Chapter-2

Propositional Logic
We used the notation of formal logic to represent statements in symbolic form as wff. Because statements
are called as proposition, these wffs are called as propositional wffs.
The formal system that uses propositional wffs is called propositional logic, statement logic or
propositional calculus. (The word calculus is used here in the more general sense of calculation or
reasoning (this is not integration and differentiation.))

Valid Arguments:

An informal answer is that Q is a logical conclusion from P1-----Pn; whenever the truth o P1,------Pn
implies the truth of Q.

When this is a tautology we have to decide because the valid argument should be true based entirely on its
internal structure; it should be intrinsically true. Consider the following arguments they all are true but not
the valid arguments:-
The above arguments can be written as:-

Example 2:
Consider the following arguments and write the propositional wffs and state whether its valid argument or
not.

Answer:
This argument has 2 hypotheses:-

The symbolic representation of this argument has the form

How to Prove Tautology: To test whether the given argument is valid argument or not. We could build a
truth table or use algorithmic Tautology Test. We use a system of derivation rules that manipulate wffs in
a truth preserving manner. We begin with the hypotheses P1,P2,----Pn (assumed True) and attempt to
apply the manipulation rules in such a way as to end up with the conclusion Q.
 Derivation Rules for Propositional Logic:
The derivational rules for propositional logic falls in two categories:-
1. Equivalence Rules:- This allow individual wffs to be rewritten.
2. Inference Rules:- allow new wffs to be derived from the previous wffs in the proof sequence.

Equivalence Rules: states that certain pairs of wffs R and S are equivalent.

In the previous section rules are written only for the statements here they are written for wffs (P, Q, R)
Equivalence Rules work in both directions.

(If you are going to prove Derivation (Equivalence) rules then use T.T method)
Problem: Prove the implication rule; that is prove that is:

Is a tautology with the help of complete TT.

Ans: For Proving the rule we have to just build up the complete TT.
P Q P’

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

Problem: Prove that the equivalence Rule is a tautology.

P Q
T T
T F
F T
F F
T T T T
F F T F
F T F F
T T T T
Answer: (This is only how to follow the proof sequence)

Inference Rule: states that if one or more wffs that match the first part of the rule pattern are already part
of the proof sequence; we can add to the proof sequence a new wff that matches the last part of the rule
pattern.
Inference rules do not work in both directions. We can-not reverse the rule.

Example: : (This is only how to follow the proof sequence)

Problem: By using the Derivation Rules proof the following argument is valid or not.

Solution:

At the step 7 we introduce the D, now reach to the D.

Problem: By using the Derivation Rules proof the following argument is valid or not.

Solution:
Problem: Use propositional Logic to prove;

Solution:
It can be rewritten with the help of deduction rule:

Problem: Use Propositional Logic to Prove

Solution:
The Rule of Hypothetical Syllogism (hs):

Problem: Use Propositional Logic to Prove

Solution:

Alternatively without new rule we can prove the sequence:

So with the help of new rule we shortened our solution.