Last Week: Truth Tables and Laws of propositional logic (manipulating expressions, replacing

things by their equivalent).

Third approach will by covered today: use rules of inference!

Two new operators. A new operator is the so called: implication (or else conditional operator).
We denote it by p∆q or p → q and we pronounce it as “leads to” or “implies”.

Assuming p∆q is True, then if p is true, q is true. . “if p then q”

In class example: Prove by truth table that: ((α → β)∧α) → β is a tautology (Tetxtbook Ex 2.9 (c))

Another operator is the so called: biconditional which reads as “p if and only if q” and we denote
it as p ↔ q. The truth table has as:

Three new conditional laws:

Example (for standard forms):

p ↔ q ≡ (p → q) ∧ (q → p) (biconditional)
≡ (¬p ∨ q) ∧ (¬q ∨ p) (CNF) (conditional twice)

≡ (¬p ∧ ¬q) ∨ (¬p ∧ p) ∨ (q ∧ ¬q) ∨ (q ∧ p) (distributive twice)

≡ (¬p ∧ ¬q) ∨ False ∨ False ∨ (q ∧ p)
≡ (¬p ∧ ¬q) ∨ (q ∧ p) (DNF)

literal: Boolean variable, or its negation.

Conjunct: one or more literals, joined by ∨ operators
CNF: One more more conjuncts, joined by ∧ operators
disjunct: one or more literals, joined by ∧ operators
DNF: One more more disjuncts, joined by ∨ operators

(Possibly Ex 2.8 textbook)

1
Chapter 3

Proofs by sequence of assertions, ending in the theorem. Each assertion is either:

Axioms, inference rules, assumptions.
The final theorem should not depend on any assumptions.

Inference rule: we infer β from α if α → β is a tautology

Modus Ponens: (the method of affirming) a → b, a, then b.

modus Tollens: (the method of denying): a → b, ¬b, then ¬a.

Above the bar are premises (antecedents), and below is the conclusion (consequent).

We’re going to start proving things through deduction.

We will prove that propositions are tautologies – that the given proposition is true for every possible
variable state.

• We could do this through truth-tables.

• We could do this through algebraic manipulations

• We’ll do it through a progression of “inferences”

2
In class example: verify through a truth table that any of the rules is sound (i.e it is a tautology).
i.e. contradiction (textbook Ex 3.1) and OR introduction (Ex 3.2)

Sequents: α ` β (this basically reads as if α is true then β is also true)

“There exists a proof that starts with assertion α and ends with β”.
(The sequent is valid if such a proof actually exists.)
Note that α here is taken as a starting point: it is assumed true without proof.

The first example below is inspired by the subsumption law. Use rules of inference to show that
taking p as true allows a proof of p ∧ (q ∨ p)

3
4