Logic Concepts

Lecture - 2
Propositional Logic Concepts

• Logic is a study of principles used to

− distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning.
• Formally it deals with
− the notion of truth in an abstract sense and is concerned
with the principles of valid inferencing.
• A proposition in logic is a declarative statements
which are either true or false (but not both) in a
given context. For example,
− “Jack is a male”,
− "Jack loves Mary" etc.

Prof saroj Kaushik, CSE, IITD 2

Cont…
• Given some propositions to be true in a given
context,
− logic helps in inferencing new proposition, which is also
true in the same context.
• Suppose we are given a set of propositions such
as
− “It is hot today" and
− “If it is hot it will rain", then
− we can infer that
“It will rain today".

Prof saroj Kaushik, CSE, IITD 3

Well-formed formula

• Propositional Calculus (PC) is a language of

propositions basically refers
− to set of rules used to combine the propositions to form
compound propositions using logical operators often called
connectives such as Λ, V, ~, →, ↔
• Well-formed formula is defined as:
− An atom is a well-formed formula.
− If α is a well-formed formula, then ~α is a well-formed
formula.
− If α and β are well formed formulae, then (α Λ β), (α V β ),
(α → β), (α ↔ β ) are also well-formed formulae.
− A propositional expression is a well-formed formula if and
only if it can be obtained by using above conditions.

Prof saroj Kaushik, CSE, IITD 4

Truth Table
● Truth table gives us operational definitions of
important logical operators.
− By using truth table, the truth values of well-formed
formulae are calculated.
● Truth table elaborates all possible truth values of a
formula.
● The meanings of the logical operators are given by
the following truth table.

P Q ~P PΛQ PVQ P→ Q P ↔ Q
T T F T T T T
T F F F T F F
F T T F T T F
F F T F F T T
Prof saroj Kaushik, CSE, IITD 5
 Equivalence Laws
Commutation
1. PΛQ ≅ Q ΛP
2. P V Q ≅ Q V P
Association
1. P Λ (Q Λ R) ≅ (P Λ Q) Λ R
2. P V (Q V R) ≅ (P V Q) V R
Double Negation
~ (~ P) ≅ P
Distributive Laws
1. P Λ ( Q V R) ≅ (P Λ Q) V (P Λ R)
2. P V ( Q Λ R) ≅ (P V Q) Λ (P V R)
De Morgan’s Laws
1. ~ (P Λ Q) ≅ ~P V~Q
2. ~ (P V Q) ≅ ~P Λ~Q
Law of Excluded Middle
P V ~P ≅ T (true)
Law of Contradiction
P Λ ~P ≅ F (false)

Prof saroj Kaushik, CSE, IITD 6

Propositional Logic - PL
● PL deals with
− the validity, satisfiability and unsatisfiability of a formula
− derivation of a new formula using equivalence laws.
● Each row of a truth table for a given formula is
called its interpretation under which a formula can
be true or false.
● A formula α is called tautology if and only
− if α is true for all interpretations.
● A formula α is also called valid if and only if
− it is a tautology.

Prof saroj Kaushik, CSE, IITD 7

Cont..
● Let α be a formula and if there exist at least one
interpretation for which α is true,
− then α is said to be consistent (satisfiable) i.e., if ∃ a model for α,
then α is said to be consistent .
● A formula α is said to be inconsistent (unsatisfiable),
if and only if
− α is always false under all interpretations.
● We can translate
− simple declarative and
− conditional (if .. then) natural language sentences into its
corresponding propositional formulae.

Prof saroj Kaushik, CSE, IITD 8

 Example
● Show that " It is humid today and if it is humid then it
will rain so it will rain today" is a valid argument.
● Solution: Let us symbolize English sentences by
propositional atoms as follows:
A : It is humid
B : It will rain
● Formula corresponding to a text:
α : ((A → B) Λ A) → B
● Using truth table approach, one can see that α is true
under all four interpretations and hence is valid
argument.
Prof saroj Kaushik, CSE, IITD 9
Cont..
Truth Table for ((A → B) Λ A) → B

A B A →B=X XΛA= Y →B
Y→

T T T T T

T F F F T

F T T F T

F F T F T

Prof saroj Kaushik, CSE, IITD 10

Cont…

● Truth table method for problem solving is

− simple and straightforward and
− very good at presenting a survey of all the truth possibilities
in a given situation.
● It is an easy method to evaluate
− a consistency, inconsistency or validity of a formula, but the
size of truth table grows exponentially.
− Truth table method is good for small values of n.
● If a formula contains n atoms, then the truth table
will contain 2n entries.
Prof saroj Kaushik, CSE, IITD 11
Cont…Problem with Truth Table Approach
● A formula α : (P Λ Q Λ R) → ( Q V S) is valid can
be proved using truth table.
− A table of 16 rows is constructed and the truth values of α
are computed.
− Since the truth value of α is true under all 16
interpretations, it is valid.
● We notice that if P Λ Q Λ R is false, then α is true
because of the definition of →.
● Since P Λ Q Λ R is false for 14 entries out of 16, we
are left only with two entries to be tested for which α
is true.
− So in order to prove the validity of a formula, all the entries
in the truth table may not be relevant.

Prof saroj Kaushik, CSE, IITD 12

Other Systems

There are other methods in which the treatment is
more of a syntactic in nature where we will be
concerned with proofs and deductions.

These methods do not rely on any notion of truth but
only on manipulating sequence of formulae.
− Natural Deductive System
− Axiomatic System
− Semantic Tableaux Method
− Resolution Refutation Method

Prof saroj Kaushik, CSE, IITD 13

Natural deduction method - ND
● ND is based on the set of few deductive inference
rules.
● The name natural deductive system is given because
it mimics the pattern of natural reasoning.
● It has about 10 deductive inference rules.

Conventions:
− E for Elimination, I for Introducing.
− P, Pk , (1 ≤ k ≤ n) are atoms.
− αk, (1 ≤ k ≤ n) and β are formulae.

Prof saroj Kaushik, CSE, IITD 14

ND Rules
Rule 1: I-Λ
Λ (Introducing Λ)
I-Λ
Λ : If P1, P2, …, Pn then P1 Λ P2 Λ …Λ
Λ Pn
Interpretation: If we have hypothesized or proved P1, P2, … and
Pn , then their conjunction P1 Λ P2 Λ …Λ Pn is also proved or
derived.
Rule 2: E-ΛΛ ( Eliminating Λ)
E-Λ
Λ : If P1 Λ P2 Λ …Λ Λ Pn then Pi ( 1 ≤ i ≤ n)
Interpretation: If we have proved P1 Λ P2 Λ …Λ Pn , then any
Pi is also proved or derived. This rule shows that Λ can be
eliminated to yield one of its conjuncts.

Prof saroj Kaushik, CSE, IITD 15

ND Rules – cont…
Rule 3: I-V (Introducing V)
I-V : If Pi ( 1 ≤ i ≤ n) then P1V P2 V …V Pn
Interpretation: If any Pi (1≤ i ≤ n) is proved, then P1V …V Pn
is also proved.
Rule 4: E-V ( Eliminating V)
E-V : If P1 V … V Pn, P1 → P, … , Pn → P then P
Interpretation: If P1 V … V Pn, P1 → P, … , and Pn → P are
proved, then P is proved.

Prof saroj Kaushik, CSE, IITD 16

 Rules – cont..

Rule 5: I- → (Introducing → )
I- → : If from α1, …, αn infer β is proved then
α1 Λ … Λαn → β is proved
Interpretation: If given α1, α2, …and αn to be proved and
from these we deduce β then α1 Λ α2 Λ… Λαn → β is also
proved.
Rule 6: E- → (Eliminating → ) - Modus Ponen
E- → : If P1 → P, P1 then P

Prof saroj Kaushik, CSE, IITD 17

Rules – cont…
Rule 7: I- ↔ (Introducing ↔ )
I- ↔ : If P1 → P2, P2 → P1 then P1 ↔ P2
Rule 8: E- ↔ (Elimination ↔ )
E- ↔ : If P1 ↔ P2 then P1 → P2 , P2 → P1
Rule 9: I- ~ (Introducing ~)
I- ~ : If from P infer P1 Λ ~ P1 is proved then
~P is proved
Rule 10: E- ~ (Eliminating ~)
E- ~ : If from ~ P infer P1 Λ ~ P1 is proved
then P is proved

Prof saroj Kaushik, CSE, IITD 18

Cont…
● If a formula β is derived / proved from a set of
premises / hypotheses { α1,…, αn },
− then one can write it as from α1, …, αn infer β .
● In natural deductive system,
− a theorem to be proved should have a form
from α1, …, αn infer β .
● Theorem infer β means that
− there are no premises and β is true under all
interpretations i.e., β is a tautology or valid.

Prof saroj Kaushik, CSE, IITD 19

Cont..
● If we assume that α → β is a premise, then we
conclude that β is proved if α is given i.e.,
− if ‘from α infer β’ is a theorem then α → β is concluded.
− The converse of this is also true.
Deduction Theorem: Infer (α1 Λ α2 Λ… Λ αn → β)
is a theorem of natural deductive system if and
only if
from α1, α2,… ,ααn infer β is a theorem.
Useful tips: To prove a formula α1 Λ α2 Λ… Λ αn →
β, it is sufficient to prove a theorem
from α1, α2, …, αn infer β.

Prof saroj Kaushik, CSE, IITD 20

Examples
Example1: Prove that PΛ(QVR) follows from PΛQ
Solution: This problem is restated in natural
deductive system as "from P ΛQ infer P Λ (Q V
R)". The formal proof is given as follows:

{Theorem} from P ΛQ infer P Λ (Q V R)

{ premise} PΛQ (1)
{ E-Λ , (1)} P (2)
{ E-Λ , (1)} Q (3)
{ I-V , (3) } QVR (4)
{ I-Λ
Λ, ( 2, 4)} P Λ (Q V R) Conclusion

Prof saroj Kaushik, CSE, IITD 21

Cont…

Example2: Prove the following theorem:

infer ((Q → P) Λ (Q → R)) → (Q → (P Λ R))
Solution:
● In order to prove

infer ((Q → P) Λ(Q → R)) → (Q → (P Λ R)),

prove a theorem
from {Q → P, Q → R} infer Q → (P Λ R).
● Further, to prove Q → (P Λ R), prove a sub theorem

from Q infer PΛ R

Prof saroj Kaushik, CSE, IITD 22

Cont..

{Theorem} from Q → P, Q → R infer Q → (P Λ R)

{ premise 1} Q→ P (1)
{ premise 2} Q → R (2)
{ sub theorem} from Q infer P Λ R (3)
{ premise } Q (3.1)
{ E- → , (1, 3.1) } P (3.2)
{E- →, (2, 3.1) } R (3.3)
{ I-Λ, (3.2,3.3) } P Λ R (3.4)
{ I- →, ( 3 )} Q → (P Λ R) Conclusion

Prof saroj Kaushik, CSE, IITD 23

 Proof by Contradiction

Proof by contradiction means that
– we make an assumption and proceed to prove a
contradiction by showing that something is both true and
false.
– Since this can not possibly happen, the assumption must
be false.

The Rule 9 ( I- ~) and Rule 10 (E- ~) are
contradictory rules used for such proof. These rules
are restated as follows:
Rule 9 (I- ~) : If from P infer (P1 Λ ~ P1 ) is proved then ~P is
proved
Rule 10 (E- ~) : If from ~ P infer (P1 Λ ~ P1 ) is proved then
P is proved
Prof saroj Kaushik, CSE, IITD 24
 Proof by Contradiction - Example

Prove a theorem "infer P → ~~P" using contradiction
rule.
{Theorem } infer P → ~~P
{sub theorem} from P infer P (1)
{premise} P (1.1)
{sub theorem} from ~ P infer P Λ~P (1.2)
{premise} ~P (1.2.1)
{I-Λ, (1.1, 1.2.1)} P Λ~P (1.2.2)
{I- ~, (1.2)} ~~P (1.3)
{deduction theorem} P → ~~P Conclusion

Prof saroj Kaushik, CSE, IITD 25

Soundness and Completeness in
NDS
Theorem : If α is a formula in NDS, then α is a
theorem iff α is valid.

(Soundness): if α is a theorem of NDS then α is a
valid i.e.,
infer α → |= α.

(Completeness): if α is valid then α is a theorem
i.e., |= α → infer α.

Prof saroj Kaushik, CSE, IITD 26

Exercises
I. Draw truth tables for each of the following formulae. Which of these represent tautologies?
1. ~ (P V ~ Q)
2. (P V Q) → R
3. P V ( Q → R)
4. ~ P → (P V Q)
5. (~ P → Q) → ( R V S)
II. Which of the following pair of expressions are logical equivalent? Show by using truth table.
1. P Λ Q V R ; P Λ ( Q V R)
2. P → (Q V R) ; ~ P V Q V R
3. (P V ~Q) → R ; ~ ( P V ~ Q Λ ~ R)
III. Translate the following English sentences into corresponding propositional formulae.
1. If I go for shopping then either I buy clothes or I buy vegetables.
2. I spend money only when I buy clothes or I buy vegetables.
IV. Consider following set of sentences in English.
If Jim is a student then he is registered in a college. Jim did not register in a college. Therefore, conclude that Jim is not a
student.
Show that whether they are mutually consistent or inconsistent.

V. Prove the following theorems using deductive inference rules.

1. from P Λ Q, P → R infer R
2. from P ↔ Q, Q infer P
3. from P , Q → R , P → R infer P Λ R
4. infer ( P Λ Q) Λ (P → R) → R
5. infer (P V Q) Λ (P → S) Λ (Q → S) → (S V P V Q)
6. infer ( (Q → P) Λ (Q → R) ) → (Q → (P Λ R))".
7. infer P Λ Q ↔ Q Λ P".
8. infer (P → Q) Λ (Q → R) → (P → R)
9. infer (P V Q) Λ ( P → Q) → Q
10. from ~ ~P infer P using contradictory rule.
11. from P → Q, ~ Q infer ~ P" using contradictory rule

Prof saroj Kaushik, CSE, IITD 27