Course instructors: 1

Habeebah A. Kakudi Ph.D

9/12/21
Habeebah A. Kakudi (Mrs) Ph.D.
 2

9/12/21
Habeebah A. Kakudi (Mrs) Ph.D.
3
§Several basic methods for determining
whether a given set of premises
propositionally entails a given conclusion
§Truth Table Method
§Deductive (Proof) Systems
§Resolution
 9/12/21 5
Habeebah A. Kakudi (Mrs) Ph.D.
§ One way of determining whether or not a set of premises
logically entails a possible conclusion is to check the truth
table for the logical constants of the language
§ This is called the truth table method and can be formalized
as follows:
§ Step 1: Starting with a complete truth table for the propositional
constants, iterate through all the premises of the problem, for each
premise eliminating any row that does not satisfy the premise
§ Step 2: Do the same for the conclusion
§ Step 3: Finally, compare the two tables; If every row that remains in
the premise table, i.e. is not eliminated, also remains in the
conclusion table, i.e. is not eliminated, then the premises logically
entail the conclusion
 p q P=>q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
9/12/21 7
Habeebah A. Kakudi (Mrs) Ph.D.
 9/12/21 8
Habeebah A. Kakudi (Mrs) Ph.D.
§ For example, for the
formula P∧Q ⇒R, we can
interpret it using the truth
table. • Here, we have
used the following fact:
§ P∧Q ⇒R
§ Check whether the
sentence ⍺ evaluates
to true whenever KB
evaluates to true
P∧Q ⇒R
|= ￢(P∧Q)∨R
9/12/21 9
Habeebah A. Kakudi (Mrs) Ph.D.
§ Simple sentences:
§Question:
§ Amy loves Pat: lovesAmyPat
§ If it is Monday, does Amy love
§ Amy loves Quincy: lovesAmyQuincy
Quincy? i.e. is ismonday ®
§ It is Monday: ismonday lovesAmyQuincy entailed by the
premises?
§ Premises:
KB = ismonday ® lovesAmyPat Ú
§ If Amy loves Pat, Amy loves Quincy: lovesAmyQuincy
lovesAmyPat ® lovesAmyQuincy ⍺ = ismonday ® lovesAmyQuincy
§ If it is Monday, Amy loves Pat or
§Check whether the
Quincy:
sentence ⍺ evaluates to
ismonday ® lovesAmyPat Ú
lovesAmyQuincy
true whenever KB
evaluates to true
lovesAmy lovesAmyQuin ismonday lovesAmyPat ® ismonday ®
Pat cy lovesAmyQuincy lovesAmyPat Ú
lovesAmyQuincy
T T T T T
T T F T T
T F T F T
T F F F T
F T T T T
F T F T T
F F T T F
F F F T T
lovesAmyPat lovesAmyQuinc ismonday lovesAmyPat ® ismonday ®
y lovesAmyQuinc lovesAmyPat Ú
y lovesAmyQuinc
y
T T T T T
T T F T T
T F T F T
T F F F T
F T T T T
F T F T T
F F T T F
F F F T T
lovesAmyPat lovesAmyQuinc ismonday ismonday ®
y lovesAmyQuincy
T T T T
T T F T
T F T F
T F F T
F T T T
F T F T
F F T F
F F F T
lovesAmyPat lovesAmyQuinc ismonday ismonday ®
y lovesAmyQuincy
T T T T
T T F T
T F T F
T F F T
F T T T
F T F T
F F T F
F F F T
§ Finally, in order to make the determination of logical
entailment, we compare the rightmost columns of the
two tables and notice that every row remaining in the
premise table also remains in the conclusion table.
§ In other words, the premises logically entail the conclusion.
§ The truth table method has the merit that it is easy to
understand
§ It is a direct implementation of the definition of logical
entailment.
§ In practice, it is awkward to manage two tables,
especially since there are simpler approaches in which
only one table needs to be manipulated
§ Approach: To determine whether a set of sentences
{j1,…,jn}
logically entails a sentence j, form the sentence
(j1 Ù …Ù jn ® j)
and check that it is valid.
§ To see how this method works, consider the previous example
and write the tentative conclusion as shown below.
(lovesAmyPat ® lovesAmyQuincy) Ù (ismonday ® lovesAmyPat Ú
lovesAmyQuincy) ® (ismonday ® lovesAmyQuincy)
§ Then, form a truth table for our language with an added column
for this sentence and check its satisfaction under each of the
possible interpretations for our logical constants
§ It is almost exactly the same as the validity checking
method, except that it works negatively instead of
positively.
§ To determine whether a finite set of sentences {j1,…,jn}
logically entails a sentence j, we form the sentence
(j1 Ù …Ù jn Ù ¬j)
and check that it is unsatisfiable.

§ Both the validity checking method and the satisfiability

checking method require about the same amount of work
as the truth table method, but they have the merit of
manipulating only one table
p q r p ® q p ® r p ® r Ú q (p ® q) Ù p ® r Ù q (p ® q) Ù
(p ® r) (p ® r)
® (p ® r Ú q) ® (p ® r Ù q)
T T T T T T T T T
T T F T F T T F T
T F T F T T T F T
T F F F F F T F T
F T T T T T T T T
F T F T T T T T T
F F T T T T T T T
F F F T T T T T T
§ Semantic methods for checking logical entailment have the
merit of being conceptually simple; they directly
manipulate interpretations of sentences
§ Unfortunately, the number of interpretations of a language
grows exponentially with the number of logical constants.
§ When the number of logical constants in a propositional language is large, the
number of interpretations may be impossible to manipulate.
§ Deductive (proof) systems provide an alternative way of
checking and communicating logical entailment that
addresses this problem
§ In many cases, it is possible to create a “proof” of a conclusion from a set of
premises that is much smaller than the truth table for the language;
§ Moreover, it is often possible to find such proofs with less work than is necessary
to check the entire truth table
§ An important component in the treatment of proofs is the
notion of a schema
§ A schema is an expression satisfying the grammatical rules
of our language except for the occurrence of metavariables
in place of various subparts of the expression.
§ For example, the following expression is a pattern with metavariables j and y.

j ® (y ® j)
§ An instance of a sentence schema is the expression
obtained by substituting expressions for the metavariables.
§ For example, the following is an instance of the preceding schema.

p ®(q ® p)
§ The basis for proof systems is the use of correct rules
of inference that can be applied directly to sentences
to derive conclusions that are guaranteed to be correct
under all interpretations
§ Since the interpretations are not enumerated, time and space
can often be saved
§ A rule of inference is a pattern of reasoning consisting
of:
§ One set of sentence schemata, called premises, and
§ A second set of sentence schemata, called conclusions
§ A rule of inference is sound if and only if, for every
instance, the premises logically entail the conclusions
 Modus ponens is
an elimination
rule for ⇒.

9/12/21 22
Habeebah A. Kakudi (Mrs) Ph.D.
 9/12/21 23
Habeebah A. Kakudi (Mrs) Ph.D.
INFERENCE RULES FOR CONJUCTION
Conjunction (∧) has an introduction rule and two elimination rules
§ And Elimination (Right and
Left)
§ And Elimination is a rule of
inference that allows us to
derive conjuncts from a conjunction. If (And Elim)
a proof contains the conjunction of
φ1 through φn, then we can deduce any φi
of the conjuncts.

§ And Introduction φi
(And Introduction)
§ And Elimination is a rule of
inference that allows us to φ1 ∧ ⋯ ∧ φn
introduce conjuncts to KB. If
a proof contains the propositions
φ1 through φn , then we can introduce
a conjunction of the proposition
INFERENCE RULES FOR DISJUNCTION
Disjunction (∨) has an introduction rule and also two elimination rules
§ Or Elimination (Right and
Left)
φ1 ∨ … ∨φn
§ Or Elimination is a rule of
inference that allows us to (or Elim)
derive disjuncts from a disjunction. If φi
a proof contains the disjunction of
φ1 through φn, then we can deduce any
of the disjuncts.

§ Or Introduction φi
(Or Introduction)
§ And Elimination is a rule of
inference that allows us to φ1 ∨ … ∨φn
introduce disjuncts to KB. If
a proof contains the propositions
φ1 through φn , then we can introduce
a disjunction of the proposition
§ A measure of a deductive system's power is whether it is
powerful enough to prove all true statements.
§ A deductive system is said to be complete if all true
statements are theorems (have proofs in the system). For
propositional logic and natural deduction, this means that
all tautologies must have natural deduction proofs.
§ Conversely, a deductive system is called sound if all
theorems are true.
§ The proof rules we have given above are in fact sound and
complete for propositional logic: every theorem is a
tautology, and every tautology is a theorem.
 9/12/21 27
Habeebah A. Kakudi (Mrs) Ph.D.
 9/12/21 28
Habeebah A. Kakudi (Mrs) Ph.D.
 9/12/21 29
Habeebah A. Kakudi (Mrs) Ph.D.
 9/12/21 30
Habeebah A. Kakudi (Mrs) Ph.D.
 9/12/21 31
Habeebah A. Kakudi (Mrs) Ph.D.
 9/12/21 32
Habeebah A. Kakudi (Mrs) Ph.D.
j®y p ® (q ® r)
j p
q®r
y
(p ® q) ® r
raining ® wet p®q
raining r

wet • I.e. we can substitute for the metavariables

complex sentences
• Note that, by stringing together applications
wet ® slippery of rules of inference, it is possible to derive
wet conclusions that cannot be derived in a single
slippery step. This idea of stringing together rule
applications leads to the notion of a proof.
§ The implication introduction schema (II), together with
Modus Ponens, allows us to infer implications
j ® (y ® j)
§ The implication distribution schema (ID) allows us to
distribute one implication over another
(j ® (y ® c)) ® ((j ® y) ® (j ® c))
§ The contradiction realization schemata (CR) permit us to
infer a sentence if the negation of that sentence implies
some sentence and its negation
(y ® ¬j) ® ((y ® j) ® ¬y)
(¬y ® ¬j) ® ((¬y ® j) ® y)
§ The equivalence schemata (EQ) captures the meaning of the
operator ↔
(j y) ® (j ® y)
(j↔ y) ® (y ® j)
(j↔® y) ® ((y ® j) ® (y j))
§ The meaning of the other ↔operators in propositional logic is
captured in the following axiom schemata
(j ¬ y) (y ® j)
(j Ú y) ↔ (¬j ® y)
(j Ù y)↔ ¬(¬j Ú ¬y)
↔ axiom schemata are jointly called the standard axiom
§ The above
schemata for Propositional Logic
§ They all are valid
§ A proof of a conclusion from a set of premises is a sequence of
sentences terminating in the conclusion in which each item is
either
(1) a premise,
(2) an instance of an axiom schema, or
(3) the result of applying a rule of inference to earlier items in sequence

§ Example:
1. p ® q Premise
2. q ® r Premise
3. (q ® r) ® (p ® (q ® r)) II
4. p ® (q ® r) MP : 3,2
5. (p ® (q ® r)) ® (( p ® q) ®(p ® r)) ID
6. (p ® q) ® (p ® r ) MP : 5,4
7. p ® r MP : 6,1
§ If there exists a proof of a sentence j from a set D of premises and the
standard axiom schemata using Modus Ponens, then j is said to be provable
from D, written as
D⊢j
§ There is a close connection between provability and logical entailment (⊧):
A set of sentences D logically entails a sentence j
if and only if j is provable from D

§ Soundness Theorem:
If j is provable from D, then D logically entails j.
§ Completeness Theorem:
If D logically entails j, then j is provable from D.
 9/12/21 38
Habeebah A. Kakudi (Mrs) Ph.D.
 9/12/21 39
Habeebah A. Kakudi (Mrs) Ph.D.