Go to Contents

1.3 Truth tables

Syntax of propositional logic

The logical symbolism by which we symbolize the sentences of a

natural language can also be considered a language. Each
language has syntactic rules, which determine how starting from
the words of the language more complex expressions can be
formed. Thereby the syntactic rules distinguish the well-formed
(grammatically correct) expressions of the language from the non-
well-formed (grammatically incorrect) possible sequences of
words. The syntactic rules constitute the syntax of the language.
Considering the syntax, we put aside the question of what the
words of the language mean or which of its sentences are true and
which false – we are only interested in the question of what
possible sequences of words are grammatically correct and what
are not. The meanings of the words and the truth or falsity of the
sentences of a language is a subject of its semantics. We will now
formulate some syntactic rule for the symbolic language of
propositional logic we use, thus strictly defining its syntax.

The “words” of the language of propositional logic are the

following symbols:

unlimited number of propositional letters: “p”, “q”, “r”, “s”, …,

“p1”, “q1”, …

the logical connectives of negation (“¬”), conjunction (“∧”),

disjunction (“∨”), conditional (“→”) and biconditional (“↔”)

the auxiliary symbols of parentheses: “(” and “)”

The syntactic rules of the language of propositional logic are as
follows:

i. Each propositional letter is a well-formed formula.

ii. If α is well-formed, then ¬α is well-formed.

iii. If α and β are well-formed, then (α∧β) is well-formed.

iv. If α and β are well-formed, then (α∨β) is well-formed.

v. If α and β are well-formed, then (α→β) is well-formed.

vi. If α and β are well-formed, then (α↔β) is well-formed.

vii. Well-formed formulas are those and only those sequences of

the above three types of symbols that can be shown to be
such based on the syntactic rules i)–vi).

Together, these seven rules constitute a definition of the notion of

a well-formed formula (or briefly formula) of propositional logic.
Such definitions are called recursive. It is characteristic of them
that the defined term (“well-formed formula” in our case) is used
in the defining expression (the definiens). This does not make
them circular, however, as is for example the “definition” of the
term “beautiful” by the expression “something that is beautiful”.
Generally, the purpose of a definition of a general term (a word or
phrase that is true or false of things) is to specify what things fall
under the term and what do not. This is usually achieved by giving
a necessary and sufficient condition for falling under the term.
The problem with circular definitions is not that they do not give a
necessary and sufficient condition (to be beautiful is a necessary
and sufficient condition for something to be beautiful) but that it is
impossible to determine by them whether something falls under
the term or not because when trying to apply them we spin in a
circle. To determine whether an object is beautiful by the above
circular definition, we need to determine if it is beautiful, but to
determine that, we need to determine if it is beautiful, ... and so
on. Although the recursive definition of “well-formed formula”
uses the same term, it enables us to effectively determine for each
sequence of symbols whether it falls under the defined term. This
is so because of the following. First, the definition specifies what
are the atomic formulas – the simple formulas that do not contain
other formulas as parts. This is done in rule i). Then rules ii) to vi)
specify how starting from atomic formulas and using logical
connectives more and more complex formulas can be formed.
Lastly, rule vii) excludes from the well-formed formulas all
sequences of symbols that are not constructed in accordance with
the previous rules. In effect, the definition tells us that an
expression is a well-formed formula if and only if it is constructed
from certain elements (which are explicitly specified) by certain
rules (which are explicitly specified). The result is that, although
there are infinitely many well-formed and non-well-formed
sequences of symbols, for each given sequence we can check by
the definition (in a finite number of steps) whether it is well-
formed.1

For example, “((p∧q)→(¬r∧¬s))” is a well-formed formula of

propositional logic according to the above definition because of
the following. By i), “p” and “q” are (well-formed) formulas.
Therefore, by iii), “(p∧q)” is a formula. On the other hand, “r” and
“s” are formulas by i). Therefore, by ii) “¬r” and “¬s” are formulas,
and by iii) such is also “(¬r∧¬s)”. Since “(p∧q)” and “(¬r∧¬s)” are
formulas, “((p∧q)→(¬r∧¬s))” is a formula by v).

According to rules iii)–vi), we should always enclose conjunctions,

disjunctions, conditionals and biconditionals in parentheses. The
reason is that later they may become parts of other formulas in
which they must be in parentheses. For example, from “r” and “s”
we are allowed to form by iii) “(r∧s)”, not “r∧s”, because if we
later connect it, say, with “p” by conditional, in the first case we
will get “p→(r∧s)” and in the second we will get “p→r∧s”, which
is ambiguous – it is not clear whether it should be interpreted as a
conditional (of “p” and “r∧s”) or as a conjunction (of “p→r” and
“s”).

Putting parentheses around formulas derived by rules (iii)–(vi)

results in formulas being enclosed in parentheses even if they are
not part of another formula. For example, the formula we used as
an illustration above was “((p∧q)→(¬r∧¬s))”, not
“(p∧q)→(¬r∧¬s)”. For ease of writing, we usually omit the
outermost parentheses. We write “(p∧q)→(¬r∧¬s)” instead of
“((p∧q)→(¬r∧¬s))” but officially the first expression is an
abbreviation for the latter.

Although negations are compound formulas like conjunctions,

disjunctions … etc., by rule ii) we do not enclose ¬α in parentheses.
For example, a well-formed formula is “¬¬p”, not “(¬(¬p))”. The
result is that if there is no opening parenthesis after a negation
sign, the latter refers to the first sentence after it. So, the first
negation (from left to right) in “¬¬p” refers to “¬p”, which is the
first sentence after it, and the second refers to “p”. Similarly, “¬” in
“¬p∧q” refers to “p”, not to “p∧q”. If we what it to refer to “p∧q”,
the latter must be enclosed in parentheses – “¬(p∧q)”.

The only type of brackets we officially have are “(” and “)”.
However, we may use other types of brackets for easier reading.
For example, we will treat “{[¬p→(q∧¬r)]∨p}↔(r∧s)” as the same
formula as “((¬p→(q∧¬r))∨p)↔(r∧s)”.
The syntactic structure of any (well-formed) formula can be
visualized by means of its so-called syntax tree, which shows the
“history” of the formation of the formula by means of the syntactic
rules. For example, the formula “(p∧q)→(¬r∧¬s)” has the
following syntax tree:

(p∧q) → (¬r∧¬s)

p∧q ¬r ∧ ¬s

p q ¬r ¬s

r s

The syntax tree has the form of a upside down tree with
propositional letters at the terminal nodes at the bottom (the leaf
nodes); in our case, they are “p”, “q”, “r” and “s”. These consisting
of a single propositional letter formulas are called atomic. The
history of the formation of the formula is given in the bottom-up
direction. Moving upwards, “(p∧q)” is formed from “p” and “q” by
rule iii); “¬r” and “¬s” are formed from “r” and “s”, respectively, by
ii); … and so on until we get to the whole formula at the top of the
tree (the root node). The last step, in which the whole formula is
constructed, shows the formula’s main logical connective and the
form of the whole expression. In the example, the main logical
connective is conditional and the whole formula is a conditional
as it is obtained by connecting “(p∧q)” and “(¬r∧¬s)” with
conditional.

Formulas that are parts of a formula are called its subformulas.

The syntax tree shows all subformulas of a formula. These are the
formulas in the nodes of the tree. In the example, the subformulas
of “(p∧q)→(¬r∧¬s)” in increasing complexity are “p”, “q”, “r”, “s”,
“¬r”, “¬s”, “p∧q”, “¬r∧¬s” as well as “(p∧q)→(¬r∧¬s)” itself,
which is considered a subformula of itself.
Semantics of propositional logic. Truth tables

While in the syntax of propositional logic we use syntactic rules to

define well-formed formulas, in the semantics of propositional
logic we use semantic rules to define the formulas’ truth conditions
– when a well-formed formula is true and when false. To each of
the syntactic rules, there corresponds a semantic rule, which
defines how the truth value of a formula obtained by the syntactic
rule depends on the truth values of its constituents. In fact, we are
already acquainted with the semantic rules because the truth
tables of negation, conjunction, disjunction, conditional, and
biconditional are their visualizations.

Here are the semantic rules:

I. (Under any interpretation) the atomic formulas (i.e., the

propositional letters) have either the value T or the value F.

II. If α has the value T, ¬α has the value F; if α has the value F, α
has the value T.

III. α∧β has the value T if α and β have the value T; it has the
value F otherwise.

IV. α∨β has the value F if α and β have the value F; it has the
value T otherwise.

V. α→β has the value F if α has the value T and β has the value
F; it has the value T otherwise.

VI. α↔β has the value T if α and β have the same truth value; it
has the value F otherwise.

The following are the truth tables of all the logical connectives we
introduced earlier:

α β α∧β α∨β α→β α↔β

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

α ¬α
T F
F T

These tables are based on the semantic rules, not the other way
around. Tables are a way to visualize the rules.

By the semantic rules, every compound formula (however

complex) receives a truth value for every interpretation of its
propositional letters. The propositional letters stand for certain
(usually simple) sentences (propositions). Since each sentence is
either true or false, the propositional letters are interpreted as
truth values – T or F. This explains semantic rule I). By the other
semantic rules, based on the truth values of the propositional
letters, each subformula receives (in the order of increasing
complexity) a certain truth value, including the formula itself. This
process of truth value determination goes upwards along the
syntax tree and is possible because to every syntactic rule there is
a corresponding semantic rule. To illustrate, consider the formula
“(p∧q)→(¬r∧¬s)”, which we used while introducing syntax trees
above, and assume that the interpretation of its propositional
letters is such that “p” and “q” have the value F, and “r” and “s” the
value T. Then its subformulas (including the formula itself) receive
the following truth values:
 (p∧q) → (¬r∧¬s)
T

p∧q ¬r ∧ ¬s
F F

p q ¬r ¬s
F F F F

r s
T T

The diagram shows how the truth values of “p”, “q”, “r” and “s”
determine (from bottom to top) the truth values first of the
subformulas of “(p∧q)→(¬r∧¬s)” and finally of the formula itself.
“p∧q” has the value F because “p” and “q” have the value F (a
conjunction is true only if both conjuncts are true); “¬r” has the
value F because “r” has the value T; … etc. The whole formula has
the value T for this interpretation of its propositional letters.

Instead of the diagram above, the truth value of the formula for
this interpretation of its propositional letters can be determined
by a table. For this purpose, in the first row of the table we place
from left to right the subformulas and finally the formula itself in
the order of increasing complexity and then determine (again
from left to right) their truth values:

p q r s p∧q ¬r ¬s ¬r∧¬s
F F T T F F F F

(p∧q)→(¬r∧¬s)
T

The truth values of the propositional letters in the first four

columns are such as we arbitrarily interpreted them to be. In the
fifth column, the truth value of “p∧q” is determined from the
truth values of “p” and “q” in the first and the second column by
the truth table of conjunction (semantic rule III). The truth values
of “¬r” and “¬s” in the sixth and the seventh column are
determined from the truth values of “r” and “s” in the third and
the fourth column by the truth table of negation … etc. Generally,
the truth value of each compound subformula is determined from
the truth values of one or two subformulas to the left of it in the
table. Thus, moving from left to right, in the rightmost column we
obtain the truth value of the whole formula.

The convenience of the table compared to the diagram is that it

can be supplemented with other rows for other combinations of
truth values of the propositional letters. Adding, for example, a
new row for the case when all four propositional letters have the
value T, we get that then the whole formula has the value F:

p q r s p∧q ¬r ¬s ¬r∧¬s
F F T T F F F F
T T T T T F F F

(p∧q)→(¬r∧¬s)
T
F

As we continue to add new rows for other possible combinations

of truth values of the propositional letters in the formula, we will
finally exhaust all combinations. When this happens, the table will
have 16 rows because 16 is the number of all possible
combinations of truth values of four propositional letters. Such a
complete table containing each combination of truth values of the
propositional letters in a formula is called its truth table. Such a
table can be made for each formula. As an example, the truth table
of “¬(p→q)∨¬q” is given below:
 p q p→q ¬(p→q) ¬q ¬(p→q)∨¬q
T T T F F F
T F F T T T
F T T F F F
F F T F T T

As there are two proportional letters in the formula, the possible

combinations of truth values for them are four: one corresponding
to the case when “p” and “q” are true; one to the case when “p” is
true, and “q” is false; … etc. There is a row in the table for each
possible case. In each row, the truth value of the whole formula is
determined by determining the truth values of its subformulas
from left to right (i.e. in the direction of increasing complexity)
until the truth value of the whole formula is reached in the last
column. In the third column, the truth values below “p→q” are
determined from the truth values of “p” and “q” in the first and
second column by the truth table of conditional. The truth values
of “¬q” in the fifth column are determined from the truth values of
“q” in the second column by the truth table of negation (on each
row, the values below “¬q” are the opposite of those below “q”).
The truth values of “¬(p→q)” in the fourth column are determined
in the same way from the values of “p→q”. Finally, in the last
column, the truth values of the whole formula are determined
from the truth values in the previous two columns by the truth
table of disjunction. The table shows that a sentence of the form
“¬(p→q)∨¬q” is true either when p and q are false (last row) or
when p is true and q is false (second row); otherwise it is false.

If a formula has only one propositional letter, its truth table will
have two rows – one for the case when the letter has the value T
and one for the case when it has the value F. “(р∨¬р)→¬р” is an
example:
 p ¬p p∨¬p (p∨¬p)→¬p
T F T F
F T T T

The truth values under “¬p” are the opposite of those under “p”.
The values under “р∨¬р” are derived from those under “p” and
“¬p” according to the truth table of disjunction. The values of the
entire formula in the last column are derived from the values in
the previous two columns by the truth table of conditional, but
since for determining the truth value of a conditional the order of
the two sentences matters, it is important to look first at the third
column (the values of the antecedent) and then at the second
column (the values of the consequent).

If a truth table has two rows (i.e., if the formula to which the table
belongs has only one letter), we will write in the first column
under the letter first “T” and then “F”. I.e., each truth table of a one
letter formula will start like this:

T
F

When the propositional letters are two (e.g., “p” and “q”), for each
of the two possible cases for “p” (which we continue to arrange in
the same way – first T, then F) there are two cases for “q”.
Therefore, we double each value under “p” and combine each pair
of repeating values with the two values for “q” arranged in the
same way – first T, then F. So, as a rule, the truth table of a two-
letter formula will start like this:

T T
 T F
F T
F F

When arranging the combinations in a truth table of a three-letter

formula, we will follow the same procedure: we start from the
arrangement for a two-letter formula, i.e. “TT”, “TF”, “FT”, “FF”; we
double each of these four combinations because of the third letter
(i.e. the sequence in the first two columns becomes “TT”, “TT”,
“TF”, “TF”, “FT”, “FT”, “FF”, “FF”); and then we combine each pair
of repeating values with the two values of the third letter putting
first T, then F. So, the arrangement will be as follows:

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

Formulated recursively for any number of propositional letters,

the way we order the combinations of truth values in a truth table
is as follows. If the formula has one propositional letter, we write
“T” in the first row and “F” in the second. If the letters are two, for
the first letter we follow the same order but we duplicate each row
and for the second letter write again first “T”, then “F”. If the
letters are three, for the first two letters we follow the order of the
previous case but we duplicate each row and for the third letter
write first “T”, then “F” … etc. If the letters are n, for the first n-1
letters we follow the same order as in the previous case (that of n-
1-letter formula) but we duplicate each row and for the nth letter
write first “T”, then “F”.

From the way the combinations of truth values are arranged, it

can be seen that each addition of a propositional letter doubles the
number of rows. For one letter, the rows are 2; for two letters, the
rows are 2.2 = 22 = 4; for three letters, the rows are 2.2.2 = 23 = 8; …
etc.; for n letters the rows are 2n.

Here is an example of a truth table of a three-letter formula – the

table of “p→¬(q∨¬r)”:

p q r ¬r q∨¬r ¬(q∨¬r) р→¬(q∨¬r)

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

The construction of the table differs from that of a one- or two-

letter formula only in there being more rows. The values under
“¬r” are opposite to those under “r”; the values of “q∨¬r” are
determined from those of “q” and “¬r” by the truth table of
disjunction; the values of “¬(q∨¬r)” are opposite to those in the
previous column; the values of the whole formula in the last
column are determined from those of “p” and “¬(q∨¬r)” (in that
order) by the truth table of conditional.

Depending on its truth table, each formula falls into one of the
following three groups:

Formulas that have only the value T in the last column; they
are called tautologies.

Formulas that have only the value F in the last column; they
are called contradictions.

Formulas that have both the value T and the value F in the last
column; they are called contingent formulas.

Tautologies are formulas that always get the value T (regardless of

the truth values of their propositional letters). “Tautologies” are
also called the natural language sentences that have the form of
tautologies, i.e. that are symbolized by such formulas. Such
sentences are also called logically true. They have the
characteristic property of being true regardless of the facts. For
example, we do not need to do any historical research to establish
that the sentence “Socrates had or did not have a younger brother”
(“р∨¬р”) is true. We do not even need to know who Socrates is.

An example of a tautology, which (unlike “p∨¬p”) is not obvious,

is “[(р→q)→p]→p”:

p q р→q (р→q)→p [(р→q)→p]→p

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

We call contradictions the formulas that always get the value F

(regardless of the values of their propositional letters).
Contradictions are also called the natural language sentences that
are symbolized by such formulas. Such sentences are also called
logically false. As with the logically true sentences, we do not need
to turn to reality to determine their truth value. That they are false
is contained in their very meaning. Whatever the facts are, clearly
the sentence “Socrates had and did not have a younger brother”
(“p∧¬p”) will be false:

p ¬p p∧¬p
T F F
F T F

Exercises

(Download the exercises as a PDF file.)

(1) Is each of the following expressions a well-formed formula?

1) ¬(р∧¬q)

2) ¬(¬r)

3) [(q→p)]→q∧r

4) [¬(p→q)→p]→¬¬¬p

5) p→(¬r∧¬q)∨(q∧¬s)

6) q∧¬¬¬¬q

7) [¬(p)∧q]∨r

8) {[(s→s)→s]→s}→s

9) (q→q)→(r→r)

10) q→(q→r)→r

11) ¬¬[¬p→(r∨q)]
 12) p∧(q∨r)∧s

(2) Specify the subformulas of each formula.

1) (¬p∧r) ∨ (p↔¬q)

2) [p∧(q∨¬r)] ↔ [(p∧q)∨¬r]

3) (p∧¬p) ↔ (r→¬q)

4) [(p→¬q)→r] → (¬r∧¬p)

(3) For each of the following formulas, determine whether it is

atomic, a negation, a conjunction … etc.

1) ¬[(q→p)∧r]∧p

2) ¬r→s

3) ¬(p∨q)∧¬(q∨p)

4) ¬¬[(p↔q)→(p↔q)]

5) q

6) (¬¬p→q)∧(q→p)

7) ¬q∨(p→q)

8) ¬¬p∧¬¬r

9) ¬q∨¬(¬p∧q)

10) p∧¬[(p∨q)→r]

(4) Construct the truth table of each formula and specify whether
it is a tautology, a contradiction, or contingent.

1) p → (q→p)
 2) ¬(p∨q) → (p∧q)

3) (p→¬q) → ¬p

4) [p→(¬q∨r)] ∨ (¬p∨q)

5) (¬p∨¬q) → ¬(p∧q)

6) (p→q) → (¬q→¬p)

7) (p∧¬q) ∨ (¬p∧q)

8) (¬p∧¬q) ↔ (p↔¬q)

9) [(p∨q)∧¬(p∧q)] ↔ (p↔¬q)

10) (p→q) → [(¬r∨p)→(r∧¬q)]

11) [(¬p∨¬q)∧¬r] → [(p∧q)↔r]

12) [(p→q)→r] ↔ [p→(q→r)]

(5) Show with truth tables that the following formulas are
tautologies.

1) p ∨ ¬p

2) p → [q→(p∧q)]

3) {p∨[(¬q∨r)∧p]} → (p∨¬r)

4) [(p→¬q)∧q] → ¬p

5) [(p∨q)∧¬p] ↔ (¬p∧q)

6) [(p∧q)→r] → [p→(q→r)]

1. Compared to explicit (non-recursive) definitions, recursive definitions

have the disadvantage that they do not specify an expression that is
interchangeable with the defined one. For example, the explicit
definition of “human” by “reasonable animal" – although vague and
obviously incorrect – enables us, if we like, to everywhere replace the
term “human” with the term “reasonable being”. Recursive definitions
do not indicate such an interchangeable expression. /