GEM2006/GET1028

Logic
6.1 easier translations
6.2 simple truth tables
6.3 truth evaluations
Dr. Lee Wang Yen
Department of Philosophy

21/01/2018
 argument forms
P1 If you’re in Singapore,
then you’re in South East Asia
P2 You’re in Singapore
∴ you’re in South East Asia

P1 If you’re reading this, If P then Q

then you aren’t illiterate P
P2 You’re reading this
∴ you aren’t illiterate
∴Q

*‘therefore’ = ‘∴’ ( = ‘#’ in

computerised test software)
21/01/2018
 propositional logic and its language
• propositional language: a formal language for natural-
language arguments which focuses on sentences in their
entirety.

Basic elements of propositional language:

1. capital letters for atomic propositions
e.g. P=‘I live in Penang’; Q=‘I live in Quebec’
2. symbols for logical connectives (‘and’ ,’ or’, ‘if-then’,
‘not’ etc)
e.g. ‘P and Q’ = (P∙Q)
3. parentheses for grouping
e.g. ‘(P or Q) and R’; ‘P or (Q and R)’
21/01/2018
 logical connectives/operators
connective symbol example name of the name(s) of the
/operator textbook compound operand(s)
[test software]

1 not ~ ~P negation P:
[~] (not p) the negand
2 and ⋅ (P⋅Q) conjunction P, Q:
[&] (P and Q) the conjuncts
3 or ∨ (P∨Q) disjunction P, Q:
[@] (P or Q) the disjuncts
4 If…then ⊃ (P⊃Q) material P: antecedent
[>] (if P then Q) conditional Q: consequent
5 if and only ≡ (P≡Q) bi- N/A
if (iff)
21/01/2018
[=] (P iff Q) conditional
 well-formed formula (wff)
• a grammatically correct expression in a formal
language

Rules of wffs (propositional language):

1. any capital letter is a wff

2. the result of prefixing any wff with ‘~’ is a wff

3. The result of joining any two wffs by ‘⋅’ or ‘∨’ or ‘⊃’

or ‘≡’ in parentheses is a wff
21/01/2018
 Examples of wffs
P = I live in Paris

~Q = I don’t live in Quebec

(P ⋅ ~Q) = I live in Paris and I don’t live

in Quebec

(N ⊃ (P ⋅ ~Q)) = If I’m Napoleon, then I live in

Paris and not Quebec

21/01/2018
 Parentheses (1)
1. negation does not need parentheses.

2. Other connectives (‘⋅’, ‘∨’, ‘⊃’, ‘≡’) require a pair of

parentheses

e.g.
‘~P ⋅ Q’ is not a wff
ambiguous – could mean:

both not-P and Q = (~P ⋅ Q)

not both P and Q = ~(P ⋅ Q)

21/01/2018
 Parentheses (2)
• another example of ambiguous formula:
P⋅Q⊃R
it could mean:
P, and if Q then R= (P ⋅( Q ⊃ R))
1st conjunct 2nd conjunct
conjunction
If P-and-Q, then R= ((P ⋅ Q) ⊃ R)
antecedent consequent
conditional

21/01/2018
 2 rules of grouping:
1. Put ‘(‘ wherever you see ‘both’, ‘either’, or ‘if’ (there
are exceptions).
• either not A or B = (~A ∨ B)
• not either A or B = ~(A ∨ B)
• If both A and B, then C = ((A ⋅ B) ⊃ C)
• Not both not-A and B = ~(~A ⋅ B)

2. Group together parts on either side of a comma.

If A, then B and C = (A ⊃ (B ⋅ C))
If A then B, and C = ((A ⊃ B) ⋅ C))

21/01/2018
 capital letters
• stand for whole sentences
e.g. ‘Gensler is happy’ is ‘G’

CAUTION:
• ‘Bob and Lauren got married to each other’ is ‘M’
* Don’t translate it as ‘(B ⋅ L)’, which means ‘Bob got
married and Lauren got married’.

• But it’s ok to translate ‘Bob and Lauren are sick’ as ‘(B

⋅ L)’

21/01/2018
 laws of logical equivalences (1)
The following laws apply to ‘⋅’, ‘∨’
1. the commutative law: order doesn’t matter
(A ⋅ B) = (B ⋅ A)
(A ∨ B) = (B ∨ A)
2. the associative law : grouping doesn’t matter within
a long construct which uses the same connective
((A ⋅ B) ⋅ C) = (A ⋅ (B ⋅ C))
((A ∨ B) ∨ C) = (A ∨ (B ∨ C))
3. De Morgan’s laws:
~(A ⋅ B) = (~A ∨ ~B)
Not both A and B Either not-A or not-B
~(A ∨ B) = (~A ⋅ ~B)
Not either A or B Both not-A and not-B
21/01/2018
 laws of logical equivalences (2)
• the contrapositive law applies to ‘⊃’
(D ⊃ A) = (~A ⊃ ~D)

e.g.
D= it is a dog
A = it is an animal

21/01/2018
 Exercise 6.1a: 1
Not both A and B

~  A  B

not both A and B

21/01/2018
 Exercise 6.1a: 3
Either both A and B or C

(  A  B  C )
either this or that (outermost structure)

1st disjunct: 2nd disjunct:

both A and B C
21/01/2018
 Exercise 6.1a: 5
If A then B, or C

(  A  B C )
this or that

1st disjunct: 2nd disjunct:

If A then B C
21/01/2018
 truth table
• a logical diagram of a wff
wffs: P, ~P, (P ⋅ Q) etc
• lists all possible truth-value combinations for the
letters (1 – true; 0 – false)

P Q (P ⋅ Q)
0 0 0 or 1?
0 1 0 or 1?
1 0 0 or 1?
(example)
1 1 0 or 1?

• evaluates whether the wff is true in each combination

21/01/2018
 Truth table for conjunction
wff: (P ⋅ Q)
P- I went to Paris; Q – I went to Quebec

P Q (P ⋅ Q)
0 0 0 both conjuncts 0 conjunction 0
0 1 0
one conjunct 0 conjunction 0
1 0 0
1 1 1 both conjuncts 1 conjunction 1

*A conjunction is true when both conjuncts are

true21/01/2018
 Truth table for disjunction
wff: (P ∨ Q)
P- I went to Paris; Q – I went to Quebec

P Q (P ∨ Q)
0 0 0 both disjuncts 0 disjunction 0
0 1 1
one disjunct 0 disjunction 1
1 0 1
1 1 1 both disjuncts 1 disjunction 1

*A disjunction is true when at least 1 disjunct is

true21/01/2018
 Truth table for material conditional
wff: (P⊃Q) =(~Q⊃~P)
P- I went to Paris; Q – I went to Quebec

P Q (P⊃Q)
0 0 1
falsity implies anything: (0⊃ )=1
0 1 1
anything implies truth: (⊃1 )=1
1 0 0
1 1 1 truth doesn’t imply falsity: (1 ⊃ 0)=0

*A conditional is false when the antecedent is true and the

consequent
21/01/2018
is false and true in all other cases
 Truth table for bi-conditional
wff: (P≡Q)
P- I went to Paris; Q – I went to Quebec

P Q (P≡Q)
0 0 1
0 1 0
1 0 0
1 1 1

*A bi-conditional is true when both parts have the same

truth value
21/01/2018
 Exercise 6.2a
1. (0∨1)
*at least one disjunct is true
=1

2. (0⋅0)
*both conjuncts must be true
=0

3.(0⊃0)
*falsity implies anything
=1
(false if the antecedent is true and the consequent false,
otherwise true)
21/01/2018
 truth evaluations
• Knowledge of truth-conditions of logical connectives
enables us to evaluate truth values of wffs.
• Example:
Suppose P=1, Q=0, R=0.
Is ‘((P ⊃ Q) ≡ ~R)’ true or false?
Solution:
((P ⊃ Q) ≡ ~R)
((1 ⊃ 0) ≡ ~0) *replace the letters with truth values
(0 ≡ … *left-hand side: (1 ⊃ 0) yields 0
(0 ≡ 1) *right-hand side: ~0 yields 1
0 21/01/2018
*(0 ≡ 1) yields 0
 the inside-out approach

• simplify parts inside parentheses first.

• Example

~(1 ⋅ 0) ~(1 ⋅ 0)
=~0 =(~1 ⋅ ~0) wrong!
=1 =(0 ⋅ 1)
=0

• Why? By De Morgan’s Law, ~(A ⋅ B) = (~A ∨ ~B)

21/01/2018
 exercise 6.3a
Assume that A=1, B=1, X=0, Y=0
1. ~(A ⋅ X)
=~(1 ⋅ 0)
=~0
=1

3. ~(~A ⋅ ~X)
=~(~1 ⋅ ~0)
=~(0 ⋅ 1)
=~0
=1
21/01/2018
 exercise 6.3a (II)
Assume that A=1, B=1, X=0, Y=0
5. (~X ≡ Y)
= (~0 ≡ 0)
= (1 ≡ 0)
=0

15. ~((A ⊃ B) ⊃ (B ⊃ Y))

= ~((1 ⊃ 1) ⊃ (1 ⊃ 0))
=~(1 …
=~(1 ⊃ 0)
=~0
=1
21/01/2018
 source
• Gensler (2010)

21/01/2018