Copyright © Peter Cappello

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

-- in other words, logic is

Advertisements

Rules of Inference Rosen 1.5.

Discrete Mathematics University of Jazeera College of Information Technology & Design Khulood Ghazal Mathematical Reasoning Methods of Proof.

Rules of Inferences Section 1.5. Definitions Argument: is a sequence of propositions (premises) that end with a proposition called conclusion. Valid Argument:

1 Section 1.5 Rules of Inference. 2 Definitions Theorem: a statement that can be shown to be true Proof: demonstration of truth of theorem –consists of.

The Foundations: Logic and Proofs

CSE115/ENGR160 Discrete Mathematics 01/26/12 Ming-Hsuan Yang UC Merced 1.

Valid Arguments An argument is a sequence of propositions. All but the final proposition are called premises. The last statement is the conclusion. The.

Chapter 1 The Logic of Compound Statements. Section 1.3 Valid & Invalid Arguments.

CS128 – Discrete Mathematics for Computer Science

Logic 3 Tautological Implications and Tautological Equivalences

Copyright © Peter Cappello Logical Inferences Goals for propositional logic 1.Introduce notion of a valid argument & rules of inference. 2.Use inference.

EE1J2 – Discrete Maths Lecture 5 Analysis of arguments (continued) More example proofs Formalisation of arguments in natural language Proof by contradiction.

Logical and Rule-Based Reasoning Part I. Logical Models and Reasoning Big Question: Do people think logically?

3.6 Analyzing Arguments with Truth Tables

Copyright © Curt Hill Rules of Inference What is a valid argument?

Logical Inferences. De Morgan’s Laws ~(p  q)  (~p  ~q)~(p  q)  (~p  ~q) ~(p  q)  (~p  ~q)~(p  q)  (~p  ~q)

Logical Arguments. Strength 1.A useless argument is one in which the truth of the premisses has no effect at all on the truth of the conclusion. 2.A weak.

Discrete Mathematics CS 2610 August 24, Agenda Last class Introduction to predicates and quantifiers This class Nested quantifiers Proofs.

1 Sections 1.5 & 3.1 Methods of Proof / Proof Strategy.

Discrete Structures (DS)

Fallacies The proposition [(p  q)  q]  p is not a tautology, because it is false when p is false and q is true. This type of incorrect reasoning is.

The construction of a formal argument

Rules of Inference Section 1.6. Arguments in Propositional Logic A argument in propositional logic is a sequence of propositions. All but the final proposition.

Arguments Arguments: premises provide grounds for the truth of the conclusion Two different ways a conclusion may be supported by premises. Deductive Arguments.

Logic: The Language of Philosophy. What is Logic? Logic is the study of argumentation o In Philosophy, there are no right or wrong opinions, but there.

Today’s Topics Argument forms and rules (review)

Sound Arguments and Derivations. Topics Sound Arguments Derivations Proofs –Inference rules –Deduction.

THE NATURE OF ARGUMENT. THE MAIN CONCERN OF LOGIC Basically in logic we deal with ARGUMENTS. Mainly we deal with learning of the principles with which.

L = # of lines n = # of different simple propositions L = 2 n EXAMPLE: consider the statement, (A ⋅ B) ⊃ C A, B, C are three simple statements 2 3 L =

March 23 rd. Four Additional Rules of Inference  Constructive Dilemma (CD): (p  q) (r  s) p v r q v s.

PHIL102 SUM2014, M-F12:00-1:00, SAV 264 Instructor: Benjamin Hole

Logic and Reasoning.

Deductive reasoning.

2. The Logic of Compound Statements Summary

Valid and Invalid Arguments

CSE15 Discrete Mathematics 01/30/17

Discrete Mathematics Logic.

Formal Logic CSC 333.

Chapter 1 Logic and Proofs Homework 1 Two merchants publish new marketing campaign to attract more customers. The first merchant launches a motto “Good.

Methods of proof Section 1.6 & 1.7 Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Deductive Arguments.

Logical Inferences: A set of premises accompanied by a suggested conclusion regardless of whether or not the conclusion is a logical consequence of the.

Relevance Premises are relevant to the conclusion when the truth of the premises provide some evidence that the conclusion is true Premises are irrelevant.

Introduction to Prolog

Proof Techniques.

Rules of Inference Section 1.6.

Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

6.1 Symbols and Translation

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.

Logical Inferences: A set of premises accompanied by a suggested conclusion regardless of whether or not the conclusion is a logical consequence of the.

CS201: Data Structures and Discrete Mathematics I

Mathematical Reasoning

Chapter 3 Introduction to Logic 2012 Pearson Education, Inc.

3.5 Symbolic Arguments.

CS 220: Discrete Structures and their Applications

Applied Discrete Mathematics Week 1: Logic

Inference Rules: Tautologies

Discrete Mathematics Logic.

Foundations of Discrete Mathematics

Mathematical Reasoning

8C Truth Tables, 8D, 8E Implications 8F Valid Arguments

Logical and Rule-Based Reasoning Part I

Chapter 3 Introduction to Logic © 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley.

CS201: Data Structures and Discrete Mathematics I

The Foundations: Logic and Proofs

Rules of inference Section 1.5 Monday, December 02, 2019

Presentation transcript:

Copyright © Peter Cappello Logical Inferences Goals for propositional logic Introduce notion of a valid argument & rules of inference. Use inference rules to build correct arguments. Copyright © Peter Cappello

What is a rule of inference? A rule of inference allows us to specify which conclusions may be inferred from assertions known, assumed, or previously established. A tautology is a propositional function that is true for all values of the propositional variables (e.g., p  ~p). Copyright © Peter Cappello

Copyright © Peter Cappello Modus ponens A rule of inference is a tautological implication. Modus ponens: ( p  (p  q) )  q Copyright © Peter Cappello

Modus ponens: An example Suppose the following 2 statements are true: If it is 11am in Miami then it is 8am in Santa Barbara. It is 11am in Miami. By modus ponens, we infer that it is 8am in Santa Barbara. Copyright © Peter Cappello

Other rules of inference Other tautological implications include: (Is there a finite number of rules of inference?) p  (p  q) (p  q)  p [~q  (p  q)]  ~p [(p  q)  ~p]  q [(p  q)  (q  r)]  (p  r) hypothetical syllogism [(p  q)  (r  s)  (p  r) ]  (q  s) [(p  q)  (r  s)  (~q  ~s) ]  (~p  ~r) [ (p  q)  (~p  r) ]  (q  r ) resolution Copyright © Peter Cappello

Copyright © Peter Cappello Common fallacies 3 fallacies are common: Affirming the converse: [(p  q)  q]  p If Socrates is a man then Socrates is mortal. Socrates is mortal. Therefore, Socrates is a man. Copyright © Peter Cappello

Copyright © Peter Cappello Common fallacies ... Assuming the antecedent: [(p  q)  ~p]  ~q If Socrates is a man then Socrates is mortal. Socrates is not a man. Therefore, Socrates is not mortal. Copyright © Peter Cappello

Copyright © Peter Cappello Common fallacies ... Non sequitur: p  q Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. The following is valid: If Socrates is a man then Socrates is mortal. The argument’s form is what matters. Copyright © Peter Cappello

Copyright © Peter Cappello Examples of arguments Given an argument whose form isn’t obvious: Decompose the argument into premise assertions Connect the premises according to the argument Check to see that the inference is valid. Example argument: If a baby is hungry, it cries. If a baby is not mad, it doesn’t cry. If a baby is mad, it has a red face. Therefore, if a baby is hungry, it has a red face. Copyright © Peter Cappello

Copyright © Peter Cappello 2016 If a baby is hungry, it cries. If a baby is not mad, it doesn’t cry. If a baby is mad, it has a red face. Therefore, if a baby is hungry, it has a red face. ______________________________________ h: a baby is hungry c: a baby cries m: a baby is mad r: a baby has a red face. Argument: ( (h  c)  (~m  ~c)  (m  r) )  (h  r) Copyright © Peter Cappello 2016

( (h  c)  (~m  ~c)  (m  r) )  (h  r) Copyright © Peter Cappello

Copyright © Peter Cappello Examples of arguments ... Argument: McCain will be elected if and only if California votes for him. If California keeps its air base, McCain will be elected. Therefore, McCain will be elected. Assertions: m: McCain will be elected c: California votes for McCain b: California keeps its air base Argument: [(m c)  (b  m)]  m (valid?) Copyright © Peter Cappello