COSC 50 LEARNING MODULES

Republic of the Philippines CvSU Mission

CvSU Vision
Cavite State University shall provide
premier universityin historic Cavite CAVITE STATE UNIVERSITY excellent, equitable and relevant educational
ed for excellence in the ent
opportunities in the arts, science and technology
of morally upright and competitive Bacoor City Campus through quality instruction and relevant research
individuals.
and development activities.
Soldiers Hills IV, Molino VI,
It shall produce professional, skilled and
City of Bacoor, Cavite

🕾 (046) 476 - 5029

www.cvsu.edu.ph

DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER STUDIES

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

COSC 50: DISCREET STRUCTURES 1

First Semester, AY 2022 – 2023

Prepared by: MIRISA S. MUNDO

EMMANUEL ORAPA
ANLISSA S. TORRES
AIDA M. PENSON
INSTRUCTORS

1
Lesson 1 Method of Deduction Module 4

In theory, truth tables are adequate to test the validity of any argument of the general type we
have considered. In practice, however, they become unwieldy as the number of component
statement increases. A more efficient method of establishing the validity of an extended
argument is to deduce its conclusion from its premises by a sequence of elementary arguments,
each of which is known to be valid. This technique accords fairly well with ordinary methods of
argumentation.

An equally reliable method of proving validity is by the use of the rules of inference successively
to derive the conclusion of a deductive argument. This of course should be done with meticulous
care. This method improves on the truth-table method in two ways: 1) it is vastly more efficient,
and 2) it enables us to follow the flow of the reasoning process from the premises to the
conclusion and is therefore much more intuitive and more illuminating. The method is often
called natural deduction. Using natural deduction, we can provide a formal proof of the validity
of an argument that is valid.
A formal proof of validity is given by doing the following:
1. Write the premises and the statements that we deduce from the argument in a single
column, and setting off in another column, to the right of each statement, its
“justification,” or the reason we give for including it in the proof.
2. List all the premises first, then the logic (e.g. inference rules) used to get at the
conclusion (which will be listed last).

Consider, for example, the following argument and its translation into symbols.

2
 Argument Symbols
If Anderson was nominated, then she went to Boston. A→B
If she went to Boston, then she campaigned there. B→C
If she campaigned there, she met Douglas. C→D
Anderson did not meet Douglas. ¬D
Either Anderson was nominated or someone more eligible was selected. A˅E
Therefore, someone more eligible was selected. ∴E

The formal proof of the example argument is written as:

1. A→B
2. B→C
3. C→D
4. ¬D The justification for each statement
5. A˅E (the right most column) consists of
∴E the numbers of the preceding
6. AC 1, 2 H.S. statements from which that line is
7. AD 6, 3 H.S. inferred, together with the
8. A 7, 4 M.T. abbreviation for the rule of inference
9. E 5, 8 D.S. used to get it

Definition of Formal Proof - a sequence of statements, each of which is either a premise of that
argument or follows from preceding statements of the sequence by an elementary valid
argument, such that the last statement in the sequence is the conclusion of the argument whose
validity is being proved.

To deduce new statements from the statements whose truth that we already know, Rules of
Inference are used.
What are Rules of Inference for?
Mathematical logic is often used for logical proofs. Proofs are valid arguments that determine the
truth values of mathematical statements.
An argument is a sequence of statements. The last statement is the conclusion and all its preceding
statements are called premises (or hypothesis). The symbol “∴∴”, (read therefore) is placed before
the conclusion. A valid argument is one where the conclusion follows from the truth values of the
premises.
Rules of Inference provide the templates or guidelines for constructing valid arguments from the
statements that we already have.

3
Table of Rules of Inference

Rule of Inference Name Rule of Inference Name

P P∨Q
Addition Disjunctive Syllogism
∴P∨Q ¬P
(Add.) (D.S.)
∴Q

P P→Q
Conjunction Hypothetical Syllogism
Q Q→R
(Conj.) (H.S.)
∴P𝖠Q ∴P→R

P𝖠Q (P→Q)𝖠(R→S)
Simplification Constructive Dilemma
∴P P∨R
(Simp.) (C.D.)
∴Q∨S

P→Q (P→Q)𝖠(R→S)
Modus Ponens Destructive Dilemma
P ¬Q∨¬S
(M.P.) (D.D.)
∴Q ∴¬P∨¬R

P→Q
Modus Tollens
¬Q
(M.T.)
∴¬P

1. Addition: If P is a premise, we can use Addition rule to derive P∨Q.

P
∴P∨Q
Example: Let P be the proposition, “He studies very hard” is true
Therefore − "Either he studies very hard or he is a very bad student." Here
Q is the proposition “he is a very bad student”.

2. Conjunction: If P and Q are two premises, we can use Conjunction rule to derive P𝖠Q.
P
Q
∴P𝖠Q

Example: Let P − “He studies very hard”

Let Q − “He is the best boy in the class”
Therefore − "He studies very hard and he is the best boy in the class"

3. Simplification: If P𝖠Q is a premise, we can use Simplification rule to derive P.

4
 P𝖠Q
∴P

Example: "He studies very hard and he is the best boy in the class", P𝖠Q
Therefore − "He studies very hard"

4. Modus Ponens: If P and P→Q are two premises, we can use Modus Ponens to derive Q.
P→Q
P
∴Q

Example "If you have a password, then you can log on to facebook", P→Q
"You have a password", P
Therefore − "You can log on to facebook"

5. Modus Tollens: If P→Q and ¬Q are two premises, we can use Modus Tollens to
derive ¬P.
P→Q
¬Q
∴¬P

Example "If you have a password, then you can log on to facebook", P→Q
"You cannot log on to facebook", ¬Q
Therefore − "You do not have a password "

6. Disjunctive Syllogism: If ¬P and P∨Q are two premises, we can use Disjunctive
Syllogism to derive Q.
¬P
P∨Q
∴Q
Example "The ice cream is not vanilla flavored", ¬P¬P
"The ice cream is either vanilla flavored or chocolate flavored", P∨QP∨Q
Therefore − "The ice cream is chocolate flavored”

7. Hypothetical Syllogism: If P→Q and Q→R are two premises, we can use Hypothetical
Syllogism to derive P→R
P→Q
Q→R
∴P→R

Example "If it rains, I shall stay at home”, P→Q

"If I shall stay at home, I will read a book", Q→R

5
 Therefore − "If it rains, I will read a book"

8. Constructive Dilemma: If (P→Q)𝖠(R→S) and P∨R are two premises, we can use
constructive dilemma to derive Q∨S.

(P→Q)𝖠(R→S)
P∨R
∴Q∨S

Example “If it rains, I will take a leave”, (P→Q)

“If it is hot outside, I will go for a shower”, (R→S)
“Either it will rain or it is hot outside”, P∨R
Therefore − "I will take a leave or I will go for a shower"

9. Destructive Dilemma: If (P→Q)𝖠(R→S) and ¬Q∨¬S are two premises, we can use
destructive dilemma to derive ¬P∨¬R.

(P→Q)𝖠(R→S)
¬Q∨¬S
∴¬P∨¬R

Example “If it rains, I will take a leave”, (P→Q)

“If it is hot outside, I will go for a shower”, (R→S)
“Either I will not take a leave or I will not go for a shower”, ¬Q∨¬S
Therefore − "Either it does not rain or it is not hot outside"

Exercise:
Prove the following given the premises using rules of inference.
1. W→X
2. (W→Y)→(Z˅X)
3. (W𝖠X)→Y
4. ¬Z
∴X

Lesson 2 Rules of Replacement

The rules of replacement are logical equivalences or logically equivalent sentence forms, which
allow us to replace or substitute one member of a pair in the process of proving the validity of
arguments. These are important because there are cases wherein the rules of inference may not

6
 be employed in proving or demonstrating the validity of arguments. Hence, when cases like this
occur, the rules of replacement may be the best, if not the only, method that can be employed in
proving the validity of arguments.
The rules of inference are forms of valid arguments, while the rules of replacement are forms of
equivalent propositions. This is the reason why we have the symbol ∴ (read as “therefore”) in
rules of inference, while in rules of replacement, we use the equivalent sign ≡ (read as “if and
only of”) between two propositions.

Rule of Replacement Name Rule of Replacement Name

Double Negation Transposition

P ≡ ¬¬P (P→Q) ≡ (¬Q ∨¬P)
(D.N.) (Trans.)

P𝖠Q ≡ Q𝖠P [(P𝖠(Q ∨ R)] ≡ [(P𝖠Q) ∨(P𝖠R)]

Commutation Distribution
P∨Q ≡ Q∨P [(P∨(Q 𝖠 R)] ≡ [(P∨Q) 𝖠 (P∨R)]
(Comm.) (Dist.)

[(P𝖠Q)𝖠R] ≡ [P𝖠(Q𝖠R)] P ≡ (P˅P)

Association Tautology
[(P∨Q)∨R] ≡ [P∨(Q∨R)] P ≡ (P𝖠P)
(Assoc.) (Taut.)

De Morgan’s
¬ (P𝖠Q) ≡ (¬P∨¬Q) [(P𝖠Q)→R] ≡ [P→(Q→R)] Exportation
Law
¬ (P∨Q) ≡ (¬P𝖠¬Q) (Exp.)
(D.M.)

Material Material
P ≡ Q≡ [(P→Q) 𝖠 (Q→P)]
P→Q ≡ (¬P∨Q) Implication Equivalence
P ≡ Q≡ [(P𝖠Q) ∨ (¬P𝖠¬Q)]
(M.I.) (M.E.)

1. Double Negation (D.N.)

Intuitively clear to everyone, this rule simply asserts that nay statement is logically
equivalent to the negation of the negation of that statement.

2. Transposition (Trans.)
This logical equivalence permits us to turn any conditional statement around. We know
that if any conditional statement is true, then if its consequent is false, its antecedent must
also be false. Therefore, any conditional statement is logically equivalent to the
conditional statement asserting that the negation of its consequent implies the negation of
its antecedent.

7
3. Material Implication (M.I.)
This logical equivalence does no more than to formulate the definition of material
implication. This shows that P→Q simply means that either the antecedent P is false of
the consequent Q is true.

4. Material Equivalence (M.E.)

The two variants of this rule simply assert the two essential meanings of material
equivalence. Two statements are materially equivalent if they both have the same truth
value; therefore, the assertion of their material equivalence is logically equivalent to
asserting that they are both true, or that they are both false. In addition, if two statements
are both true, they must materially imply one another, and likewise if they are both false,
they must materially imply one another. Therefore, the statement that they are materially
equivalent is logically equivalent to the statement that they imply one another.

5. Exportation (Exp.)
This replacement rule states a logical biconditional that is intuitively clear upon
reflection. If one asserts that two propositions conjoined are known to imply a third, that
is logically equivalent to asserting that if one of those two propositions is known to be
true, then the truth of the other must imply the truth of the third.

6. Tautology (Taut.)
This rule of replacement simply state that any statement is logically equivalent to the
disjunctions of itself with itself, and that any statement is logically equivalent to the
conjunction of itself with itself.
7. De Morgan’s Law (D.M.)
De Morgan’s Law has two variants. One variant asserts that when we deny that two
propositions are both true, that is logically equivalent to asserting that either one of them
is false, or the other one is false, or they are both false. The second variant asserts that
when we deny that either of two propositions is true, that is logically equivalent to
asserting that both of them are false.

8. Commutation (Comm.)
These two equivalences simply assert that the order of statement of the elements of a
conjunction, or of a disjunction, does not matter. We are allowed to turn them around, to
commute them, because whichever order happens to appear, the meanings remain exactly
the same.

9. Association (Assoc.)
These two equivalences do no more than allow us to group statements differently. If we
know three different statements to be true, to assert that P is true along with R and R
clumped, is logically equivalent to asserting to asserting that P and Q clumped is true
along with R.

8
10. Distribution (Dist.)

9
The first variant asserts merely that the conjunction of one statement with the disjunction
of two other statements is logically equivalent to either the disjunction of the first with
the second or the disjunction of the first with the third. The second variant asserts merely
that the disjunction of one statement with the conjunction of two others is logically
equivalent to the conjunction of the disjunction of the first and the second and the
disjunction of the first and the third.

10