SESSION 6

Definitions
Premise or Hypothesis
Premise is a statement which is assumed to be true.
Theorem
A theorem consists of a set of premises & a conclusion. A theorem is
proved by showing that the conclusion is true whenever all the premises are
assumed to be true.
Formal proof
Process of determining a conclusion from a set of Premises by using
the accepted rules of the reasoning is called Formal proof.
Types of proofs
i.
ii.
iii.

Direct Proof
Indirect proof (or) proof by contradiction.
Conditional conclusion (or) proof by reduction.

Principle involved in direct proof

If H1H2,. Hn are premises and C is the conclusion the principle involved in direct
proof is H1 ^H2^.^Hn C
Indirect proof
If H1,H2,.Hn are the given premises and C is a conclusion the principle
involved in indirect proof is c^ (H1^ H2^.^ Hn) F where F is a
contradiction.
i.e. the negated conclusion is taken as one of the premises along with given
hypotheses and a contradiction concluded finally.

Rules of inference
A set of premises H1, H2,.Hn and a conclusion C are given. We assume that
want to H1, H2,.Hn are all the terms . we want to conclude the
conclusion C.
i.e we want to prove the conclusion C is True.
The following two rules are used
i.

Rule p:
A premise may be introduced at any point in the derivation.

ii.

Rule T:

A formula S may be introduced in a derivation if S is tautologically

implied by any one or more of the preceding formulas in the derivation.
iii.

Rule CP

If we can derive S from r and a set of premises P1,P2.Pn, then we

can derive r s from the set of premises P1,..Pn alone.
Table of Logical Equivalences
In addition to the usual topic laws, the following equivalences are used
in.
Inference theory of statement calculus.
1. P Q P V Q
2. P Q Q V P
3. (P Q) P^Q
4. P (Q R) ( P ^ Q ) R
5. P Q (P Q ) ^ (Q P)
6. P Q ( P V Q ) ^ ( Q V P )
7. P Q (P^Q)V (P^Q)

8. (P Q) ^ (R Q) (PVR) Q
9. P (QVR) (P Q) V (P R)
10.(P Q) ^ (P R) P (Q^R)

Inconsistent
The propositions p1,p2,.,pn are inconsistent it p1,p2,.,pn implies a
contradiction
Note
p ^ p is always a contradiction.
Class Assignment
1. Show that p q , q r and p implies r (or)
Show that r is a valid inference from the premises p q , q r and p.
Proof:
Steps

Premises

Rule

Reason

1.
2.
3.

p q
q r
p r

p
p
T

4.
5.

p
r

p
T

Given Premise
Given Premise
From (1),(2) using chain rule
p q, q r p r
Given Premise
From (3),(4) using modus
ponens (p q) ^ p q

Hence r is concluded from the given premises.

Hence it is proved.
We now give an indirect proof of this implication.
Steps

Premises

Rule

Reason

1.
2.
3.

r
q r
q

4.
5.

p q
p

6.
7.

p
p^p F

p
p
T

Negated conclusion
Given Premise
From (1),(2) using Modus
tollens
p
Given Premise
T
From (3),(4) using Modus
tollens
p
Given Premise
T
From (5),(6) p^p is a
contradiction
Hence proved.

2. Show that r s can be derived from the premises p (q s), r v p

and q.
Proof:
Here the conclusion is r s and a set of hypotheses are
p (q s), r v p and q.
Using cp rule it is enough if we can derive S from the Premises p (q
s), r v p , q and r.
Steps
1.
2.
3.
4.

Premises

Rule

Reason

r v p
r p
r
p

p
T
p
T

Given Premise
From (1) p q p v q
Added premise
From (2),(3) using Modus
ponens
Given Premise
From (4),(5) using Modus
ponens
Give premise
From (6),(7) using Modus

5.
6.

p (q s)
q s

p
T

7.
8.

q
s

p
T

ponens
9.

r s

cp
Hence Proved.

3. Show that the following premises are inconsistent.

p q, p r, q r , p.
To Prove:

( p q) ^ (p r) ^( q r) ^p F

Soln:
Steps
1.
2.
3.

Premises
p
p q
q

Rule
p
p
T

4.
5.

q r
r

p
T

6.
7.

p r
p

p
T

8.
9.

p ^ p
F

T
T

Reason
Given Premise
Given Premise
From (1),(2) using Modus
ponens
Given Premise
From (3),(4) using Modus
ponens
Given Premise
From (5),(6) using Modus
ponens
From (1),(7) p , q p ^ q

The given Premises are inconsistent.