DOCSLIB.ORG

Methods of Proof Direct Direct Contrapositive Contradiction Pc P→ C ¬ P ∨ C ¬ C → ¬ Pp ∧ ¬ C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Methods of Proof Direct Direct Contrapositive Contradiction Pc P→ C ¬ P ∨ C ¬ C → ¬ Pp ∧ ¬ C Proof Methods Methods of proof Direct Direct Contrapositive Contradiction pc p→ c ¬ p ∨ c ¬ c → ¬ pp ∧ ¬ c TT T T T F Section 1.6 & 1.7 T F F F F T FT T T T F FF T T T F MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 1 MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 2 How are these questions related? Proof Methods h1 ∧ h2 ∧ … ∧ hn ⇒ c ? 1. Does p logically imply c ? Let p = h ∧ h ∧ … ∧ h . The following 2. Is the proposition (p → c) a tautology? 1 2 n propositions are equivalent: 3. Is the proposition (¬ p ∨ c) is a tautology? 1. p ⇒ c 4. Is the proposition (¬ c → ¬ p) is a tautology? 2. (p → c) is a tautology. Direct 5. Is the proposition (p ∧ ¬ c) is a contradiction? 3. (¬ p ∨ c) is a tautology. Direct 4. (¬ c → ¬ p)is a tautology. Contrapositive 5. (p ∧ ¬ c) is a contradiction. Contradiction MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 3 MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 4 © 2006 by A-H. Esfahanian. All Rights Reserved. 1- Formal Proofs Formal Proof A proof is equivalent to establishing a logical To prove: implication chain h1 ∧ h2 ∧ … ∧ hn ⇒ c p1 Premise p Tautology Given premises (hypotheses) h1 , h2 , … , hn and Produce a series of wffs, 2 conclusion c, to give a formal proof that the … . p1 , p2 , pn, c . p k, k’, Inf. Rule hypotheses imply the conclusion, entails such that each wff pr is: r . establishing one of the premises or . a tautology, or pn _____ h1 ∧ h2 ∧ … ∧ hn ⇒ c an axiom/law of the domain (e.g., 1+3=4 or x > x+1 ) ∴ c justified by definition, or logically equivalent to or implied by one or more propositions pk where 1 ≤ k < r. MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 5 MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 6 Example Example h c Prove the theorem: Prove the theorem: “If integer n is odd, then n2 is odd.” “If integer n is odd, then n2 is odd.” Informal proof: Formal Proof: It is given that n is an odd integer. 1. n is odd Premise (h) 2. ∃ k (n = 2k + 1) Definition of “odd” (Universe is Integers) Thus n = 2k + 1, for some integer k. 3. n = 2c + 1, for some integer c Step 2, specialization Thus n2 = (2k + 1)2 = 4k2 + 4k + 1 4. (n = 2c + 1) → (n2 = (2c + 1)2) Laws of arithmetic = 2(2k2 + 2k) + 1 5. n2 = (2c + 1)2 Steps 3 & 4, modus ponens 2 Therefore, n is odd. = 4c2 + 4c + 1 Laws of arithmetic = 2(2c2 + 2c) + 1 Laws of arithmetic 6. ∃ k (n2 = 2k + 1) Step 5, generalization 7. n2 is odd Definition of “odd” MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 7 MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 8 © 2006 by A-H. Esfahanian. All Rights Reserved. 1- Formal Proofs….. Does (p → q) ∧ (q → r) ∧ p ⇒ r ? Truth Table Method Example: Given: p → q, q → r, p. p q r p → q q → r p r Prove: r T T T T T T T We want to establish the logical implication: T T F T F T F (p → q) ∧ (q → r) ∧ p ⇒ r. T F T F T T T We can use either of the following approaches Truth Table T F F F T T F A chain of logical implications F T T T T F T Note that if A ⇒ B and B ⇒ C then A ⇒ C F T F T F F F F F T T T F T F F F T T F F MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 9 MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 10 Does (p → q) ∧ (q → r) ∧ p ⇒ r ? Example Chain Method Prove: If 2 is even and if 3 is even and if the h1 =p→ q, h2 = q → r, h3 = p, c = r sum of any two even integers is even, then all We want to prove that h1 ∧ h2 ∧ h3 ⇒ c integers greater than 1 and less than 6 are even. 1. p Premise 2. p → q Premise 1. 2 is even Premise 2. 3 is even Premise 3. q Steps 1 & 2, modus ponens* 3. ∀n ∀m ((n is even) ∧ (n is even) → (n+m is even)) Premise 4. q → r Premise 4. (2 is even) ∧ (2 is even) → (4 is even) Specialization (twice), step 3, math 5. r Steps 3&4, modus ponens 5. (3 is even) ∧ (2 is even) → (5 is even) Specialization (twice), step 3, math 6. 4 is even Conj. & modus ponens, steps 1&4 7. 5 is even Conj. & modus ponens, steps 1,2,&5 *See Table 1, page 66 8. (2 is even) ∧ (3 is even) ∧ (4 is even) ∧ (5 is even) Conj.(many times), steps 1,2,6&7 So this is a bona fide theorem – the statement is true! MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 11 MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 12 © 2006 by A-H. Esfahanian. All Rights Reserved. 1- Proving conclusions of the form p → q Example: Direct proof Direct: Assume p, in addition to the given Prove hypothetical syllogism. hypotheses, and conclude q. Prove: (p → q) ∧ (q → s) ⇒ (p → s) Contrapositive: Assume ¬ q, in addition to the given hypotheses, and conclude ¬ p. 1. p Assumption Contradiction: Assume both p and ¬ q, in 2. p → q Premise addition to the given hypotheses, and conclude False. 3. q 1, 2, modus ponens 4. q → s Premise Vacuous: Assume the given hypotheses, and conclude ¬ p. 5. s 3, 4, modus ponens Trivial: Assume the given hypotheses, and 6. p → s 1, 5, direct method of proof conclude q. MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 13 MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 14 Example: Contrapositive proof Example: Contradiction proof Prove hypothetical syllogism. Prove hypothetical syllogism. Prove: (p → q) ∧ (q → s) ⇒ (p → s) Prove: (p → q) ∧ (q → s) ⇒ (p → s) 1. p Assumption 1. ¬ s Assumption 2. ¬ s Assumption 2. q → s Premise 3. q → s Premise 3. ¬ q 1, 2, modus tollens 4. ¬ q 2, 3, modus tollens 4. p → q Premise 5. p → q Premise 5. ¬ p 3, 4, modus tollens 6. ¬ p 4, 5, modus tollens 6. p → s 1, 5, contrapositive method 7. p ∧ ¬ p 1, 6, conjunction 8. False 7, logical equivalence 9. p → s 1, 2, 8, contradiction method MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 15 MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 16 © 2006 by A-H. Esfahanian. All Rights Reserved. 1- Example: Vacuous proof Example: Trivial proof Prove: If p → r and q →¬r, then p ∧ q → s Prove: If p → r and ¬ r, then q →¬p Equivalently, prove: Equivalently, prove: (p → r ) ∧ (q →¬r ) ⇒ (p ∧ q → s) (p → r ) ∧ ( ¬ r ) ⇒ ( q →¬p) 1. p → r Premise 1. p → r Premise 2. ¬ p ∨ r 1, Implication 2. ¬ r Premise 3. q →¬r Premise 3. ¬ p 1, 2, modus tollens 4. ¬ q ∨¬r 3, Implication 4. q →¬p 3, Trivially 5. ¬ p ∨¬q 2, 4, Resolution 6. ¬ (p ∧ q ) 5, DeMorgan 7. p ∧ q → s 6, Vacuously MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 17 MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 18 Non‐examples: Vacuous, trivial proofs Example Recall hypothetical syllogism. Let Prove: (p → q) ∧ (q → s) ⇒ (p → s) h1 =q∨ d h = (q ∨ d ) → ¬ p Why didn’t we give example vacuous or trivial 2 → ∧ proofs of hypothetical syllogism? h3 = ¬ p (a ¬ b) h4 = (a ∧ ¬ b) → (r ∨ s) c=r∨ s we want to establish h1 ∧ h2 ∧ h3 ∧ h4 ⇒ c. MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 19 MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 20 © 2006 by A-H. Esfahanian. All Rights Reserved. 1- Solution 1 Solution 2 Let Let h =q∨ dh= (q ∨ d ) → ¬ p 1 2 h1 =q∨ dh2 = (q ∨ d ) → ¬ p h = ¬ p → (a ∧ ¬ b) h = (a ∧ ¬ b) → (r ∨ s) 3 4 h3 = ¬ p → (a ∧ ¬ b) h4 = (a ∧ ¬ b) → (r ∨ s) c=r∨ s c=r∨ s, we want to establish h ∧ h ∧ h ∧ h ⇒ c. 1 2 3 4 we want to establish h1 ∧ h2 ∧ h3 ∧ h4 ⇒ c. 1. (q ∨ d ) → ¬ p Premise 1. q ∨ d Premise 2. ¬ p → (a ∧ ¬ b)Premise 2. (q ∨ d ) → ¬ p Premise 3. (q ∨ d ) → (a ∧ ¬ b)1&2, Hypothetical Syllogism 3. ¬ p 1&2, and modus ponens 4. (a ∧ ¬ b) → (r ∨ s)Premise 4. ¬ p → (a ∧ ¬ b)Premise 5. (q ∨ d ) → (r ∨ s)3&4, HS 5. (a ∧ ¬ b)3&4, modus ponens 6. q ∨ d Premise 6. (a ∧ ¬ b) → (r ∨ s) Premise 7. r ∨ s 5&6, Modus Ponens 7. r ∨ s 5&6, modus ponens MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 21 MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 22 Example Is [(¬ (p ∧ q)) → (¬ p ∨ q)] ≡ (¬ p ∨ q) ? Truth Table Method Question: Is [(¬ (p ∧ q)) → (¬ p ∨ q)] ≡ (¬ p ∨ q) ? pq¬(p ∧ q)(¬p ∨ q)LHSRHSAnswer Different ways to answer the above question 1. By means of the Truth Table. TT FTT T YES 2. By means of derivation. 3. By formulating it as logical equivalence, that is, as a TF TFF F YES “proof”. FT TTT T YES FF TTT T YES MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 23 MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 24 © 2006 by A-H. Esfahanian. All Rights Reserved. 1- Is [(¬ (p ∧ q)) → (¬ p ∨ q)] ≡ (¬ p ∨ q) ? Is [ (¬ (p ∧ q)) → (¬ p ∨ q)] ≡ (¬ p ∨ q) ? Derivation Method Logical Equivalence Method (¬ (p ∧ q)) → (¬ p ∨ q) ≡ ¬(¬(p ∧ q)) ∨ (¬ p ∨ q) To show S ≡ R: show that S ⇒ R and R ⇒ S ≡ (p ∧ q) ∨ (¬ p ∨ q) ≡ ((p ∧ q) ∨ ¬ p) ∨ q ) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ≡ (¬ p ∨ (p ∧ q)) ∨ q In this case, we have ≡ ((¬ p ∨ p) ∧ (¬ p ∨ q)) ∨ q ≡ ((T) ∧ (¬ p ∨ q)) ∨q S = [¬ (p ∧ q)) → (¬ p ∨ q)] and ≡ (¬ p ∨ q) ∨q R = (¬ p ∨ q) ≡ (¬ p) ∨ (q ∨q ) ≡ (¬ p) ∨ (q) ≡ (¬ p ∨ q) MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 25 MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 26 Prove [(¬ (p ∧ q)) → (¬ p ∨ q)] ⇒ (¬ p ∨ q) Example 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • On Basic Probability Logic Inequalities †
    mathematics Article On Basic Probability Logic Inequalities † Marija Boriˇci´cJoksimovi´c Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade, Jove Ili´ca154, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia; [email protected] † The conclusions given in this paper were partially presented at the European Summer Meetings of the Association for Symbolic Logic, Logic Colloquium 2012, held in Manchester on 12–18 July 2012. Abstract: We give some simple examples of applying some of the well-known elementary probability theory inequalities and properties in the field of logical argumentation. A probabilistic version of the hypothetical syllogism inference rule is as follows: if propositions A, B, C, A ! B, and B ! C have probabilities a, b, c, r, and s, respectively, then for probability p of A ! C, we have f (a, b, c, r, s) ≤ p ≤ g(a, b, c, r, s), for some functions f and g of given parameters. In this paper, after a short overview of known rules related to conjunction and disjunction, we proposed some probabilized forms of the hypothetical syllogism inference rule, with the best possible bounds for the probability of conclusion, covering simultaneously the probabilistic versions of both modus ponens and modus tollens rules, as already considered by Suppes, Hailperin, and Wagner. Keywords: inequality; probability logic; inference rule MSC: 03B48; 03B05; 60E15; 26D20; 60A05 1. Introduction The main part of probabilization of logical inference rules is defining the correspond- Citation: Boriˇci´cJoksimovi´c,M. On ing best possible bounds for probabilities of propositions. Some of them, connected with Basic Probability Logic Inequalities. conjunction and disjunction, can be obtained immediately from the well-known Boole’s Mathematics 2021, 9, 1409.
    [Show full text]
  • 7.1 Rules of Implication I
    Natural Deduction is a method for deriving the conclusion of valid arguments expressed in the symbolism of propositional logic. The method consists of using sets of Rules of Inference (valid argument forms) to derive either a conclusion or a series of intermediate conclusions that link the premises of an argument with the stated conclusion. The First Four Rules of Inference: ◦ Modus Ponens (MP): p q p q ◦ Modus Tollens (MT): p q ~q ~p ◦ Pure Hypothetical Syllogism (HS): p q q r p r ◦ Disjunctive Syllogism (DS): p v q ~p q Common strategies for constructing a proof involving the first four rules: ◦ Always begin by attempting to find the conclusion in the premises. If the conclusion is not present in its entirely in the premises, look at the main operator of the conclusion. This will provide a clue as to how the conclusion should be derived. ◦ If the conclusion contains a letter that appears in the consequent of a conditional statement in the premises, consider obtaining that letter via modus ponens. ◦ If the conclusion contains a negated letter and that letter appears in the antecedent of a conditional statement in the premises, consider obtaining the negated letter via modus tollens. ◦ If the conclusion is a conditional statement, consider obtaining it via pure hypothetical syllogism. ◦ If the conclusion contains a letter that appears in a disjunctive statement in the premises, consider obtaining that letter via disjunctive syllogism. Four Additional Rules of Inference: ◦ Constructive Dilemma (CD): (p q) • (r s) p v r q v s ◦ Simplification (Simp): p • q p ◦ Conjunction (Conj): p q p • q ◦ Addition (Add): p p v q Common Misapplications Common strategies involving the additional rules of inference: ◦ If the conclusion contains a letter that appears in a conjunctive statement in the premises, consider obtaining that letter via simplification.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 9: Answers and Comments Step 1 Exercises 1. Simplification. 2. Absorption. 3. See Textbook. 4. Modus Tollens. 5. Modus P
    Chapter 9: Answers and Comments Step 1 Exercises 1. Simplification. 2. Absorption. 3. See textbook. 4. Modus Tollens. 5. Modus Ponens. 6. Simplification. 7. X -- A very common student mistake; can't use Simplification unless the major con- nective of the premise is a conjunction. 8. Disjunctive Syllogism. 9. X -- Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent. 10. X 11. Constructive Dilemma. 12. See textbook. 13. Hypothetical Syllogism. 14. Hypothetical Syllogism. 15. Conjunction. 16. See textbook. 17. Addition. 18. Modus Ponens. 19. X -- Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. 20. Disjunctive Syllogism. 21. X -- not HS, the (D v G) does not match (D v C). This is deliberate to make sure you don't just focus on generalities, and make sure the entire form fits. 22. Constructive Dilemma. 23. See textbook. 24. Simplification. 25. Modus Ponens. 26. Modus Tollens. 27. See textbook. 28. Disjunctive Syllogism. 29. Modus Ponens. 30. Disjunctive Syllogism. Step 2 Exercises #1 1 Z A 2. (Z v B) C / Z C 3. Z (1)Simp. 4. Z v B (3) Add. 5. C (2)(4)MP 6. Z C (3)(5) Conj. For line 4 it is easy to get locked into line 2 and strategy 1. But they do not work. #2 1. K (B v I) 2. K 3. ~B 4. I (~T N) 5. N T / ~N 6. B v I (1)(2) MP 7. I (6)(3) DS 8. ~T N (4)(7) MP 9. ~T (8) Simp. 10. ~N (5)(9) MT #3 See textbook. #4 1. H I 2. I J 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Argument Forms and Fallacies
    6.6 Common Argument Forms and Fallacies 1. Common Valid Argument Forms: In the previous section (6.4), we learned how to determine whether or not an argument is valid using truth tables. There are certain forms of valid and invalid argument that are extremely common. If we memorize some of these common argument forms, it will save us time because we will be able to immediately recognize whether or not certain arguments are valid or invalid without having to draw out a truth table. Let’s begin: 1. Disjunctive Syllogism: The following argument is valid: “The coin is either in my right hand or my left hand. It’s not in my right hand. So, it must be in my left hand.” Let “R”=”The coin is in my right hand” and let “L”=”The coin is in my left hand”. The argument in symbolic form is this: R ˅ L ~R __________________________________________________ L Any argument with the form just stated is valid. This form of argument is called a disjunctive syllogism. Basically, the argument gives you two options and says that, since one option is FALSE, the other option must be TRUE. 2. Pure Hypothetical Syllogism: The following argument is valid: “If you hit the ball in on this turn, you’ll get a hole in one; and if you get a hole in one you’ll win the game. So, if you hit the ball in on this turn, you’ll win the game.” Let “B”=”You hit the ball in on this turn”, “H”=”You get a hole in one”, and “W”=”you win the game”.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Stoic Propositional Logic: a New Reconstruction
    Stoic propositional logic: a new reconstruction David Hitchcock McMaster University [email protected] Stoic propositional logic: a new reconstruction Abstract: I reconstruct Stoic propositional logic, from the ancient testimonies, in a way somewhat different than the 10 reconstructions published before 2002, building especially on the work of Michael Frede (1974) and Suzanne Bobzien (1996, 1999). In the course of reconstructing the system, I draw attention to several of its features that are rarely remarked about, such as its punctuation-free notation, the status of the premisses of an argument as something intermediate between a set and a sequence of propositions, the incorrectness of the almost universal translation of the Greek label for the primitives of the system as indemonstrable arguments, the probable existence of an extended set of primitives which accommodates conjunctions with more than two conjuncts and disjunctions with more than two disjuncts, the basis for the system’s exclusion of redundant premisses, and the reason why the hypothetical syllogisms of Theophrastus are not derivable in the system. I argue that, though sound according to its originator’s (Chrysippus’s) conception of validity, the system as reconstructed is not complete according to that conception. It is an open problem what one needs to add to the system in order to make it Chrysippean-complete, or even whether it is possible to do so without making it Chrysippean-unsound. Key words: Stoicism, logic, history of logic, Stoic logic, Chrysippus, reconstruction, propositional logic, soundness, completeness 0. Introduction In Aristotle’s Earlier Logic (Woods 2001), John Woods finds in Aristotle’s earliest logical writings considerable grist for his ongoing sophisticated defence of classical validity against contemporary relevantist objections.
    [Show full text]
  • MGF1121 Course Outline
    MGF1121 Course Outline Introduction to Logic............................................................................................................. (3) (P) Description: This course is a study of both the formal and informal nature of human thought. It includes an examination of informal fallacies, sentential symbolic logic and deductive proofs, categorical propositions, syllogistic arguments and sorites. General Education Learning Outcome: The primary General Education Learning Outcome (GELO) for this course is Quantitative Reasoning, which is to understand and apply mathematical concepts and reasoning, and analyze and interpret various types of data. The GELO will be assessed through targeted questions on either the comprehensive final or an outside assignment. Prerequisite: MFG1100, MAT1033, or MAT1034 with a grade of “C” or better, OR the equivalent. Rationale: In order to function effectively and productively in an increasingly complex democratic society, students must be able to think for themselves to make the best possible decisions in the many and varied situations that will confront them. Knowledge of the basic concepts of logical reasoning, as offered in this course, will give students a firm foundation on which to base their decision-making processes. Students wishing to major in computer science, philosophy, mathematics, engineering and most natural sciences are required to have a working knowledge of symbolic logic and its applications. Impact Assessment: Introduction to Logic provides students with critical insight
    [Show full text]
  • Module 3: Proof Techniques
    Module 3: Proof Techniques Theme 1: Rule of Inference Let us consider the following example. Example 1: Read the following “obvious” statements: All Greeks are philosophers. Socrates is a Greek. Therefore, Socrates is a philosopher. This conclusion seems to be perfectly correct, and quite obvious to us. However, we cannot justify it rigorously since we do not have any rule of inference. When the chain of implications is more complicated, as in the example below, a formal method of inference is very useful. Example 2: Consider the following hypothesis: 1. It is not sunny this afternoon and it is colder than yesterday. 2. We will go swimming only if it is sunny. 3. If we do not go swimming, then we will take a canoe trip. 4. If we take a canoe trip, then we will be home by sunset. From this hypothesis, we should conclude: We will be home by sunset. We shall come back to it in Example 5. The above conclusions are examples of a syllogisms defined as a “deductive scheme of a formal argument consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion”. Here what encyclope- dia.com is to say about syllogisms: Syllogism, a mode of argument that forms the core of the body of Western logical thought. Aristotle defined syllogistic logic, and his formulations were thought to be the final word in logic; they underwent only minor revisions in the subsequent 2,200 years. We shall now discuss rules of inference for propositional logic. They are listed in Table 1. These rules provide justifications for steps that lead logically to a conclusion from a set of hypotheses.
    [Show full text]
  • Form and Content: an Introduction to Formal Logic
    Connecticut College Digital Commons @ Connecticut College Open Educational Resources 2020 Form and Content: An Introduction to Formal Logic Derek D. Turner Connecticut College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/oer Recommended Citation Turner, Derek D., "Form and Content: An Introduction to Formal Logic" (2020). Open Educational Resources. 1. https://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/oer/1 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Connecticut College. It has been accepted for inclusion in Open Educational Resources by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Connecticut College. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author. Form & Content Form and Content An Introduction to Formal Logic Derek Turner Connecticut College 2020 Susanne K. Langer. This bust is in Shain Library at Connecticut College, New London, CT. Photo by the author. 1 Form & Content ©2020 Derek D. Turner This work is published in 2020 under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. You may share this text in any format or medium. You may not use it for commercial purposes. If you share it, you must give appropriate credit. If you remix, transform, add to, or modify the text in any way, you may not then redistribute the modified text. 2 Form & Content A Note to Students For many years, I had relied on one of the standard popular logic textbooks for my introductory formal logic course at Connecticut College. It is a perfectly good book, used in countless logic classes across the country.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Thinking
    Critical Thinking Mark Storey Bellevue College Copyright (c) 2013 Mark Storey Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is found at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.txt. 1 Contents Part 1 Chapter 1: Thinking Critically about the Logic of Arguments .. 3 Chapter 2: Deduction and Induction ………… ………………. 10 Chapter 3: Evaluating Deductive Arguments ……………...…. 16 Chapter 4: Evaluating Inductive Arguments …………..……… 24 Chapter 5: Deductive Soundness and Inductive Cogency ….…. 29 Chapter 6: The Counterexample Method ……………………... 33 Part 2 Chapter 7: Fallacies ………………….………….……………. 43 Chapter 8: Arguments from Analogy ………………………… 75 Part 3 Chapter 9: Categorical Patterns….…….………….…………… 86 Chapter 10: Propositional Patterns……..….…………...……… 116 Part 4 Chapter 11: Causal Arguments....……..………….………....…. 143 Chapter 12: Hypotheses.….………………………………….… 159 Chapter 13: Definitions and Analyses...…………………...…... 179 Chapter 14: Probability………………………………….………199 2 Chapter 1: Thinking Critically about the Logic of Arguments Logic and critical thinking together make up the systematic study of reasoning, and reasoning is what we do when we draw a conclusion on the basis of other claims. In other words, reasoning is used when you infer one claim on the basis of another. For example, if you see a great deal of snow falling from the sky outside your bedroom window one morning, you can reasonably conclude that it’s probably cold outside. Or, if you see a man smiling broadly, you can reasonably conclude that he is at least somewhat happy.
    [Show full text]
  • Hypothetical Syllogisms1
    Phil 2302 Intro to Logic Dr. Naugle Hypothetical Syllogisms1 Compound syllogisms are composed of different kinds of sentences in their premises and conclusions (not just categorical propositions, statements or sentences). Compound syllogisms are more familiar and are more often used than categorical syllogisms, and the rules of their uses are much easier to grasp. There are several kinds of compound syllogisms including hypothetical, disjunctive, conjunctive, dilemmas, and sorites. Today, hypothetical syllogisms (and a little symbolic logic as well). I. Hypothetical Syllogisms A. Definition A hypothetical syllogism is built around a hypothetical statement which takes the form: "IF . THEN." Hypothetical syllogisms are not entirely hypothetical, but one of its premises is. Three hypothetical statements would not lead to any conclusion! "IF . THEN." "IF . THEN." Therefore, "IF . THEN." Rather, this kind of syllogism must be constructed of a conditional major premise, and an unconditional minor premise leading to an unconditional conclusion. 1. A conditional major premise. 2. An unconditional minor premise. 3. An unconditional conclusion. Rather than having three terms as categorical syllogisms do, a hypothetical syllogism has only two terms. Instead of talking about subjects and predicates, here we will be talking about antecedents and consequents. * The antecedent is the "IF" part of the statement. It states the condition under which the "THEN" part is true. 1 NB: This material is taken from several logic texts authored by N. Geisler, H. Kahane, and others. I make no claim to originality in this material. * The consequent is the "THEN" part, the consequence of or what follows from the antecedent if the "IF" part is true.
    [Show full text]
  • Proofs in Propositional Logic
    PHIL 100 Proofs (download) Page 1 of 11 PROOFS IN PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC In propositional logic, a proof system is a set of rules for constructing proofs. In our technical vocabulary, a proof is a series of sentences, each of which is a premise or is justified by applying one of the rules in the system to earlier sentences in the series. A sentence justified in this way is said to be derived from the premises. The rules are designed with a very important limitation: they will only allow you to derive a conclusion from a group of premises if the argument is deductively valid – that is, if it is not possible for there to be a situation where the premises would all true be true yet the conclusion would be false. It is this limitation that makes it legitimate for us to call the series of sentences a proof. Ordinarily, to convince someone of a conclusion, given certain premises, you would try to show in clear, simple steps how the premises lead to that conclusion. The most common types of proof systems, natural deduction systems, for the most part work in that way. Each rule lets you add a sentence that must be true, given that certain sentences earlier in the proof are true. We will use this kind of system. Its rules let us break apart sentences containing the propositional operators (connectives) we saw in truth tables, and use those operators to combine sentences to form more complex sentences. Rules of the first kind are Elim (short for ‘elimination’) rules; rules of the second kind are Intro (short for ‘introduction’) rules.
    [Show full text]