Lecture 11
Truth Tables
T ruth-functional logic is an artificial logical language designed to
show us what sentences follow from what other sentences. And
as you will discover in this lecture, truth tables are amazing logical
instruments. We can use them to answer a wide range of questions
that we might have about truth-functional sentences. And the answers
they give are absolute and rigorous. With truth tables, we have an
algorithmic method for determining logical properties.
Truth Tables for Connectives
⊲⊲ Atomic sentences are basic sentences that are either true or
false, such as “The sky is blue.” Connectives are words that
connect atomic sentences together into larger, more complex
molecular sentences.
⊲⊲ Connectives are said to be truth-functional if and only if the truth-
value of the molecular sentence created using the connective
can be completely and uniquely determined knowing nothing
more than the truth-values of the constituent atomic sentences
and the definition of the connective.
⊲⊲ This is equivalent to saying that we can construct a truth table
for the connectives. A truth table contains a row for each of the
possible arrangements of truth-values for all of the constituent
atomic sentences and a listing of the resulting truth-values for
molecular sentences.
⊲⊲ It is very nice that we can define our connectives using truth
tables, but this is actually their most trivial use. We can construct
truth tables for any truth-functional sentence, and when we do,
they tell us the truth conditions for that sentence—meaning what
must be the case in the world for the sentence to be true and
what can be the case in the world that renders the sentence false.
⊲⊲ For example, consider the following sentence in our truth-
functional language: (p ∨q) &−p. The first step in constructing
a truth table is to list all of the atomic sentences in the object
sentence. For this example, it’s just p and q.
⊲⊲ Each new column must contain only what already appears in
the truth table plus one new truth-functional connective. We do
this by finding the main connective and building up the parts it
connects.
⊲⊲ In our sentence, (p ∨q) &−p, it is the conjunction that applies to
the rest of the sentence. The first conjunct is (p ∨q). It is not in the
table, but p is and q is, so by adding one new connective, ∨, we
can make it.
⊲⊲ Once one side of the conjunction is in the table, we can work on
the other side, −p, which is not in the table, but p is, so by adding
one connective, −, we can build it.
⊲⊲ We now have what is on the left side of the “and” and what is on
the right side of the “and” in our table, so we can add a column
that joins them.
⊲⊲ Then, we can add the possible combinations of truth-values for p
and q: T-T, T-F, F-T, F-F.
⊲⊲ We know that p ∨q is true when p is true, q is true, or both are
true. And −p always has the opposite truth-value of p.
Lecture 11—Truth Tables 99
⊲⊲ Finally, we can fill in the values for the last column using the
values from the second and third columns.
p q p ∨q −p (p ∨q) &−p
T T T F F
T F T F F
F T T T T
F F F T F
⊲⊲ It is p ∨q “and” −p, and we know that “and” sentences are only
true when both conjoined sentences are true. So, we see that the
only time the sentence (p ∨q) &−p is true is when p is false and
q is true.
Types of Truth-Functional Sentences
⊲⊲ By determining the truth conditions of a truth-functional sentence,
we can tell what type of sentence it is. Truth-functional sentences
come in three categories: tautologies, contradictions, and
contingencies.
⊲⊲ A tautology is a sentence that is always true. For example, “It
is raining or it is not raining.” That is a sentence that is true no
matter what the weather is doing. We can tell when a sentence is
a tautology using truth tables by looking at the column beneath it
and seeing if it is a complete line of nothing but Ts.
⊲⊲ By contrast, a contradiction is a sentence that is always false.
For example, “It is raining and it is not raining.” Because an
“and” sentence is only true when both conjoined sentences are
true and because the negation of a sentence always has the
opposite truth-value, “It is raining and it is not raining” must be
100 An Introduction to Formal Logic
false, because when one side is true, the other will be false. In a
truth table, this is seen when the column beneath the sentence is
nothing but Fs.
⊲⊲ A contingency is a sentence whose truth-value is contingent on
how the world is. Sometimes it is true; sometimes it is false. A
sentence is a contingency if it is neither a contradiction nor a
tautology—that is, if there is at least one set of truth-values for
the constituent atomic sentences that renders the sentence true
and at least one set of truth-values for the constituent atomic
sentences that renders the sentence false.
⊲⊲ The sentence we just used as an example, (p ∨q) &−p, is a
contingency because its column has at least one T and at least
one F.
Constructing Truth Tables for Multiple
Sentences
⊲⊲ We can construct truth tables for any sentence that allows us to
determine the sentence’s truth conditions, and this tells us what
type of sentence it is: tautology, contradiction, or contingency.
But we can construct truth tables that include multiple sentences
as well. This allows us to use truth tables to determine whether
certain relations between sentences hold.
⊲⊲ One such relation is truth-functional equivalence. Two truth-
functional sentences are logically equivalent if and only if they
have the same truth conditions; that is, they always have the
same truth-value—both are true or both are false—no matter the
state of the world.
⊲⊲ We test for this by constructing a truth table that includes both
sentences and see if the arrangement of Ts and Fs in the two
columns are exactly the same.
Lecture 11—Truth Tables 101
⊲⊲ Is the sentence −a &−b equivalent to −(a &b)? Using algebra,
can you distribute the negation through the sentence? We need a
truth table that includes both sentences.
⊲⊲ First, list the atomic sentences: a and b.
⊲⊲ Next, let’s build our first sentence. The main connective in −a &−b
is the conjunction. It conjoins −a with −b, neither of which is in the
table, but both of which can be made by adding one connective
to something that is already in the table.
⊲⊲ Once we have −a and −b, we can make −a &−b. That is one of
our sentences. Now, let’s build the other. The main connective
in −(a &b) is the negation. It applies to the rest of the sentence.
So, we need a &b. It isn’t in our table, but a is and b is, so we can
make it.
⊲⊲ Once we have a &b, we just negate it in the last column and we
have both sentences we are looking to compare.
⊲⊲ Next, we enter the truth-values, just like last time: T-T, T-F, F-T, F-F.
⊲⊲ Because −a is the negation of a, and −b is the negation of b, the
next two columns are as follows.
¹¹ −a: F, F, T, T.
¹¹ −b: F, T, F, T.
⊲⊲ The next column is the conjunction of the previous two. Note that
it is only true when both −a and −b are true: F, F, F, T.
⊲⊲ The next column is just the conjunction of a and b: T, F, F, F.
⊲⊲ The last column is just the negation of the values we just
determined: F, T, T, T.
102 An Introduction to Formal Logic
a b −a −b −a &−b a &b −(a &b)
T T F F F T F
T F F T F F T
F T T F F F T
F F T T T F T
⊲⊲ So, to see if the two sentences are equivalent, let’s see if they
have exactly the same arrangement of Ts and Fs beneath them.
Look at the second and third rows of −a &−b and −(a &b). They
are not equivalent.
⊲⊲ But what would happen if instead of −(a &b), we compare
−a &−b to −(a ∨b)? Let’s change the conjunction from & to ∨ in
the appropriate columns. We know what a ∨b looks like. It’s only
false when both a and b are false. And the last column is just the
negation of the one we just determined.
a b −a −b −a &−b a ∨b −(a ∨b)
T T F F F T F
T F F T F T F
F T T F F T F
F F T T T F T
⊲⊲ This time, we compare the two columns, −a &−b and −(a ∨b),
and they are exactly alike. Therefore, −a &−b is truth-functionally
equivalent to −(a ∨b).
⊲⊲ Intuitively, this makes sense. If we say, “Bob doesn’t have sugar
and Bob doesn’t have cream in his coffee,” that is synonymous to
saying, “Bob doesn’t have sugar or cream in his coffee.”
Lecture 11—Truth Tables 103
⊲⊲ This is exactly what we want. The results of truth-functional logic
match those of our natural way of reasoning, but we have a
precise method of demonstrating it.
⊲⊲ In addition to equivalence, another relation between sentences
is consistency. Two sentences are consistent if it is possible for
them both to be true at the same time—that is, if there is some
arrangement of the constituent atomic sentences such that both
sentences are rendered true. Notice that this is an incredibly weak
relation: “The sky is blue” is consistent with “I am a warthog.”
⊲⊲ We can see this using a truth table. “The sky is blue” is an atomic
sentence. Let’s use s to abbreviate it. “I am a warthog” is also
atomic, and we’ll use w for it.
⊲⊲ The truth table is trivial to set up. There are two atomic sentences,
and we put them in the table.
⊲⊲ Next, we add the truth-values.
⊲⊲ Because the first line is a case in which both sentences are true,
they are consistent. “The sky is blue” is also consistent with “I am
not a warthog.”
s w −w
⊲⊲ Next, we need an additional column for
−w. We know that −w has the opposite T T F
truth-value as w, which gives us what is
shown at right. T F T
F T F
⊲⊲ In the second row, s is true and −w is
true. So, the two are also consistent. F F T
⊲⊲ Indeed, “The sky is blue” is consistent with pretty much
everything except “The sky is not blue.”
104 An Introduction to Formal Logic
⊲⊲ To tell if two truth-functional sentences are consistent, we construct
a truth table with both of them in it and see if there is any row—we
only need one—in which both have the truth-value T.
⊲⊲ There is a third relation between sentences called implication. A
sentence S1 truth-functionally implies sentence S 2 if and only if
whenever S1 is true, S2 is also true—that is, there is no case in
which S1 is true and S 2 is false. This does not mean that they both
have all of the same truth-values—that is, equivalence. Rather, S1
implies S 2 when S1’s truth is enough to guarantee S 2’s truth.
⊲⊲ Implication is unlike equivalence and consistency in that it is not
necessarily symmetric—that is, just because S1 implies S 2 does not
mean that S 2 implies S1. Indeed, the only time we will have mutual
implication is when we have two sentences that are equivalent.
⊲⊲ For example, consider the following two sentences: “If today is
Sunday, then I’ll visit my parents, unless today is not Sunday and
I will visit my parents.” “Today is Sunday, or if I visit my parents,
then it is not Sunday.”
⊲⊲ The first sentence is composed of two atomic sentences: “Today
is Sunday” and “I will visit my parents.” Let’s use x for the first and
y for the second: “If x then y, unless it is not the case that x and
y. The comma shows us that the main connective is “unless”—
which is another way of saying “or.” So, we have the following.
¹¹ (if x, then y) ∨ (it is not the case that x and y)
⊲⊲ The first disjunct is just a conditional.
¹¹ (x → y) ∨ (it is not the case that x and y)
⊲⊲ The second disjunct is a conjunction.
¹¹ (x → y) ∨ (it is not the case that x &y)
Lecture 11—Truth Tables 105
⊲⊲ It is not the case that x is just −x. So, the first sentence is as follows.
¹¹ (x → y) ∨ (−x &y)
⊲⊲ The second sentence is “Today is Sunday, or if I visit my parents,
then it is not Sunday.” Substitute in the x and y while leaving the
logical terms in place: “x, or if y, then not x.”
⊲⊲ The main connective is the disjunction.
¹¹ x ∨ (if y then not x)
⊲⊲ The second disjunct is a conditional.
¹¹ x ∨ (y → not-x)
⊲⊲ The consequent is a negation, giving us the following.
¹¹ x ∨ (y → −x)
⊲⊲ So there are our sentences: (x → y) ∨ (−x &y) and x ∨ (y → −x).
⊲⊲ What type of sentence is each? Are they equivalent? Are they
consistent? And does either imply the other?
⊲⊲ First, we need a truth table for two atomic sentences, x and y.
⊲⊲ The first sentence has the disjunction, the “or,” as its main
connective. On the left side is x → y. The right side is −x &y. We
have y, but not −x, but we do have x, so we can make −x.
⊲⊲ Next, we can make −x &y.
⊲⊲ By adding the ∨, we can complete our first sentence:
(x → y) ∨ (−x &y).
106 An Introduction to Formal Logic
⊲⊲ In the second sentence, x ∨ (y → −x), the main connective is the
“or.” The left side is just x, which is in the table already, and the
right side is the conditional y → −x, and we already have y and −x
in the table. So, we need one more column for that, as well as a
final column for the second sentence.
⊲⊲ The next step is to add the truth-values.
⊲⊲ We know what the conditional (x → y) looks like.
⊲⊲ The fourth column is just the negation of the first.
⊲⊲ The fifth column is just the fourth conjoined with the second.
⊲⊲ The sixth column, the first sentence, is the third column “or” the
fifth column.
⊲⊲ The seventh column has the second as the antecedent and the
fourth as the consequent.
⊲⊲ The last column, the second sentence, is the first column “or” the
seventh column.
x y x y −x −x &y (x y) ∨ (−x &y) y −x x ∨ (y −x)
T T T F F T F T
T F F F F F T T
F T T T T T T T
F F T T F T T T
⊲⊲ When we look at the first sentence, we see that underneath it is
T, F, T, T.
Lecture 11—Truth Tables 107
⊲⊲ The second sentence has nothing but Ts beneath it. It is a
tautology. Those two columns are not the same, so the two
sentences are not equivalent.
⊲⊲ In the first, third, and fourth rows, both sentences have the truth-
value T; remember that we only need one, so they are consistent.
⊲⊲ Let’s think carefully about implication: Is there a case in which
the first sentence is true and the second sentence is false? No,
because the second sentence is never false.
⊲⊲ The first sentence does imply the second. Indeed, if the second
sentence is a tautology, then any sentence would imply it,
because it would be impossible for the first sentence to be true in
a case where the second sentence is false, given that the second
sentence is never false.
⊲⊲ What about the other direction? Is there a case in which the
second sentence is true and the first one is false? Yes, this occurs
in the second row. So, the second sentence does not imply the
first.
Readings
Barker, The Elements of Logic, chap. 3.
Copi, Introduction to Logic, chap. 8.
Kahane, Logic and Philosophy, chap. 2.
Questions
1.
Use a truth table to determine whether the sentence p → [q ∨ (−q → p)]
is a tautology, contradiction, or contingency.
108 An Introduction to Formal Logic
2.
Translate the following sentence, construct a truth table for it, and
determine if it is a tautology, contradiction, or contingency.
“If you get a pie, then pick up ice cream, but if you don’t get ice
cream, don’t get a pie.”
3.
Consider the following two sentences:
“I will pick up the kids from school, you will pick up the kids from
school, or we will both pick up the kids from school”
and
“If you don’t pick up the kids from school, I will.”
Are they consistent? Are they equivalent? Does one imply the other?
4.
Consider the following two sentences:
“If you are not in love, don’t get married”
and
“If you are in love, get married.”
Are they consistent? Are they equivalent? Does one imply the other?
Lecture 11—Truth Tables 109
