LOGIC

Introduction to logic

What is logic?
Why is it useful?
Types of logic
Propositional logic
Predicate logic

Introduction to logic

What is logic?
Why is it useful?
Types of logic
Propositional logic
Predicate logic

What is logic?

Logic is the
beginning of
wisdom, not the
end

What is logic?

Logic : The branch of philosophy

concerned with analysing the
patterns of reasoning by which a
conclusion is drawn from a set of
premises, without reference to
meaning or context

Why study logic?

Logic is concerned with two key

skills, which any computer
engineer or scientist should have:

Abstraction
Formalisation

Why is logic important?

Logic is a formalisation of reasoning.

Logic is a formal language for deducing

knowledge from a small number of
explicitly stated premises (or
hypotheses, axioms, facts)
Logic provides a formal framework for
representing knowledge
Logic differentiates between the
structure and content of an argument

What is proposition?
Def: A proposition is a statement that is either true or
false.
or
A proposition is a declarative sentence that is either
true or false,but not both.
e.g. It is raining in Delhi.
e.g. The square of 5 is 16.
Some propositions may not be easily verified:
e.g. The universe is infinite.

Topic #1.0 Propositional Logic: Operators

The Negation Operator

The negation operator (NOT) transforms
a prop. into its logical negation.
E.g. If p = I have brown hair.
then p = I do not have brown hair.
The truth table for NOT:
T : True; F : False
: means is defined as

Operand
column

Result
column

Logic

Notation for propositions: Truth Values

If its true, denoted by T;
If its false, denoted by F
Used in truth tables:
P

Compound Propositions
Composite
Composed of subpropositions & various connectives
Primitive or not composite
E.g. This book is good and cheap

Propositional Variable
Symbol representing any proposition
real variable (x)
not propositon but can be replaced by a
proposition

Basic Logical Operators

1. Conjunction , pq (and)
2. Disjunction, pq (or)
3. Negation p(not)

Topic #1.0 Propositional Logic: Operators

The Conjunction Operator

The binary conjunction operator
(AND) combines two propositions
to form their logical conjunction.
E.g. If p=I will have salad for lunch.
and q=I will have soup for
dinner., then pq=I will have
salad for lunch and
I will have soup for dinner.

Logic

More with Truth Tables: conjunction

If you have propositions p and q, the
proposition p and q is true when
theyre both true, and false otherwise:
P

P^ Q

T T

T F

F T

F F

Topic #1.0 Propositional Logic: Operators

The Disjunction Operator

The binary disjunction operator (OR)
combines two propositions to form their
logical disjunction.
p=My car has a bad engine.

q=My car has a bad carburetor.

pq=Either my car has a bad engine, or
my car has a bad carburetor.

After the downwardpointing axe of

splits the wood, you
can take 1 piece OR the
other, or both.

Logic

More with Truth Tables: disjunction

If you have propositions p and q, the
proposition p or q is false when
theyre both false, and true otherwise:
P

Pv Q

T T

T F

F T

F F

Propositional calculus.
truth tables for logical connectives

P ~P P Q

PQ PQ

T F
F T

T T
T F

T
F

T
T

F T

F F

Example
If p represents This book is good and q represents
This book is cheap, write the following sentences in
symbolic form:
(a) This book is good and cheap.
(b) This book is costly but good
(c) This book is neither good nor cheap
(d) This book is not good but cheap
(e) This book is good or cheap
(a) pq

(b)(q) p (c)(p) (q)

(d)( p)q (e)pq

Topic #1.0 Propositional Logic: Operators

The Implication (conditional)

Operator

The implication p q states that p implies

q.
I.e., If p is true, then q is true; but if p is not
true, then q could be either true or false.
E.g., let p = You study hard.
q = You will get a good grade.
p q = If you study hard, then you will get
a good grade.

Logic

More with Truth Tables: implication p q

If you have propositions p and q, the
implication p q of p and q is false when p is
true and q is false and is true otherwise:
p

T T

T F

F T

F F

Logic

More with Truth Tables: implication p

Other ways to refer to this implication:

q if p
if p, q
q whenever p
p only if q
q is necessary for p
If p, then q
p is sufficient for q p implies q
p

T T

T F

F T

F F

Logic

More with Truth Tables: implication p q

In other words, p is the hypothesis (or
antecedent or premise); and q is the conclusion
(or consequence)

T T

T F

F T

F F

Topic #1.0 Propositional Logic: Operators

The biconditional operator

The biconditional p q states that p is true if and
only if (IFF) q is true.
p = Bush wins the 2005 election.
q = Bush will be president for all of 2006.
p q = If, and only if, Bush wins the 2005
election, Bush will be president for all of 2006.
2005

2006

Im still
here!

More with Tables: biconditional p q

True when p and q have the same truth
values and is false otherwise
Other ways to express it: p IFF q; p is
necessary and sufficient for q; if p then q,
and vice versa
p

T T

T F

F T

F F

Proposition
Let P(p,q,........) denote an expression constructed from
logical variables p,q,......., which take on the value True(T)
or False(F), and the logical connectives , , and
E.g. P(p,q) = (p q)
pq
(p q)
p
q
q
T

Well-Formed Formulas(wff)
(i) If P is a propositional variable then it is wff.
(ii) If x is wff , then ~ x is a wff.
(iii) If x and y are wff , then (xy), (xy), (xy),
(xy)are wffs.
(iv) A string of symbols is a wff iff it is obtained
by finitely many applications of (i)-(iii)
A wff is not a proposition , but if we substitute the
proposition in place of propositional variable , we get
a proposition.

Another method of constructing a

truth table
p

(p

T
T
F
F

T
F
T
F

T
F
T
T
4

step

q)

T
T
F
F

F
T
F
F

F
T
F
T

T
F
T
F

Propositional calculus cont.

Truth tables for common sentences
(PQ)=(~Q~P) /contrapositive equivalence

Propositional calculus cont.

Truth tables for common sentences
(~PQ)=(PQ) and (P Q)=(~P Q)
/disjunctive equivalence

P Q ~P ~PQ PQ PQ ~PQ
T T

T F

F T

F F

Construct truth table for pq and (pq)

Logic - Equivalences
Propositional Equivalences
In mathematical arguments, you can replace a
statement or proposition with another statement or
proposition with the same truth value
Tautology: A compound proposition (combination of
propositions using logical operators) that is always
True, no matter what the truth values of the
propositions that are in it
Contradiction: a compound proposition that is always
false
Contingency: proposition that is neither a tautology or
a contradiction

Logic - Equivalences

Propositional Equivalences
p

pv

p^

T F

F T

Contingency

tautology

contradiction

Principle of Substitution
Let P(p,q,.......) be a tautology , and let
P1(p,q,......),P2(p,q,......),...... be any propositions.
Since P(p,q,........) does not depend upon the
particular truth values of its variables p,q,..., we
can substitute P1 for p , P2 for q, in the tautology
P(p,q,.....) and still have tautology.

Theorem- If P(p,q,....) is a tautology, then

P(P1,P2,.....) is a tautology for any propositions
P1,P2,..........

Logical Equivalence
P(p,q,.....) Q(p,q,........) (if identical truth tables)
e.g. p p,
ppp

Show that (pq) (p q) p

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Show ( p V q )
using truth tables.

p q are logically equivalent

and

pVq

(p V q)

T
T

T
F

T
T

F
F

F
T

p q
F

(p q)

F
T

F
F

Logically equivalent using truth tables

Logic - Equivalences
Logical Equivalences: compound propositions
that have the same truth value in all possible cases
words, denotes logical equivalence
between
p and q, for example.
p q pvq
T T T

(p v q)
p
q
F
F F

p^
F

T F

F T

F F

Truth Table
for (p v q)
and p ^ q

These are logically equivalent

Logic - Equivalences(Laws of Algebra)

Logical Equivalences: (T denotes any proposition that
is always true, F denotes one that is always false)
p^T
p
identity laws
pvF
p
pvT
T
domination laws
p^F
F
pvp
p
idempotent laws
p^p
p
( p)
p
double negation laws
pvq
qvp
commutative laws
p^q
q^p

Logic - Equivalences(Laws of Algebra)

Logical Equivalences: (T denotes any proposition that is

always true, F denotes one that is always false)

(p v q) v r
(p ^ q) ^ r
(p v (q ^ r)
p ^ (q v r)
(p ^ q)
(p v q)

p v (q v r)
p ^ (q ^ r)
(p v q) ^ (p v r)
(p ^ q) v (p ^ r)
pv q
p^ q

Associative laws
Distributive laws
DeMorgans Laws

These laws can be used to prove whether different

compound propositions are logically equivalent

Useful Law # 1

p V p T

Useful Law # 2

p p F

Useful Law # 3

q pV

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Prove

(p V (p q)) p q,

This is easy to prove using the truth table. But now

we want to prove it using the logical equivalences.

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Prove

(p V (p q)) p q,

Some guidance in proving using logical equivalences.

1. Do implication first
Note: How many laws have to do with implies???
When trying to decide which laws to use in a proof,
first ask yourself, are there any implications to prove.
If there are then use the third useful law

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Prove

(p V (p q)) p q,

2. Do DeMorgans second
Next ask yourself, are there any negations with and/or
operators? If there are, then use DeMorgans Law.

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Prove

(p V (p q)) p q,

3. Use Distributative Law

Next ask yourself, are there both and & or operators? If
there are, then use the Distributive Law.

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Prove

(p V (p q)) p q,

4. Use Double Negation Anytime

5. Use Other Laws as they Apply

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Prove

(p V (p q)) p q,

We are trying to make both sides equivalent.

Begin with the left hand side.
Try to make it expressed as the right hand side
by using your laws.

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Prove

(p V (p q)) p q,

Do we have any implications?

no
Can we use DeMorgans law?
Yes
(p V (p q))

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Prove

(p V (p q)) p q,

How do we use DeMorgans law?

DeMorgans Law
(p V (p q))

( p V q)

p q
p (p q)

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Prove

(p V (p q)) p q,

Now we have
(p V (p q)) p (p q))

DeMorgans Law

Do we have any implications?

no
Can we use DeMorgans law?
(p q)

yes

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Prove

(p V (p q)) p q,

How do we use DeMorgans law?

DeMorgans Law
(p q)

( p V q)

( p)

V q

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Prove

(p V (p q)) p q,

Now we have
(p V (p q))

p (p q))
DeMorgans Law
p [ (p) V q)] ) DeMorgans Law

Now we can use the double negation.

p [ (p) V q)]

p (

p V q)

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Now we have
(p V (p q))

p (p q))
p [ (p) V q)] )

DeMorgans Law
DeMorgans Law

p (p V q)

Double negation

Do we have any implications?

Can we use DeMorgans law?
Can we use the distributive law?
p (p V q)

no
no
Yes

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
How do we use the distributive law?

Distributive Law

p (q V r)

p (p V q)

(p q) V (p

r)

(p p) V (p q )

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Now we have
(p V (p q))

p (p q))
p [ (p) V q)] )

DeMorgans Law
DeMorgans Law

p (p V q)

Double negation

( p p) V ( p q) Distributative Law

Do we have any implications?

Can weuse DeMorgans law?
no
Can we use the distributive law?
Can we use any of the useful laws? Yes
Useful Law # 2

no
no

p p F

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
How do we use Useful Law #2?

Useful Law #2

p)

( p

V ( p q)
V ( p q)

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Now we have
(p V (p q))

p (p q))
p [ (p) V q)] )

DeMorgans Law
DeMorgans Law

p (p V q)

Double negation

( p p) V ( p q)

Distributative Law

(F)

V ( p q)

Do we have any implications?

Can we use DeMorgans law?
Can we use the distributive law?
Can we use any of the useful laws? No

no
no
no

Now weneed to look at the result and determine

how we might get to that answer.

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Now we have
(p V (p q))

p (p q))
p [ (p) V q)] )

DeMorgans Law
DeMorgans Law

p (p V q)

Double negation

( p p) V ( p q)

Distributative Law

(F)

V ( p q)

What do we have?

(F) V ( p q)

What are we trying to get?

p q

What do we need to get this result?

We need the identity law. How can we get there?

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
How do we get to the identity law?
Commutative Laws

p V

V p

F V ( p q) ( p q) V F

Now apply the identity law?

Identity Law

( p q)

p
( p q)

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Prove

(p V (p q)) p q,

(p V (p q))

p (p q))
p [ (p) V q)] )

DeMorgans Law
DeMorgans Law

p (p V q)

Double negation

( p p) V ( p q) Distributive Law

(F)

V ( p q)

( p q) V
p q
Law

(F) Commutative Law

Identity

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Prove

(p q) ( p V q) is a Tautology.

How do we express this?

Prove

(p q) ( p V q)

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Prove

(p q) ( p V q)

(p q) ( p V q) T

Do we have any implications?

(p q) ( p V q) T

Yes

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

How do you use Useful Law #3?

Useful Law #3

q )

(p q) ( p V q) ( p q) V ( p V q)

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Prove

(p q) ( p V q) is a Tautology.

Now we have
(pq)(pVq)
( p q) V ( p V q)

Do we have any implications?

Can we use DeMorgans law?

no
Yes

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

How do we use DeMorgans law?

DeMorgans Law
( p q)

p V q

( p q) V ( p V q) ( p V q) V ( p V q)

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Now we have
(p q) ( p V q) T
( p q) V ( p V q)
( p V q) V ( p V q)

Do we have any implications?

Can we use DeMorgans law?
Can we use the distributive law?
Can we use any of the useful laws? No

DeMorgans Law

no
no
no

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Now we have
(p q) ( p V q) T
( p q) V ( p V q)
( p V q) V ( p V q)

DeMorgans Law

What do we have?
( p V q) V ( p V q)
What are we trying to get?
T
What do weneed to get this result?
We need UL #1 or Identity law or Domination Law.

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Since we have all V (ors), we will try UL#1.

How can we get there?
Use the Associative Law

Associative Laws

(p V q) V r p V (q V r)

( p V q) V ( p V q)

p V ( q V p) V q

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Then Use the Commulative Law

Commulative Laws

pVq qVp

p V ( q V p) V q

p V (p V q) V q

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Then Again use the Associative Law

Associative Laws

p V (p V q) V

(p V q) V r p V (q V r)

( p V p) V ( q V q)

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Then we can use Useful Law #1.

Useful Law#1

pV p T

( p V p) V ( q V q)

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

And finally the Domination Law.

Domination Laws

pVT T

PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Prove

(p q) ( p V q) is a Tautology.

(p q) ( p V q) T
( p q) V ( p V q)
( p V q) V ( p V q)

DeMorgans Law

( p V p) V ( q V q)

Associative Law

( p V p) V ( q V q)

Commulative Law

Useful Law # 1

T V T

) V (

Domination Law

Prove
(p q) (p q)

Show that
((pq) (p (q r))) (p q) (p r)
is a tautology.

Arguments
In logical reasoning , a certain number of propositions
are assumed to be true and based on the assumption some
other proposition is derived(deduced or inferred)
premises
conclusion
Definition - An argument p1,p2,p3,.......,pn
q
is said to be valid if q is true whenever all premises
p1,p2,......,pn are true.
valid argument
fallacy

Theorem - The argument p1,p2,p3,.......,pn

is valid iff the proposition (p1p2 ........... pn)

is a tautology

Inference Rules - General Form

An Inference Rule is
A pattern establishing that if we know that a
set of antecedent statements of certain forms
are all true, then we can validly deduce that a
certain related consequent statement is true.

antecedent 1
antecedent 2
consequent
therefore

means

Some Inference Rules

p
pq
pq
p

p
q
pq

Rule of Addition
Rule of Simplification
Rule of Conjunction

Some Inference Rules

p
pq
q

q
pq
p

(law of detachment)
the mode of
affirming
the mode of denying

Syllogism Inference Rules

pq
qr
pr

pq
p
q

Rule of hypothetical
syllogism

Rule of disjunctive
syllogism

Formal Proof Example

Suppose we have the following premises:
It is not sunny and it is cold.
We will swim only if it is sunny.
If we do not swim, then we will play.
If we play, then we will be home early.
Given these premises, prove the theorem
We will be home early using inference rules.

Proof Example cont.

Let us adopt the following abbreviations:
p = It is sunny; q = It is cold;
r = We will swim; s = We will play;
t = We will be home early.

Then, the premises can be written as:

(1) p q (2) r p
(3) r s (4) s t

Proof Example cont.

Step
1. p q
2. p
3. rp
4. r
5. rs
6. s
7. st
8. t

Proved by
Premise #1.
Simplification of 1.
Premise #2.
rules 2,3.
Premise #3.
rules 4,5.
Premise #4.
rules 6,7.

Example
Consider the following argument:
S1:If a man is a bachelor, he is unhappy
S2:If a man is unhappy, he dies young
---------------------------------------------------S:Bachelors die young

Predicate Calculus
* Ram is a student
* Shyam is a student
* x is a student
* is a student - Predicate
e.g. 2x + 3y = 4z
Definition- A part of a declarative sentence describing
the properties of an object or relation among objects is
called a predicate.

Predicate Calculus
* Let A be a given set . A propositional function(or an open
sentence or condition) defined on A is an expression p(x)
which has property that p(a) is true or false for each
a A.
*A - domain of p(x)
*Tp - all elements of A for which p(a) is true is called the
truth set of p(x)
*Tp= {x:x A, p(x) is true}or T p = {x:p(x)}

Predicate Calculus
e.g.- 1. x is the father of y - P(x,y)
2. 2x+3y = 4z - S(x,y,z)
P(x,y) , S(x,y,z) are not propositions but if x=2 , y=0 and z
=1 in S(x,y,z) or S(2,0,1) is proposition with truth value T
e.g. Find the truth set of each propositional function p(x)
defined on the set N of positive integers.
(a) Let p(x) be x+2>7
(b) Let p(x) be x+5<3
(c) Let p(x) be x+5>1
(a) {x:xN, x+2 >7} = {6,7,8,.......}, (c) {x:xN, x+5>1} = N
(b) {x:xN, x+5<3} =

Predicate Calculus
Definition - For a declarative sentence involving a predicate
, the universe of discourse , or simply the universe, is the
set of all possible values which can be assigned to variables.

e.g. -1. For p(x): x is a student the universe of discourse

is the set of all human names.
e.g. - E(n): n is an even integer

Logic - Quantifiers

Lets say you have a predicate like P(x) and

you want to apply a statement for all possible
values of x. You can use quantifiers to do
this.
The notation x P(x) shows the universal
quantification of P(x), with the upside-down A
as the universal quantifier.
It says, FOR ALL x P(x) or FOR EVERY x P(x)

Logic - Quantifiers

An example: Every student in JUIT has

studied Maths could be expressed as:

x (S(x) P(x))
Where P(x) denotes that x has studied Maths
And S(x) denotes that x is in JUIT
And the arrow denotes then

Logic - Quantifiers
Existential Quantifier of a proposition: there exists
an element x in the universe of discourse such
that P(x) is true
That is, there is AN x, or at least ONE x, such that
P(x) is true
In this case, one would use the backwards E to
denote this type quantifier rather than the all
inclusive upside down A:

x P(x)
For example, if P(x) was the statement x > 89, and
your data set included test scores of 65, 72, 85, 88,
and 95 what would be the existential quantification
of P(x)?
TRUE!

Example

For all x there is a y such that x is

greater than y and less than y+1.
In the universe of rational numbers, with
the usual interpretation of + and <,
this sentence is true.
In the universe of integers, this sentence
is false.

Further Examples
1) Similar quantifiers are order independent

2) Different quantifiers are not

3) If P is true of an object, so is Q

4) This is the negation of the above: for some object, P is true

but Q is false.

Relations between negation,

universal and existential quantifiers
~X p(X) = X ~p(X)
~ X p(X) = X ~ p(X)
X p(X) = Y p(Y)
X q(X) = Y q(Y)
X (p(X) q(X)) = X p(X) Y q(Y)
X (p(X) q(X)) = X p(X) Y q(Y)

Negation of Quantified Statements

All math majors are male
It is not the case that all math majors are male or
There exists at least one math major who is a female
M- the set of math majors
( x M)(x is a male) (x M)(x is not male)
( x M)p(x) (x M) p(x)
or x p(x) x p

De Morgans Law
(xA)p(x) ( xA) p(x)
( xA) p(x) (xA) p(x)
e.g. For all positive integers n we have n+2 >8
There exists a positive integer n such that n+2not>8

Negating Quantified Statements

with More than One Variable
e.g. [(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)]
e.g. L is the limit of a sequence
a1 ,.............. follows 0, n0 N , n n0 , a n L

L is not the limit of the sequence

a1 , a 2 ,............ when 0, n0 N , n n0 , a n L