→ if connectives from formula are

part of { >
,
r n
, } ,
it
is
complete
→ No
Singleton set from { 7
,
→
,
, v. ^
} is
complete
→ However
,
e.
g G 7
,
→

/ is complete because

P → I = 7 PVQ
,
therefore it is complete

Truth Functions

→ A function whose
arguments can take only true a)

or false 10 ) and return either value .

truth function
formally is written as
→ a

"

f- :{ 0
,
I
} ↳
{ 0
,
I
}
of that f- takes
n is number
arguments
defines
→
Any wff a truth function and vice versa

e.
g f. ( P ,
Q , R) =
I iff D= D= 0 or D= R -
-
I
Substitution Instances

→ let W
,
H .
. _
. .
_

,
Hn be formulae and P . . Pn be
, ,
.
_

propositional symbols
then W ( Pi / Hi Pn / Mn ) denotes the
→
expression
.
_ .

,
_

formula obtained by simultaneously replacing all

of and all
occurrences
Pn
P , in W
by formula H
, ,
. .
. . _

in W
by formula Hn
e.
g
let W Cd → P ) then
= P →

W ( Pti Pv R I / P ) gives ,
-

TP ✓ R → ( rip > PVR ) →

we that this formula d is a substitution instance

say
of W .

→ we can use above strategy as so

,

the formula W is a
tautology therefore , any
substitution instance of W will also be a
tautology
properties
→ From F=G
then FCP / Hi , ,
. .
- -

,
Pn /Hn ) IG ( Pi /µ , ,
- - -

,
Pn /Hn)

→ If 2 formulas are
logically equivalent if ,
they are

compared using ,
that will result in a
tautology .
 Claire's Method
→ W is a tautology iff w ( Plo ) and w ( Pll )
are
tautologies
→ w is a contradiction iff W ( Plo) and WLP / 1) are
contradictions

daines Tree

D. start with was root of tree

2) Take the first level in the tree with a

propositional
symbol such as P in
any of the levels nodes n .
if
none are left , then finish .

3) Let the right child of tree be WPK) and the left

child be WCP / 1)

4) Repeat from 2

→ if all leaves are true W is a

tautology
,

→ if all leaves are false ,

W is a contradiction

→ otherwise ,
W is a contingency
 e.
g p → on p

I.
PT
→ In

IN 1 0 → In 0
I →

I → Q O → 0

& I

^
0
I

It is a
contingency

satisfiability
→ A formula F is satisfiable if there is an interpretation
N that makes the formula F true In this . case we can

say v satisfies F

→ A set 8 =

{ A ,
,
. . .
.

,
An } of propositional formulae is
satisfiable ( consistent if there is an interpretation v

satisfying every formula in s

e. g
p , , . . _

, pm are all propositional symbols appearing in 5 .

p, ,
.
. . _

,
Pm Ai , -
-
-
- -

, An

V e 1 1
em
- r
. -

,
.

,
. _

, ,
_

we also the set of formulae { A An }

say
can -
_ . -

is
, , , ,

satisfiable iff A ,
A Azn _ _
_
.
^ An is satisfiable .

Model
→
A model is an interpretation that makes formula for set a

of formulae ) true

if u is model of A we v11 A
say
→ a -

→ The set of all models of formula Aa is denoted as

mod (A)

→
we use mod ( s ) for set of all models of sets _

→ if 8 is not satisfiable ,
mod G) = ∅
 Logical consequence
→ An Argument is sequence of statements ( premises
a or

intended to provide support justification

hypothesis) which the truth are
,
or evidence of another statement (
for the conclusion

→ In the argument
^

%-
}
! Premises

} Conclusion

An valid if the conclusion B follows from its

→
Argument is

set of premises Ai , , An . _ _

→
formally ,
we
say B is a
logical consequence of the set of
formula { A , ,
-
- -

,
An } ,
if the following implication holds
for all interpretations :

if v ( Ai ) =
1 for all I ≤ i≤ n then v (B) =
I
→ Let I denote set of all interpretations
→ Let s =
{ A . _
^ An } we have that
, , ,

S F- Biff mod G) ≤ mod (B)

→ mod G B) = I - mod (B) hence

mod (B) n mod G B) = ∅

→
therefore if SKB then mod Cs ) A mod G B) = ∅ and
,

hence SU { TB } is unsatisfiable

→
Any conclusion follows from an unsatisfiable set of premises

Invalid Arguments
→ denoted as Ai ,
. . _ .

>
An H B

→ A ,
,
. . .

,
An 1--1 B if there exists an interpretation v such that

V ( Ai ) = 1 for all I ≤ i ≤n but v (B) = 0

→ In short we need to find an interpretation that is

true for all premises but false for conclusion
e.
g P → ad)# Q I and v (d)
v
(P 0 → = =