Homework 1

Nguyen Vinh Anh Quan

January 15, 2024

1 CHAPTER 1
The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
1.1 Propositional Logic
8) a. True, because 288 > 256 and 288 > 128 .
b. True, because C has 5 MP resolution compared to B’s 4 MP resolution. Note
that only one of these conditions needs to be met because of the word or.
c. False, because its resolution is not higher (all of the statements would have
to be true for the conjunction to be true).
d. False, because the hypothesis of this conditional statement is true and the
conclusion is false.
e. False, because the first part of this biconditional statement is false and the
second part is true.
9) a. False, because 111 < 138.
b. True, because 5 < 8 and 5 < 13, 138 > 87 and 138 > 111.
c. True, because 13 > 8 and 8 > 5. Only one of these conditions need to be
met because of the word or.
d. True. Because, Acme Computer had the largest annual revenue = 138 which
is true statement and Quixote Media had the smallest net profit which is false
statement. So, False True is True.
e. True. Because, Nadir Software had the smallest net profit = 5 billion dollars
and Acme Computer had the largest annual revenue = 138 . So Both of the
biconditional statement and Conclusion statement is True.
11) a) Sharks have not been spotted near the shore.
b) Swimming at the New Jersey shore is allowed and sharks have been spotted
near the shore.
c) If swimming at the New Jersey shore is not allowed then Sharks have been
spotted near the shore.
d) If swimming at the New Jersey shore is allowed then Sharks have not been
spotted near the shore.
e) If sharks have not been spotted near the shore then swimming at the New
Jersey shore is allowed.
f) If swimming at the New Jersey shore is not allowed then Sharks have not

1
been spotted near the shore.
g) Swimming at the New Jersey shore is allowed if and only if sharks have not
been spotted near the shore.
h) Swimming at the New Jersey shore is not allowed and swimming at the New
Jersey shore is allowed or Sharks have not been spotted near the shore
12) a) The election is not decided.
b) The election is decided or The votes have been counted.
c) The election is not decided and The votes have been counted.
d) If The votes have been counted then The election is decided.
e) If The votes have not been counted then The election is not decided.
f) If The election is not decided then The votes have not been counted.
g) The votes have been counted if and only if The election is decided.
h) The votes have not been counted or The election is not decided and The
votes have been counted.
15)
a) ¬p
b) p ∧ ¬q
c) p → q
d) ¬p → ¬q
e) p → q
f) ¬p ∧ q
g) q → p
16)
a) r ∧ ¬q
b) p ∧ q ∧ r
c) r → p
d) p ∧ ¬q ∧ r
e) (p ∧ ¬q) → r
f) r ↔ (q ∨ p)
17)
a) r ∧ ¬p
b) ¬p ∧ q ∧ r
c) r → (q ↔ ¬p)
d) ¬q ∧ (¬p ∧ r)
e) ((q → (¬r ∧ ¬p)) ∧ ((¬( ¬r ∧ ¬p)) → q)
f) ¬q → (p ∧ r)
36) a)

p p p⊕p
F F F
F T T
T F T
T T F

2
b)
p −p p ⊕ −p
F F T
F T F
T F F
T T T
c)
p −q p ⊕ −q
F F T
F T F
T F F
T T T
d)
−p −q −p ⊕ −q
F F T
F T T
T F T
T T F
37)
a)
p −q p → −q
T T F
T F T
F F T
F T T
b)
−p q −p → q
T T T
T F T
F F F
F T T
44)
V
is the same as ∧.
In the double conjunction each value of i from 1 through n-1 is paired with each
value of j from i+1 through n ; this has the effect of running through all pairs
〈i,j〉 of indices with 1 ≤ i < j ≤ n
If n=4 , for instance, this is
(¬p1∨¬p2)∧(¬p1∨¬p3)∧(¬p1∨¬p4)∧(¬p2∨¬p3)∧(¬p2∨¬p4)∧(¬p3∨¬p4). The
net effect is to take the conjunction of all pairs ¬pi∨¬pj for distinct pi and pj .
The conjunction (1) is true precisely when all of the disjunctions ¬pi∨¬pj
with 1 ≤ i < j ≤ n are true; if even one of them is false, (1) is also false.
Suppose that 1 ≤ i < j ≤ n , and pi and pj are both true. Then ¬pi and
¬pj are both false, so ¬pi∨¬pj is false, and therefore (1) is also false. In other

3
words, if two or more of the propositions p1,. . . ,pn are true, then (1) is false.
Now suppose that at most one of these propositions is true. If 1 ≤ i < j ≤ n ,
then at least one of pi and pj is false, so at least one of ¬pi and ¬pj is true, and
therefore ¬pi∨¬pj is true. Thus, each of the disjunctions ¬pi∨¬pj is true, and
therefore their conjunction (1) is true. Thus, we have shown that (1) is true if
and only if at most one of the propositions p1,. . . ,pn is true.
45)
52) This Statement is false” is not a proposition. The statement is a paradox.
It is not possible to assign a consistent truth value to the statement because it
contradicts itself. For example, lets assume it is a proposition and it is true.
This statement is false leads one to conclude that the statement itself is false,
which is in contradiction with the assumption. If it was assumed the proposition
is false, then this statement is false is false which means this statement must be
true, which is also a contradiction.
OR
It’s a paradox, meaning any interpretation of it’s truth value results in a con-
tradiction. The statement is neither true nor false. If ”this statement is false”
were false, then it would be true, contradicting the assumption that it’s false.
Similarly if it were true. It can be shown using the rules of logic that a con-
tradiction A∧¬A implies B, for any proposition B. Hence when constructing a
formal logical system we want to guarantee that contradictions are excluded,
and therefore define propositions in ways that do not allow for the kind of para-
dox you mentioned.
OR
You can use propositional logic to prove this statement is not a proposition:
Suppose the statement, S, ”This statement is false”, is a proposition That is
S↔¬S
Then S is true or false, but both of those lead to a contradiction, so our suppo-
sition is false: ”This statement is false” is not a proposition
53)
a) The 100 statements will be as follows -
1 ) Exactly 1 of the statement in the list is false.
2 ) Exactly 2 of the statements in the list are false.
3) ...
100 ) Exactly 100 of the statements in the list are false.
Let us consider that Statement 1 is True. i.e. Exactly 1 statement of the
list is false.
So, all other statements except one statement (without losing generality, let
us say statement 15) must be true. Now the statements 1,2,3 .... 14, 16, 17,
... 100 are all true. Let us inspect statement 2, which is true according to our
assumption. It says that - Exactly 2 of the statements in the list are false. Now,
this contradicts our very initial assumption that only one statement is false. So
statement one can never be true.
You can extend this assumption to every statement and it will lead to a
contradiction in every case except when you try it for the 99th statement.
Say 99th statement is true - Exactly 99 of the statements are false.

4
 Here we can conveniently say that statements 1 to 98 and statement 100 are
false. This does not contradict our assumption because -
1 ) Exactly one statement is false -¿ False
2) Exactly 2 statements are false -¿ False
..
99 ) Exactly 99 statements are false -¿ True
100) Exactly 100 statements are false -¿ False
We have exactly 99 false statements.
This concludes that only Statement 99 can be true.
b) The 100 statements will be as follows -
1 ) At least 1 of the statement in the list is false.
2 ) At least 2 of the statement in the list are false.
3) ...
100 ) At least 100 of the statement in the list are false.
Note: In this case, if the n’th statement is true then every statement before
n has to be true.
Say statement 50 is true. Now I can simply say that statements 1 to 50
are true and statements 51 - 100 are false. Now I have 50 true and 50 false
statements and all the true statements 1 to 50 satisfy this. This is valid because
of the term ’at least’. Statement 1 needs only one false statement (Can be
anyone from 51 - 100), Statement 2 needs only 2 false statements (can be any
two from 51 - 100). .... Statement 50 needs 50 false statements (51 - 100).
We don’t need to inspect any statement from 51 to 100 because they are False.
They key point here is to split exactly at midpoint, because if you go above 50
then you will run out of statements to assign False.
Example - consider statements 1 to 51 to be true, then we need at least 51
false statements, which is not possible since there are only 49 statements left.
So this would lead to a contradiction.
This leads to the conclusion that statements 1 to 50 are true and 51 to 100
are false.
So essentially what we are doing is partitioning the statements into two equal
halves exactly from the middle, so that we can reach a satisfiable conclusion by
assigning first half to be true and second half to be false.
c) Here the number of statements are odd and you cannot partition them
into two equal halves. So these statements won’t make any sense.

1.2 Applications of Propositional Logic

6) u → (b32 ∧ g1 ∧ r1 ∧ h16) ∨ (b64 ∧ g2 ∧ r2 ∧ h32).
7) a. q→p
b. q ∧¬p
c. q→p
d. ¬q→¬p
19) the question is ”if i were to ask you whether the right branch leads to the
ruins would you answer yes?”

5
LIAR: ”YES”
That’s a lie. He would answer no.
• ”Does the right branch leads to the ruins” LIAR: ”NO”
• That’s a lie. The right branch does lead to the ruins.
• Conclusion: The right branch lead to the ruins.
LIAR: ”NO”
That’s a lie. He would answer yes.
• Does the right branch leads to the ruins” LIAR: ”YES”
• That’s a lie. The right branch does not lead to the ruins.
• Conclusion: The left branch lead to the ruins.
TRUTHTELLER: ”NO”
That’s the truth. He would answer no.
• ”Does the right branch leads to the ruins” TRUTHTELLER : ”NO”
• That’s the truth. The right branch does not lead to the ruins.
• Conclusion: The left branch lead to the ruins.
TRUTHTELLER: ”YES”
That’s the truth. He would answer yes.
• ”Does the right branch leads to the ruins” TRUTHTELLER : ”YES”
• That’s the truth. The right branch does lead to the ruins.
• Conclusion: The right branch lead to the ruins.
Hence ”NO” means left branch, ”YES” means right branch.
36) a. We look at the three possibilities of who the innocent men might be. If
Smith and Jones are innocent (and therefore telling the truth), then we get an
immediate contradiction, since Smith said that Jones was a friend of Cooper,
but Jones said that he did not even know Cooper. If Jones and Williams are
the innocent truth-tellers, then we again get a contradiction, since Jones says
that he did not know Cooper and was out of town, but Williams says he saw
Jones with Cooper (presumably in town, and presumably if we was with him,
then he knew him). Therefore it must be the case that Smith and Williams
are telling the truth. Their statements do not contradict each other. Based on
Williams’ statement, we know that Jones is lying, since he said that he did not
know Cooper when in fact he was with him. Therefore Jones is the murderer.
b. This is just like part (a), except that we are not told ahead of time that one
of the men is guilty. Can none of them be guilty? If so, then they are all telling
the truth, but this is impossible, because as we just saw, some of the statements
are contradictory. Can more than one of them be guilty? If, for example, they

6
are all guilty, then their statements give us no information. So that is certainly
possible.
37) Let, J = Janice , F = Fred and M = Maggie and order of salary is highest
to lowest means If I write J, F, M It means J has highest salary, F has 2nd
highest and M has lowest salary.
Now, ”If Fred is not the highest paid of the three, then Janice is.”
It means Janice has the highest salary when Fred has 2nd highest or lowest
salary. i.e. J, F, M (or) J, F, M but it is contradicting by the statement that ”if
Janice is not the lowest paid, then Maggie is paid the most.”. So, Janice can’t
have the highest salary.
Now, if Fred has the highest salary then possibilities are F, J, M and F, M, J but
F, J, M is not possible because ”if Janice is not the lowest paid, then Maggie is
paid the most.” which is contracting our assumption. So, only possibility is F,
M, J i.e. Fred has the highest salary , Maggie has the highest and Janice has
the lowest salary.
So, Answer is : Relative order of salary should be Janice’s salary < Maggie’s
salary < Fred’s salary which means Fred is paid the most and Janice is paid the
least.
38 This information is enough to determine the entire system. Let each letter
stand for the statement that the person whose name begins with that letter is
chatting. Then the given information can be expressed symbolically as follows:
¬K → H, R → ¬V, ¬R → V, A → R, V → K, K → V, H → A, H → K.
Note that we were able to convert all of these statements into conditional state-
ments. In what follows we will sometimes make use of the contrapositives of
these conditional statements as well. First suppose that H is true. Then it
follows that A and K are true, whence it follows that R and V are true. But
R implies that V is false, so we get a contradiction. Therefore H must be false.
From this it follows that K is true; whence V is true, and therefore R is false,
as is A. We can now check that this assignment leads to a true value for each
conditional statement. So we conclude that Kevin and Vijay are chatting but
Heather, Randy, and Abby are not.
39 The problem says (¬B + C).(¬C¬ + ¬G).(G + H).(¬H + ¬C) using + for
OR and . for AND.
Taking B to be true we get :
C.(¬C + ¬G).(G + H).(¬H + ¬C) which gives C.¬G.(G + H).¬H which is a
contradiction. So B is false.
Taking B to be false the main problem reduces to :
(¬C + ¬G).(G + H).(¬H + ¬C)
Now let us take C to be true. Taking C to be true will give ¬G.(G + H).¬H
which is a contradiction. So C has to be false.
At the end we are left with (G + H). So we cannot say whether handyman or
gardener or both are telling the truth.
40 a. If we say that Alice is the one telling the truth, then Carlos is guilty, and
he’s lying about Diana, BUT that means Diana is telling the truth. We can
only have one truth teller, so Alice must be lying.
It’s a similar situation if we say John is telling the truth. Again, that leaves

7
either Carlos or Diana also telling the truth.
If Carlos is telling the truth, then Diana is guilty. In this case John is also
telling the truth. (I’m making the assumption that we can’t have two guilty
parties.)
Only Diana can be the one truth teller. In this case, Alice is lying about
Carlos’ guilt, Carlos is lying about Diana’s guilt, and John is lying about his
innocence. He did it.
b. Suppose, Alice is telling the truth.
If Alice is T then John is T then Carlos is F then Diana is T. So, it’s satisfy
given condition.
Hence, from Case 1.a we can conclude that if only Carlos is lying then Carlos
did it. 41
p: In the fisrt room there is a lady.
p: In the fisrt room there is a tiger.
q: In the second room there is a lady.
q: In the second room there is a tiger.
Translate given English statements into logical statement:
1. (p ∧ ¬q) 2. (p ⊕ q) As, given in the question, one of the sign is true and
other is false. So, there are two cases possible. Case 1: Suppose, First door’s
sign is True and Second door’s is False.
1. (p∧ ¬q) is True only if p is True and q is True.
2. (p ⊕ q) is False if both p and q are True Or False. but it’s contradict
with 1 statement. So, Case 1 is not valid.
Case 2: Suppose, First door’s sign is False and Second door’s is True.
1. (p∧ ¬q) is False if at least one of p and q is False.
2. (p⊕q) is True if either p is True and q is False or p is False and q is True.
So, there are two possible subcases.
Subcase 1 : p is True and q is False.
but it’s contradict with 1 statement. So, it’s not valid.
Subcase 2: p is False and q is True.
it’s not contradict with 1 statement. So, it’s a valid subcase
Hence, from subcase 2 of Case 2, we can conclude that Behind the Second
door is the lady.