c.pelling@bbk.ac.

uk

B.A. Introduction to Logic 2011-12

Lecture 12: Propositional Logic X
Recap
Writing truth-tables: Last week, we took a step-by-step look at writing truth-tables. Well do something similar again tonight, so no need for an in-depth recap at this stage. Contingent formulas, tautologies, and logical falsehoods : Each formula has its own truth-table, and so falls into one of three general types: Formulas which have a mixture of Ts and Fs as overall truth-values are contingent. Formulas which have Ts as overall truth-values on every row are tautologies. Formulas which Fs as overall truth-values on every row are inconsistent.

Using truth-tables to test for validity

Our next aim will be to see how truth-tables can be used to test sequents for validity. Example: Suppose we want to test the following sequent for validity: P Q, P : Q v R Step 1: Write out the premises and the conclusion, and identify all the sentence-letters that they involve. Write these out to the left of the premises and conclusion: P Q R PQ P QvR

Step 2: Now we work out how many rows the truth-table must have. We saw last week that a truthtable for a single formula needs 2n rows, where n = the number of sentence-letters that the formula involves. In this case, were dealing with several formulas, but the same basic rule applies: our table needs 2n rows, where n = the number of sentence-letters that are in play. Here, three sentence-letters are in play so our table needs 23 = 2 x 2 x 2 = 8 rows: P Q R PQ P QvR

Step 3: Then we assign truth-values to the sentence-letters. We begin with the sentence-letter nearest to the premises and conclusion on the right, and we alternate Ts and Fs all the way down: 1

c.pelling@bbk.ac.uk

R T F T F T F T F

PQ

QvR

Step 4: Now we fill in the columns for the other sentence-letters, working from right to left. For each successive column, we alternate Ts and Fs half as often as we did in the column to its right: P T T T T F F F F Q T T F F T T F F R T F T F T F T F PQ P QvR

Step 5: For each row of the table under the premises and conclusion, we start by writing in the truthvalues assigned to each sentence-letter under every occurrence of that sentence-letter. When we do this for the first row, we get: P T T T T F F F F Q T T F F T T F F R T F T F T F T F PQ T T P T QvR T T

Step 6: Identify the main connectives in the complex formulas, and highlight the columns beneath: PQ P QvR T| |T T T| |T | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | m.c. m.c. Step 7: Then we calculate the truth-values to be entered in the m.c. boxes, using our knowledge of the truth-tables for and v: 2 P T T T T F F F F Q T T F F T T F F R T F T F T F T F

c.pelling@bbk.ac.uk P T T T T F F F F Q T T F F T T F F R T F T F T F T F PQ T| T |T | | | | | | | | | | | | | | m.c. P T QvR T| T|T | | | | | | | | | | | | | | m.c.

Step 8: To complete the table, we repeat steps 5-7 for every other row: P T T T T F F F F Q T T F F T T F F R T F T F T F T F PQ T| T |T T| T |T T| F |F T| F |F F| T |T F| T |T F| T |F F| T |F m.c. P T T T T F F F F QvR T| T |T T| T |F F| T |T F| F |F T| T |T T| T |F F| T |T F| F |F m.c.

Step 9: To see whether the sequent is valid, we check whether there is any row on which the premises are both true but the conclusion is false. In this case, the premises are both true only on the first two rows; since the conclusion is also true on those rows, the sequent is valid. Bit of terminology: Any interpretation which makes the premises of a sequent true but its conclusion false is called an invalidating PL interpretation (or an IPLI, for short).

The turnstile and the double turnstile

We know that the turnstile symbol is used to indicate that a sequent is syntactically valid, i.e. that it can be shown to be valid by means of a proof. The double turnstile symbol has a similar function: its used to show that a sequent is semantically valid, i.e. that it can be shown to be valid by means of the truth-table method. Two important features of PL are that its both sound and complete: Soundness: Every syntactically valid sequent is semantically valid Completeness: Every semantically valid sequent is syntactically valid

Semantic Equivalence
We can also put truth-tables to use to show whether formulas are semantically equivalent, i.e. whether they have the same overall truth-value on every row of a truth-table. Example: Suppose we want to see whether the following two formulas are semantically equivalent: P&Q ~ (~ P v ~ Q) 3

c.pelling@bbk.ac.uk

We can check by writing a truth-table for both formulas: P T T F F Q T F T F P&Q T| T |T T| F |F F| F |T F| F |F m.c ~ ( ~ P v ~ Q) |T| F T F F T |F| F T T T F |F| T F T F T |F| T F T T F m.c.

Since both formulas receive the same overall truth values on every row, they are indeed semantically equivalent.

Reading
Tomassi, P. Logic. Chapter 4, VII & IX.

Exercises
Exercises 4.3, 4.5

http://fundraise.unicef.org.uk/MyPage/Charlie-KP-Marathon