Professional Documents
Culture Documents
“Everyone will buy an umbrella or everyone will “Everyone will buy an umbrella or everyone will
buy a raincoat” buy a raincoat”
∀x B(x,umbrella) ∨ ∀x B(x,raincoat) ∀x B(x,umbrella) ∨ ∀x B(x,raincoat)
“No one will buy both a raincoat and umbrella” “No one will buy both a raincoat and umbrella”
¬∃x(B(x,umbrella) ∧ B(x,raincoat)) ¬∃x(B(x,umbrella) ∧ B(x,raincoat))
This has the potential
quantified variable the scope of the variable variable scope variable scope to cause confusion so
we’ll try to avoid it!
• How about this? ∀x [ S(x) → C(x) ] • How about this? ∃x [ S(x) ∧ G(x) ]
– (A) Yes – (A) Yes
– (B) No – (B) No
– Method: to prove A ≡ B
– Then for any value of y, ∀x (P(x) ∨ Q(y)) is true.
• We might prove A → B and B → A.
• by the Identity Law, since P(x) is true.
– But that will turn out to be too hard.
– This is the definition of ∀y ∀x (P(x) ∨ Q(y)).
• by definition of the universal quantifier.
• Instead we will prove A → B and ¬A → ¬B.
– That will do the trick just as well.
– And this is equivalent to ∀x ∀y (P(x) ∨ Q(y)).
• section 1.5, example 3 (pp.58-59).
– Thus: ∀x P(x) ∨ ∀x Q(x) → ∀x ∀y (P(x) ∨ Q(y))
∀x P(x) ∨ ∀x Q(x) ≡ ∀x∀y [P(x) ∨ Q(y)]
Exercises.
Prove the ¬A → ¬B Direction
Start by defining your predicates!
• Assume that ∀x P(x) ∨ ∀x Q(x) is false.
– Then: ¬[ ∀x P(x) ∨ ∀x Q(x) ] • Every two people have a friend in common.
(Life isn’t facebook! If A is a friend of B, B is not necessarily a friend of A.)
≡ ¬∀x P(x) ∧ ¬∀x Q(x)
≡ ∃x ¬P(x) ∧ ∃x ¬Q(x)
• All my friends think I’m their friend too.
– Then let (a,b) be such that ¬P(a) and ¬Q(b).
– Therefore: ¬P(a) ∧ ¬Q(b)
• There are two people who have the exact same group of
≡ ∃x ∃y [ ¬P(x) ∧ ¬Q(y) ]
friends.
≡ ∃x ∃y ¬[P(x) ∨ Q(y)]
≡ ¬∀x ∀y [P(x) ∨ Q(y)]
• Everyone has two friends, neither of whom are friends
– Which is ¬B ∀x P(x) ∨ ∀x Q(x) ≡ ∀x∀y [P(x) ∨ Q(y)] with each other.
• QED. The whole statement is proved.
• This is a valid argument (why?). Note: p→q This is not a valid inference because
q ((p→q) ∧ q) → p
∴p is not a tautology!
The Basic Rules of Inference The Basic Rules of Inference
p→q Based on the tautology: “modus ponens” p Based on the tautology: “Addition”
p ((p→q) ∧ p) → q lit.: mode that affirms ∴p∨q
p→p∨ q
∴q
p→q Based on the tautology: “modus tollens” p∧q Based on the tautology: “Simplification”
¬q ((p→q) ∧ ¬q) → ¬p lit.: mode that denies ∴p ( p ∧ q) → p
∴ ¬p
p∨q Based on the tautology: “disjunctive syllogism” p∨q Based on the tautology: “Resolution”
¬p ((p ∨ q) ∧ ¬p) → q ¬p∨r ((p∨q) ∧ (¬p∨r)) → (q∨r)
∴q ∴ q∨r
• Modus ponens
– “If you have access to ctools, you can download the homework.”
Common fallacies
– “You have access to ctools.”
p→q Not a tautology: “Fallacy of affirming
– (Therefore,) “you can download the homework.”
q ((p→q) ∧ q) → p the conclusion”
• Modus tollens When = , = :
∴p
– “If you have access to ctools, you can download the homework.” LHS: ( → )∧ ≡
RHS: =
– “You cannot download the homework.” Together: → ≡
– (Therefore,) “you do not have access to ctools.”
• Hypothetical syllogism
– “If you are registered for this course, you have access to ctools.”
– “If you have access to ctools, you can download the homework.” p→q Not a tautology: “Fallacy of denying
– (Therefore,) “if you are registered for this course, you can download the HW.” ¬p ((p→q) ∧ ¬p) → ¬q the hypothesis”
When = , = :
• Resolution ∴¬q
LHS: ( → )∧ ≡
– “If it does not rain today, we will have a picnic.” RHS: ¬ =
Together: → ≡
– “If it does rain today, we will go to the movies.”
– (Therefore,) “today, we will have a picnic or go to the movies.”
Showing that an argument is valid Step 1: Convert to propositions
• Premises :
• Is this argument valid? How would we show its validity?
i. “If Jo has a bacterial infection, she will take i. B → A
antibiotics.”
• Premises : ii. “Jo gets a stomach ache when and only when ii. S ↔ (A ∧ ¬Y)
i. “If Jo has a bacterial infection, she will take antibiotics.” she takes antibiotics and doesn’t eat yogurt.”
iii. “Jo has a bacterial infection.” iii. B
ii. “Jo gets a stomach ache when and only when she takes antibiotics
and doesn’t eat yogurt.” iv. “Jo doesn’t eat yogurt.”
iv. ¬Y
iii. “Jo has a bacterial infection.” • Conclusion:
iv. “Jo doesn’t eat yogurt.” – “Jo gets a stomach ache.” S
• Conclusion:
– “Jo gets a stomach ache.” B: “Jo has a bacterial infection.”
A: “Jo takes antibiotics.”
S: “Jo gets a stomach ache.”
Y: “Jo eats yogurt.”