You are on page 1of 5

Phil 303 Practice Final Exam Solutions

1. Say we add to SD the rule of negated disjunction introduction::


Add a case to the proof of metatheorem 6.3.1 that the resulting proof
system is sound. (Note: you are not being asked to prove that this
is an acceptable derived rule by producing a derivation it abbreviates.
Add a case to the proof of 6.3.1)

Assume that (PQ) is derivable from assumptions k+1 at line k + 1,

by negated disjunction introduction from P and Q at lines i and j
respectively. Then i P and j Q, with i j = k+1 . Since
we are adding a case to 6.3.1, the induction hypothesis from that proof
applies, so: i P and j Q.

Say that we have a truth assignment A that makes all sentences in k+1
true. Since i j = k+1 this assignment A makes every sentence in
i true, and so it makes P true and A makes every sentence in j
true, and so it makes Q true.

If P and Q are both true, then P and Q are both false. By the
truth table for , if P and Q are both false then PQ is false:


That is, any truth assignment making every sentence in k+1 true makes
PQ false, so it makes (PQ) true. So k+1 (PQ).

2. Prove the following statement about SL and SD, or give a counter-

P and Q then P &Q
Say that some interpretation I assigns true to every sentence in .
Since it makes every sentence in true, it makes P true. Since it makes
every sentence in true, it makes Q true. Since it makes P and Q true,
then by the truth-table for &, it makes P &Q true, so P &Q.
By the completeness theorem for SD, P &Q.

[NOTE: you must cite the completeness theorem to pass from a fact
about to a fact about .]

3. Prove that if is a maximally consistent in SD set of sentences of SL

(P & Q) if and only if: P and Q

This is an if and only if statement, so we prove both directions.

(It will be useful to use this Fact: If is maximally consistent in SD
and SD Q then Q . This is a special case of 6.4.9 p. 257 in the
textbook, aka Jove.)

direction: Say that (P & Q)

By applying & E, P and Q.
P and Q by the Fact/ Jove.
P and Q since if both Q and Q were in it would
contradict the consistency of .

direction: Say that P and Q .

Since Q and is maximal consistent in SD, this means that
{Q} R and {Q} R. So given premises from , we can make
the assumption Q and derive both R and R. Therefore, by I we
can infer Q, so Q by the Fact / Jove.
Since P and Q we obtain by one application of & I that
SD (P & Q).
By the Fact / Jove, (P & Q) .
This proves both directions.

4. Formalize these two sentences using the given formalization key:
UD: all people Dx: x went to Disneyland
Kxy: x knows y
j: John
m: Mary

Everyone who went to Disneyland knows someone who didnt go there.

(x)(Dx (y)(Kxy & Dy))

There is someone who knows both Mary and John but doesnt know
(x)((Kxm&Kxj)& Kxx)

5. Give an interpretation in which the first of these sentences is true and

the second false:
(x)(P x Qx) (x)P x (x)Qx
UD: All people in history, excepting (just to be on the safe side) vam-
pires and zombies, if any.
Px : x is alive.
Qx: x is dead.

Comment: There are of course many possibilities - the point is to come

up with a universe of discourse in which everything has one or the other
of the properties, but neither of the properties is possessed by every-
thing in the domain.

1 (x)( Qx P x) Assumption
2 (x)Qx Assumption
3 Qa A/E
4 Qa P a 1 E
5 Qa A/ E
6 (x)P x A/ E
7 Qa 3R
8 Qa 5R
9 (x)P x 6-8 / E
10 Pa A/ E
11 (x)P x 10 I
12 (x)P x 4, 5-9, 10-11 E
13 (x)P x 2, 3-12 E