Philosophy 1021 PREMISES 2 7.1 Rules of Implication I [Truth tables do not work for quantification in general.

They are great for propositional logic.] Natural Deduction: a method for showing an argument to be deductively valid by showing that its conclusion is derivable from its premises using sound (truth-preserving) rules of inference. Natural Deduction proof: finite sequence of statements where each has either a premises or come from statements in a sequence using a rule of inference, accompanied by applying previous rules to show why a statement has become what it is. Rules of Inference: y Modus Ponens y Modus Tollens y Hypothetical Syllogism y Disjunctive Syllogism (All of the formulas are the same! However, they must be thought of in a different way) Rules of thumb for Natural deduction proof 1 1. Try to find the conclusion of the argument you are working with in the premises of that argument 2. If the conclusion appears in or as the consequent of a conditional statement in the premises, try to find the antecedent and apply Modus Ponens. 3. If the conclusion is the negation of the antecedent of a conditional, find the negation of the consequent and apply Modus Tollens. 4. If the conclusion is a conditional, try to obtain it using Hypothetical Syllogism. 5. If the conclusion appears as a right disjunct, then try to find the negation of the left disjunct and apply Disjunctive Syllogism. [Theses guidelines are just removing the excess from an arguments premises, and proving the conclusion from the premises that do apply.] Examples: 1. F G 2. F H 3. ~G 4. H (GI) / FI If we had H, then we would have G I and it would give us the conclusion. If you look at number 2, we know that we can apply DS by negating F (which is the antecedent of a condition). To do this, we negate the consequent which, is shown in number 3 5. ~F 1, 3 MT 6. H 2, 5 DS 7. G I 4, 6 MP 1, 7 HS 8. F I 7.2 Rules of Implication II

Next four implication rules: Constructive Dilemma (pq) . (rs) pvr qvs From the first and second premise, we can infer the conclusion Simplification p.q p Conjunction p q p.q Addition p pvq Rules of Thumb for Natural Deduction proofs II y If the conclusion contains a statement that appears in a conjunctive statement in the premises, consider using simplification to obtain the letter y If the conclusion is a conjunction, obtain the conjuncts and use the conjunction rule y If the conclusion is a disjunct, obtain it through CD or addition (Through addition, you can just stick it on) y If the conclusion contains a statement that is not in the premises, you have to use addition These rules apply equally to any intermediate statement in a proof and ones you already have. Their application is not limited to just premises and conclusion. 7.3 Rules of Replacement I They allow us to replace certain statements appearing in a proof if they are logically equivalent Validity is not affected The rules of implication were in argument form and read as if the premises, we can infer the conclusion, but rules of replacement are stated as logical equivalence We use :: to stand of LE Rules: 1. DeMorgans (DM) ~ (pq) :: (~p v ~q) ~ (p v q) :: (~p . ~q) 2. Commutativity (Com) p v q :: q v p (p . q) :: (q . p) 3. Associativity (Assoc) [p v (q v r)] :: [(p v q) v r] [p . (q . r)] :: [(p . q) . r] 4. Distrubution (Dist)

[p . (q v r)] :: [(p . q) v (p . r)] [p v (q . r)] :: [(p v q) . (p v r)] 5. Double Negation (DN) p :: ~~p Implication rules are one-way but replacement rules are two way. Implication rules only apply to whole lines of a proof, but replacement rules apply to whole lines and partial lines. Rules of Thumb for Natural Deduction proofs III y We can use conjunctions to set up applications of DM y We can use addition to set up DM [DN can also be used with these rules to set up applications of DM] y We can use distribution in two ways to set up an application of DS. y We can use distribution in two ways to set up simplification y When you get stuck, a strategy to use is to deconstruct the conclusion into a logically equivalent statement and solve the premises from there. When you get the remade conclusion, construct it back to the original one. 7.4 Rules of Replication II 6. Transposition (Trans) (p q) :: (~p~q) 7. Material Implication (Impl) (p q) :: (~p v q) 8. Material Equivalence (Equiv) (p<q) :: [(pq . qp)] (p<q) :: [(p . q) v (~p . ~q)] 9. Exportation (Exp) [(p . q) r] :: [p (qr)] 10. Tautology (Taut) p :: p v p p :: p . p Rules of Thumb for Natural Deduction proofs IV y Use Impl to set up HS y Use export. to set up Modus Ponens y Use export. to set up Modus Tollens y Use add. to set up Impl (add ~ disjunction) y Use trans. to set up HS (play with conditionals) y Use trans. to set up CD (horns involve conditionals) y Use CD to set up tautology (if there conclusions are equivalent) y Use Impl. to set up tautology y Use Impl. to set up distribution