LOGIC AND

PROVING Lecture3

TECHNIQUES
 Today Covered

Tools used for proving algorithms

Propositional Logic
Predicate Logic
Proofs using
• Truth Tables
• Logical Equivalences
• Counter Example
• Contradiction
• Rule of Inference
Probability as Analysis Tool
Series and Summation etc.
Propositional and Predicate Logic
 Logical Connectives

Proposition: Simplest statements also called atomic formula

Propositions may be connected based on atomic formula.
Logical connectives, in descending order of operator precedence

Symbol Name Pronunciation

 negation not
 conjunction and
 disjunction or
 implication implies
 equivalence if and only if
 Negation, Conjunction and Disjunction

Negation
Conjunction
The conjunction p  q is true only if p and q both are true otherwise false
The conjunction follows the commutative property, i.e. p  q = q  p

Disjunction
The disjunction p  q is false if both p and q are false otherwise true
The disjunction follows the commutative property as well, i.e. p  q = q  p
 Implication
The p is antecedent and q is consequent
The antecedent is stronger than consequent.
Commutative property does not hold, i.e.
(p  q)  (q  p)

p q pq qp pq

t t t t t
t f f t f
f t t f t
f f t t t
 Bi-implication

The equivalence p  q means p  q & q  p

Commutative property does hold, i.e.
(p  q) = (q  p)

p q pq qp pq&qp

t t t t t
t f f t f
f t t f f
f f t t t
 Predicates and Quantifiers

Predicate: P(x)  x < 5

Example:  x : N | x2 = x  x < 2
For all quantifier
 x, P(x) is true  P(x) is true for all x.
Existential Quantifier
 x, P(x) is true  P(x) is true for some value of x.
Logical Equivalences
 x, P(x) is logically equivalent to  ( x, P(x))
 x, P(x) is logically equivalent to ( x, P(x))

 x, (P(x)  Q(x)) means x, P(x)  Q(x)

Proving Techniques
Proof using Truth Table: (p  q  r)  (p  (q  r))

p q r (p  q  r)  (p  (q  r))
t t t t t t t tt
t t f t f t f ft
t f t f t t t tt
t f f f t t t tt
f t t f t t t tt
f t f f t t t ft
f f t f t t t tt
f f f f t t t tt
 De Morgan’s Laws

1. (p  q) =  p   q

p q pq (p  q) p q p  q

t t t f f f f
t f f t f t t
f t f t t f t
f f f t t t t
 De Morgan’s Laws

2. (p  q) =  p   q

p q pq (p  q) p q p  q

t t t f f f f
t f t f f t f
f t t f t f f
f f f t t t t
 Proof using Counter Example, Contraposition
Counter Example
To prove  x (A(x)  B(x)) is false, we show some object x for which A(x) is
true and B(x) is false.

Proof
 ( x (A(x)  B(x))) 
x, (A(x)  B(x))) 
 x, (A(x)  B(x)) 
 x, A(x)  B(x))

Contraposition
To prove A  B, we show ( B)  ( A)

x is divisible by 4  x is divisible by 2 
x is not divisible by 2  x is not divisible by 4 
 Proof by Contradiction
Contradiction
To prove A  B,
Steps in Proof
We assume A and to prove that B
On contrary suppose that  B and
Then prove B, it will be contradiction
Further analysis
AB  (A  B)  B Contradiction
AB  (A  B) is false
Assuming (A  B) is true,
and discover a contradiction (such as A  A),
then conclude (A  B) is false, and so A  B.
 Problem: Proof by Contradiction
Prove:
[B  (B  C)]  C, by contradiction
Proof:
Suppose [B  (B  C)], to prove C
On contrary, assume C
C  [B  (B  C)] must be true
 C  [B  ( B  C)]
 C  [(B   B)  (B  C)]
 C  [f  (B  C)]
 C  B  C = C  C  B = f  B = f
 False, Contradiction  C
 Rules of Inference

A rule of inference is a general pattern that allows us to draw some new

conclusion from a set of given statements. If we know P then we can conclude
Q.

Modus ponens
If {B  (B  C)} then {C}, example in last slide
Proof:
Suppose B  (B  C) then
B
BC
 Rules of Inference

Syllogism
If {A  B  B  C} then {A  C}
Proof
Suppose A  B  B  C, To prove A  C
B
C

Rule of cases
If {B  C  B  C} then {C}
B, true, implies C true
 B, true, implies C true
 Two Valued Boolean Logic
1. Boolean values = B = {0, 1}, there are two binary operations:
+ = or = 
· = and = 
2. Closure properties:
 x, y  B, x + y  B
 x, y  B, x . y  B
3. Identity element:
x+0=0+x=x

x·1=1.x= x
 Two Valued Boolean Logic
4. Commutative:
x+y=y+x
x·y=y·x
5. Distributive:
x · (y + z) = (x · y) + (x · z)
x + (y · z) = (x + y) · (x + z)
6. Complement:
 x  B,  x’  B such that

x + x’ = 1, x · x’ = 0
 Tautologies and Truth Table
Tautology:
Any statement which is always true is called a tautology
Example
Show [B  (B  C)]  C is a tautology:
Proof
B C (B  C) (B  (B  C)) (B  (B  C))  C
0 0 1 0 1
0 1 1 0 1
1 0 0 0 1
1 1 1 1 1

For every assignment for B and C, the statement is True, hence the above
statement is a tautology.
 Probability as Analysis Tool
Elementary events
Suppose that in a given situation an event, or an
experiment, may have any one, and only one, of k
outcomes, s1, s2, …, sk. Assume that all these outcomes
are mutually exclusive.
Universe
The set of all elementary events is called the universe of
discourse and is denoted
U = {s1, s2, …, sk}.
Probability of an outcome si
Associate a real number Pr(si), such that
0  Pr(si)  1 for 1  i  k;
Pr(s1) + Pr(s2) + … + Pr(sk) = 1
 Event
Event
Let S  U. Then S is called an event, and
Pr( S )   Pr( si )
si S

Sure event
U = {s1, s2, …, sk}, if S = U
Pr( S )   Pr( si )  1
si S

Impossible event
S = , Pr() = 0
 Arithmetic and Geometric Series
n
n(n  1)

i 1
i
2
n
n ( n  1)( 2 n  1) 2 n 3
 3n 2
n

i 1
i 
2

6

6
n
i (i n
 1)

k 1
i  i  i  ...  i 
k 2 n

i 1
k
 
n

2 i
 2 1
n
 i
i 1
2 i
 k  1 2 k 1
2
i 1
 Conclusion

Propositional Logic
Predicate Logic
We have discussed various techniques of proving
• Truth Tables
• Logical Equivalence
• Counter Example
• Contraposition
• Contradiction
• Rule of Inference

Probability can be used for average cost analysis

Series and summation are very helpful in simplification