BSEDMATH 17

LOGIC AND SET THEORY

CHAPTER 1- LOGIC

II. RULES OF INFERENCE AND TAUTOLOGY

TYPES OF TAUTOLOGIES AND FALLACIES

TAUTOLOGY=A tautology is a logical statement or proposition that is true in every

possible interpretation or under every possible set of circumstances it is a statement that
is always true regardless of the truth values of its components.

RULES OF INFERENCE

An argument in propositional logic is a sequence of propositions. All except for

the final proposition in the argument are called premises and the final
proposition is called the conclusion.

An argument is valid if the truth of all its premises implies that the conclusion is true.

In a valid argument, if all the premises (statements assumed to be true) are true, then the conclusion
(the statement being asserted based on the premises) must also be true

Valid Argument: A valid argument is one where the conclusion logically follows from the premises. This
means that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Validity is a property of the
logical structure of an argument, independent of the actual truth values of the premises and conclusion.

Truth of Premises: The premises of an argument are the statements provided as evidence or reasons to
support the conclusion. The truth of the premises is assumed for the sake of argument, and it is typically
stated explicitly within the argument.

Implication to Conclusion: If the truth of all the premises implies that the conclusion is true, then the
argument is valid. This means that there is a logical connection between the premises and the
conclusion, such that the premises provide sufficient support for the conclusion to be true.

Here's an example to illustrate the concept of a valid argument:

Premise 1: All humans are mortal. (True premise)
Premise 2: Socrates is a human. (True premise)
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (True conclusion
An argument form in propositional logic is a sequence of compound propositions involving
propositional variables. An argument form is valid no matter which particular propositions
are substituted for the propositional variables in its premises.

Rules of inference are principles or guidelines used in deductive reasoning to draw

conclusions from premises. These rules help to establish the validity of arguments by
ensuring that the conclusions logically follow from the given premises

Instead of using truth tables to show that an argument form is valid, we can first
establish the validity of some relatively simple argument forms, called rules of inference.

A tautology is a statement or proposition that is always true, regardless of the truth

values of its individual components

One way to determine if a statement is a tautology is by constructing a truth table for

the statement

COMMON RULES OF INFERENCE

 Modus Ponens: If we have a conditional statement of the form "If A, then B" and
we know that A is true, then we can infer that B is true.

Modus Ponens states that if we have a conditional statement where "P implies Q" (if P,
then Q), and we know that the condition P is true, then we can confidently conclude that
the consequent Q must also be true.

Example 1:

If it is raining, then the streets are wet. (P implies Q)

It is raining. (P is true)

From these premises, we can logically conclude:

 Therefore, the streets are wet. (Q is true)

Example 2 :

Premise 1: If it is raining, then the streets are wet.

Premise 2: It is raining.

Conclusion: Therefore, the streets are wet.

TAUTOLOGY: Law of Implication (P→Q)˄P)→Q

This tautology asserts that if a statement P implies Q, and P is true, then Q must also be
true. It essentially encapsulates the essence of Modus Ponens.

P→Q represents a conditional statement, stating that if P is true, then Q must also
be true. This is the conditional premise in Modus Ponens.

P represents the premise that P is true. This corresponds to the second premise in
Modus Ponens.

Q represents the conclusion that follows from the conditional statement being true
and P being true. This is the conclusion drawn in Modus Ponens.

To check the validity: use truth table

P Q P→Q (P→Q)˄P ((P→Q)˄P)→Q

T T T T T T

T F F F T T

F T T F T T

F F T F T T

This is the conclusion drawn in Modus Ponens.

When we combine P→Q and P through logical conjunction (∧), we essentially assert that
both the conditional statement and its premise are true. Therefore, by the semantics of
the conditional statement, we conclude Q. This mirrors the process of Modus Ponens
where we use the truth of the conditional statement and its premise to infer the truth of
its conclusion.

In summary, the tautology (P→Q)∧P→Q represents the logical principle that if P implies Q
and P is true, then Q must also be true, which aligns perfectly with the inference pattern
of Modus Ponens.

Modus Tollens

Modus Tollens states that if we have a conditional statement where "P implies Q" (if P,
then Q), and we know that the consequent Q is false, then we can conclude that the
antecedent P must also be false.

~q

p→q

----

∴~p

If P implies Q.

Not Q.

From these premises, we can infer:

Therefore, Not P.

Example 1.

P= If it is raining

Q= The streets are wet

If it is raining, then the streets are wet. (P implies Q)

The streets are not wet. (Not Q)

From these premises, we can logically conclude:

Therefore, it is not raining. (Not P)

Modus Tollens is a valuable tool in logic because it allows us to infer the negation of a
condition when we know the negation of its consequent. It helps in reasoning about
situations where we have information about what did not happen, leading to conclusions
about what must not be true

TAUTOLOGY: (P→Q)→(~Q→~P) (Contrapositive Law)

This tautology asserts that if a statement P implies Q, then the negation of Q implies the
negation of P. This aligns with the logical principle behind Modus Tollens.

P→Q represents a conditional statement, stating that if P is true, then Q must also
be true. This is the premise in Modus Tollens.

~Q represents the negation of Q, which signifies that Q is false. This corresponds

to the information given in Modus Tollens.

~P represents the negation of P, implying that if Q is false, then P must also be

false. This is the conclusion drawn in Modus Tollens.

Example:

P= If it is raining

Q= The ground is wet

"(P → Q)" means "if it is raining, then the ground is wet."

"(~Q → ~P)" means "if the ground is not wet, then it is not raining."

In summary, the tautology (P→Q)→(~Q→~P) represents the logical principle that if P

implies Q, then the negation of Q implies the negation of P, which aligns perfectly with the
inference pattern of Modus Tollens.
 Hypothetical Syllogism

is a fundamental rule of inference in deductive reasoning. It allows us to draw conclusions

from two conditional statements by linking them together. The structure of hypothetical
syllogism is as follows:

P→Q

Q→R

________

∴P→R

If P implies Q.

If Q implies R.

From these premises, we can infer:

Therefore, if P implies Q, then P implies R.

In simpler terms, if we have two conditional statements where the conclusion of the first
statement matches the hypothesis of the second statement, we can combine these two
statements to infer a new conditional statement

Example:

If it is raining, then the streets are wet. (If P, then Q)

If the streets are wet, then people use umbrellas. (If Q, then R)

From these premises, we can logically conclude:

Therefore, if it is raining, then people use umbrellas. (If P, then R)

TAUTOLOGY: (P→Q)∧(Q→R)→(P→R) Law of Transitivity of Implication.

This tautology asserts that if P implies Q and Q implies R, then P implies R. This aligns
perfectly with the logical structure of the Hypothetical Syllogism.
When we combine P→Q and Q→R through logical conjunction (∧), we establish the
connection between the truth of P→Q and the truth of Q→R, which allows us to logically
infer P→R. This mirrors the structure of the Hypothetical Syllogism, where we chain
together two conditional statements to derive a third conditional statement.

Example:

If it is raining, then the streets are wet. (If P, then Q)

If the streets are wet, then people use umbrellas. (If Q, then R)

From these premises, using the Law of Transitivity of Implication, we can logically
conclude:

Therefore, if it is raining, then people use umbrellas. (If P, then R)

Disjunctive syllogism

Rule of inference in logic that allows us to draw conclusions from a disjunction (an
"either/or" statement) when one of the disjuncts is known to be false. The structure of
disjunctive syllogism is as follows:

P∨Q

~P

________

∴Q

Either P or Q.

Not P.
From these premises, we can infer:

Therefore, Q.

In simpler terms, if we have a statement asserting that either P or Q is true, and we know
that PP is false, then we can confidently conclude that Q must be true.

Example:

Either it is raining or the sun is shining. (Either P or Q)

It is not raining. (Not P)

From these premises, we can logically conclude:

Therefore, the sun is shining. (Q is true)

Disjunctive syllogism allows us to reason about mutually exclusive options and draw
conclusions based on the negation of one of the options. It's a straightforward yet
powerful rule of inference commonly used in logic and reasoning.

TAUTOLOGY: (P∨Q)∧~P→Q (Law of Excluded Middle)

This tautology asserts that if we have a disjunction P∨Q (either P or Q), and we know that
P is false (~P), then we can infer that Q must be true.

When we combine P∨Q and ~P through logical implication (→), we establish the connection
between the truth of the disjunction and the falsity of PP, leading to the conclusion Q.
This mirrors the structure of Disjunctive Syllogism, where we use the falsity of one
disjunct to infer the truth of the other disjunct.

Explained:
 P∨Q represents the disjunction, stating that either P or Q is true.

~P represents the negation of PP, signifying that P is false.

Q represents the conclusion drawn from the disjunction and the negation of P,
asserting that if P is false, then Q must be true.

Example:

Either it is raining or the sun is shining. (P∨Q)

It is not raining. (~P)

From these premises, using the Law of Excluded Middle, we can infer:

Therefore, the sun is shining. (Q)

This example demonstrates how the tautology for Disjunctive Syllogism encapsulates the
logical principle of drawing conclusions based on the exclusion of one option in a disjunction

Addition

Fundamental principle in propositional logic. It allows us to infer a disjunction (logical OR)

from a single proposition

The structure of the Rule of Addition is as follows:

P (A proposition P is true).

From this premise, we can infer:

P∨Q (The proposition P is true or another proposition Q is true).

P
______

∴P∨Q

In simpler terms, if we know that a certain proposition PP is true, then we can infer the
truth of a disjunction where PP is one of the disjuncts.

Example:

It is raining. (P)

From this premise, using the Rule of Addition, we can infer:

It is raining or the sun is shining. (P∨Q)

This example demonstrates how the Rule of Inference for Addition allows us to extend
our knowledge by introducing additional possibilities based on what we already know to be
true. It's a straightforward rule commonly used in logic to introduce new information or
possibilities

TAUTOLOGY: P→(P∨Q)

This tautology asserts that if a proposition PP is true, then the disjunction P∨QP∨Q is also
true. In other words, if we have a true proposition PP, then we can always infer a
disjunction where PP is one of the disjuncts.

P represents a proposition that is true.

P∨Q represents the disjunction, stating that either PP is true or another

proposition QQ is true.

When we combine P with the disjunction P∨Q through logical implication (→), we establish
the connection between the truth of P and the truth of P∨Q, asserting that if P is true,
then P∨Q is also true. This mirrors the structure of the Rule of Inference for Addition,
where we infer a disjunction from a single proposition.
Example:

It is raining. (P)

It is shining (Q)

From this premise, using the tautology, we can infer:

P→(P∨Q)

"If it is raining (P), then it is either raining or sunny (P∨Q)."

In other words, if we know that it is raining, then we can confidently say that it is either
raining or sunny because the conjunction P∨QP∨Q allows for either PP (raining) or QQ
(sunny) to be true. However, because we know PP is true, it follows that the entire
disjunction P∨QP∨Q must be true as well, due to the logical implication.

Simplification

Basic principle in propositional logic that allows us to infer simpler propositions from
compound propositions.

The rule of simplification states that if we have a conjunction (logical AND) of two
propositions, we can infer either of the individual propositions.

P∧Q

_______

∴P

P∧Q (A conjunction of propositions P and Q).

From this premise, we can infer:

P or Q (Either proposition PP or proposition Q)

In simpler terms, if we have a compound statement formed by joining two simpler
propositions with a conjunction, we can infer either of the simpler propositions.

Example:

John is tall. (PP)

or

John is strong. (Q)

In this example, the rule of simplification allows us to simplify the compound statement
"John is tall and John is strong" into its individual components, thus inferring either "John
is tall" or "John is strong". This demonstrates how the rule of inference for simplification
works by breaking down compound statements into simpler components.

TAUTOLOGY: (P∧Q)→P

This tautology asserts that if we have a conjunction P∧Q (logical AND) of two propositions
P and Q, then we can always infer the truth of proposition P from it.

Now, let's break down this tautology:

P∧Q represents a conjunction of two propositions, P and Q.

P represents one of the propositions involved in the conjunction.

When we combine P∧Q with P through logical implication (→), we establish the connection
between the truth of the conjunction P∧Q and the truth of P, asserting that if P∧Q is
true, then P must also be true.

Example:

John is tall and John is strong. (P∧Q)

From this premise, using the tautology, we can infer:

(P∧Q)→P

This example demonstrates how the tautology for Simplification encapsulates the logical
principle that if we have a conjunction of two propositions, we can always infer the truth
of either of the individual propositions from it.

CONJUNCTION

Conjunction is a logical operation that combines two propositions into a single compound
proposition. It is represented by the symbol "∧" (pronounced "and"). In a conjunction, both
propositions must be true for the compound proposition to be true.

_______

∴P∧Q

Here's the structure of conjunction:

P∧Q

Where:

P and Q are propositions.

The compound proposition P∧Q is true if and only if both P and Q are true.

Now, let's explain conjunction with an example:

Example:

Let P represent the statement "It is sunny."

Let Q represent the statement "It is warm."

The conjunction P∧Q would represent "It is sunny and it is warm."

In this example, P is true if it is indeed sunny, and Q is true if it is warm. Therefore, the
compound proposition P∧Q is true only if it is both sunny and warm outside. If either
proposition is false (for example, if it is sunny but not warm), the conjunction P∧Q would
be false.

So, P∧Q is true only when both P and Q are true simultaneously. Otherwise, it is false.

This truth table shows the possible combinations of truth values for propositions P and Q,
along with the resulting truth value of the conjunction P∧Q.

TAUTOLOGY: ((P) ∧ (Q)) → (P ∧ Q)

If both P and Q are true, then P∧Q must also be true

Example:

Let P represent the statement "It is raining."

Let Q represent the statement "It is cloudy."

If it is both raining and cloudy (i.e., P and Q are both true), then it is true that it is both
raining and cloudy (i.e., P∧Q is true).

SEAT WORK:

1. Show that each of these conditional statements is a tautology by using truth table
a) [~p ∧ (p ∨ q)] → q
b) [(p → q) ∧ (q → r)] → (p → r)
c) [p ∧ (p → q)] → q
d) [(p ∨ q) ∧ (p → r) ∧ (q → r)] → r