PHILOSOPHER’S TOOLKIT A

Week 6: Logic Basics

PHILOSOPHER’S TOOLKIT A

Week 6: Logic Basics

Pt. 1: Recap
RECAP: VALIDITY

An argument is a collection of statements (or

propositions) one of which is the conclusion. The others,
offered in support are premises.
It’s valid when the truth of its premises logically guarantees
the truth of its conclusion -
- i.e. - when it is impossible for the premises to be true but
the conclusion false.

Validity is all about truth-preservation.

A valid argument can have false premises.
VALID OR INVALID 1?

(P1) Either Jo came by bike or she came by bus.

(P2) Jo didn’t come by bus.

(C) Jo came by bike.

VALID OR INVALID 2?

(P1) Whenever it’s wet and windy, Adam is late for work.
(P2) Today was wet.

(C) Adam was late for work today.

VALID OR INVALID 3?

(P1) Whenever it’s wet and windy, Adam is late for work.
(P2) Adam was not late for work today.

(C) It was not wet and windy today.

VALID OR INVALID 4?

(P1) Whenever it’s wet and windy, Adam is late for work.
(P2) Today was windy.

(C) If today was wet, then Adam was late for work today.
RECAP: SURPRISING RESULTS

Remember that these arguments are always valid:

 Those whose premises are (jointly) impossible.

 Those whose conclusions are necessary.
RECAP: SOUNDNESS

An argument is sound when:

1. It is valid,

and
2. It has true premises

So if an argument is sound, its conclusion must be true!

(Remember: if an argument is valid and its premises happen to be true, then
the conclusion cannot fail to be true).
This means if you want to reject an argument’s conclusion, you
either have to find a premise that’s false, or show that there’s a flaw
in its logic, i.e. that it is invalid.
RECAP: LOGICAL FORM

The validity of an argument depends purely on its

overall shape or form.
It is this fact which makes formal logic possible.
Logic studies which argument ‘shapes’ are valid
and which are not.
(We don’t really care about the specific content of
an argument’s component statements.)
EXAMPLES

(P1) If Mike is Catholic, then he’s not a We can represent the logical
Buddhist.
form of these arguments as:
(P2) Mike is Catholic.

(P1) If P then Q
(C) Mike is not a Buddhist.
(P2) P
(P1) If today is Tuesday, then there’s a
Logic lecture
(C) Q
(P2) Today is Tuesday

(C) There’s a Logic lecture

RECAP: TRUTH-FUNCTIONAL
CONNECTIVES
To disclose the logical forms of arguments we
exploit certain structures of the sentences that
make them up.
 The first way to do this concerns ways in which simple
sentences can be put together to make complex
sentences.
 The ‘ways’ we’re interested in are the truth-functional
ones:
i.e. ones where the truth value of the complex is
determined wholly by the truth values of the components.
EXAMPLES OF TRUTH-
FUNCTIONAL STRUCTURE
Conjunction:
 Jane is tired and Mike is
These connectives (the
hungry. joining (yellow) words are
truth functions
Disjunction: - because in each case, the
 Either Mike is at work or he’s in
truth value of the complex
the library. sentence depends wholly on
the truth values of the
(underlined) component
Negation: sentences.
 It’s not raining.
(i.e. It’s not the case that it’s
raining.)
TRUTH FUNCTIONS?

Plenty of English constructions are not truth functional, e.g.

 P because Q

 Whenever P, Q

 Bill knows that P

TRANSLATING INTO SL

Jane is tired and Mike is hungry

Abbreviations:
J: Jane is tired
M: Mike is hungry

Structure-revealing translation into SL:

J&M
TRANSLATING INTO SL

Sometimes we need to do some paraphrasing first:

Jane is tired and hungry
Yields:
Jane is tired and Jane is hungry
Abbreviations:
T: Jane is tired
H: Jane is hungry
Structure-revealing translation into SL:
T&H
TRANSLATING INTO SL

Either Mike is working or he’s in the library

Either Mike is working or Mike is in the library

Abbreviations:
W: Mike is working
L: Mike is in the library

Structure-revealing translation into SL:

WL
TRANSLATING INTO SL

It’s not raining

It’s not the case that it’s raining

Abbreviations:
R: It’s raining

Structure-revealing translation into SL:

~R
DEFINING THE & CONNECTIVE

The characteristic truth-table for &:

P Q P&Q
T T
T F
F T
F F
DEFINING THE & CONNECTIVE

The characteristic truth-table for &:

P Q P&Q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F

Once we know this, we know all there is to know about the

semantics of formulas of the form P & Q. The table defines ‘&’ in
SL!!!
DEFINING THE  CONNECTIVE

The semantics of ‘’ is not immediately obvious, because our use of ‘or’ in
English is ambiguous.

If we say ‘Total satisfaction or your money back’, what we mean is that one
or the other of the disjuncts will hold, BUT NOT BOTH. This is the
exclusive use of ‘or’.

But sometimes we use ‘or’ in a way that permits BOTH disjuncts to be true.
E.g. ‘I’ll be in my office before 12 or after 1’. This is the inclusive use of ‘or’.

In SL,  is always understood in the more liberal, INCLUSIVE sense

DEFINING THE  CONNECTIVE

The characteristic truth-table for :

P Q PQ
T T
T F
F T
F F
DEFINING THE  CONNECTIVE

The characteristic truth-table for :

P Q PQ
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F

Once we know this, we know all there is to know about the

semantics of formulas of the form P  Q. The table defines ‘’ in
SL!!!
DEFINING THE ~ CONNECTIVE

Characteristic truth-table for ~

P ~P
T
F
DEFINING THE ~ CONNECTIVE

Characteristic truth-table for ~

P ~P
T F
F T
 YOUR TURN…
Translate the following into SL (remember to explain
your abbreviations first):

I’ll wear a shirt or a jumper.

 YOUR TURN…

I’ll wear a shirt or a jumper.

Abbreviations
S: I’ll wear a shirt.
J: I’ll wear a jumper.

Translation: SJ
YOUR TURN…

Translate the following into SL (remember to explain

your abbreviations first):

It’s Tuesday and it’s raining.

 YOUR TURN…

It’s Tuesday and it’s raining.

Abbreviations:
T: It’s Tuesday.
R: It’s raining

Translation: T & R
YOUR TURN…

Translate the following into SL (remember to explain

your abbreviations first)

Either Sarah hungry or she’s not.

 YOUR TURN…

Either Sarah hungry or she’s not

Abbreviations:
S: Sarah is hungry.

Translation: S  ~S
PHILOSOPHER’S TOOLKIT A

Week 6: Logic Basics

Pt. 2: The Material Conditional
CONDITIONALS IN ENGLISH

Statements/sentences of the form:

 If Mike’s in Glasgow, then he’s in Scotland.
 If Mike’s in Scotland, then he’s in Glasgow.
 I’ll have another ice-cream if you will too.
 If you have another ice-cream, I will too.
 I’ll have another ice-cream only if you will too.
 Alice will go to the dinner if and only if Bob goes.
CONDITIONALS IN ENGLISH

If A then C

A is the antecedent
C is the consequent

If A then C
Is equivalent to
C, if A
TRANSLATING TO SL

If A then C

Is represented in SL as

A⊃C

 Note that it’s sometimes written:

AC
TRANSLATING TO SL

So to translate:
If Mike is in Glasgow, then he’s in Scotland.

Abbreviations:
G: Mike is in Glasgow
S: Mike is in Scotland

Structure-revealing translation into SL:

G⊃S
TRANSLATING TO SL

So to translate:
I’ll have another ice-cream if you will too.
Abbreviations:
I: I’ll have another ice-cream
Y: You’ll I’ll have another ice-cream

The example is equivalent to:

If you have another ice-cream, then I’ll have another ice-cream
So, structure-revealing translation into SL:
Y⊃I
ONLY IF

If you have another ice-cream, then I’ll have another ice-

cream
Y⊃I
How about:
I’ll have another ice-cream only if you have another
ice-cream
Think about this. The only circumstances in which I have one are
ones in which you do too. So one thing we know is, if I have one,
then you have one:
I ⊃Y
ONLY IF

If Alice is drunk, she’s happy.

Alice is happy if she’s drunk.
D⊃H
Alice is happy only if she’s drunk.
H⊃D
IF AND ONLY IF

So,
I’ll have another ice-cream, if and only if you have another
ice-cream:
(I ⊃ Y) & (Y ⊃ I)

Which is also written

Y≡I

(Also some times (in English): iff)

DEFINING THE MATERIAL
CONDITIONAL
This is the characteristic
truth table for A ⊃ C
So A ⊃ C is True
A C A⊃C  whenever A is F and
T T T  whenever C is T.
T F F
F T T
F F T A ⊃ C is False
 only when A is T and C is F.
RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE
TRANSLATION
Plenty of English These all come out true if we
conditionals seem not to translate them as material
behave like material conditionals.
conditionals.
E.g. A C A⊃C
TT T
 If Manchester is in France
TF F
then Leeds is in Germany.
FT T
 If Manchester is in England FF T
then I have three bikes.
But the English sentences
 If I have 1,000 bikes then seem not to be truth-functional
Manchester is in England.
BUT WE NEED A TRUTH-
FUNCTION!
If English ‘If…then…’
sentences don’t express
truth-functions, we simply
can’t handle them in SL A C A⊃C
T T T
And some English
T F F
conditionals do seem to
correspond to the material F T T
conditional…. F F T
THE MATERIAL CONDITIONAL

The interpretation of conditionals in

English as the material conditional (i.e. A C A ⊃C
the table on the right) does not always T T T
seem eccentric. E.g. consider,
T F F
If Mike is in Glasgow, then he’s in Scotland. F T T
F F T
And ask what it would take to make the
conditional sentence false?
THE MATERIAL CONDITIONAL

Another reason to sympathise with a truth-functional

interpretation of the English conditional is to consider cases
where
If A then C
seems equivalent to
Either not-A or C
THE MATERIAL CONDITIONAL

E.g. compare:
B: The butler did it
C: The chef did it

Either the butler did it, or the chef did it:

BC
Is equivalent to:
If the butler didn’t do it, the chef did it:
~B ⊃ C
THE MATERIAL CONDITIONAL

BC
Is equivalent to:
~B ⊃ C

Now, replace ~B with A (and switch the order) and we find:

A⊃C
Is equivalent to:
~A  C
THE MATERIAL CONDITIONAL

Now compare truth-tables…

A C A⊃C ~A  C
T T T F T T

T F F F F F

F T T T T T

F F T T T F
LOOKING FOR A TRUTH-FUNCTION:
AN ARGUMENT BY CASES
Think of it like this. Which truth-function
is closest to English conditionals? A C A ⊃C
 If A then C T T
T F
Step 1:
F T
If A and C are the same, we get (say) F F
 If X, then X
And this should be True, whether X is
True or False
To ensure this result, we make A ⊃ C
true whenever A and C have the same
truth value
LOOKING FOR A TRUTH-
FUNCTION
Think of it like this. Which truth-function
is closest to English conditionals? A C A ⊃C
 If A then C T T T
T F
Step 1:
F T
If A and C are the same, we get (say) F F T
 If X, then X
And this should be True, whether X is
True or False
To ensure this result, we make A ⊃ C
true whenever A and C have the same
truth value
LOOKING FOR A TRUTH-
FUNCTION
Step 2:
A C A ⊃C
Next consider the second row,
T T T
where A is True and C is False. T F
F T
Here, it seems that the truth value of F F T
If A, then C
should be False.
So let’s make A ⊃ C False when A is True
and C is False.
LOOKING FOR A TRUTH-
FUNCTION
Step 2:
A C A ⊃C
Next consider the second row,
T T T
where A is True and C is False. T F F
F T
Here, it seems that the truth value of F F T
If A, then C
should be False.
So let’s make A ⊃ C False when A is True
and C is False.
LOOKING FOR A TRUTH-
FUNCTION
Step 3:
A C A ⊃C
Finally, consider the third row,
T T T
where A is False and C is True. T F F
F T
F F T
LOOKING FOR A TRUTH-
FUNCTION
We want to avoid this being a valid
argument: A C A ⊃C
(P) C ⊃ A T T T
(C) A ⊃ C T F F
This means we need there to be an F T
scenario where the premise (C ⊃ A) is F F T
True and the conclusion A ⊃ C is False.

Lets look at the truth table for the

argument….
LOOKING FOR A TRUTH-
FUNCTION
Prem. Conc.
A CC ⊃ A A ⊃C
T T T T
T F ? F
F T F ?
F F T T

If we make A ⊃ C False when A is False and C is True, we need to

replace these ‘?’ with F, so we get…
LOOKING FOR A TRUTH-
FUNCTION
Prem. Conc.
A CC ⊃ A A ⊃C
T T T T
T F F F
F T F F
F F T T

But now there’s no scenario (row) in which the premise is True and
the conclusion False. So the argument is valid!!
LOOKING FOR A TRUTH-
FUNCTION
Prem. Conc.
A CC ⊃ A A ⊃C
T T T T
T F ? F
F T F ?
F F T T

If on the other hand we make A ⊃ C True when A is False and C is

True, we replace the ‘?’ with T, so we get…
LOOKING FOR A TRUTH-
FUNCTION
Prem. Conc.
A CC ⊃ A A ⊃C
T T T T
 T F T F
F T F T
F F T T

Here there is a scenario (second row) in which the premise is true

and the conclusion false. So the argument is (as we want it to be!)
invalid.
LOOKING FOR A TRUTH-
FUNCTION
So, to avoid this being a valid
argument: A C A ⊃C
(P) C ⊃ A T T T
(C) A ⊃ C T F F
F T
F F T
We should make A ⊃ C True when A is
False and C is True.
LOOKING FOR A TRUTH-
FUNCTION
So, to avoid this being a valid
argument: A C A ⊃C
(P) C ⊃ A T T T
(C) A ⊃ C T F F
F T T
F F T
We should make A ⊃ C True when A is
False and C is True.

And this is the material conditional.

DEFINING THE BICONDITIONAL

The characteristic truth-table for ≡:

Remember: P ≡ Q is equivalent to (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 F
F F T T T

So P ≡ Q is True whenever P and Q have the same truth value.

PHILOSOPHER’S TOOLKIT A

Week 6: Logic Basics

Pt. 3: Parentheses and Scope
 MORE COMPLEX FORMULAS

Consider these longer sentences:

(1) Either I’ll go to work and read my email, or I’ll have a snooze.
And,
(2) I’ll go to work, and then either read my email or have a
snooze.

(1) And (2) have quite a similar form. But do they mean the same
thing? If not, what’s the difference?
MORE COMPLEX FORMULAS

(1) I’ll go to work and read my email, or I’ll have a snooze.

And,
(2) I’ll go to work, and then either read my email or have a
snooze.
Can we translate both as follows?
W&ES
No! This would be ambiguous – there would be no way to tell
whether it means (1) or (2).
W & E  S is not well-formed.
PARENTHESES (BRACKETS)

Parentheses help to remove the ambiguities. Consider:

(1) I’ll go to work and read my email, or I’ll have a snooze.

(I’ll go to work and read my email) or I’ll have a snooze.

(2) I’ll go to work, and either read my email or have a snooze.

I’ll go to work, and (read my email or have a snooze).

So (1) translates as: (W & E)  S

And (2) translates as: W & (E  S)
 MORE COMPLEX FORMULAS

Parentheses are put to the same use in logic as they are in

arithmetic: you’ll recognize the differences between these:

2 x (3 + 7) and (2 x 3) + 7

2 x (3 + 7) = 20 and (2 x 3) + 7 = 13

In other words: 2 x 3 + 7 would be ambiguous. It’s not well-

formed.
Unless either we use brackets (or apply a rule that says we
always do one operation first, but this isn’t done in SL).
ANOTHER EXAMPLE NEEDING
PARENTHESES
John is either tired or hungry, and he’s also grumpy.

Close examination of this sentence reveals where the

parentheses should go. Here, the comma and ‘also’
indicates that the right-hand conjunct is not part of the
disjunction.

So, the best translation is (T  H) & G

rather than T  (H & G)
MORE COMPLEX TRANSLATIONS

If Bob comes to the party, Anne and Sarah will be there too.

B: Bob comes to the party

A: Anne comes to the party
S: Sarah comes to the party

B ⊃ (A& S)
MORE COMPLEX TRANSLATIONS

Sarah will come to the party if Bob comes and Anne doesn’t

B: Bob comes to the party

A: Anne comes to the party
S: Sarah comes to the party

The sentence is equivalent to:

If Bob comes to the party and Anne doesn’t, then Sarah will come

(B & ~A) ⊃ S
 RULES OF THUMB CONCERNING
PARENTHESES

 Each binary connective must connect two formulas.

 So, if a formula contains more than one binary connective,

parentheses (brackets) must be used to remove ambiguities.

 Where a connective relates one or more compound formulas,

those compound formulas must be enclosed in parentheses.
 AN IMPORTANT CONCEPT: SCOPE

The scope of a connective consists of the connective itself together

with what it connects. (In other words, scope tells us the extent of the
connective).

So in (P & Q)  R,
 the scope of the ‘&’ is: P & Q or, narrow
 and the scope of ‘’ is: (P & Q)  R or, wide

In P & (Q  R),
 the scope of ‘&’ is: P & (Q  R) or, wide
 and the scope of ‘’ is: Q  R or, narrow
 SCOPE IN ENGLISH

This phenomenon is common in ordinary language.

The following exhibit ‘scope ambiguities’:

 Bob said he ate too quickly.

 My hamster can eat the apple in my pocket.
 I ate an apple in my pyjamas.
 Everyone loves someone.
THE MAIN CONNECTIVE

The connective with the widest scope in a sentence is the

sentence’s main connective
1. ~A ⊃ (B & D)
2. (~A ⊃ B) & D

So the main connective of 1 is the ⊃

and the main connective of 2 is the &
EXERCISE

What’s the main connective in these SL sentences?

1. (M ⊃ N) & ~(O & P)

2. (D  F) ⊃ ~G

3. ~((A & ~B) ⊃ (G  F))

EXERCISE

What’s the main connective in these SL sentences?

1. (M ⊃ N) & ~(O & P)

2. (D  F) ⊃ ~G

3. ~((A & ~B) ⊃ (G  F))

Compare ~(A & ~B) ⊃ (G  F)

EXERCISE

Using the abbreviations

below, translate the
sentences on the right into SL
If Sarah plays well, Bob
B: Bob will win won’t win
S: Sarah will play well S ⊃ ~B
D: Dan will lose
A: Adam is injured Compare: S ⊃ (~B)
EXERCISE

Using the abbreviations

below, translate the
sentences on the right into SL
If Adam is injured and Dan
will lose, then Bob will win
B: Bob will win
S: Sarah will play well
(A & D) ⊃ B
D: Dan will lose
A: Adam is injured Compare: A & (D ⊃ B)
A&D⊃B
EXERCISE

Using the abbreviations

below, translate the
sentences on the right into SL
Either Bob win or, if
B: Bob will win Adam is injured, Dan will
lose.
S: Sarah will play well
D: Dan will lose
B  (A ⊃ D)
A: Adam is injured

Compare: (B  A) ⊃ D
EXERCISE

Using the abbreviations

below, translate the
sentences on the right into SL

Bob will win only if

B: Bob will win Adam is injured
S: Sarah will play well
D: Dan will lose B⊃A
A: Adam is injured

Compare : A ⊃ B
EXERCISE

Using the abbreviations

below, translate the
sentences on the right into SL
Sarah will play well only
B: Bob will win if Adam is not injured
S: Sarah will play well
D: Dan will lose S ⊃ ~A
A: Adam is injured
EXERCISE

Using the abbreviations

below, translate the
sentences on the right into SL
Dan will lose, if and only if
Bob will win and Dan will
B: Bob will win
not lose.
S: Sarah will play well
D: Dan will lose
D ≡ (B & ~D)
A: Adam is injured
EXERCISE

Using the abbreviations

below, translate the
sentences on the right into SL
Sarah won’t play well if
B: Bob will win and only if Bob will win
S: Sarah will play well
or Dan will lose
D: Dan will lose
A: Adam is injured ~S ≡ (B  D)
PHILOSOPHER’S TOOLKIT A

Week 6: Logic Basics

Pt. 4: Intro to Truth Tables
DEFINING THE SL CONNECTIVES

P Q P&Q P Q PQ
T T T T T T
T F F T F T
F T F F T T
F F F F F F

P ~P
T F
F T
DEFINING THE SL CONNECTIVES

But at any rate is equivalent to

P Q P⊃Q
T T T P Q ~P  Q
T F F T T T
F T T T F F
F F T F T T
F F T
Which at least sometimes
translates
If P then Q.
DEFINING THE SL CONNECTIVES

If A then C:
A⊃C

A only if C: P Q P≡Q
T T T
C⊃A
T F F
F T F
A if and only if C: F F T
(A ⊃ C) & (C ⊃ A)
A≡C
CONSTRUCTING TRUTH TABLES FOR
COMPLEX SENTENCES

The most important thing to remember when constructing

truth tables for complex sentences is to fill in the columns in
the correct order.

Let’s work through an example to see how it’s done.

Afterwards, we can then summarize each step we went
through.

Let’s do the truth table for ~(P & Q)

STAGE 1
TO THE LEFT, WE NEED COLUMNS IN WHICH TO PUT THE VARIOUS TRUTH-VALUE
COMBINATIONS FOR SENTENCE LETTERS P AND Q. THE COMPLEX FORMULA GOES IN
A COLUMN TO THE RIGHT.

P Q ~ (P & Q)
STAGE 2
LIST EACH POSSIBLE COMBINATION OF TRUTH VALUES FOR
THE ATOMIC SENTENCES.

P Q ~ (P & Q)
T T

T F

F T

F F
STAGE 3
UNDERNEATH EACH SENTENCE LETTER OF THE COMPLEX SENTENCE,
COPY OVER THE TRUTH VALUES GIVEN IN THE FIRST COLUMNS..

P Q ~ (P & Q)
T T T T

T F T F

F T F T

F F F F
STAGE 4
FILL IN THE TRUTH-VALUES OF THE COMPONENT SENTENCE WHOSE
MAIN CONNECTIVE HAS THE NARROWEST SCOPE (IN THIS CASE IT’S THE
SUB-FORMULA P & Q).

P Q ~ (P & Q)
T T T T T

T F T F F

F T F F T

F F F F F
STAGE 5
CONTINUE THIS PROCESS UNTIL YOU’VE FILLED IN THE VALUES
UNDER THE MAIN CONNECTIVE. THESE ARE THE TRUTH VALUES OF
THE COMPLEX SENTENCE.

P Q ~ (P & Q)
T T F T T T

T F T F F
T
F T F F T

F F T F F F

T
WE NOW HAVE THE SEMANTICS FOR ~(P & Q). THE HIGHLIGHTED
COLUMN TELLS US HOW THE TRUTH-VALUE OF ~(P & Q) VARIES
SYSTEMATICALLY WITH THE TRUTH VALUES OF P AND Q.

P Q ~ (P & Q)
T T F T T T

T F T F F
T
F T F F T

F F T F F F

T
TRUTH TABLE FOR ~ (A & ~ A)
STAGE 1
TO THE LEFT, WE NEED COLUMNS IN WHICH TO PUT THE VARIOUS TRUTH-VALUE
COMBINATIONS FOR THE SENTENCE LETTER, A. THERE ARE ONLY TWO OF THESE, SO WE
NEED ONLY TWO ROWS BELOW THE TOP ONE. THE COMPLEX FORMULA GOES AT THE TOP
OF THE COLUMN ON THE RIGHT.

A ~ (A & ~ A)
TRUTH TABLE FOR ~ (A & ~ A)
STAGE 2
LIST EACH POSSIBLE COMBINATION OF TRUTH VALUES FOR THE ATOMIC
SENTENCES, AND MARK THE SPACE UNDER THE MAIN CONNECTIVE OF THE
COMPLEX SENTENCE.

A ~ (A & ~ A)
T
F
TRUTH TABLE FOR ~ (A & ~ A)
STAGE 3
UNDERNEATH EACH SENTENCE LETTER OF THE COMPLEX SENTENCE,
COPY OVER THE TRUTH VALUES GIVEN IN THE FIRST COLUMN.

A ~ (A & ~ A)
T T T
F F F
TRUTH TABLE FOR ~ (A & ~ A)
STAGE 4
FILL IN THE TRUTH-VALUES OF THE COMPONENT SENTENCE WHOSE MAIN
CONNECTIVE HAS THE NARROWEST SCOPE (IN THIS CASE IT’S THE SENTENCE
~A).

A ~ (A & ~ A)
T T FT
F F TF
TRUTH TABLE FOR ~ (A & ~ A)
STAGE 5
NEXT, FILL IN THE TRUTH-VALUES OF THE COMPONENT SENTENCE WHOSE MAIN
CONNECTIVE HAS THE NEXT NARROWEST SCOPE (IN THIS CASE IT’S A & ~ A).

A ~ (A & ~ A)
T T F FT
F F F TF
TRUTH TABLE FOR ~ (A & ~ A)
STAGE 6
FINALLY, FILL IN THE TRUTH-VALUES OF THE WHOLE COMPLEX SENTENCE,
UNDER ITS MAIN CONNECTIVE.
(YOU CAN NOW SEE THAT THIS ONE IS A TAUTOLOGY.)

A ~ (A & ~ A)
T T T F FT
F T F F TF
TRUTH-TABLES FOR COMPLEX
FORMULAS
The method in short
1. Devote a column to each of the sentence letters used in the complex
formula. Devote a column on the right to the complex formula.Write down
all possible combinations of truth-values for the sentence letters.
2. Devote a row to each possible combinations of truth-values for the
sentence letters. (So as you see above, the number of rows you need
depends on the number of sentence letters. For an example with three
sentence letters you’ll need eight rows.)
3. Copy over the truth-values under the sentence letters in the right-hand
column.
4. Identify the main connective of the complex sentence and ignore it for
now. Fill in the columns under the other connectives, starting with the
connectives with the smallest scope.
5. Finally, fill in the column under the main connective (again, using your
knowledge of the truth-table for that particular connective).
TRUTH-TABLES FOR COMPLEX
FORMULAS
Getting the last two stages in the correct order is crucial. Here’s
why:
Think about the truth table for
(P  Q) & ( Q ⊃ P)

What is the main connective?

It’s the conjunction (&)

The scope of & is the whole formula:
(P  Q) & ( Q ⊃ P)
TRUTH-TABLES FOR COMPLEX
FORMULAS
(P  Q) & ( Q ⊃ P)

Because this complex formula is a conjunction, its overall truth-

value will be determined by the truth value of each of the
conjuncts. In this case, the conjuncts are
P  Q and
Q⊃P

So, it's clear that before we can fill in the column under the ‘&’, we
need to fill in the columns under ‘’ and ‘⊃’