Mathematical Reasoning

PREPARED BY: MS. REA O. LAMBRENTO

Objectives
Discuss the different types of reasoning.

Identify whether a statement or an argument is formed using deductive or

inductive reasoning.

Use this type of reasoning to justify statements and arguments made about
mathematics and mathematical concepts.
Recall: Valid Arguments
A valid argument is one in which the premises are all true and the conclusion is
true as well

An invalid argument is an argument in which the premises are all true but the
conclusion is false

Methods of validating Arguments

◦ truth tables
◦ formal proofs
◦ truth by contradiction - contrapositive
Examples
1. All babies are illogical.
Nobody is despised who can manage a crocodile. Invalid
Illogical persons are despised.

2. All Democrats always tell the truth.

President Biden is a democrat.
So, President Biden always tells the truth.
Valid
 Logical Definitions review
Tautology: an argument that is always true
Example: Either the sun shines or it does not
Contradiction: an argument that is always false
Example: The triangle is a circle.
Contingency: a proposition that is neither a tautology nor a contradiction.
Example: If we go to the store, then we will buy some apples.
Connectives

~
Truth Table
 Reasoning
Can you draw the next picture? How many squares are there on the 6th figure?

What is our answer in the given problem above?

The answer is shown in the figure to the right.

There are 21 squares in the figure.
Do you get the same answer?
How do you come up with the answer?
Reasoning
According to the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Reasoning is defined as a
“process of thinking about something in a logical way in order to form a conclusion of
judgment. It is the ability of the mind to think and understand things logically”.

 
Hence, Mathematical reasoning is an essential skill that enables an individual
to make use of all other mathematical skills to communicate logically and
effectively to others. With the development of mathematical reasoning, we can
recognize that mathematics makes sense and can be easily understood
 Inductive Reasoning
Inductive reasoning is making conclusions or generalizations based on the patterns or trends you
have observed. It starts with a specific event that is observed many times to be true then concludes
or generalizes that this event is true in all instances.

Inductive reasoning is commonly observed when a child goes through the process of getting
introduced to something new. If a child knows that a dog is an animal with fur, tail and has four legs
and was introduced to a cat for the first time, then the child would think that the cat is a dog
because it has fur, tail and four legs

Example: Every
Nala isquiz that has
an orange catbeen given
and she in loudly.
purrs class is easy, therefore the Major exam will be easy.
Every orange cat I've met purrs loudly.
All orange cats purr loudly.
 Deductive Reasoning
Deductive reasoning is defined as a process of drawing a conclusion from
statements called premises that are generally assumed to be true. It is considered to
be a valid form of reasoning which starts with a few general statements or ideas and
apply them in a specific situation.

Deductive reasoning uses facts like theories, laws, properties and widely accepted (true)
definitions to conclude about a specific event. Deductive reasoning intended to show that
the conclusion is true based on the logic of the premises.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
 Deductive Reasoning
The previous example of deductive reasoning is what is commonly known as
syllogism. A syllogism is a form of reasoning where a conclusion is drawn from two given
propositions or premises.
 
Examples of deductive arguments
1. All athletes work out in the gym.
Mark is an athlete.
Therefore, Mark works out in the gym.
 
This syllogism is valid since the premises logically lead to the conclusion. Both
premises are considered to be true and the conclusion can be accepted as true.
 
2. All musical instruments make sound.
Trains make sound.
Therefore, trains are musical instruments.
 
In this example, both premises are true and that the arguments logically relates
to the conclusion, so the argument in #2 is valid. However, we know that the
conclusion is not true. This is an example of arguments that are valid (logically) but
not sound.
Determine a Valid Conclusion for an
Argument
If Kim is a lawyer (p), then she will be able to help us (q)
Kim is not able to help us
Therefore, Kim is not a lawyer.

If you studied well, then you should be rewarded.

You studied well.
Therefore, you should be rewarded.
Translate the following statements to
symbols.
1. If it rains, then the game will not be played. 1. R~G
2. ~R/ G
It is not raining.
Therefore the game will be played.

R G ~G R~G ~R G

T T F F F T
T F T F F F INVALID

F T F T T T
F F T T T F
What is Proof?

A rigorous formal argument that

unequivocally demonstrates the truth of
a proposition, given the truth of the
proof’s premises.
Adapted from MathWorld: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Proof.html

16
What Is a Propositional Logic Proof?
An argument in which (1) each line is a
propositional logic statement, (2) each statement
is a premise or follows unequivocally by a
previously established rule of inference from the
truth of previous statements, and (3) the last
statement is the conclusion.

17
Rules of Inference
The rules of inference specify conclusions which can be
drawn from assertions known or assumed to be true.

Rules of Replacement
In logic, a rule of replacement is a transformation rule that may be
applied to only a particular segment of an expression.
Rules of Inference
Examples:

1. If I have a cold then I find it difficult to sleep 1. If I have a cold then I find it difficult to sleep
I have a cold I don’t find it difficult to sleep
Therefore, I find it difficult to sleep Therefore, I don’t have a cold

1. CD
1. CD 2. ~D / ~C
2. C / D
MODUS PONENS
MODUS PONENS
List of Rules of Inference
Book Name Traditional Name Latin Name

Modus Ponens Modus ponendo ponens That which affirms by

affirming
Modus Tollens Modus tollendo tollens That which denies by
denying
Disjunctive syllogism Modus tollendo ponens That which by denying,
affirms
Hypothetical Syllogisim

Addition

Simplification

Conjunction
Constructive dilemma

Destructive dilemma
Translate the following
If you are a Crimson Hawk, then you are a well rounded person.
If you are a well-rounded person, then you are an asset in any community.
Therefore, if you are an Crimson Hawk, then you are an asset in any community.
Let : C- Crimson Hawk , A- Asset in Community W- Well rounded Person

1. C  W
2. W A /C  A

3. C  A 1 & 2, by Hypothetical Syllogism (HS)

Each of the following is a formal proof of validity for the
indicated argument. State the justification for each line that
is not a premise.
1. (AB)[A(D E)]
2. (A B) C /DE
3. A B 2, simplification (Simp)

4. A(DE) 1 and 3,Modus Ponens (MP)

5. A 3, simplification (Simp)

6. D E 4 and 5,Modus Ponens (MP)

7. D 6, simplification (Simp)

8. D E 7, Addition (Add)
 Each of the following is a formal proof of validity for the indicated
argument. State the justification for each line that is not a premise.

1. F(GH)
2. (GI)(HJ)
3. (IJ) (F H)
4. ~F/H
5. (GH) 1 & 4, by Hypothetical Syllogism (HS)
6. I  J 2 & 5, by Constructive Dilemma (CD)

7. F  H 3 & 5, by Modus Ponens (MP)

8. H 7 & 4, by Disjunctive Syllogism (DS)

Each of the following is a formal proof of validity for the
indicated argument. State the justification for each line
that is not a premise.
1. E(F~G)
2. (FG) H
3. E/ H
4. (F~G) 1 and 3,Modus Ponens (MP)
5. F 4, simplification (Simp)

6. (FG) 5, Addition (Add)

7. H 2 and 6,Modus Ponens (MP)

Prove the validity of the following:
If either Algebra is required or geometry is required, then all students will
study mathematics. Algebra is required and trigonometry is required.
Therefore, all students will study mathematics.
(A: algebra is required, G: Geometry is required. S: all students will study
mathematics. T: Trigonometry is required)

1. (AG) S
2. A T /S

3. A 2 Simplification
4. AG 3 Addition
5. S 1, 4 Modus ponens
Rules of Replacement
Each of the following is a formal proof of validity for the
indicated argument. State the justification for each line
that is not a premise.
1. A  (B  ~C)
2. AD
3. ~D C /D
4. (A ∨ B)  (A ∨ ~C) 1 Dist.
5. (A ∨ ~C)  (A ∨ B) 4 Comm
6. A ∨ ~C 5 Simp

7. ~C  ~~D 3 Trans
4 D.N
8. ~C  ~~D
9. (A  D)  (~C  D) 2, 8 Conj.

10. D ∨ D 9, 6 C.D.

11. D 10 Taut.
 Each of the following is a formal proof of validity for
the indicated argument. State the justification for
each line that is not a premise.
1. (O~ P)  (PQ)
2. QO
3. ~R P /R
4. ~Q ∨ O 2 Impl.
5. O ∨~ Q 4 Comm.
6. (O~P)  (~Q  P) 1 Trans

7. ~P ∨ ~P 6,5 C. D

8. ~P 7 Taut.
9. ~~R 3,8 MT
10.R 9DN
END OF PRESENTATION