Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11

CHAPTER 1

LOGIC
Discrete Mathematics is a branch of mathematics that deals with the study of finite
objects that is an object that can be counted.
Logic is an art or science of correct or valid reasoning.

1.1 Propositions and Truth Values


A proposition is any simple (also called atomic) declarative statement
that is either true or false, yes or no, 1 or 0 but not both. We shall assign to each
statement exactly one of two values true (symbolized by T), or false
(symbolized by F).

1.2 Logical Connectives and Truth Tables


There are five basic or fundamental connectives in symbolic logic. It
combines two or more propositions into a single proposition. The following table
summarizes their names and symbols.
Simple
P
P, Q
P, Q
P, Q
P, Q

Compound
not P
P or Q
P and Q
If P, then Q
P if and only if Q

Symbol
~P
P Q
P Q
P Q
P Q

Name
Negation
Disjunction
Conjunction
Conditional
Biconditional

Truth Table
A truth table is a case table in which T represents true and F represents
false that provides definition of any propositional logic. Following are truth
tables for the five fundamental compound statements.
P
F
F
T
T

Q
F
T
F
T

P Q
F
T
T
T

P Q
F
F
F
T

P Q
T
T
F
T

P Q
T
F
F
T

P
F
T

~P
T
F

Very Important Notes:


1. The only situation in which a disjunction is false occurs when both
constituent statement are false.
2. The conjunction table asserts that a conjunction of two statements is true
if and only if both parts are true.
3. The only case in which a conditional is false occurs when the antecedent
is true and the consequent is false.
4. The biconditional table asserts that a biconditional of two statements is
true if and only if both statements have the same truth value (both true or
both false), and it is false if they have different truth values.
5. R = 2n
where:
R be the number of rows
n be the number of propositions.
Exercise 1.2
Consider the proposition:
P:
It is raining.
Q:
I am wearing my rubbers.
R:
I am carrying my umbrella.
Express each of the following statements symbolically:
a. It is raining and I am wearing my rubbers.
b. Neither it is not raining nor I am wearing my rubbers.
c. It is not true that it is not raining and I am wearing my rubbers.
d. Either it is raining, or it is not true that it is neither not raining nor I am not
wearing my rubbers.
e. It is raining, still I am neither wearing my rubbers nor carrying my umbrella.
f.

The following statement is not true: It is raining, and neither I am not wearing
my rubbers nor I am not carrying my umbrella.

1.3 Tautologies, Contradictions and Contingencies


A compound proposition (or compound statement) that is true for all
possible truth values of its constituent propositional variables is called a
tautology. A compound proposition that is false for all possible truth values of its
constituent propositional variables is called a contradiction. A compound
proposition that is neither a tautology nor a contradiction whose truth tables
exhibit some T and some F entries is called a contingency. We shall denote a
tautology by t and a contradiction by f.

Exercise 1.3
Judge, by constructing truth tables, whether each of the following is a
tautology, contradiction or contingency.
a. ( A B ) ( A ~B )
b. ( A B ) [ ( C B ) ~ ( C A ) ]
c. [ { [ ( A B ) ( C D ) ] (A C ) } ~ B ] D

1.4 Logical Equivalence and Logical Implications


Suppose that the compound propositions P and Q are made up of the
atomic propositions p1, p2, p3, ..., pn and q1, q2, q3,, qn respectively. We say that
P and Q are logically equivalent and write P Q if P Q is a tautology.
Similarly, if P Q is a tautology then P is said to tautologically imply Q.
Exercise 1.4
1. Show that the following pairs are logically equivalent:
a. P ( Q R ) ; ( P Q ) ( P R )
b. P Q ; ( P Q ) ( Q P )
2. Prove the following logical implications:
a. ( P Q ) Q
b. [( P Q ) P ] Q

1.5 The Algebra of Propositions


The rules of replacement tell us that any logically equivalent expressions
can replace each other wherever they occur.
Example:
Prove [ Q ( P Q ) ( P Q ) ] ( P Q ) using rules of replacement.
Proof:
[ Q ( P Q ) ( P Q ) ]
( P Q ) [ Q ( P Q ) ]
( P Q ) Q
( P Q )

? ( P Q )
? ( P Q )
? ( P Q )
( P Q )

commutativity & associativity


absorption
associativity & idempotence

Exercise 1.5
Prove each of the following equivalence using rules of replacement:
a. [ Q ( P Q ) ( P Q ) ] ( P Q )
b. ~ { [ Q ( P Q ) ] [ P ( P Q ) ] } ~ ( P Q )
c. ( p q ) ~p p q
d. ( p r ) ( q r ) ( p q ) r

1.6 Other Related Conditionals


The conditional statement is of particular importance in mathematics
because many theorems take the form IF (antecedent, hypothesis, condition),
THEN (consequent, conclusion). Suppose we take the conditional form

CONDITIONAL:

P Q

then we can construct other related conditionals

P
F
F
T
T

Q
F
T
F
T

CONVERSE OF P Q :

Q P

INVERSE OF P Q :

~ P ~ Q

CONTRAPOSITIVE OF P Q :

~ Q ~ P

~P
T
T
F
F

~Q
T
F
T
F

P Q
T
T
F
T

Q P
T
F
T
T

~ P ~ Q
T
F
T
T
logically
equivalent

~ Q ~ P
T
T
F
T

logically equivalent
Very Important Notes:
1. A conditional form is logically equivalent to its contrapositive.
2. A conditional form is NOT logically equivalent to its converse.

Exercise 1.6
1. Find:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

The contrapositive of ~ P Q.
The converse of ~ Q P.
The inverse of the converse of Q ~ P.
The negation of P ~ Q.
The converse of ~ P Q.

2. State the converse, inverse and contrapositive of each of the following


conditionals (and simplify so that negations appear only on simple
propositions).
a. ( A B ) ( A B )
b. If it rains, then the grass grows.

1.7 Arguments
An argument is an assertion that the conjunction of certain statements
called the premises or hypotheses implies another statement, called the
conclusion. If the implication holds, then the argument is VALID; otherwise, the
argument is called INVALID.
P1
P2
P3

Pn
_____
Q
is valid if and only if ( P1 P2 P3 Pn ) Q is a tautology.
The rules of inference specify the conclusion that can be drawn from
assertions known or assumed to be true.
Exercise 1.7
1. Let P = It is raining and q = I am wearing my rubbers. Translate each of the
following arguments into symbols and then test its validity:
a. If it is raining, then I am wearing my rubbers. But it is raining. Therefore, I am
wearing my rubbers.
b. If it is raining, then I am wearing my rubbers. In fact, I am not wearing my
rubbers. Therefore, it is not raining.
2. Establish the validity of the following arguments using the rules of inference:
a. P
b.
P Q
Q ~P
~Q ~R
~Q ( R ~S )
S (P R)
~R
S
_________________________

_____________________

~ S

3. Show that the hypothesis it is not sunny this afternoon and it is colder than
yesterday, we will go swimming only if it is sunny, if we do not go swimming,
then we will take a canoe trip, and if we take a canoe trip then we will be
home by sunset.
Lead to the conclusion: we will be home by sunset.
H 1:
H 2:
H 3:
H 4:
C:

Proof:
Statements
1.

Reason

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
4. If you send me an e mail message, then I will finish writing the program. If
you do not send me an e mail message, then I will go to sleep early and if I
go to sleep early, then I will wake up feeling refreshed.
Lead to the conclusion: If I do not finish writing the program, I will wake up
feeling refreshed.
H 1:
H 2:
H 3:
C:
Proof:
Statements

Reason

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

CHAPTER 2

MATHEMATICAL PROOF
2.1 Conditional Proof
Many Theorems in mathematics are stated in the form of conditionals
(P Q); that is, if a certain condition or conditions (P) are met, then we try to
deduce a conclusion or conclusions (Q).
The associated proof strategy (conditional proof) can be outlined in several
steps:
1. We have a set of premises P1, P2, P3,, Pn, (the premises Pi, represent known
information definitions, axioms, theorems, results of problems, etc.)
2. We wish to deduce a statement in conditional form, R C (i.e., we wish to
derive as a conclusion the conditional R C from the premises Pi).
3. We introduce the premise R as an added premise, and treat it as though it
were known (or given) information.
4. Using the known information (premises P1, P2, P3,, Pn,) together with the
added information (premise R), we try to deduce the conclusion C.
5. If we are successful, we invoke the rule of conditional proof, and assert that
we have derived the desired conditional R C from the original set of
premises alone.
Very Important Note:
Conditional proof is based on the exportation tautology [ ( P Q ) R ]
[ P ( Q R ) ] and it is an extension of this tautology to include any number of
premises:
{ [ ( P1 P2 P3 Pn ) R ] C } { ( P1 P2 P3 Pn ) ( R C ) }
P1
P2
P3

Pn
______________

R C

P1
P2
P3

Pn
R
____________

Example 1:
Prove
P Q
R ~Q
_________________

R ~P
7

Note that we wish to prove a statement in the form of a conditional. That, in


itself, might suggest that we try conditional proof with R as the added premise.
Proof:
Statements

Reasons

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Premise
Premise
Conditional Proof
(2) & (3) Modus Ponens
(1) & (4) Modus Tolens

P Q
R ~Q
R / ~P
~Q
~P

Example 2:
Prove
P (Q R)
~S P
Q
_________________

Proof:

S R

Statements

Reasons

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Premise
Premise
Premise
Conditional Proof
(2) & (4) Disjunctive Syllogism
(1) & (5) Modus Ponens
(3) & (6) Modus Ponens

P (Q R)
~S P
Q
S / R
P
Q R
R

Exercise 2.1
Use a conditional proof to show that each conclusion follows logically
from the premises.
1.
P ~Q
2.
Q P
~( R ~P )
U S
_________________
Q ~S
____________________
Q ~R
~( P R ) U
3. If you send me an e mail message, then I will finish writing the program.
If you do not send me an e mail message, then I will go to sleep early and
if I go to sleep early, then I will wake up feeling refreshed.
Lead to the conclusion: If I do not finish writing the program, I will wake up
feeling refreshed.

2.2 Indirect Proof


Indirect proof is a powerful proof strategy that is also known as proof by
contradiction or reductio ad absurdum.
The associated proof strategy (Indirect proof) can be outlined in several steps:
1.

We have a set of premises P1, P2, P3,, Pn, (the premises Pi, represent
known information definitions, axioms, theorems, results of problems,
etc.)
We wish to obtain a certain piece of information C (i.e., we wish to
derive C as conclusion from the premises Pi).
We start by introducing the negation of C (~C) as an added premise.
From ~C and the original premises (information), P1, P2, P3,, Pn, we
derive a contradiction (some statement having logical form Q ~Q).
Invoking the rule of Indirect proof, we have essentially deduced the
conclusion C from the original set of premises alone.

2.
3.
4.
5.

Very Important Note:


The logical basis of indirect proof is conditional proof and the reductio ad
absurdum tautology, which is:
[~P ( Q ~Q ) P
That is, if the negation of P leads to a contradiction, we can deduce P.
P1
P2
P3

P1
P2
P3

[( P1 P2 P3 Pn ) ~Q ] f

Pn

Pn
~Q

______________

____________

Examples:
Construct, using indirect proof strategy, proofs of the following symbolic
arguments.
1.

Premises:

~( P Q )
~R Q
~P R
______________

Conclusion:

R
9

Proof:
Statements

Reasons

1. ~( P Q )
2. ~R Q
3. ~P R
4. ~R / f
5. Q
6. ~P ~Q
7. ~P
8. R
9. R ~R
10. f

Premise
Premise
Premise
Indirect Proof
(2) & (4) Modus Ponens
(1) De Morgans Law
(5) & (6) Disjunctive Syllogism
(3) & (7) Modus Ponens
(4) & (8) Conjunction
(9) Identity

2.

Premises:

P
R
( Q P ) ~R
______________

Conclusion:

~Q

Proof:
Statements

Reasons

1. P
2. R
3. ( Q P ) ~R
4. ~(~Q) / f
5. Q
6. Q ( P ~R )
7. P ~R
8. ~R
9. R ~R
10. f

Premise
Premise
Premise
Indirect Proof
( )________________________
( )________________________
( ) & ( ) __________________
( ) & ( ) __________________
( ) & ( ) __________________
( )________________________

Exercise 2.2
Use an indirect proof to show that each conclusion follows logically from
the premises:
1.

Premises:

P Q
R ~P
~( Q S )
_______________

Conclusion:

~R
10

2.

Show that the hypothesis it is not sunny this afternoon and it is colder than
yesterday, we will go swimming only if it is sunny, if we do not go swimming,
then we will take a canoe trip, and if we take a canoe trip then we will be
home by sunset.
Lead to the conclusion: we will be home by sunset.

2.3 Mathematical Induction


The basis of the proofs of many results involving Z (positive integer) is the
Principle of Mathematical Induction (PMI). This depends upon the following two
+
properties of Z :
+

i.
ii.

Z + has at least element(the number 1).


+
Given any number n Z , there is a unique next (largest) number in
Z + (the number n + 1 ).

Associated with the above theorem, the proof technique we call


mathematical Induction is outlined next:
1. Basis Step: Verify if n = 1, 2, 3 is true.
2. Inductive Step:
a. Assume that n = k.
b. Show that n = k + 1 is true.

Exercise 2.3
Prove each statement using mathematical induction.
1. For all n Z ,
+

i =
i =1

2. For all n Z ,
+

n(n + 1)
2

(2i 1) = n

i =1

11