Contents

1 What is logic? 1.1 Arguments . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Sentences . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Two ways that arguments can 1.4 Deductive validity . . . . . . 1.5 Other logical notions . . . . . 1.6 Formal languages . . . . . . . Practice Exercises . . . . . . . . . 2 Sentential logic 2.1 Sentence letters . . . 2.2 Connectives . . . . . 2.3 Other symbolization 2.4 Sentences of SL . . . Practice Exercises . . . . 1 2 2 3 4 6 8 11 13 13 15 24 25 29 33 33 34 37 38 40 44 44 47 50 55 58 63 64 68 71 74

. . . . . . . . . . . . go wrong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

3 Truth tables 3.1 Truth-functional connectives . 3.2 Complete truth tables . . . . 3.3 Using truth tables . . . . . . 3.4 Partial truth tables . . . . . . Practice Exercises . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

4 Proofs in Sentential Logic 4.1 Substitution Instances and Proofs . Practice Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Basic rules for SL . . . . . . . . . . Practice Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Conditional Proof . . . . . . . . . . Practice Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Indirect Proof . . . . . . . . . . . . Practice Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Derived rules . . . . . . . . . . . . Practice Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

CONTENTS 4.6 Rules of replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . Practice Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 Proof strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Practice Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 Proof-theoretic concepts and truth tables Practice Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Quantied logic 5.1 From sentences to predicates 5.2 Building blocks of QL . . . . Practice Exercises . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Quantiers . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Translating to QL . . . . . . Practice Exercises . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Sentences of QL . . . . . . . . Practice Exercises . . . . . . . . . 5.6 Tricky Translations . . . . . . Practice Exercises . . . . . . . . . 5.7 Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . Practice Exercises . . . . . . . . . 6 Proofs in QL 6.1 Rules for quantiers Practice Exercises . . . . 6.2 Rules for identity . . Practice Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

v 75 77 77 78 78 83 84 84 86 90 91 95 100 101 104 105 110 113 118 121 121 126 129 130 130 133 146

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

A Other symbolic notation B Solutions to selected exercises C Quick Reference

vi

CONTENTS

Chapter 6

Proofs in QL
6.1 Rules for quantiers

For proofs in QL, we use all of the basic rules of SL plus four new basic rules: both introduction and elimination rules for each of the quantiers. Since all of the derived rules of SL are derived from the basic rules, they will also hold in QL. We will add another derived rule, a replacement rule called quantier negation.

Universal elimination
If you have xAx, it is legitimate to infer that anything is an A. You can infer Aa, Ab, Az , Ad3 in short, you can infer Ac for any constant c . This is the general form of the universal elimination rule (E): m xA

A [c |x ]

E m

A [c |x ] is a substitution instance of xA . The symbols for a substitution instance are not symbols of QL, so you cannot write them in a proof. Instead, you write the subsituted sentence with the constant c replacing all occurances of the variable x in A . For example:
121

122 1 2 3 x(M x Rxd) M a Rad M d Rdd E 1 E 1

forallx

Existential introduction
When is it legitimate to infer xAx? If you know that something is an A for instance, if you have Aa available in the proof. This is the existential introduction rule (I): m

A
xA [x ||c ] I m

It is important to notice that A [x ||c ] is not the same as a substitution instance. We write it with two bars to show that the variable x does not need to replace all occurrences of the constant c . You can decide which occurrences to replace and which to leave in place. For example: 1 2 3 4 5 6 M a Rad x(M a Rax) x(M x Rxd) x(M x Rad) y x(M x Ryd) z y x(M x Ryz ) I 1 I 1 I 1 I 4 I 5

Universal introduction
A universal claim like xP x would be proven if every substitution instance of it had been proven, if every sentence P a, P b, . . . were available in a proof. Alas, there is no hope of proving every substitution instance. That would require proving P a, P b, . . ., P j2 , . . ., P s7 , . . ., and so on to innity. There are innitely many constants in QL, and so this process would never come to an end. Consider a simple argument: xM x, .. yM y It makes no dierence to the meaning of the sentence whether we use the

ch. 6 proofs in ql

123

variable x or the variable y , so this argument is obviously valid. Suppose we begin in this way: 1 2 xM x Ma want yM y E 1

We have derived M a. Nothing stops us from using the same justication to derive M b, . . ., M j2 , . . ., M s7 , . . ., and so on until we run out of space or patience. We have eectively shown the way to prove M c for any constant c . From this, xM x follows. 1 2 3 xM x Ma yM y E 1 I 2

It is important here that a was just some arbitrary constant. We had not made any special assumptions about it. If M a were a premise of the argument, then this would not show anything about all y . For example: 1 2 3 xRxa Raa yRyy E 1 not allowed!

This is the schematic form of the universal introduction rule (I): m

A
xA [x |c ] I m

c must not occur in any undischarged assumptions.

Note that we can do this for any constant that does not occur in an undischarged assumption and for any variable. Note also that the constant may not occur in any undischarged assumption, but it may occur as the assumption of a subproof that we have already closed. For example, we can prove z (Dz Dz ) without any premises.

124 1 2 3 4 Df Df Df Df z (Dz Dz ) want Df R1 I 12 I 3

forallx

Existential elimination
A sentence with an existential quantier tells us that there is some member of the UD that satises a formula. For example, xSx tells us (roughly) that there is at least one S . It does not tell us which member of the UD satises S , however. We cannot immediately conclude Sa, Sf23 , or any other substitution instance of the sentence. What can we do? Suppose that we knew both xSx and x(Sx T x). We could reason in this way:

Since xSx, there is something that is an S . We do not know which constants refer to this thing, if any do, so call this thing . From x(Sx T x), it follows that if is an S , then it is a T . Therefore is a T . Because is a T , we know that xT x.

In this paragraph, we introduced a name for the thing that is an S . We called it , so that we could reason about it and derive some consequences from there being an S . Since is just a bogus name introduced for the purpose of the proof and not a genuine constant, we could not mention it in the conclusion. Yet we could derive a sentence that does not mention ; namely, xT x. This sentence does follow from the two premises. We want the existential elimination rule to work in a similar way. Yet since Greek letters like are not symbols of QL, we cannot use them in formal proofs. Instead, we will use constants of QL which do not otherwise appear in the proof. A constant that is used to stand in for whatever it is that satises an existential claim is called a proxy. Reasoning with the proxy must all occur inside a subproof, and the proxy cannot be a constant that is doing work elsewhere in the proof. This is the schematic form of the existential elimination rule (E):

ch. 6 proofs in ql m n p xA

125

A [c |x ] B B
E m, np

The constant c must not appear in xA , in B , or in any undischarged assumption.

With this rule, we can give a formal proof that xSx and x(Sx T x) together entail xT x. The structure of the proof is eectively the same as the English-language argument with which we began, except that the subproof uses the constant a rather than the bogus name . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 xSx x(Sx T x) Sa Sa T a Ta xT x xT x E 2 E 3, 4 I 5 E 1, 36 want xT x

Quantier negation

When translating from English to QL, we noted that x A is logically equivalent to xA . In QL, they are provably equivalent. We can prove one half of the equivalence with a rather gruesome proof:

126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 xAx Ax Ac xAx Ac Ac xAx xAx xAx Ax want x Ax for reductio for E for reductio E 1 R3 I 46 R1 E 37 I 29

forallx

In order to show that the two sentences are genuinely equivalent, we need a second proof that assumes x A and derives xA . We leave that proof as an exercise for the reader. It will often be useful to translate between quantiers by adding or subtracting negations in this way, so we add two derived rules for this purpose. These rules are called quantier negation (QN): xA x A xA x A

QN

Since QN is a replacement rule, it can be used on whole sentences or on subformulae.

Practice Exercises
Part A Provide a justication (rule and line numbers) for each line of proof that requires one. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 xy (Rxy Ryx) x Rmx y (Rmy Rym) Rma Ram Rma Ram xRxm xRxm

ch. 6 proofs in ql 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 x(yLxy zLzx) Lab yLay zLza yLay zLza Lca yLcy zLzc yLcy zLzc Lcc xLxx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 x(Jx Kx) xyLxy xJx Ja Ja Ka Ka yLay Laa Ka & Laa x(Kx & Lxx) x(Kx & Lxx) (xM x x M x) xM x & x M x xM x x M x x M x xM x x M x

127

Part B Without using the QN rule, prove x A Part C Provide a proof of each claim. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. xF x xF x {x(M x N x), M a & xRxa} xN x {x( M x Ljx), x(Bx Ljx), x(M x Bx)} x(Cx & Dt) xCx & Dt x(Cx Dt) xCx Dt xA

xLjx

Part D In the previous chapter (p. 128), gave the following example

128

forallx The hospital will only hire a skilled surgeon. All surgeons are greedy. Billy is a surgeon, but is not skilled. Therefore, Billy is greedy, but the hospital will not hire him. UD: Gx: Hx: Rx: Kx: b: people x is greedy. The hospital will hire x. x is a surgeon. x is skilled. Billy

x (Rx & Kx) Hx x(Rx Gx) Rb & Kb .. Gb & Hb Prove the symbolized argument. Part E Look back at Part B on p. 101 in the exercises to the last chapter. Provide proofs to show that each of the argument forms is valid in QL. Part F Symbolize each of the following argument forms in QL and add the additional assumptions There is an A and There is a B . Then prove that the supplemented arguments forms are valid in QL. Darapti: All As are B s. All As are C s. .. Some B is C . Felapton: No B s are C s. All As are B s. .. Some A is not C . Barbari: All B s are C s. All As are B s. .. Some A is C . Camestros: All C s are B s. No As are B s. .. Some A is not C . Celaront: No B s are C s. All As are B s. .. Some A is not C . Cesaro: No C s are B s. All As are B s. .. Some A is not C . Fapesmo: All B s are C s. No As are B s. .. Some C is not A. Part G Provide a proof of each claim. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. xyGxy xGxx xy (Gxy Gyx) xy (Gxy Gyx) {x(Ax Bx), xAx} xBx {N a x(M x M a), M a, M b} N a z (P z P z ) xRxx xyRxy y x(Qy Qx)

ch. 6 proofs in ql Part H Show that each pair of sentences is provably equivalent. 1. 2. 3. 4. x(Ax Bx), x(Ax & Bx) x( Ax Bd), xAx Bd xP x Qc, x(P x Qc) Rca xRxa, x(Rca Rxa)

129

Part I Show that each of the following is provably inconsistent. 1. 2. 3. 4. {Sa T m, T m Sa, T m & Sa} {xRxa, xyRyx} { xyLxy , Laa} {x(P x Qx), z (P z Rz ), yP y , Qa & Rb}

Part J Write a symbolization key for the following argument, translate it, and prove it: There is someone who likes everyone who likes everyone that he likes. Therefore, there is someone who likes himself. Part K For each of the following pairs of sentences: If they are logically equivalent in QL, give proofs to show this. If they are not, construct a model to show this. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. xP x Qc, x(P x Qc) xP x & Qc, x(P x & Qc) Qc xQx, x(Qc Qx) xy zBxyz , xBxxx xyDxy , y xDxy xyDxy , y xDxy

6.2

Rules for identity

The identity predicate is not part of QL, but we add it when we need to symbolize certain sentences. For proofs involving identity, we add two rules of proof. Suppose you know that many things that are true of a are also true of b. For example: Aa & Ab, Ba & Bb, Ca & Cb, Da & Db, Ea & Eb, and so on. This would not be enough to justify the conclusion a = b. (See p. ??.) In general, there are no sentences that do not already contain the identity predicate that

130

forallx

could justify the conclusion a = b. This means that the identity introduction rule will not justify a = b or any other identity claim containing two dierent constants. However, it is always true that a = a. In general, no premises are required in order to conclude that something is identical to itself. So this will be the identity introduction rule, abbreviated =I:

c=c

=I

Notice that the =I rule does not require referring to any prior lines of the proof. For any constant c , you can write c = c on any point with only the =I rule as justication. If you have shown that a = b, then anything that is true of a must also be true of b. For any sentence with a in it, you can replace some or all of the occurrences of a with b and produce an equivalent sentence. For example, if you already know Raa, then you are justied in concluding Rab, Rba, Rbb. Recall that A [a ||b ] is the sentence produced by replacing a in A with b . This is not the same as a substitution instance, because b may replace some or all occurrences of a . The identity elimination rule (=E) justies replacing terms with other terms that are identical to it: m n

a=b A A [a ||b ] A [b ||a ]

=E m, n =E m, n

To see the rules in action, consider this proof:

ch. 6 proofs in ql 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 xy x = y xBx x(Bx Cx) Be y e = y e=f Bf Bf Cf Cf Cf x Cx xCx E 1 E 5 =E 6, 4 E 3 E 8, 7 E 2, 49 I 10 QN 11 want xCx

131

Practice Exercises
Part A Provide a proof of each claim. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. {P a Qb, Qb b = c, P a} Qc {m = n n = o, An} Am Ao {xx = m, Rma} xRxx xx = m xy (P x P y ) xy (Rxy x = y ) Rab Rba {xJx, x Jx} xyx = y {x(x = n M x), x(Ox & M x)} On {xDx, x(x = p Dx)} Dp {x Kx & y (Ky x = y ) & Bx , Kd} Bd P a x(P x x = a)