Math Elective 1

Set Theory Module 3

Chapter 2 – Logic and Sets

We have seen that a close relationship
exists between the laws of set theory and the
rules governing logic. In this chapter, we shall
show how these two areas of mathematics
complement one another. That is, set theory
will be used to test the validity of arguments,
and symbolic logic will be used to prove the
laws of set theory.
At the end of the module, you will be able to:
1. determine truth sets;
2. construct Venn diagram using truth sets
and laws of Boolean algebra; and
3. test the validity of arguments using truth
set and Venn diagrams

2. 1 Truth Sets and Arguments

We shall now show how set theory, especially Venn diagrams, can be used in testing the
validity of an argument. Consider the simple statement “He is tall.” This statement, which we shall
denote by , is either true or false depending on the “he” to whom we are referring. For some
people it is true and for others it is false. This simple statement can be joined to other statements
to form compound statements. Let be the universal set whose elements are all possible
compound statements containing the simple statement . This universal set can be subdivided into
two disjoint subsets: the set , whose elements are the compound statements in which the simple
statement is true, and the set , whose elements are the compound statements in which the
simple statement is false. We call the truth set of statement since, for all the elements of ,
statement is true. We call the truth set of since it contains all the compound statements in
which is false. The following Venn diagram illustrates this concept:

𝑈(𝑝)
𝑃′
𝑃

We see that ( ) ∪ ′.
If we carry this idea one step further and consider compound statements which contains two
simple statements and , we use the following standard Venn diagram:

𝑈(𝑝, 𝑞)

𝑃 𝑄
1
2 3
4

28
 Math Elective 1
Set Theory Module 3
Here is the universal set of all compound statements containing the simple statements
and . The set is the truth set of , and is the truth set of . However, in the above figure we
see that there are four disjoint subsets, each of which has distinct truth values for and . In area 1
( ∩ ), since we are within both truth sets and , the simple statement and are both true. In
area 2 ( ∩ ′), since we are in the truth set but outside the truth set , the and simple
statement is true and is false. Using the same reasoning, in area 3 ( ′ ∩ ), is false and is
true, and in area 4 ( ′ ∩ ′) both and are false. That is,

𝑈(𝑝, 𝑞)
𝑃 𝑄

(𝑃 ∩ 𝑄′)

(𝑃′ ∩ 𝑄)
(𝑃 ∩ 𝑄)

(𝑃′ ∩ 𝑄′)

This relationship can be shown by the following table:

Table 1
Statement
Area Truth Set

T T 1 ∩
T F 2 ∩ ′
F T 3 ′∩
F F 4 ′∩ ′

Table 1 or the Venn diagram enables us to determine the truth values of the statements
and for any of the four disjoint subsets. For example, area 3, which is the set ′ ∩ , is the set of
compound statements for which is false and is true.
For compound statements consisting of three simple statements , , and , we use the
Venn diagram shown below and the table:

𝑈(𝑝, 𝑞, 𝑟)
𝑃 𝑄
2
(𝑃 ∩ 𝑄 ∩ 𝑅′)
(𝑃 ∩ 𝑄′ ∩ 𝑅′) (𝑃′ ∩ 𝑄 ∩ 𝑅′)
4 6
(𝑃 ∩ 𝑄 ∩ 𝑅)
3 5
1
(𝑃 ∩ 𝑄′ ∩ 𝑅) (𝑃′ ∩ 𝑄 ∩ 𝑅)

(𝑃′ ∩ 𝑄′ ∩ 𝑅)
8 7

(𝑃′ ∩ 𝑄′ ∩ 𝑅′) 𝑅
29
 Math Elective 1
Set Theory Module 3
Table 2
Statement
Area Truth Set

T T T 1 ∩ ∩
T T F 2 ∩ ∩
T F T 3 ∩ ∩
T F F 4 ∩ ∩
F T T 5 ′∩ ∩
F T F 6 ′∩ ∩ ′
F F T 7 ′∩ ′∩
F F F 8 ′∩ ′∩ ′

Since it is difficult to construct Venn diagrams for four or more sets, we shall limit our
discussion to compound statements made up of three or less component statements.

Definition 1:
Truth Sets: The truth set of a compound statement made up of component statements, 𝑝, 𝑞, 𝑟,
… is a subset of the universal set 𝑈(𝑝, 𝑞, 𝑟, … ), all of whose elements make the compound
statement true. Elements from any other set of 𝑈 make the compound statement false.

To illustrate this definition, we shall examine the truth sets for negation and the four basic
logical connectives. We first construct the truth tables for the connectives and also include the truth
sets for the four disjoint subsets.

Table 3
Area Truth Sets ∨
T T 1 ∩ F T T T T
T F 2 ∩ ′ F T F F F
F T 3 ′∩ T T F T F
F F 4 ′∩ ′ T F F T T

It is now a simple matter to construct a Venn diagram and shade in the truth set. For
example, suppose we want to find the truth set of ∨ . We first see that it is true for any element in
the sets ∩ , ∩ ′, and ′ ∩ . We then shade in these areas (1, 2, and 3) to obtain the truth set
of ∨ . The truth set for other connectives are also found by shading in those areas for which
statements are true. Therefore, we have the following:

𝑷
𝐴 𝑸

𝑝∨𝑞 30
 Math Elective 1
Set Theory Module 3

𝑈 𝑈
𝑷 𝑸
𝑷
𝐴 𝑸

𝑝 𝑝 𝑞

𝑈 𝑈

𝑷 𝑸
𝑷
𝐴 𝑸

𝑝 𝑞
𝑝 𝑞

Examining the above Venn diagrams, we see that the truth sets for negation and the four
logical connectives can be represented in terms of and as follows:

Table 4

Statement Truth Set

′
∨ ∪
∩
( ∩ ) ( ∪ )
( ∩ ) ∪ ( ∪ )′

Note: Since ( ) ( ∨ ), the simplest form of the truth set for is ′ ∪ .

Using these relationships, we can now write the truth set for any given compound statement
by converting negation ( ) to complement ( ′ ), disjunction (∨) to union (∪), conjunction ( ) to
intersection (∩), and implication ( ) to the union of the complement of the antecedent with the
consequent.

Example 1:
Find the truth sets and construct the Venn diagrams for the following compound statements:
(a) 𝑝 (𝑝 𝑞)
(b) 𝑝 ∨ (𝑞 𝑟)

31
 Math Elective 1
Set Theory Module 3
Example 1:
Solution:
(a) To find the truth set for 𝑝 (𝑝 𝑞), we convert it to set notation by use of Table 4.
Therefore, we have 𝑃 ∩ (𝑃 ∪ 𝑄). We can now construct the Venn diagram for the truth
set, or we can first simplify the form of the truth set by applying the laws of Boolean
algebra.

(1) 𝑃 ∩ (𝑃 ∪ 𝑄) Given truth set

(2) (𝑃 ∩ 𝑃 ) ∪ (𝑃 ∩ 𝑄) 1, Distributive
(3) ∅ ∪ (𝑃 ∩ 𝑄) 2, Inverse
(4) 𝑃 ∩ 𝑄 3, Identity

We see that 𝑃 ∩ (𝑃 ∪ 𝑄 ) 𝑃 ∩ 𝑄. This leads us to conclude that since 𝑝 (𝑝 𝑞) and

𝑝 𝑞 have the same truth sets, they must be equivalent.

The following is the Venn diagram for the truth set 𝑃 ∩ (𝑃 ∪ 𝑄):

(b) To find the truth set for 𝑝 ∨ (𝑞 𝑟), we convert it to set notation by use of Table 4.
Therefore, we have 𝑃 ∪ (𝑄 ∩ 𝑅 ) or 𝑃 ∪ (𝑄 − 𝑅). This truth set is in simplest form and
cannot be reduced by applying the Boolean algebra. The following is the Venn diagram for
the truth set 𝑃 ∪ (𝑄 ∩ 𝑅 ).

Since we can write truth sets for compound statements, it is now possible to use truth sets to
test the validity of an argument.
An argument, which is a series of statements called premises and a final statement called the
conclusion, is said to be valid if, whenever the premises are true, the conclusion is also true. That is,
true premises must always yield a true conclusion for an argument to be valid. To apply truth sets to
this definition, we find the truth set whose elements make the premises all true. Once we have
found this truth set of the premises, we then determine whether all of its elements also make the
conclusion true. If so, the argument is valid. (If any of the elements of the truth set of the premises
32
 Math Elective 1
Set Theory Module 3
yield a false conclusion, the argument is invalid.) In other words, we determine whether or not the
truth set for which the premises are all true is a subset of the truth set of the conclusion. When it is,
we have true premises always yielding a true conclusion (a valid argument). Therefore, we have the
following:

𝑈 𝑈

𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏

𝑷𝒓𝒆𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒆𝒔 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏
𝑷𝒓𝒆𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒆𝒔
2
1 3

𝑽𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒅 𝒂𝒓𝒈𝒖𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕: 𝑰𝒏𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒅 𝒂𝒓𝒈𝒖𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕:

(truth set of the premises) ⊂ (truth set of the conclusion) (truth set of the premises) ⊄ (truth set of the conclusion)

In the second case, we see that the argument is invalid since there are elements for which
the premises are true and the conclusion is false (area 1).
The truth set of the premises (the set for which all the premises are true) is the intersection of
the truth sets of the individual premises. Since conjunction and intersection are related operations, it
is also true that the truth set of the premises is the truth set of the conjunction of the premises. For
example, the truth set of the premises and is

( )

( ∪ )∩ ′

Definition 2:
Valid Argument: An argument is valid if the truth set of the conjunction of the premises is a
subset of the truth set of the conclusion.

Example 2:
Test the validity of the following arguments:
(a) 𝑝 𝑞 (b) 𝑝 𝑞
𝑞 𝑟 ∨ 𝑞
∴𝑝 𝑟
∴𝑝

33
Math Elective 1
Set Theory Module 3

Example 2:
Solution:
(a) We construct the Venn diagrams for the truth sets of the conjunction of the premises and
the truth set of the conclusion.

Premises Conclusion
(𝑝 𝑞 ) 𝑞 𝑝
(𝑃 ∪ 𝑄) ∩ 𝑄′ 𝑃

By Boolean algebra
(𝑃 ∪ 𝑄)′
𝑈 𝑈

𝑷
𝐴 𝑸 𝑷
𝐴 𝑸

𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛

By examining the diagrams, we see that the truth set of the premises is not a subset of the
truth set of the conclusion; that is, (𝑃 ∪ 𝑄 ) ∩ 𝑄 ⊄ 𝑃. Therefore, the argument is invalid.

(b) We construct the Venn diagrams for the truth set of the conjunction of the premises and
the truth set of the conclusion.

Premises Conclusion
( 𝑝 𝑞 ) (𝑟 ∨ 𝑞 ) 𝑟 𝑝
(𝑃 ∪ 𝑄) ∩ (𝑅 ∪ 𝑄 ) ∩ 𝑅′ 𝑃
(𝑃 ∪ 𝑄 ) ∩ [(𝑅 ∩ 𝑅 ) ∪ (𝑄 ∩ 𝑅 )]
(𝑃 ∪ 𝑄 ) ∩ [∅ ∪ (𝑄 ∩ 𝑅 )]
(𝑃 ∪ 𝑄 ) ∩ (𝑄 ∩ 𝑅 )
(𝑃 ∪ 𝑄 ) ∩ (𝑄 ∪ 𝑅 )′

𝑈 𝑈
𝑃 𝑄 𝑃 𝑄

𝑅 𝑅

𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛

Examining the diagrams, we see that the truth set of the premises is a subset of the truth set of
the conclusion; that is, [(𝑃 ∪ 𝑄 ) ∩ (𝑅 ∪ 𝑄 ) ∩ 𝑅 ] ⊂ 𝑃. Therefore, the argument is valid.

34