Math 310

Exam 1 - Practice Problem Solutions

1. Translate the following English statements into symbolic form (use propositional sentences).

(a) I will not pass this class unless I go to class every day and do all of the homework exercises.
First we define variables. p : I pass this class. g : I go to class everyday. h : I do all the homework exercises.
Then the statement translates as: (¬g ∨ ¬h) → ¬p or as: p → (g ∧ h)
(b) I lock the doors and close the windows whenever I leave to go to work.
First we define variables. d : I lock the doors. c : I close the windows. w : I leave to go to work.
Then the statement translates as: w → (d ∧ c)
(c) Getting up on time and getting ready quickly is sufficient for arriving at work on time.
First we define variables. g : I get up on time. q : I get ready quickly. w : I arrive at work on time.
Then the statement translates as: (g ∧ q) → w
(d) Practicing an hour a day and getting private lessons twice a week is necessary for playing in the wind ensemble.
First we define variables. p : I practice an hour a day. l : I get private lessons twice a week. w : I play in the wind
ensemble.
Then the statement translates as: w → (p ∧ l)

2. Use truth tables to determine whether or not the following pairs of statements are logically equivalent.

(a) [(p ∧ q) → r] and (p → r) ∧ (q → r)

p q r p ∧ q (p ∧ q) → r p q r p → r q → r (p → r) ∧ (q → r)
T T T T T T T T T T T
T T F T F T T F F F F
T F T F T T F T T T T
T F F F T T F F F T F
F T T F T F T T T T T
F T F F T F T F T F F
F F T F T F F T T T T
F F F F T F F F T T T
Since the last columns of there truth tables are not identical, these two propositions are not logically equivalent.
(b) p ∧ (q ∨ r) and (p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r)
p q r q ∨ r p ∧ (q ∨ r) p q r p ∧ q p ∧ r (p ∧ r) ∨ (p ∧ r)
T T T T T T T T T T T
T T F T T T T F T F T
T F T T T T F T F T T
T F F F F T F F F F F
F T T T F F T T F F F
F T F T F F T F F F F
F F T T F F F T F F F
F F F F F F F F F F F
Since the last columns of there truth tables are identical, these two propositions are logically equivalent.
(c) p ∧ (q ∨ ¬r) and (p ∧ q) ∨ ¬ (¬p ∨ r)
p q r ¬r q ∨ ¬r p ∧ (q ∨ ¬r) p q r p∧q ¬p ¬p ∨ r ¬(¬p ∨ r) (p ∧ q) ∨ ¬(¬p ∨ r)
T T T F T T T T T T F T F T
T T F T T T T T F T F F T T
T F T F F F T F T F F T F F
T F F T T T T F F F F F T T
F T T F T F F T T F T T F F
F T F T T F F T F F T T F F
F F T F F F F F T F T T F F
F F F T T F F F F F T T F F
Since the last columns of there truth tables are identical, these two propositions are logically equivalent.
3. Use truth tables to determine which of the following statements are tautologies:

(a) (p ⊕ q) ↔ [(p ∨ q) ∧ ¬ (p ∧ q)]

p q p ⊕ q p ∨ q p ∧ q ¬(p ∧ q) (p ∨ q) ∧ ¬(p ∧ q) (p ⊕ q) ↔ (p ∨ q) ∧ ¬(p ∧ q)
T T F T T F F T
T F T T F T T T
F T T T F T T T
F F F F F T F T
Since every entry in the final column is T , this proposition is a tautology.
(b) (p → q) ↔ [¬ (p ∧ ¬q)]
p q p → q ¬q p ∧ ¬q ¬(p ∧ ¬q) (p → q) ↔ [¬ (p ∧ ¬q)]
T T T F F T T
T F F T T F T
F T T F F T T
F F T T F T T
Since every entry in the final column is T , this proposition is a tautology.
(c) p → (¬q ∨ r ∨ ¬r)
p q r ¬q ¬r ¬q ∨ ¬r ¬q ∨ r ∨ ¬r p → (¬q ∨ r ∨ ¬r)
T T T F F F T T
T T F F T T T T
T F T T F T T T
T F F T T T T T
F T T F F F T T
F T F F T T T T
F F T T F T T T
F F F T T T T T
Since every entry in the final column is T , this proposition is a tautology.

4. Use propositional rules of inference to prove the the following statements are tautologies:

(a) [¬p ∧ (p ∨ q)] → q

We proceed by constructing a 2-column proof:
Statement Reason
[¬p ∧ (p ∨ q)] → q Given
[(¬p ∧ p) ∨ (¬p ∧ q)] → q Distributive Law
[F ∨ (¬p ∧ q)] → q Negation Law
(¬p ∧ q) → q Identity Law
(¬p → q) ∨ (q → q) Established Conditional Equivalence
(¬p → q) ∨ (¬q ∨ q) Conditional to Disjunction
(¬p → q) ∨ T Negation Law
T Domination Law
The proof given in the table above verifies that the original proposition is always true.
(b) ¬p → (p → q)
We proceed by constructing a 2-column proof:
Statement Reason
¬p → (p → q) Given
p ∨ (p → q) Conditional to Disjunction
p ∨ (¬p ∨ q) Conditional to Disjunction
(p ∨ ¬p) ∨ q Associative Law
T ∨q Negation Law
T Domination Law
The proof given in the table above verifies that the original proposition is always true.
5. Use propositional rules of inference to show that each pair of logical statements are logically equivalent.

(a) (r ∨ p) → (r ∨ q) and r ∨ (p → q).

Statement Reason
(r ∨ p) → (r ∨ q) Given
¬ (r ∨ p) ∨ (r ∨ q) Conditional to Disjunction
(¬r ∧ ¬p) ∨ (r ∨ q) DeMorgan’s Law
[(¬r ∧ ¬p) ∨ r] ∨ q Associative Law
[r ∨ (¬r ∧ ¬p)] ∨ q Commutative Law
[(r ∨ ¬r) ∧ (r ∨ ¬p)] ∨ q Distributive Law
[T ∧ (r ∨ ¬p)] ∨ q Negation Law
[(r ∨ ¬p)] ∨ q Identity Law
r ∨ (¬p ∨ q) Associative Law
r ∨ (p → q) Conditional to Disjunction
Thus (r ∨ p) → (r ∨ q) ≡ r ∨ (p → q)
(b) p → q and [(p ∧ ¬q) → ¬p]
Statement Reason
[(p ∧ ¬q) → ¬p] Given
¬ (p ∧ ¬q) ∨ ¬p Conditional to Disjunction
(¬p ∨ q) ∨ ¬p DeMorgan’s Law
(q ∨ ¬p) ∨ ¬p Commutative Law
q ∨ (¬p ∨ ¬p) Associative Law
q ∨ ¬p Idempotent Law
¬p ∨ q Commutative Law
p→q Conditional to Disjunction
Thus p → q ≡ [(p ∧ ¬q) → ¬p]

6. Determine whether or not the following statements are satisfiable.

(a) (p ∨ q ∨ ¬r) ∧ (p ∨ ¬q ∨ r) ∧ (¬p ∨ ¬q ∨ r)

Consider the truth assignment p : T, q : F, and r : T .
Then p ∨ q ∨ ¬r has truth value T ∨ F ∨ F , so this part of the proposition is true.
Similarly, p ∨ ¬q ∨ r has truth value T ∨ T ∨ T , so this part of the proposition is true.
Similarly, ¬p ∨ ¬q ∨ r has truth value F ∨ T ∨ T , so this part of the proposition is true.
Thus the the entire statement (the conjunction of the previous statements) is true with the given truth value
assignment.
(b) (p ∨ q ∨ ¬r ∨ s) ∧ (p ∨ ¬q ∨ r ∨ ¬s) ∧ (¬p ∨ ¬q ∨ r ∨ ¬s)
Consider the truth assignment p : T, q : F, r : T and s : F .
Then p ∨ q ∨ ¬r ∨ s has truth value T ∨ F ∨ F ∨ F , so this part of the proposition is true.
Similarly, p ∨ ¬q ∨ r ∨ ¬s has truth value T ∨ T ∨ T ∨ T , so this part of the proposition is true.
Similarly, ¬p ∨ ¬q ∨ r ∨ ¬s has truth value F ∨ T ∨ T ∨ T , so this part of the proposition is true.
Thus the the entire statement (the conjunction of the previous statements) is true with the given truth value
assignment.

7. Suppose that there is a certain town in which all the men either shave themselves, or they are shaved by the town
barber Figaro (who is male). Suppose Vinny is too cheap to have the barber shave him. Let S(x, y) be the two variable
predicate “person x is shaved by person “y”. First translate the given statement into English, then determine the truth
value of the statement and justify your answer.

(a) ∀x (S(x, Figaro) ∨ S(x, x))

Note that the implied domain for both x and y is the men who live in this town.
Translation: Every man in the town is either shaved by the barber Figaro or shaves himself.
Value: True (this is the given statement above).
(b) ∀x (¬S(x, x) → S(x, Figaro))
Translation: Every man in the town that does not shave himself is shaved by the barber Figaro.
Value: True (since there are only two possibilities, one of them must hold).
 (c) ∀x (S(x, Figaro) → ¬S(x, x))
Translation: Every man in the town that is shaved by the barber Figaro does not shave himself.
Value: False (the counterexample is Figaro, who shaves himself and is also shaved by Figaro).
(d) ∃y∀x (S(x, y))
Translation: There is a man who shaves every man in the town.
Value: False (Since Vinny shaves himself, there is noone who shaves everyone).
(e) ∃!x (S(x, x) ∧ S(x, Figaro))
Translation: There is exactly one man who both shaves himself and is shaved by the barber Figaro.
Value: True (the example is Figaro, who shaves himself and is also shaved by Figaro).

8. Translate each of the following statements into quantified predicate form. Make sure to define each predicate used and
state the domain of each variable.

(a) At least one person in this neighborhood watches television on Monday but not on Wednesday.
Let x be the set of all people. Let y be the set of days of the week.
Let N (x) denote: person x lives in this neighborhood.
Let W (x, y) denote: person x watches television on day y.
Translation: ∃x (N (x) ∧ W (x, Monday) ∧ ¬W (x, Wednesday)).
(b) There is a person who has run a marathon in every state in the United States of America.
Let x be the set of all people. Let y be the set of states in the U.S.
Let R(x, y) denote: person x has run a marathon in state y.
Translation: ∃x∀y (R(x, y)).

9. Write the negation of each of the following statements (First write each statement symbolically, then negate the symbolic
statement, and finally, translate the negation back into plain English).

(a) Everyone who took their driver’s exam today passed the exam.
Let x be the set of all people, T (x) the predicate: “Person x took their driver’s exam.”, and P (x) the predicate:
“Person x passed their driver’s exam.”
Then the translation of this statement in symbolic form is: ∀x (T (x) → P (x)).
Negating this statement, we get ¬∀x (T (x) → P (x)) ≡ ∃x¬ (T (x) → P (x))
≡ ∃x¬ (¬T (x) ∨ P (x)) ≡ ∃x (T (x) ∧ ¬P (x)).
Translating back to English, this is: “There is some person who took their driver’s exam but did not pass their
driver’s exam.”
(b) Some people like bowling and tennis.
Let x be the set of all people, B(x) the predicate: “Person x likes bowling.”, and T (x) the predicate: “Person x
likes tennis.”
Then the translation of this statement in symbolic form is: ∃x (B(x) ∧ T (x)).
Negating this statement, we get ¬∃x (B(x) ∧ T (x)) ≡ ∀x¬ (B(x) ∧ T (x)) ≡ ∀x (¬B(x) ∨ ¬T (x)).
Translating back to English, this is: “Everyone either dislikes Bowling or dislikes tennis.”
(c) If everyone passed the exam then everyone studied for the exam.
Let x be the set of all people, P (x) the predicate: “Person x passed the exam.”, and S(x) the predicate: “Person
x studied for the exam.”
Then the translation of this statement in symbolic form is: (∀xP (x)) → (∀xS(x)).
Negating this statement, we get ¬ [(∀xP (x)) → (∀xS(x))] ≡ ¬ [(¬∀xP (x)) ∨ (∀xS(x))] ≡ ∀xP (x) ∧ ¬ (∀xS(x)).
≡ ∀xP (x) ∧ ∃x¬S(x)
Translating back to English, this is: “Everyone passed the exam but some person did not study for the exam.”
10. Negate each of the statements (your answer should be in symbolic form)

(a) ∀x∀y [((x > 0) ∧ (y < 0)) → (xy ≥ 0)]

¬∀x∀y [((x > 0) ∧ (y < 0)) → (xy ≥ 0)] ≡ ∃x∃y¬ [((x > 0) ∧ (y < 0)) → (xy ≥ 0)]
≡ ∃x∃y¬ [¬ ((x > 0) ∧ (y < 0)) ∨ (xy ≥ 0)] ≡ ∃x∃y [((x > 0) ∧ (y < 0)) ∧ ¬(xy ≥ 0)]
≡ ∃x∃y [((x > 0) ∧ (y < 0)) ∧ (xy < 0)]
(b) ∃x∀y∀z [(F (x, y) ∧ G(x, z)) → H(y, z)]
¬∃x∀y∀z [(F (x, y) ∧ G(x, z)) → H(y, z)] ≡ ∀x∃y∃z¬ [(F (x, y) ∧ G(x, z)) → H(y, z)]
≡ ∀x∃y∃z¬ [¬ (F (x, y) ∧ G(x, z)) ∨ H(y, z)]
≡ ∀x∃y∃z [(F (x, y) ∧ G(x, z)) ∧ ¬H(y, z)]
(c) ∀x∃!y [S(x, y) ∨ ¬R(x, y)]
¬∀x∃!y [S(x, y) ∨ ¬R(x, y)] ≡ ∃x¬∃!y [S(x, y) ∨ ¬R(x, y)]
≡ ∃x [∀y¬ [S(x, y) ∨ ¬R(x, y)] ∨ ∃y1 [S(x, y1 ) ∨ ¬R(x, y1 )] ∧ ∃y2 [(y1 6= y2 ) ∧ [S(x, y2 ) ∨ ¬R(x, y2 )]]]
≡ ∃x [∀y [¬S(x, y) ∧ R(x, y)]] ∨ ∃y1 [S(x, y1 ) ∨ ¬R(x, y1 )] ∧ ∃y2 [(y1 6= y2 ) ∧ [S(x, y2 ) ∨ ¬R(x, y2 )]]

11. Let x, y and z be integers. Determine the truth value of each of the following.

(a) ∀x∃y(x + y = 1)

TRUE

To see this, note that, given an integer x, if we let y = 1 − x, then y is also an integer, and x + y = x + (1 − x) = 1.

(b) ∀x∀y∃z(xy < z)

TRUE

To see this, note that, given arbitrary integers x and y, if we let z = xy + 1, then xy < z.

(c) ∃z∀x∀y(xy < z)

FALSE

To see this, note that unlike in part (b), given the order of quantification, we must choose z first.

Given z, if we let x = z + 1 and y = 1 then xy = z + 1 > z.