c.pelling@bbk.ac.

uk

B.A. Introduction to Logic 2012-13

Lecture 8: Propositional Logic VI
Recap
Rules of inference: MT: Given a conditional on one line and the negation of its consequent on another, infer the negation of the antecedent. Annotate the new line with the line numbers of both lines used and MT. The dependency-numbers of the new line are all those of both lines used. DNE: Given the double negation of a formula on any line of proof you may write the original un-negated formula on a new line. Annotate the new line DNE together with the line number of the line containing the double negative. The dependency-numbers of the new line are identical with those of the old line. DNI: Given an un-negated formula on any line of proof, you may write the double negative of that formula on a new line. Annotate the new line DNI together with the line number of the line containing the original formula. The dependency-numbers of the new line are identical with those of the old. vI: Given a formula on one line of proof you may infer the disjunction of that formula with any other well-formed formula on a new line of proof. Annotate the new line with the line number of the old line and vI. The dependency-numbers of the new line are identical with those of the old line.

The rule vE
The next rule were going to look at is vE, which is the elimination rule for v. Example: Suppose we want to prove this sequent: (P & Q) v (P & R) : P We start by writing in our premise: {1} 1. (P & Q) v (P & R) Premise

Then we use a two-part strategy to move from the premise to the conclusion: First, assume the first disjunct and use it to derive the conclusion. Second, assume the second disjunct and use it to derive the conclusion.

To make your assumptions, use the same rule that youd use if you were doing a conditional proof: A: Any formula may be assumed on any line of proof. The line must be annotated A for assumption. The dependency-number of the assumed formula is identical with the line number of the line on which it is assumed. 1

c.pelling@bbk.ac.uk In the case at hand, the first disjunct of our premise is P & Q, so our next move will be to assume that formula: {2} 2. P&Q A

Now we need to use that assumption to derive the conclusion, P. This is straightforward: {2} 3. P 2 &E

So far so good. Now we need to assume the second disjunct of the premise, and use that to derive the conclusion: {4} {4} 4. 5. P&R P A 4 &E

Now that we have assumed the two disjuncts individually and derived the conclusion from each of them, were entitled to use the rule vE to write in the conclusion on a new line: vE: To draw an inference from a disjunction as such you must derive the desired formula from each disjunct first, i.e. assume each disjunct in turn and derive the desired formula from each. Having done so, you may repeat the conclusion on a new line of proof. Annotate the new line with five numbers, followed by vE. The five numbers are: i) the line number of the disjunction; ii) the dependencynumber of the first disjunct assumed; iii) the line number of the conclusion derived from the first disjunct; iv) the dependency-number of the second disjunct assumed; v) the line number of the conclusion derived from the second disjunct. Using this rule, the final line of our proof will look like this: {1} 6. P 1,2,3,4,5 vE

To work out which dependency-numbers to write in on the line where you use vE, you need to bear in mind what Tomassi says about this in box 3. 2 (p. 89): Note carefully that vE is a discharge rule. Hence, at the line annotated vE you may discharge the dependency-numbers of each disjunct and replace them with the dependency-number of the original disjunction together with the dependency-number of any other formula you used to derive the conclusion.

Another example
Now lets take an example where the sequent were trying to prove has a non-disjunctive premise as well as a disjunctive one: P v R, P S : R v S We begin by writing in both premises: {1} {2} 1. 2. PvR PS Premise Premise

c.pelling@bbk.ac.uk Since were using vE, our next step is to assume the first disjunct of the disjunctive premise: {3} 3. P A

Then we use this assumption to derive the conclusion: {2,3} {2,3} 4. 5. S RvS 2,3 MP 4 vI

Then we assume the second disjunct of the disjunctive premise, and use it to derive the conclusion: {6} {6} 6. 7. R RvS A 6 vI

Now were entitled to apply vE and write in the conclusion: {1,2} 8. RvS 1,3,5,6,7 vE

Multiple applications of vE
In some cases, we need to use vE more than once within a single proof. Example: Suppose we want to prove the sequent: (P & Q) v (Q v R) : Q v (P v R) We start by writing in the premise: {1} 1. (P & Q) v (Q v R) Premise

The next step is to assume the first disjunct of the premise and use it to derive the conclusion. This is fairly straightforward: {2} {2} {2} 2. 3. 4. P&Q Q Q v (P v R) A 2 &E 3 vI

Now we assume the second disjunct of the premise: {5} 5. QvR A

Our next move is to use this assumption to derive the conclusion. But since the assumption is itself disjunctive, this means that we need to use vE a second time, as follows: {6} {6} {8} 6. 7. 8. Q Q v (P v R) R A 6 vI A 3

c.pelling@bbk.ac.uk {8} {8} 9. 10. PvR Q v (P v R) 8 vI 9 vI

Now we apply vE to show that we have derived the conclusion from Q v R: {5} 11. Q v (P v R) 5,6,7,8,10 vE

Now we apply vE again to show that we have derived the conclusion from (P & Q) v (Q v R): {1} 12. Q v (P v R) 1,2,4,5,11 vE

This completes this proof.

Reading
Tomassi, P. Logic. Chapter 3, IV V.

Exercises
Exercises 3.4, 3.5, 3.6.

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