CSM 165: Lecture 2

Kwame Atta Gyamfi (PhD)

Dept. of Mathematics
KNUST

March 16, 2022

Summary of topics

1 Using truth tables

2 Tautology and contradiction

3 Relations between statements

4 Logical argument

5 Quantifiers
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Summary of topics

1 Using truth tables

2 Tautology and contradiction

3 Relations between statements

4 Logical argument

5 Quantifiers

1 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Warm-up question

Example
Let A = ”I like to eat apples, let B = ”I like to eat pears” and
C = ”I like to eat peaches. Translate (A ∨ B) ∧ C and
A ∨ (B ∧ C) into words.

Punctuation is another way of clearing up ambiguities.

2 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Warm-up question

Example
Let A = ”I like to eat apples, let B = ”I like to eat pears” and
C = ”I like to eat peaches. Translate (A ∨ B) ∧ C and
A ∨ (B ∧ C) into words.

Punctuation is another way of clearing up ambiguities.

2 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

More about the operators

We can form the statement P ∨ (Q → ¬P) from statements
P, Q and R.
Here ¬ takes precedence over all other four operators.
We can form a truth table for P ∨ (Q → ¬P)
P Q R ¬R Q → ¬R P ∨ (Q → ¬R)
T T T F F
T T F T T
T F T F T
T F F T T
F T T F F
F T F T T
F F T F T
F F F T T
3 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

More about the operators

We can form the statement P ∨ (Q → ¬P) from statements
P, Q and R.
Here ¬ takes precedence over all other four operators.
We can form a truth table for P ∨ (Q → ¬P)
P Q R ¬R Q → ¬R P ∨ (Q → ¬R)
T T T F F
T T F T T
T F T F T
T F F T T
F T T F F
F T F T T
F F T F T
F F F T T
3 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

More about the operators

We can form the statement P ∨ (Q → ¬P) from statements
P, Q and R.
Here ¬ takes precedence over all other four operators.
We can form a truth table for P ∨ (Q → ¬P)
P Q R ¬R Q → ¬R P ∨ (Q → ¬R)
T T T F F
T T F T T
T F T F T
T F F T T
F T T F F
F T F T T
F F T F T
F F F T T
3 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Summary of topics

1 Using truth tables

2 Tautology and contradiction

3 Relations between statements

4 Logical argument

5 Quantifiers

4 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Tautology
Defintion: Tautology
A tautology is a statement that is always true by logical
necessity.

It doesn’t matter the component statements are true or

false.
It doesn’t matter what we observe in the real world.
Example
Irene has red hair or she does not have red hair. (verify using a
truth table).

In general (with a truth table), a statement is a tautology if it is

always true regardless of whether its component statements
are true or false.
5 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Tautology
Defintion: Tautology
A tautology is a statement that is always true by logical
necessity.

It doesn’t matter the component statements are true or

false.
It doesn’t matter what we observe in the real world.
Example
Irene has red hair or she does not have red hair. (verify using a
truth table).

In general (with a truth table), a statement is a tautology if it is

always true regardless of whether its component statements
are true or false.
5 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Tautology
Defintion: Tautology
A tautology is a statement that is always true by logical
necessity.

It doesn’t matter the component statements are true or

false.
It doesn’t matter what we observe in the real world.
Example
Irene has red hair or she does not have red hair. (verify using a
truth table).

In general (with a truth table), a statement is a tautology if it is

always true regardless of whether its component statements
are true or false.
5 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Tautology
Defintion: Tautology
A tautology is a statement that is always true by logical
necessity.

It doesn’t matter the component statements are true or

false.
It doesn’t matter what we observe in the real world.
Example
Irene has red hair or she does not have red hair. (verify using a
truth table).

In general (with a truth table), a statement is a tautology if it is

always true regardless of whether its component statements
are true or false.
5 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Tautology
Defintion: Tautology
A tautology is a statement that is always true by logical
necessity.

It doesn’t matter the component statements are true or

false.
It doesn’t matter what we observe in the real world.
Example
Irene has red hair or she does not have red hair. (verify using a
truth table).

In general (with a truth table), a statement is a tautology if it is

always true regardless of whether its component statements
are true or false.
5 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Contradiction
Defintion: Contradiction
A contradiction is a statement that is always false by logical
necessity.

Example

Irene has red hair and she does not have red hair. (verify
using a truth table).

In general (with a truth table), a statement is a contradiction if it

is always false, regardless of whether the component
statements are true or false.
Example (Verifying a tautology with truth table)
Verify if the statement [(P ∧ Q) → R] → [P → (Q → R)] is a
tautology or a contradiction. 6 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Outline

1 Using truth tables

2 Tautology and contradiction

3 Relations between statements

4 Logical argument

5 Quantifiers

7 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Meta-statements

The following statements express the relationship between two

compound statements:
”If the statement ’Ethel is tall and Agnes is short’ is true,
then the statement ’Ethel is tall’ is true.”
”The statement ’Irving has brown hair or Mel has red hair’
being true is equivalent to the statement ’Mel has red hair
or Irving has brown hair’ being true.”
The above are examples of logical implication and logical
equivalence respectively. Called meta-statement.
Analogue of logical implication is conditional.
Analogue of logical equivalence is biconditional

8 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Meta-statements

The following statements express the relationship between two

compound statements:
”If the statement ’Ethel is tall and Agnes is short’ is true,
then the statement ’Ethel is tall’ is true.”
”The statement ’Irving has brown hair or Mel has red hair’
being true is equivalent to the statement ’Mel has red hair
or Irving has brown hair’ being true.”
The above are examples of logical implication and logical
equivalence respectively. Called meta-statement.
Analogue of logical implication is conditional.
Analogue of logical equivalence is biconditional

8 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Meta-statements

The following statements express the relationship between two

compound statements:
”If the statement ’Ethel is tall and Agnes is short’ is true,
then the statement ’Ethel is tall’ is true.”
”The statement ’Irving has brown hair or Mel has red hair’
being true is equivalent to the statement ’Mel has red hair
or Irving has brown hair’ being true.”
The above are examples of logical implication and logical
equivalence respectively. Called meta-statement.
Analogue of logical implication is conditional.
Analogue of logical equivalence is biconditional

8 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Meta-statements

The following statements express the relationship between two

compound statements:
”If the statement ’Ethel is tall and Agnes is short’ is true,
then the statement ’Ethel is tall’ is true.”
”The statement ’Irving has brown hair or Mel has red hair’
being true is equivalent to the statement ’Mel has red hair
or Irving has brown hair’ being true.”
The above are examples of logical implication and logical
equivalence respectively. Called meta-statement.
Analogue of logical implication is conditional.
Analogue of logical equivalence is biconditional

8 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Meta-statements

The following statements express the relationship between two

compound statements:
”If the statement ’Ethel is tall and Agnes is short’ is true,
then the statement ’Ethel is tall’ is true.”
”The statement ’Irving has brown hair or Mel has red hair’
being true is equivalent to the statement ’Mel has red hair
or Irving has brown hair’ being true.”
The above are examples of logical implication and logical
equivalence respectively. Called meta-statement.
Analogue of logical implication is conditional.
Analogue of logical equivalence is biconditional

8 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Logical implications
Definition:
We say that P logically implies Q if the statement P → Q is a
tautology. Notation: P =⇒ Q.

More formally: P implies Q if necessarily Q is true

whenever P is true.
Consider P = ”The sky is blue.” and Q = ”Grass is green”.
To have P imply Q, we need P → Q to be true under all
possible circumstances.
Logical implications are not always reversible.
One of the statements must be a compound statement.
Consider the two compound statements: ”It is not the case
that, if Susan thinks Lisa is cute then she likes Lisa” and
“Susan thinks Lisa is cute or she likes Lisa.”
9 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Logical implications
Definition:
We say that P logically implies Q if the statement P → Q is a
tautology. Notation: P =⇒ Q.

More formally: P implies Q if necessarily Q is true

whenever P is true.
Consider P = ”The sky is blue.” and Q = ”Grass is green”.
To have P imply Q, we need P → Q to be true under all
possible circumstances.
Logical implications are not always reversible.
One of the statements must be a compound statement.
Consider the two compound statements: ”It is not the case
that, if Susan thinks Lisa is cute then she likes Lisa” and
“Susan thinks Lisa is cute or she likes Lisa.”
9 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Logical implications
Definition:
We say that P logically implies Q if the statement P → Q is a
tautology. Notation: P =⇒ Q.

More formally: P implies Q if necessarily Q is true

whenever P is true.
Consider P = ”The sky is blue.” and Q = ”Grass is green”.
To have P imply Q, we need P → Q to be true under all
possible circumstances.
Logical implications are not always reversible.
One of the statements must be a compound statement.
Consider the two compound statements: ”It is not the case
that, if Susan thinks Lisa is cute then she likes Lisa” and
“Susan thinks Lisa is cute or she likes Lisa.”
9 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Logical implications
Definition:
We say that P logically implies Q if the statement P → Q is a
tautology. Notation: P =⇒ Q.

More formally: P implies Q if necessarily Q is true

whenever P is true.
Consider P = ”The sky is blue.” and Q = ”Grass is green”.
To have P imply Q, we need P → Q to be true under all
possible circumstances.
Logical implications are not always reversible.
One of the statements must be a compound statement.
Consider the two compound statements: ”It is not the case
that, if Susan thinks Lisa is cute then she likes Lisa” and
“Susan thinks Lisa is cute or she likes Lisa.”
9 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Logical implications
Definition:
We say that P logically implies Q if the statement P → Q is a
tautology. Notation: P =⇒ Q.

More formally: P implies Q if necessarily Q is true

whenever P is true.
Consider P = ”The sky is blue.” and Q = ”Grass is green”.
To have P imply Q, we need P → Q to be true under all
possible circumstances.
Logical implications are not always reversible.
One of the statements must be a compound statement.
Consider the two compound statements: ”It is not the case
that, if Susan thinks Lisa is cute then she likes Lisa” and
“Susan thinks Lisa is cute or she likes Lisa.”
9 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Logical implications
Definition:
We say that P logically implies Q if the statement P → Q is a
tautology. Notation: P =⇒ Q.

More formally: P implies Q if necessarily Q is true

whenever P is true.
Consider P = ”The sky is blue.” and Q = ”Grass is green”.
To have P imply Q, we need P → Q to be true under all
possible circumstances.
Logical implications are not always reversible.
One of the statements must be a compound statement.
Consider the two compound statements: ”It is not the case
that, if Susan thinks Lisa is cute then she likes Lisa” and
“Susan thinks Lisa is cute or she likes Lisa.”
9 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

P = It is not the case that, if Susan thinks Lisa is cute then

she likes Lisa., Q = “Susan thinks Lisa is cute or she likes
Lisa.”
Does P logically imply Q? YES!!!
The above is logical implication since ¬(P → Q) implies
P ∨ Q.
Let P, Q, R, and S be statements.
1 (P → Q) ∧ P =⇒ Q (Modus Ponens).
2 (P → Q) ∧ ¬Q =⇒ ¬P (Modus Ponens)
3 P ∧ Q =⇒ P (Simplification)
4 P =⇒ P ∨ Q (Addition)
5 (P ∨ Q) ∧ ¬Q =⇒ Q (Biconditional-conditional)
6 P ↔ Q =⇒ P → Q (Biconditional-conditional)
7 (P → Q) ∧ (Q → P) =⇒ P ↔ Q(Conditional-
Biconditional)
8 See text for more.
Exercise: Verify all the above implications.
10 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

P = It is not the case that, if Susan thinks Lisa is cute then

she likes Lisa., Q = “Susan thinks Lisa is cute or she likes
Lisa.”
Does P logically imply Q? YES!!!
The above is logical implication since ¬(P → Q) implies
P ∨ Q.
Let P, Q, R, and S be statements.
1 (P → Q) ∧ P =⇒ Q (Modus Ponens).
2 (P → Q) ∧ ¬Q =⇒ ¬P (Modus Ponens)
3 P ∧ Q =⇒ P (Simplification)
4 P =⇒ P ∨ Q (Addition)
5 (P ∨ Q) ∧ ¬Q =⇒ Q (Biconditional-conditional)
6 P ↔ Q =⇒ P → Q (Biconditional-conditional)
7 (P → Q) ∧ (Q → P) =⇒ P ↔ Q(Conditional-
Biconditional)
8 See text for more.
Exercise: Verify all the above implications.
10 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

P = It is not the case that, if Susan thinks Lisa is cute then

she likes Lisa., Q = “Susan thinks Lisa is cute or she likes
Lisa.”
Does P logically imply Q? YES!!!
The above is logical implication since ¬(P → Q) implies
P ∨ Q.
Let P, Q, R, and S be statements.
1 (P → Q) ∧ P =⇒ Q (Modus Ponens).
2 (P → Q) ∧ ¬Q =⇒ ¬P (Modus Ponens)
3 P ∧ Q =⇒ P (Simplification)
4 P =⇒ P ∨ Q (Addition)
5 (P ∨ Q) ∧ ¬Q =⇒ Q (Biconditional-conditional)
6 P ↔ Q =⇒ P → Q (Biconditional-conditional)
7 (P → Q) ∧ (Q → P) =⇒ P ↔ Q(Conditional-
Biconditional)
8 See text for more.
Exercise: Verify all the above implications.
10 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

P = It is not the case that, if Susan thinks Lisa is cute then

she likes Lisa., Q = “Susan thinks Lisa is cute or she likes
Lisa.”
Does P logically imply Q? YES!!!
The above is logical implication since ¬(P → Q) implies
P ∨ Q.
Let P, Q, R, and S be statements.
1 (P → Q) ∧ P =⇒ Q (Modus Ponens).
2 (P → Q) ∧ ¬Q =⇒ ¬P (Modus Ponens)
3 P ∧ Q =⇒ P (Simplification)
4 P =⇒ P ∨ Q (Addition)
5 (P ∨ Q) ∧ ¬Q =⇒ Q (Biconditional-conditional)
6 P ↔ Q =⇒ P → Q (Biconditional-conditional)
7 (P → Q) ∧ (Q → P) =⇒ P ↔ Q(Conditional-
Biconditional)
8 See text for more.
Exercise: Verify all the above implications.
10 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

P = It is not the case that, if Susan thinks Lisa is cute then

she likes Lisa., Q = “Susan thinks Lisa is cute or she likes
Lisa.”
Does P logically imply Q? YES!!!
The above is logical implication since ¬(P → Q) implies
P ∨ Q.
Let P, Q, R, and S be statements.
1 (P → Q) ∧ P =⇒ Q (Modus Ponens).
2 (P → Q) ∧ ¬Q =⇒ ¬P (Modus Ponens)
3 P ∧ Q =⇒ P (Simplification)
4 P =⇒ P ∨ Q (Addition)
5 (P ∨ Q) ∧ ¬Q =⇒ Q (Biconditional-conditional)
6 P ↔ Q =⇒ P → Q (Biconditional-conditional)
7 (P → Q) ∧ (Q → P) =⇒ P ↔ Q(Conditional-
Biconditional)
8 See text for more.
Exercise: Verify all the above implications.
10 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Logical equivalence

Definition:
We say that P and Q are logically equivalent to mean that
necessarily P is true iff Q is true. Notation: P ⇔ Q.

Claim
The statement ”If Fred is skilled at programming, then he is
effecient at using the Python programming language” is
logically equivalent to ”If Fred is not effecient at using the
Python programming language, then he is not skilled at
programming.”

Proof the claim with a truth table. EASY!!!

11 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Logical equivalence

Definition:
We say that P and Q are logically equivalent to mean that
necessarily P is true iff Q is true. Notation: P ⇔ Q.

Claim
The statement ”If Fred is skilled at programming, then he is
effecient at using the Python programming language” is
logically equivalent to ”If Fred is not effecient at using the
Python programming language, then he is not skilled at
programming.”

Proof the claim with a truth table. EASY!!!

11 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Logical equivalence

Definition:
We say that P and Q are logically equivalent to mean that
necessarily P is true iff Q is true. Notation: P ⇔ Q.

Claim
The statement ”If Fred is skilled at programming, then he is
effecient at using the Python programming language” is
logically equivalent to ”If Fred is not effecient at using the
Python programming language, then he is not skilled at
programming.”

Proof the claim with a truth table. EASY!!!

11 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Logical equivalence

Definition:
We say that P and Q are logically equivalent to mean that
necessarily P is true iff Q is true. Notation: P ⇔ Q.

Claim
The statement ”If Fred is skilled at programming, then he is
effecient at using the Python programming language” is
logically equivalent to ”If Fred is not effecient at using the
Python programming language, then he is not skilled at
programming.”

Proof the claim with a truth table. EASY!!!

11 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

P Q ¬Q ¬P P→Q ¬Q → ¬P (P → Q) ↔ (¬Q → ¬P)

T T
T F
F F
T F

Definition:
We say that P and Q are logically equivalent if the statement
P ↔ Q is a tautology.

Some useful logical equivalence:

1 P → Q ⇔ ¬Q → ¬P (Contrapositive)
2 ¬(P ∧ Q) ⇔ ¬P ∨ ¬Q (De Morgan’s Law)
3 ¬(P ∨ Q) ⇔ ¬P ∧ ¬Q (De Morgan’s Law)

12 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

P Q ¬Q ¬P P→Q ¬Q → ¬P (P → Q) ↔ (¬Q → ¬P)

T T
T F
F F
T F

Definition:
We say that P and Q are logically equivalent if the statement
P ↔ Q is a tautology.

Some useful logical equivalence:

1 P → Q ⇔ ¬Q → ¬P (Contrapositive)
2 ¬(P ∧ Q) ⇔ ¬P ∨ ¬Q (De Morgan’s Law)
3 ¬(P ∨ Q) ⇔ ¬P ∧ ¬Q (De Morgan’s Law)

12 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

P Q ¬Q ¬P P→Q ¬Q → ¬P (P → Q) ↔ (¬Q → ¬P)

T T
T F
F F
T F

Definition:
We say that P and Q are logically equivalent if the statement
P ↔ Q is a tautology.

Some useful logical equivalence:

1 P → Q ⇔ ¬Q → ¬P (Contrapositive)
2 ¬(P ∧ Q) ⇔ ¬P ∨ ¬Q (De Morgan’s Law)
3 ¬(P ∨ Q) ⇔ ¬P ∧ ¬Q (De Morgan’s Law)

12 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Inverse, converse, and contrapositives

Given the compound statement P → Q, we call:
Q → P the converse: of P → Q
¬P → ¬Q the inverse: of P → Q.
¬Q → ¬P the contrapositive of P → Q.
Example
Find the inverse, converse and contrapositive of the following
statement: ”If you like him, give him a hug.”

Example
Determine whether the second statement is the inverse,
converse or contrapositive of the first statement or none:
”Going to the beach is sufficient for me to have fun”; and ”Not
going to the beach is sufficient for me not to have fun.”
13 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Inverse, converse, and contrapositives

Given the compound statement P → Q, we call:
Q → P the converse: of P → Q
¬P → ¬Q the inverse: of P → Q.
¬Q → ¬P the contrapositive of P → Q.
Example
Find the inverse, converse and contrapositive of the following
statement: ”If you like him, give him a hug.”

Example
Determine whether the second statement is the inverse,
converse or contrapositive of the first statement or none:
”Going to the beach is sufficient for me to have fun”; and ”Not
going to the beach is sufficient for me not to have fun.”
13 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Inverse, converse, and contrapositives

Given the compound statement P → Q, we call:
Q → P the converse: of P → Q
¬P → ¬Q the inverse: of P → Q.
¬Q → ¬P the contrapositive of P → Q.
Example
Find the inverse, converse and contrapositive of the following
statement: ”If you like him, give him a hug.”

Example
Determine whether the second statement is the inverse,
converse or contrapositive of the first statement or none:
”Going to the beach is sufficient for me to have fun”; and ”Not
going to the beach is sufficient for me not to have fun.”
13 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Inverse, converse, and contrapositives

Given the compound statement P → Q, we call:
Q → P the converse: of P → Q
¬P → ¬Q the inverse: of P → Q.
¬Q → ¬P the contrapositive of P → Q.
Example
Find the inverse, converse and contrapositive of the following
statement: ”If you like him, give him a hug.”

Example
Determine whether the second statement is the inverse,
converse or contrapositive of the first statement or none:
”Going to the beach is sufficient for me to have fun”; and ”Not
going to the beach is sufficient for me not to have fun.”
13 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Inverse, converse, and contrapositives

Given the compound statement P → Q, we call:
Q → P the converse: of P → Q
¬P → ¬Q the inverse: of P → Q.
¬Q → ¬P the contrapositive of P → Q.
Example
Find the inverse, converse and contrapositive of the following
statement: ”If you like him, give him a hug.”

Example
Determine whether the second statement is the inverse,
converse or contrapositive of the first statement or none:
”Going to the beach is sufficient for me to have fun”; and ”Not
going to the beach is sufficient for me not to have fun.”
13 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Inverse, converse, and contrapositives

Given the compound statement P → Q, we call:
Q → P the converse: of P → Q
¬P → ¬Q the inverse: of P → Q.
¬Q → ¬P the contrapositive of P → Q.
Example
Find the inverse, converse and contrapositive of the following
statement: ”If you like him, give him a hug.”

Example
Determine whether the second statement is the inverse,
converse or contrapositive of the first statement or none:
”Going to the beach is sufficient for me to have fun”; and ”Not
going to the beach is sufficient for me not to have fun.”
13 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Outline

1 Using truth tables

2 Tautology and contradiction

3 Relations between statements

4 Logical argument

5 Quantifiers

14 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Valid arguments
Example (Argument)
If a Tesla car is cheap or is energy efficient, then it will not make
money for the manufaturer. If the Tesla car is painted black,
then it will make money for the manufacturer. The car is cheap.
Therefore the Tesla car is not painted black.

An argument is a collection of statements that are broken

up into premises and a conclusion.
An argument is valid if the conclusion necessarily follows
from the premise.
Examples in mathematics examples of arguments are: a
statement of corollary, propositions, lemma, theorems, etc.
Let C = Tesla car is cheap, E = Tesla car is energy
efficient, M = Tesla makes money for manufacturer, B =
Tesla is black. 15 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Valid arguments
Example (Argument)
If a Tesla car is cheap or is energy efficient, then it will not make
money for the manufaturer. If the Tesla car is painted black,
then it will make money for the manufacturer. The car is cheap.
Therefore the Tesla car is not painted black.

An argument is a collection of statements that are broken

up into premises and a conclusion.
An argument is valid if the conclusion necessarily follows
from the premise.
Examples in mathematics examples of arguments are: a
statement of corollary, propositions, lemma, theorems, etc.
Let C = Tesla car is cheap, E = Tesla car is energy
efficient, M = Tesla makes money for manufacturer, B =
Tesla is black. 15 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Valid arguments
Example (Argument)
If a Tesla car is cheap or is energy efficient, then it will not make
money for the manufaturer. If the Tesla car is painted black,
then it will make money for the manufacturer. The car is cheap.
Therefore the Tesla car is not painted black.

An argument is a collection of statements that are broken

up into premises and a conclusion.
An argument is valid if the conclusion necessarily follows
from the premise.
Examples in mathematics examples of arguments are: a
statement of corollary, propositions, lemma, theorems, etc.
Let C = Tesla car is cheap, E = Tesla car is energy
efficient, M = Tesla makes money for manufacturer, B =
Tesla is black. 15 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Valid arguments
Example (Argument)
If a Tesla car is cheap or is energy efficient, then it will not make
money for the manufaturer. If the Tesla car is painted black,
then it will make money for the manufacturer. The car is cheap.
Therefore the Tesla car is not painted black.

An argument is a collection of statements that are broken

up into premises and a conclusion.
An argument is valid if the conclusion necessarily follows
from the premise.
Examples in mathematics examples of arguments are: a
statement of corollary, propositions, lemma, theorems, etc.
Let C = Tesla car is cheap, E = Tesla car is energy
efficient, M = Tesla makes money for manufacturer, B =
Tesla is black. 15 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Arguments
(C ∨ E) → ¬M Alternatively:
B→M [(C ∨ E) → ¬M] ∧ [B → M] ∧ C =⇒ ¬B.
C
¬B,
The above statement is valid if the conditional
[(C ∨ E) → ¬M] ∧ [B → M] ∧ C → ¬B is a tautology.
Some terms and meaning

1 Rules of inference: They are standard simple implications

which can be used as building blocks to prove the validity
of complicated implications.
2 Derivation: A chain of statements connected by
meta-statements.
3 An argument with a derivation is said to be derivable.
16 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Arguments
(C ∨ E) → ¬M Alternatively:
B→M [(C ∨ E) → ¬M] ∧ [B → M] ∧ C =⇒ ¬B.
C
¬B,
The above statement is valid if the conditional
[(C ∨ E) → ¬M] ∧ [B → M] ∧ C → ¬B is a tautology.
Some terms and meaning

1 Rules of inference: They are standard simple implications

which can be used as building blocks to prove the validity
of complicated implications.
2 Derivation: A chain of statements connected by
meta-statements.
3 An argument with a derivation is said to be derivable.
16 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Arguments
(C ∨ E) → ¬M Alternatively:
B→M [(C ∨ E) → ¬M] ∧ [B → M] ∧ C =⇒ ¬B.
C
¬B,
The above statement is valid if the conditional
[(C ∨ E) → ¬M] ∧ [B → M] ∧ C → ¬B is a tautology.
Some terms and meaning

1 Rules of inference: They are standard simple implications

which can be used as building blocks to prove the validity
of complicated implications.
2 Derivation: A chain of statements connected by
meta-statements.
3 An argument with a derivation is said to be derivable.
16 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Arguments
(C ∨ E) → ¬M Alternatively:
B→M [(C ∨ E) → ¬M] ∧ [B → M] ∧ C =⇒ ¬B.
C
¬B,
The above statement is valid if the conditional
[(C ∨ E) → ¬M] ∧ [B → M] ∧ C → ¬B is a tautology.
Some terms and meaning

1 Rules of inference: They are standard simple implications

which can be used as building blocks to prove the validity
of complicated implications.
2 Derivation: A chain of statements connected by
meta-statements.
3 An argument with a derivation is said to be derivable.
16 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Arguments
(C ∨ E) → ¬M Alternatively:
B→M [(C ∨ E) → ¬M] ∧ [B → M] ∧ C =⇒ ¬B.
C
¬B,
The above statement is valid if the conditional
[(C ∨ E) → ¬M] ∧ [B → M] ∧ C → ¬B is a tautology.
Some terms and meaning

1 Rules of inference: They are standard simple implications

which can be used as building blocks to prove the validity
of complicated implications.
2 Derivation: A chain of statements connected by
meta-statements.
3 An argument with a derivation is said to be derivable.
16 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Arguments
(C ∨ E) → ¬M Alternatively:
B→M [(C ∨ E) → ¬M] ∧ [B → M] ∧ C =⇒ ¬B.
C
¬B,
The above statement is valid if the conditional
[(C ∨ E) → ¬M] ∧ [B → M] ∧ C → ¬B is a tautology.
Some terms and meaning

1 Rules of inference: They are standard simple implications

which can be used as building blocks to prove the validity
of complicated implications.
2 Derivation: A chain of statements connected by
meta-statements.
3 An argument with a derivation is said to be derivable.
16 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Outline

1 Using truth tables

2 Tautology and contradiction

3 Relations between statements

4 Logical argument

5 Quantifiers

17 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Quantifiers
The following statements are not complete.
1 If x ≥ 2 then x 3 ≥ 8.
2 If w = 3, then z w ̸= 0.
Any type of logic with quantifiers is called Predicate logic.

proposition logic Predicate logic

1 Some people in this class 1 There exists a person in this

have red eyes. room who has red eyes.
2 All cats like to chase all 2 For each cat x, and each
mice. mouse y , cat x likes to chase
3 Every person has a mouse y .
mother. 3 For each person A, there
exists a woman B such that B
is the mother of A.
18 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Quantifiers
The following statements are not complete.
1 If x ≥ 2 then x 3 ≥ 8.
2 If w = 3, then z w ̸= 0.
Any type of logic with quantifiers is called Predicate logic.

proposition logic Predicate logic

1 Some people in this class 1 There exists a person in this

have red eyes. room who has red eyes.
2 All cats like to chase all 2 For each cat x, and each
mice. mouse y , cat x likes to chase
3 Every person has a mouse y .
mother. 3 For each person A, there
exists a woman B such that B
is the mother of A.
18 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Quantifiers
The following statements are not complete.
1 If x ≥ 2 then x 3 ≥ 8.
2 If w = 3, then z w ̸= 0.
Any type of logic with quantifiers is called Predicate logic.

proposition logic Predicate logic

1 Some people in this class 1 There exists a person in this

have red eyes. room who has red eyes.
2 All cats like to chase all 2 For each cat x, and each
mice. mouse y , cat x likes to chase
3 Every person has a mouse y .
mother. 3 For each person A, there
exists a woman B such that B
is the mother of A.
18 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Definition of terms

Let P(x) and Q(x, y ) be two expressions,

A variable x is called a free variable of expression P(x) if
the set of possible values are is limited (or specified).
A variable x is called a bound variable of expression
P(x) if the set of possible values is limited (or specified).
P(x, y ) = ”x + y > 0.” Here x, y are free variables.
Q(y ) = ”For all positive real numbers x, the inequality
x + y > 0 holds.” Here y is a free variable and x is a bound
variable.
P = ”For all positive real numbers x and all real numbers
y, the inequality x + y > 0 holds.”
An expression with a free variable is not a statement.

19 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Definition of terms

Let P(x) and Q(x, y ) be two expressions,

A variable x is called a free variable of expression P(x) if
the set of possible values are is limited (or specified).
A variable x is called a bound variable of expression
P(x) if the set of possible values is limited (or specified).
P(x, y ) = ”x + y > 0.” Here x, y are free variables.
Q(y ) = ”For all positive real numbers x, the inequality
x + y > 0 holds.” Here y is a free variable and x is a bound
variable.
P = ”For all positive real numbers x and all real numbers
y, the inequality x + y > 0 holds.”
An expression with a free variable is not a statement.

19 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Definition of terms

Let P(x) and Q(x, y ) be two expressions,

A variable x is called a free variable of expression P(x) if
the set of possible values are is limited (or specified).
A variable x is called a bound variable of expression
P(x) if the set of possible values is limited (or specified).
P(x, y ) = ”x + y > 0.” Here x, y are free variables.
Q(y ) = ”For all positive real numbers x, the inequality
x + y > 0 holds.” Here y is a free variable and x is a bound
variable.
P = ”For all positive real numbers x and all real numbers
y, the inequality x + y > 0 holds.”
An expression with a free variable is not a statement.

19 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Definition of terms

Let P(x) and Q(x, y ) be two expressions,

A variable x is called a free variable of expression P(x) if
the set of possible values are is limited (or specified).
A variable x is called a bound variable of expression
P(x) if the set of possible values is limited (or specified).
P(x, y ) = ”x + y > 0.” Here x, y are free variables.
Q(y ) = ”For all positive real numbers x, the inequality
x + y > 0 holds.” Here y is a free variable and x is a bound
variable.
P = ”For all positive real numbers x and all real numbers
y, the inequality x + y > 0 holds.”
An expression with a free variable is not a statement.

19 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Definition of terms

Let P(x) and Q(x, y ) be two expressions,

A variable x is called a free variable of expression P(x) if
the set of possible values are is limited (or specified).
A variable x is called a bound variable of expression
P(x) if the set of possible values is limited (or specified).
P(x, y ) = ”x + y > 0.” Here x, y are free variables.
Q(y ) = ”For all positive real numbers x, the inequality
x + y > 0 holds.” Here y is a free variable and x is a bound
variable.
P = ”For all positive real numbers x and all real numbers
y, the inequality x + y > 0 holds.”
An expression with a free variable is not a statement.

19 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Definition of terms

Let P(x) and Q(x, y ) be two expressions,

A variable x is called a free variable of expression P(x) if
the set of possible values are is limited (or specified).
A variable x is called a bound variable of expression
P(x) if the set of possible values is limited (or specified).
P(x, y ) = ”x + y > 0.” Here x, y are free variables.
Q(y ) = ”For all positive real numbers x, the inequality
x + y > 0 holds.” Here y is a free variable and x is a bound
variable.
P = ”For all positive real numbers x and all real numbers
y, the inequality x + y > 0 holds.”
An expression with a free variable is not a statement.

19 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Definition of terms

Let P(x) and Q(x, y ) be two expressions,

A variable x is called a free variable of expression P(x) if
the set of possible values are is limited (or specified).
A variable x is called a bound variable of expression
P(x) if the set of possible values is limited (or specified).
P(x, y ) = ”x + y > 0.” Here x, y are free variables.
Q(y ) = ”For all positive real numbers x, the inequality
x + y > 0 holds.” Here y is a free variable and x is a bound
variable.
P = ”For all positive real numbers x and all real numbers
y, the inequality x + y > 0 holds.”
An expression with a free variable is not a statement.

19 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Universal quantifier

Let P(x) be an expression with a free variable x. Let U be the

collection of all possible values of x.
Definition (Universal quantifier)
A universal quantifier applied to P(x) is the statement,
denoted (∀x in U)P(x), which is true for all possible value x in
U.
Statements with the universal quantifiers can also be stated as:
For all values of x in U, the statement P(x) is true.
For each x in U, the statement P(x) is true;
The statement P(x) is true for all x in U.
All values of x in U satisfy the P(x).

20 / 21
Using truth tables Tautology and contradiction Relations between statements Logical argument Quantifiers

Existential quantifier
Let P(x) be an expression with a free variable x.
Let U be the collection of all possible values of x.

Definition (Existential quantifier)

A existential quantifier applied to P(x) is the statement,
denoted (∃x in U)P(x), which is true for at least one of x in U.

Different ways of saying

There exists some x in U such that P(x) holds;
There is x in U such that P(x) holds;
There exists at least one x in U such that P(x) holds;
For some value of x in U, the condition P(x) holds;
It is the case that P(x) is true for some x in U.
21 / 21