Assignment 1 SC/MATH 1190 A (Fall 2023)

Due Wednesday, September 20, at 1:30 pm

Part (a): Pre-reading Due Wednesday, September 20, at 1:30 pm

We will be finishing our discussion of Chapter 1. While we may not directly discuss most of the examples
from sections 1.7 and 1.8, the techniques they represent will recur throughout the rest of the course.

• Section 1.5 (Nested Quantifiers) is a fairly direct continuation of Section 1.4. The main observation
is that we must be careful about the order of quantifiers when there is a combination of ∃ and ∀
involved. With multiple copies of the same quantifier, this in not a problem (compare this to the
associative laws in table 6 of section 1.3.2 that let us drop parentheses in expressions involving only
∨ or only ∧). Sections 1.5.3 and 1.5.7 present the primary mathematical content of this chapter.

• Section 1.6 (Rules of Inference). A logical argument is valid when the conclusion is a consequence
of the premises. Verifying that an argument is valid often amounts to checking that a particular
implication is a tautology. Pay particular attention to Definition 1 and the remark immediately
following it. The named rules of inference from Table 1 of section 1.6.3 and Table 2 of section 1.6.7
will all be used extensively throughout the course. Learn how you could verify that each tautology
in table 1 is in fact a tautology, and how you can turn each tautology into a rule of inference.

– Section 1.6.6 (Fallacies). Why might someone believe that a particular fallacy is a valid argument
form? In many cases there is a language ambiguity at play. Each of the fallacy of affirming the
conclusion and the fallacy of denying the hypothesis, involves a compound proposition that is
not a tautology but is closely related (in English) to a compound proposition that is.

• Section 1.7 (Introduction to Proofs) and Section 1.8 (Proof Methods and Strategy) are very closely
related. We will discuss how we can use the machinery of propositional and predicate logic to
form convincing arguments. Most results that we wish to prove are in the form of implications. A
theorem typically consists of statements that if some collection of hypotheses are satisfied, then a
corresponding conclusion must also hold. Note (as in section 1.7.3) that we often leave out seemingly
important words from the statements of theorems, but these words are still understood to be there.

– We will work through specific examples of Direct proof, Proof by contraposition, Proof by
contradiction, Proof by Cases, Existence proofs, and Uniqueness proofs. These techniques will
pop up in other mathematics and computer science course throughout your education.
– Pay attention to the method of ”Proof by Cases” (Section 1.8.2). We will investigating the
n = 2 case of the tautology in part B of this assignment, and will revisit this tautology as we
learn about induction.
– We will look specifically at properties
√ of parity (even and oddness) and how they can be used
to establish the irrationality of 2. We will also look at the AM/GM property, and use its
extensions to motivate several more advanced techniques later in the course.

Question A1:
In case you decide you need tutoring help, either now or later in the semester, do you know where the
Math & Stat Lab is located, what it’s hours are, and how you can obtain free tutoring help.

Question A2:
Let p and q be propositional variables. Write out (but do not submit) truth tables for
(i) p ↔ q, (ii) (p → q) ∨ (¬p → ¬q), (iii) q ⊕ ¬p, and (iv) (q ∧ p) ∨ (¬q ∧ ¬p).
Which pairs of compound statements are equivalent?

© 2023 Michael La Croix All Rights Reserved Page 1 of 4

Question A3:

(a) How many rows do you need in a truth table for a compound proposition involving 6 propositional
variables?
(b) Would it be practical to build such a table? (Include a one or two sentence justification)

Question A4:
Real world situations often do not co-operate Children who are under 5 years of age are not allowed
by using the key words we associate with logic. to receive COVID-19 and Flu shots on the same day.
Consider the public health rule to the right.
Even though the rule does not use any of the keywords that we associate with implication, this rule actually
describes an implication between two predicates on the universe of children:
• P (x), the statement “x is under 5 years of age”, and
• Q(x), the statement “x is not allowed to receive Flu and COVID-19 shots on the same day.”

(a) Which interpretation of the rule is correct?

(i) ∃x P (x) → Q(x)

(ii) ∀x P (x) → Q(x)

(iii) ∀x P (x) → ¬Q(x)


(iv) ∀x Q(x) → P (x)
(v) none of the above
(b) If we wish to apply the rule to Thomas, who is a 3 years old, which rule (or rules) of inference from
sections 1.6.3, 1.6.7, or 1.6.8 lets us conclude that Thomas is not allowed to receive COVID-19 and
Flu shots on the same day?

Part (b): Practice and Review Due Sunday, September 24, at 10:00 pm

Please prepare long-form answers to each question in this part of the assignment.

Question B1:
You wish to use a truth table to compare the compound proposition (p ∨ q) → r to (p → r) ∧ (q → r).
(a) How many atomic propositional variables need to be included?
(b) How many rows should your truth table have?
(c) You know you need columns for p, q, r, (p ∨ q) → r, and (p → r) ∧ (q → r). What other columns are
required? (See section 1.1.4 for a discussion on how to select columns.)
(d) Build a table with all of the required rows and columns.
(e) Are any columns identical?
This observation is the basis for the technique of ‘proof by cases’, when there are two cases. For
proofs involving more than two cases, we will require some more sophisticated analysis.

Question B2:
We can use logical equivalence to avoid using some of the symbols that occur in propositional logic. This
might be useful, for example, if we wish to encode a logical function so that a computer can interpret it.

(a) Use the conditional-disjunction equivalance to write (p → q) → (¬p → ¬q) in terms of ¬, ∨, and ∧.
(b) Is this proposition a tautology, a contradiction, or a contingency? If it is a contradiction or a
tautology, could you have used any known logical equivalences to show that? If it is a contingency,
find one assignment of truth values to p and q so that the proposition is true, and one assignment
so that the proposition is false.

© 2023 Michael La Croix All Rights Reserved Page 2 of 4

 (1) John is a mathematician or John played in the NFL.
Question B3: (2) John is a mathematician.
Consider the following logical argument:
(3) Therefore John did not play in the NFL.
To analyze it impartially we wish to translate it into logical notation.
Let p represent the proposition “John is a mathematician.”
Let q represent the propostion “John played in the NFL.”.
Without knowing the intent of the speaker, we can not be sure whether the ‘or’ in (1) is intended to be
used in the inclusive sense (meaning p ∨ q) or in the exclusive sense (meaning p ⊕ q).
(a) Are there any clues as to whether ‘or’ should be interpreted as inclusive or exclusive?
(b) We first analyze the inclusive interpretation.


(i) Build a truth table that includes columns for p, q, ¬q, p ∨ q, (p ∨ q) ∧ p, and (p ∨ q) ∧ p → ¬q.
(ii) Are there any rows where p ∨ q is true, p is true, and ¬q is false?
(iii) Does any column consist entirely of the value T ?
(c) Now analyze the exclusive interpretation.


(i) Build a truth table that includes columns for p, q, ¬q, p ⊕ q, (p ⊕ q) ∧ p, and (p ⊕ q) ∧ p → ¬q.
(ii) Are there any rows where p ⊕ q is true, p is true, and ¬q is false?
(iii) Does any column consist entirely of the value T ?

You might be inspired if you look at the result of a Google search for ‘John Urschel’.

Question B4:
Look at the distributive laws in Table 6 of Section 1.3.2. They may look unfamiliar and intimidating at
first since they involve some new symbols {∧, ∨, ≡}, but you’ve actually seen rules ‘like’ this in arithmetic.
If you replace all of the ∨ with +, all of the ∧ with ×, and the ≡ with an = in both statements, then one
of them is true in arithmetic.

(a) Which of the two statements becomes true? Test your answer by writing the full arithmetic statement
with p = 3, q = 4, and r = 7.
(b) Find at least one other statement in the table that corresponds to a familiar rule of arithmetic after
you make the same substitution.
(c) Do any of the rules in the table not correspond to rules of arithmetic?

Question B5:
Section 1.3.2 asserts that both ∨ and ∧ are ’associative’, since for any propositional variables p, q, and r
the identities p ∨ (q ∨ r) ≡ (p ∨ q) ∨ r and p ∧ (q ∧ r) ≡ (p ∧ q) ∧ r hold. Similar identities hold in arithmetic
for the operations of + and ×, but not for − and ÷. In fact associativity is a relatively rare property, but
it is so useful that we spend most of our times discussing operations that are associative.

(a) Investigate the ‘exclusive or’ operation, ⊗.

(i) Build a truth table for the values of p ⊗ (q ⊗ r) and of (p ⊗ q) ⊗ r.
(ii) Are p ⊗ (q ⊗ r) and (p ⊗ q) ⊗ r logically equivalent?
(iii) Would it make sense to say that ⊗ is associative?
(b) Now consider whether ‘implication’ is associative.
(i) Build a truth table that includes columns for the values of p → (q → r) and of (p → q) → r.
Be careful to include all columns necessary to store intermediate computations.
(ii) Are p → (q → r) and (p → q) → r logically equivalent?
(iii) Would it make sense to say that → is associative?

© 2023 Michael La Croix All Rights Reserved Page 3 of 4