SHORTER TRUTH TABLE METHOD OR REDUCTIO-AD-ABSURDUM

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
TRUTH TABLES The general truth tables for each of the connectives tell you the value of any possible statement for each of the connectives. Negation.
Advertisements

Introduction to Proofs
PROOF BY CONTRADICTION
Chapter 3 Elementary Number Theory and Methods of Proof.
Use a truth table to determine the validity or invalidity of this argument. First, translate into standard form “Martin is not buying a new car, since.
Knowledge The Pop Quiz Paradox. Replies to Gettier The Tripartite Analysis: S knows that p iff i. p is true, ii. S believes that p; iii. S’s belief that.
Philosophy 103 Linguistics 103 Yet, still, even further more, expanded, Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking Dr. Robert Barnard.
CS128 – Discrete Mathematics for Computer Science
Formal Logic Proof Methods Direct Proof / Natural Deduction Conditional Proof (Implication Introduction) Reductio ad Absurdum Resolution Refutation.
Essential Deduction Techniques of Constructing Formal Expressions and Evaluating Attempts to Create Valid Arguments.
Essential Deduction Techniques of Constructing Formal Expressions Evaluating Attempts to Create Valid Arguments.
EE1J2 – Discrete Maths Lecture 5 Analysis of arguments (continued) More example proofs Formalisation of arguments in natural language Proof by contradiction.
Accelerated Math I Unit 2 Concept: Triangular Inequalities The Hinge Theorem.
Rosen 1.6. Approaches to Proofs Membership tables (similar to truth tables) Convert to a problem in propositional logic, prove, then convert back Use.
Adapted from Discrete Math
Propositions and Truth Tables
MATERI II PROPOSISI. 2 Tautology and Contradiction Definition A tautology is a statement form that is always true. A statement whose form is a tautology.
Methods of Proof involving  Symbolic Logic February 19, 2001.
1 Section 1.1 A Proof Primer A proof is a demonstration that some statement is true. We normally demonstrate proofs by writing English sentences mixed.
F22H1 Logic and Proof Week 6 Reasoning. How can we show that this is a tautology (section 11.2): The hard way: “logical calculation” The “easy” way: “reasoning”
The Inverse Error Jeffrey Martinez Math 170 Dr. Lipika Deka 10/15/13.
Chapter Three Truth Tables 1. Computing Truth-Values We can use truth tables to determine the truth-value of any compound sentence containing one of.
Chapter Five Conditional and Indirect Proofs. 1. Conditional Proofs A conditional proof is a proof in which we assume the truth of one of the premises.
assumption procedures
Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc. Section 3.3 Truth Tables for the Conditional and Biconditional.
Section 1.2: Propositional Equivalences In the process of reasoning, we often replace a known statement with an equivalent statement that more closely.
Venn Diagrams Truth Sets & Valid Arguments Truth Sets & Valid Arguments Truth Tables Implications Truth Tables Implications Truth Tables Converse, Inverse,
Proof By Contradiction Chapter 3 Indirect Argument Contradiction Theorems and pg. 171.
Arguments for The Existence of God Ontological Cosmological Telelogical Ontological Cosmological Telelogical.
Chapter 7. Propositional and Predicate Logic Fall 2013 Comp3710 Artificial Intelligence Computing Science Thompson Rivers University.
Thinking Mathematically Logic 3.4 Truth Tables for the Conditional and Biconditional.
1 Introduction to Abstract Mathematics Proof Methods , , ~, ,  Instructor: Hayk Melikya Purpose of Section:Most theorems in mathematics.
Foundations of Discrete Mathematics Chapter 1 By Dr. Dalia M. Gil, Ph.D.
Section 1.7. Section Summary Mathematical Proofs Forms of Theorems Direct Proofs Indirect Proofs Proof of the Contrapositive Proof by Contradiction.
Law of logic Lecture 4.
 Conjunctive Normal Form: A logic form must satisfy one of the following conditions 1) It must be a single variable (A) 2) It must be the negation of.
March 23 rd. Four Additional Rules of Inference  Constructive Dilemma (CD): (p  q) (r  s) p v r q v s.
Chapter 7. Propositional and Predicate Logic
2. The Logic of Compound Statements Summary
VENNS DIAGRAM METHOD FOR TESTING CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
Jeffrey Martinez Math 170 Dr. Lipika Deka 10/15/13
Disjunctive Normal Form
Chapter 8: Recognizing Arguments
Chapter 8 Logic Topics
Criticism Reductio ad Absurdum Dilemmas Counterexamples Fallacies.
1.2 Propositional Equivalences
The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
Natural Deduction.
TRUTH TABLES continued.
Discrete Mathematics Lecture # 8.
Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications Kenneth H
Computer Security: Art and Science, 2nd Edition
Elementary Number Theory & Proofs
1.2 Propositional Equivalences
Lecture 5 Binary Operation Boolean Logic. Binary Operations Addition Subtraction Multiplication Division.
Statements of Symbolic Logic
TRUTH TABLES.
Foundations of Discrete Mathematics
COMP 1380 Discrete Structures I Thompson Rivers University
Section 3.3 Truth Tables for the Conditional and Biconditional
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Truth Tables for the Conditional and Biconditional
If there is any case in which true premises lead to a false conclusion, the argument is invalid. Therefore this argument is INVALID.
Logical truths, contradictions and disjunctive normal form
Mathematical Language
Introductory Logic PHI 120
Introduction to Proofs
If there is any case in which true premises lead to a false conclusion, the argument is invalid. Therefore this argument is INVALID.
Truth Tables for Conditional and Biconditional Statements
Recall that if the antecedent (LHS) of a conditional statement is true, then it will be true if and only if its consequent (RHS) is also true. Therefore,
Presentation transcript:

SHORTER TRUTH TABLE METHOD OR REDUCTIO-AD-ABSURDUM A PRESENTATION BY DR. BUDUL CHANDRA DAS. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY WOMEN’S COLLEGE, TINSUKIA TINSUKIA – 786125 ASSAM bcd.wc.tsk@gmail.com

SHORTER TRUTH TABLE METHOD OR REDUCTIO-AD-ABSURDUM LET US CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENT- FORM: p q q r Therefore, p r ∩ ∩ ∩ -This argument may be converted to a truth functional expression as: (p q) . (q r) } (p r) ∩ ∩ ∩ ∩ THERE ARISES A CONTRADICTION NOW LOOK AT THE GREEN OVAL FUNCTION T T T F F T T T T F F NOW, AN IMPLICATIVE FUNCTION BECOMES FALSE WHEN THE ANTECEDENT IS TRUE AND THE CONSEQUENCE IS FALSE. THUS… NOW, A CONJUNCTIVE FUNCTION WILL BE TRUE IF BOTH THE CONJUNCTS ARE TRUE. THUS THE VALUES FOR BOTH THE IMPLICATIVE FUNCTIONS OF THE FIRST PART WILL BE TRUE. i.e. ANTECEDENT CONSEQUENT MAIN CONSTANT THIS CONTRADICTION MEANS OUR ORIGINAL ASSUMPTION IS WRONG,SO THE ARGUMENT IS VALID. CONSIDER IT AS FALSE & PUT A F FOR THIS CONSTANT THEN FOLLOWING THE SAME METHOD IN CACE OF THE VARIABLES WE HAVE AS SHOWN…

Thank You