DOCSLIB.ORG

Predicate Logic Combines the Distinctive Features of Syllogistic and Propositional Logic

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Predicate Logic combines the distinctive features of syllogistic and propositional logic. ◦ The fundamental component in predicate logic is the predicate, which is always symbolized with upper case letters. ◦ Symbolic predicates may be used to translate three kinds of statements: Singular Statements: Socrates is dead. Universal Statements: All S are P or No S are P . Particular Statements: Some S are P or Some S are not P. Translating singular statements requires lower case letters called individual constants and the logical operators of propositional logic. ◦ “Socrates is mortal” is symbolically translated as “Ms.” ◦ “If Paris is beautiful, then André told the truth,” becomes Bp Ta. Translating universal statements requires universal quantifiers, individual variables, and the horseshoe operator: ◦ “All S are P” is translated as x (Sx Px), meaning, for any x, if x is an S, then x is a P. ◦ “No S are P” is translated as x (Sx ~Px), meaning, for any x, if x is an S, then x is not a P. ◦ The Venn diagrams responding to these statements are: Translating particular statements requires existential quantifiers, individual variables, and the dot operator. ◦ “Some S are P” is translated as (Ǝx) (Sx • Px) or “There exists such an x such that x is an S and x is a P.” ◦ “Some S are not P” is translated as (Ǝx) (Sx • ~Px) or “There exists such an x such that x is an S and x is not a P.” ◦ The Venn diagrams responding to these statements are: For both universal and particular statements, we need to distinguish between free and bound variables. ◦ Free variables are not bound by any quantifier. Bound variables are. Four rules govern the removal and introduction of quantifiers: ◦ Universal Instantiation (UI): This allows universal quantifiers to be removed. It requires using either a constant or a variable. ◦ Universal Generalization (UG): This allows universal quantifiers to be introduced. Universal Generalization cannot be performed if the instantial letter is a constant. ◦ Existential Generalization allows existential quantifiers to be introduced. There are no restrictions on Existential Generalization. ◦ Existential Instantiation allows for existential quantifiers to be removed. Existential instantiation requires that the existential name must be a new name that does not occur on the line that indicates the conclusion to be derived. This name must be new and many not occur earlier in the proof. Common Misapplications: ◦ All four of these rules of inference require that the rules be applied only to whole lines in the proof. As long as negation signs or ~s precede quantifiers, statements cannot be instantiated; thus, conclusions cannot be derived. The Quantifier Negation Rule allows us to remove the negation signs. The Quantifier Negation Rule (QN) is expressed as: (x) Fx :: ~(Ǝx) ~Fx ~(x) Fx :: (Ǝx) ~Fx (Ǝx) Fx :: ~(x) ~Fx ~(Ǝx) Fx :: (x) ~Fx One type of quantifier can be replaced by the other type if and only if it appears immediately before and after the new quantifier: 1. Tilde operators that were originally present are deleted. 2. Tilde operators that were not originally present are inserted. Many arguments with conclusions that are either difficult or impossible to derive by the conventional method can be handled with ease in using either conditional or indirect proof. 1. (x) (Hx Ix) / (Ǝx)Hx (Ǝx) Ix 2. (Ǝx) Hx ACP 3. Ha 2, EI 4. Ha Ia I, UI 5. Ia 3, 4, MP 6. (Ǝx) Ix 5, EG 7. (Ǝx)Hx (Ǝx) Ix 2-6, CP UG must not be used within the scope of an indented sequence if the instantial variable y occurs free (unbound by any quantifier) in the first line of that sequence. The following defective proof shows why: 1. (x)Rx (x)Sx / (x) (Rx Sx) 2. Rx ACP 3. x(Rx) 2, UG (invalid) 4. x(Sx) 1, 3, MP 5. Ia 4, UI 6. Rx Sx 2-5, CP 7. (x) (Rx Sx) 6, UG If Rx means “x is a rabbit,” and Sx means “x is a snake,” then the premise translates as, “If everything in the universe is a rabbit, everything in the universe is snake.” ◦ The statement is true because the antecedent is false: not everything in the universe is a rabbit. However, the conclusion is false because it asserts that all rabbits are snakes. Thus, the argument is invalid. The Counterexample Method consists of finding a substitution instance of a given invalid argument for or a given invalid symbolized argument that has true premises and a false conclusion: ◦ Some animals are not mammals. ◦ All cats are mammals. ◦ Therefore some cats are not mammals. (Ǝx) (Ax • ~Bx) (x) (Cx Bx) / (Ǝx) (Cx • ~Ax) The Finite Universe Method can be used to establish the validity of an invalid argument expressed in terms of a single variable. ◦ Conditional Logical Equivalence: We shrink the universe from billions of things to one thing, named Abigail. “Everything in the universe is perfect” is equivalent to “Abigail is perfect.” “Something in the universe is perfect” is also equivalent to “Abigail is perfect” because “Abigail” is “something” as well as “everything.” (x)Px :: Pa (Ǝx)Px :: Pa The method for proving an argument invalid consists in translating the premises and conclusion into singular statements, then testing the result with an indirect truth table. ◦ A universe of one is tried. If it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false in this universe, the argument is immediately identified as invalid. ◦ If a contradiction results from this assumption, a universe of two is tried. If, in this second universe, it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, the argument is invalid. ◦ If not, a universe of three is tried, and so on. Monadic (one-place) predicates assign attributes to individual things while Relational (N-place) Predicates establish connections between or among individuals. Translating Relational Statements: ◦ The Willis Tower is taller than the Empire State Building = Twe. ◦ However, as in monadic predicates, Tew = The Empire State Building is taller than the Willis Tower (which is not true). Overlapping Quantifiers: ◦ When two quantifiers of the same sort appear adjacent to each other, the order does not make a difference. ◦ When different quantifiers appear adjacent to one another the order makes a difference, even when the statement function is nonrelational. Using the Rules of Inference: The quantifier negation rule is applied in basically the same way as with single quantifiers. As the tilde operator is moved past a quantifier, the quantifier in question is switched to its correlative. 1. (Ǝx)(Ǝy)Pxy 2. (Ǝy) Pay 1, EI 3. Pab 2, EI 4. (Ǝx)Pxb 3, EG 5. (Ǝy)(Ǝx)Pxy 4, EG ◦ The CQ rule is used in the same way. ◦ UI, EG and EI are all used in the same way. ◦ UG must not be used if the instantial variable y is free in any preceding line obtained by EI. Translating and Negating Identity Relations: ◦ “The only friend I have is Elizabeth. Elizabeth is not Nancy. Nancy is a Canadian. Therefore, there is a Canadian who is my friend.” This relationship involves the following signs: “=” and “” ◦ Simple Identity Statements: Whoopi Goldberg is Caryn Johnson: w = c Whoopi Goldberg is not Roman Polanski: w r. ◦ “Only,” “The Only,” and “No…Except”: Only Nolan Ryan has struck out 5,000 batters: Sn • (x) (Sx x = n) The only opera written by Beethoven is Fidelio. Of • Bf • (x) [Ox • Bx) x = f] No nation except Australia is a continent: Na • Ca • (x) [(Nx • Cx)] x = a] ◦ “All Except” All painters except Jackson Pollack make sense: Pj • ~Mj • (x) [(Px • x j) Mx] ◦ Superlatives: The largest planet is Jupiter: Pj • (x)[(Px • x j) Ljx] ◦ Numerical Statements: There is at most one god: (x) (y) [Gx • Gy) x = y] ◦ Definite Descriptions: The author of Middlemarch was a Victorian freethinker: (Ǝx) [Wxm • (y)(Wym y = x) • Vx • Fx] ◦ Using the Rules of Inference: ◦ Special Rules, known collectively as Id govern the identity relation: Rule 1: a=a Rule 2: a=b is logically equivalent to b=a Rule 3: If a=b and b=c then a=c.
Recommended publications
  • Dialetheists' Lies About the Liar

    Dialetheists' Lies About the Liar

    PRINCIPIA 22(1): 59–85 (2018) doi: 10.5007/1808-1711.2018v22n1p59 Published by NEL — Epistemology and Logic Research Group, Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Brazil. DIALETHEISTS’LIES ABOUT THE LIAR JONAS R. BECKER ARENHART Departamento de Filosofia, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, BRAZIL [email protected] EDERSON SAFRA MELO Departamento de Filosofia, Universidade Federal do Maranhão, BRAZIL [email protected] Abstract. Liar-like paradoxes are typically arguments that, by using very intuitive resources of natural language, end up in contradiction. Consistent solutions to those paradoxes usually have difficulties either because they restrict the expressive power of the language, orelse because they fall prey to extended versions of the paradox. Dialetheists, like Graham Priest, propose that we should take the Liar at face value and accept the contradictory conclusion as true. A logical treatment of such contradictions is also put forward, with the Logic of Para- dox (LP), which should account for the manifestations of the Liar. In this paper we shall argue that such a formal approach, as advanced by Priest, is unsatisfactory. In order to make contradictions acceptable, Priest has to distinguish between two kinds of contradictions, in- ternal and external, corresponding, respectively, to the conclusions of the simple and of the extended Liar. Given that, we argue that while the natural interpretation of LP was intended to account for true and false sentences, dealing with internal contradictions, it lacks the re- sources to tame external contradictions. Also, the negation sign of LP is unable to represent internal contradictions adequately, precisely because of its allowance of sentences that may be true and false.
  • 1 Elementary Set Theory

    1 Elementary Set Theory

    1 Elementary Set Theory Notation: fg enclose a set. f1; 2; 3g = f3; 2; 2; 1; 3g because a set is not defined by order or multiplicity. f0; 2; 4;:::g = fxjx is an even natural numberg because two ways of writing a set are equivalent. ; is the empty set. x 2 A denotes x is an element of A. N = f0; 1; 2;:::g are the natural numbers. Z = f:::; −2; −1; 0; 1; 2;:::g are the integers. m Q = f n jm; n 2 Z and n 6= 0g are the rational numbers. R are the real numbers. Axiom 1.1. Axiom of Extensionality Let A; B be sets. If (8x)x 2 A iff x 2 B then A = B. Definition 1.1 (Subset). Let A; B be sets. Then A is a subset of B, written A ⊆ B iff (8x) if x 2 A then x 2 B. Theorem 1.1. If A ⊆ B and B ⊆ A then A = B. Proof. Let x be arbitrary. Because A ⊆ B if x 2 A then x 2 B Because B ⊆ A if x 2 B then x 2 A Hence, x 2 A iff x 2 B, thus A = B. Definition 1.2 (Union). Let A; B be sets. The Union A [ B of A and B is defined by x 2 A [ B if x 2 A or x 2 B. Theorem 1.2. A [ (B [ C) = (A [ B) [ C Proof. Let x be arbitrary. x 2 A [ (B [ C) iff x 2 A or x 2 B [ C iff x 2 A or (x 2 B or x 2 C) iff x 2 A or x 2 B or x 2 C iff (x 2 A or x 2 B) or x 2 C iff x 2 A [ B or x 2 C iff x 2 (A [ B) [ C Definition 1.3 (Intersection).
  • Lecture 1: Informal Logic

    Lecture 1: Informal Logic

    Lecture 1: Informal Logic 1 Sentential/Propositional Logic Definition 1.1 (Statement). A statement is anything we can say, write, or otherwise express that can be either true or false. Remark 1. Veracity of a statement doesn't depend on one's ability to verify it's truth or falsity. Example 1.2. The expression \Venkatesh is twenty years old" is a statement, because it is either true or false. We will be making following two assumptions when dealing with statements. Assumptions 1.3 (Bivalence). Every statement is either true or false. Assumptions 1.4. No statement is both true and false. One of the consequences of the bivalence assumption is that if a statement is not true, then it must be false. Hence, to prove that something is true, it would suffice to prove that it is not false. 1.1 Combination of Statements In this subsection, we would look at five basic ways of combining two statements P and Q to form new statements. We can form more complicated compound statements by using combinations of these basic operations. Definition 1.5 (Conjunction). We define conjunction of statements P and Q to be the statement that is true if both P and Q are true, and is false otherwise. Conjunction of of P and Q is denoted P ^ Q, and read \P and Q." Remark 2. Logical and is different from it's colloquial usages for therefore or for relations. 1 Definition 1.6 (Disjunction). We define disjunction of statements P and Q to be the statement that is true if either P is true or Q is true or both are true, and is false otherwise.
  • Section 1.4: Predicate Logic

    Section 1.4: Predicate Logic

    Section 1.4: Predicate Logic January 22, 2021 Abstract We now consider the logic associated with predicate wffs, including a new set of derivation rules for demonstrating validity (the analogue of tautology in the propositional calculus) – that is, for proving theorems! 1 Derivation rules • First of all, all the rules of propositional logic still hold. Whew! Propositional wffs are simply boring, variable-less predicate wffs. • Our author suggests the following “general plan of attack”: – strip off the quantifiers – work with the separate wffs – insert quantifiers as necessary Now, how may we legitimately do so? Consider the classic syllo- gism: a. (All) Humans are mortal. b. Socrates is human. Therefore Socrates is mortal. The way we reason is that the rule “Humans are mortal” applies to the specific example “Socrates”; hence this Socrates is mortal. We might write this as a. (∀x)(H(x) → M(x)) b. H(s) Therefore M(s). It seems so obvious! But how do we justify that in a proof se- quence? • New rules for predicate logic: in the following, you should un- derstand by the symbol x in P (x) an expression with free variable x, possibly containing other (quantified) variables: e.g. P (x) ≡ (∀y)(∃z)Q(x,y,z) (1) – Universal Instantiation: from (∀x)P (x) deduce P (t). Caveat: t must not already appear as a variable in the ex- pression for P (x): in the equation above, (1), it would not do to deduce P (y) or P (z), as those variables appear in the expression (in a quantified fashion) already.
  • Logic and Proof

    Logic and Proof

    CS2209A 2017 Applied Logic for Computer Science Lecture 11, 12 Logic and Proof Instructor: Yu Zhen Xie 1 Proofs • What is a theorem? – Lemma, claim, etc • What is a proof? – Where do we start? – Where do we stop? – What steps do we take? – How much detail is needed? 2 The truth 3 Theories and theorems • Theory: axioms + everything derived from them using rules of inference – Euclidean geometry, set theory, theory of reals, theory of integers, Boolean algebra… – In verification: theory of arrays. • Theorem: a true statement in a theory – Proved from axioms (usually, from already proven theorems) Pythagorean theorem • A statement can be a theorem in one theory and false in another! – Between any two numbers there is another number. • A theorem for real numbers. False for integers! 4 Axioms example: Euclid’s postulates I. Through 2 points a line segment can be drawn II. A line segment can be extended to a straight line indefinitely III. Given a line segment, a circle can be drawn with it as a radius and one endpoint as a centre IV. All right angles are congruent V. Parallel postulate 5 Some axioms for propositional logic • For any formulas A, B, C: – A ∨ ¬ – . – . – A • Also, like in arithmetic (with as +, as *) – , – Same holds for ∧. – Also, • And unlike arithmetic – ( ) 6 Counterexamples • To disprove a statement, enough to give a counterexample: a scenario where it is false – To disprove that • Take = ", = #, • Then is false, but B is true. – To disprove that if %& '( ) &, ( , then '( %& ) &, ( , • Set the domain of x and y to be {0,1} • Set P(0,0) and P(1,1) to true, and P(0,1), P(1,0) to false.
  • CS 205 Sections 07 and 08 Supplementary Notes on Proof Matthew Stone March 1, 2004 Matthew.Stone@Rutgers.Edu

    CS 205 Sections 07 and 08 Supplementary Notes on Proof Matthew Stone March 1, 2004 [email protected]

    CS 205 Sections 07 and 08 Supplementary Notes on Proof Matthew Stone March 1, 2004 [email protected] 1 Propositional Natural Deduction The proof systems that we have been studying in class are called natural deduction. This is because they permit the same lines of reasoning and the same form of argument that you see in ordinary mathematics. Students generally find it easier to represent their mathematical ideas in natural deduction than in other ways of doing proofs. In these systems the proof is a sequence of lines. Each line has a number, a formula, and a justification that explains why the formula can be introduced into the proof. The simplest kind of justification is that the formula is a premise, and the argument depends on it. Another common justification is modus ponens, which derives the consequent of a conditional in the proof whose antecedent is also part of the proof. Here is a simple proof with these two rules used together. Example 1 1P! QPremise 2Q! RPremise 3P Premise 4 Q Modus ponens 1,3 5 R Modus ponens 2,4 This proof assumes that P is true, that P ! Q,andthatQ ! R. It uses modus ponens to conclude that R must then be true. Some inference rules in natural deduction allow assumptions to be made for the purposes of argument. These inference rules create a subproof. A subproof begins with a new assumption. This assumption can be used just within this subproof. In addition, all the assumption made in outer proofs can be used in the subproof.
  • Philosophy 109, Modern Logic Russell Marcus

    Philosophy 109, Modern Logic Russell Marcus

    Philosophy 240: Symbolic Logic Hamilton College Fall 2014 Russell Marcus Reference Sheeet for What Follows Names of Languages PL: Propositional Logic M: Monadic (First-Order) Predicate Logic F: Full (First-Order) Predicate Logic FF: Full (First-Order) Predicate Logic with functors S: Second-Order Predicate Logic Basic Truth Tables - á á @ â á w â á e â á / â 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Rules of Inference Modus Ponens (MP) Conjunction (Conj) á e â á á / â â / á A â Modus Tollens (MT) Addition (Add) á e â á / á w â -â / -á Simplification (Simp) Disjunctive Syllogism (DS) á A â / á á w â -á / â Constructive Dilemma (CD) (á e â) Hypothetical Syllogism (HS) (ã e ä) á e â á w ã / â w ä â e ã / á e ã Philosophy 240: Symbolic Logic, Prof. Marcus; Reference Sheet for What Follows, page 2 Rules of Equivalence DeMorgan’s Laws (DM) Contraposition (Cont) -(á A â) W -á w -â á e â W -â e -á -(á w â) W -á A -â Material Implication (Impl) Association (Assoc) á e â W -á w â á w (â w ã) W (á w â) w ã á A (â A ã) W (á A â) A ã Material Equivalence (Equiv) á / â W (á e â) A (â e á) Distribution (Dist) á / â W (á A â) w (-á A -â) á A (â w ã) W (á A â) w (á A ã) á w (â A ã) W (á w â) A (á w ã) Exportation (Exp) á e (â e ã) W (á A â) e ã Commutativity (Com) á w â W â w á Tautology (Taut) á A â W â A á á W á A á á W á w á Double Negation (DN) á W --á Six Derived Rules for the Biconditional Rules of Inference Rules of Equivalence Biconditional Modus Ponens (BMP) Biconditional DeMorgan’s Law (BDM) á / â -(á / â) W -á / â á / â Biconditional Modus Tollens (BMT) Biconditional Commutativity (BCom) á / â á / â W â / á -á / -â Biconditional Hypothetical Syllogism (BHS) Biconditional Contraposition (BCont) á / â á / â W -á / -â â / ã / á / ã Philosophy 240: Symbolic Logic, Prof.
  • Logic, Proofs

    Logic, Proofs

    CHAPTER 1 Logic, Proofs 1.1. Propositions A proposition 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. 1.1.1. Connectives, Truth Tables. 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” ↔ 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: 6 1.1. PROPOSITIONS 7 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 of p, q is true∨ and also when both are true.
  • Logic, Sets, and Proofs David A

    Logic, Sets, and Proofs David A

    Logic, Sets, and Proofs David A. Cox and Catherine C. McGeoch Amherst College 1 Logic Logical Statements. A logical statement is a mathematical statement that is either true or false. Here we denote logical statements with capital letters A; B. Logical statements be combined to form new logical statements as follows: Name Notation Conjunction A and B Disjunction A or B Negation not A :A Implication A implies B if A, then B A ) B Equivalence A if and only if B A , B Here are some examples of conjunction, disjunction and negation: x > 1 and x < 3: This is true when x is in the open interval (1; 3). x > 1 or x < 3: This is true for all real numbers x. :(x > 1): This is the same as x ≤ 1. Here are two logical statements that are true: x > 4 ) x > 2. x2 = 1 , (x = 1 or x = −1). Note that \x = 1 or x = −1" is usually written x = ±1. Converses, Contrapositives, and Tautologies. We begin with converses and contrapositives: • The converse of \A implies B" is \B implies A". • The contrapositive of \A implies B" is \:B implies :A" Thus the statement \x > 4 ) x > 2" has: • Converse: x > 2 ) x > 4. • Contrapositive: x ≤ 2 ) x ≤ 4. 1 Some logical statements are guaranteed to always be true. These are tautologies. Here are two tautologies that involve converses and contrapositives: • (A if and only if B) , ((A implies B) and (B implies A)). In other words, A and B are equivalent exactly when both A ) B and its converse are true.
  • Predicate Logic

    Predicate Logic

    Predicate Logic Andreas Klappenecker Predicates A function P from a set D to the set Prop of propositions is called a predicate. The set D is called the domain of P. Example Let D=Z be the set of integers. Let a predicate P: Z -> Prop be given by P(x) = x>3. The predicate itself is neither true or false. However, for any given integer the predicate evaluates to a truth value. For example, P(4) is true and P(2) is false Universal Quantifier (1) Let P be a predicate with domain D. The statement “P(x) holds for all x in D” can be written shortly as ∀xP(x). Universal Quantifier (2) Suppose that P(x) is a predicate over a finite domain, say D={1,2,3}. Then ∀xP(x) is equivalent to P(1)⋀P(2)⋀P(3). Universal Quantifier (3) Let P be a predicate with domain D. ∀xP(x) is true if and only if P(x) is true for all x in D. Put differently, ∀xP(x) is false if and only if P(x) is false for some x in D. Existential Quantifier The statement P(x) holds for some x in the domain D can be written as ∃x P(x) Example: ∃x (x>0 ⋀ x2 = 2) is true if the domain is the real numbers but false if the domain is the rational numbers. Logical Equivalence (1) Two statements involving quantifiers and predicates are logically equivalent if and only if they have the same truth values no matter which predicates are substituted into these statements and which domain is used.
  • Lecture 1: Propositional Logic

    Lecture 1: Propositional Logic

    Lecture 1: Propositional Logic Syntax Semantics Truth tables Implications and Equivalences Valid and Invalid arguments Normal forms Davis-Putnam Algorithm 1 Atomic propositions and logical connectives An atomic proposition is a statement or assertion that must be true or false. Examples of atomic propositions are: “5 is a prime” and “program terminates”. Propositional formulas are constructed from atomic propositions by using logical connectives. Connectives false true not and or conditional (implies) biconditional (equivalent) A typical propositional formula is The truth value of a propositional formula can be calculated from the truth values of the atomic propositions it contains. 2 Well-formed propositional formulas The well-formed formulas of propositional logic are obtained by using the construction rules below: An atomic proposition is a well-formed formula. If is a well-formed formula, then so is . If and are well-formed formulas, then so are , , , and . If is a well-formed formula, then so is . Alternatively, can use Backus-Naur Form (BNF) : formula ::= Atomic Proposition formula formula formula formula formula formula formula formula formula formula 3 Truth functions The truth of a propositional formula is a function of the truth values of the atomic propositions it contains. A truth assignment is a mapping that associates a truth value with each of the atomic propositions . Let be a truth assignment for . If we identify with false and with true, we can easily determine the truth value of under . The other logical connectives can be handled in a similar manner. Truth functions are sometimes called Boolean functions. 4 Truth tables for basic logical connectives A truth table shows whether a propositional formula is true or false for each possible truth assignment.
  • Hardware Abstract the Logic Gates References Results Transistors Through the Years Acknowledgements

    Hardware Abstract the Logic Gates References Results Transistors Through the Years Acknowledgements

    The Practical Applications of Logic Gates in Computer Science Courses Presenters: Arash Mahmoudian, Ashley Moser Sponsored by Prof. Heda Samimi ABSTRACT THE LOGIC GATES Logic gates are binary operators used to simulate electronic gates for design of circuits virtually before building them with-real components. These gates are used as an instrumental foundation for digital computers; They help the user control a computer or similar device by controlling the decision making for the hardware. A gate takes in OR GATE AND GATE NOT GATE an input, then it produces an algorithm as to how The OR gate is a logic gate with at least two An AND gate is a consists of at least two A NOT gate, also known as an inverter, has to handle the output. This process prevents the inputs and only one output that performs what inputs and one output that performs what is just a single input with rather simple behavior. user from having to include a microprocessor for is known as logical disjunction, meaning that known as logical conjunction, meaning that A NOT gate performs what is known as logical negation, which means that if its input is true, decision this making. Six of the logic gates used the output of this gate is true when any of its the output of this gate is false if one or more of inputs are true. If all the inputs are false, the an AND gate's inputs are false. Otherwise, if then the output will be false. Likewise, are: the OR gate, AND gate, NOT gate, XOR gate, output of the gate will also be false.