Course Instructor

ANUJ GHIMIRE
 An argument used to establish the truth of a
mathematical statement is called proof.
 While establishing the truth different rules and
already proven facts are used.
 Proof can be divided into
◦ Formal Proof
◦ Informal Proof
 Formal proof is the technique where predefined
rules and theorems are used to show that the
given statement is true, but in Informal proof
such predefined rules and theorem may not be
used.
 Informal proof can be further classified into:
◦ Direct Proof
◦ Indirect Proof
 Direct Proof:
◦ Let p→q be an implication, in direct proof we
assume that hypothesis is true i.e p is true then by
using different theorem and already proven facts
we conclude that the conclusion is also true i.e. q is
true.
◦ The basic idea of direct proof is whenever the
hypothesis is true conclusion is true.
 Show that if n is odd then n2 is odd using direct
proof.
◦ p: n is odd
◦ q: n2 is odd.
◦ p→q
 In direct proof we assume that hypothesis is true
i.e n is odd is true.
 By definition of odd number:
n=2k+1 [where k=0,1,2,3……]
Squaring both side we get
n2=(2k+1)2
n2=4k2+4k+1
Here 4k2 and 4k are divisible by 2, their sum is also divisible
by 2, the addition of 1 makes it odd i.e. n2 is odd
 Here we can conclude that the assumption of n
to be odd derives n2 as odd.
 So, whenever n is odd, n2 is odd is proved
using direct proof method.
 Proof using direct method that the sum of two
rational number are rational.
 Solution:
◦ Let r and s be two rational number
◦ p: r and s are rational.
◦ q: (r+s) is rational.
◦ p→q
 In direct proof we assume that hypothesis is
true i.e r and s to be rational number is true.
 By definition of rational number:
r = a/b for some integers a and b with b ≠ 0.
s = c/d for some integers c and d with d ≠ 0.
So
r + s = a/b + c/d
= (ad + bc)/bd
Now, let p = ad + bc and q = bd. Then, p and q are integers
[because products and sums of integers are integers and
because a, b, c and d are all integers.] Also, q ≠ 0.
Hence, r + s = p/q , where p and q are integers and q ≠ 0.
So, we can conclude that the assumption of r and s to be rational
derives (r+s) as rational number.
This concludes whenever two rational number are added the
result will also be a rational number using direct proof method.
 Show that if (3n+2) is odd then n is odd using
direct proof.
Solution:
◦ p: (3n+2) is odd .
◦ q: n is odd.
◦ p→q
By definition of odd number,
3n+2=2k+1
n =(2k-1)/3
No further process can be applied to continue the
proof. This is called the dead end of the proof.
To make a conclusion we need indirect proof
approach.
 For certain case, the direct proof may not be
appropriate. For eg. “If 3n+2 is odd then n is
odd.”
 Here using direct proof we may not reach to
the conclusion, such problem is considered
as dead end of proof.
 To overcome such problem we use indirect
proof approach.
 Two types of indirect proof:
◦ Proof by Contrapositive.
◦ Proof by Contradiction.
 Let p→q be an implication, in proof by contrapositive
we assume that negation of conclusion is true i.e ¬q
is true
 Then by using different theorem and already proven
facts we conclude that the negation of hypothesis is
also true i.e. ¬p is true.
 The idea behind the proof by contrapositive is the
negation of the conclusion leads to the negation of
hypothesis.
 It is because implication and its contrapositive are
logically equivalent.
i.e. p→q≡¬q →¬p
 Show that if (3n+2) is odd then n is odd using
proof by contrapositive.
Solution:
p: (3n+2) is odd.
q: n is odd.
p→q
¬p: (3n+2) is even.
¬q: n is even
In proof by contrapositive we assume the negation of
conclusion to be true. i.e. ¬q is true. So here we
consider n to be even.
 By definition of even number:
n=2k
3n=6k
3n+2=6k+2
3n+2=2(3k+1)
Here 2(3k+1) is even i.e 3n+2 is even.
So ¬q leads to ¬p
¬q →¬p ≡ p→q
The negation of conclusion leads to the negation of
hypothesis so we can say that using logical equivalent
property the implication statement is also true.
Hence the statement “if (3n+2) is odd then n is odd.” is
true using proof by contrapositive.
 Proof by contradiction is another approach of
indirect proof.
 For proof by contradiction following situation
may arise:
◦ The given statement is implication.
◦ The given statement is not implication.
The given statement is implication:
 For implication statement (p→q), we assume
that the negation of conclusion and
hypothesis is true. i.e p∧¬q is true.
 Then by using different theorem and already
proven facts, we try to prove that p∧¬q is
false.
 And if p∧¬q is false then its negation is true
i.e. ¬ (p∧¬q) is true.
 This is the contradiction to our assumption.
Hence we can say that our assumption is
wrong and given statement is true.
 Finally we can conclude (¬ p∨q) is true i.e.
P→Q is true.
The given statement is not implication:
 For this we assume that the negation of given
statement is true
 Then by using different theorem and already
proven facts, we reach to the point that
contradicts our assumption.
 Hence we can say that our assumption is
wrong and given statement is true.
 Show that √2 is irrational.

To prove √2 is irrational using proof by contradiction we

assume the negation of statement is true. i.e √2 is rational
By definition of rational number:
√2=p/q ; q≠0
√2q=p
Squaring both side,
2q2=p2…………(i)
Here p2 is even which is possible only if p is even.
so, let p=2k
2q2=4k2
q2=2k2, so q is even also true.
Here q2 is even which is possible only if q is even.
which concludes p and q both to be even.
 If p and q both are even number then there
exist a common factor between them, so no
rational number can be obtained using p and
q.
 Hence our assumption of being is √2 rational
is false and the given statement is true. i.e. √2
is irrational using proof by contradiction
method.
 Some time in mathematics we find a
statement that looks true but in actual it is
not true due to some reason.
 We need just an example to show that, the
given statement is not true which is called
disproof by counter-example.
 During the procedure of disproof by counter-
example, we first illustrate the statement,
then start putting assumptions to find out the
reason, why is the statement not correct ?
 Follow the following steps to disprove any
statement.
◦ First, conclude some results based on the given
statement.
◦ Demonstrate the results.
◦ Find out the counter example based on the results.
 Disproof by counter example, that x2-x+5 is
prime for every x, where x Є Z i.e. integer.
Solution:
Here we need to disprove that given equation i.e. at
least one value of x, does not satisfy the statement.

According to the statement, x2-x+5 gives the prime

values whenever we put any value of x.

Here we have to check on different values, getting

much information is best to state results.
Let x = -2 we get,
x2-x+5
=(-2)2-(-2)+5
=4+2+5
=11
Since 11 is prime, this is not a counter example.
Let x = 2 we get,
x2-x+5
=(2)2 - 2+5
=4-2+5
=7
Since 7 is prime, this is not a counter example.
How do we know what can be the counter example?
Analysis the expression carefully, x2-x+5
As we know the square of any number cannot be prime.
Now the second term is “-x” and the third term is “5”,
somehow if the term “-x” and 5 vanish out then just one
term will be left, that is x2, which can never be prime.
So, -x + 5, can vanish out, if we put x = 5 then,
x2-x+5
=(5)2 - 5+5
=25
And 25 is not a prime. So, we get a counter example.
Hence the statement is disproved by a counter example.
 Proof by Cases is a technique used in
mathematical proofs to prove a statement by
showing that it is true in each of a set of
cases.
 These cases must be mutually exhaustive,
meaning that they cover all possibilities, so
that all of the cases must be true.
 By showing that the statement is true
irrespective of the cases, it is guaranteed that
the statement is true.
 Proof by Cases is also sometimes known
as exhaustive proof, which refers to the fact
that the statement is proven in a set of
mutually exhaustive cases.
 Steps for Proof by Cases
◦ Mutual exhaustion: Show that there is a set of cases
that is mutually exhaustive.
◦ Prove each case: Prove that the statement is true in
each of the provided cases.
 Using proof by case, show that for any
integer k, the product 3k2 + k is even.
Solution
Mutual exhaustion : Any integer is either odd or
even. So, there are two cases to consider:
a) k is odd,
b) k is even.
First, consider the case where k is odd.
If k is odd, then k = 2n + 1, for some integer n.
Now, perform some algebraic manipulation on the
expression 3k2 + k
3k2 + k = 3[(2n+1)2] + 2n + 1
= 3[4n2 + 4n + 1] + 2n + 1
= 12n2 + 12n + 3 + 2n + 1
= 12n2 + 14n + 4
= 2(6n2 + 7n + 2)
When n is an integer, 6n2 + 7n + 2 is also an integer.
Therefore 2(6n2 + 7n + 2) is equal to 2 times some
integer.
As 2 times any integer is even, it follows that
2(6n2 + 7n + 2) is even.
Therefore 3k2 + k is even.
Second, consider the case where k is even.
If k is even, then k = 2n, for some integer n.
Now, 3k2 + k = 3(2n)2 + 2
= 12n2 + 2
= 2(6n2 + 1)
When n is an integer, 6n2 + 1 is also an integer.
Therefore 2(6n2 + 1) is also an integer.
As 2 times any integer is even, it leads 2(6n2 + 1) is
even.
Therefore 3k2 + k is even.
Therefore, in either case, whether k is odd or even,
3k2 + k is even.
It follows that for any integer k, the product 3k2 + k is
even using proof by case.
 In a conditional statement p→q, if by any
approach we can show that the conclusion q
is true then regardless the truth value of p we
can conclude that p→q is true.
 Such type of proof technique is called trivial
proof.
 Question: Let P(n) is 'If a and b are positive
integers with a ≥b then a">b" where domain
consists of all integers. Show that p(0) is true.
 In a conditional statement p→q, if by any
approach we can show that the hypothesis p
is false then regardless the truth value of q
we can conclude that p→q is true.
 Such type of proof technique is called
vacuous proof.
 Show that the proposition P(0) is true where
the domain consists of the integer numbers
and P(n) is "If n >= 1 then n2 > n ".
 Explore
Yourself !!!
Induction Principle
 Suppose we have an infinite ladder then the ladder can
be climbed by two step process:
(1) We can reach the first rung of the ladder.
(2) If we can reach a particular rung of the ladder, then we
can reach the next rung
 From Step (1), we can reach the first rung.
 Then by applying Step (2), we can reach the second
rung.
 Again applying Step (2), we can reach the third rung
and so on.
Induction Principle
 In general applying Step
(2) any number of times we
can reach to any particular
rung, no matter how high
up.
 This motivation of solving
the problem is simply the
proof by Mathematical
Induction.
Induction Principle
 Mathematical induction is an important proof
technique that can be used to prove mathematical
theorems or statements.
 The principle of mathematical induction is applicable
for the statement containing natural numbers
including zero.
 Let p(n) be a statement. Now our concern is to show
that p(n) is true using mathematical induction.
Induction Principle
 Proof by mathematical induction is a two step process:
 Basic Step
 Inductive Step.
 At first we show that p(n) is true for some initial value
like n= 0,1,2,... This step is called basic step.
 Then we assume that p(n) is true for any arbitrary
value 'k' i.e. p(k) is true and show that p(n) is true for
‘k+1" i.e. p(k+1) true. This step is called inductive
step.
Induction Principle
 Expressed as a rule of inference, this proof technique
can be stated as:

[P (1) ∧ ∀k{P(k) → P(k + 1)}] → ∀nP (n)

Induction Principle (Example_1)
 Using mathematical induction show that
𝒏(𝒏+𝟏)
1+2+3+4+...............=
𝟐
Solution,
n(n+1)
P(n)=1+2+3+4+...............= is true.
2
Basic Step:
n(n+1)
P(n)=1+2+3+4+...............=
2
𝟏(𝟏+𝟏)
for n=1, P(1)= =1, which is true.
𝟐
𝟐(𝟐+𝟏)
for n=2, P(2)= =3, which is also true.
𝟐
Induction Principle (Example_1)
Inductive Step:
We assume that P(n) is true for any arbitrary value 'k' i.e. P(k)
is true and show that P(n) is true for ‘k+1’ i.e. P(k+1) is true.
k(k+1)
let, P(k)= is true.
2
Now we try to prove for k+1
(k+1)((k+1)+1)
P(k+1) =1+2+3+4+……..+k+(k+1) =
2
k(k+1)
= +(k+1)
2
k k+1 +2(k+1)
=
2
Induction Principle (Example_1)
k+1 (k+2)
=
2
k+1 (k+1+1)
=
2
k+1 ( k+1 +1)
=
2
This shows that when P(k) is true, P(k+1) is also true.
Thus, by the principle of mathematical induction, P(n) is true
for all n.
Induction Principle (Example_2)
 Use the principle of Mathematical Induction to verify
that , for n any positive integer, n4-4n2 is divisible by 3
for n >=0.
Solution,
P(n)= n4-4n2 is divisible by 3 for n>=0.
Basic Step:
P(n)= n4-4n2
for n=0, P(0)=o4-4(0)2=0, which is divisible by three is
true.
for n=1, P(1)=14-4(1)2=-3, which is divisible by three is
true.
Induction Principle (Example_2)
Inductive Step:
We assume that P(n) is true for any arbitrary value 'k' i.e. P(k) is
true and show that P(n) is true for ‘k+1’ i.e. P(k+1) is true.
let, P(k)= k4-4k2 is true.
Now we try to prove for k+1
(k+1)4 −4(k+1)2 is divisible by 3.
= k4+4k3+6k2+4k+1-{4(k2+2k+1)}
= (k4-4k2)+4k3+6k2+4k+1-8k-4
= (k4-4k2)+4k3+6k2-4k-3
= (k4-4k2)+4(k3-k)+3(2k2-1)
Induction Principle (Example_2)
= (k4-4k2)+4(k3-k)+3(k2-1)
Here, (k4-4k2) is divisible by 3 is assumed to be true.
Again, (k3-k) is divisible by 3 i.e. (k-1)*k*(k+1), which is the
product of three consecutive natural number so it must be
divisible by 3. Hence 4(k3-k) is divisible by 3.
Further, 3(k2-1) is divisible by 3.
Hence we can conclude that the sum of the term which are
individually divisible by 3 is obvious divisible by 3. i.e. (k4-
4k2)+4(k3-k)+3(k2-1) is divisible by 3.
This shows that when P(k) is true, P(k+1) is also true.
Thus, by the principle of mathematical induction, P(n) is true
for all n>=0.
Induction Principle (Example_3)
 Prove by mathematical induction that n < 2n for all
positive integers n.
Solution,
P(n)= n < 2n is valid for all positive integers n.
Basic Step:
P(n)= n < 2n
for n=1, P(1)= 1 < 21 = 1 < 2 which is true.
Induction Principle (Example_3)
Inductive Step:
we assume that P(n) is true for any arbitrary value 'k' i.e. P(k)
is true and show that P(n) is true for ‘k+1" i.e. P(k+1) is true.
let, P(k)=k < 2k is true.
Now we try to prove for k+1
i.e. P(k+1)=k+1 < 2k+1 is true.
We have, k < 2k
Multiplying both side by 2,
or, 2*k < 2*2k
0r, 2*k < 2k+1
Induction Principle (Example_3)
or, k+k < 2k+1 ……………..… (1)
Here k is the positive integer and for n=1, it is shown true
already.
So, we need to prove it for
1<k
Adding k on both side,
1+k < k+k …………………. (2)
Comparing (1) and (2),
1+k < 2k+1
This shows that when P(k) is true, P(k+1) is also true.
Thus, by the principle of mathematical induction, P(n) is true
for all n.
Induction Principle (CW)
 Using mathematical induction prove that the statement
6*7n-2*3n is divisible by 4 for n=1,2,3,……
 Prove the following statement by using mathematical
induction:
1*1!+2*2!+3*3!+............+n*n! =(n+1)!-1 where (n>=1)
 Use principle of mathematical induction to prove (5n-1)
is divisible by 4 for all integers n > 0.
Induction Principle (CW)
 Prove the following statement by using mathematical
induction:
1*1!+2*2!+3*3!+............+n*n! =(n+1)!-1 where (n>=1)

Let P(n) be the given statement

P(n): 1 x 1! + 2 x 2! + 3 x 3! + ... + n x n! = (n + 1)! 1 for all natural
numbers n.
Note that P(1) is true.
Since P(1): 1 x 1! = 1
=2-1
= 2!-1.
Assume that P(n) is true for some number k.
Induction Principle (CW)
i.e., P(k): 1 x 1! + 2 x 2! + 3 x 3! + ... + k x k! = (k + 1)! - 1
To prove P(k + 1) is true.
We have
P(k + 1): 1 x 1! + 2 x 2! + 3 x 3! + ... + k x k! + (k + 1) x (k + 1)!,
= (k + 1)! - 1+ (k + 1)! x (k + 1)
= (k + 1 + 1) (k + 1)!-1
= (k + 2) x(k + 1)! - 1
= (k + 2)! - 1)
Thus P(k + 1) is true, whenever P(k) is true.
Therefore, by the Principle of Mathematical Induction, P(n) is
true for all natural number n.
Explore Yourself
Proof by Equivalence

Exhaustive Proof
 Show that 𝑝 = 𝑛2 + 2 is not a multiple of
4, where n is an integer as 2 ≤ 𝑛 ≤ 7
Soundness and Completeness of
System
 Valid Formula
 Valid formulae are those formulae which are valid under
all valuations
 P∨¬P is valid formula.
 Valid propositional formulae are also called tautologies.
Soundness and Completeness of
System
 Satisfiable Formula
 These can be made true under at least one valuation,
though not necessarily all valuations.
 An example of satisfiable formula is P ∨ Q which is true
at P= T and Q=F.
 Every valid formula is satisfiable.
 Unsatisfiable Formula
 The unsatisfiable formulas come out false under all
valuations.
Soundness and Completeness of
System
 The axioms are all valid and each inference rule has
the following properties: If both premises are valid
then the conclusion is also valid.
 It follows that, only valid formulae can be proved in a
sound logical system.
 If φ can be proved in a sound logical system then φ is
valid.
 If there is a proof of φ then φ is called a theorem.
Soundness and Completeness of
System
 A proof system is sound if everything that is provable
is actually true.
 Propositional logic is sound if when we use deduction
rules to prove that (P1, P2, ..., Pn) ⊢ (C) (that a set of
premises proves a conclusion) then we can also use a
truth table to show that P1, P2, ..., Pn ⊨ C (that a set of
premises semantically entails a conclusion).
Soundness and Completeness of
System
 A proof system is complete if everything that is true
can be proved.
 Propositional logic is complete if when we can use a
truth table to show that P1, P2, ..., Pn ⊨ C, then we can
also use deduction rules to prove that (P1, P2, ..., Pn) ⊢
(C).
Soundness and Completeness of
System
 Propositional logic is also complete.
 We assume that P1, P2, ..., Pn ⊨ C, and we consider the
truth table for (P1 ∧ P2 ∧ ... ∧ Pn) → C (since that will
be a tautology whenever P1, P2, ..., Pn ⊨ C).
 In order to show propositional logic is complete, we
must show that we can use our deduction rules to
prove (P1, P2, ..., Pn) ⊢ (C).
Soundness and Completeness of
System
 The soundness of a logical system is expressed as
If φ is a theorem (if φ can be proved), then φ is
valid.
 The completeness of the system is expressed as
If φ is valid then φ is a theorem (φ can be proved)
Method of Tableaux
 Tableaux is a graphical method to test the validity of
an argument.
 It can also be used to prove the satisfiability
(consistency) or unsatisfiability (inconsistency) of a
set of a set of formula.
 Suppose we have a finite set of formulas
1 , 2 , 3 ,........., m
 Then, a tableau for 1 , 2 , 3 ,........., m is a tree
like structure formed by using the derivation rules for
each i
Method of Tableaux
 This method in a propositional logic is the method in
which set of rules are applied symmetrically in a
formula or a set of formulae to check for its
consistency.
 The main principle is to break down the formula or set
of formulas into its component up to smaller ones
until the complementary pair of literals is obtained or
no further expansion is possible.
Method of Tableaux
 Let φ is a formula then we need to parse that φ in the
tree structure.
 If a formula φ is not a literal, it has one of the form as:
φ = ¬¬B φ = (B → C)
φ=B∧C φ = ¬ (B → C)
φ = ¬ (B ^ C) φ =(B ↔ C)
φ =(B ∨ C) φ = ¬ (B ↔ C)
φ = ¬ (B ∨ C)
 The parsing can be done in the following ways
according to propositional representation:
Method of Tableaux
φ = (B → C)
≡ ¬B ∨ C
φ = ¬ (B → C)
≡ ¬(¬B ∨ C)
≡ ¬¬B ∧ ¬C
≡ B ∧ ¬C
Method of Tableaux
φ =(B ↔ C)
≡ (B → C) ∧ (B → C)
≡ (¬B ∨ C) ∧ (¬C ∨ B)
≡ (¬B ∧¬C) ∨ (¬B ∧ B) ∨ (C ∧ ¬C )∨(C ∧ B)
≡ (¬B ∧¬C) ∨ (C ∧ B)
φ = ¬(B ↔ C)
≡ ¬{(B → C) ∧(B → C)}
≡ ¬{(¬B ∨ C)∧ (¬C ∨ B)}
≡ (¬¬B ∧ ¬C) ∨(¬¬C ∧ ¬B)
≡ (B ∧ ¬C) ∨ (C ∧ ¬B)
Method of Tableaux
¬¬B B∧C ¬ (B ∧ C) ≡ ¬B ∨ ¬ C

B ¬B ¬C
B
C

B∨C ¬ (B ∨ C) ≡ ¬B ∧ ¬ C

B C ¬B
¬C
Method of Tableaux
(B → C) ≡ ¬B ∨ C ¬ (B → C) ≡ B ∧ ¬ C

¬B C B
¬C
(B ↔ C)
¬(B ↔ C)

B ¬B
C ¬C B ¬B
¬C C
Method of Tableaux
 Steps to draw tableaux of any set of formula:
 Step_1: List the set of formulas in columnar form
 Step_2: If φi is not the literal, apply the appropriate
rule.
 Step_3: After each step, we check for satisfiability along
branches.
 Step_4: If a literal p and ¬p appear on the same path of
the tableaux, then the branch not satisfiable i.e.
inconsistency is maintained and such path is said to be
contradictory or close
 Step_5: Even if one path remains non-contradictory or
open then the formula φ at the root of tableau is
consistent.
Method of Tableaux
 Note
 If only set of formula is given (i.e. conclusion is not
given) and if any branch is open, then the set is
satisfiable sometimes called soundness.
 If the argument (i.e. premises and conclusion) are given,
we negate the conclusion.
 Then if the all branches of tree are closed (made up of
premises and negation of conclusion) then it is valid
called completeness.
Method of Tableaux (Example_1)
 Draw the tableau for the following set of formula
  {a  c, (a  b)  (b  c)}
and check for unsatisfiability or satisfiability.
Solution,
The tableaux for the given set of formula is:

  {a  c, (a  b)  (b  c)}

Method of Tableaux (Example_1)
ac
(a  b)  (b  c)

a
c

( a  b )
( b  c ) Since, all the branches on tableau
closes, therefore the given set of
a b formula is unsatisfiable.

b c
 
Method of Tableaux (Example_2)
 Draw the tableau for the following set of formula
( P  Q)  S , Q  R, P  T 
and check for satisfiability.
Solution,
The tableaux for the given set of formula is:

( P  Q)  S , Q  R, P  T 
Method of Tableaux (Example_2)
( P  Q )  S
Q  R
P T

P  Q S

P Q Q R

P P
Q R Q R
 T T

P P P
T T T
  Since, some branch on tableau are open,
the given set of formula is satisfiable.
Method of Tableaux
 Checking for validity of an argument using
tableaux
Suppose we have argument of the form:
p1
p2
.
.
pn
q
To check the validity of the above argument we first
negate the conclusion and draw the tableau including it
in the set of the formula. i.e. we draw a tableau for
Method of Tableaux
We then draw a tableau for
p1
p2
.
.
pn
q
 If a single or some branch of the tableau is closed, the
argument is valid.
 If all the branches of the tableau is open, the argument
is invalid.
Method of Tableaux (Question_1)
Check the validity of the following argument using
the method of tableaux:
pq
pr
qr
r
Solution:
First we negate the conclusion and prepare a tableaux
including it into the list of other formulas.
Method of Tableaux (Question_1)
pq
pr
qr
r
Method of Tableaux (Question_1)
pq
pr
qr
r

p q

p r p r Since, all the branches on tableau

   closes, therefore the given
argument is valid.
q r
 
Method of Tableaux (Question_2)
Check the validity of the following argument using
the method of tableaux:
p  r
r p
r  s
st
Solution: t
First we negate the conclusion and prepare a tableaux
including it into the list of other formulas.
Method of Tableaux (Question_2)
p  r
r p
r  s
st
t
 p  r
rp
r  s
st
t
Since, some branches on tableau closes,
p r therefore the given argument is valid.

r p r p
 
 r s  r s

r r s
 s t

t
  
s t

Method of Tableaux (Question_3)
Check the validity of the following argument using
the method of tableaux:
P  (Q  R)
QS
RA
P  B
(S  A)  B
Solution:
First we negate the conclusion and prepare a tableaux
including it into the list of other formulas.
Method of Tableaux (Question_3)
P  (Q  R)
QS
RA
P  B
( S  A)  B 
 P  (Q  R)
QS
RA
P  B
( S  A)  B

B
( S  A)

P B

P Since, all the branches on tableau
P QR closes, therefore the given
 argument is valid.
Q
R

Q S

R A

S A

End of Chapter 1
Thank You !!!!