The Logical Framework

2.1
Proposition – mathematical statement that is either true or false
Definition – a precise and unambiguous description of a mathematical term
Theorem – a valid mathematical result
Proof – an explanation as to why the result is valid
Lemma – a small theorem
Corollary – a result whose proof relies heavily on a preceding theorem

2.2
Truth table:

Negation: p and not p (¬p)

Compound proposition – built up from simpler propositions (and, or, if-then)

Conjunction – ‘p and q’ can be written as p ∧ q. Only true if p and q are both
true

Disjunction – ‘p or q’ can be written as p ∨ q. Only false if p and q are both

false

Conditional – ‘if p then q’/ ‘p implies q’ can be written as p ⇒ q. Only false if p

is true and q is false. Also written as ‘p is sufficient for q’ or ‘q is necessary for
p’
Biconditional – ‘p if and only if q’ can be written as p ⇔ q. Can also be written
as ‘p implies q and q implies p’. Also ‘p is necessary and sufficient for q’ or
vice versa.

Converse – converse of p ⇒ q is the conditional of q ⇒ p

Contrapositive – contrapositive of p ⇒ q is the conditional of (¬q) ⇒ (¬p)

2.3
Double negation – p has the same truth value as ¬(¬p)

Logically equivalent – if A and B are built up from p and q and they always
have the same truth value

de Morgan’s Laws – ¬(p∧q) is logically equivalent to the proposition (¬p) ∨

(¬q) and ¬(p ∨ q) is logically equivalent to the proposition (¬p) ∧ (¬q)

2.4
Predicate – mathematical statement that depends on one or more variables (e.g.
n)

Existential quantifier - ∃ means ‘there exists’

Existential statement – a statement which expresses the existence of at least one
object of a certain kind which has a particular property. Can be written as
∃n[P(n)]

In order to prove that an existential statement is true we just need to find an

example

Universal quantifier - ∀ means ‘for all’

Universal statement – a statement which expresses the fact that all objects of a
certain kind have a particular property. Can be written as ∀n[P(n)]

In order to prove that a universal statement is false we just need to find a

counterexample

Negation of ∃n[P(n)] is ∀n[¬P(n)]

Negation of ∀n[P(n)] is ∃n[¬P(n)]

∀n[¬P(n)] = ¬ (∃n[P(n)])
∃n[¬P(n)] = ¬ (∀n[P(n)])

2.5
Direct proof – where the truth or falsity is established directly

Proof by contraposition – proof of a conditional statement of the form p ⇒ q

using the logically equivalent contrapositive statement (¬q) ⇒ (¬p)

Proof by example or counterexample – either proving an existential statement

∃n[P(n)] or disproving a universal statement ∀n[P(n)]

Proof by contradiction - Proving that statement s is true. Assume that s is false

(¬s is true). Produce an argument based on the assumed truth of the premise ¬s
which leads to some statement r that is false. The resulting conditional
statement (¬s) ⇒ r is based on a valid mathematical deduction so it is a true
statement