Mathematical Logic

CHAPTER 1: ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICAL LOGIC
1.1 Introduction and Definition

Mathematical logic is a subfield of mathematics exploring the applications of formal logic to mathematics.
Topically, mathematical logic bears close connections to meta mathematics, the foundations of mathematics,
and theoretical computer science. The unifying themes in mathematical logic include the study of the expressive
power of formal systems and the deductive power of formal proof systems.
Mathematical logic is often divided into the fields of set theory, model theory, recursion theory, and proof
theory. These areas share basic results on logic, particularly first-order logic, and definability.
Mathematics normally works with a two-valued logic: Every statement is either True or
False. You can use truth tables to determine the truth or falsity of a complicated statement
based on the truth or falsity of its simple components.
1.2 Propositional Logic
A sentence that is either true or false, but not both is called a proposition. A proposition is
expressed as a declarative sentence (as opposed to a question, command, etc.)
Logical connectives
A statement in sentential logic is built from simple statements using the logical connectives
, , ,
, and
. I'll construct tables which show how the truth or falsity of a statement
built with these connective depends on the truth or falsity of its components.
Here's the table for negation:
This table is easy to understand. If P is true, its negation
is it true.
is false. If P is false, then
Table for Conjunction

Should be true when both P and Q are true, and false otherwise:
1|quantitative method chapter 1
Table for Disjunction

is true if either P is true or Q is true (or both). It's only false if both P and Q are false.
Here's the table for logical implication:
To understand why this table is the way it is, consider the following example:
"If you get an A, then I'll give you a dollar."
The statement will be true if I keep my promise and false if I don't.
Suppose it's true that you get an A and it's true that I give you a dollar. Since I kept my
promise, the implication is it true. This corresponds to the first line in the table.
Suppose it's true that you get an A but it's false that I give you a dollar. Since I didn't keep my
promise, the implication is false. This corresponds to the second line in the table.
What if it's false that you get an A? Whether or not I give you a dollar, I haven't broken my
promise. Thus, the implication can't be false, so (since this is a two-valued logic) it must be
true. This explains the last two lines of the table.
Means that P and Q are equivalent. So the double implication is true if P and Q are
both true or if P and Q are both false; otherwise, the double implication is false.
You should remember or be able to construct the truth tables for the logical connectives.
You'll use these tables to construct tables for more complicated sentences. It's easier to
demonstrate what to do than to describe it in words, so you'll see the procedure worked out in
the examples.
Remarks. 1. When you're constructing a truth table, you have to consider all possible
assignments of True (T) and False (F) to the component statements. For example, suppose the
component statements are P, Q, and R. Each of these statements can be either true or false, so
there are
possibilities.
When you're listing the possibilities, you should assign truth values to the component
statements in a systematic way to avoid duplication or omission. The easiest approach is to
use lexicographic ordering. Thus, for a compound statement with three components P, Q, and
R, I would list the possibilities this way:
1.4 Complex Truth Tables

There are different ways of setting up truth tables. You can, for instance, write the truth
values "under" the logical connectives of the compound statement, gradually building up to
the column for the "primary" connective.
I'll write things out the long way, by constructing columns for each "piece" of the compound
statement and gradually building up to the compound statement.
Example. Construct a truth table for the formula
1.5 Tautology and contradiction

A tautology is a formula which is "always true" --- that is, it is true for every assignment of
truth values to its simple components. You can think of a tautology as a rule of logic.
The opposite of a tautology is a contradiction, a formula which is "always false". In other
words, a contradiction is false for every assignment of truth values to its simple components.
Example. Show that
is a tautology.
I construct the truth table for
and show that the formula is always true.
The last column contains only T's. Therefore, the formula is a tautology.
Example. Construct a truth table for
Example. Suppose
"
" is true.
"
" is false.
"Calvin Butterball has purple socks" is true.

Determine the truth value of the statement
For simplicity, let

P="
Q="
".
".
R = "Calvin Butterball has purple socks".

I want to determine the truth value of
. Since I was given specific truth
values for P, Q, and R, I set up a truth table with a single row using the given values for P, Q,
and R:
Therefore, the statement is true.

Two statements X and Y are logically equivalent if
is a tautology. Another way to say
this is: For each assignment of truth values to the simple statements which make up X and Y,
the statements X and Y have identical truth values.
From a practical point of view, you can replace a statement in a proof by any logically
equivalent statement.
To test whether X and Y are logically equivalent, you could set up a truth table to test
whether
is a tautology --- that is, whether
"has all T's in its column".
However, it's easier to set up a table containing X and Y and then check whether the columns
for X and for Y are the same.
Example. Show that
and
are logically equivalent.
Since the columns for

and
are identical, the two statements are logically
equivalent. This tautology is called Conditional Disjunction. You can use this equivalence to
replace a conditional by a disjunction.
There are an infinite number of tautologies and logical equivalences; I've listed a few below;
a more extensive list is given at the end of this section.
When a tautology has the form of a bi conditional, the two statements which make up the bi
conditional are logically equivalent. Hence, you can replace one side with the other without
changing the logical meaning.
Example. Write down the negation of the following statements, simplifying so that only
simple statements are negated.
(a)
I showed that
and
are logically equivalent in an earlier example.
The result is "Phoebe buys the pizza and Calvin doesn't buy popcorn".
Example. Replace the following statement with its contrapositive:

"If x and y are rational, then
is rational."
By the contrapositive equivalence, this statement is the same as "If

it is not the case that both x and y are rational".
is not rational, then
Example. Show that the inverse and the converse of a conditional are logically equivalent.
Let
be the conditional. The inverse is
. The converse is
I could show that the inverse and converse are equivalent by constructing a truth table for
. I'll use some known tautologies instead.
Start with
Remember that I can replace a statement with one that is logically equivalent. For example,
in the last step I replaced
with Q, because the two statements are equivalent by
Double negation.
Example. Suppose x is a real number. Consider the statement

"If
, then
."
Construct the converse, the inverse, and the contrapositive. Determine the truth or falsity of
the four statements --- the original statement, the converse, the inverse, and the contrapositive
--- using your knowledge of algebra.
The converse is "If
The inverse is "If
, then
, then
The contrapositive is "If
".
".
, then
".
The original statement is false:

, but
. Since the original statement is
eqiuivalent to the contrapositive, the contrapositive must be false as well.
The converse is true. The inverse is logically equivalent to the converse, so the inverse is true
as well.
1.7 Properties of connectives
1.8 Transalation
Example. Use De Morgan's Law to write the negation of the following statement, simplifying
so that only simple statements are negated:
"Calvin is not home or Bonzo is at the movies."
Let C be the statement "Calvin is home" and let B be the statement "Bonzo is at the moves".
The given statement is
. I'm supposed to negate the statement, then simplify:
The result is "Calvin is home and Bonzo is not at the movies".

Example. Use DeMorgan's Law to write the negation of the following statement, simplifying
so that only simple statements are negated:
"If Phoebe buys a pizza, then Calvin buys popcorn."
Let P be the statement "Phoebe buys a pizza" and let C be the statement "Calvin buys
popcorn". The given statement is
. To simplify the negation, I'll use the Conditional
Disjunction tautology which says
That is, I can replace
with
(or vice versa).
Here, then, is the negation and simplification:
The result is "Phoebe buys the pizza and Calvin doesn't buy popcorn".
1.9 Argument
Example : Consider the following argument about Peter, who is a student in a logic
course.
Premise: If Peter has the ability and works hard, then Peter will be successful in the course.
Conclusion: Therefore, if Peter is not successful in the course, then Peter does not have the
ability or Peter does not work hard.
What do you think? Is the reasoning correct? (Yes, it is.)

Example: Consider an similar argument.
Premise 1: If the car runs out of petrol, then the car stops.
Premise 2: The car does not run out of petrol.
Conclusion: Therefore, the car does not stop.
Do you think, the reasoning is correct ? (This and the previous reasonings are faulty,
because although the premises are true, the conclusion is not sure true.)
The abstracted form of an argument
What is the common in the last two arguments?
Premise 1: If ..............., then ______.
Premise 2: Not................
Conclusion: Not______.
We can put the same proposition in place of the same sign. We shall use capital Roman letters
to denote the simple propositions, these are called propositional letters.
Let us use capital Roman letters instead of signs!
Premise 1: If A, then B.
Premise 2: Not A.
Conclusion: Not B.
10 | q u a n t i t a t i v e m e t h o d c h a p t e r 1

Mathematical Logic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mathematical Logic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mathematical Logic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is propositional logic?

What is propositional logic?

What are the truth tables for logical connectives?

What are the truth tables for logical connectives?

CHAPTER 1: ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICAL LOGIC

1.1 Introduction and Definition

is false. If P is false, then

Table for Conjunction

1|quantitative method chapter 1

Table for Disjunction

Here's the table for logical implication:

2|quantitative method chapter 1

1.4 Complex Truth Tables

1.5 Tautology and contradiction

Example. Show that

I construct the truth table for

and show that the formula is always true.

4|quantitative method chapter 1

"Calvin Butterball has purple socks" is true.

For simplicity, let

R = "Calvin Butterball has purple socks".

5|quantitative method chapter 1

Therefore, the statement is true.

Example. Show that

are logically equivalent.

Since the columns for

6|quantitative method chapter 1

are logically equivalent in an earlier example.

Example. Replace the following statement with its contrapositive:

By the contrapositive equivalence, this statement is the same as "If

is not rational, then

be the conditional. The inverse is

Example. Suppose x is a real number. Consider the statement

The contrapositive is "If

The original statement is false:

1.7 Properties of connectives

8|quantitative method chapter 1

The result is "Calvin is home and Bonzo is not at the movies".

That is, I can replace

(or vice versa).

Here, then, is the negation and simplification:

What do you think? Is the reasoning correct? (Yes, it is.)

You might also like