PROVING IN PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC

Discrete Structures
(IT 132)
Lecture 2
 LEARNING OUTCOMES
At the end of this lecture, you should have:
1. Identified whether a given inference is valid or not
using the inference rules;
2. Showed whether two sentences are equivalent
using the equivalence laws; and,
3. Proved the validity of sentences using any of the
proof techniques taught.
 LOGICAL IMPLICATION
➔ To prove the validity of arguments in PL, we must
study the different proof techniques and the laws
that govern them
➔ To construct proofs, we need a means of drawing
conclusions or deriving new premises that
logically imply from old ones
 RULES OF INFERENCE
➔ Use these rules to specify which conclusion may be
inferred legitimately from propositions known, assumed,
or previously established
➔ If you have shown that the conclusion logically follows
from the given premises, then we say the argument is
valid
➔ The rules of inference in propositional logic are given in
the succeeding slides in the following format:
<The set of premises (which are assumed to be true).>
<Therefore (∴), conclusion>
 RULES OF INFERENCE
➔ Addition (AD)
◆ P → (P v Q) (Tautological/Implication form)
◆ P s (Inference Rule form)
∴PvQ

➔ Simplification (SP)
◆ (P ^ Q) → P or (P ^ Q) → Q
◆ P^Qs or P ^ Q s
∴P ∴Q

➔ Conjunction (CJ) (No tautological form)

◆ P
Q s
∴P^Q
 RULES OF INFERENCE
➔ Modus Ponens (MP)
◆ [(P → Q) ^ P] → Q
◆ P→Q
P s
∴Q
➔ Modus Tolens (MT)
◆ [(P → Q) ^ ~Q] → ~P
◆ P→Q
~Q s
∴ ~P
 RULES OF INFERENCE
➔ Absorption (AB)
◆ (P → Q) → [(P ^ R) → (Q ^ R)]
◆ (P → Q) → [P → (P ^ Q)]
◆ P→Q s
∴ (P ^ R) → (Q ^ R)
➔ Disjunctive Syllogism (DS)
◆ [(P v Q) ^ ~P] → Q
◆ PvQ
~P s
∴Q
 RULES OF INFERENCE
➔ Hypothetical Syllogism (HS)
◆ [(P → Q) ^ (Q → R)] → (P → R)
◆ P→Q
Q→Rs
∴P→R

➔ Constructive Dilemma (CD)

◆ [(P → Q) ^ (R → S) ^ (P v R)] → (Q v S)
◆ P→Q
R→S
PvR s
∴QvS
 RULES OF INFERENCE
➔ Destructive Dilemma (CD)
◆ [(P → Q) ^ (R → S) ^ (~Q v ~S)] → (~P v ~R)
◆ P→Q
R→S
~Q v ~S s
∴ ~P v ~R
 EXAMPLES
➔Consider the following propositions
◆ P: You're singing.
◆ Q: My ears hurt.
◆ R: I will study.
◆ S: I will pass.
➔ P: You're singing.
➔ Q: My ears hurt. EXAMPLES
➔ R: I will study.
➔ S: I will pass.

You're singing.
Therefore, either you're singing or my ears hurt.

P d
∴ ~P v ~R

Addition (AD)
➔ P: You're singing.
➔ Q: My ears hurt. EXAMPLES
➔ R: I will study.
➔ S: I will pass.

You're singing and my ears hurt.

Therefore, you're singing.

P^Qd
∴P

Simplification (SP)
➔ P: You're singing.
➔ Q: My ears hurt. EXAMPLES: TRY IT!!!
➔ R: I will study.
➔ S: I will pass.

➔You're singing.
My ears hurt.
Therefore, you're singing and my ears hurt.

➔If you're singing, then my ears hurt.

You're singing.
Therefore, my ears hurt.
➔ P: You're singing.
➔ Q: My ears hurt. EXAMPLES: TRY IT!!!
➔ R: I will study.
➔ S: I will pass.

➔If you're singing, then my ears hurt.

My ears don't hurt.
Therefore, you're not singing.

➔Either you're singing or my ears hurt.

You're not singing.
Therefore, my ears hurt.
➔ P: You're singing.
➔ Q: My ears hurt. EXAMPLES: TRY IT!!!
➔ R: I will study.
➔ S: I will pass.

➔ If you're singing, then my ears hurt.

If my ears hurt, then I will study.
Therefore, if you're singing, then I will study.

➔ If you're singing, then my ears hurt.

If I will study, then I will pass.
Either you're singing, or I will study.
Therefore, either my ears hurt or I will pass.
 LOGICAL EQUIVALENCE
➔ Sometimes, we may need to
determine or show that two
sentences are equivalent
➔ Two sentences are
equivalent if they have the
same truth value regardless
of the interpretations we
assign to their respective
propositions
 THE EQUIVALENCE RULES
➔Reflexivity (RF)
◆P≡P
➔Double Negation (DN)
◆ ~(~P) ≡ P
➔Commutativity (CM)
◆ (P ^ Q) ≡ (Q ^ P)
◆ (P v Q) ≡ (Q v P)
◆ (P ⟷ Q) ≡ (Q ⟷ P)
 THE EQUIVALENCE RULES
➔Associativity (AS)
◆ [(P ^ Q) ^ R] ≡ [P ^ (Q ^ R)] ≡ (P ^ Q ^ R)
◆ [(P v Q) v R] ≡ [P v (Q v R)] ≡ (P v Q v R)
◆ [(P ⟷ Q) ⟷ R] ≡ [P ⟷ (Q ⟷ R)] ≡ (P ⟷ Q ⟷ R)

➔Distributivity (DT)
◆ [P v (Q ^ R)] ≡ [(P v Q) ^ (P v R)]
◆ [P ^ (Q v R)] ≡ [(P ^ Q) v (P ^ R)]
 THE EQUIVALENCE RULES
➔Idempotency / Tautology (TA)
◆ (P ^ P) ≡P
◆ (P v P) ≡ P
➔Identity (ID)
◆ (P ^ T) ≡P
◆ (P v F) ≡ P
➔ Inverse (IN)
◆ (P ^ ~P) ≡ F
◆ (P v ~P) ≡ T
 THE EQUIVALENCE RULES
➔Dominance (DO)
◆ (P ^ F) ≡F
◆ (P v T) ≡ T
➔Absorption (AB)
◆ [P ^ (P v Q)] ≡P
◆ [P v (P ^ Q)] ≡ P
➔ De Morgan's Laws (DM)
◆ ~(P ^ Q) ≡ (~P v ~Q)
◆ ~(P v Q) ≡ (~P ^ ~Q)
 THE EQUIVALENCE RULES
➔Contrapositive Law (CL)
◆ (P ➞ Q) ≡ (~Q ➞ ~P)
➔Material Implication (MI)
◆ (P ➞ Q) ≡ (~P v Q)
➔ Material Equivalence (ME)
◆ (P ⟷ Q) ≡ (P ➞ Q) ^ (Q ➞ P)
◆ (P ↔ Q) ≡ (P ^ Q) v (~P ^ ~Q)
➔ Exportation (EX)
◆ [(P ^ Q) ➞ R] ≡ [P ➞ (Q ➞ R)]
 EXAMPLE 1
Using the equivalence laws, show that both sides of
the ⟷ are equivalent.

~[~((P v Q) ^ R) v ~Q] ⟷ (Q ^ R)
 EXAMPLE 1
Using the equivalence laws, show that both sides of
the ⟷ are equivalent.

~[~((P v Q) ^ R) v ~Q] ⟷ (Q ^ R)
 EXAMPLE 1
Using the equivalence laws, show that both sides of
the ⟷ are equivalent.

~[~((P v Q) ^ R) v ~Q]

Justification:
Given
 EXAMPLE 1
Using the equivalence laws, show that both sides of
the ⟷ are equivalent.

~[~((P v Q) ^ R) v ~Q]

Justification:
Given
 EXAMPLE 1
Using the equivalence laws, show that both sides of
the ⟷ are equivalent.

~[~((P v Q) ^ R)] ^ ~(~Q)

Justification:
De Morgan's Law
 EXAMPLE 1
Using the equivalence laws, show that both sides of
the ⟷ are equivalent.

~[~((P v Q) ^ R)] ^ ~(~Q)

 EXAMPLE 1
Using the equivalence laws, show that both sides of
the ⟷ are equivalent.

[((P v Q) ^ R)] ^ Q

Justification:
Double Negation
 EXAMPLE 1
Using the equivalence laws, show that both sides of
the ⟷ are equivalent.

[(P v Q) ^ R] ^ Q
 EXAMPLE 1
Using the equivalence laws, show that both sides of
the ⟷ are equivalent.

(P v Q) ^ (R ^ Q)

Justification:
Associativity
 EXAMPLE 1
Using the equivalence laws, show that both sides of
the ⟷ are equivalent.

(P v Q) ^ (R ^ Q)
 EXAMPLE 1
Using the equivalence laws, show that both sides of
the ⟷ are equivalent.

(P v Q) ^ (Q ^ R)

Justification:
Commutativity
 EXAMPLE 1
Using the equivalence laws, show that both sides of
the ⟷ are equivalent.

[(P v Q) ^ Q] ^ R

Justification:
Associativity
 EXAMPLE 1
Using the equivalence laws, show that both sides of
the ⟷ are equivalent.

[Q ^ (Q v P)] ^ R

Justification:
Commutativity x 2
 EXAMPLE 1
Using the equivalence laws, show that both sides of
the ⟷ are equivalent.

Q^R

Justification:
Absorption
 EXAMPLE 1 SUMMARY
~[~((P v Q) ^ R) v ~Q] Given
⟷ ~[~((P v Q) ^ R)] ^ ~(~Q) De Morgan's Law
⟷ [((P v Q) ^ R)] ^ Q Double Negation
⟷ (P v Q) ^ (R ^ Q) Associativity
⟷ (P v Q) ^ (Q ^ R) Commutativity
⟷ [(P v Q) ^ Q] ^ R Associativity
⟷ [Q ^ (Q v P)] ^ R Commutativity
⟷Q^R Absorption. QED.
EXAMPLE 2: SIMPLIFYING SWITCHING NETWORKS

➔A switching network is made up of wires

and switches connecting two terminals T1
and T2
➔In such a network, any switch is either open
(0), so that no current flows through it, or
closed (1), so that current flows through it
➔These switches need not act independently
of each other
EXAMPLE 2: SIMPLIFYING SWITCHING NETWORKS
➔ In the picture, the switches labeled S and ~ S are not
independent
◆ S is open (closed) IFF if ~S is simultaneously closed (open)
➔ Same is true for Q and ~ Q, and the three switches P
EXAMPLE 2: SIMPLIFYING SWITCHING NETWORKS

➔ We can represent the network as a sentence in

propositional logic

(P v Q v R) ^ (P v S v ~Q) ^ (P v ~S v R)
EXAMPLE 2: SIMPLIFYING SWITCHING NETWORKS

➔ We can represent the network as a sentence in

propositional logic

(P v Q v R) ^ (P v S v ~Q) ^ (P v ~S v R)

➔ We can simplify the above sentence using the

rules of equivalence
EXAMPLE 2: SIMPLIFYING SWITCHING NETWORKS

(P v Q v R) ^ (P v S v ~Q) ^ (P v ~S v R)
⟷ P v [(Q v R) ^ (S v ~Q) ^ (~S v R)]
⟷ P v [(Q v R) ^ (~S v R) ^ (S v ~Q)]
⟷ P v [((Q ^ ~S) v R) ^ (S v ~Q)]
⟷ P v [((Q ^ ~S) v R) ^ (~~S v ~Q)]
⟷ P v [((Q ^ ~S) v R) ^ ~(~S ^ Q)]
⟷ P v [((Q ^ ~S) v R) ^ ~(Q ^ ~S)]
⟷ P v [((Q ^ ~S) ^ ~(Q ^ ~S)) v (R ^ ~(Q ^ ~S))]
⟷ P v [F v (R ^ ~(Q ^ ~S))]
⟷ P v [(R ^ ~(Q ^ ~S))]
⟷ P v (R ^ (~Q v S))
 METHODS OF PROOF IN PL
Three of the most common proof tehcniques in logic
to prove that an argument is valid are the following:

➔ Chain of Reasoning (Direct Proof)

➔ Proof by Contradiction (Indirect Proof)
➔ Proof by Resolution
 CHAIN OF REASONING
➔ In a proof using chain of reasoning, you are given
an argument in the form of an implication
◆ (P1 ^ P2 ^ … ^ Pn) → Q
◆ P1
P2
…
Pn
-----
∴Q
 CHAIN OF REASONING
➔ The proof assumes that the premises P1, P2, …, Pn
are true, and then using these premises as well as
other previously derived propositions, shows directly
that the conclusion is true
➔ To justify the steps in your proof, you have to use one
or more of the rules of inference and/or the
equivalence laws you learned in the previous section
➔ Premises → Justification via rules of inference and/or
replacement → Conclusion
 CHAIN OF REASONING EXAMPLE
Prove: [(P → Q) ^ (R → S) ^ (P v R)] → (Q v S)

We can rewrite this as

P→Q
R→S
P v R /∴ Q v S
 CHAIN OF REASONING EXAMPLE
1. P → Q
2. R → S
3. P v R /∴ Q v S
--------------------
4. ~P → R 3 MI
 CHAIN OF REASONING EXAMPLE
1. P → Q
2. R → S
3. P v R /∴ Q v S
--------------------
4. ~P → R 3 MI
5. ~P → S 4,2 HS
 CHAIN OF REASONING EXAMPLE
1. P → Q
2. R → S
3. P v R /∴ Q v S
--------------------
4. ~P → R 3 MI
5. ~P → S 4,2 HS
6. ~S → P 5 CL
 CHAIN OF REASONING EXAMPLE
1. P → Q
2. R → S
3. P v R /∴ Q v S
--------------------
4. ~P → R 3 MI
5. ~P → S 4,2 HS
6. ~S → P 5 CL
7. ~S → Q 6,1 HS
 CHAIN OF REASONING EXAMPLE
1. P → Q
2. R → S
3. P v R /∴ Q v S
--------------------
4. ~P → R 3 MI
5. ~P → S 4,2 HS
6. ~S → P 5 CL
7. ~S → Q 6,1 HS
8. S v Q 7 MI
 CHAIN OF REASONING EXAMPLE
1. P → Q
2. R → S
3. P v R /∴ Q v S
--------------------
4. ~P → R 3 MI
5. ~P → S 4,2 HS
6. ~S → P 5 CL
7. ~S → Q 6,1 HS
8. S v Q 7 MI
9. Q v S 8 CM. QED.
 ANOTHER EXAMPLE
Prove: If the exam is easy, then Juan's
score is high. Either the exam is easy
or Juan did not study. Juan cheats
when he is not able to study. Juan did
not cheat. Therefore, Juan's score is
high.
 ANOTHER EXAMPLE
1. E→H
2. E v ~S
3. ~S → C
4. ~C /∴ H
------------
 ANOTHER EXAMPLE
1. E→H
2. E v ~S
3. ~S → C
4. ~C /∴ H
-----------
5. ~(~S) 3,4 MT
6. E 2,5 DS
7. H 1,6 MP. QED.
 RECALL: RULES OF INFERENCE
1. A ^ B /∴ B

2. A v B
~A /∴ B

3. (A → B) /∴ (A → B) v (C ↔ D)

4. ~A → (B ^ C)
~(B ^ C) /∴ ~~A

5. (~A ^ B) → (C v ~D) /∴ (~A ^ B) ^ E → (C v ~D) ^ E

 RECALL: RULES OF INFERENCE
➔ If OPEC Increases the price of oil, there will be a
corresponding Rise in the consumer price index. The
ordinary wage-earner will certainly Suffer if the consumer
price index rises. It is erroneous to assume that either Oil
will be found in commercial quantities off Palawan or the
Government can stop inflation if the wage-earner suffers.
Although OPEC increases the price of oil, some Countries
will not be affected. Therefore, it is not the case that oil of
commercial quantities will be found off Palawan.
RECALL: RULES OF REPLACEMENT
1. ~(A↔B) v ~(A→C) ≡ ~((A↔B) v (A→C))

2. (AvQ)^(BvQ) ≡ (A^B)vQ

3. ~{~[(A→B)v(A^~C)]} ≡ (A→B)v(A^~C)

4. (W^X)→(Pv~Q) ≡ (W^X)→(~QvP)

5. (W^X)→(~QvP) ≡W→(X→(~QvP))
 PROOF BY CONTRADICTION
➔ The proof assumes that the premises P1, P2, …, Pn
are true and that the conclusion Q is false, and then
using these assumptions as premises as well as
other previously derived propositions, derives a
contradiction R ^ ~R
➔ Again, justify your steps using the rules of inference
and/or replacement
➔ Premises ^ ~Conclusion → Justification via rules of
inference and/or replacement → Contradiction →
Conclusion
PROOF BY CONTRADICTION EXAMPLE
1. ~P ↔ Q
2. Q → R
3. ~R /∴ P
PROOF BY CONTRADICTION EXAMPLE
1. ~P ↔ Q
2. Q → R
3. ~R /∴ P
-----------
4. ~P Assumption
PROOF BY CONTRADICTION EXAMPLE
1. ~P ↔ Q
2. Q → R
3. ~R /∴ P
-----------
4. ~P PA
5. (~P → Q) ^ (Q → ~P) 1 ME
PROOF BY CONTRADICTION EXAMPLE
1. ~P ↔ Q
2. Q → R
3. ~R /∴ P
-----------
4. ~P PA
5. (~P → Q) ^ (Q → ~P) 1 ME
6. ~P → Q 5 SP
PROOF BY CONTRADICTION EXAMPLE
1. ~P ↔ Q
2. Q → R
3. ~R /∴ P
-----------
4. ~P PA
5. (~P → Q) ^ (Q → ~P) 1 ME
6. ~P → Q 5 SP
7. ~P → R 6,2 HS
PROOF BY CONTRADICTION EXAMPLE
1. ~P ↔ Q
2. Q → R
3. ~R /∴ P
-----------
4. ~P PA
5. (~P → Q) ^ (Q → ~P) 1 ME
6. ~P → Q 5 SP
7. ~P → R 6,2 HS
8. R 7,4 MP
PROOF BY CONTRADICTION EXAMPLE
1. ~P ↔ Q
2. Q → R
3. ~R /∴ P
-----------
4. ~P PA
5. (~P → Q) ^ (Q → ~P) 1 ME
6. ~P → Q 5 SP
7. ~P → R 6,2 HS
8. R 7,4 MP
9. R ^ ~R 8,3 CJ
PROOF BY CONTRADICTION EXAMPLE
1. ~P ↔ Q
2. Q → R
3. ~R /∴ P
-----------
4. ~P PA
5. (~P → Q) ^ (Q → ~P) 1 ME
6. ~P → Q 5 SP
7. ~P → R 6,2 HS
8. R 7,4 MP
9. R ^ ~R 8,3 CJ
10.P 9 CONTRADICTION. QED
 MATHEMATICS EXAMPLE
Theorem: For all real numbers x and y, if x + y >= 2, then
either x >= 1 or y >= 1.

Proof: Suppose that the conclusion is false. Then, x < 1 AND

y < 1 (by De Morgan's Law). Now, adding these two
inequalities, we have
x+y<1+1
x+y<2

This contradicts our premise that x + y >= 2. Therefore, we

conclude that the theorem is true.
 ANOTHER EXAMPLE
1. E→H
2. E v ~S
3. ~S → C
4. ~C /∴ H
------------
 PROOF BY RESOLUTION
➔ Basically involves proof by contradiction
➔ Only uses one rule of inference called the
resolution rule
➔ But, premises and assumptions should first be
converted to conjunctive normal form
➔ A sentence is in Conjunctive Normal Form if it is a
conjunction of disjunctions and/or single
propositions
◆ (P v ~Q) ^ ~R ^ (Q v ~S)
 CONVERTING TO CNF
➔ Remove all ↔ by using
◆ (P ↔ Q) ≡ (P ➞ Q) ^ (Q ➞ P)
◆ (P ↔ Q) ≡ (P ^ Q) v (~P ^ ~Q)
➔ Remove → by using
◆ (P ➞ Q) ≡ (~P v Q)
➔ Reduce the scope of ~ by using De Morgan's Laws
◆ ~(P ^ Q) ≡ (~P v ~Q)
◆ ~(P v Q) ≡ (~P ^ ~Q)
➔ Separate clauses joined by ^
➔ Distribute v over ^
◆ P v (Q ^ R) ≡ (P v Q) ^ (P v R)
 RESOLUTION PROCEDURE
➔ Resolution Rule
PvQ (also called a clause)
R v ~Q (also a clause)
----------
PvR (also called the resolvent)
➔ Construct a proof by resolution as follows
◆ Convert the premise of the argument to CNF
◆ Negate the conclusion and convert it to a disjunction
◆ Derive a contradiction using only the resolution rule
 PROOF BY RESOLUTION EXAMPLE
Prove:

A → (C → B)
~(D ^ ~A)
CvC
------------------
∴D→B
 PROOF BY RESOLUTION EXAMPLE
Prove:

A → (C → B) ≡ A → (~C v B) ≡ (~A v ~C v B)
~(D ^ ~A) ≡ ~D v ~(~A) ≡ (~D v A)
CvC ≡ C
-----------------
D→B

1. Convert premises to CNF!

 PROOF BY RESOLUTION EXAMPLE
Prove:

(~A v ~C v B)
(~D v A)
C
-----------------
D→B
~(D → B) ≡ ~(~D v B) ≡ D ^ ~B ≡ D
Assumption
~B

2. Negate the conclusion and convert to CNF!

 PROOF BY RESOLUTION EXAMPLE
Prove: (~A v ~C v B) (~D v A)

(~A v ~C v B) (~C v B v ~D)

(~D v A)
C
-----------------
D→B
D
~B

3. Using the resolution rule, arrive at a contradiction.

 PROOF BY RESOLUTION EXAMPLE
Prove: (~A v ~C v B) (~D v A)

(~A v ~C v B) (~C v B v ~D) C

(~D v A)
C (B v ~D)
-----------------
D→B
D
~B

3. Using the resolution rule, arrive at a contradiction.

 PROOF BY RESOLUTION EXAMPLE
Prove: (~A v ~C v B) (~D v A)

(~A v ~C v B) (~C v B v ~D) C

(~D v A)
C (B v ~D) ~B
-----------------
D→B ~D
D
~B

3. Using the resolution rule, arrive at a contradiction.

 PROOF BY RESOLUTION EXAMPLE
Prove: (~A v ~C v B) (~D v A)

(~A v ~C v B) (~C v B v ~D) C

(~D v A)
C (B v ~D) ~B
-----------------
D→B ~D D
D
~B F

3. Using the resolution rule, arrive at a contradiction.

 PROOF BY RESOLUTION EXAMPLE
Prove: (~A v ~C v B) (~D v A)

(~A v ~C v B) (~C v B v ~D) C

(~D v A)
C (B v ~D) ~B
-----------------
D→B ~D D
D
~B A contradiction → F

4. Since a contradiction is found, state that original conclusion is true!

 EXERCISE. Prove the following using
the given proof technique.
a. Direct Proof c. Proof by Resolution
1. ~E → ~R 1. P
2. ~S 2. (P ^ Q) → R
3. E → W 3. (Q v S) → Q
4. R v S /∴ W v ~S 4. S /∴ R
a. Proof by Contradiction
1. P → (R ^ Q)
2. R → ~Q /∴ P → R
 NEXT MEETING...
➔ First Order Predicate Logic
➔ Lab: Continuation on Prolog
basics

DISCRETE
STRUCTURES