Scribd
Upload
2 views

assignBarbara

The document outlines an assignment consisting of various logical proofs and analyses, including De Morgan's laws, predicate logic, sufficient and necessary conditions, and the properties of rational numbers. It requires students to provide proofs, counterexamples, and logical transformations while adhering to specific rules and definitions. Additionally, it prompts students to analyze statements regarding atmospheric conditions in terms of logical conditions.

Uploaded by

akshi.c
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2 views

assignBarbara

The document outlines an assignment consisting of various logical proofs and analyses, including De Morgan's laws, predicate logic, sufficient and necessary conditions, and the properties of rational numbers. It requires students to provide proofs, counterexamples, and logical transformations while adhering to specific rules and definitions. Additionally, it prompts students to analyze statements regarding atmospheric conditions in terms of logical conditions.

Uploaded by

akshi.c
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Assignment 1

Barbara Morawska

December 3, 2021

1. Consider the following De Morgan law:


¬(p ∧ q) ↔ ¬p ∨ ¬q

Write a proof for this formula. It is a biconditional, hence the proof will
have two parts.
One part of the proof will start with: p ∧ q → p and p ∧ q → q as premises.
It should end with the implication which is one part of the biconditional.
The other part of the proof will start with: p → (q → p ∧ q). It should
end with the other part of the biconditional. Each line of the proof should
be a transformation of the previous lines with an explanation saying what
law of logic justies this.
You cannot use DeMorgan Laws in this proof.
2. Prove the following formula of predicate logic:
∃x(P (x) → ∀x(P (x)))

HINT: use the law of excluded middle instantiated with ∀x.P (x) and make
a proof by cases.
3. List separately the sucient and necessary conditions for a student to
get A in Discrete Mathematics course. Think about several sucient and
several necessary conditions. Try to nd the sucient conditions that are
not necessary and the necessary conditions that are not sucient. Justify
your choice by using the denition of the concepts of a necessary and
sucient condition.
4. Is the following formula a law of logic?
∃xP (x) ∧ ∃xQ(x) → ∃x(P (x) ∧ Q(x))

Prove it or provide a counterexample (a model in which it is false).


5. Consider the following set of propositional formulas:
1. p → (q → r)
2. ¬p → (r → q)
3. s → r
4. ¬r

(a) Transform the formulas into clauses thus obtaining the set of clauses
S.

1
(b) Saturate set S with the resolution inferences in the exhaustive way.
(You are asked to use resolution ONLY)
(c) Is the original set of formulas satisable or inconsistent? Justify.
6. Prove that from a false statement anything follows logically. You have to
prove the following logical formula with the known inference rules (not
truth tables). You should give a direct proof of the implication:
p ∧ ¬p → q

This law is called in Latin: ex falso quodlibet. Write one or two examples
from life of the inferences that follow this schema. (For example: "If white
is black, then I am in America now." Here one premise "White is white"
is omitted. Or "If 2+2=5, then I am fully vaccinated." Write your own
examples with q replaced by true or false propositions. Notice how your
proof steps may be used in a real life argument.)
7. Consider the following denition of rational numbers:
The real number r is rational if and only if there exist integers p and q ,
with q 6= 0 such that, r = p/q .

(a) Write this statement as a formula in predicate logic, using only cap-
ital letters for most of the predicates, explain the meaning of the
predicates you are using.
(b) Identify all predicates that you have used in your formalization.
(c) Identify the range of all quantiers that you have used.
(d) Write this statement as a formal denition of a set, using a set con-
structor. (set constructor has a schema: {element | property})
8. Consider the following statements:
(a) "If the temperature of the atmosphere rises, then the amount of CO2
in the atmosphere increases."
(b) "If the temperature of the atmosphere rises, then the amount of H2O
in the atmosphere (in the form of steam) also increases."
(c) "The temperature in the desert is increasing during the day, but nei-
ther the amount of CO2 nor H2O increases".
Assume that all 3 of the statements are expressing some truths. What can
you say about them? Analyse them from the point of view of sucient
or necessary conditions. How would you repair them to not to seem as
contradictory.

You might also like