Section 1.

2 Propositional Logic

CS 130 – Discrete Structures

Where Does the Name Come From?

• Statements are sometimes called proposition.

• Wffs are also called propositional wffs.
• We want to learn:
– how to reach logical conclusions based on given
statements
• The formal system that uses propositional wffs is called
propositional logic.

• Deriving logical conclusion by combining many

propositions and using formal logic: hence, determining
the truth of arguments.

CS 130 – Discrete Structures 31

Argument

• Definition of Argument:
– An argument is a sequence of statements in which
the conjunction of the initial statements (called the
premises/hypotheses) is said to imply the final
statement (called the conclusion). An argument can
be presented symbolically as:
– (P1 Λ P2 Λ ... Λ Pn)  Q
– Where P1, P2, ..., Pn represent the hypotheses and Q
represents the conclusion
– The question can be stated as:
• when can Q be logically deduced from P1, P2, ..., Pn?
• when is Q a logical conclusion from P1, P2, ..., Pn?

CS 130 – Discrete Structures 32

Focus on Relationships Between
Hypothesis and Conclusion
• Note: we need to focus on the relationship of the
conclusion to the hypotheses and not just any
knowledge we might have about the conclusion Q.

• For example:
– P1: Neil Armstrong was the first to step on the moon.
– P2 : Mars is a red planet.
– and the conclusion
– No human has ever been to Mars.

• A valid argument should be true based entirely

on its internal structure.

CS 130 – Discrete Structures 33

Valid Arguments

• Definition of valid argument:

– An argument is valid if whenever the hypotheses are all
true, the conclusion must also be true.
– That is, when (P1 Λ P2 Λ ... Λ Pn)  Q is a tautology.
– The previous example had a wff representation of A Λ B 
C which is not a tautology
• Example:
– If George Bush is the current president of the US, then
Dick Cheney is the current vice president. George Bush is
not the current president of the US. Therefore Dick Cheney
is not the current vice president.
– (A  B) Λ A’  B’

CS 130 – Discrete Structures 34

Proof Sequence

• To test whether (P1 Λ P2 Λ ... Λ Pn)  Q is a

tautology:
– build a truth table
– generate a proof sequence (new way) by applying
derivation rules

• Definition of Proof Sequence:

– A sequence of wffs in which each wff is either a
hypothesis or the result of applying one of the formal
system’s derivation rules to earlier wffs in the
sequence
– The above proof sequence results in many numbers
of wffs and finally it will result in the conclusion

CS 130 – Discrete Structures 35

Derivation Rules

• Formal logic system that is:

– correct: only valid arguments should be provable
– complete: every valid argument should be provable
– minimum: to make the formal system manageable

• Derivation rules for Propositional Logic

– Equivalence rules: allows individual wffs to be
replaced
– Inference rules: allows new wffs to be derived from
previous wffs

CS 130 – Discrete Structures 36

Equivalence Rules

• These rules state that certain pairs of wffs are equivalent,

hence one can be substituted for the other with no change to
its truth values.
• Allows substitution in either direction
Expression Equivalent to Name/Abbreviation
RVS SVR communicative / comm
RΛS SΛR
(R V S) V Q R V (S V Q) associative / ass
(R Λ S) Λ Q R Λ (S Λ Q)
(R V S)’ R’ Λ S’ De Morgan’s laws /
(R Λ S)’ R’ V S’ De Morgan
RS R’ V S implication / imp
R (R’)’ double negation / dn
RS (RS) Λ (SR) equivalence / equ

CS 130 – Discrete Structures 37

Examples

• Assume we have the following hypotheses,

we can start a proof sequence as follows:
1. (A’ V B’) V C hyp (hypothesis)
2. (A Λ B)’ V C 1, De Morgan
3. (A Λ B)  C 2, imp

CS 130 – Discrete Structures 38

Inference Rules

• Inference rules allow us to add a wff to match the last part of

the proof sequence, if one or more wffs that match the first
part already exist in the proof sequence
From Can Derive Abbreviation for rule
R, R  S S Modus Ponens- mp
R  S, S’ R’ Modus Tollens- mt

R, S RΛS Conjunction-con

RΛS R, S Simplification- sim

R RVS Addition- add
• Note: Inference rules do NOT work in both directions unlike
equivalence rules
• Example:
– R: It’s bright and sunny today. S: I’ll wear my sunglass.
– mp, mt

CS 130 – Discrete Structures 39

General Process in Proving a Valid Argument

• First, write down all the hypotheses

• Then use the inference and equivalence rules
to get to the conclusion step by step
• The idea is to keep focused on the result and
sometimes it is very easy to go down a longer
path

CS 130 – Discrete Structures 40

Examples

• Use propositional logic, prove that the

following arguments are valid:
– A Λ (B  C) Λ [(A Λ B)  (D V C’)] Λ B  D

• Your turn
– [(A V B’)  C] Λ (C  D) Λ A  D

CS 130 – Discrete Structures 41

Derivation Hints

• MP is the most intuitive inference rule. Try to

use it more often.

• Wffs of the form (P ^ Q)’ or (P v Q)’ are

seldom helpful in a proof sequence. Try to use
De Morgan’s laws.

• Wffs of the form P v Q are also seldom helpful,

try using double negation to convert it into
implication.

CS 130 – Discrete Structures 42

Deduction Method

• To prove an argument of the form:

– P1 Λ P2 Λ ... Λ Pn  (R  Q)
• Deduction method allows for the use of R as an
additional hypothesis and prove:
– P1 Λ P2 Λ ... Λ Pn Λ R  Q
• Example: prove [A (A B)] (A B)
• Example, prove (A  B) Λ (B  C)  (A  C)
• The above is called rule of Hypothetical Syllogism or hs
in short
• Many such other rules can be derived from existing
rules which thus provide an easier and faster proofs

CS 130 – Discrete Structures 43

More Inference Rules (See Exercise 1.2)

From Can Derive Name / Abbreviation

P  Q, Q  R PR Hypothetical syllogism- hs

P V Q, P´ Q Disjunctive syllogism- ds

PQ Q´  P´ Contraposition- cont

Q´  P´ PQ Contraposition- cont

P PΛP Self-reference - self

PVP P Self-reference - self

(P Λ Q)  R P  (Q R) Exportation - exp

P, P´ Q Inconsistency - inc

P Λ (Q V R) (P Λ Q) V (P Λ R) Distributive - dist

P V (Q Λ R) (P V Q) Λ (P V R) Distributive - dist

CS 130 – Discrete Structures 44

Proofs of Inference Rules

• Prove that (P  Q)  (Q´ P´) is a valid argument

(Contraposition – con)
• Hence prove, (P  Q) Λ Q´  P´ (using deduction method)
• The above is true using the modus tollens inference rule
• Prove P Λ P´  Q (Inconsistency -- inc)
1. P hyp
2. P´ hyp
3. PVQ 1, add
4. QVP 3, comm
5. (Q´)´ V P 4, dn
6. Q´  P 5, imp
7. (Q´)´ 2, 6, mt
8. Q 7, dn

CS 130 – Discrete Structures 45

Proofs Using New Rules

• (A’ V B) Λ (B  C)  (A  C)

• Additional rules can shorten proof sequences but at the

expense of having to remember additional rules.

• Your turn:
– (A  B) ^ (C’ v A) ^ C  B
– (A Λ B)’ Λ (C’ Λ A)’ Λ (C Λ B’)’  A’
– A ^ (B  C)  (B  (A ^ C))
– [A  (B v C)] ^ B’ ^ C’  A’

CS 130 – Discrete Structures 46

Proving Verbal Arguments

• An argument in English that consists of simple

statements can be tested for validity by a two-
step process:
– Symbolize the argument using propositional wffs
– Prove that the argument is valid by constructing a
proof sequence for it using the derivation rules for
propositional logic

CS 130 – Discrete Structures 47

Example In Proving Verbal Arguments

• Russia was a superior power, and either France was not strong
or Napoleon made an error. Napoleon did not make an error,
but if the army did not fail, then France was strong. Hence the
army failed and Russia was a superior power.

• Converting it to a propostional form using letters A, B, C and D

– A : Russia was a superior power
– B: France was strong
– B’ : France was not strong
– C: Napoleon made an error
– C’ : Napoleon did not make an error
– D: The army failed
– D’ : The army did not fail

CS 130 – Discrete Structures 48

Continue…

• Combining, the statements using logic

– A Λ (B´ V C) hypothesis
– C´ hypothesis
– (D´  B) hypothesis
– (D Λ A) conclusion

• Combining them, the propositional form is

• A Λ (B´ V C) Λ C´ Λ (D´  B)  (D Λ A)
• Prove it

CS 130 – Discrete Structures 49

Class Exercises

• Prove the following arguments:

– (A’  B’) Λ (A  C)  (B  C)
– (Y  Z’) Λ (X’  Y) Λ [Y  (X  W)] Λ (Y  Z)  (Y  W)
– [A (B C)] [B (A C)]
– P ^ (Q V R)  (P ^ Q) V (P ^ R)

– If the program is efficient, it executes quickly. Either

the program is efficient, or it has a bug. However,
the program does not execute quickly. Therefore it
has a bug. (Use letters E, Q, B)
– The crop is good, but there is not enough water. If
there is a lot of rain or not a lot of sun, then there is
enough water. Therefore the crop is good and there
is a lot of sun. (Use letters C, W, R, S)

CS 130 – Discrete Structures 50

Prove the following arguments

• If the program is efficient, it executes quickly.

Either the program is efficient, or it has a bug.
However, the program does not execute
quickly. Therefore it has a bug. (Use letters E,
Q, B)
– E: the program is efficient
– Q: the program executes quickly
– B: the program has a bug
– (E->Q) ^ (E’->B) ^ Q’ -> B

CS 130 – Discrete Structures 51

Prove the following argument

• The crop is good, but there is not enough

water. If there is a lot of rain or not a lot of
sun, then there is enough water. Therefore the
crop is good and there is a lot of sun. (Use
letters C, W, R, S)
– C: the crop is good
– W: there is enough water
– R: there is a lot of rain
– S: there is a lot of sun
– C ^ W’ ^ ((R V S’) -> W) -> C ^ S

CS 130 – Discrete Structures 52

More Exercises

• Write down the propositional form of the following

argument:
– If my client is guilty, then the knife was in the drawer.
Either the knife was not in the drawer or Jason Pritchard
saw the knife. If the knife was not there on October 10, it
follows that Jason Pritchard didn’t see the knife.
Furthermore, if the knife was there on October 10, then
the knife was in the drawer and also the hammer was in
the barn. But we all know that the hammer was not in the
barn. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my
client is innocent.

CS 130 – Discrete Structures 53