Scribd
Upload
0 views4 pages

Mathematical_unit_1

The document contains exercises on propositional logic, including truth tables, logical equivalence, predicates, quantifiers, and validity of arguments. It provides solutions to each exercise, demonstrating the construction of truth tables, proving logical equivalences, evaluating predicates, and assessing the validity of arguments. Key concepts such as Modus Ponens and the fallacy of denying the antecedent are also discussed.

Uploaded by

ankitsarkaria1211
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0 views4 pages

Mathematical_unit_1

The document contains exercises on propositional logic, including truth tables, logical equivalence, predicates, quantifiers, and validity of arguments. It provides solutions to each exercise, demonstrating the construction of truth tables, proving logical equivalences, evaluating predicates, and assessing the validity of arguments. Key concepts such as Modus Ponens and the fallacy of denying the antecedent are also discussed.

Uploaded by

ankitsarkaria1211
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Propositional Logic Exercises with Solutions

Exercise 1: Truth Tables


Construct truth tables for the following propositions:

(a) p → (q ∧ r)

(b) (p ∨ q) → ¬r

Solutions
(a) p → (q ∧ r)

p q r q∧r p → (q ∧ r)
T T T T T
T T F F F
T F T F F
T F F F F
F T T T T
F T F F T
F F T F T
F F F F T

(b) (p ∨ q) → ¬r

p q r p∨q ¬r (p ∨ q) → ¬r
T T T T F F
T T F T T T
T F T T F F
T F F T T T
F T T T F F
F T F T T T
F F T F F T
F F F F T T

1
Exercise 2: Logical Equivalence
Show that the following are logically equivalent:

(a) p → q ≡ ¬p ∨ q

(b) ¬(p → q) ≡ p ∧ ¬q

Solutions
(a) Construct truth table for both sides:

p q p→q ¬p ¬p ∨ q
T T T F T
T F F F F
F T T T T
F F T T T

Since the columns for p → q and ¬p ∨ q match, they are logically equivalent.
(b) Show that ¬(p → q) ≡ p ∧ ¬q
From earlier:
p → q ≡ ¬p ∨ q ⇒ ¬(p → q) ≡ ¬(¬p ∨ q)
Apply De Morgan’s Law:

¬(¬p ∨ q) ≡ ¬(¬p) ∧ ¬q ≡ p ∧ ¬q

Hence proved.

2
Exercise 3: Predicates and Quantifiers
Let P (x) : x2 > 4. Determine the truth value of:

(a) ∀x ∈ R, P (x)

(b) ∃x ∈ R, P (x)

Solutions
(a) ∀x ∈ R, P (x): False
Counterexample: Let x = 0. Then x2 = 0 < 4, so P (0) is false.
(b) ∃x ∈ R, P (x): True
Example: Let x = 3. Then x2 = 9 > 4, so P (3) is true.

3
Exercise 4: Validity of Arguments
Determine whether each argument is valid or invalid.

(1) Premise 1: If it rains, then the ground is wet. (R → W )


Premise 2: It is raining. (R)
Conclusion: The ground is wet. (W )

(2) Premise 1: If you study, then you pass. (S → P )


Premise 2: You did not study. (¬S)
Conclusion: You did not pass. (¬P )

Solutions
(1) This is an example of **Modus Ponens**:

R → W, R ⊢ W

This is a valid argument.


(2) This is the fallacy of **denying the antecedent**:

S → P, ¬S ⊬ ¬P

Invalid argument — just because someone didn’t study doesn’t mean they necessarily failed.

You might also like