Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 106 views

    rulesOfInference (Week 6)

    Uploaded by

    Mohsin Ali
    The document discusses valid arguments and rules of inference in propositional logic. It begins by defining an argument as a sequence of statements that ends in a conclusion. It then states that a valid argument is one where the conclusion must follow from the truth of the premises. It provides an example argument in propositional logic and translates it into logical variables to check its validity. The document concludes by presenting several common rules of inference used to construct valid arguments, such as modus ponens, modus tollens, and disjunctive syllogism.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    rulesOfInference (Week 6)

    Uploaded by

    Mohsin Ali
    106 views20 pages
    The document discusses valid arguments and rules of inference in propositional logic. It begins by defining an argument as a sequence of statements that ends in a conclusion. It then states that a valid argument is one where the conclusion must follow from the truth of the premises. It provides an example argument in propositional logic and translates it into logical variables to check its validity. The document concludes by presenting several common rules of inference used to construct valid arguments, such as modus ponens, modus tollens, and disjunctive syllogism.

    Original Title

    rulesOfInference(week 6).ppt

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses valid arguments and rules of inference in propositional logic. It begins by defining an argument as a sequence of statements that ends in a conclusion. It then states that a valid argument is one where the conclusion must follow from the truth of the premises. It provides an example argument in propositional logic and translates it into logical variables to check its validity. The document concludes by presenting several common rules of inference used to construct valid arguments, such as modus ponens, modus tollens, and disjunctive syllogism.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
    106 views20 pages

    rulesOfInference (Week 6)

    Uploaded by

    Mohsin Ali
    The document discusses valid arguments and rules of inference in propositional logic. It begins by defining an argument as a sequence of statements that ends in a conclusion. It then states that a valid argument is one where the conclusion must follow from the truth of the premises. It provides an example argument in propositional logic and translates it into logical variables to check its validity. The document concludes by presenting several common rules of inference used to construct valid arguments, such as modus ponens, modus tollens, and disjunctive syllogism.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
    of 20

    Discrete Structure

    Rules of Inference
    Instructor:Engr Sadaf Khan Gondal
    Proofs in mathematics are valid arguments

    An argument is a sequence of statements that end in a conclusion

    By valid we mean the conclusion must follow from the truth of the preceding
    statements or premises

    We use rules of inference to construct valid arguments


    Valid Arguments in Propositional Logic

    Is this a valid argument?

    If you listen you will hear what I’m saying


    You are listening
    Therefore, you hear what I am saying

    Let p represent the statement “you listen”


    Let q represent the statement “you hear what I am saying”

    pq
    The argument has the form: p
    q
    Valid Arguments in Propositional Logic

    pq
    p
    (( p  q)  p )  q is a tautology (always true)

    q
    p q p  q ( p  q)  p (( p  q)  p)  q
    0 0 1 0 1
    0 1 1 0 1
    1 0 0 0 1
    1 1 1 1 1

    This is another way of saying that

     therefore
    Valid Arguments in Propositional Logic

    When we replace statements/propositions with propositional variables


    we have an argument form.

    Defn:
    An argument (in propositional logic) is a sequence of propositions.
    All but the final proposition are called premises.
    The last proposition is the conclusion
    The argument is valid iff the truth of all premises implies the conclusion is true
    An argument form is a sequence of compound propositions
    Valid Arguments in Propositional Logic

    The argument form with premises p1 , p2 , , pn


    q
    and conclusion

    is valid when ( p1  p2    pn )  q is a tautology

    We prove that an argument form is valid by using the laws of inference

    But we could use a truth table. Why not?


    Rules of Inference for Propositional Logic The 1st law

    pq
    p modus ponens

    law of detachment
    q

    modus ponens (Latin) translates to “mode that affirms”


    Rules of Inference for Propositional Logic modus ponens
    pq
    p
    q

    If it’s a nice day we’ll go to the beach. Assume the hypothesis


    “it’s a nice day” is true. Then by modus ponens it follows that
    “we’ll go to the beach”.
    The rules of inference Page 66
    Rule of inference Tautology Name
    pq
    p [ p  ( p  q )]  q Modus ponens
    q
    q
    pq [q  ( p  q)]  p Modus tollen
     p
    pq
    qr [( p  q)  (q  r )]  ( p  r ) Hypothetical syllogism
    pr
    pq
    p (( p  q)  p )  q Disjunctiv e syllogism
    q
    p
    p  ( p  q) Addition
    pq
    pq
    ( p  q)  p Simplification
    p
    p
    q (( p)  (q))  ( p  q) Conjunctio n
    pq
    pq
    p  r [( p  q )  (p  r )]  ( p  r ) Resolution
    q  r
    Another view on what we are doing

    You might think of this as some sort of game.

    You are given some statement, and you want to see if it is a


    valid argument and true

    You translate the statement into argument form using propositional


    variables, and make sure you have the premises right, and clear what
    is the conclusion

    You then want to get from premises/hypotheses (A) to the conclusion (B)
    using the rules of inference.

    So, get from A to B using as “moves” the rules of inference


    Using the rules of inference to build arguments An example

    It is not sunny this afternoon and it is colder than yesterday.


    If we go swimming it is sunny.
    If we do not go swimming then we will take a canoe trip.
    If we take a canoe trip then we will be home by sunset.
    We will be home by sunset
    Using the rules of inference to build arguments An example

    1. It is not sunny this afternoon and it is colder than yesterday.


    2. If we go swimming it is sunny.
    3. If we do not go swimming then we will take a canoe trip.
    4. If we take a canoe trip then we will be home by sunset.
    5. We will be home by sunset

    p It is sunny this afternoon 1. p  q


    q It is colder than yesterday 2. rp
    r We go swimming
    3.  r  s
    s We will take a canoe trip
    t We will be home by sunset (the conclusion) 4. st
    5. t

    propositions hypotheses
    Using the rules of inference to build arguments An example
    1. p  q
    p It is sunny this afternoon
    q It is colder than yesterday
    2. r p
    r We go swimming 3.  r  s
    s We will take a canoe trip 4. st
    t We will be home by sunset (the conclusion)
    5. t
    Step
    Step Reason
    Reason
    Reason
    1. 
    pp  qq Hypothesis
    Hypothesis
    Hypothesis Rule of inference
    pq
    Tautology Name

    p [ p  ( p  q )]  q Modus ponens

    2. p Simplifica
    Simplification
    tionusing
    using(1)
    (1) q
    q
    pq
    3. r  p Hypothesis
    [q  ( p  q)]  p Modus tollen
    Hypothesis  p
    pq

    4. r Modus
    Modustollens
    tollensusing
    using(2)
    (2)and
    and(3)
    (3) qr
    pr
    [( p  q )  (q  r )]  ( p  r ) Hypothetical syllogism

    pq
    5. r  s Hypothesis p (( p  q)  p )  q Disjunctiv e syllogism
    q

    6. s Modus ponens using (4) and (5) p


    pq
    p  ( p  q) Addition

    pq
    7. s  t Hypothesis p
    p
    ( p  q)  p Simplification

    8. t Modus ponens using (6) and (7) (( p )  (q ))  ( p  q )


    q Conjunctio n
    pq
    pq
    p  r [( p  q )  (p  r )]  ( p  r ) Resolution
    q  r
    Using the resolution rule (an example)

    1. Anna is skiing or it is not snowing.


    2. It is snowing or Bart is playing hockey.
    3. Consequently Anna is skiing or Bart is playing hockey.

    We want to show that (3) follows from (1) and (2)


    Using the resolution rule (an example)

    1. Anna is skiing or it is not snowing.


    2. It is snowing or Bart is playing hockey.
    3. Consequently Anna is skiing or Bart is playing hockey.

    hypotheses propositions
    1. p  r p Anna is skiing
    2. r  q q Bart is playing hockey
    r it is snowing

    pq
    p  r Resolution rule

    q  r
    Consequently Anna is skiing or Bart is playing hockey
    Rules of Inference & Quantified Statements

    Maybe another example?


    You are about to leave for school in the
    morning and discover that you don’t have your
    glasses. You know that the following
    statements are true.
    a.If my glasses are on the kitchen table,then i
    saw them at breakfast.
    b.I was reading the newspaper in the living
    room or I was reading the newspaper in the
    kitchen.
    c.If I was reading the newspaper in the living
    room,then my glasses are on the coffee table.
    d.I did not see my glass at breakfast
    e.e. If I was reading my book in bed, then my
    glasses are on the bed table.
    f.f. If I was reading the newspaper in the
    kitchen, then my glasses are on the kitchen
    table.
    g.Where are the glasses?
    Solution:
    1.The glasses are not on the
    kitchen table(by a,d and
    modus tollens)
    2.I didn’t read the newspaper
    in the kitchen(by f,1 and
    modus tollens)
    3.I read the newspaper in the
    living room (by b,2 and
    elimination)
    4.My glasses are on the coffee
    table(by c,3 and modus
    ponens)
    Symbolize the situation to find
    solution:
     Let p=my glass are on the kitchen
    table.
     q= I saw my glasses at breakfast
     r= I was reading the newspaper in
    the living room
     s= I was reading the newspaper in
    the kitchen
     t= my glasses are on the coffee table
     u= I was reading my book in bed
     v= my glasses are on the bed table
    Statements translate into the following
    premises:
    (a) p⇒q (b) r ˅ s (c) r ⇒t (d) ~q (e) u
    ⇒ v (f) s ⇒ p
    The following deductions can be made:
    1.p ⇒ q by(a)
    ~q by(d)
     ∴  ~p by modus tollens

    2.s ⇒ p by(f)
    ~p by the conclusion of (1)
    ∴  ~s by modus tollens
    3. r ˅ s by(b)
    ~s by the conclusion of (2)
    ∴ r by elimination

    4. r ⇒t by(c )
    r by the conclusion of (3)
    ∴ t by modus ponens
    Hence t is true and the glasses are on

    You might also like