SMA 2205

Discrete Mathematics

This lecture note is prepared based on Discrete Mathematics & Its

Applications, 7thEd., Kenneth H. Rosen

1
Learning Outcomes
On completion of the course, a student would be able to:
 Describe mathematical arguments using logical connectives and
quantifiers.
 Construct proofs using direct proof, proof by contraposition, proof
by contradiction, proof by cases, and mathematical induction.
 Apply operations on discrete structures such as sets, functions,
relations, and sequences.
 Apply algorithms and use definitions to solve problems to prove
statements in elementary Number Theory.
 Know essential concepts in Graph Theory. 2
3
Outline

01 The Foundations: Logic a n d Proofs

02 Introduction to Proofs
03 Basic Structures: Sets, Functions, Relations,
Sequences a n d Sums.
04 The fundamentals: Elementary number theory &
Algorithms
G r a p h theory

3
4 Methods of Assessments

🠶Take-home assignments – 10%

🠶In-class quizzes –10%
🠶 M i d Semester Examination – 20%
🠶Final examination – 60%

4
Recommended Texts
5

🠶 Discrete Mathem a tics a n d I ts A p p lic a tions,

Kenneth Rosen, McGraw-Hill, 7th edition, 2011.
🠶 Discrete Mathematics with Applications, Susanna S. Epp,
C e n g a g e Learning, 4th edition, 2010.

5
Why Study Discrete Math?
The basis of all of digital information processing is: Discrete manipulations of discrete
structures represented in memory.

It’s the basic language and conceptual foundation for all of computer science.

Discretemath concepts are also widely used throughout math, science, engineering,
economics, biology, etc., …

A generally useful tool for rational thought!

6
 The Foundations: Logic and
Proofs
Chapter 1
7

7
Chapter 01 Summary
🠶 Propositional Logic
🠶 The Language of Propositions
🠶 Applications
🠶 Logical Equivalences

🠶 Predicate Logic
🠶 Predicates
🠶 The Language of
Quantifiers
🠶 Nested Quantifiers
🠶 Rules of Inference

8
 1. Propositional Logic

9
Section Summary
🠶 1 . 1 Propositions
🠶 1 . 2 Compound propositions
🠶 1.2.1 Negation
🠶 1.2.2 Connectives
 Conjunction
 Disjunction
 Conditional statement/ Implication
 New conditional statement: Contrapositive, Inverse,
Converse
 Biconditionals
🠶 1 . 3 Truth Tables for Compound Propositions

10
1.1 Propositions
Definition: A proposition (denoted p, q, r, …) is simply:
🠶 a statement (i.e., a declarative sentence) with some definite meaning, (not vague or
ambiguous)

🠶 having a truth value that’s either true (T) or false (F)

it is never both, neither, or somewhere “in between!”

🠶 However, you might not know the actual truth value,

and, the truth value might depend on the situation or context.

11
11 Examples for proposition
It is raining. (In a given situation)

🠶 Beijing is the capital of China.(T)

🠶 2 + 2 = 5.(F)
🠶 1 + 2 = 3.(T)
🠶 A fact-based declaration is a proposition, even if no one knows whether it is true
🠶 11213 is prime.
🠶 There exists an odd perfect number.

12
11 Examples for Non-proposition
The following are NOT propositions:

🠶 Who’s there? (interrogative, question)

🠶 Just do it! (imperative, command)
🠶 La la la la la. (meaningless interjection)
🠶 Yeah, I sorta dunno, whatever... (vague)
🠶 1 + 2 (expression with a non-true/false value)
🠶 x + 2 = 5 (declaration about semantic tokens of non-constant value)

13
12🠶 Constructing Propositions
🠶 Propositional Varia b les: p, q, r, s, …
🠶 The proposition tha t is always true is
de n o ted by T and the proposition that is
always false is deno ted by F.

14
1.2 Compound Propositions
 An operator or connective combines one or more operand expressions into a larger expression.
 (e.g., “+” in numeric expressions.)

🠶 Unary operators take one operand (e.g., -3);

🠶 Binary operators take two operands (e.g. 3  4).

🠶 Propositional or Boolean operators operate on propositions (or their truth values) instead of on
numbers.

🠶 The Boolean domain is the set {T, F}. Either of its elements is called a Boolean value.

15
131.2 Compound Propositions
🠶 C o m p o u n d Propositions; constructed from logical
connectives
a n d other propositions

16
1.2.1 Negation

🠶 The negation of a proposition p is d en o ted by ¬p a n d has this truth

table:

p ¬p
T F
F T

🠶 Example: I f p denotes “The earth is round.”, then ¬p denotes,

🠶 “It is not the c a s e that the earth is round,” or more simply “The earth
is not round.”

17
1.2.2 Connectives
Conjunction
🠶 The conjunction of prop o sitions p a nd q is den ote d by p ∧ q
a nd ha s this truth table:
p q p∧q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F

🠶 Example: If p denotes “I a m at home.” a n d q denotes “It is raining.” then

p
∧q denotes,
🠶 “I a m a t ho m e a nd it is raining.”

18
Disjunction
🠶 The disjunction of propositions p a n d is d enote d by p
q ∨q
a n d has this truth table:
p q p ∨q
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F

🠶 Example: If p denotes “I am a t ho me .” a n d q
denotes “It is raining.” then p ∨q denotes
🠶 “I am a t ho me or it is raining.”

19
The Connective Or in disjunction
🠶 In English “or” has two distinct meanings.
🠶 “Inclusive Or” - In the sentence “Students who have taken CS202 or
Math120 may take this class,” w e assume that students n e e d to have
taken one of the prerequisites, but may have taken both. This is the
meaning of disjunction. For p ∨q to b e true, either one or both of p
a n d q must b e true.
🠶 “Exclusive Or” - When reading the sentence “Soup or salad comes
with this entrée,” w e d o not expect to b e able to get both soup a n d
salad. This is the meaning of Exclusive Or (Xor). In p ⊕ q , one of p
a n d q must b e true, but not both. The truth table for ⊕ is:
p q p ⊕q
T T F
T F T
F T T
F F F
20
Conditional Statements: Implication
🠶 If p a n d q a re prop o sitions, the n p →q is a conditional statement or
implication which is read as “if p, then q ” a n d has this truth table:

p q p →q
T T T

T F F
F T T
F F T

🠶 Example: If p denotes “I a m at home.” a n d denotes “It is raining.” then

q p →q denotes
🠶 “If I am at ho m e the n it is raining .”
🠶 In p →q , p is the hypothesis (antecedent or premise) a nd q is the
conclusion (or consequence).

21
Understanding Implication

🠶 In p →q there does not n e e d to b e any connection between the

antecedent or the conclusion. The “meaning” of p →q depends only on the
truth values of p a n d q.
🠶 These implications are perfectly fine, but would not b e used in ordinary
English.
🠶 “If the moon is m a d e of green cheese, then I have more money than
Bill Gates. ”
🠶 “If the moon is m a d e of green cheese then I’m on welfare.”
🠶 “If 1 + 1 = 3, then your gra n d m a w ears c o m b a t b o o ts.”

22
Understanding Implication (cont)

🠶 O n e way to view the logical conditional is to think of a n obligation

or
contract.
🠶 “If I am ele c ted, then I will lower taxes.”
🠶 “If you get 100% on the final, then you will get a n A.”
🠶 If the politician is elected a n d does not lower taxes, then the voters
c a n say that he or she has broken the c a m p a i g n pledge. This
corresponds to the c a s e where p is true a n d q is false.

23
Different Ways of Expressing p →q

if p, then q p implies
if p, q q p only if
q unless q
¬p q when p
q if p p is sufficient for
q q q is necessary
whenever for p
p
a necessary condition for p is
qqfollows
from p
a sufficient condition for q is p

24
New conditional statements: Converse,
Contrapositive, and Inverse
🠶 From p →q w e c a n form new conditional statements .
🠶 q →p is the converse of p →q
🠶 ¬q → ¬ p is the contrapositive of p →q
🠶 ¬p→¬q is the inverse of p →q
Example: Find the c onverse, inverse, and
con trapositive of “It’ s raining is a sufficient condition for my
not going to town.”
Solution:
converse:
?
inverse:

?
25
23Converse, Contrapositive, and Inverse

🠶 From p →q w e c a n form new conditional statements .

🠶 q →p is the converse of p →q
🠶 ¬q → ¬ p is the contrapositive of p →q
🠶 ¬p→¬q is the inverse of p →q
Example: Find the c onverse, inverse, and
con trapositive of “It’ s raining is a sufficient condition for my
not going to town.”
Solution:
converse: If I d o not g o to town, then it is raining.
inverse: If it is not raining, then I will g o to town.
contrapositive: If I g o to town, then it is not raining.

26
 Biconditionals

🠶 If p a n d q are propositions, then w e c a n form the biconditional

proposition p ↔q , read as “ p if a n d only if q .” The
biconditional p ↔q denotes the proposition with this truth
table:
p q p ↔q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F T

🠶 If p denotes “I a m at home.” a n d denotes “It is raining.”

q p ↔q denote s “I a m a t ho me if a n d then
only if it is
raining.”

27
Expressing the Biconditional

🠶 Some alternative ways “ p if a n d only if q ” is expressed in English:

🠶 p is necessary and sufficient for q

🠶 if p then q , and conversely
🠶 p iff q

28
1.3 Truth Tables For Compound Propositions
🠶 Construction of a truth table:
🠶 Rows
🠶 Need a row for every possible for the
combination of values
atomic propositions.
🠶 Columns
🠶 N e e d a column for the c o m p o u n d proposition (usually at far
right)
🠶 N e e d a column for the truth value of e a c h expression that occurs
in the c o m p o u n d proposition as it is built up.
This includes the atomic propositions

29
 That sounds
pretty
Example Truth Table easy.

🠶 Construct a truth table

for
p q r r pq p  q → r
T T T F T F
T T F T T T
T F T F T F
T F F T T T
F T T F T F
F T F T T T
F F T F F T
F F F T F T

30
28 Equivalent Propositions

🠶 Two propositions are equivalent if they always have the same truth
value.
🠶 Example: Show using a truth table that the conditional is equivalent
to the contrapositive.
Solution:

31
29 Equivalent Propositions
🠶 Two propositions are equivalent if they always have the same truth
value.
🠶 Example: Show using a truth table that the conditional is equivalent
to the contrapositive.
Solution:

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

32
Using a Truth Table to Show Non-Equivalence

Example: Show using truth tables that neither the converse nor inverse
of a n implication are not equivalent to the implication.
Solution:

p q ¬p ¬q p →q ¬ p →¬ q q→p

T T F F T T T
T F F T F T T
F T T F T F F
F F T T T T T

33
Precedence of Logical Operators
Operator Precedence
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5

p q  r is e qu iva le nt to (p q)  r .
If the intend e d m eaning is p (q  r ) then parentheses must b e used.

34
32 Exercise!
1. Which of these sentences are propositions? What are the truth values of those that are propositions?

a) M ia mi is the c a pita l of Florid a

b) 2+3=5
c) 5 + 7 = 10
d) Do not pass g o
e) Wha t tim e is it?

2. Write down the negation of each of the following propositions.

a) 2 + 1 = 3
f) The re is no pollution in Kandy
g) 121 is a p e rfect squ are.

35
33
Exercise!(Cont)

3. Let p and q be the propositions

p : I bought a lottery ticket this week.

q : I won the million dollar jackpot.

Express each of these propositions as an English sentence.

a) ¬p b) p ∨ q c) p → q
d) p ∧ q e) p ↔ q f ) ¬p →¬q
g) ¬p ∧ ¬q h) ¬p ∨ (p ∧ q)

36
 Exercise!(Cont)
34
4. Let p and q be the propositions

p : It is below freezing.
q : It is snowing.

Write these propositions using p and q and logical connectives (including negations).

a) It is b e lo w free zing a nd snowing.

b) It is b e lo w free zing but not snowing.
c) It is not b e lo w free zing a nd it is not snowing.
d) It is e ithe r snowing or b e lo w free zing (or b o th).
e) If it is b e lo w free zing, it is a lso snowing.
f ) Either it is below freezing or it is snowing, but it is not snowing if it is below freezing.
g) That it is below freezing is necessary a n d sufficient for it to b e snowing.

5. Construct a truth table for the following compound proposition.

(p ∨ q) → (p ∧ q)

37
➼ Propositional Logic
➼ The Language of Propositions
➼ Applications
➼ Logical Equivalences

➼ Predicate Logic
➼ Predicates
➼ The Language of Quantifiers
➼ Nested Quantifiers
➼ Rules of Inference
1. Propositional
Logic
Section 3 – Logical
Equivalence
➼ Propositional Equivalence
 Tautologies
 Contradictions
 Contingencies
 Definition
 De Morgan’s Laws
 Key Logical Equivalence
 Constructing new logical equivalences
 Equivalence proof
➼ A tautology is a proposition which is always
true.
Example: p ∨¬p

➼ A contradiction is a proposition which is always false.

Example: p 𝖠¬p

➼ A contingency is a proposition which is neither a

tautology nor a contradiction, such as p

P ¬p p ∨¬p p ⋀¬p
T F T F
F T T F
Definition:

➼ Two compound propositions p and q are logically equivalent if

p↔q
is a tautology.

➼ Alternatively, two compound propositions p and q are

equivalent if and only if the columns in a truth table giving their
truth values agree.

➼ We write this as p ⇔ q or as p ≡ q where p and q are compound

propositions.
Example:
➼ This truth table shows ¬p ∨ q is equivalent to p →
q.

p q ¬p ¬p ∨ q p→ q
T T F T T

T F F F F

F T T T T

F F T T T
De Morgan’s Laws

Augustus De Morgan

1806‐1871

This truth table shows that De Morgan’s Second Law holds.

p q ¬p ¬q (p∨q) ¬(p∨q) ¬p 𝖠 ¬q
T T F F T F F
T F F T T F F
F T T F T F F
F F T T F T T
➼ Identity Laws: ,

➼ Domination Laws: ,

➼ Idempotent laws: ,

➼ Double Negation Law:

,
➼ Negation Laws:
➼

➼
Logical Equivalence Involving Logical Equivalence Involving
Conditional Statements Biconditional Statements
➼ We can show that two expressions are logically equivalent
by
developing a series of logically equivalent statements.

➼ To prove that we produce a series of equivalences

beginning with A and ending with B.
Solution:
Chapter 01 Summary

🠶 Propositional Logic
🠶 The Language of Propositions
🠶 Applications
🠶 Logical Equivalences

🠶 Predicate Logic
🠶 Predicates
🠶 The Language of Quantifiers
🠶 Nested Quantifiers

🠶 Rules of Inference

51
 2. Predicate Logic

Predicates
7

52
Section Summary

🠶 Predicate Logic

 Introduction
 Propositional Functions
 Universe of discourse

🠶 Quantifiers

 Universal quantifier
 Existential Quantifiers
 Nested(Mixing) Quantifiers

53
Introduction
Consider the statements:

Thesymbols denote relations between x and 3, x, y, and 4, and x,y, and z,

respectively

Theserelations may hold or not hold depending on the values that x, y, and z
may take.

A predicateis a property that is affirmed or denied about the subject (in logic,
we say ‘variable’ or ‘argument’) of a statement.

Consider the statement : ‘x is greater than 3’

◦‘x’ is the subject
◦‘is greater than 3’ is the predicate

54
Propositional Functions
To write in Predicate Logic ‘x is greater than 3’

◦We introduce a functional symbol for the predicate and

◦Put the subject as an argument (to the functional symbol): P(x)

Terminology

◦P(x) is a statement
◦P is a predicate or propositional function
◦x as an argument

55
Propositional Functions (Cont)
Examples:

◦Father(x): unary predicate.

◦Brother(x, y): binary predicate.

◦Sum(x, y, z): ternary predicate.

◦P(x, y, z, t): n-ary predicate

56
Propositional Functions (Cont)
Definition: A statement of the form is the value of the
propositional symbol P.

Here: is an n-tuple and P is a predicate.

We can think of a propositional function as a function that

◦Evaluates to true or false.
◦Takes one or more arguments.
◦Expresses a predicate involving the argument(s).
◦Becomes a proposition when values are assigned to the
arguments.

57
Propositional Functions (Cont)
Example: Let denote the statement .

◦What is the truth value of Q(3,4,5)?

◦What is the truth value of Q(2,2,3)?

◦How many values of (x, y, z) make the predicate true?

Solution:

◦There are infinitely many values that make the proposition true.
(how many right triangles are there?)

58
 Universe of Discourse
Consider the previous example. Does it make sense to assign to
x the value “blue”?

Intuitively,
the universe of discourse is the set of all things we
wish to talk about; that is, the set of all objects that we can
sensibly assign to a variable in a propositional function.

59
 2. Predicate Logic

Language of Quantifiers
7

60
Quantifiers: Introduction

A predicate becomes a proposition when we assign it fixed values.

However, another way to make a predicate into a proposition is to
quantify it. That is, the predicate is true (or false) for all possible
values in the universe of discourse or for some value(s) in the
universe of discourse.

Such quantification can be done with two quantifiers:

The universal quantifier and the existential quantifier.

61
Universal Quantifier

Definition:

The universal quantification of a predicate P(x) is the

proposition ‘P(x) is true for all values of x in the universe of
discourse.’

We use the notation: which is read ‘for all x’.

If the universe of discourse is finite, say then the universal

quantifier is simply the conjunction of the propositions over all
the elements

62
Universal Quantifier
Example I
Let
P(x): ‘x must take a discrete mathematics course’ and Q(x): ‘x is a
Computer Science(CS) student.’

The universe of discourse for both P(x) and Q(x) is all SLTC students.

Express the statements:

◦“Every CS student must take a discrete mathematics course.”
 𝑥 𝑄(𝑥 )→ 𝑃 (𝑥)
◦“Everybody must take a discrete mathematics course or be a CS student.”
 𝑥( 𝑃 (𝑥 )∨ 𝑄( 𝑥))
◦“Everybody must take a discrete mathematics course and be a CS student.”
 𝑥( 𝑃 (𝑥 )∧ 𝑄( 𝑥))
63
Universal Quantifier
Example 2
Express the statement: ‘for every x and every y, ’

Answer:

◦Let be the statement .

◦Where the universe of discourse for x, y is the set of integers

◦The statement is:

 Shorthand:

64
Existential Quantifier
Definition:

The existential quantification of a predicate P(x) is the

proposition ‘There exists a value x in the universe of discourse
such that P(x) is true.’
We use the notation: which is read ‘there exists x’.

Ifthe universe of discourse is finite, say then the existential

quantifier is simply the disjunction of the propositions over all
the elements

65
 Existential Quantifier
Example I

Let denote the statement ‘.

What does the expression

mean?

Which universe(s) of discourse make it true?

66
Existential Quantifier
Example 2
Express the statement: ‘there exists a real solution to .

Answer:

◦Let P(x) be the statement .

◦Where the universe of discourse for x is the set of real numbers. Note here
that a, b, c are fixed constants.

◦The statement can be expressed as .

67
Existential Quantifier
Example 2(Cont)
What is the truth value of

Answer:

◦It is false. When , there are no real number that can satisfy the predicate.

What can we do so that is true?

Answer:

◦Change the universe of discourse to the complex numbers, 

68
Quantifiers: Truth values
In general, when are quantified statements true or false?

Statement True when… False when...

P(x) is true for every x There is an x for which
P(x) is false
There is an x for which P(x) is false for every x
P(x) is true

69
Mixing(Nesting) quantifiers
Existentialand universal quantifiers can be used together to
quantify a propositional predicate.

For example:

is perfectly valid.

Note:

◦The quantifiers must be read from left to right.

◦The order of the quantifiers is important.
◦is not equivalent to

70
Mixing quantifiers

Example:

◦Loves (x,y): Everybody loves somebody.

◦Loves(x,y): There is someone loved by everyone.

The two expressions do not mean the same thing.

(Loves(x,y))  (Loves (x,y)) but the converse does not hold.

However, you can commute similar quantifiers

◦is equivalent to (thus,
◦is equivalent to (thus

◦(which is why our shorthand was valid).

Mixing Quantifiers: Truth values
Statement True when... False when...

P(x,y) is true for every pair There is at least one pair x,y for
x,y which P(x,y) is false

For every x, there is a y for There is an x for which P(x,y) is

which P(x,y) is true false for every y

There is an x for which For every x, there is a y for

P(x,y) is true for every y which P(x,y) is false

There is at least one pair x,y

P(x,y) is false for every pair x,y
for which P(x,y) is true
Mixing Quantifiers
Example 1
Express, in predicate logic, the statement that there is an infinite number of integers.

Answer:

‒ Let be the statement that

‒ Let the universe of discourse be the integers,
‒ The statement can be expressed by the following
Mixing Quantifiers:
Example 2
Express the commutative law of addition for .

We want to express that for every pair of reals, , the following holds:

Answer:

‒ Let P(x,y) be the statement that

‒ Let the universe of discourse be the reals, R
‒ The statement can be expressed by the following

Alternatively,
Mixing Quantifiers:
Example (3)
Express the multiplicative law for nonzero reals

Wewant to express that for every real number x, there exists a real
number y such that .

Answer:
 𝑥  𝑦 ( 𝑥 𝑦 =1)
Mixing Quantifiers: Example 4
false mathematical statement
Does commutativity for subtraction hold over the reals?

That is: does for all pairs in ?

Express using quantifiers

 𝑥  𝑦 (𝑥 − 𝑦 =𝑦 − 𝑥 )
Mixing Quantifiers:
Example 5
Express the statement as a logical expression:
◦“There is a number x such that,
◦when it is added to any number, the result is that number and
◦if it is multiplied by any number, the result is x”

•Answer:
• Let P(x,y) be the expression
• Let Q(x,y) be the expression
• The universe of discourse is (but not )
• Then the expression is:

Alternatively:
Chapter 01 Summary

🠶 Propositional Logic
🠶 The Language of Propositions
🠶 Applications
🠶 Logical Equivalences

🠶 Predicate Logic
🠶 Predicates
🠶 The Language of Quantifiers
🠶 Nested Quantifiers

🠶 Rules of Inference

78
 2. Predicate Logic (Cont.)

79
Section Summary

🠶 Predicate Logic
 Binding variables
 Negation

80
Binding Variables
When a quantifier is used on a variable x, we say that x is bound.

If no quantifier is used on a variable in a predicate statement, the variable is called free.

Examples:

◦In both x and y are bound.

◦In x is bound but y is free.

A statement is called a well-formed formula, when all variables are properly quantified.
Binding Variables: Scope
The set of all variables bound by a common quantifier is called the scope of the quantifier.

Exercise, in the expression

◦What is the scope of existential quantifier?

◦What is the scope of universal quantifier? .
◦What are the bound variables? .
◦What are the free variables?
◦Is the expression a well-formed formula?
No.
Negation
We can use negation with quantified expressions as we used them with propositions.

Lemma: Let P(x) be a predicate. Then the followings hold:

This is essentially the quantified version of De Morgan’s Law (when the universe of discourse
is finite, this is exactly De Morgan’s Law)
Truth Values of Negated Quantifiers

Statement True when… False when...

P(x) is false for every x There is an x for which P(x)

is true

There is an x for which

P(x) is false P(x) is true for every x
Negation: Example
Rewrite the following expression, pushing negation inward:

Answer:

𝑥( 𝑦𝑧 𝑃(𝑥,𝑦,𝑧)𝑧 𝑦 𝑃(𝑥,𝑦,𝑧))

English into Logic
Logic is more precise than English.

Transcribing English into Logic and vice versa can be tricky.

When writing statements with quantifiers, usually the correct meaning is

conveyed with the following combinations:

x Lion(x)  Fierce(x): Every lion is fierce.

Holds when you have at least one vegan lion.

Holds when you have vegan lion in the universe of discourse (even though
there is no vegan lion in the universe of discourse )
Exercises
Let P(x,y) denote ‘x is a factor of y’ where and

Let Q(x,y) denote:

Question: When is true?

Chapter 01 Summary

🠶 Propositional Logic
🠶 The Language of Propositions
🠶 Applications
🠶 Logical Equivalences

🠶 Predicate Logic
🠶 Predicates
🠶 The Language of Quantifiers
🠶 Nested Quantifiers

🠶 Rules of Inference

88
 3. Rules of Inference

89
Section Summary

🠶 Rules of Inference
 Definition
 Rules of inference chart.
 Valid arguments

90
Rules of Inference
Definition
Therules of inference (also known as inference rules) are a logical
form or guide consisting of premises (or hypotheses) and draws a
conclusion.

There are two ways to form logical arguments, as seen in the image
below. We will be utilizing both formats in this lesson to become
familiar and comfortable with their framework.

91
Rules of Inference
 .

92
 Rules of Inference
 .

 .

 .

93
Rules of Inference - chart

94
Rules of Inference – chart (Cont)

95
Modes Ponens
 .

 .

 .

96
Modes Tollens
 .

 .

 .

97
Hypothetical Syllogism

 .

98
Disjunctive Syllogism

 .

 .

 .

99
Addition
 .

 .

 .

100
Simplification
 .

101
Conjunction

102
Resolution
 .

 .

 .

103
Building Valid Arguments
 .

 .

104
Valid Arguments

 .

 .

105
Valid Arguments

 .

106
Solution

107
Solution(Cont..)

108
Chapter 01 Summary

🠶 Propositional Logic
🠶 The Language of Propositions
🠶 Applications
🠶 Logical Equivalences

🠶 Predicate Logic
🠶 Predicates
🠶 The Language of Quantifiers
🠶 Nested Quantifiers

🠶 Rules of Inference

109
Section Summary

🠶 Rules of Inference
 Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements

110
Rules of Inference for Quantified
Statements
 We have discussed rules of inference for propositions.

 There
are types of quantifiers:
1.Universal Quantification (all, any, each, every)
2.Existential Quantification (there exists, some, at least one)

 Wewill now describe some important rules of inference for statements involving
quantifiers.

 Theserules of inference are used extensively in mathematical arguments, often

without being explicitly mentioned.

111
Rules of Inference for Quantified
Statements

112
Example 1
Let

• “Alllions are fierce.”

• “Some lions do not drink coffee.”
• “Some fierce creatures do not drink coffee.”

So, this means we are given to premises, and we want to know whether we
can conclude “some fierce creatures do not drink coffee.”

Let’s let L(x) be “x is a lion,” F(x) be “x is fierce,” and C(x) be “x drinks

coffee.”

113
Example 1(Cont)

But the problem is, how do we conclude the last line of the argument from the two given assertions?

If we can prove this argument is true for one element, then we have shown that it is true for others.

Let’s let Lambert be our element. This means that Lambert is a lion who is fierce and doesn’t drink
coffee.

114
Example 1 (Cont)

115
Example 2
Show that the premises “Everyone in this discrete mathematics class has taken a course in
computer science” and “Marla is a student in this class” imply the conclusion “Marla has taken
a course in computer science”.

Solution
Let
denote “ is in this discrete mathematics class,” and let denote “ has taken a course in
computer science.” Then the premises are and The conclusion is

116
Example 2(Cont)
The following steps can be used to establish the conclusion from the premises

117