09/01/2017

GEM2006/GET1028
Logic

7.3 harder propositional proofs

7.4 harder propositional
refutations

Dr. Lee Wang Yen

Department of Philosophy

additional assumptions: example

If the butler was at the party, then he fixed the drinks and
poisoned the deceased.
If the butler wasnt at the party, then the detective would have
seen him leave the mansion and would have reported this.
The detective didnt report this.
The butler poisoned the deceased.

(A(FP))
(~A(SR))
~R
P

additional assumptions: example

1. (A(FP))
2. (~A(SR))
3. ~R
P

1
 09/01/2017

additional assumptions: example

1. (A(FP))
2. (~A(SR)) To make a new assumption,
3. ~R 1. Pick a complex wff that
has not been used.
P
2. Pick its right or left side.
4. asm: ~P 3. Assume it or its negation.

additional assumptions: example

1. (A(FP))
2. (~A(SR)) To make a new assumption,
3. ~R 1. Pick a complex wff that
has not been used.
P
2. Pick its right or left side.
4. asm: ~P 3. Assume it or its negation.
5. asm: ~A (break 1)

additional assumptions: example

1. (A(FP))
2. **(~A(SR))
3. ~R
P
4. asm: ~P
5. asm: ~A (break 1)
6. (SR) (from 2 and 5)

2
 09/01/2017

additional assumptions: example

1. (A(FP))
2. **(~A(SR))
3. ~R
P
4. asm: ~P
5. asm: ~A (break 1)
6. **(SR) (from 2 and 5)
7. S (from 6)
8. R (from 6)

additional assumptions: example

1. (A(FP))
2. **(~A(SR))
3. ~R
P
4. asm: ~P
5. asm: ~A (break 1)
6. **(SR) (from 2 and 5)
7. S (from 6)
8. R (from 6)

additional assumptions: example

1. (A(FP))
2. **(~A(SR))
3. ~R
P
4. asm: ~P
5. asm: ~A (break 1)
6. **(SR) (from 2 and 5)
7. S (from 6)
8. R (from 6)
9. A (from 5; 8 contradicts 3)

3
 09/01/2017

additional assumptions: example

1. (A(FP))
2. (~A(SR))
3. ~R
P
4. asm: ~P
5. asm: ~A (break 1)
6. (SR) (from 2 and 5)
7. S (from 6)
8. R (from 6)
9. A (from 5; 8 contradicts 3)

additional assumptions: example

1. *(A(FP))
2. (~A(SR))
3. ~R
P
4. asm: ~P
5. asm: ~A (break 1)
6. (SR) (from 2 and 5)
7. S (from 6)
8. R (from 6)
9. A (from 5; 8 contradicts 3)
10. (FP) (from 1 and 9)

additional assumptions: example

1. *(A(FP))
2. (~A(SR))
3. ~R
P
4. asm: ~P
5. asm: ~A (break 1)
6. (SR) (from 2 and 5)
7. S (from 6)
8. R (from 6)
9. A (from 5; 8 contradicts 3)
10. *(FP) (from 1 and 9)
11. F (from 10)
12. P (from 10)

4
 09/01/2017

additional assumptions: example

1. *(A(FP))
2. (~A(SR))
3. ~R
P
4. asm: ~P
5. asm: ~A (break 1)
6. (SR) (from 2 and 5)
7. S (from 6)
8. R (from 6)
9. A (from 5; 8 contradicts 3)
10. *(FP) (from 1 and 9)
11. F (from 10)
12. P (from 10)
13. P (from 4; 4 contradicts 12)

when to make a further assumption?

make a further assumption when (1) ,(2), and
(3) hold:
1. No further S- or I- rule can be applied

2. There is no contradiction

3. There is at least one unbroken complex wff

how to make a further assumption?

Make a further assumption by breaking a complex wff in
the following way:
1. Identify a complex wff that isnt marked, blocked off, or
broken *
*a wff is broken if we already have one side or its negation (which is
not blocked off) but cant derive anything new
e.g. 1. (AB)
2. (CD)


5. B

2. When that complex wff is identified, assume either side
or its negation
e.g. ~(AB)
asm: A asm:~A asm:B asm:~B
e.g. ((PQ)
asm: P asm: ~P asm:Q asm:~Q

5
 09/01/2017

break complex wffs with embedded complex wffs.

e.g.
((AB)C)
asm: (AB) asm: ~(AB) asm:C asm:~C

((PQ)(AB))
asm: (PQ) asm: ~(PQ) asm:(AB) asm: ~(AB)

live assumptions
Live assumption: assumption that is not
blocked off.
The number of stars should be the same as
the number of live assumptions.
When you have multiple live assumptions and
find a contradiction, you should:
Block off the section beginning from the last live
assumption to the occurrence of contradiction.
Derive the negation of that assumption
Erase star strings with more stars than the number
of remaining live assumptions.

Genslers complete method of propositional proof/refutation

1. Start:
2. S&I:
If there is a contradiction, go to EXTENDED RAA (3)
If nothing further can be derived but there is a complex wff that
isnt marked or blocked off or broken, then go to ASSUME (4)
If nothing further can be derived and every complex wff is marked
or blocked off or broken, then go to REFUTE (5)
3. EXTENDED RAA: Apply RAA rule. If all assumptions are blocked off,
the argument is valid. Otherwise, erase star strings with more
stars than the number of live assumptions and return to step 2
4. ASSUME: pick a complex wff that isnt marked or blocked off or
broken. Assume one side or its negation and go to step 2.
5. REFUTE:
(see Gensler (2010, 171) for the full statement)

6
 09/01/2017

RAA and extended RAA

Step 3 in the partial method (Genslers version, p162):
3. RAA: Apply the RAA rule. Affirm P =Youve proved the argument valid

Step 3 in the complete method (Genslers version, p171):

3. RAA: Apply the RAA rule. If B then affirm P. If ~B, then dont affirm P and
you should do something

2 important points
1. Step RAA (i.e. RAA before the colon) the RAA rule (i.e.
block off an assumption and infer its negation after a
contradiction occurs)
2. Step RAA in the partial method is incompatible with Step
RAA in the complete method
Given (2), step 3 in the complete method should be given a
different name (e.g. extended RAA) or Step RAA in both
methods should be defined in the way it is defined on p171.

exercise 7.3a: 1
1. (AB)
2. (A(AC))
(AB)

exercise 7.3a: 1
1. (AB)
2. (A(AC))
(AB)
3. asm: ~(AB)

7
 09/01/2017

exercise 7.3a: 1
1. (AB)
2. (A(AC))
(AB)
3. asm: ~(AB)
4. asm: A (break 1)

exercise 7.3a: 1
1. (AB)
2. (A(AC))
(AB)
3. **asm: ~(AB)
4. asm: A (break 1)
5. ~B (from 3 and 4)CS

exercise 7.3a: 1
1. **(AB)
2. (A(AC))
(AB)
3. **asm: ~(AB)
4. asm: A (break 1)
5. ~B (from 3 and 4)CS
6. ~A (from 1 and 5) MT

8
 09/01/2017

exercise 7.3a: 1
1. **(AB)
2. (A(AC))
(AB)
3. **asm: ~(AB)
4. asm: A (break 1)
5. ~B (from 3 and 4)CS
6. ~A (from 1 and 5) MT
7. ~A (from 4; 4 contradicts 6)

exercise 7.3a: 1
1. (AB)
2. (A(AC))
(AB)
3. asm: ~(AB)
4. asm: A (break 1)
5. ~B (from 3 and 4)CS
6. ~A (from 1 and 5) MT
7. ~A (from 4; 4 contradicts 6)

exercise 7.3a: 1
1. (AB)
2. (A(AC))
(AB)
3. asm: ~(AB)
4. asm: A (break 1)
5. ~B (from 3 and 4)CS
6. ~A (from 1 and 5) MT
7. ~A (from 4; 4 contradicts 6)
8. (AC) (from 2 and 7)

9
 09/01/2017

exercise 7.3a: 1
1. (AB)
2. *(A(AC))
(AB)
3. asm: ~(AB)
4. asm: A (break 1)
5. ~B (from 3 and 4)CS
6. ~A (from 1 and 5) MT
7. ~A (from 4; 4 contradicts 6)
8. (AC) (from 2 and 7)

exercise 7.3a: 1
1. (AB)
2. *(A(AC))
(AB)
3. asm: ~(AB)
4. asm: A (break 1)
5. ~B (from 3 and 4)CS
6. ~A (from 1 and 5) MT
7. ~A (from 4; 4 contradicts 6)
8. (AC) (from 2 and 7)
9. A (from 8)

exercise 7.3a: 1
1. (AB)
2. *(A(AC))
(AB)
3. asm: ~(AB)
4. asm: A (break 1)
5. ~B (from 3 and 4)CS
6. ~A (from 1 and 5) MT
7. ~A (from 4; 4 contradicts 6)
8. (AC) (from 2 and 7)
9. A (from 8)

10
 09/01/2017

exercise 7.3a: 1
1. (AB)
2. *(A(AC))
(AB)
3. asm: ~(AB)
4. asm: A (break 1)
5. ~B (from 3 and 4)CS
6. ~A (from 1 and 5) MT
7. ~A (from 4; 6 contradicts 4)
8. (AC) (from 2 and 7)
9. A (from 8)
10. (AB) (from 3; 9 contradicts 7)

valid

multiple-assumption refutations: example

If the butler was at the party, then he fixed the drinks and
poisoned the deceased.
If the butler wasnt at the party, he was at a neighbours house.
The butler poisoned the deceased.

1. (A(FP))
2.**(~AN)
[P
3. asm: ~P
4. asm:~A (break 1)
5. N (from 2 and 4) MP

Refutation box:
~P, ~A, N

multiple-assumption refutations: example

If the butler was at the party, then he fixed the drinks and
poisoned the deceased.
If the butler wasnt at the party, he was at a neighbours house/
The butler poisoned the deceased.

1. (A0(F?P0)) =1
2. *(~A0N1) =1
P0 =0
3. asm: ~P
4. asm:~A (break 1)
5. N (from 2 and 4) MP

Refutation box:
~P, ~A, N
invalid

11
 09/01/2017

exercise 7.4a:1
1. ~(AB)
|(~A~B)
2.**asm: ~(~A~B)
3. asm: ~A (break 1)
4. B (from 2 and 3) CS

Refutation box:
~A,B

exercise 7.4a:1
1. ~(A0B1) =1
|(~A0~B1) =0
2. asm: ~(~A~B)
3. asm: ~A (break 1)
4. B (from 2 and 3) CS

Refutation box:
~A,B

invalid

exercise 7.4b:1 (translation)

If the maid prepared the drink, then the butler didnt prepare it.
The maid didnt prepare the drink
If the butler prepared the drink, then he poisoned the drink and is
guilty.
The butler is guilty.
[Use M, B, P, and G]

(M~B)
~M
(B(PG))
G

12
 09/01/2017

exercise 7.4b:1 (refutation)

1. (M~B)
2. ~M
3. (B(PG))
|G
4. asm: ~G
5. asm: ~B (break 3)

Refutation box:
~M, ~G, ~B

exercise 7.4b:1 (refutation)

1. (M0~B0) =1
2. ~M0 =1
3. (B0(P?G0)) =1
|G0 =0
4. asm: ~G
5. asm: ~B (break 3)

Refutation box:
~M, ~G, ~B

Invalid

source
Gensler (2010)

13