COS3761/201/1/2019

Tutorial Letter 201/1/2019

Formal Logic 3

COS3761
Semester 1

School of Computing
Solutions to assignment 1

Bar code
 SOLUTION TO ASSIGNMENT 1

Question number Option

1 2
2 1
3 4
4 1
5 3

6 4
7 3
8 2
9 1
10 4

11 2
12 3
13 5
14 1
15 2

16 4
17 4
18 3
19 5
20 1

2
 COS3761/201/1/2019

QUESTION 1 option 2

The phrase “neither cloudy nor a hail storm” is translated by

qs
and this formula is equivalent to
 (q  s)
It is easily seen by applying De Morgan’s rule.

QUESTION 2 option 1

Make sure that you understand how “only if” should be translated. Option 3 is not correct.

QUESTION 3 option 4

Note that option 1 is not correct. The following two translations would, however, also have been
correct:
(r  s)  ( r  s)
(r  s)  (r  s)

QUESTION 4 option 1

The connective  is translated by the phrase “if and only if”. In question 1 above we
discussed “neither … nor”.

QUESTION 5 option 3

Hopefully this is quite clear. The formula (r  s  t) is equivalent to r  s  t.

QUESTION 6 option 4

Note that option 2 is not correct. If you do not agree, look up “unless” and “only if” in your
Formal Logic 2 textbook.

Questions 7 – 11:

Dear Student
Please make sure that you understand formal proofs for propositional logic. It is important to
master these natural deduction proof rules before tackling the formal proofs of predicate and
modal logic.

3
 QUESTION 7 option 3

We have to prove that

q  r ├ (p  q)  (p  r)
A correct proof would be:

1 qr premise

2 pq assumption

3 p assumption
4 q  e 2, 3
5 r  e 1, 4

6 pr i 3–5

7 (p  q)  (p  r) i 2–6

We can immediately see that

 options 1 and 2 are incorrect because the outer subproof has to start with the
assumption of p  q, the sub-formula on the left hand side of the main connective of
the goal
 and option 4 is incorrect because every assumption should start a new subproof (and in
this option p is assumed inside an existing subproof).

QUESTION 8 option 2

Option 1 is incorrect because the  i rule has to be cited outside the subproof starting with the
assumption of the left hand side of the  connective and ending on the right hand side of the
 connective. Option 3 is also incorrect because of this. One of the errors in option 4 is the
incorrect use of the  e rule in line 3 – make sure that you understand this.

Note that it was necessary to use two separate subproofs.

QUESTION 9 option 1

Option 2 is incorrect because the wrong rule is cited. The  connective is not introduced in line
5.
Option 3 is incorrect because only one line should be cited for the  e rule (in line 5) and,
furthermore, because line 7 is completely incorrect.
Option 4 is incorrect because the  i rule requires two separate earlier lines to be cited and not
a range of statements (like 4 – 6).

4
 COS3761/201/1/2019

QUESTION 10 option 4

If the answer is not clear, study the basic natural deduction rules again. They are summarised
on page 27 of your textbook. Pay special attention to the  elimination rule:
 two subproofs,
 each subproof starts with one of the disjuncts,
 the subproofs end on the same formula,
 the same formula on which both subproofs end, is derived outside the subproofs, citing
the  e rule and the ranges of the two subproofs.

QUESTION 11 option 2

If this is not clear, study the basic natural deduction rules again. They are summarised on page
27 of your textbook (and from page 557 of the textbook of Formal Logic 2). Note that the “¬ e”
rule was called the “ Intro” rule in the textbook of Formal Logic 2.

QUESTION 12 option 3

Remember that  and  binds more tightly than .

The main connective of the formula is : (p  q  r)  (¬ r  (q  r))

The main connective of the left hand side (p  q  r) is again .
The main connective of the right hand side (¬ r  (q  r)) is .

QUESTION 13 option 5

Make sure that you agree with this. A correct formula is:
¬ ((¬ q  (p  r))  (r  q))

QUESTION 14 Option 1

QUESTION 15 Option 2

T  (F  T) ├ (T  F)  (T  T)
Left side of the sequent is true and right of the sequent is false

5
 QUESTION 16 option 4

The sequent is not valid. It would be valid only if the right hand side formula is true for all
valuations that make the left hand side formula true. In this case the valuation indicated by
option 4 makes the left hand side formula true but the right hand side formula false, thus we
have a counter-example. Option 3 is incorrect – the valuation given there is not a counter-
example because both the left hand side and the right hand side formulas are true for the given
valuation.

QUESTION 17 option 4

p q r p p  r q  ( p  r)
T T T F T T
T T F F F T
T F T F T T
T F F F F F
F T T T T T
F T F T T T
F F T T T T
F F F T T T

p q r r q r (q   r)  p
T T T F F T
T T F T T T
T F T F F T
T F F T F T
F T T F F T
F T F T T F
F F T F F T
F F F T F T

p q r q  r p  (q  r)
T T T T T
T T F T T
T F T T T
T F F F F
F T T T T
F T F T T
F F T T T
F F F F T

See page 46 of your textbook for an explanation of semantic entailment for propositional logic.
(Note that option 1 does not involve the entailment relation╞.)

Option 4 is correct because p  (q  r) is always true when both q  ( p  r) and

(q   r)  p are true.

6
 COS3761/201/1/2019

Option 1 is incorrect because the right hand side is not always true when the left hand side is
true (see line 6 of the first and second table above). Option 2 is incorrect because the final
columns of the two relevant tables are not identical (see lines 4 and 6 of the first and second
tables above). Option 3 is incorrect because not both q  ( p  r) and (q   r)  p are true
when p = T, q = F, r = F, i.e. this valuation is not a counter example. (The same applies to
when p = F, q = T, r = F.)

QUESTION 18 option 3

See page 46 of your textbook for an explanation of the semantic entailment relation ╞.

QUESTION 19 option 5

After the first step we have

(p  q  s  p)  (q  r  p)  (p  s  s)  (T  r)

Now we mark all occurrences of r (because of T  r).

Thus
(p  q  s  p)  (q  r  p)  (p  s  s)  (T  r)

None of options 1 to 4 is correct.

QUESTION 20 option 1

Option 1: Correct: propositional logic is complete.

Option 2: Incorrect: a sequent is valid if all valuations that make the premises true, also make
the conclusion true.
Option 3: Incorrect: a formula is semantically entailed by other formulas if the formula is true
whenever the other formulas are all true.
Option 4: Incorrect: a formula is semantically entailed by other formulas if the formula is true
whenever the other formulas are all true.

©
UNISA 2019