Lecture 7

Propositional Logic Part 2

UGED1111D/E LOGIC 2020/21 SUMMER TERM
DR. ARTHUR CHIN

1
Overview
How will PL help determine validity of arguments in natural
language?
❑Step 1: Formalize (形式化) natural language arguments into PL
sequents

❑Step 2: Assess PL sequents by

➢Method of Full Truth Table (完整真值表法)
➢Indirect Method (間接法)

2
Formalizing Natural Language Argument into PL
Sequents

3
Formalization
• Connectives that can be formalized by • Connectives that can be formalized by
“→” other than “If…then…”: “↔” other than “if and only if”:
P on condition/given that Q (Q→P) P is sufficient and (P ↔ Q)
necessary for Q
Unless (除非) P, Q P when and only (P ↔ Q)
when Q
P only if (只有當) Q

P is sufficient for Q (P→Q)

P is necessary for Q
P is sufficient and necessary for
Q
4
Formalizing Natural Language Connectives
• Connectives that can be formalized by • Connectives that can be formalized by
“v” other than “or”: “&” other than “and”:
Unless P, Q. (P v Q) P as well as Q. (P & Q)
P but Q. (P & Q)
Although P, Q. (P & Q)
• Beware of ambiguity of “or” P nevertheless Q. (P & Q)
P also Q. (P & Q)

• How should this be formalized?: “Peter

and Mary are spouses.”
• Class Exercise Q1 (UReply) and 2(a)-(i)
5
Formalization Argument in Natural Language
• Step 1: State clearly the translation Example
scheme (翻譯架式), using P1: If Peter doesn’t pay attention in Logic class,
propositional letters to replace simple then he will live a miserable life.
statements P2: Peter doesn’t pay attention in Logic class.
C: Peter will live a miserable life.
• Step 2: Translate the natural language
premises and conclusion into PL WFFs Translation scheme
P: Peter pays attention in Logic class.
Q: Peter will live a miserable life.
• Step 3: Write down the PL sequent
with “/” between premises and “//”
between final premise and conclusion PL sequent: (~P→Q) / ~P // Q

6
Testing Validity of PL Sequents: Method of Full
Truth Table

7
Method of Full Truth Table
Supposing there is a PL sequent:
1) Draw the truth tables for all premises and conclusion
2) Check if there is any assignment in which (a) all premises are true,
and (b) conclusion is false
❑If yes, sequent is invalid
❑If no, sequent is valid

8
Truth Table Method: Example
• “If this course is interesting, then its P Q (P→Q) ~Q ~P
attendance rate is >80%. Since its T T T F F
attendance rate is not >80%, it is certainly T F F T F
not an interesting course.” F T T F T
F F T T T
• Translation scheme
P: This course is interesting.
No assignment in which both
Q: The attendance rate of this course is
>80%. premises are T while conclusion is F.
∴ Sequent VALID
• PL sequent: (P→Q) / ~Q // ~P

9
Truth Table Method: Example
• 如果甲是愛國的，他唱國歌時會情緒激 P Q R (P→Q) (Q→R) (R→P)
動。如果甲唱國歌時情緒激動，他當時 T T T T T T
會流淚。所以如果甲唱國歌時流淚，他
是一名愛國分子。 T T F T F T
T F T F T T
P: 甲是愛國的。 T F F F T T
Q: 甲唱國歌時會情緒激動。 F T T T T F
R: 甲唱國歌時會流淚。 F T F T F T
F F T T T F
F F F T T T
• (P→Q) / (Q→R) // (R→P)
• Class Exercise Q3(b)
10
Testing Validity of PL Sequents: Indirect
Method

11
Idea of Indirect Method
• Is it really logically impossible for (i) all P to be true AND (ii) C to be
false at the same time?

• Arg 1 Arg 2
P1: This is a square. P1: This figure has 4 sides.
C: This figure has 4 sides. C: This is a square.

12
Technique of Indirect Method
• Reasoning backwards from the truth Example 2
value of a WFF to derive the truth
1: Given (P ↔ Q) 2: Infer (P ↔ Q)
values of its components
F

Example 1
Example 3
1: Given
(P → Q) 1: Given (P ↔ Q) 2: Infer (P ↔ Q)
F F F F F
2: Infer
(P → Q)
F

13
Indirect Method
• Step 1: Assume sequent to be INVALID: Example 1: (P→Q) / ~P // ~Q
all premises T and conclusion F
Step 1: (P → Q) ~P ~Q
T T F
• Step 2: Reason backwards to determine
the truth values of other components Step 2:
(P → Q) ~P ~Q
T T F
• Step 3: If there is at least one
assignment in which there is no Step 3: No contradiction arises.
contradiction, our initial assumption is ∴ Assumption at Step 1 logically possible.
logically possible, and sequent invalid.
Otherwise it is valid. ∴ Sequent invalid.

14
Indirect Method
Example 2: (P→Q) / (Q→R) // (P→R)
Step 1: (P → Q) (Q → R) (P → R) Step 3: Contradiction must arise under
T T F
assumption made at Step 1!
◦ ∴ Assumption not logically possible.
Step 2: (P → Q) (Q → R) (P → R) ◦ ∴ Sequent valid!
T T F

15
Indirect Method
Example 3: (~A→B) / (B→A) / (A→~B) //
(A&~B)
Step 1:
(~A → B) (B → A) (A → ~ B) (A & ~ B) Step 3: Contradiction must arise under
T T T F assumption at Step 1!
◦ ∴ Sequent valid.
Step 2:
(~A → B) (B → A) (A → ~ B) (A & ~ B)
• Class Exercise Q5(a),(b), and (e)
T T T F

16
Limitations of PL
• Difference in meaning between the • Counter-intuitive implications of material
following statements? Between the conditional
truth conditions of their corresponding
WFFs?
1: Mary ate a sandwich and went to CU. 1: If HK were near the North Pole, then HK
would have a warm weather.
2: Mary went to CU and ate a sandwich.
2: If Arthur’s IQ were as high as that of
Einstein, then Arthur would be very stupid.
• What fails to be captured by formalizing
the following as “(L&S)”?
“Mary listened to Arthur’s lecture and fell
asleep.”

17
Limitations of PL
• Can the following argument be shown to be valid by PL?

“All humans are mortal. Peter is a human. Therefore Peter is mortal.”

18
Readings
*Hurley (2015): Chapter 6 “Propositional Logic” pp.351-361
(Primary reading; on Blackboard)

19