COMP232

Introduction to Discrete Mathematics

Winter 2023
Week 4: Valid arguments and inference
schemas
Valid and Invalid Arguments

Definition
An argument is a sequence of statements.

Definition
An argument is called valid if the truth of the conclusion follows
necessarily (by logical form alone) from the truth of its
premises.

Corrolary:
When an argument is valid, and the premises are true, then the
conclusion must be true.
Proof: see truth table for conditional
Example argument schema

p
q
r
∴s

Here p, q, and r are called premises and s is called the

conclusion.

Meaning of the argument schema: (p ∧ q ∧ r ) → s

Modus ponens: a valid argument form
Consider the following argument: If I drink coffee, I feel sick.
I am drinking coffee.
Therefore I feel sick.

This has the argument form: p→q

p
∴q

premise1 premise2 LHS LHS → q

p q p→q p premises inference
T T T T T T
T F F T F T
F T T F F T
F F T F F T

Note that when the premises are both true, the conclusion is
also true. The argument schema limits the situation to one row.
Exercise
You have an argument with your mother, trying to leave the
house. She admonishes you to eat well. You retort in an
annoyed voice:

If I eat lunch, I’ll skip breakfast.

If I eat breakfast, I’ll skip lunch.
Therefore I’ll eat breakfast or lunch.

The argument form is:

p → ¬q
q → ¬p
∴p∨q

The argument above is

A valid
B not valid
C isn’t clear
Another invalid argument form

p→q
q→p
∴p∨q
premise premise conclusion
p q p→q q→p p∨q
T T T T T
T F F T T
F T T F T
F F T T F

In the last row, both premises are true, but the conclusion is
false.
Rules of inference

. . . are valid argument forms that are commonly used.

They justify a conclusion from facts that are known or can be
assumed.

A
means A → B ≡ T.
··˙ B

It should be read as
If A is true then
we conclude that B is true.

A is called the hypothesis or premise,

B is called the conclusion.
inference tautology name
p p → (p ∨ q) addition
··˙ p ∨ q
p∧q (p ∧ q) → p simplification
··˙ p
p ((p) ∧ (q)) → (p ∧ q) conjunction
q
··˙ p ∧ q
p
p→q [p ∧ (p → q)] → q modus ponens
··˙ q
¬q
p→q [¬q ∧ (p → q)] → ¬p modus tollens
··˙ ¬p
p→q hypothetical
q→r [(p → q) ∧ (q → r )] syllogism
··˙ p → r → (p → r )
p∨q disjunctive
¬p [(p ∨ q) ∧ ¬p] → q syllogism
··˙ q
p∨q resolution
¬p ∨ r [(p ∨ q) ∧ (¬p ∨ r )]
··˙ q ∨ r → (q ∨ r )
Contradiction rule

¬p → F
∴p
p ¬p ¬p→F (¬ p → F) → p
T F T T
F T F T
Basis of the method of proof by contradiction.
If an assumption leads to a contradiction, then the assumption
must be false.
Proof by cases rule
p∨q
p→r
q→r
∴ r
Proof by cases rule

p∨q
p→r
q→r
∴ r means [(p ∨ q) ∧ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r )] =⇒ r

(p ∨ q) ∧ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r )
≡ (p ∨ q) ∧ (¬p ∨ r ) ∧ (¬q ∨ r )
≡ (p ∨ q) ∧ [(¬p ∧ ¬q) ∨ r ] Distrib. Law
≡ (p ∨ q) ∧ [¬(p ∨ q) ∨ r ]
≡ [(p ∨ q) ∧ ¬(p ∨ q)] ∨ [(p ∨ q) ∧ r ] Distrib. Law
≡ F ∨ [(p ∨ q) ∧ r ]
≡ (p ∨ q) ∧ r
=⇒ r
Proof by cases rule

p∨q
p→r
q→r
∴ r

(p ∨ q) means at least one of two cases is true:

Case 1: p is true
Then the rule is true, since [p ∧ (p → r )] → r
Case 2: q is true
Then the rule is true, since [q ∧ (q → r )] → r
Fallacies

The use of an incorrect inference may lead to an incorrect

conclusion, called a fallacy.
Converse error:
p → q is true and q is true
Thus, p is true.
This is a false argument.
Example:
If the butler did it he has blood on his hands.
The butler has blood on his hands.
Therefore, the butler did it.
Inverse error

p → q is true and p is false

Thus, q is false.
This is a false argument.
Example:
If the butler is nervous, he did it.
The butler is calm.
Therefore, the butler didn’t do it.
Fallacy of begging the question:

When a step of the proof is based on the truth of the statement

being proved.
This is a false argument.
Example:
The number log2 3 is irrational if it is not the ratio of 2 integers.
Therefore, since log2 3 cannot be written in the form a/b where
a and b are integers, it is irrational.
Example for applying inference schemas

We are given the following premises:

(1) If it does not rain or it is not foggy then the lifesaving
demonstration will go on and a sailing race will be held.
(2) If the sailing race is held then a trophy is awarded.
(3) The trophy was not awarded
Conclusion: It rained.
p .... it rains
q .... it is foggy
r .... lifesaving demonstration will go on
s .... sailing race will be held.
t .... trophy is awarded
We know:
(1) (¬p ∨ ¬q) → (r ∧ s)
(2) s → t
(3) ¬t
Solution

¬t
s→t modus tollens
∴ ¬s
¬s addition
∴ ¬s ∨ ¬r
≡ ¬(r ∧ s)
¬(r ∧ s)
(¬p ∨ ¬q) → (r ∧ s) modus tollens
∴ ¬(¬p ∨ ¬q)
≡p∧q
(p ∧ q) simplification
∴ p
p .... it rained.
Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements
U is the Universe of Discourse.
rule of inference name
∀x P(x) Universal instantiation
··˙ P(c) if c ∈ U
P(c) for arbitrary c ∈ U Universal generalization
··˙ ∀x P(x)
∃x P(x) Existential instantiation
··˙ P(c) for some c ∈ U
P(c) for some c ∈ U Existential generalization
··˙ ∃x P(x)
∀x P(x) → Q(x) Universal
P(c) for specific c ∈ U modus ponens
··˙ Q(c)
∀x P(x) → Q(x) Universal
¬Q(c) for specific c ∈ U modus tollens
··˙ ¬P(c)
Exercise

Prove disjunctive syllogism: [(p ∨ q) ∧ ¬p] → q

Bad

Prove disjunctive syllogism.

[(p ∨ q) ∧ ¬p] → q ≡ T

≡ [(p ∧ ¬p) ∨ (q ∧ ¬p)] → q ≡ (p ∨ ¬p)

≡ [F ∨ (q ∧ ¬p)] → q ≡ (p ∨ ¬p)

..
.
Good

Prove disjunctive syllogism.

Prove
[(p ∨ q) ∧ ¬p] → q ≡ T
[(p ∨ q) ∧ ¬p] → q
≡ [(p ∧ ¬p) ∨ (q ∧ ¬p)] → q
≡ ¬[F ∨ (q ∧ ¬p)] ∨ q
≡ [T ∧ ¬(q ∧ ¬p)] ∨ q
≡ ¬(q ∧ ¬p) ∨ q
≡ (¬q ∨ p) ∨ q
≡ (¬q ∨ q) ∨ p
≡T ∨p
≡T
Better

Prove disjunctive syllogism.

Prove
[(p ∨ q) ∧ ¬p] → q ≡ T
[(p ∨ q) ∧ ¬p] → q
≡ ¬[(p ∨ q) ∧ ¬p] ∨ q
≡ [¬(p ∨ q) ∨ p] ∨ q de Morgan
≡ ¬(p ∨ q) ∨ (p ∨ q) Associative law
≡T
Q41

Use quantifiers to express the associative law for multiplication

of real numbers.
Q41

Use quantifiers to express the associative law for multiplication

of real numbers.

Let x, y, z ∈ R.

∀x∀y∀z : (x × y ) × z = x × (y × z)
Reasoning

A convertible car is fun to drive. Isaac’s car is not a convertible.

Therefore, Isaac’s car is not fun to drive.

A is valid reasoning
B is not valid reasoning
C it isn’t clear
Reasoning

A convertible car is fun to drive. Isaac’s car is not a convertible.

Therefore, Isaac’s car is not fun to drive.

Invalid ‘reasoning’ schema: c → f

¬c
¬f

A
B is not valid reasoning
C
Reasoning

A convertible car is fun to drive. Isaac’s car is not fun to drive.

Therefore, Isaac’s car is not a convertable.

A is modus ponens
B is modus tollens
C not a valid argument
Reasoning

A convertible car is fun to drive. Isaac’s car is not fun to drive.

Therefore, Isaac’s car is not a convertable.

Reasoning schema: c → f
¬f
¬c

A
B is modus tollens
C
Q25

Justify the rule of universal modus tollens by showing that the

premises ∀x(P(x) → Q(x)) and ¬Q(a) for a particular element
a in the domain D imply ¬P(a)
Q25

Justify the rule of universal modus tollens by showing that the

premises ∀x(P(x) → Q(x)) and ¬Q(a) for a particular element
a in the domain D, imply ¬P(a)

Reasoning schema: ∀x(P(x) → Q(x))

¬Q(a)
∴ ¬P(a)

Universal Instantiation: ∀xS(x) → S(a) for a ∈ D

Q25
Justify the rule of universal modus tollens by showing that the
premises ∀x(P(x) → Q(x)) and ¬Q(a) for a particular element
a in the domain D, imply ¬P(a)

Reasoning schema: ∀x(P(x) → Q(x))

¬Q(a)
∴ ¬P(a)

Universal Instantiation: ∀xS(x) → S(a) for a ∈ D

Thus ∀x(P(x) → Q(x))
=⇒ P(a) → Q(a)

According to modus tollens: P(a) → Q(a)

¬Q(a)
∴ ¬P(a)