UNIT-I

Mathematical Logic

Statements and notations:

A proposition or statement is a declarative sentence that is either true or false (but not both).
For instance, the following are propositions: “Paris is in France” (true), “London is in Denmark”
(false), “2 < 4” (true), “4 = 7 (false)”. However the following are not propositions: “what is your
name?” (this is a question), “do your homework” (this is a command), “this sentence is false”
(neither true nor false), “x is an even number” (it depends on what x represents),

“Socrates” (it is not even a sentence). The truth or falsehood of a proposition is called its truth
value.
Connectives:
Connectives are used for making compound propositions. The main ones are the
following (p and q represent given propositions):
Name Represented Meaning
Negation ¬p “not p”
Conjunction p∧q “p and q”
Disjunction p∨q “p or q (or both)”
Exclusive Or p⊕q “either p or q, but not both”
Implication p→q “if p then q”
Biconditional p↔q “p if and only if q”

Truth Tables:

Logical identity

Logical identity is an operation on one logical value, typically the value of a proposition that
produces a value of true if its operand is true and a value of false if its operand is false.

The truth table for the logical identity operator is as follows:

 Logical Identity

p p

T T

F F

Logical negation

Logical negation is an operation on one logical value, typically the value of a proposition that
produces a value of true if its operand is false and a value of false if its operand is true.

The truth table for NOT p (also written as ¬p or ~p) is as follows:

Logical Negation

p ¬p

T F

F T

Binary operations

Truth table for all binary logical operators

Here is a truth table giving definitions of all 16 of the possible truth functions of 2 binary
variables (P,Q are thus boolean variables):
 P Q 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

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

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

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

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

where T = true and F = false.

Key:

0, false, Contradiction

1, NOR, Logical NOR

2, Converse nonimplication

3, ¬p, Negation

4, Material nonimplication

5, ¬q, Negation

6, XOR, Exclusive disjunction

7, NAND, Logical NAND

8, AND, Logical conjunction

9, XNOR, If and only if, Logical

biconditional 10, q, Projection function

11, if/then, Logical implication

 12, p, Projection function

13, then/if, Converse implication

14, OR, Logical disjunction

15, true, Tautology

Logical operators can also be visualized using Venn diagrams.

Logical conjunction

Logical conjunction is an operation on two logical values, typically the values of two
propositions, that produces a value of true if both of its operands are true.
The truth table for p AND q (also written as p ∧ q, p & q, or p q) is as follows:

Logical Conjunction

p q p∧q

T T T

T F F

F T F

F F F

In ordinary language terms, if both p and q are true, then the conjunction p ∧ q is true. For
all other assignments of logical values to p and to q the conjunction p ∧ q is false.
It can also be said that if p, then p ∧ q is q, otherwise p ∧ q is p.
Logical disjunction

Logical disjunction is an operation on two logical values, typically the values of two
propositions, that produces a value of true if at least one of its operands is true.
The truth table for p OR q (also written as p ∨ q, p || q, or p + q) is as follows:

Logical Disjunction

p q p∨q

T T T

T F T

F T T

F F F

Logical implication

Logical implication and the material conditional are both associated with an operation on two
logical values, typically the values of two propositions, that produces a value of false just in the
singular case the first operand is true and the second operand is false.The truth table associated
with the material conditional if p then q (symbolized as p → q) and the logical implication p
implies q (symbolized as p ⇒ q) is as follows:
 Logical Implication

p q p→q

T T T

T F F

F T T

F F T

Logical equality

Logical equality (also known as biconditional) is an operation on two logical values, typically
the values of two propositions, that produces a value of true if both operands are false or both
operands are true.The truth table for p XNOR q (also written as p ↔ q ,p = q, or p ≡ q) is as
follows:
 Logical Equality

p q p≡q

T T T

T F F

F T F

F F T

Exclusive disjunction

Exclusive disjunction is an operation on two logical values, typically the values of two propositions, that produces a value of true if one
but not both of its operands is true.The truth table for p XOR q (also written as p ⊕ q, or p ≠ q) is as follows:

Exclusive Disjunction

p q p⊕q

T T F

T F T

F T T

F F F
Logical NAND

The logical NAND is an operation on two logical values, typically the values of two
propositions, that produces a value of false if both of its operands are true. In other words, it
produces a value of true if at least one of its operands is false.The truth table for p NAND q (also
written as p ↑ q or p | q) is as follows:

Logical NAND

p q p↑q

T T F

T F T

F T T

F F T

It is frequently useful to express a logical operation as a compound operation, that is, as an operation
that is built up or composed from other operations. Many such compositions are possible, depending
on the operations that are taken as basic or "primitive" and the operations that are taken as composite
or "derivative".In the case of logical NAND, it is clearly expressible as a compound of NOT and
AND.The negation of a conjunction: ¬(p ∧ q), and the disjunction of negations: (¬p) ∨ (¬q) can be
tabulated as follows:
 p q p∧q ¬(p ∧ q) ¬p ¬q (¬p) ∨ (¬q)

T T T F F F F

T F F T F T T

F T F T T F T

F F F T T T T

Logical NOR

The logical NOR is an operation on two logical values, typically the values of two propositions,
that produces a value of true if both of its operands are false. In other words, it produces a value of
false if at least one of its operands is true. ↓ is also known as the Peirce arrow after its inventor,
Charles Sanders Peirce, and is a Sole sufficient operator.
The truth table for p NOR q (also written as p ↓ q or p ⊥ q) is as follows:

Logical NOR

p q p↓q

T T F

T F F

F T F

F F T

The negation of a disjunction ¬(p ∨ q), and the conjunction of negations (¬p) ∧ (¬q) can be
tabulated as follows:
 p q p∨q ¬(p ∨ q) ¬p ¬q (¬p) ∧ (¬q)

T T T F F F F

T F T F F T F

F T T F T F F

F F F T T T T

Inspection of the tabular derivations for NAND and NOR, under each assignment of logical
values to the functional arguments p and q, produces the identical patterns of functional values
for ¬(p ∧ q) as for (¬p) ∨ (¬q), and for ¬(p ∨ q) as for (¬p) ∧ (¬q). Thus the first and second
expressions in each pair are logically equivalent, and may be substituted for each other in all
contexts that pertain solely to their logical values.

This equivalence is one of De Morgan's laws.

The truth value of a compound proposition depends only on the value of its components.
Writing F for “false” and T for “true”, we can summarize the meaning of the connectives in the
following way:
p q ¬p p∧q p∨q p⊕q p→q p↔q
T T F T T F T T
T F F F T T F F
F T T F T T T F
F F T F F F T T
Note that ∨ represents a non-exclusive or, i.e., p ∨ q is true when any ofp, q is true and also
when both are true. On the other hand ⊕ represents an exclusive or, i.e., p ⊕ q is true only when
exactly one of p and q is true.
Well formed formulas(wff):
Not all strings can represent propositions of the predicate logic. Those which produce a
proposition when their symbols are interpreted must follow the rules given below, and they are
called wffs(well-formed formulas) of the first order predicate logic.
Rules for constructing Wffs
A predicate name followed by a list of variables such as P(x, y), where P ispredicate name, and
x and y are variables, is called an atomic formula.

A well formed formula of predicate calculus is obtained by using the following rules.

1. An atomic formula is a wff.

2. If A is a wff, then 7A is also a wff.
3. If A and B are wffs, then (A V B), (A ٨ B)، (A → B) and (A D B)٫
4. If A is a wff and x is a any variable, then (x)A and ($x)A are wffs.
5. Only those formulas obtained by using (1) to (4) are wffs.
Since we will be concerned with only wffs, we shall use the term formulas for wff. We shall
follow the same conventions regarding the use of parentheses as was done in the case of
statement formulas.

Wffs are constructed using the following rules:

1. True and False are wffs.

2. Each propositional constant (i.e. specific proposition), and each propositional
variable (i.e. a variable representing propositions) are wffs.
3. Each atomic formula (i.e. a specific predicate with variables) is a wff.
4. If A, B, and C are wffs, then so are A, (A B), (A B), (A B), and (A B).
5. If x is a variable (representing objects of the universe of discourse), and A is a wff, then
so are x A and x A .

For example, "The capital of Virginia is Richmond." is a specific proposition. Hence it is a wff
by Rule 2.
Let B be a predicate name representing "being blue" and let x be a variable. Then B(x) is an
atomic formula meaning "x is blue". Thus it is a wff by Rule 3. above. By applying Rule 5. to
B(x), xB(x) is a wff and so is xB(x). Then by applying Rule 4. to them x B(x) x B(x) is
seen to be a wff. Similarly if R is a predicate name representing "being round". Then R(x) is an
atomic formula. Hence it is a wff. By applying Rule 4 to B(x) and R(x), a wff B(x) R(x) is
obtained.
In this manner, larger and more complex wffs can be constructed following the rules given
above.
Note, however, that strings that can not be constructed by using those rules are not wffs. For
example, xB(x)R(x), and B( x ) are NOT wffs, NOR are B( R(x) ), and B( x R(x) ) . More
examples: To express the fact that Tom is taller than John, we can use the atomic formula
taller(Tom, John), which is a wff. This wff can also be part of some compound statement such
as taller(Tom, John) taller(John, Tom), which is also a wff. If x is a variable representing
people in the world, then taller(x,Tom), x taller(x,Tom), x taller(x,Tom), x y taller(x,y)
are all wffs among others. However, taller( x,John) and taller(Tom Mary, Jim), for example,
are NOT wffs.

Tautology, Contradiction, Contingency:

A proposition is said to be a tautology if its truth value is T for any assignment of truth values to
its components. Example: The proposition p ∨ ¬p is a tautology.
A proposition is said to be a contradiction if its truth value is F for any assignment of truth values
to its components. Example: The proposition p ∧ ¬p is a contradiction.
A proposition that is neither a tautology nor a contradiction is called a contingency.
p ¬p p ∨ ¬p p ∧ ¬p

T F T F
T F T F
F T T F
F T T F
Equivalence Implication:
We say that the statements r and s are logically equivalent if their truth tables are identical. For
example the truth table of
shows that is equivalent to . It is easily shown that the statements r and s are
equivalent if and only if is a tautology.

Normal forms:
Let A(P1, P2, P3, …, Pn) be a statement formula where P1, P2, P3, …, Pn are the atomic
variables. If A has truth value T for all possible assignments of the truth values to the variables
P1, P2, P3, …, Pn , then A is said to be a tautology. If A has truth value F, then A is said to be
identically false or a contradiction.
Disjunctive Normal Forms
A product of the variables and their negations in a formula is called an elementary product. A
sum of the variables and their negations is called an elementary sum. That is, a sum of
elementary products is called a disjunctive normal form of the given formula.
Example:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Conjunctive Normal Forms

A formula which is equivalent to a given formula and which consists of a product of elementary sums
is called a conjunctive normal form of a given formula.

Example:

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
 Predicates

Predicative logic:

A predicate or propositional function is a statement containing variables. For instance “x + 2 =

7”, “X is American”, “x < y”, “p is a prime number” are predicates. The truth value of the
predicate depends on the value assigned to its variables. For instance if we replace x with 1 in the
predicate “x + 2 = 7” we obtain “1 + 2 = 7”, which is false, but if we replace it with 5 we get “5
+ 2 = 7”, which is true. We represent a predicate by a letter followed by the variables enclosed
between parenthesis: P (x), Q(x, y), etc. An example for P (x) is a value of x for which P (x) is
true. A counterexample is a value of x for which P (x) is false. So, 5 is an example for “x + 2 =
7”, while 1 is a counterexample. Each variable in a predicate is assumed to belong to a universe
(or domain) of discourse, for instance in the predicate “n is an odd integer” ’n’ represents an
integer, so the universe of discourse of n is the set of all integers. In “X is American” we may
assume that X is a human being, so in this case the universe of discourse is the set of all human
beings.

Free & Bound variables:

Let's now turn to a rather important topic: the distinction between free variable s and bound

variables.

Have a look at the following formula:

The first occurrence of x is free, whereas the second and third occurrences of x are bound,
namely by the first occurrence of the quantifier . The first and second occurrences of the
variable y are also bound, namely by the second occurrence of the quantifier .

Informally, the concept of a bound variable can be explained as follows: Recall that
quantifications are generally of the form:
or

where may be any variable. Generally, all occurences of this variable within the quantification
are bound. But we have to distinguish two cases. Look at the following formula to see why:

1. may occur within another, embedded, quantification or , such as the in

in our example. Then we say that it is bound by the quantifier of this
embedded quantification (and so on, if there's another embedded quantification over
within ).
2.Otherwise, we say that it is bound by the top-level quantifier (like all other occurences of
in our example).

Here's a full formal simultaneous definition of free and bound:

1.Any occurrence of any variable is free in any atomic formula.

2.No occurrence of any variable is bound in any atomic formula.
3.If an occurrence of any variable is free in or in , then that same occurrence is free in
, , , and .
4. If an occurrence of any variable is bound in or in , then that same occurrence is
bound in , , , . Moreover, that same occurrence is bound in
and as well, for any choice of variable y.
5.In any formula of the form or (where y can be any variable at all in this case) the
occurrence of y that immediately follows the initial quantifier symbol is bound.
6.If an occurrence of a variable x is free in , then that same occurrence is free in and
, for any variable y distinct from x. On the other hand, all occurrences of x that are
free in , are bound in and in .

If a formula contains no occurrences of free variables we call it a sentence.

Rules of inference:

The two rules of inference are called rules P and T.

Rule P: A premise may be introduced at any point in the derivation.

Rule T: A formula S may be introduced in a derivation if s is tautologically implied by any

one or more of the preceding formulas in the derivation.

Before proceeding the actual process of derivation, some important list of implications
and equivalences are given in the following tables.
Implications

I1 P٨Q =>P } Simplification

I2 PQ٨ =>Q
I3 P=>PVQ } Addition
I4 Q =>PVQ
I5 7P => P→ Q
I6 Q => P→ Q
I7 7(P→Q) =>P
I8 7(P → Q) => 7Q
I9 P, Q => P ٨ Q
I10 7P, PVQ => Q ( disjunctive syllogism)
I11 P, P→ Q => Q ( modus ponens )
I12 7Q, P → Q => 7P (modus tollens )
I13 P → Q, Q → R => P → R ( hypothetical syllogism)
I14 P V Q, P → Q, Q → R => R (dilemma)
Equivalences

E1 77P <=>P
E2 P ٨ Q <=> Q ٨ P } Commutative laws
E3 P V Q <=> Q V P
E4 (P ٨ Q) ٨ R <=> P ٨ (Q ٨ R) } Associative laws
E5 (P V Q) V R <=> PV (Q V R)
E6 P ٨ (Q V R) <=> (P ٨ Q) V (P ٨ R) } Distributive laws
E7 P V (Q ٨ R) <=> (P V Q) ٨ (PVR)
E8 7(P ٨ Q) <=> 7P V7Q
E9 7(P V Q) <=>7P ٨ 7Q } De Morgan’s laws
E10P V P <=> P
E11 P ٨ P <=> P
 E12 R V (P ٨ 7P) <=>R
E13 R ٨ (P V 7P) <=>R
E14 R V (P V 7P) <=>T
E15 R ٨ (P ٨ 7P) <=>F
E16 P→ Q <=> 7P V Q
E17 7 (P→ Q) <=> P ٨ 7Q
E18 P→ Q <=> 7Q → 7P
E19 P → (Q → R) <=> (P ٨ Q) → R
E20 7(PD Q) <=> P D 7Q
E21 PDQ <=> (P → Q) ٨ (Q → P)
E22 (PDQ) <=> (P ٨ Q) V (7 P ٨ 7Q)

Example 1.Show that R is logically derived from P → Q, Q → R, and P

Solution. {1} (1) P→Q Rule P

{2} (2) P Rule P
{1, 2} (3) Q Rule (1), (2) and I11
{4} (4) Q → R Rule P
{1, 2, 4} (5) R Rule (3), (4) and I11.

Example 2.Show that S V R tautologically implied by ( P V Q) ٨ ( P → R) ٨ ( Q → S ).

Solution . {1} (1) PVQ Rule P

{1} (2) 7P → Q T, (1), E1 and E16
{3} (3) Q→S P
{1, 3} (4) 7P → S T, (2), (3), and I13
{1, 3} (5) 7S → P T, (4), E13 and E1
{6} (6) P→R P
{1, 3, 6} (7) 7S → R T, (5), (6), and I13
{1, 3, 6) (8) SVR T, (7), E16 and E1

Example 3. Show that 7Q, P→ Q => 7P

Solution . {1} (1) P → Q Rule P

{1} (2) 7P → 7Q T, and E 18
 {3} (3) 7Q P
{1, 3} (4) 7P T, (2), (3), and I11 .

Example 4 .Prove that R ٨ ( P V Q ) is a valid conclusion from the premises PVQ ,

Q → R, P → M and 7M.

Solution . {1} (1) P→M P

{2} (2) 7M P
{1, 2} (3) 7P T, (1), (2), and I12
{4} (4) P V Q P
{1, 2 , 4} (5) Q T, (3), (4), and I10.
{6} (6) Q → R P
{1, 2, 4, 6} (7) R T, (5), (6) and I11
{1, 2, 4, 6} (8) R ٨ (PVQ) T, (4), (7), and I9.

There is a third inference rule, known as rule CP or rule of conditional proof.

Rule CP: If we can derives s from R and a set of premises , then we can derive R → S from the
set of premises alone.

Note. 1. Rule CP follows from the equivalence E10 which states that
( P ٨ R ) → S óP → (R → S).
2. Let P denote the conjunction of the set of premises and let R be any formula The
above equivalence states that if R is included as an additional premise and
S is derived from P ٨ R then R → S can be derived from the premises P alone.
3. Rule CP is also called the deduction theorem and is generally used if the
conclusion is of the form R → S. In such cases, R is taken as an
additional premise and S is derived from the given premises and R.

Example 5 .Show that R → S can be derived from the premises

P → (Q → S), 7R V P , and Q.
Solution. {1} (1) 7R V P P
{2} (2) R P, assumed premise
{1, 2} (3) P T, (1), (2), and I10
{4} (4) P → (Q → S) P
{1, 2, 4} (5) Q → S T, (3), (4), and I11
{6} (6) Q P
{1, 2, 4, 6} (7) S T, (5), (6), and I11
{1, 4, 6} (8) R → S CP.

Example 6.Show that P → S can be derived from the premises, 7P V Q, 7Q V

R, and R → S .
Solution.

{1} (1) 7P V Q P
{2} (2) P P, assumed premise
{1, 2} (3) Q T, (1), (2) and I11
{4} (4) 7Q V R P
{1, 2, 4} (5) R T, (3), (4) and I11
{6} (6) R→S P
{1, 2, 4, 6} (7) S T, (5), (6) and I11
{2, 7} (8) P→S CP

Example 7. ” If there was a ball game , then traveling was difficult. If they arrived on time, then
traveling was not difficult. They arrived on time. Therefore, there was no ball game”. Show that
these statements constitute a valid argument.

Solution. Let P: There was a ball game

Q: Traveling was difficult.
R: They arrived on time.

Given premises are: P → Q, R → 7Q and R conclusion is: 7P

 {1} (1) P → Q P
{2} (2) R → 7Q P
{3} (3) R P
{2, 3} (4) 7Q T, (2), (3), and I11
{1, 2, 3} (5) 7P T, (2), (4) and I12

Consistency of premises:
Consistency
A set of formulas H1, H2, …, Hm is said to be consistent if their conjunction has the truth
value T for some assignment of the truth values to be atomic appearing in H1, H2, …, Hm.

Inconsistency

If for every assignment of the truth values to the atomic variables, at least one of the formulas
H1, H2, … Hm is false, so that their conjunction is identically false, then the formulas
H1, H2, …, Hm are called inconsistent.

A set of formulas H1, H2, …, Hm is inconsistent, if their conjunction implies a

contradiction, that is H1٨ H2٨ … ٨ Hm => R ٨ 7R
Where R is any formula. Note that R ٨ 7R is a contradiction and it is necessary and
sufficient that H1, H2, …,Hm are inconsistent the formula.

Indirect method of proof

In order to show that a conclusion C follows logically from the premises H1, H2,…, Hm,
we assume that C is false and consider 7C as an additional premise. If the new set of premises is
inconsistent, so that they imply a contradiction, then the assumption that 7C is true does not hold
simultaneously with H1٨ H2٨ ..… ٨ Hm being true. Therefore, C is true whenever H1٨ H2٨
..… ٨ Hm is true. Thus, C follows logically from the premises H1, H2 ….., Hm.

Example 8 Show that 7(P ٨ Q) follows from 7P٨ 7Q.

Solution.
 We introduce 77 (P٨ Q) as an additional premise and show that this additional premise
leads to a contradiction.
{1} (1) 77(P٨ Q) P assumed premise
{1} (2) P٨ Q T, (1) and E1
{1} (3) P T, (2) and I1
{1} {4) 7P٨7Q P
{4} (5) 7P T, (4) and I1
{1, 4} (6) P٨ 7P T, (3), (5) and I9
Here (6) P٨ 7P is a contradiction. Thus {1, 4} viz. 77(P٨ Q) and 7P٨ 7Q leads
to a contradiction P ٨ 7P.
Example 9Show that the following premises are inconsistent.
1. If Jack misses many classes through illness, then he fails high school.
2. If Jack fails high school, then he is uneducated.
3. If Jack reads a lot of books, then he is not uneducated.
4. Jack misses many classes through illness and reads a lot of books.

Solution.
P: Jack misses many classes.
Q: Jack fails high school.
R: Jack reads a lot of books.
S: Jack is uneducated.
The premises are P→ Q, Q → S, R→ 7S and P٨ R
{1} (1) P→Q P
{2} (2) Q→ S P
{1, 2} (3) P → S T, (1), (2) and I13
{4} (4) R→ 7S P
{4} (5) S → 7R T, (4), and E18
{1, 2, 4} (6) P→7R T, (3), (5) and I13
{1, 2, 4} (7) 7PV7R T, (6) and E16
{1, 2, 4} (8) 7(P٨R) T, (7) and E8
 {9} (9)P٨ R P
{1, 2, 4, 9) (10) (P٨ R) ٨ 7(P٨ R) T, (8), (9) and I9

The rules above can be summed up in the following table. The "Tautology" column shows how
to interpret the notation of a given rule.

Rule of inference Tautology Name

Addition

Simplification

Conjunction

Modus ponens

Modus tollens

Hypothetical syllogism

Disjunctive syllogism

Resolution
Example 1

Let us consider the following assumptions: "If it rains today, then we will not go on a canoe
today. If we do not go on a canoe trip today, then we will go on a canoe trip tomorrow. Therefore
(Mathematical symbol for "therefore" is ), if it rains today, we will go on a canoe trip
tomorrow. To make use of the rules of inference in the above table we let p be the proposition
"If it rains today", q be " We will not go on a canoe today" and let r be "We will go on a canoe
trip tomorrow". Then this argument is of the form:

Example 2

Let us consider a more complex set of assumptions: "It is not sunny today and it is colder than
yesterday". "We will go swimming only if it is sunny", "If we do not go swimming, then we will
have a barbecue", and "If we will have a barbecue, then we will be home by sunset" lead to the
conclusion "We will be home before sunset." Proof by rules of inference: Let p be the

proposition "It is sunny this today", q the proposition "It is colder than yesterday", r the

proposition "We will go swimming", s the proposition "We will have a barbecue", and t the
proposition "We will be home by sunset". Then the hypotheses become
and . Using our intuition we conjecture that the conclusion
might be t. Using the Rules of Inference table we can proof the conjecture easily:

Step Reason

1. Hypothesis

2. Simplification using Step 1

 3. Hypothesis

4. Modus tollens using Step 2 and 3

5. Hypothesis

6. s Modus ponens using Step 4 and 5

7. Hypothesis

8. t Modus ponens using Step 6 and 7

Proof of contradiction:

The "Proof by Contradiction" is also known as reductio ad absurdum, which is probably Latin
for "reduce it to something absurd".

Here's the idea:

1. Assume that a given proposition is untrue.

2. Based on that assumption reach two conclusions that contradict each other.

This is based on a classical formal logic construction known as Modus Tollens: If P implies Q
and Q is false, then P is false. In this case, Q is a proposition of the form (R and not R) which is
always false. P is the negation of the fact that we are trying to prove and if the negation is not
true then the original proposition must have been true. If computers are not "not stupid" then
they are stupid. (I hear that "stupid computer!" phrase a lot around here.)

Example:

Lets prove that there is no largest prime number (this is the idea of Euclid's original proof).
Prime numbers are integers with no exact integer divisors except 1 and themselves.