Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
p q r (p ↔ q) ⊕ (¬p ↔ ¬r)
0 0 0 0
0 0 1 1
0 1 0 1
0 1 1 0
1 0 0 0
1 0 1 1
1 1 0 1
1 1 1 0
¬(p → q) → ¬q.
¬(p → q) → ¬q
⇐⇒ ¬¬(p → q) ∨ ¬q expression for implications
⇐⇒ ¬p ∨ q ∨ ¬q expression for implications + double negation law
⇐⇒ T law of excluded middle + domination law.
(p → q) ∨ (p → r)
⇐⇒ ¬p ∨ q ∨ ¬p ∨ r expression for implications
⇐⇒ ¬p ∨ (q ∨ r) idempotent law + associative law
⇐⇒ p → (q ∨ r) expression for implication
4. Show that (p → q) → r and p → (q → r) are not logically equivalent. Do not use truth tables.
Method 1. It is sufficient to find one assignment of values to p, q, r such that the two statements get different
truth values. For instance if p = q = r = 0 then (p → q) → r = 0 while p → (q → r) = 1.
Method 2. Use logical equivalences to simplify the biconditional
((p → q) → r) ↔ (p → (q → r)).
1
5. Simplify the compound statement
is a tautology.
Method 1. Construct the truth table.
Method 2. Use logical equivalences to show that this statement is equivalent to 1.
Method 3. Suppose that the premises (p → r) and (q → r) are true. If p ∨ q is false then, by definition of
implication, the conclusion (p ∨ q) → r is true. Therefore let p ∨ q be true. From p ∨ q = 1 we know that either
p or q is true. Suppose p is true. Then, since p → r is true, by definition of implication, r must be true. If q is
true then, as q → r is true, we again conclude that r must be true. Thus, in all cases r is true, and therefore the
conclusion is true. Q.E.D.
Method 4. Show that starting from premises p → r and q → r one can infer the conclusion (p ∨ q) → r:
Steps Reason
1. p → r premise
2. ¬p ∨ r expression for implication to Step 1
3. q → r premise
4. ¬q ∨ r expression for implication to Step 3
5. (¬p ∨ r) ∧ (¬q ∨ r) rule of conjunction to Steps 2 and 4 (see Exercise 8)
6. (¬p ∧ ¬q) ∨ r DeMorgan’s law to Step 5
7. ¬(p ∨ q) ∨ r DeMorgan’s law to Step 6
8. (p ∨ q) → r expression for implication to Step 7
2
7. Each of two rooms (room I and room II) contains either a lady or a tiger. If a room contains a lady, the
sign on its door is true. If it contains a tiger, the sign is false. The signs are
I II
AT LEAST ONE ROOM THE OTHER ROOM
CONTAINS A LADY CONTAINS A LADY
Steps Reason
1. o → (p ∨ s) premise
2. ¬(p ∨ s) → ¬o contrapositive to Step 1
3. ¬(p ∨ s) premise
4. ¬o modus ponens to Steps 2 and 3
5. o ∨ h premise
6. h disjunctive syllogism to Steps 4 and 5
7. h → (r ∨ t) premise
8. r ∨ t modus ponens to Steps 6 and 7
9. ¬t premise
10. r disjunctive syllogism to Steps 8 and 9.
Method 2. Use the rule of resolution. Let the primitive statements be: o, ‘today is my day off’
t, ‘today is Tuesday’
h, ‘today is Thursday’
r, ‘it is raining today’
s, ‘it is snowing today’
3
Then the premises are translated as: o → (r ∨ s), o → (t ∨ h), t → ¬(r ∨ s), h → ¬s. Note that the second
premise does not only say that “If today is day off then today is Tuesday or Thursday”, but also that one of
these days is a day off. One can formulate it as follows, “If Tuesday is not a day off, then Thursday is”, or,
symbolically, (t → ¬o) → (h → o)
And the conclusions: o → h, h → r.
Steps Reason
1. o → (r ∨ s) premise
2. t → ¬(r ∨ s) premise
3. (r ∨ s) → ¬t contrapositive to Step 2
4. o → ¬t rule of syllogism to Steps 1 and 3
5. ¬o ∨ ¬t expression for implication to Step 4
6. o → (t ∨ h) premise
7. ¬o ∨ t ∨ h expression for implications to Step 6
8. ¬o ∨ h rule of resolution to Steps 5 and 7
9. o → h expression for implications to Step 8, the first conclusion
10. h → ¬s premise
11. o → ¬s rule of syllogism to Steps 9 and 10
12. ¬o ∨ ¬s expression for implication to Step 11
13. ¬o ∨ r ∨ s expression for implication to Step 1
14. ¬o ∨ r rule of resolution to Steps 12 and 13
15. (t → ¬o) → (h → o) premise
16. ¬(¬t ∨ ¬o) ∨ (¬h ∨ o) expression for implications to Step 15
17. (t ∧ o) ∨ (¬h ∨ o) DeMorgan’s law and double negation law to Step 16
18. (t ∨ ¬h ∨ o) ∧ (¬h ∨ o) distributive law to Step 17
19. ¬h ∨ o rule of conjunctive simplification to Step 18
20. ¬h ∨ r rule of resolution to Steps 14 and 19
21. h → r expression for implication to Step 20, the second conclusion
in Method 1, or statements
4
c, ‘Carmela is mad’
v, ‘Veronica is notified’
Then the premises are translated as: d → h, r → c, (h ∨ c) → v, and ¬v.
And the conclusions: ¬d, ¬r.
Steps Reason
1. (h ∨ c) → v premise
2. ¬v premise
3. ¬(h ∨ c) Modus Tollens to 1 and 2
4. ¬h ∧ ¬c DeMorgan’s law to 3
5. ¬h rule of simplification to 4
6. d → h premise
7. ¬d Modus Tollens to 5 and 6
8. ¬c rule of simplification to 4
9. r → c premise
10. ¬r Modus Tollens to 8 and 9
Using the rule of conjunction from the next problem we can also obtain ¬d ∧ ¬r.
10. Using the Rule of Conjunction and other rules of inference and logic equivalences give the reasons for the
steps verifying the following argument.
Premises: (¬p ∨ q) → r, r → (s ∨ t), ¬s ∧ ¬u, ¬u → ¬t.
Conclusion: p.
Steps Reasons
1) ¬s ∧ ¬u premise
2) ¬u conjunctive simplification to Step 1
3) ¬u → ¬t premise
4) ¬t modus ponens to Steps 2 and 3
5) ¬s conjunctive simplification to Step 1
6) ¬s ∧ ¬t rule of conjunction to Steps 4 and 5
7) r → (s ∨ t) premise
8) ¬(s ∨ t) → ¬r contrapositive to Step 7
9) (¬s ∧ ¬t) → ¬r DeMorgan’s law to Step 8
10) ¬r modus ponens to Steps 6 and 9
11) (¬p ∨ q) → r premise
12) ¬r → ¬(¬p ∨ q) contrapositive to Step 11
13) ¬r → (p ∧ ¬q) DeMorgan’s law to Step 12
14) p ∧ ¬q modus ponens to Steps 10 and 13
15) p conjunctive simplification to Step 14.