Homework 1

NGO CHAN PHONG - 2053321 - WE LOVE MM

January 17, 2024

1 Excercise 1
Write down the explanations (in Vietnamese, or in English if possible) of the
following terms, find examples for each term, what are the differences between
them:

1.1 Fallacy, Contradiction, Paradox, Counterexample.

1.1.1 Fallacy
Explanation: A fallacy is a flaw in reasoning or an argument that renders
it invalid or unsound. It often involves errors in logic, misleading language, or
false premises, leading to a conclusion that may not be logically justified.
Example: Let’s try to prove that 2 = 1, and state why and where the
proof is wrong.
Assume, α = β
⇔ α × α = β × α (Multiply both side by α)
⇔ α2 = α x β
⇔ α2 - β 2 = α x β - β 2 (Subtract both side by β 2 )
⇔ (α + β)(α - β) = β(α - β)
⇔α+β=β
⇔ α + α = α (Since α = β)
⇔ 2α = α
⇔2=1
In the above proof, we’ll be amused how can this happen. We knew 2 is not
equal to 1, so somewhere the proof is wrong. If we look at the 5th step, (α - β)
is being cancelled by dividing (α - β) on both the sides. Here is where the proof
is wrong. Let’s see why.
α=β
⇔α-β=0
α−β 0
α−β = 0 = undetermined.
So, in the 5th step we cannot divide it by (α - β) as 00 cannot be determined.

1
1.1.2 Contradiction
Explanation: A contradiction occurs when two or more statements or propo-
sitions are mutually exclusive or inconsistent, making it impossible for both to
be true at the same time.
Example: ”It is raining, and it is not raining.”
→ It can’t happen at the same time so it can’t be right.

1.1.3 Paradox
Explanation: A paradox is a statement or situation that appears contradic-
tory or self-defeating but may express a hidden truth or reveal an unexpected
resolution.
Example: ”This statement is false.”
→ While this statement is correct.

1.1.4 Counterexample
Explanation: A counterexample is an example that contradicts or disproves
a statement or generalization. It is used to show that a particular claim or
argument is not universally true.
Example: ”All swans are white.”
→ If there is a black swan, this will be a counterexample.

1.1.5 Differences
Fallacy vs. Contradiction: Fallacy pertains to errors in reasoning, while con-
tradiction involves statements that cannot coexist. Fallacies are often found in
arguments, while contradictions are inherent in the content of statements.
Fallacy vs. Paradox : Fallacies are errors in reasoning, while paradoxes are
seemingly contradictory situations or statements that may reveal deeper truths.
Fallacies are mistakes, while paradoxes are often intentional and thought-provoking.
Fallacy vs. Counterexample: Fallacies are errors in reasoning, whereas coun-
terexamples are specific instances that disprove general claims. Fallacies involve
flawed logic, while counterexamples provide concrete evidence against a state-
ment.
Contradiction vs. Paradox : Contradictions involve statements that cannot
simultaneously be true, while paradoxes are situations or statements that seem
contradictory but may have a hidden resolution. Contradictions are straight-
forward inconsistencies, while paradoxes often involve deeper complexities.

1.2 Premise, Assumption, Axiom, Hypothesis, Conjec-

ture.
1.2.1 Premise
Explanation: A premise is a statement or proposition that serves as the
foundation for an argument. It is used to support or justify the conclusion of

2
an argument.
Example: If a person looks at a green apple and says: ”This apple is
sour”.
→ The premises of this argument could be:

• Green apples are sour.

• This apple is green.

1.2.2 Assumption
Explanation: An assumption is an unstated belief or idea that is taken for
granted, accepted without explicit evidence. It forms the basis for an argument
but may not be explicitly stated.
Example: ”Since the weather forecast predicts rain, we should bring
umbrellas.”
→ According to the weather forecast, it will rain, thus it is assumed that it
will rain.

1.2.3 Axiom
Explanation: An axiom is a self-evident and universally accepted truth or
principle. It serves as a starting point for reasoning and is not typically proven,
as it is considered obvious.
Example: 2 + 2 = 4.
→ This is something that is always true, therefore it is the truth

1.2.4 Hypothesis
Explanation: A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon or
a statement that can be tested through experimentation or observation. It is a
tentative assumption made for the purpose of testing.
Example: ”If plants receive more sunlight, they will grow faster.”

1.2.5 Conjecture
Explanation: A conjecture is a statement that is based on incomplete infor-
mation or is not proven but is believed to be true. It is a conclusion drawn from
limited evidence.
Example: ”if someone sees someone on the street, they may have an
opinion about how old that person is.”

1.2.6 Differences
Premise vs. Assumption: A premise is a stated proposition used to support an
argument, while an assumption is an unstated belief taken for granted. Premises
are explicitly used in reasoning, whereas assumptions are often implicit.

3
 Premise vs. Axiom: A premise is a specific statement supporting an argu-
ment, while an axiom is a self-evident and universally accepted truth that serves
as a foundational principle. Axioms are often more general and fundamental.
Assumption vs. Hypothesis: An assumption is a taken-for-granted belief,
while a hypothesis is a testable statement proposed for investigation. Assump-
tions are accepted without testing, while hypotheses are specifically formulated
for testing.
Hypothesis vs. Conjecture: A hypothesis is a statement proposed for testing,
often in a scientific context, while a conjecture is a conclusion drawn from limited
evidence. Hypotheses are subject to testing and validation, whereas conjectures
may lack empirical support.
Axiom vs. Conjecture: An axiom is a self-evident and universally accepted
truth, while a conjecture is a conclusion drawn from incomplete or limited ev-
idence. Axioms are foundational and widely acknowledged, while conjectures
are speculative and may lack firm evidence.

1.3 Tautology, Valid, Contradiction, Satisfiable.

1.3.1 Tautology
Explanation: A tautology is a statement that is always true, regardless of
the truth values of its individual components. In logical terms, a tautology is
an expression that evaluates to true under every possible interpretation.
Example: ”Either it will rain tomorrow, or it will not rain tomorrow.”

1.3.2 Valid
Explanation: An argument or inference is valid if the conclusion logically
follows from the premises. In a valid argument, if the premises are true, the
conclusion must also be true.
Example:
• Premise 1: ”All humans are mortal.”
• Premise 2: ”Socrates is a human.”

→ Conclusion: ”Therefore, Socrates is mortal.”

1.3.3 Contradiction
Explanation: A contradiction is a statement or proposition that asserts both
the truth and the falsity of a particular claim at the same time and in the same
sense.
Example: ”This square is both red all over and not red all over at the
same time.”

4
1.3.4 Satisfiable
Explanation: A logical formula or set of propositions is satisfiable if there
exists at least one assignment of truth values to its variables that makes the
entire formula true.
Example: For the formula ”(P AND Q) OR (NOT P),” if P is true and
Q is false, the formula is satisfied.

1.3.5 Satisfiable
Explanation: A logical formula or set of propositions is satisfiable if there
exists at least one assignment of truth values to its variables that makes the
entire formula true.
Example: For the formula ”(P AND Q) OR (NOT P),” if P is true and
Q is false, the formula is satisfied.

1.3.6 Differences
Tautology vs. Valid : A tautology refers to a statement that is always true,
whereas validity pertains to the logical structure of an argument. Tautologies
are individual statements, while validity applies to the relationship between
premises and conclusions in arguments.
Valid vs. Contradiction: Validity concerns the logical connection between
premises and conclusions, ensuring that if the premises are true, the conclusion
must be true. Contradictions involve statements that assert both truth and
falsity simultaneously, rendering them logically problematic.
Contradiction vs. Satisfiable: Contradictions are statements that are in-
herently problematic due to asserting both truth and falsity. Satisfiability, on
the other hand, refers to the ability of logical formulas to have at least one
assignment of truth values that makes the entire formula true.
Satisfiable vs. Tautology: Satisfiability is a property of logical formulas, in-
dicating whether at least one assignment of truth values makes the formula true.
A tautology, on the other hand, is a statement that is always true, regardless of
specific truth value assignments.

1.4 Soundness, Completeness.

1.4.1 Soundness
Explanation: Soundness refers to the quality of an argument in which both
the logical structure and the premises are such that if the premises are true,
then the conclusion must also be true. In other words, a sound argument is
both valid and has true premises.
Example:
• Premise 1: ”All humans are mortal.”
• Premise 2: ”Socrates is a human.”

5
 → Conclusion: ”Therefore, Socrates is mortal.”

1.4.2 Completeness
Explanation: Completeness in logic refers to a system’s ability to derive
all true statements within that system. A complete system can prove all true
propositions and possibly disprove false ones.
Example: In the context of formal logic systems, a system that can
prove or disprove any well-formed statement within its language is considered
complete.

1.4.3 Differences
1.4.3.1. Soundness vs. Completeness
Soundness relates to the quality of individual arguments. A sound argument
is one where the logical structure is valid, and the premises are true, ensuring
that the conclusion is also true.
Completeness relates to the properties of a logical system. A complete logical
system is one that can derive all true statements within that system. It is
concerned with the ability of the system to prove or disprove all statements
within its language.
1.4.3.2. Application
Soundness is a concept applied to individual arguments within a logical
framework. An argument is sound if it is valid and has true premises.
Completeness is a property attributed to entire logical systems. A logical
system is complete if it can derive all true statements within its language.
1.4.3.3. Scope
Soundness focuses on the quality of specific arguments, ensuring that the
conclusion follows logically from true premises.
Completeness pertains to the overall capability of a logical system, indicating
whether it can address all possible statements within its language.
1.4.3.4. Conclusion
In summary, soundness deals with the quality of individual arguments, en-
suring they are both valid and based on true premises. Completeness, on the
other hand, deals with the capability of an entire logical system to derive all
true statements within its language.

1.5 Sequent, Consequence, Implication, (Semantic) En-

tailment.
1.5.1 Satisfiable
Explanation: In logic, a sequent is a statement of the form ”If A1 , A2 , ...,
An are true, then B is true,” denoted as {A1 , A2 , ..., An } ⊢ B. It represents
the relationship between a set of premises and a conclusion.
Example: {P ∧ Q, P ⇒ R} ⊢ R.

6
1.5.2 Consequence
Explanation: In logic, consequence refers to the relationship between two
statements, where the truth of the first statement (antecedent) necessarily leads
to the truth of the second statement (consequent).
Example: If P ⇒ Q, then Q is consequence of P.

1.5.3 Implication
Explanation: Implication is a logical relationship between two propositions,
where the truth of the antecedent implies the truth of the consequent. It is
often denoted by symbols such as ⇒ or →.
Example: If it is raining (P ), then the ground is wet (Q): then P ⇒ Q.

1.5.4 (Semantic) Entailment

Explanation: I (Semantic) Entailment is a relation between two statements,
where the truth of one statement necessarily leads to the truth of another. It
signifies a stronger form of implication.
Example: The fact that ”All humans are mortal” entails ”Socrates is
mortal.”

1.5.5 Differences
1.5.5.1. Sequent vs. Consequence
Sequent is a specific form of a logical statement, denoting the relationship
between a set of premises and a conclusion {A1 , A2 , ..., An } ⊢ B.
Consequence is a broader term referring to the relationship between any two
statements, where the truth of the first leads to the truth of the second.
1.5.5.2. Implication vs. Entailment
Implication refers to a logical relationship between propositions, where the
truth of the antecedent implies the truth of the consequent.
Entailment (Semantic Entailment) is a stronger relationship, suggesting that
the truth of one statement necessarily leads to the truth of another, indicating
a semantic connection.
1.5.5.3. Sequent vs. Entailment
Sequent is a specific logical statement in the form of ”if A1 , A2 , ..., An are
true, then B is true,”
Entailment is a broader relationship between two statements, where the
truth of one necessarily leads to the truth of another. Sequent is a specific form
of entailment where the relationship is explicitly stated in the form of a sequent.
1.5.5.4 Conclusion
In summary, a sequent is a specific logical statement, consequence is a gen-
eral relationship between statements, implication is a logical relationship, and
entailment is a stronger form of implication with a semantic connection.

7
1.6 Argument, Variable, Arity.
1.6.1 Argument
Explanation: In logic and mathematics, an argument is a value or expression
used as an input to a function or operation. It is a specific instance or value
that is substituted for a variable in a function or proposition.
Example: In the function f(x) = x2 , the value 2 can be an argument: f(2)
= 22 = 4.

1.6.2 Variable
Explanation: A variable is a symbol or placeholder that represents an un-
specified or generic element in a mathematical or logical expression. Variables
can take on different values, and their specific values are determined by the
context in which they are used.
Example: In the equation y = mx + b, x and y are variables representing
any real numbers.

1.6.3 Arity
Explanation: Arity refers to the number of arguments or parameters that
a function or operation takes. It indicates how many input values a function
requires to perform a computation.
Example: The addition function has an arity of 2 because it takes two
arguments: a + b.

1.6.4 Differences
1.6.4.1. Argument vs. Variable
Argument is a specific value or expression used as input for a function or
operation.
Variable is a symbol representing an unspecified or generic element in a
mathematical or logical expression, capable of taking on different values.
1.6.4.2. Argument vs. Arity
Argument is an actual value or expression provided as input to a function
or operation.
Arity is the number of arguments or parameters a function or operation
takes.
1.6.4.3. Variable vs. Arity
Variable is a symbol representing an unspecified element in an expression,
while the value it takes on is determined by the context.
Arity is the number of arguments a function or operation takes, indicating
how many input values are required for the function to perform a computation.
1.6.4.4. Conclusion

8
 In summary, an argument is a specific value used as input, a variable is a
symbol representing an unspecified element, and arity is the number of argu-
ments a function or operation takes. Arguments are specific instances, variables
are placeholders, and arity indicates the quantity of inputs.

2 Excercise 2
What are the differences between the following notations: ’− →’, ’=⇒’, ’⊢’,
’|=’. And what are the differences between the following notations: ’←→’,
’⇐⇒’, ’⊣⊢’, ’≡’, ’=’ ? Find examples to illustrate these differences.

2.1 Differences between ’− →’, ’=⇒’, ’⊢’, ’|=’

2.1.1 Arrow ’− →’
Explanation: This notation typically represents a directional relationship or
implication.
Example: A − → B, can be read as ”A implies B.”.

2.1.2 Double Arrow ’=⇒’

Explanation: This notation often indicates a logical equivalence or bidirec-
tional implication.
Example: A =⇒ B, means ”A is logically equivalent to B.”

2.1.3 Turnstile ’⊢’

Explanation: This symbol is used to represent a syntactic or deductive
consequence. It often indicates that a conclusion follows from a set of premises.
Example: A,B ⊢ C, means ”From premises A and B, we can deduce C.”

2.1.4 Double Turnstile ’|=’

Explanation: This symbol is commonly used in model theory and indicates a
semantic consequence. It signifies that a formula is true in a particular model.
Example: Γ |= A, means ”In the model defined by Γ, A is true.”

2.2 Differences between ’←→’, ’⇐⇒’, ’⊣⊢’, ’≡’, ’=’

2.2.1 Double-Sided Arrow ’←→’
Explanation: This symbol often denotes a bidirectional relationship or equiv-
alence.
Example: A ←→ B, signifies ”A is equivalent to B.”.

9
2.2.2 Double Implication ’⇐⇒’
Explanation: Similar to ’=⇒’, it represents a logical equivalence or bidirec-
tional implication.
Example: A ⇐⇒ B,means ”A is logically equivalent to B.”

2.2.3 Left Tack and Turnstile ’⊣⊢’

Explanation: This notation is used in sequent calculus to denote a turnstile
on both sides, indicating a relation between sets of formulas.
Example: Γ ⊢ ∆, means ”The set of formulas Γ entails the set of formulas
∆.”

2.2.4 Triple Bar ’≡’

Explanation: Often signifies a strong equivalence, logical equivalence, or
biconditional relationship.
Example: A ≡ B, implies ”A is logically equivalent to B.”

2.2.5 Equals Sign ’=’

Explanation: This is a general symbol for equality, used in various contexts,
including mathematics and logic.
Example: 2+2=4 expresses the equality between the two sides.

2.2.6 Conclusion
In summary, these notations convey different aspects of logical relationships,
implications, and equivalences. Arrows, turnstiles, and symbols like ’=’ have
distinct meanings in different contexts within logic, mathematics, and formal
systems. The examples provided illustrate how these symbols are commonly
used to express various logical concepts.

3 Excercise 3
3.1 1.1: 2d), 2g)
3.1.1 2d

p ∨ (¬q → p ∧ r)

the answer is
p∨q (p → q ∧ r)

10
3.1.2 2g
the expression p ∨ q ∧ r is problematic since ∨ and ∧ have the same binding pri-
orities so we have to insist on additional brackets inorder to resolve this conflict.

3.2 1.2: 1d), 1g), 1m), 1q), 1u), 1w), 3a), 3b), 3c), 3f ),
3g), 3l), 3o); 1.4: 12d)
3.2.1 1d

p → (p → q), p ⊢ q

We prove the validity by

p → q premise
r ∧ e1
p ∧ e2
q ∧ e3

3.2.2 12d
To show that the sequent ¬p, p q ¬q is not valid, we need to find a valuation
(truth assignment) in which the formulas to the left of are true (T) and the
formula to the right of is false (F). ¬p: The negation of p. With p = T, ¬p =
¬T = F. p q: The disjunction of p and q. With p = T and q = F, p q = T
F = T.¬q: The negation of q. With q = F, ¬q = ¬F = T. As we can see, the
valuation satisfies the formulas to the left of (¬p, p q), but it does not satisfy
the formula to the right of (¬q). Therefore, we have found a valuation in which
the truth values of the formulas to the left of are T, while the truth value of
the formula to the right of is F. This demonstrates that the sequent ¬p, p q
¬q is not valid.

3.3 1.5: 3b), 3c), 7c)

3.3.1 3b,3c
Suppose that C contains neither ¬ nor . We will show that there exists a formula
, formed by using only the connectives in C, for which the truth value is false
(F) under a valuation in which every atom is assigned T (true). This contradicts
the assumption that C is an adequate set for propositional logic. Consider a
valuation in which every atom is assigned T. Let be a formula formed using only
the connectives in C. Since ¬ C, we cannot directly use negation in . Since C is
adequate, there exists an equivalent formula to that only uses the connectives
in C. Let’s consider the truth value of under the given valuation. Since every
atom is assigned T, the truth value of would be T if all the connectives in C

11
preserved the truth value T. However, we know that must contain at least one
occurrence of ∧, ∨, →, or since ¬ C. Therefore, we have reached a contradiction,
which implies that if C ¬, , , →, is an adequate set for propositional logic,
then either ¬ C or C. Regarding the set , ¬, let’s analyze its adequacy. From
these equivalences, we observe that both ¬ and are sufficient to express any
formula in propositional logic. Therefore, , ¬ is an adequate set of connectives
for propositional logic.

3.3.2 7c
To construct a formula in Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF) based on the given
truth table, we can analyze the rows where the truth value is F (false) and
construct clauses that represent those rows.
(¬r ∨ ¬s ∨ ¬q) ∧ (¬r ∨ s ∨ ¬q) ∧ (r ∨ ¬s ∨ ¬q) ∧ (r ∨ s ∨ ¬q) ∧ (r ∨ s ∨ q)

12