MH1812 Tutorial

Chapter 2: Propositional Logic

Q1: Decide whether the following statements are propositions. Justify your answer.

1. 2 + 2 = 5.
Solution: Yes, because this statement always takes the truth value “false”.
2. 2 + 2 = 4.
Solution: Yes, because this statement always takes the truth value “true”.
3. x = 3.
Solution: No, because this statement can be “true” when x is 3 and “false” when
x is not 3.
4. Every week has a Sunday.
Solution: Yes, because this statement always takes the truth value “true”.
5. Have you read “Catch 22”?
Solution: No, because the truth value depends on who is answering the question.

Q2: Show the second law of de Morgan:

¬(p ∨ q) ≡ ¬p ∧ ¬q.

Solution: We show the equivalence using truth tables:

p q ¬p ¬q ¬p ∧ ¬q p q p∨q ¬(p ∨ q)
T T F F F T T T F
T F F T F T F T F
F T T F F F T T F
F F T T T F F F T
Since both truth tables are the same, the two logical expressions are equivalent.

Q3: Show that second absorption law p ∧ (p ∨ q) ≡ p holds.

Solution: We show the equivalence using a truth table:

1
 p q p∨q p ∧ (p ∨ q)
T T T T
T F T T
F T T F
F F F F

Since the columns of p and p ∧ (p ∨ q) are identical, so these two logical expressions are
equivalent.

Q4: These two laws are called distributivity laws. Show that they hold:

1. Show that (p ∧ q) ∨ r ≡ (p ∨ r) ∧ (q ∨ r).

Solution:
p q r p∧q (p ∧ q) ∨ r p∨r q∨r (p ∨ r) ∧ (q ∨ r)
T T T T T T T T
T T F T T T T T
T F T F T T T T
T F F F F T F F
F T T F T T T T
F T F F F F T F
F F T F T T T T
F F F F F F F F

2. Show that (p ∨ q) ∧ r ≡ (p ∧ r) ∨ (q ∧ r).

Solution:
p q r p∨q (p ∨ q) ∧ r p∧r q∧r (p ∧ r) ∨ (q ∧ r)
T T T T T T T T
T T F T F F F F
T F T T T T F T
T F F T F F F F
F T T T T F T T
F T F T F F F F
F F T F F F F F
F F F F F F F F

Q5: Verify ¬(p ∨ ¬q) ∨ (¬p ∧ ¬q) ≡ ¬p by

ˆ constructing a truth table,

Solution:

2
 p q ¬p ¬q p ∨ ¬q ¬(p ∨ ¬q) ¬p ∧ ¬q ¬(p ∨ ¬q) ∨ (¬p ∧ ¬q)
T T F F T F F F
T F F T T F F F
F T T F F T F T
F F T T T F T T

ˆ developing a series of logical equivalences.

Solution:

¬(p ∨ ¬q) ∨ (¬p ∧ ¬q) ≡ (¬p ∧ q) ∨ (¬p ∧ ¬q) (de Morgan)

≡ ¬p ∧ (q ∨ ¬q) (distributivity)
≡ ¬p ∧ T (since (q ∨ ¬q) ≡ T )
≡ ¬p.

Q6: Using a truth table, show that:

¬q → ¬p ≡ p → q.

Solution:

p q ¬p ¬q ¬q → ¬p p→q
T T F F T T
T F F T F F
F T T F T T
F F T T T T

Q7: Show that p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r) ∧ (q → r).

Solution:

p ∨ q → r ≡ (p ∨ q) → r (precedence)
≡ ¬(p ∨ q) ∨ r (conversion theorem)
≡ (¬p ∧ ¬q) ∨ r (de Morgan)
≡ (¬p ∨ r) ∧ (¬q ∨ r) (distributivity)
≡ (p → r) ∧ (q → r) (conversion theorem)

Q8: Are (p → q) ∨ (q → r) and p → r equivalent statements?

Solution: They are not equivalent. Here is a proof using truth table:

3
 p q r p→q q→r (p → q) ∨ (q → r) p→r
T T T T T T T
T T F T F T F
T F T F T T T
T F F F T T F
F T T T T T T
F T F T F T T
F F T T T T T
F F F T T T T

We can see that the second row are giving different truth values, for example.
This can be done using equivalences as well:

(p → q) ∨ (q → r) ≡ (¬p ∨ q) ∨ (¬q ∨ r) (conversion theorem)

≡ ¬p ∨ r ∨ T (since ¬q ∨ q ≡ T )
≡T

Since p → r is not equivalent to T , both statements cannot be equivalent.

Q9: Show that this argument is valid:

¬p → F ;
∴ p.

Solution: The premise is ¬p → F ≡ p ∨ F , which is true only when p is true.

Q10: Show that this argument is valid, where C denotes a contradiction.

¬p → C;
∴ p.

Solution: The premise is ¬p → C ≡ p ∨ C, which is true only when p is true.

Q11: Determine whether the following argument is valid:

¬p → r ∧ ¬s;
t → s;
u → ¬p;
¬w;
u ∨ w;
∴ t → w.

Solution: Reasoning in the succinct form:

4
 Step Formula Reason
(1) u∨w Premise
(2) ¬w Premise
(3) u (1) + (2), disjunctive syllogism
(4) u → ¬p Premise
(5) ¬p (3) + (4), modus ponens
(6) ¬p → r ∧ ¬s Premise
(7) r ∧ ¬s (5) + (6), modus ponens
(8) ¬s (7), conjunction simplification
(9) t→s Premise
(10) ¬t (8) + (9), modus tollens
(11) ¬t ∨ w (10), disjunctive addition
(12) t→w equivalent form of (11)
Alternatively, one can write the above reasoning in a verbose form as follows.
We start by noticing that we have by disjunctive syllogism that
u ∨ w; ¬w; ∴ u.
Next, by modus ponens,
u → ¬p; u; ∴ ¬p.
Again by modus ponens,
¬p → r ∧ ¬s; ¬p; ∴ r ∧ ¬s,
Then by conjunction simplification,
r ∧ ¬s; ∴ ¬s.
Finally, by modus tollens,
t → s; ¬s; ∴ ¬t
It follows by disjunctive addition that
¬t; ∴ ¬t ∨ w
or, equivalently,
¬t ∨ w ≡ t → w
using the Conversion theorem, which shows that the argument is valid.
Q12: Determine whether the following argument is valid:
p;
p ∨ q;
q → (r → s);
t → r;
∴ ¬s → ¬t.

5
Solution: For this question, there is no obvious way to combine the known statements
with inference rules. The only 2 related statements are p and p ∨ q, and assuming
that both are true, all can be deduced is that q is either true or false (this gives no
information about q at all). Now if q is false, q → (r → s) is always true, while if
q is true, q → (r → s) is true only if (r → s) is true, which excludes the possibility
r = T and s = F . Now we look at the last premise t → r. For it to be true, we need
t false, or t true and r true. If s is true, then ¬s is always false, and the conclusion is
always true. We thus focus on s is false, and ¬t is false, that is t is true. So we have a
counter-example (which makes all premises true and conclusion false):

q = F, r = T, s = F, t = T.

One can also draw the truth table and find a counterexample from the critical rows.