3 views

Uploaded by Ikki De Queero

Logic Philosophy School University Notes Modal Logic

- Deductionandreality_patrick D Bangert
- history.pdf
- MillA System of Logic
- FUZZY NEUTROSOPHIC SOFT SET MEASURES
- Logmat 5.pdf
- Koran and Self-reference
- 5Pf.exercises (1)
- ch01s1.ppt
- Pedagogy_English part-watermark.pdf-52.pdf
- Limitations of Logic
- Strawson and Evans, in "Language & Creativity" Transcript
- NEUTROSOPHIC MODAL LOGIC
- C3_3_IT4B_VBScript
- explicação em matemática
- A Comprehensive Framework for Palm Based Approach for Solving Personal Security Problem
- Proof of Invalidity 9.9
- CLAIMS.pdf
- 70-411-1-PB
- Introduction to mathematical proof for secondary school students
- Eulers Group

You are on page 1of 3

uk

Lecture 9: Propositional Logic VII

Recap

Rule of inference: vE: To draw an inference from a disjunction as such you must derive the desired formula from each disjunct first, i.e. assume each disjunct in turn and derive the desired formula from each. Having done so, you may repeat the conclusion on a new line of proof. Annotate the new line with five numbers, followed by vE. The five numbers are: i) the line number of the disjunction; ii) the dependency-number of the first disjunct assumed; iii) the line number of the conclusion derived from the first disjunct; iv) the dependency-number of the second disjunct assumed; v) the line number of the conclusion derived from the second disjunct. Note carefully that vE is a discharge rule. Hence, at the line annotated vE you may discharge the dependency-numbers of each disjunct and replace them with the dependencynumber of the original disjunction together with the dependency-number of any other formula you used to derive the conclusion.

Reductio ad absurdum

Reductio ad absurdum, or RAA for short, is a rule that can be used to prove negated formulas. To use RAA to prove the negation of a particular formula, we adopt the following two-part strategy: First, assume the formula in question. Second, use that assumption to derive a contradiction.

Question: what is a contradiction? Answer: A contradiction is the conjunction of a formula with the negation of the same formula. Examples: P&~P ~P&~~P (R S) & ~ (R S) (P (Q v (R & S))) & ~ (P (Q v (R & S)))

Lets see how RAA works in practice. Example: Suppose we want to prove the sequent: P Q, P ~ Q : ~ P We begin by writing in our premises: {1} {2} 1. 2. PQ P~Q Premise Premise

c.pelling@bbk.ac.uk Were looking to move from these premises to the conclusion ~ P. Since were using RAA to do that, our next step is to assume P: {3} 3. P A

Now we use that assumption to derive a contradiction. In this instance, its quite easy: {1,3} {2,3} {1,2,3} 4. 5. 6. Q ~Q Q&~Q 1,3 MP 2,3 MP 4,5 &I

Now we apply RAA: RAA: If a contradiction is shown to be derivable from a formula, you may write the negation of that formula on a new line of proof. Annotate the new line with the line number of the contradiction, the line number of the relevant formula, and RAA. The dependency-numbers of the new line consist of all those of the old lines except that of the formula from which the contradiction was derived. Using this rule, the last of line of our proof will look like this: {1,2} 7. ~P 3,6 RAA

The only formulas which RAA can be used to prove directly are negated formulas. However, there is also an indirect way in which RAA can be used to prove formulas that are not negated. To see this, one must grasp the way in which RAA can be used together with DNE. Example: Suppose we want to prove the sequent: ~ P Q, ~ P ~ Q : P We start by writing in the premises: {1} {2} 1. 2. ~PQ ~P~Q Premise Premise

In this case, were looking to derive the conclusion P. We cant get that conclusion directly by using RAA, since it isnt a negated formula. What we can do, though, is to use RAA to derive ~ ~ P, and then use DNE to remove the double negation: {3} {1,3} {2,3} {1,2,3} {1,2} 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ~P Q ~Q Q&~Q ~~P A 1,3 MP 2,3 MP 4,5 &I 3,6 RAA 2

In practice, this way of using RAA and DNE in combination is often very useful.

If the sequent youre trying to prove has premises, you should always start by writing them in. If youre trying to prove a theorem (i.e. a valid sequent without premises), then the first thing will be to make an assumption (which assumption it is will depend on which theorem youre trying to prove). In some cases, it may be pretty clear how to derive the conclusion from the premises (e.g. in cases where the only rules of inference involved are the simple ones, such as MP, &I, and &E. If youre faced with a more difficult proof, I advise you to follow Tomassis three-part golden rule:

Ask yourself: 1) Is the main connective in the conclusion a conditional? If so, apply the strategy for CP, i.e. assume the antecedent and try to derive the consequent. If not, ask: 2) Is the main connective of any member of the set of premises a disjunction? If so, apply the strategy for vE, i.e. assume the first disjunct and try to derive the conclusion, assume the second disjunct and try to derive the conclusion. Finally, draw that same conclusion from the original disjunctive premise by vE. If not: 3) Try RAA. Remember: the trick is to assume the opposite of what you want and then try to derive a contradiction from that assumption together with any other formula or formulas already available in the proof. The double negation rules will allow you to finish things off to suit your purposes.

Reading

Tomassi, P. Logic. Chapter 3, VI VIII.

Exercises

Exercises 3.7, 3.8, 3.9 (Qs 1-10).

http://fundraise.unicef.org.uk/MyPage/Charlie-KP-Marathon 3

- Deductionandreality_patrick D BangertUploaded byMaria Sri Pangestuti
- history.pdfUploaded byIssa Chavez
- MillA System of LogicUploaded byJan Hula
- FUZZY NEUTROSOPHIC SOFT SET MEASURESUploaded byMia Amalia
- Logmat 5.pdfUploaded byHardy Gunawan
- Koran and Self-referenceUploaded byaqueelpremjee
- 5Pf.exercises (1)Uploaded byCha risse
- ch01s1.pptUploaded byAyano Midakso
- Pedagogy_English part-watermark.pdf-52.pdfUploaded byRekha
- Limitations of LogicUploaded bymjain3391
- Strawson and Evans, in "Language & Creativity" TranscriptUploaded byBlakely Lauren Phillips
- NEUTROSOPHIC MODAL LOGICUploaded byAnonymous 0U9j6BLllB
- C3_3_IT4B_VBScriptUploaded byAkmal Alvi
- explicação em matemáticaUploaded byFlávia Porto
- A Comprehensive Framework for Palm Based Approach for Solving Personal Security ProblemUploaded byIJIRST
- Proof of Invalidity 9.9Uploaded byJohanna Arnaez
- CLAIMS.pdfUploaded byEzee Peezee
- 70-411-1-PBUploaded byJanos Zanik
- Introduction to mathematical proof for secondary school studentsUploaded byMartin Thomas
- Eulers GroupUploaded byPranav Pratap Singh
- BasicsUploaded byRitu Maheshwari
- Neutrosophic Theory and its Applications, Collected Papers, Vol. 1Uploaded byAnonymous 0U9j6BLllB
- Art of DeductionUploaded bydrwhovian
- Love is a FallacyUploaded byFardian Thofani
- Math 140 Course Syllabus 2015-2016-1TUploaded byIya Fruto
- History of the TransmissionUploaded byMiltos Riris
- Programme law and logic 2012Uploaded bylawandlogic
- Important Notes of 10th Class Math Exercise 3.3Uploaded byTayyabah Shah
- Basic Question of Philosophy, Martin Heidegger.Uploaded byRojo Castro Duque
- How to Detect...Uploaded byJin Ho

- BA Logic 10Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Lectures on Epistemology Week 8 2012-13Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Logic 4Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Logic 6Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Logic 11Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Logic 8Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Logic 3Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- Why be moralUploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Logic 5Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Logic 7Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- PoemUploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Logic 12Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Logic 12Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- Logic 2Uploaded bya967t
- BA Logic 15Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- As Level Sociology Childhood NotionUploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Logic 19Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- Assess the Relationship Between Law and RightsUploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Logic 18Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- Assess the Strengths and Weaknessess of Using Structured Interviews to Investigate the Real Rate of Street CrimeUploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Logic 16Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Logic 14Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Logic 13Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Lectures on Epistemology Week 1 2012-2013Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- BA Lectures on Epistemology Week 1 2012-2013Uploaded byIkki De Queero
- Drawing Manga Weapons Vehicles and Accessories.rUploaded byIkki De Queero
- Assess the Strengths and Weaknessess of Using Structured Interviews to Investigate the Real Rate of Street Crime NotesUploaded byIkki De Queero

- Logica - Basic Logic SymbolsUploaded bypetroetpaulo2006
- CSI30 Chapter_01 ProblemsUploaded byLuIs I. GuTi
- Syllogistic UnityUploaded byArmahedi Mahzar
- Logic and Discrete MathematicsUploaded byHoliman4real
- Logic Review.pdfUploaded byDEVJONGS
- Statements and Logical ConnectivesUploaded bySayan Roy Chowdhury
- aUploaded byabdulwadooa
- Higher MathematicsUploaded byHelen
- Truth Table1.pdfUploaded bySanjay Nath
- Discrete MathsUploaded bysmartvarsh
- Module1 FundamentalsinPropositionalLogicUploaded byDenczar Lagman
- CALCULUS Logic and ProofsUploaded byFazreena Eleena
- Resolution in FOLUploaded byManish
- 3034Chap1Uploaded byLarry Johnson
- C2004 Study GuideUploaded bysouchie
- Smith and Cusbert - Logic, The DrillUploaded byjalkfjlsaf
- DMS Notes.pdfUploaded byUtkarsh
- Discrete Mathematics - Lecture 1 - PropositionsUploaded byEngr Grace DT P
- LogicUploaded byVishal Gaur
- Analysis 1Uploaded byAndrew Zhang
- Discrete Mathematics Structures Slide 2Uploaded byaskari
- Assignment1 SolutionsUploaded byJeff Ens
- Unit-2 (39)METHODS OF PROOF.pdfUploaded byAnonymous 9hu7fl
- 1 Logic HandoutNoNotesUploaded byjacobstinson123
- Symbolic Logic 1Uploaded byMalik Shahzeb Khan
- Logic, educationalUploaded bystreetba
- forallX [remix] Chapter 4Uploaded byStephen Harris
- Lara Discretecompletion2Uploaded byCedric
- LogicUploaded bySalmansct Attari
- Equivalence ProblemsUploaded byRomalyn Galingan