CH 1.4 1.6 Foundation Part 2

Chapter-1:
The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
1.4
Predicates and Quantifiers
Source: "Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications", By Kenneth H. Rosen, 7th Edition 39
1.4 Predicates and Quantifiers
 Propositional logic, cannot adequately express meaning
of all statements: Drawback
 More powerful logic: “Predicate Logic”
 Predicates:
◼ Consider Statements involving variables:
 “x > 3,” “x = y + 3,” “x + y = z”
 “Computer x is under attack by an intruder”
 “Computer x is functioning properly”
◼ Neither true nor false, if values of variables are not specified
◼ Statement: “x is greater than 3” has two parts

1. Variable x: Subject of the statement
2. Predicate: “is greater than 3”— Property of subject
◼ Above Statement is denoted by P (x)
 P: Predicate “is greater than 3”
 x: Variable
 Ex 1: P(x): Statement “x > 3”
◼ Truth values of P (4) and P (2)?
 Sol:
◼ P(4), for x = 4 : “4 > 3” : True
◼ P(2), for x =2 : “2 > 3” : False
 Ex 2: A(x): “Computer x is under attack by an intruder”

◼ Only CS2 and MATH1 are currently under attack by intruders
◼ Truth values of A(CS1), A(CS2), and A(MATH1)?
 Sol:
◼ A(CS1), for x = CS1
 CS1 is not on the list of computers currently under attack
 A(CS1) : False
◼ CS2 and MATH1 are on the list of computers under attack
 A(CS2) and A(MATH1) : True
 Ex 3: Q(x, y): “x = y + 3”
◼ Truth values of propositions Q(1, 2) and Q(3, 0)?
 Sol:
◼ Q(1, 2), for x = 1 & y = 2 : “1 = 2 + 3,” : False
◼ Q(3, 0): “3 = 0 + 3” : True
 Ex 4: A(c, n): “Computer c is connected to network n”

◼ Computer MATH1 is connected to network CAMPUS2, but not to
network CAMPUS1
◼ What are the values of A(MATH1, CAMPUS1) and A(MATH1,
CAMPUS2)?
 Sol:
◼ MATH1 not connected to CAMPUS1, A(MATH1, CAMPUS1): False
◼ MATH1 connected to CAMPUS2, A(MATH1, CAMPUS2): True
 Ex 5: R(x, y, z): “x + y = z”
◼ Truth values of R(1, 2, 3) and R(0, 0, 1)?
 Sol:
◼ R(1, 2, 3): “1 + 2 = 3” : True
◼ R(0, 0, 1): “0 + 0 = 1” : False
 Ex 6: if x > 0 then x := x + 1 (in computer programs)
◼ Value of x at that point is inserted into P(x)
 If P(x), True: x := x + 1 is executed, x is increased by 1
 If P(x), False: x := x + 1 is not executed, x is unchanged
 PRECONDITIONS AND POSTCONDITIONS

◼ Predicates: Used to check correctness of computer programs:
 Check desired output for given valid input
◼ Preconditions: Statements that Describe valid input
◼ Postconditions: Conditions that the Output should satisfy
 Ex 7: Program: Interchange values of variables x & y
 temp := x
 x := y
 y := temp
◼ Find predicates for: Precondition and postcondition
◼ Verify for: all valid input program does what is intended
 Sol:
◼ Precondition: P(x, y), “x = a, y = b” a, b : Initial values of x, y
◼ Postcondition: Q(x, y), “x = b, y = a”
◼ Verification:
 Precondition P (x, y) holds “x = a and y = b” is True
1. temp := x i.e. x = a, temp = a, and y = b
2. x := y i.e. x = b, temp = a, and y = b
3. x := b i.e. temp = a, and y = a
 Postcondition Q(x, y) holds: statement “x = b and y = a” is True
 Quantifiers: Expresses extent to which predicate is True over a
range of elements:
◼ In English: Words:
 All, some, many, none, and few
◼ Universal quantification: Predicate is true for every element
under consideration
◼ Existential quantification: There is one or more element
under consideration for which the predicate is true
 Predicate Calculus: Logic, deals with predicates & quantifiers
 Def 1: Universal quantification of P(x):

◼ “P(x) for all values of x in the domain”
 ∀x P(x): universal quantification of P(x)
 ∀ is universal quantifier
◼ Read: ∀x P(x) as “for all x P(x)” or “for every x P(x)”
◼ Counter example of ∀x P(x): Element for which P(x) is False
 Ex 8: P(x): “x + 1 > x”
◼ ∀x P(x) ? Domain: All real numbers
 Sol: P(x) True for all real numbers x: ∀x P(x) : True
 Ex 9: Q(x): “x < 2”
◼ ∀x Q(x), Domain: All real numbers
 Solution: Q(x) not True for every real number x:
◼ For instance, Q(3) : False
◼ x = 3, Counterexample for statement ∀x Q(x)
◼ ∀x Q(x) : False
 Ex 10: P(x): “x2 > 0” Show, ∀xP(x) : False
◼ Domain (Universe of discourse): All integers
 Sol: A counterexample: x2 is not > 0 when x = 0
 ∀x P(x): Domain Elements:

◼ x1, x2, ... , xn : Following conjuntion, True:
 P(x1) ∧ P(x2) ∧ ··· ∧ P(xn):
 If and only if P(x1), P(x2), ... , P(xn) all True
 Ex 11: ∀x P(x) ?
◼ If P(x): “x2 < 10”, For positive integers not exceeding 4
 Sol: ∀x P(x) ≈ P(1) ∧ P(2) ∧ P(3) ∧ P(4)
◼ Domain: 1, 2, 3, 4
◼ P(4): “42 < 10” , False:
◼ ∀x P(x) is False
 Ex 12: ∀x N(x) ?
◼ N(x): “Computer x is connected to network”
◼ Domain: All computers on campus
 Sol: “Every computer on campus is connected to network”
 Ex 13: ∀x(x2 ≥ x) ?
1. Domain: All real numbers
2. Domain: All integers
 Sol:
1. False: Ex:
2. True:
 Def 2: Existential quantification of P(x): ∃x P(x)

◼ “There exists an element x in the domain such that P(x)”
◼ ∃ : existential quantifier
 Ex 14: P(x) : “x > 3” ; ∃x P(x) ? Domain: All real numbers
 Sol: “x > 3”, True, for instance : x = 4; ∃x P(x) : True
 Ex 15: Q(x) : “x=x + 1” ; ∃xQ(x) ? Domain: All real numbers
 Sol: Q(x): False, for every real number x; ∃x Q(x) : False
 ∃x P(x): Domain Elements:
◼ x1, x2,...,xn : Following Disjunction is True:
◼ P(x1) ∨ P(x2) ∨···∨ P(xn):
◼ If and only if at least one of P (x1), P (x2), . . . , P (xn) : True
 Ex 16: P(x): “x2 > 10”; ∃x P(x) ?

◼ Domain: Positive integers not exceeding 4
 Sol: Domain: {1, 2, 3, 4}
◼ ∃x P(x) ≈ P(1) ∨ P(2) ∨ P(3) ∨ P(4)
◼ P(4), “42 > 10”: True; ∃x P(x) : True
 Uniqueness quantifier: ∃! or ∃1
◼ “There exists a unique x such that P (x) is true”
◼ “There is exactly one” OR “there is one and only one”
◼ Ex: ∃!x (x − 1 = 0), Domain: real numbers
 True, Only if x = 1, unique real number
 Quantifiers with Restricted Domains
 Ex 17: ∀x < 0 (x2 > 0), ∀y ≠ 0 (y3 ≠ 0), ∃z > 0 (z2 = 2) ?
◼ Domain: Real numbers
 Sol:
◼ ∀x (x < 0 → x2 > 0)
 “Square of a negative real number is positive”
◼ ∀y (y ≠ 0 → y3 ≠ 0)
 “Cube of every nonzero real number is nonzero”
◼ ∃z (z > 0 ∧ z2 = 2)
 “There is a positive square root of 2”
 Precedence of Quantifiers
◼ ∀ and ∃ have higher precedence than all logical operators
 Def 3:
◼ Statements involving predicates and quantifiers are logically
equivalent if and only if they have same truth value
 S ≡ T; statement S & T, logically equivalent
 Ex 19: ∀x(P(x) ∧ Q(x)) ≡ ∀xP(x) ∧ ∀xQ(x)
 Negating Quantified Expressions:
 Ex 20: Find Negations of:
1. “There is an honest politician”
2. “All Americans eat cheeseburgers”
 Sol:
1. H(x): “x is honest”; ∃x H(x): “There is an honest politician”
 ¬∃x H(x) ≈ ∀x ¬H(x): “Not all politicians are honest”
2. C(x): “x eats cheeseburgers”; ∀x C(x): “All Americans eat
cheeseburgers”
 ¬∀x C(x) ≈ ∃x¬C(x): “There is an American who does not eat
cheeseburgers”
 Ex 21: Find Negations of:∀x(x2 > x) and ∃x(x2 = 2)
 Sol:
◼ Negation of ∀x(x2 > x) ≈ ¬∀x(x2 > x) ≈ ∃x¬(x2 > x) ≈
 ∃x(x2 ≤ x)
◼ Negation of ∃x(x2 = 2) ≈ ¬∃x(x2 = 2) ≈ ∀x¬(x2 = 2) ≈
 ∀x(x2 ≠ 2)
 Ex 22: Show: ¬∀x (P(x) → Q(x)) and ∃x (P(x) ∧ ¬Q(x))
◼ Logically equivalent
 Sol:
◼ Fifth logical equivalence, Table 7, Section 1.3:
 ¬(P(x) → Q(x)) and P(x) ∧ ¬Q(x) are logically equivalent
◼ It follows: ¬∀x(P (x) → Q(x)) and ∃x(P (x) ∧ ¬Q(x)) are
logically equivalent
 Translating from English into Logical Expressions
 Ex 23: Express using predicates and quantifiers:
◼ “Every student in this class has studied calculus”
 Sol: ∀x (S(x) → Q(x, calculus))
◼ “For every person x, if person x is a student in this class
then x has studied calculus”
 S(x): Person x, in this class
 Q(x, y): Student x has studied subject y (y: Calculus)
1. “Some student in this class has visited Mexico”
2. “Every student in this class has visited either Canada or
Mexico”
 Sol:
1. ∃x (S(x) ∧ M(x))
 “There is a person x having the properties that x is a
student in this class and x has visited Mexico”
◼ S(x) : “x is a student in this class”
◼ M(x) : “x has visited Mexico”
2. ∀x(S(x) → (C(x) ∨ M(x)))
 “For every person x, if x is a student in this class, then x
has visited Mexico or x has visited Canada”
◼ S(x) : “x is a student in this class”
◼ C(x) : “x has visited Canada”
◼ M(x) : “x has visited Mexico”
 Using Quantifiers in System Specifications
1. “Every mail message larger than one megabyte will be
compressed”
2. “If a user is active, at least one network link will be
available”
 Sol:
1. ∀m (S(m, 1) → C(m))
 S(m, y) : “Mail message m is larger than y megabytes”
 C(m) : “Mail message m will be compressed”
2. ∃u A(u) → ∃n S(n, available)
 A(u) : “User u is active”
 S(n, x) : “Network link n is in state x”
 Ex 26: First two : Premises, Third : Conclusion, Entire set :
Argument
◼ P(x) : “x is a lion”, Q(x) : “x is fierce”, R(x) : “x drinks coffee”
1. “All lions are fierce” : ∀x (P(x) → Q(x))
2. “Some lions do not drink coffee” : ∃x (P(x) ∧ ¬R(x))
3. “Some fierce creatures do not drink coffee” : ∃x (Q(x) ∧ ¬R(x))
 EX 27: First Three : Premises, Fourth : Valid Conclusion

◼ P(x) : “x is a hummingbird”, Q(x) : “x is large”, R(x) : “x lives
on honey”, S(x) : “x is richly colored”
1. “All hummingbirds are richly colored” : ∀x (P(x) → S(x))
2. “No large birds live on honey” : ¬∃x (Q(x) ∧ R(x))
3. “Birds that do not live on honey are dull in color” : ∀x (¬R(x) →
¬S(x))
4. “Hummingbirds are small” : ∀x (P(x) → ¬Q(x))
Section Summary
 1.4 Predicates and Quantifiers
◼ Predicates
◼ Variables
◼ Quantifiers
◼ Universal Quantifier
◼ Existential Quantifier
◼ Negating Quantifiers
◼ De Morgan’s Laws for Quantifiers
◼ Translating English to Logic
 Next Section:
◼ 1.5 Nested Quantifiers
Chapter-1:
1.5
Nested Quantifiers
1.5 Nested Quantifiers
 Nested quantifiers:
◼ One quantifier within scope of another: Ex: ∀x ∃y (x + y = 0)
◼ Considered as propositional function, Above proposition:
 ∀x Q(x), Where Q(x): ∃y P(x, y) Where P(x, y): x + y = 0
 Understanding Statements Involving Nested Quantifiers
 Ex 1: Domain: variables x & y : consists All real numbers
1. ∀x ∀y (x + y = y + x) : x + y = y + x for all x and y
 Commutative law for addition of real numbers
2. ∀x ∃y (x + y = 0) : For every x there is y such that x + y = 0
 Every real number has an additive inverse
3. ∀x ∀y ∀z (x + (y + z) = (x + y) + z)
 Associative law for addition of real numbers
 Ex 2: Translate into English statement:
◼ ∀x ∀y ((x > 0) ∧ (y < 0) → (xy < 0)), Domain: All real numbers
 Sol: “The product of a positive real number and a negative real
number is always a negative real number”
 Ex 3: P(x, y): “x + y = y + x”, Domain: All real numbers
◼ Find ∀x ∀y P(x, y) and ∀y ∀x P(x, y)
 Sol: P(x, y), true for all x and y,∀x ∀y P(x, y) : True
◼ ∀y ∀x P(x, y):
 “For all real numbers y, for all real numbers x, x + y = y + x” ≈
 “For all real numbers x, for all real numbers y, x + y = y + x”
 ∀x ∀y P(x, y) & ∀y ∀x P(x, y) have same meaning, and both True
 Ex 4: Q(x, y) : “x + y = 0”, Domain: All real numbers
◼ Find ∃y ∀x Q(x, y) and ∀x ∃y Q(x, y)
 Sol:
◼ ∃y ∀x Q(x, y): “There is a real number y such that for every real
number x, Q(x, y)”
 No real number y such that x + y = 0 for all real numbers x: False
◼ ∀x ∃y Q(x, y): “For every real number x there is a real number y
such that Q(x, y)”
 For any x, there is a y: such that x + y = 0; namely, y = −x: True
 Table 1 summarizes meanings of different possible
quantifications involving two variables:
 Ex 5: Q(x, y, z): “x + y = z”, Domain: All real numbers
◼ Find ∀x ∀y ∃z Q(x, y, z) and ∃z ∀x ∀y Q(x, y, z)
 Sol:
◼ If x & y, assigned values : There exists z such that x + y = z
◼ ∀x ∀y ∃z Q(x, y, z) :
 “For all real numbers x and for all real numbers y there is a real
number z such that x + y = z” : True
◼ ∃z ∀x ∀y Q(x, y, z) :
 “There is a real number z such that for all real numbers x and for
all real numbers y it is true that x + y = z” : False
 No value of z, satisfies equation x + y = z for all values of x and y
 Ex 6: Translate to logical expression:

◼ “The sum of two positive integers is always positive”
 Sol:
◼ ∀x ∀y ((x > 0) ∧ (y > 0) → (x + y > 0))
◼ Also be express as: ∀x ∀y (x + y > 0)
 Ex 7: Translate:
◼ “Every real number except zero has a multiplicative inverse”
◼ Multiplicative inverse of real number x is y such that xy = 1
 Sol:
◼ ∀x ((x ≠ 0) → ∃y (xy = 1))
 Ex 9: Translate to English: ∀x (C(x) ∨ ∃y (C(y) ∧ F(x, y)))

◼ C(x) : “x has a computer” F(x, y): “x and y are friends”
◼ Domain, x and y : All students in school
 Sol:
1. For every student x in school, x has a computer or there is a
student y such that y has a computer and x and y are friends
2. Every student in school has a computer or has a friend who
has a computer
 Ex 10: Translate: ∃x ∀y ∀z ((F(x, y) ∧ F(x, z) ∧ (y ≠ z)) → ¬F(y, z))
◼ F(a, b) : a & b are friends, Domain, x, y, z: all students in school
 Sol:
1. If x and y are friends, and x and z are friends, and, if y and z are
not the same student, then y and z are not friends
2. There is a x such that for all y and all z other than y, if x and y
are friends and x and z are friends, then y and z are not friends
3. There is a student none of whose friends are also friends with
each other
 Ex 11: Express as logical expression:

◼ “If a person is female and is a parent, then this person is
someone’s mother”, Domain: All people, logical connectives
 Sol:
◼ ∀x ((F (x) ∧ P (x)) → ∃y M(x, y)) ≈
◼ ∀x ∃y ((F (x) ∧ P (x)) → M(x, y))
◼ F(x): “x is female” P(x): “x is parent” M(x, y): “x is mother of y”
◼ “Everyone has exactly one best friend”, Domain: People
 Sol: ∀x ∃y (B(x, y) ∧ ∀z ((z ≠ y) → ¬B(x, z))) ≈
◼ ∀x ∃!y B(x, y), ∃! : “uniqueness quantifier”

◼ “There is a woman who has taken a flight on every airline in
the world”
 Sol: ∃w ∀a ∃f (P(w, f) ∧ Q(f, a))
◼ P(w, f) : “w has taken f ” and Q(f, a) : “f is a flight on a”
 Ex 14: Express negation of: ∀x ∃y (xy = 1)

 Sol: By, De Morgan’s laws in Table 2 of Section 1.4:
◼ ¬∀x ∃y (xy = 1) ≈ ∃x ∀y (xy ≠ 1)
 Ex 15: Express: “There does not exist a woman who has
taken a flight on every airline in the world”
 Sol:
◼ P(w, f) : “w has taken f ” and Q(f, a) : “f is a flight on a”
◼ ∀w ¬∀a ∃f (P(w, f) ∧ Q(f, a))
≡ ∀w ∃a ¬∃f (P(w, f) ∧ Q(f, a))
≡ ∀w ∃a ∀f ¬(P(w, f) ∧ Q(f, a))
≡ ∀w ∃a ∀f (¬P(w, f) ∨ ¬Q(f, a))
◼ “For every woman there is an airline such that for all flights,
this woman has not taken that flight or that flight is not on
this airline”
Section Summary
 1.5 Nested Quantifiers
◼ Nested Quantifiers
◼ Order of Quantifiers
◼ Translating from Nested Quantifiers into English
◼ Translating Mathematical Statements into
Statements involving Nested Quantifiers
◼ Translated English Sentences into Logical
Expressions
◼ Negating Nested Quantifiers
 Next Section:
◼ 1.6 Rules of Inference
Chapter-1:
1.6
Rules of Inference
1.6 Rules of Inference
 Introduction
 Proofs: Valid arguments
◼ Establishs truth of mathematical statements
 Argument: Sequence of propositions, end with conclusion
 Valid Argument: if the truth of all its premises implies that the
conclusion is true
 Premises: All, excluding final proposition in the argument
 Conclusion: Final proposition in the argument
 Rules of Inference: Basic tools for establishing truth of
statements (Used to produce valid arguments)
 Fallacies: Common forms of incorrect reasoning
◼ Lead to invalid arguments
 Argument form: Sequence of compound propositions involving
propositional variables
 Argument form with premises p1, p2,...,pn and conclusion q is

valid, when (p1 ∧ p2 ∧···∧ pn) → q is a tautology
 Valid Arguments in Propositional Logic
 Consider following argument involving propositions:
1. “If you have a current password, then you can log onto the network”
2. “You have a current password”
Therefore,
3. “You can log onto the network”
 Determine whether (3) is a valid argument
◼ i.e. Conclusion (3) must be true when, premises (1) & (2) both true
◼ p: “You have a current password” p→q
◼ q: “You can log onto the network” p
◼ Then, the argument has the form:
◼ ∴ symbol denotes “therefore” q
◼ ((p → q) ∧ p) → q is tautology (Modus Ponens or Law of Detachment)
◼ When both p → q and p are true, q must also be true
◼ This form of argument is valid because whenever all its premises are
true, the conclusion must also be true
◼ Premises can be expressed, above line & Conclusion, below line
 Rules of Inference for Propositional Logic
 Can always use truth table to validate the 'Argument Form'
◼ But, can be a tedious approach
◼ Ex: If an argument form involves 10 propositional variables:
 Requires 210 = 1024 different rows
◼ Instead, Rules of inference can be used
 Ex 1: Conditional statement “If it snows today, then we will go
skiing” and its hypothesis, “It is snowing today” are True ?
◼ By modus ponens: Conclusion, “We will go skiing” is True
 Ex 2: Determine: Argument, valid? and its conclusion, True?

◼ “If √2 > (3/2) , then (√2)2 > (3/2)2”
 (√2)2 = 2 > (3/2)2 = 9/4
 Sol: p: “√2 > 3/2” and q: “2 > ( 3/2 )2”
◼ Premises p → q and p, & Conclusion, q: Valid, (Modus Ponens)
◼ But, Premise, (√2 > 3/2) : False, Cannot conclude, Conclusion is True
◼ Conclusion of argument: False, as 2 < 9/4
 Ex: Modus Ponens:
◼ p: “It is snowing”
◼ q: “I will study discrete math”
◼ “If it is snowing, then I will study discrete math”
 “It is snowing”, Therefore , “I will study discrete math”
 Ex: Modus Tollens:
◼ p: “It is snowing”
◼ “If it is snowing, then I will study discrete math”
 “I will not study discrete math” Therefore, “It is not snowing”
 Ex: Hypothetical Syllogism:
◼ p: “It snows”
◼ r: “I will get an A”
◼ “If it snows, then I will study discrete math”
 “If I study discrete math, I will get an A” Therefore, “If it snows,
I will get an A”
 Ex: Disjunctive Syllogism:
◼ p: “I will study discrete math”
◼ q: “I will study English literature”
◼ “I will study discrete math or I will study English literature”
 “I will not study discrete math”, ∴ “I will study English literature”
 Ex: Addition:
◼ q: “I will visit Las Vegas”
◼ “I will study discrete math”
 Therefore, “I will study discrete math or I will visit Las Vegas”
 Ex: Simplification:
◼ “I will study discrete math and English literature”
 Therefore, “I will study discrete math”
 Ex: Conjunction:
◼ “I will study discrete math”
◼ “I will study English literature”
 ∴ “I will study discrete math and I will study English literature”
 Ex: Resolution:
◼ r: “I will study English literature”
◼ q: “I will study databases”
◼ “I will not study discrete math or I will study English literature”
◼ “I will study discrete math or I will study databases”
 ∴ “I will study databases or I will study English literature”
 Using Rules of Inference to Build Arguments
 Ex 6: Premises:
◼ “It is not sunny this afternoon and it is colder than yesterday”
◼ “We will go swimming only if it is sunny,”
◼ “If we do not go swimming, then we will take a canoe trip”
◼ “If we take a canoe trip, then we will be home by sunset”
◼ Conclusion: “We will be home by sunset”
 Sol:
◼ p: It is sunny this afternoon
◼ q: It is colder than yesterday
◼ r: We will go swimming
◼ s: We will take a canoe trip
◼ t: We will be home by sunset
◼ Premises (Hypotheses):
¬p ∧ q, r → p, ¬r → s, s → t
◼ Conclusion: t
◼ Argument can be constructed:
 Ex 7: Premises:
◼ “If you send me an e-mail message, then I will finish writing the
◼ program”
◼ “If you do not send me an e-mail message, then I will go to sleep
early”
◼ “If I go to sleep early, then I will wake up feeling refreshed”
◼ Conclusion: “If I do not finish writing the program, then I will wake
up feeling refreshed”
 Sol:
◼ p: You send me an e-mail message
◼ q: I will finish writing the program
◼ r: I will go to sleep early
◼ s: I will wake up feeling refreshed
◼ Premises:
p → q, ¬p → r, and r → s
◼ Desired conclusion: ¬q → s
◼ Argument form:
 Ex 8: Use resolution to show that the hypotheses:
◼ “Jasmine is skiing or it is not snowing” and
◼ “It is snowing or Bart is playing hockey” imply that
◼ “Jasmine is skiing or Bart is playing hockey”
 Sol:
◼ p: “It is snowing”, q: “Jasmine is skiing”, r: “Bart is playing hockey”
◼ Represent hypotheses: ¬p ∨ q and p ∨ r,
◼ Using resolution, proposition q ∨ r :
 “Jasmine is skiing or Bart is playing hockey” follows
 Ex 9: Show: premises (p ∧ q) ∨ r & r → s imply conclusion p ∨ s
 Sol: (Clause: disjunction of variables or negations of these variables)
◼ Rewrite premises, (p ∧ q) ∨ r as two clauses:
 p ∨ r and q ∨ r
◼ Replace r → s by equivalent clause ¬r ∨ s
◼ Using, clauses p ∨ r and ¬r ∨ s
◼ Using resolution to conclude: p ∨ s
 Ex 10: Is following argument valid?:
◼ “If you do every problem in this book, then you will learn discrete
mathematics.You learned discrete mathematics”
◼ “Therefore, you did every problem in this book”
 Sol:
◼ p: “You did every problem in this book”
◼ q: “You learned discrete mathematics”
◼ The Argument is of form: if p → q and q, then p
◼ Example of incorrect argument using fallacy of affirming conclusion
◼ Indeed, Possible, to learn discrete mathematics in some way other
than by doing every problem in this book
◼ Learn discrete mathematics by reading, listening to lectures, doing
some, but not all, the problems in this book, and so on..
◼ Proposition ((p → q) ∧ ¬p) → ¬q is not a tautology
 Because it is false when p is false and q is true
◼ This type of incorrect reasoning, called fallacy of denying hypothesis

 Handling Quantified Statements
 Universal Instantiation (UI):
◼ Ex: Lisa is a member of domain of all women xP ( x )
◼ “All women are wise”  P ( c)
◼ ∴ “Lisa is wise”
 Universal Generalization (UG): P ( c ) for an arbitrary c

◼ Used often implicitly in Mathematical Proofs
xP ( x )
 Existential Instantiation (EI):
Ex:
xP ( x )
◼
◼ “There is someone who got an A in the course”
◼ “Let’s call her a and say that a got an A”  P ( c ) for some element c
 Existential Generalization (EG):
◼ Ex: P ( c ) for some element c
◼ “Michelle got an A in the class” xP ( x )
◼ “Therefore, someone got an A in the class”
 Ex: Using rules of inference, construct valid argument to show:
 “John Smith has two legs”, Consequence of premises:
 “Every man has two legs” and “John Smith is a man”
 Sol:
◼ M(x): “x is a man” and L(x): “ x has two legs”
◼ John Smith is member of domain
◼ Valid Argument:
Step Reason
1. x ( M ( x ) → L ( x ) ) Premise
2. M ( J ) → L ( J ) UI from (1)
3. M ( J ) Premise
4. L ( J ) Modus Ponens using ( 2) and ( 3)
 Ex: Construct valid argument showing conclusion:
◼ “Someone who passed the first exam has not read the book”
◼ Follows from premises: “A student in this class has not read the
book” and “Everyone in this class passed the first exam”
 Sol: C(x): “x is in this class”, B(x): “ x has read the book”
x ( C ( x )  B ( x ) )
P(x): “x passed the first exam”
◼ Translate premises & conclusion into symbolic form: x ( C ( x ) → P ( x ) )
x ( P ( x )  B ( x ) )
◼ Valid Argument:
 Universal Modus Ponens
◼ Combines universal instantiation
and modus ponens into one rule:
 Universal Modus Tollens

◼ Combines universal instantiation
and modus tollens into one rule:
 Ex 14: Assume:
1. “For all positive integers n, if n is greater than 4, then n2 is less
than 2n ” is true
2. Use universal modus ponens to show that 1002 < 2100
 Sol: P(n): “n > 4” and Q(n): “n2 < 2n”
◼ Statement 1 can be represented : ∀n(P(n) → Q(n))
◼ P(100): True because 100 > 4
◼ It follows by universal modus ponens:
 Q(100) is true, namely that 1002 < 2100
Section Summary
 1.6 Rules of Inference
◼ Valid Arguments
◼ Inference Rules for Propositional Logic
◼ Using Rules of Inference to Build Arguments
◼ Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements
◼ Building Arguments for Quantified Statements
 Next Section:
◼ 1.7 Introduction to Proofs

CH 1.4 1.6 Foundation Part 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CH 1.4 1.6 Foundation Part 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter-1:

The Foundations: Logic and Proofs

◼ Statement: “x is greater than 3” has two parts

 Ex 2: A(x): “Computer x is under attack by an intruder”

 Ex 4: A(c, n): “Computer c is connected to network n”

 PRECONDITIONS AND POSTCONDITIONS

 Predicate Calculus: Logic, deals with predicates & quantifiers

 Def 1: Universal quantification of P(x):

 ∀x P(x): Domain Elements:

 Def 2: Existential quantification of P(x): ∃x P(x)

 Ex 16: P(x): “x2 > 10”; ∃x P(x) ?

 EX 27: First Three : Premises, Fourth : Valid Conclusion

 Ex 6: Translate to logical expression:

 Ex 9: Translate to English: ∀x (C(x) ∨ ∃y (C(y) ∧ F(x, y)))

 Ex 11: Express as logical expression:

 Ex 13: Express as logical expression:

 Ex 14: Express negation of: ∀x ∃y (xy = 1)

 Argument form with premises p1, p2,...,pn and conclusion q is

◼ Premises can be expressed, above line & Conclusion, below line

 Ex 2: Determine: Argument, valid? and its conclusion, True?

◼ This type of incorrect reasoning, called fallacy of denying hypothesis

 Universal Generalization (UG): P ( c ) for an arbitrary c

 Universal Modus Tollens

You might also like