Scribd
Upload
24 views

Circuits and Valid Arguments

The document discusses circuits and logic. It provides examples of how basic logic statements like conjunction (P AND Q), disjunction (P OR Q), implication (P -> Q), and equivalence (P <-> Q) can be represented using electrical circuits. It also discusses valid and invalid arguments, giving examples of each. Universal and existential quantifiers are explained, showing how they are used to make statements about all or some elements of a set.

Uploaded by

Level May
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
24 views

Circuits and Valid Arguments

The document discusses circuits and logic. It provides examples of how basic logic statements like conjunction (P AND Q), disjunction (P OR Q), implication (P -> Q), and equivalence (P <-> Q) can be represented using electrical circuits. It also discusses valid and invalid arguments, giving examples of each. Universal and existential quantifiers are explained, showing how they are used to make statements about all or some elements of a set.

Uploaded by

Level May
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 18

CIRCUITS

AND LOGIC
RONA JANE T. MIRA
•When current is allowed to flow across
a switch, the switch is considered
“ON”.
The statement 𝑷 ∨ 𝑸 is represented
by a parallel circuit.
P
in out

Q
P
in out

Q
P Q 𝑷∨𝑸
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F
The statement is represented
by a circuit.

in P Q out
in P Q out

P Q 𝑷∧𝑸
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F
𝑷∧ 𝑸∨𝑹
(𝑷 ∧ 𝑸) ∨ (𝑷 ∧ 𝑹)
𝑷 → 𝑸 ⟺ (~𝑷) ∨ 𝑸
𝐏 ∼𝑷 𝑸 𝐏→𝑸
∼P
T F T T
in out
T F F F
Q
F T T T
F T F T
𝑷 ↔ 𝑸 ⟺ (𝑷 → 𝑸) ∧ (𝑸 → 𝑷)

∼P ∼𝑸

in out

Q P
FALLACIES AND VALID ARGUMENTS
If I study hard, then I will pass the exam. If P then Q.
I study hard P.
Therefore I will pass the exam Therefore, Q
VALID ARGUMENT
Definition. Valid Argument is one which, when diagrammed as an
implication, represents a tautology. In other words, if the premises
are 𝑃1 , 𝑃2 , . . ., 𝑃𝑚 and the conclusion is Q, then the argument is
valid if and only if
𝑃1 , 𝑃2 , . . ., 𝑃𝑚 ⟹ 𝑄,
i.e., if and only if [𝑃1 ∧ 𝑃2 ∧ . . . ∧ 𝑃𝑚 ] → 𝑄 is a tautology.
If not, then the argument is called a Fallacy.
P: It rained
Q: The ground is wet
If it rained, then the ground is wet.
It rained.
∴The ground is wet

[(𝑷 → 𝑸) ∧ 𝑸] → 𝑷
If it rained, then the ground is wet.
The ground is wet.
∴It rained.
Valid
argument?
If P then Q.
~𝑸.
Therefore, ~𝑷
If P then Q. P: It rained
~𝑸. Q: The ground is wet
Therefore, ~𝑷

If it rained, then the ground is wet.


The ground is not wet.
∴It did not rain.
Universal For all
Quantifier ∀ For every
(∀𝒙𝝐ℝ)(𝒙 + 𝒙 = 𝟐𝒙)

Existential For some


Quantifier ∃ There exists

(∃𝒙𝝐ℝ)(𝒙 + 𝟐 = 𝟐)
M = {men} W = {women}

∀𝒎𝝐𝑴 ∃𝒘𝝐𝑾 [𝒘 𝒍𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒔 𝒎]


𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐚 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐥𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐡𝐢𝐦.

∃𝒘𝝐𝑾 ∀𝒎𝝐𝑴 [𝒘 𝒍𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒔 𝒎]


𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐚 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐥𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐦𝐚𝐧.

You might also like