58 views

Uploaded by Fieza Andrea

- Semantics Boot Camp
- Format Writting
- How to Write a Book Review
- [PAPER] Dove (2016) Visual Scheming Assessing Visual Arguments
- Writing a Critical Essay for a History Modul1
- Maybe This Ios Okay
- 8 argument autopsy
- OUMH1203 Notes
- week of 1
- MGW 11 - Framework
- Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory Revisited
- WSDC-Format-PPT-presentation-by-Alfred-Snider.pdf
- Debate Rubrics
- Honeypots Reflection
- Tarka
- Ronnedal15_3_1
- .
- .
- Logical fallacies (elements of arguments for public speaking)
- Critical Book Review Guide

You are on page 1of 49

Introduction to Logic and Abstraction

Topic 4: Predicate Logic

Symbols and Translation

Using the Rules of Inference

Change of Quantifier Rule

Conditional and Indirect Proof

Proving Invalidity

Relational Predicates and Overlapping

Quantifiers

Symbols and Translation

Predicate Logic: combines the distinctive features of

syllogistic logic and propositional logic.

The validity of this argument depends both on the

arrangement of the terms and on the arrangement of

the statements.

Example:

Proper

Noun

Malaysia is a peace and multi-racial country.

If a country is either peace or politically stable, it is rich.

Hence, Malaysia is rich.

Noun

Symbols

Upper-case

letters A to Z

Noun

_____is a sport S___

_____is a businessman B___

_____is enjoyable E___

_____is good G___

Adjective

Singular Statement

Singular statement: a statement that makes an

assertion about a specifically named person, place,

thing, or time.

Use lower-case letters of individual constants (a, b,

c, …, w) to symbolize statements.

Example:

Sport is an exercise. Es

Time is a magazine. Mt

Harry Potter is not a fiction. ~Fh

Zainal Abidin is not a politician. ~Pa a not z

Xerxes was a king. Ke e not x

Compound Singular Statement

Use truth-functional operators (the dot, wedge,

horseshoe, etc.) as in propositional logic.

Example:

Danga Bay is exciting and fun. Ed • Fd

Jacqueline Victor is either an actor or a singer. Aj Sj

Sam will pass the test only if he studies. Ps Ss

Estranged wins Juara Lagu if and only if

the jury and the fan vote the group. Je (Vj • Vf)

Universal Statement

Universal Statement: Statement that makes

an assertion about every member of its

subject class.

Translated as conditionals.

Universal quantifier (x) or ( x).

Use individual variables (x, y, z) to form the

quantifier.

All S are P If anything is an S, then it is a P.

No S are P If anything is an S, then it is not a P.

CPT114/CPT104 Shahida S. (2008) 7

Universal Statement

Statement form Symbolic translation Verbal meaning

All S are P (x)(Sx Px) For any x, if x is an S,

then x is a P.

No S are P (x)(Sx ~Px) For any x, if x is an S,

then x is not a P.

Venn Diagrams: shading designates emptiness

All S are P No S are P

S P S P

Anything in the S circle, is also in Anything in the S circle, is not in

the P circle the P circle

CPT114/CPT104 Shahida S. (2008) 8

Examples

sign

No donkeys are horse. (x)(Dx ~Hx)

Free variable

Statement

functions

Verbal Meaning:

For all x, if x is a kid, then x is playful.

For all x, if x is a donkey, then x is not a horse.

Particular Statement

Particular Statement: Statement that makes

an assertion about one or more unnamed

members of the subject class.

They are translated as conjunctions.

Existential quantifier ( x).

Some S are P. At least one thing is an S and it is

also a P.

Some S are not P. At least one thing is an S and it is

not a P.

Particular Statement

Statement form Symbolic translation Verbal meaning

Some S are P ( x)(Sx • Px) There exists an x such that x is

an S and x is a P.

an S and x is not a P.

Venn Diagrams: X designates at least one existing item

Some S are P Some S are not P

X X

S P S P

Something exists that is both Something exists that is an S

an S and not a P and not a P

CPT114/CPT104 Shahida S. (2008) 11

Examples

Some books are expensive. ( x)(Bx • Ex)

Some students are not lazy. ( x)(Sx • ~Lx)

Some fruits are sweet. ( x)(Fx • Sx)

Some products are not taxable. ( x)(Px • ~Tx)

Variety of Statements

There are happy family. ( x)(Fx • Hx)

Animal exists. ( x)Ax

Tigers live in these jungles. ( x)(Tx • Lx)

Only close friends were invited (x)(Ix Cx)

to the wedding ceremony.

None but fans are eligible to vote. (x)(Ex Fx)

It is not the case that every girl ~(x)(Gx Lx)

likes Barbie doll. or

( x)(Gx • ~Lx)

Duku and banana are (x)[(Dx Bx) Lx]

local fruits.

Spicy food are hot and (x)[(Sx • Fx) (Hx • Dx)]

delicious.

CPT114/CPT104 Shahida S. (2008) 13

Exercise: Symbolized Translation

Snakes are reptiles. (S, R)

(S, P, D)

Exercise: Symbolized Translation

Snakes are reptiles. (S, R)

(x)(Sx Rx)

If a snake is a rattler, then it is poisonous. (S, R, P)

(x)[(Sx • Rx) Px]

Some poisonous snakes are rattlers. (P, S, R)

( x)[(Px • Sx) • Rx]

A rattler is poisonous only if it is a snake. (R, P, S)

(x)[(Rx • Px) Sx]

The snake that is not poisonous is not dangerous.

(S, P, D)

(x)[(Sx • ~Px) ~Dx]

CPT114/CPT104 Shahida S. (2008) 15

Recall: Rules of Implication I & II

MP MT HS DS

p q p q p q p q

p ~q q r ~p

q ~p p r q

Modus Ponens Modus Tollens Hypothetical Syllogism Disjunctive Syllogism

CD Conj

(p q) • (r s) p Simp Add

p r q p•q p

q s p•q p p q

Constructive Dilemma Conjunction Simplification Addition

Recall: Rules of Replacement I

DM Assoc

~(p • q) (~p ~q) [p (q r)] [(p q) r]

~(p q) (~p • ~q) [p • (q • r)] [(p • q) • r]

DeMorgan’s Rule Associativity

Com Dist

(p q) (q p) [p • (q r)] [(p • q) (p • r)]

(p • q) (q • p) [p (q • r)] [(p q) • (p r)]

Commutativity Distribution

DN

p ~~p Double Negation

CPT114/CPT104 Shahida S. (2008) 17

Recall: Rules of Replacement II

Trans Exp

(p q) (~q ~p) [(p • q) r] [p (q r)]

Transposition Exportation

Impl Taut

(p q) (~p q) p (p p)

Material Implication

p (p • p)

Tautology

Equiv

(p q) [(p q) • (q p)]

(p q) [(p • q) (~p • ~q)]

Material Equivalence

CPT114/CPT104 Shahida S. (2008) 18

Using the Rules of Inference

Unlike propositional logic, predicate logic

needs another 4 additional rules.

Universal instantiation (UI)

Universal generalization (UG)

Existential instantiation (EI)

Existential generalization (EG)

They are required to:

remove quantifiers at the beginning of a proof

sequence, and

introduce them, when needed at the end of the

sequence.

Universal Instantiation (UI)

Instantiation: an operation that delete a quantifier and

replace every variable bound by that quantifier with the

same instantial letter.

Example:

All kids are playful.

Ariff is a kid.

Hence, Ariff is playful.

1. (x)(Kx Px)

2. Ka / Pa

3. Ka Pa 1, UI

4. Pa 2,3, MP Instantiation

Universal Generalization (UG)

Example:

All mothers are women.

All women are caring.

Therefore, all mothers are caring.

1. (x)(Mx Wx)

2. (x)(Wx Cx) / (x)(Mx Cx)

3. My Wy 1, UI

4. Wy Cy 2, UI

5. My Cy 3,4, HS

6. (x)(Mx Cx) 5, UG

Important Notes: UI and UG

Two ways of performing UI:

Instantiate with respect to a constant such as a or b.

Instantiate with respect to a variable such as x or y.

The choice depends on the result intended:

to match a singular statement on another line or

to perform UG over some part of the statement

instantiated.

Restriction for UG:

1. Ta

2. (x)Tx 1, UG (invalid)

Aladdin is a thief => everything in the universe is a

thief (INVALID)

CPT114/CPT104 Shahida S. (2008) 22

Existential Generalization (EG)

Example:

All typists are clerks.

Jane is a typist.

Therefore, there is at least one clerk.

1. (x)(Tx Cx)

2. Tj / ( x)Cx

3. Tj Cj 1, UI x is an

4. Cj 2,3, MP individual

5. ( x)Cx 4, EG variable

Important Notes: UG and EG

Generalization is an operation that consists in:

Introducing a quantifier immediately prior to a statement, a

statement function, or another quantifier.

Replacing one or more occurrences of a certain instantial

letter in the statement or statement function with the same

variable that appears in the quantifier.

UG: All occurrences of the instantial letter must be

replaced with the variable in the quantifier.

EG: At least one of the instantial letters must be

replaced with the variable in the quantifier.

1. Fa • Ga 1. Fa • Ga

2. ( x)(Fx • Gx) 1,EG 2. ( x)(Fx • Ga) 1,EG

1. Fx Gx 1. Fx Gx (invalid)

2. (y)(Fy Gy) 1,UG 2. (y)(Fy Gx) 1,UG

CPT114/CPT104 Shahida S. (2008) 24

Existential Instantiation (EI)

Example:

All programmers are university graduates.

Some programmers are businessmen.

Thus, some businessmen are university graduates.

1. (x)(Px Ux)

2. ( x)(Px • Bx) / ( x)(Bx • Ux)

3. Pa • Ba 2,EI

4. Pa Ua 1,UI

“a” is an

arbitrary name 5. Pa 3,Simp

introduced into 6. Ua 4,5,MP

the proof for

convenience 7. Ba • Pa 3,Com

8. Ba 7,Simp

9. Ua • Ba 6,8,Conj

10. ( x)(Bx • Ux) 9,EG

CPT114/CPT104 Shahida S. (2008) 25

Important Notes: All 4 Rules

Example of invalid or improper applications of the

instantiation and generalization rules:

1. Fy Gy

2. (x)(Fx Gy) 1,UG (invalid – every instance of y must be

replaced with x)

1. (x)Fx Ga

2. Fx Ga 1,UI (invalid – instantiation can be applied

only to whole lines)

1. (x)Fx (x)Gx

2. Fx Gx 1,UI (invalid – instantiation can be applied

only to whole lines)

1. Fc

2. ( x)Gx

3. Gc 2,EI (invalid – c appears in line 1)

CPT114/CPT104 Shahida S. (2008) 26

Important Notes: All 4 Rules

1. Fm Gm

2. (x)(Fx Gx) 1,UG (invalid – the instantial letter must be

a variable; m is a constant)

1. ( x)Fx

2. ( x)Gx

3. Fe 1,EI

4. Ge 2,EI (invalid – e appears in line 3)

1. Fs • Gs

2. ( x)Fx • Gs 1,EG (improper – generalization can be

applied only to whole lines)

1. ~(x)Fx

2. ~Fy 1,UI (invalid – lines involving negated

quantifiers cannot be instantiated)

Exercise

1. (x)(Ax Bx)

2. ~Bm / ( x)~Ax

Answer

1. (x)(Ax Bx)

2. ~Bm / ( x)~Ax

3. Am Bm 1, UI

4. ~Am 2, 3, MT

5. ( x)~Ax 4, EG

Another Exercise

2. Ag • ~Bg / Cg

Answer

1. (x)[Ax (Bx Cx)]

2. Ag • ~Bg / Cg

3. Ag 2, Simp

4. ~Bg • Ag 2, Com

5. ~Bg 4, Simp

6. Ag (Bg Cg) 1, UI

7. Bg Cg 3,6, MP

8. Cg 5,7, DS

Change of Quantifier Rule

Everything is beautiful. It is not the case that

(x)Fx something is not beautiful.

~( x)~Fx

It is not the case that Something is not beautiful.

everything is beautiful. ( x)~Fx

~(x)Fx

Something is beautiful. It is not the case that

( x)Fx everything is not beautiful.

~(x)~Fx

It is not the case that Everything is not beautiful.

something is beautiful. (x)~Fx

~( x)Fx

Note: The statements in the left column are equivalent in meaning

to the statements in the right column.

CPT114/CPT104 Shahida S. (2008) 30

Example of CQ

1. ~( x)(Px • ~Qx)

2. ~(x)(~Rx Qx) / ( x)~Px

3. (x)~(Px • ~Qx) 1,CQ

4. ( x)~(~Rx Qx) 2,CQ

5. ~(~Ra Qa) 4,EI

6. ~(Pa • ~Qa) 3,UI

7. ~~Ra • ~Qa 5,DM

8. Ra • ~Qa 7,DN

9. ~Pa ~~Qa 6,DM

10. ~Pa Qa 9,DN

11. ~Qa • Ra 8,Com

12. ~Qa 11,Simp

13. Qa ~Pa 10,Com

14. ~Pa 12,13,DS

15. ( x)~Px 14,EG

CPT114/CPT104 Shahida S. (2008) 31

Conditional Proof

Arguments having conclusions expressed in the form

of conditional statements or disjunctions (derived from

conditional statements) are immediate candidates for

conditional proof.

Example:

1. (x)(Hx Ix) / ( x)Hx ( x)Ix

2. ( x)Hx ACP

3. Ha 2,EI

4. Ha Ia 1,UI

5. Ia 3,4,MP

6. ( x)Ix 5,EG

7. ( x)Hx ( x)Ix 2-6,CP

Conditional Proof (cont.)

In this example the antecedent of the conclusion is a

statement function, not a complete statement.

Only the statement function is assumed as the 1st line

in the conditional sequence.

The quantifier is added after the sequence is

discharged.

Example:

1. (x)[(Ax Bx) Cx] / (x)(Ax Cx)

2. Ax ACP Note: UG must be

used out of the scope

3. Ax Bx 2,Add of an indented

4. (Ax Bx) Cx 1,UI sequence if the

5. Cx 3,4,MP instantial variable

occurs free in the 1st

6. Ax Cx 2-5,CP line of that sequence

7. (x)(Ax Cx) 6,UG

CPT114/CPT104 Shahida S. (2008) 33

Conditional Proof (cont.)

In this proof, UG is allowed to be used within the scope

of a conditional sequence because the instantial

variable x does not occur free in the 1st line of the

sequence.

Example:

1. (x)(Rx Sx) / (x)Rx (x)Sx

2. (x)Rx ACP

3. Rx 2,UI

4. Rx Sx 1,UI Note: UG is used

within the scope of a

5. Sx 3,4,MP

conditional sequence

6. (x)Sx 5,UG because the instantial

7. (x)Rx (x)Sx 2-6,CP variable does not

occur free in the 1st

line of the sequence

Indirect Proof

Begin indirect sequence by assuming negation of the statement to

be obtained.

When a contradiction is derived, the indirect sequence is

discharged by asserting the denial of the original assumption. Eg.

1. ( x)Ax ( x)Fx

2. (x)(Ax Fx) / ( x)Fx

3. ~( x)Fx AIP

4. ( x)Fx ( x)Ax 1,Com

5. ( x)Ax 3,4,DS

6. Ac 5,EI

7. Ac Fc 2,UI

8. Fc 6,7,MP

9. (x)~Fx 3,CQ

10. ~Fc 9,UI

11. Fc • ~Fc 8,10,Conj

12. ~~( x)Fx 3-11,IP

CPT114/CPT104

13. ( x)Fx Shahida S. (2008)

12,DN 35

Proving Invalidity

Two methods to prove invalidity in predicate

logic:

Counterexample (recall Topic 1)

Finite universe

Any argument is proved invalid if it is shown

that it is possible for it to have true premises

and a false conclusion.

Counterexample Method

Find a substitution instance of a given invalid form that

has actually true premises and a false conclusion.

Example:

( x)(Ax • ~Bx)

(x)(Cx Bx) / ( x)(Cx • ~Ax)

of a class (for C) that is included in another class (for A).

All cats are mammals.

Therefore, some cats are not animals.

CPT114/CPT104 Shahida S. (2008) 37

Important Notes

In producing such a substitution instance, the premises

must be indisputably true in the actual world, and the

conclusion indisputably false.

Statements involving the names of animal classes are

convenient for this purpose because everyone agrees

about cats, dogs, mammals, fish, and so on.

Several different substitution instances can usually be

produced to prove the argument invalid.

The counterexample method is not very well suited for

complex arguments. Hence finite universe method is

probably a better choice.

Finite Universe Method

Can be used to establish the invalidity of any invalid

argument expressed in terms of a single variable.

A valid argument remains valid no matter how things in

the actual universe might be altered.

The meaning of universal and particular statements

when the universe is shrunk in size.

Eg: The universe contains only one thing named as

“Garfield”.

Everything in the universe is naughty, hence “Garfield is

naughty”.

Something in the universe is naughty, thus “Garfield is

naughty”.

Finite Universe Method

The universal statement is equivalent to a conjunction of

singular statements.

singular statements.

universal and particular statements.

Example

Method for proving an argument invalid using indirect

truth table.

Firstly a universe of one is tried. If it is possible for the

premises to be true and the conclusion false in this

universe: the argument is invalid.

If not a universe of two is then tried, and so on.

(x)(Gx Hx) Ga Ha

( x)Hx / ( x)Gx Ha / Ga

“Ali”, the argument translates into:

Ga Ha / Ha // Ga Argument invalid because it is

F T T T F possible for the premises to be

true and conclusion false.

CPT114/CPT104 Shahida S. (2008) 41

Example

Given the following argument:

(x)(Jx Kx)

( x)Jx / (x)Kx

For a universe having one member “Ali”, the argument translates into:

Ja Ka / Ja // Ka

T T F T F

It is not possible for the premises to be true and conclusion false for

this universe, try a universe having 2 members.

T T T T F T F T T F T F F

Since it is possible for the premises to be true and conclusion false for

this universe, the argument is invalid. (No contradiction)

CPT114/CPT104 Shahida S. (2008) 42

Relational Predicate & Overlapping Quantifiers

Argument involves a relation:

All cats are animals. Hence, whoever owns a cat

owns an animal.

A quantifier overlaps another quantifier:

If there are any birds, then if all birds are free, they

are free. There are birds in the garden. Thus, if all

birds are free, something in the garden is free.

Types of predicate:

Monadic predicates (one-place predicates): used to

assign an attribute to individual things. E.g. Mawi is

a singer.

Relational predicate (relation): used to establish a

connection between or among individuals. E.g.

Mawi sings Kian.

CPT114/CPT104 Shahida S. (2008) 43

Translating Relational Statements

Relational statements with named individuals

Charles is married to Diana. Mcd

The Petronas Twin Tower is taller than the Sears Tps

Tower.

Mawi won Bintang Popular award. Wmb

Relational statements involving quantifiers

Nicol knows everything. (x)Knx

Rashid knows something. ( x)Krx

Overlapping quantifiers

Everything is different from everything. (x)(y)Dxy

Something is different from something. ( x)( y)Dxy

Everything is different from something (or other). (x)( y)Dxy

Something is different from everything. ( x)(y)Dxy

Example: Overlapping Quantifier

1. ( x)Ax ( x)Bx / ( y)(x)(Ax By)

2. Ax ACP

Free or unbound

variable. 3. ( x)Ax 2,EG

4. ( x)Bx 1,3,MP

x is not free in 5. Bc 4,EI

line 5 where the

name 6. Ac Bc 2-5,CP

introduced.

7. (x)(Ax Bc) 6,UG

2nd restriction

obeyed: not 8. ( y)(x)(Ax By) 7,EG

include existential

name c.

1st restriction

obeyed: out of the

conditional

sequence.

Example: Relational Predicate

2. (x)Dxm 1,EI

3. Dxm 2,UI

4. ( y)Dxy 3,EG

5. (x) ( y)Dxy 4,UG

Important Notes

Example of both correct and incorrect applications of

this rule:

1. (x)( x)Pxy

2. ( x)Pyy 1,UI (invalid – the instantial variable y has

been captured by the existential quantifier)

1. (x)( y)Pxy

2. ( x)Pxy 1,UI (valid – the instantial variable x is free)

1. (x)( y)Pxy

2. ( y)Pzy 1,UI (valid – the instantial variable z is free)

Important Notes (cont.)

Example of both correct and incorrect applications of

this rule:

1. ( x)Pxy

2. (x)( x)Pxx 1,UG (invalid – the new x has been

captured by the existential quantifier)

1. ( x)Pxy

2. ( x) ( x)Pxx 1, EG (invalid – the new x has been

captured by the old existential quantifier)

1. ( x)Pxy

2. ( y)( x)Pxy 1,EG (valid)

Important Notes (cont.)

Example of both correct and incorrect applications of

this rule:

1. (x)( y)Lxy

2. ( x)Lxy 1,UI

3. Lxa 2,EI

4. ( x)Lxx 3,EG (invalid – the quantifier has captured

the x immediately adjacent to the L)

1. (x)( y)Lxy

2. ( x)Lxy 1,UI

3. Lxa 2,EI

4. ( x)Lxz 3,EG (valid – the x remains free)

1. (x)(y)Kxy

2. (y)Kxy 1,UI

3. Kxx 2,UI

4. (x)Kxx 3,UG (valid)

CPT114/CPT104 Shahida S. (2008) 49

- Semantics Boot CampUploaded byDejana Kostic
- Format WrittingUploaded byBo
- How to Write a Book ReviewUploaded bykylev
- [PAPER] Dove (2016) Visual Scheming Assessing Visual ArgumentsUploaded byhuemulin
- Writing a Critical Essay for a History Modul1Uploaded byAngel Mallouka
- Maybe This Ios OkayUploaded byMorgan
- 8 argument autopsyUploaded byapi-337301413
- OUMH1203 NotesUploaded byTerence Liew
- week of 1Uploaded byapi-368156036
- MGW 11 - FrameworkUploaded byAdam Tomasi
- Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory RevisitedUploaded byThiago Reis
- WSDC-Format-PPT-presentation-by-Alfred-Snider.pdfUploaded byion
- Debate RubricsUploaded byJordan Aguilar
- Honeypots ReflectionUploaded byEmily Ha
- TarkaUploaded byAnonymous 9uu04el
- Ronnedal15_3_1Uploaded byzelaniec
- .Uploaded byericgrzelak
- .Uploaded byericgrzelak
- Logical fallacies (elements of arguments for public speaking)Uploaded byCherane Christopher
- Critical Book Review GuideUploaded byAmalia Novita Sari
- Marked9AMmonEng 102 WritingArgument Chapter12 CausalUploaded byjeanninestanko
- Week 10 Logical FallaciesUploaded byHector Garcia
- EssayWriting.pdfUploaded byjizanliving
- Ou Mh 1203 NotesUploaded byshermanlee
- UNIT_1_FAMEUploaded byYolanda Ramon
- Framework for Whole School LiteracyUploaded by3alliumcourt
- Editorial WritingUploaded byvillamor niez
- Logic AnswersUploaded byAbdullahIsmail
- Dissertation AdviceUploaded bydominique_zabaleta
- Uncertainty evaluation for an ultrasonic data fusion based target differentiation problem using Generalized Aggregated Uncertainty measure 2Uploaded byMia Amalia

- mathematical reasoningUploaded byKunal Joshi
- Classical Natural DeductionUploaded bymelo_inquadri
- Logic-9.10-12Uploaded byJezen Esther Pati
- Chapter 2–Fundamentals of Logic.pdfUploaded byrohillaugcnet4cs
- Logical Statement (Sudersen)Uploaded bysudersen
- Critical Thinking- Chap 3, Final SlideUploaded byPhuongThyMai
- Categorical SyllogismsUploaded bynikkimayor
- 2002 ReedUploaded byStanciu Elena
- Chapter_7_of_LPL_textbook.pdfUploaded byandrea
- e Homework 5Uploaded byMelissa Jean Hinton
- propositions - merrickUploaded byramón adrián ponce testino
- Logical reasoningUploaded byavijitcu2007
- 22LegalStud377 Sanctity of Life - Are Some Lives More Sacred Than OthersUploaded byLikel
- Topic3.2 3 LectureNotesUploaded byBenjamin Leung
- PHIL 132-Introduction to Logic-M. Shabbir AhsenUploaded byAhsan Saeed
- lecture 5 6.pdfUploaded byAbdul wadood
- Susan Haack - Justifications of DeductionUploaded byLucas Alves
- logic(P)Uploaded byJammie Danielle Paragas
- Prawitz_InferenceAndKnowledge.pdfUploaded byAnonymous QINdkjMxxo
- Torture Memorandum NotesUploaded byCristelle Marie Rayos
- NOTES 1 PropositionalLogicUploaded byRosemond Fabien
- Informal Logic Presentation PDFUploaded byac12788
- LogicUploaded byCyAbleman
- Toledo v PeopleUploaded byFrances Ann Teves
- Venn Diagrams for All 15 Valid Standard Form Categorical SyllogismsUploaded bycode4sale
- Maths Laws of Logic DiscreteUploaded byshoaib109
- Justifying CircumstancesUploaded byKei Din
- Dilema de Jorgensen-Wikipedia Ing.espUploaded byJulio Jose Montenegro
- 20160907110938MTK3013-Chapter1.5 Rules of Inference_Rev1Uploaded byNoor Ziela
- Short Introduction to Axiomatic LogicUploaded byBertram G Liyanage