Logic 0
An Intuitive, Practical Introduction to Zeroth-Order Logic

Contents

Introduction

As an Intuitive Practical Introduction, This Course Is Easy

I call this course an "intuitive, practical introduction," because it is thoroughly based in the practice of logical techniques that leverage what the student already knows. The main text of the course briefly introduces each technique. However, the instructional core of the course material is found in the exercises and quizzes. The exercises elaborate upon the techniques, and train the student in those techniques. Then the quizzes test the student, and give definitive feedback on their progress. When memorization is needed, flashcards are provided. The exercises and quizzes are sequenced in a very precise manner. At each stage the techniques are developed in a subtly incremental way, so that the learning is quite natural and intuitive—almost uneventful. That means that this course is easy. All you have to do is work through the exercises and quizzes in sequence. If you do this, then you will learn the techniques. And it is the techniques that are of utmost importance at this very beginning level of logic. 

Streamlined Explanations

The course material here will provide explanations of everything you need to know. Effort has been made to keep all explanations as streamlined as possible. 

Techniques Learned through the Exercises

Again, it is the techniques that are of utmost importance, and the techniques are actually learned through careful review of the exercises. Make sure that you work the exercises according to the instructions given. 

Few Trick Questions

There are few trick questions in this course of study. The explanations prepare you for the exercises. In the exercises there will be some content not covered in the explanations, but the answers to the exercise problems are provided. Using these answers, you will be able to easily figure out the problem types. The quizzes are almost identical to the exercises. And the exams are almost identical to the quizzes. The quizzes simply test how well you have worked the exercises. And the exams simply test how well you have worked the quizzes. 

Zeroth-Order Logic for the Absolute Beginner

In this course, we will be studying "propositional" logic, also known as "sentential" logic, also known as "zeroth-order" logic. Zeroth-order logic is the foundation of all other forms of logic. It is like the ground floor of a building. We are starting with the very basic beginnings of logic, and then working up from there. There is no need for you to know anything about logic at this point. This course is made for the absolute beginner. 

Scientific Concepts Based in Techniques

Because this course is rooted in technique, and because I will guide you step-by-step through each technique, the course is very easy to complete. But that should not be taken to mean that the course is anything less than rigorous. In the process of completing this practical introduction you will come to understand the fundamental concepts of logic. However, it is important to put the techniques first, because the scientific concepts are understood in relation to the techniques. Some concepts are best understood—most precisely understood—as the very point of the techniques. And some concepts are only understood once we begin to see the limitations inherent in the techniques. 

This course will thoroughly prepare you for the study of first-order logic and beyond. For more explanation (unnecessary at this point), see Wikipedia, "Zeroth-Order Logic," "First-Order Logic," and "Second-Order Logic." 

The Triviality of Logic

Some will wonder why we study logic. At the risk of being too clever by half, I want to answer that we study logic because it is a trivial matter. —Let me explain. 

The western tradition of education goes back to the Academy, the first school to exist in the west, the school founded by Plato in about 385 BC (about 2,400 years ago). Since then, whenever someone would go to school (in Europe, north Africa, or the Americas—but many other places around the world as well) they would do so in the fashion first established by Plato.

In his Socratic dialogue the Republic, Plato arranged all “academic” subjects into seven major fields, with three being designated as elementary, and four as higher studies—and these seven were all merely preparatory for the dialectics of philosophy. Plato’s taxonomy was slightly altered over the centuries, but well into modern times it remained essentially the same.

In late antiquity throughout Europe, during the decline of the Roman empire, classical education became very standardized around the seven “liberal arts” as they were known—those "arts" that would "liberate" the mind. And, as with Plato, there were three designated as elementary, and four as higher studies. The following is the classical arrangement.

The Seven Liberal Arts

Trivium

Quadrivium

The trivium is the collection of three ("tri") elementary subjects. And the quadrivium is the collection of four ("quad") more advanced subjects.

In Anglo-American Victorian culture, the very basics of a primary school education were considered to be reading, writing and arithmetic (the so-called three "R"s). Throughout Europe, the Americas and beyond—for millennia before that—the basics of a high school education were grammar (a rigorous study of reading), rhetoric (a rigorous study of writing), and logic (a rigorous study of human reasoning). A young adult was not prepared to properly read, write and reason until they had mastered grammar, rhetoric and logic. And these were prerequisites for the more advanced studies of the quadrivium. Logic was a prerequisite for the more advanced studies of the quadrivium just as much as were grammar and rhetoric. These were the basic skills a young person needed in order to be successful in academic pursuits.

Furthermore, placing logic at the basic level of education for young adults made a lot of sense in the classic approach to the quadrivium, because logic was essential to the study of arithmetic and geometry. Up until the late twentieth century, arithmetic and geometry were taught along the method of Euclid, who was active as a professor in about 300 BC (just a few decades after Plato). In fact, until the late twentieth century most geometry textbooks were directly derived from Euclid’s Elements. And in this treatise Euclid deductively proves—largely using elementary logic—the foundational theorems of two-dimensional and three-dimensional geometry, as well as the theorems of arithmetic. Music (mathematical harmonics) and astronomy (the study of three-dimensional geometric figures in motion) were then an extension of Euclid’s Elements.

The studies of the quadrivium were then themselves considered prerequisites for any further philosophical research—natural philosophy (biology and physics), philosophy of the mind (psychology), et cetera. To be successful in the academic pursuit of what we now think of as a college major, a young person had to first be proficient at the level of the quadrivium. And to be proficient at the level of the quadrivium, a young person had to first be proficient at the rudimentary level of the trivium.

Be assured that there is a connection between the words "trivial" and "trivium." That is why I began by saying that logic is a "trivial" matter. Classically, it has always been placed at the most rudimentary level of any serious academic pursuit. 

Your Brain Is Made for This

In this introduction I have tried to emphasize that the course is very easy. Be assured that it is. This is because your brain is made for this. You already think logically. Logic is an essential characteristic of human beings. All we want to do is systematically exercise and strengthen the logic that you already use on a day-to-day basis. Honestly, I have literally never met a student that is incapable of excelling in this course. Just follow the program of exercises I have put together for you, and observe the unfolding of the logic of your mind.

Navigating the Course

Underlined Text a URL Link

Any underlined text on this website is a URL link. Click on the link to navigate to the content indicated. Please do actually click on the links. 

Anonymous Google Account Required

To complete the exercise, quizzes and exams, you will need to use a Google account. Please create a new google account specifically for this course, and choose an email address that is anonymous. For the email address, don't use your name, student number or other identifying information. Other than that, anything will do. But keep the address as short as possible so that it is easy for me to read. If you can come up with something clever or even humorous, that helps me. 

The use of an anonymous Google account allows for useful features of Google Forms, while providing fool proof security. 

Follow the instructions in the following link. 

Google, Create a Google Account

Enter the email address when prompted to do so in the exercises and quizzes. I will track your performance by your anonymous Google email address.  

Online Dictionaries and Encyclopedias 

As you work through the material in the course, if you have difficulty understanding any of the terminology, use a dictionary or an encyclopedia. If it seems like the difficulty is simply with the level of English vocabulary, use a dictionary. If the difficulty seems to be some reference to a technical subject, use an encyclopedia. Usually, I will explain anything germane to elementary logic, but sometimes I will make reference to subjects beyond the scope of this course that it would not be instructive to describe. I do assume that you have a general knowledge of the world from the north American cultural perspective. I also assume that you are working online, and have access to dictionaries and encyclopedias right at your fingertips.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary and Wikipedia are usually appropriate for students taking this course. They provide explanation sufficient for mastery of the course material. 

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Wikipedia—The Free Encyclopedia

If you desire more in-depth and sophisticated explanation, the following resources are good.

Online Etymology Dictionary

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy  

PART 1—EVOLVING OUR SYMBOLIC APPARATUS

Chapter 1—Lookup Tables

This course is about zeroth order logic. However, before we begin the proper study of zeroth-order, propositional logic, we will do some preparatory work. In this chapter we will practice the use of lookup tables, and explore how lookup tables can allow us to efficiently understand some basic arithmetic. At first we will not be doing genuine logic, but by starting with some familiar concepts and techniques of simple arithmetic we will prepare the brain to absorb the basic principles of symbolic logic. 

Students come to this course with a wide variety of experience, knowledge and skill. Without some expertise in the manipulation of the symbolic apparatus of logic, many of the concepts of the subject can be elusive. The first priority, then, is to learn how to properly handle the symbolic system. This requires attention to detail, and the precise placement of symbols on the page—but it doesn’t require much experience or knowledge. If you find yourself unable to grasp logic at a more abstract and conceptual level, focus on the symbolic system. Learn how to properly place the symbols on the page. Once you have some comfort with this, the concepts will naturally become apparent. 

Some Familiar Lookup Tables

In the first portion of the course, I will emphasize the use of lookup tables. Lookup tables are found every day in ordinary life. We want to leverage our experience with familiar lookup tables in order to understand how to use the lookup tables of logic. To get us in the right frame of mind, we will start with an exercise in looking up information on a schedule of yoga classes. 

Demonstration

The following is a video demonstrating how to complete the exercise further below. 

Practice 

Remember that this is a practical introduction to logic. Practice is of paramount importance. The exercises are where practice is most emphasized. Keep in mind that you will learn new things as you work through the exercises. In order to learn all that is being taught by the exerices, it is absolutely necessary that you use the following procedure. 

Conscientiously do this for all exercises. 

You will need a Google account to complete following exercise. For explanation, see the Introduction

Click on the following link to access the exercise. 

Having worked through this first exercise, you will notice that you are required to enter the answers in a very specific way. After each attempt the correct answers are displayed when you click on the "View score" button. Use that feedback to reattempt until you get the text entry exact. Precise text entry will be very important throughout the course. 

This first exercise, and the exercises through the course are designed to function something like exercises in a hardcopy textbook where the answers are in the back of the book. Try each exercise without looking at the answers, but refer to the answers as much as needed to understand what is required. 

Demonstration

Now we’re going to continue to put into practice familiar lookup table skills. 

Practice

Keep reworking the exercise until you get a 100% score. 

Demonstration

Practice

Rework the exericse until you get 100%. 

The Answers Are in the Lookup Tables

Maybe with the Easy Multiplication Lookup Table you found yourself not needing to reference the table, because you have the information in your head. But with the Difficult Multiplication Lookup Table we went beyond the standard 12 times 12 limit. So, in that case you might have found the need to actually look up the answers. That is perfectly fine. 

Since we are studying rather familiar types of lookup tables, my hope is that you are not finding any of this all that difficult. Assuming that is the case, I hope you will be comforted by the fact that you have one of the key skills to thoroughly comprehend logic. Until we get to proofs at the end of the course, most of the time you will be able to look up answers in lookup tables. The answers are in the lookup tables. Refer to the lookup tables as much as needed. —Let me say it one more time: Lookup the answers in the lookup tables, because the answers are found in the lookup tables. 

Chapter 2—Arithmetic of Evens and Odds

In this chapter we will leverage our lookup table skills to explore the arithmetic of even and odd numbers. We will still not yet begin logic proper, but in the next chapter we will smoothly transition from the arithmetic of evens and odds into logic—because many of the concepts of this arithmetic of even and odds are essential to zeroth-level logic. 

Commutative and Noncommutative Binary Operations

In arithmetic, addition is an "operation." And it is a "commutative" operation. For example, 

5+4 = 4+5

When adding two numbers, it doesn't matter which comes before the operation (addition) and which comes after. The numbers can "commute" (move across) the operation without changing the sum. 

And notice that addition only takes two numerical inputs. For example, if we are summing up several numbers, such as

5+4+3 

we logically need to add two at a time. 

5+4+3 = (5+4)+3 = 5+(4+3)

We can associate the first sum and do that before adding the final number, or we can associate the second sum and do that before adding the first number. A single instance of addition only has two numerical inputs. We call such two-numbered operations "binary" (bi-, two; and -nary, numbered). 

And, again, with addition the binary inputs can be switched without changing the result. 

Subtraction, however, is not commutative. For example

5-4

is not equal to 

4-5

Subtraction is a binary operation, but its two inputs cannot be switched without changing the difference. 

Consider a simple subtraction table. 

Lookup Table--Simple Subtraction
-| 0  1  2
-+--------
0| 0 -1 -2
1| 1  0 -1
2| 2  1  0

Notice that this table has to be interpreted so that the numbers in the far left column are treated as the left binary input of the operation, while the numbers horizontally along the header are treated as the right binary input of the operation. This is because subtraction is not commutative. 

Because we are very familiar with subtraction of small integers, the intent of the table is clear, but there is an inherent ambiguity in the arrangement. We could eliminate the ambiguity and make the intent very clear by listing the order of the binary inputs explicitly. 

Lookup Table--Simple Subtraction with Binary Input Order Made Explicit
L R| L-R
---+----
0 0|  0 
0 1| -1
0 2| -2
1 0|  1
1 1|  0
1 2| -1
2 0|  2
2 1|  1
2 2|  0

To solidify in our mind the importance of the order of the binary inputs, L is for the “left” binary input, and R is for the “right” binary input. 

Reduced Subtraction of Even and Odd Numbers

We’re now going to tackle some mathematical concepts that are slightly more abstract. For those of us who are very comfortable with mathematics, this will make the transition into logic very smooth. For those of us who struggle with math, the coming exercises should empress upon you the importance of using the lookup tables provided. Remember: the answers are in the lookup tables. 

Now, the mathematical concepts we are going to tackle are not all that difficult. We’re going to take a look at some basic arithmetic involving even and odd numbers. From your studies of basic arithmetic, recall that the "integers" are all the counting numbers, 1, 2, 3, ..., along with zero, and all the negative counterparts, -1, -2, -3, .... Also recall that an even number is an integer that is "divisible" by two. That means that two divides "evenly" into an even number. An odd number is an integer that is not divisible by two. If you want a more in-depth explanation, now would be a good time to use an encyclopedia to get a brief and standard explanation. I will simply assume that you have a grasp of the standard treatment of even and odd numbers at a very basic level. We are interested in some aspects of the arithmetic of evens and odds that are not so standard. 

To get started, let's take a closer look at the last table presented above (Lookup Table—Simple Subtraction with Binary Input Order Made Explicit). Notice certain patterns that emerge in the examples contained in the subtraction table. An odd number minus an odd number gives an even number. An odd minus an even is odd. An even minus an odd is odd. And an even minus an even is even. These patterns hold for all integers. We can organize this information in the following table. 

Lookup Table--Subtraction of Evens and Odds
LR|L-R
--+---
00| 0
10| 1
01| 1
11| 0

Notice that we indicate "even" with 

0

The number

0

is an even number, and we let it stand for any even number. For example, in the arithmetic of odds and evens we are developing, we say

8 = 0

The integer

8

is even. So, it "reduces to"

0

Likewise,

1

is an odd number, and we let it stand for any odd number. For example,

7 = 1

Another example

5 – 6 = 1 – 0 

Here we have "reduced" the left and right binary inputs of subtraction. 

5

reduces to

1

and 

6

to

0

We can then complete the calculation in reduced form.

5 – 6 = 1 – 0 = 1

An odd minus an even is odd (compare Lookup TableSubtraction of Evens and Odds above). 

Sometimes it might make sense to first reduce the left and right binary inputs, and then compute the operation in a standard way before finally reducing the output. 

4 – 3 = 0 – 1 = -1 = 1

But if you use the lookup table, you can skip the negative one step. 

4 – 3 = 0 – 1

We have an even minus an odd. That is represented in the third row of the table above. 

Lookup Table--Subtraction of Evens and Odds, Focusing on the Third Row
LR|L-R
--+---
00| 0
10| 1
01| 1
11| 0

The table tells us that the final result is odd. 

4 – 3 = 0 – 1 = 1

Demonstration

Practice 

Use the lookup table for the subtraction of evens and odds to complete the following exercise. The answers are in the lookup table. Look them up. 

Demonstration

Test

WARNING: for the quiz that follows, you will only be allowed one attempt. Once you have used the above exercise through multiple attempts to understand what is required, then attempt the quiz. Again, for quizzes you only get one attempt.

Make Sure You Are Getting at Least a 75% on Quizzes

Do your best on each quiz. If you are getting less than a 75% on any quiz, that means you are not properly working the exercises. Rework each exercise until you get a 100%—without looking at the answers provided in the feedback. 

Reduced Addition and Subtraction of Evens and Odds

Similar to subtraction, we can reduce when adding integers. 

7 + 4 = 1 + 0 = 1

All possibilities of reduced addition are captured in the following table. 

Lookup Table--Addition of Evens and Odds
LR|L+R
--+---
00| 0
10| 1
01| 1
11| 0

And we can combine addition and subtraction into one table. 

Lookup Table--Addition and Subtraction of Evens and Odds
LR|L+R,L-R
--+-------
00| 0   0
10| 1   1
01| 1   1
11| 0   0

With this combined table we can complete calculations involving both addition and subtraction. For example, 

(7 + 4) - 2 = (1 + 0) - 0 = 1 - 0 = 1

Calculate the value within the parentheses first. 

One more example: 

5 - (6 + 3) = 1 - (0 + 1) = 1 - 1 = 0

Use the lookup table when completing the exercise. Look up the answers. The answers are in the table. All you have to do is figure out how to use the lookup table to get the right answers. 

Demonstration

Practice

Demonstration

Test

Chapter 3—Interpretations

Interpretations Introduced

We will continue to use the lookup table for addition and subtraction of evens and odds from the last chapter. Restricting ourselves to addition and subtraction, we will now explore techniques in connection with "interpretations." For example, suppose I ask you compute the following expression.

A+B

Is it even or odd? We don't know. For now we will assume that any variable represents an integer, and is therefore either even or odd. But we can't calculate the sum above, because we don't know whether each variable is either even or odd. We need an "interpretation" of the variables in order to make sense of the expression. 

Let's take the interpretation 

A = 0
B = 1

Then the expression 

A+B = 0+1 = 1

In other words, on the interpretation 

A = 0
B = 1

the expression 

A+B

is odd. 

We can represent this interpretation in table form. 

AB|A+B
--+---
01| 1

The interpretation proper is the set of values assigned to the variables in the far left of the table. However, I will sometimes refer to the entire table form as an interpretation. 

Example 3.1

As an exercise problem, an interpretation will look like this

AB|(A+B)-A
--+-------
01|     ?

Notice that the question mark is aligned vertically under the subtraction sign. This is because in evaluating the expression, you compute what is in parentheses first. Then you compute the remaining operation. We want to know the final result—when we complete the last of the operations. 

Based on the interpretation given to the variables, 

A+B = 1

Thus, 

(A+B)-A = 1-A = 1-0 = 1

On the given interpretation of the variables, the entire expression evaluates to odd. In table form— 

AB|(A+B)-A
--+-------
01|     1

Example 3.2

With interpretations we can have any number of variables. For example, we may want to compute

A+(B-C)

We need an interpretation—say, 

ABC|A+(B-C)
---+-------
011| ?

Completing the parentheses first, and looking up the answers in our lookup table, we see that on the given interpretation, the expression evaluates to even.

ABC|A+(B-C)
---+-------
011| 0

Example 3.3

But the expression could be given a different interpretation. 

ABC|A+(B-C)
---+-------
010| ?

Notice the difference in the far-left columns. On this interpretation we have

ABC|A+(B-C)
---+-------
010| 1

The expression is now odd—under the alternative interpretation

Demos

Practice and Test

Make Sure You Are Getting a 75% on Quizzes

If your quiz score is below 75%, that means you are not properly working the exercises. Slow down, and be more thorough. 

Interpretations with Addition, Subtraction and Multiplication

We can also multiply even and odd numbers, expanding our lookup table. 

Lookup Table--Addition, Subtraction and Multiplication
LR|L+R,L-R,LxR
--+-----------
00| 0   0   0
10| 1   1   0
01| 1   1   0
11| 0   0   1

An even number multiplied by any integer is even. The only way for a product of two integers to be odd is if both binary inputs are odd. You may want to explore some examples on your own to convince yourself of this. 

Now, using the expanded lookup table, we can complete interpretations that include the operation of multiplication. 

Example 3.4

For example, 

ABC|Ax(B-C)
---+-------
110| ?

receives the answer

1

Example 3.5

And 

ABCD|((AxB)+C)-D
----+-----------
1011|         ?

would be answered with

0

Work from the inner parentheses outward.

((AxB)+C)-D = ((1x0)+1)-1
            = (  0  +1)-1
            =       1  -1
            =          0

Example 3.6

One more example: 

ABCD|(A+B)x(C-D)
----+-----------
0101|     ?
(A+B)x(C-D) = (0+1)x(0-1)
            =   1  x  1
            =      1

The answer is

1

Demos

Practice and Test

Interpretations Forward and Backward

We will now do something that requires more critical thinking compared to previous exercises. 

Example 3.7

Complete the interpretation. 

ABC|A+(BxC)
---+-------
111| ? 

This is doing an interpretation "forward," just like we've been doing it.  

A+(BxC) = 1+(1x1)
        = 1+( 1 )
        =  0

The answer is

0

Example 3.8

Now let's work it "backward"—using a little bit of "forward" action as needed.   

Complete the interpretation. 

ABC|A+(BxC)
---+-------
?11| 0 

On the interpretation that the entire expression 

A+(BxC)

evaluates to an even number, we are going to determine the value of 

A

Since the addition evaluates to even, we can eliminate the two middle rows of our lookup table. 

Lookup Table--Addition, Subtraction and Multiplication
LR|L+R,L-R,LxR
--+-----------
00| 0   0   0
10| 1   1   0
01| 1   1   0
11| 0   0   1

On the given interpretation, we must be in either the first or the last row of the lookup table. Furthermore, since the interpretation gives 

B

as odd, and

C

as odd, we know that 

BxC = 1

that it is odd. This is the little bit of "forward action" that we need. 

So, in the expression 

A+(BxC)

the right-hand input of the addition is odd. That means we can eliminate the first row of our lookup table, because the right-hand input of the addition is even in that first row. 

Lookup Table--Addition, Subtraction and Multiplication
LR|L+R,L-R,LxR
--+-----------
00| 0   0   0
10| 1   1   0
01| 1   1   0
11| 0   0   1

This leaves us with the last row, where the left-hand input of the addition is odd. Thus, under the given interpretation, 

A

in the expression 

A+(BxC)

must be odd. 

A = 1

Again, this is more challenging than exclusively "forward" interpretations. In the following exercise, give yourself time to think it through, and keep reworking the problems until you get the idea of how to read the lookup table both "forward" and "backward." 

Demos

Practice and Test

Chapter 4—Answer Strings

We are going to continue working on interpretations. However, we are going to follow a new convention. We will evaluate, where possible, every character of the expression. I will demonstrate in a step-by-step fashion.

Use a Monospaced Font

Notice that with each table earlier in the chapter the characters in the header portion of the table match up one-to-one in vertical alignment with the characters within the body of the table. This is because a “monospaced” font is being used. Using a monospaced font is essential to our evaluation procedure. Please do not attempt to follow this procedure without employing a monospaced font. See Wikipedia, "Monospaced Font.

Example 4.1—Step-by-Step Full Evaluation of an Interpretation

Complete the interpretation.ABC|(AxB)+C
---+-------
110|

Step 1. Work from left to right, and attempt to evaluate each character of the expression as you come to it. The first character in the expression is an open parenthesis. That does not receive an even or odd value. So, we will put an underscore directly beneath the the open parenthesis. 

ABC|(AxB)+C
---+-------
110|_

Step 2. Continue working left to right in the expression being evaluated. Next we come to the variable

A

which will receive an even or odd value. For now, use the lowercase letters “o” and “i”—with “o” standing for zero, and “i” standing for one. 

ABC|(AxB)+C
---+-------
110|_i

It is possible to evaluate this variable within the expression being evaluated, because the value is stipulated in the interpretation in the far left of the table. We simply copy the far-left value under

A

in the given interpretation to the position under

A

in the expression being evaluated. But we use an

i

instead of a

1

Step 3. Continue to work left to right. Leave a blank under the multiplication operator, because we will come back and evaluate it once we have evaluated the left input. 

ABC|(AxB)+C
---+-------
110|_i i

And place an

i

beneath 

B

Step 4. Now go back to the multiplication, because it can now be evaluated. 

ABC|(AxB)+C
---+-------
110|_iii

Following our lookup table, an odd times an odd is odd. So, we put an "i" under the multiplication operation. 

Step 5. We continue working left to right, and put an underscore underneath the closing parenthesis.

ABC|(AxB)+C
---+-------
110|_iii_

Step 6. We continue working left to right, skipping the addition, because it cannot be evaluated without it right side input

ABC|(AxB)+C
---+-------
110|_iii_ o

And we copy the zero value for the last variable in the expression. 

Step 7. We can now evaluate the addition. 

ABC|(AxB)+C
---+-------
110|_iii_1o

Notice that here we use the number one, because addition is the last character we come to in the evaluation procedure. The last value we come to is the "dominant" operation in the expression. The value of the dominant operation is the value of the entire expression. 

Also notice that within the parentheses, multiplication is the last element that we came to. Multiplication is the "dominant" operation of the expression enclosed within the parentheses. The value appearing under this dominant operator is the value for the entire expression enclosed within the parentheses. So, the left input of the addition is odd. 

Generally, notice that we have simply copied the stipulated values for the variables to their positions within the expression, leaving blanks for elements that are yet to be evaluated, and placing an underscore under any element that will not be evaluated. But we do so working left to right as much as logically possible. 

We have essentially completed the problem. But there is another new convention that we need to adhere to.

The Answer String

Going forward, we will typically respond to an exercise question with an “answer string.” Your answer must precisely match that programmed into the quiz mechanism—character-for-character. This convention is inspired by XML style, and some other standard programming conventions, but is deliberately distinct from XML so as to not interfere with XML programming, which is becoming quite ubiquitous. 

We continue on with the step-by-step procedure. 

Step 8.

[}table{]
ABC|(AxB)+C
---+-------
110|_iii_1o
[}/table{]

Add the opening and closing "table" tags. 

Notice the slash in the closing tag.

Step 9. Put a semicolon at the end of each line of the interpretation (only within the tags).

[}table{];
ABC|(AxB)+C;
---+-------;
110|_iii_1o;
[}/table{]

Step 10. Eliminate all line breaks within the tags.

[}table{];ABC|(AxB)+C;---+-------;110|_iii_1o;[}/table{]

This is the "answer string" that should be entered into the quiz mechanism. Notice that there are no spaces in the answer string. Make sure that you only include what is within the tags. Avoid any leading or trailing spaces. Your answer has to match that programmed into the quiz mechanism character-for-character, because the procedure above produces a precise and unique string.   

Keys to Success in Constructing Answer Strings

Work in a text editor or word processor (students often choose Google docs).   

Use a monospaced font (for example, Consolas). 

In your word processor, turn off any autocorrection for double hyphens. 

Copy and paste as much as possible. 

Copy and paste the given partial table into your word processor. 

Work left to right as much as logically possible. 

Make sure there are no spaces in the answer string

Copy and paste your answer string into the quiz mechanism.

Avoid copying any leading or trailing blank spaces.

Notice after each attempt the correct answer programmed into the mechanism.

Pay attention to lowercase letters versus the proper numeral for the dominant operation.

Use text-compare (notice the hyphen) to find minute differences between your answer and the programmed answer. 

Keep in mind that much instruction is achieved when you compare answer strings using text-compare

Example 4.2—Full Evaluation of an Interpretation with a Trailing Parenthesis

Here is a similar example, but with the parentheses placed differently. 

Complete the interpretation[}table{];
ABC|Ax(B+C);
---+-------;
110|      ;
[}/table{]

In table form, the answer is

[}table{];
ABC|Ax(B+C);
---+-------;
110|i1_iio;
[}/table{]

Notice that there is no underscore under the closing parenthesis. We do not want to include trailing underscores in the evaluation line. An underscore would not add any information. It would be superfluous. So, we just drop it. 

The answer string to be entered into the quiz mechanism is 

[}table{];ABC|Ax(B+C);---+-------;110|i1_iio;[}/table{]

Demonstrations

Practice and Test

The following checklist is helpful for proper answer string formatting.

Answer String Checklist
- Uppercase letters for all variables?
- Correct expression?
- Correct hyphen style?
- Correct values in the interpretation at the far left?
- Mostly lowercase "o" and "i" under the expression?
- Exactly one number (0 or 1) under the expression?
- No spaces?


[}x*x{]

Chapter 5—Logical Operations

The use of tables we have made in the previous chapters has set us up for success as we move into logic proper in this chapter. Tables play a big part in zeroth-level logic. We use lookup tables to understand operations, and we create tables to evaluate expressions. This is true of any introductory logic course. The answer string technique we are using, however, is peculiar to my approach. The technique is a little difficult to get the hang of at first, but once you do, it will serve us well. Answer strings provide a very efficient means of communicating the content of logic. With this method of communication in place you can receive timely and very precise feedback on the progress you are making. 

Even and Odd Values as Truth Values

To make the transition to logic, we need to interpret the values even and odd somewhat differently. We will continue to treat them arithmetically as we have been doing. But additionally we will also think of them as "truth values." There are two truth values—true and false. We will treat odd as true, and even as false. 

Addition Is Exclusive Disjunction

Let's consider our working lookup table. 

Lookup Table--Addition, Subtraction and Multiplication
LR|L+R,L-R,LxR
--+-----------
00| 0   0   0
10| 1   1   0
01| 1   1   0
11| 0   0   1

Thinking of odd as true, we see that 

L+R

is true when either the left input or the right input is true, but is false when both inputs are true or when neither input is true. This is called "exclusive disjunction." 

Exclusive disjunction is something that we often use in normal conversation. For example, my daughter and I are walking to the ice cream shop, she'll tell me that her two favorite flavors are rainbow sherbet and cotton candy. And I tell her that she can have a scoop of rainbow sherbet or a scoop of cotton candy. I mean that she can have one or the other, but not both. That's exclusive disjunction. We are thinking of the variable 

L

as standing for the statement, 

You can have a scoop of rainbow sherbet.

And the variable

R

stands for, 

You can have a scoop of cotton candy.

Then the combined expression, 

L+R

means, 

You can have a scoop of rainbow sherbet or you can have a scoop of cotton candy.

Sometimes exclusive disjunction is called the "exclusive or." 

Subtraction Is Superfluous

Notice in the lookup table that subtraction is also exclusive disjunction. With our reduced arithmetic of evens and odds, subtraction is logically the same operation as addition. So, subtraction is not a distinct operation. We can drop it. 

Multiplication Is Conjunction

Now, let's consider the logical interpretation of multiplication. Taking odd to be true, multiplication is true when both binary inputs are true, and otherwise it is false. So, if we assume that 

LxR

is true, then we are assuming that the left input and the right input are true. Any other truth value configuration is ruled out. This is called "conjunction." 

Again, this is a notion used in ordinary conversation. If, on the way to the ice cream shop, I tell my daughter that she can have a scoop of rainbow sherbet and a scoop of cotton candy, then she is going to expect both. Anything else will not be acceptable. In this scenario, the symbolic expression

LxR

is taken to mean, 

You can have a scoop of rainbow sherbet and you can have a scoop of cotton candy.

The logical notion of conjunction captures the primary way in which we use the word "and." For this reason, we often use the ampersand symbol

&

to express conjunction. 

L&R = LxR

Inclusive Disjunction

Above, I described exclusive disjunction—the "exclusive or." There is another way that we us the word "or"—in the "inclusive" sense. Suppose I ask my daughter, "Are you going to have a scoop of rainbow sherbet or a scoop of cotton candy?" She says, "I'm going to have both." She interpreted my question as meaning, "You can have a scoop of rainbow sherbet or you can have a scoop of cotton candy" in the inclusive sense, where the truth of both disjuncts (the binary inputs) is allowed. 

In logic, this use of "inclusive disjunction" is captured in the following lookup table. 

Lookup Table--Disjunction
LR|LvR
--+---
00| 0
10| 1
01| 1
11| 1

We use the lowercase letter 

v

to symbolically represent inclusive disjunction. 

Now, thinking in terms of even and odd numerical values, we can define inclusive disjunction arithmetically. 

Let
LvR = (L+R)+(LxR) 
Then
0v0 = (0+0)+(0x0)
    =   0  +  0
    =      0
1v0 = (1+0)+(1x0)
    =   1  +  0
    =      1
0v1 = (0+1)+(0x1)
    =   1  +  0
    =      1
1v1 = (1+1)+(1x1)
    =   0  +  1
    =      1

Naturally, since inclusive disjunction is a possible interpretation of the English usage of "or," my daughter would get both scoops of ice cream. I would have to reward her for her logical perspicacity. 

Negation

Negation is an essential operation for logic. When thinking in terms of truth values, we often want to say that something is not true. For example, my daughter might say, 

I'm not going to get cotton candy.

Symbolically, we can represent this as,

~R

The tilde symbol,

~

is the negation operation. It is an operation—but it is not a binary operation. It only takes one input. It is a "unary" (unus-, one; -nary, numbered) operation. 

Notice that negation only takes a right side input. 

Arithmetically, we can define negation as follows. 

Let
~R = 1+R
Then
~0 = 1+0
  =  1
~1 = 1+1
  =  0

There are only two possibilities for the value of 

R

Described in lookup table form, we have, 

Lookup Table--Negation
R|~R
-+--
0|1
1|0

You might be temped to think that negation is the same as adding a negative sign to an integer, especially since we have been doing arithmetic with integers. But logical negation is different than negating an integer. The negative of an even integer is still even, and the negative of an odd integer is still odd. In terms of our arithmetic of evens and odds, logical negation is quite different. It switches an even to an odd, or an odd to an even. And in terms of truth values, negation changes a false value to a true value, or a true to a false. 

Material Consequence

Another common logical operation is "material consequence." We can define material consequence as follows. 

Let
L>R = ~LvR
Then
0>0 = ~0v0
    = 1 v0
    =   1
1>0 = ~1v0
    = 0 v0
    =   0
0>1 = ~0v1
    = 1 v1
    =   1
1>1 = ~1v1
    =  0v1
    =   1

Described in lookup table form, 

Lookup Table--Material Consequence
LR|L>R
--+---
00| 1
10| 0
01| 1
11| 1

Material consequence is true in every binary case except when the right input is true and the left input is false. 

Notice that we are using the symbol

>

to mean something quite different from "greater than." And if you think about it, "greater than" doesn't have an obvious usage in our reduced arithmetic of evens and odds. We are repurposing the symbol. The ability to interpret symbols flexibly in this way is an essential skill that we learn through logic. 

Material consequence maps to the "if ..., then ... " construction in English. For example, I might tell my daughter, "If you clean up your room, we will go get a scoop of ice cream." Here we are thinking 

L = You clean up your room.
R = We will go get a scoop of ice cream.
L>R = If you clean up your room then we will go get a scoop of ice cream.

Sometimes the combined expression is symbolized as follows.

L==>R = If you clean up your room then we will go get a scoop of ice cream.

The symbol 

==>

is conceived of as an arrow going to the right. We are trading upon this usage, but reducing it down to one character

>

The use of a single character is essential to our monospaced table methodology. 

Antecedent and Consequent

What comes before material consequence is called the "antecedent" (from ante, "before"; and cedere, "to go, yield"). The antecedent is the left input of material consequence. What follows material consequence is called the "consequent" (from com, "with, together"; and sequi, "to follow"). The consequent is the right input of material consequence. We use this terminology only in connection with material consequence. 

Two Common Logical Errors

When applied to ordinary language, the formal symbolic logic of material consequence is not as intuitive as the other operations we have covered so far. This leads to two logical fallacies that people often fall into. 

When considering my deal with my daughter you might think that if my daughter does not clean up her room, then we won't go get a scoop of ice cream—symbolically, 

~L>~R

This is a logical error. To see the error, consult the lookup table for material consequence. 

Lookup Table--Material Consequence
LR|L>R
--+---
00| 1
10| 0
01| 1
11| 1

The first and third rows are those cases where the antecedent (left input) is false. In both cases

L>R

is true. And in the third row, not only is 

L>R

true, but also 

R

is true, even though 

L

is false. On the interpretation that my "if ..., then ... " construction is captured by material consequence, it is possible that my daughter does not clean up her room, and nonetheless we still go to get a scoop of ice cream. Maybe an emergency comes up, and we have to rush over to her grandmother's house. Once the crisis is over, we decide to get a scoop of ice cream. There is no logical contradiction with our deal in this. To think that there is is a misunderstanding of the logic. 

Another common misunderstanding is to think that if we end up getting a scoop of ice cream, then my daughter must have cleaned up her room—symbolically, 

R>L

Again, in the third row of the lookup table, we see that this is also a logical error. 

Lookup Table--Material Consequence
LR|L>R
--+---
00| 1
10| 0
01| 1
11| 1

The expression 

L>R

can be true when the consequent (right input) is true and the antecedent is false. 

Root of the Errors

The root of both of these errors is that often when we say something like, "If you clean up your room, then we will go get a scoop of ice cream," we intend the phrasing to mean that if you don't clean up your room, then we will not go get a scoop of ice cream, and we will get a scoop of ice cream only if you clean up your room. But using a simple "if ..., then ..." construction, when something else is intended is just sloppy logic. It is both unclear and ambiguous—because frequently we intend to use the "if ..., then ..." construction precisely according to the logic of material consequence as described above. 

Material Equivalence

There is a logical operation—and a corresponding English construction—that is perfectly clear and unambiguous—that I could have explicitly and properly used when I made the deal with my daughter—if that is what I intended. 

"Material equivalence" is defined arithmetically as follows. 

Let
(L=R) = ~(L+R)
Then
(0=0) = ~(0+0)
      = ~  0
      = 1
(1=0) = ~(1+0)
      = ~  1
      = 0
(0=1) = ~(0+1)
      = ~  1
      = 0
(1=1) = ~(1+1)
      = ~  0
      = 1

The lookup table is

Lookup Table--Material Consequence
LR|L=R
--+---
00| 1
10| 0
01| 0
11| 1

The English construction is "if and only if." If I meant that if my daughter doesn't clean up her room, then we are not going to get a scoop of ice cream—and that if we do go to get a scoop of ice cream, then she must clean up her room—then I could have said, and probably should have said, "We will go get a scoop of ice cream if and only if you clean up your room."  

Notice in the lookup table that the third row is significantly different from the problematic third row of material consequence

Translation between English and Symbolic Logic

One of the most challenging aspects of elementary logic is learning to translate back and forth between English and symbolic logic. I've given examples above to start the process going. However, I don't want you to worry about translation just at the moment. For now, we will focus on the manipulation of the symbolic apparatus. Once this is solidified we can begin working on translation techniques. 

Validity of English Arguments

Although I don't want you to worry now about being able to translate between English and symbolic notation, I do want you to keep in mind that such translation is crucial for the application of the symbolic apparatus. In philosophy we are primarily concerned with the evaluation of arguments. An argument is a set of propositional statements in English (or any other natural language). And once we translate the English statements into symbolic expressions, formal logic allows us to mechanically test whether an argument is "valid" or not. A full explanation of "validity" will come later in the course. For now we just want to be aware that a "valid" argument has something good about it. And an "invalid" argument is simply a bad argument. And all of this is wrapped up in the grammar of English, which we use each and every day. 

Symbolic Manipulation and English Grammar Simultaneously

One challenge when being introduced to logic is that you need to do abstract symbolic manipulation (normally associated with mathematics) at the same time as you are parsing English grammar. I don't think this is naturally difficult for human beings. I tend to believe that the human mind is very much made for this. However, our current education system tends to keep these activities strictly segregated. So, there is some need to unlearn this segregation, which is not really all that difficult to do. But at first you may find it a little challenging to—expressing it metaphorically—get your English brain to talk with your math brain. 

Although this is typically somewhat challenging at first, I have never had a student who could not overcome this obstacle. Keep working the exercises, and it will all come together. In reality, your brain is very much built for this. 

Logical Operations of Primary Importance

Since our ultimate aim is to evaluate English arguments (or arguments in any other natural language), we want to focus on the logical operations that are most intuitively applicable to English grammar. In principle there are 16 binary operations, and at least two unary operations. But it is customary to begin the study of zeroth-level logic with reference to a set of five, because these five operations in combination lead most naturally to a basic analysis of English arguments. Here they are in a lookup table. 

Lookup Table--Operations of Primary Importance
LR|~R,L&R,LvR,L>R,L=R
--+------------------
00|1   0   0   1   1
10|    0   1   0   0
01|0   0   1   1   0
11|    1   1   1   1

We will only use these five operations throughout the rest of the course. 

With negation, notice that only the first and third rows are filled in. This is because rows two and four would be redundant. 

Notice that exclusive disjunction (addition) is missing here. In zeroth-level logic we favor inclusive disjunction, and we simply call it "disjunction." 

Also notice that we are using the ampersand sign

&

instead of the multiplication sign

x

This is because we are emphasizing what was previously multiplication in the reduced arithmetic of evens and odds as being logically equivalent to conjunction, which naturally comes across in English with the use of the word "and." 

Identifying the Operations

The flash card set here will teach you the names of the operations. Please study the flash cards before attempting the exercise. Some new information is in the flash cards. For example, the material consequence symbol

>

not only maps to the English construction "if ..., then ...," but also can be read as "only if." And we favor "only if" when reading symbolic expressions. 

Notice that there is a "Choose a Study Mode" dropdown list in the lower right corner of the flash card frame. You may want to start in "Flashcards" mode. But the "Learn" mode works very well, even if you are just wildly guessing the first few times through. 

Practice and Test

Reading and Writing Symbolic Expressions

There are conventions for reading symbolic expressions. The flash cards will teach you how to read and write symbols according to the conventions. 

Boolean Algebra

This is not essential, and you won't be tested on it. However, it is interesting to compare our current symbolic apparatus with Boolean algebra

Our Symbolic Apparatus Compared to Alternative Systems

This also is something of interest, but not essential. The symbolic apparatus that we are using is not the only possible system. Other authors will use different symbols for our five logical operations. And there is not any strict conformity among any of the authors. However, there are typically limited options. 

Focusing just on the logical operations from this chapter, we have the following comparison. 

Table Comparing Symbolic Systems
Our Symbols | Alternative Conventional Symbols
------------+---------------------------------
    ~       |     ¬, !
    &       |     ∧, ·
    v       |     ∨, +,
    >       |     ⇒, →, ⊃
    =       |     ⇔, ≡,   , ,

There are two unconventional symbols in our system—

>

and 

=

Although they are unconventional, I hope that you can see their similarity to 

 

and 

respectively. And we might also think of 

>

as similar to the right-arrow, 

For more information (if you like), see Wikipedia, "List of Logic Symbols."

Goofy Symbols

The symbols used need not be conventional at all — as demonstrated this short video: "Goofy Symbols Defined." 

Meanings of Symbols Are Context Dependent

An important concept of logic is that the meanings of symbols are context dependent. The meaning of any given symbol depends upon the context in which it is found. In connection with this are a couple of important skills—the ability to recognize context, and the ability to assign appropriate context-dependent meaning to symbols. 

As I've mentioned, different authors employ different symbolic systems. And it even goes so far as to be problem specific. A single author may use symbols in a particular way to solve one problem, and then use those same symbols in a different way to solve other problems. So, always pay attention to the scope of the context in which symbols are being used. 

In this course I try to be very consistent. We are still evolving our symbolic apparatus, but as we reach each new stage, we will leave behind any previous usages. And once we leave something behind, it will not reappear. 

Advantages of Our Symbolic Apparatus

There are two advantages to our symbolic apparatus. The first advantage is that we are using symbols readily accessible on a standard QWERTY computer keyboard. The non-QWERTY symbols often used in logic require complicated keyboard inputs, or other work-arounds. At our introductory level it is best to avoid those complications. The second advantage is that we can strictly use a monospaced font when completing interpretations and other tables. The non-QWERTY symbols do not readily conform to monospacing. Remember, as you complete tables throughout the course always use a monospaced font

(The monospaced methodology and choice of characters in our system is inspired by Richard Jeffrey, Formal Logic—Its Scope and Limits, Fourth Edition, edited by John P. Burgess (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2006). See especially chapter 7, "Uncomputability.")

Example 5.1—An Interpretation for One Expression Using the Logical Operations

An interpretation for one expression using our logical operations is very similar to the interpretations at the end of the previous chapter. 

[}table{];
ABC|A>(B&C);
---+-------;
101|i0_ooi;
[}/table{]
Answer string--[}table{];ABC|A>(B&C);---+-------;101|i0_ooi;[}/table{]

Example 5.2—An Interpretation for Two Expressions

Multiple expressions will be separated by a comma (no space). Place an underscore beneath the comma. Each expression has a dominant operation. So, each should have a one or zero underneath the main, or dominant, operation in the expression. 

[}table{];
AB|A>B,~B;
--+------;
10|i0o_1o;
[}/table{]
Answer string--[}table{];AB|A>B,~B;--+------;10|i0o_1o;[}/table{]

There can be any number of expressions in an interpretation. 

Demonstrations

Practice and Test 

 Chapter 6—Truth Value Notation

"F" and "T" Instead of "0" and "1"

There is one more adjustment to our symbolic apparatus that I want to make. Instead of using 

0

for "even" or "false," we will now use

F

And instead of 

1

for "odd" or "true," we will use

T

From here on out we will think solely in terms of truth value, and we will not make reference to even and odd values. 

Lookup Table for the Operations

Moving forward, use the following table to lookup truth values. 

Lookup Table--Operations of Primary Importance, Modified
LR|~R,L&R,LvR,L>R,L=R
--+------------------
TT|F   T   T   T   T
TF|T   F   T   F   F
FT|    F   T   T   F
FF|    F   F   T   T

Notice that in the far left columns the truth value cases are arranged differently. In this conventional presentation the value "true" is given primacy, I suppose because it is intuitive to think "true or false" (in that order). 

Example 6.1—Interpretation with "T" and "F"

In the following exercise and quiz—and in the first exam—complete interpretations using 

T

and 

F

We will use lowercase letters for non-dominant operations, and capital letters for the dominant operations. 

[}table{];
ABC|A>~(B&C),C>B,A;
---+--------------;
TFT|tTt_fft__tFf_T;
[}/table{]

Demonstrations

Practice and Test

Chapter 7—Interpretations Backwards and Forwards

Now we will again do some more challenging interpretations that require you to read the lookup table "backwards" and "forwards." 

Example 7.1—Interpretation Backwards and Forwards

Lookup Table--Operations of Primary Importance, Modified
LR|~R,L&R,LvR,L>R,L=R
--+------------------
TT|F   T   T   T   T
TF|T   F   T   F   F
FT|    F   T   T   F
FF|    F   F   T   T
[}table{];
ABC|A>(B&C),C>B,A;
---+-------------;
| F       F   ;
[}/table{]
Complete the interpretation. 

First, we will use the value indicated for 

A

We place a lowercase 

t

below the first variable in the first expression. 

[}table{];
ABC|A>(B&C),C>B,A;
---+-------------;
|tF       F   ;
[}/table{]

Now looking at the lookup table for material consequence, we know that the conjunction in the first expression must be false, 

[}table{];
ABC|A>(B&C),C>B,A;
---+-------------;
|tF  f    F   ;
[}/table{]

because we know we are in the second row of the table. 

Lookup Table--Operations of Primary Importance, Modified
LR|~R,L&R,LvR,L>R,L=R
--+------------------
TT|F   T   T   T   T
TF|T   F   T   F   F
FT|    F   T   T   F
FF|    F   F   T   T

Since we know the conjunction is false, one or the other (maybe both) of its inputs must be false. 

Lookup Table--Operations of Primary Importance, Modified
LR|~R,L&R,LvR,L>R,L=R
--+------------------
TT| T   T   T   T
TF| F   T   F   F
FT|    F   T   T   F
FF|    F   F   T   T

By considering the first expression of our interpretation alone we cannot determine the values of 

B

and

C

We have to consider the second expression. We were given that the material consequence in the second expression is false. Just like with the first expression, this tells us that in the second expression the left input must be true; and the right false. We're in the second row of the lookup table. This means that 

B

is true, and 

C

is false. 

[}table{];
ABC|A>(B&C),C>B,A;
---+-------------;
|tF  f   tFf  ;
[}/table{]

That allows us to fill out most of the missing pieces. 

[}table{];
ABC|A>(B&C),C>B,A;
---+-------------;
TFT|tF_fft__tFf  ;
[}/table{]

And, of course, the last expression, simply

A

is true. 

[}table{];
ABC|A>(B&C),C>B,A;
---+-------------;
TFT|tF_fft__tFf_T;
[}/table{]
Answer String--[}table{];ABC|A>(B&C),C>B,A;---+-------------;TFT|tF_fft__tFf_T;[}/table{]

Demonstration

Practice and Test

PART 2—TRANSLATION

Chapter 8—Pseudo-English

The whole purpose of our investigation of symbolic logic is to better understand logic expressed in English. So, we need to bridge the gap between symbolic expressions and logically equivalent English sentences. The easiest way to do this is by using what I call “pseudo-English.” 

Example 8.1—Translating Symbolic Expressions into Pseudo-English

Lookup Table--Translation between Symbolic Expressions and Pseudo-English
Symbol | Pseudo-English Phrase
-------+------------------------
  ~    | it is not the case that
  &    | and
  v    | or
  >    | only if
  =    | if and only if
Let
A = It is daylight.
B = They are wearing sunglasses.

Translate the following symbolic expression into pseudo-English. 

~A&B

We will complete the translation character-by-character in order as they appear in the symbolic expression. 

From the lookup table we know that the tilde 

~

is 

it is not the case that

in pseudo-English. 

So far, we have 

it is not the case that A&B

The variable 

A

is the clause

it is daylight 

Now we have 

it is not the case that it is daylight &B

The ampersand

&

is 

and

So, we have

it is not the case that it is daylight and B

The variable 

B

is the clause

they are wearing sunglasses

Thus, we get 

it is not the case that it is daylight and they are wearing sunglasses 

Finally, we put a capital letter at the beginning and a period at the end. 

It is not the case that it is daylight and they are wearing sunglasses. 

And that is the translation from symbols into pseudo-English. 

It is “pseudo” (phony, artificial) , because it is neither elegant nor natural. But it does conform to the rules of proper English grammar. 

Notice that we are not using any commas in the pseudo-English sentences. Pseudo-English translation is primarily a matter of using the lookup table, replacing each symbolic character with its corresponding phrase, keeping the order of the original symbolic expression. 

Propositions 

Intuitively it might help to think of a proposition as a complete thought. It doesn't leave the mind hanging. Consider the following. 

They are beautiful but they are not vain.

This is does not leave the mind hanging. But now, consider the following. 

Although they are handsome  

This does leave the mind hanging—anticipating more. 

Grammatically, a proposition is a phrase that can be written as a complete sentence, and that makes a claim of fact. It can be true or false. 

Although they are handsome, they are quite vapid. 

This is a complete sentence, and it could be true or it could be false. It is a proposition. 

Atomic Propositions 

An "atomic" proposition is a proposition that contains no other proposition within itself. The atomic propositions in the section above are as follows. 

They are beautiful.
They are not vain.
They are handsome.
They are quite vapid.

Each is a complete sentence, makes a claim of fact, and does not contain any other proposition within itself. In other words, an atomic proposition is a proposition that cannot be broken down into smaller propositions. 

Example 8.2—Translating Pseudo-English Statements into Symbolic Expression

Keeping in mind the notion of an atomic proposition, we can now translate from pseudo-English into symbolic expression. We will use the same lookup table as before. 

Lookup Table--Translation between Symbolic Expressions and Pseudo-English
Symbol | Pseudo-English Phrase
-------+------------------------
  ~    | it is not the case that
  &    | and
  v    | or
  >    | only if
  =    | if and only if

Translate the following pseudo-English statement into symbolic expression. 

It is not the case that they ride their bike only if it is raining. 

Remember that pseudo-English follows the order of symbolic expression. So, we simply reverse-translate each component into the symbolic equivalent. Working left to right, the first component we come to is the phrase 

It is not the case that

The lookup table tells us that the phrase translates into the tilde

~

So, we have 

~ they ride their bike only if it is raining. 

The next component of the pseudo-English is an atomic proposition. The phrase

they ride their bike

can be formulated as a complete sentence that makes of claim of fact, and it does not decompose into smaller propositions. Each atomic proposition we come to, we designate with a variable, working in alphabetical order. So, our partial translation is 

~A only if it is raining.

The phrase 

only if

is in the lookup table, giving

~A> it is raining.

And finally, we have second atomic proposition. Thus, 

~A>B

is our complete translation from the given pseudo-English sentence into symbolic representation. 

Propositional Logic

Recall that zeroth-level logic is also called "propositional" logic. This is because symbolic statements in propositional logic are propositions, and they are made up of atomic propositions (variables), logical operations, and parentheses. 

Pseudo-English Translation Is Straightforward

Pseudo-English translation is, as we have seen, straightforward—because all that is needed is one-for-one replacements that maintain the same order of arrangement. The key characteristics of pseudo-English are (1) that each pseudo-English phrase maps one-to-one to a symbol, and (2) the order of proper symbolic expression is adhered to. 

Demonstrations

Practice and Test

Chapter 9—Natural English

Translation of natural English is not nearly as straightforward as pseudo-English translation. However, pseudo-English can serve as a bridge between natural English and it symbolic representation. 

Again, the whole point of symbolic logic is to give us some insight into reasoning that takes place in English—and not pseudo-English, but natural English. We need some way to get English propositions into symbolic expression. One way to do this is to translate natural English into pseudo-English. Then the pseudo-English can easily be translated into symbols. 

We will only deal here with some simple preliminary examples, because translating from natural English into pseudo-English is not nearly as mechanical as our previous translation exercises. 

I’ve expanded our previous table to include some natural English alternatives to the pseudo-English phrases. 

Table--Translation among Symbolic Expressions, Pseudo-English and Natural English
Symbol | Pseudo-English Phrase   | Natural English Alternatives
-------+-------------------------+-------------------------------------------
  ~    | it is not the case that | ... not ...
  &    | and                     | but; and then
  v    | or                      |
  >    | only if                 | if ..., then ...; if ..., ...; ..., if ...
  =    | if and only if          | just in case; that is to say 

This table is not comprehensive. It merely gives you some indication of the variations that we can see in natural English. 

Example 9.1—Translating Natural English into Pseudo-English

Translate the following into pseudo-English. 

I ride my bike to work, if it isn’t raining.

How do we capture the meaning of this in pseudo-English? We see in the table that implication, 

>

has associated with it the natural English construction, 

..., if ...

which seems to match up with the natural English sentence we were given. And the table also has the construction, 

if ..., then ...

Let’s use this second construction to rearrange the natural English. 

If it isn't raining, then I ride my bike to work.

It is this ordering of the atomic propositions that is used with the 

... only if ...

But before we translate into pseudo-English, we need to deal with the negation. In the natural English we have 

isn't

This needs to be unpacked. First, we can eliminate the contraction, 

If it is not raining, then I ride my bike to work.

Notice that the 

not

is inserted into the middle of the first atomic proposition. The ordering so far is far from the ordering of the corresponding symbolic representation using a tilde,

~

And recall that the key characteristic of pseudo-English is that it follows the order of symbolic representation. So, to convert the natural English, we want to bring the negation out in front of the atomic proposition in which it is embedded. We can do that using the phrase

it is not the case that

Using that phrase we get

If it is not the case that it is raining, then I ride my bike to work.

We now have something that is close to pseudo-English. We just need to translate the 

if ..., then ...

construction into 

only if

The implication goes in between the negated proposition and the affirmative proposition. 

It is not the case that it is raining only if I ride my bike to work.

Notice that the pseudo-English uses no commas. This is the complete translation. 

Okay, it sounds strange. That is why I call it “pseudo” English. And the meaning may not be entirely clear, because this is not the way that we normally use 

only if

But the meaning of the pseudo-English claim is technically the same as the original natural English.

There are subtleties of meaning here that are quite important when reasoning logically. The following example will clarify. 

Example 9.2—Alternative Natural English Proposition

Example There is a quite natural way of using 

only if

Suppose the person from before instead said, 

I ride my bike to work only if it is not raining. 

This is translated into pseudo-English quite easily, simply by handling the negation. 

I ride my bike to work only if it is not the case that it is raining. 

Notice that the claim here means something quite different from the claim of the first example. In this second example we have a very honest claim coming from someone who occasionally rides their bike to work. It says that whenever they ride their bike it isn’t raining. They don’t ride their bike when it is raining. 

The Meaning of the First Example

The first example is different, and it is a quite extraordinary claim, coming from someone who allegedly rides their bike to work every time it isn’t raining. The meaning is perhaps most clear in the following formulation. 

If it is not the case that it is raining, then I ride my bike to work.

Thursday it isn’t raining. They ride their bike to work. Friday it is raining. Maybe they don’t ride their bike to work. —Or maybe they do. There is nothing in the claim to rule out riding to work in the rain. Saturday, their day off work, it isn’t raining. They ride their bike to work anyway. This is at least the logical meaning of the claim. 

Maybe what they actually meant was the claim in the second example. As we work through our translation exercises, try to think about the differences in meaning among the various examples given. 

Pseudo-English as a Bridge to Symbolic Expression

Once natural English propositions have been translated into pseudo-English, further translating them into symbolic expression is quite easy. Thus, pseudo-English serves as a bridge between natural English and symbolic expression. 

The pseudo-English of the first example above was

It is not the case that it is raining only if I ride my bike to work.

Separating it into its pseudo-English components we have 

It is not the case that | it is raining | only if | I ride my bike to work.

Each component is translated into symbolic expression in a one-for-one manner, and in the same order. 

It is not the case that = ~
it is raining = A
only if = >
I ride my bike to work = B

The first atomic proposition is designated with the first letter of the alphabet; and the second with the second letter of the alphabet. 

Putting the symbolic components together we get

~A>B

The pseudo-English of the second example, 

I ride my bike to work only if it is not the case that it is raining, 

similarly comes directly over into symbolic expression. However, for comparisons sake. We will maintain the variable equivalencies from the first example. 

I ride my bike to work | only if | it is not the case that | it is raining.I ride my bike to work = B
only if = >
It is not the case that = ~
it is raining = A
B>~A

A Helpful Example

I have found that this example is very helpful. Keep in mind that if we are to use our symbolic apparatus to analyze propositions and arguments given in natural English, then we must get the translation from natural English to symbolic expression right. As emphasized above, pseudo-English is a bridge in the process of this crucial translation process. Translating from pseudo-English to symbolic expression is very mechanical. The trick is getting a pseudo-English translation that conveys the meaning of the original natural English. We have to get the grammar of the original natural English phrasing "stuffed into the box" of the symbolic syntax. And if we can get a pseudo-English representation that seems to work, then we have made the natural English conform in the necessary way. 

Natural English. Suppose we want to analyze the following natural English sentence. 

I won't mention it, if I see them. 

First Pass. As a first pass, we might rephrase the natural English as follows. 

If I see them, then I won't mention it. 

Compare Table--Translation among Symbolic Expressions, Pseudo-English and Natural English above.

Second Pass. As a second pass, we might have—

If I see them, then I will not mention it. 

Third Pass.

If I see them, then it is not the case that I will mention it. 

Pseudo-English. Finally, we can convert this into pseudo-English. 

I see them only if it is not the case that I will mention it. 

Symbolic Expression. Once we have the pseudo-English, getting to the proper symbolic expression is just a matter of one-for-one substitution. 

Let
A = I see them.
B = I will mention it. 
A>~B 

Demonstrations

Practice and Test

EXAM 1 SAMPLE QUIZ 

The sample exam below is programmed a bit differently from our exercises and quizzes. It is somewhat like an exercise in that you will be allowed to edit your response an unlimited number of times. However, the correct answers are not provided. Rework the problems as needed until you feel you have achieved your best result. Ideally, you should be able to rework the problems until you have them all correct. If you diligently work to get a 100% grade on the sample quiz, then it functions as a logical puzzle. The feedback will tell you each time you get an answer exactly right. 

PART 3—TRUTH TABLE ANALYSIS

Chapter 10—Truth Tables

In this chapter we are going to delve into one of the key components of any introductory logic course—truth table methodology. A truth table is very similar to the interpretations we have been doing already. However, whereas an interpretation includes only one set of values for the relevant variables, a truth table covers all possible value assignments—or, in other words, all possible "cases." 

Example 10.1—Single Variable Truth Table

Suppose that we want to analyze a statement that has only one variable. Then there are two values that the variable can take. 

A|Av~A
-+----
T|
F|

The single variable can be either true or false. This covers all truth value possibilities—all cases, or all interpretations. 

Then we, of course, fill out the table, doing so much in the same way that we complete a single interpretation. 

A|Av~A
-+----
T|t
F|f

We work left to right as much as possible, filling columns vertically. The first element of the expression that we can evaluate is 

A

So, we evaluate that all the way down the column underneath it. Then we continue working left to right, and the only thing we can evaluate is again the variable. 

A|Av~A
-+----
T|t  t
F|f  f

Now we can backtrack and evaluate the negation.

A|Av~A
-+----
T|t ft
F|f tf

And finally we can evaluate the dominant operation with capital letters. 

A|Av~A
-+----
T|tTft
F|fTtf

Example 10.2—Two Variable Truth Table

If we have two variables in the expression to be analyzed, then there are more cases to consider. There are four possible interpretations for the two variables considered jointly. 

AB|A>B
--+----
TT|
TF|
FT|
FF|
AB|A>B
--+----
TT|t
TF|t
FT|f
FF|f
AB|A>B
--+----
TT|t t
TF|t f
FT|f t
FF|f f
AB|A>B
--+----
TT|tTt
TF|tFf
FT|fTt
FF|fTf

Notice that we work horizontally left to right as much as possible, filling each column vertically

Branching Tree Logic

One way to conceive of all possible interpretations is through a branching tree logic. 

Two Variables

A B | AB
----+---
  T = TT
./
T
.\
  F = TF

  T = FT
./
F
.\
  F = FF

The first variable can be either true or false. If it is true, then additionally the second variable can be either true or false. If the second is true, then we are moving along the topmost branch and end up with 

TT

If the first variable is true, and the second false, then we get 

TF

in the second branch. 

The third branch is

FT

And the fourth branch is

FF

There are no other truth value possibilities. We have covered all possible cases. 

Three Variables

We can carry out the same procedure for three variables. 

A   B C | ABC
--------+----
......T = TTT
...../
....T
.../ \
../   F = TTF
./
T
.\
..\   T = TFT
...\ /
....F
.....\
......F = TFF

......T = FTT
...../
....T
.../ \
../   F = FTF
./
F
.\
..\   T = FFT
...\ /
....F
.....\
......F = FFF

—Eight possibilities. With one variable there were two possibilities. With two variables there were four possibilities. Now, with three variables there are eight possibilities. With the addition of each variable, the number of cases doubles. 

Formula for the Number of Rows

There is a formula for this. 

r = 2^n

The number of rows in a truth table, covering all possible cases, is two raised to the number of variables. 

r

is the number of rows. And 

n

is the number of variables. The caret,

^

indicates exponentiation. 

Example 10.3—Three Variable Truth Table

Again, in the following example notice how we work left to right as much as possible, but fill in each column vertically as we come to it. 

ABC|(A>(B&C))=(A&(~Bv~C))
---+---------------------
TTT|
TTF|
TFT|
TFF|
FTT|
FTF|
FFT|
FFF|
ABC|(A>(B&C))=(A&(~Bv~C))
---+---------------------
TTT|_
TTF|_
TFT|_
TFF|_
FTT|_
FTF|_
FFT|_
FFF|_
ABC|(A>(B&C))=(A&(~Bv~C))
---+---------------------
TTT|_t
TTF|_t
TFT|_t
TFF|_t
FTT|_f
FTF|_f
FFT|_f
FFF|_f
ABC|(A>(B&C))=(A&(~Bv~C))
---+---------------------
TTT|_t _
TTF|_t _
TFT|_t _
TFF|_t _
FTT|_f _
FTF|_f _
FFT|_f _
FFF|_f _
ABC|(A>(B&C))=(A&(~Bv~C))
---+---------------------
TTT|_t _t
TTF|_t _t
TFT|_t _f
TFF|_t _f
FTT|_f _t
FTF|_f _t
FFT|_f _f
FFF|_f _f
ABC|(A>(B&C))=(A&(~Bv~C))
---+---------------------
TTT|_t _t t
TTF|_t _t f
TFT|_t _f t
TFF|_t _f f
FTT|_f _t t
FTF|_f _t f
FFT|_f _f t
FFF|_f _f f
ABC|(A>(B&C))=(A&(~Bv~C))
---+---------------------
TTT|_t _ttt
TTF|_t _tff
TFT|_t _fft
TFF|_t _fff
FTT|_f _ttt
FTF|_f _tff
FFT|_f _fft
FFF|_f _fff
ABC|(A>(B&C))=(A&(~Bv~C))
---+---------------------
TTT|_tt_ttt
TTF|_tf_tff
TFT|_tf_fft
TFF|_tf_fff
FTT|_ft_ttt
FTF|_ft_tff
FFT|_ft_fft
FFF|_ft_fff
ABC|(A>(B&C))=(A&(~Bv~C))
---+---------------------
TTT|_tt_ttt__ _
TTF|_tf_tff__ _
TFT|_tf_fft__ _
TFF|_tf_fff__ _
FTT|_ft_ttt__ _
FTF|_ft_tff__ _
FFT|_ft_fft__ _
FFF|_ft_fff__ _
ABC|(A>(B&C))=(A&(~Bv~C))
---+---------------------
TTT|_tt_ttt__ _t
TTF|_tf_tff__ _t
TFT|_tf_fft__ _t
TFF|_tf_fff__ _t
FTT|_ft_ttt__ _f
FTF|_ft_tff__ _f
FFT|_ft_fft__ _f
FFF|_ft_fff__ _f
ABC|(A>(B&C))=(A&(~Bv~C))
---+---------------------
TTT|_tt_ttt__ _t _
TTF|_tf_tff__ _t _
TFT|_tf_fft__ _t _
TFF|_tf_fff__ _t _
FTT|_ft_ttt__ _f _
FTF|_ft_tff__ _f _
FFT|_ft_fft__ _f _
FFF|_ft_fff__ _f _
ABC|(A>(B&C))=(A&(~Bv~C))
---+---------------------
TTT|_tt_ttt__ _t _ t
TTF|_tf_tff__ _t _ t
TFT|_tf_fft__ _t _ f
TFF|_tf_fff__ _t _ f
FTT|_ft_ttt__ _f _ t
FTF|_ft_tff__ _f _ t
FFT|_ft_fft__ _f _ f
FFF|_ft_fff__ _f _ f
ABC|(A>(B&C))=(A&(~Bv~C))
---+---------------------
TTT|_tt_ttt__ _t _ft
TTF|_tf_tff__ _t _ft
TFT|_tf_fft__ _t _tf
TFF|_tf_fff__ _t _tf
FTT|_ft_ttt__ _f _ft
FTF|_ft_tff__ _f _ft
FFT|_ft_fft__ _f _tf
FFF|_ft_fff__ _f _tf
ABC|(A>(B&C))=(A&(~Bv~C))
---+---------------------
TTT|_tt_ttt__ _t _ft  t
TTF|_tf_tff__ _t _ft  f
TFT|_tf_fft__ _t _tf  t
TFF|_tf_fff__ _t _tf  f
FTT|_ft_ttt__ _f _ft  t
FTF|_ft_tff__ _f _ft  f
FFT|_ft_fft__ _f _tf  t
FFF|_ft_fff__ _f _tf  f
ABC|(A>(B&C))=(A&(~Bv~C))
---+---------------------
TTT|_tt_ttt__ _t _ft ft
TTF|_tf_tff__ _t _ft tf
TFT|_tf_fft__ _t _tf ft
TFF|_tf_fff__ _t _tf tf
FTT|_ft_ttt__ _f _ft ft
FTF|_ft_tff__ _f _ft tf
FFT|_ft_fft__ _f _tf ft
FFF|_ft_fff__ _f _tf tf
ABC|(A>(B&C))=(A&(~Bv~C))
---+---------------------
TTT|_tt_ttt__ _t _ftfft
TTF|_tf_tff__ _t _ftttf
TFT|_tf_fft__ _t _tftft
TFF|_tf_fff__ _t _tfttf
FTT|_ft_ttt__ _f _ftfft
FTF|_ft_tff__ _f _ftttf
FFT|_ft_fft__ _f _tftft
FFF|_ft_fff__ _f _tfttf
ABC|(A>(B&C))=(A&(~Bv~C))
---+---------------------
TTT|_tt_ttt__ _tf_ftfft
TTF|_tf_tff__ _tt_ftttf
TFT|_tf_fft__ _tt_tftft
TFF|_tf_fff__ _tt_tfttf
FTT|_ft_ttt__ _ff_ftfft
FTF|_ft_tff__ _ff_ftttf
FFT|_ft_fft__ _ff_tftft
FFF|_ft_fff__ _ff_tfttf
ABC|(A>(B&C))=(A&(~Bv~C))
---+---------------------
TTT|_tt_ttt__F_tf_ftfft
TTF|_tf_tff__F_tt_ftttf
TFT|_tf_fft__F_tt_tftft
TFF|_tf_fff__F_tt_tfttf
FTT|_ft_ttt__F_ff_ftfft
FTF|_ft_tff__F_ff_ftttf
FFT|_ft_fft__F_ff_tftft
FFF|_ft_fff__F_ff_tfttf

Demonstrations

Chapter 11—Memorization of Operations

As demonstrated in the previous chapter, a single truth table can require quite a large number of computations. So, before we go any further, it is a good idea to memorize the lookup table for the logical operations. This will allow you to complete truth tables much more efficiently. 

Lookup Table--Operations of Primary Importance, Modified
LR|~R,L&R,LvR,L>R,L=R
--+------------------
TT|F   T   T   T   T
TF|T   F   T   F   F
FT|    F   T   T   F
FF|    F   F   T   T

Use the following flash cards to achieve the memorization. 

In "Match" mode, challenge yourself to clear everything in under two minutes. Once you achieve that, see if you can do it in under one minute. How low can you go?

Demonstration

Chapter 12—Modality of a Single Proposition

For a single symbolic proposition, truth table analysis will tell us the "modality" of the proposition. In other words, the truth table for the statement will indicate whether it is necessarily true, possibly true, or necessarily false. 

Example 12.1—Tautological Statement

A tautological statement is necessarily true, because it is true in every possible case. 

[}table{];
A|Av~A;
-+----;
T|tTft;
F|fTtf;
Tautological;
[}/table{]

In this example there are two cases. And in all two cases the dominant operation is true. 

Example 12.2—Contingent Statement

A contingent statement is possibly true, but not necessarily true. It is true in some cases, and false in others. And when we say "some" cases, we mean at least one. So, a contingent proposition is true under at least one interpretation, and also false under at least one interpretation. 

[}table{];
AB|A>B;
--+---;
TT|tTt;
TF|tFf;
FT|fTt;
FF|fTf;
Contingent;
[}/table{]

In the first, third and fourth cases the proposition is true. But in the second case it is false. It is "contingently" true, depending on the interpretation given to the variables. 

Example 12.3—Contradictory Statement

A contradictory statement is necessarily false, because it is false under every possible interpretation. Sometimes we say that such a statement is "self" contradictory.

[}table{];
ABC|(A>(B&C))=(A&(~Bv~C));
---+---------------------;
TTT|_tt_ttt__F_tf_ftfft;
TTF|_tf_tff__F_tt_ftttf;
TFT|_tf_fft__F_tt_tftft;
TFF|_tf_fff__F_tt_tfttf;
FTT|_ft_ttt__F_ff_ftfft;
FTF|_ft_tff__F_ff_ftttf;
FFT|_ft_fft__F_ff_tftft;
FFF|_ft_fff__F_ff_tfttf;
Contradictory;
[}/table{]

Demonstrations

Practice

Example 12.4—Truth Table Analysis Given a Single Statement

Consider the following statement. 

A>(B&~B)

Let's complete the truth table for the statement. 

[}table{];
AB|A>(B&~B);
--+--------;
TT|;
TF|;
FT|;
FF|;
;
[}/table{]

We see that the statement contains two variables, and so construct a two variable set up. Then we complete the body of the table working left to right and vertically by columns. 

[}table{];
AB|A>(B&~B);
--+--------;
TT|t;
TF|t;
FT|f;
FF|f;
;
[}/table{]
[}table{];
AB|A>(B&~B);
--+--------;
TT|t _;
TF|t _;
FT|f _;
FF|f _;
;
[}/table{]
[}table{];
AB|A>(B&~B);
--+--------;
TT|t _t;
TF|t _f;
FT|f _t;
FF|f _f;
;
[}/table{]
[}table{];
AB|A>(B&~B);
--+--------;
TT|t _t  ;
TF|t _f  ;
FT|f _t  ;
FF|f _f  ;
;
[}/table{]
[}table{];
AB|A>(B&~B);
--+--------;
TT|t _t  t;
TF|t _f  f;
FT|f _t  t;
FF|f _f  f;
;
[}/table{]
[}table{];
AB|A>(B&~B);
--+--------;
TT|t _t ft;
TF|t _f tf;
FT|f _t ft;
FF|f _f tf;
;
[}/table{]
[}table{];
AB|A>(B&~B);
--+--------;
TT|t _tfft;
TF|t _fftf;
FT|f _tfft;
FF|f _fftf;
;
[}/table{]
[}table{];
AB|A>(B&~B);
--+--------;
TT|tF_tfft;
TF|tF_fftf;
FT|fT_tfft;
FF|fT_fftf;
;
[}/table{]

With the body of the table filled out, we see that the statement is true under some interpretations, and false under others. So, the proposition is contingent. 

[}table{];
AB|A>(B&~B);
--+--------;
TT|tF_tfft;
TF|tF_fftf;
FT|fT_tfft;
FF|fT_fftf;
Contingent;
[}/table{]

And we give our answer as an answer string. 

[}table{];AB|A>(B&~B);--+--------;TT|tF_tfft;TF|tF_fftf;FT|fT_tfft;FF|fT_fftf;Contingent;[}/table{]

Demonstration

Practice and Test

Chapter 13—Consistency of a Set of Multiple Propositions

For a set of symbolic propositions, truth table analysis will tell us whether the set is logically "consistent" or not. A set of statements is consistent if there exists at least one interpretation under which each of the statements is true. If there is no such interpretation, then the set is "inconsistent." 

Example 13.1—An Inconsistent Set of Multiple Propositions 

Consider the following set of expressions. 

A&~B,AvB,~A>B

Is this set consistent? That is, is it possible for them to all be true? More specifically (or technically) the question is, Is there an interpretation under which they are all true? The truth table for this set will answer that question, because the truth table details all possible interpretations. 

[}table{];
AB|A&~B,AvB,A>B;
--+------------;
TT|tFft_tTt_tTt;
TF|tTtf_tTf_tFf;
FT|fFft_fTt_fTt;
FF|fFtf_fFf_fTf;
Inconsistent;
[}/table{]

There are four possible interpretations that can be given to the variables. And none of the interpretations makes all three statements true. So the set of propositions is inconsistent. There is no case in which all three propositions are true. 

Example 13.2—A Consistent Set of Multiple Propositions

[}table{];
AB|~A&B,AvB,A>B;
--+------------;
TT|ftFt_tTt_tTt;
TF|ftFf_tTf_tFf;
FT|tfTt_fTt_fTt%;
FF|tfFf_fFf_fTf;
Consistent;
[}/table{]

Under the third interpretation all the propositions come out to be true. So the set is consistent. Notice that this third interpretation is marked with a percent sign, 

%

We will use the percent sign like a check mark, ✓. It indicates that something positive is at work. Also notice that for consistency, we only need one interpretation under which all members of the set are true. 

Example 13.3—Another Consistent Set of Multiple Propositions

We could have a set of statements for which there are multiple interpretations under which all members are true. 

[}table{];
ABC|(A&B)>C,~A,C;
---+------------;
TTT|_ttt_Tt_Ft_T;
TTF|_ttt_Ff_Ft_F;
TFT|_tff_Tt_Ft_T;
TFF|_tff_Tf_Ft_F;
FTT|_fft_Tt_Tf_T%;
FTF|_fft_Tf_Tf_F;
FFT|_fff_Tt_Tf_T%;
FFF|_fff_Tf_Tf_F;
Consistent;
[}/table{] 

Notice that the fifth interpretation and the seventh interpretation are both marked the with a percent sign. Either of these interpretations proves that the set of propositions is consistent. Another set of propositions may have any number of interpretations that show it to be consistent. 

Demonstrations

Practice and Test

Chapter 14—Logical Consequence and Validity of an Argument

Logical Consequence

"Logical consequence" is similar to material consequence. An expression dominated by the operation of material consequence claims that the truth of its antecedent requires the truth of its consequent. Likewise, logical consequence makes the claim that the truth of its "premises" requires the truth of its "conclusion." 

We will us a colon, 

:

to symbolize logical consequence. 

We read the colon as "therefore." 

Notice that we say "premises" (plural). Logical consequence can have any number of premises. For example, we may use logical consequence symbolically as follows. 

A>B,A:B

The two expressions to the left of the colon are the premises, and the expression to the right is the conclusion. 

Argument

The symbolic arrangement,

A>B,A:B

is an "argument." An argument asks us to assume that the premises are true. And then based on the assumption of the truth of the premises, the argument claims that the truth of the conclusion is logically necessary. 

Notice that we only speak of a single conclusion. An argument has only one conclusion. 

The above argument is read as, "A only if B. A. Therefore B."

Validity

Again, an argument supposes that the premises are true, and it claims that on the assumption of the truth of the premises the truth of the conclusion is guaranteed. If this claim is true, then the argument is "valid." If the claim is not true, then the argument is "invalid." 

Significant Rows

The claim of an argument can be tested using a truth table. Using the example argument above, we get

[}table{];
AB|A>B,A:B;
--+-------;
TT|tTt_T_T%;
TF|tFf_T_F;
FT|fTt_F_T;
FF|fTf_F_F;
Valid;
[}/table{]

Remember that an argument assumes that the premises are in fact true. So, the only "significant" rows of the truth table are those in which the premises are all true. Notice that a significant row is an interpretation that shows the premises to be consistent. 

We mark each significant row. If the conclusion is true in a significant row, we mark it with a percent sign (as a check mark) to show that validity claim of the argument is holding true under that interpretation. 

If every significant row is marked with a percent sign, then the argument is valid. 

Notice that the colon receives an underscore in the body of the table. 

Example 14.1—An Invalid Argument

[}table{];
AB|A>B,~A:~B;
--+---------;
TT|tTt_Ft_Ft;
TF|tFf_Ft_Tf;
FT|fTt_Tf_Ft#;
FF|fTf_Tf_Tf%;
Invalid;
[}/table{]

There are two significant rows in the truth table for this argument. Under the fourth interpretation, the conclusion is true. So, that row is marked with a percent sign. But the third interpretation is marked with a hash sign, 

#

because the conclusion is false on that interpretation. We use the hash sign like an "X" mark to indicate that the validity claim of the argument is contradicted by the interpretation. Only one such interpretation is needed to show that an argument is invalid. If there is one hash sign (or more), then the argument is invalid—regardless of how many percent signs there might be. 

Counterexample

A hash mark interpretation is a "counterexample" to the argument. In the previous truth table, we really only need the hash mark interpretation to demonstrate that the argument is invalid. The argument says, "Assume

A>B

and 

~A

to be true. Therefore, 

~B

is true." We could say, "No, the logical inference (the logical consequence, the 'therefore') is not valid. Here is a counterexample.

AB|A>B,~A:~B
--+---------
FT|fTt_Tf_Ft#

See? Here we have an interpretation under which both premises are true, but the conclusion is false." That's all good and fine—as long as you can pick out the counterexample. The truth table method gives you a systematic way of finding all counterexamples—or of showing that there are no counterexamples. 

Logical Level versus Material Level

I began this chapter by saying that logical consequence is similar to material consequence. However, there are clear differences. The most important of the differences is the "level" (for lack of a better word) at which the two operate. Both are called "consequence," but one acts at the "material" level, and the other at the "logical" level. Material consequence operates on sub-expressions contained within a proposition. In contrast, logical consequence describes entailment among distinct propositions. Material consequence coordinates elements of a proposition that are given an obvious syntactical connection through the operation. Logical consequence coordinates multiple propositions that do not have as obvious of a connection. 

With the introduction of logical consequence we are reaching a new level of logical sophistication. 

Example 14.2—A Single-Premise Argument

It is possible for an argument to have only one premise. 

[}table{];
AB|A>B:~(A&~B);
--+-----------;
TT|tTt_T_tfft%;
TF|tFf_F_tttf;
FT|fTt_T_ffft%;
FF|fTf_T_fftf%;
Valid;
[}/table{]

The first, third and fourth interpretations are all significant, because the one premise is true in those rows. Each is marked with a percent sign, because the conclusion is true in each. Thus, the argument is valid. 

Demonstrations

Practice and Test

Chapter 15—Logical Equivalence of Two Statements

Logical Equivalence

"Logical equivalence" is similar to logical consequence, but the key difference is that logical equivalence is "bidirectional." Because of this "bidirectionality," logical equivalence can only exist between two propositions. Logical equivalence makes the claim that one proposition is the logical consequence of a second proposition—and vice versa, the second is the logical consequence of the first. 

For example, 

A>B::~AvB

can be read as follows. 

A>B is logically equivalent to ~AvB

This also expresses the implicit claim that 

~AvB

is logically equivalent to 

A>B

Notice that we use a double colon to symbolize logical equivalence. This expresses the bidirectionality of the inference involved. 

A>B::~AvB

means the same thing as both

A>B:~AvB

and 

~AvB:A>B

The logical entailment goes in both "directions." And since the inference goes in both directions, what is on the right of the double colon is a conclusion—and so is what is on the left. There is only one conclusion of logical consequence. That is why logical equivalence relates only two propositions. 

Notice that both propositions are also premises of the two inferences. 

What we want to do is to test whether the bidirectional inference is valid. To do so we follow out the logic of the test of validity in a bidirectional way. 

Example 15.1—A Valid Inference of Logical Equivalence

[}table{];
AB|A>B::~AvB;
--+---------;
TT|tTt__ftTt%;
TF|tFf__ftFf;
FT|fTt__tfTt%;
FF|fTf__tfTf%;
Valid;
[}/table{]

Every row where one or the other proposition is true is a significant row, because each proposition is the single premise of an argument. In each significant row, the conclusion—both to the left and the right—is true. So, each significant row gets a percent sign. The bidirectional argument—the bidirectional inference—is valid. 

Notice that the truth values match in every row. This is generally true for any two propositions that are in fact logically equivalent. In this we notice a similarity to material equivalence. 

Example 15.2—An Invalid Inference of Logical Equivalence

[}table{];
AB|A>B::~A&B;
--+---------;
TT|tTt__ftFt#;
TF|tFf__ftFf;
FT|fTt__tfTt%;
FF|fTf__tfFf#;
Invalid;
[}/table{]

The first row is significant, because premise of the argument from left (premise) to right (conclusion) is true. But the conclusion of that left to right inference is false. So, it gets a hash mark. The same goes for row four. The third row is significant, because the premises of both inferences—both left to right and right to left—are true. And both conclusions are true. So, that row gets a percent sign. And since there is at least one interpretation where the bidirectional inference fails, the inference of logical equivalence is invalid. 

Demonstrations

Practice and Test

Chapter 16—Practice of General Truth Table Analysis

In this part of the course, we have explored various uses of truth tables. Now we want to bring the various techniques together, and be able to apply the right procedure to any given object of analysis. The key to this is applying the right descriptive concept to a given symbolic object. A single proposition is properly described in terms of modality (tautological, contingent, or contradictory). A set of two or more propositions is properly described in terms of consistency. An argument (using logical consequence) is properly described in terms of validity. And an inference of logical equivalence is also properly describe in terms of validity, but this is bidirectional validity. This breakdown is summarized in the following table. 

Lookup Table--Objects of Analysis and Their Proper Descriptive Concepts
Object of Analysis                          | Descriptive Concept
--------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
Single Proposition                          | Modality (Tautological, Contingent, Contradictory)
Set of Multiple Propositions                | Consistency
Argument (Inference of Logical Consequence) | Validity
Inference of Logical Equivalence            | Bidirectional Validity

As you complete the following exercise and quiz, make sure that you pay attention to the type of object you are asked to analyze, and then apply the techniques that go with the proper descriptive concept. 

Chapter 17—Xenophanes and Parmenides Analyzed by Truth Table

To see how natural language can be analyzed with the truth table methodology we have developed, I would like to start by taking a look at some teachings of Xenophanes of Colophon. He was an early Greek philosopher who lived from approximately 570 BC to 478 BC, dying about 60 years before Socrates rose to fame. He is the earliest "pre-Socratic" Greek philosopher for whom we have some well preserved fragments of his original work. The content of his work tends to focus on the lack of critical awareness in his society. He argues for cultural relativity, especially as regards the gods. 

Example 17.1—A Conjunction of Atomic Propositions

For example, Xenophanes pointed out, 

Homer and Hesiod have ascribed to the gods all things that are a shame and a disgrace among mortals--stealings, adulteries, deceivings of one another (adapted from the John Burnet translation, "Science and Religion" in Early Greek Philosophy; all quotes adapted in this chapter from the same). 

This proposition makes a claim about both Homer and Hesiod. And thinking in terms of truth value, we can see that Xenophanes might be right about Homer, but wrong about Hesiod—or vice versa, etc. So, we should take Xenophanes' statement as a conjunction of two atomic propositions. 

Let
A = Homer has ascribed to the gods all things that are a shame and a disgrace among mortals, stealings and adulteries and deceivings of one another.
B = Hesiod has ascribed to the gods all things that are a shame and a disgrace among mortals, stealings and adulteries and deceivings of one another.

Then the complex proposition is symbolized as, 

A&B

Analyzing this by truth table, we get

[}table{];
AB|A&B;
--+---;
TT|tTt;
TF|tFf;
FT|fFt;
FF|fFf;
Contingent;
[}/table{]

Xenophanes' proposition is contingent. 

Example 17.2—Complex Material Consequence

Another claim of Xenophanes—

If oxen and horses had hands, and could paint with their hands, producing works of art as men do, horses would paint the forms of the gods like horses, and oxen like oxen, making their bodies in the image of their own kind.

The dominant logical operation at play here is material consequence. We primarily have an "if ..., ..." type construction—but with several conjunctions as well. 

Let
A = Oxen have hands.
B = Horses have hands.
C = Oxen can produce works of art as men do.
D = Horses can produce works of art as men do.
G = Horses will paint the forms of the gods like horses, making their bodies in the image of their own kind.
H = Oxen will paint the forms of the gods like oxen, making their bodies in the image of their own kind.

Xenophanes' remark is then symbolized as, 

((A&B)&(C&D))>(G&H)

And the truth table is as follows. 

[}table{];
ABCDGH|((A&B)&(C&D))>(G&H);
------+-------------------;
TTTTTT|__ttt_t_ttt__T_ttt;
TTTTTF|__ttt_t_ttt__F_tff;
TTTTFT|__ttt_t_ttt__F_fft;
TTTTFF|__ttt_t_ttt__F_fff;
TTTFTT|__ttt_f_tff__T_ttt;
TTTFTF|__ttt_f_tff__T_tff;
TTTFFT|__ttt_f_tff__T_fft;
TTTFFF|__ttt_f_tff__T_fff;
TTFTTT|__ttt_f_fft__T_ttt;
TTFTTF|__ttt_f_fft__T_tff;
TTFTFT|__ttt_f_fft__T_fft;
TTFTFF|__ttt_f_fft__T_fff;
TTFFTT|__ttt_f_fff__T_ttt;
TTFFTF|__ttt_f_fff__T_tff;
TTFFFT|__ttt_f_fff__T_fft;
TTFFFF|__ttt_f_fff__T_fff;
TFTTTT|__tff_f_ttt__T_ttt;
TFTTTF|__tff_f_ttt__T_tff;
TFTTFT|__tff_f_ttt__T_fft;
TFTTFF|__tff_f_ttt__T_fff;
TFTFTT|__tff_f_tff__T_ttt;
TFTFTF|__tff_f_tff__T_tff;
TFTFFT|__tff_f_tff__T_fft;
TFTFFF|__tff_f_tff__T_fff;
TFFTTT|__tff_f_fft__T_ttt;
TFFTTF|__tff_f_fft__T_tff;
TFFTFT|__tff_f_fft__T_fft;
TFFTFF|__tff_f_fft__T_fff;
TFFFTT|__tff_f_fff__T_ttt;
TFFFTF|__tff_f_fff__T_tff;
TFFFFT|__tff_f_fff__T_fft;
TFFFFF|__tff_f_fff__T_fff;
FTTTTT|__fft_f_ttt__T_ttt;
FTTTTF|__fft_f_ttt__T_tff;
FTTTFT|__fft_f_ttt__T_fft;
FTTTFF|__fft_f_ttt__T_fff;
FTTFTT|__fft_f_tff__T_ttt;
FTTFTF|__fft_f_tff__T_tff;
FTTFFT|__fft_f_tff__T_fft;
FTTFFF|__fft_f_tff__T_fff;
FTFTTT|__fft_f_fft__T_ttt;
FTFTTF|__fft_f_fft__T_tff;
FTFTFT|__fft_f_fft__T_fft;
FTFTFF|__fft_f_fft__T_fff;
FTFFTT|__fft_f_fff__T_ttt;
FTFFTF|__fft_f_fff__T_tff;
FTFFFT|__fft_f_fff__T_fft;
FTFFFF|__fft_f_fff__T_fff;
FFTTTT|__fff_f_ttt__T_ttt;
FFTTTF|__fff_f_ttt__T_tff;
FFTTFT|__fff_f_ttt__T_fft;
FFTTFF|__fff_f_ttt__T_fff;
FFTFTT|__fff_f_tff__T_ttt;
FFTFTF|__fff_f_tff__T_tff;
FFTFFT|__fff_f_tff__T_fft;
FFTFFF|__fff_f_tff__T_fff;
FFFTTT|__fff_f_fft__T_ttt;
FFFTTF|__fff_f_fft__T_tff;
FFFTFT|__fff_f_fft__T_fft;
FFFTFF|__fff_f_fft__T_fff;
FFFFTT|__fff_f_fff__T_ttt;
FFFFTF|__fff_f_fff__T_tff;
FFFFFT|__fff_f_fff__T_fft;
FFFFFF|__fff_f_fff__T_fff;
Contingent;
[}/table{]

This claim is also contingent. 

Notice how unwieldy the truth table method becomes with six variables. 

Also notice that when assigning variable alphabetically we skip "E" and "F." Obviously, we don't want to use "F," because we are already using it as a truth value. And we skip "E," because it is easily confused with "F."

Example 17.3—A Set of Multiple Propositions

Another example from Xenophanes

The Ethiopians make their gods black and snub-nosed. The Thracians say theirs have blue eyes and red hair. Let
A = The Ethiopians make their gods black.
B = The Ethiopians make their gods snub-nosed.
C = The Thracians say theirs have blue eyes.
D = The Thracians say theirs have red hair. 
[}table{];
ABCD|A&B,C&D;
----+-------;
TTTT|tTt_tTt%;
TTTF|tTt_tFf;
TTFT|tTt_fFt;
TTFF|tTt_fFf;
TFTT|tFf_tTt;
TFTF|tFf_tFf;
TFFT|tFf_fFt;
TFFF|tFf_fFf;
FTTT|fFt_tTt;
FTTF|fFt_tFf;
FTFT|fFt_fFt;
FTFF|fFt_fFf;
FFTT|fFf_tTt;
FFTF|fFf_tFf;
FFFT|fFf_fFt;
FFFF|fFf_fFf;
Consistent;
[}/table{]

The two propositions are consistent. 

Example 17.4—Another Set of Multiple Propositions

There neither was nor will be a person who has certain knowledge about the gods and about all the things I speak of. Even if they should by chance manage to say the complete truth, yet they themselves know not that it is so. But all may have their fancy.Let
A = There was a person who had certain knowledge about the gods.
B = There will be a person who has certain knowledge about the gods.
C = There was a person who had certain knowledge about all the things I speak of.
D = There will be a person who has certain knowledge about all the things I speak of.
G = They by chance manage to say the complete truth.
H = They themselves know not that it is so.
J = All may have their fancy. 

The "neither ..., nor ..." grammatical construction is a combination of negation and disjunction—so that the first sentence comes across symbolically as, 

~(AvB)&~(CvD)

The meaning of "even if" is difficult to capture symbolically. But it seems that the best form is, 

(Gv~G)>H

The antecedent, 

Gv~G

is a tautology. It is true under any interpretation. So, assuming that the overall conditional statement is in fact true—which is Xenophanes intention—the consequent,

H

must be true. 

The meaning of the "but" at the beginning of the last sentence simply cannot be captured symbolically. We simply drop it. So, the set of propositions is, 

~(AvB)&~(CvD),(Gv~G)>H,J

Notice that in assigning variables we skipped "I." This is because in first-order, predicate logic "I" is often used as the "identity" predicate. For example, 

Ixy

means

x = y

In other words,

x

is identical to 

y

Since we are using the equals sign,

=

for material equivalence, it is a good idea to reserve "I" for the identity predicate. 

The truth table for Xenophanes teaching—involving seven variables, requiring 128 rows—is then—

[}table{];
ABCDGHJ|~(AvB)&~(CvD),(Gv~G)>H,J;
-------+------------------------;
TTTTTTT|f_ttt_Ff_ttt___ttft_Tt_T;
TTTTTTF|f_ttt_Ff_ttt___ttft_Tt_F;
TTTTTFT|f_ttt_Ff_ttt___ttft_Ff_T;
TTTTTFF|f_ttt_Ff_ttt___ttft_Ff_F;
TTTTFTT|f_ttt_Ff_ttt___fttf_Tt_T;
TTTTFTF|f_ttt_Ff_ttt___fttf_Tt_F;
TTTTFFT|f_ttt_Ff_ttt___fttf_Ff_T;
TTTTFFF|f_ttt_Ff_ttt___fttf_Ff_F;
TTTFTTT|f_ttt_Ff_ttf___ttft_Tt_T;
TTTFTTF|f_ttt_Ff_ttf___ttft_Tt_F;
TTTFTFT|f_ttt_Ff_ttf___ttft_Ff_T;
TTTFTFF|f_ttt_Ff_ttf___ttft_Ff_F;
TTTFFTT|f_ttt_Ff_ttf___fttf_Tt_T;
TTTFFTF|f_ttt_Ff_ttf___fttf_Tt_F;
TTTFFFT|f_ttt_Ff_ttf___fttf_Ff_T;
TTTFFFF|f_ttt_Ff_ttf___fttf_Ff_F;
TTFTTTT|f_ttt_Ff_ftt___ttft_Tt_T;
TTFTTTF|f_ttt_Ff_ftt___ttft_Tt_F;
TTFTTFT|f_ttt_Ff_ftt___ttft_Ff_T;
TTFTTFF|f_ttt_Ff_ftt___ttft_Ff_F;
TTFTFTT|f_ttt_Ff_ftt___fttf_Tt_T;
TTFTFTF|f_ttt_Ff_ftt___fttf_Tt_F;
TTFTFFT|f_ttt_Ff_ftt___fttf_Ff_T;
TTFTFFF|f_ttt_Ff_ftt___fttf_Ff_F;
TTFFTTT|f_ttt_Ft_fff___ttft_Tt_T;
TTFFTTF|f_ttt_Ft_fff___ttft_Tt_F;
TTFFTFT|f_ttt_Ft_fff___ttft_Ff_T;
TTFFTFF|f_ttt_Ft_fff___ttft_Ff_F;
TTFFFTT|f_ttt_Ft_fff___fttf_Tt_T;
TTFFFTF|f_ttt_Ft_fff___fttf_Tt_F;
TTFFFFT|f_ttt_Ft_fff___fttf_Ff_T;
TTFFFFF|f_ttt_Ft_fff___fttf_Ff_F;
TFTTTTT|f_ttf_Ff_ttt___ttft_Tt_T;
TFTTTTF|f_ttf_Ff_ttt___ttft_Tt_F;
TFTTTFT|f_ttf_Ff_ttt___ttft_Ff_T;
TFTTTFF|f_ttf_Ff_ttt___ttft_Ff_F;
TFTTFTT|f_ttf_Ff_ttt___fttf_Tt_T;
TFTTFTF|f_ttf_Ff_ttt___fttf_Tt_F;
TFTTFFT|f_ttf_Ff_ttt___fttf_Ff_T;
TFTTFFF|f_ttf_Ff_ttt___fttf_Ff_F;
TFTFTTT|f_ttf_Ff_ttf___ttft_Tt_T;
TFTFTTF|f_ttf_Ff_ttf___ttft_Tt_F;
TFTFTFT|f_ttf_Ff_ttf___ttft_Ff_T;
TFTFTFF|f_ttf_Ff_ttf___ttft_Ff_F;
TFTFFTT|f_ttf_Ff_ttf___fttf_Tt_T;
TFTFFTF|f_ttf_Ff_ttf___fttf_Tt_F;
TFTFFFT|f_ttf_Ff_ttf___fttf_Ff_T;
TFTFFFF|f_ttf_Ff_ttf___fttf_Ff_F;
TFFTTTT|f_ttf_Ff_ftt___ttft_Tt_T;
TFFTTTF|f_ttf_Ff_ftt___ttft_Tt_F;
TFFTTFT|f_ttf_Ff_ftt___ttft_Ff_T;
TFFTTFF|f_ttf_Ff_ftt___ttft_Ff_F;
TFFTFTT|f_ttf_Ff_ftt___fttf_Tt_T;
TFFTFTF|f_ttf_Ff_ftt___fttf_Tt_F;
TFFTFFT|f_ttf_Ff_ftt___fttf_Ff_T;
TFFTFFF|f_ttf_Ff_ftt___fttf_Ff_F;
TFFFTTT|f_ttf_Ft_fff___ttft_Tt_T;
TFFFTTF|f_ttf_Ft_fff___ttft_Tt_F;
TFFFTFT|f_ttf_Ft_fff___ttft_Ff_T;
TFFFTFF|f_ttf_Ft_fff___ttft_Ff_F;
TFFFFTT|f_ttf_Ft_fff___fttf_Tt_T;
TFFFFTF|f_ttf_Ft_fff___fttf_Tt_F;
TFFFFFT|f_ttf_Ft_fff___fttf_Ff_T;
TFFFFFF|f_ttf_Ft_fff___fttf_Ff_F;
FTTTTTT|f_ftt_Ff_ttt___ttft_Tt_T;
FTTTTTF|f_ftt_Ff_ttt___ttft_Tt_F;
FTTTTFT|f_ftt_Ff_ttt___ttft_Ff_T;
FTTTTFF|f_ftt_Ff_ttt___ttft_Ff_F;
FTTTFTT|f_ftt_Ff_ttt___fttf_Tt_T;
FTTTFTF|f_ftt_Ff_ttt___fttf_Tt_F;
FTTTFFT|f_ftt_Ff_ttt___fttf_Ff_T;
FTTTFFF|f_ftt_Ff_ttt___fttf_Ff_F;
FTTFTTT|f_ftt_Ff_ttf___ttft_Tt_T;
FTTFTTF|f_ftt_Ff_ttf___ttft_Tt_F;
FTTFTFT|f_ftt_Ff_ttf___ttft_Ff_T;
FTTFTFF|f_ftt_Ff_ttf___ttft_Ff_F;
FTTFFTT|f_ftt_Ff_ttf___fttf_Tt_T;
FTTFFTF|f_ftt_Ff_ttf___fttf_Tt_F;
FTTFFFT|f_ftt_Ff_ttf___fttf_Ff_T;
FTTFFFF|f_ftt_Ff_ttf___fttf_Ff_F;
FTFTTTT|f_ftt_Ff_ftt___ttft_Tt_T;
FTFTTTF|f_ftt_Ff_ftt___ttft_Tt_F;
FTFTTFT|f_ftt_Ff_ftt___ttft_Ff_T;
FTFTTFF|f_ftt_Ff_ftt___ttft_Ff_F;
FTFTFTT|f_ftt_Ff_ftt___fttf_Tt_T;
FTFTFTF|f_ftt_Ff_ftt___fttf_Tt_F;
FTFTFFT|f_ftt_Ff_ftt___fttf_Ff_T;
FTFTFFF|f_ftt_Ff_ftt___fttf_Ff_F;
FTFFTTT|f_ftt_Ft_fff___ttft_Tt_T;
FTFFTTF|f_ftt_Ft_fff___ttft_Tt_F;
FTFFTFT|f_ftt_Ft_fff___ttft_Ff_T;
FTFFTFF|f_ftt_Ft_fff___ttft_Ff_F;
FTFFFTT|f_ftt_Ft_fff___fttf_Tt_T;
FTFFFTF|f_ftt_Ft_fff___fttf_Tt_F;
FTFFFFT|f_ftt_Ft_fff___fttf_Ff_T;
FTFFFFF|f_ftt_Ft_fff___fttf_Ff_F;
FFTTTTT|t_fff_Ff_ttt___ttft_Tt_T;
FFTTTTF|t_fff_Ff_ttt___ttft_Tt_F;
FFTTTFT|t_fff_Ff_ttt___ttft_Ff_T;
FFTTTFF|t_fff_Ff_ttt___ttft_Ff_F;
FFTTFTT|t_fff_Ff_ttt___fttf_Tt_T;
FFTTFTF|t_fff_Ff_ttt___fttf_Tt_F;
FFTTFFT|t_fff_Ff_ttt___fttf_Ff_T;
FFTTFFF|t_fff_Ff_ttt___fttf_Ff_F;
FFTFTTT|t_fff_Ff_ttf___ttft_Tt_T;
FFTFTTF|t_fff_Ff_ttf___ttft_Tt_F;
FFTFTFT|t_fff_Ff_ttf___ttft_Ff_T;
FFTFTFF|t_fff_Ff_ttf___ttft_Ff_F;
FFTFFTT|t_fff_Ff_ttf___fttf_Tt_T;
FFTFFTF|t_fff_Ff_ttf___fttf_Tt_F;
FFTFFFT|t_fff_Ff_ttf___fttf_Ff_T;
FFTFFFF|t_fff_Ff_ttf___fttf_Ff_F;
FFFTTTT|t_fff_Ff_ftt___ttft_Tt_T;
FFFTTTF|t_fff_Ff_ftt___ttft_Tt_F;
FFFTTFT|t_fff_Ff_ftt___ttft_Ff_T;
FFFTTFF|t_fff_Ff_ftt___ttft_Ff_F;
FFFTFTT|t_fff_Ff_ftt___fttf_Tt_T;
FFFTFTF|t_fff_Ff_ftt___fttf_Tt_F;
FFFTFFT|t_fff_Ff_ftt___fttf_Ff_T;
FFFTFFF|t_fff_Ff_ftt___fttf_Ff_F;
FFFFTTT|t_fff_Tt_fff___ttft_Tt_T%;
FFFFTTF|t_fff_Tt_fff___ttft_Tt_F;
FFFFTFT|t_fff_Tt_fff___ttft_Ff_T;
FFFFTFF|t_fff_Tt_fff___ttft_Ff_F;
FFFFFTT|t_fff_Tt_fff___fttf_Tt_T%;
FFFFFTF|t_fff_Tt_fff___fttf_Tt_F;
FFFFFFT|t_fff_Tt_fff___fttf_Ff_T;
FFFFFFF|t_fff_Tt_fff___fttf_Ff_F;
Consistent;
[}/table{]

Xenophanes' propositions are consistent. 

Practical Limits of Truth Tables

In this last example we certainly see that our truth table methodology has its limitations for practical purposes. A 128-row truth table is not very informative to read. There is just too much information to provide much insight. And a 128-row table is not efficient. It takes a lot of work to complete, and at the end of it you are not likely to be confident that you made no mistakes. And yet Xenophanes remarks are relatively simple and concise. With more convoluted remarks we would quickly get in to many more variables.

Semantic Limits of Our Symbolic Apparatus

Beyond complications with the number of variables, we see in the last example that our symbolic formalization doesn't capture all the meaning of natural language. Questions about meaning are questions about "semantics." People may disagree with the way that we symbolized the grammar of "even if." And with the initial "but" in the final sentence we didn't even attempt to capture the semantics there. 

The obverse of semantics is "syntax." Syntax is the physical arrangement of symbols. Formal logic is an attempt to reduce the semantics of natural language to the syntax of our symbolic apparatus. Within the symbolic system, semantics and syntax are the same. It is very interesting how successful this can be—but it has its limits. 

Demonstrations

Practice

This sample exam is programmed similarly to the first sample exam. You will be allowed unlimited edits to your responses, but the correct answers will not be given. Rework the problems as needed. And remember that if you work to achieve a 100% grade on the sample quiz, then it operates as a logical puzzle. The feedback will tell you each time you get an answer exactly right. 

PART 4—FORMAL DEDUCTION VERSUS INFORMAL INDUCTION

Chapter 18—Formal Nature of Deduction

We have seen that truth tables have limited practical utility. Hopefully, you are thinking that there must be a better way to analyze propositions and deductive inferences (involving logical consequence). And luckily, there is. 

A more sophisticated way of understanding logic is to pay attention to common "forms." In symbolic logic we study the "form" of propositions, sets of propositions, and arguments. That is why it is sometimes called "formal" logic. The "form" is distinct from the "content."

Formal Abstraction of a Complex Proposition

For example, the proposition,

If you listen closely, you can just hear it, 

has the following form. 

A>B

The form of the proposition is distinct from the content of the claim being made. The content has to do with listening and hearing. The form is the logical structure. 

Notice that propositions with very different content can have the same form. For example, 

If you hold a handful of coins, then you cannot remove your hand from the jar,

has the same form as the previous example proposition. But the content of this last proposition is very different from the content of the previous. The claims are about very different things. This is why a focus on form is the practice of a certain type of "abstraction." We "abstract" the form away from the content. And this act of abstraction allows us to see the same form found in statements with entirely distinct content. 

Formal Abstraction of an Argument, and the Formal Nature of Validity

The same type of abstraction can be carried out for an entire argument. For example, we can consider the following argument. 

If Socrates is an Athenian, then he is mortal. Socrates is an Athenian. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Let
A = Socrates is an Athenian.
B = Socrates is mortal. 

Then the "form" of the argument is, 

A>B,A:B

We have atomic propositions, and their logical connections. 

At the material level—the level of claims of fact—proposition 

A

is related to proposition 

B

by the operation of material consequence. The claim, 

A>B

is a question of fact, and therefore can be either true or false. Whether this proposition is true or false depends on the "content" of the proposition, where "content" is the obverse of "form." We must somehow decide whether it is true that Socrates is an Athenian only if he is mortal. This is a question regarding facts about the world, and so must be decided based on our experience of reality. 

There is another level of logical connection in the argument. At the logical level, the argument makes an inference from the assumed truth of the premises, 

A>B

and 

A

to the implied truth of the conclusion, 

B

Whether this proposed inference is valid or invalid is not a question of fact. It has nothing to do with the content of the argument, but only with its form. 

We construct the truth table. 

[}table{];
AB|A>B,A:B;
--+-------;
TT|tTt_T_T%;
TF|tFf_T_F;
FT|fTt_F_T;
FF|fTf_F_F;
Valid;
[}/table{]

The truth table tells us that the proposed inference of logical consequence is "formally" valid. Under every possible interpretation where the premises are true, the conclusion is also true. The determination of validity is purely a matter of the formal symbolic system. 

When we focus on form apart from all content, it is customary to use the variables

P

and

Q

So, the form we are looking at is, 

P>Q,P:Q

The truth table here is formally the same as the previous truth table.  

[}table{];
PQ|P>Q,P:Q;
--+-------;
TT|tTt_T_T%;
TF|tFf_T_F;
FT|fTt_F_T;
FF|fTf_F_F;
Valid;
[}/table{]

And we can give this argument form any content we like. It will always be valid. For example,

Let
P = Zeus is a god.
Q = Zeus is immortal. 

That gives us the argument, 

If Zeus is a god, then Zeus is immortal. Zeus is a god. Therefore, Zeus is immortal. 

We don't have to do the truth table yet again to determine if this argument is valid. It is valid. The very form of the argument is valid. We can simply recognize the Modus Ponens form, and immediately know that it is valid. 

Deduction

An act of reasoning that appeals only to the formal characteristics of logical inferences is called "deduction." Our symbolic apparatus and its associated techniques constitute one way of describing deduction. Deduction is purely formal, and it is bound up with the formal way in which we have described validity. 

Chapter 19—Common Forms of Argument and Their Validity

There are several forms of argument that come up quite frequently in human reasoning. 

Modus Ponens

We have already investigated one of these forms. We saw that the following arguments—although they have very different content—have the same form. 

If Socrates is an Athenian, then he is mortal. Socrates is an Athenian. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.If Zeus is a god, then Zeus is immortal. Zeus is a god. Therefore, Zeus is immortal.

The form is

P>Q,P:Q

And we proved this form valid by use of a truth table. 

We call this form "Modus Ponens." This is a Latin name that is rooted in the history of teaching logic. "Modus ponens" means something like the "method of putting." The form is also known as "Affirming the Antecedent," a name which is more descriptive. In the second premise, the antecedent of the first premise is "affirmed"—that is, we assert the truth of the antecedent. To emphasize this act of affirmation, we might read the Modus Ponens form as,

P only if Q

is true. And 

P

is true. Therefore, 

Q

is true. 

Example 19.1—Denying the Antecedent Proved Invalid

With Modus Ponens we "affirmed" the antecedent. What happens if you "deny" the antecedent? We might think—because people in fact often do—that the consequent is then false. 

[}table{];
PQ|P>Q,~P:~Q;
--+---------;
TT|tTt_Ft_Ft;
TF|tFf_Ft_Tf;
FT|fTt_Tf_Ft#;
FF|fTf_Tf_Tf%;
Invalid;
[}/table{]

Although the two premises and the conclusion here are consistent (see the fourth row) the argument is invalid, because it is possible that the premises are true while the conclusion is false (third row). 

Complete List of Common Argument Forms

There are several more common argument forms. Here is the complete list of the common argument forms we will consider. 

Modus Ponens (aka Affirming the Antecedent)
P>Q,P:Q
Denying the Antecedent
P>Q,~P:~Q
Modus Tollens (aka Denying the Consequent)
P>Q,~Q:~P
Affirming the Consequent
P>Q,Q:P
Hypothetical Syllogism
P>Q,Q>R:P>R
Disjunctive Syllogism
PvQ,~P:Q
Affirming a Disjunct
PvQ,P:~Q
Denying a Conjunct
~(P&Q),~P:Q
Constructive Dilemma
PvQ,P>R,Q>S:RvS
Destructive Dilemma
P>Q,R>S,~Qv~S:~Pv~R
Conjunction Introduction
P,Q:P&Q
Simplification
P&Q:P
Addition
P:PvQ

In the following exercise and quiz, you will test the validity of each of these forms using truth tables. Which are valid, and which are invalid? 

Demonstration

Practice and Test

Chapter 20—Memorizing the Common Argument Forms

Please work the flashcards below until you have them memorized. The common argument forms are listed in the preceding chapter. And in the preceding exercise and quiz, we proved whether each is valid or invalid. These flash cards are based on the content covered in the previous chapter. 

Chapter 21—Formal Fallacies

Among our common argument forms, we find some that are invalid. Because these erroneous logical inferences occur quite frequently in the real-world practice of argumentation, we give names to these forms. And because the forms are invalid, we call them "formal fallacies." 

The formal fallacies we have encountered are the following. 

Denying the Antecedent
P>Q,~P:~Q
Affirming the Consequent
P>Q,Q:P
Affirming a Disjunct
PvQ,P:~Q
Denying a Conjunct
~(P&Q),~P:Q

The erroneous nature of these fallacies can be entirely described in terms of their forms. The fallacies are not instances of deduction, precisely because they are erroneous. However, the act of describing their invalidity is an instance of deduction. 

Chapter 22—Literary Arguments Interpreted through Common Argument Forms

The Three Existential Crises of This Unique Moment of Human History

The exercise and quiz below are inspired by Noam Chomsky's remarks in the following video. 

The arguments in the exercise and quiz are merely inspired by those that Chomsky actually gives. Chomsky's arguments are more subtle, and the conclusions reached are not the same in all instances. Even the premises are not consistently the same. However, the exercise and quiz arguments nonetheless give some insight into his lines of reasoning. The simplified arguments show some of the unanticipated conclusions that might be reached when contemplating simultaneously the "three existential crises of our unique moment of human history."

Buddhism Interpreted

The following exercises and quizzes give an interpretation of Buddhism. This interpretation is simplified, and somewhat distorted. However, it does give some guidance on how to start to comprehend the teachings of Gautama, the "Buddha." Of course, where your understanding starts should never be where it ends. 

In the exercises and quizzes, notice the repetition of forms—normally with different content for each recurrence—but sometimes with the same form and content. 

After working through the above simplified arguments, take a look at my selection of Basic Buddhist Scriptures. These "sutras" should be more comprehensible than if you approached them with no preparation. 

Argumenative Essay on Buddhism 

Essay 22.1—Argumentative Essay on Our Interpretation of Buddhism

Write a short argumentative essay that analyses how well the arguments from the preceeding exercises and quizzes give an appropriate interpretation of the Basic Buddhist Scriptures. Focus on the sutras that appear near the top of the listing. Do the interpretations provided in the common argument forms help to comprehend the sutras? Do the interpretations introduce distortions, or misrepresentations? 

Chapter 23—Modified Common Argument Forms

Example 23.1—Producing a Modified Form of Modus Ponens 

If we start with one of the common argument forms, we can produce a modified by assigning complex (non-atomic) propositions to the variables of the form. For example, let's take Modus Ponens.

P>Q,P:QLet
P = A&B
Q = CvD

Then we have the argument

(A&B)>(CvD),A&B:CvD

This modified argument still has the form of Modus Ponens. And since it has the Modus Ponens form, the argument is valid. We know this because we proved the validity of Modus Ponens earlier. 

Demonstration

Practice and Test

Example 23.2—Recognizing Modus Ponens in a Complex Form

Now that we have seen how to modify the common argument forms, and make them more complex, we want to learn how to recognize the common argument forms when presented with more complex representations. For example, suppose we are presented with 

A>(BvD),A:BvD

We want to be able to recognize a familiar form here. 

Let
P = A
Q = BvD

Substituting the equivalents, we get 

P>Q,P:Q

It's Modus Ponens. 

Setting up equivalencies as above may be helpful at this stage of the learning process, but ultimately we want to be able to simply see the pattern with our "mind's eye." 

Some optical illusions illustrate an analogy. Consider the following image. 

Pablo Picasso, "Femme Assise," 1909

With Picasso's "Femme Assise" ("Seated Woman") we recognize the features of a woman, although the representation is far from realistic. And we seem to get multiple perspectives of the woman simultaneously. Due to our cultural upbringing, we do not get caught up recognizing geometrical cubes, and pyramids, etc. We see the broader form of the woman, and naturally get a sense of the multiple perspectives. 

And let's think about seeing the geometrical figures in the Picasso painting. We do see those as well. And what we "see" with our "mind's eye" is three-dimensional forms. But the picture itself is only two-dimensional. The following figure brings this home. 

Louis Albert Necker, "Necker Cube," 1832

The Necker cube can be seen—with the "minds eye"—as two different three-dimensional cubes (although the figure itself is two-dimensional). There is one cube that we can view the top of, while there is a second cube that we can view the bottom of. 

Finally, take a look at the following. 

Fliegende Blätter, "Kaninchen und Ente," 1892

The "Kaninchen und Ente" ("Rabbit and Duck") can also be seen as two different things. When looking at it one way, we see a rabbit. When looking at it another way, we see a duck. 

These optical illusions show how we can alter the way that we look at figures. 

Example 23.3—Recognizing Modus Ponens in a More Complex Form

Something similar happens when we recognize a common argument form within a complexified form of expression. The following example gives an indication of how this transformation takes place. 

(A=~B)>(C&D),A=~B:C&D[(A=~B)]>[(C&D)],[A=~B]:[C&D][  P   ]>[  Q  ],[ P  ]:[ Q ]   P    >   Q   ,  P   :  QP>Q,P:Q 

With the "mind's eye" we bracket the left and right inputs of the dominant operation of the first premise. And then we bracket those same expressions as they appear throughout the argument. We let the first bracketed expression be 

P

and the second be 

Q

And then we see the Modus Ponens form. 

Notice that we do not want to bracket the dominant operation of the first premise. And this serves as a "rule thumb." Within each proposition, try bracketing everything except the dominant operation. 

This skill of recognition is essential for completing proofs, which we will be moving on to very shortly.

Demonstrations

Practice and Test  

Chapter 24—Informal Nature of Induction

Soundness

Let's take another look at Modus Ponens, 

P>Q,P:Q

giving it the following content.

Let
P = Zeus is a swan.
Q = Zeus is immortal. 
If Zeus is a swan, then Zeus is immortal. Zeus is a swan. Therefore, Zeus is immortal. 

We know, because of its form, that this is a valid argument. But there is something wrong with it. The trouble arises at the factual material level. Zeus did consort with Leda in the form of a swan—but does that mean that he is a swan? We are inclined somewhat to say that this is not true. And it is highly doubtful that Zeus is a swan only if he is immortal. At the extremity, it is possible to dispute the point—but we would typically say that the logical inference (the logical consequence, the "therefore") from Zeus being a swan to him being immortal is "unsound." In order for an argument to be "sound" it must be valid, and it must have premises that are all in fact true. 

Because soundness makes appeal to the facticity of the world, it is an "informal" concept—that is, it is non-formal. Soundness is used to evaluate an argument in a way that goes beyond its mere form. 

Soundness of Parmenides' Arguments

In exam 2 we saw arguments like the following from Parmenides. 

"The force of truth will not suffer aught to arise besides itself from what does not exist. Therefore, Justice (Dike) doth neither let anything come into being nor pass away, but holds it fast" (adapted from John Burnet, "Parmenides of Elea" in Early Greek Philosophy, Third Edition, London: Adam and Charles Black, 1920). 

I asked you to supplement the argument with an implicit premise so as to fit the Modus Ponens form of argument. We get something like, 

"If the force of truth will not suffer aught to arise besides itself from what does not exist, then Justice doth neither let anything come into being nor pass away, but holds it fast. The force of truth will not suffer aught to arise besides itself from what does not exist. Therefore, Justice doth neither let anything come into being nor pass away, but holds it fast."Let
A = The force of truth will suffer something to arise besides itself from what does not exist.
B = Justice doth let something come into being.
C = Justice doth let something pass away.
D = Justice holds it fast. 

Then the symbolic form of the supplemented argument is, 

A>(~(BvC)&D),A:~(BvC)&D

We could show that the argument form is valid with a sixteen row truth table. However, we could simply recognize that this argument has a more general form that is identical to the arguments about Zeus and Socrates above. 

Let
P = A
Q = ~(BvC)&D

Then the larger form of Parmenides' argument is, 

P>Q,P:Q

—Modus Ponens. —No need for a truth table. We know that Parmenides' argument is valid, because Modus Ponens is valid. 

Okay, Parmenides' argument is valid. But does that mean that we must accept Parmenides' conclusion? His conclusion is that any given thing in the world neither comes into existences, nor ceases to exist. And as we have seen from other arguments that Parmenides offers, what this means to him is that nothing in reality ever changes in any way. What exists exists in an eternally stagnant state. Furthermore, this eternally stagnant reality is just one thing—not a multiplicity of many things. Do we too have to believe this? 

Parmenides' argument is valid. So, if we believe his premises, then we must accept the conclusion. That is what validity tells us. And that is an important insight into human reasoning. —But what if we don't believe the premises? 

Throughout history, many philosophers have argued that existence cannot come out of nothing—that the world, or universe, must have arisen from something—and that in this way the universe must have always existed in some form. So, Parmenides' second premise is arguably true. Maybe we buy it, or maybe don't. 

What about the first premise? Is it true that if what exists can't come out of nothing, then what exists must be an eternally stagnant indivisible unity? That is something that few people have ever believed. Very few among us are going to take that as true. This is the weakest link in Parmenides' argument. So, we might argue that Parmenides' argument is unsound, especially because the first premise is highly unlikely. 

Notice that pure formal logic does not tell us whether the argument is sound or unsound. We have mechanical methods for determining validity. There is no such method for determining soundness. 

Soundness of the Arguments Inspired by Chomsky and Gautama Buddha

Notice that my earlier interpretations of arguments from Noam Chomsky and Gautama the "Buddha" were all valid. That is just a matter of pure formal deduction. It is not up for debate. But that does not mean that we have to accept these arguments. There might be problems of soundness. Perhaps some of the premises are factually incorrect. Is it really true that if there is an arms race, there will be a nuclear holocaust? Is it really true that if you cling to the All, then you are bound to the All like fire is to fuel? Is the intellect aflame? The answers here are not a matter of deduction. The questions go beyond the purely formal characteristics of reasoning. 

Practice 

To drive home the fact that deduction is formal in character, while soundness is informal—let's complete the following exercise. 

Induction as Beyond Deduction

In this course we have been studying deductive reasoning. But with the introduction of the notion of soundness we see that deduction does not cover all of what we should call "reasoning." There is a type of reasoning that lies beyond deduction. This is the simplest notion of "induction." Induction is all proper reasoning that is not deductive. 

There is much more to be said about induction. I will reapproach this topic at the end of the course. 

PART 5—PROOFS

Chapter 25—Euclid's Elements

The archetype of deduction is Euclid's Elements. Euclid was a mathematician who likely worked in Alexandria, Egypt around 300 BC. His masterwork, the Elements, served as the standard textbook for geometry from his own time through the nineteenth century AD. In the twentieth century, high school geometry textbooks were not simply reproductions of Euclid, but they were very closely related to the classical text. 

Please read through the first few "propositions" of the Elements. The "propositions" in Euclid are often referred to as "theorems." 

The style of presentation in the Elements has significantly shaped our notion of deduction. The work is a series of propositions. These are claims for which Euclid provides proof. Each proposition is followed by a deductive proof, the conclusion of which is the proposition to be proved. 

Until very recently, students were introduced to deductive proof when they took their first course in geometry.   

As we learn the methods of symbolic proofs, keep in mind the style of Euclid. We are attempting to model Euclid's style of proof in natural language with proofs conducted through pure formal manipulation. 

Chapter 26—Rules of Inference

Among our common argument forms there are eight valid forms that we will use as the "Rules of Inference." They are rules of "inference," because they allow us to make logical inferences from premises to conclusions by way of logical consequence. The rules are as follows. 

Modus Ponens (MP)
P>Q,P:Q
Modus Tollens (MT)
P>Q,~Q:~P
Hypothetical Syllogism (HS)
P>Q,Q>R:P>R
Disjunctive Syllogism (DS)
PvQ,~P:Q
Constructive Dilemma (CD)
PvQ,P>R,Q>S:RvS
Conjunction Introduction (Conj)
P,Q:P&Q
Simplification (Simp)
P&Q:P
Addition (Add)
P:PvQ

The abbreviations in parentheses are standard and conventional. 

Example 26.1—A Proof in One Step 

We will begin our study of proofs simply completing each form of the Rules of Inference. You will be given the premises of the form, and then you will provide the conclusion of the argument. Moving validly from the premises to the conclusion is a deductive inference.

For example, suppose you are asked to complete the following proof. 

[}proof{];
1.~A>B,premise;
2.~A,premise|:B

The two premises are

~A>B

and

~A

The vertical bar and colon,

|:

indicate that the conclusion we want to prove is

B

We assume that the premises are true, and then we show that the conclusion deductively follows from the premises.

Notice that there are no blank spaces in the lines of the proof.

Since we know this proof is to be complete in one step (beyond the premises), we know that the conclusion will be on line

3

of the proof.

[}proof{];
1.~A>B,premise;
2.~A,premise;
3.B

Now it is time for the essential component of the proof. We must justify the appearance of the conclusion in line three. We appeal to the Rules of Inference in order to make the justification.

Let
P = ~A
Q = B

Then the premises of the proof fit the pattern of 

Modus Ponens (MP)
P>Q,P:Q

This allows us to justify the third line of our proof. 

[}proof{];
1.~A>B,premise;
2.~A,premise;
3.B,1,2,MP

The truth of 

B

is justified by lines

1

and

2

with appeal to the rule

MP

Since we have reached the desired conclusion, we finish the proof with the closing tag.

[}proof{];
1.~A>B,premise;
2.~A,premise;
3.B,1,2,MP;
[}/proof{]

And we give our answer as an answer string.

[}proof{];1.~A>B,premise;2.~A,premise;3.B,1,2,MP;[}/proof{]

Example 26.2—A Proof in One Step with Inverted Premises

The order of the premises is not pertinent for a logical inference. So, the premises in a proof may be in a different order from how they are found in the relevant rule. For example, let's complete the following proof. 

[}proof{];
1.~A,premise;
2.AvB,premise|:B

We can complete the proof in one step.

Let
P = A
Q = B

Then the premises fit the pattern of 

Disjunctive Syllogism (DS)
PvQ,~P:Q
[}proof{];
1.~A,premise;
2.AvB,premise
3.B,1,2,DS;
[}/proof{]

The justification of the step is from lines 

1

and 

2

by Disjunctive Syllogism. 

Notice that we list the lines used in the justification in numerical order. And notice that the rule applies even though the premises of the proof are in inverted order from that given in the rule. 

Demonstrations

Practice and Test 

Example 26.3—A Proof in Two Steps

Now we will work on stringing together multiple rules. For example, let's complete the following proof. 

[}proof{];
1.A>~B,premise;
2.A,premise;
3.BvC,premise|:C

When working on a proof with multiple steps, it is a good idea to place the proposition that you are attempting to prove down below your work. 

[}proof{];
1.A>~B,premise;
2.A,premise;
3.BvC,premise;

|:C

This will be a reminder of what we are trying to accomplish. 

To start out, we can apply Modus Ponens.

[}proof{];
1.A>~B,premise;
2.A,premise;
3.BvC,premise;
4.~B,1,2,MP;

|:C

Then we can apply Disjunctive Syllogism.

[}proof{];
1.A>~B,premise;
2.A,premise;
3.BvC,premise;
4.~B,1,2,MP;
5.C,3,4,DS;

|:C

And we are done.

[}proof{];
1.A>~B,premise;
2.A,premise;
3.BvC,premise;
4.~B,1,2,MP;
5.C,3,4,DS;
[}/proof{]

Example 26.4—Another Proof in Two Steps

[}proof{];
1.A>B,premise;
2.~B,premise|:~AvC

Let's place the proposition we are trying to prove below. 

[}proof{];
1.A>B,premise;
2.~B,premise;

|:~AvC

Then we can apply Modus Tollens.

[}proof{];
1.A>B,premise;
2.~B,premise;
3.~A,1,2,MT;

|:~AvC

—And then Addition.

[}proof{];
1.A>B,premise;
2.~B,premise;
3.~A,1,2,MT;
4.~AvC,3,Add;

|:~AvC

—Done.

[}proof{];
1.A>B,premise;
2.~B,premise;
3.~A,1,2,MT;
4.~AvC,3,Add;
[}/proof{]

Notice that when completing a two step proof, your final statement (the conclusion) should be justified at least in part by the second to the last line. In other words, the justification for the last line should include reference to the line immediately before it—otherwise the line before would not be relevant to the proof. 

Demonstrations

Practice and Test  

Chapter 27—Rules of Equivalence

In addition to the rules of inference, there is another set of rules called the "Rules of Equivalence"—"equivalence," because they all involve logical equivalence. 

Double Negation (DN)
P::~~P
Contraposition (Contra)
P>Q::~Q>~P
Implication (Impl)
P>Q::~PvQ
Exportation (Exp)
P>(Q>R)::(P&Q)>R
Commutativity of Conjunction (Comm)
P&Q::Q&P
Commutativity of Disjunction (Comm)
PvQ::QvP
Commutativity of Material Equivalence (Comm)
P=Q::Q=P
Associativity of Conjunction (Assoc)
(P&Q)&R::P&(Q&R)
Associativity of Disjunction (Assoc)
(PvQ)vR::Pv(QvR)
Distribution of Conjunction over Disjunction (Dist)
P&(QvR)::(P&Q)v(P&R)
Distribution of Disjunction over Conjunction (Dist)
Pv(Q&R)::(PvQ)&(PvR)
DeMorgan’s Law for the Negation of a Conjunction (DeM)
~(P&Q)::~Pv~Q
DeMorgan’s Law for the Negation of a Disjunction (DeM)
~(PvQ)::~P&~Q
Tautology of Conjunction (Taut)
P&P::P
Tautology of Disjunction (Taut)
PvP::P
Equivalence (Equiv)
(P>Q)&(Q>P)::P=Q::(P&Q)v(~P&~Q)

This list and the abbreviations are standard and conventional. 

Example 27.1Proving Double Negation Valid

We can use truth tables to prove the validity of the Rules of Equivalence. For example, the following table shows Double Negation to be a valid double inference. 

[}table{];
P|P::~~P;
-+------;
T|T__Tft%;
F|F__Ftf;
Valid;
[}/table{]

Example 27.2—Proving the Rule of Equivalence Valid

One of the truth tables is a bit strange. 

[}table{];
PQ|(P>Q)&(Q>P)::P=Q::(P&Q)v(~P&~Q);
--+-------------------------------;
TT|_ttt_T_ttt___tTt___ttt_T_ftfft%;
TF|_tff_F_ftt___tFf___tff_F_ftftf;
FT|_ftt_F_tff___fFt___fft_F_tffft;
FF|_ftf_T_ftf___fTf___fff_T_tfttf%;
Valid;
[}/table{]

The logical inference here is not just bidirectional. It is hexadirectional (six ways). We could split the proof up into three bidirectional inferences. But I think the extension of the methodology works. 

In the following exercise and quiz you will prove that all the Rules of Equivalence are valid. 

Demonstrations

Practice and Test 

Rules of Replacement

The Rules of Equivalence are often called the Rules of "Replacement." This is because an expression can be "replaced" by its logical equivalent anywhere within a proposition. 

Example 27.3A Proof Involving a Replacement

For example, the rule of Implication is 

P>Q::~PvQ

Using this rule, we can say

Av(B>C)::Av(~BvC)

In other words,

Av(B>C)

is logically equivalent to 

Av(~BvC)

Notice that the variable

A

and the disjunction do not correspond to anything within the rule of Implication. We've simply seized upon the component 

B>C

and "replaced" it with 

~BvC

within the larger proposition. 

We can use this replacement to prove the following argument valid. 

Av(B>C),~A:~BvC

The proof runs as follows.  

[}proof{];
1.Av(B>C),premise;
2.~A,premise;
3.Av(~BvC),1,Impl;
4.~BvC,2,3,DS;
[}/proof{]

The rule of Implication is used to justify line 3. And the replacement involved is valid. Keep in mind that a replacement effected by a rule of equivalence can occur anywhere within a complex proposition. 

Example 27.4—Another Example of a Proof in Two Steps Requiring a Rule of Equivalence

In this example, we use the rule of Implication again, but this time we are reading the rule right to left.

Let's recall the rule of Implication. 

Implication (Impl)
P>Q::~PvQ

Using this rule, we can construct the following proof. 

[}proof{];
1.~AvB,premise;
2.A>B,1,Impl;
3.~B>~A,2,Contra;
[}/proof{]

Notice that this proof requires not simply one Rule of Equivalence, but two—the second being Contraposition. 

Example 27.5—Yet Another Example

Let's recall the rule of the Commutativity of Conjunction. 

Commutativity of Conjunction (Comm)
P&Q::Q&P 

This rule allows the following proof. 

[}proof{];
1.A&B,premise;
2.B&A,1,Comm;
3.B,2,Simp;
[}/proof{]

Take note that line 2 is necessary. Let's recall the rule of Simplification. 

Simplification (Simp)
P&Q:P

The conclusion of Simplification must be in the 

P

position. In the proof above, we must use line 2 to get 

B

into the correct position in order to then use Simplification in line 3. 

Demonstrations

Practice and Test 

Chapter 28—Proofs Using Any or All Rules

The Rules of Inference and the Rules of Equivalence comprise the entirety of all the rules typically used in the methodology of proofs. In this chapter we will simply practice using any or all of the rules to construct proofs. 

Example 28.1—More than One Way

There may be more than one way to complete a proof. For example, suppose we are asked to complete the following proof. 

[}proof{];
1.A>~B,premise;
2.B,premise|:~A

The following is an adequate completion of the proof. 

[}proof{];
1.A>~B,premise;
2.B,premise;
3.~Av~B,1,Impl;
4.~Bv~A,3,Comm;
5.~~B,2,DN;
6.~A,4,5,DS;
[}/proof{]

But the following is also adequate. 

[}proof{];
1.A>~B,premise;
2.B,premise;
3.~~B,2,DN;
4.~Av~B,1,Impl;
5.~Bv~A,4,Comm;
6.~A,3,5,DS;
[}/proof{]

Notice that both of these proofs involve four steps (essentially the same steps, but in different orders). And they do in fact prove that 

A>~B,B:~A

is a valid argument. 

Example 28.2—The Shorter, the Better

However, a shorter proof is always better. So, the following is better than the above two proofs. 

[}proof{];
1.A>~B,premise;
2.B,premise;
3.~~B>~A,1,Contra;
4.~~B,2,DN;
5.~A,3,4,MP;
[}/proof{]

This proof is completed in three steps. 

Example 28.3—Even Shorter Is Even Better

But there is a yet better proof. 

[}proof{];
1.A>~B,premise;
2.B,premise;
3.~~B,2,DN;
4.~A,1,3,MT;
[}/proof{]

This last proof takes only two steps. So, it is the best among all four proofs. And because it is best, it is the only proof that will be counted as absolutely correct. 

Example 28.4—More than One Best

There can be more than one best proof. For example, consider the following two proofs. 

[}proof{];
1.A&A,premise;
2.A,1,Simp;
[}/proof{]
[}proof{];
1.A&A,premise;
2.A,1,Taut;
[}/proof{]

Both are one step proofs—as short as can be. Therefore, both are best—and both absolutely correct. 

Demonstrations 

Practice and Test 

Extra Credit Opportunity

My database of proofs is far from complete. So, if you think that you have a proof that is shorter, or at least as short, as the "correct" answer(s), let me know. If you find a best proof, I'll add it to my database, and give you extra credit. 

Chapter 29—Conditional Proof

When the conclusion of an argument has material consequence as its dominant operation, often "conditional proof" is required to derive the conclusion from the premises in as few lines as possible. 

Example 29.1—Not Using Conditional Proof

Complete the proof. [}proof{];
1.A>B,premise|:(A&C)>B 

We could derive the conclusion using only the Rules of Inference and the Rules of Replacement as follows. 

[}proof{];
1.A>B,premise;
2.~AvB,1,Impl;
3.(~AvB)v~C,2,Add;
4.~Av(Bv~C),3,Assoc;
5.~Av(~CvB),4,Comm;
6.(~Av~C)vB,5,Assoc;
7.~(A&C)vB,6,DeM;
8.(A&C)>B,7,Impl;
[}/proof{] 

Example 29.2—Using Conditional Proof

The proof can be completed in significantly fewer steps by the use conditional proof. 

[}proof{];
1.A>B,premise;
2.|A&C,supposition;
3.|A,2,Simp;
4.|B,1,3,MP;
5.(A&C)>B,2-4,CP;
[}/proof{]

In line 2, we suppose that 

A&C 

is true. Under this supposition, we can derive 

That gives us the logical structure of the material consequence of the conclusion we desire. If 

A&C 

is true, then 

B

is true. 

Notice that we indent the conditional proof portion of the proof using vertical bars. And then we reference that entire section of the proof when we invoke conditional proof (CP) in line 5. 

Notice that by using conditional proof, we reduce the number of lines in the proof by three. 

Invoking conditional proof makes the proof not only shorter, but also more comprehensible. The structure of the proof matches the conclusion derived. 

Example 29.3—A Conditional Proof in Natural English

Consider the requirements for the associate in arts degree in philosophy at Cerritos College (according to the 2020 – 2021 course catalog). 

PHILOSOPHY ASSOCIATE IN ARTS DEGREE FOR TRANSFER (AA-T) REQUIRED CORE: Select Two (6 Units)
• PHIL 100 Introduction to Philosophy or PHIL 102 Introduction to Ethics
• PHIL 106 Introduction to Logic or PHIL 160 Symbolic Logic 
LIST A: Select one (3 Units)
• PHIL 130 History of Ancient Philosophy
• PHIL 140 History of Modern Philosophy
• PHIL 201 Contemporary Philosophy
• Or any course from Required Core not already used 
LIST B: Select two (6 Units)
• HIST 241 Western Civilization
• HIST 242 Western Civilization
• PHIL 203 Philosophy of Religion
• Or any course from List A not already used 
LIST C: Select one (3 Units)
• PHIL 103 Philosophical Reasoning: Critical Thinking in Philosophy
• PHIL 105 Philosophy of Art and Beauty
• PHIL 107 Philosophy of Science and Technology
• Or any course from List A or B not already used 
Total Units for the Major: 18 

From this breakdown of the major, we could say that if you have passed PHIL 130 History of Ancient Philosophy, then you have fulfilled the requirement from List A. Therefore, if you have passed both PHIL 130, and PHIL 201 Contemporary Philosophy, then you have fulfilled the requirement from List A. 

We can prove the logic of this conclusion. Assume as our premise that if you have passed PHIL 130, then you have fulfilled the requirement from List A. Now suppose that you have passed PHIL 130 and PHIL 201. Since you have passed both classes, you have passed the first. Thus, by Modus ponens, you have fulfilled the requirement from List A. Therefore, if you have passed both, then you have fulfilled the requirement. This proof, given in natural English, has the same structure as the symbolic proof directly above. 

Let
A = You have passed PHIL 130. 
B = You have fulfilled the requirement from List A. 
C = You have passed PHIL 201. 

Example 29.4—Another Example of Conditional Proof

Complete the proof.[}proof{];
1.Av(B&C),premise|:~A>B

First, let's use the antecedent of the desired conclusion as a supposition. 

[}proof{];
1.Av(B&C),premise;
2.|~A,supposition;
|:~A>B

Under this supposition, we can deduce the consequent of the desired conclusion. 

[}proof{];
1.Av(B&C),premise;
2.|~A,supposition;
3.|B&C,1,2,DS;
4.|B,3,Simp;
|:~A>B

The final step is to invoke conditional proof (CP). 

[}proof{];
1.Av(B&C),premise;
2.|~A,supposition;
3.|B&C,1,2,DS;
4.|B,3,Simp;
5.~A>B,2-4,CP;
[}/proof{]

Example 29.5—The Same Argument Proved without Conditional Proof

Now, there is a proof that is just as short that does not involve conditional proof. 

[}proof{];
1.Av(B&C),premise;
2.(AvB)&(AvC),1,Dist;
3.AvB,2,Simp;
4.~~AvB,3,DN;
5.~A>B,4,Impl;
[}/proof{]

Technically, this latter proof is just as good as the previous. However, the proof using conditional proof does have more explanatory power, because the structure of the proof has a strong connection to the structure of the conclusion. 

In the following exercises and quizzes, we will practice the use of conditional proof. 

Example 29.6—The Shorter the Conditional Proof Segment, the Better

In the same way that a general proof is correct only if it uses the fewest number of lines possible, a proof involving Conditional Proof will only be considered correct if any Conditional Proof segment is as short as possible. 

For example, the following proof is valid. 

[}proof{];
1.~(A&~B),premise;
2.C>~B,premise;
3.|C,supposition;
4.|~Av~~B,1,DeM;
5.|~AvB,4,DN;
6.|A>B,5,Impl;
7.|~B,2,3,MT;
8.|~A,6,7,MT;
9.C>~A,3-8,CP;
[}/proof{]

However, this proof is not considered a correct proof, because the Conditional Proof segment can be shortened.

[}proof{];
1.~(A&~B),premise;
2.C>~B,premise;
3.~Av~~B,1,DeM;
4.~AvB,3,DN;
5.A>B,4,Impl;
6.|C,supposition;
7.|~B,2,6,MP;
8.|~A,5,7,MT;
9.C>~A,6-8,CP;
[}/proof{]

A rule of thumb for fulfilling this requirement is to derive all propositions coming only from the premises before you start the Conditional Proof segment. 

Extra Credit Opportunities

Going forward, our proofs will often be longer than what we have seen so far. This means that there is often a great variety of choices for the specific lines used—even to accomplish the proof in the same number of lines, or the same number of lines within a Conditional Proof segment. I've tried to program in all variants as correct answers. However, there are many missing. 

If you come up with a proof that uses the same number of steps as the correct answers, and uses the same number of steps within each Conditional Proof segment, let me know. I will give you extra credit, and add your proof to my database. 

We will now practice proofs involving Conditional Proof. Remember to use the exercises as a learning experience. Check the correct answers provided to see strategies that may not be immediately obvious. 

Demonstrations

Practice and Test   

Chapter 30—Logical Truths by Conditional Proof

There are some symbolic statements that are true merely due to the form of the statement in and of itself. These are called “logical truths.” These can be proved without appeal to any premises. 

Example 30.1—A Logical Truth by Conditional Proof

Complete the proof. [}proof{]|:P>P 

This can be proved by conditional proof. 

[}proof{];
1.|P,supposition;
2.P>P,1,CP;
[}/proof{] 

Most authors do not feel that this proof meets that definition of a conditional proof, and prefer the following. 

[}proof{];
1.|P,supposition;
2.|PvP,1,Add;
3.|P,2,Taut;
4.P>P,1-3,CP;
[}/proof{] 

In this course we will prefer the two line proof. 

Example 30.2—Another Logical Truth by Conditional Proof 

Complete the proof. [}proof{]|:P>(Q>P) 

Answer: 

[}proof{];
1.|P,supposition;
2.||Q,supposition;
3.||PvP,1,Add;
4.||P,3,Taut;
5.|Q>P,2-4,CP;
6.P>(Q>P),1-5,CP;
[}/proof{] 

Note that here we have a conditional proof within a conditional proof. 

Demonstrations 

Practice and Test 

Chapter 31—Invoking Logical Truths

Once we have proved a logical truth, we can invoke it in any proof we like. 

Example 31.1—Proving a Logical Truth by Invoking a Logical Truth

[}proof{];
1.P>P,logicalTruth;
2.~PvP,1,Impl;
3.Pv~P,2,Comm;
[}/proof{]

In line 1 we invoke the logical truth we proved at the beginning of the previous chapter. Note that "logicalTruth" has no space, and a capital "T." 

Note that since 

Pv~P

is derived from a logical truth, it itself is a logical truth. 

Example 31.2—Invoking a Logical Truth in a Proof Operating at the Material Level

You can invoke a logical truth in a more typical proof that operates at the material level. 

[}proof{];
1.A>(BvC),premise;
2.(A>C)>(D&G),premise;
3.B>C,premise;
4.C>C,logicalTruth;
5.|A,supposition;
6.|BvC,1,5,MP;
7.|CvC,3,4,6,CD;
8.A>(CvC),5-7,CP;
9.A>C,8,Taut;
10.D&G,2,9,MP;
11.G&D,10,Comm;
12.G,11,Simp;
[}/proof{]

Example 31.3—The Shorter, the Better

Invoking a logical truth can make a proof much shorter. 

Complete the proof. [}proof{];
1.(P>(Q>P))>R,premise|:R 

We could do the following. 

[}proof{];
1.(P>(Q>P))>R,premise;
2.|P,supposition;
3.||Q,supposition;
4.||PvP,2,Add;
5.||P,4,Taut;
6.|Q>P,3-5,CP;
7.P>(Q>P),2-6,CP;
8.R,1,7,MP;
[}/proof{] 

But, since we know already that 

P>(Q>P) 

is a logical truth, we can provide a much shorter proof. 

[}proof{];
1.(P>(Q>P))>R,premise;
2.P>(Q>P),logicalTruth;
3.R,1,2,MP;
[}/proof{] 

Demonstrations

Practice and Test 

In the following exercise and quiz, you will prove several more logical truths by invoking logical truths that we have already proved. And then in each there is one argument operating at the material level (as in example 31.2) that required the invocation of a logical truth. 

Chapter 32—Indirect Proof

Sometimes “indirect proof” is the best strategy. Indirect proof is formatted as a subsection of a larger proof, much like conditional proof. And, like with conditional proof, with indirect proof you start by making a supposition. But the supposition is the negation of what you want to prove. You suppose the opposite of what you want to prove. That is why its is called “indirect.” Then, from your supposition, you deduce a “contradiction.” A contradiction has the form 

P&~P 

The contradiction means that your supposition is false. So, you then deduce the negation of your supposition. 

Example 32.1—A Proof That Does Not Use Indirect Proof

[}proof{];
1.(A>B)&(C>D),premise;
2.~(BvD),premise;
3.A>B,1,Simp;
4.(C>D)&(A>B),1,Comm;
5.~B&~D,2,DeM;
6.C>D,4,Simp;
7.~B,5,Simp;
8.~A,3,7,MT;
9.~D&~B,5,Comm;
10.~D,9,Simp;
11.~C,6,10,MT;
12.~C&~A,8,11,Conj;
13.~(CvA),12,DeM;
[}/proof{]

Notice that this proof takes 11 steps with a total of 13 lines. 

Example 32.2—A Better Proof Using Indirect Proof

We can complete the proof in 8 steps using indirect proof. And remember, the shorter, the better. 

[}proof{];
1.(A>B)&(C>D),premise;
2.~(BvD),premise;
3.A>B,1,Simp;
4.(C>D)&(A>B),1,Comm;
5.C>D,4,Simp;
6.|AvC,supposition;
7.|BvD,3,5,6,CD;
8.|(BvD)&~(BvD),2,7,Conj;
9.~(AvC),6-8,IP;
10.~(CvA),9,Comm;
[}/proof{] 

Example 32.3—Attempting a Proof without Using Indirect Proof

Complete the proof. [}proof{];
1.~A>(B>C),premise;
2.AvB,premise;
3.A>D,premise;
4.B>~C,premise|:A&D 
[}proof{];
1.~A>(B>C),premise;
2.AvB,premise;
3.A>D,premise;
4.B>~C,premise;
5.Dv~C,2,3,4,CD;
????
|:A&D 

Here it is not clear how to proceed without indirect proof. 

Example 32.4Straightforward with Indirect Proof

But with indirect proof, it becomes much more straightforward. 

[}proof{];
1.~A>(B>C),premise;
2.AvB,premise;
3.A>D,premise;
4.B>~C,premise;
5.(~A&B)>C,1,Exp;
6.|~(A&D),supposition;
7.|~Av~D,6,DeM;
8.||~~A,supposition;
9.||~D,7,8,DS;
10.||~A,3,9,MT;
11.||A,8,DN;
12.||A&~A,10,11,Conj;
13.|~~~A,8-12,IP;
14.|~A,13,DN;
15.|B,2,14,DS;
16.|~C,4,15,MP;
17.|~(~A&B),5,16,MT;
18.|~A&B,14,15,Conj;
19.|(~A&B)&~(~A&B),17,18,Conj;
20.~~(A&D),6-19,IP;
21.A&D,20,DN;
[}/proof{] 

Example 32.5—An Overly Long Proof Using Indirect Proof

[}proof{];
1.(A>B)&(C>B),premise;
2.D>(BvC),premise;
3.(C>B)&(A>B),1,Comm;
4.C>B,3,Simp;
5.|~(D>B),supposition;
6.|~(~DvB),5,Impl;
7.|~~D&~B,6,DeM;
8.|~~D,7,Simp;
9.|D,8,DN;
10.|BvC,2,9,MP;
11.|~B&~~D,7,Comm;
12.|~B,11,Simp;
13.|C,10,12,DS;
14.|B,4,13,MP;
15.|B&~B,12,14,Conj;
16.~~(D>B),5-15,IP;
17.D>B,16,DN;
[}/proof{] 

With indirect proof the deduction can be completed in 17 lines. 

Example 32.6—A Better Proof Using Conditional Proof

Indirect Proof is not always the best method. For this argument, conditional proof is more efficient. 

[}proof{];
1.(A>B)&(C>B),premise;
2.D>(BvC),premise;
3.(C>B)&(A>B),1,Comm;
4.C>B,3,Simp;
5.B>B,logicalTruth;
6.|D,supposition;
7.|BvC,2,6,MP;
8.|BvB,4,5,7,CD;
9.|B,8,Taut;
10.D>B,6-9,CP;
[}/proof{] 

The Shorter the Indirect Proof Segment, the Better

Your proof will only be considered correct if any Indirect Proof segment is as short as possible. 

Also keep in mind that the exercise is intended as a learning experience. Check the correct answers provided to see strategies that may not be immediately obvious. 

And again, if you discover a proof that is as short as possible overall, and is also as short as possible in its Indirect Proof segment, let me know for extra credit. 

Demonstrations 

Practice and Test 

Chapter 33—Principles for the Canonical Choice of Lines in a Proof 

This chapter is for explanatory purposes only, and needs significant revision. So, you may want to simply skip it. 

In this chapter we will progressively reduce the number of alternative proofs that will be considered correct. We will do this by introducing several principles for the choice of lines. By following these principles, we will produce "canonical" proofs. We often use the word "canonical" in this way when we are trying to standardize symboic strings. 

Principle 1—The Shorter Proof, the Better

We have already been following Principle 1. Continue to make your proof as short as possible overall. 

Principle 2—The Shorter the Conditional Proof Segment or the Indirect Proof Segment, the Better

We have also already been following Principle 2. Continue to make Conditional Proof segments and Indirect Proof segments as short as possible. 

Principle 3—Invoke Each Line as Soon as Possible in the Order in which the Lines Appear 

Principle 3 is new. Introduce lines derived by the earliest lines earliest, and then continue to derive lines justified by earlier lines as early as possible. 

For example, suppose we are asked to construct a proof for the following argument. 

A>(B>C),A>(D>C):A>~(BvD)

We might be inclined to do the following. 

[}proof{];
1.A>(B>C),premise;
2.A>(D>C),premise;
3.~C,premise;
4.|A,supposition;
5.|B>C,1,4,MP;
6.|~C,3,5,MT;
7.|D>C,2,4,MP;
Etc. 

But then, in the justifications for lines 5 through 7, we have the sequence 1, 3, 2 for the lowest line numbers referred to. Principle 3 imposes the sequence 1, 2, 3—as follows. 

[}proof{];
1.A>(B>C),premise;
2.A>(D>C),premise;
3.~C,premise;
4.|A,supposition;
5.|B>C,1,4,MP;
6.|D>C,2,4,MP;
7.|~B,3,5,MT;
8.|~D,3,6,MT;
9.|~B&~D,7,8,Conj;
10.|~(BvD),9,DeM;
11.A>~(BvD),4-10,CP;
[}/proof{] 

Note that now the justifications for lines 5 through 7 refer to lines 1 through 3 in numerical sequence. 

Principle 3 also dictates that line 7, which references line 5, comes before line 8, which references line 6.

—Another example. It is not always possible to keep the line references in numerical sequence. 

[}proof{];
1.A>B,premise;
2.A>(B>C),premise;
3.B>(C>D),premise;
4.A>(C>D),1,3,HS;
5.|A,supposition;
6.|B,1,5,MP;
7.|B>C,2,5,MP;
8.|C>D,4,5,MP;
9.|B>D,7,8,HS;
10.|D,6,9,MP;
11.A>D,5-10,CP;
[}/proof{] 

This proof follows principle 3, even though the line references in lines 9 and 10 are out of numerical sequence. If we choose to use the Hypothetical Syllogism to derive line 9, then the sequence has to be out of order. Now, there is a way to get the references in numerical sequence—by choosing not to use Hypothetical Syllogism to derive line 9—as follows. 

[}proof{];
1.A>B,premise;
2.A>(B>C),premise;
3.B>(C>D),premise;
4.A>(C>D),1,3,HS;
5.|A,supposition;
6.|B,1,5,MP;
7.|B>C,2,5,MP;
8.|C>D,4,5,MP;
9.|C,6,7,MP;
10.|D,8,9,MP;
11.A>D,5-10,CP;
[}/proof{] 

But this second proof does not follow principle 3 any more closely than the first. They are both equally good from the perspective of principle 3—as well as from the perspective of principles 1 and 2. 

There are ways of logically constructing a proof that does not follow principle 3, for example 

[}proof{];
1.A>B,premise;
2.A>(B>C),premise;
3.B>(C>D),premise;
4.A>(C>D),1,3,HS;
5.|A,supposition;
6.|B,1,5,MP;
7.|C>D,4,5,MP;
8.|B>C,2,5,MP;
Etc. 

This proof does not follow principle 3, because the references in lines 7 and 8 are unnecessarily out of sequence. However, this proof is generally just as good and proper as the other two. It simply is not canonical. 

Prioritization of the Principles

Principle 1 has priority over the other two, and principle 2 has priority over the third. In the following exercise and quiz, we will only consider a proof correct if it adheres to principles 1 through 3 under this prioritization. 

Principles 1 and 2 and Embedding Subsegments

Before moving on to the quiz below, let's review a couple of the problems from the exercise. The first problem asked us to prove 

A>~(B>C),D>(B&C),A:~D

It is possible to use Implication in the first step. 

[}proof{];
1.A>~(B>C),premise;
2.D>(B&C),premise;
3.A,premise;
4.A>~(~BvC),1,Impl;

However, we could use Modus Ponens in line 4. 

4.~(B>C),1,3,MP;

Principle 3 dictates that we should use this second option, because now line 3 is invoked as early as possible. 

Let's also take a look at the last proof of the exercise. In problem 4, we were asked to prove 

A>(Bv(C&D)),B>(C&G),G>~C:A>(C&D)

Based on some examples we have worked previously, you may be tempted to start the proof as follows. 

[}proof{];
1.A>(Bv(C&D)),premise;
2.B>(C&G),premise;
3.G>~C,premise;
4.B>(G&C),2,Comm;
5.|B,supposition;
6.|G&C,4,5,MP;
7.|G,6,Simp;
8.|~C,3,7,MP;
etc.

At first you may think this will reduce the length of the Conditional Proof segment. But it does not, and it results in the overall proof being longer than it needs to be—a violation of principle 1, the top priority. 

Another approach that may be tempting is to embed the Indirect Proof segment within the Conditional Proof segment. 

[}proof{];
1.A>(Bv(C&D)),premise;
2.B>(C&G),premise;
3.G>~C,premise;
4.|A,supposition;
5.|Bv(C&D),1,4,MP;
6.||B,supposition;
7.||C&G,2,6,MP;
8.||G&C,7,Comm;
9.||G,8,Simp;
10.||~C,3,9,MP;
11.||C,7,Simp;
12.||C&~C,10,11,Conj;
13.|~B,6-12,IP;
14.|C&D,5,13,DS;
15.A>(C&D),4-14,CP;
[}/proof{]

This, however, violates principle 2, because both the Conditional Proof segment and the Indirect Proof segment can be shorter by completing them in series. 

[}proof{];
1.A>(Bv(C&D)),premise;
2.B>(C&G),premise;
3.G>~C,premise;
4.|B,supposition;
5.|C&G,2,4,MP;
6.|G&C,5,Comm;
7.|G,6,Simp;
8.|~C,3,7,MP;
9.|C,5,Simp;
10.|C&~C,8,9,Conj;
11.~B,4-10,IP;
12.|A,supposition;
13.|Bv(C&D),1,12,MP;
14.|C&D,11,13,DS;
15.A>(C&D),12-14,CP;
[}/proof{]

Since the Conditional Proof segment uses the result of the Indirect Proof, Conditional Proof must come second. 

Since the entire proof is no longer than the proof with the embedded structure, principle 1 has been maintained—along with principles 2 and 3. 

Please note that there are proofs in which it is necessary to embed one suppositional segment within another—at least while keeping principle 1 as the top priority. 

Principles 1 through 3 Allow Alternatives

In the above proof, principles 1 through 3 dictate a single canonical proof. However, there are arguments that will still have alternative proofs. Problems 1 through 3 of the exercise are examples of this. Each has two proofs that adhere to principles 1 through 3. 

Principles 1 and 2 Reflect Essential Logical Structure

Notice that for the proof of the argument in problem 4 of the quiz, the Indirect Proof must be embedded in within the Conditional Proof—if we are adhering to principles 1 and 2. 

Principles 1 and 2 are not simply conventions of formatting. They reflect logical relationships among the premises and conclusion. These rules are not arbitrary, and generally enhance the explanatory power and elegance of a proof. 

Principle 3 Somewhat Arbitrary

Principle 3, however, is somewhat arbitrary. There may be a sequence of lines that is more elegant than that created by principle 3. 

Nonetheless, principle 3 does provide some systematic way of organizing the lines of any proof. Such a convention can help with communication among those who know and follow it. 

Principle 4—Prioritize the Rule That Involves the Most Dominant Operation

When there is a choice of approach for any line in a proof, use the rule that involves the most dominant operation. 

For example, problem 1 of the preceding quiz asked us to prove the following argument. 

A>(B&C),D>(C>~B),D:~A

There are two alternatives that were considered correct within the quiz. They both start with a step using Commutativity of Conjunction.  

[}proof{];
1.A>(B&C),premise;
2.D>(C>~B),premise;
3.D,premise;
4.A>(C&B),1,Comm;

Where the two alternatives diverge is at line 5. Following principles 1 through 3, it is possible use Implication in line 5. 

5.D>(~Cv~~B),2,Impl;

However, it is also possible to use Modus Ponens. 

5.C>~B,2,3,MP;

Since the Modus Ponens form of inference uses the dominant operation of line 2, this is preferred, according to principle 4. 

Note that the Rules of Inference always involve the dominant operations of their premises. When discriminating between a Rule of Inference versus a Rule of Equivalence, principle 4 always favors the Rule of Inference. 

The choice between two Rules of Equivalence is more subtle, and appertains to degrees of dominance among the operations of the premise proposition. 

For example, in problem 2 of the preceding exercise, we were to prove

A>~(B>C),D>(BvC),D:A>B

The canonical proof begins 

[}proof{];
1.A>~(B>C),premise;
2.D>(BvC),premise;
3.D,premise;
4.A>~(~BvC),1,Impl;
5.BvC,2,3,MP;

Principle 3 allows two alternatives for lines 6 through 8. First, we could have 

6.A>(~~B&~C),4,DeM;
7.CvB,5,Comm;
8.A>(~C&~~B),6,Comm;

Another approach is

6.A>~(Cv~B),4,Comm;
7.CvB,5,Comm;
8.A>(~C&~~B),6,DeM;

This second approach does not conform with principle 4, because the most dominant operation involved is the Negation outside of the parentheses. In line 4 of the proof, Material Consequence is the (most) dominant operation. But the second most dominant is the Negation operating on the parentheses. 

Keep in mind the degrees of dominance take the reverse of the order of operations when evaluating a proposition—such as when completing a truth table. When evaluating the proposition of line 4, disjunction comes first in the order of operations. But this means that it is last in terms of dominance. 

Follow principle 4 in the following exercise and quiz—as well as principles 1 through 3. 

A Couple More Stipulations on Principle 4

There is just a few more stipulations regarding principle 4. If there are multiple choices of rules working at the same degree dominance, work left to right. Give priority to the rule that uses the operation leftmost in the premise proposition. 

There is also a convention that has been being used throughout the treatment of proofs that has not been made explicit. You are allowed to use a single rule for justification, if the rule is using the same operation at the same degree of dominance. 

Principle 5Invoke the Rule that Preserves the Most Dominant Operation First

As a final principle, we will invoke the rule that preserves the most dominant operation first. 

Consider the following two proofs. 

[}proof{];
1.A&B,premise;
2.A>C,premise;
3.B>D,premise;
4.B&A,1,Comm;
5.A,1,Simp;
6.C,2,5,MP;
7.B,4,Simp;
8.D,3,7,MP;
9.C&D,6,8,Conj;
[}/proof{]  
[}proof{];
1.A&B,premise;
2.A>C,premise;
3.B>D,premise;
4.A,1,Simp;
5.B&A,1,Comm;
6.C,2,4,MP;
7.B,5,Simp;
8.D,3,7,MP;
9.C&D,6,8,Conj;
[}/proof{]  

Both of these proofs follow principles 1 through 4. But they differ in lines 4 and 5. Principle 5 dictates that the first proof is canonical, because it uses Commutativity of Conjunction in line 4, and this preserves the dominant operation of line 1. 

Another example is found in the following two proofs. 

[}proof{]
1.A>B,premise;
2.~A>C,premise;
3.(~AvB)>D,premise;
4.D>G,premise;
5.~B>~A,1,Contra;
6.~AvB,1,Impl;
7.~B>C,2,5,HS;
8.D,3,6,MP;
9.Dv~B,8,Add;
10.~BvD,9,Comm;
11.CvG,4,7,10,CD;
[}/proof{]
[}proof{]
1.A>B,premise;
2.~A>C,premise;
3.(~AvB)>D,premise;
4.D>G,premise;
5.~AvB,1,Impl;
6.~B>~A,1,Contra;
7.~B>C,2,6,HS;
8.D,3,5,MP;
9.Dv~B,8,Add;
10.~BvD,9,Comm;
11.CvG,4,7,10,CD;
[}/proof{]

Again both proofs adhere to principles 1 through 4, but differ slightly. Note lines 5 and 6 in each proof. Principle 5 designates the first proof as canonical, because Contraposition preserves the dominant operation of line 1. 

Principles Not Complete

The above principles are not complete, meaning that they allow, in some cases, for distinct proofs which both adhere to the principles. However, the principles do radically reduce the number of variants that are canonical. I need to do some more research to see if the principles can be made complete—without being overly arbitrary. 

EXAM 3 SAMPLE QUIZ 

Like the previous sample exams, you will be allowed unlimited edits to your responses, but the correct answers will not be given. And keep in mind that if you work, and rework, and then rework again, trying to get a 100% grade—the sample quiz is a logical puzzle. The feedback will tell you when you perfectly solve any of the problems. But don't get too frustrated. This one is really tough.