You are on page 1of 5

# c.pelling@bbk.ac.

uk

## B.A. Introduction to Logic 2012-13

Lecture 7: Propositional Logic V
Recap
Constraint on the correct use of CP: In deriving the consequent of a conditional youre trying to prove, you must use your assumption of the antecedent. In cases where its not obvious how to do this, a good strategy is to make clever use of the rules &I and &E. Theorems: Valid sequents which do not have premises are called theorems. Theorems can be proven purely by using assumptions. Rules of inference for : -

E: Given a biconditional on a line we may rewrite that formula as the conjunction of the
relevant pair of conditionals on the next line of proof. The new line is annotated with the line number of the old line and takes as dependency-numbers all and only those of the old line.

I: Given a pair of conditionals on two lines such that the antecedent of the first is the
consequent of the second and the consequent of the first is the antecedent of the second, you may write between the two formulas, antecedent and consequent, on a new line. The new line is annotated with the line numbers of both lines used and I. The dependencynumbers of the new line are all of those of both lines used.

## Four patterns of inference using conditionals

1) Affirming the antecedent P Q, P : Q Example: If all cats are black, then Tiffin is black.. All cats are black. So Tiffin is black. This is a valid form of inference. In PL, the rule MP permits inferences of this form. 2) Affirming the consequent P Q, Q : P Example: If all cats are black, then Tiffin is black. Tiffin is black. So all cats are black. This is an invalid form of inference. Inferences of this form are not permitted in PL. 3) Denying the antecedent P Q, ~P : ~Q Example: If all cats are black, then Tiffin is black. Its not the case that all cats are black. So its not the case that Tiffin is black. 1

c.pelling@bbk.ac.uk This is an invalid form of inference. Inferences of this form are not permitted in PL. 4) Denying the consequent P Q, ~Q : ~P Example: If all cats are black, then Tiffin is black. Its not the case that Tiffin is black. So its not the case that all cats are black. This is a valid form of inference. In PL, the rule which permits inferences of this form is called modus tollens, or MT for short: MT: Given a conditional on one line and the negation of its consequent on another, infer the negation of the antecedent. Annotate the new line with the line numbers of both lines used and MT. The dependency-numbers of the new line are all those of both lines used.

## The rule MT at work

Lets look at some examples of MT at work. Example: Suppose we want to prove the sequent: P Q, ~Q : ~P We do so like this: {1} {2} {1,2} 1. 2. 3. PQ ~Q ~P Premise Premise 1,2 MT

Example: Suppose we want to prove the sequent: P Q : ~Q ~P We do so like this: {1} {2} {1,2} {1} 1. 2. 3. 4. PQ ~Q ~P ~Q ~P Premise A 1,2 MT 2,3 CP

Negation
Consider the following sentences: 1) Cameron is a politician 2) Cameron is an astronaut 2

c.pelling@bbk.ac.uk Question: what happens if we add the expression its not the case that... to the start of these sentences? 3) Its not the case that Cameron is a politician 4) Its not the case that Cameron is an astronaut It seems the effect is to reverse the truth-values of the two sentences: (1) is true but (3) is false; and (2) is false but (4) is true. But now suppose we add its not the case that... a second time to the start of the two sentences: 5) Its not the case that its not the case that Cameron is a politician 6) Its not the case that its not the case that Cameron is an astronaut It seems that by writing its not the case that... twice, we also reverse the relevant truth-values twice: (1) is true, (3) is false, but (5) is true; and (2) is false, (4) is true, but (6) is false. In PL, there are rules concerning the use of ~ which reflect these points about the use of the English expression its not the case that: DNE: Given the double negation of a formula on any line of proof you may write the original unnegated formula on a new line. Annotate the new line DNE together with the line number of the line containing the double negative. The dependency-numbers of the new line are identical with those of the old line. DNI: Given an un-negated formula on any line of proof, you may write the double negative of that formula on a new line. Annotate the new line DNI together with the line number of the line containing the original formula. The dependency-numbers of the new line are identical with those of the old.

## Simple applications of DNE and DNI

Example: Suppose we want to prove the sequent: ~~P : P We can do this very straightforwardly, by using DNE: {1} {1} 1. 2. ~~P P Premise 1 DNE

Example: Suppose we want to prove the sequent: P : ~~P We can do this just as straightforwardly, by using DNI: {1} {1} 1. 2. P ~~P Premise 1 DNI 3

c.pelling@bbk.ac.uk

## Using DNE and DNI together with MT

DNE and DNI can be very handy when used together with MT, as in the following examples: Example: Suppose we want to prove the sequent: P ~Q, Q : ~P We can do so like this, by using DNI and then MT: {1} {2} {2} {1,2} 1. 2. 3. 4. P ~Q Q ~~Q ~P Premise Premise 2 DNI 1,3 MT

Example: Suppose we want to prove the sequent: ~P Q, ~Q : P We can do so like this, using MT and then DNE: {1} {2} {1,2} {1,2} 1. 2. 3. 4. ~P Q ~Q ~~P P Premise Premise 1,2 MT 3 DNE

Disjunction
Consider this sentence: Bob went shopping or he went to the cinema. If Bob did one of the two activities but not the other, then the sentence is true. If Bob did neither activity, then the sentence is false. This much seems clear. But suppose that in fact, Bob did both activities. Does that make the sentence above true? Or does it make it false? This is a delicate question, because the word or seems to be used in two different ways: First, there is the inclusive sense of or, on which the sentence is true if Bob both went shopping and went to the cinema. Second, there is the exclusive sense of or, on which the sentence is false if Bob both went shopping and went to the cinema. In PL, v is not ambiguous between inclusive and exclusive interpretations in the same way that or is. Instead, it is always used unambiguously in the inclusive sense: P v Q is true if P and Q are both true. 4

c.pelling@bbk.ac.uk

The rule vI
Consider the following inference: Bob went shopping. So Bob went shopping or he went to the cinema. Question: Is an inference of that form valid? Answer: Yes it is, so long as or is being used inclusively. The introduction rule for v reflects that point: vI: Given a formula on one line of proof you may infer the disjunction of that formula with any other well-formed formula on a new line of proof. Annotate the new line with the line number of the old line and vI. The dependency-numbers of the new line are identical with those of the old line. Example: Suppose we want to prove the sequent: P:PvQ We do so like this: {1} {1} 1. 2. P PvQ Premise 1 vI

Note: Were entitled to put the original formula either before or after v, when using vI. Example: Suppose we want to prove the sequent: P:QvP We do so like this: {1} {1} 1. 2. P QvP Premise 1 vI