{P} ⊦ Q if and only if {P} ╞ Q

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

Preview of SL Logic Class 3. Either it is raining or it is snowing A A: It is raining B: It is snowing B  : Or 
Logic & Critical Reasoning
For Friday No reading Homework: –Chapter 9, exercise 4 (This is VERY short – do it while you’re running your tests) Make sure you keep variables and constants.
Logic Use mathematical deduction to derive new knowledge.
Semantics of SL and Review Part 1: What you need to know for test 2 Part 2: The structure of definitions of truth functional notions Part 3: Rules when.
Deduction In addition to being able to represent facts, or real- world statements, as formulas, we want to be able to manipulate facts, e.g., derive new.
Logic.
Formal Logic Proof Methods Direct Proof / Natural Deduction Conditional Proof (Implication Introduction) Reductio ad Absurdum Resolution Refutation.
Oh, a break! A logic puzzle   In a mythical (?) community, politicians always lie and non-politicians always tell the truth. A stranger meets 3 natives.
PHIL 120: Jan 8 Basic notions of logic
Sentential Logic(SL) 1.Syntax: The language of SL / Symbolize 2.Semantic: a sentence / compare two sentences / compare a set of sentences 3.DDerivation.
Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
Proving the implications of the truth functional notions  How to prove claims that are the implications of the truth functional notions  Remember that.
The semantics of SL   Defining logical notions (validity, logical equivalence, and so forth) in terms of truth-value assignments   A truth-value assignment:
Proof by Deduction. Deductions and Formal Proofs A deduction is a sequence of logic statements, each of which is known or assumed to be true A formal.
Discrete Mathematics and its Applications
Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications
SD: Natural Deduction In S. Valid or Not? 1.If Carol drives, Ann will go to the fair 2.Carol will drive, if Bob goes and pays for gas 3.Bob will pay for.
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.
Logic Review. FORMAT Format Part I 30 questions 2.5 marks each Total 30 x 2.5 = 75 marks Part II 10 questions Answer only 5 of them! Total 5 x 5 marks.
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.
Today’s Topics Review of Sample Test # 2 A Little Meta Logic.
Natural Deduction CS 270 Math Foundations of CS Jeremy Johnson.
INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC Jennifer Wang Fall 2009 Midterm Review Quiz Game.
1 CMSC 250 Discrete Structures CMSC 250 Lecture 1.
Chapter Four Proofs. 1. Argument Forms An argument form is a group of sentence forms such that all of its substitution instances are arguments.
Chapter 3: Introduction to Logic. Logic Main goal: use logic to analyze arguments (claims) to see if they are valid or invalid. This is useful for math.
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.
Introductory Logic PHI 120 Presentation: “Solving Proofs" Bring the Rules Handout to lecture.
Methods of Proof for Boolean Logic Chapter 5 Language, Proof and Logic.
Formal Proofs and Boolean Logic Chapter 6 Language, Proof and Logic.
CS.462 Artificial Intelligence SOMCHAI THANGSATHITYANGKUL Lecture 05 : Knowledge Base & First Order Logic.
Introduction to Logic Lecture 13 An Introduction to Truth Tables By David Kelsey.
More Proofs. REVIEW The Rule of Assumption: A Assumption is the easiest rule to learn. It says at any stage in the derivation, we may write down any.
1 Propositional Proofs 1. Problem 2 Deduction In deduction, the conclusion is true whenever the premises are true.  Premise: p Conclusion: (p ∨ q) 
March 23 rd. Four Additional Rules of Inference  Constructive Dilemma (CD): (p  q) (r  s) p v r q v s.
2. The Logic of Compound Statements Summary
AND.
Truth Tables for Negation, Conjunction, and Disjunction
IMPORTANT!! As one member of our class recognized, there is a major mistake on page 180 of the text where the rule schemas for SD are laid out. It symbolizes.
Logical Inference: Through Proof to Truth
Identifying Counterexamples
The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
Principles of Computing – UFCFA3-30-1
Chapter 8 Logic Topics
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.
Sets and Logic…. Chapter 3
Chapter 1 The Foundations: Logic and Proof, Sets, and Functions
No new reading for Monday. Exam #2 is Wednesday.
Truth Trees.
Logic Use mathematical deduction to derive new knowledge.
Natural deduction Gerhard Gentzen.
CS 270 Math Foundations of CS
Natural Deduction.
CS 416 Artificial Intelligence
Midterm Discussion.
(1.4) An Introduction to Logic
The Method of Deduction
Computer Security: Art and Science, 2nd Edition
The Logic of Declarative Statements
TRUTH TABLES.
Propositional Logic CMSC 471 Chapter , 7.7 and Chuck Dyer
Arguments in Sentential Logic
Chapter 8 Natural Deduction
Doing Derivation.
The Main Connective (Again)
More Derived Rules.
Subderivations.
The conditional and the bi-conditional
Presentation transcript:

{P} ⊦ Q if and only if {P} ╞ Q Meta theory and review Assume (as it is proven in Chapter 6 of our text) that: {P} ⊦ Q if and only if {P} ╞ Q The proof demonstrates that the system SD is sound or truth preserving: that you cannot, for example, derive a conclusion from a set of premises in SD unless the set of premises truth functionally entails the conclusion, and so forth.

{P} ⊦ Q if and only if {P} ╞ Q Meta theory and review And because: {P} ⊦ Q if and only if {P} ╞ Q Sentences P and Q are equivalent in SD IFF they are truth-functionally equivalent… And a set of sentences  of SL is inconsistent in SD iff  is truth-functionally inconsistent… And a sentence P is a theorem of SD IFF P is truth functionally true.

{P} ⊦ Q if and only if {P} ╞ Q Meta theory and review Explain why if {P} ⊦ Q if and only if {P} ╞ Q We would not want the following rule in SD: P v Q P ~Q

Meta theory and review Explain how and why the following rule in SD is truth preserving: P v Q P R Q R vE

Meta theory and review Explain why if a set {P, Q} is inconsistent in SD, any argument that has the set  as its premises will be valid in SD. a. What do we know if we know the set is inconsistent in SD? P Q R ~R

Meta theory and review a. What do we know if we know the set is inconsistent in SD? P Q R ~R ~S A R R ~R R S ~E

Review Strategies for constructing derivations in SD Check to see if the final sentence to be derived, or any sentence you need to get, is contained in the primary assumption or assumptions (if there are any) or former derived sentences in a way that an elimination rule will work. If so, identify the elimination rule you might use to get the sentence you need by identifying the main connective of the sentence in which the sentence you want to derive appears.

If you need P, see if P appears: Review If you need P, see if P appears: As part of a conjunction P & Q or Q & P so that you can use &E to get it. As the consequent of a material conditional Q  P so that if you can get the antecedent Q you can get P by  E. As one disjunct of a disjunction P v Q so that you might use vE to get it. As one half of a material biconditional P  Q so that if you can get the other half you can get P by E. As something you might get by assuming ~P and showing that a contradiction follows so as to get P by ~E.

Review If the final sentence to be derived (or any sentence you need to get there) is not contained in the primary assumption or assumptions (if there are any) or former derived sentences in a way that an elimination rule will work. If so, assume you need to build the sentence and identify the introduction rule you need to use by identifying the main connective of the sentence you want to derive.

Review If a sentence you want to derive (either the final line of the derivation or one you need to get to that final line) needs to be built and is of the form P & Q, identify the two conjuncts you need and add them to the derivation and then look to see how to get them. If that sentence is of the form P v Q, look to see which disjunct you might be able to get, write that in, and then work to get it and then P v Q by v I.

Review If it is of the form P  Q, you need to construct a subderivation with P as the assumption and Q as its last line. Sketch that out and see how to get Q under the assumption of P. If you do derive Q, move out to the scope line to the left with P  Q. If it is of the form P  Q, sketch in 2 subderivations: one with P as the assumption and Q as what you derive, and vice versa. Work to finish each subderivation to move out one scope line to the left with P  Q.

Review If it is of the form P , and if and only if there are negations available (possible sentences Q and ~Q) and there is no other way you can see to build P, try assuming ~P and try using ~E to derive P. If it is of the form ~P, and if and only if there are negations available (possible sentences Q and ~Q) and there is no other way you can see to build ~P, try assuming P and try using ~I to derive P.

Show that {(A  B) & (C  A), C v A} ⊦ B

Show that ‘A v A’ and ‘A &A’ are equivalent in SD