the compound would be true.

and for "neither" it is probably ~(p v q). There is some element of judgment involved in determining whether a sentence should be considered a negation or a simple sentence with a negative predicate. The most straightforward symbolization for "not both" is probably ~ (p. Part of the confusion comes from the fact that there are equivalent ways of saying the same thing: two different and equally correct ways of symbolizing "not both" and "neither. that every time he walks under a ladder a bucket of paint falls on his head. Nixon is not president and also Carter is not president. q) and (~p v ~q) are interchangeable. probably means something stronger. we are negating a conjunction. and the proper symbolization would be to place a tilde in front of a conjunction: ~(G· B). This could be symbolized as (~N· ~C) as well as ~(N v C). while the neither is a negated disjunction." however. either Gore was not elected or Bush was not elected. If we say. These rules tell us that the two forms ~ (p." To say that not both Gore and Bush were elected in 2000. and students generally have trouble with them at first (sometimes also at last. but either of their equivalents will do as well. and what you will have to watch very carefully. If your instructor solemnly informs you that you will not get both an A and a B in his introduction to basket-weaving course. is to say that one or the other of them was defeated. On the other hand. and you will need to be very careful with them. ~ q). for instance. This could be symbolized as (~G v ~B) and is just as correct as ~(G· B)." The not both is a negated conjunction. Negations may operate on compound sentences as well as simple ones. for instance. that not both Gore and Bush were elected in 2000. There are two very common phrases which are particularly bothersome. and ~(p v q) is not equivalent to (~p v ~q). we are negating a disjunction. A couple of examples should make this clear. if we say that neither (not either) Nixon nor Carter is president. is that ~ (p. q) is not equivalent to (~p. These equivalences are so important in logic that they have been enshrined as rules and are generally referred to as De Morgan's Laws. but you will need to be aware of the problem when you do your own abbreviations. and the appropriate symbolization would be to place the tilde in front of a disjunction: ~(N v C). ~(A· B). What may be confusing.58 Unit 4 Symbolizing English Sentences "John is unlucky. ~q). and a negated disjunction is equivalent to a conjunction with both conjuncts negated. q). that is. the negation of a conjunction is equivalent to a disjunction with the disjuncts negated. . In general. unfortunately). you will not have to worry about this after Exercise 1. for instance. you will probably not see any cause for alarm. Negated compound sentences are the source of a lot of logical grief. To say that neither Nixon nor Carter is president is to say that both of them are absent from the current presidential scene. as are the forms ~ (p v q) and (~p. These phrases are "not both" and "neither. Since in most cases you will be given the letters that are supposed to represent simple sentences. a sentence of any degree of complexity may be negated. that is.

the conditional is the most challenging of our five operators and requires the most discussion." rather than the "then. On the other hand. such as "unless" and "only if. she is only telling you what you could have learned yourself from reading the college catalogue section on grades. where the clause immediately following the "if' serves as the antecedent of the conditional." This would be symbolized as a negated biconditional. then q" or "if p. we will talk about the many English operators. Or suppose an instructor tells you. one is utterly trivial. sentences of the form "if p. In the paragraphs below. "It is not true that Mary will come to the party if and only if John does not. In many cases in English. what is being claimed. The sentence "If it doesn't rain. as in "If John was not at the party." In both cases the proper symbolization is (~R ::J P). We will say more about negated compounds when we begin to symbolize more complex sentences in Section 4. and since the . you may very well be unhappy. ~(D v F). and the other says something significant. In general. In symbolization. Conditional. This is partly because we have to be careful not to use it where it is unwarranted (as in causal statements) and partly because there are so many kinds of sentences for which it is appropriate. that is. is exactly the same. since it means you will get at least a C. The two statements are not at all the same. Someone may say." for example. then we can have a picnic. The symbolization is supposed to represent the logical structure of the sentence rather than the typographical order. ~(M == ~ J). we might very well say "We can have a picnic if it doesn't rain. we reverse the order of antecedent and consequent for stylistic reasons. since this implies you will get a C or worse." that is the clue to the conditional. • ~ B). for instance. then we can have a picnic. Sentences of the form "If p. Or we might say. that you will get neither a D nor an F.Unit 4 Symbolizing English Sentences 59 On the other hand. can be symbolized as (~R ::J P). we are negating (F ::J Q). in a very challenging course. It is extremely important to realize that the first clause in the English sentence is not necessarily the antecedent of the conditional. Instead of saying "If it doesn't rain. since the logical force of the sentences. This may be a relief." which could be symbolized as (~P ::J S). In some cases the "then" may be omitted. if he tells you that you will not get an A and will not get a B. (~D v ~F). It is certainly no cause for reassurance." for instance. "It is not true that John will quit school if he fails logic. q" will be symbolized as (p ::J q). (~A d. It is the "if. since it still leaves open the possibility that you will get one or the other Gust not both)! There are other compounds that may be negated. so the proper symbolization would be ~(F ::J Q). if she tells you that you will either not get a D or not get an F. then q" are the most obvious candidates for the use of the horseshoe." Here what is being denied is that he will quit school if he fails logic. he is sick." that can be symbolized by means of the horseshoe.

60 Unit 4 Symbolizing English Sentences logical structure is the same in both cases. To say you will win only if you have a ticket. it is perfectly appropriate to use it interchangeably with "It rains. V == The volcanic ash cloud passes over)2 The cat will not scratch the furniture. but "You will win the state lottery if you have a ticket" is almost certainly false. could be symbolized as (S::J G). (I :J ~ R) (I == Interest rates remain high. the symbolization will also be the same. The difference is particularly clear if we consider the example of a lottery. provided you train her. Again." "supposing that." as we have just seen. There will be dirty rain if the volcanic ash cloud passes over. R == The housing industry recovers sometime soon) Rescue teams will be launched in the event that the volcano explodes. however. the housing industry will not recover anytime soon. if a clause like "It will rain" occurs in a conditional. T == You train her) ~ S) (S == The If John quits school. he will regret it. . (G :J A) (G == Mary goes with him. "John will get good grades provided he studies. so the two sentences cannot mean the same. R == Rescue teams are launched) Provided that Mary goes with him. (T :J cat scratches the furniture." such as "provided. where the clause following the "provided. Thus. Some examples of basic "if-then" sentences with their symbolizations are the following. John will move to Alaska. no matter where the "if" occurs in the English sentence. A == John moves to Alaska) It is extremely important to distinguish between "if' and "only if." the "supposing that. is to say that the only way you can win is by having a 2It should be noted at this point that tense is generally irrelevant in symbolizing. (V :J D) (D == There is dirty rain. These sentences will also be symbolized as material conditionals. is symbolized as (p ::J q). Thus." "given that. since that is how lotteries are played." and so on." Simple sentences will usually be given in this form." and so on. (Q :J R) (Q == John quits school. in fact. and will be symbolized as (q ::J p). says something quite different. is the antecedent." for instance. abbreviations for the simple sentences are given in parentheses." "in the event that. "q ifp" is symbolized as (p ::J q). (V :J R) (V == The volcano explodes." "q if p. The sentence "You will win the state lottery only if you have a ticket" is certainly true. R == He regrets it) Supposing that interest rates remain high. There are many other phrases in English that mean approximately the same as "if. To say you will win if you have a ticket would be symbolized as (T ::J W) (where T == You have a ticket and W == You win). "q only if p. just the converse. it will be the clause immediately following the "if" that becomes the antecedent of the horseshoe statement." however.

which may be symbolized as (~ T ::J ~ W). it might be 80°F outside! Thus it would not be correct to use (C ::J S). then B. that for B to occur. In other words. you won't win. The following patterns summarize the symbolizations for "only if" and show the difference between this operator and the simple "if. This would be symbolized as (~ C ::J ~ S) and is equivalent to the symbolization (S ::J C) given originally. which we can symbolize as (W ::J T)." for instance." it may help to consider the concepts of necessary and sufficient conditions. To say that A is a necessary condition for B. if you win. ifA doesn't happen. A must be the case. This is equivalent to the original symbolization (W ::J T). we will have B only ifwe have A. as we saw earlier. That is. then you must have had a ticket. that is. we might say that without clouds it cannot snow. so if you win. of course. on the other hand. There is another correct way to symbolize "only if' sentences. To say that A is a sufficient condition for B means that the occurrence of A is enough to bring about the occurrence of B. if A. which can be symbolized as (~T ::J ~ W). we can say that without a ticket. then it will not snow. B will occur. if you don't have a ticket. to say that A is a necessary condition for B is to say B cannot occur without A. In other words. so if it snows. you must have had a ticket. which is. Note that this does not imply that if it is cloudy then it will snow. In the second example. symbolized as (A ::J B). so if it is not cloudy. is to say that B requires A. Equivalently. Another example is the sentence "It will snow only if it is cloudy. in other words. in other words. To illustrate the concept of sufficient conditions. Equivalently. then you won't win. which is symbolized as ( ~ A ::J ~ B). to say that you will win only if you have a ticket is to say that without a ticket you won't win.Unit 4 Symbolizing English Sentences 61 ticket. then B will not occur. to win (W) requires having a ticket (n. Thus we would symbolize the sentence "You will win the state lottery only if you have a ticket" as (W ::J T). The sentence is thus symbolized as (S ::J C). "It will snow only if it is cloudy. which means that given A. Returning to our previous examples. then we can infer that it is cloudy. we can say that your having a ticket (n is a necessary condition for your winning the lottery (W). we could say that Ann's having a daughter (D) is a sufficient condition for . which. In the first example. since having a ticket (n is necessary for winning (W). is symbolized as (B ::J A)." This says that the only time it will snow is when it is cloudy." PATTERN SYMBOLIZATION EQUIVALENT PATTERN qifp q only if p (p::Jq) (q ::J p) or (~p::J ~ q) if p then q q requires (implies) p if not p then not q To keep straight the difference between "if' and "only if.

" and both will be symbolized as (B :J P)." and both sentences would be symbolized as (A :J Q). which would say ifhe does a good day's work he will be paid. That is. then ~q "Only if" is the phrase that students generally have the most trouble with. which would say he gets paid if and only if he does a good day's work. (Roughly. "The dog bites only if he is provoked. then it will be easier to do analogous sentences such as "The dog bites only if he is provoked" (B :J P) or "John will get an A only if he quits partying" (A :J Q). "If he got paid.") It would not be symbolized as (G :J P). then q p is a necessary condition for q : (q :J p) or (~p :J ~q) q requires p for q to happen. or as (G == P). just as in "if" sentences. p must happen if q. the order of clauses in "only if" sentences may be reversed." for instance. such as the lottery example. which we can symbolize as (D :J M). would be symbolized as (P :J G). To complicate things just a bit further. he must have done a good day's work. It may well be that if he does a good day's work he will be paid." for instance. then q will happen if p. The sentence "John gets paid only if he does a good day's work. It does sometimes happen in ordinary conversation that the converse conditional (the conditional with the antecedent and consequent reversed) is taken for granted. Similarly.62 Unit 4 Symbolizing English Sentences her to be a mother (M). can be stated equivalently as "Only if he is provoked will the dog bite. It is important to remember that the "only if" asserts only a one-way conditional. then she is a mother. if Ann has a daughter. "John will get an A only if he quits partying" can be stated as "Only if he quits partying will John get an A. but it should not be included as part of a formal symbolization. thenp q cannot happen without p if p doesn't happen. q won't occur if ~p. A summary of these concepts is below. even though not explicitly stated. P is a sufficient condition for q : (p :J q) P is enough to bring about q if p happens. and normally we would probably take this . What you should do is to memorize the standard patterns given in the paragraph above and also keep in mind examples that are particularly clear. this will be stressed again when we come to the biconditional in the next section. If you remember that "You win only if you have a ticket" is symbolized as (W :J T).

" which could be symbolized as (S v F) (Either Mary shapes up or she will be fired. and not something you take for granted or read into the sentence. it will stay next door. are given below. which is very common and whose symbolization is quite simple: "unless. not a biconditional. What can be confusing is that in actual usage we often take for granted the converse conditional. This also means. it is easy to see that the correct symbolization would be (~C ::J S)." in general." In this form. This is again perhaps most clearly seen using the lottery example. as Mary no doubt realizes. but the sentence does not explicitely assert that." for instance. Some examples of English sentences using these various operators. To say "You won't win unless you have a ticket" is to say only that if you don't have a ticket. we will discuss only one more. using the above formulation." it is important to remember that an "unless" statement explicitly asserts just a one-way conditional. that "unless" statements. just as "only if' statements. equivalently. the "unless" can be read almost literally as an "if not. then he did not insult his boss (R ::J ~ I). You should symbolize only what the sentence explicitly says. "John will get a raise (R) unless he insults his boss (I). Abbreviations for the simple sentences are given in parentheses. however. It does not assert in addition that if you didn't win. We may well assume that if he does get a raise. and in fact it might not be true. which would be symbolized as (~T ::J ~ W). (Some bosses have unusually thick skins. Millions of people who do have tickets don't win. "If John's dog is not called.) The "unless. then you didn't have a ticket (~W ::J ~ T). as (~S ::J F) (If she does not shape up. but the sentence does not explicitly state that." we could symbolize this." we are literally saying just that if John does not insult his boss. . along with their symbolizations. and so it should not be included as a part of the symbolization. may also be symbolized simply as a disjunction. may be paraphrased as "p if not q" and symbolized as (~q ::J p). If we say. "p unless q. in other words." In the sentence "John's dog will stay next door unless it is called. Although there are undoubtedly many other words and phrases in English that are appropriately symbolized by the horseshoe. There is also another way to symbolize the "unless. the one with antecedent and consequent reversed. and they must be symbolized with the horseshoe rather than the triple bar." which is neatly illustrated by the following example: if we say "Mary will be fired unless she shapes up. for instance. "shape up or ship out. As with "only if." and the sentence could be reworded as "John's dog will stay next door if it is not called" or." then. explicitly assert just one-way conditionals. he will get a raise (~ I ::J R). Mary will be fired). which can be symbolized by means of the horseshoe. that either she shapes up or she gets fired.Unit 4 Symbolizing English Sentences 63 for granted. then you won't win.) Always keep in mind1 then.

so we will symbolize "p if and only if q" with the triple bar. equivalently. G == There is good food at the party) Henry will be at the party provided there is good food. W == I withdraw my lawsuit) John will come to the party if Mary is there. if p." Thus one symbolization of the biconditional could be «q :J p). then q (p :J (p :J (p:J (p :J (p :J q) q) q) q) q) q only if p P only if q P unless q not p unless q (q :J p) or ( ~ p :J ~ q) (p :J q) or (~q :J ~p) (~ q :J p) or (p v q) (~q :J ~ p) or (~p v q) e. . that can be symbolized with the horseshoe. (q :J p)). «p :J q). It would not be wrong. as its name implies. (p :J q)) or. and you should keep in mind that this is the logical force of the biconditional. (D =:l R) or (~R =:l ~ D) (D == Interest rates drop. with their schematic representations. (H =:l G) or (~ G =:l ~ H) (H == Henry comes to the party. (~A =:l ~ W) or (W =:l A) (A == He publicly apologizes. P == We can go on a picnic) Only if he publicly apologizes will I withdraw my lawsuit. we can't go on a picnic. and it is far more common to overuse it-to use it where it is not warranted-than to underuse it and fail to recognize its application.64 Unit 4 Symbolizing English Sentences Interest rates will drop only if there is a recession. it means exactly the same as the previous sentence. however. other common phrases would be 'just in case" or "just in the event that. You may well be able to figure out symbolizations other than those given here. then q ifp. "p if q" and ''p only if q. 3This could also be symbolized as (D ::J R). (G =:l H) Below is a list of common operators. I have not given all possible symbolizations for each of these sentences. to symbolize it as a conjunction of conditionals (this form will be useful later). To say "p if and only if q" is really to assert the conjunction." Any English sentence that can be paraphrased into the form "p will happen in exactly the same circumstances in which q will happen" can be symbolized with the biconditional. but only those that seem to capture most directly the sense of the English. R == There is a recession) Interest rates will not drop unless there is a recession. M == Mary comes to the party) Henry will come to the party only if there is good food. q q ifp q providedp provided p. We have a special operator for this form. (~S =:l ~ P) or (S v ~ P) (S == It stops raining soon. "If and only if' will always call for the use of the biconditional. is a two-way conditional. The biconditional. Biconditional. There are relatively few phrases in English that will call for the use of the biconditional. however. as (p == q). which could also be symbolized as (R v ~ D). (M =:l J) (J == John comes to the party. (~ R =:l ~ D) or (R v ~ D? Unless it stops raining soon.

C. Some examples of English sentences with their symbolizations. F == John finishes his paper) If. rather than just the conditional. «p.Unit 4 Symbolizing English Sentences 65 Again. but we can attack it in the following way. "p if and only if q" is the phrase that will signal the use of the biconditional. and then go on to symbolize the components. magazine articles. and G stand for the simple components (in the order in which they appear). We can let P. (J == F) (J == John comes to the party. (D == R) (D == Interest rates drop. For instance. or ((F ::J P)' (~F ::J ~ P)). . she doesn't have a date will Mary come to the party. write that down." that if he gets at least a B in Math. he will get into medical school" is fairly complex. (P == F). and only if. We continually encounter sentences such as the following in newspapers. is an "if-then. D == Mary has a date) The cat will play if she is fed. once you have identified and abbreviated the simple components. respectively." In this section your job will be to learn how to analyze and symbolize such sentences containing multiple operators. You already know how to pick out the simple components and what the meaning of each of the five operators is. or ((F ::J P) • (P ::J F)) (P == The cat will play. are given below: Interest rates will drop if and only if there is a recession." These forms represent one-way conditionals and are properly symbolized as (p :J q) and (~ q :J p). and the like: "If inflation and unemployment continue at their current low rates. Symbolizing Multiply Complex Sentences In Unit 2. they need not contain only one or two operators. and she will not play if she is not fed. then there will be no recession unless either stock prices drop dramatically or both heating oil and gasoline prices continue to rise. one thing you must keep in mind is that the biconditional will not be used for sentences of the form "p only if q" or "p unless q. that is. (M == ~ D) (M == Mary comes to the party. R == There is a recession) John will come to the party just in the event that he finishes his paper. if he gets at least a B in math. which make use of the triple bar. B. we noted that formulas may be of any length. the sentence "If John gets A's in both physics and chemistry. and the "then" part is another "if-then. its major operator. The best way to work out the logical structure of a multiply compound sentence. F == The cat is fed) 4. So we can symbolize the sentence as C) :J (B :J G)). and we should then notice that the overall structure of the sentence. then he will get into medical school. when we discussed the structure of sentential logic. is to pick out the major operator first. then." The "if' part is that he gets A's in both Physics and Chemistry. what is left is to learn how to fit all the parts together in the proper way.

. it should be clear from the comma that the major operator is the "if-then. We can now write down. The next step is to identify the major operator of the sentence." would be If you follow this general method of identifying and symbolizing the major operator first and only then moving to the components.66 Unit 4 Symbolizing English Sentences It may help to partially symbolize the sentence first. The latter is certainly easier. (lo U) :=) (Not R unless either S or both 0 and G). by abbreviating the simple sentences while retaining the English words for the operators. The next step is to symbolize the components. The disjunction "either S. In this case the antecedent is easy. the antecedent is (l and U). then not R unless either S or both 0 and G. and the thing to do is to start with what is easiest (which is a matter of jUdgment). In the case above. 0 Note that an equivalent formulation. (l and U) :=) (Not R unless either S or both 0 and G)." Once you have identified the major operator. or both 0 and G" should then be easy to manage: it will look like (Sv(O G». you will be more likely to come up with a correct symbolization than if you just try to write everything down from the beginning. it is simply a conjunction. If both I and U. for instance. and the consequent is (not R unless either S or both 0 and G). In the sentence above. So we can write as the next stage 3. for instance. and we know that "both 0 and G" will be (0 G). using the first form for "unless. so let us finally finish off the symbolization as follows: 5. (lo U) :=) (~R v (S v (0 G))). The sentence in quotation marks in the first paragraph of this section. We know that "not R" is to be symbolized as vR. could be partially symbolized as: 1. this is a matter of understanding the grammar. the following: 0 0 4. (lo U) :=) (~R unless (S v (0 G))). you can write it down and place its components in parentheses in the proper order. The consequent in this example is fairly complicated. 0 Now the only thing left is to symbolize the "unless"! Remember that "p unless q" can be symbolized either as (~q :=) p) or as (p v q). We could thus write 2. as a further preliminary step.

" The sentence is symbolized as (C· (M :J J». the comma indicates that the major break in the sentence comes after "wine. You should be safe." but the structure is clear nevertheless." and so on. and M == The weather is muggy. In general. changing the placement of parentheses changes the meaning of the sentence. As we have seen in Unit 2. if the weather is muggy." if J == John comes to the party. of course. in the sentence "John will come to the party if Mary does. (Some sentences. Without parentheses. will in many cases be indicated by the use of punctuation. where C == Carolyn likes wine. the structure may be indicated by strategic placement of the operators or the way in which subjects and predicates are compounded. The grammatical structure of the English sentence. wherever it may appear in the English sentence. 4 Thus. is not always reflected in the order in which the components appear in the English sentence. Since 4What follows the "only if. but do watch out for the logical. M == Mary comes to the party." and the symbolization would be (~S :J (M :J J». as we have seen. the use of parentheses in complex formulas (and punctuation in the corresponding English sentences) is essential if we are to avoid ambiguity." "B provided A." so the major operator would be "if. are downright ambiguous. Notice here that the order of the simple components in the symbolization is exactly the reverse of their appearance in the English sentence. however. and John likes beer if the weather is muggy." so that the major operator is "and. as opposed to the literary. are not always neatly phrased as "if A then B. There is no punctuation in the sentence "John will be disappointed if either Carolyn or Ronald wins the election. then if M then J. Semicolons (which should be interpreted as conjunctions) and commas will indicate where the major breaks in the sentence occur." They may be stated as "B if A. Where there is no punctuation. for instance. will always be the consequent of the conditional. J == John likes beer. and hence its logical form. provided he is not sick. always becomes the antecedent of the symbolic form. if you keep in mind that what follows the "if' (or its equivalent. the formula (S yO· G) could be interpreted in two different and nonequivalent ways: (S v (0· G» or «S v 0) . . which will be represented in the symbolization. If the sentence read "Carolyn likes wine and John likes beer. especially for conditionals. and what follows the "then" becomes the consequent. structure of the sentence. such as "provided"). the logical structure is "if not S. and with these the only thing you can do is make the best guess about the intended meaning." on the other hand. the major break would come after "beer.Unit 4 Symbolizing English Sentences 67 One thing you must be alert to is the fact that the logical structure of the sentence." on the other hand. The divergence will not always be this extreme. and S == John is sick. Conditionals.) In the sentence "Carolyn likes wine. G)." The symbolization then would be (M :J (C· J»." for instance.

M. (either S or T) :J (if M only if J. then D and P. while "not both" is equally correct as ~ (p' q) or as (~p v ~ q). D. This leaves only the "M only if J. (SvT):J ((M only if J) :J (D' P». then D and P) The major operator of the consequent is clearly "if. Our first step would be I. then. The correct symbolization is «C v R) :J D)." there is no punctuation. but from the fact that "John plays tennis and squash" is a compound unit (say. One final reminder: in symbolizing. your next move should be to identify and symbolize the major operator. A sentence of the form . (T' S». Our final symbolization." followed by its two disjuncts. In general. J. and "Mary plays neither" is also a unit (say. In the sentence "John plays tennis and squash but Mary plays neither. (S v T) :J ((M :J J) :J (D' P». then if Mary plays tennis only if John plays with her." so we can move to 4. be abbreviated as S. As already noted. "neither" may be symbolized as ~ (p v q) or as (~ p • ~ q). there are often many equivalent and equally correct ways of putting things." and we know that this should be symbolized as (M :J J). then. and so to 3. will be 5. your analysis will be complete. comes after the "if. Let us take one more example and apply the above techniques: "If John is going to either study or watch TV. which may themselves require analysis into the major operator of the components and the components of the components." (Let the simple sentences. (S v T) :J (if M only if J. Then go on to symbolize the components. P). when symbolizing complex sentences." The sentence quite clearly should be symbolized as ((T' S)· ~(E v Q». especially for very complex sentences. in order of their appearance. T. then Mary will make dinner and pout. When you have symbolized all the parts. ~(E v Q». If either S or T. then if M only if J.68 Unit 4 Symbolizing English Sentences the "either. then (D' P»." it is clear that the major operator is the conditional and that the disjunction should be the antecedent. once you have identified and abbreviated the simple components. we next have 2. Since the first "if-then" is clearly the major operator of the sentence. it is clear that the major operator is "but.

b. *e. John and Mary are married. and you have (~ p • ~ q). because the latter is not equivalent to the former. Keep this in mind when you are checking your answers in the back of the book. because we may run out of oil. d. you have simply made a mistake. (I) Determine which of the following sentences are truth-functionally compound. John drives his van only if he is camping or needs to haul large loads. If high-speed trains are developed. Humans are descended from either small primates or great apes. *q. as you saw from "only if. *i. you are not necessarily wrong. You may be saying the same thing in another way. q). John and Mary will not both bring pies to the picnic if Ted is going to bring a birthday cake. *g. People like to drive automobiles because it gives them a sense of freedom. Mary is not the most athletic girl in her class. r. *m. if you don't have exactly what is there. some forms are not equivalent. It is necessary that we conserve energy. p. John thinks that Mary married the wrong person. *0. John is pleased that his new Honda gets 50 miles to the gallon." And the biconditional can be symbolized either as (p == q) or as the conjunction of conditionals. then automobile use will decrease. EXERCISES I. h. but she is the smartest. John does not drive his van unless he needs the space. High-speed trains will not be developed if there are no financial incentives. f. Neither John nor Bob nor Andrew wants to play pro football. If you are in doubt. it can be very confusing to think that your answer is wrong when in fact it is right. Gasoline consumption has dropped because automobiles are more efficient. rather than compound. Remember that if the major operator is not truth functional. *c. but after Stephen. n. John was married before Mary. and must be symbolized using a single capital letter. (q ::J p)). j. and then (3) symbolize the sentence. If the answer says ~ (p. *a. (2) For the sentences that are truth-functionally compound. *k. 1. . but Mary knows she married the right person. «p ::J q). Ted will not bring a cake with candles if no one is having a birthday. for instance. unless he thinks that candles taste good for dessert. then the sentence is truthfunctionally simple. pick out and abbreviate their (truth-functionally) simple components. Humans are not descended from monkeys. but not to each other. you should check with your instructor or teaching assistant. It is possible that we will run out of oil by the year 2050. Of course.Unit 4 Symbolizing English Sentences 69 (p::J q) will always be equivalent to (~q::J ~p).

( I) Peter has a car. B == John's boss requires his working late. *e. indicate whether (1) is a sufficient condition for (2). b. John or Mary will work late. *c. a necessary condition for (2). and John will bring salad or wine. *e. (2) Peter buys gasoline. 0 == It is a holiday. 2. *j. For each of the following pairs of sentences. (2) Someone loves Mary. *d. (2) Al pays income taxes. (1) Chris is married. *g. Unit 4 Symbolizing English Sentences Either Ted or John will bring the dessert. (1) John loves Mary. h. M == Mary will make supper. John will make supper only if Mary is working late. j. John will not work late unless his boss requires it. John works late if and only if Mary does not. Mary will make supper if John does not. which require frequent use of the horseshoe. (1) It is cloudy. 1. *k. . (1) George is a U. *c. (2) Joe has a wife. and only if John does not. both. 1. president. John and Mary both work late only if it is not a holiday. John will make supper and wash the dishes unless it is a holiday or he is working late. J == John will make supper. 3. (2) It will rain. citizen. W == Mary is working late. (1) Tom has an M. (2) Jack is a mammal. *a. but not both. Not both John and Mary will make supper. H == John is very hungry. *b. (2) Chris has a spouse.S. (2) Amy is neither a student nor a teacher. but not both. d. t. John will not make supper unless he is very hungry.A.F.70 *s. L == John is working late. Use only the abbreviations provided. Symbolize the following. (1) Joe is married. f. Ted will bring dessert or a salad. (2) Tom is a great artist. (1) Al has income. but not both. Only if John works late and it is not a holiday will Mary make supper. (2) George is a U. (I) Amy is not a student. Mary will make supper if John is working late. (1) Jack is a cat. *i. *h. D == John washes the dishes *a. Neither John nor Mary makes supper if it is a holiday. but not both. *f. *g. *. or neither.S.

f. b. W == I contribute to global warming. If I don't either buy a new car or keep my gas guzzler. Symbolize the following. U == I get a used car. *a. using the abbreviations provided. B == I get a bicycle. C == I consume a lot of natural resources. P == The city builds a bicycle path. d. E == I exercise. If I gain weight if and only if I neither diet nor exercise. *c. The city will build a bike path only if tax revenues do not fall and student enrollment does not drop. provided I am motivated and don't get too tired. M == I am motivated. but student enrollment will drop. Q == I quit smoking. but if I buy a new car I consume a lot of natural resources. L == I am lazy. I will diet only if I am motivated. I won't gain weight if I either swim or run. F == I get fit. and I will exercise only if I don't get too tired. I gain weight if and only if I don't diet. Symbolize the following. I'll buy a bike and get fit provided the city builds a bike path and I don't keep my gas guzzler or buy a new or used car. S == I swim. I won't buy both a bicycle and a used car unless I either get a raise or inherit a lot of money. *e. 5. If I keep my gas guzzler I contribute to global warming. I will gain weight. *e. b. using the abbreviations that have been provided. 71 D == I diet. . f. T == I get too tired. I will be depressed if and only if I am lazy and neither diet nor exercise. then I will either swim or run and will not drive to work. K == I keep my gas guzzler. Unless I am depressed or lazy. R == I run. G == I gain weight. W == I drive to work. I'll get a bicycle if and only if the city builds a bike path and I don't buy either a new or a used car. If I don't either diet or exercise. h. I will exercise if I am motivated. j. *i. I will not both diet and exercise unless I am motivated. P == I am depressed.Unit 4 Symbolizing English Sentences 4. R == I get a raise. provided I am not motivated and neither swim nor run. unless I drive to work and don't diet. I'll get either a used car or a bicycle. *c. *a. *g. T == Tax revenues fall. G == I gain weight. I == I inherit a lot of money. Only if I am motivated and don't get too tired do I diet and exercise. I diet or exercise if I gain weight. N == I buy a new car. provided I am not either lazy or depressed. d. E == Student enrollment drops.

The economy will not improve and interest rates will not rise if either consumer spending falls or unemployment rises. quit smoking and I'll gain weight. Unit 4 Symbolizing English Sentences If! don't buy a bike and I either keep my gas guzzler or buy a new or used car. D == The deficit will be reduced. C == Consumers increase borrowing. *a. Stock prices will fall and the economy will fail to improve if interest rates rise and the deficit is not reduced. R == Interest rates will rise. provided I either get a raise or inherit a lot of money. Interest rates will not rise if the economy improves. *i. Interest rates will rise only if the economy improves and consumers increase borrowing. The deficit will be reduced and the economy will improve if taxes are raised and interest rates do not rise. but the deficit will be reduced only if government spending does not increase and taxes are raised. *k. but unless I get a bike I won't h. . I won't both contribute to global warming and consume a lot of natural resources if I don't get a new or used car. U == Unemployment rises. T == Taxes are raised. The deficit will be reduced if and only if taxes are raised and government spending does not increase. A == There is a boom in the automobile industry. The economy will improve if the deficit is reduced. J == More jobs are created. S == Consumer spending falls. *. F == Stock prices will fall. j. *g. provided unemployment does not rise and there is a boom in either housing or the automobile industry. 6. d. unless either more jobs are created or there is a boom in housing. but not both.1. Unless the deficit is reduced. taxes and interest rates will rise and the economy will not improve. Symbolize the following. the city will build a bike path and I'll buy a bike and won't either contribute to global warming or consume a lot of natural resources. Neither stock prices nor consumer spending will fall. h. provided the city builds a bike path and I get a bike. It is not the case that I'll get fit only if I get a bike. then I won't get fit and will either contribute to global warming or consume a lot of natural resources. H == There is a boom in housing. f. unless interest rates rise. *e. E == The economy improves. j.72 *g. Neither taxes nor interest rates will rise if the deficit is reduced. b. *c. provided consumers do not increase borrowing. Unless student enrollment drops and tax revenues fall. G == Government spending increases. Either interest rates or unemployment will rise. using the abbreviations given. but if the deficit is not reduced. then both taxes and interest rates will rise.

and the economy will improve if and only if the deficit is reduced. unless either the deficit is reduced and the economy improves or taxes are not raised and consumer spending increases. *m. Stock prices will fall and either interest rates or unemployment will rise. however. the deficit will be reduced only if taxes are raised and government spending is not increased. More jobs will be created and the economy will improve only if government spending is increased and taxes are not raised. Only if there is a boom in housing and the automobile industry will more jobs be created and the deficit be reduced. but more jobs will not be created unless government spending increases.Unit 4 Symbolizing English Sentences 73 1. . n.

What you will learn in Sections I and 2 is how to list all possible substitution instances for a form and compute the results. which is simply a way of setting out all the possible instances of the form (that is. In Units 2 and 3 you learned the structure of sentential logic and the rules for computing the truth values of compound propositions. we need to examine its instances to see whether there are among them any bad cases-any counterexamples. In Unit 4 you learned how to analyze the structure of English sentences and to symbolize them. Once we have constructed our list of possibilities and computed the results. Remember that an argument is valid if and only if its form is valid. then. for validity. If there are. to represent their form by means of our logical language. What you will be learning in this unit is the truth table method. Since the full truth table 74 . it is valid. all possible combinations of truth values for the simple component sentences) and then computing the result for each of these possible instances. and hence arguments. In this unit you will finally put it all together and learn how it is possible in sentential logic to test argument forms. if not.UNIT 5 Truth Tables for Testing Validity A. that is. all we need to do is look them over to see whether there are any instances with true premises and a false conclusion. INTRODUCTION In Unit I it was emphasized that the validity of arguments is a matter of their form rather than of their content. To test an argument form for validity. and an argument form is valid if and only if it has no counterexample-no instance in which all the premises are true but the conclusion is false. you will learn how to test argument forms for validity using the truth table method. the form is invalid.

Remember that since we have a two-valued logic. What we can do is something that serves our logical purposes just as well: we can write down all possible combinations (all possible assignments) of truth values for the variables. • Be able to explain what a decision procedure is and what are the three things that make possible the decision procedure for sentential logic. and p can then have either a true substitution instance or a false substitution instance for either of those two cases. Such a list of possible truth-value combinations will be called the base column for the truth table. This gives us the following four possibilities for a form with two variables. To test argument forms for validity. and what you will learn in this section is how to construct these base columns. the fact that it is purely "mechanical" and provides what is called a decision procedure for sentential logic. from your study of the truth tables for our five operators. how to list all possible substitution instances. for example. a valid argument form is one in which there is no possible substitution instance with true premises and a false conclusion. Finally. Constructing Base Columns for Truth Tables According to our definition. we cannot possibly inspect each actual instance. You are already familiar with the process of listing truth-value combinations for formulas with one or two variables. Since there are an infinite number of substitution instances for each form. Section 3 will introduce you to some shortcuts. C. • Learn the partial and the short truth table methods. in Section 4 we discuss some of the more interesting theoretical aspects of the truth table method. that is. we must be able to determine whether or not there is such an instance. then. UNIT 5 OBJECTIVES • Learn how to construct the base columns for a truth table. . B. the variable q can have as substitution instances only formulas that are true or false. each meaningful argument.Unit 5 Truth Tables for Testing Validity 75 method can be rather long and cumbersome (for a form with only five variables. • Learn to test argument forms for validity. the partial method and the short method for determining validity. for instance. which enable you to bypass some of the tiresome detail of the fully completed truth tables. • Learn the definition of valid argument form and related definitions given at the end of the unit. there will be 32 possibilities that need to be inspected). using the full truth table method. UNIT 5 TOPICS 1. of that form.

q. Each possible combination will be called a row in . since it could be true or false for each of the 16 possibilities for the four variables. r can be either true or false. yielding 16 possible combinations. and p can be either true or false for any of these four combinations for q and r. Since we start out with two possible values for a single variable. the number of possible truth combinations for the variables would be over 1 million! (You will not be given any truth table exercises with 20 variables. or 24. the number of possible truth combinations gets very large very fast: for 6 variables there are 64 possibilities. given this formula. or. If you had 20 variables in an argument form. the number of possible combinations will double.) In any case. The list of possible truth combinations for the variables will be called the base column for the truth table. and so on. it could be true in all these eight cases for p. or 48. you should keep in mind that the number of truth combinations. rows in the truth table. or 64. and r. A truth table may have 8 rows. but never 10. q can be true or false for either value of r. We thus have the following list of possibilities for three variables: p T q T r T T T T F T F F T F F F F T T T F F T F F F If we were to add a fourth variable. p. or 12. as we will be saying. q. Notice that. and for 10 variables over a thousand possibilities. for 8 variables 256 possibilities. Every time you add another variable. In general.76 Unit 5 Truth Tables for Testing Validity p q T T T F F F T F If we have three variables. or 16. the number of possible truth combinations for the variables will be 2 n (not n 2 I). will always be some power of 2. for n different variables in a statement form or argument form. and r. or 32. A fifth variable would double the number again. or false for each of these cases. this gives us a neat formula for the number of possible combinations for any number of variables.

which will both speed up the process of constructing the tables and also serve as a check in case you did something wrong. alternate the truth values for the far right variable. starting on the right. F. you might have duplicated some and left others out. or equivalently. Although it may sound picky (since you can get the same results by listing possibilities haphazardly. followed by four F's directly underneath. A form with five variables will have 32 rows in its truth table. The portion of the table in the enclosed rectangle would be the truth table for four variables. it might be difficult to be sure that you have listed all the possible rows in the truth table. then. followed by another four T's and another four F's. The procedure we will be using in this book is the following: first. if you have done things right. When you reach the leftmost variable.. . Finally. as long as you get them all). F. while the columns (as in Greek architecture) will be the vertical listings. q. T. T. and the bottom half all F's. so that it becomes second nature to you. A simple way to make sure that you cover all the possibilities is to list them systematically and to follow the same procedure consistently. write the variables in alphabetical order. then. you should always draw up your base columns in this systematic manner. should read. Your column second to the right. always double the number of T's and F's. so that you have a list of four T's on the top. should read. F. from left to right. As you move one variable to the left.. or perhaps 64.Unit 5 Truth Tables for Testing Validity 77 the truth table. (Notice that this is verified by our eight-row truth table for p. For another.. you will begin to find patterns in the truth tables for the various formulas. There are several reasons for this unimaginative approach. F. the final truth table will look different. It might occur to you that if you have more than just a very few variables. T. double the number of T's and F's you use before alternating. F. T. 16. . Notice that in both cases the results conform to our standard procedure. if you list the possibilities systematically. from top to bottom. you should double the number of T's and F's again. and so on. As one more illustration of the proper method. with different numbers of variables. that a form with three variables will have a base column of 8 rows. The rows (as in planted fields) will be the lines going across horizontally. we have drawn up the list of 32 possibilities for a form with five variables. We could then say. Moving one variable to the left. T. and in checking your answers it will be difficult to tell whether you have done things right. Moving one more to the left. Even if you have the right number of rows. T. you will always have the top half of the column all T's. or 32. if the possibilities are out of order. For one thing. Then. it is much quicker to draw up the tables in a systematic way than to write down the various possibilities randomly and then have to go back to check that you did not omit or duplicate any rows. from top to bottom. for instance.) You should practice drawing up several base columns.. . and r. Your column on the far right. will have 8 rows in its truth table.. F.. and so on. The variables for this 16-row table are listed underneath the table instead of on top.

Since this is a two-valued logic. But the base columns list all possible combinations of truth or falsity for the elementary sentences. so any substitution instance will be represented by one of . note that the rows in the base columns represent all possible substitution instances of the argument form. any substitution instance of the form must have elementary sentences that are either true or false.78 Unit 5 Truth Tables for Testing Validity p T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F q T T T T T T T T F F F F F F F F T T T T T T T T F F F F F F F F p r T T T T F F F F T T T T F F F F T T T T F F F F T T T T F F F F q s T T F F T T F F T T F F T T F F T T F F T T F F T T F F T T F F r t T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F s Finally.

since it shows that the form is not valid. This means that we can talk about rows in the truth table instead of substitution instances. 5. in alphabetical order. (p. (That is. then. then the form is invalid. The result of these computations will be the complete truth table for the argument form.Unit 5 Truth Tables for Testing Validity 79 the rows in the base columns. the form is valid. that is.. can be summarized as follows: 1. construct the base columns. and (possible) combinations of truth values for the variables.. Check the truth table for counterexamples. testing the form for validity is relatively easy: you simply compute the truth values for the premises and the conclusion of the argument form for each row in the truth table. 2. could be the following: an argument form is valid if and only if it has no counterexamples.) 4. 2. assignments of values to the variables. in fact. and if there are not. List all the variables that occur anywhere in the premises or conclusion at the top left. A row in the truth table that has all the premises true with the conclusion false is called a counterexample to that argument form. in the next sections we will use the following terms more or less interchangeably: substitution instances. including drawing up the base columns. rows in the truth table. 3. If there are. The Truth Table Test for Validity Once you have drawn up the base columns for an argument form. Write down the list of all possible combinations of truth values for the variables. T T F (p v q) T T T F / . Compute the truth values of premises and conclusion for each possible combination. and then check the completed table to see whether there are any rows with all the premises true and the conclusion false. p T T F F q T F T F (p -::J q). T F T T (q -::J p). List the premises and conclusion horizontally at the top of the table. The procedure for testing an argument form for validity. for each row in the truth table. q) T F F F T . Another definition of validity. Let us take a relatively simple example and test it for validity.

Finally. The conditional.80 Unit 5 Truth Tables for Testing Validity Here we have three premises. q) is true.. is false in these two rows and true in the others (3). we write down just the reverse values under their negation signs (2). q) and ~ (p v q). q). respectively (1). (p :J q). and (p v q). You should have no trouble understanding the truth tables for the first and third premises and for the conclusion. one of the premises is false as well. we compare the tables under ~ (p. ~(q. What you should do in cases like this is to write down the values of the subformulas directly underneath the major operators for those subformulas. Then. This form then turns out to be valid because there is no row in which all the premises are true but the conclusion is false. We then compute the conjunction (p. we have four rows in the truth table.. we first compute the values for (p • q) and (p v q). Since we have only two variables. T ~ (p. since both formulas are negated. In the second premise we first write down the values for ~ q (1). we compute the values for ~ p (1). In each of the three rows in which the conclusion is false. and we see that in the second and third rows ~ (p. which will be just the reverse of the values for q. we compute the values for the negation (3) of the conjunction. Let us take a slightly more complicated example. while the consequent ~ (p v q) is false (3). We write down those values underneath the dot and the wedge. you then use those values in computing the value of the whole. When you have computed the values for the subformulas (the components). in which you must compute the value of the subformulas of the premises and conclusion before you can compute the value of the formulas themselves. although it is not really necessary-you can simply refer back to the base columns for the values of the variables. p q T T ~ {p • q} :J F T T F F T F F T T T (2) F F F (1) ~ (3) F F F T (2) (p v q). while all the other rows are true. while the consequent (in this case p) is false. Finally. You may want to repeat the values for the single letters under the letters. and then the values . Thus we have no counterexample. We arrived at the table for the second premise by noting that a conditional is false only if the antecedent (in this case q) is true.~p) T T F (1) ~ FF TT FF T ~ FF F TT T FT (3) (2)(1) FT (3) (2) (1) Explanation: In the first premise. so the third row for this premise is false. applying the truth table rules that you learned in Unit 3.~ q) / . This happens in the third row and in that row only. ~ q) and write those values directly beneath the dot (2). (q :J p). In the conclusion. the premise as a whole. and the conclusion is (p.

to keep track of the order in which your computations for each formula are done. It has no instance in which both of the premises are true but the conclusion is false. We will outline our final results in the following examples. however. In this case there is only one row. It is very important that you list the truth tables for the subformulas directly underneath the operators for those formulas. to inspect the table once you have completed it to see whether there are any counterexamples. If you are having trouble understanding the results of the computations given here. Then we compute the values for the negation (3) of that conjunction. We have outlined this column to make clear that it is the result of the final computation. however. we inspect it to see whether it has any counterexamples. instead of starting with a particular row.Unit 5 Truth Tables for Testing Validity 81 for (q. starting with the top row (where the values of the variables are all true) and working your way across to the right. for instance. such as the one we will be using in the examples here. otherwise. which we write underneath the dot (2). the first premise is also false. having completed the table. In this row. and work out the entire vertical column for that formula. you will get terribly confused about which formula has which truth table. we know that negations reverse truth values. Then. so again. rather than trying to work your way across from left to right for each separate substitution instance. you may miss a counterexample or may think that there is one when there is not. You can do this by underlining or circling your final results. you probably have not learned your truth tables for the five operators well . so the truth tables for the negations will be exactly the opposite. Also. in which the conclusion is false. it is a very good idea to use lined paper so that the rows are even. A few practical hints on constructing truth tables: it is possible to work horizontally. ~ p). Another good idea is to use a numbering system. start with a particular formula. the premises and conclusion as a whole. Finally. Then move on to the next most complex formula and compute the entire vertical column for that one. You will find that your truth tables go much more quickly if you work in this way. especially in complex examples. This makes it much easier. The numerals at the bottom of the table indicate the order in which the computations are done for each of the premises and the conclusion. invalidating instances. It is this column you will inspect to determine validity. at the top. the argument form is valid. as well as number the preliminary computations. You might also want to set off the truth tables for the final results. the third. we know immediately the whole truth tables for our subformulas (p. That is. The highest number indicates the last step in the computation process and so indicates the truth table for the formula as a whole. In general. at the left. there is no deep thought required. from the tables of the subformulas. it will be much easier to work vertically. If you are looking at the wrong column. q) and (p v q). In our second example. and so on.

we find that there is an instance with true premises and a false conclusion. no matter how many rows there are in the truth table. It takes only a single counterexample to show that an argument form is invalid. being sure to look in the end only at the final results. Go back and review them. and so this argument form is invalid. Notice that in the example above there was only one counterexample (only one row with a false conclusion. there will be eight rows in the truth table. we then compared this table to the table for q to get our final result. (p :J r) :J (p :J q) T T T T F F F F T T F F T T F F T F T F T F T F T T F F T T F F F T T F T T F F F F F T F FJ. and thus over a million truth table rows. You will have to look a little more carefully to see that you are using the right values for the components.82 Unit 5 Truth Tables for Testing Validity enough. as we have done here.. and a . if there are 1. T (1)(3) (2) T T T T T F T F (1) T T F F F F F F (1) 'T T T F F F F cE T F T F F F F F T F T F T T T T T T F T T T T T T F~ I F T T T T (1) (2) (1) (1) (2) In the first premise. which gives us a false in the third row. When we inspect this table. The fact that the other seven rows are not counterexamples means nothing. where the antecedent is true and the consequent is false.575 rows that pass the test. and you must be a little more self-conscious about applying the truth table rules. we computed the value of (p v r) first and then the value of ~(p v r). in fact). Let us test one such example: p q r (q:J ~ (p v r)). This is a counterexample. listed under the horseshoe and above the (3)..048. (p. It is a good idea to indicate the invalidating row in some way. in the third row. q) v (p. In the conclusion we first computed the tables for (p :J r) and (p :J q) and then applied the rule for the horseshoe to those results. that are not counterexamples. r) / . which have been outlined. perhaps by an arrow. In an argument form with three variables. In the second premise we first computed the tables for (p • q) and (p • r) and then computed the table for the disjunction of the two formulas. Even in a form with 20 variables. and in general these computations won't be quite so automatic as they often are with only four rows. memorize the tables and be sure you know the informal verbal rules that state what the results of the computations must be.

. ~ r.. the truth tables tend to get out of hand. r ::J (p • ~ q) / . then the conclusion will be true as well. Replace the next distinct capital letter. where B is replaced by p. you simply symbolize its sentences. It takes only one bad apple to spoil the batch." The symbolization for this argument is ~(B v J).. p q r ~ (p v q). there will be 1. The argument itself is valid.. is given below. which shows that it is valid. and M is replaced by r. We want. The following argument illustrates this procedure: "Neither Bob nor John will attend the reception.024 rows in the truth table (2 10). and then replace the constants (capital letters) systematically with variables. because its form is valid.. J is replaced by q. Exercise 4 at the end of the unit will give you practice in symbolizing and then testing arguments. which you learned to do in Unit 4. rather than specific arguments. ~ M. r ::J (p' ~ q) / . to be sure that if the premises are all true. Therefore. The replacement process is extremely simple. however. and for 20 variables there . F T F T F T F T - T T T T F F F F T T F F T T F F T F T F T F T F F F F F F F T T - T T T T T T F F F T T T F T F T'-- F F F F TT TT F F F F F T FT 3. for argument forms with large numbers of variables. then. say B. say A. just replace the first capital letter. and then put p in for that capital letter A throughout. with q throughout.. In the symbolized argument. Thus. in a deductive argument. This is what deductive validity is all about. The truth table for the argument form. So far we have talked only about testing argument forms for validity. To determine the form of an argument. Shortcut Validity Tests As you have seen in Section 2 of this unit. Mary will not attend the reception. and the form of the argument is ~ (p v q). the argument is still invalid. a single counterexample is enough to guarantee invalidity. For only 10 variables. with a p. M ::J (B • ~ J) / . and so on. replace the next one with r. that an argument is valid when and only when itsform is valid. Mary will attend only if Bob attends and John doesn't. so to test a specific argument you just need to determine and then test its form.Unit 5 Truth Tables for Testing Validity 83 single row out of the million that is a counterexample. Remember.

(The appropriateness of these names will be evident. provided you have a thorough understanding of what the truth table test for validity is all about.84 Unit 5 Truth Tables for Testing Validity will be over 1 million (2 20 or 1. p :::J (s v q) T T T T T T T T T F F T T F T F F T T T T F F F T T ~ T F ~F T T T T T T T F T F T T T T T F T F . p:::J~r I. but will simply try to "zero in" on whatever counterexamples there may be.048. that row will not be one with true premises and a false conclusion. In the short method. Even for 5 and 6 variables.) We test the validity of argument forms by checking to see whether they have any counterexamples. we will not even have to list the instances. the only possible candidates for counterexamples.". (If the conclusion is true in a row. since the rows we cover are the only ones that could possibly contain counterexamples. there will be only one row out of eight in which it is false (the second row). the only rows we need to compute for the premises are those in which the conclusion turns out to be false.) p q r s T F T F T F T F (p v q) :::J (r v s).576. q) :::J r). We discuss two of these shortcut methods in this section: what we will call the partial method and what we will call the short method. it is possible to bypass some of this tedious detail. where all the variables are false.) Thus. The rows in which the conclusion is false are. By using the partial truth table method. it will be possible to do this without going through all the computations. 32 and 64 rows will be required. once we have computed the truth table for the conclusion. for example. In many argument forms there are only a relatively small number of ways in which the conclusion can be false. although we will have to draw up the base columns to list all the possible instances. Fortunately. to be exact). Let us look at an instance of a form for which we can use this partial truth table method. (Table continues on next page. We will discuss the partial method first. of course. If the conclusion is «p . and you can probably think of better ways to spend your afternoons than making up 64-row truth tables. substitution instances with true premises and a false conclusion. This information will be enough to tell us whether the form is valid. The form (p v q) v (r v s) in a 16-row truth table will be false only in the last row.

r)) p :) (r v ~ q) / . the sixth and the eighth. conjunctions will have just a few rows true. where r is true.Unit 5 Truth Tables for Testing Validity 85 F T T T F T T F F T F T F T F F F F T F F T F F F F F F T F T F T T T T T T T T In this example there are only two rows in which the conclusion is false.. so that is the only possibility for an invalidating instance. In the eighth row. We have obviously saved ourselves a good bit of work by testing only those rows in which the conclusion is false. p:)(~qv~r) T T T T T F T F T T F F F T T F T F F F T F F F T T F F F F F F F T F F F F F F [!] T [!] F . we can conclude that there is no counterexample and that the argument form is therefore valid. In this row. the second premise is also true. p. (In general.. p q r (p • (q. is false. for instance. while disjunctions and conditionals will have just a few rows false. where rand s are both false. so that those rows are the only possible candidates for counterexamples. since we know that the conditional must be true in those rows because the antecedent. since (p v q) is true and (r v s) is false. but the conclusion is false. the second premise comes out false.) In the following argument form. It may also happen that in computing the premises you find that they are only true in a few rows. there is only one row in which the first premise turns out to be true.) In the sixth row. Thus that row is not a counterexample either. the first premise turns out false. so that row is not a counterexample. and since these are the only two possible cases. so we do have a counterexample and the argument form is invalid. (Note that we took another shortcut as well: we didn't bother to compute the values for (s v q) in the last eight rows. This may help you decide whether to begin by computing a premise or the conclusion.

'. This is a considerable savings in time and effort. there is a counterexample.) And we have been able to prove this without making up the full 64-row truth table. with a false conclusion. Suppose we have the following argument form: ((p v q) ::J ~ r). to make all the premises true.024 rows in its base column. since it takes only a single counterexample to demonstrate invalidity. so the only way to make the first premise true is to make ~ r true. without actually going through the process of constructing base columns? The trick is to learn how to "zero in" on what would be the possible counterexamples. and this we have done. We could represent . then. as noted. those cases in which we have a false conclusion with all the premises true. given that r is false. Since p is true. What we do is try to construct a counterexample. (t ::J (w ::J s» / . (r' s) will be false. indicate your computations rather than just writing down T for the premises and F for the conclusion. the argument is invalid. It is invalidated by the row. that makes p and t true. and r. For the argument form above. ((r' s) v t). All we needed to do was to find a case with all premises true and the conclusion false. (w ::J s) must be true to make the third premise true. we can make (w ::J s) true by making w false. But even though s is false. which would otherwise be required. since an argument form with 10 variables. In that case you are entitled to stop right there and declare the form invalid. or assignment of truth values. and w false. This intriguing fact brings us to our next topic. try to assign truth values to the variables that will result in a false conclusion with all the premises true. we would have p q r s F t w F T TorF F T You should also.86 Unit 5 Truth Tables for Testing Validity As we see above. so to make the second premise true. has 1. It is usually easier (although it is not necessary) to start with the cases in which the conclusion is false. p v q is true. It is convenient to make up a little table when you are finished. and it is certainly not unusual to come across argument forms with 10 variables. If we can. Thus. and so the argument form is invalid. Let us take the following example as an illustration of the way in which the short method works. it may happen that in the course of making up the truth table you run across a counterexample immediately. In this example there is only one way to make the conclusion false: by making p true and s false. How can we manage a test for validity. the short truth table method. in your exercises. displaying the values that yield a counterexample. s. thus we must make r false. Given that t is true. The short truth table method is a way of making a systematic search for counterexamples without even drawing up the base columns. Then. it is valid. Now we need to see whether it is possible. if we cannot. t must be true. (p ::J s). (Note that the truth value of q is here irrelevant. since we will have a counterexample.

Unit 5 Truth Tables for Testing Validity 87 the results of the computations above. then you have not got a single row in the truth table. however. Also. and so on. F (p :J s) \ 1 ~I T '1"j \/V T T \/ F In general. where there is no question what the values must be. say. «p • q) • (r· s».r). for that particular instance. In some cases you may want to start with the premises. as we have done here. make p true in the conclusion and false somewhere else. If you are inconsistent in your value assignments. when the conclusion is false. and this is much more difficult to establish. that results in a counterexample. for instance. although it can be done. using those values. if you have a pure conjunction as a premise. no way of getting all premises true with a false conclusion. to try to assign values to the other variables so that the premises come out true. making a variable true in one place and false in another. in the following way. F F T «r· s) v t). you need not go from the conclusion to the first premise. a row in the truth table. since for invalidity all we need to do is find a single counterexample. q. we need to show that there cannot possibly be a counterexample. Notice that it is essential that you be consistent in your value assignments. for instance. that the premises can all come out true. so that you need to run through several possibilities. in using the short truth table method to show invalidity. T F T T «p v q) :J . The test for invalidity will not always proceed exactly as in the example above. The reason for this should be obvious: we are looking for an instance. but are mixing up the rows. For validity. . r. And finally. Once you have made the conclusion false (or the premise true). then to the second. Whatever value you assign to a variable you must stay with. much as we did in Unit 3. we must show that one or more of the premises must come out false if the conclusion is false. You may not. F (t:J (w :J s» T F T I:. We will look at some of these more complicated examples later. you should go next to a formula whose other truth values are determined by the values you already have. which shows that there is no counterexample. there will be cases. What we need to do is to go through a series of steps to show that there is no possible way. you know that there is only one case in which it will turn out to be true-where p. the problems will not always be so easy. and s are all true-so you might start there in trying to construct a counterexample. That is. for instance. the procedure should be to try to make the conclusion false and then. The short truth table method is much easier for proving invalidity than for proving validity. in which there is more than one way to make the conclusion false.

we must make r true as well. (p v r) / . Hence. both. which means that there is no way to have all premises true with the conclusion false. Suppose we take the former assignment. ( ~ q ::J ~ p) / . for the conclusion to be false and the first two premises true. This means making sfalse and ~ p and ~ q bothfalse. ~ s ::J (~ P v ~ q). the second premise. as we would for invalidity.. For validity. or.. the third premise must be false. (3) But. given that s is false. and since r is true. since we have to show that it is impossible to get a counterexample. We may have cases in which there is more than one way to make the conclusion false. but both of the premises come out false as well! Does this mean that the argument is valid? Definitely not. Here there are two ways to make the conclusion false: we may make p true and q false. Let us take another example: (p::J q). and so the argument form is valid. and s all false. (q v s). This gives a false conclusion. we must have p. (1) The only way to make the conclusion false is to make ~ s true and (~ p v ~ q) false. it is the only possible way we could begin to get a counterexample. an easy way to reason through to the determination that there is no counterexample. in the valid cases.. or p false and q true. We must always go through this sort of extended argument in order to prove that an argument form is valid. since s is false. Let us take one more argument form to illustrate: ((p' q) ::J r). t) is false. It will be helpful to number the basic steps in this demonstration. But then notice that the third premise comes out false. comes out false. which shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there can be no counterexample. But the short method is not always so easy. is to make r false. to make the first premise true. q and s must both be false. If we take the . We have been looking at relatively simple examples so far: those in which there is just one way to make the conclusion false. r. the only way to make the first premise true is by making p false. the format must always be to run through a short argument. (r ::J (s' t» / ... This is obviously more difficult than just coming up with a single counterexample. hence the argument form is valid. q. and. Here. (r ::J (s' t». hence p and q must both be true. (p == q). heaven forbid. One valid argument form you will be learning in Unit 7 is the dilemma: (p ::J q).88 Unit 5 Truth Tables for Testing Validity Let us take an example. (4) But this means that it is not possible to make the conclusion false and both of the premises true. all right. If q is false.. (s . (2) Since p and q are true. a simple way to come up with a counterexample for the invalid cases. to make the conclusion false. The only way to make the second premise true. Hence there can be no counterexample. Thus. with two true premises and a false conclusion. unfortunately. or more than one way to make premises true. since we have not tried all possible ways of getting a counterexample. (r ::J s).

is to list all these ways under the conclusion and then try each to see whether the premises are all true in anyone of them. would look like this: F T F T T F F F F T No counterexample Counterexample If you try all possible ways of making the conclusion false and in each of them you get at least one false premise. carried out by a machine. This does indeed show that however we make the conclusion false. if followed faithfully. This makes ~ p true and ~ q false. which makes the second premise false. 4. this assignment yields a counterexample. one is all it takes.. again we have two ways of making the conclusion false. except for the second premise). so this is not a counterexample. and the argument is invalid after all. A good format for such cases. where there is more than one way to make the conclusion false..Unit 5 Truth Tables for Testing Validity 89 second possibility-p false and q true-we do get a false conclusion and also both premises are true. A simple format for this would be p:::J q. you may conclude that the argument is valid. so there is no way to get both premises true with the conclusion false. since you will have shown that there can be no counterexample. hence. Another way of putting this is to say that there is an algorithm for the procedures described here. The example above. requiring no ingenuity or deep thought. then. the argument is valid. Mechanical Decision Procedures The full truth table method is a completely "mechanical" method. This makes the first premise false. once you do find a counterexample in an invalid argument form. On the other hand. It is extremely important to remember when doing these problems that you must test all possible ways of making the conclusion false before you can conclude that the argument is valid. will always . Let us then make p false and q true. (~ p :::J ~ q) / . if we have (p :::J q). For instance. one of the premises will come out false as well. Suppose p is true and q false. because for validity you need to show there can't possibly be a counterexample. and have been. a set of rules that. (p == q) (which looks very much like the one above. Hence the argument is valid. p==q T F F T TFF FFT Since neither way of making the conclusion false yields a counterexample. you are finished. the procedures could be.

which offsets its rather odd "if-then" operator. and one of the great advantages of truth-functional logic. lest you are tempted to underestimate the importance of these three properties. which many systems lack. for instance. Hence. in which the operators are not truth functional. Obviously. (3) All our operators are truth functional. But there are also logics that are infinite valued. for instance. This would still give a finite truth table. . Modal logic. (As you will find in later units. false. this is a two-valued logic. we can compute the result for each possibility. which you have already been made aware of. in which the values are true. three-valued logics. which will always give an answer for any validity problem. which is the logic of "necessary" and "possible. There are. there could be no truth table for that. which is what is meant by saying that there is a mechanical decision procedure. Finally.) Such a mechanical procedure. there are only afinite number of variables in each argument form. which we will be discussing in the last few units. and indeterminate. This means that once we have drawn up our list of possible truth values. Properties I and 2 together make it possible to list all possible combinations of truth values for the variablesall possible (kinds of) substitution instances. is called a decision procedure for validity. Thus we know what the truth values of the premises and conclusion are for each possible instance. (2) Second. that make possible the mechanical decision procedures. this may well not be possible-who would want to draw up a million-row truth table? But the important thing is that it is possible in principle." is not truth functional. This may seem rather strange. we wouldn't even be able to list the possibilities for a single variable! When you get bored with making up truth tables. and all we need to do is check to see whether any of those instances contain true premises with a false conclusion. are the special features of sentential logic that make possible these mechanical tests? There are three important properties of sentential logic. but there are logics that may contain formulas of infinite length and also logics in which we might have an infinite number of premises in an argument. Not all systems of logic have mechanical decision procedures. (1) In the first place. in which a sentence can take a "truth" value ranging anywhere from 0% to 100%. but just a much longer one. What. there are logics. there are logics in which there are an infinite number of variables in an argument form. it is worth pointing out that for each of the three there are systems of logic that lack them. in theory at least. relational predicate logic. is that it does have such a decision procedure. which means that each variable can take only true or false substitution instances. Finally. this is not the case with the proof method. we can always draw up a finite table and check the results. does not lend itself to these methods. In practice. then. since the necessity and possibility operators are not truth functional. remember infinite values and be grateful.90 Unit 5 Truth Tables for Testing Validity yield the correct answer. Second.

f. *7. c. An argument form is invalid if and only if it has a counterexample. 5. d. g. A counterexample to an argument form is a substitution instance of that form (or a row in the truth table for the form) in which all the premises are true and the conclusion is false. especially for beginning students. b. e. using the short method. . How many rows will there be in the truth table for [(p v ~ q) v [(r =:J (s· r)) =:J (t. No argument with false premises can be invalid. 3. 6. In the short truth table method. An invalid argument must have true premises and a false conclusion. An argument with a true conclusion will always be valid. that is. An argument is invalid if and only if its form is invalid. to demonstrate validity? What is a mechanical decision procedure? What are the three properties of our sentential logic that make it possible to use the truth table method? Explain the role of each in making it possible. you may well run across some of these alternatives. Should you continue to study logic beyond this course. If a form has n different variables.Unit 5 Truth Tables for Testing Validity 91 All these "alternative" sorts of logic have been developed in a high degree. a substitution instance (or row in the truth table) with all true premises and a false conclusion. An argument is valid if and only if its form is valid. Are the following true or false? a. finite-variable. it will have n2 rows in its truth table. 3. but our two-valued. An argument form with 10 variables has over 1 million rows in its truth table. What is the general formula for the number of rows in a truth table? What do you have to do. 2. 4. using the short truth table method. 5. 4. we are looking for a substitution instance with true premises and a true conclusion. STUDY QUESTIONS I. DEFINITIONS I. ~ p)]] == (w =:J q v s))? 2. to demonstrate invalidity? What do you have to do. A valid argument may have a false conclusion. An argument form is valid if and only if it has no substitution instance (row in the truth table) in which all the premises are true and the conclusion is false. truth-functional logic is by far the easiest to work with.

Use the full truth table method to determine whether the following argument forms are valid or invalid.~(p·q):::J~p h. *e. r:::J p 2. (~pv~q)==~(r's) *f. (p:::J r) I :. ~ r (p' ~ q» ~ r» I :. (p' q) :::J ~ r (q' r) :::J ~ P ~ (p v q) :::J ~ (q v r) I :.92 Unit 5 Truth Tables for Testing Validity EXERCISES 1. ~ (r v q) :::J ~ (p v r) v q) :::J ~ (q. p:::J ~ (q'r) ~ *m. (s v p) :::J e. q == (p v (q' I :. *a. ~p==q I:. Use the partial truth table method to test the following for validity. (p v q) :::J (r :::J s) . (p:::J q) v (q :::J r) ~ 1. (p' q) • ~ r (p v q):::J ~ *d. p:::J q ~p *c. ~ (p v q) v p ~ (p' q) :::J (q v P) 1:. p==~q *g.~r==~q *k. p v qv p ~ I :. q (p == ~q) ~q I:. p v q ~p d. (p == r) == (s == ~ q == ~ (p v r) p ((p v q) v ~ r) (~p'~r):::J(~qv ~s) ((~p:::Jq) v (~r:::Js» ~ == ~q I :. (~ q' r» *c.rv~p I:. r ~ (p v q):::J ~ (r's) ~ ~ (r' p) :::J ~ s ~ (p :::J q) :::J ~ (q :::J p) ~ (p v q) v s (q' r) ~ q) I :. p:::J ~ q ~p qvp I:. p == q ~ f. p:::J q ~ q v q P v ~ q I:. q:::J P I:. ~ (p.~qv~p I :.'. q:::J p :::J q'~ p q == ~ (p' r) ~ I :. (p v q):::J ~ r r==~q *i. (s' p) :::J (p v q) n· (p v q) == (r == q) v ~ (~r'q) *0. *a. r) (p v ~ q) :::J ~ (r' p) ~ (p b. (p (r == == ~ q):::J ~ r q):::J ~ p I:. p:::J (~ q' ~ r == q ~ r) j. (p v q) :::J (r v s) (q' r) p==~(r's) r:::J ~ (p 'q) ~p I. p == q b. p:::J (~ r v ~ q) I :. p == (r v (~p == q) r==(qv(r'~p» (q v r) ~ I :. ~ == ~ (q • s) ((r:::J s)· ~ ~ (p v q» :::J (~(p (q v s) ~ (r:::J s):::J ~ v q):::J (r' s» I :.

. there will be a decline in the general health of the population. b. Only if a lot of grain is exported will there be enough to feed people in the underdeveloped countries. Use the short truth table method to determine the validity or invalidity of all the argument forms above. Do all the arguments that sound valid to you tum out to be valid? *a. If either there is not enough grain to feed people in underdeveloped countries or their populations continue to soar. there will be a worldwide revolt. (p :::J ~ t) q) :::J ~ (r v s). Therefore. Pollution will increase if government restrictions are relaxed.. which contain more variables. ~ t) / . s v x. «r· w) ~ == z) / . then there is not a lot of grain that is exported. The com will produce well only if the weather remains hot and it neither hails nor rains hard. d. 1.Unit 5 Truth Tables for Testing Validity 93 *3.. it's not good for me. The economy will remain healthy only if productivity does not fall. (p.'. and use either the long or short truth table method to test their forms for validity. the economy will not remain healthy. P :::J (x· r) == ~ z)... and if pollution increases.p:::J(~t:::Jr) f. r:::J (s v ~ d. ~ (p. If a cement plant is built in Moorhead. e. productivity will fall. ~ p. and if it's fatty.) a.'. (~p == (t v w)). The Moorhead economy will be strong if either there is an increase in employment or an increase in college faculty salaries. Only if it rains hard if and only if the weather remains hot will the beans produce well. Symbolize the following arguments. p:::J (q :::J ~ p). (z :::J ~ ~ s) ~ p) c. there will be mass starvation. . there will be an increase in college faculty salaries. (p v s) :::J ~ (r· t) (p V q):::J (r v ~ s). t). (Here premises and conclusion are listed horizontally. (p. Therefore.. s == t / . t == (q v r) / . if Americans continue to eat grain-fed beef. q) :::J (r :::J (s v t)).'. x v ~ t :::J (r· z) / . If there is a decline in health in the population. as well as the following.. If Americans continue to eat a lot of grain-fed beef. 4. «p v q) :::J r). *e. if a cement plant is built in Moorhead. and if there is mass starvation. «r v s) :::J ~ (p. ~ == ~ (p. there will be an increase both in employment and in pollution levels. s :::J (~ t· ~ w) / . q) :::J (r == ~ ~ (r· t). ~ t :::J ~ (r· w) / . Therefore. == s). Faculty will not be healthy unless either there is an increase in their salaries or there is no increase in pollution.. P (p v q) :::J ~ == q / . h. there will be a worldwide revolt. if the government restrictions are relaxed. Thus. ~ (t v s) == (w v x). The Moorhead economy will be strong if and only if the college faculty are healthy. r) (~w (p v q) :::J ~ r. s (p v q) :::J (r v s). (w· r) :::J t /". ~ w). P :::J t (s v z)... the com and beans will not both produce well. g. This steak is tender only if it's fatty. I won't eat it unless it's good for me. *c. (~ q :::J r) :::J (t v w). p (p. ~ q ~ (t· w). I won't eat this steak. Therefore. b.

then I get lazy. Gold rises if and only if the dollar falls. then he will get exhausted.1. Thus. John will get a raise if and only if he works hard and doesn't insult his boss. then I gain weight. I'll be fired. and if I don't eat lunch. then I gain weight." I will stop watching the soaps provided I can watch either football or "Wheel of Fortune. I will get an A in logic only if I learn the truth tables. I won't make money unless the Fed tightens the money supply. *m. Therefore. then I get too tired unless I take vitamins. Therefore. *k. then I get depressed. but if I don't ride my bicycle to work. He will insult his boss only if he is neither promoted nor complimented on his work. If John neglects his health. John will work hard only if he is complimented. and he won't work hard if he is depressed. The com will survive if there is a light frost. If I don't both diet and exercise. I am not taking vitamins. I'll be late. h. John will get a raise if and only if he is complimented on his work.94 Unit 5 Truth Tables for Testing Validity f. and if I'm cranky. If John neglects his family. If I don't exercise. John will not get both a raise and a promotion unless he works hard. I'll be fired. and I will learn the truth tables if and only if I stop watching the "soaps. . my pay will be docked and I won't be able to eat lunch. and if I get depressed. and if I get lazy. If I eat too much. then I'll get caught in the rain. *. I will gain weight. and he won't work hard if he is exhausted. then I'll be tired and cranky. If I'm late. Therefore. and the dollar falls only if the trade deficit worsens and interest rates rise. There is no moisture. I'll be soaked and cranky. It will snow only if there is both moisture and a cold front. Therefore. If I get caught in the rain. If I diet. and he will be promoted only ifhe works hard. John will not get a raise. If I ride my bicycle to work. *g. so the com will survive. If I gain weight. I can get an A in logic if I do my homework early. then I don't exercise. then he will neglect either his family or his health. Interest rates won't rise unless the Fed tightens the money supply or the federal deficit goes up. j. then I eat too much. I exercise only if I am neither too tired nor too lazy. If he works hard." I can watch "Wheel of Fortune" if I do my homework early. then he will be depressed. l. so I will gain weight. but it won't survive if it snows. Therefore. I will make money only if gold rises.

then either unemployment will not be high or there will be no steep increase in interest rates. for instance. or no inflation and no unemployment.UNIT6 Further Applications of the Truth Table Method A. if some self-appointed economic expert "predicts" that either there will be inflation and unemployment. you will be able to show by the truth table method that what he says cannot be true. INTRODUCTION Now that you know the basic process of constructing truth tables. that such a claim really says nothing at all. and that if it doesn't pay that much.000 a year. and whether a given statement or form is 95 ." for instance. or whether two statements have the same meaning. which he will take provided it pays \$100. Or. although they seem to be making different claims. "The rate of inflation will be reduced provided there is a steep increase in interest rates and high unemployment" and "If there is no reduction in the inflation rate. or unemployment but no inflation. he will instead take a job as vice-president of a small coal company. using the truth table method. whether a statement has any real significance. has absolutely no content. you will be able to recognize. that he has been offered a job as a petroleum engineer. You can use it to show whether someone is contradicting himself. really say exactly the same thing. really mean the same. since he has just contradicted himself. but that he won't take either job. In this unit you will learn all these things and more: how to test a set of statements or statement forms for consistency. The truth table method can also be used to show when two statements. or inflation but no unemployment. If someone claims. how to determine whether two statements or forms say the same thing. you can apply this method in a variety of other circumstances.

• Be able to use the truth table method to determine whether a set of statement forms is consistent. whether they are tautologous. to say that a single statement form is valid. Tautologies. contradiction. for instance. Other forms have just the opposite property: they can never. UNIT 6 OBJECTIVES • Learn the definitions of tautology. and you will learn some interesting relationships between the various truth table concepts. c. • Be able to use the truth table method to determine whether two or more statement forms are logically equivalent or whether one logically implies another. or contradictory. UNIT 6 TOPICS 1. under any circumstances. which means making up a joint truth table for the premises and conclusion and then inspecting the results for all the formulas taken together. and we sometimes want to do this to determine the logical status of the form. You will need to learn to distinguish clearly the kinds of problems that can be solved using truth tables. and contingency. It is also possible to make up a truth table for just a single. such as the fact that if the premises of an argument form are inconsistent.96 Unit 6 Further Applications of the Truth Table Method significant or is simply a tautology. • Learn the definitions of logical implication and logical equivalence and the relation between them. • Learn the definition of consistency. in any . individual statement form. The things you will be expected to master are listed below in the "Objectives" section. B. • Be able to use the truth table method to determine the logical status of single statement forms. contradictory. Certain forms. and Contingencies So far you have been using the truth table method just to test argument forms for validity. then the argument form is valid rather than invalid. and this is something that can be determined by the truth table. • Be able to state clearly the four different kinds of truth table problems we have encountered and the concepts applicable to each. tum out to be false. giving no real information. have an interesting property: they can never.) • Be able to state several relationships between the various truth table concepts. (It will make no sense. given at the end of the unit. Contradictions. or contingent. for instance. that is.

and apply the truth table method." We can consider a statement. a specific instance. and then test the form to see whether it ever comes out false. which can never be true. a contingency is something that might or might not occur. placing the truth tables for the subformulas underneath the operators for those formulas. construct your base columns for those variables. Here. (2) (1) We will compute the results here in the same way as we have done before. are called. are called tautologies. We may formally define tautology as follows: a tautology is a statement form that is true (under its major operator) for every substitution instance. we are using the term in a different. The former sort of statement forms. Another way we could put this would be to say that for every row in the truth table. Notice that in this example.) Testing single statement forms to determine their logical status. in fact. sensibly enough. we will call contingencies. It is the truth values under the major operator that determine the logical status. The statement "Either there will be inflation and unemployment or no inflation and no unemployment or inflation but no unemployment or unemployment but no inflation" . is a simple matter once you know how to construct truth tables. but closely related. An example should make this process clear: p q ~(p :::J q) == (p • ~q) T T F F T F T F F T F F (2) T F T T (1) T T T T (3) ~F T F F T F T This form turns out to be a tautology because there is no instance in which the value under the major operator is false. extract the form. You simply take all the variables that occur in the form. a tautology. we find that the economic "prediction" mentioned in the introduction to this unit is. contradictory. and the latter. we will symbolize the English statement. forms that are true in some instances and false in others. we have many F's in various places in the truth table. (In ordinary parlance. but under the major operator the result is always T. so the form is a tautology. Using this procedure. sense. then. and then compute the result for each instance. that is. to be a tautology just in case its form is a tautology. which can never be false. or contingent. To determine whether a statement is a tautology. systematically replace the capital letters with variables to obtain the statement form. for instance. contradictions. whether they are tautologous. The intermediate cases. and gradually working our way up to the major operator. the result of the computation under the major operator is "true. starting with the smallest components first. turn out to be true. we can use the same kind of procedure we used in Unit 5 to determine whether a particular argument was valid: symbolize.Unit 6 Further Applications of the Truth Table Method 97 case.

and the truth table below shows that it is indeed a tautology. They are useful in logic precisely because they do not make any claim about the empirical world. Tautologies do play a very important role in logic. There are other statement forms that can never turn out to be true. some of them will be important later. for instance (as they are wont to do). you should pay particular attention to formulas that tum out to be tautologies (and also those that tum out to be contradictions). equivalently. Such forms. but are.~p» T T F F T F T F T F F F (1) T F F T (3) F F T T FF FT FF TT (1)(2)(1) ~ FF TT FF FT (2)(1) F T T F (3) FF FF TT FT (2)(1) (4) Tautologies play little role in ordinary language because they give us no information. They are the axioms and theorems of formal logical systems. A tautology is an "empty" claim. it will help to develop your logical intuitions. this is a highly desirable property in logic. ~ p». it really says nothing about the world. q) v (~p. The corresponding form would be ((p. and whatever its limited usefulness in ordinary language. with its truth table. They are formulas whose truth we can absolutely depend on. are called contradictions. is the following: p q (p ~ q) - (p - q) T T F F T F T F T F F T (3) F T T F F T F T (2)(1) (4) ~ F T T F (2) T F F T (1) This is a contradiction because. true no matter what the worldly facts. however. one that turns out false for every . in any case.~q» v ((p. as the truth table shows. as already noted. q) v (~p. ~q) v (q. we might say. that is not much of a forecast.98 Unit 6 Further Applications of the Truth Table Method would be symbolized as (U· U) v (~ / . ~ q) v (q. It certainly doesn't help you decide whether to go on a picnic. A contradiction is a statement form that is false (under its major operator) for every substitution instance or. no matter what the values of the component parts. there is no instance in which it turns out to be true. ~ q» v ((p. that it will either rain tomorrow or not rain. In doing the problems. p q ((p. and. the "truths" of the system. they don't make any definite claim about the way things actually are. just as "x + y = y + x" is a truth of most of our mathematical systems. ~ U» v (U· ~ U) v (U • ~ I»~. Since they are always true under any circumstances. An example of a contradiction. If the weather forecasters tell you.

but I won't run out of money. it does not have either all T's or all F's in its truth table under the major operator. under its major operator. to determine whether an English statement. and the form is (p :) q)' ~ p." This could be symbolized as ((M :) J) • (M == ~ J» • ~ J. a specific instance. p q ((p :) q) (p ~ q» • ~q T T F F T F T F T F T T F F T F (3) F T T F F T F T (2) (2) (1) ~ F T F T (4) (1) The following statement is a contingency. is a contradiction or a contingency.Unit 6 Further Applications of the Truth Table Method 99 row in the truth table. since its form has both T's and F's under the major operator. which means simply that it has some of each. As with tautologies. . so that if we start with all trues-a tautology-then. Notice that the negation of a tautology will be a contradiction. then obtain its form by systematically replacing capital letters with variables." The symbolization would be (M:) J)' ~ M. The very simple truth table is below. we will end up with all falses-a contradiction. because all the T's will change to F's and all the F's will change to T's. A contingency is a form that is neither a tautology nor a contradiction. but I won't get a job. the negation of a contradiction will always be a tautology. and I'll run out of money if and only if I don't get a job. p q ((p' ~ q) v F T T F (3) (~P'q)) v (~P'~q) T T F F T F T F FF TT FF FT (2)( 1) F F F F TT T F (1)(2) rn (4) F F T T FF FT FF TT This form is contingent because it has some T's and some F's under its major operator. with its truth table. We can define contingency as follows: A contingency is a statement form that is true for some substitution instances and false for others. if we negate it. and then test the form using truth tables. so there will still be some of each. (1)(2)(1) Notice that the negation of a contingency will be another contingency. The truth table is below. that is. since a negation changes the truth values. An example of a contingency is given below. we first symbolize the statement. Similarly. since the truth table for its form has no T's under the major operator. The corresponding form would be ((p :) q) • (p == ~ q» • ~ q. The following statement is a contradiction. "I'll get a job if I run out of money. "I'll get a job if! run out of money.

If the truth tables have the same values under the major operator. The following two forms. they have identical truth tables under their major operators. In other words. What would be the result of conjoining two contingent forms? Here we don't know for sure. To take one more example. the two forms were p and ~ q). since we will have "F == F" in every row. since they are each false in the second row and true in all the others. we would have at least one true disjunct in every row. you learned that certain forms were interchangeable and meant exactly the same. 2. since one side of the disjunction would be a tautology. and contingency. which will turn out to be true. such as ~(pvq) and (~p. it might be contingent (if. contradiction. then. which would make the conjunction false for every row. when learning to symbolize statements. then they are not equivalent. which means that they turn out to be true or false in exactly the same circumstances. ~ q). It would be a contradiction. are equivalent. Logical Implication and Logical Equivalence In Unit 4. since there will be at least one false row in the truth table. then the formulas are equivalent. here we will have a tautology. since in every row there would be one false conjunct.100 Unit6 Further Applications of the Truth Table Method p q (p:J q) • ~ P T T T T F T F T T (1) F F ~F F F F TT TT (2)(1) If you thoroughly understand the concepts of tautology. If there is some row in which the values are different. Exercises at the end of the unit will give you more practice in working out such combinations. or it might be a contradiction (for instance. you should be able to answer the following sort of question: what would be the result of disjoining a tautology and a contradiction? Answer: it would be a tautology. since a disjunction is true provided at least one disjunct is true. for instance. What would be the result of conjoining a tautology and a contradiction? A contingency? No. in every single row. You test statement forms for logical equivalence by constructing a joint truth table for them and computing the results for each of the formulas. if the two forms were p and ~ p). The only thing we can be sure of is that it won't be a tautology. you might even try to think up other combinations and work out their results. We are now in a position to see why they mean the same and why one can be used in place of the other. Such statement forms have the very important property of being logically equivalent to each other. . This will be our primary definition of logical equivalence: two or more statement forms will be logically equivalent if and only if the truth tables under their major operators are identical. what would be the result of placing a triple bar between two contradictions? Another contradiction? No.

T T T T F F F F T T F F T T F F T F T F T F T F FFF F F F F F T F F T T F F T F F T T T T T l (1) (2) (1) F F F F F F T T (1) F F F F F F T F (2) F F F F F F T c. ~(pvq) 4. again. the result will be a tautology. we can say that formulas 2 and 3 are equivalent and that formulas 1 and 4 are equivalent. It is also important to realize that formulas may be logically equivalent even though they have different numbers of variables! You can determine this. The truth table follows. (~p ~ T T T F F T F F T m T T T (2) F F F (1) F F T T (1) m m F T F F T T (2)(1) F q) 3. We can say which are equivalent to which just by comparing their truth tables. In the following example we have four. but neither 2 nor 3 is equivalent to either 1 or 4. q) 2. the result of joining them will not be a tautology.L (3) F F F F F F T T (1) F F F T F F FT F F F T F F TT (2)(1) There is an interesting connection between the concepts of logical equivalence and tautology: if two formulas that are logically equivalent are joined into a biconditional. ~q)·r)v((~p· ~q). p q 1. ~ (p. (p:J T T T (2) ~ q) T T T F (2) (1) F F wF T F T (1) In this instance. by drawing up the joint truth table and working out the results for both formulas. The reason for this is that .Unit 6 Further Applications of the Truth Table Method p q (~ 101 (p • q) :J ~ p) (~q:J ~ (p v q)) T T F F T F T F F T T F T F T F (2) (1) w • F T T (3) F F T T (1) T F F F T T T (1) (3) W F F T (2) T T T F (1) We can also test more than two formulas at a time. ~q) and ((~p. and if the two formulas are not equivalent. In this way we can see that (~p. ~r) are equivalent.

. if the formulas are not equivalent. in fact.102 Unit 6 Further Applications of the Truth Table Method formulas that are logically equivalent. Thus we can give the following alternative definition of logical equivalence: two statement forms are logically equivalent if and only if the result of joining them with the biconditional is a tautology. for instance. ''The rate of inflation will be reduced provided there is a steep increase in interest rates and high unemployment" and "If there is no reduction in the inflation rate. the truth table below shows that they are equivalent. this means their truth values are the same for every row in the truth table. The corresponding forms would be ((p. Hence. that of logical implication. If we make up the truth tables for ~(p v q) and ~ p. which is a relationship between two statement forms. then either unemployment will not be high or there will be no steep increase in interest rates" are logically equivalent. used by some textbook authors. p T T T T F F F F q T T F F T T F F r ((p • q) ::J r). given that a biconditional is true if and only if its components have the same truth values. the biconditional will be a tautology. (~ R ::J (~H v ~ S)). because there is no row in the truth table in which ~ (p v q) is true while ~ p is false. we gave an example of two sentences that we claimed said the same thing. One statement form logically implies a second if and only if there is no row in their joint truth table in which the first is true and the secondfalse. In the Introduction. On the other hand. This definition is. we see that ~(p v q) logically implies ~ p. have identical truth tables. (~r ::J (~qv ~ p)). Thus. q) ::J r). there will be some row in which their values differ. T F T F T F T F T T F F F F F F (1) "f F T T T T T cI (2) F'"T T F F T T T F T T T F T T I (1) (3) F F F F F F F T T F T T T T F T T F T T T T T T (1)(2)(1) A third definition of logical equivalence can be obtained from a closely related concept. These sentences could be symbolized as follows: ((S • H) ::J R). the biconditional with logically equivalent components must be true for every row. in that row the biconditional will tum out to be false and so will not be a tautology. as we have defined it. We can now show that these sentences. and it should be evident that the two definitions mean the same.

Thus we will be able to say that in a correct rule of inference. as the term suggests. Our third definition of logical equivalence. although ~ (p v q) does logically imply ~ p. is the following: Two statement forms are logically equivalent if and only if they logically imply each other. To say the second implies the first is to say that there is no row where the second is true while the first is false. they must be logically equivalent. then there can be no row in which one is true and the other is false. tells you when you may correctly infer one statement or form from others) is that it is truth-preserving. the premises (or conjunction of premises) logically imply the conclusion. The most critical feature of a rule of inference (a rule that. the converse relation does not hold. which will be discussed in Units 7-9. and Logical Equivalence The concepts of logical implication and logical equivalence are extremely important and are closely related to the concept of rules of inference. The basic rules are what we might call "one-way" rules: they allow you to infer the conclusion from the premises. no row in which the truth values are different. If we have this two-way logical implication. says "Given (p • q). then. In the example above. that is. To be truth-preserving means that it is never possible to go from statements (premises) that are true to a statement (the conclusion) that is false. so they are logically equivalent. But this is precisely the idea of logical implication: there is no instance where the first form is true and the second false. such as "Given (p :) q) and ~ q." It would obviously not be . you may infer p.Unit 6 Further Applications of the Truth Table Method p q ~(p V 103 q) ~p T T F F T F T F ~ ~ T T T F Logical implication. Rules of Inference. Thus their truth tables must be identical. you may infer ~ p. Simplification. To say that the first implies the second is to say that there is no row where the first is true and the second false. When two formulas do both logically imply each other. This will be especially relevant to the basic rules of inference. ~ p does not logically imply ~(p v q) because in the third row ~p is true while ~(p v q) is false. but not the reverse. 3." which are introduced in Unit 7. Logical Implication. One very basic rule. where we develop the proof method. for instance. unlike logical equivalence. is not a symmetric relation: that one form logically implies another does not necessarily mean that the second will imply the first (although it may).

is inconsistent: p q (~q -::J ~p). for instance. ((p • ~ q) v (~p • ~ q)). or mutually inconsistent. Those statements could be symbolized as follows: (J. This is because the relationship between premise and conclusion is the stronger one of logical equivalence. We are now in a position to show that the set of statements made there was indeed inconsistent. The following set of three formulas. however. want to be consistent. 4. ( ~ P ::J q) T T F F T F T F F T F T (1) (2) (1) ~ F F T T FF T T F F F T ~ T F T F F T T FF FT FF TT (2)(1) (3) (1) (2)(1) F F T T (1) (2) ~ In the first row of this truth table the middle formula is false. rather than just logical implication. since in neither case will we be in danger of going from a true statement to a false statement. Thus there is no row in which all the formulas come out true at once. But what does this mean? It will be a little easier to understand consistency if we talk first about inconsistency. which we will call "replacement rules. The concepts of logical implication and logical equivalence are among the most important in logic. or at least most of us. which we claimed were contradictory. we can correctly infer the first formula from the second as well as the second from the first. however. For each rule. Consistency Consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds. so we will give the following definition: a set offonnulas is inconsistent if there is no row in their joint truth table in which they all come out true at once. and this means that they have identical truth tables. including both the conclusion and the negation of the conclusion." rules. .104 Unit 6 Further Applications of the Truth Table Method correct. since absolutely anything will follow from it." The rules in Unit 8. the premise and conclusion are logically equivalent. (P -::J T)). Thus we all. because what you said could not possibly be true. and so the set is inconsistent. to turn this around to say "Given p." are reversible. in the second row the left-hand formula is false. and in the last row the right-hand formula is false. but it is also a very important property of sets of formulas. or "two-way. so that there can be no instance in which one is true and the other false. If you haven't done so already. q). it makes the argument form virtually worthless. Our first example in the Introduction to this unit was a set of sentences concerning job offers. in the third row the middle formula is again false. If you say something inconsistent. you may infer (p. for instance. If a set of premises is inconsistent. you should be sure you know the definitions that have been given in this section and can state the relationships between them. you might just as well have remained silent. Thus.

however. ~ (T v V). so the conjunction as a whole would be a contradiction. Given the definition of inconsistency. we can now define consistency: we will say that a set offormulas is consistent if and only if there is at least one row in their joint truth table in which they all come out true. (~ (p • q) == F F T (~p • ~ q)) T T F F T F T F (2) ~ T F F F (1) F T F T F F T T T FrnF T T T F F T T T T F F F ~F F T T FF FT FF TT (1) (3)(2) (1) (2) (1) (3) (1) (2)(1) . The following set of three formulas is consistent: p q (p :J (p. ( ~ q :J s). Here there would be a false conjunct in every row. the difference is that a contradiction is a single formula. ~ (r v s). that a set offormulas is inconsistent if and only if the conjunction of all the formulas is a contradiction. q)). we would have a contradiction. We can say. (~p :J ~ (p v q)). (q :J r)). whereas consistency is a property of sets of formulas. and the 16-row truth table below indicates that the sen- tences are indeed inconsistent. since a conjunction is false if at least one of the conjuncts is false. The corresponding forms would be (p. p q r s (p • (q :J r)) ~ (r v s) T T T T T T T T F F F F F F F F T T T T F F F F T T T T F F F F T T F F T T F F T T F F T T F F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F TT T T T F T F T T T T T T T T F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F -F T T F F T T T T T T F F T T T T F F F F T T T T F F F F T T T T T T T T T F T F T T T T T F T F - cpF F T F F F T F F F T F F F T - T T T F T T T F T T T F T T T F (2) (1) (1) (2) (2) (1) There is obviously a very close relationship between inconsistency and contradiction. since there is no row in which the forms are all true at once. If we conjoined all the formulas above.Unit 6 Further Applications of the Truth Table Method (~P 105 :J V). for instance.

and contingency are applied to single statement forms and concern the kind of truth tables the forms have. for instance. you need to understand these relationships. so they form a consistent set.106 Unit 6 Further Applications of the Truth Table Method These formulas all come out true in both the top row and the bottom row. in both cases the reason is that there cannot possibly be a counterexample. We will first discuss the way in which validity is related to the other truth table concepts. you have learned four or five different applications of the truth table method-different kinds of problems that can be solved using this method. There are. so let us summarize: The concept of validity is applied to argument forms. since argument forms have several formulas in them. We say that one form logically implies another or is logically equivalent to another. A very interesting fact about argument forms is that if the premises are inconsistent the argument form is valid (not invalid)! A closely related property is that if the conclusion of an argument form is a tautology. Some are used on a single form. A form with all T's in its final table. remember. Nor would it make sense to say that an argument form is a tautology. then the argument form is also valid. thus. A single statement form is a tautology. It is important not to confuse the concept of tautology with that of consistency. we are saying that there is a horizontal row in which each of several formulas comes out true. (We can also apply the concept of equivalence to more than two formulas. contradiction. if it comes out true in every row under the major operator. then. however. sets of statement forms consisting of premises and a conclusion. there is at least one row where they all come out true. you are checking to see whether it has any counterexamples. You should never say. It is extremely important that you keep these sorts of problems straight and be clear about the various concepts. Four Kinds of Truth Table Problems and the Relations Between Them In this unit and Unit 5. it doesn't even make sense to apply it to single statement forms. is a tautology. This means that the vertical column underneath the major operator consists entirely of "trues. since validity is a property of argument forms (or arguments) only. however. The concepts of logical implication and logical equivalence apply to pairs of statement forms.) Finally. Why should this be so? Well. When you test an argument form for validity. if the premises are inconsistent. In the first case." With a consistent set of formulas. that is. The concepts of tautology. and to thoroughly understand the concepts. that a single statement form is valid. and some on sets of forms. S. the concept of consistency applies to any set offormulas. some on pairs of forms. some very interesting relationships between these concepts. .

and thus the argument form is valid. Again. that is. there is no row in which it is false. but if there is no row in which the conclusion is false. There is a slightly more complicated relationship between the concepts of logical implication and validity: if the conjunction of the premises logically implies the conclusion. The same sort of reasoning. A tautology is a single statement form that is true for every substitution instance. there is no counterexample. This is because in both cases there is no row in the truth table in which the first formula is true and the second false. But if there can be no row in which they are all true. thus there is no counterexample. then the argument form is valid. it comes out false under the major operator for every row in the truth table. Keep in mind that one of your definitions of logical equivalence is in terms of a dual logical implication.Unit 6 Further Applications of the Truth Table Method 107 this means by definition that there can be no row in which they are all true at once. but the conclusion false. Similarly. since all contradictions have identical truth tables (all false). that is. but the conclusion false. turned around a little. You may be able to think of even more ways in which these concepts are related. and the same holds for tautologies (all true). 2. we can say that a statement (instance) is a tautology if its form is a tautology. formula 1 logically implies formula 2 if and only if the conditional with formula 1 as antecedent and formula 2 as consequent is a tautology. goes for the second case as well. you can be reasonably sure you have mastered the material of these last two units. . Other interesting facts about logical equivalence are the following: any two contradictions are logically equivalent. If the conjunction of the premises logically implies the conclusion. then there is no row in which the conjunction of the premises is true. Since the conjunction of the premises can only be true if all the premises are true in that row. The other definitions here can be extended to statements in the same way. IBy extension. and any two tautologies are logically equivalent. there can certainly be no row in which they are all true and the conclusion is false. and if you understand these. If so. and so the argument form is valid. this means that there is no row in which all the premises are true. DEFINITIONS 1. then there is no row in which the conclusion is false and the premises are all true. If the conclusion is a tautology. This is evident. We have already seen that two forms are logically equivalent if and only if the biconditional they form is a tautology. The reason for this is found simply in the definition of validity. it comes out true under the major operator for every row in the truth table. I A contradiction is a single statement form that is false for every substitution instance.

*g. that is. 4. Two statement forms are logically equivalent if and only if they logically imply each other. One statement form logically implies another if and only if there is no row in their joint truth table in which the first comes out true and the second comes out false. Why is an argument form with inconsistent premises valid rather than invalid? What is the relationship between validity and logical implication? Why do all three definitions of logical equivalence amount to the same thing? Can one say that a statement form is valid? Why or why not? What are the four sorts of truth table problems you have learned? What are some of the relationships between the various truth table concepts you have learned in the last two units? EXERCISES 1. 2.108 3. *a. 9. Two statement forms are logically eqnivalent if and only if the result of joining them with a biconditional is a tautology. A set of statement forms is consistent if and only if there is a row in their joint truth table in which they all come out true at once. Two (or more) statement forms are logically equivalent if and only if their truth tables are identical under their major operators. A set of statement forms is inconsistent if and only if there is no row in their joint truth table in which they all come out true at once. 6. h. 7. 5. d. STUDY QUESTIONS 1. 3. *c. f. b. What is the negation of a tautology? Why? What is the negation of a contingent form? Why? What is the negation of a contradiction? Why? What is the disjunction of a contingent form and a contradiction? Why? What is the disjunction of a contingent form and a tautology? Why? What is the conjunction of a contingent form and a tautology? Why? What is the biconditional of two contradictions? Why? What is a conditional with a contradiction for an antecedent and a contingent form for a consequent? Why? . it has both T's and F's in its truth table under the major operator. *e. 6. 5. Answer the following questions. 8. 4. Unit 6 Further Applications of the Truth Table Method A contingency is a single statement form that is false for some substitution instances and true for others.

q) (p v q) :J P and ~ q :J ~ (p. q) :J q and p :J (p. Use the truth table method to decide whether the following pairs of statement forms are logically equivalent. r)) «p v r) :J q). (q :J p)) :J (p v q) (p "'" q) "'" (p "'" ~ q) (p. *k. s)· (q v r)) v «p. r) p :J (q :J r) and (p. contradictions. (p v r) and (p. (q v ~ ~ ~ (~ q :J ~ r) r)) ~ *i. d. J. [p. b. Use the truth table method to decide whether the following statement forms are tautologies.Unit 6 Further Applications of the Truth Table Method *i. q) v (p. p:J (q :J p) (pvq)·(~pv~q) ~ (p :J (p v q)) (p "'" ~ q) v (~p "'" ~ q) «p:J q). ~ (p • q) and ( ~ p v ~ ~ q) ~ p "'" q and (p :J q) • (p :J q) and ~ (p "'" q) (p. (q v r)) "'" «p. ~ s)· (q v ~ r))] *3. *c. f. g. or neither. *a. q) ~ (p. or 2 logically implies 1. a. ~ r)] "'" [«p. b. h. j. *a. *g. h. *k. 1. q) :J ~ (p v q) and ~ (~ p "'" q) (p v q). e. i. j. q) v (p. b. f. (1) (1) ~ (~ p v ~ ~ q) (2) (p v q) ~ P :J (p v q) (2) (p v q) :J q . 109 What is a conditional with a tautology as an antecedent and a contingent form as a consequent? Why? What is a conditional with a tautology as an antecedent and a contradiction as a consequent? Why? What is the biconditional of two contingent forms? Why? What is the disjunction of two contingent forms? 2. or contingencies. Use the truth table method to decide for the following pairs of formulas whether 1 logically implies 2. «p v q) v ~ r) :J (p v (q v ~ r)) r) "'" (p v (q. d. c. «p v q). *e. or both. q) :J r (p • ~ q) :J r and ~ r :J (~ q :J ~ p) ~ (p v (q • r)) and ~ «p v q) • (p v r)) ~ p "'" q 4.

Symbolize the following and then test their forms to determine whether they are tautologous. (2) Unemployment will rise. . but if he doesn't have ajob.110 Unit 6 Further Applications of the Truth Table Method (1) ~(p 0 *c. (p q) v (p r». and he doesn't like both Beth and Alice. John likes Mary or Beth. but if it does rain. (p v q) 0 ~ (p v r». but if I am elected. If it doesn't rain. ~ (q::) p) ~ == ~ q). f. John will get ajob if and only if he runs out of money. (~q::) ~ (p v q). (1) Unemployment will rise if interest rates either fall or do not fall. b. *i. or Fred will not go and not both John and Mary will go. but he doesn't like both Mary and Alice. *c. *g. j. (p ::) (p v q» p). (~p::) ~ q). ~ (p ::) ~ q). ::) q) q 0 (2)(poq)o(p == r) ~ ~ q) (1)(p q) v ~ r (2) po (q v (2) ~ ~ 0 (l)~(pvq)v~r (r p) 0 (r q) 0 *5. (~ (~(p v q) ::) p). (p::) q). John will get a job if and only if he will run out of money if and only if he doesn't get ajob. d. p ::) ~ (q r» 0 6. *e. (p ~ == q) (~ e. (~ c. d. h. I will support education. or Fred will go to the party while either John doesn't go or Mary doesn't go. Either John and Mary will both go to the party. d. 7. or contingent. and I can support education only if I raise taxes. *a. we will go on a picnic. we won't. Symbolize the following pairs of statements and test their forms for logical implication and equivalence. contradictory. ~ 0 ~ (poq) ~ 0 ((p v q)::) p). If interest rates neither rise nor fall. John will get an A in logic if and only if he does not get an A in physics. *a. (p (~p v ~q). Inflation will be stopped only if interest rates fall. Use the truth table method to decide whether the following sets of statement forms are consistent. *e. a. but interest rates will neither rise nor fall. and inflation will be stopped. then he runs out of money. If I am elected I will not raise taxes. then there will be less unemployment if interest rates fall. Inflation will be stopped if either interest rates fall or do not fall. but he won't get an A in either one. b.

(1) If John was elected. f. then if there is a decrease in interest rates. b. . (1) Mary will go to the party if and only if George does not go. (2) John was elected if and only if Mary was not elected. (2) If education was not supported. (2) Postal salaries will increase if and only if the number of postal workers is reduced. then taxes were not raised but education was supported. (2) John was elected if and only if Mary was not elected. (3) If Mary was elected. (2) If John was not elected. (1) There will be war if the country is invaded. then there will not be an increase in unemployment. then education was supported but taxes were not raised. (2) If there is an increase in unemployment. then education was not supported. (2) There will be war only if arms production does not continue. (3) Arms production will continue. (2) John was not elected. 8. d. (1) If John was elected only if education was supported. then if taxes were raised. John was not elected. (1) There will be war only if arms production continues. then taxes were raised only if education was supported. (1) Postal rates will increase only if the number of postal workers is not reduced and their salaries increase. then postal rates will increase. Symbolize the following sets of statements and test their forms for consistency: *a. 111 (2) As long as the country is not invaded. (1) If there is an increase in production and a decrease in interest rates. (3) If either salaries increase or the number of postal workers is not reduced. *c. *c. (1) If taxes were raised if and only if education was supported. (2) Either George or Mary will go to the party. (1) If John was elected. h. *g. then John was not elected. there will be no war. *e. (1) John was elected if and only if Bob was elected. there is no increase in production. (4) There will be no war.Unit 6 Further Applications of the Truth Table Method b. then either taxes were raised but education was not supported or education was supported but taxes were not raised. and Mary was elected if and only if Bob was not elected.

(2) If the planet is polluted. then the human population will not continue to explode. then it is not true that most animal species will become extinct. (1) If the human population continues to explode. (3) If the human population does not continue to explode. then the planet will become polluted and most animal species will become extinct.112 Unit 6 Further Applications of the Truth Table Method d. .

" to see whether there is a counterexample. at least in logic. there is a very important connection between them: the truth table method. is an invention of the twentieth century. the two methods yield the same results. It is interesting that there are two such different methods for doing the same thing-testing validity. The proof method is historically prior as well. the results of the two methods are somewhat different-one of the most exciting discoveries of the twentieth century.) 113 . and the method of proofs was clearly possible without the truth table method.UNIT7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules A. however. INTRODUCTION In this unit you will begin to learn an entirely different method for demonstrating the validity of deductive arguments: the method of proofs. This procedure is much closer to the way we reason in everyday life. you will proceed step by step through a series of relatively simple intermediate inferences until you arrive at the conclusion. by contrast (although not the general method of refutation by counterexample). serves to validate the rules we will be using in constructing proofs.300 years ago Aristotle developed the first system of proofs. instead of testing the premises and conclusion simultaneously. The two methods are obviously independent of each other: you were able to learn the truth table method without recourse to proofs. The truth table method. 2. as it turns out. As we shall see. (In mathematics. and Euclid developed the proof method for geometry at about the same time. With this procedure. you probably quite often work out step by step the implications of certain hypotheses. "in one fell swoop. but it is a good bet that you never made up a truth table before you picked up this book. Fortunately. in a way.

To fully understand the application of rules of inference. Although there are no set procedures for reaching your goal (the conclusion). Section 1 is thus devoted to this topic. You cannot hope even to begin to construct proofs without knowing the means of construction! For convenient reference. It cannot be emphasized enough that it is absolutely essential that you learn these rules thoroughly. unless you first learn the rules. you will feel that you have really accomplished something. before we proceed to the discussion of rules and proofs in the succeeding sections. no mechanical procedure. In this unit you will be given eight very basic inference rules consisting of a premise or set of premises and a conclusion. it must be emphasized that unless you thoroughly learn the rules you will be able to go nowhere. be permitted to make whatever inferences you wish. the more adept you will become.114 Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules In using the proof method." that will help you plan your strategy.) You will be given a certain set of inference rules and will be permitted to use those and only those rules in your proofs. You will have to use your imagination and ingenuity. You must memorize them. when you do solve a problem.c. and by the end of the unit you should be fairly proficient in planning strategies and figuring out how to reach your goal. this is the source of both the challenge and the frustration. you willieam certain "rules of thumb. for instance. The reason for this constraint will be explained in Section 3. proceeding step by step from premises to conclusion. You should be able to reel off the rules as easily as you can (I hope) reel off your multiplication tables." and methods. You will not be able to master this unit. The more exercises you do. understanding what the rules mean will help you memorize them. for the proof method. To assist you in this process. such as "working backward. I cannot give you a prescription for constructing proofs that is guaranteed to work. . it will be important to master the distinction between a statement form and the particular statement. there are no set procedures to follow. be allowed to infer ~ B from (A :::J B) and ~ A. you will not. or you will simply not be able to do the proofs. the rules will always be carefully explained in the text. the rules are all given at the end of the unit and are also given on the inside front cover of the book. of course. (You will not. This is because. of course. or the next few units. On the other hand. In the next two units you will be given additional rules of a slightly different form. You may consider these problems as puzzles. your goal will be to get to the conclusion from the premises by using only the rules of inference given you. again. You will probably find the proof method more interesting and challenging than the use of truth tables and will very possibly find it quite frustrating initially as well." certain "tricks of the trade. unlike the truth table method. there is no algorithm. But. like chess problems or crossword puzzles. the substitution instance.

" Given a set of premises and a conclusion. be able to construct a short proof (up to five intermediate steps). such as the method of "working backward. Be able to determine whether a statement is or is not a substitution instance of a given form. UNIT 7 TOPICS 1. with no particular meaning or truth value. since their value always remains the / same.) By contrast. the letters x. while the instance was the particular. Be able to identify correct applications (substitution instances) of the rules and to spot incorrect applications. y. meaningful sentence or argument. which means that they may take any value or stand for any number. and we have used these terms already in defining validity and in discussing truth tables. Form and Substitution Instance In Unit 1 we introduced the distinction betweenform and substitution instance. Be able to construct derivations. and z are used as variables. A constant is simply a term that has a definite.6. Given a derivation. for example. be able to supply the justification for each step. Be able to state and apply the following definitions: (a) justified step. and learn the definitions of these and related terms given at the end of the unit. in Unit 1. In algebra. quantities such as 2. even 7T are constants. we have been relying on a rather informal understanding of these concepts. The time has now come to make these concepts more precise. UNIT 7 OBJECTIVES • • • • • • • • • • Learn the difference between forms and substitution instances.Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules 115 B. (Lowercase letters such as a and b are sometimes used to represent arbitrary constants. Given a set of premises and a conclusion. Be able to write out the symbolic forms of the inference rules and to understand their verbal explanations. (8 + 7). as the name indicates. 101 1 2. particular value. or structure. The result of such . we may replace a variable with a constant. of the sentence or argument. be able to construct longer proofs (up to 25 or 30 intermediate steps). (b) derivation. Constants may be substituted for variables. Learn to plot proof strategies. that is. however. for example. C. may stand for any value. The basic distinction is that between constant and variable. So far. (c) proof. while a variable. the form was said to be the general pattern.

but the idea is the same. unlike variables. forms have variables and statements have constants as their smallest units. . any particular statement. as we will call it.. on the other hand.. Some examples of statement forms would be p. (A :J ~ N). have definite truth values. statements will be the substitution instances of statement forms. s. r. N. q. The following table classifies and illustrates the various sentential elements we have described above. but that is used to stand generally for. Our sentential constants. p. and that may take as a substitution instance. or statement variable. Statement variables and statement constants. q. Sentential constants. are simple capital letters that stand for definite. «A v B) == ~ C) As noted. that we have been using as abbreviations for truth functionally simple English sentences. and (2) C) v (C :J ~ D» :J ~ (A v (B • ~ C». ) that in itself has no meaning or truth value.. Statement forms p. and the difference between them is that the forms are built up out of variables. and «p' q) :J ~ (r v s». A sentential variable. we may substitute 3 for x (consistently) and 5 for y to get the substitution instance 3 + 5 = 5 + 3. from the form «p v q) :J r). where (B' C) has been substituted for p.116 Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules a substitution may be called a substitution instance. whereas a statement is a formula (simple or compound) that has as its smallest units statement constants. respectively. Statement forms and statements.. D) • (A :J ~ B». and ~ (A v (B' ~ C» has been substituted «B' . and ~ C have been substituted. «p :J q)' Statement constants A. where A. In the formula x + y = Y + x. or just an instance. B. (A v B).. and r. r. for instance. simple or complex. such as A and N. (q v r). on the other hand. meaningful instances. B. More precisely. We will get a substitution instance of a form by (uniformly) substituting some statement. then. They are just the letters. or constants. . simple or complex. FORMS INSTANCES Simple Simple or Complex Statement variables p. of the variable or formula that contains the variable. Statements ~ r) N. (p v q). a statement form is a formula (simple or compound) that has as its smallest units statement variables. whereas the statements are built up out of the capital letters. q. for each variable in the form. Examples of statements would be A. In sentential logic we are using sentential variables rather than numerical variables and sentential constants rather than particular numbers. and (~ (C. (C :J ~ D) has been substituted for q. . we could obtain the following: (1) «A v B) :J ~ C). Thus. are the simple components of our formulas. may be either simple or complex. is simply a letter (we use lowercase letters from the middle of the alphabet. particular. for p.. which we will call statement constants. Again.

Any statement. since whatever we put in for x at one place we must also put in for any other occurrence of x. «A ~ B) v C) is not a substitution instance of (p ~ q) since. q. and so on. whose major operator is a conditional would be a substitution instance of (p ~ q). and (3) «F == G) ~ «A v B) v (C' D»). but this would not do. in fact. Thus «A v B) ~ C) is not a substitution instance of «p v p) ~ q). we must put in for p at all other places. There are unlimited numbers of substitution instances for each form. 3 + 3 = 3 + 3 is a perfectly good instance. To help you figure out in each case why a formula is an instance. the substitution instance will be more complex than the form itself. at the end of the unit. you should try to see why it is not possible to substitute statements for the variables in a way that would yield the formulas as instances. since we just put in the antecedent for p and the consequent for q. the conditional is not the major operator. the statements that were substituted for each variable to get the substitution instance have been outlined. will also contribute to your understanding of these very important concepts of form and substitution instance. Some examples are given below to help you see what kinds of statements do or do not count as substitution instances of forms. since we can substitute 3 for both x and y if we wish. It is extremely important to keep in mind that each simple variable p. may take as substitution instances complexformulas as well as simple ones. (2) «A v B) ~ (G v H». Note that according to the definition we may substitute the same statement for different variables. If we have the formula x + y = Y + x. as well as «A v A) ~ A). We must be consistent in our substitution. «A ~ B) v C) would be a substitution instance of (p v q). since in most cases we will substitute complex statements for at least some of the variables. . so that (A v A) is a substitution instance of (p v q). Exercise 1. whatever we put in for p at one place. On the other hand.Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules 117 for r. that is. but 2 + 3 = 4 + 5 would not be an instance. In general. Some instances of the form (p ~ q) are (1) (A ~ B). The best we could do would be to substitute A for p and B ) v C for q. although it does contain a conditional. since B ) v C is not a formula. and there is no way we can substitute formulas for p and q to come out with the statement. For those formulas that are not instances. but «A v A) ~ B) would be a substitution instance. Note that the requirement of consistent substitution and the possibility of putting in the same statement for different variables are exactly analogous to the use of variables in mathematics. and it is important that you do these exercises before you go on to the sections on proofs. a correct substitution instance would be 3 + 4 = 4 + 3. in fact. By contrast. But we must not put in different statements for repeated occurrences of the same variable. r.

~pvq 2. he had lobster at Maxmillian's. numbering the premises: 1.-«C. (P~B) 4. We can symbolize this argument as follows. P (A A ~ ~q ~A~B 1. (W·S) 2. Therefore. He would have food poisoning only if he ate bean sandwiches at Joe's Bar and Grill last night. we start with the premises and then deduce from the premises a series of intermediate steps that finally results in the desired conclusion. What we do is to construct a chain of reasoning in which each new step follows from the previous steps. «W· S)· (Rv F» 3. The Proof Process In the proof method for demonstrating validity. he must have mononucleosis..M . He doesn't have a rash. but he does have a fever.B=-)-V-'..CC71»I 3.118 FORM Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules 1. for instance. Suppose.-:-A--=~----. instead. If he is weak and has a stomach ache and has either a rash or a fever. But he didn't have bean sandwiches at Joe's last night. ~B·L ~ (Pv M) 5. q) Av~B ~ ~A·B ~A·~B (AvB) ~ ~B)vC ~(AvB) ~ C ~(A·B)vC ~~(A·B) ~(A ~ ~B) (~AvB)v(CvD) ~ (B ~ ~C) 2. ~R·F/".. ~pvq 2. ~ (p. then he either has food poisoning or mononucleosis.p ~ ~ ~~ ~[g I~ (B V C) I ~ ~ ~ I((A V B) ~ C)I ~ ~E]J I(((A ~ (B V C» == D) == F)I ~ ~I(A FORM NONINSTANCES EAl ~ ~I(B V cj ~~~ V B)I 3. ~ (p' q) INSTANCES ~G1Jvlm ~1~AlvEAI ~ (lA}~) ~ (~'I~ AI) ~ (I(B V C)I'I~ D ~~ vl(B ~ C)I ~I(B ~ )1 C)lvEA] ~1«Av~B)~(CvD»lv FORM INSTANCES 1m q ~(I~ ~ (Em'~) (B V C) I· r-I~----. that we have the following argument: John is weak and has a stomach ache.

The rules you will be given in the next three units. you can be sure that your arguments will be valid. are very basic. In a proof. it is necessary that you write down every step. (W' S)· (R v F) John is weak and has a stomach ache and has either a 9. There is no valid sentential argument that . (Pv M) 10. so the argument is not valid after all. we need a simple way of referring back to the previous steps. These inference rules are patterns. we could deduce that John has mono in the following way (we will number and symbolize every step): 6. that every single move be recorded. or that there is some premise they need that they don't have. this is an important part of the proof process. no matter how trivial. In constructing proofs. and you may wonder why we even bother to list them. and the only way we can obtain this certainty is by being very precise and very thorough. in fact. To avoid this kind of mistake. M rash or a fever (by combining steps 1 and 7) John either has food poisoning or mono (from steps 2 and 8) John didn't eat bean sandwiches last night (from step 4) John does not have food poisoning (from steps 3 and 10) John has mono (from steps 9 and 11) Some of these steps. you cannot deduce just anything that strikes your fancy. (R v F) John has a rash or a fever (from step 6) 8. however. ~ ~ B P 12. there are. Too often. The way we guarantee this is to require that each step in a proof follow from the previous steps according to certain specified rules of inference. Notice also that we have provided a justification for every step by indicating what previous steps it was derived from. No one is claiming that these are the only possible correct rules. guaranteed never to result in true premises but a false conclusion. 11. F John does have a fever (from step 5) 7. and completely sufficient for sentential logic. This means taking nothing for granted. a fact you may want to verify for yourself by using the truth table method on them.Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules 119 Given these five premises. such as step 6. not any old inference will do. people (including logicians) take things for granted and then discover that they have omitted something. It is essential to a proof. an infinite number of rules that we might use. every step must logically follow from previous steps. numbering them is the easiest way to do this. common. that are "tried and true. or forms (they will be given in terms of variables). the whole point of a proof (as opposed to an intuitive leap to the conclusion) is to be absolutely certain that the conclusion follows. but actually writing down every inference we make. may seem obvious and trivial." certifiably correct. each individual inference must be valid. They are all truth functionally valid argument forms. If you use just these rules (and use them correctly). however. It should be obvious by now why we number the steps: since each later step is justified in terms of previous steps.

The next two are conjunction rules. The first eight of these rules. which can be derived from those premises. Dilemma. Remember that you will be required to memorize the symbolic forms of the inference rules.P. otherwise. A summary of these eight rules will be provided at the end of the unit for easy reference.. q Given a conditional and the antecedent of that conditional. Rules for "if-then. such as limiting your speed to 65 mph when driving. It will be easier to learn these rules if you think of them in terms of the operators they contain." An inference rule is a basic pattern of reasoning. will tell you that given a disjunction and the negation of one of the disjuncts. The rule of Disjunctive Syllogism." Symbolically. Our first three rules. because they tell us how we may make inferences with formulas that have horseshoes as their major operators. you will never be required to use any given rule. Eight Basic Inference Rules a. for example. will be introduced in the next section.P. (as we will abbreviate it). you will simply not be able to do the work in these units. 3. and the two after that are disjunction rules." and ~~or. Probably the most fundamental rule in all of logic is the rule of Modus Ponendo Ponens (its complete and proper name). which is presented in subsection b. other rules may come and go. you are permitted to infer the consequent of the conditional. In this unit you will be given eight very basic inference rules. more familiarly known as Modus Ponens. This rule tells you that if you have a conditional and also the antecedent of the conditional (the "if' part). you are permitted to infer the other disjunct. Rather. for instance. you are permitted to draw a conclusion of a certain form. the basic inference rules. are horseshoe rules. but most systems retain the rule of M." "and. according to which a conclusion of a certain form may be inferred from premises of a certain form.. combines the conditional and disjunction operators. all in the following form: there will be one or more statement forms given as premises and a single statement form given as the conclusion. It really just reflects the meaning of "if-then. It is not the sort of rule that tells you that you must do something.120 Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules cannot be proved using just these rules. such as the one just given for Disjunctive Syllogism. then you are permitted to infer the consequent (the "then" part). it is a rule telling you that you may make a certain inference. it is stated thus: MODUS PONENS (M.) p~q P / . You should also become familiar with and be able to paraphrase the informal explanations of the rules. that given premises of a certain form. .

The following would not be a correct application. (A v B) / .P.P. which use variables. constructing counterexamples to convince yourself that they are wrong. The following is also not a correct instance.] The rule of Modus Ponens can only be applied in cases where one of the formulas has.T.T. He isn't depressed. because the second premise is not the antecedent of the conditional: «A· B) ::J ~ C). for instance.Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules 121 It is essential to be aware at the outset that the rules are given in terms of variables. ~p Given a conditional and the negation of the consequent of the conditional. In symbolic form it looks like this: MODUS TOLLENS (M. a conditional. A / . B. INot only are these incorrect applications of the rules. ~ (A v B).) p::Jq ~q / . A / .: «A v B) ::J ~ C). and an instance of a rule will be correct if its premises are a substitution instance of the premises of the rule form and the conclusion is the corresponding instance of the conclusion of the rule form. You will be applying these to particular instances. . Another very basic rule. As this example illustrates. more commonly known as Modus Tollens. which also contains a conditional as a premise. You will need to have a sharp eye for the relationship between a form and its instances. that is. he is depressed. no matter how complex. as its major operator. and now that you are aware of it. since a variable may take as a substitution instance any formula. and the second set of exercises at the end of the unit is designed to give you practice in recognizing instances and noninstances of the rules. This is a very common inference pattern.. was inferred from steps 2 and 8. Therefore. occurs in the problem in the preceding section. An instance of the rule of M.. they are rule forms. we may infer the negation of the antecedent of the conditional. is the rule of Modus Tollendo Tollens.. The following. (as we will abbreviate it) would be the following: ~ C / . (The other premise must be the antecedent of the conditional.". ~ C.. they are also truth functionally invalid. you will probably notice instances of it being used continually. where step 9. would be a correct application of the rule of M. because neither of the premises is in the form of a conditional: «A::J B) v (C ::J B».. he didn't break up with his girlfriend. You should use the short truth table method on these and the other instances of incorrect applications given in this unit." It is «A v B) ::J C). ~ C. An example in English would be "If John broke up with his girlfriend. «W· S)· (R v F» ::J (Pv M) and «W· S)· (R v F».". the applications of the rules-the instances-may be considerably more complex than the rules themselves..) A correct application of M. (P v M). This rule tells us that given a conditional as one premise and the negation of the consequent of that conditional as the second premise. you are permitted to infer the negation of the antecedent of that conditional.

In this rule there are two overlapping conditionals as premises.122 Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules important to remember with this rule that the second premise must always be the negation of the consequent.T. was used to infer step 11 in the example in the preceding section. but it is not the negation of the consequent. (C :J D) is not the same as (C· D). they must have the very special relationship of sharing a common term. Clearly. then either Smith or Andrews will be governor. ~ (A· B). then the first implies the third.) As noted.. can serve as the premises of Hypothetical Syllogism. A third rule that uses the conditional is the rule of Hypothetical Syllogism. What you have just learned are three rules that tell us what . which we will abbreviate as H. because it violates this condition: (A v B) :J (C :J D). D) ::J (~ E· F) / . An instance of this would be (A v B) ::J (C· D). it is useful to learn the rules in groups.S." ("Jones" has been eliminated. according to the major operators involved. (C. p -' r Given two conditionals in which the consequent of the first is identical to the antecedent of the second.'.S. and the correct conclusion would be the double negation ~ ~ (A· B). (A v B) :J (F· G).. Therefore. (A v B) ::J (~E· F). is not the negation of the antecedent. as the second premise. (C· D) :J (F· G) / . either Smith or Andrews will be governor. Notice that the rule of M.) P ::J q q ::J r '""""\ / . the double negation ~ ~ (C v D). It is crucial in the application of this rule that the overlapping terms be exactly identical. and this is what is required. and the conclusion is the conditional with the middle term eliminated.: (~(A· B) :J ~ (Cv D)).. T. we would have to have. Its symbolic form is given below (notice how much easier it is to say it in symbols than to try to describe it in English): HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM (H. Not any two conditionals. Jones will be defeated. The second premise is a negation. although it is also a negation. What this rule tells us is that the conditional is transitive: if the first statement implies the second and the second implies the third. The antecedent of one must be exactly the same as the consequent of the other. If Jones is defeated. Thus the following would not be a correct application of the rule of M. ~ (Cv D) / :. you may infer the conditional whose antecedent is the antecedent of the first and whose consequent is the consequent of the second. Another error here is that the conclusion.T. in other words. The following would not be an instance of Hypothetical Syllogism. An example in English of this rule would be the following: "If either inflation remains high or unemployment increases.. if either inflation remains high or unemployment increases. so the inference is not correct. In order to use this conditional in the rule of M.

~ (C :J D) / .'. we may infer their conjunction.) -- P'q -- p. This rule tells us. (Thus the rule has two forms. we may infer either of the conjuncts separately as a conclusion. invalid: (A· B) :J C / . Exercise 6 at the end ofthe unit will give you practice in using these three rules. tells us how to use a disjunction in a premise.'. Disjunctive Syllogism.) This is exactly what you would expect from a rule for conjunction.'.. The rule of Conjunction. what we can derive from it. one rule.p I. while the other.. but are still quite simple. An example of this rule would be the following: (A v B). tells us how to derive a disjunction as a conclusion. we may infer either one of its conjuncts as a conclusion. Exercise 7 at the end of the unit will give you practice in constructing proofs using only the rules for conjunctions and those for conditionals. except that you must remember that to infer the conjunction. The rule of Conj. was also used to infer step 8 in the example in the preceding section. p. The rule is stated as follows: CONJUNCTION (CONJ. abbreviated as Simp. The rule of Simplification. and the second tells us how to derive it as a conclusion. which will be abbreviated as Conj. you must have both components separately first. you may not apply Simp. but standard for this rule). (A v B) • ~ (C :J D). (Again. Notice that the rule of Simp.) The following.. The first tells us how to use a conjunction as a premise. that if we have two separate statements then we may infer their conjunction. q This rule should give you little difficulty. Again. we should be able to infer either one separately. (A :J C). it will be very important to remember that the rule of Simplification applies only when the major operator of the premise is a conjunction. use the short truth table method to construct a counterexample to verify that this instance is invalid.) P Given any two statements. that is. in fact. which are extremely simple. Addition (a confusing name. When you begin to construct proofs. tells us that if we have a conjunction as a premise. was used in inferring steps 6 and 10 in the example given in Section 2.. SIMPLIFICATION (SIMP.'. The rule of . to just a subformula. is also a very easy rule. however. The next two rules. The following would not be a correct application of the rule and is. as we would expect. (F v ~ H). q I. are rules that tell us how to operate with conjunctions. since the conjunction asserts that both of the conjuncts are true. The rules for disjunction are slightly more complex than those for conjunction. in other words.Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules 123 we can infer from conditionals..q From a conjunction as premise.q I.'. is a correct application of the rule: «A· B) :J ~ (Cv D»· (Fv ~ H) / . Again.

you may infer the other disjunct. The rule of Addition. you may infer the other disjunct. since in using the rule we are going from something more definite to something less definite. To clarify these comments. The rule is stated symbolically below: ADDITION (ADD. of the first). which we rarely need to do.pvq I. ~ D. we may infer any disjunction with that statement as one of its disjuncts. In this rule. A. To infer A from the first premise..S.. The following. either disjunct may be negated as the second premise.. The rule will tell us that given any statement whatever.'. like the rule of Simplification.) P q I. the rule again has two forms. abbreviated as D... In the second place. because the second premise is not the negation of the second disjunct (or. we would need the double negation ~ ~ (B· C).. and not just any old negation. / . ~ (B· C) / . you may infer any disjunction that includes that statement as one of the disjuncts..'. . (A v~ (B· C)). They are given below: DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM (D. and students often wonder how it is possible to do this. of course. it looks as if we are just pulling a formula out of thin air.'.S. so. abbreviated as Add. it is a walnut and will bear nuts in the fall. or it is a cherry tree. In using this rule. was also used to infer the conclusion that John has mono in our example in Section 2 of this unit.) pvq ~p pvq ~q Given a disjunction and the negation of one of the disjuncts.124 Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules Disjunctive Syllogism." D. Therefore. however. is sometimes confusing to students for several reasons: in the first place. would not be an instance of Disjunctive Syllogism. an example employing the second form of the rule might be: "This tree is either a walnut and will bear nuts in the fall. p This rule is very common in ordinary usage. The following. q / . we need to look at the rule. it is not of much use in ordinary discourse.. it will have two forms. Since the statement used as a premise may appear as either disjunct in the conclusion. for example. It is not a cherry tree. aside from its rather inapt name.pvq Given any statement.S. says that if you are given a disjunction as a premise and the negation of one of the disjuncts as a second premise. you must be sure that the second premise is the negation of one of the disjuncts. ~ (~ A v (B :J C)) / . would be a correct application of the rule: ( ~ A v (B :J C)) v ~ D.

must always be in the form of a disjunction. The Dilemma rule tells us that given two conditionals and the disjunction of their antecedents. it is extremely helpful in formal inferences. with the premise as one disjunct." for instance. introduce a rule for the biconditional. which has a disjunction as a conclusion. The symbolic form is stated below: . we can infer that "Either Bill or Tod stole John's wallet. In the next unit we will have a rule that will allow us to replace a biconditional (p == q) with the conjunction of two conditionals. But we cannot directly infer C from these two steps by M. since A is not the antecedent of the conditional. however. (q ::J p). The Rule of Dilemma. this is the Dilemma rule. From A. and this is the only biconditional rule we will need. however. that if Tod stole it then either Bill or Tod stole it. We used the rule of Addition in this way. abbreviated Dil. in step 7 of the proof in Section 2. Our last rule in this unit is one that combines several operators and so falls into no particular category. in actually constructing proofs. This is the only rule that requires more than two premises. from previous steps of the form (A v B) ::J C and A. The rule of Addition may be used on any formula. We will not. whereas the conjunctive conclusion of Conjunction requires two premises. The conclusion of the rule. that is. and since this is the antecedent." which seems grossly unfair to Bill since we already know that Tod is the culprit! It is true. we are then entitled to infer C. unfortunate as this may be for Bill. Although we have little use for this rule in ordinary language. requires only a single formula as a premise. which has a conjunction as a conclusion. however. whether it has previously appeared in our proof or not and no matter how complex it is. One final reminder: do not confuse the Addition rule. in this unit. the premise may be of any form. From "Tod stole John's wallet. in other words. From ~ A. we may infer the disjunction of their consequents. This means you may not apply Addition to just a part of a formula. The disjunctive conclusion. although the formula contains a disjunction as a subformula.Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules 125 What is odd about this rule is that we are going from something stronger to something weaker. It would thus not be correct to infer «A v B) ::J C) from (A ::J C) because the major operator of the conclusion is not a disjunction. we may infer by Add. simply by noting that if a given formula is true. by Addition. then (because of the truth table for disjunction) any formula containing it as a disjunct must be true. Another rather disconcerting thing about this rule is that we may add on as a disjunct any formula. (p ::J q). it must always have a disjunction as its major operator. ~ A v [( Z v (X ::J Y)) • [~ B ::J (C • ~ (Dv F))]]! This rather odd-looking rule is justified.P. we can infer (A v B). for instance. h. however. We often need to derive C. to infer part of a more complex antecedent. with the Conjunction rule..

then many miners will be killed and air pollution will increase significantly. either waste disposal will be a serious problem and there will someday be a major accident. then there will not be an enormous increase in air pollution. If the United States relies primarily on coal. we may infer the disjunction of the consequences of the conditionals. it is just a kind of "double-barreled" or "souped-up" version of M. and instead of inferring the single consequent. (A :::J B) / .P. then waste disposal will be a serious problem and there will someday be a major accident." Of course. (By D). qvs Notice that this rule is very much like Modus Ponens. the premises must consist of two conditionals and one disjunction and that the conclusion will be a disjunction.. they are also invalid. The following would be a correct application of the rule: . Correct uses of the rule may be rather complex. you should construct counterexamples to demonstrate this fact. no doubt. The name of this rule was.) p~q r~s pvr Given two conditionals and the disjunction of the antecedents of those conditionals.. Instead of one conditional and its antecedent as premises. either there will not be an enormous increase in air pollution or there will not be a severe nuclear waste disposal problem!" Since this is our most complicated rule so far. the third premise. would not be a correct application of the rule: ((A v B) :::J C). / :. Here the problem is that the disjunction. but just keep in mind that as long as there are two conditionals and the disjunction of their antecedents in the premises and the disjunction of their consequents in the conclusion. The following. is not the disjunction of the antecedents. These examples are not only not instances of the rule. The United States will rely primarily either on nuclear power or on coal. The United States will rely primarily either on nuclear power or on coal.126 Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules DILEMMA (OIL. (A v D) / . we have two conditionals and the disjunction of the antecedents as premises. it will be harder to keep straight the premises and conclusion and easier to fall into error. for instance. inspired by instances like the following: "If the United States relies primarily on nuclear power. It is essential to remember that in this rule. C :::J D. or many miners will be killed and air pollution will increase significantly. we might look on the bright side of things with the following instance of Dilemma: "If the United States relies primarily on nuclear power. The following would also be incorrect: (A yC). If it relies primarily on coal.. the instance is correct. C y F. then there will not be a severe nuclear waste disposal problem. Here the major operators are reversed.. ((D· E) :::J F). Therefore. Therefore. we infer the disjunction of the consequents.

since we could just as well have included this rule in our system. Again. Simp.S. Add. It is very important that you complete all of them. to take nothing .P. [«A v B) :J C) v (F /:.Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules [«A v B) :J C) :J (D v F)]. Learn the rules and their names well enough so that you can take out a blank sheet of paper and write them down with little or no hesitation.S. for instance. Exercises 2 through 5 at the end of the unit will give you further practice in recognizing complex instances ofthe rules. you should sit down and do so now. simple or complex. Learn the verbal descriptions of the rules as well. You now have all the rules for this unit. and D. so that you have a very clear understanding of what each rule can do for you. But. If you are in doubt about any of these rules. although it seems intuitively to be (and is) a perfectly valid inference. Dilemma combines the horseshoe and the wedge. The reason is that each of these rules can easily be shown to be a truth functionally valid argument form. which would have made the system a bit difficult to learn. About the Rules.) We need to include enough rules to do the job. You have already seen some examples of fairly complex substitution instances of the rules. This means that there can be no instance of any of these rules that has true premises and a false conclusion. but not so many that the system becomes unwieldy. They contain variables that can take as substitution instances any statement. You will not have a rule.. and in some ways it is arbitrary. This will be important when it comes to actually constructing proofs. It is a restriction. it will help to think of the rules in terms of their major operators: M. are horseshoe rules. there are an infinite number of possible rules we could have included. 127 == G)] c. why do we need any fixed system of rules at all? Why can't we just make those inferences that seem reasonable. planning strategies. (DvF)v(A:JF). on the other hand. and Conj.. certainly. and thinking up plans of attack. Isn't this an arbitrary restriction on your creative powers? Well.T. (You will gripe enough initially about the few rules you do have to learn. Thus. are dot rules. You may wonder how we can be so certain that these results are correct and that we will not get into trouble in applying them. and H. and these particular rules are included because they are quite powerful and because they are rules that are commonly used. you may ask. if our premises are all true. even if we have a very long chain of intermediate steps. if you did not memorize them as you went along. Do not take shortcuts. are wedge rules. yes and no. M. and not worry about memorizing a particular list? Well. What we have here is a reasonable compromise. like the one mentioned above. You may well wonder why you are allowed just these rules and no others. Our rules are all truth preserving. we can be sure that in the end our conclusion will be true as well. Keep in mind also that the rules you have been given areforms. just construct a little truth table to test them out. «F == G) :J (A :J F)). But then. that will permit you to infer ~ q directly from (p == q) and ~ p.

each step a consequence of previous steps. intermediate steps) according to one of the given rules of inference. no weak links in our chain of reasoning. Finally. then the chain of reasoning has been broken. although it may not make perfect. We will justify a step by writing to the right of it whether it is a premise or."): . and you can't construct proofs before you can recognize correct and incorrect applications of the rules. But. our sequence of steps must be "logically tight. as in many other endeavors. which would be just as bad. not any old step will do. you will never arrive at an erroneous conclusion. which shows that the conclusion does follow from the premises. which would be incorrect. each step in the proof that is not a premise must be justified. do not even attempt to construct proofs until you can easily do the preliminary exercises. for instance. we have not shown that the conclusion follows from the premises. practice. chances are that sooner or later (and most probably sooner) your intuitions will lead you astray. if it is not.128 Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules away from your undoubtedly fine reasoning powers. as we have seen. To guarantee that the proof sequence is logically tight. either as being a premise or as following from previous steps according to one of the given rules of inference. then. If you try to make up your own rules. What we do is to construct a chain of reasoning. There is an interesting history of logical mistakes made by some of the best logicians of the twentieth century. and this is. it must be emphasized that you must do the exercises as well as learn the rules. be mistaken in what follows from what. that every single step be justified. we are permitted to make an inference only if it follows from previous steps according to one of the given rules. We want to be sure that there are no "logical gaps" in our proof construction. as noted above. Derivations and Proofs The proof method for determining validity consists. in starting with the premises and deriving a series of intermediate steps until we reach the conclusion. to infer ~ A from ~ (A • B). or to infer ~ B from (A v B) and A. why there has come to be such an emphasis onjormal logic. you should complete Exercises 2 and 3 at the end of the unit. Fully justified. We will require in a proof. You can't run before you walk. In learning proofs. steps given initially from which the others are to follow. so the proof is a failure. it is quite possible that you might. is absolutely essential." If an attempted proof contains even one incorrect step. in fact. Premises will be justified simply by noting that they are premises. at some point. the proof from Section 2 would look like the following (we will abbreviate "Premise" as "Pr. 4. and lack of practice will virtually guarantee failure. on using only those rules that are tried and true. what rule it was derived from and what steps served as premises for the application of that rule. At this point. by noting that it follows from previous steps (premises or other. You might be tempted. You can be certain that if you use only the rules given here (and use them correctly).

Add. ((W S) (Rv F» ::J (P V M) 3. ~B ~ 4. (((A v B) vC) v D) v E Pro Add. So far we have been talking about arguments in which the desired conclusion is given. and if the justification is missing. will be called a derivation..A 2. (WoS)o(RvF) 9. ~BoL ~RoF P 12. This definition will be expanded slightly in Unit 9. where the problem is to arrive at the stated conclusion by constructing a series of intermediate justified steps. 2. Add. P::J B 0 0 Pro Pro Pro Pro Pro Simp. which does not necessarily lead to a particular conclusion. We can now give the following definition: A step S follows from previous steps Pl . ((AvB)vC)vD 5. Add. This gives us the following short and simple definition of a derivation: a derivation is a sequence ofjustified steps. however. we have been rather taking for granted what it means for a step to follow from previous steps. All sorts of funny things will count as derivations. P n are the corresponding substitution instances of the premises of the rule R. which doesn't seem to be going anywhere useful.. is also a derivation: I. 11. PvM 10. RvF 8.P.8 Simp.l. . we do not know what the conclusion is supposed to be.9." we can now say precisely what it means for a step to be justified: A justified step is either a premise. or else a step that follows from previous steps according to one of the given rules of inference.T. if you do know. AvB 3. see what follows from them.Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules 129 1.10 D. without any preconceived notions of what the result will be. 3. Given the definition of "following from. 5. 4 M. You should never write down a step in the first place unless you know exactly where it comes from and by what rule. F Supplying the justification for each step will be considered essential to the proof. but for this unit and the next it is adequate. Often we just want to derive the consequences of certain hypotheses. WoS 2. We need now to be a little more precise in our definitions.S. then it is a simple matter to jot down to the right of the step the information that justifies it. 5 7.. Such a deduction of consequences. P n according to a given rule of inference R if and only if S is a substitution instance of the conclusion of the rule Rand Pl . In particular. the proof will be considered defective. In some cases. M Add. (A vB) vC 4. 1 2 3 4 .11 6. 6 Conj.7 M. Any sequence of steps will be a derivation so long as every step is justified. including just a set of premises (since each step will be justified as being a premise).The following sequence.

once started. and it will be up to you to supply the justifications. 5. The only difference between a derivation and a proof is that in a proof we know where we are going (and get there). but at least it requires nothing more than perseverance. whatever "falls out" of the premises. In Exercise 4 you will be given derivations. every proof is also a derivation. ««AvB)vC)vD)vE)vF 7. you will also be asked to supply the missing premise used in drawing a particular conclusion from a particular rule. In fact. These exercises will prepare you for the task of constructing proofs yourself. sequences of justified steps. A proof just has something extra-a conclusion toward which the derivation is headed and with which it must conclude. This is a very common experience with beginning logic students and should be no cause for alarm. you should do Exercises 4 and 5 at the end of the unit. but before you go on. Constructing proofs often requires insight and ingenuity. and supplying the justification for derivations that are already worked out is a purely mechanical procedure. In Exercise 5 you will first be given premises and a rule and will be asked to draw the appropriate conclusion. you should have them all clearly in your head so that you can look at a pair of formulas . What is absolutely essential. where you begin to construct your own proofs. you may not be able to see how to continue. is to know the rules thoroughly. while in a derivation we simply deduce whatever we can. 6 In contrast to a derivation. We can thus define proof very simply: a proof is a derivation in which the last step is the desired conclusion. a proof is a sequence of steps that is going somewhere. and even if you know the rules well. Constructing proofs from scratch. of course. that you may begin to feel some frustration. It should be noted that the concepts of derivation and proof are not mutually exclusive. is not a mechanical procedure. at least initially. there is no precise method. which lead to a definite conclusion. Constructing Simple Proofs It is at this point in the course. and you will have to figure out yourself what rule is applicable. What we will do in this section is to give you some idea of how to attack proof problems and some practical hints for learning the process of constructing proofs. however.130 Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules 6. ««(AvB)vC) vD)vE)vF)vG) Add. since each step must be justified. in which we arrive at a definite conclusion that we were aiming at ahead of time. for coming up with a series of steps that leads to the desired conclusion. requiring nothing more than a thorough knowledge of the rules and an understanding of the concept of a substitution instance. In the next section we will begin to construct proofs. Learning the rules may be tedious. and in some cases you will be asked simply to draw a conclusion. 5 Add. you may often find that you simply don't know how to get started or. You must find out what steps were used in deriving each line and what rule was applied. no set of instructions.

and we can here apply it to premise 1. it sometimes takes time for everything to sink in. you can always apply the rule of Simplification. and we want to prove B • ~ D. but sooner or later the light will dawn. A· B 4. from the two forms of the rule: 3. (2) D ::J e. we .. and we note that in step 4. preceded by our "therefore" sign / . Let us see. given the conjunction in step 3. let us look at a very simple example: suppose we have as premises (A . you will eventually come to the point where what once seemed impossible now looks rather trivial. 3 Simp. a challenging intellectual exercise.'. Now that the sermon is finished. even though it may seem that you are making no progress. B· ~ D. for reference.' . We will also "number" our problems in this unit with small letters (this one is a). We will call this the method of working from the "top down" (as opposed to the "bottom-up" method. Don't expect miracles the first time you sit down to work. you will have a real sense of accomplishment and may very well find that this is the most enjoyable part of the course. B) • ~ e and D ::J e. When you have a conjunction in the premises. B Simp. ~ (B • C). I e Now. if you follow the instructions. and see immediately that it is an instance in which you can apply the rule of Modus Tollens. you should make it a habit to start with the easiest problems first and gradually work your way up to the more difficult ones. which will be applied in more complicated problems). Whether we list the premises vertically or horizontally. Finally. Constructing proofs is like doing puzzles. is to treat the problem like a derivation and simply try to deduce whatever can be derived from the premises. which will not always work but does work here. 1 Simp.Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules 131 such as (A ::J (B· C)). You should also be sure you have done all the preliminary exercises (l through 5) at the end of the unit. / . set up our problem as follows: (1) (A· B)· ~ e. ~ Simp. This would give us two intermediate steps. to the right of the last premise. A 6. D ::J e. we could apply the Simp. Once it does. It often takes a couple of weeks to catch on to the method. these will help make the rules second nature to you and will help you get started in applying them. then. And do persevere. what can be deduced from these premises. rule once again to get two more intermediate steps: 5. but your patience will eventually be rewarded. 3 At this point we can check out our other premise and see what can be deduced from it. Try to do the proof yourself before you go on. then. we will generally write the conclusion. This premise is a conditional. you should find it much easier and more enjoyable. and if you take it in this spirit. We might. One method you can use.

4 This seems to exhaust the resources of our premises.132 Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules have the negation of its consequent. E'~D 4. for instance.T. so you must first have the steps you need to apply the rules. but one in which we can still work from the top down. there was no need to do the other Simplification step first. and the conclusion will be listed following the "therefore" sign to the right of the last premise: b. E 6. is that the order of the premises in the application of a rule is irrelevant. so we may as well begin there by applying the Simplification rule. We now have both of the conjuncts separately. numbered I through 4. In general. rule. 1. Let us take a slightly more complicated example. and then H v I by Add. there will be many different ways in which a proof can be constructed. Here we will need to get H first. but it is all we need for the conclusion. Another thing that needs to be mentioned.) Again we have a conjunction in the premises. ~D Simp. every step must be validly derived from previous steps. to get ~ D at step 5. such as the I in this proof.". it will have to be "imported" by the use of Addition. so we are entitled to join them together with the Conjunction rule. This allows us to derive the negation of the antecedent. If we first had ~ C and only then derived D :J C. the order makes no difference except that. although it does not come up in this problem. was simply the conjunction B· ~ D. (CvF):J H 3. if you remember.T. 3 .T.7 You may have noticed here that we could just as well have applied the rule of M. (A v B) :J (Cv D) 2. We could not have derived ~ D immediately after step 3. we could still have applied the M. ~ D M. B'~D Conj. This gives us 5. 3 Simp. The conclusion.2.6. Thus our next step in the deduction would be 7. and the last step in our derivation will be the desired conclusion. Our premises will be the following. at step 3. according to the rule of Modus Tollens. because we did not yet have ~ C. E:J A Pro Pro Pro Pro 1. 8.HvI (Hint: When you have a letter in the conclusion that appears nowhere in the premises. of course.

thus. CvF Add.6 We can now apply our Addition trick again to get 11. and you may need to pause to look them over to see what else you can do. Hv I Add. AvB Add. 13. which will yield 12. (Notice here that the order of the premises is reversed.P. we see that we have a disjunction and the negation of one of the disjuncts in steps 9 and 6.Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules 133 Now. If you get stuck. close your book. and if you think for a minute. write down the last two problems. C D. go back and reread the explanation and then try to do the proofs again.) This gives us 10.11 Now what? We seem to have used up all our ammunition.8 We now have quite a few steps. 10 This we need in order to apply M. Fortunately. it would be a good idea to take a fresh sheet of paper.P. CvD M. 12 At this point.S. we can apply the rule of Disjunctive Syllogism.P. you will realize that you can derive A v B from A by Addition. to step 2. Keep trying and rereading until you can do them. 1. a matter of knowing your rules well). and this is the end of the proof.P. H M. This gives 8. We do have A. As we scan the list. A M. 7 At this point we can apply M. and try to reconstruct the proofs.9.. 9. if you know your rules well.P. the next step should be obvious: the rule of Modus Ponens will give us 7. 4. the conclusion is only a short hop away: from H we can derive H v I by Addition. as we saw earlier. 2. again. .5 Now what? Here you should notice that we could apply the rule of Modus Ponens to step 1 if we had A v B (this is.

6.4 M. B 7. AvB 2. or you may not use some of them at all. perhaps in the following manner: 4. unneeded steps. But being a conscientious student. A D::J A B::J A A::J C C::J (D v E) ~ BvF DvG Pro Pro Pro Pro Pro Pro Pro / . If in doing a proof you go down the wrong road and reach a dead end.5 At this point you need to know that given a contradiction. You should keep these things in mind as you attempt to do the following proof: c. and then D.S.. 3 Simp. 1. 2. Once you discover the correct route. and (2) every step in the proof sequence. 1. you can simply write down those useful steps immediately following the useless steps. would you consider it a misprint? d. There is nothing in the definition of a proof that says it must be optimally short. so it is not necessary to "purge" a proof of unnecessary steps. F ::J G It certainly looks as if there is no possible way to derive the conclusion. with ~ B. 3 D. ~B Simp. whether useful or not. 5. such as make up your own rules. 3.. Nothing in the definition of "proof' says that each premise must be used once and only once. Perhaps surprisingly. It has already been noted that the premises may be in any order. it is not necessary to erase all the useless steps and start over. including the desired conclusion (or its negation!). to get the conclusion.S. F and G don't appear anywhere in the premises.2. ~A 5. is justified. 4.l. You may use premises more than once. a number of things are permitted that make no difference to the proof. ~C 6.. . you may derive anything.134 Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules Although there are many things you cannot do in a proof. you would no doubt give it a try anyway. 7. F' G Suppose you were given the following problem. ~A' ~ C Pro Pro Pro / . Simply use Addition on B to get B v (F ::J G). B::J C 3.T.. A proof may contain all sorts of useless garbage as long as the two essential conditions are met: (1) the conclusion is eventually reached.. it also does not matter if you have extra.

because you will be asking. 6 D. starting with some fairly trivial problems and then moving on to more complex ones. For these you will sometimes need to use the method of "working backward. If your conclusion. Some of the proof problems at the end of the unit may require this little trick. you have to not only know your rules by heart. We will take a relatively simple problem (which actually could be solved by the direct top-down method) to illustrate this procedure. in which you simply try to deduce whatever you can until you reach the conclusion. you can derive any formula q at all by getting p v q by Addition from p. having discovered that you need a certain intermediate formula to get it. To use this method. What this entails is looking first at the conclusion. and you have a formula (C => (A vB))." This bit of reasoning would have told you that you need C and ~ A in order to derive B from (C => (A vB)). you may simply not see how to get started. you will then have to ask. I could derive B. then checking the premises to see how the conclusion could "come out" of them. provided I had the antecedent c. you must know your rules well enough to reason in the following way: "If I had A v B and ~ A. B v (F => G) F => G Add. you should now be in a position to try Exercises 6. 1.8 In general. which will require a little more planning and strategy. 9. Having seen several examples. "What do I need to get the conclusion?" And. H => C Pro Pro Pro / ". if you have a contradiction (p and also ~ p). and 8 at the end ofthe unit." or "from the bottom up. 7." This method and other strategy hints for more complex problems will be developed in the next section. and then q by the application of Disjunctive Syllogism to p v q and ~ p. More complex problems. what will be needed to obtain the conclusion. Constructing More Complex Proofs In some proofs.7. will be given in Exercise 9. 6. ~ F . but also know what they can do for you. They should all be solvable by the application of the topdown method. I could get A v B by the rule of Modus Ponens from (C => (A v B)). from the bottom up. for instance.S. you may not be able to use the top-down method because you don't see what things can be deduced from the premises to begin with. or the method of working backward. A'~C 3. and then working out step by step. "How can I get that intermediate formula?" and so on. In such cases it may be helpful to use the bottom-up method. This kind of reasoning will be used constantly in the bottom-up method. and assuming that you know your rules. is B. e. These exercises are graduated.Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules 135 8. (AvB) => (Cv(F => H)) 2. until you reach back into the premises. even relatively easy ones on occasion.

T. since we have H :J C as premise 3. if you could get ~ C. ~ C. we look into the premises to see where it might come from. 2 Simp.8. and if the conclusion is a disjunction. and we already have ~ C at step 4.T.. you should note that you need (F :J H) and that this could be derived by D. 1. for the following two steps: 4. provided you can get its antecedent. You look back into the premises and note that one is immediate: ~ C occurs as a part of a conjunction in step 2 and so can be derived just by Simp. ~F M. so let us apply them as needed: F out of the first 8.P. ~H M. (C v (F :J H)). Once you get (C v (F :J H)). Thus you will need the three formulas (A v B). Having figured this out.P. again. rather than the premises. ~ C. "What can be derived from these premises?" as in the last section. what each rule can do for you. Instead of asking. A Simp. the obvious next move is to try to figure out how to get these three formulas. F occurs in the rather complex first premise. and what rules will be applied?" If your conclusion is a conjunction. F appears as a subformula of the consequent of a conditional.S. You should know that you can derive the consequent of a conditional by M.S. For this you need to know. clearly you will need ~ H to get ~ F by M. how can I get it. 6. "Given that this is the conclusion I want. since we already have A. We might as well do A at the same time. you ask. 5 The only thing left is to get ~ H. ~C 5.7. Thus you will need (A v B). what formulas do I need to derive it. then.3. it can be derived either by Addition or Dilemma.T.4 M.136 Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules Since our conclusion is ~ F. Thus we get 7. F:J H 10.9 In the bottom-up or working-backward method. thus you must first get that consequent. and what we must do is figure out how to pull ~ F out of that formula. . C v (F:J H) 9. is another formula you will need. Once you have F :J H by this process.4 ~ We now have the steps we said we needed in order to pull premise. that is. as the names imply. By this time that is no trick either. in general the thing to do will be to get both conjuncts separately.6 D. AvB Add. for instance. you start out by considering the conclusion in your reasoning process. 2 At this point it's no mystery how to get A v B. and ~ H to get ~ F from the first premise.

so we can use M. The antecedent is A v H.7.T. A 6. the antecedent of the conditional. 1. 4. A v H by Add. BvC M.T. and this will be a little more involved. B::J F 3.1O Conj. A::J (B v C) 2. we will probably use either Add. which occurs as a part of a conjunction. since it occurs as the consequent of a conditional in Premise 4 and thus can be derived by M. provided we could get the negation of the consequent. Since B appears in Premise 2 as the antecedent of a conditional. to steps 8 and 10 to get our other conjunct. (A v H) ::J D Pro Pro Pro Pr. we see that we have A in Premise 3. Checking out the premises.. to get 8. C'D D. and D by M. C 12.11 . and at this point it is easy to get. D should not be hard to derive. and to get this. This is one-half of our conclusion. 1. we could derive ~ B by M.S. the negation of the other disjunct. D Simp. Thus we can get A by Simp.P. 5 M.P.P.S. and we can then conjoin the two conjuncts to get our conclusion.P. 5.6 The other half is C. and ~ B. C occurs in Premise 1 in the consequent of a conditional.Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules 137 Let us take a slightly more complex problem that requires more steps and a more extended use of the working-backward method: f.5 Now we need ~ B. 10. 2.. 3 M./". Thus we could derive C from Premise 1 if we could get A. so we are almost there.9 We can now apply D. provided we have the antecedent. A'~F 4.. ~ F. But we have this ready and waiting in Premise 3.P. or Dil. 9. ~F ~B Simp. But we already have A. 3 Add.C·D Here our conclusion is a conjunction. II.8. so the thing to do is work on each conjunct separately and then put them together with the rule of Conjunction. AvH 7. as one disjunct.

q I :.) DILEMMA (DIL. A variable is a term that may represent any value. again. As long as every step is justified and you eventually get to the conclusion. If you know your rules well. And. ~p SIMPLIFICATION (SIMP. keep in mind. it doesn't really matter how you got there. there are usually a number of different and equally correct ways to derive the conclusions.p-:Jr I .P. start with the easiest ones first and gradually work your way up to the more difficult ones.'. q q I:. that there may be other ways of doing the proofs.) ADDITION (ADD.S. you should eventually be able to complete most of the proofs. particular value. p DEFINITIONS 1.) p'q I :. the process of learning to construct proofs should prove to be intellectually rewarding. q I :.) p-:Jq P p'-:Jq ~q p-:Jq q-:Jr I:.) HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM (H. q v s DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM (D.) CONJUNCTION (CONj. where you have to reach the conclusion by working through to the right path.T.) MODUS TOLLENS (M. p v q q I:.p·q p-:Jq r-:Js pvr I :. p P'q P I :. apply them correctly. study the previous examples. If you take it in this spirit. . SUMMARY OF RULES OF INFERENCE MODUS PONENS (M.138 Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules You should read through these problems until you fully understand every step. proofs are rather like mazes. and persevere. In doing your problems. even if your route is rather circuitous. as intellectual challenges. 2. A constant is a term that has a definite.) pvq ~p p vq ~q p I:. Especially with complex problems. p v q I :. Take your time and don't get discouraged if you don't immediately succeed. think of them as puzzles.S. however.

Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules 3.

139

4. 5. 6. 7.

A statement variable is a letter that can take as substitution instances any particular statement, simple or complex. (We will use lowercase letters from the middle of the alphabet, p, q, r, ... , as our statement variables.) A statement constant is a capital letter that is used as an abbreviation for a particular truth functionally simple English sentence. A statement is a formula (simple or complex) that has statement constants as its smallest components. A statement form is a formula (simple or complex) that has statement variables as its smallest components. A substitution instance (s.i.) of a statement form is a statement obtained by substituting (uniformly) some statement for each variable in the statement form. (We must substitute the same statement for repeated occurrences of the same variable, and we may substitute the same statement for different variables. Thus both A v B and A v A are s. i. 's of p v q, but A v B is not an s.i. of
p vp.)

8. 9. 10.

A justified step is either a premise, or else a step that follows from previous steps according to one of the given rules of inference. A derivation is a sequence of justified steps. A proof is a derivation (sequence of justified steps) in which the last step is the desired conclusion.

EXERCISES
*1. Using the definition of substitution instance just given, decide whether the statements under each form are substitution instances of that form.

(1)

p':J~q

(2) (pvq)':Jr
a. b. c. d. e. f.
( ~ A v ~ B) ':J C (A v A) ':J B A v(B ':J C) (A v B) ':J ~ (C v D) ~ (A v B) ':J ~ C (~ (A v B) v ~ (A v B)) ':J (A v B)

a. A':J~A b. ~A':J~B c. ~A':JB d. A ':J ~ (B· C) e. A ':J (~ B v ~ C) f. ~ (A ':J B) ':J ~ (A ':J B)
(3) p ':J
~

(q • r)

(4) p ':J (q ':J r)
a. b. c. d. e. f.
A ':J (~A ':J A) (A ':J B) ':J C C ':J (~ B ':J ~ B) (A ':J B) ':J (A ':J B) (A ':J (B ':J C)) ':J ((A ':J B) ':J (A ':J C)) (A ':J B) ':J (C ':J ((A ':J B) ':J (A ':J C)))

a. b. c. d. e. f.

A ':J (~ B • ~ C) A ':J ~ (B • ~ C) A ':J ~ ~ (B· C) ~ (A· B) ':J ~ (A· B) (A v B) ':J ~ ((A v B) • C) (A v B) ':J ~ (A v (B· C))

140

Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules (5) a. b.
~

p -::J

~

q

(6) (p -::J q) -::J r

c.
d.

e. f.

(A -::J ~ B) -::J ~ ~B ~ (A -::J B) -::J ~ (B -::J A) ~ A -::J (~ B -::J ~ C) ~ (B -::J ~ C) -::J ~ A ~(~(B -::J ~C) -::J ~(~C -::J B»
~
~A

a. (A -::J B) -::J (A -::J B) b. (A -::J (B -::J C» -::J «A -::J B) -::J (A -::J C» c. A -::J «B -::J C) -::J «A -::J B) -::J (A -::J C))) d. ~ (A -::J B) -::J (C -::J C) e. (~(A -::J B) -::J C) -::J C f. «A -::J B) -::J C) -::J C

*2. Which of the following are correct applications of the rule cited? For those that are not, say why not and what would be needed in order for them to be correct applications. The order of the premises does not matter.

a. (A v ~ B) -::J ~ C, (A v ~ B) / :. ~ C b. (B -::J ~ C) v (A - D), B / :. ~ C v (A - D) c. ~ (A v B) -::J C, ~ C / :. ~ (A v B) d. A -::J (B -::J C), B -::J (C -::J D) / :. A -::J (C -::J D) e. ~ A -::J ~ (B v C), (D - E) -::J ~ A / .'. (D - E) -::J ~ (B v C) f. «A v B) -::J ~ C) - ~ D / :. ~ D g. ~ B / :. (~A - (D -::J (~ C v E») v ~ B h. (A - ~ B) -::J (C - ~ D) / :. A -::J (C - ~ D) 1. ~ A v ~ B, ~ A / :. ~ B J. (~C v ~ D) -::J (A -::J B), (A -::J B) / :. ~ C v ~ D k. ~ (A v B) v (C -::J ~ D), ~ (C -::J ~ D) / .'. ~ (A v B) 1. (A-B) -::J (C-D), ~ (A-B)/:. ~ (C-D) m. ~ (A v B) -::J (C v D), ~ (C v D) / :. ~ (A v B)

M.P. M.P. M.T.
H.S. H.S. Simp. Add. Simp. D.S.

M.P.
D.S.

M.P. M.T.
Conj.

n. A v B / :. (A v B) - C
o. p.
(~A v
~ ~

B) -::J (~ A v B), ~ A v B / :. ~ A v B (A v ~ B) -::J ~ (~ C v ~ D), ~ ~ (~ C v / :. ~ ~ ~ (A v ~ B)

M.P.
~

D)

M.T.
Simp.

q. (A - (B vC» v (B v C) / :. (B v C) v (B v C) r. ~ A v(B -::J C), (B -::J C) -::J (C -::J D), ~ A -::J (C -::J D) / :. (C -::J D) v (C -::J D) s. ~ A v A, ~ A v ~ A / :. (~A v A) - (~A v~ A) t. A -::J (~ B - C) / :. (A v D) -::J (~ B - C) u. (~Bv~C)-::J~E,(~Cv~D)-::J~F,~Bv~D
/:.~Ev~F

Di1.

Di1.
D.S.

(A v ~ (B v C» v (D v E), ~ ~ (A v ~ (B v C» / :. ~ (D v E) w. ~ (A == (E - ~ F» -::J ~ (F == (E - A», ~ (F == (E - A» / :. ~ (A == (E - ~ F» x. «A -::J ~ B) -::J ~ C) -::J (D v E), D veE -::J (F vG» / :. «A -::J ~ B) -::J ~ C) -::J (F v G)

v.

~

M.T.
H.S.

Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules

141

y.
z.

~

A

~ (~

A.

(~

B

~ ~

C)),

(~

Av

« ~ B· ~ C)
(~A' (~

~ ~

B))

~ ~

B, B

~

A v (~ A v

« ~ 8 . ~ C)

~ ~

B)) / ...

B

~ ~

C)) v

~

Dil.

(Av~8)~(Cv~D),~(Av~B)/". ~(Cv~D)

M.T.

*3. Cite the rule that was used in the following valid inferences.

a.

(~Av~8)vC, ~C/". ~Av~B

b. (A v ~ 8) c. ~ (A v 8)

~ ~

~ (~

(C v D), A v ~ 8 / ... ~ (C v D) A v ~ B), ~ (~A v ~ B) / ... ~ ~ (A v B)
~

d. e. f. g.
h.
1.

(~(A
(~8

v 8)

~ ~

v ~ C)
~ ~

~ ~

~
~

A

8,

~

C) . ~ C / .'. ~ C D, ~ A ~ (~ B v ~ C) / ... ~ A ~ A v ~ B, ~ 8 ~ ~ A / ... ~ B v ~ A
~ (~

D

(~ 8

~ ~

A), A
~ (~
~ (~

(~A ~ ~
(~8 ~ ~

8)
C)

C A

~
~

A) / .'. ~ A ~ B), ~ A ~ ~ B / .'. ~ C ~ ~ B ~ 8), ~ A ~ (~ 8 ~ ~ C) / .'. ~ A
~ ~

B

~ (~

A

~ ~

B)

C) ~ (A ~ ~ B), ~ (A ~ ~ B) / ... ~ (B ~ ~ C) k. (A ~ ~ 8) v ~ C, ~ (A ~ ~ B) / .'. ~ C 1. A v 8, ~ A v ~ B / ... (~A v ~ 8) . (A v B) m. ~ 8 ~ (~C == ~ D), ~ B / .'. ~ C == ~ D n. (~A v ~ 8) v (~ A . ~ 8) / ... « ~ A v ~ 8) v (~ A . ~ B)) v

J. (8

~ ~

~

A

o.

~

(A

==

8), (A

==

(~8

==

~

C»)

~

(A

==

8) / .'.

~

(A

==

(~B

==

~

C))

*4. Supply the justifications for each step that is not a premise in the following proofs; in other words, indicate the rule used to derive the step and the previous steps that were used to get it. Some of the proofs are rather odd or unintuitive. This is by design; the point is just to give you practice in recognizing substitution instances of the rules.

a.

I.
2.

(Av~8) ~ ~(Cv~D)

Pro Pro Pro Pro / ".
~

(F'~H)vA
~

3. 4.
5. 7.
8.

(F • ~ H) • ( ~ 0 .

~

P)

(~Z'X) ~
~

0

P v ( ~ F·

~

H)

(F'

~

H)

6. A
~O'~P
~O

9.

~(~

z· X)

10.
11.

Av~8
~P

12.

~(Cv~D)

13.

~ Pv(~

~

H)

142

Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules b. 1. ( ~ A v ~ (A v B)) ::J (A v B)

Pro Pro Pro Pro / ...

2.
3.

~A::J~(BvC)
~ ~

(B v C) • (~ B v A v B) ::J
~

~

A)

4. 5.
6.

(~ ~

(A v B)

~

B • (A v B)

~ ~(BvC)
~~A

7. 8.
9. 10.

~Bv~A
~~AvB ~B

~

(A v B)

11. ~ A v~(A v B) 12. AvB
13. c.
~

B· (A v B)

1. (( C v D) • ( ~ C v ~ D» • (( ~ C v ~ D) ::J ~ (D v E)) 2. ((Cv D) v ~(C v E)) ::J ((~ C v ~ D) ::J ~ C)
3. ((Dv E)::J C)·
(~Dv(Dv E))

Pro Pro Pro
Pr./".~E

4. 5.
6.

(~D·(~Cv~D»::J (~(DvE)::J (~D::J (~C::J ~E») (CvD)·(~Cv~D)
~Cv~D

7. CvD 8. (~ C v
9. 10.
~

~

D) ::J

~

(D v E)

(CvD)v~(CvE)

11. 12.

(~Cv~
~C

(Dv E) D)::J

~C

13. (Dv E)::J C 14. ~ Dv(Dv E)

15.
16.

~D

~ ~

(~Cv~

D) D ::J
(~

17. 18.
19.

(D v E) ::J

(~

C ::J

~

E))

~D::J(~C::J~E)
~C::J~E
~E

20.
d.

1. 2.
3.

4.

v B) = F»::J (~(A::J E)v~ (C::J F)) = F) = (C = E))v~(CvD)) (~(A = E)· (CvD»· (((A = F) = (C = E))::J (A = E)) (Cv D) ::J ((C = F) ::J (A = E»
(~((Cv D)::J

E)·

(~(A

~((CvD)::JE)::J(((A

Pro Pro Pro Pro

Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules
5. «C

143

== E)) ~ ~ «C v D) / .". ~ (A == E) v ~ (C == F)
~

== F)

(A

~

E)

Pro

6.

~(A==E)·(CvD)
~

7.

(A

==

E)
~

8. «A

== F) == (C == E))
~

(A

== E)

9. CvD 10. ~ (A == E) v

(C == F)

II. (C == F) ~ (A == E) 12. (CvD)~~«CvD)~E)
13.
(CvD)v«CvD)~E)
~

14.

«Cv D)

~

E)

15. «A

==

16. ~«A

== (C == E)) v~(CvD) == F) == (C == E))
F)

17.
18.
19.
20.

~(CvD)

(CvD)v(~(AvB) ~

== F) == F)

(A v B) == F

~«CvD)~E)'(~(AvB)

21.

~(A~E)v~(C~F)

*5. Answer the following: a. Indicate what conclusion would follow from the application of the rule cited to the given premises.
\.
(~Av~B)v(C'D), ~(C'D)

/.". /.". /.". (DvF))
~

D.S.
H.S.

2.
3.

(Av(B~C))~D,(E~A)~(Av(B~C))
~(AvB) ~ ~

(C

~

(D v F)),
R), P
~

~(C ~

M.T.
M.P.

4. (P

G)
B

~

(G
~

~

G
~

/...

5.
6.

~ (~

==

C), (B
~

== C)
~

~ (~B

==

C)
~

/.".
C
F)

M.T.
/." .
/.". /.".

~

A v (B

~

C),

A

(A

D), (B

~

C)

Dil.

7. 8.

~(Av~B)v(Bv~A),~(Bv~A) ~

/.".
~ ~

D.S. M.T.
H.S. Dil.

(D
~

~ ~

F),

~

(A v(B

~ ~

C))
~

~

(D

9. (A ~ B) ~ CD ~ F), (D ~ CD ~ F)) ~ (A ~ B)

10. (A

B)

~ (~

D v F), (B v A)
B) /.".

(D v

~

F),

(B v A) v (A

~

b.

State what additional premises would be needed to derive the indicated conclusion according to the rule cited.
I.
2.
~

C v ( ~ D • F)
~

/.".
~

~

C
~

D.S.
B)
~

(A

(A

~

B))

C
~

/ ... CA
(E
~ ~

C

H.S.

3.

~ (~F ~

E)

/.".

F)

M.T.

144

Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules

4.

~F

I:.A=~F
~

M.P.
~

5. (A . B)
6. (A vC)
I :.
~

(B v C)
~

I :. A
(~

(BvC)
~

M.P. Dil.

~ ~

(B vC), (B v C)

Bv
~

C) v (A v C)

Av

7.
8.

~

(F

~

(G v H))
~

I :.

(A v B)
~ ~ (~A ~

D.S.
B)
~ (~

~ (~

B v (A

C))

I :.

M.T.
A
~

9. (B ~ (A ~ B)) ~ (~ A ~ B) I .'. (B ~ ~ A) 10. ( ~ B ~ ~ A) ~ ~ A, ( ~ A ~ B) ~ (B ~ ~ A)
I .'. (B
~ ~

B)

H.S. Dil.

A) v

~

A

c.

What conclusion could be drawn from the following premises and by what rule (excluding Add., Simp., and Conj.)?2
1.
2.
3. 4.
(~Av~B)~~(Cv~D),~Av~B

I:. (A v I:.
~ ~

(A v
~ ~

~

B)
~ ~

~ (~

B v C), A
~ ~

~ (~

B v C)
~ ~

~

B)

I:.

(A v
(C v

B), D),

(~

B) v (A v D) v
C)

B)

(~(C

v

~

~

(C v

D)

I:. I:.

5.
6.

(E
~ (~

= ~ F) v (F = (~E = ~ F)), ~ (E = ~ F)
A
~

(B v
~

~

C),

~

Av

(~B ~

v

~

C),

Bv
~

C)

~ (~

A v (C v
~

B))
~

I:.
I:.
~

7. 8.
9. 10.

(~A~(~Bv~A))~(A~~B),~(A~~B)

(A
~
~

B)

~

(A

~

(C

A)), (C

(A

~

C))

~

(A

B)

I:. I:.

(C v (A v C)) ~ ~ (A ~ (C ~ A)), ~ (C v (A v C)) (C v (A v C)) v (~A v ~ C), ~ (~A v ~ C) I:.

6. For each of the following arguments, construct a proof of the conclusion from the premises, using only the rules of M.P., M.T., and H.S. Be sure to justify every step. *a. b.
~ A, (B (T v W) ~

A),

(~

B

~ ~

~

A,

(C

~ ~

C) I :. ~ C B), (A ~ C),

~ ~

B I .'.

~

(T v W)

*c.
d.

(D ~ F), (A v B), (F ~ C), (A v B) ( ~ S ~ ~ T), B ~ (X v Y), ( ~ T ~ B), (A
~

~ ~
~

C I .'. ~ D S I .'. X v Y
(F
~

*e.

B)
~

~

(F

~

G),

(T . S) (B· A)
~

~

(A

~

B),

(T· S),
~

G)

~ ~

D

I:.

~D

f. *g.
h.

(A· B)
~

(C v D),
~ ~

(A· B),

(C v D)
~

(D v C)
~

I :. (B· A) (E· F) B
~

(D v C)

(A . B),
~

(C
B

~

T),

(E· F)

H, (A· B)

C,

~

HI:. T

(A

= B) ~ (B ~ A),
(A B),

(A

~ ~

~ ~ ~

= ~ B) ~ ~(B ~ A), (A ~ B) ~ (A = ~ B), B, B I .'. ~ (A = B)

2There are, of course, an infinite number of conclusions that would follow from various applications of the rule of Addition.

Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules

145

7. Construct proofs for the following, using only the rules for the conditional and conjunction.
a. *b. c. d. *e.

(C· D) ::J
(~

~

F,

(A::J C)· (B ::J D),

(A· B) I :.

~

F

A· ~ B) ::J ~ C, (B::J E)· (A ::J F), (~ E· ~ F) I :. ~ C (A· B) ::J (C· D), (~ F ::J B)· (~ X ::J A), (F::J T) . (X ::J S), (~T· ~S) / :. D (A v B) ::J (D· C), ~ C ::J ~ (D . C), ~ (A v B) ::J ~ A, ( ~ C . ~ F) I:. ~ A . ~ F (A ::J B) ::J (B ::J C), (F ::J T) • (D ::J S),
(~

(A • B) ::J (A ::J B), ( ~ F ::J A) . (~ D ::J B), T . ~ S) I:. C
~

f.

(A ::J C) • (~ A ::J (~ A v ~ B», C::J (F v A), «A v B)· (~ A v ~ B» ::J (A == B) I:. A == B

(F v A) • (A v B),

8. For each of the following arguments, construct a proof of the conclusion from the given premises, and justify every step that is not a premise. These and all following proofs may use any of the eight basic rules of inference.
a. b.

D ::J (A v C), D • ~ A (B ::J A), (C ::J B), (A v
~

/:. C A
~

~

/:. A

~

C
~

c.
d. e.

B), ( ~ C v B),
~
~

I:.

C
~

(A v B) ::J F::J (G·
(~ (~

C, (Cv D), A

I:. D I:.
Z
~

H), (Z ::J H), F

f. g.
h.

A. Fv

~

B) ::J C, (A ::J D), (B ::J D),

D E

I:. C
~

~

G) ::J (A v B), (F ::J C), (B ::J C),
~

C

I.'. A

(A v B) ::J C, (C v D) ::J (E v F), A· (F v G) ::J
~

I:. F
Z

i. j.

~

A, A v W, F· T
~

I:. W
~ WI:. ~
~

(A v B) ::J T, Z ::J (A v B), T ::J W, A ::J
~

* k.
I. *m. n.

B, A ::J C, Z ::J W,

WI:. I:.
~

~

BvW

(AvB)::J(CvD),C::JE,A·~E

1:.DvW
~D

(A·B)::J~C,Cv~D,A::JB,E·A

(~Av~B)::J~G,~A::J(F::JG),(A::JD)·~D

I:.

~F

* o.
* p.
q.
r.

F ::J (G ::J

~

H), (F·
~

~

W) ::J (G vT), F·
~

T, W ::J T
~ ~

I:.

~

H

P::J (Q ::J (R v S», p. Q, S ::J T, (A ::J (B ::J C», (A .
~

Tv D

~

W,

WI:. R

B ::J (F v G), (G • ~ H) ::J (D ::J B), H • ~ F) I...
~

C) v H,

(~

(A vB)::J (Cv D), (C::J E), (C v

~

F), (A·

~

E), (Fv(D::J

I:. Z

<i. Construct proofs for the following more challenging problems, justifying each step that is not :l premi:;c.

a.
b.

(FvG)vH,(i'=:H) ~H=:T),~TvW,~W·S I:. G·S (B v C) ::J A, A ::J (S v 1'), B· ~ S, (T . A) ::J (W ::J S) I:. ~ W

146

Unit 7 The Proof Method: Eight Basic Inference Rules
(X v Y) ::J (Y v Z), X • (Y ::J
A::J ((CvD)::J B),
~

c. d. *e.

~

Y), Z ::J

~

Z

/.'.

~

Yv

~

Z /.'. D v F

(A ::J B) ::J (C ::J D), (F ::J A) ::J (A ::J B), A ::J (F ::J A), A • C
(~Wv~T)::J

(A·C), W::J (SvP),
~

~Hv~(SvP),

* f.
g. h.
i. j.
k.

1.

H ::J (B ::J J), /:. ~(XvY) (~ B v ~ C) ::J (A ::J W), (~ A ::J (T ::J ~ Z», (T . ~ X), (X v (~ W· ~ B», (~ Z ::J (~ S v ~S (~ P v ~ Q) ::J (~ R v ~ S), (P ::J T), (~W ::J (~T· ~ Z», (~S ::J Z)· ~ (X· Y), (~ W v (X· Y» /:. (~R· ~ W) (S • P) ::J (Q v ~ R), (W ::J (Q ::J T», (W • (A ::J R», (W ::J (S v T», (P . ~ T) /:. ~ A (A v ~ B) ::J (~C v D), (E ::J A) • (F ::J ~ D), (E· ~ H), (EvG) ::J (Fv H), (A ::J (T ::J C» /:. ~ T (P v Q) • (R v S), (Q ::J Z) • (S ::J T), ( ~ Z • ~ T), Tv (D ::J Z), (p. R) ::J (C ::J D) /:. ~ C
(AvB)::J(CvD),(C::JW)·(D::J~A),A·~W

H ::J Z, ~ Z • ~ Y /.'. B· ~ Y ( ~ A . ~ B) ::J (~ C v ~ D), (E v ~ F) ::J

A,

~

X» /:.

*10.
* a.

Symbolize and construct proofs for the following valid arguments. Either Plato or Democritus believed in the theory of forms. Plato believed in the theory of forms only if he was not an atomist, and Democritus was an atomist only if he did not believe in the theory of forms. Democritus was an atomist. Therefore, Plato was not an atomist.
If I smoke or drink too much, then I don't sleep well, and if I don't sleep well or don't eat well, then I feel rotten. If I feel rotten, I don't exercise and don't study enough. I do smoke too much. Therefore, I don't study enough.

* b. * c.

If the Bible is literally true, then Earth was created in six days. If Earth was created in six days, then carbon dating techniques are useless and scientists are frauds. Scientists are not frauds. The Bible is literally true. Therefore, God does not exist.
If nuclear power becomes our chief source of energy, then either there will be a terrible accident or severe waste disposal problems. If there are severe waste disposal problems and an increase in uranium costs, then Americans will cut their energy consumption. There will be a terrible accident only if safeguards are inadequate. Nuclear power will become our chief source of power, and uranium costs will increase, but safeguards are not inadequate. Therefore, Americans will cut their energy consumption. Either scientists don't know what they are talking about, or the sun will eventually burn out and Earth will become dark and cold. If scientists don't know what they are talking about, then Mars is teeming with life. If Earth becomes dark and cold, then either the human race will migrate to other planets or will die out. Mars is not teeming with life, but the human race will not die out. Therefore, the human race will migrate to other planets.

* d.

e.

UNITS
Replacement Rules
A. INTRODUCTION

In Unit 7 you learned some very basic inference rules with which, given certain premises, you could derive a conclusion. In this unit you will learn some rules of a slightly different form, which we will call replacement rules. These rules will be written as two statement forms separated by four dots ::, which we will call the replacement sign. The rule of Contraposition.' for example, will be stated as (p :J q) :: ( ~ q :J ~ p). In each of the replacement rules, the formula to the right of the four dots is logically equivalent to the formula to the left, and that is why we are permitted to replace the one with the other. In using these rules, if you have an instance of the statement form on one side of the four dots, you may replace it with the corresponding instance of the statement form on the other side. A correct application of the rule of Contraposition, cited above, would be the following: ((A' B) :J C) / ... ( ~ C :J ~ (A' B)). Two very important ways in which these rules differ from the ones you learned in the last unit are that the replacement rules may be used from right to left as well as from left to right, and they may be used on subformulas. Thus the following would also be a correct application of the rule of Contraposition:
(A

== B) :J ( ~ C :J

~

D) / ... (A == B) :J (D :J C).

You will be expected to learn, that is, memorize, these rules, just as in the last unit and for the same reason: it is absolutely impossible to work out the proofs without

147

The rule of Exportation. memorize. c.148 Unit 8 Replacement Rules a thorough knowledge ofthe rules." • Learn more about plotting proof strategies. be able to construct a short proof (up to five intermediate steps) using both the basic rules and the replacement rules. this unit is just a continuation of the last. by contrast. Given an instance of the left side. with a new batch of rules for your edification and enjoyment. The basic rules all consist of one or more premises plus a conclusion. q) ::J r) :: (p ::J (q ::J r)). On the whole. for example. that is. will be given as two statement forms separated by four dots ::. You will also be expected. be able to supply the justification for each step. The Structure of Replacement Rules The rules you will be learning in this unit have a fundamentally different structure from the basic inference rules you learned in Unit 7. and. the symbolic forms of the rules. B. UNIT 8 TOPICS 1. given an instance of the right side. to learn to do proofs with these rules. as in the last unit. The replacement rules. will be stated as «p. if you have a statement that is an instance of one side of the rule. • Be able to identify correct applications (substitution instances) ofthe rules and be able to spot incorrect applications. • Given a set of premises and the conclusion. be able to construct longer proofs (up to 25 or 30 intermediate steps). • Given a derivation that uses both the basic rules and the replacement rules. UNIT 8 OBJECTIVES • Learn. you may replace it with the corresponding instance of the other side of the rule. the replacement rules are symmetric. • Be able to explain the difference in structure and usage between the replacement rules and the basic rules you learned in Unit 7. they go both ways. • Learn the "proof bits. also. and this can come only by memorization. the replacement sign. you may replace it with the corresponding instance of the right side. In using these rules. First. There are two important ways in which the application of the replacement rules differs from the application of the basic rules you learned in Unit 7. that is. starting with rather simple proofs and working up to the more difficult ones. you may replace it with the . and you will also learn more about plotting proof strategies. • Given a set of premises and a conclusion.

Unit 8 Replacement Rules

149

corresponding instance of the left side. Our basic rules, by contrast, were a oneway street; we could infer the conclusion, given the premises, but not the other way around. Given (A' B) for instance, we may infer B by Simp., but given just B, we most certainly may not infer (A • B). The second difference is that the replacement rules may be applied to any part of a formula, as well as to the formula as a whole; that is, they may be used on subformulas. This is certainly not true for the basic inference rules; as we have seen, Simplification may be used only on a formula whose major operator is a conjunction, such as (A v B)' (C v D). It may not be used on a subformula of a larger formula. We are not permitted, for instance, to infer (B :::J C) from ((A' B) :::J C). With the replacement rules, however, if we have an instance of one side of the rule appearing as a part of another formula, we may replace that part with the instance of the other side. In using Contraposition, for instance, if we have the formula (B' D) v (~ A:::J ~ C), we may apply the rule to the second disjunct only and derive (B' D) v (C :::J A). The reason for these differences in application is that with the replacement rules the statement forms on either side of the replacement sign are always logically equivalent; that is, they always have exactly the same truth value for every possible instance. This means that the conclusion we derive by using one of the replacement rules will always have the same truth value as the premise, and thus it will never be possible, in using these rules, to go from a true premise to a false conclusion. In the next section, we will explain each of the 10 replacement rules and will illustrate how they are used in proofs. These rules are listed at the end of the unit for easy reference and are also given on the inside of the front cover.
2. The Ten Replacement Rules a. Four simple rules. Again you will have to memorize these rules, but it may be easier in this unit because many of the rules are rather simpleminded, and many others you have already encountered in the unit on symbolization. In any case, it will be easier to learn them by starting with the more elementary ones first, and this is the order in which we will introduce them. By far the simplest of the 10 rules is Double Negation, abbreviated as D.N., which tells you that given a formula preceded by two contiguous negation signs, you may replace it with the same formula without the negation signs, and vice versa. In other words, double negations may be dropped from aformula or added on whenever needed. In symbols,
DOUBLE NEGATION (D.N.)

p::

~

~

p

150

Unit 8 Replacement Rules

Instances of this would be ~ ~ A / ... A and (A' B) / ... ~ ~ (A, B). Since replacement rules may be used on subformulas, the following would also be an instance: A :::J B / ... A :::J ~ ~ B. It is essential to this rule, however, that the two negation signs occur together, with nothing in between; the outer negation must be negating a negation and not, for instance, a conjunction. The following would not be an instance of D.N.: ~ (~A' B) / ... (A' B). We can see that this is • not correct because there is a parenthesis between the first and second negations. It is absolutely essential to remember that not any two negations can be dropped in using D.N., but only those that occur immediately next to each other. The Commutation rule (Com.) is almost as simple and tells us that we are permitted to reverse the order of the components in conjunctions and disjunctions. From (A = B) v (C = D) we may infer (C = D) v (A = B), for instance, and from «A :::J B) :::J (C, ~ D)) we may infer «A :::J B) :::J (~ D . C)). Notice, however, that this rule holds only for these two operators and, in particular, it does not hold for conditionals. (A :::J B) means something very different from (B :::J A), as you saw in Unit 4. The Commutation rule will be stated in the following way:
COMMUTATION (COMM.)

(p v q) :: (q v p) (p' q) :: (q' p)

The rule must have two forms, since it holds for both conjunction and disjunction. This is one of the rules (there are several) that have analogues in arithmetic; commutation also holds for addition and multiplication, as you no doubt learned some time ago. We have (x + y) = (y + x) and (x' y) = (y' x). Another rule that has an analogue in arithmetic is the rule of Association (Assoc.), which tells us that if we have a string of conjuncts or a string of disjuncts, it does not matter how they are grouped. More precisely the rule is stated as follows:
ASSOCIATION (ASSOC.)

«p v q) v r) :: (p v (q v r)) «p'q)'r):: (p'(q'r))

The analogues in arithmetic, of course, are « x + y) + z) = (x + (y + z)) and x • y) • z) = (x' (y • z )). Notice again that the rule holds only for the two operators, conjunction and disjunction, and not for the conditional. «p :::J q) :::J r) means something very different from (p :::J (q :::J r)). Notice also that it holds only where all the operators in a string are disjunctions or all are conjunctions. Association is

«

Unit 8 Replacement Rules

151

incorrect if there is a mixture of operators; one of your truth table problems, in fact, showed you that, in general, (( p • q) v r) is not logically equivalent to (p • (q v r)). Some applications of this rule would be the following:
~

B

~

(A v

(~C

v D)) / ...

~

B

~

((A v

~

C) v D)

and

Another very simple rule, and again one that holds only for conjunction and disjunction, is the Duplication rule (Dup.), which tells us that if in a disjunction or a conjunction both the disjuncts or the conjuncts are the same, then the disjunction or conjunction is equivalent simply to the one disjunct or conjunct. We could also say that p is replaceable by its own disjunction and its own conjunction. It is much easier to say this in symbols:
DUPLICATION (DUP.)

P :: (p v p) p::(p.p) Instances of this rule would be the following:
((A· B) v (A· B))
~

(B v C) / ... (A· B)

~

(B v C)

and
(A· B)
~

(C

==

(~D· ~

D)) / ... (A· B)

~

(C

==

~

D).

Again notice that this rule does not hold for the conditional. p ~ p will be a tautology, while p will have one T and one F in its truth table. The two are not logically equivalent and thus are not mutually replaceable. Given these four rules, many inferences are possible that could not be carried out with just the first eight basic inference rules. Given just those eight rules, for instance, we may not infer ~ A from (A ~ ~ B) and B, even though this is a truth functionally valid argument. We could not use M.T. here because our second premise B is not the negation of the consequent. This may seem picky, because it is certainly equivalent to the negation of the consequent, but as it stands the inference is not an instance of M.T. With the Double Negation rule at hand, however, we can infer ~ ~ B from B and then use ~ ~ B as our second premise, from which

152

Unit 8 Replacement Rules
~

we can legitimately infer the following: a. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

A. A rather simple proof that uses all these new rules is

((A v ~ B) v (E· F):J D
~A

~

B) v

~

D

F·E E·F D
~~D

(A v ~B) v ~B A v (~B v ~ B)
~Bv~B
~B

Pro Pro Pro Pro I.". Com. 4 M.P. 2,5 D.N.6 D.S.l,7 Assoc. 8 D.S.3,9 Dup.1O

~B

At this point, you should commit these first four rules to memory, if you haven't already done so just by reading through the material. Then go on to the more complex rules. Exercise 4 at the end of the unit will give you practice in using these four rules along with the basic rules from Unit 7. As in Unit 7, however, before you begin constructing proofs, you will need to do the preliminary exercises in 1-3.
h. Three intermediate rules. The next three rules ought to be fairly easy to learn, because they should all be familiar to you from the symbolization material. We saw in Unit 4 that certain symbolizations were equivalent to each other and could thus be used interchangeably. Some of these equivalences are so common and so important that they have been elevated to the status of rules; we will discuss three of these rules in this subsection. As we saw in Unit 4, "Neither A nor B" can be properly symbolized as either ~ (A v B) or (~ A • ~ B), and "Not both A and B" can be symbolized as either ~ (A· B) or (~ A v ~ B). These equivalences are especially important in logic and will be the first set of rules in this subsection. The rules tell us that we may always replace a negated disjunction by a corresponding conjunction with both conjuncts negated and a negated conjunction by a disjunction with both disjuncts negated. They are called De Morgan s rules after Augustus De Morgan, one of the founders of modem symbolic logic. The symbolic form of the rules is the following:
DE MORGAN'S (OEM.)
~(pv

q)::

(~p. ~q)

~(p.q):: (~pv ~q)

Unit 8 Replacement Rules

153

Again, our rules are stated in terms of variables, which can take any statements as substitution instances. Thus the following would all be instances of De Morgan's rules:
~

(A

y

~

B) I ...

~

A •~

~

B

A ==

(A :J B) • ~ (B :J A) I ... ~ «A :J B) y (B :J A)) ~ (B· ~ C) I .". A == (~B y ~ ~ C) ~ ~ A y ~ ~ B I ... ~ ( ~ A • ~ B)
~

(first form) (fir<;t form) (second form) (second form)

It is very important in using De Morgan's rules to be sure it is the entire conjunction or disjunction that is being negated. This will be indicated by having the conjunction or disjunction in parentheses, as in the instances we have given. The following would not be a correct application of DeM.: ~ (A :J B) Y (B :J A) I ... ~ (A :J B) • ~ (B :J A), since it is not the entire disjunction that is being negated, but only the first disjunct, a conditional. The disjunction will be a candidate for one of our other rules, Conditional Exchange, and it will be important not to confuse the two forms. We will say more about this when we discuss Conditional Exchange. Finally, keep clearly in mind that the negation of a conjunction will be a disjunction, not another conjunction, and the negation of a disjunction will be a conjunction. We will see another example of this cross-relation between conjunction and disjunction in our rule of Distribution, in Section c. Another familiar equivalence is that between the biconditional and the conjunction of two conditionals. The biconditional p == q means "p if and only if q," which, as we saw in Unit 4, really means just "if p then q and if q then p." This equivalence will be reflected in our rule of Biconditional Exchange (B.E.), which tells us that the biconditional may be replaced with the conjunction of two conditionals, and vice versa.
BICONDITIONAL EXCHANGE (B.E.)

(p == q) :: «p :J q) • (q :J p))

Given this rule, we can finally make inferences from formulas containing the triple bar, and the inferences we can make are just what one would expect, given the meaning of the biconditional. If we have a biconditional and the formula on one side of the triple bar, we may derive the formula on the other side of the triple bar by using B.E., Simp., and M.P. An example of this kind of derivation is the following: b. 1. A == (B Y 2. By ~C
~

C)

Pro
Pr.I.".A

1 S4

Unit 8 Replacement Rules

3. (A:J (B v ~ C»· ((B v 4. (B V ~ C) :J A

~

C) :J A)

5. A

B.E.l Simp. 3 M.P. 2,4

Also, given a biconditional and the negation of one side, we may derive the negation of the other side by using B.E., Simp., and M.T. (instead of M.P.). An example of this sort is the following:

c.

1. A == (B v ~ C) 2. ~A 3. (A:J (B v ~ C» • ((B v 4. (B v ~ C) :J A 5. ~ (B v~ C)

~

C) :J A)

Pro Pro /". B.E.l Simp. 3 M.T. 2,4

~

(B v

~

C)

Our third familiar rule is the rule of Contraposition (Contrap.), which tells us that given a conditional we can replace it with another conditional in which antecedent and consequent have been reversed and both have been negated. Again, it is much easier to say it in symbols:
CONTRAPOSITION (CONTRAP.)

(p:J q)::

(~q:J ~p)

As we saw in Unit 4, the sentence "John will win only if he tries harder" can be symbolized either as (J :J T) or as (~ T :J ~ J). Again, the reason either of these symbolizations will do equally well is that they are logically equivalent. It is important to notice here that we not only negate antecedent and consequent; we must reverse the order as well. Thus (~ A :J ~ B) / .'. (A :J B) would not be an instance of Contrap.; it is not even a valid argument. From (~ A :J ~ B) we could infer (B :J A), however. Other slightly more complicated applications would be the following:

and
(~ (~A

:J (B v C») :J

~

(B

== (C, D» / .'. (B == (C, D» :J

(~A

:J (B v C».

Notice that this rule is reminiscent of Modus Tollens; going from left to right, it says that given the conditional (p :J q), then, if ~ q then ~ p. This rule is more inclusive than M.T., however, since it goes from right to left as well as from left to right and can be used on subformulas.

Unit 8 Replacement Rules

155

At this point, before we go on to introduce our last three rules, let us illustrate the ones we have so far in a proof of some length.

d. 1. ~ ( ~ A • B) • B 2. ~ (~B == C) :J 3. (A· D) :J C

~

A

Pro Pro Pro / :.

~

D

Since we have a conjunction in the first premise, that is the natural place to start, so we have as our first intermediate steps the following: 4. ~ 5. B
(~A·

B)

Simp. 1 Simp. 1

One of the things you may find difficult, now that you have so many rules, is figuring out what to do next. A good bet is to apply the rules whose applications are obvious, so here we would look to step 2, where we could apply Contrap., and step 4, which is a candidate for DeM. (Notice again that this means knowing your rules extremely well so that you can spot the obvious applications.)

6. 7.

A:J
~ ~

(~

B == C)
~

Contrap.2 DeM.4

Av

B

At this point you should notice that you almost have an application of D.S., at steps 5 and 7, except that you need the negation of one of the disjuncts. We can get this simply by double negating B, however, so let us do this and then apply D.S.

8. 9.

~ ~B
~ ~A

D.N.5 D.S. 7, 8

Now at step 6 we have a conditional with A as the antecedent, so if we had A, we could derive (~B == C). But we can get A simply by using D.N. on step 9, so we have
10. A
~B==C

D.N.9 M.P. 6,10

11.

At this point we need to pause and take stock of the situation. We want ~ D as our conclusion, and that is apparently going to come from Premise 3, after an application of M.T. (and some other steps). For this we need ~ C. We should be able to get this from ~ B == C and ~ ~ B, but we cannot do this directly. Remember from our discussion of B.E. that we need to make use of B.E., Simp., and

156

Unit 8 Replacement Rules

M.T. in order to get the negation of one side of a biconditional. Thus we have the following steps: 12. 13. 14.
(~

B :J C) . (C :J
~

~

B)

C:J ~ C
~

B

B.E.11 Simp. 12 M.T. 8,13

Now, given 15.
~

C, we can use M.T. on Premise 3 to get M.T. 3,14

(A' D)

A negated conjunction is always a candidate for OeM., and we have nothing to lose, so let us apply this rule and see the results: 16.
~

A v

~

D

OeM. 15

We are now only a step away from our conclusion; all we need is the double negation of A, in combination with step 16. We do have ~ ~ A, in step 9, so we are home. 17.
~

D

D.S. 9,16

c. Three final replacement rules. The last three rules are the ones you will probably find the hardest to learn, since they are a little less obvious than the others, but if you read the explanations carefully and try to understand what the rules mean, you should have no real difficulty. The rule of Conditional Exchange (abbreviated C.E.) will be used frequently in this unit and (until you get the rule of Conditional Proof in the next unit) is the rule that will be used to derive conditionals. Stated symbolically, it looks like this:
CONDITIONAL EXCHANGE (C.E.)

(p:J q)::

(~p

v q)

This rule tells us that given a conditional, we may replace it by a disjunction that has as its left disjunct the negation of the antecedent and as its right disjunct the consequent of the conditional. An instance in English of the right side of the rule would be "Either the visiting team doesn't score or I'll eat my hat," which could be symbolized as (~ S v E). The corresponding instance of the left side of the rule would be "lfthe visiting team scores, I'll eat my hat," symbolized as (S :J E). It should be clear that these two sentences mean just the same.

Unit 8 Replacement Rules

157

As noted, the Conditional Exchange rule is the one you will be using in this unit to derive conditionals; you will first get the corresponding disjunction and then use C.E. to get the desired conditional. A very simple proof that uses this strategy is below; note that the conclusion could not be derived in just one step by Addition, since Add. may not be used on just part of a formula. e.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

A~B
~AvB

(~A ~

v B) v e
(B ve)

A v (B ve)
~

A

Pr. / .'. A C.E.l Add. 2 Assoc. 3 C.E.4

~

(B ve)

Finally, be very careful not to confuse statements of the form ~ p v q, on which C.E. can be used, with statements of the form ~ p v q, on which you can use DeM. but not C.E. The following, for instance, would not be a correct application of C.E.:
~

(A v (B

~

e)) / .'. A

~

(B

~

e).

What we could infer from that premise, but by DeM., would be ~ A • ~ (B ~ e). In C.E., remember, the premise (in going from right to left) will be a disjunction, with a negated left disjunct, whereas in using DeM., the premise will be a negated disjunction. This difference is crucial. Our next rule is the rule of Exportation and is really quite sensible. The lefthand formula says that if two things, both p and q, happen, then r will occur, and the equivalent right-hand side says that ifp happens, then if q happens (as well), r will occur. Both formulas, in slightly different ways, say that if the two things, p and q, both happen, then so will r. In both cases we have two antecedents,p and q. On the left side, the two antecedents are conjoined into a single antecedent, while on the right, p is the antecedent of the first conditional and q is the antecedent of the second conditional. Stated symbolically, the rule is
EXPORTATION (EXP.)

«p. q)

~

r) :: (p

~

(q

~

r))

Notice that in the first formula the parentheses are around the conjunction, to the left, while in the second formula the parentheses are around the second conditional, to the right. It would not be correct to go from «p • q) ~ r) to «p ~ q) ~ r). Some applications of the rule would be the following: «A ~ B)· (e ~ D)) ~ F / ... (A ~ B) ~ ~ D) ~ F) and ~ A ~ (~ (B v e) ~ ~ (F v A))

«e

/ ...

(~

~(B

v e))

~ ~

(F v A).

2. You will have so many possible moves to choose from that you may well have trouble getting started. In the second. and you will need to work with lots of examples to get the hang of it. Conjunctions will always turn into disjunctions. (q v r» :: ((p • q) v (p • r» (p v (q. 1. A symbolic example would be the following: There will be many exercises involving Distribution to give you practice in recognizing its uses.'.3 Last but not least is the Distribution rule (Dist.158 Unit 8 Replacement Rules A very simple proof that illustrates the use of this rule follows: f. 3. in . it is extremely important that you complete these preliminary exercises before you attempt to construct proofs yourself. For many students. and vice versa. 3.). if we conjoin p to (q v r). and you should now turn to the exercises at the end of the unit and complete 1. In symbols. / . 1 Com. q) on the left and (p • r) on the right. we end up with the conjunction that has (p v q) on the left and (p v r) on the right. B :J (A :J C) Exp. In the first case. your proofs and proof strategies will in general be much more complex. which will give you practice in recognizing substitution instances of all the rules we have discussed in this section. Distribution is your most complex rule. which tells us that conjunction "distributes over" disjunction and disjunction distributes over conjunction. and 3. It is important to remember that a conjunction will not be equivalent to another conjunction. As in Unit 7. Constructing Simple Proofs with Replacement Rules Now that you have so many more rules. 2. r). and a disjunction will not be equivalent to another disjunction. r» :: ((p v q) • (p v r» Notice that in the Distribution rule we have the same kind of cross relationship between conjunction and disjunction as we had for De Morgan's rules: the conjunction is equivalent to a disjunction. if we disjoin p with (q. we end up with the disjunction that has (p. and the disjunction is equivalent to a conjunction. 4. 2 Exp. DISTRIBUTION (DIST.) (p. A:J (B :J C) (A· B):J C (B· A):J C B:J (A :J C) Pr.

you will always be able to derive ~ q. Again. (3) (4) (5) (6) ~ ~ ~ ~ p / :. q pv q p ~q ~ Pro /:. ~p ~ Pv q ~ p q Pro /:. each disjunct must be false. ~ (p. always derive a negated conjunction. and that whenever the antecedent is false. you can always prove the conditional. ~ p (pvq)/ :. so it is clear to you that any instance of the proof bit is valid.Unit 8 Replacement Rules 159 fact. You can. 1 Two very simple examples of proof bits are the following. the conjunction as a whole is false. q). in the next section. the conditional is true (2). 1 C. to keep them separate from the other proof examples in this unit. and this may make it easier to remember them. (We will number our proof bits as (1). In particular. (5) and (6) I We will construct these proofs with variables. we can always describe the proof bits in truth table terminology. Also. you will have to know your rules very thoroughly. 2 ~ q (2) 1. it should be simplified. the truth table tells us that whenever the consequent is true. 3. 3. (3) and (4) If a disjunction is false. p Add. Further examples of these proof bits are given below. Whatever is valid according to the truth tables can be proved by using our rules. and so on.E. The parallelism for the examples above should be clear.) (1) 1. but with the hints we will provide in this section. We will discuss strategy in general. and in particular the method of working backward. (3). which we will call proof bits. ~ (p • q) q / :. along with their truth table descriptions. for instance.p~q Add. q) (p v q) / :. ~ q If one of the conjuncts is false. and (2) given the negation of the antecedent of a conditional. given one negated conjunct. you can always prove the conditional.E. given p == q and ~ p as steps in a proof. that can always be inserted into a proof to get a certain result. which can be described by saying that (1) given the consequent of a conditional. because a major part of proof strategy is knowing what rule can be used where. These little proofs will often be needed within the context of a more complex proof and can always be used to derive a conclusion of a certain form from premises of a certain form. 1 C. (2). and vice versa. ~ p (or ~ q). 2 It will be important to remember that there is an exact parallelism between the little proofs presented here and the results of the truth table method. something like subroutines in computer programming. ~ (p. the conditional is true (1). this proves to be the hardest unit. being able to spot a fruitful application of a rule. 2. in this section we will concentrate on some very elementary proofs. . These proof bits are standard moves. 2.

~ q I . and analogously (4) and (6). q I ..4 3. ~ ~ q I . (p v q) p. conjoin them. These little arguments will find frequent application.'. ~ q I . then the conditional is false.2 ~ (p • q)(5) 1... or both false. in problems (9).5 . 2 5.} Simp.'. and DeM. and this will be left as an exercise.3 B.. ~ q ~p Pro I". ~ 2. p (11) 1. To prove the facts about conditionals. 6.3 DeM. 1.~p DeM.6. the rest will be included as exercises at the end of the unit. (3) 1. (12) and (13) Proofs of some of these little arguments will be given here. p 2.E. ~ (p :J q) Conj.7 8. (7) 1. then the antecedent is true and the consequent is false. q:J P Pro Add. 4. 3. 1 7. 4. P ~ (p :J q) I .4 C.E. ~ (p :J q) p.~q ~ ~ p. and (11). 1 2. by a simple application of De Morgan's rules. 3. p == q 6. (11) If one formula is true and the other false. (p == q) ~ p.'. p:J q C. then the biconditional is true. (p:J q). q I .. (7) and (8) If a conditional is false. (9) and (10) If the antecedent is true and the consequent is false. p ~ (~ (p :J q) Pro I ".. so you should learn them well and always keep them in mind. p p v q) C. 3 D.. along with a few other simple proofs. (q :J p) Conj. ~ ~ p p v ~q ~ (p. 5. so that you will be able to apply them fruitfully when needed in longer proofs.E. (10). p == q It should be clear from this how we would prove the biconditional given the negated formulas ~ p and ~ q. but also remember the results. p. the biconditional is false.E. 1 DeM. (p == q) ~ (p :J q) I .160 Unit 8 Replacement Rules (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) p. we simply derive the two conditionals (p :J q) and (q :J p)..~q ~p DeM.E. ~ q ~ (~p v q) ~ (p :J q) Pro Pro I .. q) Pro I . ~pvq Pro I . Add. We can prove (3) and (5)..N. ~q ~~p. ~ ~ (13) (p (p == q) == q) If two formulas are both true..4 C. You should not only do these exercises and construct the proofs. ~ 3..E.. 5.5 Add. ~ ~ 2. ~ q p. q 3.2 D. 2. we need to make use of both C. and use B. p. ~qvp 4.N.2 Simp.. as in problem (7). 2 To prove a biconditional given two formulas p and q. We will do two of these to illustrate: (9) 1.E.

n.I. Although we cannot use Simp.E. on both ends. first to the premise and then try to derive the disjunction that will be equivalent to the conclusion. again.) We did one of these little proofs earlier. 2 Simp. 0 0 0 .S. 2. we have an application of Dist.E. 3 C. that is. All we need to do is use that rule.E.". that is..". we want our proof to look like this at the beginning and the end: g.E. Some other examples of valid conditional arguments are the following: (A :J B) (A :J e) I . if you have the right premises.Unit 8 Replacement Rules 161 Aside from the proof bits. you should not only do the proofs but also keep in mind that these moves can always be made and that the arguments are valid. after deriving the appropriate corresponding disjunction. 2. n. 3. the following argument is valid and can be proved by means of some of our replacement rules.". Step 3 would thus be ( ~ A v B) (~ A v e). you should be able to see it. The completed proof would look like this: 0 g. (A :J (B e)) (A :J B) (e :J B) I . at the last step.l ? C. so that we can use C.". Until the next unit.". ready and waiting at step 2. 1.E. A :J B 0 Here both premise and conclusion are conditionals. and we have what we want. and. how do we derive the next to last step ~ A vB? If you know your rules well. we can look at some slightly more complex examples. In other words. the best way to derive a conditional will be to use C. A:J (B e) ~ A v (B oe) ( ~ A v B) ~ A v e) 0 0 ( Pr. we need to say something about proving conditionals in general. (A v e) :J B.l Dist. (In some cases you may get a conditional by H. A :J (B e) I . 4. ~AvB A:JB The question is how we fill in the intervening steps.1. g.A:JB C.A:JB ~AvB A:JB C.E.E. now that we have Distribution. apply C. 1. 5. on a part of a formula. A :J (B e) ~ A v (Bo e) 0 Pro I.4 There will be several problems like this in the exercises. when you will learn the rule of Conditional Proof.E. so what we can do is to use C.

Strategies for More Complex Proofs In constructing more complex proofs. you will want to use a variety of strategies. especially now that you have so many rules. and it is always a good idea to apply this rule. For this to work. that is. and we need to figure out what to do with it-how to combine it with our other premises.". 4. with both rules and supplementary proof bits. In the problem above. it is one of the disjuncts.S. If you didn't see this yourself. derive as much as you can from the premises. D-:JC 3. it should occur to you that we could get A v D by Add.N. of course. Av D ~ ~ (A v D) ~ (B v C) Add.5 D. and you should be ready for more formidable opponents. we have A. Now. you will read through many problems and do many exercises before you readily see such things for yourself. and see whether the conclusion follows. look for applications of the rules that will tie in with whatever else there is in the premises. F=-~D 2. What you will need to do is to have an eye for what will advance your cause. again. 4 D. . the topdown melbod should work for the following argument: h. especially in cases where there is a negated disjunction. If you do know your rules. ~ (B v C) v 4. We should notice that in Premise 3 we have ~ (A v D) as a subformula. so let's do it: 5. One will be simply to use the top-down method. which should be useful. In the next section.3. you will have to know your rules well enough to be able to see where they apply.162 Unit 8 Replacement Rules At this point you are well armed.S. don't despair. we will introduce more complex proofs and discuss the strategies for deriving various sorts of conclusions. 6. Fv G Of course. for instance. then. that is. 1. you do have to keep your wits about you and generate only the things that are likely to be useful. 7. A Pro Pro Pro Pro ~ (A v D) j. you must know what follows from the premises! That is.6 At this point we have a candidate for De Morgan's Rule. But we have now seen it. and then double negate it in preparation for the use of D.

i. will be involved somehow. we can complete our proof in just a few more steps.T. would be the negation of the whole consequent. 1.13 Add. if you look through what you already have. Surely you still remember 3. you won't get very far. 10. in the right way. rule. however. 3 . (F::J ~ D) • (~ D ::J F) 13.P. F 15. notice first the overall structure of the argument: you are given a conditional as a premise and the negation of part of the consequent as another premise.. ~ (C· D). but obviously we cannot apply it directly. ~ A Here. 14 In many cases this direct approach won't be very helpful.E. unless you know how to apply OeM.. given our B.T. 2 OeM. and since our conclusion is F v G. It looks as ifM. In the following proof. ~ D::J F 14.E. But here our proof bits come in handy: we already know how to derive a negated conjunction. 12 M. we can now derive F from Premise 1.2. given the negation of one conjunct. 8 What next? Well. (A v B) ::J (C· D) 2. F v G B. ~ D M. 1 Simp. 11. ~D Pro Pro / . so we have 11. ~Cv ~D ~ (C· D) Add.1O Does this help us? Indeed. 9. 8. 4. Let us now generate what we can from that formula. for instance. you have D ::J C in Premise 2 and ~ C now in step 10. What we would need for M. T. you can hardly miss it. 8 Simp. 7 Simp. and you want to derive the negation of part of the antecedent. 12.Unit 8 Replacement Rules 163 since this will yield a conjunction that can then be separated into its parts. unless you keep in mind some of the little tricks we learned in the last section. ~B· ~C ~B ~C OeM.

D).or threefold: we had to analyze the structure of the premises and conclusion.5T and thus 7. so you get 6. if we ask where ~ A v ~ B comes from. we just derived what we could.T. ~(AvB) M. if we could get ~ A v ~ B. to a negated disjunction. 1.164 Unit 8 Replacement Rules Now we can just apply M.S. ~A Simp.4 From here on it is clear sailing. we applied our proof bits. ~ (A • B). we see that C . 6 Notice that here our strategy was two. how do we get it? Well. which gave us the conclusion. and you will have to resort to the method of working backward. Let us apply it to the following problem: J. to get 5. You have already seen this method at work in the last unit. In many cases. We could get what we need. if we could get the negation of the other disjunct. The question is. This means that if we could first get C for M. we could get ~ A. you know enough by now always to apply DeM. F Here we look at our conclusion and then check back into the premises to see where it might come from and what we would need in order to get it. ~A' ~B DeM. we have another premise. l.. Here we can apply the working-backward method to this little part of the problem. we should see the connection between it and our second . F appears in the third premise as one disjunct in the consequent of a conditional. just what we need. Given that. and that when we had ~ (A v B). We should be able to see that we could derive it by DeM. ~ D. then. and a reasonable presumption is that it will come from that premise. or from the bottom up. and we need to ask where it could come from. even this combination of strategies will not be enough.T. however. appears as one disjunct in a disjunction. and then ~ D for D. knowing that since we had ~ D we could derive ~ (C. looking further into the premises. 3. 2. the only problem is to figure out exactly how. We want ~ (A • B). we would have our F. (A' B) v (C • ~ D) A:::J ~B C:::J (D v F) Pro Pro Pro /".P. which tipped us off to a probable application of M. here it will be even more useful.T. Now. Now. Once we got to step 5.

k. on the first premise. ~ (F v D) ~F'~D ~F ~D ~Ev~F Simp. 1. which would yield our conclusion A. and that will give us. provided we had ~ (E' F). 5 Simp. Fortunately. 8.4 Simp. since by M.T. The above was a rather modest application of the working-backward method. our steps will be in reverse order. we will need the negation of the consequent. on Premise 1. ( ~ A v ~ B) ::J ( ~ C v D) ~ C ::J (E' F) E' ~ (F v D) Pro Pro Pro /. (5) We could derive ~ D by DeM. 7.P. from ~ (F v D). we can get ~ F. the two are mutually derivable by C. (6) Our only remaining problem is how to derive ~ (E • F).T. we can put it all together: we will need ~ (A' B) so that we can use D.l. 6 M. 3. 6. It is the negation of a conjunction. 5 Add.T. but keep in mind that we are reasoning from the conclusion back to the premises.Unit 8 Replacement Rules 165 premise.4 D. 6 Simp. (2) If we are going to use M. will be relevant.9 If you have forgotten the rationale for these steps. 9. 5. 3. (3) ~ (~ C v D) can be derived from (~ ~ C' ~ D) by DeM. ~ (~C v D). 8.".S.E.S.E.8. which we can get from Premise 3 by Simp. so when we come to actually write down the proof. we would get the negation of ~ A. Now all we have to do is put it together: 4. 6. (4) We could derive ~ ~ C from Premise 2 by M. Here we will number our reasoning steps.5 Simp. 7. 3 DeM..S. 6 . let us take a somewhat more complicated problem. 10. and there we have ~ A appearing as part of the antecedent of a conditional. by another application of one of the proof bits. A (1) Here we notice that our conclusion A appears only in the first premise. 2. so we could get it if we had the negation of one conjunct. go back and reread the preceding paragraph. So 4. ~Av~B ~(A' B) C'~D C ~D DvF F C.2 DeM. 5.7 D. T. ~ (E' F). At this point. This makes it look as ifM.

in our basic rules. or by a combination of one form of DeM. To be efficient in constructing proofs.I5 Again. Answers are provided to some of the proofs. you have several methods available. you need to see how premises and conclusion match up in order to figure out where the conclusion is likely to come from.T. 15. 13. 14 D. a conjunction will be derived by getting each of the conjuncts separately and then conjoining them. the more little tricks you will pick up and the more moves you will notice. including both the preliminary Exercises I through 3 and the proof constructions in Exercises 4 through 8 at the end of the unit. if you are very frustrated. if your proof is different. C. Part of the method of working backward is to be aware of the ways in which you can derive statements of various kinds. thus.T. again. or from Exportation or Contraposition (if you have the equivalent conditionals). you need to be able to analyze the structure of premises and conclusion to see what applications of the rules are likely.1O. is usually to get the two conditionals separately. that does not necessarily mean it is wrong. 10. the use of proof bits and the methods of working from the top down and from the bottom up. and see worked out. you may wonder what the point is of this whole process. The best way to get a biconditional. There are at . and Simp. especially now that you have so many different rules. The answers are meant to provide only examples of how the proofs might be carried out. go back and reread the preceding paragraph. but remember that there are many different ways of doing them.T. for instance. No wonder students find this rather overwhelming at first! But. The more problems you work. you need to keep all these things in mind.S. To derive a disjunction.E.7 DeM.N. conjoin them. what good constructing proofs will ever do you. (if the conditional you want is one-half of the biconditional). or D.N.9 Conj. In general.13 Simp. and you need to be able to juggle. and then use B. 12.12 DeM. 14. Even Distribution may be appropriate in certain cases. Practice is a necessary condition for doing at all well in this unit. A conditional may be obtained from H. perseverence pays off.8 M. 16.166 Unit 8 Replacement Rules 9. In general.E. 2. It is absolutely essential that you do the exercises. Negations can come from M. 11. possibly B.E.11 M. ~ (Eo F) ~~C ~ ~Co~D ~ (~ C V ~ (~A v~ D) B) ~~Ao~~B ~~A A DeM. at least if you learn your rules and are diligent in your exercises. You can use Addition or Dilemma or Conditional Exchange or De Morgan's (if the disjuncts are negated). from the replacement rules. also. as well. if you do not understand why we took the steps we did. At this stage. 1.

however. It is valid. SUMMARY OF REPLACEMENT RULES DOUBLE NEGATION (D. (F v / . will develop your reasoning powers and stretch your mental muscles. try to construct a proof for the following: (A v B) :J ~ (C v D). But Andrews will reject the resolution only provided it calls for a new acquisition. of what practical use this abstract-looking enterprise can actually be. and to see. Hypothetical Syllogism. and there is a much more direct and natural way to show this than by the rules we have so far. and perhaps one of your goals will be to get a certain resolution passed. You might reason as follows: "To pass the resolution I will need the support of Jones and Smith. you are really learning problem solving. I can get the resolution passed only provided . for instance. not unreasonably.Unit 8 Replacement Rules 167 least two answers to this: for one thing. They will thus round out our system of sententiallogic. constructing extended chains of reasoning. as well. is called Conditional Proof. You may someday. To get Smith's support I cannot flatter Jones. you are more likely to use them correctly. This natural method for providing conditionals. and to get Jones's support I will have to either give him a raise or flatter him. Indirect Proof These two rules will make a great many proofs a great deal easier and will also allow us to carry out proofs that are not possible with only the basic rules and replacement rules. as are Exportation. De Morgan's rules are very common and very important.) p:: ~ ~ p P :: (p v p) P::(P'p) . which are frequently used in ordinary language (or at least should be).N. working out ahead of time what you will need to get the conclusion. you have now learned some very basic rules. (~ C • E) :J (F • ~ 0). be some kind of executive. and the next unit will be devoted to a discussion of this and one other closely related rule. the proof process itself. planning strategy. (A' E) :J ~ K. You might. something that will be extremely useful in all sorts of everyday situations.. your skill and patience are likely to run out.) DUPLICATION (DUP. and I will have to get Andrews to reject the resolution since Andrews and Smith never agree on anything. ?" At this point you should be able to figure it out. As you practice thinking out the steps you need. Therefore... and how best to aim for it. just for the fun of it. When you know the rules.. when you are aware of them. Some problems involving conditionals are extremely complex to prove. given only the rules we have so far. ~ H) :J (J • ~ K) Unless you are an exceptional student. Second. and so on.

(A == B) == «e ::J (A == e»· «A == e) ::J e» / :.E. Assoc. . A ::J B (~ b.) ~ ~ (p:::J q) :: (~ q :::J ~ p) (p V q) :: (~ p' ~ q) (p' q) :: (~ p V ~ q) BICONDITIONAL EXCHANGE (B.168 Unit 8 Replacement Rules COMMUTATION (COMM.) (p == q):: «p:::J q)'(q:::J p» (p :::J q) :: (~ p V q) DISTRIBUTION (DIST. C. ~ A ::J (B ::J (A ::J e» (A == B) == (e == (A == e» / :.'.) (p • (q V r» :: «p' q) V (p' r» (p V (q • r» :: «p V q) • (p V r» «p • q) :::J r) :: (p :::J (q :::J r» EXERCISES * 1. ~ (A v B) v (A v ~ B) h. d. Exp.E. ~ (B ::J e) v ~ ~ «A v B) v (B v e» j. k. ~ Av (~ (B v e) v ~ (e v Av ~ «B v e) v (e v D» DeM. n.N. m.) (p V q) :: (q V p) (P'q):: (q' p) CONTRAPOSITION (CONTRAP.~ D) /. (A. (~A::J ~ e.) ASSOCIATION (ASSOC. ~ A v «B' e) v «A. A == «B == e) == (A == e» e))) B. (D v F) ::J (~ A ::J ~ B) /:. (~A / :.'.E.E. Which of the following are correct applications of the rule cited? For those that are not. and what would be needed in order for it to be a correct application. e) v (A' B))) / :. «A' B)· (e ::J D» ::J (B' E) /:. ~ ~ B) v (D v E» A ::J ~ (~ Bv e) A ::J (B v e) D. (~ A ::J ~ B) v (~ D. ~ (B ::J DeM. e.E. say why not. B) ::J «e ::J D) ::J (B' E» f. l. Com. A == «(B == e) == (A ::J e»· «e ::J A) == (B == i.'. ~ (~ A ::J B) B) v /. c. a. ~ A v «(B' e) v (A' ~ e» v D» (A' B» /:.) CONDITIONAL EXCHANGE (C.) «p V q) V r) :: (p V (q V r» «p • q) • r) :: (p • (q • r» DE MORGAN'S (DEM. B.'. e) v ~ (~ (A v B) • ~ (B v e» ~ (~ (~ B ::J ~ e) ::J ~ ~ (B ::J e» / :. ~ (~ (B ::J e) ::J (~ B ::J ~ e» ~ A ::J ~ (B v (A ::J e» /.N. Dup. / :. « ~ v ~ B) v ~ (~e· (D v E» ~ Av B) v ~ ~ e)· « ~ A v /. (~(A v B) v ~ (A v B» v (A v ~ B) /.) EXPORTATION (EXP. (D v F) ::J (~B ::J ~ A) g. Contrap. ~ e) D. Dist.'. Com.

. (A B) == «B C) s. «(A == B) v. (~ Bv ~ C) ~ ~ (~ Cv (~ Cv ~ B)) /. j... ~ ~A ~ B d.. A ~ (~ ~ E) v (~B ~ ~ v ~ s. ~ ~ A v ~ ~ B e. A v (~ A ~ B ~ C) ~ A) ~ (~A ~ ~ B) C. ~ A ~ (~ (B v C) ~ ~ (~ C v B)) A ~ « ~ C v B) ~ (B v ~ C)) . ~ w. A ~ ~(CoD)o«Av(CoD))vA) Dist.".E.".E.Unit 8 Replacement Rules 169 o.". /. C. .. r. ~ (~ (B A) v (~ B) B) 0 0 (~ (B A) v 0 ~ C) h... .".. a.. 0 ~ (B == C)) ~~(AvB)v(~Av~(BoC) ~~(AvB) v~(Ao(BoC)) «(C ~ == B) ~ == D) ~ (D == C)) «D == C) «C == D) == (D == C)) (~B ~ (C == D))) t. (A (A ~ ~ ~ ~ (A ~ B) A) ~ n.".".". p.". (A B) == «C B) /. r.".. ~ (B A) v 0 0 (~ C) /. /. ~ ~ (~ A 0 ~ B) 0 g. DeM. Cite the rule that was used in the following valid inferences. (A (B C)) f. ffi. ~ ~ 0 A 0 ~ ~ ~ B / . ~ ~ A v ~ 0 0 ~ ~ D) ~ ~D ~ /.".". (~A (~A ~ ~ B) B) ~ (~ ~ ~ (~ ~ C 0 D) /. . ~ A ~ ~ ~ B / . ~ A v « ~ B C) ~ (D E)) q. C) A 0 ~ ~ (~ C v D) C 0 Cv 0 ~ ~ /. « ~ A v A) v ~ v ~ ~ C)) ~ ~ ~ ~ (A v B) ~ ~ / .". o. «A == B) ~ C) ~ «(C == B) ~ A) ~ (A == C)) (~B v ~ C) ~ (~ C v « ~ C v ~ B) v (~ C v ~ B))) / . 0 (~ A ~ B) 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ (C 0 ~ C) v 0 ~ (A 0 ~ B) ~ /.. (B ~ ~ (~(A (~B 0 0 v B) ~ ~ (A v B)) v ~ A A) ~ (A v B) v (~ 0 A C) ~ (~ 0 (C D) 0 ~ ~ B 0 ~ C) 0 ~ (~ ~ (C D) v 0 A) q. ~ B ~ ~ A 0 b.. Av (A (A ~ ~ (B C) / ... «A B) C) 0 0 ~ ~ D ~ ~ B B 0 /... B B Av ~ (~ Bv ~ ~ C) B) B) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ B) B) 0 ~ ~ (~ ~ (~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / . (C ~ ~ C) Av ~ ~ (~ ~ (A 0 ~ 0 B) (~A ~ v ~ (B C)) 0 (~ A v C) /. k. i.. /. ~ A v « ~ ~ B C) v (D E)) /... A ~ «B C) c.". (A B) ~ (C ~ (D E)) /. «( ~ A v u. ~ A) v 0 B) v C) ~ (A v B) C) «C == B) A)) (A == C) / .". / . Contrap. A) / . ~ ~A ~ ~ ~B /. (A == B) / . (A ~ ~ (B == C)) /.". (~(CoD)o(Av (CoD))) v (~(CoD)oA) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exp."..". t. (A (B C)) ~ ~ D /. (A ~ B) ~ (C ~ (D E)) p. A) A) (B C) C) l. (~A ~ ~ ~ Av (~ B) ~ (~ B ~ A v C) /.. E)) (~ 0 «B 0 ~ E) (B ~ (~ 0 Bv ~ E)) / . *2.

(B v (~ ~ C)· « ~ A ::J C) v ~ (~ A ::J B)) (~ I .I. ~~B 13.". E::JF 10. ~ (A v B) v (C· D) 4. 5. ~ (B ::J C) 19. ~ (A v H) b.". ~ «B ::J C)· (C ::J B)) 21. Justify each step that is not a premise in the following proofs. ~C 16. ~ ~ B·~ C 17. ~ (~Bv C) 18. (E ::J F) ::J B 11.A::JF (A v B) v C ~ 6. (B v C)· (~ A ::J C)) v (B v ~ C)· (~ A ::J B)) y.170 Unit 8 Replacement Rules ~ x. (~(B v I . (~ (A v B) v D) 5. ~ (D v C) 14.". ~ (Dv C) v ~ B B ::J ~ (E ::J F) (Ev H) ~ (A v H) ~E·~H ~H ~E ~EvF 9. Cv 7. C::J (E· F) 3. 2. ~ ~ ~ A == ~ (B == C) Pro Pro Pro Pro I. ~D·~C 15. 6. 4. a. Cv (A v B) B) (~A· ~ . B 12. ~ A) 1. ~A 25. ~ (B == C) 22. (~ ~ C)· (~ A ::J C)) v ~ (A ::J C) (B v ~ C)· (~ A ::J C)) v ~ (~ A v C) *3. 7. ~ (B ::J C) v ~ (C ::J B) 20. ~ (B == C) ::J ~ A 24.". (~A::J ~ (B == C))·(~ (B == C)::J 23. (A v B) ::J (C· D) 2. 1. ~A·~H 26. 3. 8. (~ (A v B) v C) . ~ Pro Pr.

D) 6. ~ «B v C) v (B v C» 5. A::JC 15. 1. 21. 3.I. «(D· F) v (F· C» v «C v B)· (A v B») (Cv B)::J (~A::J (F::J C» (A v B) v (D· F) ~ «D· F) v (F· C»· ~ «C v B)· (A v B» ~ «D·F)v (F·C»·(~ (C v B)v ~ (A v B» ~ «F·D)v (F·C»·(~ (Cv B)v ~ (Av B» ~ (F·(Dv C»·(~ (Cv B)v ~ (A v B» (~F v ~ (D v C»· (~ (C v B) v ~ (A vB» ~ (C v B) v ~ (A v B) (D· F) v (A v B) ~ «D· F) v (F· C» ~ (D· F)· ~ (F· C) ~ (D· F) A vB ~ ~ (A v B) ~ (C v B) ~ (Cv B)::J «~ A·F)::J C) ~ (Cv B)::J (~C::J ~ (~A·F» ~ (C v B) ::J (~ C ::J (~ ~ A v ~ F» ~ (C v B) ::J (~ C ::J (~ A ::J ~ F» ~ C ::J (~ A ::J ~ F) (~C· ~ A) ::J ~ F ~ (Cv A)::J ~ F F::J (C v A) ~ ~ Pr. 24. D)· ~ «B v C) . 7. 2. I. 17. (~ C v E) . A::JF c. 4. (C v ~ A)· (C v ~ B) 9. ~ (B v C) 8.". 22. 15. 18.E . 11. A) 7. (A::J (B v C» v (A ::J E) 2. 8. 6. 20. Cv ~ A 10. I. ~ C v (E· F) 11. ~ «(B v C)· D) v «B v C· A» 4. C::JF 16. 5.". 9. F ::J (C v A) d. A v «B v C) . 16. (~ C v F) 12. 19. ~AvC 14. «B v C)· D) v A 9.Unit 8 Replacement Rules 171 8. (A v D) 3. 10. Pro Pr. 12. ~ «B v C) . 14. ~CvF 13. 23. ~ «B v C) • D) Pro Pro Pro Pr. (A v (B v C» . 13.

. Construct proofs for the following.. C) A :J *f. A :J (B.. (~A v ~ B) v (~A v ~ C). ~ A A :J A / .. a. S d.172 Unit 8 Replacement Rules 10. A . Com. ~ (A . ~ A 5. (Y .. B / . N. ~ (A "" B) D p. B / . (X' Z) / ....... A / . / . C :J B / . (F' (E' D» / .. B)..... T:J (A v (B v ~ C». o. (B' A) :J (Y' X). b.. ~ X :J ~ S.. (~A:J C) • (~ B :J ~ C). ~ ~ B ~ / . A II. (A' B) :J C n. B B c.. W v (T' C). A / . A' ~ (B v C) 12. ~ (X' Y) :J T... ~ (S' T) :J W. ~ ~ ~ B / . d.. using the eight basic rules from Unit 7 plus D.. ~ (A :J (B v C» 15. (X • ~ W). A. A :J C *g. «R' ~ D)' ~ F) / . A:J C / . A:JE 16. b.. ~ «A v B) v (C v D» / ..B) ~ ~ (A v B) (A :J B) A. *e.... (A:J B) v (A :J C) / .. ~ S g. A :J ~ ~ (A v B) (X. A v B f.. a. y). S) / . A "" B B.. B v W *e.... D :J (C v C). (A v C) :J B *h.. W v (S :J C) / .. E 4.. ~ ~ A / . X :J (B v D).. ~ (~ A v (B v C» 14. A. ~ B / . A v (B' C). T :J ~ R. ~ B *i. A:J *q.. (A v B) :J ~ C... Construct proofs for the following. A / .. A:J B. (X v y) :J (~ A v ~ B). ~ ~ A· ~ (Bv C) 13.. ~ (A. W :J ~ (A v B).. and Dup. Assoc. A :J (B v C) ~ m.. C :J (X.. y) *c. A:J B... B :J ~ A j. ~ (A . ~ (A :J ~ B) *1.. Y:J (C v F).. W :J ~ (X v Y).. using the basic rules and any of the replacement rules. (A v B) :J C / . C :J (A' B) / . B) / . ~ / . A :J C k.

. (~ (T v W) v 0 ~ Q / .. ~ (W v (~ S v M».. P v Q. ~ ~ 0 S :J ~ (~ T :J A). C ~ S (A v B) :J (C v D). ~ (G A) 0 *d. 173 a. A T S V P. A B 0 j.. ~ (~ A v (F v H». (Z :J W). ~ C :J B. (P S) :J (T v W). W H. (R :J (S :J 0 T». ~ ~ (A v F) ~ / . ~ (B :J G). ~ D /:. 0 (T v W) ~ ~ G) v (T ~ W). G v R /:. ~ G. 0 B :J (~ ~ ~ (S T).. ~ ~ C ~ (C v D). ~ (~ ~ A :J P / . Q :J R. P (~ 0 0 1. Construct proofs for the following. Q :J R.. D == (E v F). (~A v ~ (E:J H) ~ ~ B):J ~ C. ~ S. U f. ~ (C v D). J v S A:J ~ B. 0 ~ A :J (C v F) 0 /:. (F H) v 0 0 C. ~ (S :J ~ B) h.. / v K n.~(~DvE) ~ d. ~ C. F 0 ~ B ~ e.. == 0 ~ 0 (C v A) ~ 0 k. F == (X Y). o. ~ ~ (F G) v 0 0 ~ (H K). (R S) :J T. S / . (A F) :J (C v G). S :J U) (U :J V) 0 V) :J ~ T m. (A:J B) :J 1. k:J B. F /:.. f.. F == ~ C / . ~ ~ (A v X) / .. X (F ~ Y. (A C) v (W :J P == ~ (T S) /. 1. po S. A :J (S W) ~ (A v F) P ~ k. A 0 0 .. C v D. (H :J G).. (A 0 == B) :J C. T == 0 (Q ~ 0 ~ R). R v T /:. ~ C 0 (~F == (Do ~ ~ E». C == A. A :J C. ~ S ~ == (P v 0). (A E) v 0 ~ F. (Y v Z) :J T. ~ W 0 ~ D). /:. ~ 0 (H F):J Y 0 /:. P c. (A :J D).. P == Q. Q /:. (A v (B :J T)). Construct proofs for the following more challenging problems.. (P v 0 (D v F) T v 0)). B :J == C 7... b. (B X) 0 0 == 0 ~ (Xv Y). P == T /:. ~ (F :J G) :J (H :J (F 0 S) ~ / . D B:J (C :J E). F /:. ~ ~ A). ~ ~(CvE) ~(CoD). e.. ~ (D:J H). P :J (U v V). J :J (H K). ~ A :J P /:. (A v F) :J ~ (B ~ G). Q :J (R S). . ~ (B (H v J». (A v B) /:. *m. B :J b.. ~ A v ~ (B C). (M :J N) :J (L J) /:. (A v B) :J h. E :J ~ (J v H). . ~ A :J ~ C /:. (P G) :J R. ~ (S v V) / . ~ ~ 0 (W :J X) ~(S /:. ~ (H W). ~ W) Z g.. (B F) :J J (R v T) :J / ... (A:J F). ~ ~ 0 ~ (C v (F G». B *j. ~ ~ (P v T) :J D. (C :J D). n. 0 (B v H) *g. ~ (P v S) ~ / .. /:. p:J X ~ *1. using any of the rules. ~ A == ~ Q. «L :J ~ G) M) :J N.. (P v Q). A /:. a. p. ~ / . P :J (G R). F:J G :J F). 0 F == ~ (Q :J R). *c. (A v C) P == (B v D).Unit 8 Replacement Rules 6. 0 ~ (P v (S :J T)). (T :J F) /. ~ T == ~ (M 0). G:J (H J). K.

the Keynesians. If I don't drink enough coffee. I will not take many technical courses. and I will be well prepared only if I can read and write extremely well and have a good technical education. either she was fighting or ate too many mice. then I won't have a good technical education. and ifI don't take many technical courses. Therefore. If the mind and brain are identical. and the small Beagle was out only if it was warm. The large Siamese was out only if it was sunny. then there is an increase in inflation if and only if the money supply increases too fast. neither the Monetarists. Therefore.174 Unit 8 Replacement Rules 8. and she was attacked only if either the large Siamese or the small Beagle was out. either I don't study at all or I don't study properly. but if I take a lot of Humanities courses. the mind and the brain are not identical. and the federal government spends more than it takes in only if taxes are too low. Symbolize and construct proofs for the following valid arguments. she ate too many mice. I can't stay awake and I don't study at all. There is no decrease in unemployment and taxes are not too low. I won't find ajob when I graduate. I will read and write extremely well if and only if I take a lot of Humanities courses. then the brain is a physical entity if and only if the mind is a physical entity. but there is an increase in inflation. d. but the brain is a physical entity. Therefore. I will find a job when I graduate only if I am well prepared. there is an increase in inflation if and only if the federal government spends more than it takes in. then thoughts are material entities. then I can't sleep well and I don't study properly. It was neither warm nor sunny. She was fighting only if she was attacked. nor the Libertarians are right. If the Keynesians are right. c. then there is an increase in inflation if and only if there is a decrease in unemployment. If the Monetarists are right. Therefore. Either I drink too much coffee or not enough. The money supply increases too fast only if taxes are too low. Therefore. If I drink too much coffee. but the cat is ill. b. . If the mind is a physical entity. If the Libertarians are right. *a. e. If the cat is ill. Thoughts are not material.

you may reasonably ask. the opposite of the desired conclusion. In Indirect Proof. How. In Conditional Proof. Once you have learned these rules.UNIT9 Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof A. the 175 . These rules differ radically from the ones you have learned so far in that they do not have premises in the usual sense. Using these rules. If it does. must be rejected. and so we may infer the conclusion itself. we assume the antecedent of the conditional we wish to prove and see whether the consequent follows. If it does. can we infer something when we have no premises from which to infer it? The answer is that in both these rules we make assumptions and then see what follows from the assumptions. as its name indicates. you will find that your proofs go much more quickly and are much easier and more "natural" to construct. we assume the opposite of what we want to prove and see whether this leads to a contradiction. then that assumption.).). we may infer the conditional itself. which. in particular. which is used to prove negations. INTRODUCTION In this unit we will be rounding out our rule system for sentential logic with two very powerful rules that are designed for very special purposes and that have a structure quite different from the rules you have learned so far. is used to prove conditionals. it will be easier to figure out strategies and to see where you are going. Both these rules are extremely powerful and can be used in a wide variety of proof constructions. and they will considerably simplify the proof process. and Indirect Proof (J. and both have a long history in formal logic and mathematics.P. These rules are Conditional Proof (C. Both rules are used frequently in everyday life.P. the working-backward method will be greatly enhanced.

they can be used in a special kind of proof: proofs without premises. we will have assumptions as well as premises and derived lines. A far simpler and more direct method is just to assume that the first thing. it simply reflects the meaning of the conditional: if-then. If it does. We will now need a new definition of proof. • Be able to use the rule of I.P. As we saw in Unit 8. (although it may take some practice to catch on to how it works). What you will need to master in this unit is listed below. then we are justified in concluding that if A. UNIT 9 TOPICS 1. • Learn the new definitions of justified step and proof • Be able to demonstrate that an argument is invalid. C..P.P. (A ::J B).E.176 Unit 9 Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof rule of I. This. has been used explicitly for millennia under the name Reductio ad absurdum (reducing an assumption to an absurdity).P. in fact. and then to see whether the second. included among the steps in our proof. • Learn the definition of theorem and be able to construct proofs of theorems. as we shall see at the end of the unit. since. Let us now take a rather simple example to demonstrate the application of the rule of Conditional Proof. and.) in their symbolic forms and understand the explanations that accompany them. A theorem is simply a formula that can be proved without any initially given premises.P. but this is not a particularly direct or intuitive way to validate if-then statements. A) is the case. then p). UNIT 9 OBJECTIVES • Learn the rules of Conditional Proof (C. is the rule of Conditional Proof: to prove a conditional (A ::J B). given A. B follows. in constructing proofs.P. the set of theorems turns out to be exactly the same as the set of tautologies. Conditional Proof A conditional is a formula that asserts that if one thing (say.. Because these rules require no previously given premises. then another (say. that is. B.) and Indirect Proof (I. for instance. in a nutshell.. is the case. If it does. B. then B. • Be able to use the rule of c. • Learn the restrictions that apply to the rules of C. A. and I. follows from that assumption. .P. then you are permitted to infer (A ::J B). There is nothing especially mysterious about the rule of c. Theorems are "obvious truths" such as «p' q) ::J p) (if both p and q. one way to prove a conditional is to derive the corresponding disjunction and then use C. simply assume A temporarily and see whether. B) is the case. in constructing proofs. which are used to derive theorems.P.

or LP.P. you discovered that it required almost 30 steps and that those steps required the frequent use of one of your more complex rules. If you tried (and succeeded). a simpler formula. because we have shown in steps 2 through 5 that indeed if A is the case./". well and good.. Note also that we have here set in our assumption and the steps that followed from it and marked them off with an arrow and a vertical line.Unit 9 Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof 177 a. (C.) and indicating whether the assumption is for c. at step 6 we are permitted to infer (A :) C).P. Instead of having to manipulate long and complicated formulas. no natural way to "reason through" the proof. whereas assumptions are only temporary and are made for very specific purposes. [ ~VB C·D C A:)C Pr.P. . 1. especially where premises and conclusion are rather complex. and it was suggested that you try to carry out the proof with only your basic rules and replacement rules. The rule of C. since this is the antecedent of the conditional we are trying to prove. (Here. 5.P. Thus. it is often just a matter of perseverance and blind luck. In using c. 1. there was no very good way of planning strategy. and since logic is supposed to be a rational discipline.2-5 Notice that we have assumed A. 4 C.P. which then makes it possible to break the proof down into easier bits. without c. premises are given for the duration of the proof.P. 3. 2 M.P. 6. assumptions are not on a par with the given premises. We will justify an assumption simply by noting that it is an assumption (which we will abbreviate Assp. As we will emphasize later. The rule of Conditional Proof is by far the more rational approach to problems like this. Let us use this rule. in constructing a proof of that rather refractory problem from the last unit. If you happen to hit on the right combination. for instance. 2. using our most complex rules. Note also that we must always justify our assumptions. Furthermore. will help you enormously in constructing proofs of conditionals. and. At the end of the last unit you were given a rather complex example. A:)C Assp. we assumed A to see whether C would follow.) Add. on problems like this. given A.P. we will always set in the assumption and what follows from it and mark it off with an arrow and a vertical line. is the appropriate strategy. you are permitted to assume just the antecedent. remember that you must always assume the antecedent of the conditional you want to prove. like every other step in a proof. you may go round in circles indefinitely. (A V B) :) (C· D) 4. C.) To emphasize this difference between premises and assumptions. if not. Distribution. then so is C. then. we have been able to deduce the consequent C.3 Simp.

13. (A V B) :J ~ (C V D) 2. 17. A·E 5. then we are allowed to infer (p :J q).P. Add.6.. E 7. ~C·~D 9. (A· E):J ~ K Assp. 4 Simp. Now that you have seen some examples of the way in which Conditional Proof works. Not only are proofs generally shorter using c. Note also that.4-16 Note that this proof is just half as long as the one that did not make use of Conditional Proof. 4. ~ K) Pro Pro Pro I . we are able to derive q. will always be the antecedent. at step 4 we may assume (A • E).P. A 6.178 Unit 9 Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof b.10 M. citing all the steps from p to q inclusive.) Simp. 2.14 Simp.'. (A· E) :J ~K Here the antecedent of the conclusion is (A • E). Given that assumption.) If. 13 M. F FvH 14. 12 Add.P. M.P.7 DeM. 9 Conj. at step 17.P. CONDITIONAL PROOF (C. 1. AvB ~(Cv D) 8. but they are almost always easier as well. (A· E) :J ~ K. 15 C. 1. we are able to use all our most basic rules-Simp.11 Simp. 5 M. 3.P.P. (F V H) :J (J .P.P. ( ~ C . 1. 4 Add.. and since our assumption for c.'.. the consequent ~ K follows quite directly (assuming you learned the material in the last two units). ~C 10.8 Simp. given the assumption (A· E). F·~O 12.-instead of the rather complicated replacement rules we would have to use otherwise. ~C·E 11.p:Jq . (C. given the assumption p. so we can infer the conclusion. J·~K 15. ~K 16. E) :J (F • ~ 0) 3. it is time to state the rule itself.

P. Another important and closely related concept is the scope of an assumption. (e =:. the rules in which we make assumptions. especially in proofs with several uses of C. it is all the steps taken together that do this. that you be able to figure out what the antecedent and consequent of the formula are. or Add. There are . (D =:. To prove ((A =:. B). this is why it is called Conditional Proof.P. It is essential in such proofs to know exactly how far the scope of the assumption extends. within a single proof. it is important to remember that the conclusion of the rule must always be a conditional. (B =:. which is roughly its extent or for how long it is operative. e)) assume (A =:. Finally. e). B) =:. e) assume ((A =:. (B =:. derive e assume A. We will call the sequence of steps set in and marked off by this vertical line a subproof. then the consequent is true. you must always assume the antecedent of the conditional you are trying to prove and then derive the consequent.-in which we infer the conditional we wanted to prove-we will cite all the steps included in the subproof. (B =:.P.P.S.. e). we will set in the assumption and all the steps leading to the consequent we are trying to derive and mark them off by an arrow and a vertical line. The first step of a subproof for c.Unit 9 Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof 179 In using C. C) (A =:. (A =:. must be included in any application of C. derive (A =:. and it is the scope marker that gives us this information. e) =:. since it is really a little proof within a proof (just as a subformula is a formula within a formula). e) =:. as noted.P. This concept will be especially important when we talk about discharging assumptions. and so we cite them all. This is because no one step suffices to show that the antecedent implies the consequent. Some examples are given below. B) =:. (A =:.P. derive (B =:. of course. just as you may use more than one application of M. It is perfectly possible to use more than one application of c. B) =:. for instance-but the immediate conclusion of the rule will be a horseshoe formula. These scope markers will also be extremely useful as visual aids and will help you to plot strategy and keep your assumptions straight. F) assume ((A' B) =:. The arrow and vertical line. or LP.. which we will call the scope marker. e))) assume (A =:. e)) ((A =:. The scope of an assumption includes all (and only) the steps of the subproof and is indicated by the arrow and vertical line. You may then go on to use the conditional in other inferences-it could be a premise for H.) that if the antecedent is true. e)) derive (e =:. this is a matter of being able to analyze structure. Also. it demonstrates (for C. (A =:. will be the assumption-the antecedent of the conditional to be proved-and the last step of the subproof will be the consequent of the conditional. derive (D =:.P. (B =:. It is essential. in the step in which we apply C. and LP. As noted earlier. F) ((A' B) =:. (B =:. for how long we are assuming it..P. B) =:. B). e))) (A =:.

which is the conclusion you wanted. A :J (B :J C) ~B:J~A A A:JB B B:JC C A:JC (~ B :J ~ A) :J (A :J C) Pr.. and trying to derive its consequent. Indirect Proof The rule of Indirect Proof (LP.6 C. Given the two assumptions. Since this is also a conditional.3-7 C. your assumption. We will see more such problems. here it will be sufficient to note that it is possible and to give one rather simple example.180 Unit 9 Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof some restrictions on this procedure. to prove it. ~ A. we were able to derive C at step 7. A. we assumed (~ B :J ~ A) because that was the antecedent of the conclusion we wanted to prove. c.2-8 ~ A) :J (A :J C) At step 2. thus you are permitted to infer the negation of what you assumed. but these will be discussed in more detail in a later section. Why would we want to do this? Well. In LP. j . we wanted to derive the consequent of our conclusion. we can use C.P. In these cases. (C. which is sometimes called the rule of Reductio ad absurdum (reducing to an absurdity).-we also make an assumption-but its intent is a little different. you can try an indirect proof by assuming A and seeing whether this assumption leads to a contradiction.P.. in later sections.) Assp. 4. Given that assumption. Then.P. If it does. which is just A. leads to a contradiction. . 1. 8. 7. (C. sometimes it is very difficult to prove your conclusion directly. 1. 5. for instance. 3.4 M. (~B :J Assp. Thus we were entitled to infer (A :J C) at step 8. 9. must be wrong. 3. since we did derive the consequent of the conclusion of our problem from its antecedent. which means assuming its antecedent.P.P. just by applying the rules of inference you have learned so far.) Contrap. 2. (A :J C). 5. we were entitled at step 9 to infer the entire conclusion. namely. 2. the best way to proceed is often to assume the opposite of what you want to prove and show that it results in a contradiction. we try to show that the assumption we make has absurd consequences. 6.P. which showed that if A then C.) has a structure similar to that of c. which is C. and can see no direct method of proceeding from premises to conclusion.P. If you want to prove ~ A. with assumptions inside assumptions.P.3 M.2 M.P.. Thus we assumed A at step 3. since it leads to absurd consequences.

is worked out below. N~O 2.P. d. given an assumption p. 8. taken together.N.P. 4.~N p~ ~O Assp.7 Conj. assume ~ p. Pr. will be the opposite of the conclusion you wish to derive. 3. and p will follow by D.. just as the conclusion of c. 0 0 Just as in C.Unit 9 Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof 181 An example of a proof using the rule of I. the negation of what was assumed..4 Conj.4. Notice that here.P. . we are able to derive a contradiction (q ~ q). Thus N cannot be the case. as in C. we cite all the steps 4 through 9. First. citing all the steps from p to (q ~ q) inclusive.4-9 Oo~O ~N Here the assumption N is shown in steps 4 through 9 to lead to a contradiction. and we are permitted to infer ~ N by I. 5. (I. (NoO) N 0 NoO p ~O ~ p Pro Pr. 3. 2. and if you want to prove an unnegated formula p.. 9.P. ~ p.5 M.. 1. then.P. it results in both 0 and ~ o. 5. We may state the rule of I. If you want to prove the negation ~ p.P. always assume the opposite of what you want to prove.P..) p If. the conclusion of 1. Finally. 7. which. is always a conditional. and certain conditions that must be fulfilled. there is a certain pattern in the use of I. 1.P./".) M. when using I.. show that N results in a contradiction.P. Second. then we may infer the negation of our assumption.P. In the latter case. 10. if you assume ~ p and derive a contradiction. Thefirst step in the subprooffor J.P' is a contradiction.P. schematically as follows: INDIRECT PROOF (I.P.P.6 M. the last step in the subproof for 1.P' is always a negation.P.P. 6.8 I.P. you will be able to infer ~ ~ p by I. simply assume p.

2. and no proof is complete until all assumptions have been discharged. 1 (A • ~ A) is a contradiction. e.P. Here only part of the first formula is negated in the second. 3. 3. 5. and so is (A v (B' C))· ~ (A v (B' C)).4. 11. 1.182 Unit 9 Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof A contradiction. More will be said about this in the next section. ~ (A . 4.8 M. is the following. 3. But beware: there are certain combinations that may look like contradictions. 8. 1.P. the whole of the first conjunct must be negated in the second conjunct. If you assume A. 6 Add.P..) M. .P. where the second conjunct is exactly the negation of the first. 12. B) I Such a formula will also be a contradiction in the sense of Unit 6: a statement whose form is false for every substitution instance. A ~ (~ ~ D ~ F ~ D) «B v ~ C) (E ~ F) Pro ~ F) Pro Pro I:. f. the contradiction you derive may include the assumption itself. but to be a contradiction. even though we have derived ~ A. and manage to get ~ A.P. such as (A ~ B) • (A ~ ~ B). is simply any formula conjoined to its negation.10 I. in which the conclusion is a negated compound. the conjunction A • ~ A is a perfectly good contradiction and will allow you to conclude ~ A by I. 2. The contradiction need not be just a single letter and its negation. 6. 2. A ~ ~(BvC) (~Bv ~ F~~A D) ~ F A ~ (B v C) ~B'~C ~B ~Bv~D F ~A A'~A ~A Pro Pro Pro I:. 10. The reason is that we have not yet discharged our assumption. but that are not. Another example of the use of I.P. we are still within the subproof. 1. ~A Assp. for purposes of I.4-11 Notice here that we are not finished with the proof at step 10. 9. (I.9 Conj. but so is (A == B)' ~ (A == B). An example in which this situation occurs is given below. A "proper" contradiction would be (A ~ B)' ~ (A ~ B). 7.P. 7 M.4 DeM.5 Simp. that is.P. Finally.

or an assumption. An assumption for C. use C.5 C. since it is the conjunction (A • B) that led to the contradiction and that must therefore be rejected. we will just add to our definition of justified step the assumptions we can now make. 2. but we could also define it now as a sequence of steps. Thus.) Simp.4-15 Notice here that our conclusion is the negation of the entire conjunction. 5. 1. as we will see in the next section. (I.P.P.P. There is no limit (theoretically) to the number of assumptions we may make in a proof. 4 M. At this point.14.P. it is perfectly correct to make use of the rules in this way. would be incorrect. as may any of our other rules. To conclude ~ A. 16.10 I. our new definition must read: a justified step is either a premise. inside an assumption for I. 8. In Unit 7 we defined a proof as a sequence of justified steps that resulted in the conclusion.Unit 9 Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof 183 4.11 Add. may be introduced at any point in a proof (except for the last step. 7. we can also make assumptions. or an assumption. if so.P. The modification is very simple and is exactly what you would expect.10 M. and vice versa.P. 9 M. 12. You may need to prove a negation or a conditional in the middle of a proof and. The rules of C. since then. A·B A B ~F-:JD ~ (~EvF) ~ ~E'~ ~F F D (Bv~ Bv~C C) -:J F F F'~F ~ (A' B) Assp. 7. and our definition must be modified to accommodate these new steps. or a step that follows from previous steps according to one of the given rules of inference. 15. 12. it would not be the last step. 13. and I. each of which must be either a premise. 10. A proof is still a derivation (a sequence of justified steps) in which the last step is the desired conclusion. or else a step that follows from previous steps according to one of the given rules of inference. by definition.13 Conj. may be used at any point in a proof. and such that the last step in the sequence is the desired conclusion.P. 6. provided we discharge them all.. not just of one of the conjuncts. however. 9. we may introduce assumptions within assumptions.P.P.P. Furthermore. 6 M.E. 11. or I. and a justified step was defined as either a premise or else a step that was derived from previous steps by application of one of the given rules of inference.P.8 Simp. 4 Simp. as we shall see in the next section). 14. or (~ A • ~ B). At this point we need to revise our definitions of justified step and proof. .P.3 DeM.

since the assumption is no longer needed. The steps derived within the scope of an assumption should be thought of as just temporary. If we left assumptions undischarged. to see whether a contradiction follows. at this point.184 Unit 9 Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof 3. to end the subprooj Once we reach the last step in the subproof. is not on the same footing as a premise. An assumption is made for a particular purpose: in C. does not occur within the subproof. A premise is given "for keeps. falls outside it.P.P.) or the contradiction (for I. Thus it does not occur within the subproof itself.P.P. "describes" in a way (a highly metaphorical way) what has gone on in the subproof. and in example a. or I. The reason for this is that in a proof the goal is to derive the conclusion from the given premises and no others. we know what happens given the assumption.P. our first c. once an assumption has been discharged you may not use that assumption or any step that falls within the scope of that assumption again. is not included within the scope of the assumption. to see whether the consequent follows from the antecedent. they are out of the picture.P. Once it has served its purpose. we discharge it. we are no longer operating under its . the assumption is discharged at step 6. or I. that the assumption is discharged at the step in which we apply c. and I. then.P. Restrictions on c. We look over the completed subproof and then write down outside the subproof the results of our investigation.P. as steps derived for the particular purposes of C. Note that the conclusion of C. for instance.P. and in I. This is reasonable.P.P. that is.P. An assumption for C. it must be rendered inoperative. to conclude ~ (A' B). First. There are certain restrictions related to the notion of discharging an assumption. Second.) has been derived. example. This is because it is not derived from that assumption. but rather. every assumption made in a proof must eventually be discharged. since these steps were derived only given that assumption. the assumption is discharged at step 16. once the consequent (for c.P.P. whereas an assumption is only temporary. Discharging Assumptions.P.P' In example f. to infer (A :J C). where we used Indirect Proof.). or discharged. as is the assumption itself.P. where we used C.P. where we apply I. Once they have done their job of generating the consequent of the conditional (for C. We will say. or 1." at least within a certain problem. and once the assumption has been discharged. the conditional or negation..P. and just as important. we have reached our goal. but rather. we would in effect be adding further premises and would not be giving an answer to the problem posed. the set of steps from the assumption through the consequent or contradiction. The notion of discharging an assumption fits hand in glove with the concept of the scope of an assumption. sums up the results of the subproof. or I. reflects a kind of "overview" of the subproof. To discharge an assumption is simply to cut off the scope of that assumption.) or the contradiction (for I.

You might even draw a big X through the whole subproof once it has been discharged. (A v B) (F v G) =:) C =:) R GVB A=:)C [~VG F=:)R C·R Pro Pro / . you will run into a lot of dead ends.2..S C. it is of the utmost importance that you make the proper assumption.P. A third restriction must be imposed for cases in which one assumption is made within the scope of another. you can make any assumption you want provided it is discharged in the end.Unit 9 Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof 185 scope.9 X Error Here the error comes in step 11. 3 M. neither it nor any step that falls within its scope may be used again. Using c. Another way to put this is to say that once the assumption has been discharged. can greatly simplify the process of constructing proofs. 2.P.P. it means the opposite of what you want to prove. 6. (C. 11. this restriction will be discussed in the next section. 5. This will be true. We will also discuss the third restriction on the use of the rules. and for J. once an assumption has been discharged. no step in its subprooj may be used again. S.P.) Add.P.P. 3.3-5 Assp. again. 7-9 Conj. . In using these rules.) Add. 5.. 9.P. 7.P. however. So. this should be fairly clear just from the way the proof is written. Theoretically. this means the antecedent of the conditional you want to prove. An instance of this kind of error is made in the "proof' below. C·R Assp. The use of c. 4.P. but unless you keep clearly in mind where you are going and make your assumptions accordingly. 10. where we have used steps from previously discharged assumptions. 1.P. which should help you to understand some of the finer points of their application. (C. or influence. Thus we have no right to the steps derived from that assumption. 4. and J.P. g. 1. and loP. once the assumption has been discharged.4 C. In this section we will go over several points of strategy for using these rules. only if you know how to use them effectively and to their best advantage. for C.'. to make sure you won't be tempted to use anything inside it again. The proper use of the scope markers and set-in steps should help you to avoid this kind of mistake. 7 M. You should never make an assumption unless you know exactly what it is jor-what you are aiming at.

8. What this amounts to is that our subproofs must be nested.T.S. 9 M. A::JB 8. you know you have done something wrong. or D.P. If you find patterns like the ones below. subproof. 1. ~C::JD 9. in the middle of a proof. You might have to derive a negation.P. .P. 4 M.P. (A ::J B) ::J (~ C ::J D) 2. 7. We then go on to complete the proof using the formula we have derived by c. 5.5 C.'. The following is an example of this sort of proof: h. We can do this by assuming A at step 4 and deriving B at step 6.P.10 GVF Here we need to derive (A ::J B) in order to use M.186 Unit 9 Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof You may sometimes have to use C. and the first assumption discharged last.P. to use in M. one entirely within the other. and you might need a conditional for use in H. which follows. Note that this is the procedure used in problem i. the third must be discharged first. 6. the second next.P. with Premise 1. there is no limit to the number or variety of assumptions we may make in a proof. ~ (C v E) 3. or LP. However.2 Simp.7 DeM. or M.P.P. (C. ~C·~E 10.P. D Assp. Notice also that an LP. a third restriction applies to those cases in which one assumption is made inside the scope of another: assumptions made inside the scope of other assumptions must be discharged in the reverse order in which they were made. for instance. At no time should the scope marker lines cross. subproof occurs within a c. If you have a second assumption inside the scope of a first and a third inside the scope of the second. (A v F) ::J B 4. 3.S.) Add.4-6 M. This is perfectly acceptable. D Pro Pro Pro / . ~C 11.. In the following problem there are a number of assumptions inside the scopes of other assumptions. 1.

(C.6 Conj.P. E 7. (A . since you should always be making assumptions with a particular aim in mind and know exactly what you are looking for. F 6..15 I. Once all the assumptions have been made.P. 20. C ::J (E ::J (H .P. and I.I)) 3.) M.D)) 2. 3. and I. A ::J (B ::J (C . (I. such as Distribution.6-17 C. where you have several assumptions. the strategy of working backward is particularly effective . one inside the other. I ~I 15. 10 M. will greatly simplify your work.B).P. 8.P.P. 14.4-19 ~ E)) The proof above may look somewhat complicated.5 Simp. (A . so at step 5 we assume A and try to derive (F ::J ~ E).) and then try to derive ~ E. 8. A::J(F::J~E) 19. not only shortening proofs but also eliminating most applications of the more difficult rules. 1. For this we will use I. To get (F ::J ~ E).) Assp.11 M.D) B 9. we assume F (for c. (C. C.P.P. 17. This is itself a conditional.P.P. but without the use of c. I.P. so at step 7 we assume E and try to derive a contradiction. In general. they will tell you if you have your assumptions crossed. and I. 1. I. 13 M..P.P.) Assp. 2.9 Simp. Here we first assume (A .B) ::J (A ::J (F ::J ~ E)) Pro Pro Pro J ". since this is the antecedent of what we want to prove. II.5-18 C. it would probably be twice as long and would require more complex rules.P.Unit 9 Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof 187 This is one reason it is so important to use the scope markers. ~E F::J ~E 18.12 Simp. and then we try to derive (A ::J (F ::J ~ E)).P.P. the consequent.) Assp. 4 M.P. A 5.P.P. with A as the antecedent. Another advantage of c. CoD 10. F::J~I A-B 4. The following proof will illustrate what happens in these more complex cases.B) ::J (A ::J (F ::J Assp.7-16 C. is that they make it easy to plan your proof strategy. H-I 13.~I 16. You may also work from the bottom up. 7. C E ::J (H-J) 12. B ::J (C .P. (C.P. 14. the rest of the proof goes smoothly.

Using c. To derive a negation or a single letter.4. that we can derive any truth functionally valid argument and any tautology by using just these rules. to further assist you. in general. in general. Now that you have these rules you should. 4. most often the best approach is to use Conditional Proof.P. the best approach is to use Indirect Proof: assume the opposite of what you want to prove and derive a contradiction from it.N.3 Conj. 1. you can often use this in conjunction with the C. The arrows and vertical lines-scope markers-help to keep straight which assumptions go with which conclusions and allow us to see exactly where we are going at each stage of the proof. for instance. use c.~S ~~T 8. and then use the rule of Biconditional Exchange. clarifies the proof and makes it much easier to find an effective strategy for solving problems.l.) M. the solution is almost immediate. it will generally clarify and simplify your proof structure. That is. and this requires doing as many problems as possible. have much less trouble figuring out how to "get started" on a proof. together with the other rules they form a very powerful deductive system-powerful enough. J. infer ~ A :J B by C. SvT S:JT ~ ~.2.P..P. to get ~ ~ A v B. 5. in fact. try LP. be used to derive any formula. for instance. if you just can't see what to do or how to get started.E. the best method is often to use two applications of C. it is not obvious how the direct approach would work. In some cases the direct method. It is usually helpful if you get stuck on a proof. If we use LP.P. T Pro Pro / :. For conditionals.S. . For biconditionals. 3. and then use D. This is an extremely powerful rule and can.E. and LP.5 LP. as we shall see in Section 7. will work.7 These are the last rules you will be given for sentential logic. working from the top down.P.. some strategy hints are given below. you may use Addition or Dilemma. if there is no obvious direct method available.188 Unit 9 Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof once you have C. however. and LP.T. conjoin them.. to get A v B. and then conjoin them. derive B. derive the two conditionals. (LP.N. and now that you have c. For conjunctions. For disjunctions. At this point your job is to learn to use these rules effectively. you will just get each conjunct separately. T Assp. but with more complex problems your best bet will usually be the method of working backward. 6. In the following problem. 7. If you want to derive a formula A v B. ~ A. you can assume the negation of one disjunct. by whatever method works best in that particular case.3-6 D. think about the structure of the conclusion and what you need to do to derive a conclusion of that form. rule.3 D. 2.

this is the only way we can begin the proof. Proofs of Theorems There are certain formulas. In proving theorems we use exactly the same methods and rules as in the other proofs.) Assp. Assp. 2. if the theorem is a conditional. 1. The proof of the theorem below is extremely simple. without premises.) M. or I.P.P. (C. no matter what. C. (p q) ::J P Assp. 5. 1.) Assp.Unit 9 Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof 189 There are a great many exercises at the end of the unit. 6. 1 C. since. You may use the same kind of proof strategy you used before. that is. A summary of the rules of C. 2. and then apply c. We may define a theorem as a statement form that can be proved without any given premises. which can be proved without any initially given premises. "obvious truths.P. It is interesting that the set of theorems is exactly the same as the set of tautologies. the best method is to use C.P.P. in principle.. and every tautology is a theorem and so can be proved without premises.P. This means that the proof contains only assumptions and steps derived from previous steps.l. (C. 2.3 M. 3.2-6 (p ::J (q ::J r)) ::J (q ::J (p ::J r)) C. We simply assume the antecedent of the formula.P.3-5 q ::J (p ::J r) C.P.P.. and I.P. 8.) Simp.I-7 p ::J (q ::J r) ~~r .P. in order to get started.P.P. the only difference is that here we have no premises to begin with. 7. or J. The first step of a prooffor a theorem will always be an assumption. and you should do all the preliminary questions and as many of the proofs as you can. we need to use one of the rules in which we can make assumptions. but there is nothing different. 1. 4. (c. every theorem is a tautology.~ r poq 0 3. (C. and they are always true. 5. requiring only three steps.P.4 p::Jr C. These formulas are called theorems.P. This is illustrated below in the proof of (p ::J (q ::J r)) ::J (q ::J (p ::J r)). Thus." such as «p q) ::J p).P.P.2 Other theorems require more extensive proofs.P. We simply have to start off with assumptions in the proofs of theorems. for instance. derive its consequent in one step by Simp. The proof of a theorem will always require the use of c. 1.: 0 k. is also given at the end of the unit for handy reference. and they play a very important role in logic because they are formulas that are absolutely reliable: they are always derivable. from the kinds of proofs we use for theorems and the ones we use in arguments.

m. 3. 5. ~ «p ::J q) v (q ::J p».5.P. 5.5 I.P. If the conclusion is a conjunction. the obvious strategy in these cases is to use c. the best method is probably to use two applications of C. l. 1 Simp. there are two possibilities: you can simply assume its negation.) Assp.P. (p ::J q) v (q ::J p). You might try to work out the proofs in that way. 2 Conj.E.P.P. use I..4 Simp. 3 RE.P. the unnegated formula. which. 6. that is. ~ (p ::J q).1-8 An example of a theorem in which the best approach is to use the rule of I. in which only one assumption is made. the negation of the formula that we assumed. 4.P. 1 Simp. This will yield. 6. 3 Simp. 4. 3. by I.P.7 Conj. (p == q). and try to derive the other. you must derive each conjunct separately and then use Conj. in which we make use of both C. 4. (c. 2. ~(p ::J q) ::J (q ::J p). 9.2-7 C.P. to prove «p v q) ::J ~ r) ::J ~ (r' p). and derive a contradiction. (p ::J q)' (q ::J p) p::Jq q q' ~ q ~ «p == q)' (p' ~ q» Assp. is the following: ~ «p == q)' (p' ~ q».P. n. 3 M.P.. or you can assume the negation of the left disjunct. the theorem itself. and D.8 I.E.) If you want to prove a disjunction. 2 Add. in this case. to get (p ::J q) and (q ::J p) and then conjoin them and use B . will give you the . 7.P.) Simp. If the conclusion is a biconditional. to do both these problems. by an application ofC. 1-9 We have done problems in which the conclusions are conditionals and negations. and try to derive a contradiction. (p == q)' (p' (p == q) P'~q ~ q) p ~q 10. 7. 8. There are alternative ways.P. (I.190 Unit 9 Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof Another example is given below. 9. At that point we will be entitled to infer.P. Here we will assume the opposite. 8.. (A conjunction will be a theorem only if each of its conjuncts alone is a theorem. for instance. 1. or I.6. 2. (I.N.2 Simp. 6 M. (p v q) ::J r' p p pvq ~r ~ r r r' ~r ~ (r' p) «p v q)::J ~r)::J ~(r' p) Assp.) Simp. and I. l.P. that is.P.

unable to find proofs for valid arguments. So far we have only used the proof method to show that an argument is valid: that the conclusion does follow from the premises.l Simp. as you no doubt have discovered.5 C. q ~ ~ ((p :J q) v (q :J p» 13. ~ (~ p v q) 2.4 DeM. 2.5 C. 10. There can be all sorts of reasons why you are unable to find a proof-too much noise in the dorms. q:Jp 7. We will work the problem both ways below. 3.E. And this is true not just for beginning logic students. (p :J q) v (q :J p) ~ (p :J q) I. 5. the method of proofs is good only for demonstrating positive results.10 I. o. ~ (q :J p) (p :J q) (q :J p) (~ p v q) p. You can never conclude that an argument is invalid.E. 4.P. 4. 2 C. Thus. . (C. 3.2 Simp.Unit 9 Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof 191 desired result. 3 Add. It can never be used to show that an argument is invalid.P.E. II. 7. ~qvp 5. 4 C. 6. 9.8 ~q 6. no matter who you are. it may just be very well hidden. As it turns out. 2 Simp. I. to illustrate both methods for proving disjunctions. on occasion. 8 Simp. Invalidity We must also say something at this point about invalidity.12 Assp. or just trying to work with the TV blaring.) DeM. there have been many cases in the history of logic and mathematics in which tlreorems were conjectured-were thought to be true-but for which no proof was found for centuries. ~ (p :J q) :J (q :J p) 8. 6 Conj. 8. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ((p :J q) v (q :J p)) (p :J q). Even the best logicians and mathematicians are.7 D.N.E. 6.E. just because you are unable to find a proof for it.~p ~ ~ q ~ ~ ~q ~ q.N. 1-11 D. (LP.7 Simp. this is all we can do with proofs. too much pasta and beer for supper. (p :J q) v (q :J p) ~~p.~q Assp. 12. for instance.9.) C.P.I-6 C. q ~ ~ ~(~qvp) ~~q. failure to find a proof does not mean that no proof exists. for concluding that the argument is valid.3 DeM.l DeM. ~ ~ (p :J q) v (q :J p) 9.

that is. is to try to derive the negation of the conclusion. . B • (D ::) ~ E). which means making the second conjunct of that premise true. All we need for a counterexample is to make the second premise true. We can show that the argument below is invalid in the following way: A ::) (B ::) ~ C). Therefore. But this is already done: we had to make t false. for that matter)! So this method won't work either... But if rand u are both false. an instance with true premises and a false conclusion. that is. there are some very interesting relationships between them that should be mentioned to round out your understanding of sentential logic. we know that q must be true. If both p and q are true. The form of the argument is (p ::) (q ::) ~ r)). you would be unable to derive the conclusion. the two methods are theoretically independent of each other. the argument would be invalid. For the second premise to be true. wrong. we must make p true and u false. but to refresh your memory. thus the argument form and the argument are invalid. p ::) u To make the conclusion false. you will be able to derive both the conclusion and its negation (and anything else you want. ((t v w) ::) (r v u)) / . (q' (s ::) ~ t)). 7. We now have the conclusion false with the first and third premises true. To show that an argument is invalid. our last word on the topic of proofs. so ~t is true. which may have occurred to you.192 Unit 9 Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof How. At this point. which means we must construct a counterexample. since our arguments are rather complex. r must be false. one example is given here and there are a few exercises at the end of the unit. Truth and Proof Finally. you must revert to the method of counterexample. then for the first premise to be true. then... concerns the relationship between the two methods you have learned for testing arguments for validity: the truth table method and the method of proofs. However. you cannot use the proof method at all. Ifthe premises tum out to be inconsistent (contradictory). this generally means using the short truth table method. A ::) H. Right? Unfortunately. As we found in Unit 7. The only way to demonstrate that an argument is invalid is to show that its form is invalid. and in fact on sentential logic in general. (E v F) ::) (C v H) / . the only way for the third premise to be true is to make both t and w false. Deriving the negation of the conclusion does not mean that you cannot derive the conclusion itself. You have already gone over this in Unit 5. Surely if you could do that. which means that there is a counterexample. do we show that an argument is invalid? One proposal that sounds reasonable. so (s ::) ~t) is true. all the premises are true and the conclusion is false.

and the implications of GOdel's results for the concepts of certainty and truth in mathematics are still not clear. every theorem is a tautology and every tautology is a theorem. which means that the system is consistent. Kurt GOdel. If an argument is valid according to the truth table method-sometimes called the semantic method-then it is possible to construct a proof for it. q / .". does not hold even in simple arithmetic. then what could it possibly mean? This issue is still being debated. Also. This equivalence between the two methods holds for all classical. whatever argument we can prove will also be semantically valid. this means that the system is complete. the consistency and completeness of the system. perhaps. In 1931.) Interestingly. showed that the proof method falls short of the semantic method. In other words. possibly the greatest logician ever. we are able to derive q. which means that for any proof system for arithmetic there will be true arithmetical statements that cannot be proved in that system. These results. (In predicate logic we can't use truth tables per se.P. we can never show that our arithmetical system is consistent. two-valued logic through relational predicate logic with identity. SUMMARY OF RULES OF CONDITIONAL PROOF AND INDIRECT PROOF A. as many had thought. then is it just another empirical science? And if being true in mathematics does not mean the same as being provable. GOdel proved that it is impossible ever to show that all the statements provable in arithmetical systems are true. We may assume that arithmetic contains no false statements. given the assumption p. citing all the steps from p to q inclusive. Even worse. which would be more fully explored in an advanced course in logic.Unit 9 Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof 193 The most important fact about the two methods-truth tables and proofs-is that for classical logic they are exactly equivalent. p:::J q . And as noted in Section 5. Arithmetic is irredeemably incomplete. but we will never be able to demonstrate this fact. but there is an analogous semantic procedure using the notion of possible truth-value assignments. which means that they give exactly the same results. this equivalence between truth and proof. If mathematics is not certain. CONDITIONAL PROOF (c. then we are allowed to infer (p :::J q). not provably consistent. have been the source of a great deal of philosophical controversy about the nature of mathematics and mathematical truth.) p If.

Every assumption made in a proof must eventually be discharged. In using C. We say that the assumption is discharged at the point at which we apply the c. ~ p.P.P. 5.) or the contradiction (for I. given an assumption p. we are able to derive a contradiction (q. Assumptions inside the scope of other assumptions must be discharged in the reverse order in which they were made. that is. or I. AND I.P.P. 1. There is no limit to the number of assumptions we may introduce in a given proof. and we may make one assumption inside the scope of another.P. We indicate that the assumption has been discharged by cutting off the vertical line (the scope marker) at this point.P. 4. rule. This arrow and vertical line are called the scope marker for the assumption.194 Unit 9 Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof • INDIRECT PROOF (I. '. the result of applying C. Thus neither the conditional nor the negation.P. inclusive . 2.P. ~ q).. 3. citing all the steps from p to (q.. an assumption may be introduced at any point in the proof.) are said to be within the scope of the assumption. provided it is justified as such. We also set in or indent every step in the subproof. neither it nor any step that falls within its scope may be used in the proof again. The sequence of steps within the scope of an assumption is called a subprooJ We indicate the scope of an assumption and set off the subproof by an arrow (pointing to the assumption) and a vertical line that runs to the left of the subproof and includes every step in the subproof.P.. and I. no two scope markers may cross. that is. 3.P. All the steps from the assumption to the consequent (for c.P. . then we may infer the negation of our assumption. we assume the opposite of what we want to prove and then derive a contradiction. In using I.P. or I.. we assume the antecedent of the conditional to be proved and then derive the consequent. 1. provided we label it as an assumption. 6. Once an assumption has been discharged. For both c. • RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF c.P. The scope of the assumption ends immediately prior to the step in which we infer the conditional or negation.P. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING c.) P If. ~ q). falls within the scope of the assumption. AND loP. 2.

A proof is a sequence of justified steps in which the last step is the desired conclusion. or an assumption.P. EXERCISES *1. or a step that follows from previous steps according to one of the given rules of inference. h. Given the following as conclusions. each of which is either a premise. (A::::> B) (A::::> B) (~ A ::::> B) 0 (~A::::> ~ 0 B) ~ (~ B) f. 2. g. (((A v B) ::::> e) ::::> (A v e» ((A::::> B) ::::> ((A::::> e) ::::> A» (((A::::> (e ::::> A» ::::> (B ::::> e» ::::> (A ::::> e» ((A::::> B) ::::> (A ::::> ((B ::::> e) ::::> (A ::::> e»» (((A::::> B) ::::> A) ::::> A) ((A::::> A) ::::> ((B ::::> (e ::::> B» ::::> (B ::::> e») (A::::> (B ::::> (e ::::> ((A v B) ::::> (B v e»») ((((A::::> B) ::::> e) ::::> (A v B» ::::> (B v e» (((A::::> A) ::::> (B ::::> (A ::::> (A ::::> B»» ::::> (A ::::> (B ::::> A))) (((A::::> (B ::::> A» ::::> B) ::::> ((B ::::> A) ::::> (((e ::::> B) ::::> B) ::::> (A ::::> e»» *2.Unit 9 Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof 195 DEFINITIONS 1. (~ 0 A::::> ~ (A v (~A ~ B) ~ ~ (~ 0 A v B) Av 0 h. Which of the following qualify as contradictions and so could be the last step in a subproof for I. b. A justified step is either a premise. what would be the other assumptions (in order of appearance)? a. b. it is a sequence of steps. or a step that follows from previous steps according to one of the given rules of inference and in which the last step is the desired conclusion. d. e. A theorem is a statement form that can be proved without any given premises. (A v B) (~B 0 (~ ~ 0 Av ~ B) A::::> (Bo 0 B) ~ (~ A) 0 BoA) A ::::> B) ~ d.. j. v B) B) ~ (~ ~ ~ B) (( ~ A == == e) ~ ((A == B) == ~ e) . e. i. ? a.P. f.P. or an assumption. g.? If we were to use more than one application of C. c. 3. 1. c. what would be our first assumption if we were using C. that is.

(~ (~ A ::> A) ::> ~ A) *3.T.. A == B::> (F v D). P::> S.. C / .. A ::> C / . B /:. A • ~ B) A::> (B v C).. plus the rules from Units 7 and 8. E ::> (C v P). f. h. F). b. ~ (G v Z) ::> ~ H.. ~ (A· ~ D). A ::> (A v B) ::> (A· B) (A· B) v F == ~ (~ (E v F).. *c.. *a.? H. (R • S) ::> T / .. Could Could ~ ~ A ::> ~ B be the conclusion of the rule of I.. (B· D). ~ ~ (A v C).P. k. B ::> F ~ / . A ::> ~ ~ (C v D) /:. / . g. ~ (F· H) v Y (~A v C)..? 4. A ::> (E v F) (~A v ~ B) ::> ~ C / . B == C (A == B) ~ / . F v (G· W). i. (P • Q) ::> R. a.. ~ (A ::> B) ~ W::> X. E v B P::> Q. A ~ *j.P. X (D ::> T) ~ / . C == D / . Answer the following questions..P. D ::> G /:.? What rules could it be a premise for? What is always the last step in a subproof for c. b. C::> A (D· E) ::> ~ F.P. F ::> (H ::> G) 5. ~ C • ~ D (F· D).P..S. h. T ::> ~ (D v E) / . (A· C) . Could ~ A v B be the premise for Add. ~ T b. e.S. d.. *a..? Could ~ A v B be the conclusion of the rule of I. S == ~ (D v C). /:. A. ~ ~(A·B) A::>(C·D).? c. S ::> ~ ~ B /:..P. T::> (A v B).? M. P ~ A::> (B v C). d. ~ B). C::> (D ::> (A v B) ::> ~ ~ C).? M. P ::> (R ::> S). plus the rules from Units 7 and 8..P. ~ (B v P) ::> ~ (A v E) (Z· y).. A == B ~ *f. P ::> T (A::> B) ::> C.B::>~(CvF) (A ::> F)..T.? D. Construct proofs for the following.. j.P. d.. Construct proofs for the following. (W ::> Y) ::> (Z v X). A == B / . T ::> (S .196 Unit 9 Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof j.? (A::> B) be the conclusion of the rule ofI.P. ~ « ~ A ::> A) ::> ~ A) A) .? List all the rules you can think of for which it could be the conclusion. (C v D) ::> F / . (A v B) ::> C... g. ~ F ::> (C· D) / .. ~ A ::> (E ::> (B v C». « ~ A ::> A) ::> ~ ~ «~ A ::> A) ::> A) .. (D . Z ~ B ::> T. c. e.P. using the rule of I.? M. e. C ::> (D == F). ~ (A v B) ::> X. 1.. X v Y /:.? c. D ::> E ~ /:. c. using the rule of C.? I.

1. ~ (F :J E). F :J (R v S). (C ° D) :J E. ~ C == (F v E). (C :J D) v (Y :J Z) (~Co(FvE»v(Co~(FvE». q. ((S :J W) :J A). t. (A :J ~ C) == ~ (~ Av ~ E). ~ I.Fv(C == G) ~ ~ I:. S v ~ (D :J ~ Z). (A:J B) :J (C :J D). k. Z == T (P v (G v H» ~ I. r. (F v (A :J X» :J B I . C :J C. A == A == ~ ~ ~ ~ C. (W :J C) ~ (~Bv(CoD». W :J (T ° Z).·. A :J ~ F) (A == B) E). P == (Q ° ~ T). A:J(B:JG) (A v B) v (E v F). ° ~ (T v W» :J (A ° D) I:.~(A == ~ (DoF». ((C :J D) :J ~ A). V == ~ I:. E :J (T v W) I:.. K == ~ (B :J X). Construct proofs for the following theorems. *d. G == (E ° H) I. (C v D) :J F.. D :J (~ F ° ~ G) ~ ~ I:. ~ (D v ~ A) :J (P == Q). (Z ° X) :J (Y :J ~ (B v C) :J ~ Y I:.·. C :J (X v E). b. W. g. ~ Z ~ ~ (R v T) :J °~ ~ (S ° W). ~ (A ° B) ~ ~ ~ (S ° T) v ~ (H oK). (F v R) :J (V ° T). b. *a.·. T :J ~ B (X v Y).. (A v D) :J (D :J E) ~ (C ° F) ~ A:J (B :J C). R == A) I:. B == (D ° ~ ~ (E ° A) (~ D ~ e.Unit 9 Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof 197 6. n. using any of the rules in Units 7-9. (A v B) :J A v B. A :J (C v G) h.·. ~ F :J (D ° E). (A:J~C)== ~(XvE) 7. *a. (A v Z) :J (W ° B) ~ (P v (S :J T». c. (S T :J (A :J ~ Q). (A v D) :J W. e. ~ Z D:J ~ ~ B). B == (D ° ~ E) p.. Construct proofs for the following more challenging problems. (B v C).·. B:J ((F ° ~ G :J ~ B ~ G» == D). ~ P ~ ~ P == (Q ° ~ R). P i. P ~ Q I. d. D:J (A :J ~ E) 0 (A ° B) :J ~ (C ° D).·. A == ~ (S ° T). A :J ~ B ~ m. B:J (C v X) s. ((P v T) == R) :J (Z v W). I:. (A :J I:.B:JC B) :J (Y :J Z) I:.·. R :J (T v Z). *c. (H ° S) :J Y I. *j. A :J (B :J I.(F:J~B). f. R == (C ° T). (W ° (B E». B :J X o. I . ~ (T v W). (~p:J (~q:J ~ 0 r»:J (r:J (pvq» 0 (p:J (p q» v (q :J (p q» (p:J (q :J ~((p (r ° s))) :J ((p :J q) :J (p :J s» ~ == ~ ~q)o~(pvq» (p == q) == (p == q) . C :J (W of). P :J S (X ° Y) v ~ (Z v W). F :J Av B I:. I. ~ C :J (E v ~ F). ~ (B v C).

k. If valid. X ::J (Y v ~ ~ ~ 0 B) ~ / . there is goodness in the world. construct a proof. If God exists. p. d. the Bible is literally true. (A v B) ::J (C v ~ D). but will develop solar energy. A::J (B v C). / . A == ~ D. *e. then both God and the Devil exist. (G ::J ~ H). (E v ~ H).. then either there will be a nuclear accident or an increase in air pollution. Symbolize the following arguments and determine whether they are valid or invalid. there will not be an increase in air pollution. c. If the Bible is literally true. m. then both God and the Devil exist. If we rely primarily on nuclear power or coal.. s. give a truth-functional counterexample.. X ::J Y *c. 1.. If the Bible is literally true. 1. *a. Therefore. Show that the following are invalid. There will be nuclear war if and only if there is a proliferation of nuclear weapons and unrest in the developing nations. B ~ == (C 0 F) ~ / . Nuclear weapons will proliferate if and only . n. q.198 Unit 9 Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof «p v q) ::J (p q)) 0 f. (F Z) 0 A ::J (F v ~ Z). then God is wrathful and not kind. the Bible is not literally true. and the story of Adam and Eve is correct. If the Devil exists. A ::J F ~ (X y) v 0 (~ A 0 ~ y).. g. then he is omniscient and kind. if invalid.. A ~ (G H) == (~ A v ~ B ::J (~ F v Z) B). If the story of Adam and Eve is correct. *9. d. Therefore. b. == (p == q) (~s::J ~ «pvq)::J (ros))::J p::J(~p::Jq) p) (p ::J q) ::J «p ::J (q ::J r)) ::J (p ::J r)) (p ::J q) ::J «p ::J (p ~ 0 j. a. there is evil in the world. If God exists. o.. C == (E F) 0 / .. b. r. 0 ~ (B v D). F ::J B 0 ~ F). There are both goodness and evil in the world. Therefore. (A v ~ B) ::J (C ::J ~ D).. ~ q) ::J ~ 0 p) == q) == «p q) v (~ p ~ q)) == q) == «p ~ q) v (q ~ p)) p == (p v (q ~ q)) p == (p (q v ~ q)) (p 0 0 0 0 «p ::J q) ::J p) ::J P «p (~ == q) 0 ::J r) ::J (~ (p q) v r) 0 «p::J q) (q::J r)) v (r::J p) (p v q) v ~ (q v r)) ::J ~ (p r) «pvq)::J (r o ~ s))::J (s::J «toW)::J 0 ~ p)) 8. h. ~ C == (E D v (F H) / .. We will rely primarily on neither nuclear power nor coal.

Therefore. If the Libertarians are right. Therefore. nuclear war will be avoided only if there are adequate nuclear safeguards.Unit 9 Conditional Proof and Indirect Proof 199 e. There will be unrest in the developing nations if economic conditions do not improve. if there is an increase in the use of nuclear power and nuclear safeguards are inadequate. then there is an increase in inflation if and only if there is a decrease in unemployment. There will be an increase in the use of nuclear power and economic conditions will not improve. If the Monetarists are right. then there is an increase in inflation if and only if the money supply increases too fast. The government spends more than it takes in only if taxes are too low. If the Keynesians are right. neither the Monetarists. but there is inflation. there is an increase in inflation only if the federal government spends more than it takes in. nor the Libertarians are right. the Keynesians. . There is no decrease in unemployment and taxes are not too low.

.

But we cannot use the rule of H. Nor. the rule of Modus Ponens seems to be involved. In the first example." and that the subject of the conclusion is again "cats" while the predicate is "vertebrates. cannot be proved using only the resources of sentential logic.S. here because the premises and conclusion simply do not have the form of conditionals. since the form is basically all A are B. They are what we have been calling simple sentences in sententiallogic. needs to be done in these cases? Well.. r is not valid according to the canons of sentential logic. Modus Ponens just does not apply here. then. q / . r. for instance.. And p." that the subject of the second premise is "mammals" and the predicate "vertebrates. could we prove that if all cats are mammals. and all B are C. since they each just involve three different noncompound sentences. and all mammals are vertebrates. x is an A. This indicates that what we need to do in such cases is to undertake an analysis of the internal structures of the 201 . therefore x is a B. in the second example we might notice that the subject of the first premise is "cats" and the predicate "mammals. INTRODUCTION There are certain arguments which are intuitively valid but which cannot be shown to be valid by the methods of sentential logic. if we used just sentential logic (and not our heads).Part 2 Monadic Predicate logic UNIT 10 Singular Sentences A.. that all rhododendron leaves are poisonous." Hypothetical Syllogism seems to apply once we take into account the subjects and predicates of the simple sentences. then all cats are vertebrates. If we know. Both arguments would have to be symbolized simply as p.. then we can correctly infer that this leaf is poisonous (and presumably refrain from chewing on it). these are sententially simple sentences and thus are not amenable to treatment by sentential logic. But. again. It is clear that in the second case Hypothetical Syllogism has something to do with the argument. since it has the form all A are B. sentences we have taken as unanalyzed wholes. therefore all A are C. q / . But this argument. What. simple and obvious as it is. and we have correctly identified this as a rhododendron leaf.

Another thing you may have noticed about the examples above is the occurrence of the word "all. because they state the relationship between two categories or. and in later units we will cover categorical propositions and inferences involving quantifiers. between sentential logic and quantifier logic. which dominated the logic scene for over 2. is that in quantifier logic we will be using and analyzing these basic quantifier concepts and the relations between them. B. ." In the second argument." The words "all" and "some" are called quantifiers (hence the term quantifier logic). and the concepts associated with them. the premises and conclusion have the form "All Pare Q. then. individual variable. classes. singular sentence. we will introduce an even more powerful system involving the logic of relations. in particular. dealt almost exclusively with arguments made up of sentences like "All A are B" and "Some A are B. and propositional junction. • Be able to identify and symbolize the propositional function (or functions) of any given singular sentence and be able to symbolize the singular sentence. which is also called predicate logic. then. UNIT 10 OBJECTIVES • Be able to state the definitions of. whereas in predicate logic we analyze these simple sentences into their component parts. rather than just being content to take them as unanalyzed wholes. and they play an extremely important role in the sorts of inferences we will be studying in the rest of the book. is that in sentential logic we take the sententially simple sentence as an unanalyzed whole.200 years (up to the beginning of the twentieth century). This is the first thing you will learn to do in quantifier logic." Such propositions are called categorical propositions. or predicate logic. partly because they do playa large role in many of the inferences we make and partly because of the enormous influence of Aristotle. singular sentences and propositional junctions. and give examples of.202 Unit 10 Singular Sentences sentences. individual constant. You will learn to analyze singular sentences into their components and will refresh your memory on subjects and predicates. as we would now say. They have been extremely important in the history of logic. for instance. Traditional Aristotelian logic. Toward the end of the book. In the next unit you will learn some basic facts about quantifiers. In this unit your job will be to learn about the most fundamental elements of predicate logic. The second basic difference between sentential and quantifier logic. each of the following concepts: name. We will be studying categorical propositions for both of these reasons-their historical importance and the role they play in our language-but we will place them within the broader context of quantifier logic. One basic difference.

" for example. but in the end the careful details will payoff in a more thorough understanding of predicate logic. your best friend. "The Eiffel Tower" is the subject. We may begin by noting again that a singular sentence is one that predicates something. and the predicate is what is being asserted about the subject. since it refers to an entire class. elementary units of predicate logic. after all. such as John or the Eiffel Tower. your cat. In "The Eiffel Tower is in France. and "Cats like to chase fireflies" is a categorical sentence." "Leo Tolstoy. the subject is what the sentence is talking about. They are often. We may divide subject-predicate sentences into two groups: those in which the subject refers to an individual. of course. and "is in France" is the predicate. they are the building blocks out of which more complex formulas are constructed and are thus analogous to the simple letters-statement constants and variables--of sentential logic. it is just any particular single thing. since it refers to a single individual. We will have a great deal to say about categorical sentences in Unit 12. very simple formulas. UNIT 10 TOPICS 203 1. "The Eiffel Tower is in France" is a singular sentence.Unit 10 Singular Sentences C. for logical purposes. . so this unit will be devoted to a fairly detailed examination of these and related topics." and "War and Peace." which are conventionally used to refer to particular things. or even a particular point in space and time.) "Herman Melville is an author" would be an example of a singular sentence. At times it may seem as if we are taking an unnecessarily circuitous route to what are. are expressions such as "Dallas. In the sentence "Cats like to chase fireflies. it is important that you understand them thoroughly from the outset. is not necessarily a human being. such as Herman Melville or the moon. though not always. Loosely speaking. (An individual. Simple singular sentences and propositional functions are the most fundamental. but in this unit we will focus on singular sentences because of their central role in predicate logic. about a particular named individual. We will call the first type of sentence a singular sentence." "the moon. Because they are so fundamental. asserts something. or category. or refers to. You are undoubtedly familiar with this kind of analysis and are able to identify correctly the subjects and predicates of simple sentences. the chair you are sitting in. capitalized in English. We may define a singular sentence very simply as a sentence that contains a name. and those in which the subject refers to an entire class. such as cats." "Cats" is the subject and "like to chase fireflies" is the predicate. as we shall see in Unit 11) can be analyzed into their subject and predicate components. your bicycle. and the second type a categorical sentence. Names. It could be the book you are reading. Singular Sentences and Propositional Functions Most sentences in English (although not all.

the individual variable. are those containing names. and to explain this concept. but they are not considered to be singular sentences because they contain no names. though to simplify the discussion. 5. Dallas is a large city." and d for "Dallas. may contain more than one name. Leo Tolstoy was Russian. Thus we would use I for "Leo Tolstoy. Although these are all simple sentences with just one name. as we shall see in Unit 17. Bob is happy. 4. The referring expressions-"the best movie in town" and "the cat that lives next door"-are what are called definite descriptions. a name may appear at any point in the sentence.204 Unit 10 Singular Sentences Some examples of singular sentences. Singular sentences." w for "War and Peace. We will formally define individual constant as a lowercase letter. we need to introduce another very important item. with the names italicized. To symbolize singular sentences. even though they are the only ones we will be discussing at this point. however." Sentences containing definite descriptions require for their proper symbolization the use of identity. then." To symbolize predicates-what is said about the individuals-we will use propositional functions. 1. 3. so we will defer their discussion until that unit. that is used as an abbreviation for the name. and the predicate. Sentences such as "The best movie in town is a western" or "The cat that lives next door is Siamese" also predicate something of an individual. we will be using them in the same way here. rather than just . singular sentences may be compound and. and a simple singular sentence will thus consist of two parts: the name. we will need two kinds of symbols: symbols representing names and symbols representing predicates. which will not be introduced until Unit 19. that singular sentences are not the only ones that assert something about individuals. which refers to the individual. Angela is wealthy. except that they will stand for any individuals. which are simply lowercase letters that serve to abbreviate the name. It is important to realize. 7. " m for "the moon. War and Peace is a novel. Also. in all the sentences below the name is at the beginning. The moon has an elliptical orbit. which asserts something about the named individual. Bob is wealthy. You are probably already familiar with individual variables from elementary algebra. generally the first letter of the name. which simply describe an entity in enough detail to be able to identify it uniquely. 6. again. Our symbolizations for names will be very simple: we will use what are called individual constants. 8. Angela is happy. 2. are given below. Definite descriptions have the form "the so-and-so.

y. z has an elliptical orbit. with the variable inserted to show where the subject should go to form a complete grammatical sentence.Unit 10 Singular Sentences 205 numbers. All of the following are propositional functions and represent. 8. that the predicates are the same. 1. y is a large city. in order. is just "is happy. x is wealthy. cannot be true or false because it makes no claim. the formula x + y = Y + x uses individual variables." then. Note also that propositional functions are just like singular sentences except that they contain variables instead of names.. 6." where the individual variable x indicates where the subject of the sentence would be placed. 4. as are 6 and 8. and a substitution instance of it. The predicate of the singular sentence "Angela is happy. Any variable can be used in a propositional function. on the other hand. says nothing. which will represent the predicate. y is a novel. x is happy. any name or individual constant. or takes as a substitution instance. It is extremely important to understand that a propositional function is not a sentence. and we will be emphasizing this point repeatedly. Once we have individual variables. 3. an individual variable is a lowercase letter (we will use x. By definition." for instance. the notion of a propositional function is easy to define. containing the predicate. the predicates of the singular sentences listed previously. Remember that a singular sentence consists of the name plus the predicate. x is happy." The propositional function. the only kind we deal with in this book. Note that propositional functions 5 and 7 are identical. 2. The propositional function for "Angela is happy. 5. In algebra. A propositional function. This is a crucial distinction. would be 3 + 4 = 4 + 3. A declarative sentence. Z . This indicates that sentences 5 and 7 (and 6 and 8) are saying the same thing about the two individuals. is very like the predicate itself. but has an individual variable in the place where the subject was. because . 7. It is really something like a partial sentence. is simply "x is happy.• ) that serves as a placeholder for. so if we remove the name from the singular sentence. must be either true or false. x was Russian. x is wealthy. we will be left with the predicate. We will formally define a propositional function as the result of replacing some or all of the names in a singular sentence with individual variables. using the individual numbers 3 and 4.

In other words. as in "x loves y. B. Predicates. You will first learn to symbolize propositional functions and then use these as a step toward symbolizing singular sentences. not for sentences. and instances of the forms. which contain constants and are either true or false. As noted earlier. when we replace a variable with a constant. such as (p v q) :::J r. "War and Peace is a novel. All you have to do is pick a capital letter. Symbolizing Singular Sentences Once you understand the concepts introduced in Section 1. Such functions are called "monadic" or "one-place" propositional functions. such as "John loves Mary. nor do their associated propositional functions. and then lOne possible source of confusion is that in sentential logic the capital letters A. while in predicate logic the capital letters stand." for instance. in this case of the propositional function. We will discuss such sentences and functions in Units 17 and 18." and is true.206 Unit 10 Singular Sentences functions contain variables. symbolizing propositional functions and singular sentences will be very easy. The difference here is that the variables occurring in propositional functions have individuals as particular instances. but just for parts of sentences. a sentence obtained from a propositional function by replacing the variable with a name can be considered a substitution instance of that function. C. however. such as (A v B) :::J C. as in sentential logic. preferably one that reminds you of the meaning of the predicate. 2. is not a sentence and is not either true or false. cannot be either true or false. If you are given a simple. whether a sentence form or a propositional function. monadic propositional function. is a substitution instance of "x is a novel. meaningful sentences as instances. they do not say anything about particular individuals and so. l As in sententia1logic. there are also sentences containing more than one name. In either case. the predicates. are used as abbreviations for sentences. but for the next few units we will concentrate on monadic functions. and. we can refer to the result of that replacement as a substitution instance. and so on. we do get a meaningful sentence that is either true or false. however. The sentences we have been using so far have only one name. have no truth values on their own. as noted above." the symbolization is almost automatic." and the associated propositional functions will then have more than one variable. the expression containing variables. however." Such functions are called polyadic or many-place functions. such as "x is happy. which contain variables and so have no definite truth value. and so are considered to have definite truth values. . This is analogous to the distinction in sentential logic between sentence forms. while the variables in statement forms have specific. so their propositional functions have only one variable.

The moon has an elliptical orbit. Angela is happy. since the capital letters here are very much like abbreviations for predicates-what is said about an individual-we will call them predicate letters. which is. This may seem like a roundabout way to get at the symbolization. Let us take the simple sentence "Mary is a scientist. Note also that. Ny Ez Cy Hx Wx Naturally. very simple. would be m. Thus. 4. Rl Nw Em Cd Ha Wa ." We get the propositional function by removing the name and replacing it with a variable. 6. y is a large city." An appropriate abbreviation for this function would be Sx.Unit 10 Singular Sentences 207 write down that letter followed by the individual variable. it will always be written to the right of the capital letter. Dallas is a large city. 3. 5. x is happy. and in replacing the variable with the constant we get the symbolization for the singular sentence: Sm. but it is important to state the function explicitly. since their propositional functions were symbolized previously. 2. H. the abbreviation for the proper name. War and Peace is a novel. Leo Tolstoy was Russian. The propositional function here would thus be "x is a scientist. C. In symbolizing simple singular sentences. E. and W. The proper individual constant. we will first identify the propositional function of which the sentence is an instance. are R. x is wealthy. Finally. would be simply Rx. in order. and finally. We will normally indicate abbreviations for propositional functions with the triple bar. after all." for instance. The most natural symbolization for "x is Russian. then abbreviate the junction." "By == y is a baseball player. as we did for abbreviations of English sentences in sententiallogic. N." and so on. It should now be clear how we can symbolize the sentences of Section 1. abbreviate the sentence by replacing the variable with an appropriate individual constant. no matter where the variable occurs in the unabbreviated function. 1. the variable that occurs in the unabbreviated function will be the same one that appears in the symbolization. Angela is wealthy. z has an elliptical orbit. Thus the predicate letters for the abbreviations above. Appropriate symbolizations for the other monadic functions mentioned in the preceding section would be the following: y is a novel. we will say "W x == x is wealthy.

as in Unit 4. with their abbreviations. If z lives in a glass house. symbolize them. but x did not propose to Marge. the idea is the same as with compound functions: identify the simple components. 1. Ly == Y is fowl) ~Fy· ~Ly 2. then z should not throw stones. ~ M x. 8. Mx == x proposed to Marge. but we will be using compounds as well. An example of a compound propositional function would be "x went to the party but did not see either Betty or Marge. Note that. (Gz == z lives in a glass house. are given in parentheses. those that contain sentential operators. and "x saw Marge" (Mx). Tz == z should throw stones) 3. Further examples of compound functions. Hb Wb The functions and sentences we have been discussing so far have all been truth functionally simple. If x proposed to both Betty and Marge." To symbolize this. and then put the negation sign in front of it. are given below. and then put the whole thing together. negated expressions must be considered to be compound. Hx == x will hide) Gz :J ~Tz ((Bx· Mx) :J (Lx v Hx))· ~Mx In symbolizing compound singular sentences." It is then clear that the simple functions are "x went to the party" (Px) . to "expand" it so that each of its simple components is explicitly contained in the compound. Lx == x will leave town. We will here go . and the symbolization for the compound function would be Px· ~ Bx . with their symbolizations. (Bx == x proposed to Betty. The expanded function would be "x went to the party but x did not see Betty and x did not see Marge. Compound singular sentences and propositional functions are essentially those that contain one or more of our five operators. To symbolize "x did not see Betty. and they will be symbolized using the techniques of Unit 4.208 Unit 10 Singular Sentences 7. y is neither fish nor fowl. (Fy == y is fish. "x saw Betty" (Bx). The simple functions. then x will either leave town or hide. we need to make explicit its compound structure." we abbreviate the function "x did see Betty" as Bx. Bob is wealthy. which are their components. Bob is happy.

then the coach will be happy. generally the first letter of the name. neither one will have anything to eat. Ex x has something to eat. The symbolization for the propositional functions and names are given directly below the sentence. or takes as a substitution instance. 2. DEFINITIONS I. F x x plays football. you should have (1) x likes everyone. and Bill plays both. A singular sentence is any sentence that contains a name. followed by the symbolization for the sentence itself. pick out and symbolize the (monadic) propositional functions and then symbolize the singular sentence. 3." for example. this is sometimes easy to do. when you have both predicate letters and individual constants. H x x is happy. that is used as an abbreviation for the name. 5. For each of the sentences below. b = Bill. A propositional function is the result of replacing some or all of the names in a singUlar sentence with individual variables. EXERCISES 1.Unit 10 Singular Sentences 209 over just two examples. There will be more examples of compound singular sentences in the exercises. (Bx x plays basketball. 6. m = Mary) (Mj'Mm) ::J (~Cj ::J ~(Ej v Em» = = = = = = The only thing you need to watch out for is not to get the letters mixed up. A name is an expression such as "George Washington" that is conventionally used to refer to a particular individual thing. (Mx x is going to the movie. j = John. any name or individual constant. 4. Cx x cooks supper. If John plays either basketball or football. preferably one that reminds us of the meaning of the predicate and that is used in conjunction with variables to symbolize propositional functions. then unless John cooks supper. A predicate letter is a capital letter. For those sentences that are . An individual variable is a lowercase letter from the end of the alphabet that serves as a placeholder for. (3) Lj. (2) Lx. An individual constant is a lowercase letter. e = the coach) «Bj v Fj)' (Bb' Fb» ::J He If John and Mary are going to the movie. For "John likes everyone. j = John.

and he saw several suspicious-looking characters. symbolize the following compound singular sentences. Lx == x likes logic. but if he is alert. ex == x likes to climb trees. Amy. o. *c. k = Kathy. Dx == x will drown. f. *c. Tom is a wise old owl. W x == x watches a lot of television. Remember that negated sentences are compound. and he will stay in police work if and only if his supervisor gives him a raise and a commendation. If Andrew does not get enough sleep. b = Bob. *e. It is not true that if Andrew does not get a raise then he will quit. John is not wise. he is very sharp. The FBI solved the mystery. but if he gets married. and she will drown if she falls into the water and no one rescues her. he won't fight the robbers. isolate and abbreviate all the simple functions and then symbolize the compound singular sentence. b. but Kathy can't. Tx == x likes television. f. p = Pete. but neither Bob nor Pete does. b. h. Rx == someone rescues x. Andrew neither runs nor swims. Amy and Kathy like to climb trees. although he falls down a lot. Given the following abbreviations. m. he misses a lot. Kathy likes television and popcorn. k. but neither Jane nor Bob is happy with his job. *g. but he loves to ice-skate. . H x == x is happy. *n. Fx == x falls into the water. If Tom is wise. Px == x likes popcorn. Andrew is an FBI agent. and John is cautious only if he either smells a rat or fears retaliation. The Chase Manhattan Bank has been burglarized. The New York Police Department could not find the burglars. but Pete likes neither. Rocky's apartment contained huge diamond rings. *1. he will request less hazardous duty. Bob likes television but not logic. Neither Tom nor John is old. Sx == x can swim. Gx == x is good at logic. Rocky is a master safecracker. Bob. d. *a. a = Amy. Bob will be good at logic if and only if he likes it and doesn't watch a lot of television. and if he fights the robbers he will be injured and will end up in the hospital. and Amy likes both.210 Unit 10 Singular Sentences sententially compound. *e. *a. Pete can swim. 2. j. and Kathy like popcorn. d. but they are both wise and experienced. Andrew loves police work. Tom is cautious if and only if he is nervous. *i.

Kathy. h. j.Unit 10 Singular Sentences *g. Amy. and Pete will be happy. Kathy will drown if and only if she can't swim and falls into the water and no one rescues her. and all watch a lot of television. *i. provided none of them falls into the water and drowns. Bob will be happy only if Amy likes television and logic and he does not fall into the water. Bob. but she likes to climb trees and will not fall into the water. . 211 Amy will be happy if someone rescues Kathy and Kathy doesn't drown.

more naturally. imprecise concept but. as we shall see. but they can play no role in our logic because their meanings are vague and the relations between them are imprecise. we will have two kinds of quantified sentences in predicate logic. will say that there is something of which the propositional function is true. in logic it has a very definite meaning." and "almost all" are all quantifiers in the sense that they indicate quantity. The meanings of "all" and "some.UNIT 11 Quantifiers A. it yields a sentence. is not a complete sentence and has no truth value. and when prefixed to the function in this way. "Everything has a purpose." we get the sentence "Some x is on fire" or "Something is on fire. however. In this unit you will be learning their precise meanings." for instance. We have in English any number of quantifiers besides "all" and "some"." As the above suggests." by contrast.) The relationships between them are so determinate that we will even have rules of inference telling us how we may infer sentences containing one quantifier from those containing the other." "most. the relations between them. and how to symbolize simple quantified sentences." "a few. An example of an existential proposition would be "Something is on fire." If we prefix the quantifier "some" to the propositional function "x is on fire. ("Some" may seem like the epitome of a vague. in which the quantifier "some" is used. we get the sentence "Every x has a purpose" or." The universal sentence. "x has a purpose. says that the propositional function is 212 . "many. the quantifiers "all" and "some" constitute one of the basic elements of quantifier logic. It is always placed infront of the propositional function. in which the quantifier "every" or "all" is used. If we prefix the quantifier "every" to the function. The role of a quantifier is to tell us of how many things a propositional function is true. are definite and fixed. The existential sentence. INTRODUCTION As noted in Unit 10.

we discuss the relations between the two quantifiers. respectively. • Be able to distinguish between singular sentences." In this unit we first discuss the meaning and function of the quantifiers and introduce the symbolism we will be using. a singular sentence is a sentence that asserts that a particular." We can also say that these sentences. sentences that tell us in general of how many things a propositional function is true. Examples would be "Andrew dug up the strawberries" or "Lassie dug up the strawberries. In this unit we will discuss quantified sentences. Almost everything has mass. and propositional functions. finally. quantified sentences. Examples of quantified sentences would be the following: Everything has a purpose. Many things are puzzling. C. More specific objectives are listed below. • Learn the English phrases for and relations between negated quantifiers. • Learn the definitions for free and bound variables and for the scope of a quantifier. UNIT 11 TOPICS 1. assert that the propositional function "x dug up the strawberries" is true of the individual Andrew or Lassie. . and propositional functions.Unit 11 Quantifiers 213 true of everything. Universal and Existential Quantifiers As we saw in Unit 10. Something dug up the strawberries. B. • Be able to identify and symbolize simple quantified sentences and their negations. An example of a universal sentence would be "Everything has a purpose. UNIT 11 OBJECTIVES • Learn the meanings and symbolism for the universal and existential quantifiers. named individual has a certain property. we then examine the differences between singular sentences. rather than asserting that the propositional function is true of a particular individual. A few things are incomprehensible. simple quantified sentences. Most things are interesting.

In this unit we are concerned only with such simple quantified expressions. when prefixed to a propositional junction. Although there are an indeterminate (even infinite) number of quantifiers in English. ." "most. To symbolize a simple universal sentence." "anything." for instance. A formula such as (x)Fx would then be read literally as "For every x." that is prefixed to the propositional function." or any word that conveys the sense of "all" will be symbolized by using the universal quantifier. such as Fx. A simple universal formula is just a simple (noncompound) propositional function. or abbreviation. This gives us the formula (x)Px as the proper symbolization." Sentences that contain words like "all. In the sentence "Everything exerts a gravitational pull on the Earth." "Everything is beautiful in its own way. Alternative readings for the symbolized universal quantifier are "For all x" and "Every x is such that". as "Everything is an F. such as "For every x. preceded by a universal quantifier. any equivalent phrase will do as well. the symbolizations are given on the right. x is an F" or. standard logic makes use of only two: the maximal "all" and the minimal "some. To say that everything does that. This symbol may be read as "For every x" (or y or z). for the universal quantifier will be a variable (the same one that occurs in the function to be quantified) enclosed in parentheses." and more "restricted" universal statements such as "All politicians are ambitious" and "Every student wants to learn something. more colloquially. x exerts a gravitational pull on the Earth. The symbol. Universal Quantifiers. reasonably enough. has a certain property can be symbolized by means of what we will call a simple universal formula." We will discuss these in detail below.214 Unit 11 Quantifiers Words that indicate quantity. We will then define a universal sentence as a sentence that asserts that a propositional junction is true of everything." We could symbolize the sentence "Everything has a purpose" by abbreviating the propositional function "x has a purpose" as Px and then prefixing to the function the universal quantifier (x). in later units we discuss quantifiers that extend over compound functions. without qualification." The quantifier itself is the expression. or (z). The sentence would be read literally as "For every x." which could be abbreviated as Ex. (y)." are called." Other examples of simple universal sentences are given below. yields a universal sentence. the propositional function is "x exerts a gravitational pull on the Earth. Any English sentence that asserts simply that everything. so the sentence can be completely symbolized as (x)Ex." "any" (in some contexts)." "every. "everything. Examples of universal sentences would be "Everything has a purpose. such as (x). such as "all. quantifiers. x has a purpose." "each. which could be read literally as "For every x. a. We will define a universal quantifier as an expression that. all we need to do is put the universal quantifier (x) in front." "each and every. you just identify and abbreviate the propositional function and then prefix to it the universal quantifier." or "some. with their propositional functions immediately beneath them.

Everything was created by God. which conveys the idea of "some. (x)Bx Bx (y)Uy Uy (z)Gz Gz Notice that we have sometimes used y or z as the quantified variable. An existential sentence is a sentence that asserts that a propositional function is true of at least one thing. that individual has the property F. For quantified expressions it makes no difference what letter we use. to use the same variable in the quantifier as appears in the function. 3. although it is not specified what. it will not make sense to say "For every x. or (3z). y is unique. the logical "some" is exact: it means only "at least one." and "Some cats like fruitcake. with their propositional functions and abbreviations. at least some part of their logical sense can be indicated. that for any individual thing." and while their full sense is not captured by the existential quantifier. we can translate any quantity that falls short of "all" by using the existential quantifier. z was created by God. Anything is better than nuclear war. and what it is really doing is asserting existence (hence the term existential quantifier). however. (3y). and the whole enclosed in parentheses. any English phrase that conveys the notion of existence. such as (3x). It means only that there is at least one. Such phrases include "many. it does not have the connotation of more than one." h. since "at least one" leaves open the possibility of more than one." More standard renderings in English would be "Something is heavier than gold" or "There is something that is heavier than gold." Analogously to the universal quantifier.Unit 11 Quantifiers 215 1. Examples of existential sentences would be "Something is missing. Existential Quantifiers. but unlike the ordinary English word." will be rendered by the existential quantifier. Unlike its counterpart in ordinary English." "a few. x is better than nuclear war." although there are other readings that are sometimes more appropriate. Furthermore. " has a very precise meaning in logic. Everything is unique." even "most. which is extremely vague on the matter of quantity. Thus the expression "(3x)x is heavier than gold" would be read "For some x. (x)Fx means exactly the same as (y)Fy: namely. which we will discuss shortly. We do have to make sure. ." "Someone is knocking at the door. yields an existential sentence. when prefixed to a propositional junction. Some examples of simple existential statements. The existential quantifier. The symbol we will use for the existential quantifier is a backward E followed by the appropriate variable. rather than x. as well as those using the phrase "some." The sentence could be fully abbreviated as (3x)Hx." It does leave open the possibility that there is more than one. Thus. y is an F. 2. we can read the existential quantifier as ''for some x. x is heavier than gold. We will define an existential quantifier as an expression that. normally. are given below.

Some things are mysterious. There is at least one dollar in my pocket. There are black holes in the universe. . "There is some x such that x is mysterious.216 Unit 11 Quantifiers 1. z is mysterious." are different from either singular sentences or propositional functions. It might be tempting to interpret the sentence "Something trampled the strawberries" as a singular sentence." and so on. You should get in the habit. and "something" does not fill the bill." "There is some x such that. the individual about which the sentence is speaking. but we cannot consider "something" to be the subject expression of a singular sentence. Singular Sentences. to reply to such a sentence. is a perfectly meaningful English sentence. The predicate analysis is correct. It is important to realize that simple quantified sentences of the sort we have just discussed. Quantified Sentences. The subject expression of a singular sentence must be a name. such as "Something is fishy" or "Everything is going wrong. and Propositional Functions. The problem is even clearer if we consider sentences with negative terms. and sentences using these terms cannot be interpreted as singular sentences. I'm glad something will help." "Some x exists such that." as if "nothing" was the name of the thing that would help! "Something" and "nothing" are simply not names." Here we could not possibly interpret the word "nothing" as the subject of the sentence. 3. will yield an existential sentence. It would be ludicrous. with "something" as the subject and "trampled the strawberries" as the predicate." "There is at least one x such that. of reading the quantifier formulas literally. 2." for instance. c. y is a translation of the Bible. Any of these. (3y)By By (3x)Dx Dx (3y)Ty Ty (3z)Mz Mz As the examples above suggest. 4. there are other phrases besides "For some x" that will do as a reading for the existential quantifier (3x:) "There is an x such that. but this would be a mistake. thank goodness. especially at first. At this point you should be able to identify and symbolize simple universal and existential sentences and so should be able to complete Exercise I at the end of the unit. "Well. a term that refers to a particular individual. x is a dollar in my pocket. This will make the transition between the normal English sentence and the logical formula more apparent and will be an aid in symbolization. for instance. using one of the phrases for the quantifier and then reading out the propositional function. we generally use the term "something" precisely because we do not know and cannot name the particular individual. such as "Nothing will help. although it is not in the form we would normally use. There are many translations of the Bible. In fact. y is a black hole. prefixed to a propositional function.

An instance of a propositional function is "x trampled the strawberries. and simple quantified sentences. An instance of a singular sentence would be "Jennifer trampled the strawberries. are the smallest complete formulas in quantifier logic and so serve as the building blocks for quantifier formulas. The scope of a quantifier is defined in the same way as the scope of a negation sign: it is the first complete formula that follows the quantifier. despite the fact that they contain no names." A singular sentence is just a sentence containing a name. It is not a complete sentence and is neither true nor false. if you remember. Free and Bound Variables. A propositional function is the result of replacing the name in a singular sentence with an individual variable. meaningful sentence." A simple quantified sentence is the result of prefixing a quantifier to a simple propositional function. singular sentences. and it can be considered to be a substitution instance of a propositional function. The first of these is the scope of a quantifier." Exercise 2. It is a complete sentence and is either true or false." on the other hand. It asserts that the propositional function is true of the named individual. it is important to distinguish between propositional functions. and the following paragraphs will summarize the differences. Scope of a Quantifier Now that you have been introduced to the two quantifiers. Here it is essential to note that simple propositional functions. at the end of the unit. The sentence "Something trampled the strawberries. so it is a predicate expression plus an individual variable indicating where a name could be placed to yield a singular sentence. the Fx is within the scope of (x). An instance of a simple existential proposition is "Something trampled the strawberries. and you can verify it by taking a tour of the strawberry patch (even if you can't identify the cUlprit). although they will play no role until the next unit. In the more complex formula (x)Fx ::J Gy. but the Gy is not. 2. An existential sentence says that the function is true of something. will test your ability to distinguish among these three kinds of expressions. Thus. which is Fx. where a name has been substituted for the variable. in the formula (x)Fx. A variable that falls within the scope of a quantifier is governed by that quantifier or refers back to that quantifier. On the other . and at this point you should complete that exercise. is certainly a complete. These are complete sentences and are either true or false. the Fx is the first complete formula after the quantifier and so falls within the scope of the quantifier. whereas a universal sentence says that the function is true of everything. such as Fx or Gx. since the scope extends only as far as the first formula. is not a complete sentence and cannot be considered to be either true or false. there are several other concepts closely related to them that you should learn." and an instance of a simple universal proposition is "Everything is composed of quarks.Unit 11 Quantifiers 217 Nor can they be interpreted as propositional functions. A propositional function. Again.

3. in the Alice books. Afree variable is one that does not fall within the scope of its own quantifier. makes a number of jokes based on this kind of misunderstanding." could be interpreted as negated existential propositions-existential sentences with a negation sign in front. for instance. in fact. one that falls within the scope of its own quantifier-refers back to that quantifier in much the same way that a pronoun refers back to a noun. for instance. A bound variable is simply one that falls within the scope of its own quantifier. and interpret this as a singular sentence. but the x in Gx is free." "Rx" means "x is on the roof. they are very easy to define. using terms such as "none" or "nothing." In the following units it will be very important to be clear that all variables that fall within the scope of a quantifier refer back to that quantifier. in the formula (x)(Fx ::J Gy). Many sleepless nights were avoided by logicians' discovery that propositions of this sort. In the formula (x)Fx ::J Gx. "There's a cat on the roof. Gy is in the scope of (x) because the first complete formula following the quantifier is (Fx ::J Gy)." cannot be interpreted as a singular sentence whose subject is "nobody. even though the sentence says that nothing exists (which is precisely what does exist. a logician). the x in Fx is bound. if we say. it is the wrong quantifier. (Lewis Carroll. and it's trying to catch a squirrel. If we symbolize "Something will help" as (3x)Hx. the color of "nobody's" eyes. a variable is free if and only if it is not bound. then "Nothing will help" can be symbolized as its negation. to the subject of a sentence." for instance. Negated Quantifiers As noted earlier. if "Cx" means "x is a cat. all occurrences of x are bound. This could be read literally as "It is not the case that there is some x such that x will help. such as "Nobody is here. In (x)(Fx :J Gx).218 Unit 11 Quantifiers hand. for instance. in the formula (x)(Fx ::J Gy). that nothing exists." and "Tx" means "x is trying to catch a squirrel. a negative sentence. Similarly. A bound variable-that is. is simply to say that there does not exist anything that will help. that is." Such a reading just does not make sense and would lead one into meaningless inquiries about." or more colloquially. Thus. the "it" clearly refers back to the sun. Other important concepts in quantifier logic are those offree and bound variables. and it is unimaginably hot. but one that does . the x in Fx is bound. since it does not fall within the scope of the quantifier at all." not a very elegant English sentence." the formula (3x)((Cx' Rx)' Tx) can be read "There is an x such that it is a cat and it's on the roof and it's trying to catch a squirrel. In "The sun is a giant nuclear reactor. This kind of sentence can also lead into various philosophical perplexities. and so on). ~ (3x)Hx. Given the definition of scope. Obviously. although it does fall within the scope of a quantifier. but the yin Gy is free since. for instance. then it seems that the sentence implies that something exists after all. a quantifier using the same variable. To say that nothing will help. namely nothing. he was.

x will not help." and similar expressions." "there aren't any. That is. then where <l>x is any propositional function. to assist you in making the transition from English to symbols. ~ (3x)Cx Cx (3x)Cx ~ ~ (3x)Hx Hx ~ (3x)Hx ~ (3x)Dx Dx ~ (3x)Dx Interestingly enough. Such phrases as "none. The propositional functions are given immediately below the sentence and then the literal reading of the symbolized expression." (x) ~Cx means "Everything is without meaning. x cleans like Lysol." "there are no. There is no x (or. . 2. there does not exist an x) such that x cleans like Lysol. There is no x such that x is a devil. Devils do not exist. Some further examples may help convince you of this. Symbolically." "not everything. those negated expressions can equivalently be considered as universal propositions. "Nothing is clear. There is no x such that x is a happy wanderer. is the same as saying that for every x." ~ (3x)Mx "There are no flying saucers. Other examples of negated universal sentences." ~ (3x)Cx "Nothing has meaning." (x) ~Fx If we use the Greek letter <I> (phi) for an arbitrary predicate letter.Unit 11 Quantifiers 219 mean the same as "Nothing will help. we have an equivalence between ~ (3x) <l>x and (x) ~ <l>x. follow. The following are examples of negated existential sentences." for instance. symbolized by using the expression ~ (3x). along with their symbolizations. for instance." In English the phrases that signal a negated universal proposition are "not all. 1." (x)~Mx means (roughly) "Whatever it is. with their symbolizations." "not every. we have an equivalence between ~ (3x)Hx and (x)~Hx. (x)~Hx." and "no one" all indicate the denial of existence and so can be interpreted as the negation of existentials. the negation of the existential formula is equivalent to the universal formula with the proposi-tional function negated. that is. x is a happy wanderer. If Mx abbreviates "x has mass. To say that nothing will help. as in "Not everything has mass. then "Not everything has mass" can be symbolized as ~(x)Mx. x is a devil. Nothing cleans like Lysol. it isn't a flying saucer." "nothing." ~ (3x)Fx means "Everything is unclear. Negated universal propositions are those that deny that all things have a certain property. Such sentences will be symbolized as universal formulas preceded by a negation sign. There are no happy wanderers." There are a number of these expressions in English that can similarly be considered as negated existentials. 3.

It is not the case that for every x. ~(x)Bx Bx ~(x)Bx ~(x)Ax Ax ~(x)Ax There is also an equivalence between negated universals and existentials. to universal and existential statements. we have the following: (3) ~(3x)~<\>x = (x)~ ~<\>x = (x) <\>x (4) ~(x)~ <\>x = (3x) ~ ~<\>x = (3x) <\>x The following two examples will illustrate equivalence (3): "There is nothing that does not have a purpose. Using our first two equivalences." ~(3x) ~ means "Everything has a purpose. 2." the equivalent existential sentence will have a negated propositional function. that is. some examples may be helpful. Again. plus Double Negation." (3x) ~ Ux It is important to note that when we negate a universal sentence. which will be used as replacement rules later: (1) ~ (3x) <\>x = (x) ~ <\>x and (2) ~(x)<\>x = (3x) ~ <\>x. x is beautiful. then we can state the following two general equivalences. as in "Not everything is easy." "Not everything is hot." It would not be correct to infer from "Not everything is easy" that some things are easy. respectively. In general. Here we have an equivalence between ~ (x)Bx and (3x) ~ Bx. Not everything is beautiful. which gives us two more forms: ~(3x) ~ <\>x and ~(x) ~<\>x. the negation of a universal proposition will be equivalent to an existential proposition with the function negated. "Not everything is easy. These formulas are also equivalent.220 Unit 11 Quantifiers 1." (x) Px Px . If we say that not everything is beautiful. ~ (x) <\>x is equivalent to (3x) ~ <\>x. as in "Some things are not easy. the negated universal does not imply the positive claim. Not all things are made of atoms. x is made of atoms." ~ (x)Ex means "Some things are not easy. It is not the case that for every x. this means that there are some things that are not beautiful." (3x) ~ Ex ~ (x)H x means "Something is not hot." ~ (x)Ux means "Some things cannot be understood. If we again let <\>x stand for any propositional function (simple or complex). x is made of atoms." (3x) ~Hx "Not everything can be understood. x is beautiful. Note that the <\>x may be negated in a negated existential or universal statement.

if and only if the conjunction Fa· Fb· Fc .." (3x)Vx If we put the four symbolic forms of the equivalences together.. the function. it is unnegated on the right.. we are doing something like negating a conjunction. is true." ~(x) ~ V x means "Some things are clear. a neat pattern emerges. the existential statement is true if and only if some instance or other is true. this disjunction will be very close in meaning to the existential . That is. by a generalization of De Morgan's Rules. the existential proposition. and vice versa. or Fc is true . ).. which means either Fa is true.. ).) EQUIVALENCES (1) ~ (2) (3) (4) (3x)</>x == (x) ~ </>x ~ (x)</>x == (3x) ~ </>x ~ (3x) ~ </>x == (x)</>x ~ (x) ~ </>x == (3x)</>x If we consider a quantified sentence as being made up of a quantifier plus a propositional function." (3x)Cx means "Some things have value. This latter form will be equivalent." ~(x)~Cx "Not everything is without value." ~(3x) ~ Sx means "Everything is satisfactory." (x)Sx The following two examples illustrate equivalence (4): "Not everything is unclear. Fb is true. QUANTIFIER NEGATION (Q. it is unnegated on the other. there may be a good reason.. which is closely connected with De Morgan's Rules. then we can negate the quantifier. in fact. Similarly. That is. or Fb is true. negating (x)Fx is similar to negating (Fa· Fb· Fc .. which is. If we think of the truth conditions for the quantifiers. everything changes. Notice that in the above equivalences. If this pattern of equivalences seems vaguely familiar to you. See if you can figure it out for yourself before going on. And since the disjunction is very like an existential statement. ). and so on. Fc is true... which means Fa is true.N. we see a strong analogy between the universal quantifier and conjunction and between the existential quantifier and disjunction. from one side to another... is true.Unit 11 Quantifiers 221 "Nothing is unsatisfactory. That is. so that ~(x)Fx is very close in meaning to ~(Fa· Fb· Fc . A universal statement (x)Fx will be true if and only if each instance is true.. if and only if Fa v Fb v Fc v . If the quantifier is negated on the left. and we should come up with the analogue of the disjunction. Thus.. if we negate a universal statement. if the propositional function is negated on one side. and the quantifier changes from universal to existential and from existential to universal. both. to ( ~ F a v ~ F b v ~ F c v . or neither.

*a. Given these equivalences between negated universals and existentials and between negated existentials and universals. can be equally well symbolized as ~(3x) Wx or as (x) ~ W x. *. and vice versa. but keep in mind that just as the negation of a conjunction is always equivalent to a disjunction. yields a universal statement. and "Not everything is a disaster" can be symbolized either as ~(x)Dx or as (3x) ~ Dx. so the negation of a universal statement will always be equivalent to an existential. Exercises 3 and 4 will give you practice in carrying out these symbolizations and in understanding quantified formulas. h. j. there will be more than one correct symbolization for negated quantifier sentences. "Nothing is working out. 7. Anything goes. when prefixed to a propositional function. d. f. The details for the analogous negated existential will be left to you. that is. . when prefixed to a propositional function. The scope of a quantifier is the first complete formula following the quantifier. All's right with the world. one that is not bound. pick out and abbreviate their propositional functions. Flying saucers exist. A universal statement is a statement that asserts that a propositional function is true of everything.222 Unit 11 Quantifiers with the function negated. Something is wrong. and symbolize them. DEFINITIONS 1. Some things are clear. 5. An existential quantifier is an expression (such as "For some x") that. *e. 6. Everything has a price. EXERCISES 1. A universal quantifier is an expression (such as "For every x") that. (3x) ~ Fx. yields an existential statement. just as there is for "neither" statements and "not both" statements. 4. A bound variable is a variable that falls within the scope of its own quantifier. *c. *g." for instance. Anything makes John happy. that is. Identify each of the following sentences as universal or existential. 1. Everything has mass. b. A free variable is a variable that does not fall within the scope of its own quantifier. There are evil beings. There is a Loch Ness monster. 2. An existential statement is a statement that asserts that a propositional function is true of at least one thing. and the negation of an existential statement will always be equivalent to a universal. 3.

*i. f. n. For each of the following expressions. *g. Devils do not exist. or a simple existential or universal sentence. *k. There is nothing that is not certain. There is no such thing as a free lunch. v. J. j. Bx "" x is beautiful. Symbolize the following sentences using the abbreviations provided for the propositional functions. *a. Charles is not an angel. *0. Dx "" x is a devil. Some things are evil. f. All things come to an end. John has three cats. b. Everything is uncertain. . U x "" x is a unicorn. indicate whether it is a singular sentence. There is nothing that is not unusual. Certitude exists. Everything is beautiful. *c. Kilroy was here. Some things make me cry. Not everything is without beauty. N x "" x comes to an end. a propositional function. *w. Route 66 comes to an end. for these cases. Cindy will help. *a. x was here. Mary is in this class. John did well in this class. Sx "" x is usual. There are no unicorns. Ex "" x is evil. d. h. Nothing will help. x took this class and did well. Ax "" x is an angel. There are some things that are not enjoyable. There is nothing that is not good. Not everything is meaningful. Nothing is uncertain. 1. H x "" x helps. p. 3. There is a "Mary" in class. t. *c. use the appropriate individual constant. *q. Not everything is evil. h. M x "" x is meaningful.Unit 11 Quantifiers 223 2. Lx "" x is a free lunch. *e. f. b. *. Nothing is certain. ex "" x is certain. d. Everything makes me laugh. It is not true that Andrew is evil. *e. Gx "" x is good. Something happened here. Note that some of the sentences may be singular. It is not true that Bill is not good. *m. *g. J x "" x is enjoyable. *s. 1. *u.

*c. The Universe is not without meaning. 4. l. *' 1. *s.224 X. *q. *e. ~(x)Nx (3x)Jx ~(x)Hx (x)~Mx ~(3x)~Hx (3x) ~ Gx ~(x)~Gx ~(x)Cx ~(3x)~Nx ~(3x)~ ~Jx j. ~ (3x)Ax Ex (x)Bx (x)~ ~ d. b. *m. Use the abbreviations above. *0. p. ~(3x)~Jx . h. Not everything is without meaning. f. *g. Unit 11 Quantifiers *y. (3x)~Cx ~(3x)Bx (3x)~Sx (3x)Dx (x) ~Jx ~(x)~Ax *k. n. r. The Universe does not come to an end. Write out the English sentence that corresponds to the following symbolizations. z. *a. t.

how to symbolize them in quantifier logic. B. and if you take it bit by bit you should have an excellent grasp of the basics of quantifier logic by the end of the unit. Categorical propositions occupy a central position in quantifier logic. But each section in itself is fairly simple. in fact. Thus it is extremely important that you understand this material thoroughly. For this reason. categorical propositions playa rather large role in our logic and in our language. categories. the relations among them. Most of the sentences we use are of subject-predicate form. it is safe to say that you do not understand quantifier logic. Most of the more complex propositions you will be learning to symbolize later are just more elaborate versions of the four basic categorical propositions. and how to diagram them using a special sort of Venn diagram. INTRODUCTION As noted in the Introduction to Unit 10. In this unit you will learn about the four types of categorical propositions. UNIT 12 OBJECTIVES • Learn the definition of categorical proposition and the four types of categorical propositions. that is.UNIT 12 Categorical Propositions A. and individuals. Most of the rest of quantifier logic will be variations on the same theme. if you don't. 225 . they are the simplest of a very large class of propositions that will fit into these categorical forms rather like substitution instances. • Understand the relationships between sets. and of these a substantial portion are categorical propositions. those in which subject and predicate are both classes. properties. this will be a rather long unit with many subdivisions.

and the predicate expression will be simply the sentence minus its subject expression and any quantifiers ("all" and "some"). where the subject is a class. we have a singular sentence. is what is said about the subject. C. such as whales. All presidential candidates are ambitious. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. are a notable exception). .226 Unit 12 Categorical Propositions • Using Venn diagrams. which we discussed in Unit 11. Note that in some cases the subject is a simple class term. which will be the topic of this unit. such as people who watch a lot of television. • Know the symbolizations in quantifier logic for the four types of categorical propositions. The Four Categorical Propositions Most sentences in English can be analyzed according to their subjects and predicates (simple quantified sentences. where the subject is an individual. We will define a categorical sentence as a sentence in which both subject and predicate are classes and that states an inclusion (or exclusion) relation between the two classes. be able to diagram all four types of categorical propositions. Some examples of categorical sentences are the following. In the latter. and the subject of a sentence may be either an individual or a class. we have a categorical sentence. UNIT 12 TOPICS 1. • Be able to derive the categorical negation equivalences from the simple quantifier negation equivalences. whereas in other cases the subject is more complex. We will here consider the subject expression of a sentence to be the noun plus all modifiers. it is the expression that specifies the thing being talked about. Thus. the subject expression of "Left-handed tennis players have good backhands" is "left-handed tennis players" rather than "tennis players. • Be able to symbolize English sentences that have the form of categorical propositions or their negations. The predicate of a sentence. or category. In the former case. Some unscrupulous people become bank presidents. where the subject has been italicized: Whales are mammals. • Learn the negation equivalences that hold between categorical propositions. There are people who don't like television. discussed in Unit 10. as indicated." We are saying something not about all tennis players. but about the more specific group of left-handed tennis players. People who watch a lot of television get brain lesions.

and we have both the positive relation. if there is some overlap between the classes Sand P. The four types of categorical sentences are summarized below. The basic relationship between two classes is that of inclusion. we will refer to them as 0 propositions. This gives us four types of relations between classes. the class of quiet things." which asserts something positive (that it is a mammal) about each cat. (We may also say that Sand P are disjoint). NAME TYPE OF SENTENCE RELATION BETWEEN CLASSES ENGLISH FORM A E 0 Universal affirmative Particular affirmative Universal negative Particular negative Total inclusion Partial inclusion Total exclusion Partial exclusion All S are P Some S areP No S are P Some S are not P . inclusion. exclusion." The negative categorical propositions are those that assert total or partial exclusion of the subject class S from the predicate class P. (We may also say that the two classes intersect). An example of an E proposition is "No cats are amphibious. Sentences asserting partial exclusion are particular negative sentences. that there is no overlap between Sand P." which asserts that a part of the cat class falls outside. A sentence asserting partial inclusion is a particular affirmative sentence. An example of an 0 proposition is "Some cats are not quiet. in other words. We say that S is partially included in P if some members of S are also members of P. which are exemplified by the four types of categorical propositions discussed in the following paragraphs. We will refer to such propositions as A propositions.Unit 12 Categorical Propositions 227 As noted. An example of an I proposition is "Some cats are spotted. and affirmative because it says something positive. and we will refer to such sentences as I propositions. about every member of S. We will refer to such sentences as E propositions. we can talk about either total or partial inclusion or exclusion. in a categorical proposition a relationship is stated between the subject class and the predicate class." Finally. it turns out that there can be only four kinds of categorical sentences. We say that the subject class (S) is totally included in the predicate class (P) (or is a subset o/the predicate class) if every member of S is also a member of P. We say that S is totally excluded from P if no member of S is a member of P. or containment. A sentence asserting total exclusion is a universal negative: it is saying something negative. the class S is said to be partially excluded from P if some members of S fall outside P. that it is not included in P. A sentence asserting such total inclusion is a universal affirmative sentence: universal because it says something about each member of S. and because of the nature of this relation. An example of an A proposition is "All cats are mammals. and the negative relation. In addition. or is excluded from.

that is." which means "I deny. that "Children are present. Words such as "no. and so indicates an E proposition. E. while the second vowel represents the particular sentence. since it is again affirmative but asserts something only about some people. In other cases. is clearly an A proposition. A and I are the first two vowels of the Latin "affirmo." An example of such a sentence would be "There are birds in the trees" (an I proposition). and 0 is not arbitrary." which means "I affirm. such a sentence is best interpreted as universal. "Some of the leaves have not yet fallen. because it is affirmative." or "nothing" will indicate E propositions." for instance. rather than all. you must be able to identify these ." for instance. they are clearly negative. is not to say there are children. denies existence. If a sign informs you. as in "Whales are mammals. they will also be indicated by words that mention existence. since it is negative but particular and asserts something about some of the subject class (leaves). thus the sentence is universal negative. or o by the occurrence of words such as "all" and "some" and by the presence or absence of negations." however." and so on. In some sentences." so naturally they represent the affirmative sentences. words such as "all" and "some" are absent. "All squares are rectangles." "anybody. The sentence "Some people like to drive trucks" is an I proposition. it asserts something about the entire subject class." for instance. an E proposition. You can generally tell whether an English sentence is of the form A." so it is natural that they should represent the negative propositions." for example. and here you just have to use your common sense about what is meant. To fully understand their logical form." "There are no." "every. E and 0 are the two vowels of the Latin "nego. is to say something negative (they were not injured) about all the players. which will turn out to be a universal sentence rather than a particular." "everything." it would be ludicrous to interpret this as a universal proposition. however. not all. Sentences that contain the phrase "some are not" or "there are some that are not" will be 0 propositions. I. and the force of "none" is universal.228 Unit 12 Categorical Propositions The choice of the letters A. students often want to interpret this as an existential proposition (particular) because it begins with the words "there are. such as "there are. but not all. Universal propositions will usually be indicated by the use of words such as "all. for instance. and it is universal. that is. This should help you remember which letter goes with which sentence." Categorical propositions are those that state a relationship between classes. E." "none. it is equivalent to saying simply "No children are in the room. is an 0 sentence. it clearly means that some children are present. then. while particular sentences will contain words such as "some" or "something. One rather tricky phrase is "there are no". To say "There are no children in the room." which is an E proposition. I. To say "None of the players was injured." Since particular sentences will be existential. Notice also that the first vowel in each case represents the universal sentence. no negations are involved.

To say that an individual is a member of a certain class." then we can say that Buchanan is a former U. of that individual. Sets. If we say that Buchanan is a former U. The class must be taken to be things that have fleas. is a member of the class of former U. At this point you should do Exercise 1 at the end of the unit to see whether you are able to recognize the various types of categorical proposition and are able to pick out the subject class and predicate class. 2. We say that an individual is a member of a set or class.S." and the predicate class is "things that grow in my yard. presidents-and we use lowercase letters for individuals.S." you will have to make this kind of reinterpretation. Thus. But what about the sentence "Some cats have fleas"? Here the subject class is again cats. and Properties To understand exactly what a categorical proposition says and why it is symbolized the way it is in quantifier logic. We represent classes by capital letters-we might use P to represent the class of former U. president by writing Pb. while a set or class is a collection of things. This identification will help you understand both the Venn diagrams in the next section and the symbolization for categorical propositions in the following sections.S. Fx == x E F. To say that an individual has a certain property. represented by the subject and predicate expressions. it is clear that the subject class is cats and the predicate class is mammals. if the verb of the sentence is something other than a form of "to be. we could say that Buchanan is a member ofthe class of former U. and properties. we place the Greek letter epsilon. Thus the two expressions Pb and b E P mean exactly the same and are interchangeable for logical purposes." you should interpret the subject to be people-human beings. If Px means "x is a former U." the subject class is "apricot trees. between the individual letter and the class letter. Some sentences are straightforward. James Buchanan. To take one more example. In general. president. but it wouldn't make sense to say the predicate class was have fleas. in the sentence "Apricot trees grow in my yard. president-this means simply that he is a member of the class of former U. For logical purposes. of course. This often takes a little rephrasing. presidents.S.S." for instance. presidents. president-that he has the property of being a former U. in the sentence "All cats are mammals. in which the predicate class is taken to be the class of things that have the property mentioned in the predicate of the sentence. E. A property of an individual is simply a characteristic." or "every one. or attribute.S.S." "nobody. as we have seen in Unit 10. Remember that an individual is a single." In general.Unit 12 Categorical Propositions 229 classes. for instance. it is necessary to understand the relationships between individuals. presidents by writing b E P. ." In cases where you have words such as "somebody. Individuals. classes. particular thing. we use a singular sentence. Have fleas is simply not a class. and the sentence could be rephrased as "Some cats are things that have fleas. saying that an individual has a certain property means exactly the same thing as saying that the individual is a member of a certain class.S.

the S class falls partly outside the P class. Venn Diagrams We may represent the four types of categorical propositions by a special kind of diagram. the region that is both Sand P. the Venn diagram. This means that there exists some object that is both S and P. or by shading the region to indicate that it is empty. that is. so that the X is in both circles. which uses interlocking circles to represent the subject and predicate classes. This can be indicated simply by placing an X in the region that is S but not P (region 1). The two interlocking circles divide the space into four separate regions. which also went under the name "Venn diagrams.230 Unit 12 Categorical Propositions 3." This is something different: here we are diagramming propositions. with accompanying explanations. they are just the shell with which we start. which is indicated nicely by placing an X in the overlap region (region 2). there are two interlocking circles. without shading or X ~ say nothing. s 4 p 4 Region 1 represents the class of things that are S but not P. The 0 proposition says that there is something that is S but not P. and the predicate class is to the right). 2 represents things that are both Sand P. The two interlocking circles in themselves. and 4 represents the class of things that are neither S nor P. that the S class is partly included in the P class. The actual diagrams for the four categorical propositions are given below. (The subject class is to the left. as numbered below. One word of caution: you may have learned a type of diagramming for sets somewhere else. In other words. that there is some object in that class. We will diagram propositions by either placing an X in a region to indicate that it is nonempty. 3 represents things that are P but not S. PROPOSITION s p 4 o s The I proposition says that there are some S ~ that are P~. that there are no members of that part of the class. In the type of Venn diagrams we will be using. not sets (although sets are involved). PROPOSITION p 4 . and it is especially important that you read the instructions carefully. there is some overlap between the two. which represent the subject class (S) and the predicate class (P).

and the E proposition says just the opposite. pick out the subject class and predicate class and draw two interlocking circles. Notice in particular that since an X indicates existence in a certain region and shading indicates nonexistence in that region. that there is no overlap between the S class and the P class. A PROPOSITION s P 4 The A proposition says that all S's are P's. Label the two circles. In the sentence "Some automobiles use diesel fuel. that the section that is both Sand P is empty." the I proposition. the particular propositions. Thus we can diagram it by shading out the intersecting region (region 2). which is S but not P. we will take one example of each type of sentence. . which ties in neatly with what you learned in the last unit about quantifiers." the O. the A and the E are really the negations of existential propositions. it would not do to label the predicate circle "diesel fuel"." for instance. is the opposite of "No S's are P's. The I proposition says that there is something in region 2. This means that there can be no S that is not also a P.Unit 12 Categorical Propositions E PROPOSITION 231 s P 4 The E proposition says that no S's are P's. the l. is the opposite of "Some S's are not P's. that is. diagramming English sentences should be relatively easy. they are existential propositions. I." the E proposition. You will be hearing a good deal more about these negation relations between categorical propositions in later sections. To illustrate this procedure. do not allow us to infer that there is anything of a certain kind. Furthermore. being sure that you have the appropriate class terms for subject and predicate. that whatever is in the S class must also fall into the P class. that they are disjoint. This coincides with our ordinary understanding: "Some S's are P's. while the A proposition denies this. This means that the two classes have no members in common. The A and the E. since the shading indicates nonexistence." the A. similarly. and the 0 proposition is the negation of the A. identify the form ofthe sentence and fill in the diagram accordingly. nothing in region 1. the proper term is "things that use diesel fuel. All they do is to rule out certain cases: things that are both S and P in the E proposition and things that are S but not P in the A. by contrast. not even that there are S's or P's. the 0 proposition says that there is something in region 1. or negation of. that there is nothing there." Finally. E. the E proposition is exactly the opposite. They are thus equivalent to universals. Thus this region is shaded out. and 0 propositions. and "All S's are P's. If you can identify the form of English sentences and have learned the diagrams for the A. One very important thing to notice about these diagrams is that the I and the 0. actually state that there is something of a certain sort. using the left one for subject and the right one for predicate. First.

the subject is cacti and the predicate is things that have spines." the subject class is clearly people. The universal affirmative proposition can sometimes be tricky. are negative." In the sentence "Some people don't like peanuts. The sentence says that there is some overlap between the two classes. and there is one thing you need to watch for in diagramming these sentences: you must use positive terms to describe the subject and predicate classes. so we shade out the portion of the circle that represents cacti without spines. This is represented by placing an X in region 2. things that do like peanuts. rather than things that don't like peanuts. The subject class is apples and the predicate class is things that are green. The sentence would be diagrammed as follows: . which is the far left portion. Cacti Things that have spines 4 The 0 and the E sentences. All cacti have spines. rather than negative terms. discussed below. but remember that to say all cacti have spines is equivalent to saying that there are no cacti that do not have spines. you should use as class terms "cats" and "things that (do) eat mice." for example. Apples Green things 4 The sentence "All cacti have spines" is an A proposition. which indicates then that there is some object that is both an apple and a green thing. is not included in the predicate class.232 Unit 12 Categorical Propositions The sentence "Some apples are green" is an I proposition and is very easy to diagram. or green things. people. that some of the apple class is also in the class of green things. Some apples are green. To represent the 0 sentence "Some cats don't eat mice. The sentence is thus an 0 proposition. since it states that some of the subject class. and the predicate class should be taken to be things that like peanuts.

a universal quantifier. numbers. 4. so they should be. In fact. The I and the 0 propositions. At this point you should do Exercise 2 at the end of the unit. for instance. People Things that like peanuts 233 4 The reason you need to use positive classes. so they could be symbolized by means of a negated existential quantifier or. includes all (or most) people. the subject class is things in my pocket. rather than negative classes. the symbolizations can almost be read right off the diagrams. it should be clear why these sentences are to be symbolized the way they are in quantifier logic. Things in my pocket Things that are gold 4 Here we shade out the center section because the sentence says that there is no overlap between things in my pocket and gold things. such as cats. Symbolizing Categorical Propositions If you have understood the Venn diagrams for categorical propositions. The class of non-mice-eaters. Let us look at the symbolizations in more detail. or mice-eaters. such as things that don't eat mice or that do not like peanuts. and the predicate class should be things that are gold. is that a class that is represented by a negative term is generally too broad and nonspecific. atoms. A class term should be something more specific. and are.Unit 12 Categorical Propositions Some people don't like peanuts. . The sentence would be diagrammed as follows: Nothing in my pocket is gold. the infinite points of space and time. for example. are drawn in the Venn diagrams with an X. symbolized with the existential quantifier. The A and E sentences are shaded in the diagrams. which indicates existence. people." an E proposition. such as things that eat mice or things that like peanuts. In the sentence "Nothing in my pocket is gold. equivalently. and all the other indefinite and unspecified non-mice-eating objects in the universe. which indicates nonexistence.

falls within its scope. then both x's have the same referent. differing only in the addition of a negation sign. because in the I proposition (3x)(Sx . and x is striped". This is because the x in Sx is not in the scope of the quantifier. This means that Sx and Px. if Sx and Px are within the scope of the same quantifier. The 0 proposition is very similar to the I." for instance. Thus. but here the second conjunct is negated. A variable that does not fall within the scope of a quantifier. This is because a variable that falls within the scope of a quantifier refers back in some sense to that quantifier. which means that the propositional function must be enclosed in parentheses. and the obvious symbolization for the propositional function is (Sx' Px). so we can say that it is the very same object that has both the properties Sand P. In general. that it has both properties. which will be our symbolization for the 0 proposition. we want to be saying that there is some one object that is both Sand P. Including parentheses extends the scope of the quantifier to the end of the formula. Px). is not bound. so that each x is bound by the quantifier. for instance. Px). We will use the existential quantifier (3x) to represent "There is. The formula would be read "There are cats. one that is not categorical. (Sx . it is a free variable. Clearly. Thus. and so does not refer back to that quantifier. much as a pronoun such as "it" refers back to the noun. the final symbolization for the I proposition will be (3x)(Sx' Px). since X appears inside both circles. Thus. which represent the subject class and the predicate class. the fact that Sx and Px both fall within the scope of the same quantifier is what guarantees that the x that is S is the same x that is P. this translates into (3x)(Sx' ~Px). does not refer back to that quantifier and has no connection with the quantifier. on the other hand. it is a conjunction rather than an existential proposition and has as its right conjunct a propositional function. there is an x such that x is both Sand P." and Sx means "x is striped. but stands on its own. The Venn diagrams show pictorially that XES and x E P." so we have (3x)(x is both Sand P). that there are S's that are not P's. The use ofparentheses around the propositional function is essential to the correct symbolization of categorical sentences. All we need to do is add the existential quantifier and we have our symbolization. . the formula (3x)Cx' Sx does not say that some cats are striped. that is. which means that there is some x that is an S but not a P. This is important. an I proposition will be symbolized by using an existential quantifier followed by a conjunction of two propositional functions. if we omit the parentheses. The scope of a quantifier must include all of the variables in order for the formula to be a quantifier formula. If Cx means "x is a cat.234 Unit 12 Categorical Propositions The I proposition says that there is some overlap between the subject and predicate classes. we have an existential quantifier followed by a conjunction. Again. This can be partially symbolized as (3x)(Sx but not Px). in other words. we get a funny kind of expression. which indicates that the x is in both classes. The 0 sentence says that some S's are not P's.

" not at all what we wanted to say. would be (x)(Dx :::J ~ Sx). the sentence above would be symbolized as (x)(Cx :::J Mx). not that everything in the universe is a mammal. for everything. If we use Cx and Mx for the propositional functions.Unit 12 Categorical Propositions 235 We will interpret the A sentence "All cats are mammals" as saying "For any x. that all cats are mammals. Similarly. What it does. is to rule out the existence of certain sorts of things: things that are S but not P. if x is a dog. for every x. We will interpret the sentence as saying "For any x. is that. that is. which translates neatly into our quantifier symbolism as (x)(Sx :::J Px). the E proposition also fails to assert existence and only rules out certain possibilities-in this case. that is. then x is a mammal. for every x. without the parentheses. the A and the E. for any x. Thus region 1 is shaded. then they will fall into region 2. then x is a mammal. it falls outside the P class. because we want to be sure." Why a conditional? Well. which is also a part of the P circle. What the Venn diagram tells us. which gives us our symbolism for the E proposition: (x)(Sx :::J ~ Px). rather. if x is an S. if anything falls into the S class. then. If we used the formula (x)Cx :::J Mx. then it won't be a P. Thus we need the conditional. and would be read "If everything is a cat. It would be a conditional. It is important to keep in mind that whereas the existential propositions (the I and the 0) do assert that something of a certain kind exists (this is why they are called "existential"). in other words. An example of an E proposition is "No dogs are simians." This sentence means to assert about every member of the subject class-about every dog-that it is not a simian. We can use the Venn diagrams to see why universal statements are symbolized with conditionals. ifx is a cat. What this proposition says. do not assert existence. is that for any x. that if x is a cat. followed by a conditional whose consequent is negated. things that are both S and P. x is a mammal provided x is a cat. Notice again the importance of parentheses here. If we want to say that all cats are mammals. an E proposition will be symbolized by using a universal quantifier. then x is a mammal. . then it will fall into region 1 (since region 2 is shaded out). In other words. What this means is that if anything falls into the S class (the S circle). This is guaranteed by making sure that both the Cx and the Mx fall within the scope of the initial quantifier. In general." The symbolization. our symbolization must be (x)(Cx :::J Mx). if anything is an S. there are no X's in the diagram. the universal propositions. this would say something quite different and rather odd. for any x. and so will be symbolized by means of the universal quantifier. then x is not a simian. Look at the diagram for the A proposition on page 229 for instance. if x is a cat. then. then it is a P. that is. for instance. We are saying. then that very same x is a mammal. so they will be P's. ifx is an S. What this means is that if there are any S's (things that fall into the S circle). Notice that it does not assert that anything exists. then it is not a P. we are claiming only that all things of a certain sort have a particular property.

this certainly does not mean that trespassers exist there. and a thorough familiarity with them will also be helpful in your symbolizations. just as with the simple quantifier equivalences. It is not unusual to have universal propositions in which no existence is asserted." we would consider it very strange if he didn't mean to imply that he had any children. A summary of the four categorical propositions. universal categorical propositions should never be thought of as asserting any kind of existence. These relationships may be clarified by a few examples. Let us look first at a negated A proposition: "Not all women enjoy cooking.N.Q. will always be symbolized with a universal quantifier followed by a conditional. (x)(Tx ::J Sx). and the universal propositions. equivalences. If a sign says "All trespassers will be shot. For ease of reference we will use C. for the simple Quantifier Negation equivalences you learned earlier. for instance.N. But very often in a universal proposition we do not mean to imply that anything in the subject class exists. This sometimes sounds rather odd in English. Remember again that the particular categorical propositions. simple or complex) are ~(x)<px = (3x) ~ <px and ~ (3x)<px = (x) ~ <px. the I and the 0. in fact. The basic equivalences. put symbolically (where <px represents any function." This could be symbolized . the negation of an existential statement is equivalent to a universal statement. the negation of the A is equivalent to the 0. Similarly. and the negation of the E means the same as an I. With the C. is given at the end of the unit for handy reference." for instance. The sign is designed. as an abbreviation for the four Categorical Quantifier Negation Equivalences and Q. 5. and the negation of a universal is equivalent to an existential. and vice versa. In this section and the next you will learn the special quantifier negation equivalences that hold between categorical propositions and see how they are derived from the basic equivalences. and in standard symbolic logic. You should become as familiar with these equivalences as you are now (or should be) with the equivalences in sentential logic. they will be used as rules in the unit on proofs. including their Venn diagrams and alternative symbolizations. the A and the E.N. precisely to ensure that there won't be any trespassers (one way or another). will always be symbolized with an existential quantifier followed by a conjunction.Q. the negation of the I means the same as an E. In particular. Negated Categorical Propositions You learned in Unit 11 that the negation of a universal proposition is always equivalent to an existential and that the negation of an existential is always equivalent to a universal. if David says.236 Unit 12 Categorical Propositions When we say "All S's are P's." this does not imply that there are any S's. "All my children are grown up.

you should learn them thoroughly and make up examples of your own to convince yourself that they are correct." The negation just moves inside and is not eliminated. Thus we have the equivalence between the negated 0 and the A propositions.Unit 12 Categorical Propositions 237 simply by placing a tilde in front of the formula for the A proposition (using Wx for "x is a woman" and Cx for "x enjoys cooking"). the negated A is equivalent to an O." that is. and find that it is a loser." The only thing that follows is the sentence given above: "Some women do not enjoy cooking. Thus. <J>x has been used as the subject term." This is clearly equivalent to saying "Some witnesses were cooperative." it is not proper to infer "Some women do enjoy cooking." which is equivalent to saying "Some of my tickets are not winners. of course. An example of a negated I proposition would be "There is nothing (there does not exist anything) that is both cheap and of good quality. The symbolic forms of these equivalences are given below. and the negation of the I is equivalent to the E." which could be symbolized as ~(x)(Wx:::J ~ Cx). where Cx means "x is cheap" and Qx means "x is of good quality." which is. This sentence clearly means the same in English as "Some women do not enjoy cooking." an E proposition that would be symbolized as (x)(Cx :::J ~ Qx)." This would be the same as saying "Anything that is cheap is not of good quality. Again. scratch off one. it is important to remember that "not all" is equivalent to "some are not." Another example may illustrate this even more clearly. From "Not all women enjoy cooking." You are certainly not in a position at this point to say that some of your tickets are winners. Suppose you buy five "instant winner" lottery tickets. As with the simple quantified sentences discussed in Unit 11. which would give us ~ (x)(W x :::J Cx)." which is an A proposition that is properly symbolized as (x)(Px :::J Lx). At this point you can safely assert "Not all my tickets are winners. an 0 proposition that would be properly symbolized as (3x)(Wx· ~ Cx). and tjlx (with the Greek letter psi) for the predicate term. Thus the negation of the E is equivalent to the l." an I proposition that would be symbolized as (3x)(Wx· Cx)." which could be symbolized as ~(3x)(Cx • Qx). ." This could be symbolized as ~(3x)(Px· ~ Lx). "Not all A's are B's" is equivalent to "Some A's are not B's" and does not allow you to assert that some A's are B's. later we will have more complex substitution instances of these equivalences. An example of a negated 0 proposition would be "There is nobody who does not enjoy a good laugh. "There does not exist a person who does not enjoy a good laugh. An example of a negated E proposition would be "It is not the case that no witness was cooperative." But this sentence in English is clearly equivalent to "Everyone enjoys a good laugh. where Wx means "x is a witness" and Cx means "x was cooperative. where Px means "x is a person" and Lx means "x enjoys a good laugh.

Exercise 3. your operating . identify the subject and predicate of the sentence. A number of examples will be given below to assist you in this enterprise. including the propositional function part of a quantified formula. as given in Unit 11. The last step is to symbolize the subject and predicate.N. Again. The sequence of steps would be as follows: ~A ~(x)(Fx::J Gx) (3x) ~ (Fx ::J Gx) (3x) ~ (~Fx v Gx) (3x)(~~ Fx· ~ Gx) o (3x)(Fx· ~ Gx) byQ. by C. and Double Negation. can be transformed into (3x)~(Fx ::J Gx).N. Rules It has already been noted that the C. especially Conditional Exchange. You need also to keep in mind that the replacement rules can be applied to any part of a formula. byD. we can go on to derive the 0 proposition. equivalences. This last step will be quite easy with the simple categorical propositions.N. The negation of the A proposition. which require complex functions.N. Rules from Q. using our other equivalences. In order to see this. this should not be difficult.) EQUIVALENCES ~A ~I ~E ~O == (3x)(<I>x· ~ t\JX) ~ (3x)(<I>x· t\JX) == (X)(<I>x ::J ~ t\JX) ~ (X)(<I>x ::J ~ t\JX) == (3x)(<I>x· t\Jx) ~ (3x)(<I>x· ~ t\Jx) == (x)(<I>x ::J t\Jx) ~ (X)(<I>x ::J t\JX) 0 E I A 6.E. they are just special instances of the simpler forms. 7.Q. Symbolizing English Categorical Sentences The first thing you should do in symbolizing is to identify the fonn of the sentence.238 Unit 12 Categorical Propositions CATEGORICAL QUANTIFIER NEGATION CCQ. With the above as a model. since both the subject and predicate will be represented by simple functions.N. at the end of the unit.N. symbolizing the subject and predicate will take a bit more thought. and then. In the next unit.N. equivalences. where you will be dealing with complex subjects and predicates.N. you need only two things: the general form of the simple Q. for instance. is to derive all the other C.Q. Deriving C.Q. by DeM.N. equivalences can be derived from the simpler Q. De Morgan's. Just keep in mind that <l>x can take any propositional function as a substitution instance. Once you have identified the form. but here it should be fairly simple. and the abbreviations for the functions will be given. and your old sentential replacement rules. equivalences.

what we get is (x)(Px ::J Cx). and there is a negation involved. (2) identify the subject and predicate of the sentence. is almost surely intended to be merely existential. The subject is students. and the predicate class is again things that like advanced calculus. for which we could use Cx. The sentence "Children are present. which would make it a universal proposition. The sentence "There are some students who like advanced calculus. This can be read literally as "For any x. (3x)(Sx· Cx). and so the second conjunct is negated. which would be read "There is an x such that x is a student and x does not like advanced calculus. which is the correct symbolization. it is hard to imagine a case in which this would mean "All children are present. the overall structure would be (3x)( ). and whether it is an I or an 0 depends on whether there is a negation involved. for which we could use Sx. If we plug this into the above form. since we have the phrase "there are" and it is a positive sentence.Unit 12 Categorical Propositions 239 procedure should be (I) identify the form of the sentence. The "some" indicates an existential quantifier. Let us now take one example and use the three-step procedure. Where there is no negation." The form of this is simply "All S are P. The subject class is again students. Suppose you are to symbolize the sentence "All plants have chlorophyll. but there are many universal propositions that do not contain these "tip-off' words." "somebody. as in "A moose is not to be trusted. you will have your symbolization. When you put all these things together." so the subject function is "x is a plant" and the predicate function is "x has chlorophyll. we get our symbolization. as is "The sloth is a lazy animal. it will be an I." . A sentence like "Whales are mammals" is clearly intended to be universal. we could symbolize this sentence as (3x)(Sx· ~Cx)." or "there are" will indicate an existential proposition." The sentence "Some students do not like advanced calculus" is an 0 proposition. Thus. which would be read literally "There is some x such that x is a student and x likes advanced calculus." Words such as "some. and the predicate is things that like advanced calculus." Even sentences with an indefinite article are sometimes universal. and (3) symbolize the subject and predicate. if x is a plant." "something." We might symbolize the former as Px and the latter as Cx. Thus. in English the words "all." You will simply have to decide in many cases whether the sentence means to be saying something about all of the subject class. will indicate universal propositions." "anything. the overall form would be (3x)( )." As noted in Section I. Thus the overall structure will be (x)( ::J )." and the like. or just part of it. then x has chlorophyll." "every. but here we are saying that some of the subject class is excluded from the predicate class." for instance." "any. which would indicate an existential sentence. The subject is "plants" and the predicate is "have chlorophyll. and if there is a negation. is clearly an I proposition." which indicates an A proposition. If we put this all together. Using the same abbreviations as in the previous case. it will generally be an O." for instance.

" "not everything. Let us take as an example "Not all plants have flowers." Similarly. is as a negated existential. where Rx means "x is a rattlesnake" and Nx means "x is in the neighborhood. you must know when one symbolization is equivalent to another. if x is a plant. should be interpreted as an E proposition. since it means just "No rattlesnakes are in the neighborhood". which indicate an E proposition and which can be symbolized either as universals or as negated existentials. whatever is a rattlesnake." "not every. or. which perhaps is closer intuitively in this case to the English sentence. and things in the neighborhood is the predicate class. Thus one symbolization would be (x)(Rx::J ~ N x)." which could be abbreviated. respectively. This would be read literally as "It is not the case that for every x. whatever is in the first. rattlesnakes in the neighborhood. I. and it is quite clear that sentences that contain "some are not" are O's. we get the proper symbolization. as Px and Fx. read literally as "There is no x (there does not exist an x) such that x is a rattlesnake and x is in the neighborhood." Here again you should ftrst identify the Jonn of the sentence. universal propositions. which says there are no things of a certain sort-namely. is not in the second. and so the overall structure will be ~(x)( ::J ). and what we are saying is that the two classes are excluded from each other. Where you may have some problem is in symbolizing negated quantifier statements. It is obviously important that you know your C. The sentences you are likely to ftnd most difficult are ones that contain words like "no. Here rattlesnakes is the subject class. and ~(x)(Fx ::J Gx) is . and 0 propositions will give you little difficulty. In symbolizing negated quantifier statements it is also important to realize that ~(3x)(Fx· Gx) is not equivalent to (3x)(Fx· ~Gx)." and so on.N." "there aren't any. for instance. The sentence above." "nothing. If we plug in the subject and predicate tenns to our basic fonn. then x has flowers. thus the general fonn would be (x)( ::J ~ ). if x is a rattlesnake. which is here indicated by the phrase "not all. will be indicated by phrases such as "not all." With negated quantifter sentences. The subject is "plants" and the predicate is "have flowers.240 Unit 12 Categorical Propositions In general. however." or their equivalents." This would be read "For any x." This will be a negated universal. ones with the fonn ~(x)( (3 x)( )." "nobody." for instance." Another way of symbolizing the E proposition." "not everybody. In general. it is fairly easy to spot universal and particular affmnative sentences. "No cats are dogs" can be correctly symbolized either as the universal (x)(Cx ::J ~ Dx) or as the negated existential ~(3x)(Cx· Dx). ones that contain the phrases "not all" or "none." "none. "There aren't any rattlesnakes in the neighborhood. then x is not in the neighborhood. equivalences here.Q. equivalently. ~(x)(Px ::J Fx). is not a thing in the neighborhood. straightforward A." and so on. means the same as "Some plants do not have flowers" and could thus be symbolized as an 0 proposition: (3x)(Px· ~ Fx). negated ::J ). it is important to remember that there will be more than one correct symbolization because of the quantifter equivalences. The appropriate negated existential fonn would be ~ (3 x)(Rx· N x).

") It could not be symbolized as (x)(Tx :J Wx). ("For any x. you should realize your error when you read the formula back: "For every x. and the [o~er is true. is "only. in fact." This word will indicate a universal proposition. ~(3x)(Fx· Gx) means "There are no fish that live in the Great Lakes. An even clearer example." Obviously. This is true and is symbolized as (x)(V x :J Cx). we are saying that anyone who is permitted to vote is a citizen." these nonequivalences are quite clear. then it is an F. if x is permitted to vote. if x is a snake. whatever is a G is an F. these are very different propositions. means "There are some fish that don't live in the Great Lakes. (p :J q) means the same as (~ q ~ ~ p). is "Only those who have tickets will win the lottery.) To take another example." for instance. if x wins the lottery. perhaps. The symbolization for "Only F's are G's. for any x. (3x)(Fx· ~Gx). Thus the two are not equivalent. on the other hand. The formula (x)(Cx :J V x). Not only will it give you an intuitive feel for quantifier formulas. One word that is a bit tricky in quantifier logic. and you should get in the habit now of always reading back the symbolization in this way. false.) In general." This would be symbolized as (x)(W x :J T x). because it means that if anything is a G. while the latter is false (by the very nature of a lottery)." in other words. always read back your result bit by bit once you have completed your symbolization. a sentence of the form "Only F's are G's" will be symbolized as (x)(Gx :J Fx). Notice that throughout this section. while (x)(Fx :J ~ Gx) means "No fish live in the Great Lakes" and is false. that is. then x will win the lottery. it will also help you catch errors. If we let Fx mean "x is a fish" and Gx mean "x lives in the Great Lakes. as in the rattlesnake example above. ~(x)(Fx :J Gx) means "Not all fish live in the Great Lakes" and is true." which is true. (Children are citizens but cannot vote. says that all citizens are permitted to vote. since F's are the only things that are G's. If we say "Only citizens are permitted to vote. It does not mean that all children throw tantrums. as you remember from your sentential equivalences." which is obviously false (so far). which means something quite different and which is. then x is nonpoisonous. is just the converse of the symbolization for "All F's are G's. and try to symbolize "Not all snakes are poisonous" as (x)(Sx :J ~ Px). Similarly. if x has a ticket. when we have completed a symbolization we have generally "read back" the result symbol by symbol. !ll 8enei:ai. This procedure is extremely important. but in general the subject and predicate will be reversed. which would say "For every x. If you have a momentary lapse. (x)(Tx :J Cx). however. for instance. then x has a ticket. then x is a citizen." (This is analogous to the relationship between "if' and "only if' in sentential logic. that is. which would be symbolized as (x)(Cx :J Tx). so we could symbolize "Only children throw . Again.Unit 12 Categorical Propositions 241 not equivalent to (x)(Fx :J ~ Gx). as it was in sentential logic. the sentence "Only children throw tantrums" means that whoever throws a tantrum is a child." which means that no snake is poisonous-very different from the sentence you were supposed to symbolize.

In the former case. and so are correct. we could symbolize "Only citizens can vote" as (x)( ~ C x ::J ~ V x). with negated subject and predicate expressions. they are equivalent. then x is not permitted to vote. The negated existential version would be ~(3x)(Px' ~ Fx). which would say "For all x. which would give us ~ (x)(1 x ::J ~ F x)." clearly equivalent to the original version. If we say "Not only children like fairy tales. until you get a clearly equivalent reading that is easy to put into one of the familiar forms." however. Even though they do not have exactly the form of categorical propositions." These symbolizations. Similarly. if x was a job. Another thing you need to be careful about is that English sentences are sometimes downright ambiguous." for instance. feel free to use these versions. "All salesclerks are not well paid." for instance." Notice that this is equivalent to the form (3x)(Fx' ~ Cx). The same thing is true for negated "only's" as is true for "only's": subject expression and predicate expression are reversed. if x is not a child. depending on whether the "not" is taken as negating the entire sentence or just the predicate.242 Unit 12 Categorical Propositions tantrums" in another way." We could symbolize this as a negated A." which is equivalent to the original sentence. then x is a child. which would say "There are some who like fairy tales who are not children. this is simply the negation of the sentence "Only children like fairy tales" and would be symbolized by placing a negation sign in front of the appropriate universal sentence. then x does not throw tantrums. Sentences with double negations can also be tricky." We could also symbolize "Only those who have tickets will win the lottery" as (x)(~ Tx::J ~ Wx)." This means the same as "Some jobs were finished. can mean one of two things. and you should get in the habit of rephrasing sentences when you are in doubt about them. is equivalent simply to "Everybody got fed" and would be symbolized as (x)(Px ::J Fx). since the subject is negated. if x does not have a ticket. may seem more natural to you." for instance. then x will not win the lottery. "It is not the case that for every x. Another such example would be "Not every job was unfinished. as (x)( ~ C x ::J ~ T x). This would give ~(x)(Fx::J Cx). Especially with sentences containing "only. if so. which would be read "It is not the case that for every x. the sentence would be . if x likes fairy tales. which would say "For any x. (3 x)(1 x • F x). if x is not a citizen. then x was unfinished. The sentence "There was nobody who didn't get fed." where Ix means "x is a job" and Fx means "x was finished. which would be read "For any x." it should be emphasized that a good part of learning to symbolize is simply learning to understand what the sentence says. and could also be symbolized as a simple I proposition. but here you can sometimes rephrase the sentence to eliminate the negations entirely.

then. or categories.:t. The universal negative (E) says that all of the S class is excluded from the P class. The shading indicates that there is nothing in that part of the class. The universal affirmative proposition (A) says that all of the S class is included in the P class. N ~O n ~(x)(Sx I Some Sis P. The particular negative (0) says that some of the S class is excluded from the P class.:t. o Some S is not P. ::J C . (x)(Sx :J ~ Px) m C]J :J ~ Px) ~E ~ ~ ~ o ~(3x)(Sx· Px) ~I -0 1/1 a o 1/1 i=)' ~ "'0 . or that the two classes are disjoint. of things. The diagrams show very clearly. the logical relationships between these propositions. TYPE ENGLISH SENTENCE FORMULA VENN DIAGRAM EQUIVALENT FORMULA ENGLISH TYPE A All S are P. Sand P are used here to represent these classes. The particular affirmative (I) says that some of the S class is included in the P class. (3x)(Sx· Px) E No Sis P.j:>. ~(x)(Sx ~ Px) ~A w . that there is no overlap. X indicates that there is some individual in that part of the class. the E proposition is the negation of the I (and vice versa) and the 0 proposition is the negation of the A (and vice versa). (3x)(Sx· ~ Px) 8D o· :::J N . Not all S's are non-P's. In the Venn diagrams below. that it is empty.SUMMARY OF CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS A categorical proposition states the relationship between two classes. (x)(Sx :J Px) s p ~(3x)(Sx· ~Px) CD There are no S's that are not P's. There is noS that is P. Not all S's are P's. that there is some overlap between the two classes.

b. And at this point. as we have done on many occasions." which means just that some A's lack the property B. In many cases. f. for symbolizing categorical propositions. you should identify the form of the sentence first. equivalences thoroughly if you have not done so already." Clearly. In summary. State whether the following categorical propositions are of the form A. remember that there are alternative ways of symbolizing sentences containing negations. you should get in the habit of reading back the symbolized sentence literally. *a. finally. where the "not" is taken as negating just the predicate. the sentence would be interpreted as saying something like "All salesclerks are poorly paid" or "No salesclerks are well paid. EXERCISES 1. DEFINITIONS 1. I. this will alert you to the fact that you have done something wrong. sentences of the form "All A's are not B's" are ambiguous and can be read either as "All ~s lack the property B" or as "Not all A's have the property B. And. finally. A categorical sentence is a sentence in which subject expression and predicate expression both refer to classes and that states an inclusion (or exclusion) relation between the two classes. E. you should learn the C. The following summary sheet for categorical propositions may help you put it all together. In general. Nobody understands modern art. *e. and then symbolize subject and predicate. you should rephrase the English sentence until you get a sentence that can be easily symbolized. Also. Some cats like turkey. to see whether you have captured the sense of the sentence. there is a huge difference between these two interpretations. d.244 Unit 12 Categorical Propositions interpreted as "Not all salesclerks are well paid" and would be equivalent to saying "Some salesclerks are not well paid. .N. then pick out subject and predicate. If you can't quite see how it goes. this is what it means for a sentence to be ambiguous. you should be ready for Exercises 4 through 7 at the end of the unit. or O. there may simply not be a way to determine which version is intended. There are some people who don't understand Picasso. *c. Unfortunately. No man is an island. Anybody knows that." In the latter case.Q. Identify the subject class and the predicate class. Every dog has his day.

Some jails are not pleasant. n. *m. Use Venn diagrams to diagram the following sentences. h. There are burglars coming in the window. b. Anyone who doesn't care is crazy. Some wild plants are edible. *0. No apple tree bears fruit in a southern summer. Nobody is calling the police. Using just Q. t. *a. b. Some corporation executives are not wealthy. *k. Everyone will be robbed. Nothing that bears fruit is a fern. *i. Some people don't care. d.Unit 12 Categorical Propositions 245 *g. Some conservatives don't vote for tax cuts. *0.Q. *a. derive the following C. Any garden is a good investment. *c. 1.N. equivalences. j. Burglars should be thrown in jail. No true conservative promotes budget deficits. ~(3x)(Fx' ~Gx) ~(x)(Fx :J ~Gx) ~(3x)(Fx' == (x)(Fx :J Gx) == (3x)(Fx' Gx) ~Gx) (~O (~E (~I Gx) == (x)(Fx :J == A) == I) == E) . No wild animals should be hand-fed. Some cats don't have tails. *c. 1. Pine trees are coniferous. Diesel trucks are noisy. No police cars are arriving. h. 3. *e. There are wild animals that are not dangerous. *k. Some domestic dogs are dangerous. *q.N. None of John's children knows how to swim. Some cats don't like fish. p. n. 2. Some of John's children know how to ski. There are women who love mathematics. and your propositional replacement rules. J. There are pine trees in Minnesota. Hickory nuts are high in fat. f. A cat is a carnivore. r. There are deciduous trees that do not bear fruit. *s. *m. *g. *i. Be very explicit about what is the subject term and what is the predicate term.

All dogs have feelings. *g. There are some dogs that don't bite. *c. Only the good will get to heaven. f. *g. d. *m. There was no one who didn't enjoy the show. Not only babies cry. *c. n. Anything beautiful is valuable. There are some old books that are valuable. *0. Symbolize the following as categorical propositions. Candidates are hopeful. *a. There was no one who was not unhappy about the decision. h. Not all beautiful things are appreciated. r. Dx == x should be discarded. *i. Some candidates weren't candid. 1. Good people are sometimes not beautiful. . Remember that there may be more than one correct symbolization because of the quantifier equivalences.246 Unit 12 Categorical Propositions 4. 5. Ox == x gossips. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental. J. Nothing beautiful should be discarded. Rx == x is a person here. Not all those who didn't show up for the party dislike the host. Bx == x is beautiful. *q. M x == x misses the deadline. f. h. p. There is nobody here who will get to heaven. b. Nothing in the room is beautiful. d. H x == x gets to heaven. using the abbreviations indicated. b. Symbolize the following. *e. Ax == x is appreciated. W x == x is in the wastebasket. There is nothing of value in the house. *k. *a. *s. There are some valuable things in the wastebasket. No candidate was candid. Not all diamonds are valuable. Gx == x is a good person. *i. Only candidates kiss babies. Nobody who defrauds the elderly is good. Some things in the room are valuable. P x == x passes the exam. picking out appropriate abbreviations for the propositional functions. V x == x is valuable. Nothing in this consent agreement in any way implies that Hair Transplants Unlimited has engaged in deceptive advertising. Only the hardiest will survive a nuclear war. There are valuable things that are not beautiful. Ex == x is a person who defrauds the elderly. Only things that should be discarded are in the wastebasket. *e.

Only mammals have fur. *e. Not everybody here is unappreciated. p. Ax == x is an animal. There are some beautiful things that are not unappreciated. Ox == x meows. There is no dog that doesn't bark. Not all valuable things should not be discarded. Only people who are not here will miss the deadline. *g. There is no good person who is not appreciated. Not only snakes eat mice. Some reptiles are beautiful. ex == x is a cat. 1. p. Not everything that eats insects is a reptile. Cats have fur. Only cats meow. Some things with fur aren't cats. *k.1. Not all animals bark. n. Not everybody here will fail the exam. I x == x eats insects. Some reptiles lack good sense. F x == x has fur. Not all cats eat cat food. There is nobody here who is not beautiful. *q. r. *s. v. T x == x is beautiful. . Dogs sometimes eat cat food. Reptiles eat insects. Bx == x barks. Sx == x is a snake.Unit 12 Categorical Propositions 247 J. Not all beautiful things have good sense. *u. No reptiles have fur. There is no cat that is not beautiful. Rx == x is a reptile. n. *0. r. *0. N x == x eats mice. 1. Symbolize the following. Not every dog lacks good sense. using the indicated abbreviations. h. Snakes eat mice. *s. M x == x is a mammal. *w. The only people here are ones who will not get to heaven. Not everything that has good sense is beautiful. Ex == x eats cat food. b. Gossips are unappreciated. f. Some cats eat insects. *c. *q. There are cats that don't eat mice. *m. 6. J. *. d. *m. Dx == x is a dog. *a. Good people do not gossip. t. G x == x has good sense. No furry thing is a reptile. Cats don't bark. *k.

*g.3x)(Dx· ~ Bx) ~(. There is nothing that eats cat food that does not meow. f. h. *c. d.l.3x)(Sx· ~Rx) .3x)(Mx· ~Fx) ~(x)(Sx (. *y. *a. b. *e. Anything that eats cat food meows.248 Unit 12 Categorical Propositions x. z.3x)(Dx • ~Gx) (x)(Rx =:l ~ Ex) ~(. j. Write down the English sentences that correspond to the following formulas. Only things that meow eat cat food. Use the abbreviations from Exercise 6. *. ~(x)(Cx =:l Nx) (.3x)(Cx· Bx) (x)(Rx =:l Ix) ~(x)(Rx =:l Sx) =:l ~Gx) ~(. 7.

you may have complex subjects and predicates. which will be symbolized using truthfunctional compounds of simple functions." Ax for "x is ambitious. We could. for instance. This is analogous to what we did in sentential logic." The entire sentence then could be symbolized 249 . it would be appropriate to use Bx for "x is bright.000 a year will either be a millionaire or drop dead of a heart attack in the next 10 years.000 a year." This. you should have little difficulty with this one. symbolized by simple functions such as Fx. symbolize "Any bright and ambitious corporate executive who is either under 35 or is making over \$500. for instance." Ux for "x is under 35." Then we would symbolize the entire subject phrase as ((Bx' Ax) • Cx)· (U x v Ox). where we used capital letters for simple sentences and then represented the compound sentences by making use of operators. Instead of simple subjects and predicates. however. We could." and Ox for "x is making over \$500. would not give us as much information about the structure of the sentence as we might need. the sentences here are just more elaborate versions of categorical propositions.000 a year" and Mx for "x will either be a millionaire or drop dead of a heart attack in the next 10 years." Cx for "x is a corporate executive. In the example above. and it is better for logical purposes to use simple functions for "simple" concepts and then symbolize complex functions by means of truth-functional compounds. use simple functions for any subject or predicate. We could symbolize the predicate phrase as (M x v Dx). where Mx means "x is a millionaire" and Dx means "x will drop dead of a heart attack in the next 10 years.UNIT 13 Complex Subjects and Predicates A. using Ex for "x is a bright and ambitious corporate executive who is either under 35 or is making over \$500. of course." as (x)(Ex ~ M x). INTRODUCTION If you understood Unit 12.

• Learn to recognize equivalent symbolizations of the English sentences. that any student who either gets an A on the final or has an A average going into the final will get at least a B in the course and will be eligible to serve as a teaching assistant. Section 2 will give you some hints about this. More important. But if we symbolize it in all its complex glory. The more complex formula is preferable. You can generally follow here the same three-step procedure outlined in the last unit for symbolizing. B." communication would be a rather dull business. especially those involving negation. we get something like this: (x)«Sx· (Fx v Ax)) ::J (Ex· Ex)) / . because the more detailed we are about logical structure. if we used only simple categorical propositions to symbolize the premise and conclusion. If your instructor tells you. you should learn to recognize when one formula is equivalent to another. for instance.250 Unit 13 Complex Subjects and Predicates as (x)[[«Ex· Ax) • ex) • (U x v Ox)] ::J (M x v Dx)]. However. once you have picked them out. Note that although the above formula is quite complex. the easier it will be to make 10l?jical inferences.". When you have complicated structures. C.". you can correctly infer that if you get an A on the final you will get at least a B in the course. we would have to symbolize it as (x)(Fx::J Gx) / . to see what follows from what. It is really just a complicated instance of an A. Since these cannot all be included in the answers. there will often be very many equivalent formulations. and we would be seriously limited in the kinds of inferences we could make. UNIT 13 OBJECTIVES • Learn to symbolize sentences that are of categorical form but that have complex subjects and/or predicates. which tells us much more about the logical structure of the sentence. we would not be able to make the distinctions and qualifications that enable us to convey more complex information about the world. we could not prove the argument formally. its overall structure is that of an A proposition: it has a universal quantifier followed by a conditional function. (x)«Sx· Fx) ::J Ex). will be more of a challenge. Complex Subjects and Predicates If our discourse were limited to simple categorical propositions such as "All whales are mammals" or even "All flying saucers are associated with electromagnetic disturbances. which looks a good . the only part that will be different is that actually symbolizing the subjects and predicates. (x)(Hx::J Jx). This is the sort of thing you will be doing in this unit (though hardly any of the sentences will be this complex): learning to symbolize sentences that are basically of categorical form but that have more complex subjects and predicates. which is pretty clearly not valid. UNIT 13 TOPICS 1.

First. and the sentence as a whole can be symbolized as (x)(Ex :J ( ~ Ix' ( ~ (Px v Fx) :J ~ Ax))). This formula could be read literally as "For any x. It says that x will not attack if it is not either provoked or frightened. in the sentence "Rhinos are ill-tempered and will attack if provoked." Here the first conjunct of the predicate phrase can be symbolized as ~ I x. it should not be hard to identify the subject and predicate. and if x is neither provoked nor frightened.Unit 13 Complex Subjects and Predicates 251 bit more promising. with "provoked" as antecedent and "will attack" as consequent. sentences with complex subjects and predicates. It should not be much more difficult to identify the form of these sentences than of the simple categorical propositions. Look for key words such as "all. the predicate comes out as ( ~ I X' ( ~ (Px v Fx):J ~ Ax))." The first conjunct could be symbolized as Ix (where Ix means "x is ill-tempered"). You can follow the basic three-step procedure outlined in the last unit of (1) identifying the form of the sentence." "some. since we at least have common factors in the subjects and predicates. If we put this all together. if x is an elephant. The second conjunct is in the form of a conditional. For instance. if x is a rhino. subjects with modifiers and compound subjects." "elephants" is the subject (for which we can use Ex). If we let Px mean "x is provoked" and Ax mean "x will attack. (In Unit 15 you will learn how to prove it." that is. Here the antecedent is the negation of a disjunction." and "no. but slightly more involved. To finish. but even here you should not have too much trouble if you go about things systematically. then x is not ill-tempered." There are two sorts of complex subjects. for complex predicates you will almost always symbolize "literally." To take a slightly more complex example." the subject phrase is clearly just "rhinos." and the predicate phrase is the conjunction "are ill-tempered and will attack if provoked. A sentence has a compound subject if it is talking about two or . and (3) symbolizing the subject and predicate. which will be discussed in the following paragraphs. in the sentence "Elephants are not illtempered and will not attack unless they are provoked or frightened. Symbolizing the subject and predicate is the only part that will take more analysis. and there are standard ways of symbolizing them. then x is ill-tempered and will attack if provoked. just analyze the truth-functional structure of the predicate phrase and put it down." the complete symbolization would be (x)(Rx:J (Ix' (Px :J Ax))). the sentence is clearly an A proposition. (2) identifying the subject and predicate of the sentence. and if we let Rx mean "x is a rhino. and your job here is to learn to symbolize them. and the second conjunct is again a conditional.) We do in general use more complicated sentences." as before. which would be read "For any x." we can symbolize the second conjunct as (Px :J Ax) and the whole predicate as (I x • (Px :J Ax)). and the predicate phrase is "are not ill-tempered and will not attack unless provoked or frightened. then x will not attack. For most sentences. and the consequent is ~ Ax. There are basically three sorts of complexity you will encounter. but do keep in mind that this means subject with all modifiers and the whole predicate phrase. ~ (Px v Fx).

however. can also be symbolized as (x)(Cx ::J Px) • (x)(Dx ::J Px). you should interpret the subject as a disjunction rather than a conjunction. because this would say only that there was some x that was either a cat or dog and was pedigreed. use a conjunction of existential sentences. since the subject is cats and dogs. and alligators make good pets." and if we let Cx be "x is a cat. symbolize with a disjunctive subject. turtles. The reason the English sentence may contain an "and" rather than an "or" is that such a sentence is equivalent to the conjunction of two (or more) universal sentences. as in "Dogs that . but which is obviously not the intent of the sentence." and Bx be "x has blue eyes. but rather a conjunction of existential sentences. An example would be "Cats and dogs make good pets. In summary. and in existentic:! propositions. as in "white cat. the modifying phrase itself may have a compound structure." which may be true.) This could be symbolized as (x)[[(Cx v Dx) v ((Bx v Sx) v(Tx v Ax))) ::J Px). which is equivalent to (x)((Cx v Dx) ::J Px). because this would say that there is something that is both a cat and a dog and is pedigreed. which is the intent of the sentence. For example." Wx be "x is white. if x is both a cat and a dog.252 Unit 13 Complex Subjects and Predicates more different classes. "Cats that don't like humans have probably been mistreated" should be symbolized as (x)( (C X' ~ H x) ::J M x)." sometimes prepositional phrases are used." With this sentence. Again." Of course. It would not imply that there are both pedigreed cats and pedigreed dogs. where Hx means "x likes humans" and Mx means "x has probably been mistreated." (That the sentence is false is irrelevant for our purposes. we do not use a disjunction. This would not be correct. "Cats and dogs make good pets." the subject is "white cats with blue eyes. since the literal reading would be "For any x. your first instinct might be to try to symbolize it as (x)((Cx' Dx) ::J P x). When symbolizing existential sentences with compound subjects. birds. dogs. as in "cats with blue eyes. in the sentence "Some white cats with blue eyes are part Siamese. We would not use (3x)((Cx v Dx)' Px). For instance. To say "Some cats and dogs are pedigreed. What the sentence above means is that anything that is either a cat or a dog will make a good pet. For universal sentences with compound subjects. in universal propositions with compound subjects (such as "cats and dogs"). so it should be symbolized as (x)((Cx v Dx) ::J Px). Subjects containing modifiers should be symbolized with the modifiers conjoined to the subject proper. means "Some cats are pedigreed and some dogs are pedigreed" and so would be symbolized as (3x)(Cx' Px)· (3x)(Dx' Px)." for instance. A universal sentence may also have more than two classes in the subject. This is analogous to the propositional tautology ((p ::J r) • (q ::J r)) = ((p v q) ::J r)." and sometimes phrases such as "that" or "which" are used. We could also not use (3x)((Cx' Dx)' Px). in universal sentences you should use a disjunction for compound subjects." for instance." we can symbolize the subject as C x • W x • B x. snakes. as in "All cats. There are various ways of modifying the subject in English. Sometimes the adjectives are simply stated. then x makes a good pet. Then the whole sentence would be symbolized as (3x)((Cx' W X' Bx) • Sx).

the sentence "Gorillas are becoming extinct" cannot be symbolized as (x)(Gx :::J Ex) (where Ex == x is becoming extinct)." we ought not to translate this as (3 x)« M x • Lx) • H x). To be a small elephant means to be smallfor an elephant rather than small absolutely. so the overall form will be (x)( :::J ). ~ (U x v Sx» :::J ( ~ W X' Ex». Otherwise. and Ex == x will attract bugs. We can then symbolize the sentence as (x)«(Px v Ax) . This just doesn't make sense. having given the warning. and it is affirmative. but really isn't. if x is a gorilla. An example that combines all sorts of complexity is "Plum trees and apple trees that have not been either pruned or sprayed will not bear well and will attract bugs. symbolize subject and predicate. it should be conjoined to the subject. and to be a big mouse is to be big for a mouse rather than just big. and the major operator following the existential quantifier is a conjunction. First. and x has not been either pruned or sprayed. the rule of thumb for categorical propositions still holds: the major operator following a universal quantifier is a conditional. if x is a dog and x will bite if provoked. second. just as we would not translate "There is a small elephant outside" as (3x)«Ex' Sx)· Ox). and the predicate class is things that are dangerous . if x is either a plum tree or an apple tree. Sx == x has been sprayed. thus it is an A proposition." No matter what the structure of the modifying phrase. Let us apply this method to the sentence "Bears with cubs are dangerous if approached. For instance. however." Now that you know the standard interpretations for complex subjects and predicates. symbolizing most complex sentences should not be difficult. One word of caution: some predicates in English cannot be construed as applying to individuals and hence do not fit our quantifier pattern. we would probably have to conclude that the animal outdoors was smaller than the one indoors. then x is not a good house pet." Notice that despite the occurrence of various operators. What we need to do in cases like this is to use Mx to mean "x is a large mouse" and Ex to mean "x is a small elephant. This is true whether the quantifier is negated or unnegated. then x is becoming extinct. and third. Another word of caution: sometimes a modifying phrase seems to be a conjunction. which would be absurd. The proper analysis of this sentence would take us into a more complicated logic. Ax == x is an apple tree. since it is only species that become extinct and not individual animals. so we will ignore it. identify the subject class and predicate class." Here the sentence is clearly universal. because this would say that for any (individual) x.Unit 13 Complex Subjects and Predicates 253 will bite if provoked are not good house pets. especially if you follow the three-step procedure mentioned earlier. The subject class is bears with cubs. U x == x has been pruned. identify the form of the sentence. If we say "There is a large mouse in here. then x will not bear well and will attract bugs." This sentence could be symbolized as (x)«Dx' (Px :::J Ex»:::J ~ Gx). W x == x will bear well. which would be read literally as "For any x. however." We will use the following abbreviations: Px == x is a plum tree. which would be read literally as "For any x.

equivalently. can be symbolized either as ~ (F x v G x) or as (~Fx· ~Gx). equivalent ways. Sometimes. To symbolize the subject. Dx == x is dangerous." for instance. These two forms are equivalent. We will use the following abbreviations: T x == x is a teacher. symbolizations. Thus the full . we can use the following abbreviations: Bx == x is a bear. and any negated quantifier statement will have the two forms exhibited in the quantifier negation equivalences. ex == x has cubs. but equivalent. Any phrase of the form "neither Fx nor Gx. leading to a great many different.254 Unit 13 Complex Subjects and Predicates if approached. in many cases a sentence may be rephrased in such a way that subject and predicate adjectives are redistributed." for instance. many of these alternatives will exist for the same sentence. which would be read "There is some x such that x is a teacher and x does not have a second job. Equivalent Symbolizations Quantifier sentences with complex subjects and predicates can often be symbolized in a number of different. and the predicate is things that are happy but not prosperous. we can take the subject as "bears with cubs" and the predicate as "are dangerous only if approached. we would use (Tx· ~ Sx). To complicate matters even further. S x == x has a second job. since these generally have a number of alternative symbolizations." A fairly easy existential proposition is "Some teachers without second jobs are happy but not prosperous." which would be abbreviated as (Bx· ex). To symbolize the subject function. P x == x is prosperous. which would be symbolized as (x)«Bx· ex) :J Dx). To symbolize subject and predicate." for instance." We might interpret the predicate as saying that if they are dangerous they must have been approached (Dx :J Ax) or. "Fx only if Gx" may become (Fx:J Gx) or (~Gx:J ~ Fx). or we may take the subject as bears and the predicate as things that are dangerous if they have cubs. we can use the function "x is a bear and x has cubs." which we could symbolize as (Ax :J Dx). The entire symbolization would then be (3x)«Tx· ~ Sx)· (Hx· ~ Px)). 2. then if x is approached x is dangerous. This would be read literally as "For any x. that if they are not approached then they are not dangerous (~Ax :J ~ Dx)." Here the subject is teachers without second jobs. In the sentence "Bears with cubs are dangerous. if x is a bear and x has cubs." We will discuss negated quantifier sentences in the next section. Ax == x is approached. which would be symbolized as (x)(Bx :J (ex :J Dx)). both because of our quantifier equivalence rules and because of our sentential replacement rules. We now simply plug these functions into the appropriate slots in the sentence form to get our symbolization: (x)«Bx· ex) :J (Ax :J Dx)). and we can derive one from the other by the rule of Exportation. In the A proposition "Bears with cubs are dangerous only if approached. and x is happy but not prosperous. and for the predicate function we have (H x • ~ Px). The predicate function would be "x is dangerous if approached. we may take the subject as bears with cubs and the predicate as dangerous things. H x == x is happy.

and you should get in the habit of always reading the formula back in this way once you have completed your symbolization. Another form for the E proposition is (x)( ::J ~ )." This would give us a symbolization that looks like (x)(Bx::J (Cx ::J (Dx ::J Ax))) or like (x)(Bx ::J (Cx ::J (~Ax ::J ~ Dx))). if x is both an apple and an orange. we might interpret the subject as "bears" and read the predicate as "if x has cubs. This would be read literally as "There does not exist an x such that x is a Siamese cat and x is well fed and x is either quiet or unfriendly. We could apply Exportation to the above formula to get (x)[(Sx' Cx)::J (Wx::J ~(Qx v ~Fx))]. we get ~(3x)[((Sx' Cx)· W x)· (Qx v ~ Fx)]. then if x is not a C. This is an extremely important step. since it says "For any x." is "No English sheepdog is vicious unless it is either mistreated or ill." The advantage of using this form is that . Note that throughout this unit. we have generally given a literal reading." for instance. symbol by symbol. inserting these expressions into the appropriate blanks." In sentences of this form." We could also apply De Morgan's to some of the above formulas. If we here symbolize the subject as ((Sx' Cx)· Wx) and the predicate as (Qx V ~Fx). for the final symbolization." the subject is Siamese cats that are well fed and the predicate is "quiet or unfriendly.Unit 13 Complex Subjects and Predicates 255 symbolization could be either (x)((Bx' Cx) ::J (Dx ::J Ax)) or (x)((Bx' Cx) ::J (~Ax :J ~ Dx)). "No A is a B unless it is a C. and the third and fourth. then x is dangerous only if approached. which could be read "For any x." which again correctly reflects the En-glish sentence. which is a little more complex because of the "unless. the situation gets even more interesting. which would give us even more equivalent renditions of the English sentence. and one form would be (x)(Ax ::J (~Cx ::J ~ Bx)): "For all x. which would be read "If x is a Siamese cat. then. x is not a B." it is probably clearest to symbolize it as a universal." which is a proper rendition of the original sentence. you would probably notice your mistake when you read it back. So we have four different symbolizations almost without having batted an eye. Another example of an E proposition. x is neither quiet nor unfriendly. if x is an A. while the first and second. then x is neither quiet nor unfriendly. then if x is well fed. In addition. Exercise 3 at the end of the unit gives you some practice in going from the symbolic formula back to the English sentence. If you have made an error. if x is a Siamese cat and x is well fed. In the E proposition "No Siamese cat that is well fed is either quiet or unfriendly. and putting the subject and predicate expressions into the proper blanks gives us (x)[((Sx' Cx)· Wx) ::J ~ (Qx v ~ Fx)]. as (x)((Ax' Ox) ::J Gx). are equivalent by the rule of Contraposition. If you tried to symbolize "Apples and oranges are good for you." clearly not what is intended." One form for the E proposition is ~(3x) ( ). then x is good for you. you will often catch it when you do this literal reading. Notice that the latter two are equivalent to the former two by the propositional rule of Exportation. When we add negated quantifiers. and also in Unit 12.

In this case. and you might well be able to come up with others. and Double Negation. both of the symbolic form and of the English sentences. we could rephrase it as "Any vicious English sheepdog is mistreated or ill. Exportation. equivalent version. in which case we might rephrase the English as "There is no English sheepdog that is vicious that is not mistreated or ill"." where the subject is vicious English sheepdogs. We could symbolize each of the forms that has the negated disjunction ~ (M x v I x) as (~M x • ~ I x) instead. One way to do this is to apply the replacement rules and see whether one form can be transformed into the other. Most ofthe equivalences will involve Quantifier Negation." for instance. It is impossible to list all the correct answers. We could interpret the sentence as saying that if an English sheepdog is vicious. can be symbolized as (x)(Ex :J (~(Mx v Ix) :J ~V x». to turn it around." There are many other equivalent formulations. then x is not vicious if x is neither mistreated nor ill. there is more. all equivalent and all equally correct. then. It may be wrong. that is. De Morgan's. ill. but it may also be a correct. you may think that your answer is wrong just because it differs from the one in the answer section. Categorical Quantifier Negation." which becomes ~(M x v I x) :J ~ V x. ~ (3x)((Ex • V x) • ~(M x v I x». we can also interpret it as a negated existential." (x)((Ex· ~(M x v I x» :J ~Vx). Or. the predicate is easier to analyze. This would give us eight different ways of symbolizing the sentence. that is. Again taking the sentence as universal. It is important that you be able to recognize these equivalences. If you do not know when one formula is equivalent to another. it is fairly clear that the subject . of course. if x is an English sheepdog.256 Unit 13 Complex Subjects and Predicates it is generally quite easy to pick out the subject. we might say "No English sheepdog that is not mistreated or ill is vicious. Once we see that the sentence can be partially symbolized as (x)(Ex :J ( :J ». (x)(Ex :J (V x :J (M x v I x»). which can be symbolized as "~V x unless (M x v I x). or even vicious. (This is equivalent to the first form by Contraposition.) Since it is a "no" statement. you should have little trouble moving back and forth between different equivalent formulations. And if this is not enough to make you feel mistreated. and in such cases one thing to do is rephrase the English sentence until you get an equivalent version that is easy to symbolize. in this case the subject is obviously English sheepdogs (which we will abbreviate just as Ex). which would be read "For any x. so in many cases you will have to figure out for yourself whether your answer is right. This would be symbolized (x)((Ex· V x) :J (M x v I x». The whole sentence. unless she is ill. then it must have been mistreated or be ill. what we are saying about English sheepdogs is that they are not vicious unless they are either mistreated or ill. If you are thoroughly familiar with these rules. In more complex sentences it may not be so easy to pick out subject and predicate. In the sentence "No bear with cubs will fail to protect them. Contraposition.

no matter what the subject and predicate phrases. Sx. if x is a diligent student who doesn't party. This would be read literally as "It is not the case that for every x. Gx. This in turn is equivalent. Note that the sentence above. if you have forgotten them. then x gets both good grades and a good job." . we get ~(3x)«Bx • ex) • ~(~ Ix :J Px». we may rephrase the sentence as "Any bear with cubs will protect them. Several other possible symbolizations are given below. However. (x)«Bx • ex) :J (~Px :J I x» (x)«Bx' ex' ~Ix):J Px) (x)(Bx :J (ex :J (~I x :J Px))) (x)«Bx' ex) :J (Px v Ix» You will have to be very adept at applying the CQ. then if x is not ill.. Ix for "x is ill. which would be read "For any x. You should also try to derive them from the original by applying the appropriate replacement rules. but it is not clear how to read the predicate.N. and Ix in the obvious way. unless she is ill. as we have symbolized it.N. an alternative formulation. and D. Keep in mind that the equivalence ~(x)(<I>x:J ~x) == (<I>x)(<I>x' ~~x) tells you that for any negated universal sentence. If we use Dx. to ~(3x)«Bx' ex)· (~Ix' ~Px». then. would be as a negated 0. x will protect her cubs. In the sentence "Not every diligent student who doesn't party gets both good grades and a good job. Exercise 1. Since the form is negated universal." which does mean the same as the other versions. by CE." and this should not be difficult to symbolize. at the end of the unit." which is an appropriate rendering of the original sentence. is in the form of an A.N. of the form ~ (3x)( ). if x is a bear with cubs. you should read them out in their English versions and verify that they mean the same as the original. it will be equivalent to an existential sentence with the original subject phrase conjoined with the negation of the predicate phrase. the skeleton of the formula will be ~ (x)( :J ). Let us take an example of a negated universal sentence and analyze it in detail. Px. rules to more complicated cases. and the predicate class is things that get both good grades and a good job. rules given in Unit 12.. will give you practice in making these transformations. DeM." and Px for "x protects her cubs". we can symbolize the subject as (Dx' Sx' ~ Px) and the predicate as (Gx' I x).." the subject class is diligent students who don't party. we get as our symbolization ~(x)«Dx' Sx • ~Px) :J (Gx • I x». Go back and review the CQ. We will use Bx and ex as before. which would be read "There does not exist an x such that x is a bear with cubs and x is not ill and x does not protect her cubs. we can then symbolize the sentence as (x)«Bx' ex) :J (~I x :J Px».Unit 13 Complex Subjects and Predicates 257 can be interpreted as bears with cubs. and if we then plug in subject and predicate phrases. Plugging in the subject and predicate functions.

" The key to doing these symbolizations. of course." we get (x)(Ax:::J)( ~Cx :::J~ Bx)). and you will need to ask yourself what the predicate should be. Analyze the sentence bit by bit and it should be manageable. if x is a wild raccoon. the!'. This would be read "There is no x such that x is an A and a B. This clearly means the same thing as the original sentence. EXERCISES 1.258 Unit 13 Complex Subjects and Predicates The equivalent existential formula is (3 x)«Dx· Sx· ~ Px) • ~(Gx· J x)). by Com. be symbolized as negated existentials. which is read "For any x. and D.. is to be clear headed and systematic. gets symbolized as a negated conditional." Applying this process to the raccoon sentence.. this will give (x)«W x • Rx) :::J ). The complete symbolization. As we saw earlier.N. and D. Then apply some of your propositional equivalence rules to get other forms. is (x)«W x· Rx) :::J (~(Dx v Ax) :::J ~ Bx)).E.N." An equivalent English sentence would be "Wild raccoons will bite only if they are rabid or afraid.Q. Applying C.. Using C. if x is a wild raccoon. we get ~(3x)(Ax· ~(Cx v ~ Bx)). which would be "There is no x such that x is a wild raccoon and x bites and x is not either rabid or afraid.N.N.. At this point you want to rephrase the English sentence according to the partial symbolization." It is usually best to symbolize these as universals rather than negated existentials. as in Unit 4. which says that there are some diligent students who don't party who will not get both good grades and a good job. Also." which means the same as "No A is a B unless it is a c. the "unless." which can be symbolized as ~(Dx v Ax) :::J ~ Bx. once on the following formulas.Q. but it is important to remember that in these cases the major operator following the quantifier will be a conjunction. .. sentences such as "No wild raccoon will bite unless it is rabid or afraid" are tricky because of the "unless. but not a C. using the universal formula for "No A is a B unless it is a C. " Then what? Looking at the original sentence again. As noted above.. then x will not bite. which is equivalent to a conjunction. At this point you should be ready for the following exercises. we get ~(3x)(Ax· ~ ( ~Cx:::J ~ Bx)). One final word about E propositions. we get ~(3x)(Ax· (~Cx· Bx)). rather than as a conditional. Using OeM. Here we have "For any x. which is equivalent." and this would be symbolized by the equivalent formula (x)«Wx· Rx) :::J (Bx :::J (Dx v Ax))). Use the appropriate form of C." since it is a part of the predicate. then if x is neither rabid nor afraid. This is to give you . we would get ~(3x)«Wx· Rx)· (Bx· ~ (Dx v Ax))). For the sentence above. then. The following equivalences may help make this clear. we see that the predicate phrase should be "x will not bite (~Bx) unless x is rabid (Dx) or afraid (Ay). and you should first write out the skeleton and then fill in the subject phrase. to ~(3x)(Ax· (Bx ·~Cx)). . Such sentences can also.

*0. n. Bx == x is beautiful. No one who is unappreciated will be happy. Use the abbreviations from Exercise 2. F x == x is famous. No one who is not either beautiful or rich will be either happy or appreciated. b. Y x == x is happy.Unit 13 Complex Subjects and Predicates 259 some familiarity with the various equivalent symbolizations that complex formulas may have. Not everyone who ate chicken and ham salad ate both potatoes and bean salad. Not only the rich or famous will get to heaven. Only people who are beautiful. rich. b. h. ex == x ate chicken. f. No beautiful people who are not good will get to heaven. No one who ate ham salad ate chicken. Remember when you are checking your answers that there will be more than one correct form. *e. Not everyone who is beautiful and rich is both famous and appreciated. Sx == x got sick. *i. *m. ~(x)((Px' ~Ax' ~Rx) ::J ~Yx) (x)((Px-((Rx'Fx) v (Ax'Yx)))::J (Gxv Bx)) ~(3x)((Px' *e. d. I. d. Not everyone who ate rice got sick. d. Px == x is a person. W x == x will get to heaven. j. Gx == x is good. Some good people are appreciated even though they are not either rich or famous. Some beautiful people are not good and will not get to heaven. Rx == x gets rich. *g. Some people who ate chicken got sick. (Rx v Fx))' (Bx' ~Gx)' Wx) . *a. Anyone who is either beautiful or good will either get rich or get to heaven. *c. 3. Write down the English sentences that correspond to the following formulas. Symbolize the following. Ox == x ate potatoes. but that person will get to heaven. unless they are rich. Ex == x ate bean salad. b. (Gx v Hx))::J ((Px' Qx) 2. ~(x)((Fx' ~Gx)::J ~(3x)(Fx' ~(x)((Fx' ((H x v I x) ::J (Px v Qx))) ::J~Rx)) *e. Hx == x ate ham salad. using the abbreviations indicated. *a. *a. Ix == x ate rice. Ax == x is appreciated. or famous will be appreciated. ~(3x)(Px' Hx' Sx) ~(x)((Px' Bx' Gx) ::J (Rx v Ax)) *c. No one will be appreciated unless they are either beautiful or rich. ~(x)(Fx::J (Gxv Hx)) Gx)' (Hx ::J Ix)) (Hx' ~Ix)) ~(3x)((Fx' *c. Everyone who got sick ate either chicken or ham salad. *k.

*g. d. *e. Mx == x is a moose. *a. Symbolize the following. Hx == x is by Harvey. Not all hungry bears are dangerous. Some bears raid garbage cans if they are hungry. Not all of Harvey's paintings that contain unicorns are admired by the critics and loved by the public. b. Some paintings by Joe are beautiful but not valuable. and they should not be approached if they are threatened or have young. Dx == x is dangerous. U x == x contains unicorns. Tx == x is threatened. Yx == x has young. Ex == x is an elk. J x == x is by Joe. Not all paintings and sculptures by Joe are both beautiful and valuable. No painting by Harvey or Joe is comprehensible unless it is either beautiful and contains unicorns or is valuable and framed in gold. d. Hx == x is hungry. Gx == x raids garbage cans. 5. *e. f. Mx == x contains monsters. *a. b. using the abbreviations below. W x == x lives in the woods. Some of Joe's paintings that contain unicorns are incomprehensible and are admired by the critics if and only if they are not loved by the public. Not all moose and elk fear humans. *g. Px == x is a painting. Bx == x is beautiful. Paintings and sculptures by Harvey and Joe that are beautiful only if they contain unicorns and valuable only if they are studded with diamonds are not admired by the critics unless they are not loved by the public. J. Sx == x should be approached. h. Symbolize the following. . Bears that raid garbage cans do not fear humans and are dangerous. Fx == x fears humans. Dx == x is studded with diamonds. *i. *c. Moose and elk are dangerous. All of Joe's paintings are valuable if they are framed in gold and studded with diamonds. Gx == x is framed in gold. Lx == x is loved by the public.260 Unit 13 Complex Subjects and Predicates 4. Lx == x is a mountain lion. using the abbreviations below. C x == x is in a cage. Some moose that do not fear humans will run if they are threatened. Rx == x runs. No painting by Joe or Harvey is either beautiful or valuable unless it contains unicorns. V x == x is valuable. *c. h. No paintings by Joe are valuable unless they are framed in gold. Sx == x is a sculpture. f. Ax == x is admired by the critics. There are mountain lions living in the woods that do not fear humans but that are dangerous only if they have young. Any painting by Harvey or Joe that does not contain unicorns or monsters is loved by the public only if it is valuable but incomprehensible. Bx == x is a bear. No bear that does not fear humans should be approached. Cx == x is comprehensible.

write down the English sentences that correspond to the following formulas. *c. b. Politicians who pay no taxes will not be reelected. V x == x votes his or her conscience. *c. Some politicians are not reelected even though they are respected and are neither sued nor impeached. T x == x pays taxes. *g. Using the abbreviations from Exercise 5. M x == x is a millionaire. 261 Bears and moose are not dangerous unless they do not fear humans and are either threatened or have young. Ax == x abuses power. Wx)· (~Tx' Rx» ~Rx) (x)((Mx v Ex) ::J ((Tx' ::J Dx» h. d. Ex == x is reelected. . Any politician will be impeached who either has broken the law or is guilty of abuse of power. Ex)'(Wx' ~Fx»::J ((Txv Yx)::J Rx)] 7. 6. Rx == x is respected. Some millionaires consult a lawyer only if they either have broken the law or are sued. Lx == x has broken a law. b. *e. d. (x)(((Bx v Mx)' Wx) ::J Fx) ~(3x)((Mx' f. No politician who has broken the law and abuses his or her powers will be either respected or reelected. Not every businessperson who consults a lawyer has broken a law. Sx == x should have his head examined. U x == x is sued. hasn't broken the law. *a. *a.Unit 13 Complex Subjects and Predicates i. Any millionaire politician will be reelected who has paid taxes. *i. f. No hungry bear or mountain lion should be approached unless it is in a cage. Bx == x is a businessperson. j. Businesspeople who pay taxes but don't consult lawyers should have their heads examined. and isn't sued. Some businesspeople are millionaires but pay no taxes. *i. h. No politician will be impeached who pays taxes and does not abuse power. Px == x is a politician. (x)((Lx' Wx) ::J Dx) ~(x)((Bx' H x) ::J Gx) (3x)(Ex' (Rx == Tx» Sx» ~(3x)(Lx' (~Cx' *e. *g. I x == x is impeached. j. Symbolize the following. using the abbreviations indicated. Cx == x consults a lawyer. ~(3x)((Bx' ~(Txv HX»'(~Yx'Dx» (x)[((Mx' Tx) v (Bx' Hx» ::J (Dx' ~Sx)] ~(x)[((Mxv j.

d. *e. No politician will be either impeached or sued who pays taxes and has not broken the law. Not every politician who has broken the law and pays no taxes is sued or impeached. Be able to say in English. Use the same abbreviations as in Exercise 7. *c. No politician or businessperson consults a lawyer unless he or she has either broken a law. more or less literally. *a. what the formulas say. A businessperson will consult a lawyer only if he or she is a millionaire or has broken a law. is a millionaire. b. or has abused power and has been sued. Give at least three different equivalent forms of the following sentences.262 Unit 13 Complex Subjects and Predicates 8. . No politician will be reelected unless he or she is respected and votes his or her conscience.

UNIT 14 Quantifier Form and Truth-functional Compounds of Quantifier Statements A. you may wonder? Isn't a quantifier statement just one that contains a quantifier? By no means. and (3x)(Fx·Gx). We need to distinguish between a formula such as (3x )Fx· (3x )Gx. on proofs." Then the former statement says something true: that there are dogs and there are cats. So what is the problem. says something false. The special rules we will introduce there for quantifier proofs will work only on formulas of quantifier form (just as Hypothetical Syllogism works only on statements in the form of conditionals). thus it is essential that you be able to recognize these forms.) 263 . which is a quantifier statement. but once we get to the next unit. quantifier statements can occur as subformulas of truth-functional compounds. (If you can't see the difference. you have been operating without any explicit definition of what a quantifier statement is. just as conjunctions can occur as subformulas of disjunctions. this has caused no problems up to this point. that there is something that is both a dog and a cat. which is a conjunction. INTRODUCTION So far. The latter statement. or even absurd. it will be extremely important that you be very clear on what is and what is not a quantifier statement. let Fx mean "x is a dog" and Gx mean "x is a cat. however.

the scope of the second . We can now state the second condition for a formula to be of quantifier form: the scope of the initial quantifier must extend to the end of the formula. We will then go on to talk about the difference in form and in meaning between quantifier formulas and truth-functional compounds with quantifier formulas as parts.264 Unit 14 Quantifier Form and Truth-functional Compounds What. By definition. just as the scope of a negation is the first complete formula following the tilde. is a quantifier statement? This is the first thing you will learn in this unit. This seems to indicate that a quantifier statement must begin with a quantifier. which includes the left parenthesis. for instance. for instance. C. for instance. we need to dust off the notion of the scope of a quantifier. (x)Fx v (x)Gx. In (x)Fx v (x)Gx. cases. either it says there is something such that <j>x or that for everything <j>x. UNIT 14 OBJECTIVES • Be able to state the definitions for quantifier formula and scope of a quantifier. The first conditionfor a formula to be of quantifier form is that it begin with a quantifier. B. since (Fx. the first complete formula is (Fx v Gx). In (x) (F x v G x). so this is as far as the scope reaches. the scope of a quantifier is the first complete formula to follow it. given a variety of such statements. should be the definition of a quantifier statement? Intuitively. the first formula following the quantifier is just Fx. and this is correct. to symbolize quantifier statements and their truth-functional compounds. finally. not every statement that begins with a quantifier is actually of quantifier form. which we introduced earlier. just as not every formula that contains the disjunction operator is a disjunction. there will be some quantifier whose scope extends to the end of the sentence. if not most. then. Quantifier Form Not every formula that contains a quantifier is of quantifier form. a quantifier statement is one that says either that something has a certain property (whether simple or complex) or that everything has a certain property. What. you will learn to symbolize both sorts of formulas. • Be able. since in many. however. What is the difference between this and the genuine quantifier formula (x)(Fx v Gx)? To answer this. is not a formula at all. In (x)Fx v (x)Gx. But this is not sufficient. and. UNIT 14 TOPICS 1. Notice that we have said the initial quantifier. that is. This is important. then. • Be able to distinguish between quantifier statements and truth-functional compounds of quantifier statements and be able to identify the overall form of a statement. though it begins with a quantifier. is not a quantifier statement but a disjunction.

Unit 14 Quantifier Form and Truth-functional Compounds

265

quantifier extends to the end of the sentence, but this doesn't count. To be a quantifier statement rather than, for example, a disjunction, the scope of the first quantifier must extend to the end of the formula. We can now state the definition of quantifier form: a formula is a quantifier
statement, or of quantifier form, if and only if (1) it begins with 6l quantifier, and (2) the scope of the initial quantifier extends to the end of the fornt,ula. We will use (x) <J>x and (3 x ) <J>x to represent quantifier formulas, where it is understood that if <J>x is compound it must be enclosed in parentheses, so that the scope of the quan-

tifier extends to the end of the formula.
2. Truth-functional Compounds and Quantifier Form

A statement that is not itself of quantifier form may contain quantifier statements as parts. Thus (x)Fx v (x)Gx is a disjunction, with both disjuncts being universal statements. It is very important to recognize the difference, in both form and meaning, between formulas that are quantifier statements and those that are truth-functional compounds of quantifier statements. Some examples may help make this distinction clear. If we use Mx for "x is male" and Fx for "x is female" and restrict our range of reference to mammals, then the universal quantifier formula (x) (F x v M x) says "Everything is either male or female," which is true. But the formula (x)Fx v (x)Mx, which looks very much like the first one, is a disjunction and says "Either everything is male or everything is female," which is obviously false. The two formulas (3x)(Fx' Gx) and (3x)Fx' (3x)Gx also look superficially alike, but are very different, as a suitable interpretation will show. The first is an existential statement, since it begins with an existential quantifier whose scope extends to the end of the sentence. The second, however, is a conjunction, with the two conjuncts being existential formulas. It is not a quantifier statement, since the scope of the initial quantifier does not extend to the end of the sentence. If we use Fx == x is an odd number and Gx == x is an even number, the difference becomes apparent, since the first formula, (3x)( Fx • Gx), thus interpreted, says that there is a number that is both odd and even, which is obviously false and even absurd. The second formula, (3x)Fx' (3x)Gx, however, says only that there are odd numbers and there are also even numbers, which is obviously true. We find the same difference in the use of the conditional. (x)(Fx:::J Gx), which is a universal proposition, is quite different from (x)Fx :::J (x)Gx, which is a conditional. We can see this if we use F x == x never mugs anybody and G x == x has never been mugged. I Then the first sentence says, roughly, that anyone who never mugs another will never get mugged, which is, unfortunately, false. On the
I Normally, our simple functions such as Fx and Gx stand for unnegated concepts. An exception is being made here just to clarify the example.

266

Unit 14 Quantifier Form and Truth-functional Compounds

other hand, the second form, (x)Fx :J (x)Gx, says that if all x's never mug anyone then all x's never get mugged; that is, if nobody mugs another, then nobody gets mugged, which would seem to be true. The existential forms are also different. If we use Fx == x is a fish and Ux == x is a unicorn, then (3x)Fx:J (3x)Ux, a conditional, is false, since the antecedent, which says there are fish, is true, while the consequent, which says there are unicorns, is false. On the other hand, ( 3 x ) (F x :J U x) is true, since this very weak existential proposition only asserts that there is something such that if it is a fish then it is a unicorn, and all we need to make it true is something that is not a fish (since this would make Fx false and so Fx :J Ux true). Try working out your own examples for the biconditional. It should be noted that conjunctions combined with universal statements and disjunctions combined with existentials yield equivalent forms. That is, (x)Fx o (x)Gx is equivalent to (x)(FxoGx), and (3x)Fx v (3x)Gx is equivalent to (3x) (Fx v Gx). But they are still different formulas: the first is a conjunction, the second a universal statement, and the third is a disjunction, while the fourth is an existential formula. So far we have said nothing about negations, but these will be extremely important when we come to proofs. The first condition for a formula to be of quantifier form is that it begin with a quantifier, and this rules out formulas such as ~(x)(Fx:J Gx). No negated quantifier statement is considered a quantifier formula; it is a negation, one of the five truth-functional compounds. You will be able to use the four quantifier rules only on quantifier statements, and this means not on negations; thus, it is very important to be acutely aware of the difference. (On negated formulas, you will use Q.N. or C.Q.N. first.) Again, a formula that begins with a negation cannot begin with a quantifier, so it cannot be a quantifier formula. By this time it should be fairly easy for you to identify the form of a symbolic expression, at least if you stop to think about it a little. We now have seven different kinds of compound formulas: universals, existentials, conjunctions, disjunctions, negations, conditionals, and biconditionals. Remember that for a formula to be a quantifier statement, that is, a universal or existential statement, it must (1) begin with a quantifier and (2) have the scope of the initial quantifier extending to the end of the sentence. This is fairly easy to check out. ~ (3x )Fx, for instance, is not a quantifier statement since it does not begin with a quantifier, and (x) F x :J (Fa F b) is not, because the scope of the quantifier does not go to the end of the sentence. But what if it isn't a quantifier formula? How can you tell what it is? This is just a matter of learning to spot the major operator of the formula, and you have had plenty of practice with this in sentential logic. The procedure is the same here. The placement of parentheses is what determines the major operator-the overall form of the sentence-and by this time you probably recognize
0

Unit 14 Quantifier Form and Truth-functional Compounds

267

it almost at a glance. You should be able to tell right off, for instance, that (x)Fx v ((3x)Gx' (3x)Hx) is a disjunction, that (3x)Fx· ~ (3x)Gx is a conjunction, and that ~(x)Fx ~~(x)Gx is a conditional. At this point, it might be appropriate to run through all the kinds of formulas we have encountered so far and to round out the collection with a few we have not yet mentioned. In Unit 10, the first unit in quantifier logic, we talked about singular sentences, those that contain names. Simple singular sentences are our simplest units and will be symbolized in the form Fa. In Unit 11 we discussed simple quantifier formulas, those that have a quantifier prefixed to a simple function or a negated simple function, such as (3x)Fx or (x)~Gx; we also considered the negations of such formulas. In Unit 12 we discussed categorical propositions and their negations, and in Unit 13, more complex forms of categorical propositions. All these formulas, other than the simple singular ones, were either quantifier formulas or their negations. We have seen in this unit that there may also be truth-functional compounds of quantifier formulas, and there are still other possibilities. Formulas such as (x) (F x • G x), for instance, are perfectly good quantifier formulas; they are just not categorical. Furthermore, we may combine any of the sorts of formulas we have with our truth-functional operators. The following are all perfectly good formulas; the form is indicated to the right.
Fa::) (x)(Fx "" Gx) (x)(Fx "" ~Gx) ~ (:3x)(Fx::) Hx) (x)Fx "" ~Hx (x)Fx' ((x)Gx v (x)Hx)
~(x)Fx::) ~(x)Gx

(:3x)(Fx' Gx)' Hx (x)(Fx::) Gx) v Ha ~((Fa'Ha)::) (:3x)(Fx·Hx)) (:3x)((Fx::) Hx) v (Gx "" ~Hx))

Conditional Universal Negation Biconditional Conjunction Conditional Conjunction Disjunction Negation Existential

Exercise 2 at the end of the unit, which you should now complete, will give you further practice in recognizing the forms of such propositions.
3. Symbolizing Truth-functional Compounds

You should by now have little trouble in identifying the form of a given symbolic expression and in distinguishing between quantifier statements, disjunctions, conjunctions, and so on. You now need to practice going from the English sentence to the symbolism, where you are not told in advance whether

268

Unit 14 Quantifier Form and Truth-functional Compounds

the sentence is a quantifier statement or not. What you need to do is to analyze the structure of the English sentence to determine whether it is a quantifier statement or a truth-functional compound. Here, where you will have a mixture of the different kinds of sentences, symbolization techniques will be a combination of what you have learned in sentential logic and what you have learned so far in predicate logic. The first thing to do is to determine the overall structure of the sentenceuniversal, existential, disjunction, conjunction, negation, and so on. Once you have done this, you can then go on to analyze the parts: if it is a disjunction, for example, symbolize the disjuncts; if it is a universal statement, pick out and symbolize subject and predicate. A few examples should be sufficient to give you the idea. Obvious abbreviations will be used. The sentence "Not every politician is a crook and not every clergyman is honest" has the overall form of a conjunction, since the "and" joins two complete sentences. The fIrst conjunct is the negation of a universal statement, and so is the second. Thus ::J ) • ~ (x)( ::J ). the overall form will be ~ (x)( The next thing to do is to identify and symbolize the subjects and predicates of the two conjuncts, and at this point that should not be hard for you. Once we do this, the whole sentence is symbolized as ~ ( x ) ( P x ::J ex) • ~ ( x ) (Lx ::J H x). The sentence "If nobody comes to the party, then there is someone who will not be happy" is a conditional, with an E statement as the antecedent and an 0 statement as the consequent. If we use P x == x is a person, Ax == x comes to the party, and H x == x is happy, then the whole symbolization would be (x )(Px ::J~ Ax) ::J (3x )(Px· ~H x). We can also have truth-functional compounds of quantifIer statements and singular propositions or truthfunctional compounds of singUlar propositions alone. The sentence "If everyone passed the exam, then Mary got an A and got into law school" is a conditional, with a universal for antecedent and conjunction of singular propositions as consequent. One way of symbolizing this would be (x) ( P x ::J Ex) ::J (Am· Lm). In the following exercises you will have all sorts of combinations, and the best thing to do is simply analyze the structure bit by bit until you get the end result. There will be categorical propositions, singular statements, and simple quantifIer statements, as well as truthfunctional compounds, so be very careful in analyzing structure.
DEFINITIONS
1. A formula is a quantifier statement, or of quantifier form, if and only if (I) it begins with a quantifier and (2) the scope of the initial quantifier extends to the end of the formula. 2. The scope of a quantifier is the first complete formula following the quantifier.

Unit 14 Quantifier Form and Truth-functional Compounds

269

EXERCISES
1. Give interpretations of your own to show that the following pairs of formulas do not mean the same. Make one sentence true and the other false. a. b. c. d.

(x)Fx v (x)Gx and (x)(Fx v Gx) (3x)(Fx' Gx) and (3x)Fx' (3x)Gx (x)Fx ~ (x)Gx and (x)(Fx ~ Gx)
~(3x)(Fx'Gx)

and

(3x)~(Fx-Gx)

2. Which of the following are quantifier statements? For those that are not, indicate what their form is,

*a.
b.

* c.
d.

*e.
f.

*g.
h.

~(x)(Fx ~ Gx) (3x)(Fx' Gx) • Hx (x)((Fx v Gx) ~~(Hx v Ix)) (3x)((Fx'Gx)'~(~Hx v Ix)) (3x)(Fx' Gx) ~ (3x)(Fx' Hx) (x)(Fx:J Gx)· (Hx v Ix) (x)(Fx == (Hx'Ix))

~(x)Fx' ~(x)Gx

*.1.
j.

*k.
1.

*m. n. *0.
p.

*q. r. * s.
t.

(3x) ~ (Fx- Gx) (x)Fx:J (Gx' Hx) (x)(Fx ~ Gx) v (x)Hx ~(x)Fx' (x)Gx ~((3x)Fx v (3x)Gx) (x)( (Fx' Gx) :J (Hx v Ix)) v (Px v Gx) (3x)((Fx v Gx) == (Gx v Ix)) (3x)(Fx' Gx)· (3x)Hx ~(x)((Fx v Gx)' ~Hx) ~ Ix (3x)((Fx'Gx):J (Hx'Ix)) ~(3x)Fx v (x)(Gx ~ Hx) (x)~(Fx v ((Hx'Jx):J Ix))

3. Symbolize the following, using the abbreviations indicated. These sentences may be of any form, including singular, simple quantifications, categorical propositions, or truthfunctional compounds. Analyze the overall structure before you do anything else. M x == x is a mushroom; Ex == x is edible; Dx == x is delicious; N x == x is nutritious; Bx == x is broccoli; V x == x is a vegetable; T x == x is a tomato; Fx == x is a fruit;

270

Unit 14 Quantifier Form and Truth-functional Compounds

Wx == x is wild; Px == x is a person; Ux == x has the flu; ex == x has been deceived; Rx == x eats fruits; Ox == x is poisonous.

*a.
b. *c. d. *e. f. *g. h.

*i. j.

Some mushrooms are edible and some are not. Not aU edible things are either delicious or nutritious. If broccoli is not nutritious, then no vegetable is nutritious. Broccoli is a vegetable, but tomatoes are fruits. Broccoli and tomatoes are nutritious and delicious. Either John has the flu or some mushrooms are poisonous. Not aU wild mushrooms are poisonous, but some are. Some edible vegetables are delicious but not nutritious, and some are nutritious but not delicious. If not aU wild mushrooms are edible, then John has been deceived. Either fruits are nutritious if and only if they are delicious, or people who eat fruit have been deceived.

4. Symbolize the foUowing, which may be of any form, using the indicated abbreviations. Px == x is a politician; Rx == x is respected; Ex == x is reelected; Ax == x abuses his or her powers; I x == x is impeached; M x == x is a millionaire; V x == x votes his or her conscience; Hx == x is honest; Bx == x takes bribes; Lx == x is lying; Sx == x is a person; j = John; r = Richard. *a. b. *c. d. *e. There are some politicians who do not abuse their powers, and some who do. Not every politician who is a millionaire abuses his or her powers. If every politician votes his or her conscience, then none will be impeached. Some politicians who do not vote their consciences are respected and reelected. Either no politician takes bribes or none is respected. Politicians are respected if and only if they do not take bribes. If John is not honest, then there are no honest politicians. John does not take bribes, but he does abuse his power and will be impeached. If Richard does not take bribes or abuse his power, then he will not only not be impeached but will be reelected. If John and Richard both take bribes, then not all politicians are honest. John will take a bribe only if aU politicians take bribes. Either someone is lying, or John and Richard are taking bribes. There are some politicians who are either taking bribes or lying, and they will be impeached.

f.
*g. h.

*i.
J. *k. l. *m.

Unit 14 Quantifier Form and Truth-functional Compounds

271

5. Write down the English sentences that correspond to the following formulas. Use the abbreviations from Exercise 4. *a. b. *c. d. *e.
f. *g.
h.

*i. J.

(3x)(Hx Px)::J ~ Bj ~(x)(Px::J Hx) ~(x)(Px ::J~Hx) ~(3x)(Px Rx) ::J (3x)(Px Bx) ~(Bj v Br)::J ((MjoMr) v (HjoHr)) (~Rjo ~ Ej)::J (Aj v ~Hj v ~Mj) (x)((Px Hx) ::J Rx) v (3x)(Px Hx ~Ex) (x)((Px ~ Hx Bx) ::J (Mx ~Rx ~Vx)) ~(3x)(PxoVx) ::J~(3x)(Pxo(Rx v Ex)) ~(3x)(Px LX" Rx) ~(x)((Px Lx Bx) ::J~Ex) ((BjoAr) v (Lro ~Vj))::J (~(3x)(PxoHx) v (3x)(Sx oLx))
0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6. Symbolize the following, which may be of any form, using the indicated abbreviations. Tx == x is a truck; Fx == x is fancy; Ex == x is expensive; ex == x is a car; Rx == x has a radiator; Ox == x overheats; Dx == x has a diesel engine; Sx == x is a semi; Bx == x breaks down frequently; Px == x pollutes; Lx == x is a lemon; 0 = myoid car; n = my new car. *a. Not all trucks are fancy, but some are expensive. b. No car that does not have a radiator overheats. *c. Myoid car does not have a diesel engine and it overheats, but my new car has a diesel engine and it doesn't overheat. d. If fancy cars are expensive, then my new car is expensive. *e. All semis either have diesel engines or don't. f. Either all semis have diesel engines or no semis have diesel engines. *g. Not all cars break down frequently, but my new one does. h. Not only diesel trucks pollute. *i. If my new car isn't expensive, then no car or truck is expensive. J. Some, but not all, trucks are semis. *k. Any car or truck that breaks down frequently is a lemon. 1. Some expensive cars are lemons, and some inexpensive cars are not lemons. *m. If not all trucks break down frequently, then not all are lemons. n. Either no car is a lemon, or some break down frequently. *0. If my new car isn't a lemon, then not all cars are lemons. p. Some cars and trucks overheat.

272 *q. r. *s.
t.

Unit 14 Quantifier Form and Truth-functional Compounds Cars and trucks are expensive polluters. Either all semis have diesel engines, or all break down frequently. Trucks with diesel engines pollute if and only if they overheat. Neither my new car nor myoid car pollutes, but some cars do pollute. Not all cars are lemons and not all lemons are cars. If some expensive cars pollute and break down frequently, then every inexpensive car breaks down frequently.

*u. v.

UNIT 15

Proofs in Predicate Logic

A. INTRODUCTION

In the introduction to predicate logic, it was noted that there are some arguments that cannot be proved using just the methods of sentential logic, but which require an analysis of the internal structures of the sentences involved. You have now learned how to do this analysis, how to break down sentences into their component parts, and at this point you are ready to learn how to construct proofs. There is actually very little new that you will have to learn here; most of the business of proof construction in quantifier logic uses things you already know, such as the rules for sentential logic, the quantifier negation equivalences, and the definition of a quantifier formula. The only thing you still need to do is to learn the four rules for using quantifier formulas in inferences. Once you learn these, the process of constructing proofs should not be difficult.
B. UNIT lS OBJECTIVES

• Be able to state the four quantifier rules, with all necessary restrictions. • Be able to explain why the restrictions are necessary. • Be able to construct proofs of arguments containing just quantifier statements or their negations. • Be able to construct proofs of arguments containing truth-functional compounds of quantifier statements. • Be able to construct proofs of theorems in predicate logic.

273

so all cats are vertebrates" cannot be proved given just the methods of sentential logic. naturally enough. What we need to do is to state the rule and then restrict its application to those cases in which it is clearly justified. what we need is a rule that will allow us to drop the quantifiers and infer instances.. which is not a valid argument form.I. Universal Instantiation (U. but rather are universal statements. and all mammals are vertebrates. however. Preliminary Statement of the Four Quantifier Rules As noted in Unit 10. where a can be any name. but. That is. and so on. to get (Ca ~ Va) and then apply the rule that allows us to go back to the universal statement. <l>a.) and will be stated roughly in the form <l>a / . (x)(Cx ~ Vx). <I> is true of that thing. that the argument can be symbolized in quantifier logic as (x)(Cx ~ Mx). however.I. perhaps (Ca ~ Ma) and (Ma ~ Va). .) and will have the form (x)<I>x / . UNIT 15 TOPICS 1. (The rules will be stated more precisely and explained more fully in Sections 3 and 4. since it would have to be symbolized as p. We could then apply the rule of H.'. (x)<I>x. <l>b.) Unlike the rule of U.. This looks a good bit more promising. q /. for anything. In this way we could infer the desired conclusion. the argument "All cats are mammals. since premises and conclusion are not in the form of conditionals. What. since the rule of Hypothetical Syllogism seems to connect the premises and conclusion. .I. We would then be able to go from (x)(Cx ~ Mx) and (x)(Mx ~ Vx) to some particular instance. .. (x)(Cx ~ Vx). allows us to do. therefore everything contains intelligent life. this rule is not applicable to the argument as it stands. of c.S. or formulas like them. Thus. we should be able to infer any instance <l>a. (x)Lx. only with special kinds of instances.S.. The rule that will allow us to drop universal quantifiers and infer instances of the universal formula will be called. for example. so if we could get them. which will be given in Section 4. You now know. However.'. we ought to be able to infer that <I> is true of a.'. Since a universal statement (x)<I>x says that for any x. This will take some rather lengthy explanation. to infer that because Earth contains intelligent life. needs to be done? Notice that the propositional functions of the premises and conclusion are in the form of conditionals. This will be called the rule of Universal Generalization (U. We cannot always go from an instance to the universal statement.G. for going from an instance <l>a to the universal formula (x)<I>x. we would be able to use the rule of H. r..274 Unit 15 Proofs in Predicate Logic C. We will also have a rule for tacking on the universal quantifier. for now. (x)(Mx ~ Vx) / . it would be absurd. then. and also a rule that will allow us to add on the quantifier again once we have the instance we want. and this is exactly what the rule of u. standing alone. Le. this rule can be used only in very special circumstances. of b. <l>c.

(x)(Px:J Ax) 2. 8. 2 V. The rule of Existential Generalization (E.7. (x)</>x (3x)</>x / . A summary of the four quantifier rules is given below. </>a </>a / . and some V.. presidents have been Quakers. 3 Conj. We cannot infer from an existential formula any instance we wish.'. The rule of Existential Instantiation (£." a. will look a little different in its restricted form.I. U. E..).G..1.). G.'. will be stated as follows: </>a / ./ ".G. The rules will be given in full in Sections 3 and 4. E... however.. which certainly does not guarantee that any individual we choose will have the property </>. There are parallel rules for the existential quantifier. If we have already demonstrated that a particular individual has the property </>.1. 1 Simp. (3x)</>x. then we are certainly justified. without the restrictions.). (not V. that is..6 E.G. 6.G.P.1.S.. (x)</>x / .I. it cannot be used in all instances.S. </>a </>a / . presidents have been ambitious.Unit 15 Proofs in Predicate Logic 275 we can say that in cases like the above. Note that this is only a preliminary statement of the rules. </>a. like the rule of V. but will have to be restricted. without further ado. 8 . (3x)(Px. The rule of UG. We will go into the details of how to pick a correct instance in Section 4 and will only note for now that if we choose properly. so some Quakers have been ambitious. where the premises are all universal. (3x)</>x.Qx) Pa'Qa Pa:J Aa Pa Aa Qa Qa' Aa 9.1. (3x)</>x At this point. We need to be careful with this rule.) will allow us to go from an existential formula to some instance and will be stated in much the same form as the rule of V.5 Simp. 1.. 3. 4. (3x)(Qx' Ax) E.I. which will permit us to go from a particular instance </>a to the existential formula (3x)</>x.: (3x)</>x / . U. in concluding that something has the property </>. 5. since the existential statement (3x)</>x says only that at least one individual has the property </>. it is correct to infer the universal statement again at the end. it is relatively unrestricted.I. 4. in particular. we are permitted to go from an existential statement to an instance. (3x)(Qx' Ax) Pro Pr. we can use our rules to construct a proof of the following argument: "All V. 3 M. Like the rule ofV. (not V.G. 7.

276 Unit 15 Proofs in Predicate Logic Notice that the first move is to drop the quantifiers by applying the instantiation rules. the four quantifier rules go either from quantified formulas (those that are of universal or existential form) to instances (in the instantiation rules) or from instances to quantified formulas (in the generalization rules). Instances of this formula would include «Fa' Gb) :::J Ha). (The matching variables are simply those that are bound by the quantifier. You already know that a quantified formula is one that begins with a quantifier whose scope extends clear to the end of the formula. we will use expressions such as <j>a. Do not replace the existing constant with another constant. (x)( (F x • Gb) :::J H x) would be an example of a formula containing a constant. To designate instances of the quantified formulas (x)<j>x and (3x)<j>x. which contain only a single variable. «Fb' Gb) :::J Hb). Formulas containing other quantified variables will be discussed in Units 17 through 20. (x)«Fx v Gx) :::J Hx) (FavGa):::JHa (FbvGb):::J Hb (FcvGc):::J Hc (FgvGg):::JHg b. a." An instance of a quantified formula is the result of deleting the initial quantifier and replacing every "matching" variable in the propositional function uniformly with some individual constant. we will discuss the concept of an instance of a quantified formula. the ones that have the same letter as the quantifier. We may define <j>a as follows: where <j>x is any . that there may also be quantified formulas that contain individual constants and/or other quantified variables. the singular statements underneath the quantified formula are all instances of that formula.) The relationship between a quantified formula and its instances is illustrated below. however. (3x)«Fx' ~ Gx) v (Hx' ~ Ix)) (Fa' ~ Ga) v (Ha' ~ Ia) (F d • ~ Gd) v (H d . Instances of Quantified Formulas As you have seen. It should be noted. The principle is the same: drop the quantifier and replace each variable bound by the deleted quantifier with a constant. replace only the variables bound by the initial quantifier. ~ I d) (Fe' ~ Ge) v(He' ~ Ie) (Fh' ~ Gh) v (Hh' ~ Ih) It is clearly a simple matter to recognize instances of quantified formulas such as those above. that is. and «Fc' Gb) :::J Hc). 2. We need now to state precisely the meaning of "instance. To clarify this process. It is extremely important to remember that (1) every matching variable must be replaced and (2) the same constant must be used for each matching variable. We then derive an instance of the conclusion we want and then apply the appropriate generalization rule to derive the quantified formula.

(x)(Px :J M x). we are surely justified in inferring that there is something with the property <1>. Gj. (3x)<I>x Given any instance. The Rules of Universal Instantiation (U. 3.I. That is.G. containing a free variable x. The rule of E. 6. and our conclusion will be that something is good. We may state the rule of V. 3. and its justification is obvious.S. we may infer the corresponding existential formula. 4. Our premises will be (1) everything is useful.G. and (2) anything that is useful is good. then John is affected by gravity. <l>a is a formula just like <l>x. 5. (3x)<I>x. we may infer any instance.S. is similarly uncomplicated. 5 .".I. b. and if all V. to infer from a universal statement any particular instance. 1. 2 M. <l>a. We may state the rule formally as follows: EXISTENTIAL GENERALIZATION (E. Let us now construct a very simple proof using these two rules. If everything is affected by gravity. president. it should certainly be correct. Since we have an individual with the property <1>. simple or complex.4 E. If we have an instance of a formula.G. (x)Gx.) (x)<I>x / . formally as follows: UNIVERSAL INSTANTIATION (U. 2. (3x)Gx V.) <l>a / . then Coolidge was a man. (x)Vx (x)(V x :J Gx) Va Va:J Ga Ga (3x)Gx Pro Pro / .) and Existential Generalization (E.". 1 V.I. that is.P.G. Pc :J Mc. this means that the individual named by a has the property <1>. it is clear that <l>a is an instance of (x)<I>x or (3x)<I>x.) A universal formula states that every individual has a certain property. Since an instance of a quantified formula is simply the result of deleting the initial quantifier and replacing all the x's with a's.Unit 15 Proofs in Predicate Logic 277 propositional function. <l>a is the result of replacing every x in <l>x with an a. <l>a From a universal formula. then.. except that every occurrence of x in <l>x has been replaced by an a. presidents have been men.I.I. 3.. then if Coolidge was a V.

1.. 3 Conj. Oa'Na 4. from "The Earth contains intelligent life" to "Everything contains intelligent life. 6 Where have we gone wrong here? It is fairly obvious that it is in the fourth step. invalid inferences. Ea'Na 5. 1. Everything is a cat with stripes.1.I We could also make erroneous inferences from existential propositions to universal propositions. (x)(Cx' Sx) Pro / . (3x)(Ox' Ex' Nx) E. 2 Simp.'. we could also make the absurd inference cited earlier. (3x)(Ox' N x) 2. Used indiscriminately. Le 2.1.1. If we had an unrestricted rule of E. to prove the false conclusion that there are numbers that are both odd and even! The "proof' would be as follows: c.4 E./ .) and Universal Generalization (U.2 Clearly. Ca'Sa 3.G.G. must be rather heavily restricted. where we have used a to stand for the even number.. we obviously need restrictions on V. as well as on E. Oa 6.). they would lead to logical errors.G.5. Just because we know that there are <I>'s and there are t/J's.278 Unit 15 Proofs in Predicate Logic 4. and it will be easier to learn these restrictions if you can see why they are needed. even though we had used a to stand for the odd number in the previous step. and U. such as "There are cats with stripes.I. this will not do.G.I.G. Without restrictions on U. The point is really very simple: without the restrictions the rules are not valid. (x)(Cx' Sx) E." We would need only two steps: d. we are not permitted to say that there is some one thing that is both a <I> and a t/J.'. (3x)(Ox' Ex' N x) Pro Pr. What we need is a restriction that will prevent usfrom using the same instance letter for two different existential propositions. given the true premises that there are odd numbers and there are even numbers. (3x)(Ex' Nx) 3. 1 E. I U. / .'.G.. to make sure we do not infer universal statements either from specific instances . 1.!. The Rules of Existential Instantiation (E.1. Flagging Restrictions The rules of E. (3x)(Cx' Sx) 2.G." For this we would need only three steps: e. for instance. (x)Lx Pro / ". (x)Lx U.. Oa' Ea' Na 7. it would be an easy matter.

we simply declare that it is being flagged and thereafter make sure that we observe all the conditions that are imposed on flagged letters. but this would be a rather cumbersome. We can do this by requiring that every flagged letter be new to the proof It should be noted that one consequence of this restriction is that the same letter may not be flagged more than once in a proof Thus.G.) (3x)<\>x / .Unit 15 Proofs in Predicate Logic 279 or from instances derived from existential formulas..I. We might. to flag a letter. The rule of E. by a series of flagging restrictions on the instance letters used in the rules of E. for instance. preliminary version.I. There is nothing mysterious about the process of flagging. and the full statement of the rule of E. requiring further restrictions. and V. just lay down a restriction for each possible error that might come up.I. ad hoc approach." marking the letter off in some way to remind ourselves that it must be treated with care. What can we do to prevent such glaring logical errors? There are a number of different possible formulations of the quantifier rules that would help us get around these difficulties. and it might tum out that there were problems we hadn't anticipated. if you check over your proof and find. for instance.I.I. . or u. will be just like our earlier. except that we note that the instance letter must be flagged. provided we flag the instance letter. We will prevent the kind of erroneous inferences mentioned above. was possible because we used the same instance letter for both existential premises. you will know immediately that you have made an error. to the conclusion that there are numbers that are both odd and even. Flagging an instance letter is really just "raising a red flag.G. we may infer an instance. be flagged. The formal restriction is stated below. and we will then impose three further restrictions on the use of flagged letters. What we will do instead is to use a method that is simple to use and quite elegant and that covers all the problems at once. Now. that we cannot use it indiscriminately. what sorts of conditions must be placed on the flagged letters to prevent the logical errors mentioned above? Remember that the invalid inference in "proof' c. we will flag the instance letter by writing ''flag a" (or ''flag b" or ''flag c") as a part of the justification for that step. instead of piece by piece. Thus what we need is a restriction that will guarantee that we never use the same instance letter for more than one existential statement.. <\>a provided we flag a Given an existential formula.I. In using the rule of E. We will require that the instance letter in any use of E. that you have flagged a twice. will then be the following: EXISTENTIAL INSTANTIATION (E.. as well as any others that might crop up. To flag a letter is simply to note that it requires special attention.

because of the way the rules are stated. or Fc . we would have had to infer Fb .1.I. 9. 2. This declaration must be included with each E. step is a declaration that the instance letter is being flagged. step.1. 1. either in a formula or as a letter being flagged.G. Before we go on to discuss u.1.. 8 Fa-~Ha (3x)(Fx .N x) 3. (3x)(Ox .~ Ga Ha::J Ga Fa ~Ga ~Ha Pro Pro / ". 6. 8. (flag a) Error We cannot infer Ea . T. If we had inferred H a ::J Ga by U.1. and you will have to choose another letter for the E.0a-Na 4. it has already made an appearance at step 3.4 Conj.280 Unit 15 Proofs in Predicate Logic RIA letter being flagged must be new to the proof. and we would then not have been able to combine these formulas with H a ::J Ga to derive other steps.1.1. f. for instance. and E.~ Hx) Notice that in using the rule of E.G.G.N a at step 4. Ea-Na Pro PrJ .T.1. instantiations first. 1.~Hx) E. If you apply U. it may not appear. (flag a) E. 2. (3x)(Fx. 2 Simp.~ Gc. step. at step 3 above.5.I.1.1. or the step is incorrect.7 E. 1. as well as the unrestricted rules of U. 5. or some other instance. (3x)(Ox-Ex-Nx) E. the instance letter will already have been used.1. (flag a) U. previous to the step in which it gets flagged. (3x)(Fx . Notice how this restriction blocks the inference from "There are odd numbers and there are even numbers" to "There are numbers that are both odd and even.1.. (3x)(Ex .~ Gb. We can now carry out a proof using the fully restricted rule of E. 3 Simp." 1. you should almost always do your E. You may never use M. because the instance letter is not new to the proof. It is important to remember in doing these proofs that an essential part of the justification for the E. 3 M.Nx) 2. on premises such as . First.~ Gx) (x)(Hx::J Gx) Fa. 4.6. first. that is. 3. we need to emphasize a few points of strategy in doing quantifier proofs... at step 3 we have not only cited the rule but have also included in our justification the declaration that we are flagging a. 7.

which we will abbreviate as F. we must be sure that the function cPx holds for every individual. To avoid getting different instance letters. since the second premise is not the negation of the consequent of H a ::J Ga. must. we cannot infer a universal proposition from just any old instance. This special subproofwill be called aflagged subproofbecause it will always begin with a declaration that the instance letter over which we will be generalizing is being flagged. Keeping these things in mind. use E.G.S. U. In practice. you will not be able to combine steps with your sentential rules if these steps contain different instance letters. Ifthe instance letter is a. G. so that we may correctly infer the universal proposition. first. Another point that should now be emphasized is that in using the unrestricted rules of U. a b-flagged subproof. with a scope marker. (U. This step will be called the flagging step. of course. and the justification will be Flagging Step. The rule of U. The kinds of instances from which it is proper to infer universal propositions are those that would hold as well for any other individual." (As we will see in the final section. Universal Generalization. What we may not do is use U. ifwe infer aformula (x)<\>x.). this usually means those that were derived entirely from universal propositions. you should. in other words.) To guarantee that we have a genuinely universal instance. it may have already appeared.G. . thus ensuring that when we derive our instance it will be one that depends only on statements that are true of everything. The flagged subproof. we may use U. be derived within a special kind of subprooj. We cannot infer that everything is made of paper. will serve as a kind of "quarantine. on tautologous singular statements such as (Fa ::J Fa). Thus it is perfectly correct to infer H a ::J Ga at step 4 in problem f above.I. in general. as mentioned earlier. In other words. and E. just because this page is made of paper. subproof will be the expression "flag a" (or "flag b" or "flag c"). such as "The Earth contains intelligent life. if it is b. from which it is legitimate to infer a universal proposition. as before. which we will call a flagged subproof The idea of the flagged subproof is to "isolate" the instance from unwanted outside influences such as existential propositions and contingent singular statements. we may now move on to our last quantifier rule.. The subproof will be set off. even though the letter a was already used in step 3.G.!. the first step of the U. Rather.G.G. the instance letter is not flagged and need not be new to the proof. and so on.Unit 15 Proofs in Predicate Logic 281 H a ::J Ga and ~ Gb.G. we will require that the instance for U. also be restricted." protecting the instance from "contamination" by existential or contingent statements and keeping it "pure" for the eventual universal generalization. Gb is not the same statement as Ga. since. we will call the subproof an a-flagged subproof. and this can happen only with very special instances. In general. on an instance that is derived from an existential proposition or on a contingent singular statement. for example.G.

as we will call it. and LP.L 2 H.4. 6. and this will mean setting up two subproofs. then we may infer the universal proposition (x)<!>x. will extend from the flagging declaration through the instance over which we will generalize." g.G. to get the instance and U.P. / .P. The only differences are that for U. as we have done above. (x)(Cx::J Mx) 2. This is what happens in the proof below.S.282 Unit 15 Proofs in Predicate Logic We may now state the rule of U. so all cats are vertebrates. (x)(Cx::J V x) 3. the first for U. (U.. . will be discharged at the step in which U..G. 5. This means that the best strategy will often be to use c.S. and all mammals are vertebrates.L 1 U.S. (x)(Mx::J Vx) 4.G. Ca ::J Ma Ma::JVa Ca::JVa 7. It often happens that the instance for a universal proposition is a conditional.G. as follows: UNIVERSAL GENERALIZATION (U. and LP.G.5 U. where we need to use C. which operates much like an assumption.G. and the a-flagged scope marker.). they will be set in. to derive the instance (although above we could just use H.G. and the second for C. the first step in the subproof is a flagging step.6 Here we were able to derive the instance (Ca ::J Va) within the a-flagged subproof. (x)(Cx::J Vx) F. Ujflaga Pro Pro / .P.. we are permitted to infer the universal conclusion (x)(Cx ::J V x). rather than a formula. rather than all the steps in the subproof. and in our justification for U. 1.P.G.P. The flagged subproofs will be used in the same way as subproofs for c... and the flagging step. as in the problem above. (x)<!>x We will illustrate this rule with a proof for the very simple argument cited in Section 1: "All cats are mammals.. to derive the universal conclusion. therefore. We will use the same kind of scope marker as we used for c.) U. we will cite only the last step in the subproof.G. is applied.) flag a If <!>a is the last step in an a-flagged subproof.

1.LCa o Sa 4. i flag a 0 3. 4 M. It is also incorrect to infer some specific instance from an existential proposition.G.I.P.ll We noted earlier that it would be incorrect to derive a universal statement from an existential. Fa:::JSa 12.G. requires that <l>a (not b or any other letter) appear as the last step of an a-flagged subproof. flag a 0 4.P. (V. 2 Add. (x)(Hx:::J (Ix Sx)) 3. so everything contains intelligent life" is obviously invalid.P. 283 I. If we tried to do the E. Thus.8 Simp.I. requires that the instance letter be flagged.I. Fa (FavGa):::JHa Ha:::J(IaoSa) FavGa Ha laoSa 11. the argument "Earth contains intelligent life. (x)((Fx v Gx) :::J Hx) 2.I. 5. However. but it has already appeared in step 2 as a flagged letter. flagging the b. (x)(Fx :::J Sx) F.I. the flagging restriction we imposed earlier keeps us from making erroneous inferences from existential to universal statements. there are other kinds of errors involving universal quantifiers that are not blocked by Restriction 1. we may not infer the false specific instance "Earth 0 0 . 9 C.) V. 9. And. if we flagged a for V.Unit 2 The Structure of Sentential Logic h.P. flag a D.G.G. From the true premise "Some planets have rings. (C. then we would not be able to flag a for the use of V. e. (3x)(Cx Sx) 2. 7.4-1O V. so it is not new to the proof.7 M. since the rule of V. so it is necessary to impose further restrictions.G. (x)(Cx Sx) 0 Pro F.G.3 Error Here the error is in step 3: E. 6.I. at step 2 and then at step 3 inferred Cb Sb from E.G. step first. 10. 1. 1 V.S. 8.) Assp. 6. prevents us from making erroneous inferences such as that in problem e cited earlier. that it would be incorrect to infer a universal statement from a specific instance. (V. we would not be able to infer (x)(Cx Sx) at step 4. We can now see how the combination of the first flagging restriction (that a flagged letter must be new to the proof) and the flagging requirement for V. It was pointed out earlier. for instance.S.) E.. 5.G. (x)(Fx:::J Sx) Pro Pro /"." for example. at step 2.

G. For all negated quantifier statements.G. this is not legitimate. since it will really play no role until we get to relational proofs in Vnit 18. to get the equivalent quantifier formula. on a formula such as (x)Fx :J (x)Gx.I. to derive (x)(Lx) we would have to set up an e-flagged subproof. however.Q. is then blocked. which reads as follows: R2 A flagged letter may not appear either in the premises or in the conclusion of a proof.. Second. on (x)Fx :J Gx or on (x)Fx :J Fa. not of a quantifier formula. on the premise Le or on any other premise containing a constant. One final restriction will finish our quantifier rules. or E. Le / . Since to be of quantifier form a statement must begin with a quantifier. since in neither of these cases does the scope of the quantifier extend to the end of the sentence. before we go on to discuss proof strategies.N.G. It is simply a feature of this proof system that we have two different kinds of individual letters. which is also prohibited by R z. because these begin with a negation sign. you could use C. to get (3x)(Fx· ~ Gx) and then use E. you will first have to use Q." To block these two kinds of erroneous inferences. The same thing holds in reverse for the generalization rules.I. At this point.I. First. and only then can you use V. which play different roles and which should not be confused. Since e appears in the premise. note that we have used names rather than variables in doing all our instantiations. since this is in the form of a conditional. This means that we cannot use V. to get (Fa· ~ Ga).. The simple proof from Earth containing intelligent life to everything containing intelligent life. we would be blocked because we would have the constant e appearing in the conclusion of the proof. In using V. we also cannot use the instantiation rules on formulas such as ~(x)(Fx :J Gx). the conclusion must always be a formula that begins with a quantifier whose scope extends to the end of the formula.G.I. and extremely important.I. This means that (x)Fx :J (x)Gx cannot . R3 A flagged letter may not appear outside the subproof in which it gets flagged.N. Nor could we use V. (x)Lx. we need to add another flagging restriction.N. so it is not possible to use V. you may use the instantiation rules only on formulas that are of quantifier form-those that begin with a quantifier whose scope extends to the end of the sentence. This will be particularly important in relationallogic.. If we tried to derive "Earth is a planet with rings" from the true premise that some planets have rings.284 Unit 15 Proofs in Predicate Logic is a planet with rings. You should never use individual variables as instance letters. or E. We include this only for the sake of completeness. because to use V. In the case above. or C. we must make a number of important observations about the use of the quantifier rules.Q.

6. The revised definition would read simply "A proof is a sequence of steps such that each is either a premise.Q.G.5. those whose premises and conclusions are all either quantifier statements or their negations. Remember always to flag the instance letter when using E. 1 Simp. or an assumption.P. What you then need to do is derive an instance of the conclusion. the sort of formula you encountered in the last unit.7 Conj. or follows from previous steps according to the given rules of inference. (3x)(Fx· ~ Hx) 3. or a flagging step. 1. and such that the last step in the sequence is the desired conclusion.1. (although it can be the conclusion of c. in steps 5 through 9 we derived an instance of the conclusion. ~Ha 8. Fa· ~ Ha 4.1.5 Simp. Fa 6. (3x)(Fx· Gx) Pro Pr. 9 At steps 3 and 4 we dropped the quantifiers.).. since we have added another kind of step.. In the next section we will talk about arguments containing truthfunctional compounds of quantifier statements. 3 M. the first thing to do will be to drop the quantifiers using the instantiation rules.G. the flagging step. at this point. Ga 9. since you are starting with quantified statements. 3 D. (flag a) V. An example of such a proof is worked out below. 2. You will then be left with instances of the premises. Nor can we infer formulas such as ~ (3x)(Fx· Gx) by V. A more complex example.S. / . 1.8 E. or E." 5. (3x)(Fx· Gx) E.G.G. and at step 10 we added the quantifier back on. use one of the generalization rules to get the quantified conclusion. using V. (x)(Fx ~ (Gx v Hx)) 2. and then use C.G. (although it can be the result of Conj. and (3x)Fx· Gx cannot be the conclusion of E. Fa· Ga 10. We would first have to derive its equivalent. Once you have this instance. by V. GavHa 7.1. Fa ~ (Ga v Ha) 5.. 4..).G. is worked out below. One thing to keep in mind with arguments that have universal conclusions is that the propositional . to revise our definition of "proof' once again. Constructing Proofs for "Pure" Quantifier Argments In this section we will be concerned only with "pure" quantifier arguments.G. In these proofs. (x)(Fx ~ ~ Gx).P.Unit 15 Proofs in Predicate Logic 285 be the conclusion of V. Another thing that must be mentioned is that we need. We will first discuss arguments that do not have either negated premises or negated conclusions.N. you need just one more step.

and the last step will be the instance of the conclusion. This means that. ~Hav~Wa ~ ~ I:.6-13 V. You may be wondering where you begin a V.G.7 Pro Pro ~ Zx) DeM. 6 M. notice that the instance letter here is r. 4. The inner subproof will be for C.1. (C. on constants.14 14. Probably the best strategy is to begin it as soon as you can.G. will already have appeared in the proof.G.) V..) Add. 1 .. flag a 4.P. Mr Pro Pr. Wa) Za ~ DeM.8 Simp. 10 (Ha . Ga:::J Za Zx) 15. and I.P. subproof after step 14. 5. 1 V.286 Unit 15 Proofs in Predicate Logic function of the conclusion will often be a conditional. since then the letter..G.G. from a universal formula we may infer any instance.P. ~ Ha 11.P. Ga 7. You must always apply C.1.G. Cr:::J Er 4.G. k. 9 Add. ~ Ia 10.P. (3x)(Mx'Ex) V.ll M. 2 Assp. One thing you may not do is to start it after you have made an instantiation using the letter to be generalized over.. Wx» 3. and from any instance we may infer an existential proposition.T.1. you may never terminate two subproofs in the same step. The following is a rather simple example. ~ (Ha vIa) 9. and E.12 C. are unrestricted. at different steps. In the following problem the outside subproof will be for V. and V. (V. Remember that the rules of V. 13. This means that you may have to use c. (x)«Fx v Gx) :::J ~ (Hx v Ix» 2. which means that there will often be two nested subproofs for such arguments. (x)(Cx:::J Ex) 3. FavGa 8.P.P. (x)(Zx:::J (Hx .1. unlike E. and V.G. (Fa v Ga) :::J ~ (Ha vIa) 5./". which must be flagged.G. 12. j. subproof. 2 Simp. we may use V. Wa) 6.1. Za :::J (Ha .1. and so the first step of that subproof will be the antecedent of the conditional and the last step the consequent. (x)(Gx:::J ~ Notice that we terminate the c. and E. the first step in this subproof will be the flagging step. ~ Ha . subproof after step 13 and the V. 1. 1.P. (x)(Gx :::J ES. to derive an instance of the conclusion. just as with c.P. Mr'Cr 2.

Q. 3 (flag a) 5.Q.. 2. Q. 1 M. do so now.N.Q.. As emphasized earlier. ~ (3x) ~ «>x :: (x)«>x 1. ~ (3x)(<(>x ~ \jJx) :: (x)(<(>x :::J \jJx) 1.5 Conj. Aa:::J Ga 6. 7 Simp. (3x)(Fx ~ (Gx v Hx» 0 Pro Pro / . (3x)(Mx. ~Gao ~ Ha 9. equivalent quantifier formula.N. RULES (x)«>x :: (3x) ~ «>x (3x)«>x :: (x) ~ «>x ~ (x) ~ «>x :: (3x)«>x 4.Q. these rules are stated below.Ex) Simp. 8 M.Q. ~Ga ~Aa 0 11. Q. ~(x)(Fx:::J (Gx v Hx» 2. not all proofs are this simple. or C. 7 Of course. 1.10 E.N. 1.9 Conj. Here the «>x and the \jJx stand for simple or complex subject and predicate phrases. If you have not already learned them.6 E. The C.N.N. you will need to add a few more steps. rules are for negated categorical propositions (or their more complex instances). whether simple or complex.N. RULES C. 3. or C.I.I. 4 Simp.G. ~ (x)(Fx :::J Ax) 4.T. (3x)(Fx ~ Ax) 13. and after using generalization. ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 An example of an argument involving negated quantifiers is worked out below. Er 7. 2. 10.4. 5. 2 Simp. steps must be done before using instantiation.P. memorized them. 3. Fa 7. 11 C.N. ~ ~ (x)(<(>x :::J \jJx) :: (3x)(<(>x ~ \jJx) (3x)(<(>x \jJx) :: (x)(<(>x :::J ~ \jJx) ~ (x)(<(>x :::J ~ \jJx) :: (3x)(<(>x \jJx) 4. you cannot use the four quantifier rules on negated statements. since you will be using them frequently from now on.Unit 15 Proofs in Predicate Logic 287 5.G. Notice that the C. at the very beginning of the proof. rules are for any negated quantifier statements. To brush up your memory. 4 OeM.N. Cr 6.N. You can cite Q. at the very end of the proof. Fao~(GavHa) C.~(GavHa) V.6.12 8.Q. 3. to go from the negated statement to its unnegated. for any of the forms listed. MroEr 8. the «>x stands for any propositional function.N.l E. In proofs that have negated quantifier statements as premises or conclusions. Fa ~ Aa 12.Q. (x)(Ax:::J Gx) 3.N. ~(x)(Fx:::J Ax) 0 . What you must do is use Q.

your proofs will have the following structure. for instance.N. unnegated quantifier formula.288 Unit 15 Proofs in Predicate Logic The strategy for proving arguments whose conclusions are negations is a little different from those in which the conclusion is a positive quantifier statement. you are to find an instance of the conclusion and then use one of the generalization rules.Q. One thing you may find a bit tricky is the use of C. as well as the D. with negated conclusions. and then use Q. from which we could derive. however.N.. for which we will need a flagged subproof. We will work out one more. rather complex example. If you have a negated conclusion.Q.Q. the conclusion is a negated universal that is equivalent to and can be derived from the existential formula (3x)(Fx· ~ Ax).G. (Fa· ~ Aa). If in doubt.Q. it doesn't even make sense to talk about an instance of a negation.N. A complex negated existential proposition would be the following: ~ (3x)«Fx· Gx)· «H x v I x) :J ~ Sx)). In the latter case. or E.N. The first form of C. and then C. is stated as ~ (x)(<\>x :J IjJx) :: (3x)(<\>x· ~ IjJx). Thus what we need is an instance of this existential formula. use u.Q. (x)«Fx· Gx) :J ~ «Hx v Ix):J ~ Sx)). by C..G. you might try underlining the subjects and predicates to make sure you have the transformations right. or C. In problem 1.N. simple or complex.G. rule. Again. In general.. (3x)«Fx· (Gx v Hx))· ~ (J x == Sx)).Q. after the premises are stated: (Possibly) Q.N. Applied to a particular case. and that the rule says that if not all of the S is P. to derive your conclusion. the rule might look like this: ~ (x)«Fx· (Gx v H x)):J (J x == Sx)) / . to get the conclusion.N.N.N.G. which involves C.N. Then we can use E. Instantiation rules Sentential rules to get instance Generalization rule (Possibly) Q.. or C.N. or C. on complex propositions.. Remember that <\>x and IjJx can stand for any subjects and predicates.Q.Q. this won't work. . What you need to do in planning your strategy is to figure out first what statement is equivalent to the conclusion. get an instance of the equivalent. then some S is not P.

·. so we will first have to get its equivalent form. (x)«Fx·Gx)-:J(Hxv~(fxvJx») ~(3x)(Fx· ~ Gx) Pro Pro Pr. This is simply a matter of using sentential rules. Thus we know what the next four steps must be: a flagging declaration and three instantiations. lO·ir Fa Ha 7a..G.I. 9.. 5 Now that we have our instances. l3. or C. 8. Given Fa. which means assuming Fa. we must derive Fa -:J (Ha == la). we will want to derive (Ha == la).N.11-l3 We now need to assume la and try to derive Ha. 1. (V. (x)(Fx -:J Gx) 5. it will be derived by the use of V. ~ ~ Za Ha -:J la Assp. 4 V. subproofs.P. This means setting up two more CP.N. 1 V.N. and once the subproof is completed. Thus the next few steps will be the following: 11.I.G.N. which means we will need (F a • Ga) and ~ ~ (f a v J a).2 C.) M.. 7.S. and since this is a conditional.P. Remember that your fIrst few steps in problems with negated quantifIer statements as premises should be applications ofQ./. 12. the rest of the proof goes quickly.P. Since this is a universal formula.P. 9. 12 C.N.11 Simp. (x)(H x -:J (f x· ~ Zx» CQ. and since this is a biconditional.Q. we will use step 7 to get Ha. (Fa· Ga) -:J (Ha v Fa -:J Ga Ha -:J (fa· ~ Za) flag a F. (CP. Once we assume la. .Unit 15 Proofs in Predicate Logic 289 m. This would give us steps 4 and 5: 4. we can try to get the two conditionals (H a -:J I a) and (fa -:J H a) separately and then conjoin them. to get (fa -:J Ha) by CP. This means that we must begin a flagged subproof before doing any instantiations and must then derive the instance Fa -:J (H a == I a) within the flagged subproof.) Assp.~(3x)(Fx·~(Hx==lx» ~(3x)(Hx·~(fx·~Zx» If you are staring at this in blank despair. 3.N. the best strategy is to use C. which is (x)(Fx -:J (Hx == Ix». 2. 14.) ~ (fa v Ja» V.3 Since the conclusion is also a negated quantifier statement. it will have to be derived by Q. it is time for a few reminders on strategy.I.Q. 6. (C. or CQ.

18. Perhaps the best way to see this is by taking an example. Thus. we cannot use Universal Instantiation. Ia ::J Ha (Ha ::J Ia)· (Ia ::J Ha) 23. Modus Tollens. 6. you practiced symbolizing sentences that turned out to be truthfunctional compounds of quantifier expressions.I.26 It is very important to remember. Suppose we have as premises (1) (x)(Fx ::J Gx) and (2) (x)Gx::J (x)Hx. and adding the quantifiers back on at the end.S. Here there is no uniform strategy such as dropping quantifiers.20 C.19 D. Ga 17. (C. 10-24 U. when doing complex proofs such as the one above.P.10 Conj. Fa"Ga Hav~(IavJa) 18. which is not a universal statement. 22. ~(3x)(Fx· ~ (Hx == Ix» Assp.16 M.14. What.I.N. 16.290 Unit 15 Proofs in Predicate Logic Ia 15. since the equivalence rules are applicable to any part of a formula.17 Add. such as (x)Fx ::J (x)Gx. Constructing Proofs for Arguments Containing Truth-functional Compounds In Unit 14. but we may not use U.Q. getting an instance. 26. Thus. ~~(IavJa) 20.P. Ha 21. and we cannot get (x)Fx ::J (x)Hx by U.N. Ia V Ja 19. but not U.P. since the conclusion is not universal. from Fa ::J Ha. we may not get Ha immediately from step 11. 7.I. 24. from Premise 2. you may not use that assumption or any step within that subprooJ again. from 1. 8. having assumed Ia at step 15.15-21 Conj.1O. Proofs involving these sorts of formulas require a little more ingenuity than those involving just quantifier expressions or their negations. then.G. The reason for this is that with a premise such as (x)Fx ::J (x)Gx.22 B. We may use Modus Ponens. or other rules involving conditionals.P. should be our strategy? The best way . that once you have discharged an assumption or a flagging step. and from these we are -to derive (x)Fx::J (x)Hx. since Ha occurs in a subproof that was terminated at step 13.G..I.P. We could get (Fa ::J Ga) by u.E. since Premise 2 is not a universal formula but a conditional. which have many subproofs one inside the other. Ha == Ia Fa ::J (Ha == Ia) 25. (x)(Fx::J (Hx == Ix» 27.25 C.) M. but we cannot get (Ga ::J Ha) by U. 15 D. strategy turns out to be somewhat more complex and requires more thought than with the previous sorts of proofs. We might even use Q. because this is applicable only to formulas that are of universal form.23 C.N.

P. Now we must figure out how to get (x)Gx. 2.G. (C. since (x)Gx does not occur as the consequent of a conditional. (x)Gx 9. having assumed (x)Fx. 3 V. 1.1. /". (x)Fx:J (x)Hx ? c. (x)(Fx:J Gx) 2.G.1.Unit 15 Proofs in Predicate Logic 291 to work it out is to revert again to the method of working backward.P.) V. (x)(Fx:J Gx) 2.8 c. 5. Look at the form of the conclusion. Ga 8.7 M.P. The completed proof would go as follows: n. but we cannot just use M. so the wisest approach would be to try to use Conditional Proof. the end result was to be a universal statement.P. subproof.G. it could obviously come from step 2 by M.6 V. what we must do is to derive (x)Gx by V. so the subproof for V. is different from the structure of proofs in which we are proving a universal statement. how do we get (x)Hx? Well. (V. By contrast. n 1. here.P. and so on.P. (x)Hx 10. Fa:J Ga 7. so our first subproof. in this unit. (x)Gx:J (x)Hx 3. which follows. in proof j. (x)Fx:J (x)Hx 4'l]a a Pro Pr. (x)Fx :J (x)Hx Assp. Rather. if we could get (x)Gx.G. such as problems g.P. (x)Fx:J (x)Hx Assp. so we might set up a skeleton of the proof as follows: 3. Fa 6.) F. Since the end result in problem n is a conditional.P. comes inside the C. 3-n Now the question is.) + n. This would mean assuming (x)Fx and trying to derive (x)Hx.S. the outer structure.~x 1.. We then want to derive a universal statement within the c. 3-9 Notice that the structure of this proof.. We do have (x)Fx. I M. In this case the conclusion is a conditional. figure out what would be needed as a next-to-Iast step. /". in which we are to prove a conditional.G.P. subproof. (x)Gx:J (x)H x (:)FX Pro Pr. andj. was an a-flagged subproof for V. and we have (x)(Fx :J Gx). then what would be needed to get the next-to-next-to-Iast step. for example. h. (x)Fx g 5. which means deriving Ga within an a-flagged subproof. our outside subproof is for c. Within that subproof we made . (C.P.P.

11 Q.13 Q.G.G.·. (C.. Constructing Proofs of Quantifier Theorems There is nothing new at all in this section. (x)(Hx ~ ~ Jx) 7. in which you have truth-functional compounds of quantifier statements.) Assp.P. 16.I.) Q. Fa ~Ja ~Fa 11. ~(x) ~ Hx ~ ~(3x)Gx Pro Pro Prj.P. (C.) n.P.P. (V.) F.S.S. 7 M.I. Nor can you use V. since we wanted to derive the conditional Ga before we did the V. 6.12 D.P. since it is not a universal statement but rather is a conditional.S. (3x) ~ Fx 12. o.G.G.P. Ha 6. 10.N.S. on a formula such as (x)Fx ~ (x)Gx.G. (C. Zx) V.1O E. (x) ~ Gx 14.P. We will do one last example to illustrate the procedure for problems containing truth-functional compounds. or C. Za [a ~ flag a F.14 C. Remember that you must not use U.4-15 ~ Hx ~ ~ (3x)Gx 7.I.292 Unit 15 Proofs in Predicate Logic ~ ~ our c.4 E.N. Ha ~ ~ Ja 8..9.I.8 V. ~(3x)(Hx' Jx) ~(x) ~ Hx 4. it will be particularly important to be acutely aware of the structure of your conclusion and to plan strategy accordingly. (3x)Hx 5.3 V. ~ (x) Assp. we are simply combining what you learned in Vnit 9 about proving theorems with what you have now learned . since it is not a universal statement. (x)Fx v (x) ~ Gx 2. (x)(Fx~Jx) 3. c. ~(x)Fx 13.P. ~(3x)Gx 15. In doing these proofs.N. (x)Fx Za ~ Ga ~ (x)(Gx ~ ~ Za C. since it is a conditional. (V. 1.G. ~Ja 9. or perhaps H. 1. 5 (flag a) C.E. Ha (x)Hx (x)Fx ~ (x)Hx e aga Assp.N. on (Fa ~ Ga) to derive (x)Fx ~ (x)Gx. The outlines of the two proofs are as follows: J. assumption.G.P.) V. 2 M.Q.T. You would have to derive this latter formula by C.

4 Conj. 5 Q. Rather.N. The theorem to be proved is «x)Fx v (x)Gx) :::J (x)(Fx v Gx).S. 2 E. try to get a contradiction. (1.. From our assumption at step 1. and so derive what you need by 1. do we get (Fa v Ga)? At this point. 3. If we use this approach here.8 D. 9. A very simple example of such a theorem would be (3x)(Fx Gx) :::J «3x)Fx (3x)Gx). you should remember your old friend 1. Just as in sentential logic. The proof follows. there are certain formulas in predicate logic that are always true and thus can always be proved. 2. A somewhat more complex example. or C. so appropriate rules might be D. 4 E. (C. 10. we would assume ~(Fa v Ga) at step 3 and then try to derive a contradiction. without premises.1. Since the latter is a universal statement. (3x)(Fx Gx) FaoGa Fa Ga (3x)Fx (3x)Gx (3x)Fx (3x)Gx 8.G. only then do we set up our flagged subproof for D. whenver you get stuck in a proof. and thus we need a flagged subproof.P.G.G.1. it is a disjunction. 11. 1-7 When universal formulas are to be proved. 3 E. 1 (flag a) Simp. 7.) DeM. Notice. These are the theorems of predicate logic. is below.. 7. (x)(F x v Gx). then. we will have to use our flagged subproofs and perhaps other assumptions as well.6 c. q.) E.P.. that we are not permitted to infer (Fa v Ga) from step 1 by D . 2 Simp.P. 4. How. it will be derived by D. if you are stumped.G.P.G. 4.) Assp.6 . since step 1 is not a universal statement.G. Notice that since it is a conditional.7 D.5.1.P.P. however. (x)Fx v (x)Gx flag a ~ (Fa v Ga) ~ Fa· ~ Ga ~Fa ~Ga (3x) ~ Fx ~ (x)Fx (x)Gx Ga Ga· ~ Ga Assp. 1. 2. 4 Simp. (C..S.P. The instance of this universal formula will be (Fa v Ga). 1. this is not difficult. As it turns out. in which this occurs. 8. (D. so this is what we need to aim at.l. 5.E.S.) F. 9 Conj.3 Simp. a promising approach is to assume the opposite of what you want. 6. 5. 10. 3. ourfirst assumption will be for C. we want to infer the consequent of the conditional to be proved. 6. 0 0 p. (3x)(Fx Gx) :::J «3x)Fx (3x)Gx) 0 0 0 0 Assp.Unit 15 Proofs in Predicate Logic 293 about quantifier proofs.

294 Unit 15 Proofs in Predicate Logic 12.3-11 D. so that the scope of any prefixed quantifier extends to the end of the formula.P. 4. <t>x is a propositional function. containing x.. except that every occurrence of x in <t>x has been replaced by an a. If you can do most of those without too much trouble. If complex. Be sure to do the exercises at the end of the unit. The four quantifier rules: UNIVERSAL INSTANTIATION (U. and another set for relational logic. which we have been discussing here. <t>a is a formula just like <t>x. but the quantifier rules are now complete. which we will begin in Unit 17. you have a good understanding of the proof method for predicate logic. I ~ ~ (Fa v Ga) 13.) (x)<t>x I . 3. An a-flagged subproof is a subproof that begins with the words "flag a" and ends with some instance containing a.. 2. We will need a few more rules for making inferences using identity statements.P. An instance of a quantified formula is the result of deleting the initial quantifier and replacing each variable bound by that quantifier uniformly with some name. STATEMENT OFTHE QUANTIFIER RULES. ~Ga 14. it is assumed that it is enclosed in parentheses. ((x)Fx v (x)Gx) :::J (x)(Fx v Gx) I. This completes our exposition of the proof method for quantifier logic..N. <t>a provided we flag a . 1-14 More examples of theorems are given in Exercise 5 at the end of the unit. The beauty of these rules is that they will be completely adequate for the proofs we will be constructing in relational logic. <t>a (3x)<t>x I.G.. WITH ALL NECESSARY RESTRICTIONS A. As noted. Many rule systems use one set of rules for one-variable logic.I. simple or complex. B.13 C.) EXISTENTIAL INSTANTIATION (E. they are simply proofs that require no premises.I. there is nothing new to these proofs. (x)(Fx v Gx) 15. Preliminary definitions 1.12 U.

~ (Fb::::> Gb) k. E. (x)(Fx-Gx)::::> (Hx·Ix)/:.) flag a </>a t. u. (Fa Ga) ::::> (He v Ie) 0 0 p. (x)(Fx::::> (Gx v Hx» / :. (FaoGb)::::> (Haolb) g. that is. (3x)(Fb v (Gx ::::> He» / :.) 295 EXISTENTIAL GENERALIZATION (E. Which of the following are correct applications of the rule cited? (Ignore flagging restrictions.1. Fa' Ga b.1. (3x)</>x </>a 1:.G.1.1.1. e. E.1.G. ~(Fb E. Fa::::> (Ga ::::> Ha) / :. (Fa' Gb)::::> (Hb v Ie) 0 . previous to the step in which it gets flagged. V.G. n. ~ (x)(Fx ::::> Gx) h. Flagging restrictions RIA letter being flagged must be new to the proof.1.G. Fa::::> (Ga v Ha) E. E. V. (x)Fx ::::> (x)(Gx ::::> Hx) I. (x)«Fa Gx) ::::> (Hx v Ie» / :.1. c. ~ Fa j.G. (x)«Fa Gx) ::::> (Hx v Ie» / :. V. Fa'(GavHa) 0 0 E. (x)«Fa Gx) ::::> (Hx v Ie» / :. EXERCISES *1. it may not appear. Fb v Ge / :.·. (x)«Fx'Gb)::::> (Hx-Ib»/:. ~(x)Fx / :.G. V. (3x)(Fx v Ge) I.1.1. R3 A flagged letter may not appear outside the subproof in which it gets flagged. R2 A flagged letter may not appear either in the premises or in the conclusion of a proof. Fa::::> Ga d. (Fa'Ga)::::> (Ha'Ia) E. either in a formula or as a letter being flagged. (x)</>x c. V. (3x)(Fx v Gx) f. (Fa Ga) ::::> (Ha v Ie) o. (3x)Fx o(GxvHx)/:.Unit 15 Proofs in Predicate Logic UNIVERSAL GENERALIZATION (U. (3x)Fx' (3x)Gx / :. V. (3x) ~ (Fx::::> Gx)/ :. Fb v (Ga ::::> He) ill. V. V. ::::> Gb) / :.1. Fb v Gb / :. (3x)(Fx::::> Gx) / :. ) a.1.

". ~ (3x)(Zx' Ax) I . ~ (3x)(Ax' Dx). (Fe' Ge) ::J (He v Ie) r. f. ~ (3x)(Ax' Tx) (x)«Ax v Bx) ::J (Gx' ~ H x». ~ (3x)(Px' (Ax v Dx» ~(3x)(Ax' Bx). ~ *e. (x)(Qx ::J (Tx v Bx» ~(3x)(Px' Qx' (Rx ~(3x)(Cx' ~ = = = . (x)(Ex ::J ~ Cx) (x)(Fx::J~Gx). (3x)(Fx' ~ (Cx v Dx» = n. (x)«Sx' Tx) ::J V x) (x)(Tx::J (Fx' Dx». (Wx v Dx» I . ~ (3x)(Tx' ~ (Dx ::J Cx» I . c. ~ (x)(Fx::J ~ Hx) I .". (x)(Cx::J Dx). (x)(Tx ::J ~ Bx) I .". ~ (3x)(Ax' ~ Bx). ~ (x)(Ax ::J Zx) Tx». (x)(Px (~ Sx v (Ax ::J Bx»). ~ (x)(Cx ::J (Bx v H x» *0. ~ (3x)(Qx' ~ (Px v Tx». U. ~ (3x)«Ax' Fx)' W x) (x)(Ax ~ Cx).1. g. (x)«Fa' Gx) ::J (Hx v Ie» I . ~ (::Jx)(W X' Cx) ~(3x)(Fx' ~ (Gx' H x».".". (x)(Cx ::J ~ (Sx v Tx» I . (x)«Gx v Sx) ::J Zx). (x)(Gx ::J H x). ~(3x)«Ax' Bx)' ~ Cx).G.G.296 Unit 15 Proofs in Predicate Logic q.". (x)«Bx' Fx) ::J Sx) (x)(Cx::J (Fx v Nx».". ~ (3x)(Cx' (Ex::J Wx». ~ (3x)(Ax' ~ Cx). t. ~(x)(Fx ::J ~Zx) = Hx» (x)(Fx::J (Bx ~ Tx».(3x)(Cx' (~ Bx = ~ (Dx ::J Zx))).". ~ (x)(Fx::J Hx).G. ~ (3x)«Sx' (CX' Ex»' ~ (Ax v Bx» I .'. m. 1.". ~Fa::J ~ ~Fa::J ~ Gal. ~(3x)(Px' ~ Ex) I . ~(x)(Hx::JFx) (x)(Kx::JLx). r. ~ (x)Fx::J ~ (x)Gx (x)(~ t. *b. d. U. p. ~(3x)(Ax' ~ Sx). *h. ~ (x)«Bx v Wx) ::J «Ax v Fx) ::J Sx» I .". (x)(H x ::J Gx) I . 1. ~ (x)(Fx ::J (Bx v Cx». (x)(Ix::J I . (x)(V x ::J ~ Cx). (x)«Cx v Dx) ::J (Ax' Bx» I . (x)«Dx' Ex) ::J Bx). (x)(Kx::JMx) (x)(Sx::J (Tx ::J U x». ~(Fa·Ga)/. Gal. ~ (3x)«Ex • ~ Bx)' (Sx' ~ Ax» (x)«Ax ~(3x)(Ex' = = s.".(3x)(Hx·Gx)/.". q.(~ Sx ::J (Vx v Wx))). 2.'. (x)«Ax v Bx) ::J ~ (Gx' ~ Hx».". CX' ZX).". (x)(Fx::J Bx).". (x)(U x ::J (V X' W x» I .".". (3x)(Sx' ~ Wx) ~ (x)(Cx::J Bx) (x)(Cx::J Nx) *j. = Bx) ::J (Cx ::J (Zx v Wx»). ~ Fx::J ~ Gx) (3x)(Fx'Gx) U. s. (3x)(Fx'Zx) = Cx) ~ I.(x)«Kx-Lx)::JMx)/. Construct proofs for the following arguments. E. (x)(Zx::J (Gxv Hx».'. (x)«Px Rx) ::J Ax) I . *k. (x)(Fx ::J ~ Ax) (~Zx (x)(Fx::J (Hx v Ix». (x)(Ex ::J ~ Dx) I .". a.'. (3x)(Cx. ~ (3x)(Hx' ~ Dx) (x)(Fx::J (Gx W x» I . ~ (x)(Ax ::J (Fx v Gx». (x)(Ax ~(3x)(Fx'Gx). ~ (x)(Dx ::J ~ Bx) (x)«Ax v Bx) ::J (Cx' Dx». I.".".

and Sx for "x shops at Woolworth's. (x)(Fx ~ Gx).. Therefore. c. *h. *e. (3x) ~ Sx ~ Fx).". g.". 4. some police officers will make errors of judgment. Ex == x makes errors) Some juveniles who commit minor offenses are thrown into prison. *f. Ex.". Construct proofs for the following problems. A juvenile who is exposed to all sorts of hardened criminals will become bitter and learn more techniques for committing crimes. which contain truth-functional compounds. (3x) ~ Gx~(x)Hx ~ 0 (3x)Fx ~ (x)(Gx v Hx).Unit 15 Proofs in Predicate Logic 297 *3.(x)(Fx~Hx)/. (x)(Fx ~ ~ Gx) I. «3x)Fx v (3x)Gx) ~ (3x) ~ Hx. ~ «3x)Gx v (3x)Hx) I. Bx.".. Px. Therefore. (x)Fx ~ ~ ~ (3x)(Hx Sx) 0 (x)(Fx ~ Gx) ~ (x)(Fx I. Any individual who learns more techniques for committing crimes is a menace to society. and Mx) b. Ax == x is fully alert on the job. A police officer who is not fully alert on the job will make errors of judgment. (x)Fx ~ (x)Sx (x)Fxv(x)Gx. So. «3x) ~ Hx (x)Sx) ~ 0 (3x)Gx 0 I.". Sx == x saves money. d. (x)Hx ~ (x)Sx I. No individual who works at two jobs can be fully alert on the job. a. Doctors and lawyers are well-paid professionals. Symbolize the following and then construct proofs for them. 1. Tx. ~ ~ (3x)(Sx 0 Ix) I . (3x) ~ Ix Hx). Therefore. ~ (3x)(Px Qx) ~ (x) ~ Fx ~«3x) ~ Fx (3x)(Gx ~Hx». Some people who repair their own cars have menial jobs. b. (3x)(Fx Hx) ~ (3x)(Fx o Gx) 0 c. Px. ~ (3x)Hx ~ (x) ~ Fx (3x)Fx ~ (x)(Hx ~ ~lx). ~ (3x)Fx (x)(Fx ~ ~ Gx) ~ (x)(Fx ~ ~Hx)/.". Rx. and any juvenile thrown into prison is exposed to all sorts of hardened criminals. ~ (3x) ~ Zx ~ ~ (x)Gx 0 0 0 . Wx. Lx. some people with menial jobs are highly skilled. ex. some juveniles who commit minor offenses will be menaces to society. d. I x == x takes two jobs.". M x == x has a menial job) Some police officers are forced to moonlight (take a second job). (Px. if he or she is bitter. and no professional shops at Woolworth's.". No well-paid doctor eats at McDonald's. (x)(Hx / . (Use lx.") Anyone who repairs his or her own car is highly skilled and saves a lot of money on repairs. (x)(Hx v Px).". ~(x)(W x ~ Fx) I. (3x)(Fx Hx). Hx. a. (Px == x is a person. (x)«Fx v Gx) ~ Hx). (x)Qx *j. no doctor eats at McDonald's or shops at Woolworth's. (x)Hx ~ ~ (3x)(Zx Wx). (3x) ~ Gx ~ ~ (x)Ix ~ «x)Fx v (3x)Gx). (Use Dx. Mx.

*c.298 Unit 15 Proofs in Predicate Logic 5. Construct proofs for the following theorems of predicate logic. *a. f. (x)(Fx::J Gx) ::J ~(3x)(Fx· (~ (x)Gx::J ~ (x)Fx) Gx) ::J «x)Fx ::J ~ (3x)Gx) (x)(Fx· Gx) ~«3x)Fx == «x)Fx· (x)Gx) ~ v (3x) Gx) ::J (x)(Fx::J Hx) e. «3x)Fx v (3x)Gx) == (3x)(Fx v Gx) (x)(Fx::J ~ (Gxv Hx»::J ~ (3x)(Fx·Hx) . *d. b.

since we may be able to prove both the conclusion and its negation if the premises are inconsistent. in which you look for meanings of the predicate letters that will yield true premises and a false conclusion. then we can be sure that the premises imply the conclusion. It may be that there is no proof (that is. 299 . not that they are invalid. but if we do not find a proof. but it may also be that we have not tried hard enough or are just tired. we cannot infer anything. to show that an argument is invalid in quantifier logic? What we need to do is revisit the semantic method and reintroduce the notion of a counterexample-an instance with true premises and a false conclusion. Failure to come up with a proof cannot be used as evidence that the argument is invalid. the proof method can be used only to show that arguments are valid. bored. then. in which you find an artificial world that can be interpreted so as to make the premises true and the conclusion false. there are cases in the history of mathematics where proofs were not found until hundreds of years after a problem was posed!) Remember also that we cannot infer that an argument is invalid even if we are able to prove the negation of the conclusion. What can we do. (Indeed.UNIT 16 Invalidity in Quantifier logic A. Only if we can find such an instance are we justified in concluding that the argument is invalid. the natural interpretation method. INTRODUCTION As we saw at the end of Unit 9. and the model universe method. There will be two such methods. If we do find a proof (and have done it correctly). the argument is invalid). The methods of constructing counterexamples for quantifier arguments will be the topic of this unit. or lacking in ingenuity.

and both are true. It is essential to begin this process by specifying the domain of discourse. . and this is false. 1 The aim of the natural interpretation method is to find an interpretation. We can illustrate this procedure with the following argument: "All communists are in favor of socialized medicine and all socialists are in favor of socialized medicine. UNIT 16 TOPICS 1. then.300 Unit 16 Invalidity in Quantifier Logic B. We can show that this argument is invalid by letting the domain be human beings and assigning meanings as follows: Cx == x is a normal man. The procedure will consist of two steps: (1) specifying the domain of discourse. UNIT 16 OBJECTIVES • • • Be able to demonstrate the invalidity of quantifier arguments using the natural interpretation method. however. The two premises. The Natural Interpretation Method A counterexample in quantifier logic is the same as in sentential logic: an instance of an argument form that has all the premises true but the conclusion false. the set of objects in which the predicates will be interpreted. we will simply use its symbolization. says that all normal women are normal men.". If Wx lIt would be possible to introduce predicate variables to represent the fonn. thus interpreted. an interpretation of the formulas. so we will bypass this extra complication. Be able to demonstrate the invalidity of quantifier arguments using the model universe method. but the arrangement of quantifiers and operators would be exactly the same. (x)(Sx :=l Cx). In demonstrating that an argument is invalid." This could be symbolized as (x)(Cx :=l Fx). and (2) reinterpreting the predicate letters by assigning to them propositional functions that make the premises true and the conclusion false. in which premises are true and conclusion is false. an assignment of meanings to the predicate letters in the symbolization. which shows that the form is invalid. such that all the premises turn out to be true with a false conclusion. say that all normal men have brains and all normal women have brains. The conclusion. Sx == x is a normal woman. the things to which the formulas could be referring. C. so all socialists are communists. Learn the definition of truth for the universal and existential quantifiers. Fx == x has a brain. we need to determine its form and then try to find an instance of the form with true premises and a false conclusion. the set of objects over which the bound variables range. (x)(Sx :=l Fx) I. To represent the form of an argument in predicate logic. Thus we have an instance of the argument form. This is because a sentence with interpreted predicates may be true in one domain but false in another.

'. assign to each expression such as Ax or Bx some propositional function such as "x is a dog. you should use the following systematic procedure in doing your problems: (1) State the domain of discourse. Don't interpret the formula (x)((Ax· Bx) ::J Cx). If your domain is numbers. At this point. but the premises are false as well. with the meanings you have assigned to the predicate letters plugged into the appropriate slots. Again. which would mean "Any creature that walks before the age of six months is precocious. One thing that may make your task easier in certain cases is that you may use the same interpretation for different predicate letters. including the entire universe (the universal domain). (x)(Cx ::J Bx) /. or numbers. such as humans. so all Mormons are Baptists. if you assign "x is a dog" to Ax at one point in an argument form.Unit 16 Invalidity in Quantifier Logic 301 means "x walks before the age of six months" and Px means "x is precocious. to use the following as an interpretation for the argument form we considered earlier: (x)(Ax ::J Bx). for instance. keep in mind that you must be consistent in your assignments of functions to variables. but it is usually easier to find counterexamples by restricting the domain to a specific set." would be true in the domain of humans butfalse in the domain of cats. Another thing. and all Mormons believe evolution is false. (2) Interpret the predicate letters by assigning some English predicate to each. of the form (x)(Fx ::J ~ Gx). You may take as your domain any set of objects. In writing down your . an interpretation in which this is in doubt cannot be considered a counterexample. It would not do. Once you have selected the domain. you must also assign "x is a dog" to every other occurrence of Ax in that form. you then pick out propositional functions to assign to the predicate letters. "All Baptists believe evolution is false." rather than "All F are not G. (x)(Cx ::J Ax). you must make sure that your interpretation is one in which there is no question that the premises are all true and the conclusion false. then the formula (x)(Wx ::J Px). To make sure that you are not overlooking anything. and you must make sure that these functions make sense when applied to the individuals in the domain. you must be sure in your interpretation that the premises are all true and the conclusion is false. Finally." since the latter is ambiguous. so it does not serve as a counterexample to the argument form. animals." for instance. is that you must make sure that the interpretation you come up with really is a substitution instance of the argument form. it will not do to pick as propositional functions "x is red" or "x is cold. that is. which seems obvious but needs to be said. for instance. for instance. Also. as "Anything that either flies or swims is an animal. it should be evident that the premises are true and the conclusion false. read these as "No F is a G." Be especially careful with E propositions." (3) Write out the fully interpreted English sentences." The conclusion is certainly false." since the predicates "red" and "cold" are simply not applicable to numbers. if you have come up with a counterexample.

MODEL ANSWER 1. says "No parent has been president of the United States. however. however. 2. The second premise reads "Any parent who has given birth is female. (3) (x)(Cx ::) Bx). if you are too sketchy. taking the set of human beings as our domain: Ax == x has been a U. of course. There is no standard procedure for constructing counterexamples.S. Fa. We can show that this is invalid by using the following interpretation. The domain is the entire universe. 3. in conjunction with the interpretation of the predicates. The natural interpretation method can also be used on arguments containing individual constants.302 Unit 16 Invalidity in Quantifier Logic answers. The conclusion.S. the process requires imagination and ingenuity. (2). we can now see very easily that the argument is invalid. Dx == x is a parent. In Unit 15 we noted that the following argument could not be proved because of Restriction 2.'. we will number the premises and conclusion as (1). Thus we have a counterexample.'." and this. The first premise then reads "No president or vice-president of the United States has been female. A slightly more complex argument would be the following. president. unfortunately. rather informally: (x)(Dx ::) ~ Ax). (2) (3x)(Ax • Cx) /. the premises turn out to be true and the conclusion false. Cx == x has four legs. you may overlook some crucial factor that makes your answer wrong. (1) All cats are mammals. It is obvious that in our interpretation the premises are true and the conclusion is false. Ax == x is a cat. Bx == x is a mammal. Ex == x has given birth. (x)((Dx· Ex) ::) Cx) /. Then. (3) All fourlegged things are mammals. Bx == x has been a U. always spell everything out in detail. we simply assign to the constant some name so that. try to find interpretations for the other predicate letters in the premises that will make the premises come out true.'. is false. do not just give the meanings of the predicate letters and expect the reader to figure out what the sentences mean and whether they are true or false! Writing everything out will help you make sure that you do in fact have a counterexample. As a rule of thumb. and you can use this as a model for your answers. Cx == x is female. using the interpretation you assigned to the predicate letters in the conclusion. and (3). (2) Some cats have four legs. The form to be shown invalid is (1) (x)(Ax ::) Bx). true. Using the natural interpretation method." This is also true (although biological science keeps making progress). We will illustrate this three-step procedure with the following problem. it is probably best to try first to make the conclusion false. To be very explicit. which we will (x)((Ax v Bx) ::) ~ Cx). that a flagged variable may not appear in the conclusion of a proof: (3x)Fx /. If we let Fx mean "x is a former do . and so the form is invalid. vice-president." This is.

"No males are females. and this is false. but the conclusion is false.. then the premise is true. (The sentence "Everything has a heart. Since this method does not always work well. for some argument forms the premises and conclusion are so complex that it would tax even the liveliest imagination to come up with an interpretation that works. Keeping in mind that what we need to do is to find instances with true premises and afalse conclusion. This means that each of the instances <l>a. you are just out of luck. 2. you do have to use your imagination. (3x)(U x· M x). for instance.S." for instance. but first it will be necessary to explain the truth conditions for quantifier statements." and a for Betty Ford. <l>c. for quantifiers. for which there is an algorithm (in principle) and which thus requires almost no ingenuity or creativity. Finally. The natural interpretation method can be quite entertaining: you can think up all sorts of crazy examples to show invalidity. We will discuss the model universe method in Section 3.S. there is no precise method. that make it unsuitable for all cases. presidents were not male." "Some U.S. This we will do in the next section. you do have to be sure that the premises are true and the conclusion false in the interpreted formulas. Truth Conditions for Quantifier Statements To understand the model universe method. Look at some of the proofs in the last unit." Wx for "x is female. The premises are all true. is . president. it will naturally be true only if each individual does in fact have the property. it would behoove us now to find out what it means for a quantifier statement to be true or false. since it says that Florence Nightingale is a former U.) Since a universal statement (x)<I>x says that each individual (in the domain) has the property <1>. says that some U. presidents exist (Carter is one). In the first place.) The definition of truth for quantified statements is just what you would expect given the meanings of "all" and "some.S. presidents were male.S. you must know something about the semantics. There are some drawbacks to this method. or truth conditions. . <l>h." The conclusion. (3x)(U x· ~ M x). but false in the domain of all living organisms. Furthermore. If your imagination runs dry. Wa /. Give your imagination free rein. for coming up with a counterexample. then we have a counterexample. it is sometimes necessary to resort to the model universe method. (This was taken for granted in the preceding section. if we use Mx for "x is male.Unit 16 Invalidity in Quantifier Logic 303 U.. respectively.S. the procedure is not going to make much sense. A more challenging example would be the following: (x)(Mx:::J ~Wx)." except that truth or falsity is always relative to a particular domain." and "Betty Ford is female. Thus the argument is invalid." Ux for "x was a U. Here. however. no algorithm. otherwise. president" and let a stand for Florence Nightingale. since it says that former U. however. since they say. is true in the domain of live mammals.'. president.

b. This is a topic that should be discussed in a more advanced course. (3 x)<j>x % (<j>a v <j>b v <j>c . since (3x)<j>x is true just in case at least one of <j>a or <j>b or <j>c.. This means that if an argument form is invalid in some specific domain. will be essential when we come to the model universe method in the next section. The universal and existential statements are not the same as conjunctions and disjunctions. since an existential statement (3x)<j>x says that at least one individual has the property <j>. (x )<j>x will be false if and only if at least one instance is false. which will sometimes consist of only a single individual (although more often two or three). ).304 Unit 16 Invalidity in Quantifier Logic true. it is invalid. which means that the disjunction (<j>a v <j>b v <j>c . it will be true if and only if at least one of the instances <j>a. artificial domains. are all true.. 3. and it uses highly restricted. so we will merely note its existence here and settle for our simpler semantics. There is another kind of semantics for quantifiers... making use of the definition of truth given above. There is a very strong analogy between the universal quantifier and conjunction. rewrite the quantifier statements in that domain. .. there is an analogy between the existential quantifier and disjunction. (3x)<j>x will be false if and only if every one of its instances is false. within that rewritten argument form.. 2 Similarly. we pick out the domain. is true. c are names of the individuals in the domain. using the "curly" triple bar to indicate near-equivalance: (x)<j>x % (<j>a . but we do have a kind of quasi-equivalence.. . In using this method. because the number of their elements is indefinite. ) is true. ). and existential statements and disjunctions.. <j>c . <j>b. where a. which we might state as follows.. <j>c. is true. and then try to find. in which it is relatively easy to come up with a counterexample. (x)<j>x is true if and only if <j>a... <j>b. . The model universe method makes use of the fact that it takes only a single domain to show that an argument form is invalid.. since logic is supposed to be applicable to any subject matter. This analogy between universal statements and conjunctions. which is more complex and which may be needed for very large domains.. Also. <j>b . Conversely. it must be truth functionally valid in any domain whatsoever. The Model Universe Method For a quantifier argument form to be valid. period. just as a sentential argument form is invalid if it has a single counterexample. however. ) is true. an instance with true 2This is the substitution interpretation of the quantifiers and is adequate for our purposes.. but this amounts to saying that the conjunction (<j>a • <j>b • <j>c . <j>c.

a two-member domain by {a. b. Since an existential statement is true if and only if at least one of its instances is true. we rewrite the universal formulas as conjunctions of all the instances in the domain. (x)Fx. . If the domain were {a. b. Again. or whatever. Fa and Fb. so let us proceed to specifics. universal formulas will be rewritten as conjunctions of all the instances in the domain.) Once we have our domain. making use of the analogy between universal statements and conjunctions and between existential statements and disjunctions. c}. the number 5. We will go through a number of examples to illustrate the process of rewriting quantified formulas within particular domains. the rewritten version would be the conjunction ((Fa v Ga) :::J Ha)· ((Fb v Gb) :::J Hb). Thus the rewritten formula would be (Fa· Fb). and so on. the formula (3x)Fx will be rewritten as (Fa v Fb). we may then simply apply the truth table method to see whether there is an instance with true premises and a false conclusion. b. If the universal formula were (x)((Fx v Gx) :::J Hx). a three-member domain by {a. since we do not have to rack our brains trying to figure out whether we should use Nixon. The formula (3x)(Fx· Gx) will come out as (Fa· Ga) v (Fb· Gb). c. b}. Since the rewritten formulas are formulas of sentential logic. It is customary to indicate the domain-the set of objects-by enclosing the names in braces. the strange thing about the model universe method is that it does not matter what the individuals are in the domain. b}. we apply the definition of truth for quantifier statements within that domain. (The question of how we know how many individuals to include in the domain will be discussed later. b}. d}. and we have the universal formula (x)Fx. b}. within the domain {a. Suppose our domain is the twomember set {a. As usual. Thus. Since a universal statement is true if and only if each of its instances is true. if our domain is {a.Unit 16 Invalidity in Quantifier Logic 305 premises and a false conclusion. c. and so on. we rewrite the existential formulas as disjunctions of all the instances in the domain. the only thing that counts is how many individuals are in the domain. then the first formula would be rewritten as (Fa· Fb· Fc· Fd). is simply to say that a is an F and that b is an F. Now. To say that everything is an F. Existential formulas will be rewritten as disjunctions of all the instances in the domain. so a one-member domain would be designated by{ a}. (x)( (F x v G x) :::J H x) would be rewritten as ((Fa v Ga) :::J Ha) in a domain with just one individual. is simply to say Fa. that is. the first thing we must do in finding an interpretation for an argument form is to state the domain of discourse. What if there is just one instance-if our domain is just {a}? Then to say that everything has the property F. Bush. All we have to do is pick the right number of individuals for our domain. and we may then arbitrarily designate them as a. and the more complex formula (3x)((Fx· ~ Gx)· (Hx :::J~Jx)) will be rendered 3This is a fact that has been formally proved about our quantifier logic. 3 This saves us a lot of work. since a is all there is in the domain. the dog down the street. This may sound a little mysterious in the abstract.

(Ca -:J Aa) I. the existential and universal statements mean exactly the same. looking for a value assignment that gives true premises with a false conclusion. they both say that the single individual has the property. and a is the only thing in the domain. we rewrite (3x)Fx in the domain {a} simply as Fa. {a. b}. When you are using the short truth table method on a particular interpretation. (3x)(Nx oMx) I. since both disjuncts tum out to be false.'. What happens if there is only one member of the domain? If we say something has the property F. It could be formalized as (x)(Cx -:J Bx). will be rewritten as (Fa ° Ga) v (Fb ° Gb) v (Fe ° Ge) v (F do Gd). you must go on to test larger domains. (3x)Fx. if we make Qa and Nb false. the conclusion is false. e. for instance. that all communists opposed the war in Vietnam and all communists want to abolish private property. will be rewritten as (Fa v Fb v Fe v Fd). since what we end up with. thus. (Ba -:J Aa). would give us (Ca -:J Ba). (x)(Bx -:J Ax). Once we have a domain and have reformulated the quantifier statements within that domain. You pick (for reasons which will be discussed later) a domain with two individuals. is a sentential argument form. b.(NaoMa)v(NboMb) I. (Qa ° Na) v (Qb ° Nb). This could be symbolized as (3x)(Qx ° Mx). Note that within a domain of just one individual. and rewriting the argument in a domain with just one individual.'. If an argument form is not invalid in a domain with just one individual. the argument will be invalid even in a domain with just one individual. so the argument form is invalid. remember that you cannot stop and conclude that there is no counterexample in that domain just because the first assignment fails. so some quarks are neutrinos. This formulation can be invalidated by making Ba true and Aa and Ca false. . But we can still make the premises true by making Na and Ma and Qb and Mb true. Let us take an example to illustrate. Thus we have a counterexample in this domain. (3x)(Fx ° Gx). {a}. so anyone who opposed the war in Vietnam wants to abolish private property. and the second.'. d}. Now. then it must be a that has the property F. If someone argues.306 Unit 16 Invalidity in Quantifier Logic If our domain is {a. This is essentially just an exercise in the short truth table method in sentential logic. we can proceed to try to find a counterexample.'. Suppose I argue that some quarks are massless and some neutrinos are massless. Now suppose you think there is something quirky about this argument and set about to show that it is invalid. You must go through all possible as «Fao~Ga)o(Ha-:J~Ja»v«Fbo~Gb)o(Hb-:J~Jb)). so the argument is invalid. once we do the rewriting. The formula (3x)(Fx ° Gx) would be rewritten in {a} as (Fa ° Ga). the first formula. you could show the argument to be invalid as follows. and within this domain the reformulation of the argument form would be as follows: (QaoMa)v(QboMb). This gives us true premises and a false conclusion. (3x)(Qx oNx). In some cases. an instance with all true premises but a false conclusion. (x)(Cx -:J Ax) I.

(1) is true because (Fa' Ga) is true. then you can stop. where the argument form is (1) (3x)(Fx' Gx) (2) (3x)(Gx' Hx) I:. there will be many possible ways of getting counterexamples. Fb. If you do find an invalidating instance right off. (3) (3x)(Fx' H x). Gb = T. However. knowing that the argument is invalid. Fb = F. It would probably be a good idea at this point to go back and review the section in sentential logic on the short truth table method. Ga = T. and 4 by simply exhibiting the truth table computation as follows: (1) (Fa' Ga) v (Fb' Gb) (2) (Ga' Ha) v (Gb' Hb) T F T T \/ \/ F ~/ T T . Fa = T. You might also combine 2. fine. Interpret the predicate letters by assigning truth values to each simple sentence. Ha = F. (3) is false because both (Fa' Ha) and (Fb' Hb) are false. and so on. 3. since Ha and Fb are false. Rewrite the quantifier statements.Unit 16 Invalidity in Quantifier Logic 307 ways of making the premises true and the conclusion false before you conclude that none of them works. try again. try. 4. An example of a model answer to a model universe invalidity problem would be the following. Indicate how the truth table computations on these rewritten formulas yield true premises with a false conclusion. (3) (Fa' Ha) v (Fb' Hb) 3. 3. especially with these rather complex arguments. (2) is true because (Gb' Hb) is true. 2. you should follow the four-step procedure below. so if at first you don't succeed. 1. changing universal formulas to conjunctions of all instances in the domain and existential formulas to disjunctions of all instances in the domain. Hb = T 4. In writing out your answers to model universe invalidity problems. 1. such as Fa. Domain = {a. 2. (1) (Fa' Ga) v (Fb' Gb) (2) (Ga' Ha) v (Gb' Hb) I:. Pick a domain. b}.

If we put this all together. and so the argument form is invalid. It is then not difficult to find a counterexample. Notice that in a domain with just one individual. {a}. (Fa ::J Ga). b}. We know that rewriting (x)(Fx ::J Gx) would yield (Fa ::J Ga)· (Fb ::J Gb). the form would have no counterexample. If we make Fa true and Ga false. We can then make the premise true by making Fb false. b} 2. is false. since the rewritten argument would be simply (Fa ::J Ga) I. Thus we have a true premise with a false conclusion in the domain {a. we have a false conclusion. In such cases. The proper format for the answer to the problem above would be the following: 1. simply rewrite each individual subfarmula that is of quantifier form in accordance with your chosen domain. b}: (Fa· Fb) ::J (Ga· Gb)1 :. the reformulation of (x)Fx would be simply Fa· Fb. since this means that the antecedent ofthe conditional. (Fa ::J Ga)· (Fb ::J Gb) \! \1 F T I F F I F I T T ~/ T F \/ \/ ~/ F . and then apply the short truth table method.3.4 (Fa· Fb) ::J (Ga· Gb) I:. (x)(Fx::J Gx). such as (x)Fx::J (x)Gx I:. for instance.'.308 Unit 16 Invalidity in Quantifier Logic (3) (Fa· Ha) v (Fb· Hb) T F F T \/ \/ F ~/ F F We must now say a few words about proving invalidity for argument forms that contain truth-functional compounds. we have the following rewrite of the argument form above for the domain {a. Domain = {a. (Fa ::J Ga)· (Fb ::J Gb). In a domain of two individuals. so that the conditional itself is true. (Fa· Fb). and the reformulation of (x)Gx would be Ga· Gb.

b}. Just pick a domain containing the individual denoted by the constant (let 'a' denote a). or 1O? There are some rules of thumb you will want to keep in mind. Fa = F. b}. Fa 1. 2. Fa 3. Fa v Fbi. (Ua' Ma) V (Ub • Mb). (3x)(Ux' ~ Mx) 1. If you make Fa true in one place. By truth table computations. (3x)(Ux'Mx). note that we rewrite only the formulas containing quantifiers. (3x)Fx I.". b. you will generally need a domain with at least one other individual. it must be true throughout the entire argument. The method is the same as for those containing only "pure" quantifier statements. a. the premise is true and the conclusion is false. We will illustrate this method with the same arguments we used for the natural interpretation method.Unit 16 Invalidity in Quantifier Logic 309 Remember that you must be consistent in your truth-value assignments. Wa I. The domain is {a. with the quantifiers removed. Wa F F-T T T-F F F T T T \/ T ~/ T ""/ T \/ ""I F ~/ T T T T I I I. are truth . if the propositional functions in the argument.".4 (Ma::> ~ Wa)' (Mb::> ~ Wb). 2. why a domain with two individuals in the last example. (Ua'~Ma)V(Ub'~Mb) F \/ F T T ~/ F \/ F F You may be wondering at this point how we know which domain to pick. rather than 1. There are several invalidity problems containing truth-functional compounds in the exercises. Fb = T 4. In the first place. or 3. The domain is {a.". The model universe method also works for arguments containing constants.". (x)(Mx::> ~Wx).3. just rewrite each quantifier subformula according to your chosen domain and then look for a counterexample.

Another relevant fact is that if there is a counterexample in a domain with m individuals. the largest domain you need to test is one with 2 n individuals. This means that. If there is no counterexample in this domain. then you will need a domain of only one individual. so it may well be that with some arguments you have no way of knowing whether they are valid or invalid (although . and so on. Given that we have only a finite number of predicate letters. the one with 2n individuals.N. We would never get to the invalidating domain! And. and so the argument form is valid. You will come to an end. you may conclude that the argument form is valid. The number of individuals we need to test will be finite. Where n is the number of different predicate letters in an argument form. In practice. However.'. This upper limit is determined by the number of predicate letters in the argument form. and the reformulation of the quantifier formulas will thus yield a finite sentential argument form that can be tested according to the truth table method. theoretically. then 2. this would be rather unwieldy.) If the form is not obviously invalid in this way.) that if there is no counterexample in a domain with m individuals. After a certain point. however. and it is generally quicker and easier to start with small domains and work your way up. It follows by contraposition (and C. when we come to relational logic-logic that requires the use of more than one variable-we will no longer have a decision procedure. if you have tested all domains up to that point. you need test only one domain.Q. it is of great theoretical interest that we need test only the one domain. Thus. so obviously we cannot test for invalidity by trying 1.310 Unit 16 Invalidity in Quantifier Logic functionally invalid. then there is also no counterexample in any smaller domain. the number 2n will always be finite. (All you need to do is make Fx and Qx true and Gx false. of course. if there is no counterexample in a domain with 2n individuals (where n is again the number of different predicate letters in the argument form). there is no counterexample in any domain. as we will explain in the next paragraph. (x)(Fx ::J ~ Qx). then move on to a domain with two individuals. then four. then three. There is an upper limit on the size of the domain you need to test. Some arguments will be invalid only in a domain with an infinite number of individuals. then you can conclude that there is no counterexample and that the argument form is therefore valid. then there is no counterexample in any larger domain. then there is also a counterexample in all larger domains. The following would be an example. thus. (x)(Gx ::J «Px v Qx)::J H x)) /. even if it does not have much practical value. that is. there is no mechanical method for coming up with the proof either. Interestingly enough. then 3. and so on. and this means that we have a decision procedure for one-variable predicate logic. if you have found no counterexample. although it is a fairly complex argument form: (x)«Fx • Gx)::J ~ (H x v Ix)). then there can be no counterexample in any smaller domain or in any larger domain.

In fact. *a. (3x)<\>x is false in a domain if and only if everyone of the instances is false. (x)(Cx::J Ax) (3x)(Fx'Gx). (x)(Ax::J Bx). <\>b. 3. We will begin to get into these more advanced levels in the next few sections. d. but you can't conclude from that that there is no counterexample. f. *c.Unit 16 Invalidity in Quantifier Logic 311 they must be one or the other). I:. <\>c for individuals in that domain is true. b. *c. (x)(Fx::J~Hx) . where we introduce relational predicate logic. is that they require insight. DEFINITIONS l. An argument in quantifier logic is valid if and only if there is no counterexample in any domain. What is exciting about these disciplines. <\>c for individuals in that domain is true. EXERCISES 1. You will be left up in the air! This is precisely what it means for a system not to have a decision procedure. (3x)(Fx' Hx) I:. Use the natural interpretation method to show that the following arguments are invalid. but from that you cannot conclude that there isn't any proof. (3x)Ax I:. since you simply might not have hit on the right combination. b. (x)Bx (x)(Ax::J Bx). and even genius. *e.(3x)(Hx'Gx) d. <\>b. Rewrite the following in a domain of three individuals.(x)(Gx::JHx) I:. creativity. if there were decision procedures for every part of logic and mathematics. (x)(Bx ::J Cx) I:. You may not be able to find a proof. it would be a pretty dull business. (x)(Fx::JHx) (3x)(Fx' Gx). The existential formula (3x)<\>x is true in a domain if and only if at least one of the instances <\>a. *e. ingenuity. And you may not be able to come up with a counterexample either. *a. (3x)(Gx' Hx) (x)(Fx::J~Gx). It is invalid if and only if there is some domain in which there is a counterexample. there is no foolproof mechanical method that will tell for every argument whether it is valid or invalid. The universal formula (x)<\>x is true in a domain if and only if each of the instances <\>a. (x)<\>x is false in a domain if and only if at least one of the instances is false. 2. (x)(Fx v Gx) (3x)(Fx' (Gx v H x» (x)(Fx v (Gx' Hx» (x)Fx::J (3x)Gx (x)(F x v Gx) ::J (3x)(H x • I x) (3x)(Fx' Gx) ::J «3x)Fx' (3x)Gx) 2. at least at the upper levels.

Tx. (x)(Fx ~ ~ Hx) (x)«Fx" Gx) ~ H x). *a. Use the natural interpretation method to show that the problems in Exercise 6 are invalid. Any senator who votes with the banking lobby has his or her own interests at heart. Px. *c. (x)(Fx ~ (Gx v Hx». *k. Rx) b. Fa ~ Ga Fa ~ Ga I:. Sx. If you think it is valid.Fa I:. Tx) Anyone who has time and patience can repair his or her own car. d. Sx. (3x)(Fx" Gx) (x)(Gx~Hx). (x)(Fx ~ Ix) (x)«Fx v Gx) ~ Ax). so every senator from Texas will vote with the banking lobby. Fa. I:. (3x)Fx ~ (3x)Gx (3x)Fx"(3x)Gx I:. Fa ~ Ga Fa ~ Ga I:. (x)«Fx" Gx) ~ Hx) Fa. *e. Fa"Ga *g. Every senator from Texas has his or her own interests at heart. (x)(Fx ~ Fa) (3x)(Fx ~ Fa) I:. 1. (3x)(Fx" Gx-Hx) (x)(Fx v Gx v Hx) I:. (x)(Bx ~ Ax) (3x)Fx" (3x)Gx" (3x)Hx I:. d. and some who are highly skilled are highly paid. (3x)Fx ~ Fa (x)Fx ~ (x)Gx I:. 7. Use the model universe method to show that the following are invalid. *a. m. (Use Rx. if you think it is invalid. try to construct a counterexample using either the natural interpretation method or the model universe method (or both). Use the model universe method to show that the arguments in Exercise 2 above are invalid. j. Ix. Bx. *c. b. (Use Rx. Therefore. For each of the arguments below. Some professors repair their own cars. 6. .(3x)(Gx"Fx). (x)Fx v (x)Gx v (x)Hx (x)Fx ~ (x)(Gx ~ Hx) I:. So some people do not have patience. Unit 16 Invalidity in Quantifier Logic (x)(Fx ~ Gx).312 f. So some professors are highly skilled. (x)(H x ~ J x) I:. No elementary teacher is highly paid. h. (Use Sx. Ax == x has patience. 5. ~ Hb I:. try to construct a proof. (3x)(Fx" Bx) I:. (3x)(Fx" ~ Gx) n. no elementary teacher repairs his or her own car. Fa"Ha *3. *i. f. and Tx) Anyone who repairs his or her own car is highly skilled. (x)Fx ~ (x)Gx (3x)Fx ~ (3x)Gx I:. Px) Anyone who repairs his or her own car is highly skilled.~Gb *g. (3x)(Hx" ~ Gx) I:. decide on the basis of your now well-developed logical intuitions whether it is valid or invalid. (x)Fx ~ Fa I:. (3x)(Hx" Gx). *4. (Px == x is a person. Use the model universe method to show invalidity for the arguments that turned out invalid in Exercise 2 in Unit I. Some people cannot repair their own cars.

and puppies are dogs.Part 3 Relational Predicate logic UNIT 17 Symbolization in Relational Predicate logic A. which is the best we can do in onevariable predicate logic. (3x)(Px' ~ Kx). we get nowhere. but if we try to demonstrate its validity in monadic predicate logic by constructing a proof for it. where Px == x is a person. Notice that with this symbolization. so there are arguments whose validity cannot be shown using only the resources of one-variable predicate logic. Ux == x is a puppy. Thus it was necessary to introduce a more complex system of logic in which we analyzed the simple sentences into their components. how to symbolize one-variable quantifier statements and determine whether the arguments containing them are valid or invalid. Lx == x likes some dogs. and the question is how to show that it is valid. For such arguments. Now that you know how to do this kind of analysis. we will have to move to a still deeper level of analysis. An example of such an argument would be the following: "Some people don't like any dogs. you are going to be rewarded for your efforts by learning about arguments for which these more elaborate methods are not sufficient! Just as there are arguments whose validity cannot be demonstrated using only sentential logic. but which cannot be shown to be valid using just the resources of sentential logic. 313 . at the very beginning of quantifier logic." This is obviously a valid argument (however deplorable). there is no way to derive the conclusion from the premises.·. there are certain arguments which are clearly valid. INTRODUCTION As we saw in Unit 10. and Kx == x likes puppies. Dx == x is a dog. so some people don't like puppies. The argument is valid. (x)(U x :J Dx) t. however. It would have to be symbolized something like the following: (3x)(Px' ~ Lx).

What you will need to learn is indicated below. it will be a simple matter to construct a proof for the argument above. would be "John is taller than . B. is clearly not just a one-place predicate. Learn to symbolize English sentences consisting of simple quantifier statements or their negations. Relational Predicates and Singular Sentences As noted above." "is a better bridge player than. and what we need to do is symbolize the "liking" predicate in such a way that we can then make the connection between not liking dogs and not liking puppies. The conclusion says that some people like no puppies. predicates that state a relation between two or more individuals instead of just stating a property of one individual. for instance. Singular sentences using these predicates. many-place or relational predicates and be able to symbolize polyadic singular sentences. UNIT 17 OBJECTIVES • • • • • Be able to recognize polyadic. Once we have such relational predicates available. we do have the universal connection between puppies and dogs in Premise 2.314 Unit 17 Symbolization in Relational Predicate Logic Well. and the first premise says that some people like no dogs. Learn to symbolize simple quantifier sentences containing relational predicates. The "liking" predicate. We then discuss quantifier negation for many-variable predicates. given the link between puppies and dogs. Examples of such predicates would be "is taller than. We then discuss quantification over these simple sentences. and in Sections 4 and 5 we turn to categorical relational statements. UNIT 17 TOPICS 1. rather than just asserting a property of a single individual." "lives next door to. C. Be able to apply the quantifier negation rules to quantified relational formulas." "loves." and so on. We will effect this connection by introducing relational predicates. including those with more than one quantifier. and you will learn to symbolize singular sentences containing these predicates. with the names italicized. we don't say just that one thing likes. but rather that one thing likes another. Learn to symbolize categorical relational statements. In this unit we first introduce relational predicates. that is. which will be a little more involved than in one-variable predicate logic because we will have more than one quantifier to reckon with. there are certain predicates that state a relation between two or more individuals." "is a brother of.

x is between y and z. and in general n-place predicates. x is a brother of y. we will represent predicates by propositional functions. a two-place function is one that contains two different variables." It is also possible to have five-place." "Billy is a brother of Jimmy. x is farther from y than z is from w. you will generally be given the symbolizations for the functions. and so on. (More will be said shortly about the importance of the order in which the variables appear in the function.Unit 17 Symbolization in Relational Predicate Logic 315 Mary. We will normally put the variables in alphabetical order following the predicate letter. in addition to the predicate. As in one-variable predicate logic. Examples of sentences containing three-place predicates would be "Chicago is between Detroit and Minneapolis. and so on. for any n. x loves y." and "Kissinger introduced the Shah to Nixon. since there will be more than one name in the singular sentence.) As in one-variable predicate logic. x is taller than y. More specifically. or many-place functions are those that contain two or more different variables. We will abbreviate propositional functions in much the same way as we did in one-variable logic.and three-place predicates. It is important to remember that there must be n names put in for the n variables in order to complete the singular sentence. except that here we will have more than one variable following the capital predicate letter." "John told Mary about Bob. x told y about z. An n-place propositional function will become a singular sentence when all the variables are replaced with names." "Superman loves Lois. "x is between y and z" as Bxyz. If only two names are put in for a three-place function." "Nixon lives next door to Carter. only here. for instance. the result is a one-place function. "x is taller than y" as Txy. not a singular sentence. to complete the sentences." An example of a four-place relational sentence would be "New York is farther from San Francisco than Minneapolis is from Dallas. Polyadic. x introduced y to z. ." and "Goren is a better bridge player than Bobby Fischer. thus we can abbreviate "x loves y" as Lxy. only in Exercise 1 will you have to identify and abbreviate the functions yourself. a three-place function is one that contains three different variables. but the ones for which we will have the most use are the two. six-place. Some examples of many-place propositional functions follow. there will be more than one variable in the propositional function." These are all two-place predicates because it takes two names.

x is south of y 4. Rockefeller owns the Chase Manhattan. Texas is south of Minnesota. The function for "Russia sold Alaska to the United States. One place you need to be especially careful about order is in sentences in the passive voice. where Dxy abbreviates "x despises y." We could here take the function as . Smt would say. The sentence "Beth despises Andrew" contains only a two-place function and could be symbolized as Dba. the second constant stands for the thing being given. Richard Burton gave Elizabeth Taylor the Hope Diamond. would be "x sold y to z" and could be symbolized as Sxyz. the propositional functions are written below the sentences. Andrew works for the Pentagon. that Minnesota is south of Texas. Example 5 is particularly instructive on this issue. and the third stands for the recipient of the gift. and the abbreviation for each is to the right. In example 3. x loves y 2. x owns y 5. such as "John is loved by Mary. Thus we symbolize that Texas is south of Minnesota by Stm rather than Smt. for instance. John loves Mary. Thus the symbolization must be Grhe.316 Unit 17 Symbolization in Relational Predicate Logic Symbolizing purely singular sentences (those without any quantifiers) in relational predicate logic is much the same as in monadic predicate logic: first you must isolate and abbreviate the propositional function and then put in for the variables the appropriate individual constants. the variables will almost always be placed in alphabetical order in the abbreviated function. x gave y to Z in exchange for w 1. and the order of the variables in the unabbreviated function will tell you how the individuals are related. When you are given abbreviations for the propositional functions." for example. Elizabeth Taylor gave George the Bulgarian Emerald in exchange for the Hope Diamond. Since we normally use the first letter of a name as its abbreviation. Ljm Lxy Wap Wxy Stm Sxy Ore Oxy Grhe Gxyz Gebgh Gxyzw The order of the variables and individual constants is extremely important in symbolizations in relational logic. the first-named individual in the symbolization is supposed to be the one that is to the south of the secondnamed individual. x gave y to z 6. such as Sxy for "x is south of y" (example 3 above). which you might be tempted to put down if you didn't look carefully at the abbreviation. rather than Greh. the sentence could then be symbolized as Srau. erroneously. x works for y 3. here the abbreviation indicates that the first constant stands for the thing doing the giving." There are several examples of relational singular sentences below.

such as "John loves Mary and Beth. What it really says is that John loves Mary and John loves Beth. of course." on the other hand. this is not a proper formula and makes no sense in our logical system. where j stands for both the thing doing the loving and the thing being loved. yielding a pure singular proposition. there are examples of such reflexive sentences among your exercises at the end of the unit. You would not symbolize it as Ljm' b. There are a few things you need to watch in addition to being careful about the order of the letters." are called reflexive. and so to have a proper sentence there must be only two individual constants following the predicate letter." It is important to see that this is a conjunction of two two-place relational sentences. that is. "John gave himself War and Peace.Unit 17 Symbolization in Relational Predicate Logic 317 "x loves y. and quantify over the other (for a two-place predicate). if Txyz means "x teaches y to z. which is. are certainly numerous. Ljm. which means the same as saying that John is loved by Mary. At this point. In relational logic. since we have more than one variable. (Somehow students find this very tempting. quite a different proposition. Operators are always placed between two formulas and never between two names. you should be able to complete Exercises 1 and 2 at the end of the unit. would be symbolized as Gjwj.or four-place functions. be given compound sentences. rather than a three-place relational sentence. as in Ljmb. the same constant may go in for two (or more) different variables. we can symbolize "John loves himself" as Ljj. This would say that Mary loves John. and we would then symbolize the sentence as Lmj. we can get sentences either by replacing the free variables with constants or by prefixing an appropriate quantifier. be on guard against it. or we may quantify over all the variables. Nor would it be correct simply to run on the three names. If Lxy means "x loves y" again." we could symbolize "John gave himself to God" as Gjjg.) This is wrong because "loves" is a twoplace predicate. while not endless. It may sometimes happen in relational predicate logic that you need the same individual constant in more than one place following the predicate letter. which often use the words "himself" or "herself. We may replace one of the variables by a constant. Similarly. we have several possible combinations." we could symbolize "Mary taught herself calculus" as Tmcm. even for a two-place function. not a three-place predicate. so it would be symbolized as (Ljm' Ljb). You may. Multiple Quantifiers Given propositional functions. Such sentences." which we could abbreviate as Lxy. . 2. for instance. If Gxyz means "x gave y to z. For three. We may replace both (or all) variables with constants. on the other hand. there are even more combinations. The possibilities. says that John loves Mary. be sure to check your answers to see whether you are understanding the material.

318

Unit 17 Symbolization in Relational Predicate Logic

Let us take one example and go through a number of the various kinds of sentences we can get by combining constants, existential quantifiers, and universal quantifiers. We will let Lxy mean "x loves y," and we will use j and m again for John and Mary. We will here restrict our domain to human beings so that it will not be necessary to use the predicate "x is a person." Given the interpretations above, the formulas Ljm and Lmj symbolize "John loves Mary" and "Mary loves John," respectively. Suppose we prefix a quantifier in place of one of the constants, for instance, (3x)Lxj. What would this mean? Well, it begins with an existential quantifier, and this means that the overall form of the sentence is existential. 1 Read literally, it says "There is some x such that x loves John" or, in other words, "Somebody loves John" (since our universe is humans). If we use the universal quantifier instead, to get (x)Lxj, this would obviously say "For every x, x loves John" or, in other words, "Everyone loves John." We can also quantify over the second individual letter and put in the constant j for the first letter. In this case we would get the two formulas (3x)Ljx and (x)Ljx. In these formulas, since j is the first letter, John is the first-named individual, and so it is John who is doing the loving, of someone and everyone, respectively. Thus the two sentences say "John loves someone" and "John loves everyone." If we were to read the first formula, (3x)Ljx, literally, we would have "There is an x such that John loves x," and the second formula, (x)Ljx, would read "For every x, John loves x," and these are clearly equivalent to our more colloquial versions above. Thus we have four possibilities for one quantifier (assuming we use the same constant in each case):
(3x)Lxj (x)Lxj (3x)Ljx (x)Ljx

Someone loves John. Everyone loves John. John loves someone. John loves everyone.

In general, when you are given a quantified sentence, especially with relational predicates, you should get in the habit of reading it literally, beginning with the first symbol, as we have done above. You will always begin at the far left, and
for sentences of quantifier form, it is the leftmost quantifier that will determine the form of the sentence. This will be especially important where you have more than

one quantifier, as in the examples in the next paragraphs. Suppose we have two quantifiers in front of our function, instead of a constant at one place. We can have either both universal, both existential, or a combination
I Of course, it is also a singular sentence, since it contains a constant, but when we talk of the form of a sentence, we mean the arrangement of its quantifiers and sentential operators.

Unit 17 Symbolization in Relational Predicate Logic

319

of universal and existential. In addition, the order of the two quantifiers may be reversed. This gives us eight different possibilities, although, as we shall see, two of the pairs are equivalent. These eight possible combinations are listed below.
(x)(y)Lxy (y)(x)Lxy (3x)(3y)Lxy
(3y)(3x)Lxy

(x)(3y)Lxy (3y)(x)Lxy (3x)(y)Lxy
(y)(3x)Lxy

Let us take the unmixed universal cases first: (x)(y)Lxy and (y)(x)Lxy. The first would be read literally as "For every x and for every y, x loves y" or, in other words, "Every x loves every y," that is, "Everybody loves everybody." Suppose we switch the quantifiers to get the second formula. Here we have "For every y and for every x, x loves y," that is, "Every y is loved by every x," that is, once again, "Everybody loves everybody." Thus the two formulas are equivalent. This will generally be the case: if you have contiguous universal quantifiers, it does not make any difference in what order they appear. (x)(y)(z)Bxyz means the same as (z)(y)(x)Bxyz or (y)(z)(x)Bxyz, and so on. (This is related to the fact that we have commutation for conjunction.) We have the same equivalence between two uses of the existential quantifier. Let us work out the meanings of (3x)(3y)Lxy and (3y)(3x)Lxy. The first would be read literally as "There is some x such that there is some y such that x loves y" or, in other words, "Some x loves some y." The second formula would be read "There is some y such that there is some x such that x loves y" or, in other words, "Some y is loved by some x." In both cases we could simply say "Somebody loves somebody." In general, contiguous existential quantifiers may also be exchanged without changing the meaning of the sentence. (This is related to the fact that we have commutation for disjunction.) (3x)(3y)(3z)(3w)Gxyzw will mean exactly the same as (3w)(3y)(3x)(3z)Gxyzw or any other permutation of the existential quantifiers. The situation changes, however, when we have a mixture of universal and existential quantifiers; here, changing the order at the front will make an enormous difference in meaning, so you must learn very carefully how to figure out what these sentences say. Suppose we have the sentence (x)(3y)Lxy. What does this mean? Since it begins with a universal quantifier, it is a universal sentence, and we should begin by saying "For every x." Now, what are we saying about all these x's? Well, the rest of the sentence is (3y)Lxy (a propositional function on x). Read literally, this portion says "There is some y such that x loves y," that is, "x loves somebody." Putting it together, we get "For every x, there is some y such that x loves y" or "For every x, x loves somebody"; in other words, "Everybody loves somebody." (No one is entirely heartless.)

320

Unit 17 Symbolization in Relational Predicate Logic

Now let us switch the quantifiers to get (3y)(x)Lxy. What would this mean? Notice first that it is an existential proposition: we would begin by saying "There is some y such that." Now, what about this y? What is the rest of the formula saying about y? If we read it literally, we get "For every x, x loves y" or "Everybody loves y." Lucky y! We might call him or her the "universallovee," the one whom everyone loves. If we read the entire sentence literally, starting again from the far left, we get "There is some y such that every x loves y" or "There is some person whom everyone loves." Notice that this says something very different from the previous sentence. We still have two possibilities: in the above sentences we had universal x and existential y; we can also have existential x and universal y, which gives us the following two formulas: (3x)(y)Lxy and (y)(3x)Lxy. The first of these is an existential formula and would be read "There is some x such that, for all y, x loves y." In other words, there is some one human being who loves everyone. This fictional creature we might call "the universal lover," who needs to be distinguished from the "universallovee" above, the one whom everyone loved. This is one who loves everyone, rather than one who is loved by everyone. A more colloquial version of this formula, (3x)(y)Lxy, would be simply "There is someone who loves everyone." The other formula, (y)(3x)Lxy, the last in our series, is universal, and so would begin with "For all y." Now, what is being claimed about all the y's? The rest of the formula says "There is some x such that x loves y"; in other words, "Someone loves y." So the sentence as a whole says "For every y, some x loves y" or, more colloquially, "For every person, there is someone who loves that person." Notice that this formula, (y)(3x)Lxy, is very different from another we did above, (x)(3y)Lxy. The former, as we have just seen, says that everyone has someone who loves him or her-that everyone has a lover-whereas the latter says that everyone loves someone-that everyone is a lover. As an aside, notice that the sentence "Somebody loves everybody" is ambiguous in English. It may mean that there is some one person who loves everyone (our third version) or that, for every person, there is someone (not necessarily the same one) who loves that person (our fourth version). Such ambiguities are common in English; quantifier logic should help you sort them out. The four formulas with mixed quantifiers, along with their interpretations, are repeated below.
(x)(3y)Lxy (3y)(x)Lxy (3x)(y)Lxy (y)(3x)Lxy

Everyone loves at least one person. There is someone (some one person) who is loved by everyone. There is someone (some one person) who loves everyone. Everyone is loved by at least one person.

Unit 17 Symbolization in Relational Predicate Logic

321

Thus, changing the order of existential and universal quantifiers makes an enormous difference to the meaning (and truth value) of a sentence. To make this crystal clear, let us take one more example. We will use Fxy for "x is the (biological) father of y," restricting our domain to humans. (y)(3x)Fxy means "For any person y, there is some x such that x is the biological father of y"; in other words, "Everyone has a biological father." This is true. (3x)(y)Fxy, on the other hand, means "There is some one x such that x is the biological father of all (human) y's," and this, of course, is false. An example of a three-place propositional function would be "x introduced y to z," which we could abbreviate as Ixyz. If we use j and m again and a for Andrew, some singular sentences, with their symbolizations, would be the following: "John introduced Mary to Andrew" (ljma); "Mary introduced John to Andrew" (lmja); and "Andrew introduced Mary to John" (lamj). (This again indicates the importance of the order of the individual letters.) Suppose we add quantifiers, as in (3x)Imjx. This would mean "There is some x such that Mary introduced John to x"; in other words, "Mary introduced John to someone." (3y)Iyma would mean 'There is some y such that y introduced Mary to Andrew," that is, "Someone introduced Mary to Andrew." Some examples with two quantifiers and one constant would be the following:
(3x)(3y)Ixyj (3x)(3y)Ixmy (3y)(z)Imyz (z)(3y)Imyz

Someone introduced somebody to John. Someone introduced Mary to somebody. Mary introduced someone (some one person) to everyone. Mary introduced someone to everyone. (That is, for everyone,there was someone Mary introduced to them.)

There are many other possibilities as well, and we will not cover them all. You should work out more examples on your own, remembering that the form of the sentence is determined by the leftmost quantifier and that you should read the formula literally before you try to give a more colloquial version. For our two-place function Lxy, we gave eight possible combinations of quantifiers, which yielded six different meanings. But haven't we left something out? What about the eight possible combinations with the function Lyx, with the variables reversed? Interestingly enough, these versions add nothing new. To see this, let us compare the two formulas (3x)(y)Lxy and (3y)(x)Lyx. The first was one we covered earlier, which we said meant "There is someone who loves everybody." What does the second formula say? If we read it literally, we get "There is some y such that, for every x, y loves x." Put colloquially, what this says is that someone loves everyone, exactly what the first formula said! If you look closely at the two formulas, you may be able to see why they say the same thing. In both cases we have an existential quantifier first, followed by a universal

322

Unit 17 Symbolization in Relational Predicate Logic

quantifier; and in both cases the variable immediately after the predicate letter, which is the one that designates the lover, is the one correlated with the existential quantifier, while the second variable after the predicate letter is in both cases correlated with the universal quantifier. So both formulas say there is someone who loves everyone. It is clear from the following diagram that the pattern is the same in both formulas.
~

(3x)(y)Lxy
'----../

~

(3y)(x)Lyx
'-----/

The two formulas are identical, except that their bound variables are systematically interchanged. In cases like this, where the formulas are the same except for a change of bound variable, the formulas are equivalent. They have exactly the same form. Thus, if you happen to use different variables than the ones in the answers, your answer is not necessarily wrong. If it has the same form as the answer (or an equivalent form) and only differs (systematically) in the bound variables, then it is correct. So far we have been talking about going from the formula to the English sentence. What about the converse, going from the sentence to the formula symbolizing the English sentence? First, figure out the form ofthe sentence, whether purely singular, existential, or universal, and then put together the parts. If it is purely singular, with no quantifiers involved at all, then your task will be easy; just plug in the appropriate constants to the propositional function. If it is an existential formula, you will, of course, begin with an existential quantifier. You should then try to figure out what is being said about the thing referred to by the quantifier. The sentence "Some things make John happy," for instance, is existential, so you would begin with (3x). The question is what is being said about that x. The answer in this case is that x makes John happy, which we might symbolize as Hxj. The sentence would then be completely symbolized as (3x)Hxj and would be read as "There is an x such that x makes John happy." You should be able to see that this is a correct interpretation of the English sentence. If it is a universal sentence, you do the same. In the sentence "Everything exerts a gravitational pull on the Earth," for instance, the overall form is clearly universal, so we may begin with (x). Then the question is what is being asserted about all those x's, and the answer is that they exert a gravitational pull on the Earth, which we could symbolize as Gxe. We could symbolize the whole sentence, then, as (x) Gxe, which would be read "For every x, x exerts a gravitational pull on the Earth," clearly a correct reading of the original English sentence. In cases where there is more than one quantifier, you may have a little more difficulty, but here again you should first isolate the overall form of the sentence, whether universal or existential, and write down the appropriate quantifier. Then figure out what is being said about the objects referred to by the quantifier, which

Unit 17 Symbolization in Relational Predicate Logic

323

in these cases will require more quantifiers. Symbolize what is being said about the objects, using whatever other quantifiers you need, put it all together, and you should have your symbolization. In the sentence "Everything is older than something," for example, the quantifier that determines the form of the sentence is clearly universal, so we may begin by writing down (x). Then we ask again what is being said about all those x's. The answer is that each x is older than something. Then the question is how we symbolize "x is older than something." Well, this expression is existential; it says there is something, say, y, such that x is older than y. This could be symbolized as (3y)Oxy. Putting this all together, we get (x)(3y)Oxy. Reading it back literally, to be sure we have it right, we get "For every x, there is some y such that x is older than y," which does capture the sense of the original English sentence. Remember that it is the leftmost quantifier that determines the overall form of the sentence and that with mixed quantifiers, if you change the order of the quantifiers, you change the meaning of the sentence. It is thus essential that you begin with the proper quantifier. You can determine the overall form of the sentence in much the same way as in one-variable logic: look for key words such as "all," "every," "some," and "somebody." Of course, with mixed quantifiers, you will have both phrases occurring in the sentence, and you will have to use your sense of English to figure out which is the determining phrase. With mixed quantifiers it is very often the first appearing quantifier. When there are more than two variables, the situation gets even more interesting. We will take one final example in which there are three quantifiers involved: "Someone told nasty stories about someone to everyone." Here the overall form is clearly existential, so we begin with (3x). Now what is said about x? Something rather unsavory, that x told nasty stories about someone to everyone. Now, how do we symbolize this repellent property of x? Well, it too is existential; it says that there was someone such that x told nasty stories about that person to everyone. This, then, would be symbolized by another existential, so we can continue with (3y). Now what is true about poor y? That x told nasty stories about y to everyone, and this, of course, is universal. We could say "(z)x told nasty stories about y to z." If we use Nxyz for "x told nasty stories about y to z," then this last function could be symbolized as (z)Nxyz. Putting the whole thing together, we have (3x)(3y)(z)Nxyz. Read literally, it would say "There is some x such that there is some y such that, for every z, x told nasty stories about y to z." Or, a little more colloquially, "There is some x and some y such that x told nasty stories about y to everyone." At this point you should be able to complete Exercise 3 at the end of the unit, which will give you more practice in going from formulas to English sentences, and Exercise 4, which will give you practice in symbolizing English sentences. No negations are involved in these exercises; we will introduce negated quantifiers for relational logic in the next section.

324

Unit 17 Symbolization in Relational Predicate Logic

3. Quantifier Negation

In applying the quantifier negation rules to multiply quantified formulas, the procedure is the same as before. You have the rules ~(x)<I>x:: (3x)~<I>x and ~(3x)<I>x :: (x) ~<I>x, which tell you that negated existential formulas are equivalent to universals and negated universals to existentials. Thus you could use Q.N. on the formula ~(x)(3y)Fxy to derive (3x)~(3y)Fxy. You must apply Q.N. rules to only one negated quantifier at a time. A few other examples would be the following (keeping in mind that since the rules are replacement rules, they may be used from right to left as well as from left to right):
1. ~(3x)(3y)~Fxy/ .". (x)~(3y)~Fxy 2. ~(x)(y)~Fxy/ .". (3x)~(y)~Fxy 3. (3x)~(y)~ Fxy/ .". ~(x)(y)~Fxy 4. (x)~(3y)~ Fxy/ .". ~(3x)(3y)~Fxy

Keep in mind also that the replacement rules may be used on subformulas as well as on the main formula, so that the following could be inferred from the conclusions of the above four inferences:
1.
(x)(y)~ ~Fxy

2. (3x)(3y) ~ ~ Fxy 3. ~(x)~(3y)Fxy 4. ~(3x)~(y)Fxy

Of course, we also have two other forms of the rule, which can be stated as follows: ~(x) ~ <l>x :: (3x)<I>x and ~(3x) ~ <l>x :: (x)<I>x. Using these other forms of the rule, we could make the following inferences:
1.
2. 3. 4. 5.
~(3x)~(y)Fxy/ .". (x)(y)Fxy ~(x)~ ~(3y)Fxy/ .". (3x) ~(3y)Fxy ~(x)~(3y)~Fxy/ .". ~(x)(y)Fxy or(3x)(3y)~Fxy ~(3x) ~(y) ~ Fxy/

.". ~ (3x)(3y)Fxy or (x)(y)~ Fxy

(x)(y)Fxy/ .". (x)~(3y)~Fxy

If you use several applications of the Q.N. rules, you can "run a negation through" a multiply quantified statement from the beginning of a formula to the final function (and vice versa). Two instances of this process are given below. (Read these from top to bottom, rather than from left to right.)
1.
~(x)(y)(z)Fxyz

/ .". (3x) ~(y)(z)Fxyz / .". (3x)(3y)~(z)Fxyz / .". (3x)(3y)(3z)~Fxyz

2. ~(3x)(y)(3z)Fxyz / .". (x) ~(y)(3z)Fxyz / .". (x)(3y) ~(3z)Fxyz / .". (x)(3y)(z) ~Fxyz

Unit 17 Symbolization in Relational Predicate Logic

325

Notice in comparing the first and last steps in both 1 and 2 that all the quantifiers change, and the negation moves from the very front of the formula to just in front of the final function. Exercise 5, at the end of the unit, will give you practice in making these Q.N. transformations. In the paragraphs above we were simply applying the Q.N. rules to uninterpreted formulas; we must now discuss English sentences containing negated quantifiers and how they should be symbolized. It will be obvious enough when a sentence contains a negated quantifier; again, you will have phrases such as "not all," "not every," or "not everyone," which will indicate a negated universal, and phrases such as "no," "none," "no one," "nothing," and so on, which will indicate a negated existential. Symbolizations for negated quantifiers and equivalences between negated quantifiers will be the same as before; what is different is that you may have more than one quantifier. Let us begin, however, with sentences involving just a single quantifier, such as "Mary does not like everyone." (Again we will restrict our domain to people.) This is a negated universal, so you could begin your symbolization with ~(x), "It is not the case that for every x," and the proper function would be "Mary likes x." This is easily symbolized as Lmx, and putting the two parts together we have ~(x)Lmx. Notice that this is equivalent, as all negated quantifier expressions will be, to another quantifier statement, (3x) ~ Lmx. Let us read this literally and see whether it is equivalent to the original sentence. This second quantifier statement says "There is some x such that Mary does not like x," or, in other words, "There is someone Mary doesn't like," and this is indeed equivalent to "Mary does not like everyone." Another example involving only a single quantifier would be "No one likes Richard." Here the phrase "no one" signals a negated existential, so we will begin our symbolization with ~(3x). This is read as "There is no x such that," and what should follow it then is "x likes Richard." This latter phrase can be symbolized as Lxr, and putting the two parts together we have ~(3x)Lxr, "There is no x such that x likes Richard," and this means simply that no one likes Richard. Note that this would be equivalent by Q.N. to (x) ~ Lxr, which would be read "For every x, x does not like (dislikes) Richard," and this again captures the sense of the English sentence. With more than one quantifier the situation gets a little more complex, but here again you should first isolate the basic form of the sentence, write down the initial negated quantifier, and then figure out what should follow it. Suppose we have the sentence "No one likes everyone." Here the form is indicated by the phrase "no one," so we may begin with ~(3x), "There is no x such that." Now we ask ourselves what there aren't any of, and in this case the answer is people who like everyone; that is, there is no x such that x likes everyone. The italicized portion is our propositional function, which is not difficult to symbolize. It is universal, and we can simply say (y)Lxy, "For every y, x likes y." Putting the two parts

326

Unit 17 Symbolization in Relational Predicate Logic

together again, we have ~(3x)(y)Lxy, which would be read "There is no x such that, for every y, x likes y." The formula above, of course, has equivalents. If we apply Q.N. once, we get (x) ~ (y)Lxy. This would be read as "For every x, x does not like everyone," which does mean the same as "No one likes everyone." If we apply Q.N. again, we get (x)(3y) ~ Lxy, which would be read "For every x there is some y such that x does not like y" or "For every x, there is someone whom x does not like," and, again, this is equivalent to saying "No one likes everyone." Let us take one more example of a two-place function before we go on to three-place functions. "Not everyone talked to somebody" is a negated universal; we are saying "It is not the case that, for every x, x talked to someone." Put this way, it should be easy to see the symbolization: ~ (x)(3y)Txy. Using Q.N. once, we get (3 x) ~ (3 y)T xy, which would be read "There is some x such that there was no y such that x talked to y" or "There are some people who talked to no one." Using Q.N. again, we get (3x)(y) ~ Txy, which says "There is some x such that, for every y, x did not talk to y" or "There is someone who did not talk to anyone," which does mean the same as our original sentence. In the following examples we will use Ixyz for "x introduced y to z," and instead of explaining everything in detail, we will just list several examples with their equivalents and their symbolizations. Be sure to study these examples carefully and to read out literally the symbolized formulas in each case. 1. No one introduced anybody to Richard. For everyone, they introduced no one to Richard. 2. Not everybody introduced someone to John. Some people introduced no one to John. 3. John did not introduce anyone to anybody. For everyone, John did not introduce them to anyone. 4. No one introduced anybody to anyone. For everyone, they were not introduced to anyone. For every x and y, no one introduced x to y.
~(3x)(3y)Ixyr

(x) ~(3y)Ixyr
~(x)(3y)Ixyj

(3x)~(3y)Ixyj

or

(3x)(y)

~ Ixyj

~(3x)(3y)Ijxy

(x) ~(3y)Ijxy or
(x)(y)~Ijxy

~(3x)(3y)(3z)I xyz

(x) ~ (3y)(3z)Iyxz
(x)(y)~(3z)Izxy

Notice that the order of the function letters is different in each case in 4. See if you can figure out why the formulas are still all equivalent. There are many examples in Exercise 6 of this sort of problem. You should now try to do these exercises.

always use a different variable for each different kind of object mentioned in the sentence. But here we are trying to spell out all the complexities. in which the subject or predicate. is to use a separate predicate phrase for being a collar and then use a relational predicate to indicate the wearing relationship between the dog and the collar. and we should notice that within the predicate there is an object mentioned. Cx for "x wears a collar" and then symbolized the whole as (3x)(Dx • Cx). say. which is the intent of the English sentence. we can symbolize it simply as Dx. we would have (3x)(Dx' (3x)(Cx' W xx». In onevariable logic. says that there is a dog that is also a collar and that wears itself. Complex Subjects and Predicates Many relational sentences are merely complex versions of categorical propositions. Don't make this kind of silly mistake. in symbolizing relational sentences. In general. and x wears y. you should have a different one-variable function for each class of objects mentioned and a relational predicate for each relationship. even though your vocabulary. which stands in a particular relation to the dog-namely. Notice that we have stated the abbreviation for the function Cx using an x. and there is a y such that y is a collar. if it makes any sense at all. but that we have used a y when we came to the symbolization. The sentence "Some dogs wear collars" is clearly an I proposition and could be paraphrased as "There is some x such that x is a dog and x wears a collar. in symbolizing. or we would generate hopeless confusion. This would be read as "There is an x such that x is a dog. or abbreviations for the functions. The predicate phrase "x wears a collar" requires a little more analysis. However." In other words. (2) identifying the subject and predicate of the English sentence. We must use different variables for each kind of thing mentioned. Let us use Cx for "x is a collar" and Wxy for "x wears y. If we tried to use x for both the dog and the collar in the sentence above. the collar. . We can symbolize these sentences by using our old three-step procedure of (1) identifying the form of the sentence." The subject phrase "x is a dog" presents no difficulty." We can then symbolize the predicate "x wears a collar" as (3 y)(Cy • W xy) and the entire sentence as (3x)(Dx' (3y)(Cy' Wxy». we could simply have used. will use the same variable. which. and so on. the dog wears the collar. The reason for this is that the vocabulary. we discuss in this section the procedures for symbolizing complex subjects and predicates. Since you are already familiar with the first two steps. and (3) symbolizing the subject and predicate. for instance. or both. y for a two-place function. we cannot use x for the different classes. then. contain additional quantifiers. the dog x wears the collar y. is always given uniformly in terms of x for a one-place function. the list of symbolizations for the propositional functions.Unit 17 Symbolization in Relational Predicate Logic 327 4. x. The most perspicuous analysis. Categorical Relational Statements.

" and then stating the subject and predicate functions in terms of the variable x. will be symbolized in this . in the following way: (x)«Dx· (3y)(Cy· W xy)) ~ (3z)Ozx). indicating the quantifier by the phrase "for every x" or "for some x. Transitive verbs. all we need is the relational predicate Oxy for "x owns y." For this. simply as (3 z)Ozx. There is an x such that x is a teacher and x has bright students.328 Unit 17 Symbolization in Relational Predicate Logic Let us take another. for instance. then there is a z such that z owns x. just as in one-variable logic. but it might be a corporation!) Finally. that is. No student who does not get good grades will either get a scholarship or graduate cum laude. and x catches mice. would be symbolized as Dx • (3y)(Cy • W xy). so the overall form will be (x)( _ _ ~ _ _). We can put the whole thing together. Any bright student with good grades will get a scholarship. the sentence is basically anA proposition. slightly more complex example: "Any dog that wears a collar has an owner." This could be paraphrased as "For every x. There is no x such that x is a student and x does not get good grades and x either gets a scholarship or graduates cum laude." The subject phrase. just to give you the idea. we can break it down into "x is a dog and x wears a collar. The predicate phrase says that x has an owner. Perhaps it is a human being. there is a z such that z owns x. For any x. plugging in subject and predicate. Many different kinds of phrases can be symbolized by using relational functions (plus quantifiers). then. 2. if x is a dog and there is a y such that y is a collar and x wears y. will be symbolized by using a conjunction. This would be read literally as "For every x. then x will get a scholarship. There is some x such that x is a dog and x has an owner who doesn't feed x." You should get in the habit of first paraphrasing the sentence to be symbolized. if x is a student and x is bright and x has good grades. then x has an owner. (The symbolizations will be done later. 4." We can symbolize "x is a dog" as Dx and "x wears a collar" just the same as above: (3y)(Cy • W xy). (Here we do not need a third class term-a third one-place predicate-because the sentence doesn't specify what kind of owner the dog has. if x is a dog that wears a collar. Some dogs with owners who don't feed them catch mice. that x has an owner. The entire subject phrase. What does this mean in logical terms? The word "an" indicates an existential construction. Some teachers with bright students give no failing grades. We will do a few of these paraphrases here. 3. and we could paraphrase this predicate as "there is an owner ofx" or "there is some z such that z owns x. since it contains a modifier." Here the subject phrase is "x is a dog that wears a collar" and the predicate phrase is "x has an owner.) 1. That is. and x gives no fail ing grades." and we can then symbolize the predicate phrase. You will then be able to see more clearly what needs to be done to symbolize the subject and predicate phrases.

You should get in the habit of quantifying over each new variable as it comes up." "x delights y. The reason for this is that in the end." "x bought y from z. and if we fail to quantify over y." "x kicked y. (Hx' Oyx). for instance. expressions that will be true or false." "x is the brother of y. If we have a free variable in the end. ." "x lives better than y." which we encountered earlier." and so on." "x is y's house. Other kinds of phrases that indicate the use of relational predicates are the genitive and possessive cases. have been substantially revised in the past century). Examples would be "x is y's car." "x is y's brother. this may tip you off that you have a relational predicate. Notice that in symbolizing subject and predicate phrases that require relational functions." "x has darker eyes than y. will be quantified over by our initial quantifier." and so on. in the end y will be free. These phrases could be symbolized using Oxy for "x owns y" and a onevariable predicate to indicate the kind of thing that is owned. Another kind of phrase that is symbolized with a relational function is the comparative. W xy." "x is y's friend. we must not have any free variables left over. do not wait until the end and then try to put all your quantifiers at the front. would be the following: "x loves y. that it falls within the scope of its own quantifier. and a function is not either true or false. Phrases such as "with a collar. represented here by the appropriate propositional functions. It would obviously be impossible to give a complete list." "x knows y. however. of course. Thus you must make sure that each variable in your symbolization at the end is bound. With possessives. Examples of such verbs." and so on. as (Cx' Oyx). Such phrases can be rendered by relational functions such as "x is the wife of y. we will have a propositional function rather than a sentence." "x thinks about y. fortunately.) Why are we not allowed to have free variables in our symbolization? Simply because we are supposed to be symbolizing sentences." "x is faster than y.Unit 17 Symbolization in Relational Predicate Logic 329 way. We might symbolize the above." and so on. There is no suggestion here of ownership (marriage laws." "x comes after y. the phrase simply states a relationship between two individuals. that is." "x has a lower income than y. Comparatives are often indicated by the suffix "er"." "x is y's book. Examples of comparatives are "x is taller than y. respectively." and so on." The function "x is a man with an expensive car" could thus be symbolized as M X' (3y)(Cy • Ey • H xy). as we saw then. we would have to reproduce a good part of the dictionary! But watch for verbs like this and symbolize them accordingly. It would be incorrect to symbolize "x wears a collar" just as Cy . when our sentence is completely symbolized. Examples would be "x is in y. Another very common kind of phrase that is symbolized by a relational function is the prepositional phrase." "x believes y. we have always included a quantifier using y." "x is with y." "x is a friend of y. Examples of the former would be "x is y's wife." and so on. we do have a kind of ownership. and (Bx' Oyx). can. (x. be symbolized by using the phrase "x has y.

We will give a step-by-step explanation of the first symbolization and then will just list the symbolizations for the others and let you work out the rationale for yourself. Hxy == x has y. Here look for the same clues as before. ~(3x)((Sx· ~ Gx)· (3y)(Cy· Gxy) v Lx)) (Lx == x graduates cum laude) . We will do the four listed earlier. because one of the terms cannot rightly be interpreted as naming an individual. In some cases there will be no indicating words or phrases at all. Gxy == x gives y) 3. Note that in many cases we have dropped internal parentheses where ambiguity is not a problem. Fx == x is a failing grade. Sx == x is a student. If the function is "x likes every girl. (3x)(Tx· (3y)(Sy. Sx. Another example would be "x has a cat.By· H xy)· ~ (3z)(Fz· Gxz))(Tx == x is a teacher. There is an x such that x is a dog and x has an owner who does not feed x.330 Unit 17 Symbolization in Relational Predicate Logic Once you have picked out the relational function for your subject or predicate phrase. (x)((Bx· Sx· Gx) :::) (3y)(Cy· Gxy)) (Here we use Gx for x gets good grades. for which we gave the paraphrases. Gxy == x gets y) 4." This would be symbolized as (3y)(Cy· H xy). meaning "x swam." for example." or as "some of x's grades are good. and x catches mice. Cx == x is a scholarship. remembering that you will need another quantifier. 1. you will just have to use your common sense about what is meant. If you have words such as "a" or "an. you still have to figure out which quantifier to use. it would be silly to translate it as (3y)(Sy· W xy): "There is a y such that y is a swim and x went for y. In the function "x went for a swim. and the function could be symbolized as (y)(Gy :::) Lxy)." At this point. One final word of caution on symbolizing functions: sometimes what looks like a relational statement between two individuals really isn't. let us symbolize sentences containing such phrases." most often this will signal an existential quantifier. it would not be appropriate to symbolize this either as "all x's grades are good. such as in a series of conjoined propositional functions. whether universal or existential. Bx == x is bright. given the abbreviations for the propositional functions. The function we symbolized in the preceding paragraph was an example." The first is too strong and the second is too weak." then obviously you should use a universal quantifier. as often happens. (3x)(x is a dog· x has an owner who doesn't feed x· x catches mice) (3x)(Dx· (3y)(y is the owner of x and y doesn't feed x)· x catches mice) (3x)(Dx· (3y)(Oyx· ~ Fyx)· x catches mice) (3x)(Dx· (3y)(Oyx· ~ Fyx)· (3z)(z is a mouse and x catches z) (3x)(Dx· (3y)(Oyx· ~ Fyx)· (3z)(Mz· Cxz)) 2. and then. having seen many examples of functions in isolation." It would be much better to symbolize this simply as a one-place function.

The first conjunct is simple and can be symbolized as Sx. The next thing is to pick out the subject and predicate of the sentence." Notice." and "x enjoys y. we will symbolize them bit by bit." We can abbreviate these as Cx. At the end of the section we will make a number of general comments and cautions on relational symbolizations. Here the emphasis will be on taking English sentences. Putting the two conjuncts together. So far this should be a piece of cake. a universal formula. we can symbolize this as (3y)(By' Rxy)." The second conjunct says. This. Again. Txy. and this is clearly an A proposition. and the predicate phrase is will enjoy some of his or her courses and will learn something. The subject phrase is a conjunction. but in the preceding section the emphasis was on how to symbolize various subject and predicate phrases. analyzing them into their components.Unit 17 Symbolization in Relational Predicate Logic 331 5. which will tell us what we need to do to symbolize the various parts. The predicate phrase is also a conjunction. The subject phrase is students who read books. that it does not say what is learned or what kind of thing is learned. respectively." We want to say that there is a course that x takes and that x enjoys the course. The paraphrase of the sentence." "x takes y. keeping in mind that we mean subject with all modifiers. whose two conjuncts are "x will enjoy some of x's courses" and "x will learn something. we follow the three-step procedure of (1) determining the form of the sentence. carefully analyzing each component. is For any x. then x will enjoy some of x s courses and x will learn something. that there is at least one book that x reads. with "x is a student" and "x reads books" as the two conjuncts. and we will need another function Lxy for "x learns y." Here the first thing to do is to analyze the form. and Exy. The second conjunct says that x learns something. For this we can use (3z)(Cz' Txz· Exz). Thus the overall structure will be (x)( _ _ ::J _ _ ). We will again use an existential quantifier here. For the second conjunct we will need two other functions. and gradually working out their complete symbolizations. (2) identifying the subject and predicate of the English sentence. is existential. in effect. Where the subject and predicate phrases are complex. if x is a student and x reads books. Symbolizing English Sentences We have already done a number of English sentences. too. We can use Bx for "x is a book" and Rxy for "x reads y." The first conjunct will require the functions "x is a course. Let us take as an example "Any student who reads books will enjoy some of his or her courses and will learn something. and (3) symbolizing the subject and predicate phrases. however. some of which are rather complex. because of the word "some. we have as the symbolization for our subject function Sx' (3y)(By' Rxy). so we can symbolize this .

The form of the sentence is a negated universal. Notice also that we have put the three additional quantifiers in the middle of the sentence in their appropriate positions in the subject or predicate phrases. notice again that in our final symbolization all variables are bound. In the end. The reason is that with complex formulas you are almost sure to be wrong. we will also include parentheses around the whole thing to make sure the scope of the initial quantifier reaches clear to the end of the sentence. The time has now come to plunge into these more complicated symbolizations. Notice also that we have the same pattern here as we have in one-variable logic: universal formulas have the horseshoe as the major operator of the function that follows them. it will be wrong. aside from including the right quantifiers. Always be sure you have enough parentheses and in the right places. with . we included parentheses around the entire compound following the quantifier.332 Unit 17 Symbolization in Relational Predicate Logic phrase by saying simply that there is something that x learns. First. will be ~(x)( __ =:l _ _). and existentials are followed by functions with conjunctions as their major operators. and. Let us take a fairly simple example first: "Not all students enjoy all of their courses. and the subject is students and the predicate is things that enjoy their courses. What guarantees this. plugging the subject phrase and the predicate phrase into our form. and the paraphrase. It is true that there will always be an equivalent formula with all the quantifiers at the front." We can use the same abbreviations as we did earlier. but in general it is better just to put the quantifiers in the middle. is the proper use of parentheses to make sure the scope of the quantifier goes to the end of the function being symbolized. but it is a good rule of thumb. Putting together the two conjuncts. we have the final symbolization: (x)«Sx· (3y)(By· Rxy)) =:l «3z)(Cz· Txz· Exz)· (3w)Lxw)). it won't hurt to put them all at the front of the sentence. then. If you have all existentials. but students are sometimes tempted to put all the quantifiers at the front of the formula. and this is a very risky procedure. but the quantifiers will often be the opposite of what you would think. and the reason for this is that the rules that govern moving quantifiers from inside the formula to the outside are quite complex and not what you would expect. This will not always be the case with these more complex formulas. There are a number of things you should be aware of here. Now. The outer structure. you can be almost certain that if you have a universal followed by a conjunction or an existential followed by a conditional. So far we have been meticulously avoiding negations. in any case. This will be the natural thing to do if you symbolize the sentence bit by bit. Notice that for each new quantifier we introduced. we have (3z)(Cz· Txz· Exz)· (3w)Lxw for our predicate phrase. (3w)Lxw. This may seem the obvious thing to do.

Q. Let us take one more. This could be symbolized as (y)«Cy· Txy) :::J Exy). that is. then. The subject phrase is "student who does not like any of his or her teachers. Lxy. will be "It is not the case that for every x if x is a student then x enjoys all of x 's courses." The subject phrase can be symbolized simply as Sx.N. if y is a course and x takes y. Notice that . rather complex example to illustrate both the symbolization process and the fact that there can be many possible equivalent symbolizations: "No student who does not like any of his or her teachers will like any of his or her classes. so the outer structure will be ~(3x)( _ _ _ _ ). Notice that the formulas are all equivalent just by applications of the C." which could be symbolized as ~(3y)«Ty· Hxy)· Lxy). The second conjunct.Q. The subject function is a conjunction. any negated universal proposition will be equivalent to an existential. respectively. several times.Unit 17 Symbolization in Relational Predicate Logic 333 subject and predicate italicized. we get the following symbolization: ~(x)(Sx :::J (y)«Cy· Txy) :::J Exy)). especially if they are complex. and Hxy. then x enjoys y." This could be symbolized as (3x)(Sx· ~ (y)«Cy· Txy) :::J Exy))." Here the form is a negated existential. We want to say that for any course x takes. Now. and you can also apply your sentential replacement rules." and "x has y. rules. De Morgan's. This would also be equivalent to (3x)(Sx· (3y)«Cy· Txy)· ~ Exy)). The entire subject phrase. Anyone of these symbolizations would be correct. You may be able to apply C. for any y. This could be paraphrased as "There is no y such that y is a teacher and x has y and x likes y. and the first conjunct can be symbolized simply as Sx." We can paraphrase the sentence as follows: It is not the case that there exists an x such that x is a student and x does not like any of x's teachers and x likes some of x's classes. x does not like any ofx's teachers. will require abbreviations for "x is a teacher. such as Contraposition. since it is saying something about all courses taken by the student. you will have many possible different correct symbolizations. it is saying that there are no teachers x has that x likes." and the predicate phrase is "will like any of his or her classes.N. of course. or Exportation. which says that there are some students who have some courses they take that they do not like. x enjoys that course. plugging the subject and predicate phrases into the form. can be symbolized as Sx· ~ (3y)«Ty· Hxy)· Lxy). With negated quantifier sentences. The predicate phrase is here a universal. Now. The form of this second conjunct is also a negated existential. The equivalent English sentence here is "There are some students who do not enjoy all of their courses." for which we can use Tx." "x likes y.

then x has no classes x likes. this reads "There is no x such that x is a dentist and x treats patients who have no teeth.334 Unit 17 Symbolization in Relational Predicate Logic the second conjunct could also be symbolized as (y)«Ty· Hxy) :J ~ Lxy).) Paraphrased. then if x has no teachers x likes. if x is a student..) This is equivalent to formula 1 by C. x has teachers x likes. and C. if x is a student.) This is equivalent by Contraposition to 3. "No dentist who treats patients who have no teeth will have either a large income or the respect of all the other dentists.) This follows by an application of OeM. We will take one more example in this section and simply do a bit-by-bit analysis. (x)(Sx:J (~(3y)(Ty·Hxy·Lxy):J ~ (3z)(Cz· Hxz· Lxz))) (For all x. then if x has classes x likes. "x likes some of x's classes. then it is not the case both that x has no teachers x likes and that x does have classes x likes." (Negated existential.) This is equivalent by an application of Exportation to 3." ~(3x)(x is a dentist· x treats patients who have no teeth· (x has a large income v x has the respect of all the other dentists» ~(3x)(Dx· x treats patients who have no teeth· (x has a large income v x has the respect of all the other dentists» ~ (3x)(Dx • (3y)(y is a patient and x treats y and y has no teeth) .Q. 4. which says that for any teacher x has. 3.. We could read this literally as "There is no x such that x is a student and x has no teachers x likes. (x)«Sx· ~ (3y)(Ty· H xy· Lxy» :J ~ (3 z)(Cz • H xz • Lxz» (For all x. 5." Some alternative symbolizations would be the following: 2. ~(3x)(Sx· ~ (3y)(Ty· Hxy· Lxy)· (3z)(Cz· Hxz· Lxz». The full symbolization for the sentence will then be 1. x does not like that teacher. but this should give you the general idea." can be symbolized as (3z)(Cz· Hxz· Lxz).E. (x)(Sx:J «3z)(Cz· Hxz· Lxz):J (3y)(Ty· Hxy· Lxy») (For every x.Q.. to 2. The two forms are equivalent by C. and x does have classes x likes. if x is a student and x has no teachers x likes. There are still other possible combinations. then x has no classes x likes. (x)(Sx:J ~(~ (3y)(Ty· H xy· Lxy)· (3z)(Cz· H xz· Lxz))) (For all x. this sentence has even greater complexity than the ones we have done so far. etc.N.N. if x is a student.) . The predicate phrase. the placement of the negations and parentheses is essential. and either x has a large income or x has the respect of all the other dentists.

It would be correct. for instance. Notice that we used five different variables above. Read through the problem above until you understand the rationale for each part of the symbolization. EXERCISES I.. One final reminder: be sure all the variables are bound in your final symbolization. Nixon wrote Six Crises. d.. The EPA does not spend much. Mary doesn't believe Richard. *i. you should find them an enjoyable challenge. f. 8. *e. If you think of the exercises as puzzles. *c. The CIA spends more money than the EPA. John is taller than Andrew. They will not all be relational. . as for x and y above. will be ~(3x)(Dx· (3y)(Py· Txy· ~ (3z)(Tz· Hyz))· «3w)(lw· H xw) v (u)(Ou :J Rux)))." Our final symbolization. *a. Richard works for the CIA. If the scopes do overlap. we can paraphrase this last remaining function by saying that all the other dentists respect x. and then symbolize the sentence itself. This was not strictly necessary. b. to symbolize "Any student with teeth visits a dentist" as (x)«Sx· (3y)(Ty· Hxy)) :J (3y)(Dy· V xy)).) (3y)(Py· Txy· ~ (3z)(Tz· Hyz))· (x has a large income v x (3y)(Py· Txy· ~ (3z)(Tz· Hyz))· «3w)(lw· Hxw) v x has has the respect of all the other dentists)) the respect of all the other dentists)) Finally. For each of the sentences below. *g. and we can point out now that if the scopes of quantifiers do not overlap you may use the same letter for each.Unit 17 Symbolization in Relational Predicate Logic ~(3x)(Dx· 335 ~(3x)(Dx· ~(3x)(Dx· (3y)(Py· Txy· y has no teeth) . Minnesota is colder than Texas. we can use Ox for "x is another dentist" and Rxy for "x respects y. h. etc. You should now do Exercises 7. then. The CIA is a government agency. There is no problem here because the scope of the first quantifier that uses y stops before we get to the second quantifier that uses y. it is essential that you use different variables. These will all be simple singular sentences or their negations. and 9 at the end of the unit. pick out the propositional function and symbolize it. Richard approves of the EPA.

" Oxy for "x is older than y. *e. Bxy == x is a better bridge player than y. b. j. *c. The Freer Gallery is between the Washington Monument and the White House. Charles is not taller than Frank. John does not love himself. Bxyz for "x is between y and z. or Charlene. Chicago is between New York and San Francisco. Ann loves John but not Peter. h. d = Dora. John loves Ann only if she is his mother. *g. n. *0. using lowercase letters for constants. 1. Stephen'S mother is neither Ann nor Josephine. Restrict your domain to people. b. (3x)Bxa (x)Rbx (x)Rxc .336 Unit 17 Symbolization in Relational Predicate Logic j. Symbolize the following. p. a = Anne. Ann is not the mother of both John and Stephen. then John's mother is either Beatrice. Given the interpretations of the propositional functions. Darlene. c = Charles. Mary hates the CIA because of Nixon. *c. 1. n. d. The Freer Gallery is closer to the White House than the Washington Monument is. Txyz == x told stories about y to z. but not Ann or Martha. *m. *m. Lxyz == x likes y better than x likes z." Lxy for "x loves y. Peter is between John and Stephen in age. Rosalynn is Ann's mother. 2. *0. *k. *i. If John is older than Stephen and Ann. *a. Charles is older than Molly." and Txy for "x is taller than y. f. Minneapolis is not between New York and Chicago. b = Bob. 3. *k. The Freer Gallery is closer to the White House than the Washington Monument is to the Pentagon. Richard told Mary about the EPA. John is taller than neither Peter nor Stephen. John is loved by Ann. John is taller than his mother Ann." Mxy for "x is the mother of y. j = John *a. Rxy == x respects y. Stephen'S mother is Josephine. Richard approves of Richard. state the meanings of the following formulas in English." Some sentences may be truth-functional compounds of simple sentences.

*k. There was someone who introduced John to everyone. Everyone respects Amy. There was someone who was introduced to some one person by everyone. *. Symbolize the following English sentences using the abbreviations indicated. There is someone who respects everyone. (3y)8dy (3x)(3y)8xy (x)(3y)8yx (x)(3y)8xy (3x)(y)Rxy (3x)(y)Ryx (3x)(3y)8yx (3x)Lbxc (x)Lxab (3y)Lydc (y)Tacy (3x)(y)Txjy (3y)(x)T jyx (3y)(x)Tyjx (x)(y) Txjy (3x)(y)(z)Tyx z (3x)(3y)(z)Tzxy 337 1. John respects everyone. *q. h. restrict your domain to human beings. b. Rxy == x respects y. Some people are respected by someone. t. h. *a. *s. *0. Chris is respected by someone. *c. Everyone introduced someone to somebody. no negations will be required.1. *e. f. n. I xyz == x introduced y to z. j. *g. p. *k. These will all be quantifications over simple sentences. 1. John introduced everyone to Amy. Everyone was introduced by Amy to someone (or other). Some people respect John. :"! . Everyone was introduced to Amy by someone (or other). Someone introduced Amy to John. *i. *e. *m. Again. Amy introduced John to everyone. j.Unit 17 Symbolization in Relational Predicate Logic d. d. r. *g. 4. f. *m.

n. d. *a. I xyz == x introducedy to z. *c. p. 5. Unit 17 Symbolization in Relational Predicate Logic There was someone who introduced some one person to everyone. *a. Not everyone is not a brother of John.338 *0. Not everyone introduced one person to another.N. *q. h. Symbolize the following. Lxy == x loves y. There was no one who didn't introduce someone to John. d. *s. p. Amy loves no one. Again. 7. to the following formulas. John was not introduced to everyone by Amy. *e. starting from the outside and working your way in. Not everybody failed to introduce Richard to Amy. *c. Symbolize the following English sentences using the indicated abbreviations. *m. There is no one who loves no one. Not everyone introduced someone to Richard. Apply Q. there may be more than one correct answer. Nobody loves Richard. There is no one who loves everyone. John has brothers. restrict your domain to people. No one introduced everybody to everybody. *k. Andrew didn't introduce anyone to Charlene. Bxy == x is the brother of y. Not everyone loves somebody. using the abbreviations indicated. Sxy == x is the sister of y. Someone introduced himself to everyone. *i. Amy has no sisters. ~(x)(3y)(3z)Fxyz ~ ~ ~ ~ (3x)(y)(z) ~ Fxyz (x)(y)(z)(w) (3x) (x) ~ ~ Fxyzw ~ (y) ~ (3z)Fxyz (w)Fxyzw ~ (y) ~ (z) 6. John does not love everyone. There are some people who introduced no one to John. See how many equivalent formulas you can get in each case. r. There is no one whom John does not love. b. Where negations are involved. j. 1. Not everyone loves John. *0. b. Nobody introduced Andrew to Martha. t. f. which are basically complex categorical propositions. *e. *g. .

*m. d. *c. *g. . *i. Doctors who respect all of their patients will be liked and respected by them all. Sx == x is a side effect. *0. N x == x is a medicine. There are no doctors who don't like any of their patients. Rxy == x respects y. Sxy == x sues y. ex == x is a large practice. Symbolize the following using the abbreviations below. There are some people with no ailments who are treated by doctors. No doctor who prescribes medicine with side effects for a patient who has no ailment will be respected by any of his or her peers unless he or she has a large practice or a large bank account. Ax == x is an ailment. f. unless they don't have a large practice. Some doctors prescribe medicine for all of their patients. Bx == x is a large bank account.340 Unit 17 Symbolization in Relational Predicate Logic 9. Some doctors who prescribe medicine with side effects for some of their patients will be sued by some of their patients. Mx == x is money. Lxy == x likes y. Doctors who respect all of their patients will like some of them. Not all doctors treat every patient who comes to the office. Ox == x comes to the office. No doctor treats all of her patients who have no ailments. Some medicines with side effects are prescribed by some doctors for any patient of theirs with no ailment who has a lawyer with a large bank account who sues doctors. I. h. b. Some doctors treat patients who have no money. Lx == x is a lawyer. Txy == x treats y. Pxy == x is a patient of y. Some doctors don't like all of their patients. *e. Dx == x is a doctor. Px == x is a person. All doctors prescribe medicine for some of their patients. There are no medicines with side effects that are prescribed by any doctor for patients with no ailments. j. Exy == x is a peer of y. No doctor who prescribes medicine for patients with no ailments will be respected by all his peers. Hxy == x has y. n. Pxyz == x prescribes y for z. *a. *k.

is the fact that in relational logic there is no algorithm for determining whether a counterexample exists. INTRODUCTION In this unit we discuss proof procedures and methods for demonstrating invalidity in relational predicate logic. In relational logic there may be arguments for which we can find neither a proof nor a counterexample.UNIT 18 Proofs and Invalidity for Relational Predicate Logic A. the only difference in practice from what was done in Unit 16 is the occurrence of multiple quantifiers and relational predicates. is the best we can do. we will again be using the natural interpretation method and the model universe method. What you will need to know is listed below. 341 . But there will be no new rules to learn-just more complexities in applying the ones you already have. the status of the argument may thus remain unknown. the more problems we will be able to solve. This is perhaps an incentive to master thoroughly both the proof techniques and the semantic techniques: the more proficient we are. plus a few rules of thumb. be more complex than what you did in Unit 15. There will always be either a proof or a counterexample. since there will often be more than one quantifier in the premises and conclusion. To show that arguments are invalid. but there is no mechanical method for finding either. however. think of the proof problems as puzzles. so that we are left uncertain about the validity of the argument. and thus more of a challenge. of course. trial and error. they will be more complex. The proofs will. And again. An important difference in principle. but for this very reason they will be more interesting and will generate an even greater feeling of satisfaction when you come up with the right answer. and you will have to be much more careful in plotting out strategy. than the ones you had earlier.

here as before. and the next two follow by Simplification. noting in the justification that a is being flagged and being sure to substitute a for every occurrence of x in the propositional function of the premise. We also include the new notation a/x. Pa 5. Learn to construct proofs of theorems in relational predicate logic. UNIT 18 OBJECTIVES • • • Learn to construct proofs for arguments containing relational formulas. (x)(U x ~ ~ ~Lxy)) Dx) Pro Pro t. we will use the special notation a/x to indicate that a is the instance letter that is being substituted for the variable x in the propositional function <px. explaining the steps as we go.I.a/x(flaga) Simp. they need relational logic for a demonstration of their validity. 3 At this point we have to stop and think about strategy-what we need to do to derive the conclusion at which we are aiming.always clear what constant is being substituted for what variable. We will introduce one new wrinkle. Now. (3x)(Px' (y)(Uy ~ ~Lxy)). (3x)(Px' (y)(Dy 2. 3 Simp. we will now construct a proof for the above argument. Be able to apply both the natural interpretation method and the model universe method to demonstrate invalidity for relational arguments. be careful about strategy. (x)(Ux ~ Dx) t ." You know now that this can be symbolized as follows: (3x)(Px' (y)(Dy ~ ~Lxy)). how can we construct a proof for this argument? It is really not difficult. The conclusion itself is . and watch out for the few complications we will describe below. (3x)(Px' (y)(Uy ~ ~ Lxy)) We can apply E. 3.342 Unit 18 Proofs and Invalidity for Relational Predicate Logic B.l. simply apply the rules as you did in one-variable logic. to help keep straight the different instance letters that are being substituted for the variables. 1. In applying the four quantifier rules. observe the restrictions. Proofs in Relational Predicate Logic We noted at the beginning of Unit 17 that some arguments cannot be proved given only the resources of one-variable predicate logic. a. UNIT 18 TOPICS 1. We will include this notation as a part of the justification in each instantiation or generalization step so that it is . Thus we have the third step. (y)(Dy ~ ~ Lay) ~ ~ Lay) E. so some people don't like puppies. We cited as an example "Some people don't like any dogs.·. With all this in mind.'. Pa' (y)(Dy 4. C. all puppies are dogs.!.

E. Ub ~ Db 8. This is not always quite as automatic as it was in one-variable logic. you must replace every occurrence of the x with the instance letter. 2. Fa ~ (y)(Gy ~ Hay) (x)(Fx ~ (y)(Gy ~ Hxy)) (x)(Fx ~ (Gb ~ Hxb)) V. Thus we will need an instance of (y)(Uy ~ ~ Lay) such that the letter that is substituted for y can be flagged..G.. however.G. and E. a can no longer be used.. 9. and we must remember that to use V. Cflagb 7..I.G.G.I. V. but if you are dropping an x quantifier. Db ~ ~Lab 9. Another very important limitation on the use of these rules. the quantifier .lO E.G. as noted above. This is the same as in one-variable logic. There is nothing to stop us from using b. I . The instance will obviously be Pa· (y)(Uy ~ ~ Lay). b/y H. only on formulas that begin with a quantifier whose scope extends to the end of the sentence.. 11.G. Pa· (y)(Uy ~ ~Lay) 12. b/y Error (3x)(Fx· Hxa· lax) E.I. to get the last step.G. For one thing.S. the four quantifier rules V.8 V. We can then do our instantiations and arrive at an instance of the conclusion. a formula that puts the new quantifier in the middle. b/y Error The same limitation holds for the generalization rules.S. b/x V.I. b/y Conj.. and it will be no problem to derive this by E.4. Ub ~ ~Lab lO. Now. In other words..I. how will we derive the second conjunct? Since it is universal. a/y Error Fa ~ (Gb ~ Hab) V. is that you may use the quantifier rules only on statements that are of quantifier form.I.) V. (3x)(Fx· (3y)(Hxy· lyx)) I . may not be used on subformulas.G. (3x)(Px· (y)(Uy ~ ~ Lxy)) F. from an instance. but here you need to be particularly aware that you may never use the instantiation rules on quantifiers in the middle of a formula.. 5. since it has already appeared in the proof.. which was emphasized in Vnit 15.. it will most likely come by V. since you will often have occurrences of the variable inside the scope of another quantifier.G.. You may never infer.Unit 18 Proofs and Invalidity for Relational Predicate Logic 343 existential.7. a/x There are a few things about which you will need to be particularly careful in doing relational proofs. (y)(Uy ~ ~ Lay) 11. for instance. 6. that is. (V. you must replace every occurrence of the variable whose quantifier you are instantiating with the instance letter. since we already have the Pa.G. we will use E.. so we might as well set up a b-flagged subproof and then use V. on this letter at the end.. we must first set up a subproof flagged with the letter over which we will be quantifying. The following inferences would thus be incorrect: I .I.

so we should probably assume the antecedent and try to derive the consequent. (U. you will need a separate flagged letter. The reason for this is that if you use a variable it may get "caught. in doing your instantiations." or bound. .. with one and U.. take the following interpretation: let Fxy be "x is the biological father of y" and then restrict your domain to human beings. twice and U. (x)(Px :J (3y)Lyx) Here our conclusion is universal.. (3y)Fyy.. (c. this time for c. Thus we need to set up another subproof.!.G. so we will need to use U..) Now. (x)(y)(Fyx :J Lyx) Pro / . It would be incorrect..G. Since you have more than one quantifier in many of these formulas. you will need five different flagged letters. to use E. The premise then says something true. Use only a. we may as well set up our flagged subproof: 3. This is a conditional. b.!. it may often happen that you have need for more than one flagged letter in a proof. Thus if you use E. Be careful in these cases never to flag the same letter twice in a proof.G. says something ridiculous-that there is someone who is the biological father of himself. With this in mind.P. with another. If this doesn't look particularly fallacious. and E. since a has already appeared in the proof. for every use of u. at the end.G. and not any letter we have used as a variable.. 4·1 r Pa Assp. however. to use E.P. c. you may want to use E. since a is the letter on which we will be using U. a/y Error Another thing that was mentioned earlier. (x)(Fx:J (3y)(Gyx· Hyx» E. The conclusion. and this should not be difficult. Let us look at an example of a problem in which you need more than one flagged letter: b. Thus. you should always use letters at the beginning of the alphabet for the instances.G..!. in the end. !flag a F.G. An example of this sort of incorrect inference would be the following.) We now need to derive (3y)Lya.344 Unit 18 Proofs and Invalidity for Relational Predicate Logic you are adding on must always be added to the very front (jar left) of the formula. if we allowed ourselves to use y as an instance letter: (x)(3y)Fyx / . but which now becomes important in relational logic.G.G. that everyone has a biological father. and so on. I. is that you may not use variables as instance letters.S.. the instance we need will be Pa :J (3y)Lya. for instance. however. three times in a proof. We will need. in the following way: (x)(Fx :J (Gax· Hax» / . by a quantifier appearing in another part of the formula. and we will have to be sure to use a letter other than a.I. (x)(Px :J (3y)Fyx) Pro 2. again.

1. (x)(Fx::J (3y) ~ (Tyx v Zxy» Here the conclusion is again a universal statement. a/x M. 10. decide what you will need to get it. In plotting strategies for relational proofs.I. Pa ::J (3y)Lya 13. b/y (flag b) 0. 6. 12. 4. provided we have an instance. R2 A flagged letter may not appear either in the premises or in the conclusion of a proof.Unit 18 Proofs and Invalidity for Relational Predicate Logic 345 5.5 E. 9.G.P. Let us take one rather complex example to illustrate this procedure. so this is what we need to aim for. it may not appear. 7. (C. a/x U. 4-11 o. (U. At this point.G. you will have to be careful in plotting your strategies. 6. 7.1. 5. lO. so we will set up an a-flagged subproof and then try to derive the instance Fa ::J (3y) ~ (Tya v Zay). and so on. b/y C.. This is a conditional. a/x One of the trickiest parts of constructing proofs in relational logic is to know what letter to use in your instantiations. (x)«Fx· ~ Gx) ::J 2. which we can get just by E. The instance would be equivalent by DeM. (x)(Px::J (3y)Lyx) U. to ~Tba· ~ Zab.G. it is especially important to use the method of working backward: determine the form of the conclusion. 4. 8.I.) Assp. b/y M. The consequent is an existential statement. To determine this.S.P. it might be a good idea to state these restrictions once again: R I A letter being flagged must be new to the proof. c. either in a formula or as a letter being flagged.G. 12.P. R3 A flagged letter may not appear outside the subproof in which it gets flagged. so we will want to assume the antecedent and try to derive the consequent.I. previous to the step in which it gets flagged. 8.) . and c.P. Pa ::J (3y)Fya (3y)Fya Fba (y)(Fya ::J Lya) Fba ::J Lba Lba (3y)Lya 11.. 1. what preliminary steps you will need. 2. (x)«y)(Hxy ::J Zxy) ::J Gx) Pro / .1 r flag a ~Fa F. once we set up the subproofs for U. We might first try to derive what we can from the premises.G. ~(3x)(Fx· Gx) ~ (3y)(Tyx· Hxy» Pro Pro 3. that is.9 E. and also keep in mind the restrictions on the use of the quantifier rules.P.

Hab' ~ Zab E.N.346 Unit 18 Proof and Invalidity for Relational Predicate Logic 6.17 M. 3. 16 V. 25. 16.13. a/x .10 C. 14.1. at step 8.Q. We already have the negation of Ga. 20. but since we have already used 1. 15. II.T. 12.G.N.N.T. Let us see what happens when we use V.5-24 V. 7. b/y D. b/y C. from 12.T. so this looks like a possible application of M. 19. The function Hxy appears in Premises 1 and 3.Q.18 DeM. then finish off the proof. 2I. (x)(Fx :J ~Gx) Fa:J ~Ga ~Ga Fa' ~ Ga (Fa' ~ Ga) :J ~ (3y)(Tya' Hay) ~(3y)(Tya' Hay) (y)(Tya :J ~ Hay) C. 19. 10.5. 23. we need ~Tba and ~Zab.T. 8.1. 25.7 Conj. a/x M. 15. 18. 12. a/x M.22 E. Notice here the placement of the parentheses. and then we would need Hab and then ~~ Hab so that we could derive ~Tba by M.20 Conj. which determines that the antecedent is a universal statement and the consequent is simply Gx.1.14 At this point we do our anticipated E. 22. 16 Simp. b/y (flag b) ~Tba From now on it is a simple matter to derive our instance.21.P.1. (y)(Hay :J Zay) :J Ga ~(y)(Hay :J Zay) (3y)(Hay' ~ Zay) V. 5. 1. and Tba:J ~ Hab ~~ Hab ~Tba Zab ~(Tba v Zab) (3y) ~ (Tya v Zay) Fa :J (3y) ~ (Tya v Zay) (x)(Fx :J (3y) ~ (Tyx v Zxy)) ~Tba' ~ Simp.N. Thus we need to look at Premise 3.8 V. a/x M. it is unlikely that we will be deriving Hab from there.T. 17.Q. step. 9.1.1.ll At this point we need to stop and take stock of the situation.G. 26.8 C.P. Hab ~Zab • ~ Zab.1.1. 13. 23. 6.2 V. and M. Again. 9.P. We can eventually get Tba :J ~ Hab by V. 24.

as we should.Unit 18 Proofs and Invalidity for Relational Predicate Logic 347 Remember that your rules of V. (x)(3y)Fxy 2. which contains j. that require the flagging restrictions.I. to infer Taa. that someone loves Jack. an obvious impossibility. in this instance using the letter j. in this way. It is a little harder to see in this case.I. these restrictions are even more important and serve to block invalid inferences that would otherwise be possible. Also. are unrestricted. The situation is the same with the generalization rules.G. outside the subproof in which j was flagged. the flagging restrictions block the invalid inference.G. but to use V.G. says that a flagged letter may not appear outside the subproof in which it was flagged. that Ann loves Ann. If we set up the subproof before doing instantiations. the conclusion would fall outside the V. often don't coincide with those of the rest of the population. that you can do with V. Restriction 3. you may not use E. where the domain is restricted to human beings). only reversed. which would say that everyone loves Jack. to infer Laa. by both Restriction 2 and Restriction 3. the instance letter must be flagged. if you have an existential formula. Since we would need to use V. (One's own feelings. and E.I. we would have to set up a flagged subproof. which we will interpret as saying that someone is taller than Ann. On the other hand. the letter may not have appeared previously in the proof (Restriction 1). it would be necessary to set up a flagged subproof.G. When the premise is (3x)Txa. and V.G. in the conclusion. however. except that they must be used only on quantifier formulas. subproof.G. unfortunately. (V. Notice here that the flagging restrictions do prevent this inference. (3y)(x)Fxy F. since this would say that Ann is taller than herself. so we would have the formula (x)Lxj.) And again. on just one of the letters. and E.G. and to be flagged. for instance. If an instance letter appears more than once in a premise (as in Ljj).I. ((x)Lxa.S. the letter a has already appeared and so cannot be flagged. however. It will be important to remember that there are certain things you cannot do with E. which we will interpret as saying that Jack loves himself. We may not. you may use V.I. Thus. we may infer the conclusion (3x)Lxj. Thus a cannot be used as the instance letter. the inference from Ljj to (x)Lxj is blocked. say. you may use E. Thus you would be going from a (presumably) true premise to a false conclusion.) . However. In using E. Now that you may have instance letters occurring in a formula with quantifiers. infer the universal proposition (x)Lxj. If you have the statement that everyone loves Ann. so we may not infer Taa. r--+flag a Pro I:. Restriction 3 also prevents an erroneous inference that we showed invalid earlier by using the natural interpretation and model universe methods: (x)(3y)Fxy I :. From the (presumably true) premise Ljj. so this violates Restriction 2.G. (3x)Txa.I.I. j appears in the premise. and V.G. however. in applying V. we would get the following picture: l. It is E. an invalid inference. (3y)(x)Fxy. but you may not use V.G.G.

(x)Fxb 3. But if we use V.G. 3.G. on which you could use your unrestricted rule V. You will just have to be especially careful to analyze the form of the conclusion to see what assumption . You must be very careful in dropping your quantifiers to be sure you really do have an instance of the propositional function. and get your parentheses mixed up. a/x Here there is no problem about flagged letters appearing outside the subproof.G. you would then be able to use M. 2. b was flagged within the V. b/y (flag b) Now. 1. So do be very careful about the form of the instance you are inferring. (x)(3y)Fxy Pro t . Again. so if you derived ~ Ga. then for every x there is some y such that x has the relation F to y. subproof and so may not appear outside that subproof. and in any case b was not flagged within the V. since in the conclusion the universal quantifier (x) occurs as the inside rather than as the outside quantifier.N. before we come to the V. If you don't.T. Finally. If you had the following inference. this is nothing different from what you did before.G. (3y)Fay 6. One final reminder about the importance of parentheses.!. you may scuttle your proof. Oflaga 4. because we have gotten rid of b by using E. the result at step 5. step. we will apply some of the things you have already learned to the proofs of theorems in relational predicate logic.G. (V.S. (3y)(x)Fxy 2. 1. 1.G. (x)(3y)Fxy. Thus the inference is blocked by Restriction 3. Let us construct the proof. subproof. 4. the inference is valid: we are permitted to infer (3y)(x)Fxy t.G. a/x E.G. This might make it impossible to carry out the proof.I.!. is the formula (x)Fxb. (x)(3y)Fxy E. a" shown: (x)((3y)Fxy:::J Gx) t. which falls outside the subproof. putting in an extra set of parentheses.!. If you erroneously inferred (3y)(Fay :::J Ga).I. After all. (3y)Fay Fab V. b/y V. if there is some one y such that every x has the relation F to y. you would be required to use E. Fab 5.) V. however.·.G. Notice that there are no parentheses here. you would use V. (3y)Fay :::J Ga. which contains b. for instance. however. on step 4. which would then be equivalent by Q. we must use V.348 Unit 18 Proofs and Invalidity for Relational Predicate Logic 3'1 4.!. 5.'. to get ~ (3y)Fay. b/y (flag b) F. Going the other way around. you will always have to make an assumption at the first step. to a universal proposition. a/x E. However.'. since you have no premises. In proving a theorem.I. and would need to flag the instance letter. before we use E.G.

2. for C.G.) F. 5. 4.G. and then use V. 2. 3. biz C. we will just have to be particularly careful in reading out the . d. 6. 2.P.. 6. (C.S. but there is nothing different in principle in doing proofs of theorems.. Thus the first step in the proof is a flagging step.G. In the natural interpretation method.: (x)(y)Fxy :::J (x)(3y)Fxy. 7. and for it we will need an outer flagged subproof so that we may use V. (V.P.. for example. The instance of the conclusion is a conditional.P. D. assume the opposite of what you want to prove. 4. b/y (flag b) (3z)Faz (3y)Fay :::J (3z)Faz (x)((3y)Fxy:::J (3z)Fxz) E. a/x These are rather simple examples.P. b/y V. a/x V.I. If it is a conditional. if you want to use I. b/y (3y)Fay (x)(3y)Fxy (x)(y)Fxy :::J (x)(3y)Fxy E.) E. The proof follows. 2. Exercise 2 at the end of the unit will give you more practice in proving theorems.P.P.G. is a conditional and can be proved by using C.G. a/x C. (C.I. 4. 5. there is nothing new in principle.2-4 u. l.P.ga Fab (x) (y)Fxy (y)Fay Assp. U flag a 3Y Fab )Fa y F. you must set up a flagged subproof.G. we will still be looking for interpretations of the predicates and constants that result in true premises with a false conclusion. assume the antecedent for c. You simply have to start with assumptions or flagging steps and plot strategy carefully. 5. l.) V.Unit 18 Proofs and Invalidity for Relational Predicate Logic 349 gets made first. We then proceed to derive the consequent of the conditional. and if it is a universal statement. Invalidity in Relational Predicate Logic The methods for demonstrating invalidity in relational predicate logic are just an extention of what you learned in Vnit 16. 1. 3.I-6 The following is a universal formula. e.) Assp. 3. The only difference is the occurrence of relational predicates and multiple quantifiers. so our next assumption must be the antecedent of the conditional. 5.P. at the last step: (x)((3y)Fxy :::J (3z)Fxz).G. (V.I. The following. 3.G. use C.P.S.

since it says that Einstein is the biological mother of someone. Confusing (x)(3y)Fxy with (3y)(x)Fxy. however. Fxy == x is the biological father of y. Thus we have a counterexample. and so on. that is. 2.." (The latter is true simply because the antecedent of the conditional is false. let us apply the natural interpretation method to demonstrate this fact. we want to find meanings for the predicate letters and individual constants that yield a counterexample. however. we will still be rewriting quantifier statements as conjunctions and disjunctions. will lead to errors. everyone has a biological father." The premise then reads "For every y there is some x such that x is the biological father of y. two-place predicates to two-place predicate letters. (x)(3y)Fxy. Domain is human beings. Again. Conclusion: There is someone who is the biological father of everyone. In the model universe method. and this is true for all the members of our domain. is false. assign one-place predicates to one-place predicate letters. is a universal statement. and this. says that for every y there is some x (not necessarily the same one) that is related to y in a certain way. We must. (3x)Gax. for instance.. The conclusion says that there is some one x that is related to every y in that way. then the premises are both true. the one to the far left. of course. then Einstein is the biological mother of someone. The following argument form is invalid. (y)( 3 x)F xy /. We can show that this is invalid by here taking our domain as the set of human beings and letting Fxy stand for "x is the biological father of y. quantifier. of course. says that there is some one x such that. In the natural interpretation method. or leftmost.. we must supply an interpretation for the constants as well as for the predicate letters. Gxy == x is the biological mother of y. If we restrict the domain to human beings and use Fxy == x is the biological father of y. since they say (tenselessly) "Albert Einstein has a biological father" and "If everyone is the biological father of Einstein..) The conclusion." that is. (3 x )(y)F xy. Premise: Everyone has a biological father. for instance. To show invalidity for arguments containing constants in the natural interpretation method. the proper form for the answer to this problem would be the following: 1. for every y. . that there is some x who is the biological father of all human beings. The conclusion. The first formula.350 Unit 18 Proofs and Invalidity for Relational Predicate Logic quantifier statements. Thus we have a counterexample. x is the biological father of y. but with multiply quantified statements we will have to be careful to begin with the dominant quantifier. It is important to remember that the form of a multiply quantified formula is determined by its outermost. (x)Fxa ~ (3x)Gax / . the premise. 3. is false. and a == Albert Einstein. The following argument will illustrate this procedure: (3x)Fxa.

The following diagram verifies that this is a counterexample to our argument form. we will use {a. (3x)(3y)(Gyx· Hyx). of course. where we substitute the a and b for the yin (3x)Fxy. We select a domain and then rewrite the quantifier statements as conjunctions or disjunctions of instances from the domain. b}. will be (Faa v Fba)· (Fab v Fbb). Using the same approach on the conclusion. then. then. and (3x)Fxb will be rewritten as (Fab v Fbb). If there is more than one quantifier in a formula. (3x)Fxa will be written as (Faa v Fba). We can get a counterexample by again taking as our domain the set of human beings and using F x == x is female. and this is not hard. and we need the instances of this function for every element in our domain. we note that this is an existential statement. T T T F T F F (Faa v Fba)· (Fab v Fbb) /. and this. The first will yield (Faa· Fab) and the second will yield (Fba· Fbb). is false. however. b}. so we need a domain with at least two. (3x)(Fx· (3y)Hyx) I. the outside quantifier for the premise is universal. a domain of one individual will not work. and H xy == x is the biological mother of y. the function following the universal quantifier is (3x)Fxy. Having rewritten our quantified formulas. In this example. Then the first premise says "All females have a biological father. (3x)(y)Fxy.--. G xy == x is the biological father of y. will be (Faa· Fab) v (Fba· Fbb). Each. although it may be harder to construct counter examples because of the increased complexity.".". Rewriting our first quantifier. Well. rewriting the leftmost quantifier first. (Faa· Fab) v (Fba· Fbb) F T --------. The model universe method is also applied much as before. . of course. then.·.Unit 18 Proofs and Invalidity for Relational Predicate Logic 351 We can also use the natural interpretation method for arguments containing categorical relational statements. In (y)(3x)Fxy I. The question is what instances." which is true. The full reformulation of our premise. We now have to rewrite each of the universal statements.T F ~ ~F T F . we get (3x)Fxa· (3x)Fxb. so we would have a conjunction of instances. b}. we take them one at a time. The second premise says "There is some female who has a biological mother. we just make Faa and Fbb false and Fab and Fba true. we now need to come up with a counterexample. says that there is someone who has a single individual y as both biological mother and biological father. we get (y)F ayv(y)Fby. Now we need to rewrite each of those existential statements in {a. so the overall form will be a disjunction. will be a disjunction. The following argument is invalid: (x)(Fx:::J (3y)Gyx)." which is also true. Reformulating (y)( 3 x)F xy in {a. The conclusion. The full reformulation of the conclusion.

b}. Gbb = F. Domain is {a. both conjuncts in the premise are true. (x)(Fx:::J (3y)Gxy). (Faa· Fab) v (Fba· Fbb) Faa = F. Gab = T. Fba = T. (3x)(Fx· (3y)Hxy) I. both disjuncts in the conclusion are false. Hbb = T . b}. but the principle is the same. b}. Fab = T. Fa = T. so the conclusion is false. Faa v Fba. Domain is {a. For the previous argument containing constants.3. 2. b} gives the following: Faa v Fba. Fbb = F 4. Our answer is then as follows: 1. H aa = T. we will need a domain with two individuals. and we will simply assign the individual a to the constant a. T \/ \/ T F F T F F F F F \/ T ~/ ~/ F F Arguments containing categorical statements are again a bit more complex.'.352 Unit 18 Proofs and Invalidity for Relational Predicate Logic The proper form for the answer to this model universe problem would be the following: 1. 3. 2. Domain is {a. (Faa· Fba) :::J (Gaa v Gab) I. Gaa = F.4. Rewriting the formulas in {a. doing the outermost ones first.'. Fb = F. (3x)(3y)(Gxy. we simply let Faa be true and the other simple formulas be false. (3x)Fxa. Hba = T. so the premise is true. (Faa· Fba) :::J (Gaa v Gab) I. Hab = F.'. Gaa v Gab. It is easy to get a counterexample. 2.Hxy) 1. (x)Fxa:::J (3x)Gax I . Since Faa and Fbb are false. First premise: (Fa:::J (3y)Gay)· (Fb :::J (3y)Gby) (Fa :::J (Gaa v Gab))· (Fb :::J (Gba v Gbb)) Second premise: (Fa· (3y)Hay) v (Fb· (3y)Hby) (Fa· (Haa v Hab)) v (Fb· (Hba v Hbb)) Conclusion: (3y)(Gay· Hay) v (3y)(Gby· Hby) (Gaa· Haa)v (Gab· Hab) v (Gba· Hba) v (Gbb· Hbb) 3. Since Fab and Fba are both true. Gba = F. Gaa v Gab.'.'. In the following problem we rewrite the formulas in two stages. (3x)Gax. (Faa v Fba)· (Fab v Fbb) I.

i. (3x)(Px· Ox· Gx) (x)«Px· ~Rxx):J (y)(Py:J ~Ryx)). (3x)(Px· (y)(Sy :J Lyx)) (x)«Fx· ~ (y)(Gy :J Hxy)):J (z)(Iz:J Tzx)). I:. (x)(Ox :J (3y)(Hy· Lxy)). (x)«3y)(Dy· Kyx):J (z)(Az :J Hxz)). (x)«3z)Lzx :J Lxx). Anyone who likes John has a great deal of patience. ~(3x)Lxx f. (x)(Fx:J (y)«Gy· Wxy) :J Tyx)) ~(x)(Cx:J (y)(~ ~ 1. (x)(Kx:J (y) ~ Lxy) (x)(Ox:J (y)(Ry :J ~ Lxy)). some teachers do not have time for basketball. No scholar has time for either football or basketball. someone will be furious with John. (3x)(3y)Byx (x)(Cx:J (y)Kyx) I:. no girls are witches. ~ (3x)(3y)(Wxy· Hxy). *a. k. (x)(Dx:J Mx). o. Cy:J Wxy)). No one here has steady nerves. ~(x)Fx (x)(Kx:J «3y)Lxy:J (3z)Lzx)). If anyone puts Tabasco in the soup it will be spoiled. So. (3x)(Px· Ox· (3y)(Ny· Dy· Wxy)) I. (x)(Px:J (y)«Py- ~Rxy):J ~Hxy)) /. No one in his right mind would buy a used toothbrush. The conclusion is false because each disjunct is false. Anything with a great deal of patience has steady nerves. you will have to be very careful in rewriting statements to get all the constants in the right place. (x)(Hx:J Gx). (x)(Cx v Ex) n.Unit 18 Proofs and Invalidity for Relational Predicate Logic 353 4. h. (3x)(Hx· ~Rx) Gx). Therefore. so no one here likes John. EXERCISES 1. (x)«Px· (y)(Py :J ~ Rxy)) :J ~(3z)(Pz· H zx)) .·. Some teachers are scholars. Therefore. ~(x)(Fx:J ~(3x)(3y)Axy I:. (x)(Cx:J (y)(Ey:J Wxy)) I:. (x)(y)(Fxy:J ~ Hxy). John buys used toothbrushes when they are on sale. and if it is spoiled. ~(x)(Ax :J ~Dx). Answers are provided for symbolizations at the back of the book. Premise 2 is true because the left disjunct is true. Therefore. but no boys like any witches. Some boys like all girls. *b. (x)(Ex:J (y)(Fy :J Gxy)). John is not in his right mind. (3x)(Ex· (3y) ~ Gxy) I:. (x)(~(Hx v Gx):J (3y)(Axy v Byx)). (x)«Px· (3y)(My· Wxy)) :J Gx). (3x)Ox I:. e. No one is furious with John. John did not put Tabasco in the soup.". Premise 1 is true because both conjuncts are true. *d. *c. g. (x)(Sx :J (3y)(Py· Lxy)) I:. (x)(Cx:J (3y)(Dy· ~Fxy)) *j. (3x)(Px· (y)«Sy· (3z)(pz· Lyz)) :J Lyx)). m. Symbolize and construct proofs for the following arguments. (x)«3y)(Fy· Wyx):J Ix) I:. You should now be able to do the invalidity exercises.

~(x)(Ax ~ (y)(Tyx ~ Rxy» I:. (x)((Px' ~ (y)(Wy ~ Ayx» ~ (z)(Bxz ~ Sz». (x)((Fx' ~ Gx) ~ ~ (3y)(Tyx' H xy». h. (x)(Fx ~ H x) (x)((y)Fyx ~ *c. (x)((Px' (y)(Cy ~ Fxy» ~ (z)((Bz· W xz) ~ (w)((Pw' Lw) ~ Twz))) 2.. ~ (3x)(3y)(Tyx' ~ Dxy).~ Tyx) I:. g. Construct proofs for the following theorems. (3x)Fax (3x)(Fx' (3y)Gxy). (x)((3y)(Rxy' Sxy) ~ ~(3y)Bxy). (3z)(y)(x)Fxyz (3x)Fxa I. (3x)(y)Fxy I:.Zxy) ~ Wyx» u. b. ~(3x)(3y)(Rxy. (x)((y)(Hxy ~ Zxy) ~ Gx) I:. (3x)(Px' (y)(Wy ~ ~ (Ayx v Bxy))) p. k. e. ~(x)(Ax ~ ~ Ex). Lx) I:. *e. (x)(y)Fxy (x)(Fx ~ (3y)Gxy) I:. t. (x)(y)Fxy (x)(3y)Fxy I:. f. m. (x)((Ax' ~ (y)(Dxy ~ Rxy» ~ (z)(Tzx ~ W z». J. Faa (3x)Fxa.(x)(Gx ~ Hxy» ~ (x)(Gx ~ (3y)(Fy. *d. (3x)Fxa I:. (3x)(Fxa' Gxa) (x)Fxa ~ (3x)Fax. (3x)(Fxa' Gxa) (3x)(Fxa' Gax) I:.354 Unit 18 Proofs and Invalidity for Relational Predicate Logic (3x)(Px' (y)(Sy ~ Txy». (x)(Tx ~ (y)Wyx) I:. (x)(Gx ~ (y)((Py. (x)(Hx ~ (3y)Fxy) I:. (x)(y)(Fxy ~ ~Sxy). f. (x)(Px ~ (y)(Zyx ~ Byx». *a. (3x)Wx (x)((3y)(Ey' Wyx) ~ (z)(Az ~ Sxz». q. (3x)Gxa I:. (x)(y)(Fxy ~ Lx) l. (x)(Fx ~ (3y)Gxy) I. (x)(Px ~ (y)(Rxy ~ Txy». (x)(Tx ~ (3y)(Ey' ~ Fxy» (x)((Gx' ~ (y)(Bxy ~ Sxy» ~ ~ (3z)(Tzx' ~ Wzx». (x)(Fx ~ (3y) ~ (Tyx v Zxy» r.Rxy. (x)(3z)(y)Fxyz (x)(y)(3z)Fxyz I:. s. (3x)(y)(Fx ~ Gxy) (x)(y)(3z)Fxyz I:. Use both the natural interpretation method and the model universe method to show that the following argument forms are invalid. d. b. 1.·. (x)((Rx' (y)(Cy ~ Ayx» ~ (z)((Lz· pz) ~ Rzx». (x)(y)(Gxy ~ H x) I:. (x)(Hx ~ (y)Gxy) .. 3. (x)(Cx ~ (y)((By' (3z)(pz· Wzy' Fzx» ~ Axy» I .Hxy» (x)((3y)Fxy ~ (3z)Gxz) == (x)(y)(3z)(Fxy ~ Gxz) *c. (3y)(x)(Fx ~ Gxy) (x)((3y)Fxy ~ (3y)Gxy). ~(3x)(Fx' Gx). a. (x)(Px ~ ~ (3y)(Wy' (Txy v Ayx») I:.·. (x)(y)Fxy ~ (3x)(3y)Fxy (3x)(y)(z)Fxyz ~ (y)(z)(3x)Fxyz (x)((3y)Fxy ~ Gx) ~ (x)(y)(Fxy ~ Gx) (x)(3y)(Fxy ~ Gx) ~ (x)((y)Fxy ~ Gx) (3y)(Fy.

make exceptive statements. and identity sentences. those that contain a name and that assert something about the named individual. such as "Everyone except John liked the pie. We deferred the discussion of definite descriptions because we did not have at that point the concept of identity. the sentence then asserts something about that individual." also refer to specific individuals." and a closely related kind of sentence that uses "only. one in which the subject is an individual. An identity sentence is one that contains two names. and sentences containing definite descriptions." We noted there that names are not the only means of referring to individuals. We can." assert something about particular individuals.UNIT 19 Identity and Definite Descriptions A." In relational logic we 355 . definite descriptions. and the sentence asserts that the two named individuals are one and the same. such as "John is not wealthy. are necessary for the elucidation of definite descriptions. A singular sentence. INTRODUCTION In Unit 10 we talked about singular sentences. An example would be "Mark Twain is Samuel Clemens." such as "John was the only one who got a raise. As noted. for instance." In this unit you will learn the basic symbolization for identity statements (which is very simple) and some interesting things that can be done with quantifier logic once we add the identity concept. by definition. In this unit we will finally introduce the concept of identity and discuss a number of expressions that can be put into symbolic form only with the help of identity statements. one in which both subject and predicate are individuals. such as "The first president of the United States was a wealthy landowner. identity sentences are just special cases of singular sentences. which are just special cases of singular sentences. is one that contains a name. such as "the first president of the United States.

s = c j = h m = s b = w Symbolizing negative identity statements could be done simply by placing our negation sign in front of the identity statement to be negated. or are identical. but it is customary." A definite description is something like an individual constant in that it makes reference to a particular individual. • Learn how to symbolize exceptives. Mephistopheles is Satan." Finally. as you have seen. • Learn how to symbolize statements containing definite descriptions. such as "the person who ate the pie. The symbolization for identity sentences could hardly be easier. Keeping in mind that we generally use the first letter of a name as the individual constant that abbreviates it. for any finite number n. and superlatives. We could say that Lois is not Superwoman. such as "Alaska is the biggest state in the Union. UNIT 19 OBJECTIVES • Learn how to recognize and symbolize identity statements. "only" statements. we can say "There are n people in the room. at this point. C. with their symbolizations. we can make numerical statements without using numbers! That is. We simply place the identity symbol. What you need to know is listed below. we can make superlative statements. with which you are no doubt familiar. In the next unit we introduce rules of proof for identity. . B. Identity Statements and Their Negations In an identity sentence. Jekyll is Mr. Other examples of identity statements. between the two individual constants that name the subject and predicate individuals. Buffalo Bill was William Cody. make comparative statements.356 Unit 19 Identity and Definite Descriptions can." Perhaps the most surprising result is that now. and the sentence states that the subject and predicate individuals are one and the same. =. for instance. we can symbolize definite descriptions. are the following: Superman is Clark Kent. given identity. UNIT 19 TOPICS 1. Hyde. but it does so by means of an identifying description rather than a proper name. with the use of identity plus relational predicate logic. • Learn how to symbolize numerical statements. Dr. we could symbolize "Mark Twain is Samuel Clemens" simply as m = s. by writing ~(l = w). but in this unit we confine ourselves to symbolization. both subject and predicate are individuals.

c p *. for instance. because their symbolizations require the use of negative identity statements. We could not do anything with propositions of this sort until now. are John Travolta is not Rocky.w. as (x)«Px' Rx' x *. What we are doing in such a sentence is excepting a from the universal claim that all F's are G's.a) :::J Gx)' Fa' ~Ga. if x is an F but x is not a. which means that it has the subject property but does not have the predicate property. monadic singular propositions. ~Ga. This should not be too difficult in most cases.r b*-k b *." Notice that we do include the statement that God was not created by God. that everyone except John and Mary came to the party or that everyone in the room except David has a cold. as I *. where the "is not" means "is not identical with. In many or even most cases. relational singular statements. as noted. Buffalo Bill was not Custer." what we are really saying is thatfor every x." We would symbolize this as (x)«Fx' x *. you should always conjoin to the universal formula the claim that a is an F: Fa." This would be symbolized just as (x)(x *. Thus the full symbolization for "Every F except a is a G" would. we also mean to say that a is a counterexample to the universal claim. Rd· ~Cd. Exceptives and "Only" Statements We often want to make something less than a universal claim. so we will conjoin to the rest of the sentence the clause Fa' ~Ga. The Pentagon is not the White House." for instance. then x is a G. 2. Exercise I at the end of the unit will help you become proficient in making the distinction between identity statements. In some cases there may not be a subject term proper. to use instead a slash through the identity sign: *-. In most cases. since a is being excepted from the universal . In sentences that do have a subject term F.w You must be able to distinguish identity sentences from the other kinds of simple sentences.g :::J Cx)· ~Cg. however. you will also want to say that a is not a G. be (x)«Fx' x *.a) :::J Gx). an identity sentence is simply one that names two individuals who are said to be the same. then. We could symbolize the above sentence. as in the sentence "Everything except God was created by God.Unit 19 Identity and Definite Descriptions 357 and somehow easier. with their symbolizations. When we make an exceptive statement of the form "Every F except a is a G. Some further examples of negative identity statements. where Cx means "x was created by God. and categorical propositions. in most cases. t *. we may want to say. We would symbolize "Everyone in the room except David has a cold. The Bible is not the Koran.d) :::J Cx) • Pd .

and we will usually want to say as well that the individual does not have the predicate property. except for Bob.b· x *. (x)«Px·Fx·x *. which except certain classes from a universal claim: "Everything in this store except for the cat food is of poor quality. for instance. We could earlier have made statements like the following. as in "Everyone except George thinks the plan will work. Mary.j)::JUx)·Pj·~Uj 3. in such cases. we simply conjoin the other negative identity statements to the subject function and add the appropriate singular statements at the end. for stylistic variation. and it is this for which we need identity. (x)«Px· x *. (x)«Px· Ax· x *. with a negative identity statement conjoined to the subject function (if there is one) to indicate that the named individual (or individuals) is (or are) excluded from the universal claim. are as follows: 1. Some further exceptive statements. if. we just don't know whether a is a G or not. and Evelyn. Everyone here has a Toyota except for John and Andrew." This could . Examples are below. will be the following: a universal proposition. However.a)::JTx)·Pj·Hj·~Tj·Pa·Ha·~Ta 6. (x)«Px·Hx·x *.g) ::J Tx)· Pg. The basic pattern for exceptives. with their symbolizations." This would be symbolized as (x)«Px· x *. 4.j·x *.m·x *.e) ::J (Hx v Cx»· Pe· ~(He v Ce) We can also except more than one individual from our universal claim.m) ::J Dx) • Pb • Ab· ~Db· Pm • Am • ~Dm We can also move the exceptive clause around in the English sentence.b·x *. but I don't know about George. (x)«Px·x *. (x)«Dx·Jx·x *. where Tx means "x thinks that the plan will work. Everyone except John understood the explanation. Every planet except Earth is too hot or too cold to sustain life. Everyone at the party except for Bob and Marion drank a lot. there are cases where it is inappropriate to include ~Ga.e)::J Cx)·Pb·Fb· ~Cb·Pm· Fm· ~Cm· Pe· Fe· ~Ce It should be pointed out that we are here making statements that except individuals. We should also include a claim to the effect that the named individual has the subject property.358 Unit 19 Identity and Definite Descriptions claim. Some examples would be the following: 5." We do include the claim that George is a person. Everyone on the flight thought it would crash. then.g)::J Rx)·Dg·Jg· ~Rg 2. Every Democratic incumbent except for George will be reelected.

(x)((Px· x :f:. then x did not get a raise. Notice that this is exactly the same pattern as we had for the exceptive E statements! In fact. who is a millionaire is Slim. No player except Jennifer got a standing ovation. So far we have been discussing only what we might call exceptive A statements of the form "All F except a are G. but John is a person who did get a raise. j) :::J ~ Rx) • P j • Rj. if x is a person and x is not John. The only one who respects Richard is Richard." We can also make exceptive E statements.Unit 19 Identity and Definite Descriptions 359 have been symbolized. the English sentence above could be rephrased as "No one except John got a raise. No one but Andrew likes to cook. Notice the stylistic variations." This would be symbolized as (x)((Px· x :f:.S." Such sentences can be symbolized exactly like the A forms. No one at the party except Alfred got sick. this kind of "only" statement really turns out to be an E exceptive." Thus. m):::J ~Ax)·Pm·Cm·Am . The only great U. (x)((Nx·x:f:. 1." 1. president was Lincoln. simply as (x)((Sx· ~Cx) :::J Px). An example would be "No player except John got a home run. We could paraphrase the above sentence as "For all x. because we are saying that everyone else did not get a raise. of the form "No F except a are G." An example would be "Only John got a raise. (x)((Ux·x :f:. which is very close in meaning and structure to the exceptive sentence. we will symbolize the A claim "All players except John got a home run": (x)((Px· x :f:. with their symbolizations. a) :::J ~Cx)· Pa· Ca Another kind of sentence. Of all the people in the class. The only native of Dry Flats. a) :::J ~Sx) • Pa· Aa • Sa 2." This again will be a universal proposition. j) :::J Hx)· Pj· ~Hj. s):::J ~Mx)·Ns·Ms 3.1):::J ~Gx)·Ul·GI 2. Some further examples of "only" statements follow. are the following. is one containing phrases such as "only John. only Mary got an A. j) :::J ~Hx)· Pj· Hj. Here the negations are just reversed from the way they are in the A statement. but that John did." This would be symbolized as (x)((Px· x :f:. Texas. Some other examples of exceptive E statements. conjoined to appropriate singular sentences. r) :::J ~ Rxr) • Pr • Rrr 4. (x)((Lx· x :f:. without identity. (x)((Px· Ax • x :f:. j) :::J ~Ox)· Lj· OJ 3. note that "but" may be used instead of "except. (x)((Px·Cx·x:f:. For comparison. with their symbolizations. except for having a negated predicate. Some sentences of this sort will be included in the exercises to test your perspicacity. (x)((Px· x :f:.

Mary is the brightest person in Computer Science." and so on. as in the exceptive E statements that are equivalent to them. but no one else did" or "No one else besides John got a raise.S. 3. what we mean is that he isfaster than anyone else." "higher. Let us take several such examples and symbolize them: 1. To say "Only John got a raise" certainly implies that John did get a raise. (x)«Vx' x oF l) ::J Blx)' VI (Vx == x was a U. which is impossible. and the whole conjoined to a singular statement asserting that the named individual is in the subject class." "smartest" and "poorest" are examples. president. for instance. and they will end up looking much like our exceptive statements-they are. When we say. are those in which we use words with an "est. then Billy is faster than x (and Billy is in the class). because this would imply that he is faster than himself. and a comparative statement as the predicate function. unlike the A exceptives." and we could symbolize it as follows: (x)«Cx' x oF b) ::J Fbx)' Cb. the implication seems to be clear in these cases that the named individual does have the predicate property. We could paraphrase the sentence as "For any x. with a negative identity clause conjoined to the subject function. in fact. This is because. We cannot say simply that he is faster than anyone in the class. so this turns out to be another exceptive. "John got a raise. (x)«Px' Cx • x oF m) ::J Bmx) • Pm' Cm (Px == x is a person." "poorer. Cx == x is in Computer Science. president. Superlatives. What we are saying is that he isfaster than anyone in the class except himself. we do conjoin the singular sentence that says that the individual has the predicate property. instead of the above. Bxy == x is brighter than y. Bxy == x is better than y." or "st" ending-"best. Sentences containing such words can be symbolized by combining the comparative terms with a negative identity clause. Notice also that there are a number of other equivalent constructions in English. that Billy is the fastest runner in his class. This will be the standard pattern for superlatives: a universal statement." "smarter. Superlatives In relational logic we were able to make comparative statements. if x is in the class and x is not Billy. statements that use words such as "better. We could say. Thus we cannot symbolize the sentence simply as (x)(Cx::J Fbx)." Keep an eye out for these various English constructions. as you no doubt remember from your English grammar. m = Mary) . Lincoln was the best U.360 Unit 19 Identity and Definite Descriptions Notice that in all these cases. just a special kind of exceptive. I = Lincoln) 2. Exercise 3 at the end of the unit will test your ability to sort all this out." "highest.S.

Examples of such numerical statements. state that the individuals have the property <j>. (It may get rather tedious at this point. would be the following: "There are two senators from each state. because all the sentences look alike!) 4. (x)«V x· x i= i) :=) Cix) • Vi (V x == x is in the contiguous United States. The correct symbolization for that sentence would then be (3x)(3y)(Mx· Cx· My· Cy· x i= y). and then use as many negative identity statements as you . which we could symbolize (theoretically) by using our quantifier logic with identity.. So to guarantee that there are at least two. We will have to begin by saying (3x)(3y)(M x· Cx· My· Cy . For symbolizing "at least" clauses. C xy == x is colder than y. i = International Falls. The pattern will be the same for any number in an "at least" statement: to say that there are at least n <j>'s. all we have to say is (3x)(Mx· Cx)." Where n is any finite positive whole number. International Falls. we will certainly need two existential quantifiers. there are three women in the class. No use of identity is required." Thus. . without using numbers.845 ants in my ant colony. Well. If there are at least three women in the class and at most three women in the class." "There are nine planets.Unit 19 Identity and Definite Descriptions 361 3. then there must be exactly three women in the class or. Minnesota) Exercise 3 at the end of the unit will give you practice in symbolizing superlatives. Suppose we want to say there are at least two millionaires in the crowd. that is." and "There are 237. Thus what we need to do to symbolize numerical statements is learn how to symbolize "at least" and "at most" and then just put them together. if we want to say just that there is at least one millionaire in the crowd. Hence you will need (3x)(3y)(3z)(Mx· Cx· My· Cyo Mz· Cz· x i= yo Y i= z· x i= z). use n different existential quantifiers. is the coldest place in the contiguous United States. simply. Numerical Statements Given relational logic with identity. If you want to say that there are at least three millionaires in the crowd. we must add a clause stipulating that x and y are not the same individual. Thus there must be exactly n such things. we can symbolize the statement that there are n things of a certain sort by saying first that there are at least n of those things and then adding that there are at most n of those things. Minnesota. in which case there would be only one millionaire around. we must conjoin to the above x i= y. ). you will have to use three existential quantifiers and then add statements to the effect that no one of the individuals is the same as any other. There is nothing in that formula to rule out the possibility that x and y are the same individual. But this is not enough. it is possible to symbolize numerical statements. you must keep in mind that the existential quantifier means "There is at least one. statements to the effect that there are a certain number of things of a certain sort.

) We begin by using three quantifiers and then say. we wanted to say that there is at most one god. We don't need any existential quantifiers. then two of them must be the same. because an "at most" statement does not imply that there are any of those things.) We will do one example of four and then quit. We could symbolize this. which is rather clumsy in English. In other words. (x)(y)(z)«M x • Cx • My" Cy" M Z" Cz) => (x = y vy = z vx = z)). such as millionaires in the crowd. so that the three collapse down into two. must be identical to the other. Well. in effect. or y is the same as z. We could paraphrase this by saying "For any three things x. because the formulas get too long. (As an exercise.) So what do we do to say that there are at most n things? Suppose. and z. we might reason in this way: If there seems to be more than one. for instance. or x is the same as z. a very lively topic of debate among philosophers. there could be only one. that if there seem to be three. for any two things that have the property of being a god. y. given the properties we ascribe to a divine being (such as omnipotence). does not imply that there is a god. (3x)(3y)(3z)(3w)(Mx' Cx' My' Cy' Mz· Cz· Mw' Cw' x y" x z· x w' y z· y w' Z w). But this kind of argument. If there were more than one god. The number of negative identity statements required goes up rather fast. the two are the same. so they "collapse down" into one after all." In symbols. they couldn't both be omnipotent. if x is a millionaire in the crowd. This latter . Different sorts of arguments are needed to establish existence. and still is. (Remember that this does not imply that there are any. for example. that there is at most one god because. and so is y and so is z. The general pattern for saying that there are at most n things with a certain property will be to begin with n + 1 universal quantifiers and then say that if all those things have the property. We might argue in theology. (Whether there are any sound arguments for the existence of God has been. then one must be the same as the other. * * * * * * To say that there are at most n things of a certain sort. then either x is the same as y. that there can be at most one god. Suppose we wanted to say that there are at most two things of a certain sort.362 Unit 19 Identity and Definite Descriptions need to guarantee that no individual is the same as any other. and so one could not be a god. then two of them must be the same. in the following way: (x)(y)«Gx' Gy) => x = y). you might try to figure out the formula that tells you how many negative identity statements you will need to make a claim that there are at least n individuals. we use universal quantifiers rather than existential.

Notice also that since identity is commutative (as we will see in the next unit). (z)((Mz· Sz) => (z = x v Z = y))). to say that there are exactly n things. so instead. This would result in a very long formula in most cases... we have our symbolization for "There is (exactly) one god": (3x)(Gx· (y)(Gy => Y = x))." (y)(Gy => Y = x). it would have been perfectly correct. it must be one of the "at least n" bunch. again. but you should see the general pattern and also that. if y is a god. and then conjoin a universal statement that says that for any thing that has the . Thus either x = y or x = Z or . for instance. it is possible to say that there are at most n things for any finite n. Again.. Notice that the scope of the initial x quantifier must extend to the end of the formula to pick up the x at the end of the identity statement. senators. however (though it would be perfectly correct). we leave it as an exercise to figure out how many disjuncts there must be. Finally. this time North Dakota congressmen: (x)(y)(z)(w)«Cx·Nx·Cy·Ny-Cz·Nz·Cw·Nw) => (x = yvx = zvx = w v y = z v y = w v z = w)). but you don't know which. for instance.. it doesn't really matter whether we say x = y or y = x. We then say "For any y. then y must be the same as x. to use Mx· My· Sx· Sy· x #. that whatever other things there seem to be with that property.. . limitations of space preclude the illustration of very high numbers.S. we combine them in a more efficient way. in principle. (Again. in the following way: (3x)(3y)(Mx· Sx· My· Sy· x #. We say that there are (exactly) two things of a certain sort by first saying that there are at least two and then. since you only know that some two must be the same.y.) We will do one example of a statement that says there are at most three things of a certain sort.Unit 19 Identity and Definite Descriptions 363 phrase will always be a disjunction. Putting the two together. To say that there is exactly one god. Thus we could symbolize that there are n things just by conjoining the "at least" and the "at most" statements. to say that there are exactly n things is just to say that there are at least n and there are at most n of those things. in effect. In general. which is simply (3x)Gx. they must be identical to one of the two. saying "that's all". We can say that there are exactly two Minnesota U.y . in the above sentence. We start out by saying that there are at least n of those things and then conjoin to that formula one that says that for any thing that has the property. Another thing to notice about these longer formulas is that it really doesn't make any difference in what order we list the conjuncts. we begin by saying that there is at least one god. say first that there are at least n.

You should be able to prove this equivalence using the quantifier rules already given (although it is a rather long proof). for instance. the formulas become very large very fast. to figure out how many negative identity statements you would need for that formula.1. it is possible to make numerical statements for any finite n. in principle. Thus the "at most n" statement will be equivalent to the "not at least n + 1" statement. They are like proper names in that they refer to a . that there will always be just n disjuncts of identity statements at the end. to fix the pattern: There are (exactly) three serious presidential candidates.1.) Despite the lack of practical applications. Thus. so for practical purposes using quantifier formulas for numerical statements is not of much use. that there are not at most n .N. Also. it is possible to make numerical statements without numbers. This means. and your other equivalences. since you would need to know whether you had the right number of existential quantifiers! (And you would need to be a numerical genius. Conversely.N. is to put an upper bound on the number of objects of a certain sort. such as the number of ants in my ant colony. and C. you would never know whether you had the right formula unless you could count in the first place. It means that there are not more than n.y:f= z·x:f= z· (w)«Pw· Sw) :=) (w = x v w = y v w = z))) There are (exactly) four cats in this room. for very large numbers. Let us do the formulas for three and four. there will be an equivalence between the "at least n" statement and the "not at most n . as you can see. s. Definite Descriptions Definite descriptions are expressions that uniquely identify an individual by describing it in some detail.364 Unit 19 Identity and Definite Descriptions property. You should try to carry out a couple of these transformations. it is identical to one of the initial n things. using only quantifier logic and identity. it is still of considerable theoretical interest that. then. but.1" statement. however.Q. (3x)(3y)(3z)(3w)(Rx·Cx·Ry·Cy·Rz·Cz·Rw·Cw·x:f= y·x:f= z·x:f= w· Y :f= z· Y :f= w· z :f= w· (u)«Cu • Ru) :=) (u = x v u = y v u = Z v u = w))) In principle. by the way. again. This is just an exercise in applying Q. or at least have a computer. to say that there are at least n is to say that the number of objects does not stop at n . There are some interesting connections and equivalences between the "at most" and "at least" locutions. which is really equivalent to saying that there are not at least n + 1 of those things. (3x)(3y)(3z)(Px·Sx·py-Sy·pz·Sz·x:f= y. To say that there are at most n. Another equivalence is between the simply conjoined statements-there are at least n things and at most n things-and our more efficient symbolization.

. they do not refer in the same simple way that names do. There have been various solutions. Tx). Examples would be "the first president of the United States. and that king treats his subjects well. It cannot be analyzed in isolation. and there is only one king of the United States. we are really saying three things: (1) there is a <1>. he said. for example. Such expressions have given rise to some knotty philosophical problems. and (3) the <I> does have the property tV. And it would be very odd to call it true. but they do so not by means of a name but by means of a description that (purportedly) fits only one thing."! What Russell said is that definite descriptions are really not grammatically just like names." and so on.) However.. Notice here that we have a part of the sentence that says simply that there is exactly one king of the United States. but it doesn't have the property ascribed to it. "). He and A. a definite description makes sense only in context. we can analyze the definite description when it appears within a sentence. when it is used as a part of a sentence. but the only one we will discuss here is the one that is generally accepted as the best approach. or if there is more than one such thing. are called syncategorematic. Analyzed in this way. On the other hand. Whitehead first brought symbolic logic to the attention of philosophers and logicians in Principia Mathematica in 1910. Examples of such false propositions are below. These are not names. in which there is no referent for the description: "The king of the United States of America treats his subjects well"? Is it true? False? Neither? It seems to be a perfectly grammatical sentence. but they do all point to a single individual." "the first book ever printed on a printing press. with a sentence such as the following. . it is not hard to symbolize. According to Russell. Bertrand Russell's "theory of descriptions. or if there is just one such thing. 'Russell was one of the most influential philosophers and logicians in the first half of the twentieth century. What do you do. (Such terms. as if what we were saying about the king of the United States was not accurate. to take our previous sentence. which cannot be analyzed out of context. Thus. when we say the <I> has property tV. a sentence containing a definite description will turn out to be false either if there isn't any such thing (like the king of the United States). it doesn't seem quite right to call it false either." Thus paraphrased.Unit 19 Identity and Definite Descriptions 365 particular individual. we would have to analyze it as "There is a king of the United States." "the residence of the prime minister of Great Britain. They are all false for different reasons. N." "the capital of Oregon. which finally found a plausible solution in the twentieth century by the use of quantifier logic. Rather. by itself. Using the obvious abbreviations. so there is no particular reason why it should not have a truth value. we could symbolize it as follows: (3x)(Kx' (y)(Ky ::J x = y). with their symbolizations. this is what is meant by a definite description: there is one and only one of those things ("The one and only . (2) there is no more than one such <1>.

j::.S. The person who wrote War and Peace was a Russian landowner. president. which would be the symbolization for "John is the only one here with a car. x = j). president." Clearly. I) =:) Blx) • Pl.j::. The book in the library is a philosophy text. such as "Lincoln was the best U.S. y) =:) Bxy) • x = I). In this case the property we are ascribing to the one thing described is that of being John-being identical to John-so our last conjunct is an identity statement.. and that one is Lincoln. (3x)(Px· Wx· (y)((Py· Wy) =:) x = y).366 Unit 19 Identity and Definite Descriptions 1. president who is better than all the others. Exercise 5 will give you practice in symbolizing sentences containing definite descriptions." This could be symbolized as follows: (3x)(Px· (y)((Py· x ." We could symbolize this inefficiently by saying "There is at least one best U. The woman who walked on the moon left footprints. Thus. It is simpler just to say "There is a U. John is cuter than David. Rx) There are certain special cases of definite descriptions that are equivalent to sentences we symbolized earlier in this unit. and at most one best U. state whether it is an identity sentence. Px) 3. simply as "Lincoln was the best U." Other special cases of definite descriptions are those which use superlatives. Ax) Examples of true sentences containing definite descriptions would be the following: 4.S.j::." this really is a definite description. (3x)(Wx· Mx· (y)((Wy· My) =:) x = y). . David is John's friend. a monadic singular sentence.. some definite descriptions can be symbolized just as "only's. this is exactly equivalent to the form (x)((Px· Hx· x .S. The president in office during the Civil War was a Republican. or a categorical proposition..S. EXERCISES 1. *a. and that one was Lincoln. (y)((By· Ly) =:) x = y). If someone says "The (only) person here with a car is John. For each of the following sentences. Fx) 2. the two English sentences are equivalent. Rx· Lx) 5." but there is clearly a lot of redundancy here." (x)((Px· x . president. president. (3x)(Bx • Lx . (3x)(Px· Wx· (y)((Py· Wy) =:) x = y). a relational singular sentence. The person who wrote War and Peace was an American. and can be symbolized as (3x)(Px· Hx· Cx· (y)((Py· Hy· Cy) =:) x = y). b. (3x)(Px· Cx· (y)((Py· Cy) =:) x = y). j) =:) ~Cx)· Pj· Hj· Cj. As it turns out. We could also symbolize this just as we did before.

Moby Dick is not a fish. Reckless people die young. *m. *c. Geronimo is braver than Kit Carson. 2. Buffalo Bill is William Cody. t. d. Custer died young.1. a = Ahab. Ax == x is albino. *e. h. David is older than John. Ishmael is Moby Dick's friend. *g. David is "Peaches. p. *s. . Fx == x is a fish. which are fairly simple examples of either singular. *e. Mx == x is a mammal.1. Note that some of the singular sentences may be relational. Sxy == x is swifter than y. b. Moby Dick is not the devil. m = Moby Dick." David is cute. Geronimo is not Indian George. Moby Dick is Ahab's enemy. I. J. Geronimo is not Navajo. Ishmael is not albino. j. Ishmael is everyone's friend. *k. g = God. *. Scouts are fearless. and then symbolize using the indicated abbreviations. Kit Carson is a scout. *k. Wild Bill did not die young. Fxy == x is a friend of y. Dxy == x defeats y. i = Ishmael. *a. Ahab is meaner than the devil. h. or quantifications over relational predicates. Custer is Custer. *0. Moby Dick is a whale. Ishmael is not God. Navajos are not aggressive. or identity sentences. Custer is crazier than Wild Bill. r. d = the devil. Little boys are cute. categorical. Custer is reckless. n. f. *q. f. d. Kit Carson is not Custer. Exy == x is an enemy of y. *g. Identify the forms of the following.Unit 19 Identity and Definite Descriptions *c. Moby Dick defeats Ahab. Mxy == x is meaner than y. Px == x is a person. 367 *.Wx == x is a whale. A whale is a mammal.

N x == x is from North Dakota) There are at most three buildings on this lot. d. Ahab is meaner than anyone. 3. God is not the devil. *a. Every whale except Moby Dick is a friend of Ahab. Sx == x has a spout. *c. 4. No one is meaner than Ahab except the devil. Moby Dick is the only albino whale. *s. No one is meaner than Ahab. t. No animals except whales have spouts. *g. h. (ex == x is a congressman. There are at least two albino whales. Qx == x is on the Pequod. j. Moby Dick is albino. *k. p. r. *q. (Px == x is a planet) . Bxy == x is a better sailor than y. Moby Dick is the swiftest whale. (Dx == x is a form of the deity) There are at least five planets. Ishmael does not defeat Ahab. (Bx. Everyone except Ahab fears Moby Dick. f. d. b. 1. God is not a whale. f. No one except Ahab can defeat Moby Dick. *e. using the abbreviations indicated and some from above. *g. Ahab is the meanest person. Ahab is not Ishmael's enemy. There are other whales besides Moby Dick that are feared by Ishmael. n. Symbolize the following numerical statements. h.368 Unit 19 Identity and Definite Descriptions 1. There is one god. *0. Zxy == x fears y. *i. Ishmael is the best sailor on the Pequod. *e. Moby Dick is the only whale that is swifter than Ahab. *m. N x == x is an animal. Symbolize the following exceptives and superlatives using the abbreviations above and the additional ones given here. The devil is no one's friend. Lx) There are exactly three forms of the deity. Ahab has no friends. Ahab has at least two enemies. *c. (Gx == x is a god) Moby Dick has exactly two friends. b. There are at least three North Dakota congressmen. Only Ishmael is a friend of Moby Dick. *a.

Cx == x is a U. The bravest cat was a Siamese orphan. The fastest Pony Express rider was Bob Haslam. Fx == x was famous. n. using the abbreviations indicated. d. The only student in the class who can't express himself clearly is Andrew. capitol building is in Washington. N x == x is a novel. Ix == x has identification. which contain definite descriptions. *a. using the following abbreviations. Gx == x is as big as a goose. . Px == x will pass. Bx == x is a book. C x == x is in the class. Symbolize the following sentences. *c. *m. Wxy == x wrote y. *e. The man who started the Pony Express was a businessman who lost a lot of money. The man who wrote War and Peace lost a lot of money. The book on the table is War and Peace. Rxy == x reads y.S. Xx == x took the last exam. Andrew is the only student in the class who doesn't like cats. U x == x was a businessman. Bxy == x was braver than y. Bxy == x is better than y. capitol building. * i. d. There is no student in the class except for Andrew who doesn't have an A. Sx == x is a student. Qx == x asks good questions. Rx == x can read. except for those who don't like cats. b. 6. D. b. Lxy == x is larger than y. The fastest Pony Express rider was in a book. Lx == x likes cats. *k. Ex == x expresses herself or himself clearly. I xy == x is in y. The only novel on the table is War and Peace. Every student except Andrew asks good questions. The bravest Pony Express rider was Billy Tate. *0. h. Symbolize the following. Ax == x has an A.Unit 19 Identity and Definite Descriptions 369 5. j. Mx == x meows. *c. who was an orphan. The cat that's as big as a goose is famous. *g. Ox == x was an orphan. The only famous Pony Express rider was William Cody. Lx == x lost a lot of money. *e.C. Every student in the class will pass. Gx == x is a cat. and it is famous. Dx == x is a dog. Tx == x is on the table. f. Px == x was a Pony Express rider. The cat that lives next door is as big as a goose. Fxy == x was faster than y. Kxy == x likes y. Mx == x is a man. *a.S. l. The book on the table is a novel. Nx == x needs a tutor. Sx == x started the Pony Express. Wx == x can write well. The cat who reads books is a famous Siamese. most of which will require identity. Dx == x lives next door. The famous cat who writes books does not read books. Ax == x is a cat. Bx == x will get a B. The U. I x == x is Siamese. Oxy == x is more obedient than y.

Unit 19 Identity and Definite Descriptions *. z. The most obedient student in the class will get an A. *g. The only dog in the class is Andrew. There are two students who need tutors. Every student except for Andrew and Truffle took the last exam. Truffle is the only cat in the class. Truffle is the smallest student in the class. There is at most one student in the class who meows. n. x. Every student except for Truffle likes Andrew. v. Truffle is the least obedient student in the class. *s. h. *u. r. Andrew is the worst student in the class. Every student likes Truffle except for Andrew. j. *k. *q.370 f. It is not true that at most two students will get A's. No more than two students will get B's. It is not true that at least three students will fail. *m. 1. There is at least one cat in the class and exactly one dog.1. *w. At least four students will pass. At least three students in the class will get A's. p. Truffle is the only student who does not have identification. *y. *0. There are at most two students who will not pass. t. There are at least two students in the class who can't read. The only students in the class who can't write well are Andrew and Truffle. .

this should not be difficult. which we can state symbolically as follows: 371 . and since these are very simple and very natural.UNIT 20 Proofs Involving Identity A. the only new things you will be learning are the rules for identity. B. it is what is sometimes called an equivalence relation. • Learn to construct proofs for arguments containing identity statements. UNIT 20 OBJECTIVES • Learn the three rules for identity. UNIT 20 TOPICS 1. This introduction is also mercifully short. This means simply that it has three very important properties. C. Rules for Identity The identity relation is a very special relation. What you will need to learn in the unit is listed below. INTRODUCTION This unit will be mercifully short.

2 a) E. A very short proof using this rule is below. then the first is equal to the third. we could just throw the above formulas in as axioms.a=a This rule may seem a bit odd because a can be anything whatsoever and may not even have appeared previously in the proof.G. a/x The second identity rule will reflect the symmetry property and so will be called Identity Symmetry. This means that identity is a symmetric relation.. This rule really just tells us that identity is commutative. or I.372 Unit 20 Proofs Involving Identity (x)x = x (x)(y)(x = Everything is equal to itself. if the first is equal to the second. if the first is equal to the second. 3. Ref for short. then the second is equal to the first. for ease of reference. Sym. the identity relation is reflexive. Identity Reflexivity. y ::J Y = x) For any two things. a. that we can switch the order of the terms in an identity statement. 2. 1 Conj. That is. But they all tend to make use of the concept of sameness. and thus identity is a very central relation. This rule will be called. 4. for any instance letter a. and the second is equal to the third. (3x)(Fx ° x = a) 1. l. The effect of the rule is simply that for any instance letter a you may always assert. The first rule just restates the content of the reflexivity property in a slightly different form. at any point in the proof. that a = a. we will put the properties in the form of rules. This means that identity is a transitive relation Many other relations have these properties as well and are thus equivalence relations. 3. The rule can be stated as follows: a = b:: b = a . = (x)(y)(z)«x = yo y = z) ::J x z) For any three things. abbreviated as I. we may infer. Fa a = a = Faoa=a (3x)(Fx ° x Pro /".l. that a = a. and will be stated as follows: p I. but since this is a system of logic in which we use rules instead of axioms. it says that given any statement whatsoever. such as being the same age as or living in the same family as.". The rules for identity will parallel very closely these three properties: in fact. Ref.

(3y)a = y 6. a = d I.'. Sub.Unit 20 Proofs Involving Identity 373 Notice that this second identity rule is stated as a replacement rule. It says. The transitivity property. Some examples of inferences using these three identity rules are below. <l>b This means that in constructing a proof.'. The rule itself is very natural and states a substitution property for identity statements. Sub. Sub. which we will call Identity Substitution. Bcsa (x)((3y)Fya ::J (3z)Fxaz). Sym. 4. We can interpret the first premise as making a statement about b. That is. (x)((3y)x = y ::J Fx) 3. b/y M. Sub. (3x)(Fx == Gxc) Bcra. a = a (Fab'Gba)::J a = bl. (3x)(Fx' (Gax ::J Hxa» I. This will make many of the proofs that require this rule considerably easier.. then given the identity a = b. 1 E.'. We can state this rule. which we will now state simply as "a = b. a = c I. then whatever property the one has. so you may use it on subformulas as well as on whole formulas. Sym. you may infer that same statement with regard to b. whenever you have a statement that asserts something about a (that is. just any singular statement containing a). as follows: a=b <l>a I. b = a 2. transitivity. We will take the fundamental identity statement to be the second premise of transitivity. I. roughly. r = s I. then if the first thing has a certain property the second must have it as well.'. rule is below. I. b. in fact.'. a = c. can be derived from this third rule. 3. 1. that a is . '. 5. 2. Sub.P.'. I.G. We can derive the transitivity property. 1. Sym. (Fab'Gba)::J b = a (3x)(Fx == Gxa). Ref. I. Fa Pro Pro I. but it is more general. (3y)a = y ::J Fa 4. that if one thing is the same as the other." from the rule of I. 4. you may take the formula <l>a and replace some or all of the a's with b's. Fa U. the other must have as well. 3. in the following way.5 The third identity rule is closely related to the third property. 2. (x)((3y)Fyd ::J (3z)Fxdz) I. The reason is obvious: if two things really are one and the same. a/x I.'.l. A short proof using the I. b = c I. b = C. or I.a = b 5.

P. 3. 4. we can make the same statement about c. that a *" b. b/y M. (x)Fax 2. c.I. the part of the formula that is taken as <t> has been outlined so that it is easier to see that the substitution rule is being applied. This means that given as premises <t>a and ~ <t>b. that a *" b. for instance. which means that (3x)(3y)(<t>x· <t>y. 1. you may simply cite the rule of l. Sub. where the <t> says "a is equal to.a = c Pro Pro Pro / :. .P. We will not have a rule that allows you to do this directly. then the two individuals cannot be the same. so be sure to keep this procedure in mind. Sub. Given <t>a and ~ <t>b (for any property <t». Sub.. such as the one below.. since transitivity is just a special case of substitution.P. Since I. You will frequently find proofs. Thus the argument. in effect.I. they are not equal.a = b 8. since b = c.b = c 9. (I.) I. a = c V. 1. Sub. b/x V. la =Ib b=c Thus. if you ever need to use the transitivity property of identity in a proof... a *" b Assp. it follows that if there are two individuals.I." Now. <t>a 2. says. in which transitivity is needed. that is. which is really just an application of the substitution rule I.Fab 5. which would say that a is equal to c. Sub. of which one has a property and the other doesn't. which also makes use of the rule of l. it really has the form <t>b. but you can always do it by the use of I.6 I.3 . we can assert <t>c.8 Another thing you will often have to do in identity proofs is to show that one individual is not the same as another. if you had to prove that there were at least two <t>'s. <t>b r Pro Pro / . (y)(Fay => a = y) 6. you can derive a *" b by using I. x *" y). as follows: 1. 2 I. Sub. that two individuals that are identical have all their properties in common. Sym.) There is an easy way to do this. 1. 7. a/x V. you may infer that a and b are not the same. 5. Fab => a = b 7.<Ph 3. would look like the following. (x)(y)(Fxy => x = y) 4. a = b 4.c = b 3. (This would be required.374 Unit 20 Proofs Involving Identity equal to b.P.

To make the proofs a little easier. band <J>a then ~ <J>b. so that in practice you can infer. Ma· Sa 6. you can show that the two individuals are not the same. 1. like a = a.1. Sub. 1. without doing all the Com. Kjx) 3.Unit 20 Proofs Involving Identity 375 5. By using I. Dx) 2. and Association. You just have to be especially careful to watch for cases in which you need to use the symmetry and transitivity properties. a i= b ~ <J>b Conj. 5..1. (y)«My· Sy) ~ a = y) 8. Counterexamples abound. having learned the rules for identity and some strategies for proving certain formulas by means of these rules. 3 V. and Norway is a Scandinavian country. Simplification. however.4. (3x)(M x· Sx· (y)«My· Sy) ~ x = y). Da 4. a/x (flag a) E. we will at this point allow you to combine some of the simple rules such as Conjunction. Ga • T a • Wa). (3x)(Dx· Kjx) E. Da 7. or negative identity statements like a i= b. Norway i= Sweden. 6. but we cannot infer that therefore Sweden is not a Scandinavian country. which requires the use of 1. 3 -:f:. that the converse is not true: you may not infer that if a -:f:. With this in mind. or when you need reflexive statements. steps that would.P. whenever you need a negative identity statement in a proof. the way we have done above. Ma· Sa· (y)«My· Sy) ~ a = y). be required. ~. Kjb Pro PrJ . Kjb 5. and 3 is an odd number. John knows a doctor. since the typical formulas using identity (in particular. John knows the man standing by the door. b/x (flag b) Simp. We certainly cannot infer that 5 is thus not an odd number." d. 7. "The man standing by the door is a doctor. say. Therefore. One thing that will be slightly different is that proofs involving identity often get rather long.1. 2. Mb· Sb 10. b/y Simp. 3 Simp. we will now construct a proof for the following argument. 2. you should be ready for constructing proofs that require the identity rules. Commutation. simply find some property such that one individual has that property and the other does not. 4 . (Mb· Sb) ~ a = b 9.3-5 Thus. strictly speaking. from (Fa· (H a v I a) . (Note. 4 Simp. numerical statements and definite descriptions) are often rather long formulas. and Assoc. Proofs Containing Identity Statements Constructing proofs for arguments containing identity statements is no different in principle from constructing any other kind of proof. Ga directly by Simp.P.2 I. (3x)(Mx· Sx· (y)«My· Sy) ~ x = y). 3 Simp. This may require a little practice and experience.) At this point. Similarly. Mb· Sb· (y)«My· Sy) ~ b = y)..

the conclusion is (3x)(Dx' Kjx). It is extremely important to remember in doing these proofs.12 E. Thus we could not have done this proof simply by instantiating both premises with the letter a.G. The strategy of working backward will be especially helpful in proofs involving identity.P. e. letters will always be). your proof will simply be wrong.376 Unit 20 Proofs Involving Identity 11. since we there have a formula with three disjuncts. the instance can be (Bc :) (c = a v c = b)). (3x)(3y)(Bx' By' x . We will do one more example of a rather long.. We will have to use V. proof involving identity. since the proofs do tend to get rather long. and for this we will need a letter other than a or b. and if we . (3x)(Dx' Kjx) M. but typical. explaining our strategy as we go along. 2. which could be either Da' Kja or Db· Kjb (or any other instance. our original instance. and this we will have to derive by c.9 I. You should carefully analyze your conclusion to see exactly what you will need and what means can be used to get it.6. Da obviously will come from Premise 1. Remember that for any occurrence of a universal quantifier in the conclusion you will need a flagged subproof. however. to derive the universal statement. for that matter). 1. Sub. and if a letter gets flagged within a subproof (as V.j: y' (z)(Bz :) (z = x v Z = Here. Do not be tempted in these proofs to take the shortcut of using the same letter for different existential premises. and it is easy to lose track of where you are going and what instance letter you will be needing. a = b 12. and Kja will obviously come from Premise 2. Kja 13. we will need as an instance (Ba' Bb· a .G. 4. a/x In this proof. since our conclusion is a doubly existentially quantified formula. that letter may not then appear outside that subproof. Presumably.. The most promising source for this latter formula is Premise 3. that you may not use the same instance letter for two different existential propositions. A letter may not be flagged if it has already appeared in the proof. Da'Kja 14. (x)(Ax :) Bx) (x)(Bx :) Cx) (x)(y)(z)«Cx' Cy' Cz) :) (x (3x)(3y)(Ax' Ay' x ..G. 3. 8.P. so we need an instance of that formula.. 13.j: y) =y vx = Z v y = z)) Pro Pro Pro Pro y))) J . We must use different instance letters and then derive the identity statement a = b so that we can infer Kja from KJb.j: b' (z)(Bz :) (z = a v Z = b)))..11 Conj. and remember also the three flagging restrictions. no flagged letter may occur in either the premises or the conclusion of a proof. 10.

8. V.S.P. it is fairly obvious. 20.Cz) :=l (a = y v a = Z v y = z)) (z)«Ca' Cb' Cz) :=l (a = b v a = Z v b = z)) E.20 Now. with the other two disjuncts. 23.P.) V. 16. and given Be it will be easy to get Ce. 18. 25.I. 9. b/x V.18.P.13 M.I. by D. II. 6 u.I.. 12.21. I Be Ce Cc Ca'Cb'Ce Bc:=l Assp.I. (V. b/y (flag b) u. b.? Given that we have Aa and Ab (by Simp. b/y Since we will be using V.19 Conj.S.Unit 20 Proofs Involving Identity 377 could get the negation of one. b/x M. we must set up a eflagged subproof before we do any instantiations using c. 19.G.I. a/x V. and we also will have a . (c. 8.I. 22.G. the instance (Be :=l (c = a v e = b)). 6.f.P. r flag e (Ca' Cb' Ce) :=l (a = b v a = e v b = e) F. 3. 1. 17.G. Having thought this through.P.17 M. a/x V.f. C/X M. 15. The rest of the proof is easy. a . We will assume Be. 11.24 .I. 14..I.I. so we can get (a = e v b = e) by D. y) Aa' Ab . 5.) V. 1.P. 24. Aa Ab Aa :=l Ba Ab :=l Bb Ba :=l Ca Bb :=l Cb Ba Ca Bb Cb Ca'Cb Simp.P.. from 6). 5. 10. a/x (flag a) E. we will be able to get the disjunction (a = b v a = e v b = e). 2. b (y)(z)«Ca' Cy. for C. 2. how can we get (Ca' Cb' Ce) so that we can derive the disjunction by M. 12. 21. and E. how do we get Ce..I. our last remaining conjunct? If we remember what we were aiming at.S. 22. we would be left. a/x V.. on the letter c in the end. 7. 4.f. (3y)(Aa' Ay' a . c/z Now.. 16. we can get Ca and Cb easily enough by using the appropriate instantiations from Premises 1 and 2. We will then just apply the appropriate versions of CP. 2. We can do this now and then complete the instantiation.23 Conj. 15.G. 13. we can begin our instantiations.14 M. 7.P.. 6 Simp.

b Finally. 2. we will first prove the two conditionals by C.G.) F. Fa 12.P. (x)(x = a :J Fx) 7. (C. 1.) I.12 B. M.G. these are simply formulas that can be proved without initially given premises. the technique for deriving negative identity statements. as well as two uses of u. (I. Sub. a = a:J Fa 10. Fa:J (x)(x = a :J Fx) 8.I-6 Assp.P. y' (z)(Bz :J (z = a v Z = y))) E. The following theorem requires this procedure. g.378 Unit 20 Proofs Involving Identity 26.) Assp.S.E.13 We have not yet demonstrated.27 Be :J (a = e v b = e) c.8-11 Conj. and then apply B.. 4 5: ~flag a IiIF r flag b ~(Fa :J Fb) a = b ~(~FavFb) F. 2.) F. 10.25 Simp. Since the form is a biconditional. 9. 30.P. (C.E.3--4 V.S.31 (3y)(Ba' By' a . cx)(x = a :J Fx) 9. Ref. b'(z)(Bz:J (z = av Z = b)) Conj.f:.f:. ciz Ba·Bb·a.P. 32. 30. f.19.P.f:.P. 1.S. we need to say a few words about proving theorems involving identity. y' (z)(Bz :J (z = x v z = y))) E. 1.. a = a 11. 3. 29. 33.7.17. 5. 28.f:. in an actual proof problem.G. b/x C.3 C.) C. (c.3 . An example of such a theorem is Fa == (x)(x = a :J Fx). (Fa:J (x)(x = a :J Fx))' «x)(x = a :J Fx) :J Fa) 14.1. a/x I.G. (V.f:. :: Fa ITflag b [J = a ~b:J b = Fb 6.G.S.P. Fa == (x)(x = a :J Fx) Assp.) Assp. (V.. (C.: (x)(y)( ~(Fx :J Fy) :J x . a/x = b V = U a evb = e a . Again. (x)(x = a :J Fx) :J Fa 13. 22-28 Be :J (e = a v e = b) I. 6 a = evb = e D. 9 M. 29 (z)(Bz:J (z = a v z = b)) V. 34. 3. so our first step must be an assumption. 8.G.26. 31.G.) V.P.P. 32.P. 33. (V. y). There are a few theorems for you to prove in the exercises.E.10 C.P. then join them by Conj.P. b/y (3x)(3y)(Bx' By' x . Sym.) Assp.G. 27.27.

1 When we reach the higher-order logics.G. 4.) IDENTITY SUBSTITUTION (I. This is a natural stopping place. SUB. <l>b 'These concepts were defined in Unit 9. 14.) P / . b (y)(~(Fa -::J Fy) -::J a =f:. branch into alternative logics. SUMMARY OF IDENTITY RULES IDENTITY REFLEXIVITY (I. 13. "* y) DeM. ~~Fa-~Fb 7.N.P. .10 I.. a/x At this point. b/y V. REF. 7 Conj. As we have indicated from time to time. 9. Section 7. 11.8 Simp. 12. You could go on from here to study the properties of first-order logic.P. such as those that deal with sets. we lose completeness (the systems are probably incomplete). y) (x)(y)(~(Fx =:J Fy) =:J x 15. In any case. Some of the extra credit units will give you a glimpse into these more advanced topics.~Fb a =f:. we have reached the end of our presentation of what is sometimes called first-order predicate logic. a = a a = b:: b = a a=b <l>a / .G. Fb. 7 I. 14. SYM.4-11 C. or begin the study of higher-order logics.. Sub. sometimes called meta logic. 3-12 V. because first-order predicate logic with identity is the last system in our series for which it is possible to prove consistency and completeness..Unit 20 Proofs Involving Identity 379 6. such as those that make use of a stronger "if-then" operator. b _~(Fa -::J Fb) -::J a =f:.6 Simp. and we can no longer prove consistency.. FaFa Pb ~Fb ~Fb 10. although we have good reason to believe that the systems are consistent.5 D. however.. 13. the logic that is usually covered in a first symbolic logic course.) IDENTITY SYMMETRY (I. this is by no means all there is to the study of logic. we will stop here and hope that you are motivated enough to continue with logic in more advanced courses. 8.9.

S. John is the only person who owns a Ferrari. Therefore. The sports car buff who owns a Maserati is unemployed. Smith is not John.380 Unit 20 Proofs Involving Identity EXERCISES * 1. One is commanderin-chief of the U. Therefore. John does not own a Ferrari. Fx. The person who owns a Volkswagen is Mr. armed forces. there are two people in my car. there is exactly one commander-in-chief of the U. The person who is illegally parked will be towed. Proofs are provided in the back of the book for starred exercises. So Mary is unemployed. j = John) *i. H xy == x has y. Bx == x is in the back seat of my car) [Note: You can use (Fx v Bx) for "x is in my car. The person in town who owns a Ferrari is a wealthy Mafioso. Fx == x owns a Ferrari. Fx. j. Cx == x is commander-in-chief of the U. (Px. (Px. (Px == x is a person. (Px == x is a pet. armed forces) h. s) *e.S. but he is a person who is not a Mafioso. Therefore. Mary is a sports car buff and owns a Maserati. There is exactly one current president of the United States. Mr. No one is in both the front seat and the back seat of my car. there are at least three members of the council. (C x == x is a council member. M x == x is a Mafioso. j = John) c. So Mr. Some council members who don't support the mayor are not in favor of lowering the city sales tax. but some are in favor of lowering the city sales tax. c) *f. Fx. Vx. Ix. There is someone who owns both a Ferrari and a Maserati. (Px. No Republican council member supports the mayor. There is one person in the back seat of my car. Capone. There is one person in the front seat of my car."] . The person who owns a Ferrari is John. All John's pets are Siamese cats. j. Symbolize and prove the following using only the abbreviations given. John has exactly one pet. Ex == x is employed. John is in town. Lx == x is in favor oflowering the city sales tax) g. a. (Px == x is current president of the United States. Tx == x is in town. Fx == x is in the front seat of my car. (Px == x is a person. Some council members support the mayor. Mx. (Bx == x is a sports car buff. armed forces if and only if one is the current president of the United States. m = Mary) *b. The person who owns a Ferrari is illegally parked.S. which is a Siamese cat. So someone who owns a Ferrari will be towed. No one who owns a Volkswagen owns a Ferrari. Answers are provided in the back of the book for all symbolizations. Smith. John has at least one pet and at most one Siamese cat. Capone is the only person who owns a Maserati. Mx == x owns a Maserati. Tx) d. Rx == x is a Republican. So John is Mr. Wx == x is wealthy. Therefore. Therefore. Sx == x is a Siamese cat. M x == x supports the mayor.

There are at least two pianists in the room. All the pianists in the room are composers. c. Anyone in the Garden of Eden who was tempted succumbed to temptation. Ga' ~Gb / = y). Aab v Aba (3x)(Ax' (y)(Ay ::) x = a). e.. e = Eve) k. Dx == x is a dog. (3x)(Ax' (y)(Ay ::) x = y). (Px == x is a person. (3x)(Fx' Gx' (y)«Fy' Gy)::) x = y». Prove the following theorems. there are at least two opera singers in the room. / . (x)«Fx' (3y)(Fy· x "* y» ::) (Axb v Abx». (3x)(3y)(3z)(Fx' Fy' Fz· x y' y z· x z). Rx == x is in the room. (3x)(3y)(3z)(Fx'FY'Fz'x"* y'y"* z·x"* z· (w)(Fw ::) (w = x v w = y v w = z» "* "* 3. a = Adam. Therefore.. (Px == x is a pianist. (3x)(3y)(Hx' Hy' x y) "* "* "* "* "* *e. Ab v Ac / . Construct proofs for each of the following. Ox == x is an opera singer) m. Exactly one of the composers in the room is a pianist. c. everyone in the Garden of Eden was kicked out. Px == x is a pianist. Rx == x is in the room. Fa == (3x)(Fx' x = a) == x = y) == (3x)(Fx' (y)(Fy == x = y» (x)(y)(z)«x = y' y = z) ::) x = z) (x)(y)(z)(w)«x = y' y = z· Z = w) ::) x = w) «3x)Fx' (x)(y)«Fx' Fy) ::) x = y» == (3x)(Fx' (y)(Fy ::) x = y» (3x)(y)(Fy . Fxy == x is faster than y) 2. Any composer in the room who is not a pianist is an opera singer. Tx == x was tempted. (3x)(3y)(3z)(Fx' Fy' Fz· x y' y z· x z). Therefore. a = bva =c x». (3z)(Bz' (w)(Bw ::) z Ba / . There are exactly three composers in the room. d. K x == x was kicked out of the Garden of Eden. There are at most two composers in the room. Ex == x was in the Garden of Eden. there are exactly two pianists in the room.Unit 20 Proofs Involving Identity 381 j. Cx == x is a composer) 1. Tx == x is on the track. (x)(~Gx::) Hx). and they were tempted.. (x)(Ax ::) x = a) = w)' z = d.. Sx == x succumbed to temptation. Therefore. Adam and Eve were the only people in the Garden of Eden... (Ax == x is an animal. *b. x . (x)(y)(z)(w)«Gx' Gy' Gz· Gw) ::) (x = y v x = z v x = w v y = Z v y = w v z = w»/ .(x)(Fx ::) Gx). (Cx == x is a composer. *b. any animal on the track that isn't a dog can be outrun by some dog. The fastest animal on the track is a dog.. Therefore.'. a.Fa' Fb. Anyone who succumbed to temptation was kicked out of the Garden of Eden.. *a.

.

2. and others make no sense at all. then all the following are also Wffs: (a) (stl· ~). (d) (stl == ~). and (e) ~stl. (b) (stl v ~). because it tells us exactly how to generate instances of the things we are trying to define. The definition of a well-formed formula is as follows and really only makes explicit what was said in Unit 2 about the way formulas are built up. We cannot really be sure about formulas like this unless we have a strict definition of what is to count as a meaningful formula.Part 4 Extra Credit Units UNIT 21 Well-formed Formulas for Sentential logic Some strings of symbols are obviously "good" formulas. 3. or generative. Notice that the 383 . For instance. or Wff. whether the following is a meaningful formula: ««A· A) ::J ~(B v e)) == «e v B) • B) v (F • G)))). It certainly isn't the sort of thing you would find in a dictionary. you would probably have a hard time determining. This definition may look rather odd to you. but it is very well suited for our purposes. a well-formed formula. but it is hard to tell whether everything fits together in the right way. Sometimes. RECURSIVE DEFINITION OF A WELL-FORMED FORMULA (WFF) l. It has no obvious defects. or. (Recursion clause) If stl and ~ are any Wffs. it is not so easy to tell at first glance whether a string of symbols is a proper. and ::J Be· . AA would be an example of the latter. (Base clause) Any statement constant is a Wff. however. without some figuring. definition. (c) (stl ::J ~). formula. This kind of definition is called a recursive. as we will say. «A· B) v e) would be an example of the former. or well-formed. (Closure clause) Nothing will count as a Wff unless it can be constructed according to clauses I and 2.

and a closure clause. nothing will be a Wff that cannot be constructed according to the first two clauses. which would be entirely useless. since we couldn't tell whether it was a disjunction. It then goes on to tell us how to build up more complex formulas out of those we already have. the outside parentheses are sometimes dropped for the sake of convenience. because the definition would then allow only the simplest sorts of formulas. Capital letters are supposed to be used only for sententially simple sentences. If we use parentheses at every point. this is called the recursion. "Given two statement . then we can construct others out of them. a recursion clause. and on the board. that is. It would not do to use the capitalletters in our definition of Wff. we are concerned only with strictly proper Wffs. this is because if we start out with something that is already a Wff." Let us look in more detail at each of the three clauses that make up our definition of Wff. note that for the four two-place operators (those that have two components) the formula must be enclosed in parentheses. rather than capital sentence letters. conjunction. since it tells us that there is nothing else that will count as one of our defined entities. those composed of only one or two sentence letters plus one operator.384 Unit 21 Well-formed Formulas for Sentential Logic definition first tells us how we get started. The third part "cuts off" the definition and is aptly termed the closure clause. If we built up formulas without parentheses. if a formula is not to be used as a component of another formula. Fortunately. that is. and so outside parentheses are necessary. which says "that's all. however. This is to ensure that no ambiguity arises when we go on to use a formula as a component of a larger formula. this part is aptly called the base clause.) Another thing that needs special mention is the use of script ("curly") letters in the definition. since these letters are supposed to stand for the simple sentences. formulas such as (A v B) :::J C. which says how to generate more of the entities. The base clause tells us that any statement constant is a Wff. which gives the starting points. or generative. Second. or what. no such ambiguity arises. (In practice. Our recursion clause would read. while script letters are higher-order variables that refer to any Wff. it will already be enclosed in parentheses and thus will not give rise to ambiguity. clause. from clause 1. in effect. we would have something like A vB· C == D :::J F. simple or complex. and we certainly want to consider simple sentences as proper parts of our symbolic language. then. Note first that it has the form of an "if-then" sentence: if certain formulas are Wffs. as formulas. this means you may often see in the book. since there is no ambiguity involved. Note also that negations do not require parentheses. if it is compound. which strictly speaking are not Wffs. we do have the statement constants to start with. Every recursive definition has these three parts: a base clause. This makes sense. but which do not give rise to any problems. We need to pay particular attention to the recursion clause. Here.

Unit 21 Well-formed Formulas for Sentential Logic 385 constants A and B. ~(~A) * 10. But how do we know that »AA v (B( is not a Wff? This is the function of the closure clause. A *2. and ~ A. the third clause." There would be no provision made for building up more complex formulas out of those that are already complex. ~~~~~~A *9. This ensures that given any two Wffs. the wedge. A v B *3. or some other symbol. however. that there is nothing that is a Wff except for what is contained in clauses 1 and 2. that is. The three clauses together. we must note that the definition here has been given in terms of statement constants and so is a definition of statement Wffs. the following are all Wffs: (A' B). Given the first two clauses of the definition. not just simple ones." The recursion and closure clauses remain the same. we know how to construct Wffs out of elementary components. is not a Wff. since nothing that cannot be constructed using only clauses 1 and 2 can be a Wff. «A B». A)) . it is not correct to combine sentence constants and variables in a single v p) :J (q' for instance. and the third tells us what things are not. it can be seen that there is no way to build up the above formula according to the first two clauses. formula. indicate why not. then. simple or complex. (Remember that statements are formulas that have constants as their smallest units. ~«A' B' C) v (B' C . Finally. «A' B)) *7. then. that is. (A == B). thereby closing off the definition. EXERCISES On the basis of the definition of Wff given in this unit. *5. give us a complete definition of a wellformed formula: the first two tell us what things are Wffs. «A' A) => A) *6. we can construct another by joining them with the dot. decide which of the following are Wffs. we are able to say what things are Wffs.) We could give an exactly parallel definition of Wff for statement forms simply by using the following base clause instead: "Any statement variable is a Wff. ~(A' B) * 1. Thus we need in our definition the more general script letters. (A :J B). By inspection. ABC *4. For those that are not. which can stand for any Wff at all. (A v B). The two types of formulas must be kept separate. (~~A' ~~B) *8. tells us that it is not a Wff.

(((A-B)::::> (B-C»::::> ((~C::::> (D::::> E»::::> F» *19. (A v (B v (C v D») *15. ~(~(A v B) ::::> ((B v C) == (~B . ~(A . ((((A::::> B) ::::> C) ::::> D) *14.386 Unit 21 Well-formed Formulas for Sentential Logic ~«A *11.C))) *16.B) v (((B::::> C) . (((~A::::> ~B) ::::> ((B v C» == (~B v C) v D» *18.F) (~(~A *20. ((A::::> B) == v B) ::::> (~B::::> C») . ~(~(~(~(A v B) v C) v D) v E) *17.A) ::::> (A v A» *13.(D v E» . ((A . v B) v (C v D» *12.

such as ~(A v B). follows. and we need only nine rules. and in these cases the proof branches. (Proof trees are actually sometimes called truth trees. For some formulas. and a proof consisted of a linear sequence of statements. A or B. if A v B is true. and the consequences are written below the formulas. we know only that one or the other of the formulas. Many of these nine rules are strongly analogous to the rules you already know or to the truth tables for the operators. which. In constructing proof trees. In the proof tree method we have a branching structure. so they are written linearly underneath the premise. you learned (or were supposed to have learned) some 20 rules. leading from the premises to the conclusion. rather than a linear sequence. both follow directly.) 387 . the conclusions. so they shouldn't be hard to learn. then either A is true or B is true. show us how to break down complex formulas into simpler components. such as A v B. rules are applied to compound formulas.UNIT 22 Proof Trees for Sentential Logic In doing proofs for sentential logic. in effect. For other formulas. in this case ~ A and ~ B. which looks like an upside-down tree. The branches represent alternative ways in which the premise could be true. with one formula to the left and one to the right.

is that one or the other of the conclusions is true. (A· B) A B b. this is because all we know. if the negated conditional is true. for instance. For each type of compound formula. (A:JB) ~A B I \ B) A d. ~(A v B) g. or ~ B and ~C are true. (A==B) A B B j \ ~A ~B e. ~(A· f. there is a rule saying how that formula breaks down. The set of rules is given below: ~A a. f. or ~ A and ~C are true. In g. ~(A:J h. ~~A A 1 Notice that for rules a. In rule c. if the premise is true. We then construct the proof tree for this set of formulas by applying the tree rules to compound formulas. In using the tree method to test arguments for validity. so that the conditional is false. then either the antecedent A is false. the conclusions branch. and the branching represents these alternative possibilities. breaking them down . 1 B) A I \ ~A (A v B) c. if the conditional is true. This is because both follow from the premise. or the consequent B is true. then the antecedent A is true and the consequent B is false.388 Unit 22 Proof Trees for Sentential Logic ~(A The compound formula down as follows: ~(A v B) v v C)) (~(B v C) v ~(A v C)) would break v B) v (~(B v C) v ~(A ~(AIB) ~A ~B /-----(~(B/V~C)) ~(B v C) ~(A v C) I ~B I ~A ~C ~C The three branches tell us that for the compound formula to be true. we first list the premises and the negation of the conclusion. so that ~ A is true. except for negated letters. For most of the other rules. either and ~ B are true. and g. so that ~ B is true. the two conclusions are listed one below the other in linear order. for instance. ~(A == B) j ~A ~B \ 1 1 j \ A ~B B ~A ~B ~B i.

2. Negation of conclusion ~q q I From 4. all the initial formulas can be made true if and only if at leas one branch in the tree remains open. 3. 9. by rule e From 1. branching downward. ~~q Premise Premise Premise / . . 5.'. which means any way to simultaneously make all thl premises and the negation of the conclusion true. and r. t.Unit 22 Proof Trees for Sentential Logic 389 one by one. Thus our initial formulas are the premis es and the negation of the conclusion. We explain below how it is possible to determine validity or invalidity b~ looking at the completed tree. ending. We draw a circled X beneath the branch as soon as the contradic tion appears. from left to right. is a branch of the tree. In the tree above. p ~ t q) v r ~(r v t) ~(p. by rule c / ~p lO. that is. then both conclusions are true in the non branching rules and at least one of the conclusions is true in the branching rules. ~j\ ® ® Each direct line. If both a formula and its neg a tion appear on a single branch. if at least one branch remain open. The tree method of testing for validity is analogous to the short truth table method we are really checking to see whether there is any possible way to have all the premise true with a false conclusion. 6. 8. then the argument is invalid. Unless contradictions appear on a branch. we continue breaking down formulas until we are left with just sentence letters or their negations at the bottom of the branch. 4. The result is a tree. It is important that all our rules are truth preserving in the sense that if the premise of the inference is true. ~(p. if the branch contains a contradiction. then the argument (or form) is valid. in which the branches represent all possible ways in which the formulas could be true simultaneously. then we sa: that the branch closes. in which case the branch closes. 7. by rule f ~t ~r} I /~v r q) ~® ~q From 3. so the above tree has fou branches. with ~ p. The argument above is invalid since the leftmost brancl remains open. 1. by rule b From 8. If all branches in : completed tree close. three of the four branches are closed. Because 0 the nature of the branching. ~q. We will first illustrate this method with an example and then explain how we can determine validity or invalidity from the tree. from top to bottom. by rule i From 2.

3. then it cannot be the case that all the initial formulas are true. by rule c 5 6. 6. then all the initial formulas-premises plus negation of conclusion--can be true. 7. then the negation of the conclusion must be false./ "'. (p v q) :::J r r :::J s ~(p :::J s) p } ~s Pro Pro / . so the argument is valid. by rule g From 2. If q is true and p. by rule c From 1.q) ~t r @ ~~(p. which means that (3) if the premises are true. any open branch will generate a counterexample: if you make the unnegated letters on that branch true and the negated letters false (if ~ p appears. ~(r v t). and ~(p • q) v r are all true.. which means that the argument (form) is invalid. 5.390 Unit 22 Proof Trees for Sentential Logic What does this mean for validity? Well. 8. 2. 1. which means that (2) it is impossible for the premises and the negation of the conclusion to be true. for instance. then the conclusion must be true as well. P :::J s Negation of conclusion From 3. 3. 9. 1. and t are all false. r. if a branch remains open.. the first valid and the second invalid. Two more examples are given below. and ~ t. 7. q. In the example above. by rule f @ This argument is valid since all branches close. you will have an instance with true premises and a false conclusion. ~ r. r :::J (t v w) ~(~p:::J t) ~p} Pro Pro /. by rule r 1\ t(tVWr~ /~ ~~(p. (5) if all branches close. 4. ~q. by rule c From 6. which means that it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Why can we conclude that the argument is valid if all branches close? (1) If all branches close. so that (4) the conclusion is true. make p false). by rule g From 2. on which we have ~ p. q) :::J r 2. ~p:::J t Negation of conclusion From 3. for instance. 4.. while the conclusion. 8. by rule c . then clearly p :::J t.s @ r I ~P} ~q @ From 7. is false. Thus. Indeed.". then if all the premises are true. the first branch is open.q) From 1. ~(p. ~(p /~ v q) ~r.

10. 2. (It doesn't matter where you begin.q ® :} p. for instance. when in fact all branches close. append its conclusions to every open branch that appears below it in some direct line.Unit 22 Proof Trees for Sentential Logic 391 9. not necessarily next to each other. at step 8. p. since this will make the resulting tree simpler. List premises and the negation of the conclusion. you must not append the conclusions from a particular formula to any branch on which that formula does not appear. Continue to break down formulas. When breaking down a formula. keeping in mind the following: a. you do not need to break down any remaining complex formulas in it. a contradiction need not be just a single letter and its negation. we write the conclusions from (t v w) only beneath that formula. close that branch by writing a large ® underneath it. This means that you must inspect the branches carefully to make sure that you have not overlooked any contradictions. the argument is invalid. which is on another branch. you need not do anything more to it. Pick one of the complex sentences and apply the appropriate rule of inference to break it down into its components. certain procedures must be observed or the tree will be incorrect. check it off. and g first. a compound formula and its negation also count as a contradiction. If a formula and also its negation appear on any branch. that is.q p q From 8. In constructing proof trees. you may think that an argument is invalid. in steps 6 and 7 we have two open branches. by rule i From 9. Also. but it is easier to begin with formulas that do not branch. (Do not cross lines. In our last example.) . you do not "leap" branches. does not close. otherwise. since that branch is closed. 3. you must not append any conclusions to a branch once that branch is closed. for instance.) Once you have used a formula. Once a branch is closed. if there is more than one open branch on a tree being constructed. In the example above. to apply your nonbranching rules a. and then go on to the ones that do branch. so that it is valid. It is best. b. it will not be used again. by rule a } ® Since the right-hand branch. that it has an open branch. which ends in r. 11. Note that. Note also that the two formulas that contradict one another may appear anywhere on a branch. However. do all of them. In the first place. so we do not append the conclusions from step 1 to the branch ending in t. although not essential. f. A summary of the method is as follows: 1. and not beneath ~ r. as in using the rule of Indirect Proof. then in applying a rule to a formula you must write the conclusion at the bottom of each open branch directly below that formula. so we write the conclusion from step 1 at the bottom of each of those open branches.

5. One disadvantage of this method is that the tree structures can get very large and complicated with complex arguments. 2. But it is an interesting method and one that has applications in the more advanced stages of logic. e. If some branch is left open after all formulas are broken down. Apply this method to Exercise 7 in Unit 9 (all of which are invalid). it is not a tautology (since there is a way for the negation to be true. h. 1*. 19*. for its negation to be true). 6. that is. k*. k. j. c. If every branch closes. 3. the formula is a tautology (there is no way for it to be false. then. . then the argument is invalid. that is. didn't we teach it to begin with? Mostly because it is really not the way we reason in ordinary discourse. this will give you some idea of whether you are doing them right. EXERCISES 1. 2a. Continue until either every branch closes or until all complex formulas on unclosed lines are broken down into single letters or their negations. for it to be false). Note: Answers will be supplied to only a few of these. But since all exercises in 1 are valid and all exercises in 2 and 3 are invalid (and thus should have an open line). we generally reason linearly and make use of the standard inference patterns you have learned. it is very easy and very fast. This method can also be used to show that formulas are tautologies: simply assume the negation of the formula and apply the rules. Ie. You can minimize this problem if you always do first the formulas that do not branch and if you are very neat and systematic. 3a. Apply this method to the exercises in Unit 5.392 Unit 22 Proof Trees for Sentential Logic 4. Once you catch on to this method. If*. c. 2b. if some branch remains open. 3d. since they require a lot of paper and space. Apply this method to the exercises in Unit 5. b. the argument is valid. If all branches close. 1. Why.

we draw three interlocking circles representing the three class terms." To test these arguments for validity using the method of Venn diagrams. so some intelligent people are conservative. An example of this sort of argument would be "All professors are intelligent people.UNIT 23 Using Venn Diagrams to Prove Validity In Unit 12." "intelligent people. the three terms are "professors. which will appear in the second premise and in the conclusion. let us stipulate that the two top circles will represent the subject term (on the left) and the predicate term (on the right) of the first premise. they must also meet one other very important requirement: they must contain only three class terms. This method can be extended to prove validity for a very limited set of arguments in predicate logic: those in which there are just two premises. you learned how to use Venn diagrams to symbolize the four kinds of categorical propositions. and some professors are conservative. The class terms for the above argument could be represented as follows: 393 ." Arguments of this sort are called categorical syllogisms. on one-variable predicate logic. The remaining term. but intersecting both of them. In the example cited. In addition to containing just categorical propositions." and "conservatives. To keep things uniform. will be drawn underneath these. for instance. both of which are categorical propositions. and in which the conclusion is a categorical proposition.

As we will explain below. and so on. regions 4 and 5. I but not C contains regions 2 and 3. then we can conclude that the X is in the other (by the rule of D. however.S. . and that of P and C. is that there is an X in one or the other. we draw in an X. It simply indicates that we do not know which region it falls into. we must shade out both regions 1 and 2. that of I and C. I. that that part of the class is empty. If we diagram "All P are C" (there are no P that are not C). Region 5 represents things that are P. It does not mean that there is something in both. What this means. Region 1 represents things that are P but not I or C. it is essential to remember. C Notice that the intersection between P and I contains the two regions 2 and 5. Similarly. we need to modify somewhat the procedure for showing existence. in fact. the part that is P but not I contains regions 1 and 4. things that are neither P nor I nor C. we will use the same procedure as in Unit 12: to show that there is nothing in a certain portion of the class. that is. which allows us to shade out one of those regions. and so on. and region 8. as indicated below.). and P but not C contains regions 1 and 2. and C. If our other premise is a universal proposition. what we will do in proving the argument below. and to show that there is something in a part of a class. regions 5 and 6. The three interlocking circles represent eight different regions. What happens if we want to say that there is some P that is C? We have two possibilities: it could be in either region 4 or region 5. we shade it out. What we will do is to draw X's in each section with a bar connecting them. This means that in diagramming the A proposition "All P are I" we must shade out both sections 1 and 4.394 Unit 23 Using Venn Diagrams to Prove Validity Professors (P) Intelligent people (I) Conservatives (C) In diagramming the sentences. This is. region 3. Region 2 represents things that are P and I but not C. things that are I but not P or C.

which says that some Pare C. if we combine the results of the two premises. with regions I and 4 (those that are P but not /) shaded out. which says that all P are I. but not in 1 and not in 4. Now. c The second premise is an I proposition. c . which indicates that there is something in either region 4 or 5 (not both).Unit 23 Using Venn Diagrams to Prove Validity 395 Let us now diagram the premises. If we were to diagram it separately. Since the first premise is an A proposition. which jointly tell us that there is something in either region 4 or 5. we get the following. which indicates that there is something in region 5. the result of the diagramming would be as follows. we would have the following result: c Here we have an X in both regions 4 and 5 joined by a bar.

all we need to do is look at the result and see whether the conclusion is "contained" in the diagram for the premises. we can read off the conclusion once we have diagrammed the premises. does follow from the premises. we shade out regions 2. and the argument is valid. The argument "No cats are dogs. Keep in mind that the X's joined by a bar indicate only that there is something in one or the other of the two regions. then. and no dogs are tigers. 5." This would be diagrammed as below. at this point. the conclusion cannot be seen from the diagramming of the premises. so we can read off from the diagram that some conservatives are intelligent. so no cats are tigers" is obviously invalid and can be shown to be so by the Venn diagram method. so the conclusion does not follow from the premises. For valid arguments. and 6. The conclusion. there is an X in the overlapping portion between conservatives and intelligent people. It might be useful. as indicated above. In this case it is. Cats Dogs Tigers In diagramming the two premises. on the other hand. so some doctors are lawyers. Doctors Wealthy people Lawyers . For invalid arguments. Another example of an invalid argument would be "Some doctors are wealthy and some lawyers are wealthy. to look at an example of an invalid argument.396 Unit 23 Using Venn Diagrams to Prove Validity At this point. but they are not. The conclusion would require that both regions 4 and 5 be shaded out. which is what the conclusion says.

EXERCISES Use the method of Venn diagrams to test the following syllogisms for validity. If they contain more than three terms. so no lawyer is a crook. negated categorical statements. so no nuclear plant should be funded by the government. *5. so some of the prosecuted will be shot. restate some of the premises or the conclusion so that there are only three terms in all. *2. so no nervous people have large savings accounts. such as "Not all lawyers are honest. Not all criminals are nervous." in which we seem to have the four terms." should be replaced by their equivalent forms. and some will be shot. Some students make good teachers. Some dogs have fleas. and all coffee drinkers are nervous. *4. so some political acts are crimes." and "crooks. and no unsafe thing should be funded by the government. and all good teachers go to heaven. It might be that the X' s are in 2 and 6. that is. so no coffee drinker has a large savings account. and all crooks are dishonest. *10. so we cannot conclude that there is one in 5. and some hijackings are political acts. All trespassers will be prosecuted. "lawyers. but we cannot conclude that there is an X in either one of these." If an argument cannot be reduced to three terms. so no dog makes a good pet. and no creature with fleas makes a good pet. and no lovers are happy. and no dishonest person is trustworthy. There are politicians who are dishonest. since all we know is that there is one in 2 or 5 and one in 5 or 6. No nuclear plant is safe. *7. and no coffee drinkers have large savings accounts. but all coffee drinkers are nervous. we would have to have an X in either region 4 or 5. it does not follow that there are doctors who are lawyers. so some students will go to heaven. All coffee drinkers are nervous." can be restated so that it has only three terms. *9. All hijackings are crimes. so some politician is untrustworthy. . that is. All we need to do is to replace the second premise with its equivalent form: "No crooks are honest." "dishonest people. in this case by "Some lawyers are dishonest. so some coffee drinkers are not criminals. Everybody loves a lover. No one with a large savings account is nervous.Unit 23 Using Venn Diagrams to Prove Validity 397 For the conclusion to follow from the premises." Similarly. for the argument to be valid. *8. it cannot be tested by Venn diagrams. *1." "honest people. so nobody loves a happy person. The argument "All lawyers are honest. *6. It should be pointed out that some arguments that seem to have more than three terms may tum out to have only three if the premises or conclusion are restated. *3.

) is almost identical to your earlier Q. rule.) is very much like the E. is basically just a matter of selecting a new letter to serve as the instance of the existential formula.N. and in this unit we explain how this is done.I. as with that rule. and. There are just three rules for the quantifier tree method. differing only in the fact that it is used on trees. as previously. but not for relational predicate logic. we presented the basic structure of tree proofs for sentential logic and noted that this method provides a decision procedure (mechanical means of determining validity) for sentential logic. should be done before applying the u.N.I. The rule of Existential Instantiation (E. As with linear proofs.. It can be stated as follows: Quantifier Negation (Q. The rule of E.UNIT 24 Proof Trees for Predicate Logic In Unit 22. check it off and write (3x)~<I>x at the bottom of that branch. We will discuss one-variable logic first. If a sentence of the form ~(3x)<I>x appears in an open branch. for trees may be stated as follows: 398 . and these correspond very closely to the quantifier rules you learned earlier for linear proofs.I. there is a decision procedure for one-variable predicate logic. rule in linear proofs. The tree method can be extended to predicate (quantifier) logic as well.I.I. E. after stating the rules and making some general observations about quantifier trees. check it off and write (x)~<I>x at the bottom of the branch. Quantifier Negation (Q.): If a sentence of the form ~(x)<I>x appears in an open branch. rule.N. We will then discuss the more complex area of relational predicate logic.

if all branches close. Pro I.I. using either the instance letter obtained from E.I..I. (x)(Fx ~ ~Gx) Pr. 8. pick any letter. use the Q. (2) apply the Q. step.3) (E.I. Note that none of the quantifier rules branch. The U. (3) Apply any nonbranching sentential rules. a. 1. that has not been used anywhere in that branch and write <l>a at the bot- 399 tom of the branch. by writing down the premises and the negation of the conclusion. So. An example of a tree proof for a fairly simple valid argument is below. check off that formula. As in sentential logic. rule to get an instance of the quantifier formula.. it is important that you do the E.. if applicable. for some a. If not. say. the argument is invalid.) is also similar to the D.I. Do not check off the sentence (x)<l>x. of concl. a. rule for linear proofs. If there is an existential statement. if no instance letter has yet appeared. step before the U.4) ~ ~Fx) ~(3x)(Tx' ~Gx) ~(x)(Tx ~ ~Fx) (x) ~ (Tx' ~Gx) (3x) ~ (Tx ~ ~Fx) ~(Ta ~ ~Fa) 7. say.I. When this has been done for every open branch on which the formula (3x)<l>x occurs. pick an instance letter. rules again. (6) Apply the appropriate sentential rules.I. you begin.N.I. or any new letter. 1) (U. except that in tree proofs you must write down the instances for every instance letter already occurring on a branch.I.. (5) Apply the U.I. and if there is an open branch after everything has been done.. As in sentential logic. a.I.N.): Given an unchecked sentence of the form (3x)<l>x that occurs on an open branch./. the argument is valid. write the sentence <l>a at the bottom of that branch for every instance letter a that appears in that branch (unless <l>a already occurs in that branch).): Given an open branch in which the sentence (x)<l>x appears.) The rule of Universal Instantiation (U. (1) In constructing a quantifier tree proof.) (Q.N. 2.N. and. rules if applicable.I.5) (U. (x)(Tx (neg. (4) Apply the E. rule to the universal formulas. Genera/Instructions for Constructing Quantifier Trees. 4. 5. rule can be stated as follows: Universal Instantiation (u.Unit 24 Proof Trees for Predicate Logic Existential Instantiation (E. you should always apply first the rules that do not branch. If no instance letter occurs in that branch. (Note that you may use different instance letters on different branches. look over the branch to see whether it contains a sentence of the form <l>a. 6. Fa ~ ~Ga ~(Ta' ~Ga) . and write <l>a at the bottom ofthe branch.". as always. This considerably simplifies the tree and makes it less likely that you will make errors. 3.2) (Q.

Ta ~ ~Fa } (from 6) 10. which is also valid. ~(3x)(Ax' Tx) (neg.. 12.. A slightly more complex argument. the argument is valid. 3. Bx) • ~Cx) • ~ Bx) (x)(Cx :J ~(Sx v Tx» ~~(3x)(Ax' Tx) (3x)(Ax'Tx) (x) ~ «Ax' Bx) • ~Cx) (x) ~ (Ax' ~Bx) Aa'Ta ~(3x)(Ax ~(3x)«Ax' 7. 16. ~Fa /~ ~Ta ~Ga (from 7) (from 8) ® ® /~ ® ~~Ga Since all branches close.. follows: b.5) (from 8) Aa} Ta ~«Aa • Ba) • ~Ca) ~(Aa' ~Ba) Ca :J ~(Sa v Ta) (V. It is also possible to use the tree method on truth functionally compound statements.400 Unit 24 Proof Trees for Predicate Logic 9. 11.I.7) (V.N. 11. 1) (Q.. 4.) (from 4) (Q. of concl. An example of such a problem is the following: . 6.·.I. -'~a ~ ~Ca ~(Aa' ~~ Ba) (from 10) (from 14) ~(Sa v Ta) (from 12) ® ~Sa ~Ta ® The two problems above are both pure quantifier arguments. Pro Pro Pro I. 13.2) (E.I. in which premises and conclusion are all quantifier statements or their negations. 10. 2.N. 5.6) (V. 9.I. 1.. 15.3) i Aa -------® ~ ~ Ba Ba ~~Ca (from 11) 14.. 8.

". 5) ~(x)Fx ~(3x)Gx } (3x) ~ Fx (x) ~ Gx ~Fa Ha ~Ha ~ Fa) Fa / ~ :i: 14. (3x) ~ Sx (neg. 7.) .7) (V. there may be trees that go on infinitely.I. 5..) (Q. the process eventually comes to an end. as before.N. there is a decision procedure for one-variable predicate logic. 11..I.. the argument is valid. 16. and then.I. this argument is valid because all branches close. 1. we may conclude that the argument is invalid. 8..I. The reason there is a decision procedure for one-variable logic and not for relational predicate logic is that in constructing trees for one-variable logic. 4.N. / ~ 0 ~«3X7~bGX) ~Gb 0 15.Unit 24 Proof Trees for Predicate Logic 401 c. of concl. The tree method for onevariable logic gives us a simple decision procedure. 17.I. in which the tree construction process cannot come to an end. ~(3x)~Hx (x)~~Hx ~~Ha ~(x)Sx I (3x)~Sx / 0 ~Sb ~~Sb I 0 Again. 12) (V.I.2) (from 10) (from 3) (E. ~«x)Fx v (3x)Gx) Fx) Sx (x)(Hx ~ «3x)~Hx' (x)Sx) ~ (3x)Gx ~(3x) ~ (x)~~Sx Pro Pro Pro J.6) (E. rather than relational predicate logic.4) (from 1) (Q. The three problems we have just seen are in one-variable predicate logic.6) (Q. If at that point there is an open branch... (In relational predicate logic.. and if there is an open branch once we have applied all the rules. As we saw earlier. 16) (U. The tree is constructed. by contrast.. 3.... 10. 8) (from 12) (Q.N. mechanical test to tell us whether the argument is valid or invalid. 9. 6.N. 15) (V. 18. 16) (E. 2. We will finally come to the point in our tree where there is nothing else we can do. if all branches close. 19. the argument is invalid. which means that there is a finite.I.

We let the domain be the set of instance letters that appear on the open .N. 7.I. here (twice. 4.:} 8. Since we have already instantiated u..l.. we can conclude that the argument is invalid. -!!} (Fa v Ga) ::J Aa (Fb v Gb) ::J Ab 9. We also make negated formulas.402 Unit 24 Proof Trees for Predicate Logic In the argument below. 4. v Gb) Ab ® ~Fb} ~Gb ~p!0 It is an interesting feature of the tree method for one-variable logic that an open branch on a completed tree defines a counterexample. 1) (V. d.I. rule indicates that we pick a new letter for V. 5. we have an open branch ending in ~Gb. 12. 3. we do not do it again. is made false.. 1) (from 9) (from 11) (from lO) (from 13) / \ ~(Fb 13. and at that point there is nothing else we can do with the tree. we consider all the simple sentences or their negations that appear on the open branch and then make the unnegated formulas.I. only if no instance letter has yet appeared in the proof. 1. (This is exactly analogous to the procedure for sentential logic.3) (E. 6. and since we have an open branch.2) (E. in fact).) We can then use the model universe method to show that the argument is invalid. true so that the simple portion. and a careful reading of the u. To get the counterexample. because we have already applied it to all the existing instance letters in the tree. new letter required) (from 5) (from 6) . (x)(Bx ::J Ax) (neg. 11. just as in sentential logic. of concl. 14.. 2. (x)«Fx v Gx) ::J Ax) (3x)(Fx . -(F=i: Gal /~ (V.. again..Bx) ~(x)(Bx ::J Ax) (3x) ~ (Bx::J Ax) Fa-Ba ~(Bb ::J Ab) Pro Pro / . such as Fa. true. We cannot apply V. lO.l.l. Thus there is nothing else we can do.I. for example.) (Q.l. such as ~Gb. Gb.

. A rather simple example of an invalid argument involving truth-functional compounds is below. 12. 5.'. In problem d above. and Gb false. it is clear that we have true premises and a false conclusion. 3. 4.I. ~ (x)Fx (x)Gx Ga 0 (3x) ~ I ~ Fx ~ /~ Gb Fb Gb:J Hb Hb (Q. (x)Fx:J (x)Gx (x)(Gx :J Hx) ~(x)(Fx :J Hx) (3x) ~ (Fx :J Hx) ~(Fa :J Ha) Pro Pro I. changing universal statements to conjunctions of the instances and existential statements to disjunctions of the instances. 8.. and the interpretation of premises and conclusion in this domain is as follows: T F F T F «Fa v Ga) :J Aa)· «Fb v Gb) :J Ab) T T F T T T T F (Fa· Ba) v (Fb· Bb) I.4) 6. e. b}...'. and Bb true. With truth values assigned in this way. 10. (x)(Fx :J H x) (neg.N. it is always a good idea to check that the open branch does generate a counterexample.. then you have made an error in constructing the tree.I. 7. such as Fa and Gb. Aa.I.N. We then assign the appropriate truth values to the simple statements. 2.. ~ pa} ~Ha I (from 5) (V.. 1. If it doesn't. we have as a domain {a. of concl.9) 9.) (Q.2) / Ga /~ __________ 0 Ga:J Ha Ha (from 7) (from 1) (V.3) (E. 11) (V. along with the demonstration that the open branch yields a counterexample. and obtain our counterexample.I.I. 11.Unit 24 Proof Trees for Predicate Logic 403 branch and interpret the quantifier formulas within that domain as before. 13.9) (E.2) CoEe3>C~~ (from 13) . Fb. 14. while making Ab. for example. which gives us our counterexample. If you have a tree with an open branch. (Ba :J Aa)· (Bb :J Ab) We now make Fa. Ba.

(3x)(Hx' Pro (neg. eventually all branches will close. and here you can follow much the same procedure as in linear proofs. for instance. If you can find the right instance to work on. and Gb give us a counterexample if Hb is true. If you apply the rules correctly. but you do not always have to apply all the sentential rules. since this will branch to ~ Fa and Ga. you can avoid needless work.) (Q. ~ Oa 0 /~ ~ (x) ~ (Hx' ~Rx) Oa Oa :J (y)(Ry :J ~ Lay) Oa :J (3y)(Hy' Lay) (y)(Ry :J ~ Pro Pro I. Ha. An example of a tree for a valid argument is below. In relational logic. 1) (V. since we have two open branches. 2. and then select branching rules in such a way that branches close as soon as possible. except more complex. (Ga :J Ha)' (Gb :J Hb) T F F T I . the branches close without all the sentential formulas being broken down. Then. and Fb false. we must make Fa true and Ha. T F F F F T (Fa' Fb) :J (Ga' Gb). 8. as always.. and the left branch will then close off. The following verifies that these truth value assignments to Fa. (x)(Ox :J (y)(Ry :J ~ Lxy» (x)(Ox :J (3y)(Hy' Lxy» (3x)Ox ~(3x)(Hx' ~Rx) 6... to get a counterexample. b}. You do have to be careful about selecting letters for instantiation. of concl. note that although all the instantiations have been made. 3.I. Oa 0 / --------- (3y)(HY'Lay) . trees for valid arguments are very much like those for one-variable logic. 9. You will need to instantiate every letter that appears. whatever the truth value of Gb. 7. Ga. f.2) (from 7) (from 8) ~Rx) Lay) 10..N. If Fa appears on a branch. we can either make Gb false (to get a counterexample from the left branch) or make Hb true (to get a counterexample from the right branch). (Fa :J Ha)' (Fb :J Hb) Having seen examples of both valid and invalid arguments in one-variable logic.I. 5.4) (E. You should apply the nonbranching rules first.404 Unit 24 Proof Trees for Predicate Logic Here. The domain is again {a. we now tum to relational predicate logic. 1. and also Fa :J Ga.I.3) (V..'. Ga. it is sensible to apply the branching rule to Fa :J Ga.. 4.

10. g. An example of this sort is worked out next...I. 1. .2) (U. it goes on indefinitely.N.3) (3y) ~ (Fa::) Gay) (Q. 9. Hb'Lab (E.I. 12.. and so on..I) (U. which then need still more instance letters. new letter)1 I (U. 6..2) Fa::) (3y)Gay (U. ~(3x)(y)(Fx (x)(Fx ::) (3y)Gxy) /..) (x) ~ (y)(Fx ::) Gxy) (Q. ad infinitum. 1) INote that we now have two new letters. it may happen that new letters are picked for the existentials.I.I. (3x)(y)(Fx ::) Gxy) ::) Gxy) (neg. but we never had to use the sentential rules on them. 16. of concl.. and then all the universal formulas must be instantiated to those new letters. since the argument is invalid.I.I.6) Fa} 8. 15. 9. 17. in turn. 18. 2. so we now need to go back to steps I and 3 and instantiate them..I.I) ~(y)(Fa ::) Gay) (U.N..Unit 24 Proof Trees for Predicate Logic 405 11. but the tree is never finished.5) (U. These instantiations.". 10) (from 11) Hb} Lab ~(Hb' ~Rb / 13. 14. may yield new existential formulas..I.I. Not all branches will close. Ob ::) (y)(Ry ::) ~ Lby) Ob ::) (3y)(Hy • Lby) Rb::) ~Lab ~Hb (U. 7. Invalid arguments in relational predicate logic present an interesting situation. band c. When there is a combination of universal and existential quantifiers. ~Fa ~Gab (from 7) (3y)Gay Gac Fb ::) (3y)Gby /~ o (from 4) (E.I.9) (from 13) (from 16) 1-----~Rb 0 /\ ~~Rb) ~Lab 0 0 Note that at steps 14 and 15 we instantiated the universal formulas to the letter b as required. 3. 11. 4. 5..5) ~(Fa ::) Gab) (E..

Thus this is an infinite tree that will never close.N. 17. Once we do this.I.!.I. it makes sense to generalize some of the rules when you are doing identity proofs to keep the trees from getting too unwieldy. since everything is equal to itself.N. We are not justified in concluding either that it is valid or invalid. we get new existential statements that would require other new letters.I. 15) (E.) At this point. 14) (E. ad infinitum.I. The first rule is that a statement of the form a a always allows you to close a branch. a = b. This illustrates the fact that there is no decision procedure for relational logic. which would give us new existentials. This is because a a is a contradiction in itself.. You just need to learn your identity rules and apply them as you do the other rules. and so on.. 16) Now we have still other letters. we have no decision for this problem about validity. which would then give us more universal instances. for example. that if you have an identity statement. that is. we will never be able to conclude that it is invalid.. We also cannot conclude that it is valid... 3) (Q. and also the statement </>a. d and e. Rule / or =: If an open branch contains a formula a = b or b = a and also the formula <l>a.3) (V. since we can do that only when we have an open branch after everything has been done. close that branch. write <l>b at the bottom of that branch (unless <l>b already appears on that branch. 15. Since we will never be able to do everything in this proof.. Identity proofs present nothing new in principle. 14. If you have a conjunction with 10 conjuncts. * * Rule/or *: If a * a occurs on any branch. for which we would have to instantiate steps 1 and 3. Your second identity rule is very much like the Identity Replacement Rule for linear proofs and says. 13. 1) (V.406 Unit 24 Proof Trees for Predicate Logic 12. which would give us more instances from the universal formulas. you may just write them down one below the other in one step. then you may infer the statement </>b. where a is any instance letter. ~(y)(Fb => (3y)Gey => Gby) ~(y)(Fe => Gey) (3y) ~ (Fb => Gby) (3y) ~ (Fe => Gey) ~(Fb => Gbd) ~(Fe => Gee) Fe (V. An example of a valid argument containing identity statements follows: .13) (Q. 16.. We cannot literally infer that the problem is invalid. essentially. 18. The rules are stated more formally below.

Hxy» Fa . 14.I. 1) 6. you can also prove theorems using the tree method. (Id. Pb-Vb-(y)«Py-Vy)::J b Pb Vb (y)«Py .I. 6. as in sententiallogic. 2.N.. it means that there is no way for the negation of the formula to come out true...I.2) (E..I. of concl. 3.4. s :f:. You simply assume the negation of what is to be proved as a theorem and then construct the tree.Vy) ::J b = y) = y)-b = s (E..y~ /~ ~Vb (U.3) (from 9) (from 10) .. 8. of cone1.(y)(Gy::J Hxy»::J (y)(Gy::J (3x)(Fx .6) (Id. 3. 12.8. @ @ a=s a = b Fb @ 13. there is no way the formula itself can come outfalse. If all branches close.Hxb» (Q. 1.I. 5. 4.j (neg.2) (E.Fx .Vb) ~ Fb 11.(y)(Gy ::J Hay) ~(Gb ::J (3x)(Fx ..Unit 24 Proof Trees for Predicate Logic 407 h.. ~(Pb ~Pb ::. Prove: (3x)(Fx .) 2.(y)(Gy ::J Hxy» ::J (y)(Gy ::J (3x)(Fx . ~«3x)(Fx ..(y)(Gy ::J Hxy» ~(y)(Gy ::J (3x)(Fx .Hxy» 1.12) (ld. = y) (from 5) a=j 7.Fy) ::J x = y) .13) Note that. 3) .) (E.(y)«Py .x = s) (x)«Px-Vx)::J ~Fx) s = j Pa-Fa-(y)«Py-Fy)::J a = y)-a = j Pa Fa (y)«Py . 5.Hxy») (neg. 4.V x.Hxy» } (from 1) (3y) ~ (Gy ::J (3x)(Fx . (3x)(Fx .Vy) ::J x = y) . An example of a tree proof for a theorem in relational logic follows: i. 10. Thus the formula is a theorem..x = j) (3x)(Px .Fy) ::J a Pro Pro Pro t:.2) (from 7) b = s 9. in other words.(y)«Py. (3x)(Px .

Select some invalid arguments from Unit 16 and construct trees for them. 5. and then demonstrate that it is a counterexample using the model universe method.6) 12. 8. 4. Derive the counterexample from the open branch. all branches should close. Construct trees for some of the invalid arguments in Unit 18.N.408 Unit 24 Proof Trees for Predicate Logic 6. 9. In these cases. 11. Here you should have at least one open branch if you have constructed the tree properly. . Select arguments from Unit 15 that you know will be valid and construct trees for them..I. 7. Construct trees for some of the valid arguments in Unit 18. 2. you have made an error. (from 11) 0 EXERCISES 1. Construct trees for some of the valid arguments in Unit 20. 7) (from 8) Gb ~(3x)(Fx' Hxb) (Fx' Hxb) ~(Fa' Hab) ~(Fb' Hbb) (x) ~ ~Fa 10.. 3. Fa } (y)(Gy:J Hay) (from 4) } (from 5) (Q. If they do not. 0 / -----~Gb ~Hab (from 9) /~ Ga:J Haa Gb:J Hab Hab 0 (U.

g. Premise: I accidentally emailed an insulting joke about the boss to everyone in the office. 1. Mary hit a home run. Some people can survive for a long time on junk food. (1) a. q. Human beings will be mutated. Compound. 2. John will have a heart attack. Valid g. It definitely wasn't caused by lightning. Invalid g. o. Not an argument. Invalid h. Invalid j. John will get cancer. Invalid i. That crocodile is a maneater. Compound. a. Compound. Inductive argument. Premises: Crocodiles are reptiles. Simple k. Compound. Invalid b. Mike will have to clean up the kitchen after dinner. John will have to clean up the kitchen after dinner. Compound. Invalid f. Valid e. Human beings will die out. g. Mary quits teasing John. There is an atomic war. Invalid d.Answers to Starred Exercises Unit 1 Not an argument. Premises: The forest fire could only have been caused by arson or lightning. Valid f. Not an argument. c. Unit 2 1. Deductive argument. Conclusion: Some reptiles are man-eaters. Invalid (2) a. Deductive argument. c. Valid b. Invalid h. o. Valid e. e. 409 . Invalid 1. m. Compound. Invalid c. John will lose weight. k. Not an argument. Conclusion: The forest fire was caused by arson. a. Valid c. i. Invalid 1. Mary hit a triple. Simple e. Valid j. Simple m. Valid d. John stops eating fatty beef. Not an argument. Conclusion: I probably won't get that big raise I was expecting.

g. Yes. H == High-speed trains are developed. Since A and B are true. the truth value of (A' G) and (B. a. we can't compute the value of (A • G) or ~(A • G). Since A is true. g. but "(1) after (2)" is true.) No. A v G is true. T g. ~(A v B). F 3. Someone likes John. but "It is logically necessary that (I)" is true. a. Let (1) be "Kennedy was assassinated" and (2) be "Lincoln was assassinated. Since A is true but we don't know the value of G. a. c." Both sentences are true. Yes. If H is true. F c. No. must be symbolized with a single letter. Not truth functional. c. H) would depend on G and H. F s. 2. e. ~ M c. no matter what the values of Hand G. c. so the negated disjunction. c. S == Mary is the smartest girl in her class. which we are not given." Both sentences are true. g. Second horseshoe m. A == B is true since both A and B are true. whereas "It is logically necessary that (2)" is false. e. ~ A • S e. Let (I) be "I + I = 2" and (2) be "Clinton was elected in 1992. o. is false) T (since the antecedent. M == Humans are descended from monkeys. must be true. is false) T m. Compound. F q. is false) T (since one disjunct. Triple bar (biconditional) k. It must be true. 2. Dot Wedge First horseshoe First horseshoe Unit 3 l. is false. 4. 1. ~ ~ A. is true) T (since the antecedent. e. so (H == G) :J (A == B) is true because the consequent is true. Dot (conjunction) i. T (because the antecedent is false. T i. F k. ~ (X v ~ Y). so ~(A v G) is false. Wedge (disjunction) o.410 Answers to Starred Exercises s. a. then G :J H. a. the consequent. . so there cannot be a true antecedent with a false consequent. e. whereas "(2) after (1)" is false. A == Mary is the most athletic girl in her class. Yes. g. i. ~ A. which is the antecedent. a. T T F (because one conjunct. the disjunction is true. Unit4 l. Since A is true.

J == John is married. Sufficient. (Not sufficient. 1. must be symbolized with a single letter. J == John thinks that Mary married the wrong person. since "Joe" might be the name of a woman. 0::::> v M) ~E) k. ::::> ~ J or J ::::> H or H v M) or (~J v ~M) ~O ~(J ~J g. M == 4. or V::::> S m. c. c. M == Mary will bring a pie to the picnic. (T v J). ~(J. Not necessary. M) or J) 2. since he might buy gas for a boat or a lawnmower. Both. T::::> T::::> (~Jv~M) s. ~S ::::> ~V. 1. k. (Not sufficient. c. ~J a. (G == ~(D ::::> ((S v R) ::::> ~G) or ((S v R) ::::> v E)) ::::> ((S v R)· ~W) ~T) v (W • ~ D) (D· E) ::::> (M . (J • M)· ~ E o. g. or someone else might buy his gas. ~(D ~M v E) ::::> G or (~D· ::::> ~(D· ::::> G ~G) E) or (D • E) ::::> M e. S == John needs the space. M == Mary knows she married the right person. 3. ~(W· ~ D) g. J == John will bring the dessert. 411 1.) d. Neither. V == John drives his van. Sufficient. e. (~F ::::> ~ H) Not truth functional. since he might have a diesel engine. Necessary. Necessary. (L·W)::::> i. (J • M) q. ~(T· ~(J. b. Neither. T == Ted is going to bring a birthday cake. Necessary.) f.) e. T == Ted will bring the dessert. J == John will bring a pie to the picnic. h. J::::>Wor~W::::>~J ~H j. . a. Sufficient. M == Mary is married. a.Answers to Starred Exercises F == There are financial incentives. E == John and Mary are married to each other. one does not pay income taxes. (Not sufficient. Necessary. since if one's income is too low.

i. Invalid (first row) F T F ffi. F = F. W ::J (F v H). (K ::J W) (N ::J C) c. Invalid (fourth row) 2. (T ::J F) (F ::J 0 ::J ~E / :. s = F. x = F. ~ W ::J ~(R P). w = F. B ::J (R == W) /:. c. f. ~V ::J (D ::J T). «JoD)::J (HoA))o(~G::J ~J) UnitS Study Question 7: a. F d. R ::J (E C) 0 c. E ::J A Invalid (G == D)o(D::J (ToJ)). Invalid (third row) o. ~(R v I) ::J ~(B U) g. t = T) ~G). ~ D ::J «T R) ~ E) i. r = T.. ~E Invalid: let E c. g. and s = F) Invalid (letp = T. (~B (K v(N v U)))::J (~F (W v C)) i. f. (D::J E) (D::J 0 (~G 0 T)) ffi. Invalid (second row) Valid 1. (D v W) ::J S. z = F. B == (P ~(N v U)) e. g. (R v U) 0 0 ~(R 0 U) 0 e. t = F. q = F. c. a. e. ~F::J ~M Invalid ffi. 1. k. H ::J ~F/:. D::J F. E ::J W / . a. e. F e. Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid d. e. 3. Invalid (p = T. b. (D::J ~(T v R)) (~D ::J (T R)) 0 0 0 0 k. (R::J P) (P::J D). Valid Invalid (where p = F. M::J G/:. Valid Valid k. a. Valid i. f. (H ::J E) (E ::J ~ W). Valid s = T. c. r = T. and T = F. F c. a. 0 = T. ~R Invalid C ::J (W ~(D 0 ~(H 0 E) ::J G. (T ~ R) ::J (D E) g. b. R ::J ~H Valid 0 v R)). E ::J 0 0 0 0 . ~G 4.412 Answers to Starred Exercises 5. Valid Valid h. G Valid (A ::J L) (L == S). d. a. ~(C B) Valid ~(T v L). r = T) g. G = T. ~(FvV)::J ~J. (P B) ::J (~(N v U) ::J ~(W C)) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. ~V /:.. F Valid g. (F::J D) (D::J ~W)/:. a.

M)) Tautologous e. c. g. D. Contradiction e. 1. f (5) b. e. M. Tautology g. Tautology k. e. c. Tautology 1. The following pairs are logically equivalent: a. (1) M => ~G (2) G v M Not equivalent. true if A = T.P. W = F c.e (6) a. (1) (F v ~ F) :J R (2) R The two forms are logically equivalent. Tautology e. (F v ~ F) :J S Contingent M) v (F· (~J v ~ M))) v (~F· ~(J. f. M. (1) J :J (S· ~T)(2) J => ~ M (3) M :J (~T· S) Consistent Unit 7 1.c. r. k. D. The following are instances of the given form. p. 8. g. M. (1) W:J A (2) W:J ~A (3)A (4) ~W Consistent. (1) a. a. c. y . a.S. (1) (1 :J S) :J ~S (2) ~J Neither implies the other.T. c.P. a. (all T in fourth row) d. f.f (2) a. c. g. Tautology c.P. m. Contingent 3. Contradiction c. f. k. «(1.f 2. Tautology 1. M. M. e (4) a. (~R :J P)· (R :J ~ P) Contingent c. (all T in last row) 6.f (3) b.S. Conj. => R)· ( ~ J :J R) Contingent ~T)· «E :J (E :J S))· (S :J T) Contingent 7. g. 3. h. h.b.d. e. (1 1. g.b. The following are correct applications: a. a. (1) J :J (T :J S) (2) ~S :J (T :J ~J) Logically equivalent. Can't tell. Both The following sets are consistent: a.e. could be anything. Di1. d. b. j 4. I logically implies 2. d. 0. Tautology 2. a. b. 5.T. a. a. i. (all T in second row) e.d.Answers to Starred Exercises 413 Unit 6 1. but I logically implies 2. s. Both (both are contradictions) e. Contingent k. (all T in third row) c.

10 Conj. 20. 10. 6 D. 2. 3. 5 Simp. 11. H. 3 Add. Simp.8 Add.5 13. 19.P.P. 7 M. 3 M.ll Conj. c. 4. 11. 14. 6. 11.P. 9 14.4. ~(A v~B) 8. M. 15. 9. 6 8. 4.12 d. Simp.14 M. 3 Simp. 10. 13. 1 Add.S. 9. 5. 7 M. 10. o. 17. Simp.9 M.P. Simp.S.P. 6.P. 4.11 M. 14. 4. 16. 2.T. 12.19 5. M. 11 i. 4. Simp. 5. 5. 12. Simp.5 Simp.T.T. 16. 3 Simp. (D v~F)v(~D v F) (A :) B) :) (A :) (A :) B» (E:) ~F) :) (~F :) E) ~F :) (A == ~F) ((A' B) :) (B v C» :) (A :) (B v C» (~B v ~C):) ~A .18 Conj. b.7 M. 2.20 5. 21. H. 3 7.S.11 Simp. 6. 7. 9 D.S.P.P. 7.5 Simp. I. 9.18 M. Simp.8 D. 1. e.15. 3 D. 19.2.414 Answers to Starred Exercises d. 6. 15.17 M. a. 5. 20. 14. 18. (A:) D) vC 7. H. 7. 9. 10 M. Simp.6. 3 D.S. 12.S.6 M. 15.P. Add. 1. 8. 8. Simp. a. (D :) (D :) F» :) (D :) F) 10. 7.19 M. 12. 6 Simp. 17.P.4. 6. 5.P.S. 2.10 Add.8 M.T. n. Add.P. 1 6. 7 M. 5 Simp.T.16 Add. 1. 15. M. 18. 4. 7 11. 13.17. 13. ~Av~B (E:) A) :) D ~~(A v B) G:)R ~(B == C) ~(~D'F) 6. 3 9. 6. Add. b.S. 6 10. 3.8 Add. 10. ~~(A v (B :) ~C» 9.P.P.16 M. 8. 2. j. 1.9 12. M.

~A ::J ~B 4. ~B::J~C 4.2 M. F::JC 4. Pr. ~(~B v C)::J (~B v C) 3.S.6 Pr. 1. 1. (T· S) ::J (A ::J B) 3. ~(C v (A vC» ~(~A M. ~C c. ~(~(C v ~D) v ~C) S.1. (A v B) ::J ~C 5.P. Pro Pro J:.P. Pr. H. 4. Dil. Pr. 1.S. 9.6 Pr.P. AvB ~A 3. H. (Bv ~C) v (~A v (C v ~B» 7. S.S. 1. ~D e. 3. 2. B::JA 3. ~B S. D. c. Pr. 4. M.P. 1. J:. 8.T. Pr.3. T . ~D M.4 Pro Pro Pro Pro J:. 1. (A ::J B) ::J (F ::J G) 2. ~C ~F 7.S M. (E· F) ::J H 4. l. J:. D.T. C::JT 3.P. 2.Answers to Starred Exercises 7. 6. ~D M. (F ::J (G v H» v ~(~ A ~(A 415 v B) ::J B) ::J (~B v (A ::J C» (B ::J ~ A) ::J (B ::J (A ::J B» (~A::J B)v(~B::J ~A) ~(Cv ~D) M.4 M. (A· B) ::J C S. T·S (F::J G)::J A::JB F::JG ~D ~D g. (C ::J (A ::J C» ::J (A ::J (C ::J A» 9. D. 6. ::J (~B v ~A» M.P.3 M.T. 2.S. 8. 7. ~C M. 2. ~(E • F) ::J (A· B) 2. ~(A ::J (C ::J A» 10. Pr.T. D::JF 2. ~H Pr. F == (~E == ~F) 6. Pr.T. 10. a.S.S M.P. 6.

7. 8. 8.7 M. 5 Simp. 5 Simp. 11.P.8 M. 13. 1. 2. 2. 2 Simp.16 M. 8. 1. 9. 7. I:. 4 M. 2. 1.P.10 Pro B::JE A::JF ~B ~A ~A'~B ~C e.T.18 14. ~C Simp.5. 2 M. 4. 3. 6. 7. 5. 3. 1. A 16.13 M.9 M. 7.5 M.P. B 15. 9.P. 3 Simp.T. ~(E' F) A·B M. 4 Simp.P.P.6 M. 3 Simp. Pr. 4. 12.8. 10. C Simp.P. 3 Simp. A'B 17. 1. A::JB 18. b.T. 9. 3.T.12 Conj. 3 M.9 F::JT D::JS ~F ~D ~F::J ~D::J A B Simp.7 Conj.P.15 M. 5. 4.416 Answers to Starred Exercises 6. Pro I:. 14.6 M. 2. (A ::J B) ::J (B ::J C) (A • B) ::J (A ::J B) (~F::J A)' (~D::J B) (F ::J T) • (D ::J S) ~T'~S ~T ~S Pr.8 Pro Pro C T (~A' ~B)::J ~C (B ::J E) • (A ::J F) ~E'~F ~E ~F Pr. C . Pr. 10.T. 11. 14. 11.P.17 M. 10. 4.6. 6. 7. B::JC 19.

Answers to Starred Exercises 8. 4. 3. ~A::J ~B 417 A::JC Z::JW ~C·~W ~C ~W ~Z ~A ~B Pr. 5. 1. 2.5 M.P. k. Simp. 2.P.T.11 Pro Pro ~H W::JT F ~T ~W F·~W GvT G G::J ~H ~H p. 7. 3 Simp. 8. Pr. 4. Pr. 1. 8.7 M. 2. 10. 3. 5.T. Pro I:. 3.P. 9.S.6 M. o. 4.8 D.6.T. 1. m. 4. 2. Pr. 4 Simp. p. P ::J (Q ::J (R v S)) 2.2. I:. Pr.3. Pr. 9. 12.P. 4.8 D. 4 Simp. 5. 3. 10. 6. Pr.P. 8.6. 1. 6.9 M. S::JT ~Tv~W Pr.9 ~D A::JB E·A E A B A·B ~C ~D F ::J (G ::J (F· ~W) F·~T ~ H) ::J (G v T) Pr. ~BvW Simp.P. 4 M. 2. 1. 9.6 Conj.S. Simp. 6.5 M.Q 3. 7.6 Conj. 7. 9 ~C ~BvW (A· B) ::J Cv ~D Pro Pro Pro Pro I:. .5. 1. 3 M. 4 M.8 Add. 1. 10.7 M. 11. 10.

4. ~D F:::::>H ~F ~F·~H ~~C· ~J B:::::>J Simp. 8. 4.S. 13 Add. 1. 16. 2. Pr. 13 M. 16 M. 6.10 Add.4. I:. 6. 11.P.6 Simp. 2. 1. 7. 10. Pr. R D. 10.P. 6 Simp. e. 2. 12.T.9 M. 7.S.T.12 Simp. 11 M. 9.6 M.9 M. 2 M. 9. 3. 3. 9. 19.P.5 M.P. 10.7 Conj.14 Simp. 2 Simp. ~~W ~T ~S P Q Q:::::> (Rv S) RvS R A:::::> «C v D) : : :> B) (~W V ~T):::::> (AoC) W:::::> (SvP) ~H v~(S vP) ~H:::::>Z ~Zo~y Pro I:.P.T. 13.6 . 9.B·~Y Simp. 6 M. 1. 18. 3.8 M. 1.10 D. 5. 4. 4.8. 5 Simp. 9.S. 12.7.3.7 D. 7.8 Pro Pro Pro ~Z ~Y ~~H ~(S ~W vP) ~Wv~T A·C A (C v D):::::> B C CvD B B·~Y (~A· ~B):::::> (~C (Ev~F):::::> ~A v ~D) ~H:::::>(B:::::>J) (~F 0 ~H):::::> (~~C· ~J) ~H·(F:::::> ~H H) Pr.P. f.418 Answers to Starred Exercises 5. 11. 8.P. 15. 15. 5 M. 11.18.11 Pro Pro Pro Pr. 14. 3. Pro I:. 5. 8.T. 6. 17.17 Conj. 5.6.

lO D. 7.P.P.T. 2. lO Pro Pro Pro Pro ':. ~A Simp. 8 M. 3. C. 1. 16. 4.5 Simp.12 Add. 5. ~J ~B Ev~F ~A ~A·~B ~Cv~D ~~C ~D PvD (P -:J ~ A) • (B -:J B B -:J ~D ~ D) ~D P P -:J ~A ~A ((S v D) -:J R -:J ~W)· ((~W v ~E) -:J R) (~X· ~T) S (S v D) -:J SvD ~W ~W (~Wv ~E) ~Wv~E -:J R R ~X·~T ~T B-:JE E -:J (C· S) ~S B E C·S S Sv~G ~G d.14 Conj. 1. 7. 13. 6. 6.P.7 Pro Pro Pr. 1.P. N -:J (A v W) (W·I) -:J C Simp. 2.4 D. 18. 2. 14.13 M.5 Simp. 7 D. lO.9 Simp. 7.Answers to Starred Exercises 419 12.15. 3. 2. 2. b. ~T Simp. 1 Add. 2 M.3. 4. 4. lO M.P. 5. 9. 8. 8. lO. 4.l.18 Pro Pro Pro ':. 3 M.P. a. 2. Pro . 7. 1. ':. 6.8 M.P. 3.4 M.P.P. 6 Add. 6 M. 11.S. 8. 2 M.8 Pr. 11. 9.S. 17. 1 Add.17. 1. 19. 6. 1. 3.5 Simp. ~G M. 15.16 Simp.S. 2. 5.

C. W·] ~A l3.6 D. Dist.24. W 12.E.4 6. B. 5. 5 8. a. i. Com. DeM. . Dist. Dup. 2. AvW 10. X. ~~S Pro Pro j.13 15. h. Simp.E. DeM. Dist. 1. 5 p.15 17. 4 Simp.11. (N·J)· ~~S 5. ~Sv (B·E) 2. 18 DeM.ll 13.E. 25. a.l Simp. O. q.20 B. ~S ~ M 3. C. 1. Assoc. C. D.E. W. 12. m. DeM. Contrap.".E. 9. 23. t. A~ ~S 4. N·] 6. Exp. 2. DeM. V. u. j. M. m. N 8.12 14. Contrap. ~M·~D UnitS 1. 5 7.3. 21.2. 4 Com.7 M. C. 26. H 7. g. e.N. 3 f. 3. Contrap. Conj. Assoc.P. Dup.1O Conj. Simp. E ~ (Hv D) 4. DeM. ] 9. 11.l 4. D. 19.9. C.E. 6. Exp.8 M.E.E. r. C. n.T. 21.N.12 Pro Pro Pro Pro j.16 18. 16. 24. D. i. 22. Add. C.6 DeM.P. b. DeM. 5. 7 9. q. d. 4 Simp. j.S.P. Contrap. Symbolization only: 1. DeM.".8 10. 20. C e. 5 Simp.3 11. 14 b. 22 M.P.17 Add. S. 5 M. c.N.S. C Simp.420 Answers to Starred Exercises 3.3.25 Simp. 1. g. r. C.E. e.23 Conj.10 12. D. Dup.E. k.19 B. Dist. y. The following are correct: b. Simp.

8. S Add. II. 22. 24. 6 DeM. 16.E.21 DeM. 20.6 Dist. 8 (or 5-7) Com.E. e. I. 16. 12 D. 16. 14. 4 Simp.S. 3. 4.1 D. 6.l1 Simp. 8.12 H. 2.7 Simp. A vB Simp. 10. 9.S. 15. 12.14 D.T.17 DeM.7 D. 5.14.5.T.3 Dup.N. 13.18 C. 13.15 Exp.7 Simp.12 C. 4 (or 5) DeM.l.14 M.15 D. 6. 12. 5 Simp. J:.1O.4 M. 4 Add. 18.4.P. 10 DeM.13 D.P. 2. 3 D.4 Com. c. 5 . DeM. d. 23. 8. 6 D. 13. 7.N.Answers to Starred Exercises 7.4 Com.E. 7. 16. 5. 11 Com. 6. 8 Pro W W::::> A AvB ~(A v B) ~~(A ~W v B) T) ~~(S' S'T S T ::::> (A v (B v W v (T'C) W::::> X'Z ~(XvY) ~C)) X Z XvY Pr.N. 14. 2 DeM. 5 Dist.22 Contrap. I. 14.N. Pr. 5.15 Pro Pro Pro J:. 17.8. 8 C. c. 7.19 M.20 Exp. II. 3 Simp. 6.2 Dist. 7 Simp. 9. Simp. 9 C.23 Conj. 5. II. 3.1O.S.2 Contrap.E.S. 4. 10. 6. 10. 8. 19.l DeM.9 ~(S'T)::::> 421 12. 15. 4. 2I.13 C.II DeM. Pr. 9.9. 9.2 M.E.13 Dist. 7. 15.S. 10.

11 Assoc.E. 4. 14. 12 Simp. (A v C) ::J B C. I:. 5. A D.2 Com.S. 4.N. A ::J (B' C) C. ( ~ A v B) • ( ~ A v C) 6. A::JB 2. ~AvB ~CvB Bv~A Pr. 7 Com. e. ~Av~B ~~A Pr. (A v C) ::J B h. 6.13. 3. Pro I .5.N.2 D.9 C. 10. 15. Pro I:. 4 ~C) Bv~C 7. A::J (B' C) g.. 10.2.4 ~B .2 M.N.14 D. 2.422 Answers to Starred Exercises 8.15 Pro Pr. I.3.3.T. 1. 16.8 D. 1.1O B ~(AvC)vB II. 12.E.4 Pro Pr. (B v ~ A) • (B v 8. 13. ~~(Xv ~W Y) T'C T Av (A v (Bv~C) B)v~C C ~~C AvB ~A::J ~B B ~~B ~~A A A::JB A::JC ~AvB ~AvC D. 4. A 3. I. I:. 4. 2.l C. 5 C.2 Conj. 10 D. 5.E. 3.4 Dist. 3. ~B DeM. C::JB 3.. 10 M.l D. (~A' ~C)v Conj.6 Dist.N. 5.l C.6 5.E.7 M. 8 DeM.S.N. ~(A' B) 2. f. I. 5.3 D. ~Av (B'C) 7. 9.9 Simp.S.T.E. II.E.P. I. 3 Com. Bv (~A' ~C) 9.

7 DeM. 8. A:J (C v B) 9. 2 Com.B:J~A 2.(B :J A» 8.E. 10. 6 M.6 C. 1.4 Simp. ~Av~B 3. 2. 9. B:J ~A 1.I.8 Simp. A:JB Pr.7 Add. 3 Simp.E. 3. 2 C. 5 Dup. 4 Assoc. A :J (B v C) C.T. 9 Pro Pro I:.E. g.Answers to Starred Exercises 423 i.B) Pr.3 D. (~A v B) v(~A v C) 3. I:. ~ A v (( ~ A v C) v B) 5. 6 DeM. ~((A :J B) . 5 C. ~A v(B v (~A vC» 4. j.N. 5 Add. Pr. A :J (B v C) q. 6.P. 1. I:. ~~AvA DeM. 8 Pro I:. 4.I.2 Simp.2. (A:J B) v (A :J C) 2. 2.S. 3. 6. ~A:J A 2.3 Pro I:. ~(A :J B) v ~(B :J A) 9. 3 Assoc.3 Pro AvA A (A v B) :J (A-E) F ~~F ~(C v D) v~F A-E A AvB ~(Cv D) ~C-~D ~C (A == B) :J C ~(C v A) ~C-~A ~C 5.N. ~Bv~A 4. 4. 1. I Assoc. B DeM. ~ A v (~A v (C v B» 6.4 B. 1. 3. ~A 6.7 Com.9 . ~(A .I Com. 3 M. ~C D. (~Av~A)v(CvB) 7.E. 4. ~AvB 10.E. 5.E.I D. 7. 1. ~(A == B) 7. ~A v (C vB) 8.2 Dup. A C.

I.T. 4. 8. 3. 14 D. 6.6 Simp.". 2 D. 7. 9. Pr. 14.E.l. I. 10. 8.P. 6. 7 B.8 C.S.ll M.12 DeM. 12. 10. 2. 16.13 Simp. 4.P. ~S Simp.11 C. 12. K) (B·X) == ~(X ~K ~(H· => Y ~X·~Y ~X Pr.lO D.5 DeM.N. 11.P. P => X DeM.N.2.l Simp. 9 M.lO D. Pr. 3. m.N.7 D.E. 6 DeM.10 Add. 13.424 Answers to Starred Exercises 7.12 Pro