RULES OF INFERENCE

1. Simplification (Simp.)
P∧Q
⊢P
2. Conjunction (Conj.)
P
Q
⊢P∧Q
3. Absorption (Abs.)
P⊃Q
⊢ P ⊃ (P ∧ Q)
(Rule of Replacement)
P ⊃ Q ≡ P ⊃ (P ∧ Q)
4. Disjunctive Syllogism (D.S.)
P∨Q
~P
⊢Q
5. Modus Ponens (M.P.)
P⊃Q
P
⊢Q
6. Modus Tollens (M.T.)
P⊃Q
~Q
⊢ ~P
7. Hypothetical Syllogism (H.S.)
P⊃Q
Q⊃R
⊢P⊃R
8. Constructive Dilemma (C.D.)
P⊃Q
R⊃S
P∨R
⊢Q∨S
9. Destructive Dilemma (D.D.)
P⊃Q
R⊃S
~Q ∨ ~S
⊢ ~P ∨ ~R
10. Addition (Add.)
P
⊢P∨Q
RULES OF REPLACEMENT
1. De Morgan’s Theorem (D.M.)
~(P ∧ Q) ≡ ~P ∨ ~Q
~(P ∨ Q) ≡ ~P ∧ ~Q
2. Commutation (Comm.)
P∧Q≡Q∧P
P∨Q≡Q∨P
3. Association (Assoc.)
[P ∧ (Q ∧ R)] ≡ [(P ∧ Q) ∧ R]
[P ∨ (Q ∨ R)] ≡ [(P ∨ Q) ∨ R]
4. Distribution (Dist.)
[P ∧ (Q ∨ R)] ≡ [(P ∧ Q) ∨ (P ∧ R)]
[P ∨ (Q ∧ R)] ≡ [(P ∨ Q) ∧ (P ∨ R)]
5. Double Negation (D.N.)
P ≡ ~~P
6. Transposition (Trans.)
P ⊃ Q ≡ ~Q ⊃ ~P
7. Material Implication (M.I.)
P ⊃ Q ≡ ~P ∨ Q
8. Material Equivalence (M.E.)
(P ≡ Q) ≡ [(P ⊃ Q) ∧ (Q ⊃ P)]
(P ≡ Q) ≡ [(P ∧ Q) ∨ (~P ∧ ~Q)]
9. Exportation (Export.)
[(P ∧ Q) ⊃ R] ≡ [P ⊃ (Q ⊃ R)]
10. Tautology (Taut.)
P≡P∧P
P≡P∧P
FORMAL LOGIC
Formal Proofs
§ Finite sequence of formulas composed of an initial set of formulas followed their logical
consequences
Þ A formula j is a logical consequence of a set of formulas G
Þ Just in case the deduction of j from G is in accordance with a legitimate rule of inference
§ Step-by-step demonstration that the conclusion follows validly from the premises
§ Natural and efficient procedure for establishing the validity of an argument
Þ An argument is valid if and only if a formal proof of validity can be constructed for it
§ A formal proof that proves an argument to be valid is a sequence of sentences each of which is
either a premise of that argument or it follows from preceding sentence by an inference rule,
with the last sentence in the sequence being the conclusion
Þ The conclusion is validly deduced from the premises via intermediate inferences (or a chain
of reasoning)
Example:
Given: P ⊃ Q, Q ⊃ R, P ∧ S ⊢ R
1. P ⊃ Q Premise
2. Q ⊃ R Premise
3. P ∧ S Premise
4. P ⊃ R 1,2 H.S.
5. P 3 Simp.
6. R 4,5 M.P.
§ Rules of Inference and Replacement comprise a powerful set of rules that enables us to construct
formal proofs for a great variety of valid argument forms

Proof Strategies
§ Any sequence of formulas would count as a proof so long as it proceeds from the premises to the
conclusion with only the rules given
§ The justification column in a formal proof serves as a quick guide whether or not a given sequence
of formulas constitutes a formal proof of validity is an effective procedure
Guidelines in Simplifying the Process:
1. Reduce the complexity of formulas by identifying the main connectives
o Rule of inference apply on main connectives
o It does not always follow that just because the “∧” symbol occurs the simplification rule
applies
2. Transform the premises or deduce formulas from combinations to discover alternative avenues
of approach
3. It is a good strategy to work backwards from the conclusion by looking for intermediate
inferences that may be necessary for its deduction
o This way, the problem is broken up into smaller and more manageable problems
4. Some proof sequences occur
o A valid inference that has already been proved in a previous occasion might occur as an
intermediate conclusion in another problem
5. It is a good strategy to think of the inference rules as introduction and elimination rules
o Introduction Rules: serve to insert logical symbols and make formulas more complex
o Elimination Rules: simplify formulas by eliminating logical symbols
6. A letter that occurs only in the premises is to be eliminated, while a letter that occurs only in the
conclusion is to be added
o By principle of Addition

Conditional Proof (CP)

§ Allows for a wider variety of proofs, many of which are simpler or at least shorter than the usual
§ Involves sub-proofs
Þ Proofs within proofs
§ “⊃”-Introduction Rule
§ Implemented by introducing an assumption and then making further deduction from it and
other previous formulas
Þ Assumption, together with all the formulas derived with it, form a sub-proof
Þ Introduction of the assumption is to derive a conditional formula within the assumption
itself as an antecedent
Þ Conditional could be the final conclusion or an intermediate conclusion
§ Once the appropriate formula is reached, the sub-proof is terminated by dropping or discharging
the assumption
Þ Can be accomplished by introducing a conditional containing the assumption as antecedent
and the last line in the sub-proof as consequent
Example:
Given: P ⊃ Q, (Q ∨ R) ⊃ S ⊢ P ⊃ S
1. P ⊃ Q Premise
2. (Q ∨ R) ⊃ S Premise
3. P Assumption
4. Q 1, 3 M.P.
5. Q ∨ R 4 Add.
 6. S 2, 5 M.P.
7. P ⊃ S 3-6 C.P.
§ In the case that the consequent is another conditional, another assumption may be introduced
to deduce the consequent of the consequent
Þ Multiple assumption are thus permitted
Þ One needs to discharge them properly and in sequence
Þ 1st assumption is the last to be dropped, last assumption is the 1st to be dropped
Þ Sub-proofs should never crisscross
Example:
Given: P ⊃ (Q ⊃ R), Q ⊃ (R ⊃ S) ⊢ P ⊃ (Q ⊃ S)
1. P ⊃ (Q ⊃ R) Premise
2. Q ⊃(R ⊃ S) Premise
3. P Assumption
4. Q Assumptio
5. Q ⊃ R 1, 3 M.P.
6. R 4, 5 M.P.
7. R ⊃ S 2, 4 M.P.
8. S 7, 6 M.P.
9. Q ⊃ S 4-8 C.P.
10. P ⊃ (Q ⊃ S) 3-9 C.P.
§ Any assumption may be used provided that it is eventually dropped
Þ Once an assumption is discharged, we can no longer refer to it or any line which depends on
it in succeeding justifications
Þ Enclosed formulas are no longer accessible
§ Only the conditional outside the enclosures can be use for further deductions

Indirect Proof (IP)

§ A sentence that leads to a contradiction cannot possibly be true
Þ if the negation of a sentence yields a contradiction then the original sentence must be true
§ formalization of the Reductio ad Absurdum argument
Þ “Veritas veritati non est adversa”, Peter Abelard (1079-1142)
§ Procedure mirrors CP, an assumption is made then subsequently dropped
Þ The requisite assumption is the negation of the conclusion
Þ Sub-proof proceeds until an explicit contradiction is derived (i.e. j ∧ ~j)
Þ Assumption is dropped by writing down its negation
§ From the contradiction the conclusion follows by ex falso quodlibet (EFQ)
Þ Principle that from a contradiction anything whatsoever can be inferred (i.e. j ∧ ~j ⊢ Y)
Example:
Given: P ∨ (Q ∧ R), P ⊃ R ⊢ R
1. P ∨ (Q ∧ R) Premise
2. P ⊃ R Premise
3. ~R Assumption
4. ~P 2, 3 M.T.
5. Q ∧ R 1, 4 D.S.
6. R ∧ Q 5 Comm.
7. R 6 Simp.
8. R ∧ ~R 3, 7 Conj.
9. R 3-8 I.P.
§ Derivation of a contradiction shows that if the original premises are true then the assumption
must be false
Þ The negation of the assumption, which is the conclusion itself, must then be true
§ Argument is clearly valid since the conclusion is true of the premises are

Proving Tautologies
§ Tautology: logical truth in sentential calculus
Þ Are necessarily true
Þ Their truth is guaranteed by the sentence connectives alone, independent of the way the world
happens to be and the meanings of the atomic sentences which they are compose of
Þ Are valid by virtue of form alone
§ CP and IP are effective strategies for proving tautologies
§ A conditional can be proved tautologous by deducing its consequent from its antecedent
Given: ⊢ [(P ⊃ Q) ⊃ Q] ⊃ (P ∨ Q)
1. (P ⊃ Q) ⊃ Q Assumption
2. ~(P ⊃ Q) ∨ Q 1 M.I.
3. ~(~P ∨ Q) ∨ Q 2 M.I.
4. (~~P ∧ ~Q) ∨ Q 3 D.M.
5. (P ∧ ~Q) ∨ Q 4 D.N.
6. Q ∨ (P ∧ ~Q) 5 Comm.
7. (Q ∨ P) ∧ (Q ∨ ~Q) 6 Dist.
8. Q ∨ P 7 Simp.
 9. P ∨ Q 8 Comm.
10. [(P ⊃ Q) ⊃ Q] ⊃ (P ∨ Q) 1-9 C.P.
§ If the negation of a formula leads to a contradiction, then the original formula must be a
tautology
Given: ⊢ [(P ⊃ Q) ⊃ P] ⊃ P
1. ~{[(P ⊃ Q) ⊃ P] ⊃ P} Assumption
2. ~{~[(P ⊃ Q) ⊃ P] ∨ P} 1 M.I.
3. ~~[(P ⊃ Q) ⊃ P] ∧ ~P 2 D.M.
4. [(P⊃ Q) ⊃ P] ∧ ~P 3 D.N.
5. [~(P ⊃ Q) ∨ P] ∧ ~P 4 M.I.
6. [~(~P ∨ Q) ∨ P] ∧ ~P 5 M.I.
7. [(~~P ∧ ~Q) ∨ P] ∧ ~P 6 D.M.
8. [(P ∧ ~Q) ∨ P] ∧ ~P 7 D.N.
9. [(P ∨ (P ∧ ~Q)] ∧ ~P 8 Comm.
10. [(P ∨ P) ∧ (P ∨ ~Q)] ∧ ~P 9 Dist.
11. [P ∧ (P ∨ ~Q)] ∧ ~P 10 Taut.
12. [(P ∨ ~Q) ∧ P] ∧ ~P 11 Comm.
13. (P ∨ ~Q) ∧ (P ∧ ~P) 12 Assoc.
14. (P ∧ ~P) ∧ (P ∨ ~Q) 13 Comm.
15. P ∧ ~P 14 Simp.
16. [(P ⊃ Q) ⊃ P] ⊃ P 1-15 I.P.

Deduction Theorem
o Every valid argument can be constructed as a tautology
o All that needs to be done is to take the conjunction of the premises as antecedent and the
conclusion as consequent
Þ Resulting formula is a conditional sentence which is a tautology
o Valid argument can be transformed into a tautology by treating the premises as assumption and
discharging them accordingly

Important Tautologies
1. Law of Identity
P≡P
2. Law of Excluded Middle
P ∨ ~P
3. Law of Non-Contradiction
~(P ∧ ~P)
4. Law of Permutation
[P ⊃ (Q ⊃ R)] ≡ [Q ⊃ (P ⊃ R)]
5. Law of Importation
[P ⊃ (Q ⊃ R)] ≡ [(P ∧ Q) ⊃ R]
6. Law of Exportation
[(P ∧ Q) ⊃ R] ≡ [P ⊃ (Q ⊃ R)]
7. Pierce’s Law
[(P ⊃ Q) ⊃ P] ⊃ P

Logistic System
Uniform Substitution (US)
o Rule of substitution
o Replacing a letter with another letter or another formula
Axioms:
1. (P ∨ P) ⊃ P
2. Q ⊃ (P ∨ Q)
3. (P ∨ Q) ⊃ (Q ∨ P)
4.
5. (Q ⊃ R) ⊃ [(P ∨ Q) ⊃ (P ∨ R)]
Rules:
1. Modus Ponens (M.P.)
P⊃Q
P
⊢Q

Definitions:
o Just rewriting a formula
1. P ⊃ Q = ~P ∨ Q
2. P ∧ Q = ~(~P ∨ ~Q)
3. P ≡ Q = (P ⊃ Q) ∧ (Q ⊃ P)

Derived Rule
o Contains premises or assumptions
o Sequence of formulas
Theorem 1: (Q ⊃ R) ⊃ [(P ⊃ Q) ⊃ (P ⊃ R)]
1. (Q ⊃ R) ⊃ [(~P ∨ Q) ⊃ (~P ∨ R)] Ax5
2. (Q ⊃ R) ⊃ [(P ⊃ Q) ⊃ (P ⊃ R)] Df1
DR1: P ⊃ Q, Q ⊃ R ⊢ P ⊃ R
o Hypothetical Syllogism
1. (Q ⊃ R) ⊃ [(∼P ∨ Q) ⊃ (∼P ∨ R) Th1
2. Q ⊃ R P
3. (P ⊃ Q) ⊃ (P ⊃ R) R1
4. P ⊃ Q P
5. P ⊃ R R1
Theorem 2: P ⊃ (P ∨ Q)
1. P ⊃ (Q ∨ P) Ax2
2. (Q ∨ P) ⊃ (P ∨ Q) Ax3
3. P ⊃ (P ∨ Q) DR1
DR2: P ⊢ P ∨ Q
1. P ⊃ (P ∨ Q) Th2
2. P P
3. P ∨ Q R1
Theorem 3: P ⊃ P
1. P ⊃ (P ∨ P) Ax2
2. (P ∨ P) ⊃ P Ax1
3. P ⊃ P DR1
DR3: P ∨ Q ⊢ Q ∨ P
o Commutation
1. (P ∨ Q) ⊃ (Q ∨ P) Ax3
2. P ∨ Q P
3. Q ∨ P R1
Theorem 4: P ∨ ~P
o Excluded Middle
1. P ⊃ P Th3
2. ~P ∨ P Df1
3. P ∨ ~P DR3
Theorem 5: P ⊃ ~~P
1. ~P ∨ ~~P Th4
2. P ⊃ ~~P Df1
DR4: Q ⊃ R ⊢ (P ∨ Q) ⊃ (P ∨ R)
1. (Q ⊃ R) ⊃ [(P ∨ Q) ⊃ (P ∨ R)] Ax5
2. Q ⊃ R P
3. (P ∨ Q) ⊃ (P ∨ R) R1
Theorem 6: ~~P ⊃ P
1. ~P ⊃ ~~~P Th5
2. (P ∨ ~P) ⊃ (P ∨ ~~~P) DR4
3. P ∨ ~P Th4
4. P ∨ ~~~P R1
5. ~~~P ∨ P DR3
6. ~~P ⊃ P Df1
DR5: P ⊃ Q ⊢ ~Q ⊃ ~P
o Transposition
1. P ⊃ Q P
2. Q ⊃ ~~Q Th5
3. P ⊃ ~~Q DR1
4. ~P ∨ ~~Q Df1
5. ~~Q ∨ ~P DR3
6. ~Q ⊃ ~P Df1
Theorem 7: (P ∧ Q) ⊃ Q
1. ~(~P ∨ ~Q) ⊃ Q Df2
2. ~Q ⊃ (~P ∨ ~Q) Ax2
3. ~ (~P ∨ ∼Q) ⊃ ~~Q DR5
4. ~~Q ⊃ Q Th6
5. ~(~P ∨ ~Q) ⊃ Q DR1
6. (P ∧ Q) ⊃ Q Df2
DR6: P ∧ Q ⊢ Q
1. (P ∧ Q) ⊃ Q Th7
2. P ∧ Q P
3. Q R1
Theorem 8: (P ∧ Q) ⊃ P
1. ~P ⊃ (~Q ∨ ~P) Ax2
2. (~Q ∨ ~P) ⊃ (~P ∨ ~Q) Ax3
3. ~P ⊃ (~P ∨ ~Q) DR1
4. ~(~P ∨ ~Q) ⊃ ~~P DR5
 5. (P ∧ Q) ⊃ ~~P Df2
6. ~~P ⊃ P Th6
7. (P ∧ Q) ⊃ P DR1
DR7: P ∧ Q ⊢ P
o Simplification
1. (P ∧ Q) ⊃ P Th8
2. P ∧ Q P
3. P R1
DR8: P ⊃ Q, ~Q ⊢ ~P
o Modus Tollens
1. P ⊃ Q P
2. ~Q ⊃ ~P DR5
3. ~Q P
4. ~P R1
DR9: P ∨ Q, ~P ⊢ Q
o Disjunctive Syllogism
1. P ∨ Q P
2. ~P P
3. ~P ∨ Q DR2
4. P ⊃ Q Df1
5. (P ⊃ Q) ⊃ [(Q ∨ P) ⊃ (Q ∨ Q)] Ax5
6. (Q ∨ P) ⊃ (Q ∨ Q) R1
7. Q ∨ P DR3
8. Q ∨ Q R1
9. (Q ∨ Q) ⊃ Q Ax1
10. Q R1
Axiom 4: [P ∨ (Q ∨ R)] ⊃ [Q ∨ (P ∨ R)]
o Actually a theorem
1. R ⊃ (P ∨ R) Ax2
2. (Q ∨ R) ⊃ [Q ∨ (P ∨ R)] DR4
3. [P ∨ (Q ∨ R)] ⊃ {P ∨ [Q ∨ (P ∨ DR4
R)]} Ax3
4. {P ∨ [Q ∨ (P ∨ R)]} ⊃ {[Q ∨ (P ∨
R)] ∨ P} DR1
5. [P ∨ (Q ∨ R)] ⊃ {[Q ∨ (P ∨ R)] ∨ Th2
P} Ax2
6. P ⊃ (P ∨ R) DR1
7. (P ∨ R) ⊃ [Q ∨ (P ∨ R)] DR4
8. P ⊃ [Q ∨ (P ∨ R)]
9. {[Q ∨ (P ∨ R)] ∨ P} ⊃ {[Q ∨ (P ∨ Ax1
R)] ∨ [Q ∨ (P ∨ R)]}
10. {[Q ∨ (P ∨ R)] ∨ [Q ∨ (P ∨ R)]} DR1
⊃ [Q ∨ (P ∨ R)] DR1
11. {[Q ∨ (P ∨ R)] ∨ P} ⊃ [Q ∨ (P ∨
R)]
12. [P ∨ (Q ∨ R)] ⊃ [Q ∨ (P ∨ R)]
DR10: P, Q ⊢ P ∧ Q

Theorem 9: [(P ∨ Q) ∨ R] ⊃ [P ∨ (Q ∨ R)]

Theorem 10: P ⊃ [Q ⊃ (P ∧ Q)]

1. (~P ∨ ~Q) ∨ ~(~P ∨ ~Q) Th4
2. [(~P ∨ ~Q) ∨ ~ (~P ∨ ~Q)] ⊃ {~P ∨ Th9
[~Q ∨ ~(~P ∨ ~Q)]}
3. ~P ∨ [~Q ∨ ~(~P ∨ ~Q)] R1
4. ~P ∨ [~Q ∨ (P ∧ Q)] Df2
5. ~P ∨ [Q ∨ (P ∧ Q)] Df1
6. P ⊃ [Q ⊃ (P ∧ Q)] Df1

Truth Trees
§ Semantic Tableaux
§ Syntactical technique
Þ Do not need to interpret formulas
§ Process of resolution
§ Can be applied to analysis of formulas
§ Test for consistency
Properties
o Atomic sentence
Þ Sentence letter is an atomic formula
Þ Represents basic sentences in logic
o Branches, paths
o Leaves, nodes
o Trunk
Þ Original formula

PREDICATE LOGIC
§ General logic
§ First-order function calculus
§ More perspicuous formal language
§ Provides a deeper analysis of the logical form of a sentence
§ Considered as the standard logical framework
§ Includes sentential logic
Þ Requires sentential logic to include predication and quantification
§ Accomplished by the addition of predicate and individual symbols
Þ Representing the more general linguistic distinction between universals and particulars
Þ Universals: collections of objects
Þ Particulars: specific objects
§ Capital letters: predicate symbols
Þ Express properties of objects or relations between objects
Þ Numerical superscripts may be attached to distinguish from sentential symbols and to
indicate the degree of the predicate
Þ One-place predicate (n = 1): monadic predicate
Þ n > 1: relation
§ Lowercase letters: individual symbols
Þ Represent the specific individuals normally referred to by singular terms
Þ Proper names, pronouns, definite descriptions
§ Atomic sentence is formed by connecting a predicate symbol with the right number of individual
constants as indicated by the degree of the predicate
Example:
“Fa”: Plato is a philosopher
o Read as “a is F”
o “F” is a monadic predicate
o “a” is an individual constant

Quantification
§ Use to generate general sentences
Þ Sentences with no singular terms
§ Procedure that involves sentential functions and quantifiers
§ Sentential Function: formula that embodies the structure of a sentence
Þ Fa vs. Fx
Þ Individual symbol occurs in the former in the place of an individual variable in the latter
§ Putting a quantifier (individual variable) before the sentential function
Þ Fx ® (x)Fx
Instantiation
o Can generate quantifiers
o Quantifiers bind individual variables, connecting variables within the sentential formula
Þ Quantifier is bound if it occurs within the scope of a quantifier, otherwise it is a free variable
o Scope of Quantifier: portion of the formula that the quantifier governs as indicated by a pair of
groupers
Þ Consists of the quantifier, quantifier-scope groupers, and everything located between those
groupers
1. Universal (∀x)
o (∀x)∅x
Þ ∅x = where x is any of the elements
o All, unrestricted
o (∀x)Fx
Þ Every x is F
2. Particular (∃x)
o (∃x)∅x
Þ ∅a = where a is a new symbol; a has no previous occurrence
o Some (at least one), restricted
o (∃x)Fx
Þ Some x is F
Recursive Definition of WFF
1. A sentential letter is a WFF
2. If j is a predicate symbol of degree n and Y1, Y2, …, Yn are n individual symbols which are not
necessarily distinct and where n = 1, 2, 3, …, then j(Y1, Y2, …, Yn) is a WFF
3. If j is a WFF, then ~j is also a WFF
4. If j and Y are WFFs, then j ∧ Y is also a WFF
5. If j is a WFF and Y is an individual variable, then (Y)(j) is also a WFF
6. No formula is a WFF unless it’s being so follows from the rules above

Theory of Syllogisms
§ Syllogisms: 3 terms
Þ 2 premises, 1 conclusion
§ 256 possible combinations
All B is C
All A is B
All A is C
§ Major Term: C
Þ Predicate
§ Minor Term: A
 Þ Subject
§ Middle Term: B
Þ Term that only occurs in the premises
§ Major Premise: 1st line
Þ Has the major term
Þ “All B is C”
§ Minor Premise: 2nd line
Þ Has the minor term
Þ “All A is B”
§ Conclusion: 3rd line
1. Universal Affirmative (A)
§ (∀x)(Px ⊃ Qx)
§ For every x, if x is a P then x is a Q
§ Affirms the inclusion of an entire class of individuals in another class
§ Relates 2 predicates or terms together
2. Universal Negative (E)
§ (∀x)(Px ⊃ ~Qx)
§ For every x, if x is a P then x is not a Q
§ Denies the inclusion of any member of a class in another class
§ Denies that 2 predicates or terms have anything in common
3. Particular Affirmative (I)
§ (∃x)(Px ∧ Qx)
§ For some x, x is both P and Q
§ Affirms that a class of individuals is partially included in another
§ 2 predicates or terms have something in common
4. Particular Negative (O)
§ (∃x)(Px ∧ ~Qx)
§ For some x, x is P but not Q
§ Denies that an entire class is contained in another class
Square of Opposition

§ Contradiction/Contradictories
Þ Universal Affirmative (A) and Particular Negative (O)
Þ Universal Negative (E) and Particular Affirmative (I)
§ Contrariety/Contraries
Þ Universal Affirmative (A) and Universal Negative (E)
Þ Can both be false but cannot both be true
§ Subcontrariety/Subcontraries
Þ Particular Affirmative (I) and Particular Negative (O)
Þ Can both be true but cannot both be false
§ Subalternation
Þ Universal Affirmative (A) and Particular Affirmative (I)
Þ Universal Negative (E) and Particular Negative (O)
Þ Only valid under the assumption of existential import: assumption that all the terms
involved truly refer