Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science

Lecture Outline
August 28, 2018

Introduction to Logic
A proposition is a statement that is either true or false. For example, “2 + 2 = 4” and
“Donald Knuth is a faculty at Rutgers-Camden” are propositions, whereas “What time is
it?”, x2 < x + 40 are not propositions.

We can construct compound propositions from simpler propositions by using some of the
following connectives. Let p and q be arbitrary propositions.

Negation: p̃ (read as “not p”) is the proposition that is true when p is false and vice-versa.

Conjunction: p ∧ q (read as “p and q”) is the proposition that is true when both p and q
are true.

Disjunction: p ∨ q (read as “p or q”) is the proposition that is true when at least one of
p or q is true.

Exclusive Or: p ⊕ q (read as “p exclusive-or q”) is the proposition that is true when
exactly one of p and q is true is false otherwise.

Implication: p → q (read as “p implies q”) is the proposition that is false when p is true
and q is false and is true otherwise.

The implication q → p is called the converse of the implication p → q. The implication

¬p → ¬q is called the inverse of p → q. The implication ¬q → ¬p is the contrapositive of
p → q. p only if q means “if not q then not p”, or equivalently if p then q.

Biconditional: p ↔ q (read as “p if, and only if, q”) is the proposition that is true if p and q
have the same truth values and is false otherwise. “If and only if” is often abbreviated as iff.

The following truth table makes the above definitions precise.

p q ¬p p∧q p∨q p⊕q p→q q→p p↔q

T T F T T F T T T
T F F F T T F T F
F T T F T T T F F
F F T F F F T T T

Necessary and Sufficient Conditions: For propositions p and q,

2 Lecture Outline August 28, 2018

p is a sufficient condition for q means that p → q.

p is a necessary condition for q means that ¬p → ¬q, or equivalently q → p.
Why is p ∧ q not the correct answer?

Thus p is a necessary and sufficient condition for q means “p iff q”.

Logical Equivalence
Two compound propositions are logically equivalent if they always have the same truth
value. Two statement p and q can be proved to be logically equivalent either with the aid
of truth tables or using a sequence of previously derived logically equivalent statements.

Example. Show that p → q ≡ ¬p ∨ q ≡ ¬q → ¬p.

Solution. The truth table below proves the above equivalence.

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

Example. Show that p ≡ ¬p → C and p → q ≡ (p ∧ ¬q) → C.

p q ¬p ¬q p→q p ∧ ¬q C ¬p → C (p ∧ ¬q) → C
T T F F T F F T T
T F F T F T F T F
F T T F T F F F T
F F T T T F F F T

The above equivalence forms the basis of proofs by contradiction.

The logic of Quantified Statements

Consider the statement x < 15. We can denote such a statement by P (x), where P denotes
the predicate “is less than 15” and x is the variable. This statement P (x) becomes a
proposition when x is assigned a value. In the above example, P (8) is true while P (18) is
false.
Another way to convert the statement P (x) into a proposition is through quantifica-
tion. The two types of quantification that we will study are universal quantification and
existential quantification. Using universal quantifier ∀ (“for all”) alongside P (x) means
that the statement P (x) is true for all elements in the domain of x. Thus the proposition
∀x ∈ D, P (x) is true when P (x) is true for all x ∈ D and is false if there is an element
August 28, 2018 Lecture Outline 3

x0 ∈ D for which P (x0 ) is false. Using existential quantifier ∃ (“there exists”) alongside
P (x) means that there exists an element in the domain of x for which P (x) is true. Thus
the proposition ∃x ∈ D, P (x) is true if there is an x0 ∈ D for which P (x0 ) is true and is
false if P (x) is false for all x ∈ D.
Examples of propositions using quatifiers are as follows.
1. ∀x ∈ Z, x3 + 1 is composite.
2. ∀x ∈ Z, x is even → x + 1 is odd.
3. ∃x ∈ N, x2 6> x.
4. ∃x ∈ Z, 2|x and 2|x + 1.
5. ∀x ∈ Z ∃y ∈ Z, x + y = 0.
6. ∃x ∈ Z ∀y ∈ Z, x > y.
Sometimes it helps (in proofs) to consider the negation of a proposition. Verify the following
equivalence.

¬(∀x ∈ D, P (x)) ≡ ∃x ∈ D, ¬P (x)

¬(∃x ∈ D, P (x)) ≡ ∀x ∈ D, ¬P (x)

Proofs
We will illustrate some proof techniques by proving some properties about numbers. Before
we do that let’s go through some basic definitions given below.

An integer n is even iff n = 2k for some integer k. An integer is odd iff n = 2k + 1 for some
integer k. Symbolically,

n is even ↔ ∃ an integer k s.t. n = 2k

n is odd ↔ ∃ an integer k s.t. n = 2k + 1

An integer n is prime iff n > 1 and for all positive integers r and s, if n = r · s, then r = 1
or s = 1. Otherwise n is composite.

Given any real number x, the floor of x, denoted by bxc, is defined as follows

bxc = n ↔ n ≤ x < n + 1, where n is an integer

Given any real number x, the ceiling of x, denoted by dxe, is defined as follows

dxe = n ↔ n − 1 < x ≤ n, where n is an integer

A real number is rational iff it can be expressed as a ratio of two integers with a non-zero
denominator. A real number that is not rational is irrational. More formally,

r is rational ↔ ∃ integers a and b such that r = a/b and b 6= 0.

4 Lecture Outline August 28, 2018

Example. Prove the following: If the sum of two integers is even then so is their difference.

Solution. Let m and n be particular but arbitrarily chosen integers such that m + n is
even. By definition of even, we have m + n = 2k, for some integer k. Then

m = 2k − n

Now m − n can be written as follows.

m − n = 2k − n − n
= 2(k − n)

Since k and n are integers, k − n is an integer, 2(k − n) is even and hence m − n is even.

Example. Prove that, for all integers n, if n is odd then n2 + n + 1 is odd.

Solution. Since n is odd n = 2k + 1 for some integer k. Then,

n2 + n + 1 = (2k + 1)2 + 2k + 1 + 1
= 4k 2 + 4k + 1 + 2k + 2
= 4k 2 + 6k + 2 + 1
= 2(2k 2 + 3k + 1) + 1

Since k is an integer, p = 2k 2 +3k+1 is an integer and n2 +n+1 is odd, since n2 +n+1 = 2p+1
where p is an integer.

Example. Let x be an integer. If x > 1, then x3 + 1 is composite.

Solution. Let x be an arbitrary but specific integer such that x > 1. We can rewrite
x3 + 1 as (x + 1)(x2 − x + 1). Note that since x is an integer both (x + 1) and (x2 − x + 1)
are integers. Hence (x + 1)|x3 + 1 and (x2 − x + 1)|x3 + 1. We now need to show that
x + 1 > 1 and x2 − x + 1 > 1. Since x > 1, clearly, x + 1 > 1. x2 − x + 1 > 1 by the
following reasoning.

x > 1
x2 > x (Multiplying both sides by x.)
2
x −x > 0 (Subtracting both sides by x.)
2
x −x+1 > 1 (Adding 1 to both sides.)

We can also argue that x2 − x + 1 > 1 by showing that x + 1 < x3 + 1. Since x > 1 we have
x2 > x and hence x2 > 1. Multiplying both sides by x again we get x3 > x. This means
that x + 1 < x3 + 1 and since (x + 1)|x3 + 1, we conclude that x3 + 1 is composite.

Note: One student asked the question that why can’t we write x3 + 1 as x3 (1 + x13 ). The
reason is that for an integer x > 1, (1 + x13 ) is not an integer and the proof breaks down.