Introduction to Rules of Inference

Rules of inference are fundamental principles used in deductive reasoning, which is a key aspect of
discrete mathematics. They help us conclude from given premises logically and systematically. In this
lecture, we will explore some of the most important rules of inference, starting with their definitions.

Definitions of Rules of Inference

a. Modus Ponens (MP):

Definition: Modus Ponens is a rule of inference that states if we have a conditional statement and the
antecedent (the "if" part) is true, then we can conclude that the consequent (the "then" part) is also
true.
Logical Pattern: If P implies Q and P is true, then Q must be true.
Tautology: (P → Q) ∧ P → Q

Example 1:
Suppose you have a rule in a company's policy that states: "If an employee works overtime (P), they will
receive overtime pay (Q)." If an employee, Sarah, worked overtime (P), you can use Modus Ponens to
conclude that she will receive overtime pay (Q). In this case, P → Q, P, therefore Q.

Example 2:
In a classroom, the teacher has a rule: "If a student completes all homework assignments (P), they will
receive a certificate of excellence (Q)." If a student, Alex, completes all their homework assignments (P),
you can use Modus Ponens to conclude that Alex will receive a certificate of excellence (Q).

b. Modus Tollens (MT):

Definition: Modus Tollens is another rule of inference that deals with conditional statements. It states
that if the consequent of a conditional statement is false, then we can conclude that the antecedent is
false as well.
Logical Pattern: If P implies Q and Q is false, then P must be false.
Tautology: (P → Q) ∧ ¬Q → ¬P
Example 1:
Suppose you have a security system at home with the rule: "If someone enters the house without the
security code (¬Q), the alarm will sound (¬P)." If the alarm did not sound (¬P), you can use Modus
Tollens to conclude that no one entered the house without the security code (Q).

Example 2:
In a scientific experiment, you have the hypothesis: "If the temperature reaches a certain threshold (¬Q),
the reaction will not occur (¬P)." If the reaction occurred (P), you can use Modus Tollens to conclude that
the temperature did not reach the threshold (Q).

c. Hypothetical Syllogism (HS):

Definition: Hypothetical Syllogism is a rule that allows us to chain together two conditional statements to
draw a conclusion. If we have two conditionals with the same variable, we can infer a new conditional
statement.
Logical Pattern: If P implies Q and Q implies R, then P implies R.
Tautology: (P → Q) ∧ (Q → R) → (P → R)
Example 1:
In a high school, there are two rules: "If students maintain a high GPA (P), they qualify for the honor roll
(Q)," and "If students qualify for the honor roll (Q), they receive a special recognition (R)." If a student
maintains a high GPA (P), you can use Hypothetical Syllogism to conclude that they receive special
recognition (R).

Example 2:
In a logistics company, there are two rules: "If a shipment arrives on time (P), it is loaded onto the next
available truck (Q)," and "If a shipment is loaded onto the next available truck (Q), it reaches its
destination on schedule (S)." If a shipment arrives on time (P), you can use Hypothetical Syllogism to
conclude that it reaches its destination on schedule (S).

d. Disjunctive Syllogism (DS):

Definition: Disjunctive Syllogism deals with disjunctions (logical "or" statements). It states that if one of
the disjuncts is false, we can conclude that the other disjunct is true.
Logical Pattern: If P or Q is true, and P is false, then Q must be true.
Tautology: (P ∨ Q) ∧ ¬P → Q

Example 1:
Consider a menu at a restaurant that offers a choice between two desserts: "You can either have
chocolate cake (P) or cheesecake (Q)." If someone at your table orders chocolate cake (P), you can use
Disjunctive Syllogism to conclude that they did not order cheesecake (¬Q).

Example 2:
In a sports competition, there are two possible outcomes for a team: "The team wins the championship
(P) or they lose (Q)." If the team loses the championship (Q), you can use Disjunctive Syllogism to
conclude that they did not win the championship (¬P).

e. Addition Rule (AD)

Definition: The addition rule is a rule of inference that allows us to add any statement to an existing set
of premises. In other words, if we have a statement P, we can infer P ∨ Q for any statement Q.

Logical Pattern: If we have a statement P, we can add any statement Q to it to conclude P ∨ Q.

Example 1:
Imagine you are keeping track of your expenses for a vacation. You know that you spent $200 on flights
(P). You can use the addition rule to infer that you spent money on flights OR accommodation (Q), even
if you don't know the exact amount spent on accommodation. So, you can conclude that you spent
money on flights OR accommodation (P ∨ Q).

Example 2:
In a game of chess, you have the option to either move your pawn forward two spaces (P) or move your
knight (Q). You decide to move your pawn. Using the addition rule, you can conclude that you made the
move to either move your pawn forward two spaces OR move your knight (P ∨ Q).

f. Simplification Rule (SIMP)

Logical Pattern: If we have a statement P ∧ Q, we can simplify it to conclude P and separately conclude
Q.
Tautology: (P ∧ Q) → P
(P ∧ Q) → Q

Example 1:
Suppose you have a complex recipe with multiple ingredients. You know that you need both flour (P) and
water (Q) to make the dough. Using the simplification rule, you can conclude that you have flour (P) and
that you have water (Q) separately, which means you have all the necessary ingredients to make the
dough.

Example 2:
In a computer program, you have a condition that requires both a user to be logged in (P) and to have
the necessary permissions (Q) to access a certain feature. If the program checks for both conditions,
using the simplification rule, you can determine that the user is logged in (P) and that the user has the
necessary permissions (Q).

g. Conjunction Rule (CONJ)

Definition: The conjunction rule allows us to combine two statements into a single conjunction. If we
have statements P and Q, we can conclude P ∧ Q.
Logical Pattern: If we have statements P and Q, we can combine them to conclude P ∧ Q.
Tautology: (P, Q) → (P ∧ Q)

Example 1:
Consider a job requirement where the candidate must have a bachelor's degree (P) and at least three
years of work experience (Q). Using the conjunction rule, you can conclude that the ideal candidate
possesses both a bachelor's degree (P) and at least three years of work experience (Q).

Example 2:
In a traffic signal system, for a car to proceed, it must have a green light (P) and the road must be clear
(Q). Using the conjunction rule, you can determine that the car can proceed only if it has a green light (P)
AND the road is clear (Q).

h. Resolution Rule (RES)

Definition: The resolution rule is a more complex rule used in propositional logic, often in the context of
solving logical puzzles or proving statements. It states that if we have two statements, one with a
negated version of the other, and they share a common variable, we can resolve them into a new
statement by removing the common variable.

Logical Pattern: If we have two statements P and ¬P (the negation of P) that share a common variable,
we can resolve them into a new statement by removing that common variable.
Tautology:
(P ∨ Q), (¬P ∨ R) → (Q ∨ R)
Note: Resolution is more commonly used in predicate logic and in solving problems involving the
resolution of clauses in formal logic, such as in the resolution proof technique.

Example 1:
Imagine you have two friends, Alice and Bob. Alice claims that she saw you at a restaurant (P), and Bob
insists that he saw you at a movie theater (¬P, where ¬P means "not P"). Since these statements
contradict each other and they share a common variable (you), you can use the resolution rule to
conclude that there is a conflict in their statements, and further investigation is needed.

Example 2:
In a debate between two political candidates, Candidate A asserts that they support a particular policy
(P), while Candidate B claims that Candidate A is against that policy (¬P). These statements directly
contradict each other and involve the same policy (common variable). Using the resolution rule, you can
conclude that there is a logical inconsistency in their positions, prompting further discussion or fact-
checking.