Rules of Inference in Symbolic Logic: Formal Proof of Validity

In this post, I am going to discuss the topic “Rules of Inference in Symbolic Logic: Formal Proof of Validity”. As is well known, a “formal proof of
validity” is a series of propositions, each of which follows from the preceding propositions by an elementary valid argument form or, simply, rules
of inference.

Rules of inference are understood as elementary valid arguments that are used in justifying steps in formal proofs.

It is important to note that the rules of inference can be used as a method for determining the validity of an argument. However, the main function
of the rules of inference is to prove the validity of an argument―thus the name “formal proof of validity”. Normally, the arguments here are
already valid, and what we will do is prove that indeed the arguments are valid.

How do we prove the validity of an argument then using the 10 rules of inference?

In doing so, we will construct a series of propositions based on the given argument using the rules of inference. The goal here is to come up with a
proposition that matches with the conclusion of the given argument. In other words, we will extract from the premises the conclusion of the given
argument. Once we have successfully done this, then we can say that we have proven the validity of the argument. Consider the illustration below.

I will fully explain this process later. But let me point here that the argument is now proven valid because, as I already mentioned above, the last
proposition in the new series of propositions, that is, Proposition #7, which is ~ s, matches with the conclusion of the given argument, which is ~ s.

Now, there are 10 rules of inference that we can use in proving the validity of arguments, namely, 1) Modus Ponens (M.P.), 2) Modus Tollens
(M.T.), 3)Hypothetical Syllogism (H.S.), 4) Disjunctive Syllogism (D.S.), 5) Constructive Dilemma (C.D.), 6) Destructive Dilemma (D.D), 7) Conjunctive
(Conj.), 8)Simplification (Simp.), 9) Addition (Add.), and 10) Absorption (Abs.).

The forms of these rules are as follows:

Let me explain each rule below, including some of its variations.

In Modus Ponens, there are two premises, namely, p ⊃ q and p, and a conclusion, which is q. Please note that the premises and conclusion are
divided by a horizontal line. Note as well that the “line” is also read as “therefore”. Thus, the form of Modus Ponens reads: “if p then q, p,
therefore, q.

In Modus Ponens, we have to take note that the second premise p affirms the antecedent of the first premise p ⊃ q, and the conclusion q affirms
the consequent of the first premise p ⊃ q. Hence, if, for example, the antecedent of the first premise is negated, that is, ~ p ⊃ q, then we need a ~
p for the second premise in order for us to have a valid form of a Modus Ponens. See the illustration below.

And, if, for example, the consequent of the first premise is negated, that is, p ⊃ ~ q, then the conclusion must also be negated, that is, ~ q in order
for us to have a valid form of a Modus Ponens. See the illustration below.

Please note that the rules in negation and affirmation between and among variables or constants apply to all the valid forms of the rules of
inference. I need not explain the full extent of the variations below. I think one discussion of the different variations of the 10 rules of inference is
enough.

In Modus Tollens, the second premise ~ q is a negation of the consequent of the first premise p ⊃ q, while the conclusion ~ p is a negation of the
antecedent of the first premise p ⊃ q. But if the first premise is p ⊃ ~ q, then we need a q for the second premise in order to have a valid form of
the Modus Tollens. See the illustration below.

In Hypothetical Syllogism, the antecedent q of the second premise q ⊃ r needs to affirm the consequent q of the first premise p ⊃ q in order to
draw the conclusion p ⊃ r. Hence, if the consequent of the first premise is negated (that is ~ q), then the antecedent of the second premise must
also be negated (that is, ~ q) in order to have a valid form of a hypothetical syllogism. See the illustration below.

In Disjunctive Syllogism, the second premise is a negation of either one of the disjuncts in the first premise, while the conclusion is an affirmation of
the remaining disjunct in the first premise. Hence, as we can see above, the form of a disjunctive syllogism is:

I think the discussion on the different variations of the forms above in terms of quality (that is, negation and affirmation) is already clear. Hence, I
need not repeat it here and in the following discussion. So, let me just briefly discuss the remaining forms of the rules of inference below.

In Constructive Dilemma, the first and second disjuncts of the second premise affirm the antecedents of the two conjuncts in the first premise
respectively, while the first and second disjuncts in the conclusion affirm the consequents of the two conjuncts in the first premise respectively.
Hence, as we can see above, the form of a constructive dilemma is:
In Destructive Dilemma, the first and second disjuncts of the second premise negate the consequents of the two conjuncts in the first premise
respectively, while the first and second disjuncts in the conclusion negate the antecedents of the two conjuncts in the first premise respectively.
Hence, as we can see above, the form of a destructive dilemma is:

In Conjunction, we can combine two simple or compound propositions as long as the connective is • (and). Hence, if we have a p and a q, then we
can combine them as follows:

And if, for example, we have P ⊃ Q and S v T, then we can combine them, which results in the following:

In Simplification, we can extract any variable or constant from the two conjuncts. Of course, we can only apply this rule if the proposition is a
conjunction. Hence, if we have p • q, then we can have either p or q as a conclusion. Thus, again, we have the form of a conjunction:

In Addition, we can add any variable or constant to an original variable or constant as long as the connective is v (or). Hence, if we have a p, then
we can add a q to it as long as, again, the connective is v (or). Thus, as we can see above, the form of an addition is:

Or, if, for example, we have a ~ p ⊃ q, then we can add a ~ (s • t) to it as long as the connective is v (or). If this is the case, then we can have the
form:

Lastly, in Absorption, the conditional proposition p ⊃ q can be changed to p ⊃ (p • q). Hence, as we can see above, the form of an absorption is:
Rules of Inference and Formal Proof of Validity

Now, how do we prove the validity of an argument using the 10 rules of inference?

Let me start with the argument above and use Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens in proving its validity. Please note that the argument below is
already in a symbolized form. In case one does not know yet how to symbolize arguments in symbolic logic, you may refer to my other post titled
“Symbolizing Propositions in Symbolic Logic” and “Truth Table and Validity of Arguments”.

So, how do we prove the validity of the argument below?

Again, as I mentioned already, in proving the validity of arguments, we will construct a series of new propositions out of the premises of the given
argument until the last proposition matches with its conclusion. In other words, we will extract the conclusion of the given argument from its
premises by constructing new propositions. In this example, we will employ the rules of Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens.

Now, let’s analyze the argument above.

As we can see, the conclusion is ~ s. How do we extract the ~ s from the premises?

If we look at the premises, there is an s in the third premise as an antecedent of the proposition s ⊃ r. Since this is a conditional proposition, then
we need a ~ r in order to get the ~ s by applying Modus Tollens. So, we have to look for the ~ r. If we look at Premise #2, there is a ~ r but with a
corresponding q. Hence, we cannot apply Modus Tollens right away here. We need to first remove the q before we can get the ~ r. Since Premise
#2 is q ⊃ ~ r, then we need a q in order to get the ~ r by applying Modus Ponens. So, we have to look for the q. If we look at Premise #1, there is
a q there as a consequent of the proposition p ⊃ q. But since the premise is p ⊃ q, then we need a p in order to get the q by applying Modus
Ponens. So, we have to look for the p. If we look at Premise #4, we have a p. Aha! We can prove the validity of this argument using Modus Ponens
and Modus Tollens alone.

To summarize the process above, we need to have a p in order to get the q in Premise #1 by applying Modus Ponens. And once we have the q, then
we can get ~ r in the second premise by applying Modus Ponens again. And finally, once we have the ~ r, we can now get the ~ s by applying Modus
Tollens.

Let me illustrate.

The explanation above suggests that we will begin with premises 1 and 4.

Premise #1 p⊃q
Premise #4 p

So, from premises 1 and 4, we can draw a q by applying Modus Ponens. Hence, we say:

Please note that the 1, 4 M.P. in the new proposition (that is, Proposition #5) means that we used Premise #1 (that is, p ⊃ q) and Premise #4 (that
is, p) in getting the q by employing Modus Ponens. Please see illustration below:
Since we already have a q in Premise #5, then we can now get the ~ r in Premise #2 by applying Modus Ponens. Hence, we say:

Please see illustration below on how we get the ~ r.

And finally, since we already have a ~ r, then we can now get the ~ s by applying Modus Tollens in Premise #3 and Premise #6. Hence, we say:

Please see illustration below on how we get the ~ s.

As we can clearly see, Premise #7 (which is, ~ s) matches now with the conclusion (which is, ~ s) of the given argument. Hence, we have successfully
proven the validity of the argument above.

For the rest of the rules of inference, let me just give an already proven valid argument. I am convinced that the discussion above is enough for the
readers to understand the process of proving the validity of arguments in symbolic logic using the 10 rules of inference.

Hypothetical Syllogism
Disjunctive Syllogism

Constructive and Destructive Dilemma

Conjunction and Simplification

Addition and Absorption