UNIT 2 COMPOUND STATEMENTS AND THEIR TRUTH-VALUES

Contents

2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Simple and Compound Statements
2.3 Sentential Connectives
2.4 Compound Propositions and Their Truth-Values
2.5 Other Forms of Compound Proposition
2.6 Let Us Sum Up
2.7 Key Words
2.8 Further Readings and References
2.9 Answers to Check Your Progress

2.0 OBJECTIVES

After you grasp the contents of this unit you should be in a position to:

• analyse any compound proposition to determine its truth-value.

• realise that always symbolic representation of statements helps better
understanding than verbal representation which is not only more complicated in
structure but also ambiguous.
• understand that a compound proposition may be highly complicated as far as
structure is concerned, but it does not affect the technique of determining the truth-
value.
• determine the width of spectrum of compound proposition and simple form of
compound from the complicated form of compound proposition.

2.1 INTRODUCTION

In this unit an attempt is being made to project the structure of and variety in proposition
in a new perspective. Secondly, two shades of meaning of compound proposition will be
distinguished in order to accommodate one type of statements, which looks like simple.
A clear definition of truth-function is attempted by considering two parameters
simultaneously.

2.2 SIMPLE AND COMPOUND STATEMENTS

In this unit, we consider two kinds of statements; simple and compound. This kind of
distinction is similar to grammatical distinction. However, there is a sharp difference. A
1
compound statement in grammatical sense is independent of its components as far as its
truth-value is concerned. However, in logical sense the truth or falsity of compound
proposition depends upon the truth or falsity of its components. Simple proposition does
not need any definition. It consists of only one sentence in grammatical sense.
Compound statement, on the other hand, consists of two or more than two ‘statements’.
The last word should be carefully observed. It just says ‘statements’. In other words, the
components of a compound statement may be simple or themselves compound. Though
the distinction per se is too a simple, statements may be deceptive. Consider the
following examples:
1 Grass is green.
2 Einstein is a physicist and Lorenz was his professor.
3 Descartes is a philosopher and mathematician.
It is easy to conclude that the first statement is simple and the second statement is
compound. However, we should not be hasty in judging the third proposition. It only
seems to be a simple proposition. In reality, it is a compound statement. It can be
analysed as follows: Descartes is a philosopher and Descartes is a mathematician. In the
language of predicate logic compound proposition can be understood as follows; if there
are two predicates then there are two propositions. And if there are three predicates, then
there are three propositions and so on.

2.3 SENTENTIAL CONNECTIVES

A compound proposition can be generated in several ways. Classical logic says that a
proposition is generated when subject and predicate terms are conjoined by copula.
Likewise, modern logic says that a compound proposition is generated when two or more
than two propositions are conjoined by what is known as sentential connective. There are
five types of sentential connectives and therefore, there are five types of compound
statements. ‘And’, ‘if…then’, ‘or’, ‘not’ and ‘if and only if’ (iff) are the connectives used
to conjoin the statements. While providing descriptive account, connectives are shown,
initially, in upper case letters for the sake of clarity only. Further, all letters printed in lower case
below statements symbolise respective statements.

I) AND: ‘AND’ is one type of sentential connective. When two propositions are
connected by this connective, a compound proposition is generated. This type of
compound proposition is known as ‘CONJUNCTIVE’ proposition or we simply say
‘CONJUNCTION’. Consider first simple propositions:
Water flows down hill.
The sun is bright.
It is very easy to form a conjunctive proposition; just place ‘AND’ between ‘water flows
downhill’ and ‘the sun is bright’. We get the statement

Water flows downhill AND the sun is bright.

2
 p q
When we are doing symbolic logic, we hardly construct statements with words. Nor do
we use ‘AND’ while writing a conjunctive proposition. Otherwise, it ceases to be
symbolic logic. This connective is symbolized in two ways. The old style is ‘.’ And the
present style is ‘Λ’. We will follow the latter. Now we will symbolize the proposition:

Water flows downhill: p

The sun is bright: q
The conjunction is as follows: (water flows downhill) and (the sun is bright).
p Λ q
p Λ q is the form of conjunction. When an argument is being tested propositions are
symbolised in the following manner. p is replaced by W and q is replaced by S; therefore
p Λ q is replaced by W Λ S. This change is useful when there are several statements.
This particular classification applies equally to other compound propositions, which
involve other sentential connectives.

II) IF….THEN: A compound proposition generated with this particular connective is

known as ‘IMPLICATIVE’ proposition or simply ‘IMPLICATION’. It is also called
hypothetical. The latter, usage, however, is restricted only to classical logic. In order
to obtain implicative proposition the first word ‘if’ is inserted in the very beginning
of compound proposition; ‘then’ is inserted between two components. We will
show the process of conjoining these statements with an example: ‘There is no end
to political turmoil’; ‘Economic prosperity will be badly hit’. We obtain the
following implicative proposition: ‘IF there is no end to political turmoil, THEN
economic prosperity will be badly hit.’ We shall symbolize it as follows:

7 There is no end to political turmoil: p

8 Economic prosperity will be badly hit: q
9 If p, then q.; this is the form of implicative proposition.

Replace the form by symbols for propositions. We get

If T, then E.

Now we will take second step. The connective ‘if..... then’ also is symbolized. Again
there are two ways of symbolizing the same. ‘⊃’ and ‘=>’. We shall use only the latter; p
=> q. ‘⊃’, which is read horse shoe, is not used now to show implication because this
symbol is used in set theory to show class inclusion. In order to avoid ambiguity and
confusion we represent implication with the symbol =>.

III) OR: When ‘OR’ connects two propositions we obtain DISJUNCTIVE proposition
or simply DISJUNCTION. Some authors like Cohen and Nagel preferred to call it
ALTERNATIVE proposition or simply ALTERNATION. At the outset, we should
distinguish two senses in which this connective is often used. One is called

3
 ‘inclusive’ or and the second one is called ‘exclusive’ or. The process of obtaining
disjunction is very simple. The connective ‘OR’ is placed between simple
propositions. The resultant statement is a disjunctive one. Take these statements:

10 Reason is the true friend of mankind. p

11 Treason is the worst enemy of the state. q

With these two statements we obtain the required disjunctive statement:

12 ‘Reason is the true friend of mankind OR Treason is the worst enemy of the state’.
When it is symbolized, it becomes p or q. The connective ‘OR’ is symbolized by using
the symbol ‘v’. This symbol is called Wedge. p or q becomes p v q. This particular
statement is an example for ‘inclusive’ OR. It is called inclusive because the statement
also includes third possibility. Accordingly, it can be further extended in the following
manner:

13 ‘Reason is the true friend of mankind or treason is the worst enemy of the state’ or
both.

The last word ‘both’ is the extended part of original compound statement. This is third
possibility, which cannot be logically ruled out. If third possibility is admissible in any
disjunctive proposition, then ‘OR’ becomes inclusive. There are cases when third
possibility is not admissible. Consider these two statements:

14‘Rich people are generous or greedy.’

It does not admit further extension. It does not make sense to say that

15 ‘Rich people are generous or greedy or both generous and greedy.’

Since the extended part is inadmissible in this example ‘OR’ is regarded as exclusive or.
When disjunction consists of exclusive or, the proposition is symbolized as
pvq

At this juncture a clarification is necessary. When is ‘OR’ inclusive and when is it

exclusive? There is no law of logic as such which stipulates the conditions under which
‘OR’ becomes inclusive and conditions under which ‘OR’ becomes exclusive. We have
to depend upon the ‘meaning’ of certain terms employed in the construction of
statements. Consider propositions 10 and 11. We admit that these two statements do not
exclude each other based on what these statements ‘really’ mean. However the same is
not the case with propositions 14. The terms ‘greedy’ and ‘generous’ mean so differently
that they both ‘cannot’ be the attributes of the very same class or individual. In other
words, if rich people are greedy surely some other class of people can be generous and
vice versa. Hence meaning alone can be our guide in determining whether ‘or’ is
inclusive or exclusive.

4
Generally, disjunction is expressed in terms of ‘EITHER ... OR’. There is no harm in
omitting the former. Both usages are admissible.

IV) NOT: In modern logic, when the connective NOT is appended to the given
propositions, it becomes a compound proposition. However, grammar does not
allow it. Therefore we have to treat this as a special case within the structure of
modern logic. We obtain ‘NEGATION’ when NOT is used. This is another kind of
compound proposition in strictly logical sense because the use of this word alters
the truth-value of the given proposition. The connective NOT is appended to the
given propositions in several ways. Negation may begin with expressions like “It is
NOT the case that… … …” or “it is NOT true that… … …” Consider this
example:

16 The sun rises in the east. - p

Now this statement is negated and expressed in three different ways.

17 It is NOT the case that the sun rises in the east. - NOT p
17a It is NOT true that the sun rises in the east. - NOT p
17b The sun does NOT rise in the east. - NOT p
It must be noted that all these three statements exactly mean the same and all of them
negate the statement 16. Now we will symbolize the statement, using symbol for
negation, ‘⌐’
16 p
17 ⌐ p
‘Not’ was symbolized earlier in a different way. The symbol ‘~’ was used earlier to
denote negation. This is read curl or tilde. Russell and others used this symbol.

V IF AND ONLY IF: When this connective is used we obtain ‘BICONDITION’. We will
insert this connective between two statements to obtain ‘BICONDITIONAL’ proposition.
Consider these two examples:
18 Mr. A is a bachelor. - p
19 Mr. A is an unmarried male. - q
Now connect 18 and 19 using the given connective.
Mr. A is a bachelor IF AND ONLY IF Mr. A is an unmarried male.
This connective is symbolized in this manner ‘<=>’. BICONDITIONAL proposition is
represented as follows; p <=> q. Negation (⌐) and biconditional are (p <=>q) special kinds of
compound proposition. This will become clear in the next section.

Check Your Progress I

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.

5
 b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.

1) Distinguish ‘compound’ in grammatical sense from ‘compound’ in logical sense.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………
2) Bring out the difference and similarity with respect to copula and sentential connective.
………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………..

2.4 COMPOUND PROPOSITIONS AND THEIR TRUTH-VALUES

Classical logic stipulates that any proposition is either true or false. The truth-value of a
true proposition is TRUE and the truth-value of a false proposition is FALSE. Truth-
value refers to the designating of a statement either as true or false. Likewise, any
compound proposition is either true or false. There is a technique of determining the
truth-value of compound proposition. In effect the truth-value of a compound
proposition is a function of the truth-value of its constituent or component statements.
Barring a few cases, which are exceptions, in all other cases this particular specification
applies to compound proposition. Therefore it is very important to distinguish these two
kinds of compound proposition. It is distinguished as follows: ‘A compound proposition
is said to be truth- functionally compound if and only if its truth-value is a function
of the truth-value of its components’. In other words, truth-function is a compound
statement whose truth-value is completely determined by the truth-values of its
components. Logic which deals with truth-functional compound statements is called
truth–functional logic: this is the part that we are presently studying.

The construction of truth-table (which is the list that shows the various values a truth-
function may assume) is a technique adopted in order to determine the truth-value of
compound propositions. It is interesting to learn that even when the propositions remain
the same, different types of compound propositions exhibit different truth-values because
sentential connectives change from one compound to another compound. This clearly
shows that the sentential connective plays a crucial role in determining the truth-value of
a compound proposition. Therefore the truth-value of a compound proposition is
determined by the truth-values of components and also the sentential connective used. In
order to drive home this paint, let us retain the same set of statements, which form parts
of compound proposition, but at the same time obtain different results in terms of truth-
values by using different sentential connectives.

21 The stars are self-luminous. - p

22 Glass is fragile. - q

6
Let us construct truth-tables to determine the truth-values of compound propositions (As
usual ‘1’ stands for ‘True’ and ‘0’ stands for ‘False’). Generally, no justification for
determination of truth-value is called for. They are to be treated as the truth-conditions of
respective compound propositions.

I) IMPLICATION:

An implicative proposition is false only under one circumstance, i.e., when the antecedent
is true and the consequent is false. It means that false conclusion does not follow from
true premise and under all other circumstances it is true. In the case of implication
antecedent is the premise and consequent is the conclusion. Let us illustrate it in the form
of a table.

Table1:

p q p => q

1 1 1 1
2 l 0 0
3 0 l 1
4 0 0 l

From this table one aspect becomes clear; a false premise implies any conclusion
(whether true or false). It also means that a true conclusion follows from any premise.
This is admissible because there is no necessary relation between the premise and the
conclusion as pointed out earlier. (See 1.4) Implication as understood in logic is very
different from common man’s perception. This is exactly what Russell meant when he
introduced the term ‘material implication’.

Let us consider implication in verbal form. The statement ‘If the stars are self-luminous,
then glass is fragile’ is false only when it is true that the stars are self-luminous and it is
not the case that glass is fragile; and under all other circumstances it is true. This entire
expression is hidden in Table 1. It is anybody’s guess that Table 1 is more intelligible
and understood with less effort than verbal form.

II) CONJUNCTION:

A Conjunction is true if and only if both the conjunctions are true; otherwise, it is false.
Therefore, the truth-table for conjunction is as follows:

Table: 2

7
 p q pΛq
1 1 1 1
2 1 0 0
3 0 1 0
4 0 0 0

Conjunction corresponds to a familiar algebraic rule. When two positive numbers are
added we will get sum. However, when a negative number is added to a positive number,
we are only subtracting. And addition of two negative numbers also amounts to
subtraction only. (-4+ (-4) = -8; and –8 < -4). Let us restate conjunction in verbal form:

i) The stars are self-luminous: 1

ii) Glass is fragile: 1

Conjunction:
1 The Stars are self-luminous and glass is fragile. 1
2 The Stars are self-luminous and glass is not fragile: 0
3 The Stars are not self-luminous and glass is fragile: 0
4 The Stars are not self luminous and glass not fragile: 0

III) DISJUNCTION:

A disjunction is true when at least one of the disjuncts is true. The condition of its truth-
value can also be stated in this manner. A distinction is false if and only if both the
disjuncts are false. Stated in this form, disjunction is just the inversion of conjunction.
The truth-value for disjunction is as follows.

Table: 3

p q pvq
1 1 1 1
2 1 0 1
3 0 l 1
4 0 0 0

At a later stage we will have an opportunity to understand the significance of the way in
which the truth-value conditions of disjunction and conjunction differ. For the time
being, let us consider the verbal form of disjunction.

i) The Stars are self-luminous. 1

ii) Glass is fragile. 1

8
Disjunction:
1 The stars are self-luminous or glass is fragile. 1
2 The stars are self-luminous or glass is not fragile. 1
3 The stars are not self luminous or glass is fragile. 1
4 The stars are not self luminous or glass is not fragile. 0

IV) NEGATION:

The simplest form of truth-functionally compound proposition is negation. In this case

we have only two rows because there is only one proposition whereas in all other cases
there are four rows because there are two propositions.

Table: 4

p ⌐p
1 1 0
2 0 1

If p stands for ‘The stars are self-luminous’, ⌐ p stands for ‘The stars are not self
luminous’. Therefore if ‘it is true that the stars are self-luminous’, then it is not true that
the stars are not self-luminous’. And if it is not the case that the stars are self-luminous,
then it is true that the stars are not self-luminous. Again, it is obvious that the verbal
form is more complex than the truth-table. Since negation connects one proposition only,
it is called unary whereas all other connectives are called binary since they connect two
propositions.

V) BI-CONDITION:

A biconditional proposition is true only when both the components have the same truth-
value. Otherwise, it is false. The truth-value of biconditional proposition is as follows:

Table: 5

p q p <=>q
1 1 1 1
2 1 0 0
3 0 1 0
4 0 0 1

Now let us consider verbal form for bicondition. ‘The stars are self-luminous if and only
if glass is fragile’ is true when ‘it is the case that the stars are self-luminous’ and also ‘it

9
is the case that glass is fragile’ or when ‘it is not the case that the stars are self-luminous’
and also it is not the case that glass is fragile’. Under remaining circumstances, it is false.
In such cases the verbal form is as follows:

1 The stars are not self-luminous if and only if glass is fragile.

2 The stars are self-luminous if and only if glass is not fragile.

Again, let it be made clear that whether we say it is not the case that ‘the stars are self-
luminous’ or we say that ‘the stars are not self-luminous, there is no difference in
intended meaning.

Negation and bicondition are unique for different reasons. Negation is unique because,
though in grammatical sense, the statement ‘the stars are not self-luminous’ is a simple
statement, modern logic regards it as a compound statement only because its truth-value
depends upon the inclusion or exclusion of the connective ‘not’. So what determines the
compound nature of a proposition is not really the number of statements, but it is the
truth-functional quality of proposition. In this connection it is worthwhile to refer to
exceptions mentioned in the beginning of this section. While all truth- functional
statements are compound, all compound statements are not truth- functional. In other
words, in exceptional cases, the truth-value of components does not determine the truth-
value of ‘apparent’ compound propositions. Consider these propositions, which,
obviously, have this form.
23. If there is rise in the temperature, then there is rise in mercury level.
24. If India has to win the cricket match, then the gods must be crazy.
(23) and (24) differ in structure, which we generally, do not notice easily. In order to
clearly understand the difference, let us break (23) and (24) to get their respective
components.
23a There is rise in temperature.
23b There is rise in mercury level.
24a India has to win.
24b The gods must be crazy.
(23a) and (23b) are true or false together. But the same cannot be said about (24a) and
(24b). They are, really, neither true nor false together. Therefore though (24) is a
compound sentence, it is not truth-functionally compound. Therefore what is
grammatically a compound statement may not be truth-functionally compound and vice-
versa.

Bioconditional proposition is unique for another reason. Implication does not allow
simple transposition of antecedent and consequent whereas biconditional proposition
allows only simple transposition of components. Consider p => q and q => p
respectively with the help of truth-table.

Table: 6

10
 p q p =>q q => p
1 1 1 1 1
2 1 0 0 1
3 0 1 1 0
4 0 0 1 1

From rows (2) and (3) it becomes clear that (p =>q) ≠ (q =>p). This is because the truth
of implication does not allow simple transposition. However, the case of biconditional
proposition is different. We should remember that many disputes can be settled with the
help of truth-table.

Table: 7

p q p <=>q q <=>p
1 1 1 1 1
2 1 0 0 0
3 0 1 0 0
4 0 0 1 1

From tables (6) and (7) it is clear that what allows or does not allow simple transposition
is the truth-condition only. This particular characteristic can be brought out clearly only
when bicondition is contrasted with implication.

The role played by sentential connectives in determining the truth-value of compound

propositions vis-a-vis the truth-value of the components themselves is better understood
when we compare the truth-table of all compound propositions. However, negation is not
required for this purpose, since it does not have components.

Table: 8

p q p =>q pvq pΛq p<=>q

1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 0 0 1 0 0
3 0 1 1 1 0 0
4 0 0 1 0 0 1

Assume that in all columns p is replaced by proposition 21 and q is replaced by

proposition 22. It is impossible that the truth-value of the proposition components differ
from one situation to another. The position is like this; even when the same set of
propositions with determinate truth-values form the components of various compounds
propositions, the truth-value of one compound proposition differs from the truth-value of
any other compound propositions. Before we arrive at this conclusion, we must compare

11
the truth-value of component propositions in all possible circumstance. Even if in one
circumstance there is variation in the truth-value, our stand is vindicated. For example, in
the table 8, the last two columns possess different truth-values only in the fourth row.
Therefore it is clear that in spite of the fact the same set of propositions form components
of different compound propositions, the truth-value varies from column to column
because besides components, the sentential connective also determines the truth-value of
given compound proposition. So the truth-value of a compound proposition is ‘uniquely’
determined by the truth-value of its components only with respect to that particular
compound. However, if we have to explain variation from one column to another, then
we also have to consider the role played by sentential connectives. The difference can be
aptly summarized in this way; ‘vertical variation in truth- value of a compound
proposition is a function of the truth-value of components only, whereas horizontal
variation is a function of sentential connective’ only.

2.5 OTHER FORMS OF COMPOUND PROPOSITION

In the beginning of this unit, it was mentioned that the components of a compound
propositions themselves can be compound propositions. We will consider a compound
proposition with only three propositions because then we will have eight rows and if
there are four propositions we will have sixteen rows. It is because, since any component
takes two truth-vlaues (i.e., either true or false), addition of a component would double
the number of rows: thus for one component, only two rows as in the case of negation;
for two, four rows, as we have seen in other truth table; for three, eight rows; for four,
sixteen; for five, thirty two rows, and so on. However, with three simple propositions
several compound propositions can be constructed. Therefore it will adequately serve our
purpose. The variables and statements are as follows:
25 Alcoholism is a vice . p
26 Courage is a virtue. q
27 Yoga heals diseases. r

Various compound propositions can be constructed out of these propositions. Some of

them are considered.

28 (p=>q) Λ (⌐q v r)
29 (p =>q) v (p Λ q)
30 (q v r) => p
31 (q => r) v (p Λ r)

It should not be difficult to substitute statements of p, q and r. It is left as an exercise to

the students to do the same. There is something more important to clarify.

Apart from the fact that the components of propositions 28 to 31 are themselves
compound, there are parentheses also. The significance and necessity of parentheses can
12
be easily understood, when compared with simple arithmetic. Compare these two
expressions:

i). (5+7)10 = 300

ii). 5+7 x 10 = 75

(1) is false. It is not even possible to say whether ii) is false or not. Knowing whether a
certain expression is true or false is not very significant. But arriving at a determinate
expression is significant. This is what exactly parentheses achieve when used
appropriately. If they are not used, then it will be a mistake in mathematics, language
and logic.

Let us consider statement 28 which has four connectives and therefore there are four
compound propositions. Though one truth-table is sufficient for our purpose, in order to
gain better understanding, we shall split the table:

Table: 9

p q p =>q
1 1 1 1
2 1 0 0
3 0 1 1
4 0 0 1

Table: 10

r ⌐q ⌐q v r
1 1 0 1
2 0 0 0
3 1 1 1
4 0 1 1

(r v ⌐q is the same as ⌐q v r.) To take next step let us assume that (p => q) is one
component and ⌐q v r is another component. Let us transpose columns 3 of Table 9 and
Table 10 to Table 11 to compute the result.

Table: 11

p q ⌐q r p => q ⌐q v r ( p => q ) Λ (⌐ q v r )

13
1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
3 1 0 1 l 0 1 0
4 l 0 1 0 0 1 0
5 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
6 0 l 0 0 1 0 0
7 0 0 l l 1 l l
8 0 0 1 0 l 1 l

Before closing this section one has to learn the method of constructing truth-tables; it is a very
interesting part of the study of symbolic logic. Truth-tables are constructed for truth-functions
having statement variables that are customarily counted from the middle part of the alphabet like
p, q, r, s, … Accordingly, ‘Bacon is a writer’ is a statement in English; it can be symbolized as
‘B’; it can be represented in a variable form as simply ‘p’. Before beginning the work of
constructing the truth-table we have fix the specific form of the given statement, determine the
columns under which the truth-values are to be arranged and limit the number of rows in
accordance with number of variables in the specific form of the statement. Let us work with a
compound statement: (A=>B) Λ (⌐B v C). Its specific form is (p=>q) Λ (⌐q v r)
Its truth-table is just above (no. 11).

[The students are advised to construct truth-tables for the remaining combinations, which
are relatively simple. In all cases the number of rows is 8. Since practice makes man
perfect, the students are advised to substitute statements for variables in all cases.]
Check Your Progress II

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.

1) Define truth-functional logic.

……………………………………………………………………………………
2) Distinguish between implication and bicondition.
………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………..

2.6 LET US SUM UP

Modern logic distinguishes two kinds of statements. All truth-functional propositions are
compound. ‘Grammatical’ compound is different from ‘logical’ compound. Truth-
functional compound is a function of sentential connective and truth-values of
components. Negation is the simplest (simplest in grammatical sense) form of compound.
There are five types of compound propositions, each distinguished by its own set of truth-
values. The truth-values of one compound differ from that of the others at least on one

14
occasion. Difference between implication and bicondition are notable. Components of
compound proposition can themselves be compound. To have at least one compound
within a compound, we need at least three propositions.

2.7 KEY WORDS

Ambiguity: When a word or a statement carries more than one legitimate meaning it is said to
be ambiguous.
Turmoil: Turmoil is a state or condition of extreme confusion, agitation, or commotion.
Main Connective: The connective that determines the basic form of a statement is called
main connective. For example, (A=>B) Λ (⌐B v C) is a conjunction whose left hand conjunct
is an implication and whose right hand conjunct is a disjunction.

2.8 FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

Basson, A.H. & O’connor, D.J. Introduction to Symbolic Logic. Calcutta: Oxford University
Press, 1976.
Copi, I.M. Symbolic Logic. 4th Ed. New Delhi: Collier Macmillan International, 1973.
I.M. Copi, Introduction to Logic. 9th Ed. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India, 1995.
Kalish, Donold et al. Logic.Techniques of Formal Reasoning. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1980.
Lewis, C.I. & Longford, C.H. Symbolic Logic. New York: Dover Pub. Inc.,1959.
Suppes, Patricks. Introduction to Logic. New Delhi: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1957.

2.9 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Check Your Progress I

1. A compound statement in grammatical sense is independent of its components
as far as its truth-value is concerned. However, in logical sense the truth or falsity of
compound proposition depends upon the truth or falsity of its components.

2. Both copula and sentential connective perform the function of linking two distinct
units; copula links two terms whereas sentential connective links two statements which
may be true or false. The number of sentential connectives is always one less than that of
statements. The same connective may occur more than once in the given compound
proposition. While copula does not determine the truth of combination, the latter
determines the same.

Check Your Progress II

1 Logic which deals with truth-functional compound statements is called truth–functional

logic.

15
2 Implication is false only when the antecedent is true and consequent is false and under
all other instances it is true. Bicondition is true only when both the components have the
same truth-value, i.e., both components must be true or false together.

16