Lecture - 08 - 09 - New

CSC102:Discrete Structure
Tanveer Ahmed Siddiqui
Department of Computer Science

COMSATS University, Islamabad
Recap
Lecture No 1-7
Department of Computer Science 2

Propositional Logic

Propositional Logic
 Propositional logic is
 the study of propositions (true or false statements)
and
 The ways of combining them (logical operators) to
get new propositions.

Review: Propositional Logic
 Atomic propositions: p, q, r, …
 Boolean operators:      
 Compound propositions: (p  q)  r
 Equivalences: pq  (p  q)
 Proving equivalences using:
 Truth tables.
 Laws of Logic

Compound Statement
 The truth value of a compound statement is

determined by using Truth Table.

Negation of AND, OR and Implication
 The negation of compound statement involving AND

 ~(p  q)  ~p  ~q.
 The negation of compound statement involving OR
~(p  q)  ~p  ~q.
 The negation of the conditional statement:
 ~ (p  q)  p  ~ q

Testing Logically Equivalence using Laws

Testing Logically Equivalence using Laws

Valid and Invalid Arguments
 An argument (form) is a sequence of

statements (statement forms).
 All statements (statement forms) but the last are
called premises, hypotheses, or assumptions.
 The last statement (form) is called the
conclusion.
 The conclusion is preceded by “” (said
“therefore”).
 An argument (form) is valid if whenever its
premises are true, then its conclusion is also
true.
Testing an Argument Form for Validity
 Identify the premises and conclusion of the

argument form.
 Construct a truth table showing the truth values
of all the premises and the conclusion.
 A row of the truth table in which all the
premises are true is called a critical row.

Testing an Argument Form for Validity
 If there is a critical row in which the conclusion

is false, then it is possible for an argument of the
given form to have true premises and a false
conclusion, and so the argument form is invalid. If
the conclusion in every critical row is true, then
the argument form is valid.

Additional Valid Argument Forms: Rule of Inference
A rule of inference is a form of argument that

is valid.

Today Covered
After completing this lecture, you will be able to

understand:
 The Logic of Quantified Statements
 Predicates and Quantified Statements
 Rules of Inference for Quantified
Statements
 Building Arguments for Quantified
Statements

Why not Propositional Logic?
 Are given statements proposition?

 p: n is an odd integer.
 q: computer x is under attack by an intruder
 r: computer y is functioning properly.
 No, these statements are neither true nor false
when the values of the variables are not
specified.
 But in mathematics, computer programs, and in
system specifications, we often encounter
statements involving variables.

Predicate Logic
 Therefore, the propositional logic, studied so

far, cannot adequately express the meaning of
all statements in mathematics and computer
science.
 Since most of the statements in mathematics
and computer science use variables, we must
extend the system of logic to include such
statements.
 In this lecture we will introduce a more
powerful type of logic called predicate logic

Predicate
 To understand predicate logic, we first need to

introduce the concept of a predicate.
 A predicate(a.k.a propositional function) is
a sentence that contains a finite number of
variables
 Anatomy of Predicate:
P(x) = x + 5 > x
variable predicate

Propositional Function
 Functions with multiple variables:

 P(x) = x < 5
 Unary Predicate
 P(x,y) = x + y = 0
 Binary Predicate
 P(x,y,z) = x + y = z
 Ternary Predicate
 P(x1,x2,x3 … xn) = …
 n-ary predicate

 Consider P(x) = x < 5

 P(x) has no truth values (x is not given a value)
 P(1) is true
 The proposition 1<5 is true
 P(10) is false
 The proposition 10<5 is false
 Thus, P(x) will become a proposition when
given a value

 Functions with multiple variables:

 P(x,y) = x + y = 0
 P(1,2) is false,
 P(1,-1) is true
 P(x,y,z) = x + y = z
 P(3,4,5) is false,
 P(1,2,3) is true

 Let P(x) = “x is a multiple of 5”

 For what values of x is P(x) true?
 Let P(x) = x+1 > x
 Let x = the character ‘a’
 Is ‘a’+1 > ‘a’?
 Let x = the city of Pakistan
 Is Islamabad+1 > Islamabad?
 You need to specify your universe!
 What values x can represent
 Called the “domain” or “universe of discourse” by the
textbook

Universe of Discourse or Domain
 Let P(x) = “x is a multiple of 5”

 Let P(x) = x+1 > x
 The set of all values that may be substituted in
place of the variable is called domain of a
predicate variable.

Your Turn
 Let Q(x, y, z): x2 + y2 = z2.

 What is the truth value of Q(3, 4, 5)?
 What is the truth value of Q(2, 2, 3)?
 How many values of (x, y, z) make the predicate
true?

UPSHOT
Let P(x) be a statement involving the variable x and

let D be a set. We call P a predicate (with respect to D)
(or propositional function or open sentence) if for
each x ∈ D, P(x) is a proposition. We call D the
domain of discourse of P.
 You can think of a propositional function as a
function that
 Evaluates to true or false.
 Takes one or more arguments.
 Expresses a predicate involving the argument(s).
 Becomes a proposition when values are assigned to
the arguments.
Quantifiers
 A predicate becomes a proposition when we

assign it fixed values.
 However, another way to make a predicate
into a proposition is to quantify it.
 Consider the following statements:
 All people are mortal
 Every computer is a 16 bit-machine
 No birds are black
 Some people have blue eyes
 There exist an even prime number.

Quantifiers
 How to make a propositional function into a

proposition:
 There are two ways to make a propositional
function into a proposition:
 Supply it with a value
 Provide a quantification

Quantifiers
 Consider the following statements:

 All people are mortal
 Every computer is a 16 bit-machine
 No birds are black
 Some people have blue eyes
 There exist an even prime number.
 Each contains a word indicating the quantity
such as all, every, none, some, and one.
 Such words, called quantifiers, gives us an idea
about how many objects have a certain
property.
Quantifiers
 Quantifiers are words that refer to quantities

such as "some" or "all" and tell for how many
elements a given predicate is true.
 That is, the predicate is true (or false) for all
possible values in the universe of discourse or for
some value(s) in the universe of discourse.

Quantifier
 A quantifier is “an operator that limits the

variables of a proposition”
 Two types:
 Universal
 Which tell us that a predicate is true for every element
under consideration.
 Existential
 Which tell us that there is one or more element under
consideration for which the predicate is true.

Universal Quantifier
 Represented by an upside-down A: 
 It means “for all”, “for each”, “for every”
 If the universe of discourse is finite, say {n1, n2, . . ,
nk}, then the universal quantifier is simply the
conjunction of all elements:
 We can state the following:

 x P(x)
 English translation: “for all values of x, P(x) is true”
 Let P(x) = x+1 > x
 English translation: “for all values of x, x+1>x is
true”
Turth Value of Universal Quantifier

Existential Quantifier
 Represented by an backwards E: 
 It means “there exists a”, “some”, for at least one
 If the universe of discourse is finite, say {n 1, n2, . . ,
nk}, then the universal quantifier is simply the
disjunction of all elements:
 We can state the following:

 x P(x)
 English translation: “there exists (a value of) x such
that P(x) is true”
 Let P(x) = x+1 > x
 English translation: “for at least one value of x,
x+1>x is true”
Truth value of Existential Quantifier

UPSHOT
 Recall that P(x) is a propositional function

 Let P(x) be “x = 0”
 Recall that a proposition is a statement that is
either true or false
 P(x) is not a proposition
 There are two ways to make a propositional
function into a proposition:
 Supply it with a value
 For example, P(5) is false, P(0) is true
 Provide a quantification
 For example, x P(x) is false and x P(x) is true
 Let the universe of discourse be the real numbers

UPSHOT
Truth Values of Quantifiers

Binding Variable
 When a quantifier is used on a variable x, we say

that x is bound.
 If no quantifier is used on a variable in a predicate
statement, it is called free.
 Let P(x,y) be x > y
 Consider: x P(x,y)
 This is not a proposition!
 What is y?
 If it’s 5, then x P(x,y) is false
 If it’s x-1, then x P(x,y) is true
 Note that y is not “bound” by a quantifier

Binding Variable
 (x P(x))  Q(x)

 The x in Q(x) is not bound; thus not a proposition
 (x P(x))  (x Q(x))
 Both x values are bound; thus it is a proposition
 (x P(x)  Q(x))  (y R(y))
 All variables are bound; thus it is a proposition
 (x P(x)  Q(y))  (y R(y))
 The y in Q(y) is not bound; this not a proposition

Binding Variable: UPSHOT

Binding Variable: UPSHOT

Negating Quantified Expressions
 Consider the statement:

 All students in this class have red hair
 What is required to show the statement is false?
 There exists a student in this class that does NOT
have red hair
 To negate a universal quantification:
 You negate the propositional function
 AND you change to an existential quantification
 ¬x P(x)  x ¬P(x)

Your Turn
 Write the negation of the statement

 “Every student in your class has taken a course in
calculus.”
 Let P(x) :“x has taken a course in calculus”
 and the domain consists of the students in your
class.
 Now the given statement is a universal
quantification, namely, ∀xP(x),
 The negation of this statement is:
 “There is a student in your class who has not
taken a course in calculus.” ∃x ￢ P(x).
Negating Quantified Expressions
 Consider the statement:

 There is a student in this class with red hair
 What is required to show the statement is false?
 All students in this class do not have red hair
 Thus, to negate an existential quantification:
 You negate the propositional function
 AND you change to a universal quantification
 ¬x P(x) = x ¬P(x)

Your Turn
 Negate the following statement:

 “There is a student in this class who has taken a
course in calculus.”
 Let Q(x) :“x has taken a course in calculus
 This is the existential quantification ∃xQ(x)
 The negation of this statement is the
proposition
 Every student in this class has not taken
calculus
∀x ￢ Q(x).

Upshot

Some other Statements involving quntifiers

Logical equivalence involving quantifiers

Translating English statement involving Nested Quantifiers
 It is not difficult to translate English statement

to its equivalent logical expression if we follow
the following steps:
 Step 1: Read and understand the English
statement given in the question.
 Step 2: Find the domain of discourse according to
the statement.
 Step 3: Find the associated quantifiers.
 Step 4: Rewrite the statement so that the domain
of discourse and quantifiers are properly visible.
 Step 5: Finally, introduce the variables in the
statement.

Translating from English
 “Every student in this class has studied Discrete

Structure”
 Let S(x) be “x is a student”
 Let C(x) be “x has studied Discrete Structure”
 Rephrased: “For every student x in this class, x
has studied Discrete Structure”
 x C(x)
 True if the universe of discourse is all students in this
class

 What about if the universe of discourse is all
students (or all people?)
 x (S(x)C(x))
 This is wrong! Why?
 x (S(x)→C(x))
 Another option:
 Let Q(x,y) be “x has studied y”
 x (S(x)→Q(x, Discrete Structure)

 Consider:
 “Some students have visited Karachi”
 “Every student in this class has visited Lahore or
Karachi”
 Let:
 S(x) be “x is a student in this class”
 K(x) be “x has visited Karachi”
 L(x) be “x has visited Lahore”

 Consider: “Some students have visited Karachi”

 Rephrasing: “There exists a student who has visited
Karachi”
 x K(x)
 True if the universe of discourse is all students
 What about if the universe of discourse is all
people?
 x (S(x) → K(x))
 This is wrong! Why?
 x (S(x)  K(x))

 Consider: “Every student in this class has visited

Lahore or Karachi”
 x (K(x)L(x)
 When the universe of discourse is all students
 x (S(x)→(K(x)L(x))
 When the universe of discourse is all people
 Why isn’t x (S(x)(K(x)L(x))) correct?

 Note that it would be easier to define

V(x, y) as “x has visited y”
 x (S(x)  V(x,Karachi))
 x (S(x)→(V(x,Karachi)  V(x,Lahore))

 Translate the statements:
 “All hummingbirds are richly colored”
 “No large birds live on honey”
 “Birds that do not live on honey are dull in color”
 “Hummingbirds are small”
 Assign our propositional functions
 Let P(x) be “x is a hummingbird”
 Let Q(x) be “x is large”
 Let R(x) be “x lives on honey”
 Let S(x) be “x is richly colored”
 Let our universe of discourse be all birds

 Our propositional functions

 Let P(x) be “x is a hummingbird”
 Let Q(x) be “x is large”
 Let R(x) be “x lives on honey”
 Let S(x) be “x is richly colored”
 Translate the statements:
 “All hummingbirds are richly colored”
 x (P(x)→S(x))
 “No large birds live on honey”
 ¬x (Q(x)  R(x))
 Alternatively: x (¬Q(x)  ¬R(x))
 “Birds that do not live on honey are dull in color”
 x (¬R(x) → ¬S(x))
 “Hummingbirds are small”
 x (P(x) → ¬Q(x))

Multiple Quantifiers
 You can have multiple quantifiers on a statement

 Nested quantifiers
 Two quantifiers are nested if one is within the
scope of the other.
 Example

1
 You can have multiple quantifiers on a statement

 xy P(x, y)
 xy P(x,y)
 xy P(x, y)
 xy P(x,y)

 xy P(x, y)
 “For all x, there exists a y such that P(x,y)”
 Example: xy (x+y = 0)
 xy P(x,y)
 There exists an x such that for all y P(x,y)”
 xy (x*y = 0)

Truth Values of 2-variate Quantifiers

Order of quantifiers
 xy and xy are not equivalent!
 xy P(x,y)
 P(x,y) = (x+y = 0) is false
 xy P(x,y)
 P(x,y) = (x+y = 0) is true

Example 1
 Translate the statement “The sum of two

positive integers is always positive” into an
equivalent logical expression.
 Solution:
 Step 1: Read and understand the English
statement given in the question.
 Step 2: Find the domain of discourse
according to the statement.
 Let us suppose that the domain consists of all
integers.

Example 1

Example 1


64

65

66
The order of quantifiers (example)

67
The order of quantifiers
The order of nested universal quantifiers in a statement

without other quantifiers can be changed without
changing the meaning of the quantified statement.

68

69
The order of quantifiers

The order of nested existential quantifiers in a
statement without other quantifiers can be changed
without changing the meaning of the quantified
statement.

70

71

72
Nested quantifiers (example)

Translate the following statement into a logical expression.
“The sum of two positive integers is always positive.”
Solution:
 Rewrite it in English that quantifiers and a domain are
shown
“For every pair of integers, if both integers are positive, then

the sum of them is positive.”

73

Translate the following statement into a logical expression. “The sum of two
positive integers is always positive.”
Solution:
 Introduce variables
“For every pair of integers, if both integers are positive, then the sum of them
is positive.”
“For all integers x, y, if x and y are positive, then x+y is positive.”

74

75

Translate the following statement into a logical expression. “Every
real number except zero has a multiplicative inverse.”
A multiplicative inverse of a real number x is a real number y such that xy = 1.
Solution:
 Rewrite it in English that quantifiers and a domain
are shown
“For every real number except zero, there is a multiplicative

inverse.”

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83
25

26

Negating Multiple quantifiers
 Recall negation rules for single quantifiers:

 ¬x P(x) = x ¬P(x)
 ¬x P(x) = x ¬P(x)
 Essentially, you change the quantifier(s), and negate
what it’s quantifying
 Examples:
 ¬(xy P(x,y))
 = x ¬y P(x,y)
 = xy ¬P(x,y)
 ¬(xyz P(x,y,z))
 = x¬yz P(x,y,z)
 = x¬yz P(x,y,z)
 = xyz ¬P(x,y,z)

Negating Multiple quantifiers
 Consider ¬(xy P(x,y)) = xy ¬P(x,y)

 The left side is saying “for all x, there exists a y such
that P is true”
 To disprove it (negate it), you need to show that
“there exists an x such that for all y, P is false”
 Consider ¬(xy P(x,y)) = xy ¬P(x,y)

 The left side is saying “there exists an x such that for
all y, P is true”
 To disprove it (negate it), you need to show that “for
all x, there exists a y such that P is false”

Translating between English and quantifiers
 Rosen, section 1.4, question 20
 The product of two negative integers is positive

 xy ((x<0)  (y<0) → (xy > 0))
 Why conditional instead of and?
 The average of two positive integers is positive
 xy ((x>0)  (y>0) → ((x+y)/2 > 0))
 The difference of two negative integers is not necessarily
negative
 xy ((x<0)  (y<0)  (x-y≥0))
 Why and instead of conditional?
 The absolute value of the sum of two integers does not
exceed the sum of the absolute values of these integers
 xy (|x+y| ≤ |x| + |y|)
Translating between English and quantifiers
 Rosen, section 1.4, question 24
 xy (x+y = y)
 There exists an additive identity for all real numbers
 xy (((x≥0)  (y<0)) → (x-y > 0))
 A non-negative number minus a negative number is
greater than zero
 xy (((x≤0)  (y≤0))  (x-y > 0))
 The difference between two non-positive numbers is
not necessarily non-positive (i.e. can be positive)
 xy (((x≠0)  (y≠0)) ↔ (xy ≠ 0))
 The product of two non-zero numbers is non-zero if
and only if both factors are non-zero

Practice
 Rewrite these statements so that the negations

only appear within the predicates
a) yx P(x,y)
yx P(x,y)
yx P(x,y)
b) xy P(x,y)
xy P(x,y)
xy P(x,y)
c) y (Q(y)  x R(x,y))
y (Q(y)  x R(x,y))
y (Q(y)  (x R(x,y)))
y (Q(y)  x R(x,y))

Your Turn
 Express the negations of each of these statements so

that all negation symbols immediately precede
predicates.
a) xyz T(x,y,z)
(xyz T(x,y,z))
xyz T(x,y,z)
xyz T(x,y,z)
xyz T(x,y,z)
xyz T(x,y,z)
b) xy P(x,y)  xy Q(x,y)
(xy P(x,y)  xy Q(x,y))
xy P(x,y)  xy Q(x,y)
xy P(x,y)  xy Q(x,y)
xy P(x,y)  xy Q(x,y)

Rule of Inference for Universal quantifier

Rule of Inference for Universal quantifier
 Assume that we know that x P(x) is true

 Then we can conclude that P(c) is true
 Here c stands for some specific constant
 This is called “universal instantiation”
 Assume that we know that P(c) is true for any

value of c
 Then we can conclude that x P(x) is true
 This is called “universal generalization”

Rule of Inference for Existential quantifier
 Assume that we know that x P(x) is true

 Then we can conclude that P(c) is true for some
value of c
 This is called “existential instantiation”
 Assume that we know that P(c) is true for some

value of c
 Then we can conclude that x P(x) is true
 This is called “existential generalization”

Example of Proof

Example of Proof

Example of Proof
 Given the hypotheses:

“Laiba, a student in this class, owns

a red convertible.”
 “Everybody who owns a red C(Laiba)
convertible has gotten at least one R(Laiba)
speeding ticket”
 Can you conclude: “Somebody in x (R(x)→T(x))
this class has gotten a speeding
ticket”? x (C(x)T(x))

Example of Proof
1. x (R(x)→T(x)) 3rd hypothesis

2. R(Laiba) → T(Laiba) Universal instantiation using step
1
3. R(Laiba) 2nd hypothesis
4. T(Laiba) Modes ponens using steps 2 & 3
5. C(Laiba) 1st hypothesis
6. C(Laiba)  T(Laiba) Conjunction using steps 4 & 5
7. x (C(x)T(x)) Existential generalization using
step 6
Thus, we have shown that “Somebody in this class has

gotten a speeding ticket”
Example of proof
 Given the hypotheses:

 “There is someone in this class who
has been to France”
 “Everyone who goes to France visits
the Louvre”
 Can you conclude: “Someone in x (C(x)F(x))
this class has visited the Louvre”?
x (F(x)→L(x))
x (C(x)L(x))

Example of proof
1. x (C(x)F(x)) 1st hypothesis

2. C(y)  F(y) Existential instantiation using step 1
3. F(y) Simplification using step 2
4. C(y) Simplification using step 2
5. x (F(x)→L(x)) 2nd hypothesis
6. F(y) → L(y) Universal instantiation using step 5
7. L(y) Modus ponens using steps 3 & 6
8. C(y)  L(y) Conjunction using steps 4 & 7
9. x (C(x)L(x)) Existential generalization using
step 8
Thus, we have shown that “Someone in this class has
visited the Louvre”
Example of proof

Lecture - 08 - 09 - New

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lecture - 08 - 09 - New

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CSC102:Discrete Structure

Tanveer Ahmed Siddiqui

Department of Computer Science

Department of Computer Science 2

Department of Computer Science 3

Department of Computer Science

Department of Computer Science

 The truth value of a compound statement is

Department of Computer Science 6

 The negation of compound statement involving AND

Department of Computer Science 7

Department of Computer Science 8

Department of Computer Science 9

 An argument (form) is a sequence of

 Identify the premises and conclusion of the

Department of Computer Science

 If there is a critical row in which the conclusion

Department of Computer Science

A rule of inference is a form of argument that

Department of Computer Science

After completing this lecture, you will be able to

Department of Computer Science

 Are given statements proposition?

Department of Computer Science

 Therefore, the propositional logic, studied so

Department of Computer Science

 To understand predicate logic, we first need to

Department of Computer Science

 Functions with multiple variables:

Department of Computer Science 18

 Consider P(x) = x < 5

Department of Computer Science 19

 Functions with multiple variables:

Department of Computer Science 20

 Let P(x) = “x is a multiple of 5”

Department of Computer Science 21

 Let P(x) = “x is a multiple of 5”

Department of Computer Science 22

 Let Q(x, y, z): x2 + y2 = z2.

Department of Computer Science 23

Let P(x) be a statement involving the variable x and

 A predicate becomes a proposition when we

Department of Computer Science

 How to make a propositional function into a

Department of Computer Science

 Consider the following statements:

 Quantifiers are words that refer to quantities

Department of Computer Science

 A quantifier is “an operator that limits the

Department of Computer Science 29

 We can state the following:

Department of Computer Science 31

 We can state the following:

Department of Computer Science 33

 Recall that P(x) is a propositional function

Department of Computer Science 34

Truth Values of Quantifiers

Department of Computer Science

 When a quantifier is used on a variable x, we say

Department of Computer Science 36

 (x P(x))  Q(x)

Department of Computer Science 37

Department of Computer Science 38