Logic as a Tool Chapter 1: Understanding Propositional Logic 1.2 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
logic as a tool chapter 1 understanding propositional
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Logic as a Tool Chapter 1: Understanding Propositional Logic 1.2 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Apr 19, 2023 12 likes •584 views

Logic as a Tool Chapter 1: Understanding Propositional Logic 1.2 Propositional logical consequence Logically correct inferences Valentin Goranko Stockholm University September 2016 Goranko Propositional logical consequence A propositional

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Goranko

Logic as a Tool Chapter 1: Understanding Propositional Logic 1.2 Propositional logical consequence Logically correct inferences

Valentin Goranko Stockholm University September 2016

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Goranko

Propositional logical consequence

A propositional formula C is a logical consequence from the propositional formulae A1, . . . , An,

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Goranko

Propositional logical consequence

A propositional formula C is a logical consequence from the propositional formulae A1, . . . , An, denoted A1, . . . , An | = C,

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Goranko

Propositional logical consequence

A propositional formula C is a logical consequence from the propositional formulae A1, . . . , An, denoted A1, . . . , An | = C, if C is true whenever all A1, . . . , An are true,

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Goranko

Propositional logical consequence

A propositional formula C is a logical consequence from the propositional formulae A1, . . . , An, denoted A1, . . . , An | = C, if C is true whenever all A1, . . . , An are true, i.e., every assignment of truth-values to the variables occurring in A1, . . . , An, C which renders the formulae A1, . . . , An true, renders the formula C true, too.

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Goranko

Propositional logical consequence

A propositional formula C is a logical consequence from the propositional formulae A1, . . . , An, denoted A1, . . . , An | = C, if C is true whenever all A1, . . . , An are true, i.e., every assignment of truth-values to the variables occurring in A1, . . . , An, C which renders the formulae A1, . . . , An true, renders the formula C true, too. If A1, . . . , An | = C, we also say that C follows logically from A1, . . . , An,

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Goranko

Propositional logical consequence

A propositional formula C is a logical consequence from the propositional formulae A1, . . . , An, denoted A1, . . . , An | = C, if C is true whenever all A1, . . . , An are true, i.e., every assignment of truth-values to the variables occurring in A1, . . . , An, C which renders the formulae A1, . . . , An true, renders the formula C true, too. If A1, . . . , An | = C, we also say that C follows logically from A1, . . . , An, and that A1, . . . , An logically imply C.

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Goranko

Propositional logical consequence

A propositional formula C is a logical consequence from the propositional formulae A1, . . . , An, denoted A1, . . . , An | = C, if C is true whenever all A1, . . . , An are true, i.e., every assignment of truth-values to the variables occurring in A1, . . . , An, C which renders the formulae A1, . . . , An true, renders the formula C true, too. If A1, . . . , An | = C, we also say that C follows logically from A1, . . . , An, and that A1, . . . , An logically imply C. Logical consequence is reducible to validity: A1, . . . , An | = C iff A1 ∧ . . . ∧ An | = C iff | = (A1 ∧ . . . ∧ An) → C.

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Goranko

Propositional logical consequence is reducible to validity

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Goranko

Propositional logical consequence is reducible to validity

Proposition

For any propositional formulae A1, . . . , An, B, the following are equivalent:

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Goranko

Propositional logical consequence is reducible to validity

Proposition

For any propositional formulae A1, . . . , An, B, the following are equivalent:

  • 1. A1, . . . , An |

= B

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Goranko

Propositional logical consequence is reducible to validity

Proposition

For any propositional formulae A1, . . . , An, B, the following are equivalent:

  • 1. A1, . . . , An |

= B

  • 2. A1 ∧ . . . ∧ An |

= B

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Goranko

Propositional logical consequence is reducible to validity

Proposition

For any propositional formulae A1, . . . , An, B, the following are equivalent:

  • 1. A1, . . . , An |

= B

  • 2. A1 ∧ . . . ∧ An |

= B

  • 3. |

= (A1 ∧ . . . ∧ An) → B

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Goranko

Propositional logical consequence is reducible to validity

Proposition

For any propositional formulae A1, . . . , An, B, the following are equivalent:

  • 1. A1, . . . , An |

= B

  • 2. A1 ∧ . . . ∧ An |

= B

  • 3. |

= (A1 ∧ . . . ∧ An) → B

  • 4. |

= A1 → (. . . → (An → B) . . .)

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Goranko

Testing propositional consequence with truth tables Example 1

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Goranko

Testing propositional consequence with truth tables Example 1

p, p → q

?

| = q

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Goranko

Testing propositional consequence with truth tables Example 1

p, p → q

?

| = q p q p p → q q

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Goranko

Testing propositional consequence with truth tables Example 1

p, p → q

?

| = q p q p p → q q T T T T T

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Goranko

Testing propositional consequence with truth tables Example 1

p, p → q

?

| = q p q p p → q q T T T T T T F T F F

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Goranko

Testing propositional consequence with truth tables Example 1

p, p → q

?

| = q p q p p → q q T T T T T T F T F F F T F T T

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Goranko

Testing propositional consequence with truth tables Example 1

p, p → q

?

| = q p q p p → q q T T T T T T F T F F F T F T T F F F T F

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Goranko

Testing propositional consequence with truth tables Example 1

p, p → q

?

| = q p q p p → q q T T T T T T F T F F F T F T T F F F T F Yes.

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Goranko

Testing propositional consequence with truth tables Example 2

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Goranko

Testing propositional consequence with truth tables Example 2

p → q

?

| = q → p

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Goranko

Testing propositional consequence with truth tables Example 2

p → q

?

| = q → p p q p → q q → p

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Goranko

Testing propositional consequence with truth tables Example 2

p → q

?

| = q → p p q p → q q → p T T T T

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Goranko

Testing propositional consequence with truth tables Example 2

p → q

?

| = q → p p q p → q q → p T T T T T F F T

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Goranko

Testing propositional consequence with truth tables Example 2

p → q

?

| = q → p p q p → q q → p T T T T T F F T F T T F

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Goranko

Testing propositional consequence with truth tables Example 2

p → q

?

| = q → p p q p → q q → p T T T T T F F T F T T F F F ... ...

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Goranko

Testing propositional consequence with truth tables Example 2

p → q

?

| = q → p p q p → q q → p T T T T T F F T F T T F F F ... ... No.

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Goranko

Testing propositional consequence with truth tables Example 3

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Goranko

Testing propositional consequence with truth tables Example 3

p → r, q → r

?

| = (p ∨ q) → r

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Goranko

Testing propositional consequence with truth tables Example 3

p → r, q → r

?

| = (p ∨ q) → r p q r p → r q → r p ∨ q (p ∨ q) → r

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Goranko

Testing propositional consequence with truth tables Example 3

p → r, q → r

?

| = (p ∨ q) → r p q r p → r q → r p ∨ q (p ∨ q) → r T T T T T T T

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Goranko

Testing propositional consequence with truth tables Example 3

p → r, q → r

?

| = (p ∨ q) → r p q r p → r q → r p ∨ q (p ∨ q) → r T T T T T T T T T F F F T F

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Goranko

Testing propositional consequence with truth tables Example 3

p → r, q → r

?

| = (p ∨ q) → r p q r p → r q → r p ∨ q (p ∨ q) → r T T T T T T T T T F F F T F T F T T T T T

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Goranko

Testing propositional consequence with truth tables Example 3

p → r, q → r

?

| = (p ∨ q) → r p q r p → r q → r p ∨ q (p ∨ q) → r T T T T T T T T T F F F T F T F T T T T T T F F F T T F

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Goranko

Testing propositional consequence with truth tables Example 3

p → r, q → r

?

| = (p ∨ q) → r p q r p → r q → r p ∨ q (p ∨ q) → r T T T T T T T T T F F F T F T F T T T T T T F F F T T F F T T T T T T

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Goranko

Testing propositional consequence with truth tables Example 3

p → r, q → r

?

| = (p ∨ q) → r p q r p → r q → r p ∨ q (p ∨ q) → r T T T T T T T T T F F F T F T F T T T T T T F F F T T F F T T T T T T F T F T F T F

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Goranko

Testing propositional consequence with truth tables Example 3

p → r, q → r

?

| = (p ∨ q) → r p q r p → r q → r p ∨ q (p ∨ q) → r T T T T T T T T T F F F T F T F T T T T T T F F F T T F F T T T T T T F T F T F T F F F T T T F T

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Goranko

Testing propositional consequence with truth tables Example 3

p → r, q → r

?

| = (p ∨ q) → r p q r p → r q → r p ∨ q (p ∨ q) → r T T T T T T T T T F F F T F T F T T T T T T F F F T T F F T T T T T T F T F T F T F F F T T T F T F F F T T F T

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Goranko

Testing propositional consequence with truth tables Example 3

p → r, q → r

?

| = (p ∨ q) → r p q r p → r q → r p ∨ q (p ∨ q) → r T T T T T T T T T F F F T F T F T T T T T T F F F T T F F T T T T T T F T F T F T F F F T T T F T F F F T T F T Yes.

slide-43
SLIDE 43

Goranko

Sound rules of propositional inference

slide-44
SLIDE 44

Goranko

Sound rules of propositional inference

A rule of propositional inference (for short, inference rule) is a scheme: P1, . . . , Pn C ,

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Goranko

Sound rules of propositional inference

A rule of propositional inference (for short, inference rule) is a scheme: P1, . . . , Pn C , where P1, . . . , Pn, C are propositional formulae. The formulae P1, . . . , Pn are called premises of the inference rule, and C is its conclusion.

slide-46
SLIDE 46

Goranko

Sound rules of propositional inference

A rule of propositional inference (for short, inference rule) is a scheme: P1, . . . , Pn C , where P1, . . . , Pn, C are propositional formulae. The formulae P1, . . . , Pn are called premises of the inference rule, and C is its conclusion. An inference rule is (logically) sound if its conclusion logically follows from the premises.

slide-47
SLIDE 47

Goranko

Sound rules of propositional inference

A rule of propositional inference (for short, inference rule) is a scheme: P1, . . . , Pn C , where P1, . . . , Pn, C are propositional formulae. The formulae P1, . . . , Pn are called premises of the inference rule, and C is its conclusion. An inference rule is (logically) sound if its conclusion logically follows from the premises. A propositional inference is an instance of a rule, where propositions are uniformly replaced by the propositional variables.

slide-48
SLIDE 48

Goranko

Sound rules of propositional inference

A rule of propositional inference (for short, inference rule) is a scheme: P1, . . . , Pn C , where P1, . . . , Pn, C are propositional formulae. The formulae P1, . . . , Pn are called premises of the inference rule, and C is its conclusion. An inference rule is (logically) sound if its conclusion logically follows from the premises. A propositional inference is an instance of a rule, where propositions are uniformly replaced by the propositional variables. A propositional inference is (logically) correct if it is an instance of a sound inference rule.

slide-49
SLIDE 49

Goranko

Propositional inference: example 1

slide-50
SLIDE 50

Goranko

Propositional inference: example 1

Consider the propositional inference: Alexis is singing. If Alexis is singing, then Alexis is happy. Alexis is happy.

slide-51
SLIDE 51

Goranko

Propositional inference: example 1

Consider the propositional inference: Alexis is singing. If Alexis is singing, then Alexis is happy. Alexis is happy. It is obtained from the following rule, called Modus Ponens: p, p → q q

slide-52
SLIDE 52

Goranko

Propositional inference: example 1

Consider the propositional inference: Alexis is singing. If Alexis is singing, then Alexis is happy. Alexis is happy. It is obtained from the following rule, called Modus Ponens: p, p → q q This rule is sound, therefore, the inference is logically correct.

slide-53
SLIDE 53

Goranko

Propositional inference: example 2

slide-54
SLIDE 54

Goranko

Propositional inference: example 2

Now consider the propositional inference: 2 plus 2 equals 4. If 5 is greater than 3, then 2 plus 2 equals 4. 5 is greater than 3.

slide-55
SLIDE 55

Goranko

Propositional inference: example 2

Now consider the propositional inference: 2 plus 2 equals 4. If 5 is greater than 3, then 2 plus 2 equals 4. 5 is greater than 3. It is based on the rule p, q → p q which is

slide-56
SLIDE 56

Goranko

Propositional inference: example 2

Now consider the propositional inference: 2 plus 2 equals 4. If 5 is greater than 3, then 2 plus 2 equals 4. 5 is greater than 3. It is based on the rule p, q → p q which is not sound.

slide-57
SLIDE 57

Goranko

Propositional inference: example 2

Now consider the propositional inference: 2 plus 2 equals 4. If 5 is greater than 3, then 2 plus 2 equals 4. 5 is greater than 3. It is based on the rule p, q → p q which is not sound. Therefore, the inference is not logically correct.