This excerpt is provided, in screen-viewable form, for personal use only by

members of MIT CogNet.

Unauthorized use or dissemination of this information is expressly forbidden.

If you have any questions about this material, please contact

[email protected]
Chapterl
Sentential Logic

1.1 Basic logical

notion.

argument , Definition. An ARGUMENT is a pair of things:

premises , . a setof sentences, the PREMISES
conclusion . a sentence, the CONCLUSION .

Comment. All argumentshave conclusions, but not all

argumentshave premises: the set of premisescan be
the empty set! Later we shall examine this idea in
somedetail.

Comment
. If the sentencesinvolved belongto English (or any other
natural language), we need to specify that the premisesand the
conclusion are sentencesthat can be true or false. That is, the
premisesand the conclusionmust all be declarative(or indicative)
sentencessuch as ' The cat is on the mat' or ' I am here' , and not
sentencessuchas ' Is the cat on the mat?' (interrogative) or ' Come
here!' (imperative) . We are going to construct some formal
languagesin which every sentenceis either true or false. Thus this
qualification is not presentin the definition above.

validity Definition . An argument is VA Lm if and only if it is

necessary that if all its premises are true, its conclusion
is true.

Comment . The intuitive idea captured by this definition

is this: If it is possiblefor the conclusionof an
argument to be false when its premisesare all b1Je ,
then the argumentis not reliable (that is, it is invalid).
 1
Chapter

If true premisesguaranteea true conclusion then the

argumentis valid.

Alternateformulation of the definition. An argumentis

V A Lm if and only if it is impossible for all the
premisesto be true while the conclusionis false.

entaUment Definition. When an argumentis valid we say that its

premisesENTAll.., its conclusion.

soundness Definition . An argument is SOUND I if andonly if it is

valid and all its premises are b"ue.

Comment . It follows that all sound argumentshave

hue conclusions.

Comment. An argument may be unsound in either of

two ways : it is invalid , or it has one or more false
premises.

with validity rather

. The restof this bookis concerned
Comment
than soundness.

Exercise1.1 Indicate whether each of the following sentencesis

True or False.

i* Every premise of a valid argument is hUe.

ii * Every invalid argument has a false conclusion .
iii * Every valid argument has exactly two premises.
iv* Some valid arguments have false conclusions.
v* Some valid arguments have a false conclusion despite
having premises that are all hUe.
Chapterl

vi * A sound argument cannot have a false conclusion .

vii * Some sound arguments are invalid .
...
Vlll * Some unsound arguments have true premises.
ix * Premises of sound arguments entail their conclusions.
x* If an argument has true premises and a true conclusion
then it is sound.

1.2 A Formal Language for Sentential Logic

fonnal Comment . To representsimilarities among arguments

language of a natural language, logicians introduce formal
languages . The first formal languagewe will introduce
is the language of sentential logic (also known as
propositionallogic) . In chapter3 we introduce a more
sophisticatedlanguage: that of predicatelogic.

vocabulary -
Definition. TheVOCABULARY
OF SENTENTIAL
LOGICconsists
of
. SENTENCELETTERS ,
. CONNECTIVES , and
. PARENTHESES .

sentence Definition. A SENTENCE LEIf ER is anysymbol

letter from the following list:
A, ... , Z, Ao'... , Zo'AI' ... ,Zit....
sentence Comment . By the useof subscriptswe make available
variable an infinite numberof sentenceletters. Thesesentence
letters are also sometimescalled SENTENCE VARI -
ABLES , becausewe use them to stand for sentences
of naturallanguages .
 Chapter1

connectives Definition. The SENTENTIAL CONNECTIVES

(often just called CONNECTIVES ) are the members
of the following list: - , & , v , - +, H .

Comment. The sentential connectives correspond to

various words in natural languages that serve to
connect declarative sentences.

tilde - The TILDE correspondsto the English ' It is not the

casethat' . (In this casethe useof the term ' connective'
is odd, since only one declarativesentenceis negated
at a time.)

'
ampersand & The AMPERSAND correspondsto the English Both
... and ... ' .

wedge v The WEDGE correspondsto the English ' Either ... or

. . . ' in its inclusivesense.

an - ow to the English
~ The ARROW corresponds then
,
... .

double - The DOUBLE - ARROW correspondsto the English

' if and '
arrow only if .
Chapterl

Comment. Natural languagestypically provide more than one way

to expressa given connectionbetweensentences . For instance, the
sentence' John is dancing but Mary is sitting down' expresses the
same logical relationship as ' John is dancing and Mary is sitting
down' . The issue of translation from English to the formal
languageis takenup in section 1.3.

) and ( The right and left parentheses are used as punctuation

marks for the language .

.
expression Definition. An EXPRESSION of sentential logic is
any sequenceof sentenceletters, sentential
rives, or left andright parentheses
.

Examples.
(P ~ Q) is an expressionof sententiallogic.
)PQ~ - is alsoan expressionof sententiallogic.
(3 ~ 4) is not an expressionof sententiallogic.

metavariable Definition. Greek letters such as , and 'I' are used as

METAVARIABLES . They are not themselvesparts of
the language of sentential logic, but they stand for
expressionsof the language.

Comment. (, ~ '1') is not an expressionof sentential

logic, but it may be usedto represent
: an expressionof
sententiallogic.
 ChapterI

weD - formed Definition. A WELL - FORMED FORMULA ( WFF)

f OrDlu1a of sententiallogic is any expressionthat accordswith
the following sevenrules:

( 1) A sentenceletter standing alone is a wff .

atomic [Definition.The sentence lettersaretheATOMIC

sentence SENTENCES of thelanguage: of sententiallogic.]

(2) If , is a wff , then the expression denoted by - , is

also awIf .

negation [Definition. A wff of this form is known as a NEGA -

TION , and - ~ is known asthe NEGATION OF ~.]

(3) If ~ and 'I' are both wffs, then the expression

denoted by (~ & '1') is a wff .

conjunction [Definition. A wff of this form is knownas a CON-

JUNCTION. ct>and'If areknownasthe left andright
CONJUNCTS,respectively .]

(4) If cj) and 'If are both wffs, then the expression
denoted by (~ v '1/) is a wff .

disjunction [Definition. A wff of this form is known as a DIS -

JUNCTION . ~ and '1/ are the left and right
DISJUNCTS, respectively.]

(5) If (j) and 'I' are both wffs, then the expression
denoted by (j) - + '1') is a wff .
Chapter1

conditional , [Definition. A wffofthis Connis known as a O : NX-

antecedent , nO NAL. Thewff , is knownas theANTECEDENT
consequent of the conditional . The wff 'If is known as the
CONSEQUENTof theconditional .]

(6) If , and 'If are both wiTs, then the expression

denoted by (cj) H '1') is a wff .

biconditional [Definition. A wff of this form is known as a

BI CONDm ONAL. It is alsosometimes knownasan
EQUIVALENCE] .

(7) Nothingelseis awIf .

binary Definition. & , v , ~ , and H are BINARY CONNEC-

and unary TIVES , since they connect two wffs together. - is a
connectives UNARY CONNECTIVE , sinceit attachesto a single
wff .

sentence Definition. A SENTENCE of the fonnallanguage is a

wff that is not part of a largerwff .

denial Definition . The DENIAL of a wff (j) that is not a

negation is - (j). A negation, - (j), has two DENIALS : (j)
and - - (j).

Example.
- (P - + Q) hasone negation: - - (P - + Q)
It hastwo denials: (P - + Q) and - - (P - + Q) .

(P - + Q) hasjust one denial: its negation, - (P - + Q).

 Chapterl

Comment. The reason for introducing the ideas of a sentence and a

denial will be apparent when the rules of proof are introduced in
section 1.4.

Exercise 1.2.1 Which of die following expressions are wffs ? If an

expression is a wff , say whedier it is an atomic
sentence, a conditional , a conjunction , a disjunction , a
negation, or a biconditional . For die binary connectives
, identify die component wffs (antecedent, consequent
, conjuncts , disjuncts , etc.) .
0
1* A
00
n* (A
000
U1* (A )
iv * (A - + B)
v* (A - + (
vi * (A - + ( B - + C
vii * P & Q) - + R)
viii * A & B) v (C -+ (0 H G )
ix * - (A -+ B)
x* - (P -+ Q) v - (Q & R)
xi * - (A)
xii * (- A) -+ B
xiii * (- (P& P) & (PH (Q v - Q )
xiv * (- B v P) & C) H 0 v - G) -+ H
xv * (- (Q v - (B v (EH (0 V X )
 1
Chapter

parenthesis- Comment. For easeof reading , it is often convenient to

dropping drop parentheses from wffs , so long as no ambiguity
conventions results. If a sentence is surrounded by parenthesesthen
these may be dropped.

Example .
p ~ Q will be read as shorthand for (P ~ Q) .

Comment. Where parentheses are embedded within

sentences we must be careful if we are to omit any
parentheses. For example, the expression P & Q ~ R
is potentially ambiguous between P & Q) ~ R) and
(P & (Q ~ R . To resolve such ambiguities , we adopt
the following convention: - binds more strongly than
all the other connectives; & and v bind component
expressions more strongly than ~ , which in turn binds
its components more strongly than H .

Examples .
- P & Q ~ R is readas - P & Q) ~ R).
P ~ Q H R is readas P ~ Q) H R).
P v Q & R is not allowed,asit is ambiguous
between
(P v (Q & R and P v Q) & R).
P ~ Q ~ R is notallowed,asit is ambiguousbetween
(P ~ (Q ~ R and P ~ Q) ~ R).

Comment. The expressions admitted by these parenthesis

-dropping conventions are not themselves well -
fonned fonnulas of sentential logic .
 1
Chapter

Exercise1.2.2 Rewrite all the sentencesin exercise1.2.1 above, using

-dropping conventions. Omit any parentheses
the parenthesis
you can without introducingambiguity.

Exercise 1.2.3 State whether each of the following is ambiguous or

unambiguous, given the parenthesis-dropping conventions
. In the unambiguous cases, write out the sentences
and reinstate all omitted parentheses.

0
1* PH - QvR
00
n* PvQ ~ R & S
000
U1* PVQ ~ RHS
iv * PvQ & R ~ - S
P~ R & S~ T
vi * P~ Q ~ R ~ S
vii * P& QH - RvS
viii * - P& QVR ~ SHT
ix * P~ Q & - R H - Sv T ~ U
P~ Q & - R ~ - Sv T H U

1.3 Translation of English to Sentential Wffs

-
translation Definition . A TRANSLATION SCHEME for the lan
scheme guage of sentential logic is a pairing of sentence letters
with sentencesof a natural language. The sentencesin
a translation scheme should be logically simple . That
is , they should not contain any of the words
corresponding to the sentential connectives.
ChapterI

logical form Definition. The LOGICAL FORM of a sentenceof a

natural language relative to a translation scheme is
given by its translation into a wff of sententiallogic
accordingto that translationscheme.

Example.
Under the translationscheme
P: Johndoeswell at logic
Q: Bill is happy
The sentence
If Johndoeswell at logic, then Bill is happy
hasthe logical form (P ~ Q) .

Comment. English provides many different ways of

stating negations, conditionals, conjunctions, disjunctions
, andbiconditionals. Thus, manydifferent sentences
of English may havethe samelogical form.

sty Ustic Definition. If two sentencesof a naturallanguagehave

varianu the same logical form relative to a single translation
scheme, they are said to be STYLISTIC VARIANTS
of eachother.

Comment. There are far too many stylistic variants of

negations, conjunctions, disjunctions, conjunctions,
and biconditionals to list here. The follow is a partial
list of stylistic variantsin eachcategory.
 1
Chapter

negations Let P b' anslate the sentence ' John is conscious.' Here
are a few of the ways of expressing - P:
John is not conscious.
John is unconscious.
It is not the case that John is conscious.
It is false that John is conscious.

conditionals Stylistic variants whose logical fonn is <. - + '1'),

where . is the antecedentand 'I' is the consequent
include the following :
If . , '1'.
. only if '1'.
. is a sufficient condition for '1'.
. is sufficient for '1'.
Providedthat . , '1'.
'I' providedthat . .
'I' on the condition that . .
'I' is a necessarycondition for , .
'I' is necessaryfor . .
Whenever. , '1'.
'I' if . .
Given that . , '1'.
In case. , '1'.
. only on the condition that '1'.
Chapterl

conjunctions Variants widi logical form (. & '1') include die

following :
(j) and'll .
Both (j) and'll .
cj), but'll.
cj), although'll.
cj)aswell as'II.
Thoughcj), 'II.
cj), also'll.

disjunctions Variantswith logical fonD (. v 'II>include these:

. or 'l' .
Either . or '1'.
. unless'1'.
'
Comment. , unless '1" is also commonly translated as
( - 'I' - + , ) . The proof techniques introduced in section
1.4 can be used to show that this is equivalent to
(, v '1') .

biconditionals Variants having the logical form (, H '1') include the

following:
. if andonly if '1/.
. is equivalentto '1/.
, is necessaryand sufficient for '11
.
, just in case'11
.

neither. Englishsentences of theforill ' Neither~ nor'1/' have

nor ... , (- ~ & - '1/).
thelogicalforill - (~ v '1/), or, equivalently
 Chapter1

tenses Comment. In English , the sentences ' Mary is dancing '

and ' Mary will dance' have different meanings because
of the tenses of their respective verbs. In some cases,
when one is analyzing arguments it is important to
preserve the distinction between tenses. In other cases,
the distinction can be ignored . In general, a judgment
call is required to decide whether or not tense can be
safely ignored .

Example.
Considerthe following two arguments:

A If Mary is dancing, Johnwill dance.

Mary is dancing.
Therefore, Johnis dancing.

B If Mary dances, John will dance.

If John dances, Bill will dance.
Therefore , if Mary dances, Bill will dance.

In A , if the difference between ' John will dance' and

' John
is dancing ' is ignored , then the argument will
look valid in translation . But this seems unreasonable
on inspectionof the English.

In B , ignoring the difference between ' John will dance'

and ' John dances' also makes the argument valid in
translation . In this case , however , this seems reason -
able.
Chapter1

In the translation exercisesthat follow, assumethat

tensedistinctionsmay be ignored.

Exercise 1.3 Translatethe following sentencesinto the languageof

sententiallogic.

for 1- 20

1* Johnis dancingbut Mary is not dancing.

2* If Johndoesnot dance, then Mary will not be happy.
3* John' s dancingis sufficient to makeMary happy.
4* John' s dancingis necessaryto makeMary happy.
5* John will not danceunlessMary is happy.
6* If John' s dancing is necessaryfor Mary to be happy,
Bill will be unhappy.
If Mary dancesalthough John is not happy, Bill will
dance.
If neitherJohnnor Bill is dancing, Mary is not happy.
Mary is not happy unless either John or Bill is
dancing.
10* Mary will be happyif both Johnand Bill dance.
Although neither John nor Bill is dancing, Mary is
happy.
12* If Bill dances, then if Mary dancesJohnwill too.
13* Mary will be happyonly if Bill is happy.
 I
Chapter

14* Neither Johnnor Bill will danceif Mary is not happy.

15
*
If Mary dancesonly if Bill dancesand John dances
only if Mary dances, then John dancesonly if Bill
dances.
16* Mary will danceif Johnor Bill but not both dance.
17
*
If John dancesand so does Mary, but Bill does not,
then Mary will not be happybut Johnand Bill will .
18* Mary will be happyif and only if Johnis happy.
19* Provided that Bill is unhappy, John will not dance
unlessMary is dancing.
20* If John danceson the condition that if he dancesMary
dances, then he dances.

ira DSlation schemefor 21- 25

P: A purposeof punishmentis deterrence .
Q: Capital punishmentis an effectivedeterrent.
R: Capital punishmentshouldbe continued.
S: Capital punishmentis usedin the United States.
T: A purposeof punishmentis rebibution.

21* If a purpose of punishment is deterrence and capital

punishment is an effective deterrent , then capital punishment
should be continued .
22* Capital punishment is not an effective deterrental
-

though it is used in the United States .

*
23 Capital punishment should not be continued if it is not
an effective deterrent , unless deterrence is not a purpose
of punishment .
24* If retribution is a purpose of punishment but deterrence
is not , then capital punishment should not be continued
.
Chapter1

25
*
Capital punishment should be continued even though
capital punishment is not an effective deterrent provided
that a purpose of punishment is retribution in
addition to deterrence.

Primitive Rules of Proof

turnstile Definition. The TU RN STa Eis the symbol ~ .

sequent Definition. A SEQUENT consists of a number of

sentencesseparatedby commas(correspondingto the
premises of an argument), followed by a turnstile,
followed by another sentence(correspondingto the
conclusionof the argument).
Example. (P & Q) - + R, - R & P ~ - Q

Comment. Sequents are nothing more than a

convenient way of displaying arguments in the formal
notation . The turnstile symbol may be read as
' therefore ' .

proof Definition. A PROOF is a sequence of lines containing

sentences . Eachsentenceis either an assumptionor
the result of applying a rule of proof to earlier
sentencesin the sequence . The primitive rules of proof
are statedbelow.
 Chapter1

Comment. The purpose of presenting proofs is to de-

monsuate unequivocally that a given set of premises
entails a particular conclusion . Thus, when presenting
a proof we associate three things with each sentence in
the proof sequence:

annotation On the right of the sentencewe provide an ANNO -

TADON specifying which rule of proof was applied
to which earlier sentencesto yield the given sentence
.

assumptionset On the far left we associatewith eachsentencean

ASSUMPTIONSET containingthe assumptions on
which the given sentencedepends.

line number Also on the left , we write the current LINE NUM -
BER of the proof.

Hneof proof Definition. A sentenceof a proof, togetherwith its

annotation, its assumption
setandthe line number, is
calleda LINE OF TIlE PROOF.

Example.
1,2 (7) P - + Q & R 6 ~ I (3)
i Linenumber i Annotation
set Sentence
Assumption

proof for Definition. A PROOF FOR A GIVEN ARGUMENT

a given is a proof whose last sentence is the argument's
argument conclusion depending on nothing other than the
'
arguments premises.
Chapter1

primitive Definition. The ten PRI Mm V E RULES OF

rules PROOF are the rules assumption , ampersand -intto-
duction, ampersand -elimination, wedge-inttoduction,
wedge-elimination, arrow-inttoduction, arrow-elimination
, reductio ad absurdum, double-arrow-inttoduction,
anddouble-arrow-elimination, as describedbelow.

assumption Assume any sentence .

Annotation : A
Assumption set: The currentline number.
Comment: Anything may be assumed at any
time . However , some assumptions
are useful and some are not !

Example.
(1) Pv Q

ampersand . Given two sentences ( at lines m and n ) , conclude a

intro conjunction of them .

Annotation : m, n & 1
Assumption set: The union of the assumption sets at
lines m and n.
Comment: The order of lines m and n in the
proof is irrelevant . The lines referred
to by m and n may also be the
same.
Also known as: Conjunction (CONI ) .
 I
Chapter

Examples.
1 ( 1) p A
2 (2) Q A
1,2 (3) P& Q 1,2 &1
1,2 (4) Q& P 1,2 &1
1 (5) P& P 1,1&1

ampersand - Given a sentence that is a conjunction ( at line m ), con -

elim clude either conjunct .

Annotation : m &E
Assumption set : The sameasat line m.
Also known as: Simplification (S).

.
Examples
(a)
1 (1) P& Q
1 (2) Q" l &E
1 (3) P l &E

(b)
1 (1) P& (Q ~ R)
1 (2) Q~ R l &E

wedge-intro Given a sentence (at line m), conclude any disjunction

having it as a disjunct .

Annotation : m vI
Assumption set: The same as at line m.
Also known as: Addition (ADD ) .
Chapterl

Examples.
(a)
1 (1) P A
1 (2) Pv Q 1vI
1 (3) (RH - T) v P 1vI

(b)
1 (1) Q -+ R A
1 (2) (Q -+ R) v (P & - g) 1 vI

wedge-elim Given a sentence(at line m) that is a disjunction and

anothersentence(at line n) that is a denial of one of its
disjunctsconcludethe other disjunct.

Annotation : m, n v E
Assumption set: The union of the assumptionsetsat
lines m andn.
Comment : The order of m and n in the proof is
irrelevant.
Also known as : Modus Tollendo Ponens (MTP),
Disjunctive Syllogism (OS) .
Examples.
(a)
1 (1) Pv Q A
2 (2) -P A
1,2 (3) Q 1,2 vB

(b)
1 (1) P v (Q -+ R) A
2 (2) - (Q -+ R) A
1,2 (3) P 1,2 vE
 Chapter1

(c)
1 (1) Pv - R A
2 (2) R A
1,2 (3) P 1,2 v E

arrow - in tro Given a sentence (at line n), conclude a conditional

having it as the consequent and whose antecedent
appears in the proof as an assumption (at line m) .

Annotation : n - +1 (m )
Assumption set : Everything in the assumption set at
line n excepting m, the line number
where the antecedent was assumed.
Comment
: The antecedent must be present in
the proof as an assumption . We
speak of DISCHARGING this assumption
when applying this rule .
Placing the number m in parentheses
indicates it is the discharged assumption
. The lines m and n may be the
same.
Also known as: Conditional Proof (CP) .

.
Examples
(a)
1 (1) - PvQ A
2 (2) P A
1,2 (3) Q 1,2 vE
1 (4) P~ Q 3 ~ I (2)
ChapterI

(b)
1 (1) R A
2 (2) P A
2 (3) P~ R 1-+1(2)

(c)
1 ( 1) P A
(2) P-+P 1 - +1 ( 1)

armw - elim Given a conditional sentence(at line m) and another

sentencethat is its antecedent(at line n), concludethe
consequentof the conditional.

Annotation : m, n - +E
Assumption set: The union of the assumption sets at
lines m and n-
Comment: The order of m and n in the proof is
irrelevant.
Also known as: Modus Ponendo Ponens (MPP),
Modus Ponens (MP), Detachment ,
Affirming the Antecedent.

.
Example
1 ( 1) P~ Q A
2 (2) P A
1,2 (3) Q 1,2 -.+E
 Chapterl

reductio ad
absurdum

Alsoknownas: IndirectProof(IP), - Intra! - Elim.

Examples.
(a)
1 (1) P-+ Q A
2 (2) -Q A
3 (3) P A
1,3 (4) Q 1,3 ~ E
1,2 (5) -P 2,4 RAA(3)

(b)
---

1 PvQ A
2 -P A
3 - P~ - Q A
2,3 -Q 2,3 -+E
1,2,3 P 1,4 vE
1,3 P 2,5 RAA(2)
 I
Chapter

(c)
1 (1) p A
2 (2) Q A
3 (3) -Q A
2,3 (4) -p 2,3 RAA(1)
double - armw . Given two conditional sentences having the forms
intro cI> - + 'I' and 'I' - + cI> (at lines m and n ), conclude a
biconditional with cI>on one side and 'I' on the other.

Annotation : m , n HI
Assumption set: The union of the assumption sets at
lines m and n.
Comment: The order of m and n in the proof is
irrelevant .

.
Examples
1 (1) P~ Q A
2 (2) Q~ P A
1,2 (3) PHQ 1,2 HI
1,2 (4) QH P 1,2 HI

double-arrow - Given a biconditionalsentence, H ' I' ( at line m ), con -

eUm clude either . ~ 'If or 'If ~ . .

Annotation : mHE
Assumption set : the sameas at m.
Also known as : Sometimesthe rules HI and HE
aresubsumedasDefinition of Biconditional
(df.H ) .
 Chapter1

.
Examples
1 (1) PHQ A
1 (2) P- + Q tHE
1 (3) Q - +P tHE

Comment . These ten rules of proof are truth -

preserving . Given b' Ue premises, they will always
yield b' Ueconclusions. This entails that if a proof can
be consb' Uctedfor a given argument, then the argument
is valid .

Comment . A numberof strategies aid in the discoveryof proofs,

. Wedonotprovideanyproof-
for practice
butthereis no substitute
' s . We
in this book- that is the instructor
discoverystrategies job
do provideplenty of exercises , so there should be no lack of
.
opportunityto practice

Exercise 1.4.1 Fill in the blanks in the following proofs .

P, - Q ~ P& - Q
1 (1) P
(2) - Q
(3) P& - Q

PvQ , - QvR,
(1) Pv Q
(2) - Qv R
(3)
(4) Q 1,3 vE
(5) 2,4
 .* : * I -

Qt 0 . ~ > l at to -Qt ~- N ~ t oi ~ > 0 . 0

-
--- I Q: 0 --- Qt 0
-~( t ~ ~
~ > l 0. t -~t ~.

. ~ t ~

Nil
.>~ N~
~,
3,5 RAA
 1
Chapter

Exercise 1.4.2 Give proofs for the following sequents

. All of these
proofs may be completedwithout using the rules - +1
or RAA.

81* P v - R, - R - + S, - P ~ S
82 P v - R, - R - + S,- P ~ S & - R
83* P - + - Q, - Q v R - + - S, P & T ~ - S
84* P & (Q & R), P & R - + - S, S v T ~ T
85 P - + Q, P - + R, P ~ Q & R
86 P, Q v R, - R v S, - Q ~ P & S
87* - P, Rv - PHPVQ ~ Q
88 (P H Q) - + RiP- + Q,Q - + P ~ R
89* - P- + Q & R, - Pv S - + - TU & - P ~ (U & R) & - T
810 (Q v R) & - S - + T, Q & U, - S v - U ~ T & U

Sequents and Derived Rules

double Comment. If a sequent has just one sentence on each

turnstile side of a turnstile , a reversed turnstile may be inserted
( -i ) to represent the argument from the sentence on the
right to the sentenceon the left .

Example. P ~ ~ P v P

Comment. This examplecorrespondsto two sequents :

p ~ p v P and P v P ~ P. You may read the example
as saying ' P thereforeP or P, and P or P thereforeP' .
When proving cI ~~ 'If, one must give two proofs: one
for cI ~ 'If and one for 'If ~ cI.
ChapterI

Example .
ProveP -i .- P v P.

(a) ProveP .- P v P.
1 ( 1) P A
1 (2) P v P 1v I

(b) ProveP v P.- P.

1 ( 1) Pv P A
2 (2) -P A
1,2 (3) P 1,2 v E
1 (4) P 2,3 RAA (2)

, using the
Exercise1.5.1 Give proofs for the following sequents
primitiverulesof proof.

S11* P -i .- - - P DoubleNegation
S12* P - + Q, - Q .- - P ModusTollendoTollens
S13 P - + - Q, Q .- - P MTf
S14* - P --+Q, - Q I- P MTf
S15 - P --+- Q, Q I- P MTf
S16* P --+Q, Q --+RIP --+R HypotheticalSyllogism
S17* PI - Q --+P TrueConsequent
S18* - PIP --+Q FalseAntecedent
S19 PIP - -+Q FA
S20 P --+Q, P --+- Q I- - P Antecedent
Impossible
S21* - P v Q ~I- P -:0+Q -
WedgeArrow (v~ )
S22 P v Q ~I- - P --+Q v - +

S23 P v Q ~I- - Q --+P v - +

S24 P v - Q ~I- Q --+P v - +

S25 P v Q, P --+R, Q --+R I- R Simple DUemma

 Chapterl

S26* P v Q, P - + R, Q - + S ... R v S Complex Dilemma

S27 -
P - + Q, P - + Q ... Q SpecialDilemma
S28* - (P v Q) ~ ... - P & - Q DeMorgan' s Law
S29 - (P & Q) ~... - P v - Q OM
S30 - -
P & Q ~ ' " ( P v Q) - OM
S31 - -
P v Q ~ ' " ( P & Q) - OM
S32* - (P - + Q) ~ ... P & - Q NegatedArrow (Neg- +)
S33 - (P - + - Q) ~... P & Q Neg- +
S34 -
P - + Q ~ ... (P & Q)- Neg- +
S35 - -
P - + Q ~... (P & Q) Neg- +
S36 P & Q ~... Q & P & Commutativity
S37* P v Q ~ ... Q v P v Commutativity
S38* P H Q ~ ... Q H P H Commutativity
S39 -
P - + Q ~ ... Q - + P - trausposition
S40 P & (Q & R) ~ ... (P & Q) & R & Associativity
S41* P v (Q v R) ~ ... (P v Q) v R v Associativity
S42* P & (Q v R) ~ ... (P & Q) v (P & R) &Iv Distribution
S43 P v (Q & R) ~... (P v Q) & (P v R) v/& Distribution
S44 P - + (Q - + R) ~ ... P & Q - + R Imp/ Exportation
S45 P H Q, P ... Q Biconditional Ponens
S46 P H Q, Q ... P BP
S47 -
P H Q, P ... Q - Biconditional Tollens
S48 P H Q, - Q ... - P BT
S49 P H Q ~ ... - Q H - P Bi' Ira DSposition
S50 P H - Q ~... - P H Q Bi Trans
S51 - ( PH Q) ~ ... P H - Q NegatedH
S52 - ( P H Q) ~... - P H Q NegH
Chapter!

Exercise 1.5.2 Give proofs for the following sequents using the
primitive rules of proof.

S53* PH Q -It- (P & Q) V (- P& - Q)

S54 P - + Q & R, R V - Q - + S & T, T HUt - P - + U
S55* (- P V Q) & R, Q - + St- P - + (R - + S)
S56* Q & R, Q - + P V S, - (S & R) t- P
S57 P - + R & Q, S - + - R V - Q t- S & P - + T
S58 R & P, R - + (S V Q), - (Q & P) t- S
S59 P & Q, R & - S, Q - + (P - + T) , T- +(R- +SvW) t- w
S60 R - + - P, Q, Q - + (P V - g) t- S - + - R
S61 P - + Q, P - + R, P - + S, T - + ( U- + (- V - + - S ,
Q - + T, R - + ( W- + V), V - + - W, W t- - P
S62 P H - Q & S, P & (- T - + - g) t- - Q & T
S63 PVQHP & Qt - PHQ

substitution Definition . A SUBSTITUTION INSTANCE of a

instance sequent is die result of uniformly replacing its
sentence letters with wffs .

Comment. This definition states that each occurrence

of a given sentence letter must be replaced with the
samewff throughoutthe sequent.

Example.
The sequent
P v Q J- - P - + Q
hasas a substitutioninstancethe sequent
(R & S) v Q J- - (R & S) - + Q
accordingto the substitutionpattern
P/ (R & g); Q/Q.
 Chapter}

Comment. The given substitution pattern shows that

the sentence letter P was replaced throughout the
original sequent by the wff (R & S) , and the sentence
letter Q was replaced throughout by itself .

Exercise1.5.3 Identify each of the following with a sequentin

exercise1.5.1 andidentifythesubstitution .
pattern

i* R - + S -1.- - S - + - R
ii * - P - + Q v R, Q v R - + S.- - P - + S
iii * (P & Q) v R -1.- R v (P & Q)
iv* (PvQ) & (- Rv - S) -I'- PvQ) & - R) v PvQ) & - S)
v* R v S -1.- - - (R v S)
vi * (P v R) & S -1.- - (P v R - + - S)
vii * P v (Q v R) -1.- - P - + Q v R
viii * - (P & Q) .- R - + - (P & Q)
ix* - P & Q) v (R & S -1.- - (P & Q) & - (R & S)
x* P v (R v S), P - + Q & R, R v S - + Q & R .- Q & R

derived rule Comment . Anysequentthatonehasprovedusingonly

the primitiverulesmay subsequentlybe usedas a
DERIVEDRULEof proofif
(i ) somesentencesappearingin the proof are the
premisesof the sequent,or
(ii ) some sentencesappearing in the proof are the
premisesof a substitutioninstanceof the sequent.

In case (i ) the conclusion of the sequent may be

assertedon the current line; in case(ii ) the conclusion
of the substitutioninstancemay be asserted .
Chapterl

Annotation : The line numbers of the premises followed

by Sf , where S# is the number
from the book, or the name of
the sequent (see comment below ) .
Assumptionset: The union of the assumption sets of
the premises.

Comment. All of the sequentsin exercise1.5.1 (SII -

552) are used so frequently as rulesof proof thatthey
have the names we have indicated. (Indeed, in some
systems of logic some of our derived rules are given as
primitive rules.)

Examples .
(a) ProveR v 5 - + T, - T ~ - R.
1 ( 1) R v 5 - + T A
2 (2) - T A
1,2 (3) - (R v 5) 1,2 M1T
1,2 (4) - R & - 5 30M
1,2 (5) - R 4 &E

(b) ProveP v R ~ ST ~ - S .- T ~ - (P v R).

1 ( 1) P v R ~ S A
2 (2) T ~ - S A
1 (3) - -
S ~ (P v R) 1Trans
1,2 -
(4) T ~ (P v R) 2,3 HS
 Chapter1

Comment. Requiring that the sequentto be used as a derived rule

hasbeenproved using only primitive rules is unnecessarilyresbic-
tive. If the sequentsare provedin a sbict order and no later sequent
in the series is used in the proof of an earlier sequent
, then no
logical errors can result. We suggestthe strongerresbiction only
becauseit is good practice to construct proofs using only the
primitive rules.

Exercise 1.5.4 Prove the following using either primitive or derived

rules from the previous exercises . If you like a
challenge , prove them again using primitive rules only .

S64 - p - + PiP
S65 PH Q -i .- - P - + Q) - + - (Q - + P
S66* P H Q -i .- P v Q - + P & Q
S67* PH Q -i .- - (P v Q) v - (- P v - Q)
S68 P H Q -i .- - (P & Q) - + - (P v Q)
S69 PH Q -i .- - (- (P & Q) & - (- P & - Q
S70 P v Q - + R & - P , Q v R, - R .- C
S71 - PHQ , P- + R, - R .- - QHR
S72 - P H - Q) H R), S - + P & (Q & T),
R v (P & S) .- S & K - + R & Q
S73* (P & Q) v (R v S) .- P & Q) v R) v S
S74 P & (~ & - R), P- +(- S - + T), - S - + (T H R v Q) .- S
S75 P & - Q - +-R, (- S - + - P) H - R .- R H Q & (P & - S)
S76* P v Q, (Q - + R) & (- P v S), Q & R - + T .- T v S
S77 P - + QVR, (~ & S) v (T- +-P), - (- R - + - P) '- - T & Q
S78* P v Q, P - + (R - + - S), (- R H T) - + - P .- S & T - + Q
S79* (PH ~ - + - R, (- P& S) v (Q& 1) , SvT - + R .- Q - + P
S80* - S v (S & R), (S - + R) - + P .- P
S81* Pv ( RVQ ) , (R- +S) & (Q- +1) , S v T - + P v Q, - P .- Q
ChapterI

S82* (P - + Q) - + R, S - + (- Q - + T) t- R v - T - + (S - + R)
S83* P & Q - + R v St - (P - + R) v (Q - + S)
S84* (P- +Q) & (R - + f ), (PvR) & - (Q&R) t- (P& Q) & - R
S85* P & Q - + (R v S) & - (R & S), R & Q - + S,
S - + R & Q) v (- R & - Q v - P t- P - + - Q
S86 - (P& --Q)v- (- R& -s), - S& --Q, T- +(- S- +- R& p) t- - T

1.6 Theorem.

theorem Definition. A THEOREM is a sentence that can be

proved from the empty set of premises.

Comment. We can assert that a given sentence is a

theorem by presenting it as the conclusion of a sequent
with nQthing to the left of the turnstile .

Example .
Provet- P& Q -+ Q & P.
1 (1) P& Q A
1 (2) Q 1 &E
1 (3) P 1 &E
1 (4) Q & P 2,3 &1
(5) P& Q -+ Q & P 4 - +1( 1)

Comment . Note that in step 5 we discharge assumption

1. Hence, the final conclusion rests on no
assumptions.
 ChapterI

Exercise 1.6.1 Provethe following theorems, (i ) using primitive rules

only and (ii ) using primitive rules together with
derivedrules establishedin a previousexercise.

Tl * t- P ~ P Identity
T2* t- P v - P ExcludedMiddle
T3 t- - (P & - P) Non-Contradiction
T4* t- P ~ (Q ~ P) Weakening
T5* t- (P ~ Q) v (Q ~ P) Paradoxof Material Implication
T6 t- P H - - P Double Negation
17 t- (PHQ ) H (QHP )
T8* t- - (PHQ ) H (- PHQ )
T9* t- P ~ Q) ~ P) ~ P Peirce's Law
TIO* t- (P ~ Q) v (Q ~ R)
Til * t- (PHQ ) H (- PH - Q)
T12
*
~ (- P ~ Q) & (R ~ Q) H (P ~ R) ~ Q
T13* ~ PH P& P & Idempotence
T14* ~ V
PH P P v Idempotence
T15 ~ (PHQ ) & (RHS ) ~ P ~ R) H (Q ~ S
T16 ~ (PHQ ) & (RHS ) ~ (P & RHQ & S)
T17* ~ (PHQ ) & (RHS ) ~ (Pv R H Q V S)
TIS ~ (PHQ ) & (RH S) ~ PHR ) H (QH S
T19* ~ (PHQ) ~ (R~ P) H (R~ Q & P~ R) H (Q ~ R
T20 .- (PHQ ) ~ (R & PHR & Q)
T21* .- (PHQ ) ~ (R V P H Rv Q)
T22 .- (PHQ ) ~ RHP ) H (RHQ
T23 .- P & (Q H R) ~ (P & Q H R)
T24 .- P~ (Q ~ R) H P~ Q) ~ (P~ R
T25 .- P ~ (Q ~ R) H Q ~ (P ~ R)
T26 '- P~ (P~ Q) HP ~ Q
T27* .- (P~ Q) ~ QH (Q ~ P) ~ P
 1
Chapter

T28 ~ P~ - QHQ ~ - P
T29 ~ - P~ PHP
T30* ~ (P& Q) v (R & S) H
P v R) & (P v S & Q v R) & (Q v S
T31* ~ (P v Q) & (R v S) H
P & R) v (P & S v Q & R) v (Q & S
T32
*
~ (P~ Q) & (R ~ S) H
- P & - R) v (- P & S v Q & - R) v (Q & S
T33 ~ (PV - P) & QHQ
T34 ~ (P& - P) VQHQ
T35 ~ P v (- P & Q) H P v Q
T36 ~ P& (- PVQ) HP & Q
T37 ~ PHPV (P& Q)
T38 ~ PHP & (PVQ )
T39 ~ (P ~ Q & R) ~ (P & Q H P & R)

theorems as Comment. We now consider a special case of the use

derived rules of sequents as derived rules. Since it is the conclusion
of a sequent without premises, a theorem or a substitution
instance of a theorem can be written as a line
of a proof with an empty assumption set. For a theorem
to be used this way , it must have been proved
already by means of primitive rules alone. The annotation
should be the name of the theorem or T# (the
theorem' s number) .
 Chapterl

Example.
ProveP ~ Q, - p ~ Q .- Q.
1 ( 1) P ~ Q A
2 (2) - p ~ Q A
(3) P v - p T2
1,2 (4) Q 1,2,3 SimDil

Comment . In the precedingexample, the annotationfor

line 3 gives the number of the theorem introduced.
Since this theorem has a name, the annotation
' ExcludedMiddle' would alsohavebeen .
acceptable

Comment. As with sequentintroductions. requiring that dleorems

first be proved using only primitive rules is unnecessarily
restrictive .

Exercise1.6.2 Using theoremsas derivedrules, attemptto construct

alternativeproofs of sequentsappearingin exercise
1.5.4.
This excerpt is provided, in screen-viewable form, for personal use only by
members of MIT CogNet.

Unauthorized use or dissemination of this information is expressly forbidden.

If you have any questions about this material, please contact

[email protected]