Professional Documents
Culture Documents
r
b) p q premise 1
q r premise 2
---------
r
c) p
q premise 1
r p premise 2
r s premise 3
s t premise 4
---------
t
P-10
Solution:-
a) This argument is clearly invalid. Here is the counter example:
Consider the circumstances in which p is true but q and r are both false. Then both
the premises are true but the conclusion is clearly false.
b) 1. p
.
q premise 1
2. q r premise 2
3. q 1 Simplification
4. r 2, 3 Modus Ponens
which is the required conclusion. Hence the argument is valid.
c) 1.
p
.
q premise 1
.
2. r p premise 2
3.
r s premise 3
4. s t premise 4
5.
p 1 Simplification
6.
r 2, 5 Modus Tollens
7. s 3, 6 Modus Ponens
8. t 4, 7 Modus Ponens
which is the required conclusion. Hence the argument is valid.
Rules of Replacement (also called Rules of Equivalence)
We complete our development of the proof procedure for the propositional calculus by making
use of another useful way of validly moving from step to step. Since two logically equivalent
statements have the same truth-value on every possible combination of truth-values for their
component parts, no change in the truth-value of any statement occurs when we replace one of
them with the other. Thus, when constructing proofs of validity, we can safely use a statement
containing either one of a pair of logical equivalents as the premise for a step whose conclusion
is exactly the same, except that it contains the other one.
Although this would work for any pair of logically equivalent statement forms, remembering all
of them would be cumbersome. Instead, we will once again rely upon a short list of ten rules of
replacement in our construction of proofs, and we have already examined few of them:
Here is the list of Laws of Logic (tautologous biconditionals to be used as rules of
replacement)
For any primitive statements p, q, r;
1) p v p p Idempotent Laws or Tautology (Taut.)
p . p p
2) p p Double Negation Law (D.N.)
P-11
3) p v q q v p Commutative Laws (Comm.)
p . q q . p
4) (p v q) v r p v (q v r) Associative Laws (Assoc.)
(p . q) . r p . (q . r)
5) p v (q . r) (p v q) . (p v r) Distributive Laws (Dist.)
p . (q v r) (p . q) v (p . r)
6) (p . q) p v q De Morgans Laws (DeM.)
(p v q) p . q
Augustus
De Morgan
(1806-1871)
7) (p q) (q p) Contrapositive or Transitivity (Trans.)
8) p q (p v q) Switcheroo or Implication (Impl.)
9) (p q) (p q) . (q p) Meaning of Biconditional also called Equivalence (Equiv.)
(p q) (p . q) v (p . q)
10) ((p . q) r ) (p (q r)) Exportation (Exp.)
Sometimes we may also refer to the following replacement rules (here T
0
is any tautology and F
0
is any contradiction) which are also tautological equivalences:
11) p . T
0
p (Identity Laws)
p v F
0
p
12) p v T
0
T
0
(Domination Laws)
p . F
0
F
0
13) p v (p . q) p (Absorption Laws)
p . (p v q) p
14) pvp T
0
(Negation Laws / Inverse Laws)
p.p F
0
(Also called Trivial tautology/contradiction)
Replacement in Proofs
Using the rules of replacement in the construction of proofs is a fairly straightforward procedure. Since
the rules are biconditionals, the replacement can work in either directionright side for left, or left side
for right. What is more, since the statement forms on either side are logically equivalent, they can be
used to replace each other wherever they occur, even as component parts of a line. (When applying the
nine rules of inference, on the other hand, we must always work with whole lines of a proof.)
P-12
Consider the following argument:
A v (B . C)
A D
D C
____________
D
As before, we begin by numbering each of the premises:
1. A v (B . C) premise
2. A D premise
3. D C premise
Next, notice that we can use our rules of replacement and inference to derive some part of the information
conveyed by the first premise:
1. A v (B . C) premise
2. A D premise
3. D C premise
4. (A v B) . (A v C) 1 Dist.
5. (A v C) . (A v B) 4 Comm.
6. A v C 5 Simp.
So long as each step is justified by reference to an earlier step (or steps) in the proof and to one of the nineteen
rules, it must be a valid derivation. Next, let's work with the third premise a bit:
1. A v (B . C) premise
2. A D premise
3. D C premise
4. (A v B) . (A v C) 1 Dist.
5. (A v C) . (A v B) 4 Comm.
6. A v C 5 Simp.
7. C D 3 Trans.
8. C D 7 D.N.
Again, each step is justified by application of one of the rules of replacement to all or part of a preceding line in
the proof. Now conjoin the second premise with our eighth line, and we've set up a constructive dilemma:
1. A v (B . C) premise
2. A D premise
3. D C premise
4. (A v B) . (A v C) 1 Dist.
5. (A v C) . (A v B) 4 Comm.
6. A v C 5 Simp.
7. C D 3 Trans.
8. C D 7 D.N.
9. (A D) . (C D) 2, 8 Conj.
10. D v D 9, 6 C.D.
All that remains is to apply Tautology in order to reach our intended conclusion, so the entire proof will look like
this:
P-13
1. A v (B . C) premise
2. A D premise
3. D C premise
4. (A v B) . (A v C) 1 Dist.
5. (A v C) . (A v B) 4 Comm.
6. A v C 5 Simp.
7. C D 3 Trans.
8. C D 7 D.N.
9. (A D) . (C D) 2, 8 Conj.
10. D v D 9, 6 C.D.
11. D 10 Taut.
Don't worry if the intermediate stages of this proof were a little puzzling as we went along; what matters for
right now is that you understand the use of the rules of replacement along with the rules of inference.
Proof-Procedures for Propositional Logic
Inventing Proofs
Taken together, the nine rules of inference and ten rules of replacement are a complete set in the sense
that using just these nineteen rules is sufficient to demonstrate the validity of every valid argument of
the propositional calculus. (In fact, there is a good deal of redundancy built into the system: if we
happened to forget about M.P. entirely, for example, we could always work around it by using Impl.,
D.N., D.S., and Impl. again.) What's more, showing the validity of an argument in this way is often more
convenient than building the huge truth-table required to cover every possible combination of truth-
values.
But constructing proofs isn't always easy, as you've discovered in your last couple of exercise sets. Even
if you know the rules inside-out, upside-down, and backwards-and-forwards (as you must) and even if
you are skilled at recognizing the intermediate arguments that are their substitution instances in the
context of a proof (as you should be), inventing a proof on your own may seem a daunting task. But
don't be discouraged. No matter how long and complex a proof becomes, each of its steps is always just
the application of one of our nineteen rules; we just have to figure out which ones lead us from premises
to conclusion. There's nothing magical about the process. No one simply "sees" the whole proof at the
outset, although some people may move a little faster than others. With practice, anyone can learn to
perform the necessary steps.
Let's look at one more instance together:
Establish the validity of the following arguments:
p
q
(p q) r
q
r
_____________________
p
_____________________
Proof:- 1. p
q premise
2. (p q) r premise
3. q
r premise
4. q 3 Simp.
P-14
5.
r 3 Simp.
6.
(p q) 2, 5 M.T.
7.
q 6 DeM.
8.
r(x)] premise
2. r(A) premise
3. p(A) v q(A)
r(A)
p(A) .
q(A)) 5 DeM.
7.
p(A) .
q(A) 2, 6 M.P.
8.
p(A) 7 Simp.
The Rule of Universal Generalization
If an open statement p(x) is proved to be true when x is replaced by any arbitrarily chosen element c
from our universe, then the universally qualified statement x p(x) is true. (This rule also extends
beyond one variable.)
We can use this to formally show that IF
x [p(x) q(x)] AND
x [q(x) r(x)] THEN
x [p(x) r(x)].
Here is the proof of the argument:
1. x [p(x) q(x)] premise
2. p(c) q(c) 1 Rule of Universal Specification
3. x [q(x) r(x)] premise
4. q(c) r(c) 3 Rule of Universal Specification
5. p(c) r(c) 2, 4 H.S.
6. x [p(x) r(x)] 5 Rule of Universal Generalization
Now, consider the following assumptions
x p(x) AND
x [p(x) . q(x) r(x)]
And use those to prove:
x [
r(x)
q(x)].
Here is the proof of the argument:
1. x p(x) premise
2. p(c) 1 Rule of Universal Specification
3. x [p(x) . q(x) r(x)] premise
4. p(c) . q(c) r(c) 3 Rule of Universal Specification
5. q(c) ACP (using here idea of Conditional Proof)
6. p(c) . q(c) 2, 5 Conj.
7. r(c) 4, 6 M.P.
8. q(c) r(c) 5 7 CP
9.
r(c)
q(c) 8 Trans.
P-25
10. x [
r(x)