Rules of Inference

Rosen 1.5
Proofs in mathematics are valid arguments

An argument is a sequence of statements that end in a conclusion

By valid we mean the conclusion must follow from the truth of the preceding
statements or premises

We use rules of inference to construct valid arguments

Valid Arguments in Propositional Logic

Is this a valid argument?

If you listen you will hear what I’m saying

You are listening
Therefore, you hear what I am saying

Let p represent the statement “you listen”

Let q represent the statement “you hear what I am saying”

pq
The argument has the form: p
q
Valid Arguments in Propositional Logic

pq
p
(( p  q)  p )  q is a tautology (always true)

q
p q p  q ( p  q)  p (( p  q)  p)  q
0 0 1 0 1
0 1 1 0 1
1 0 0 0 1
1 1 1 1 1

This is another way of saying that

 therefore
Valid Arguments in Propositional Logic

When we replace statements/propositions with propositional variables

we have an argument form.

Defn:
An argument (in propositional logic) is a sequence of propositions.
All but the final proposition are called premises.
The last proposition is the conclusion
The argument is valid iff the truth of all premises implies the conclusion is true
An argument form is a sequence of compound propositions
Valid Arguments in Propositional Logic

The argument form with premises p1 , p2 , , pn

q
and conclusion

is valid when ( p1  p2    pn )  q is a tautology

We prove that an argument form is valid by using the laws of inference

But we could use a truth table. Why not?

Rules of Inference for Propositional Logic The 1st law

pq
p modus ponens
aka
law of detachment
q

modus ponens (Latin) translates to “mode that affirms”

Rules of Inference for Propositional Logic modus ponens
pq
p
q

If it’s a nice day we’ll go to the beach. Assume the hypothesis

“it’s a nice day” is true. Then by modus ponens it follows that
“we’ll go to the beach”.
Rules of Inference for Propositional Logic modus ponens
pq
p
q
A valid argument can lead to an incorrect conclusion
if one of its premises is wrong/false!

2
3 2 3 2
2  3 ( 2 ) 2  3 2
22 2 3  ( 2 ) 2 
2 3
22  ( 2 ) 22
3
2 3
2 2
2 2
3
2   
2
Rules of Inference for Propositional Logic modus ponens

2 pq
3 3
2  ( 2 )2   
2 2 p
3
2 q
2 A valid argument can lead to an incorrect
9 conclusion if one of its premises is wrong/false!
2 
4

3
p: 2
2
2
3
q: 2 
2
pq

The argument is valid as it is constructed using modus ponens

But one of the premises is false (p is false)
So, we cannot derive the conclusion
The rules of inference Page 66
Rule of inference Tautology Name
pq
p [ p  ( p  q )]  q Modus ponens
q
q
pq [q  ( p  q)]  p Modus tollen
 p
pq
qr [( p  q)  (q  r )]  ( p  r ) Hypothetical syllogism
pr
pq
p (( p  q)  p )  q Disjunctiv e syllogism
q
p
p  ( p  q) Addition
pq
pq
( p  q)  p Simplification
p
p
q (( p)  (q))  ( p  q) Conjunctio n
pq
pq
p  r [( p  q )  (p  r )]  ( p  r ) Resolution
q  r
Another view on what we are doing

You might think of this as some sort of game.

You are given some statement, and you want to see if it is a

valid argument and true

You translate the statement into argument form using propositional

variables, and make sure you have the premises right, and clear what
is the conclusion

You then want to get from premises/hypotheses (A) to the conclusion (B)
using the rules of inference.

So, get from A to B using as “moves” the rules of inference

Using the rules of inference to build arguments An example

It is not sunny this afternoon and it is colder than yesterday.

If we go swimming it is sunny.
If we do not go swimming then we will take a canoe trip.
If we take a canoe trip then we will be home by sunset.
We will be home by sunset
Using the rules of inference to build arguments An example

1. It is not sunny this afternoon and it is colder than yesterday.

2. If we go swimming it is sunny.
3. If we do not go swimming then we will take a canoe trip.
4. If we take a canoe trip then we will be home by sunset.
5. We will be home by sunset

p It is sunny this afternoon 1. p  q

q It is colder than yesterday 2. rp
r We go swimming
3.  r  s
s We will take a canoe trip
t We will be home by sunset (the conclusion) 4. st
5. t

propositions hypotheses
Using the rules of inference to build arguments An example
1. p  q
p It is sunny this afternoon
q It is colder than yesterday
2. r p
r We go swimming 3.  r  s
s We will take a canoe trip 4. st
t We will be home by sunset (the conclusion)
5. t
Step
Step Reason
Reason
Reason
1. 
pp  qq Hypothesis
Hypothesis
Hypothesis Rule of inference
pq
Tautology Name

p [ p  ( p  q )]  q Modus ponens

2. p Simplifica
Simplification
tionusing
using(1)
(1) q
q
pq [q  ( p  q)]  p Modus tollen
3. r  p Hypothesis
Hypothesis  p
pq

4. r Modus
Modustollens
tollensusing
using(2)
(2)and
and(3)
(3) qr
pr
[( p  q )  (q  r )]  ( p  r ) Hypothetical syllogism

pq
5. r  s Hypothesis p (( p  q)  p )  q Disjunctiv e syllogism
q

6. s Modus ponens using (4) and (5) p

pq
p  ( p  q) Addition

pq
7. s  t Hypothesis p
p
( p  q)  p Simplification

8. t Modus ponens using (6) and (7)

q (( p )  (q ))  ( p  q ) Conjunctio n
pq
pq
p  r [( p  q )  (p  r )]  ( p  r ) Resolution
q  r
Using the resolution rule (an example)

1. Anna is skiing or it is not snowing.

2. It is snowing or Bart is playing hockey.
3. Consequently Anna is skiing or Bart is playing hockey.

We want to show that (3) follows from (1) and (2)

Using the resolution rule (an example)

1. Anna is skiing or it is not snowing.

2. It is snowing or Bart is playing hockey.
3. Consequently Anna is skiing or Bart is playing hockey.

hypotheses propositions
1. p  r p Anna is skiing
2. r  q q Bart is playing hockey
r it is snowing

pq
p  r Resolution rule

q  r
Consequently Anna is skiing or Bart is playing hockey
Rules of Inference & Quantified Statements

All men are £$%^$*(%, said Jane

John is a man
Therefore John is a £$%^$*(

Above is an example of a rule called “Universal Instantiation”.

We conclude P(c) is true, where c is a particular/named element
in the domain of discourse, given the premise x P (x)
Rules of Inference & Quantified Statements

Rule of Inference Name

x P(x)
Universal instantiation
 P (c )
P(c) for an arbitrary c
Universal generalisation
 x P( x)
x P(x)
Existential instantiation
 P(c) for some element c
P(c) for some element c
Existential generalisation
 x P( x)
Rules of Inference & Quantified Statements
All men are £$%^$*(%, said Jane
John is a man
Therefore John is a £$%^$*(
premises
M(x) x is a man premises
B(x) x is a £$%^$ * ( x (M(x)  B(x))
Step
Step Reason
Reason
1. 
xx (M(x)
(M(x) 
 B(x))
B(x)) Premise
Premise
2. M(John)  B(John) Universal instantiation from (1.)
3. M(John) Premise
4. B(John) Modus ponens from (2.) and (3.)
Rule of Inference Name
x P(x)
Universal instantiation
 P (c )
P(c) for an arbitrary c
Universal generalisation
 x P( x)
x P(x)
Existential instantiation
 P(c) for some element c
P(c) for some element c
Existential generalisation
 x P( x)
Rules of Inference & Quantified Statements

Maybe another example?