Computing

Truth Values

SYMBOLIC LOGIC
Definition

An assertion is a statement. A proposition is a

statement or a declarative sentence which is
either true or false, but not both. If a proposition
is true we assign the truth value “TRUE” to it. If a
proposition is false, we assign the truth value
“FALSE” to it. We will denote by “T” or “1”, for the
truth value TRUE and by “F" or “0” for the truth
value FALSE.

SYMBOLIC LOGIC
Examples

The following are examples of propositions:

1. 2 > 4
2. The billionth prime, when written in base 10,
ends in a 3.
3. All men are mortals.
4. 9 is a prime number.

SYMBOLIC LOGIC
Non-Examples

The following are non-examples of propositions:

1. x < y
2. Factor .
3.
4. How old are you?

SYMBOLIC LOGIC
 Exercises
*Decide whether the following are propositions or
not:

1. 23 = z
2. 10 – 7 = 3
3. 5 < 27
4. All women are mammals.
5. Where do you live?

SYMBOLIC LOGIC
Definition

A propositional variable, denoted by denotes an

arbitrary proposition with an unspecified truth
value.

A propositional variable is a variable that

represents a proposition.

SYMBOLIC LOGIC
Definition

Given two propositional variables and . These two

propositional variables maybe combined to form a
new one. These are combined using
the logical operators or logical connectives : “and”,
“or” or “not”.

SYMBOLIC LOGIC
These new proposition are:

1. (Conjunction of P and Q) P and Q, denoted by ;

2. (Disjunction of P and Q) P or Q, denoted by ;
3. (Negation of P) not P, denoted by .

Truth Tables

1 0
0 1

Note: Other books represent the negation of P as ~P.

SYMBOLIC LOGIC
Inclusive and exclusive disjunction:

1. Inclusive disjunction denoted by is True when either or

both of the disjuncts are True.
2. Exclusive disjuction denoted by P ⋁ Q is True when only
one of the disjuncts is true and the other is false.

Truth Table: P⋁Q

0
1
1
0

SYMBOLIC LOGIC
Definition

The proposition “P implies Q”, denoted by is called an

implication.

The operand P is called the hypothesis, premise or antecedent

while the operand Q is called the conclusion or the
consequence

SYMBOLIC LOGIC
Definition

Given the implication , its converse is , its inverse is, and its
contrapositive is .

The operand P is called the hypothesis, premise or antecedent

and the operand Q is called the conclusion or the consequence

1
0
1
1

SYMBOLIC LOGIC
Definition

A biconditional proposition is expressed linguistically by

preceding either component by ‘if and only if’.

The truth table for a biconditional propositional form,

symbolised by P ⟷ Q is shown below.
P⟷Q

SYMBOLIC LOGIC
Do Activities 3 & 4
Definition

A propositional form is an assertion which contains at least

one propositional variable and maybe generated by the
following rules:
1. A propositional variable standing alone is a propositional
form;
2. If P is a propositional form, then Q is also a propositional
form;
3. If P and Q are propositional forms, then , , are propositional
forms;
4. A string of symbols containing propositional variables,
connectives and parentheses is a propositional form if and
only if it can be obtained by infinitely many applications of
rules (1.); (2.) or (3.) above.

SYMBOLIC LOGIC
Definition

Let X be a set of propositions.

A truth assignment (to X): X  {true, false} that assigns to each
propositional variable a truth value. (A truth assignment
corresponds to one row of the truth table).

A tautology is a propositional form where every truth assignment

is true. All entries of its truth table are true.
A contradiction or absurdity is a propositional form where every
truth assignment is false;
A contingency is a propositional form that is neither tautology nor
contradiction.
Examples:
P V P is a tautology.
P  P is a contradiction.

For each of the following compound propositions

determine if it is a tautology, contradiction or
contingency:
1. (p v q)  p  q
2. P v q v r v (p  q  r)
3. (p  q)  (p v q)
Definition

A logically equivalent propositional form have identical values

for each assignment of the truth values to their component
propositional variables.

We can denote the logical equivalent variables P and Q as:

or

and are regarded as equivalent algebraic expressions.

SYMBOLIC LOGIC
Example

Show that P ⟹ Q and ¬P ⋁ Q are logically equivalent

propositional forms.

P⟹Q
1 1 1
1 1 1
0 0 0
1 0 1

P ⟹ Q and ¬P ⋁ Q are logically equivalent propositional forms.

SYMBOLIC LOGIC
Example

Given the propositional forms Q ⋁ ¬P, ¬Q ⟹ ¬P and ¬P ⋀ ¬Q,

between which pairs of these forms does the relation logical
equivalence exist?

Q ⋁ ¬P ¬P ⋀ ¬Q,
1 1 1 1 1
1 0 1 1 0
0 1 0 0 0
0 0 1 1 0

¬Q ⟹ ¬P and Q V ¬P are logically equivalent

SYMBOLIC LOGIC
The following are logical identities or rules of replacement.

SYMBOLIC LOGIC
SYMBOLIC LOGIC
12. Exportation ((P ʌ Q) ⟹ R) ⟺ (P ⟹ (Q ⟹ R))

SYMBOLIC LOGIC
SYMBOLIC LOGIC
Example

Show that ¬(Q ⋀ P) ⟺ P ⟹¬Q.

Solution

¬(Q ⋀ P) ⟺ ¬Q ⋁¬P (De Morgan’s)

⟺ ¬P ⋁¬Q (Commutativity)
⟺ P ⟹¬Q (MI)

SYMBOLIC LOGIC
Example

Show that P ⋀ [(P ⋀ Q) ⋁ R] ⟺ P ⋀ (Q ⋁ R).

Solution

P ⋀ [(P ⋀ Q) ⋁ R] ⟺ [P ⋀ (P ⋀ Q)] ⋁ (P ⋀ R) (Dist)

⟺ [(P ⋀ P) ⋀ Q] ⋁ (P ⋀ R) (Assoc)
⟺ (P ⋀ Q) ⋁ (P ⋀ R) (Idempotence)
⟺ P ⋀ (Q ⋁ R) (Dist)

SYMBOLIC LOGIC
Do Activity 5

SYMBOLIC LOGIC
Definition

An argument is a collection of propositions wherein it is

claimed that one of the propositions, called the conclusion,
follows from the other propositions, called the premise of the
argument. the conclusion is usually preceded by such words as
therefore, hence, then, consequently.

Classification of Arguments:
1. Inductive argument is an argument where it is claimed
that within a certain probability of error, the conclusion
follows from a premise; and
2. Deductive argument is an argument where is it claimed
that the conclusion absolutely follows from the premise.

SYMBOLIC LOGIC
A deductive argument is said to be valid if whenever
the premises are all true, then the conclusion is also
true. In other words if are premises and Q is the
conclusion of the argument therefore Q is valid if and
only if the corresponding propositional form

⋀ ⋀,

is a tautology. Otherwise, the argument is invalid.

SYMBOLIC LOGIC
To show that an argument is invalid, we have to show
an instance where the conclusion is false and the
premises are all true.

Show that the following argument is invalid using

Truth Table.

SYMBOLIC LOGIC
To show the validity of arguments, we may use
the truth table. However, this method is
impractical specially if the argument contains
several propositional variables. A more
convenient method is by deducing the
conclusion from the premises by a sequence of
shorter, more elementary arguments known to
be valid.

SYMBOLIC LOGIC
Rules of Inference
These are known valid argument forms.

SYMBOLIC LOGIC
SYMBOLIC LOGIC
SYMBOLIC LOGIC
SYMBOLIC LOGIC
Construct a formal proof of validity of the following
arguments:

a) Jack is in Paris only if Mary is in New York. Jack is

in Paris and Fred is in Rome. Therefore, Mary is in
New York.

b) If Mark is correct then unemployment will rise and

if Ann is correct then there will be a hard winter.
Ann is correct. Therefore unemployment will rise
or there will be a hard winter or both.

SYMBOLIC LOGIC
Solution for (a):

J: Jack is in Paris.
M: Mary is in New York.
F: Fred Is in Rome.

The premises of the argument are J ⟹ M and J ⋀ F. The

conclusion is M.

1. J ⟹ M (premise)
2. J ⋀ F (premise)
3. J (2. Simp)
4. M (1, 3. MP)

SYMBOLIC LOGIC
Solution for (b):

M: Mark is correct.
U: Unemployment will rise.
A: Ann is correct.
H: There will be a hard winter.

The premises of the argument are: (M ⟹ U) ⋀ (A ⟹ H) and A. The

conclusion is: U ⋁ H.

1. (M ⟹ U) ⋀ (A ⟹ H) (premise)
2. A (premise)
3. (A ⟹ H) ⋀ (M ⟹ U) (1. Comm)
4. A ⟹ H (3. Simp)
5. H (4, 2. MP)
6. H ⋁ U (5. Add)
7. U ⋁ H (6. Comm)

SYMBOLIC LOGIC
Alternative Solution for (b):

M: Mark is correct.
U: Unemployment will rise.
A: Ann is correct.
H: There will be a hard winter.

The premises of the argument are: (M ⟹ U) ⋀ (A ⟹ H) and A. The

conclusion is: U ⋁ H.

1. (M ⟹ U) ⋀ (A ⟹ H) (premise)
2. A (premise)
3. A ⋁ M (2. Add)
4. M ⋁ A (3. Comm)
5. U ⋁ H (1, 4. CD)

SYMBOLIC LOGIC