Mathematical Logic (just a bit of)

Lectures Notes for the Course in Mathematical Analysis 1

a.y. 2019-2020

silvio.mercadante@polito.it
v1.5.1

Disclaimer
I wrote these Lecture Notes as a support for the lectures of the Mathematical
Analysis 1 I give at Politecnico di Torino. They are freely available to Students who,
aware that they can’t be considered exhaustive, nevertheless find them useful.

A big, warm, thank you to all Students and Collegues kindly contributing to correct
all sort of mistakes (in particular English ones): you’re also contributing to make me
better.

Material released under license Creative Commons SA (Share Alike) .

silvio mercadante

Index 2/59
Index

Propositions

Logic predicates

Logic connectives

Quantifiers

Logic inference - Methods of proof

Index 3/59

Section Index

Propositions

Index 4/59
Propositions
One of the reasons why we said that Mathematics is a logic-formal system is that it
contains only propositions, i.e. statement the truth or falsehood of which (in a well
specified context) can be established with precision.

Example 1:

▸ “2 is an odd number” is a F proposition.

▸ “Cats are animals” is a T proposition.
▸ “Mathematics is the most beautiful human activity” is not a proposition
(but, believe it or not, someone thinks it’s nevertheless T . . . ).

Index 5/59

Section Index

Logic predicates

Index 6/59
Logic predicates
A statement depending on one or more parameters (or arguments) (x1 , . . . , xn )
belonging to a given set of domains (D1 , . . . , Dn ), which results to be a proposition
( T / F ) for each particular choice (x̄1 ∈ D1 , . . . , x̄n ∈ Dn ) of these parameters, is
called a logic predicate.

Example 2:
The statement “x is a natural number,” that can be denoted as p(x ), is a logic
predicate: it’s in fact clear that p(x ) = T for each x ∈ N, and p(x ) = F in all
other cases (i.e. for each x ∈/ N).

Observation 3:
Note that in order for a logic predicate p(x ) to be a proposition, x must be
specified. In other words, p(x ) doesn’t own a truth value until x is specified.

Observation 4:
Using an elegant mathematical language, we might say that a logical predicate is
a function with values into the set of propositions.

Index 7/59

Section Index

Logic connectives
Logic negation
Logic conjunction
Logic disjunction
Conjunction-Disjunction
Logic implication
Logic coimplication (Logic equivalence)

Index 8/59
Logic connectives
Propositions may be linked together, to produce more complex propositions, by
means of the so called logic connectives:
▸ ¬ negation,
▸ ∧ conjunction,
▸ ∨ disjunction,
▸ ⇒ implication,
▸ ⇔ coimplication.

The logic negation ¬ applies to exaclty one proposition at a time, and is then said
unary. All other logic connectives connect two propositions, and are then said
binary connectives.
Furthermore, we can use parentheses, in the usual way, to group connected
propositions.

Index 9/59

SubSection Index

Logic connectives
Logic negation
Logic conjunction
Logic disjunction
Conjunction-Disjunction
Logic implication
Logic coimplication (Logic equivalence)

Index 10/59
Logic negation
Let p be a proposition. Then ¬p, read “not-p”, denotes its logic negation, defined
as the proposition having the opposite truth value of p (i.e. ¬p is T when p is F
, and vice versa).
In other words, we have the following truth table:

p ¬p
T F
F T

Example 5:
Let p(x ) be the logic predicate “x is an even number.” Then
▸ p(4) is T ,
▸ ¬p(4) is F .

The logic negation enjoys the so-called involutive propery: ¬¬p = p.

Index 11/59

Logic negation

Observation 6:
Logic negation has clearly something to do with the set complementation:

p∶ x ∈P ⇒ ¬p ∶ x ∈/ P (i.e. x ∈ CP) .

(See later the definition of ⇒.)

Observation 7:
Truth tables aren’t just a way to represent how a particular logic connective
works: the right way of thinking to them is in term of the definition of the logic
connective itself. In other words, a logic connective is defined by its truth table.

Index 12/59
SubSection Index

Logic connectives
Logic negation
Logic conjunction
Logic disjunction
Conjunction-Disjunction
Logic implication
Logic coimplication (Logic equivalence)

Index 13/59

Logic conjunction
Let p and q be two propositions. Their logic conjunction is denoted as p ∧ q, read
“p and q”, and results to be T if p and q are both T , and F in all other
cases:
p q p∧q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F

Example 8:
Let
▸ p(x ) be “x is an even number;”
▸ q(x ) be “x is a number < 10.”

Then:
▸ p(5) ∧ q(5) is F , because q(5) is T , but p(5) is F ;
▸ p(6) ∧ q(6) is T , because p(6) and q(5) are both T .

Index 14/59
Logic conjunction

Observation 9:
Logic conjunction has clearly something to do with the set intersection:

⎧
⎪
⎪p ∶ x ∈ P
⎨ ⇒ p∧q ∶ x ∈P ∩Q .
⎪
⎪ q∶ x ∈Q
⎩

Observation 10:
The proposition p ∧ (¬p) is clearly F whatever p.

Index 15/59

Logic conjunction

Exercise 11:

Q Prove that ∧ enjoys the commutative property: p ∧ q = q ∧ p.

A Indeed we have:
p q p∧q q∧p
T T T T
T F F F
F T F F
F F F F

Exercise 12:

Q Prove that ∧ enjoys the idempotence property: p ∧ p = p.

Index 16/59
SubSection Index

Logic connectives
Logic negation
Logic conjunction
Logic disjunction
Conjunction-Disjunction
Logic implication
Logic coimplication (Logic equivalence)

Index 17/59

Logic disjunction
Let p and q be two propositions. Their logic disjunction is denoted as p ∨ q, read
“p or q” (OR, vel), and results to be F if and only if p and q are both F , and
T in all other cases:

p q p∨q
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F

Example 13:
Let
▸ p(x ) be “x is an even number;”
▸ q(x ) be “x is a number < 10.”

Then:
▸ p(5) ∨ q(5) is T , because is T q(5);
▸ p(6) ∨ q(6) is T , because p(6) and q(5) are both T ;
▸ p(11) ∨ q(11) is F , because are F both p(11) and q(11).

Index 18/59
Logic disjunction

Observation 14:
Logic disjunction has clearly something to do with the set union:

⎧
⎪
⎪p ∶ x ∈ P
⎨ ⇒ p∨q ∶ x ∈P ∪Q .
⎪
⎪ q∶ x ∈Q
⎩

Observation 15:
The proposition p ∨ (¬p) is clearly T whatever p.

Index 19/59

Logic disjunction

Exercise 16:

Q Prove that ∨ enjoys the commutative property: p ∨ q = q ∨ p.

A Indeed we have:
p q p∨q q∨p
T T T T
T F T T
F T T T
F F F F

Exercise 17:

Q Prove that ∨ enjoys the idempotence property: p ∨ p = p.

Index 20/59
SubSection Index

Logic connectives
Logic negation
Logic conjunction
Logic disjunction
Conjunction-Disjunction
Logic implication
Logic coimplication (Logic equivalence)

Index 21/59

Conjunction-Disjunction

Exercise 18:

Q Prove the following properties:

(a) ¬(p ∧ q) = ¬p ∨ ¬q;
(b) ¬(p ∨ q) = ¬p ∧ ¬q;
(c) distributivity of ∧ onto ∨: p ∧ (q ∨ r ) = (p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r );
(d) distributivity of ∨ onto ∧: p ∨ (q ∧ r ) = (p ∨ q) ∧ (p ∨ r ).

Index 22/59
SubSection Index

Logic connectives
Logic negation
Logic conjunction
Logic disjunction
Conjunction-Disjunction
Logic implication
Modifications of the logic implication
Logic coimplication (Logic equivalence)

Index 23/59

(Formal or material) Logic implication

Let p and q be two propositions. We introduce a binary logic connective called
formal (or material) logic implication, denotated as ⇒, and defined by the
following truth table:
p q p⇒q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
The expression p ⇒ q may be read in several different ways, e.g.:
▸ if p, then q,
▸ p implies q,
▸ q is implicated by p,
▸ from p follows q,
▸ q follows from p.

Observation 19:
It’s important to observe that the material logic implications doesn’t corresponds
exactly to the idea of implication used in the natural language, in particular
because it doesn’t imply any causal relationship between the antecedent
proposition p and the consequent proposition q. This relationship is instead
taken into account by the so-called semantic logic implication, which in turn is
out of our interest.
Index 24/59
(Formal or material) Logic implication

Example 20:
Let
▸ Let p be “3 is odd;”
▸ Let q be “all squares have 4 sides”
Then we’ll say that p ⇒ q is T even if we wouldn’t do so if we were using the
natural language (because the truth of q appears to be completely independent
of the truth of p).

Index 25/59

(Formal or material) Logic implication

p q p⇒q
The last two rows of the truth table of the implication p ⇒ q
deserve a particular attention. They, considered together, say T T T
that if it’s T that p ⇒ q but p is F , then we can say T F F
F T T
nothing about q: it could be T or F .
F F T

In none of these situations the truth of the implication would be invalidated.

Logicians have long debated on this point. And eventually they agreed on this
“prudent” solution: an implication is F just when it’s proven so (second row of
the table), T in all other cases. (“Innocent until proven guilty” stance.) In
particular, p T implies q T , but p F doesn’t imply q F !

Example 21:

The implication “if you’ll study hard you’ll pass the exam” is T . If you’ll study
just a bit (not hard), you might pass the exam or not. In none of these cases the
implication can be considered F .

Index 26/59
Logic implication

Example 22:
Let
▸ p(x ) be “x < 20;”
▸ q(x ) be “x < 10.”

Then the proposition p ⇒ q is F . In facts, it’s enough to take x = 15 to have

that p(15) is T , while q(15) is F .

Conversely, the proposition q ⇒ p is T , because is T that x < 10 ensures

x < 20.
But while in the former case it has been enough to consider one counterexample
(unfavourable example) to invalidate the proposition, in the latter case a
thousand favourable examples wouldn’t be a validation: we need a real proof!

Observation 23:
In this particular Example, the proof is very easy: the < operator induces onto
R a total ordering relation; and as such, in particular, the transitive property
holds: (x < 10) ∧ (10 < 20) ⇒ x < 20.
But in other cases the proof is waaaay more difficult! That’s why we’ll be
spending some time later to learn about proof methods.
Index 27/59

Logic implication
The proposition p ⇒ q is read some more (important) equivalent ways:
▸ p is a sufficient condition for q (if p is T , then q is T as well);
▸ q is a necessary condition for p (p can’t be T unless q is T ).

Furthermore, if p ⇒ q, we also say that the hypothesis or assumption or premise

p has q as a consequence, or conclusion, or thesis.

Index 28/59
Logic implication
The logic implication p ⇒ q is particularly important in Mathematics, especially
when p is T , because it’s the basis of logic inference (see later). But it’s not
strictly necessary, because the proposition p ⇒ q is perfectly equivalent to ¬p ∨ q.
In facts, they have the same truth table:

p q ¬p p⇒q ¬p ∨ q
T T F T T
T F F F F
F T T T T
F F T T T

Hence the logic connective ⇒, although very popular and convenient, is not
considered fundamental.

Index 29/59

Logic implication

Exercise 24:

Q Prove that the logic implication ⇒ doesn’t enjoy the commutative property.

Exercise 25:

Q Prove that the logic implication ⇒ doesn’t enjoy the idempotence property.

Index 30/59
SubSubSection Index

Logic connectives
Logic negation
Logic conjunction
Logic disjunction
Conjunction-Disjunction
Logic implication
Modifications of the logic implication
Logic coimplication (Logic equivalence)

Index 31/59

Modifications of the logic implication

Let i be the proposition p ⇒ q = ¬p ∨ q. Called i the direct proposition, we then
call:
▸ negation of i: ¬(p ⇒ q) = p ∧ ¬q ;
▸ converse of i: q ⇒ p = ¬q ∨ p ;
▸ contrapositive of i: ¬q ⇒ ¬p = q ∨ ¬p ;
▸ inverse of i: ¬p ⇒ ¬q = p ∨ ¬q .

Example 26:
p: 2 is the rightmost digit of the whole number n
q: n is even
direct: 2 is the rightmost digit of the whole number n, therefore n is even
- T
negated: 2 is the rightmost digit of the whole number n, therefore n is not
even - F
converse: n is even, therefore 2 is the rightmost digit of the whole number n
- F
contrapositive: n is not even, therefore 2 is not the rightmost digit of the whole
number n - T
inverse: 2 is not the rightmost digit of the whole number n, therefore n is
not even - F
Index 32/59
Modifications of the logic implication

Exercise 27:

Q Prove that the direct proposition is equivalent to its contrapositive.

Exercise 28:

Q Prove that the converse is logically equivalent to the inverse.

Exercise 29:

Q Prove that, e.g., the direct proposition is not logically equivalent to the inverse.

Exercise 30:

Q Can we conlcude, e.g., that if the direct proposition is T , then the inverse is F
?

A No. All we can say is that it’s not necessarily T .

Index 33/59

SubSection Index

Logic connectives
Logic negation
Logic conjunction
Logic disjunction
Conjunction-Disjunction
Logic implication
Logic coimplication (Logic equivalence)

Index 34/59
Logic coimplication (Logic equivalence)
Let p and q two propositions. Then we call logic coimplication or logic
equivalence of p and q, denoted as p ⇔ q or as q ⇔ p, the proposition which
results T when p and q are both T or both F , and F in all other cases:

p q p⇔q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F T

The propositions p ⇔ q and q ⇔ p are also read as:

▸ p is necessary and sufficient for q;
▸ q is necessary and sufficient for p;
▸ p is T if and only if (often abbreviated as iff) q is T ;
▸ q is T iff p is T .

Index 35/59

Logic coimplication (Logic equivalence)

Example 31:
Proposition: a natural number n ∈ N is odd iff is odd n2 .
Observation 32:
If we were able to find one odd number n ∈ N such that n2 was even, then this
would be enough to invalidate the proposition. But to prove it, a billion
favourable examples wouldn’t be enough: we need a genuine mathematical
proof. And since it can be (easily) found, the proposition is actually a
theorem.

Index 36/59
Logic coimplication (Logic equivalence)
It’s easy to recognise that the proposition p ⇔ q is equivalent to

(p ⇒ q) ∧ (q ⇒ p) .

Then it’s clear that the logic connective ⇔ is not a fundamental one (although very
popular and convenient!).

Exercise 33:

Q Prove that for a logic coimplication we have

direct = converse = contrapositive = inverse

Index 37/59

Section Index

Quantifiers

Index 38/59
Quantifiers
Given a logic predicate p(x ) (with x variable in a certain set X ), one may ask if
▸ p(x ) is T for all x ∈ X ;
▸ there exists at least one element x ∈ X such that p(x ) be T .

If the answer is affirmative, it can be formalised as:

▸ ∀x ∈ X , p(x ) (read: for all x ∈ X , p(x ) is T );
▸ ∃x ∈ X ∣ p(x ) (read: there exists at least an x ∈ X such that p(x ) is T ).

The symbol ∀ (“for all”) is called universal quantifier, while the symbol ∃ (“it
exists at least one”) is called existential quantifier.
Sometimes is used a third quantifier, ∃!, whose meaning is “there exists exactly one
element” or “there exists and is unique.”

Index 39/59

Quantifiers
Observation 34:
The application of a quantifier onto a logic predicate trasforms it in a
proposition. Which can be called a quantified predicate.

Example 35:
Let p(x ) be the logic predicate x < 7. Then:
▸ the proposition “∀x ∈ N, p(x )” is F (because, e.g., p(8) is F );
▸ the proposition “∃x ∈ N ∣ p(x )” is T (e.g. x = 6 satisfies it).

Index 40/59
Logic negation of a quantified predicate

Exercise 36:

Q Let p(x ) be the predicate “x is Italian.” If we consider x ∈ P, where P is the set of

students at PoliTO, then clearly the proposition
∀x ∈ P, p(x )
is F (at PoliTO we fortunately have foreign students!). Then its logic negation
¬(∀x ∈ P, p(x ))
is T .

What is, in natural language, the exact meaning of this T predicate?

A Not that all students at PoliTO are foreign, but that “there exists at least one foreign
student at PoliTO”!

Then the negation of the proposition

∀x ∈ X , p(x )
is the proposition
∃x ∈ X ∣ ¬p(x ) .
Formally:
¬(∀x , p(x )) ⇔ ∃x , ¬p(x ) .
Index 41/59

Logic negation of a quantified predicate

Analogously, it’s easy to understand that the following logic equivalence holds true:

¬(∃x , p(x )) ⇔ ∀x , ¬p(x ) .

In conclusion: the negation of a quantified predicate may be obtained changing the

quantifier and negating the predicate.

Index 42/59
Section Index

Logic inference - Methods of proof

Logic inference
Methods of proof
Logic fallacies

Index 43/59

SubSection Index

Logic inference - Methods of proof

Logic inference
Methods of proof
Logic fallacies

Index 44/59
Logic inference
Logic inference (after the Latin in ferre, to put inside) is the process of drawing
conlcusions from some premises, in a logical way. Is then a very important part of
logical reasoning.

Index 45/59

Deduction, Induction, Abduction

We distinguis the following forms of inference. In all cases, we have a premise p, a
conclusion q, and an implication p ⇒ q.
▸ Deduction: Given a T implication p ⇒ q and a T premise p, a T
conclusion q is drawn.
Example:
(p ⇒ q): When it rains, things outside get wet.
(p): It’s raining now, and I’m outside.
(q): I’m getting wet.
▸ Induction: Given some believed facts (observations, seen as T ) p and q,
an implication p ⇒ q is formulated.
Example:
(p): It’s raining now, and I’m outside.
(q): I’m getting wet.
(p ⇒ q): When it rains, things outside get wet.
▸ Abduction: Given a T conclusion q, a possible (plausible, probable) cause
p is seeked, together with the implication p ⇒ q.
Example: I’m getting wet, without having a shower (q). Since when it rains,
things outside get wet (p ⇒ q), chances are it’s raining now and I’m outside
(p).

Index 46/59
SubSection Index

Logic inference - Methods of proof

Logic inference
Methods of proof
Logic fallacies

Index 47/59

Direct proof
From a conceptual point of view, the most simple deductive strategy is the direct
one (a.k.a modus ponens):
p ∧ (p ⇒ q) ⇒ q .

It says that if p and the implication p ⇒ q are both T , then so is q.

Conceptually very simple, but not always practically so!

Example 37:
p: n is an even number;
q: n2 is an even number.
The implication p ⇒ q may easily be proved directly :

n even ⇒ n = 2m, m ∈ N ⇒ n2 = 4m2 = 2(2m2 ) .

´¹¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¸¹¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹¶
clearly even

Index 48/59
Direct proof

Exercise 38:

Q Prove that the modus ponens

p ∧ (p ⇒ q) ⇒ q

is a tautology (i.e. that it’s always T , independently of the truth of p and q).

Index 49/59

Proof by contraposition
As we already said, sometimes the direct proof is arduous. Often it’s much easier to
prove the (equivalent) contrapositive condition: ¬q ⇒ ¬p.
This strategy is called proof by contraposition, a.k.a. modus tollens:

¬q ∧ (p ⇒ q) ⇒ ¬p .

Example 39:
p: n2 is an even number;
q: n is an even number.
The implication p ⇒ q may easily be proved by contraposition:

n odd ⇒ n = 2m + 1, m ∈ N ⇒ n2 = 4m2 + 4m +1 .
´¹¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¸¹¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹¶
even
´¹¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¸¹¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¶
odd

But p is that n2 is an even number.

Index 50/59
Proof by contraposition

Exercise 40:

Q Prove that the modus tollens

¬q ∧ (p ⇒ q) ⇒ ¬p

is a tautology (i.e. that it’s always T , independently of the truth of p and q).

Index 51/59

Proof by contradiction

Another possible proof method is the proof by contradiction, a.k.a. reductio ad

absurdum (by reduction to the absurd). It works like this: it’s shown that if the
thesis were F , then a logical contradiction (absurd) would occur, so proving that
the thesis must be T .

Example 41:
√
A famous example of proof by contradiction is the irrationality of 2. Suppose
√ √ a
that 2 ∈ Q. In that case, it would be 2 = for some a, b ∈ Z, with b = / 0 and
b
(a, b) coprime. Thus: √
b 2 = a ⇔ 2b 2 = a2 .
Now, being 2b 2 clearly even, so must be a2 . Then so must be a. So we can write
a = 2c, for some c ∈ Z, and also

2b 2 = (2c)2 = 4c 2 ⇔ b 2 = 2c 2 .

Then b must be even (for the same reason seen√

for a). But a, b both even can’t
be coprime: absurd. So we must conlcude that 2 ∈ Q is F .

Index 52/59
Proof by induction
It’s a very interesting technique, based on the principle of induction.
▸ Let p(n) be a logic predicate that becomes a proposition ∀n ∈ N ∣ n ≥ n0 .
▸ Let p(n0 ) be T .
▸ Inductive hypothesis: let be T that p(n) ⇒ p(n + 1), for any n ≥ n1 ∈ N.
▸ Then we may conclude that p(n) is T ∀n ∈ N ∣ n > n1 .

Index 53/59

Proof by induction

Exercise 42:

Q Prove that 3n > n2n , ∀n ≥ 0.

A We’ll use induction.

First of all, we want to prove the inductive property, i.e. that if the relation is T for a given
m ∈ N, then it’s automatically T for m + 1.
So, first of all let’s assume T that ∃m ∈ N ∣ 3m > m2m (inductive hypothesis). The inductive
property will be proved as soon as we’ll prove that the inductive ipothesis implies that
3(m+1) > (m + 1)2(m+1) .Indeed:

= 3 ⋅ 3 > 3 (m ⋅ 2 ) (by the inductive hypothesis 3 > m2 ) .

m+1 m m m m
3
Then we have
> 3m ⋅ 2 ,
m+1 m
3 (1)
which is not yet what we need.But we may observe that
3m ≥ 2m + 2 = 2(m + 1) ∀m ≥ 2 ,

then if (1) is T , for sure is also T that

> 2(m + 1) ⋅ 2 ∀m ≥ 2 ,
m+1 m
3
aquivalent to
> (m + 1) ⋅ 2 ∀m ≥ 2 .
m+1 m+1
3
Index Then the inductive property is proven. It’s also clear that induction “ignites” at n = 2. 54/59
Proof by induction

Exercise 42 (continuing):

A What happens for n < 2? The proposition could be T or F , but if T we

couldn’t say by induction, but by direct verification, instead. Indeed a direct
verification proves that the property is T also for n = 0 and n = 1.

In conclusion:
▸ n = 0: T by direct verification;
▸ n = 1: T by direct verification;
▸ n = 2: T by direct verification;
▸ n = 3, . . . : T by induction.

Index 55/59

Proof by induction: an important example

Example 43:

As an important example, let’s prove that if An ∶= {1, 2, . . . , n}, then

#P(An ) = 2n .
▸ P(A0 ) = {∅} ⇒ #P(A0 ) = 1, and in fact 20 = 1.
▸ P(A1 ) = {∅, {1}} ⇒ #P(A1 ) = 2, and in fact 21 = 2.
▸ P(A2 ) = {∅, {1} , {2} , {1, 2}} ⇒ #P(A2 ) = 4, and in fact 22 = 4.
▸ P(A3 ) = {∅, {1} , {2} , {3} , {1, 2} , {1, 3} , {2, 3}} ⇒ #P(A3 ) = 8, and
in fact 23 = 8.
We may observe that:
▸ P(A1 ) = P(A0 ) ∪ {1}.
▸ P(A2 ) = P(A1 ) ∪ {{2} , {1, 2}}.
▸ P(A3 ) = P(A2 ) ∪ {{3} , {1, 3} , {2, 3} , {1, 2, 3}}.

▸ Now let’s suppose T that #P(Am ) = 2m , for a given, precise, m

(inductive hypothesis), and let’s work out #P(Am+1 ), to see if
#P(Am+1 ) = 2m+1 .
Since P(Am+1 ) = P(Am ) ∪ {new}, where {new} means the elements of
Index P(Am+1 ) containing (m + 1), is clear that 56/59
#P(Am+1 ) = #P(Am ) + # {new} = 2m + # {new}.
Proof by induction: an important example
Let’s work # {new} out: in {new} there is an element for each element of P(Am )
(in order to have all elements of {new}, it’s enough to add the element (m + 1) to
each element of P(Am )). Then # {new} = #P(Am ) = 2m .

Therefore we have #P(Am+1 ) = 2m + 2m = 2(2m ) = 2m+1 .

Since m is generic (we have not specified it!), and we found at least one m for
which #P(Am ) = 2m (actually we found 4 of them, at the beginning), the theorem
is proven.

Index 57/59

SubSection Index

Logic inference - Methods of proof

Logic inference
Methods of proof
Logic fallacies

Index 58/59
Logic fallacies
Subtle and always luring are the logic fallacies, i.e. uncorrect ways to prove a logic
implication p ⇒ q.
Among the many possible logic fallacies (sistematically used by politicians and
advertisers. . . ), we list:
▸ q ⇒ p is equivalent to p ⇒ q ( F !);
▸ ¬p ⇒ ¬q is equivalent to p ⇒ q ( F !).

Example 44:
Let:
p: Antonio is European;
q: Antonio is Italian.

Then:
▸ It’s T that q ⇒ p, but it’s F that p ⇒ q (Antonio could be Spanish).

▸ It’s T that ¬p ⇒ ¬q (non-European implies non-Italian), but this does

not prove that p ⇒ q. On the other hand, proves that q ⇒ p, i.e. is a
proof by contraposition of q ⇒ p, but not of p ⇒ q.

Index 59/59