THE FOUNDATIONS: LOGIC AND

PROOFS
1 Chapter 1, Part I: Propositional Logic
CHAPTER SUMMARY
 Propositional Logic
 The Language of Propositions
 Applications
 Logical Equivalences

 Predicate Logic
 The Language of Quantifiers
 Logical Equivalences
 Nested Quantifiers

 Proofs
 Rules of Inference
 Proof Methods
2
PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC SUMMARY
 The Language of Propositions
 Connectives
 Truth Values
 Truth Tables

 Applications
 Translating English Sentences
 Logical Equivalences
 Important Equivalences
 Showing Equivalence

3
 PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC
4 Section 1.1
SECTION SUMMARY
 Propositions
 Connectives
 Negation
 Conjunction
 Disjunction
 Implication; contrapositive, inverse, converse
 Biconditional
 Truth Tables

5
PROPOSITIONS
 A proposition is a declarative sentence that is
either true or false.
 Examples of propositions:
a) The Moon is made of green cheese.
b) Tokyo is the capital of Vietnam.
c) Toronto is the capital of Canada.
d) 1+0=1
e) 0+0=2
 Examples that are not propositions.
a) Sit down!
b) What time is it?
c) x+1=2
6
d) x+y=z
PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC
 Constructing Propositions
 Propositional Variables: p, q, r, s, …
 The proposition that is always true is denoted by T
and the proposition that is always false is denoted by
F.
 Compound Propositions; constructed from logical
connectives and other propositions
 Negation ¬
 Conjunction ∧

 Disjunction ∨

 Implication →
 Biconditional ↔
7
COMPOUND PROPOSITIONS: NEGATION
 The negation of a proposition p is denoted by ¬p and
has this truth table:

p ¬p
T F
F T
 Example: If p denotes “The earth is round.”,
then ¬p denotes “It is not the case that the
earth is round,” or more simply “The earth is not
round.”

8
CONJUNCTION
 The conjunction of propositions p and q is
denoted by p ∧ q and has this truth table:

p q p∧q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F
 Example: If p denotes “I am at home.” and q
denotes “It is raining.” then p ∧q denotes “I am
at home and it is raining.”
9
DISJUNCTION

 The disjunction of propositions p and q is denoted by

p ∨q and has this truth table:

p q p ∨q
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F
 Example: If p denotes “I am at home.” and q denotes
“It is raining.” then p ∨q denotes “I am at home or it is
raining.” 10
THE CONNECTIVE OR IN ENGLISH
 In English “or” has two distinct meanings.
 “Inclusive Or” - In the sentence “Students who have taken CS202 or
Math120 may take this class,” we assume that students need to have
taken one of the prerequisites, but may have taken both. This is the
meaning of disjunction. For p ∨q to be true, either one or both of p and q
must be true.
 “Exclusive Or” - When reading the sentence “Soup or salad comes
with this course,” we do not expect to be able to get both soup and
salad. This is the meaning of Exclusive Or (Xor). In p ⊕ q , one of p
and q must be true, but not both. The truth table for ⊕ is:
p q p ⊕q
T T F
T F T
F T T 11
F F F
IMPLICATION
 If p and q are propositions, then p →q is a conditional
statement or implication which is read as “if p, then q ” and
has this truth table:
p q p →q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

 Example: If p denotes “I am at home.” and q

denotes “It is raining.” then p →q denotes “If I am at
home then it is raining.”
12
 In p →q , p is the hypothesis (antecedent or premise)
and q is the conclusion (or consequence).
UNDERSTANDING IMPLICATION
 In p →q there does not need to be any
connection between the antecedent or the
consequent. The “meaning” of p →q depends
only on the truth values of p and q.
 These implications are perfectly fine, but would
not be used in ordinary English.
 “If the moon is made of green cheese, then I have
more money than Bill Gates. ”
 “If the moon is made of green cheese then I’m on
welfare.”
 “If 1 + 1 = 3, then your grandma wears combat boots.”

13
UNDERSTANDING IMPLICATION (CONT)
 One way to view the logical conditional is to
think of an obligation or contract.
 “If I am elected, then I will lower taxes.”
 “If you get 100% on the final, then you will get an A.”
 If the politician is elected and does not lower
taxes, then the voters can say that he or she has
broken the campaign pledge. Something similar
holds for the professor. This corresponds to the
case where p is true and q is false.

14
DIFFERENT WAYS OF EXPRESSING P →Q
if p, then q p implies q
if p, q p only if q
q unless ¬p q when p
q if p
q whenever p p is sufficient for q
q follows from p q is necessary for p

a necessary condition for p is q

a sufficient condition for q is p

15
CONVERSE, CONTRAPOSITIVE,
AND INVERSE
 From p →q we can form new conditional statements .
 q →p is the converse of p →q
 ¬q → ¬ p is the contrapositive of p →q
 ¬p→¬q is the inverse of p →q
Example: Find the converse, inverse, and
contrapositive of “It raining is a sufficient condition
for my not going to town.”
Solution:
converse: If I do not go to town, then it is raining.
inverse: If it is not raining, then I will go to town.
contrapositive: If I go to town, then it is not raining.

16
BICONDITIONAL
 If p and q are propositions, then we can form the
biconditional proposition p ↔q , read as “p if and only if q
.” The biconditional p ↔q denotes the proposition
with this truth table:

p q p ↔q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F T

 If p denotes “I am at home.” and q denotes “It is

raining.” then p ↔q denotes “I am at home if and
17
only if it is raining.”
EXPRESSING THE BICONDITIONAL
 Some alternative ways “p if and only if q” is
expressed in English:

 p is necessary and sufficient for q

 if p then q , and conversely
 p iff q

18
TRUTH TABLES FOR COMPOUND PROPOSITIONS
 Construction of a truth table:
 Rows
 Need a row for every possible combination of values
for the atomic propositions.
 Columns
 Need a column for the compound proposition (usually
at far right)
 Need a column for the truth value of each expression
that occurs in the compound proposition as it is built
up.
 This includes the atomic propositions

19
EXAMPLE TRUTH TABLE
 Construct a truth table for

p q r r p q p q→
r
T T T F T F
T T F T T T
T F T F T F
T F F T T T
F T T F T F
F T F T T T
F F T F F T
F F F T F T 20
EQUIVALENT PROPOSITIONS
 Two propositions are equivalent if they always
have the same truth value.
 Example: Show using a truth table that the
conditional is equivalent to the contrapositive.
Solution:

p q ¬p ¬q p →q ¬q → ¬ p
T T F F T T
T F F T F F
F T T F T T
F F T T T T 21
USING A TRUTH TABLE TO SHOW NON-
EQUIVALENCE
Example: Show using truth tables that neither
the converse nor inverse of an implication are not
equivalent to the implication.
Solution:

p q ¬p ¬q p →q ¬ p →¬ q q→p
T T F F T T T
T F F T F T T
F T T F T F F
F F T T T T T

22
PROBLEM
 How many rows are there in a truth table with n
propositional variables?

Solution: 2n We will see how to do this in Chapter

6.

 Note that this means that with n propositional

variables, we can construct 2n distinct (i.e., not
equivalent) propositions.

23
PRECEDENCE OF LOGICAL OPERATORS

Operator Precedence
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5

p q  r is equivalent to (p q) 
r
If the intended meaning is p (q  r
)
then parentheses must be used. 24
APPLICATIONS OF PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC:
SUMMARY
 Translating English to Propositional Logic
 System Specifications (optional)

 Boolean Searching (opt)

 Logic Puzzles (opt)

 Logic Circuits (opt)

 AI Diagnosis Method (opt)

25
TRANSLATING ENGLISH SENTENCES
 Steps to convert an English sentence to a
statement in propositional logic
 Identify atomic propositions and represent using
propositional variables.
 Determine appropriate logical connectives

 “If I go to Tuấn’s or to the country, I will not go

shopping.”
 p: I go to Tuấn’s
 q: I go to the country.
 r: I will go shopping. If p or q then not
r.
26
EXAMPLE
Problem: Translate the following sentence into
propositional logic:
“You can access the Internet from campus only if
you are a computer science major or you are not a
freshman.”
One Solution: Let a, c, and f represent
respectively “You can access the internet from
campus,” “You are a computer science major,”
and “You are a freshman.”
a→ (c ∨ ¬ f )
27
SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS (OPTIONAL)
System and Software engineers take
requirements in English and express them in a
precise specification language based on logic.
Example: Express in propositional logic:
“The automated reply cannot be sent when the file
system is full”
Solution: One possible solution: Let p denote
“The automated reply can be sent” and q denote
“The file system is full.”
q→ ¬ p
28
CONSISTENT SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS (OPT)
Definition: A list of propositions is consistent if it is
possible to assign truth values to the proposition
variables so that each proposition is true.
Exercise: Are these specifications consistent?
 “The diagnostic message is stored in the buffer or it is
retransmitted.”
 “The diagnostic message is not stored in the buffer.”
 “If the diagnostic message is stored in the buffer, then it is
retransmitted.”
Solution: Let p denote “The diagnostic message is stored in
the buffer.” Let q denote “The diagnostic message is
retransmitted” The specification can be written as: p ∨ q, ¬p, p
→ q. When p is false and q is true all three statements are
true. So the specification is consistent.
 What if “The diagnostic message is not retransmitted is added.”
Solution: Now we are adding ¬q and there is no satisfying 29
assignment. So the specification is not consistent.
LOGIC PUZZLES (OPT) RaymonSmu
llyand
 An island has two kinds of inhabitants, knights, who (Born 1919)
always tell the truth, and knaves, who always lie.
 You go to the island and meet A and B.
 A says “B is a knight.”
 B says “The two of us are of opposite types.”
Example: What are the types of A and B?
Solution: Let p and q be the statements that A is a knight
and B is a knight, respectively. So, then p represents the
proposition that A is a knave and q that B is a knave.
 If A is a knight, then p is true. Since knights tell the truth, q
must also be true. Then (p ∧  q)∨ ( p ∧ q) would have to be
true, but it is not. So, A is not a knight and therefore p must
be true.
 If A is a knave, then B must not be a knight since knaves
always lie. So, then both p and q hold since both are 30
knaves.
LOGIC CIRCUITS (OPT)
(STUDIED IN DEPTH IN CHAPTER 12)
 Electronic circuits; each input/output signal can be viewed as a 0 or 1.
 0 represents False
 1 represents True
 Complicated circuits are constructed from three basic circuits called gates.

 The inverter (NOT gate)takes an input bit and produces the negation of that
bit.
 The OR gate takes two input bits and produces the value equivalent to the
disjunction of the two bits.
 The AND gate takes two input bits and produces the value equivalent to the
conjunction of the two bits.
 More complicated digital circuits can be constructed by combining these
basic circuits to produce the desired output given the input signals by
building a circuit for each piece of the output expression and then
combining them. For example:
31
DIAGNOSIS OF FAULTS IN AN ELECTRICAL
SYSTEM (OPT)
 AI Example (from Artificial Intelligence:
Foundations of Computational Agents by David
Poole and Alan Mackworth, 2010)
 Need to represent in propositional logic the
features of a piece of machinery or circuitry that
are required for the operation to produce
observable features. This is called the
Knowledge Base (KB).
 We also have observations representing the
features that the system is exhibiting now.

32
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM DIAGRAM (OPT)
Outside
s1 cb1 Power

Have lights (l1, l2),

w1 wires (w0, w1, w2, w3,
w3 w4), switches (s1, s2,
w2 s3), and circuit
breakers (cb1)
s2 The next page gives the
s3
knowledge base
describing the circuit and
w0 w4 the current observations.

l1
33
l2
REPRESENTING THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM IN
PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC
 We need to represent our common-sense
understanding of how the electrical system works
in propositional logic.
 For example: “If l1 is a light and if l1 is receiving
current, then l1 is lit.
 light_l1  live_l1  ok_l1 → lit_l1
 Also: “If w1 has current, and switch s2 is in the
up position, and s2 is not broken, then w0 has
current.”
 live_w1  up_s2  ok_s2 → live_w0
 This task of representing a piece of our common-
sense world in logic is a common one in logic-
based AI. 34
KNOWLEDGE BASE (OPT)
 live_outside
 light_l1 We have outside power.
 light_l2
Both l1 and l2 are lights.
 live_w0 → live_l1
 live_w1  up_s2  ok_s2 → live_w0
 live_w2  down_s2  ok_s2 → live_w0
If s2 is ok and s2 is in a
 live_w3  up_s1  ok_s1 → live_w1 down position and w2 has
 live_w3  down_s1  ok_s1 → live_w2 current, then w0 has
 live_w4 → live_l2 current.
 live_w3  up_s3  ok_s3 → live_w4
 live_outside  ok_cb1 → live_w3
 light_l1  live_l1  ok_l1 → lit_l1
 light_l2  live_l2  ok_l2 → lit_l2
35
OBSERVATIONS (OPT)
 Observations need to be added to the KB
 Both Switches up
 up_s1
 up_s2

 Both lights are dark

 lit_l1
  lit_l2

36
DIAGNOSIS (OPT)
 We assume that the components are working ok, unless
we are forced to assume otherwise. These atoms are called
assumables.
 The assumables (ok_cb1, ok_s1, ok_s2, ok_s3, ok_l1, ok_l2)
represent the assumption that we assume that the
switches, lights, and circuit breakers are ok.
 If the system is working correctly (all assumables are true),
the observations and the knowledge base are consistent
(i.e., satisfiable).
 The augmented knowledge base is clearly not consistent if
the assumables are all true. The switches are both up, but
the lights are not lit. Some of the assumables must then be
false. This is the basis for the method to diagnose possible
faults in the system.
 A diagnosis is a minimal set of assumables which must be
false to explain the observations of the system.
37
DIAGNOSTIC RESULTS (OPT)
 See Artificial Intelligence: Foundations of Computational
Agents (by David Poole and Alan Mackworth, 2010) for details
on this problem and how the method of consistency based
diagnosis can determine possible diagnoses for the electrical
system.
 The approach yields 7 possible faults in the system. At least
one of these must hold:
 Circuit Breaker 1 is not ok.
 Both Switch 1 and Switch 2 are not ok.
 Both Switch 1 and Light 2 are not ok.
 Both Switch 2 and Switch 3 are not ok.
 Both Switch 2 and Light 2 are not ok.
 Both Light 1 and Switch 3 are not ok.
 Both Light 1 and Light 2 are not ok. 38
TAUTOLOGIES, CONTRADICTIONS, AND
CONTINGENCIES
 A tautology is a proposition which is always
true.
 Example: p ∨¬p
 A contradiction is a proposition which is always
false.
 Example: p ∧¬p
 A contingency is a proposition which is neither a
tautology nor a contradiction, such as p
P ¬p p ∨¬p p ∧¬p
T F T F
F T T F 39
TAUTOLOGIES, CONTRADICTIONS, AND
CONTINGENCIES
 A tautology is a proposition which is always
true.
 Example: p ∨¬p
 A contradiction is a proposition which is always
false.
 Example: p ∧¬p
 A contingency is a proposition which is neither a
tautology nor a contradiction, such as p
P ¬p p ∨¬p p ∧¬p
T F T F
F T T F 40
LOGICALLY EQUIVALENT
 Two compound propositions p and q are logically
equivalent if p↔q is a tautology.
 We write this as p⇔q or as p≡q where p and q are
compound propositions.
 Two compound propositions p and q are equivalent if and
only if the columns in a truth table giving their truth
values agree.
 This truth table shows that ¬p ∨ q is equivalent to p → q.
p q ¬p ¬p ∨ q p→ q
T T F T T
T F F F F
F T T T T
41
F F T T T
 DE MORGAN’S LAWS

Augustus De Morgan

1806-1871

This truth table shows that De Morgan’s Second Law holds.

p q ¬p ¬q (p∨q) ¬(p∨q) ¬p∧¬q

T T F F T F F
T F F T T F F
F T T F T F F
42
F F T T F T T
KEY LOGICAL EQUIVALENCES
 Identity Laws: ,

 Domination Laws: ,

 Idempotent laws: ,

 Double Negation Law:

 Negation Laws: ,
43
KEY LOGICAL EQUIVALENCES (CONT)
 Commutative Laws: ,

 Associative Laws:

 Distributive Laws:

 Absorption Laws:

44
MORE LOGICAL EQUIVALENCES

45
CONSTRUCTING NEW LOGICAL EQUIVALENCES
 We can show that two expressions are logically
equivalent by developing a series of logically
equivalent statements.
 To prove that we produce a series of
equivalences beginning with A and ending with B.

 Keep in mind that whenever a proposition

(represented by a propositional variable) occurs in the
equivalences listed earlier, it may be replaced by an
arbitrarily complex compound proposition.
46
EQUIVALENCE PROOFS
Example: Show that
is logically equivalent to
Solution:

47
EQUIVALENCE PROOFS
Example: Show that
is a tautology.
Solution:

48
DISJUNCTIVE NORMAL FORM (OPTIONAL)
 A propositional formula is in disjunctive normal
form if it consists of a disjunction of (1, … ,n)
disjuncts where each disjunct consists of a
conjunction of (1, …, m) atomic formulas or the
negation of an atomic formula.
 Yes

 No
 Disjunctive Normal Form is important for the
circuit design methods discussed in Chapter 12.

49
DISJUNCTIVE NORMAL FORM (OPTIONAL)
Example: Show that every compound proposition can
be put in disjunctive normal form.
Solution: Construct the truth table for the
proposition. Then an equivalent proposition is the
disjunction with n disjuncts (where n is the number of
rows for which the formula evaluates to T). Each
disjunct has m conjuncts where m is the number of
distinct propositional variables. Each conjunct
includes the positive form of the propositional
variable if the variable is assigned T in that row and
the negated form if the variable is assigned F in that
row. This proposition is in disjunctive normal from.
50
DISJUNCTIVE NORMAL FORM (OPTIONAL)
Example: Find the Disjunctive Normal Form
(DNF) of
(p∨q)→¬r

Solution: This proposition is true when r is false

or when both p and q are false.
(¬ p∧ ¬ q) ∨ ¬r

51
CONJUNCTIVE NORMAL FORM (OPTIONAL)
 A compound proposition is in Conjunctive Normal
Form (CNF) if it is a conjunction of disjunctions.
 Every proposition can be put in an equivalent
CNF.
 Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF) can be obtained
by eliminating implications, moving negation
inwards and using the distributive and
associative laws.
 Important in resolution theorem proving used in
artificial Intelligence (AI).
 A compound proposition can be put in
conjunctive normal form through repeated
application of the logical equivalences covered 52

earlier.
CONJUNCTIVE NORMAL FORM
(OPTIONAL)
Example: Put the following into CNF:

Solution:
1. Eliminate implication signs:

2. Move negation inwards; eliminate double negation:

3. Convert to CNF using associative/distributive laws

53
PROPOSITIONAL SATISFIABILITY
 A compound proposition is satisfiable if there is
an assignment of truth values to its variables
that make it true. When no such assignments
exist, the compound proposition is unsatisfiable.
 A compound proposition is unsatisfiable if and
only if its negation is a tautology.

54
QUESTIONS ON PROPOSITIONAL SATISFIABILITY
Example: Determine the satisfiability of the
following compound propositions:

Solution: Satisfiable. Assign T to p, q, and r.

Solution: Satisfiable. Assign T to p and F to q.

Solution: Not satisfiable. Check each possible

assignment of truth values to the propositional
variables and none will make the proposition true.

55
NOTATION

Needed for the next example.

56
SUDOKU
 A Sudoku puzzle is represented by a 99 grid
made up of nine 33 subgrids, known as blocks.
Some of the 81 cells of the puzzle are assigned
one of the numbers 1,2, …, 9.
 The puzzle is solved by assigning numbers to
each blank cell so that every row, column and
block contains each of the nine possible numbers.
 Example

57
ENCODING AS A SATISFIABILITY PROBLEM
 Let p(i,j,n) denote the proposition that is true
when the number n is in the cell in the ith row
and the jth column.
 There are 99  9 = 729 such propositions.

 In the sample puzzle p(5,1,6) is true, but p(5,j,6)

is false for j = 2,3,…9

58
ENCODING (CONT)
 For each cell with a given value, assert p(i,j,n),
when the cell in row i and column j has the given
value.
 Assert that every row contains every number.

 Assert that every column contains every number.

59
ENCODING (CONT)
 Assert that each of the 3 x 3 blocks contain every
number.

(this is tricky - ideas from chapter 4 help)

 Assert that no cell contains more than one
number. Take the conjunction over all values of
n, n’, i, and j, where each variable ranges from 1
to 9 and ,
of

60
SOLVING SATISFIABILITY PROBLEMS
 To solve a Sudoku puzzle, we need to find an
assignment of truth values to the 729 variables of the
form p(i,j,n) that makes the conjunction of the
assertions true. Those variables that are assigned T
yield a solution to the puzzle.
 A truth table can always be used to determine the
satisfiability of a compound proposition. But this is
too complex even for modern computers for large
problems.
 There has been much work on developing efficient
methods for solving satisfiability problems as many
practical problems can be translated into satisfiability
problems. 61
KEY TERMS
For next lesson
1. Tautology
2. Contradiction
3. Contingency
4. Logically equivalent

62
 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
63 Section 1.2
SECTION SUMMARY

 Tautologies, Contradictions, and Contingencies.

 Logical Equivalence
 Important Logical Equivalences
 Showing Logical Equivalence

64
TAUTOLOGIES, CONTRADICTIONS, AND
CONTINGENCIES
 A tautology is a proposition which is always true, no
matter what the truth value of the propositions occur
in it.
 Example: p ∨¬p
 A contradiction is a proposition which is always false.
 Example: p ∧¬p
 A contingency is a proposition w hich is neither a
tautology nor a contradiction, such as p

P ¬p p ∨¬p p ∧¬p
T F T F
F T T F 65
MORE EXAMPLES
Show that
1) 𝑝 ∧ 𝑞 → 𝑝
2) 𝑝→𝑞 ∧ 𝑞→𝑟 → 𝑝→𝑟
are tautologies.

66
LOGICALLY EQUIVALENT
 Two compound propositions 𝑝 and 𝑞 are logically
equivalent if p↔q is a tautology.
Notation: p⇔q or p≡q.
 Two compound propositions p and q are equivalent if
and only if the columns in a truth table giving their
truth values agree.
 This truth table shows that ¬p ∨ q is equivalent to p
→ q.
p q ¬p ¬p ∨ q p→ q
T T F T T
T F F F F
F T T T T
67
F F T T T
 DE MORGAN’S LAWS

Augustus De Morgan

1806-1871

This truth table shows that De Morgan’s Second Law holds.

p q ¬p ¬q (p∨q) ¬(p∨q) ¬p∧¬q

T T F F T F F
T F F T T F F
F T T F T F F
68
F F T T F T T
KEY LOGICAL EQUIVALENCES
 Identity Laws: ,

 Domination Laws: ,

 Idempotent laws: ,

 Double Negation Law:

 Negation Laws: ,
69
KEY LOGICAL EQUIVALENCES
(CONT.)
 Commutative Laws: ,

 Associative Laws:

 Distributive Laws:

 Absorption Laws: ,

70
MORE LOGICAL EQUIVALENCES

71
CONSTRUCTING NEW LOGICAL
EQUIVALENCES
Keep in mind that whenever a proposition
(represented by a propositional variable) occurs in
the equivalences listed earlier, it may be replaced
by an arbitrarily complex compound proposition.

72
EQUIVALENCE PROOFS
 We can show that two expressions are logically
equivalent by developing a series of logically
equivalent statements.
 To prove that we produce a series of
equivalences beginning with A and ending with
B.

73
EQUIVALENCE PROOFS
Example: Show that
is logically equivalent to
Solution:

74
EQUIVALENCE PROOFS
Example: Show that is a
tautology.
Solution:

75
EQUIVALENCE PROOFS
Example: Show that (𝑝 ∧ 𝑞) ∨ (¬𝑝 ∧ ¬𝑞) and 𝑝 ↔
𝑞
are logical equivalent.
Solution:

76
PROPOSITIONAL SATISFIABILITY
 A compound proposition is satisfiable if there is
an assignment of truth values to its variables
that make it true. When no such assignments
exist, the compound proposition is unsatisfiable.
 A compound proposition is unsatisfiable if and
only if its negation is a tautology.

77
QUESTIONS ON PROPOSITIONAL SATISFIABILITY
Example: Determine the satisfiability of the
following compound propositions:

Solution: Satisfiable. Assign T to p, q, and r.

Solution: Satisfiable. Assign T to p and F to q.

Solution: Not satisfiable. Check each possible

assignment of truth values to the propositional
variables and none will make the proposition true.

78
NOTATION

Needed for the next example.

79
SUDOKU
 A Sudoku puzzle is represented by a 99 grid
made up of nine 33 subgrids, known as blocks.
Some of the 81 cells of the puzzle are assigned
one of the numbers 1,2, …, 9.
 The puzzle is solved by assigning numbers to
each blank cell so that every row, column and
block contains each of the nine possible numbers.
 Example

80
ENCODING AS A SATISFIABILITY PROBLEM
 Let p(i,j,n) denote the proposition that is true
when the number n is in the cell in the ith row
and the jth column.
 There are 99  9 = 729 such propositions.

 In the sample puzzle p(5,1,6) is true, but p(5,j,6)

is false for j = 2,3,…9

81
ENCODING (CONT)
 For each cell with a given value, assert p(i,j,n),
when the cell in row i and column j has the given
value.
 Assert that every row contains every number.

 Assert that every column contains every number.

82
ENCODING (CONT)
 Assert that each of the 3 x 3 blocks contain every
number.

(this is tricky - ideas from chapter 4 help)

 Assert that no cell contains more than one
number. Take the conjunction over all values of
n, n’, i, and j, where each variable ranges from 1
to 9 and ,
of

83
SOLVING SATISFIABILITY PROBLEMS
 To solve a Sudoku puzzle, we need to find an
assignment of truth values to the 729 variables of the
form p(i,j,n) that makes the conjunction of the
assertions true. Those variables that are assigned T
yield a solution to the puzzle.
 A truth table can always be used to determine the
satisfiability of a compound proposition. But this is
too complex even for modern computers for large
problems.
 There has been much work on developing efficient
methods for solving satisfiability problems as many
practical problems can be translated into satisfiability
problems. 84
KEY TERMS
 Tautology
 Contradiction

 Contingency

 Logically equivalent compound propositions

Next lesson
 Predicate

 Propositional function

 Universal quantifier

 Existential quantifier

85
 PREDICATES AND QUANTIFIERS
86 Section 1.3
SECTION SUMMARY
 Predicates
 Variables

 Quantifiers
 Universal Quantifier
 Existential Quantifier

 Negating Quantifiers
 De Morgan’s Laws for Quantifiers
 Translating English to Logic
 Logic Programming (optional)

87
PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC NOT ENOUGH
 If we have:
“All men are mortal.”
“Socrates is a man.”
 Does it follow that “Socrates is mortal?”
 Can’t be represented in propositional logic. Need
a language that talks about objects, their
properties, and their relations.

88
INTRODUCING PREDICATE LOGIC
 Predicate logic uses the following new features:
 Variables: x, y, z
 Predicates: P(x), M(x)
 Quantifiers (to be covered in a few slides):

 Propositional functions are a generalization of

propositions.
 They contain variables and a predicate, e.g., P(x)
 Variables can be replaced by elements from their
domain.

89
PROPOSITIONAL FUNCTIONS
 Propositional functions become propositions (and
have truth values) when their variables are each
replaced by a value from the domain (or bound by a
quantifier, as we will see later).
 The statement P(x) is said to be the value of the
propositional function P at x.
 For example, let P(x) denote “x > 0” and the domain
be the integers. Then:
P(-3) is false.
P(0) is false.
P(3) is true.
 Often the domain is denoted by U. So in this example
U is the integers.

90
EXAMPLES OF PROPOSITIONAL FUNCTIONS
 Let “x + y = z” be denoted by R(x, y, z) and U (for all three
variables) be the integers. Find these truth values:
R(2,-1,5)
Solution: F
R(3,4,7)
Solution: T
R(x, 3, z)
Solution: Not a Proposition
 Now let “x - y = z” be denoted by Q(x, y, z), with U as the
integers. Find these truth values:
Q(2,-1,3)
Solution: T
Q(3,4,7)
Solution: F
Q(x, 3, z)
Solution: Not a Proposition

91
COMPOUND EXPRESSIONS
 Connectives from propositional logic carry over to predicate
logic.
 If P(x) denotes “x > 0,” find these truth values:
P(3) ∨ P(-1) Solution: T
P(3) ∧ P(-1) Solution: F
P(3) → P(-1) Solution: F
P(3) → ¬P(-1) Solution: T
 Expressions with variables are not propositions and
therefore do not have truth values. For example,
P(3) ∧ P(y)
P(x) → P(y)
 When used with quantifiers (to be introduced next), these
expressions (propositional functions) become propositions.

92
QUANTIFIERS
Charles Peirce (1839-
 We need quantifiers to express the meaning
1914) of
English words including all and some:
 “All men are Mortal.”
 “Some cats do not have fur.”
 The two most important quantifiers are:
 Universal Quantifier, “For all,” symbol: 
 Existential Quantifier, “There exists,” symbol: 
 We write as in x P(x) and x P(x).
 x P(x) asserts P(x) is true for every x in the domain.
 x P(x) asserts P(x) is true for some x in the domain.
 The quantifiers are said to bind the variable x in
these expressions.

93
UNIVERSAL QUANTIFIER
 x P(x) is read as “For all x, P(x)” or “For every x, P(x)”
Examples:
1) If P(x) denotes “x > 0” and U is the integers, then x P(x) is
false.
2) If P(x) denotes “x > 0” and U is the positive integers, then
x P(x) is true.
3) If P(x) denotes “x is even” and U is the integers, then  x
P(x) is false.

94
EXISTENTIAL QUANTIFIER
 x P(x) is read as “For some x, P(x)”, or as “There
is an x such that P(x),” or “For at least one x,
P(x).”
Examples:
1. If P(x) denotes “x > 0” and U is the integers, then x P(x) is
true. It is also true if U is the positive integers.
2. If P(x) denotes “x < 0” and U is the positive integers, then
x P(x) is false.
3. If P(x) denotes “x is even” and U is the integers, then x
P(x) is true.

95
UNIQUENESS QUANTIFIER (OPTIONAL)
 !x P(x) means that P(x) is true for one and only one x in the
universe of discourse.
 This is commonly expressed in English in the following
equivalent ways:
 “There is a unique x such that P(x).”
 “There is one and only one x such that P(x)”
 Examples:
1. If P(x) denotes “x + 1 = 0” and U is the integers, then !x P(x)
is true.
2. But if P(x) denotes “x > 0,” then !x P(x) is false.
 The uniqueness quantifier is not really needed as the
restriction that there is a unique x such that P(x) can be
expressed as:
x (P(x) ∧y (P(y) → y =x))
96
THINKING ABOUT QUANTIFIERS
 When the domain of discourse is finite, we can think of
quantification as looping through the elements of the
domain.
 To evaluate x P(x) loop through all x in the domain.
 If at every step P(x) is true, then x P(x) is true.
 If at a step P(x) is false, then x P(x) is false and the loop
terminates.
 To evaluate x P(x) loop through all x in the domain.
 If at some step, P(x) is true, then x P(x) is true and the loop
terminates.
 If the loop ends without finding an x for which P(x) is true,
then x P(x) is false.
 Even if the domains are infinite, we can still think of the
quantifiers this fashion, but the loops will not terminate in
some cases.

97
PROPERTIES OF QUANTIFIERS
 The truth value of x P(x) and  x P(x) depend on both
the propositional function P(x) and on the domain U.
 Examples:
1. If U is the positive integers and P(x) is the statement
“x < 2”, then x P(x) is true, but  x P(x) is false.
2. If U is the negative integers and P(x) is the statement
“x < 2”, then both x P(x) and  x P(x) are true.
3. If U consists of 3, 4, and 5, and P(x) is the statement
“x > 2”, then both x P(x) and  x P(x) are true. But if P(x)
is the statement “x < 2”, then both x P(x) and 
x P(x) are false.

98
PRECEDENCE OF QUANTIFIERS
 The quantifiers  and  have higher precedence
than all the logical operators.
 For example, x P(x) ∨ Q(x) means (x P(x))∨
Q(x)
 x (P(x) ∨ Q(x)) means something different.

 Unfortunately, often people write x P(x) ∨ Q(x)

when they mean  x (P(x) ∨ Q(x)).

99
TRANSLATING FROM ENGLISH TO LOGIC
Example 1: Translate the following sentence into
predicate logic: “Every student in this class has taken
a course in Logic.”
Solution:
First decide on the domain U.
Solution 1: If U is all students in this class, define a
propositional function J(x) denoting “x has taken a course
in Logic” and translate as x J(x).
Solution 2: But if U is all people, also define a propositional
function S(x) denoting “x is a student in this class” and
translate as x (S(x)→ J(x)).
x (S(x) ∧ J(x)) is not correct. What does it mean?

100
TRANSLATING FROM ENGLISH TO LOGIC
Example 2: Translate the following sentence into
predicate logic: “Some student in this class has
taken a course in Logic.”
Solution:
First decide on the domain U.
Solution 1: If U is all students in this class, translate
as
x J(x)
Solution 2: But if U is all people, then translate as
x (S(x) ∧ J(x))
x (S(x)→ J(x)) is not correct. What does it mean?
101
RETURNING TO THE SOCRATES EXAMPLE
 Introduce the propositional functions Man(x)
denoting “x is a man” and Mortal(x) denoting “x
is mortal.” Specify the domain as all people.
 The two premises are:

 The conclusion is:

 Later we will show how to prove that the

conclusion follows from the premises.

102
EQUIVALENCES IN PREDICATE LOGIC
 Statements involving predicates and quantifiers
are logically equivalent if and only if they have
the same truth value
 for every predicate substituted into these statements
and
 for every domain of discourse used for the variables
in the expressions.
 The notation S ≡T indicates that S and T are
logically equivalent.
 Example: x ¬¬S(x) ≡ x S(x)

103
THINKING ABOUT QUANTIFIERS AS
CONJUNCTIONS AND DISJUNCTIONS
 If the domain is finite, a universally quantified proposition
is equivalent to a conjunction of propositions without
quantifiers and an existentially quantified proposition is
equivalent to a disjunction of propositions without
quantifiers.
 If U consists of the integers 1,2, and 3:

 Even if the domains are infinite, you can still think of the
quantifiers in this fashion, but the equivalent expressions
without quantifiers will be infinitely long.

104
NEGATING QUANTIFIED EXPRESSIONS
 Consider x J(x)
“Every student in your class has taken a course in
Logic.”
Here J(x) is “x has taken a course in Logic” and
the domain is students in your class.
 Negating the original statement gives “It is not
the case that every student in your class has
taken Logic.” This implies that “There is a
student in your class who has not taken Logic.”
Symbolically ¬x J(x) and x ¬J(x) are equivalent

105
NEGATING QUANTIFIED EXPRESSIONS
(CONTINUED)
 Now Consider  x J(x)
“There is a student in this class who has taken a course
in Logic.”
Where J(x) is “x has taken a course in Logic.”
 Negating the original statement gives “It is not
the case that there is a student in this class who
has taken Logic.” This implies that “Every
student in this class has not taken Logic”
Symbolically ¬ x J(x) and  x ¬J(x) are equivalent

106
DE MORGAN’S LAWS FOR QUANTIFIERS
 The rules for negating quantifiers are:

 The reasoning in the table shows that:

 These are important. You will use these.

107
TRANSLATION FROM ENGLISH TO LOGIC
Examples:
1. “Some student in this class has visited Phú
Quốc.”
Solution: Let M(x) denote “x has visited Phú Quốc”
and S(x) denote “x is a student in this class,” and U
be all people.
x (S(x) ∧ M(x))
2. “Every student in this class has visited Hạ Long
or Phú Quốc.”
Solution: Add C(x) denoting “x has visited Hạ Long.”
x (S(x)→ (M(x)∨C(x)))
108
SOME FUN WITH TRANSLATING FROM ENGLISH
INTO LOGICAL EXPRESSIONS

 U = {fleegles, snurds, thingamabobs}

F(x): x is a fleegle
S(x): x is a snurd
T(x): x is a thingamabob
Translate “Everything is a fleegle”

Solution: x F(x)

109
TRANSLATION (CONT)
 U = {fleegles, snurds, thingamabobs}
F(x): x is a fleegle
S(x): x is a snurd
T(x): x is a thingamabob
“Nothing is a snurd.”

Solution: ¬x S(x) What is this equivalent to?

Solution: x ¬ S(x)

110
TRANSLATION (CONT)
 U = {fleegles, snurds, thingamabobs}
F(x): x is a fleegle
S(x): x is a snurd
T(x): x is a thingamabob
“All fleegles are snurds.”

Solution: x (F(x)→ S(x))

111
TRANSLATION (CONT)
 U = {fleegles, snurds, thingamabobs}
F(x): x is a fleegle
S(x): x is a snurd
T(x): x is a thingamabob
“Some fleegles are thingamabobs.”

Solution: x (F(x) ∧ T(x))

112
TRANSLATION (CONT)
 U = {fleegles, snurds, thingamabobs}
F(x): x is a fleegle
S(x): x is a snurd
T(x): x is a thingamabob
“No snurd is a thingamabob.”

Solution: ¬x (S(x) ∧ T(x)) What is this

equivalent to?
Solution: x (¬S(x) ∨ ¬T(x))

113
TRANSLATION (CONT)
 U = {fleegles, snurds, thingamabobs}
F(x): x is a fleegle
S(x): x is a snurd
T(x): x is a thingamabob
“If any fleegle is a snurd then it is also a
thingamabob.”

Solution: x ((F(x) ∧ S(x))→ T(x))

114
SYSTEM SPECIFICATION EXAMPLE

 Predicate logic is used for specifying properties that systems must

satisfy.
 For example, translate into predicate logic:
 “Every mail message larger than one megabyte will be
compressed.”
 “If a user is active, at least one network link will be available.”
 Decide on predicates and domains (left implicit here) for the
variables:
 Let L(m, y) be “Mail message m is larger than y megabytes.”
 Let C(m) denote “Mail message m will be compressed.”
 Let A(u) represent “User u is active.”
 Let S(n, x) represent “Network link n is state x.
115
 Now we have:
LEWIS CARROLL EXAMPLE Charles Lutwidge
Dodgson
 The first two are called premises and the third is called
(AKA theCaroll)
Lewis
conclusion. (1832-1898)
1. “All lions are fierce.”
2. “Some lions do not drink coffee.”
3. “Some fierce creatures do not drink coffee.”
 Here is one way to translate these statements to
predicate logic. Let P(x), Q(x), and R(x) be the
propositional functions “x is a lion,” “x is fierce,” and “x
drinks coffee,” respectively.
1. x (P(x)→ Q(x))
2. x (P(x) ∧ ¬R(x))
3. x (Q(x) ∧ ¬R(x))
 Later we will see how to prove that the conclusion follows
from the premises.
116
LOGIC PROGRAMMING (OPTIONAL)
 Prolog (from Programming in Logic) is a
programming language developed in the 1970s by
researchers in artificial intelligence (AI).
 Prolog programs include Prolog facts and Prolog
rules.
 As an example of a set of Prolog facts consider the
following:
instructor(chan, math273).
instructor(patel, ee222).
instructor(grossman, cs301).
enrolled(kevin, math273).
enrolled(juana, ee222).
enrolled(juana, cs301).
enrolled(kiko, math273).
enrolled(kiko, cs301).

 Here the predicates instructor(p,c) and enrolled(s,c)

represent that professor p is the instructor of course c
and that student s is enrolled in course c.
117
LOGIC PROGRAMMING (CONT)
 In Prolog, names beginning with an uppercase
letter are variables.
 If we have apredicate teaches(p,s) representing
“professor p teaches student s,” we can write the
rule:
teaches(P,S) :- instructor(P,C),
enrolled(S,C).
 This Prolog rule can be viewed as equivalent to
the following statement in logic (using our
conventions for logical statements).
p c s(I(p,c) ∧ E(s,c)) → T(p,s))
118
LOGIC PROGRAMMING (CONT)
 Prolog programs are loaded into a Prolog
interpreter. The interpreter receives queries and
returns answers using the Prolog program.
 For example, using our program, the following
query may be given:
?enrolled(kevin,math273).
 Prolog produces the response:
yes
 Note that the ? is the prompt given by the
Prolog interpreter indicating that it is ready to
receive a query.
119
LOGIC PROGRAMMING (CONT)
 The query:
?enrolled(X,math273).
produces the response:
X = kevin;
The Prolog interpreter tries to
X = kiko;
find an instantiation for X. It
no
does so and returns X =
 The query: kevin. Then the user types
?teaches(X,juana). the ; indicating a request for
produces the response: another answer. When Prolog
is unable to find another
X = patel; answer it returns no.
X = grossman;
no

120
LOGIC PROGRAMMING (CONT)

 The query:
?teaches(chan,X).
produces the response:
X = kevin;
X = kiko;
no

 A number of very good Prolog texts are available.

Learn Prolog Now! is one such text with a free online
version at http://www.learnprolognow.org/
 There is much more to Prolog and to the entire field of
logic programming.
121
KEY TERMS
For next lesson
1. Nested quantifier

122
 NESTED QUANTIFIERS
123 Section 1.4
SECTION SUMMARY
 Nested Quantifiers
 Order of Quantifiers

 Translating from Nested Quantifiers into English

 Translating Mathematical Statements into

Statements involving Nested Quantifiers.
 Translated English Sentences into Logical
Expressions.
 Negating Nested Quantifiers.

124
NESTED QUANTIFIERS
 Two quantiers are nested if one is within the scope of the
other.
Example: “Every real number has an inverse” is
x y(x + y = 0)
where the domains of x and y are the real numbers.
 We can also think of nested propositional
functions:
x y(x + y = 0) can be viewed as x Q(x) where
Q(x) is y P(x, y) ,
P(x, y) is “x + y = 0”
125
EXAMPLE
Translate into English the statements
∀𝑥∀𝑦 𝑥 > 0 ∧ 𝑦 > 0 → 𝑥𝑦 > 0
Where the domain for both 𝑥, 𝑦 consists of all real numbers.

126
EXAMPLE
Translate into English the statements
∃𝑥∀𝑦 𝑃(𝑥, 𝑦)
Where 𝑃 𝑥, 𝑦 is the sentence
“Student 𝑥 has sent a email to 𝑦.”
The domain for 𝑥, 𝑦 consists of all members in this class.

127
ORDER OF QUANTIFIERS
Examples:
1. Let P(x,y) be the statement “x + y = y + x.”
Assume that the domain for 𝑥, 𝑦 isU : the real numbers.
Then x yP(x,y) and y xP(x,y) have the same truth
value.
2. Let Q(x,y) be the statement “x + y = 0.” Assume that
U is the real numbers.
Then x yQ(x,y) is true, butyxQ(x,y) is false.

Note: The order of the quantifiers is important, unless

all the quantifiers are universal quantifiers/ existential
128
quantifiers
QUANTIFICATIONS OF TWO
VARIABLES

Statement When True? When False

P(x,y) is true for every There is a pair x, y for
pair x,y. which P(x,y) is false.

For every x there is a y There is an x such that

for which P(x,y) is true. P(x,y) is false for every
y.
There is an x for which For every x there is a y
P(x,y) is true for every for which P(x,y) is false.
y.
There is a pair x, y for P(x,y) is false for every
129
which P(x,y) is true. pair x,y
QUESTIONS ON ORDER OF
QUANTIFIERS
Example 1: Let U be the real numbers,
Define P(x,y) : x ∙ y = 0
What is the truth value of the following:
1. xyP(x,y)
Answer: False
2. xyP(x,y)
Answer: True
3. xy P(x,y)
Answer: True
4. x  y P(x,y)
Answer: True

130
QUESTIONS ON ORDER OF QUANTIFIERS
Example 2: Let U be the real numbers,
Define P(x,y) : x / y = 1
What is the truth value of the following:
1. xyP(x,y)
Answer: False
2. xyP(x,y)
Answer: False
3. xy P(x,y)
Answer: False
4. x  y P(x,y)
Answer: True

131
TRANSLATING MATHEMATICAL
STATEMENTS INTO PREDICATE
LOGIC
Example : Translate “The sum of two positive
integers is always positive” into a logical expression.
Solution:
1. Rewrite the statement to make the implied quantifiers
and domains explicit:
“For every two integers, if these integers are both positive, then
the sum of these integers is positive.”
2. Introduce the variables x and y, and specify the domain,
to obtain:
“For all positive integers x and y, x + y is positive.”
3. The result is:
x  y ((x > 0)∧ (y > 0)→ (x + y > 0))
where the domain of both variables consists of all integers

132
TRANSLATING NESTED
QUANTIFIERS INTO ENGLISH
Example 1: Translate the statement
x (C(x )∨ y (C(y ) ∧ F(x, y)))
where C(x) is “x has a computer,” and F(x,y) is “x and y
are friends,” and the domain for both x and y consists of
all students in your school.
Solution: Every student in your school has a computer
or has a friend who has a computer.

133
NEGATING NESTED QUANTIFIERS
 Recall: The rules for negating quantifiers

 Statements involving nested quantiers can be negated by

successively applying the rules for negating statements
involving a single quantier.

134
EXAMPLE
Expression the negation of the statement
∀𝑥∃𝑦 (𝑥 + 𝑦 = 1)

Solution:

135
MORE EXAMPLES
Let L 𝑥, 𝑦 is the statement “x loves y”, where the domain
for x and y consists of all people. Express the following
statements
1. Every body loves Jane.
2. There is somebody whom everyone loves.
3. Nobody loves everybody.

136
MORE EXAMPLES
Determine the truth value of these statements if the domain
of x and y consists of all integer
1. ∀𝑥∀𝑦 𝑥 + 𝑦 = 10
2. ∃𝑥∃𝑦 𝑥 + 𝑦 = 10
3. ∀𝑥∃𝑦 𝑥𝑦 = 1
4. ∃𝑥∀𝑦 (𝑥𝑦 = 0)

137
KEY TERMS
For next lesson
1. Argument
2. Premise
3. Conclusion
4. Rule of inference

138
 RULES OF INFERENCE
139 Section 1.5
SECTION SUMMARY
 Valid Arguments
 Inference Rules for Propositional Logic

140
IS THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENT VALID
 An argument in propositional logic is a sequence of
propositions. All but the final proposition are called
premises. The last statement is the conclusion.
 The argument is valid if the premises imply the
conclusion. An argument form is an argument that
is valid no matter what propositions are substituted
into its propositional variables.
 If the premises are p1 ,p2, …,pn and the conclusion is q
then
(p1 ∧ p2 ∧ … ∧ pn ) → q is a tautology.
 Inference rules are simple argument forms that will
be used to construct more complex argument forms.

141
RULES OF INFERENCE FOR PROPOSITIONAL
LOGIC: MODUS PONENS

Corresponding Tautology:
(p ∧ (p →q)) → q

Example:
Let p be “It is snowing.”
Let q be “I will study discrete math.”

“If it is snowing, then I will study discrete

math.”
“It is snowing.”
142

“Therefore , I will study discrete math.”

MODUS TOLLENS

Corresponding Tautology:
(¬q∧(p →q))→¬p

Example:
Let p be “it is snowing.”
Let q be “I will study discrete math.”

“If it is snowing, then I will study discrete math.”

“I will not study discrete math.”
143
“Therefore , it is not snowing.”
HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM

Corresponding Tautology:
((p →q) ∧ (q→r))→(p→ r)

Example:
Let p be “it snows.”
Let q be “I will study discrete math.”
Let r be “I will get an A.”

“If it snows, then I will study discrete math.”

“If I study discrete math, I will get an A.”
144
“Therefore , If it snows, I will get an A.”
DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM

Corresponding Tautology:
(¬p∧(p ∨q))→q

Example:
Let p be “I will study discrete math.”
Let q be “I will study English literature.”

“I will study discrete math or I will study English

literature.”
“I will not study discrete math.”
145

“Therefore , I will study English literature.”

ADDITION

Corresponding Tautology:
p →(p ∨q)

Example:
Let p be “I will study discrete math.”
Let q be “I will visit Las Vegas.”

“I will study discrete math.”

“Therefore, I will study discrete math or I will visit

Las Vegas.” 146
SIMPLIFICATION

Corresponding Tautology:
(p∧q) →p

Example:
Let p be “I will study discrete math.”
Let q be “I will study English literature.”

“I will study discrete math and English

literature”
147
“Therefore, I will study discrete math.”
CONJUNCTION

Corresponding Tautology:
((p) ∧ (q)) →(p ∧ q)

Example:
Let p be “I will study discrete math.”
Let q be “I will study English literature.”

“I will study discrete math.”

“I will study English literature.”

“Therefore, I will study discrete math and I will study 148

English literature.”
RESOLUTION
Resolution plays an important
role in AI and is used in Prolog.

Corresponding Tautology:
((¬p ∨ r ) ∧ (p ∨ q)) →(q ∨ r)

Example:
Let p be “I will study discrete math.”
Let r be “I will study English literature.”
Let q be “I will study databases.”

“I will not study discrete math or I will study English

literature.”
“I will study discrete math or I will study databases.”
149
“Therefore, I will study databases or I will study English
literature.”
FALLACIES
 The proposition [(p →q) ∧q] → p is not a tautology. Many
incorrect arguments use this proposition incorrectly as a
rule of inference. This type of incorrect reasoning is called
the fallacy of affirming the conclusion.

Example Is the following argument valid?

If you do every problem in this book, then you will learn

discrete mathematics. You learned discrete
mathematics. Therefore, you did every problem in
this book.
150
 The proposition [(p →q) ∧ ¬p] → ¬q is not a tautology.
Many incorrect arguments use this proposition incorrectly
as a rule of inference. This type of incorrect reasoning is
called the fallacy of denying the hypothesis.

Example Is the following argument valid?

If you do every problem in this book, then you will learn

discrete mathematics. You did not do every problem
in this book. Therefore, you did not learn discrete
mathematics.
151
KEY TERMS
For next lesson
1. Theorem
2. Proposition
3. Axiom
4. Lemma
5. Corollary
6. Conjecture
7. Vacuous
8. Contraposition
9. Counterexample
152
 INTRODUCTION TO PROOFS
153 Section 1.6
SECTION SUMMARY
 Mathematical Proofs
 Forms of Theorems

 Trivial and vacuous proofs

 Direct Proofs

 Indirect Proofs

 Proofs by Contradiction

154
PROOFS OF MATHEMATICAL
STATEMENTS
 A proof is a valid argument that establishes the
truth of a statement.
 Some terminilogy
• Theorem
• Proposition
• Lemma
• Corollary
• Conjecture
• Axiom

155
PROVING THEOREMS
 Many theorems have the form:

 To prove them, we show that

where c is an arbitrary element of the domain,
 So, we must prove something of the form:

156
PROVING CONDITIONAL
STATEMENTS: P → Q
 Trivial Proof: If we know q is true, then
p → q is true as well.

Ex: “If it is raining then 1=1.”

 Vacuous Proof: If we know p is false then

p → q is true as well.
Ex: “If I am both rich and poor then 2 + 2 = 5.”

[ Even though these examples seem silly, both trivial and

vacuous proofs are often used in mathematical induction,
as we will see in Chapter 5) ]

157
PROVING CONDITIONAL
STATEMENTS: P → Q

 Direct Proof: Assume that p is true. Use rules of inference,

axioms, and logical equivalences to show that q must also
be true.
Example: Give a direct proof of the theorem
“If n is an odd integer, then n2 is odd.”
Solution: Assume that n is odd. Then n = 2k + 1 for an
integer k. Squaring both sides of the equation, we get:
n2 = (2k + 1)2 = 4k2 + 4k +1 = 2(2k2 + 2k) + 1= 2r + 1,
where r = 2k2 + 2k , an integer.
We have proved that if n is an odd integer, then n2 is an
odd integer.

158
( marks the end of the proof. Sometimes QED
is used instead.
Definition: The real number r is rational if there
exist integers p and q where q≠0 such that r =
p/q
Example: Prove that the sum of two rational
numbers is rational.
Solution: Assume r and s are two rational
numbers. Then there must be integers p, q and
also t, u such that

where v = pu + qt
Thus the sum is rational. w = qu ≠ 0

159
PROVING CONDITIONAL
STATEMENTS: P → Q
 Proof by Contraposition: Assume ¬q and show ¬p is true
also. This is sometimes called an indirect proof method. If
we give a direct proof of ¬q → ¬p then we have a proof of p →
q.
Why does this work?
Example: Prove that if n is an integer and 3n + 2 is odd, then n is
odd.
Solution: Assume n is even. So, n = 2k for some integer k. Thus
3n + 2 = 3(2k) + 2 =6k +2 = 2(3k + 1) = 2j for j = 3k +1
Therefore 3n + 2 is even. Since we have shown ¬q → ¬p , p → q must
hold as well. If n is an integer and 3n + 2 is odd (not even) , then n
is odd (not even).
160
PROVING CONDITIONAL
STATEMENTS: P → Q
Example: Prove that for an integer n, if n2 is odd,
then n is odd.
Solution: Use proof by contraposition. Assume n is
even (i.e., not odd). Therefore, there exists an integer
k such that n = 2k. Hence,
n2 = 4k2 = 2 (2k2)
and n2 is even(i.e., not odd).
We have shown that if n is an even integer, then n2 is
even. Therefore by contraposition, for an integer n, if
n2 is odd, then n is odd.

161
PROVING CONDITIONAL
STATEMENTS: P → Q
 Proof by Contradiction:
To prove p, assume ¬p and derive a contradiction
such as p ∧ ¬p. (an indirect form of proof). Since we
have shown that ¬p →F is true , it follows that the
contrapositive T→p also holds.

Example: Use a proof by contradiction to give

a proof that √2 is irrational.
Solution:

162
THEOREMS THAT ARE BICONDITIONAL
STATEMENTS
 To prove a theorem that is a biconditional
statement, that is, a statement of the form p ↔ q,
we show that p → q and q →p are both true.
Example: Prove the theorem: “If n is an integer, then n
is odd if and only if n2 is odd.”
Solution: We have already shown (previous slides)
that both p →q and q →p. Therefore we can conclude
p ↔ q.

Sometimes iff is used as an abbreviation for “if an only if,” as in

“If n is an integer, then n is odd iif n2 is odd.”
163
THEOREMS THAT ARE BICONDITIONAL
STATEMENTS
To prove a statement of the form
𝑝1 ↔ 𝑝2 ↔ ⋯ ↔ 𝑝𝑛
We may show that the following statements are all
true
𝑝1 → 𝑝2 , 𝑝2 → 𝑝3 , … . , 𝑝𝑛−1 → 𝑝𝑛
Example: Show that 𝑝1 , 𝑝2 , 𝑝3 are equivalent
𝑝1 : 𝑛 is even
𝑝2 : 𝑛 − 1 is odd
𝑝3 : 𝑛2 is even
Solution:
164
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS? (HW)

“Proof” that 1 = 2

Solution: Step 5. a - b = 0 by the premise 165

and division by 0 is undefined.
LOOKING AHEAD
 If direct methods of proof do not work:
 We may need a clever use of a proof by
contraposition.
 Or a proof by contradiction.
 In the next section, we will see strategies that can
be used when straightforward approaches do not
work.
 In Chapter 5, we will see mathematical induction and
related techniques.
 In Chapter 6, we will see combinatorial proofs

166
KEY TERMS
 Proof
 Trivial proof

 Vacuous proof

 Direct proof

 Indirect proof/ proof by contraposition

 Proof by contradiction

167
 PROOF METHODS AND
STRATEGY
168 Section 1.7
SECTION SUMMARY
 Proof by Cases
 Existence Proofs
 Constructive
 Nonconstructive

 Disproof by Counterexample
 Nonexistence Proofs

 Uniqueness Proofs

169
PROOF BY CASES
 To prove a conditional statement of the form:

 Use the tautology

 Each of the implications is a case.

170
PROOF BY CASES
Example: Let a @ b = max{a, b} = a if a ≥ b, otherwise
a @ b = max{a, b} = b.
Show that for all real numbers a, b, c
(a @b) @ c = a @ (b @ c)
(This means the operation @ is associative.)
Proof: Let a, b, and c be arbitrary real numbers.
Then one of the following 6 cases must hold.
1. a≥b≥c
2. a≥c≥b
3. b ≥ a ≥c
4. b ≥ c ≥a
5. c≥a≥b
6. c≥b≥a
171
Continued on next slide 
PROOF BY CASES
Case 1: a ≥ b ≥ c
(a @ b) = a, a @ c = a, b @ c = b
Hence (a @ b) @ c = a = a @ (b @ c)
Therefore the equality holds for the first case.

A complete proof requires that the equality be

shown to hold for all 6 cases. But the proofs of
the remaining cases are similar. Try them.

172
WITHOUT LOSS OF GENERALITY
Example: Show that if x and y are integers and both x∙y and
x+y are even, then both x and y are even.
Proof: Use a proof by contraposition. Suppose x and y are not
both even. Then, one or both are odd. Without loss of
generality, assume that x is odd. Then x = 2m + 1 for some
integer m.
Case 1: y is even. Then y = 2n for some integer n, so
x + y = (2m + 1) + 2n = 2(m + n) + 1 is odd.
Case 2: y is odd. Then y = 2n + 1 for some integer n, so
x ∙ y = (2m + 1) (2n + 1) = 2(2m ∙ n +m + n) + 1 is odd.

We only cover the case where x is odd because the case where y is
odd is similar. The use phrase without loss of generality (WLOG)
indicates this.

173
EXISTENCE PROOFS
Srinivasa Ramanujan
(1887-1920)
 Proof of theorems of the form .
 Constructive existence proof:
 Find an explicit value of c, for which P(c) is true.
 Then is true by Existential Generalization
(EG).
Example: Show that there is a positive integer that
can be written as the sum of cubes of positive
integers in two different ways:
Proof: 1729 is such a number since
1729 = 103 + 93 = 123 + 13

Godfrey Harold Hardy

174
(1877-1947)
NONCONSTRUCTIVE EXISTENCE PROOFS
 In a nonconstructive existence proof, we assume
no c exists which makes P(c) true and derive a
contradiction.
Example: Show that there exist irrational
numbers x and y such that xy is rational.
Proof: We know that √2 is irrational. Consider the
number √2 √2 . If it is rational, we have two irrational
numbers x and y with xy rational, namely x = √2
and y = √2. But if √2 √2 is irrational,
then we can let x = √2 √2 and y = √2 so that xy
= (√2 √2 )√2 = √2 (√2 √2) = √2 2 = 2.

175
COUNTEREXAMPLES
 Recall .
 To establish that is true (or is
false) find a c such that P(c) is true or P(c) is
false.
 In this case c is called a counterexample to the
assertion .
Example: “Every positive integer is the sum of
the squares of 3 integers.” The integer 7 is a
counterexample. So the claim is false.

176
UNIQUENESS PROOFS
 Some theorems asset the existence of a unique element
with a particular property, !x P(x). The two parts of a
uniqueness proof are
 Existence: We show that an element x with the property exists.
 Uniqueness: We show that if y≠x, then y does not have the
property.
Example: Show that if a and b are real numbers and a ≠0, then
there is a unique real number r such that ar + b = 0.
Solution:
 Existence: The real number r = −b/a is a solution of ar + b = 0
because a(−b/a) + b = −b + b =0.
 Uniqueness: Suppose that s is a real number such that as + b = 0.
Then ar + b = as + b, where r = −b/a. Subtracting b from both
sides and dividing by a shows that r = s.

177
PROOF STRATEGIES FOR PROVING P → Q (OPT)
 Choose a method.
1. First try a direct method of proof.
2. If this does not work, try an indirect method (e.g., try to prove
the contrapositive).
 For whichever method you are trying, choose a strategy.
1. First try forward reasoning. Start with the axioms and
known theorems and construct a sequence of steps that
end in the conclusion. Start with p and prove q, or start
with ¬q and prove ¬p.
2. If this doesn’t work, try backward reasoning. When
trying to prove q, find a statement p that we can prove
with the property p → q.

178
BACKWARD REASONING (OPT)
Example: Suppose that two people play a game taking turns removing, 1, 2, or
3 stones at a time from a pile that begins with 15 stones. The person who
removes the last stone wins the game. Show that the first player can win the
game no matter what the second player does.

Proof: Let n be the last step of the game.

Step n: Player1 can win if the pile contains 1,2, or 3 stones.
Step n-1: Player2 will have to leave such a pile if the pile that he/she is faced with has 4
stones.
Step n-2: Player1 can leave 4 stones when there are 5,6, or 7 stones left at the beginning
of his/her turn.
Step n-3: Player2 must leave such a pile, if there are 8 stones .
Step n-4: Player1 has to have a pile with 9,10, or 11 stones to ensure that there are 8 left.
Step n-5: Player2 needs to be faced with 12 stones to be forced to leave 9,10, or 11.
Step n-6: Player1 can leave 12 stones by removing 3 stones.
Now reasoning forward, the first player can ensure a win by removing 3 stones
and leaving 12.

179
UNIVERSALLY QUANTIFIED ASSERTIONS
 To prove theorems of the form ,assume x
is an arbitrary member of the domain and show
that P(x) must be true. Using UG it follows that
.
Example: An integer x is even if and only if x2 is
even.
Solution: The quantified assertion is
x [x is even  x2 is even]
We assume x is arbitrary.
Recall that is equivalent to
So, we have two cases to consider. These are
considered in turn. 180

Continued on next slide 

UNIVERSALLY QUANTIFIED ASSERTIONS
Case 1. We show that if x is even then x2 is even
using a direct proof (the only if part or necessity).
If x is even then x = 2k for some integer k.
Hence x2 = 4k2 = 2(2k2 ) which is even since it is
an integer divisible by 2.
This completes the proof of case 1.

181
Case 2 on next slide 
UNIVERSALLY QUANTIFIED ASSERTIONS
Case 2. We show that if x2 is even then x must be
even (the if part or sufficiency). We use a proof by
contraposition.
Assume x is not even and then show that x2 is not
even.
If x is not even then it must be odd. So, x = 2k + 1 for
some k. Then x2 = (2k + 1)2 = 4k2 + 4k + 1 = 2(2k2 +
2k) + 1
which is odd and hence not even. This completes the
proof of case 2.
Since x was arbitrary, the result follows by UG.
Therefore we have shown that x is even if and only if
x2 is even.
182
PROOF AND DISPROOF: TILINGS
Example 1: Can we tile the standard checkerboard
using dominos?
Solution: Yes! One example provides a
constructive existence proof.

Two Dominoes

The Standard Checkerboard 183

One Possible Solution
TILINGS
Example 2: Can we tile a checkerboard obtained
by removing one of the four corner squares of a
standard checkerboard?
Solution:
 Our checkerboard has 64 − 1 = 63 squares.

 Since each domino has two squares, a board with

a tiling must have an even number of squares.
 The number 63 is not even.

 We have a contradiction.

184
TILINGS
Example 3: Can we tile a board obtained by
removing both the upper left and the lower right
squares of a standard checkerboard?

Nonstandard Checkerboard Dominoes 185

Continued on next slide 

TILINGS
Solution:
 There are 62 squares in this board.
 To tile it we need 31 dominos.
 Key fact: Each domino covers one black and one
white square.
 Therefore the tiling covers 31 black squares and
31 white squares.
 Our board has either 30 black squares and 32
white squares or 32 black squares and 30 white
squares.
 Contradiction!
186
THE ROLE OF OPEN PROBLEMS (OPT)
 Unsolved problems have motivated much work in
mathematics. Fermat’s Last Theorem was
conjectured more than 300 years ago. It has only
recently been finally solved.
Fermat’s Last Theorem: The equation xn + yn =
zn
has no solutions in integers x, y, and z, with
xyz≠0 whenever n is an integer with n > 2.

A proof was found by Andrew Wiles in the 1990s.

187
AN OPEN PROBLEM (OPT)
 The 3x + 1 Conjecture: Let T be the
transformation that sends an even integer x to
x/2 and an odd integer x to 3x + 1. For all positive
integers x, when we repeatedly apply the
transformation T, we will eventually reach the
integer 1.
For example, starting with x = 13:
T(13) = 3∙13 + 1 = 40, T(40) = 40/2 = 20, T(20) = 20/2
= 10,
T(10) = 10/2 = 5, T(5) = 3∙5 + 1 = 16,T(16) = 16/2 = 8,
T(8) = 8/2 = 4, T(4) = 4/2 = 2, T(2) = 2/2 = 1
The conjecture has been verified using computers up
188
to 5.6 ∙ 1013 .
ADDITIONAL PROOF METHODS (OPT)
 Later we will see many other proof methods:
 Mathematical induction, which is a useful method for
proving statements of the form n P(n), where the
domain consists of all positive integers.
 Structural induction, which can be used to prove such
results about recursively defined sets.
 Cantor diagonalization is used to prove results about
the size of infinite sets.
 Combinatorial proofs use counting arguments.

189
KEY TERMS
For next lesson
1. Set
2. Element
3. Rational
4. Universal
5. Subset
6. Proper Subset
7. Cardinality
8. Power Set
9. Product
190