For Wednesday, read Chapter 3, section 4. Nongraded Homework: Problems at the end of section 4, set I only; Power of Logic web tutor, 7.4, A, B, and C.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Computing Truth Value.
Advertisements

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.
Chapter 21: Truth Tables.
Logic & Critical Reasoning
With examples from Number Theory
PROOF BY CONTRADICTION
Logic & Critical Reasoning
1 Valid and Invalid arguments. 2 Definition of Argument Sequence of statements: Statement 1; Statement 2; Therefore, Statement 3. Statements 1 and 2 are.
Formal Semantics of S. Semantics and Interpretations There are two kinds of interpretation we can give to wffs: –Assigning natural language sentences.
CS128 – Discrete Mathematics for Computer Science
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. CHAPTER 2 THE LOGIC OF COMPOUND STATEMENTS THE LOGIC OF COMPOUND STATEMENTS.
Uses for Truth Tables Determine the truth conditions for any compound statementDetermine the truth conditions for any compound statement Determine whether.
Logic 3 Tautological Implications and Tautological Equivalences
Uses for Truth Tables Determine the truth conditions for any compound statementDetermine the truth conditions for any compound statement Determine whether.
Today’s Topics n Review of Grouping and Statement Forms n Truth Functions and Truth Tables n Uses for Truth Tables n Truth Tables and Validity.
For Wednesday, read chapter 2, sections 3 and 4. As nongraded homework, do the problems at the end each section. Also try exercises 7.1, C, D, and E on.
An Introduction to Propositional Logic Translations: Ordinary Language to Propositional Form.
Today’s Topics n Review Logical Implication & Truth Table Tests for Validity n Truth Value Analysis n Short Form Validity Tests n Consistency and validity.
For Wed, read Chapter 3, section 3. Nongraded Homework: Exercises the end of the section. Even better, do Power of Logic, 7.3, A and B. Graded homework.
For Friday, read chapter 2, sections 1-2 (pp ). As nongraded homework, do the problems on p. 19. Graded homework #1 is due at the beginning of class.
1. 2 Day 1Intro Day 2Chapter 1 Day 3Chapter 2 Day 4Chapter 3 Day 5Chapter 4 Day 6Chapter 4 Day 7Chapter 4 Day 8EXAM #1 40% of Exam 1 60% of Exam 1 warm-up.
Reading: Chapter 4, section 4 Nongraded Homework: Problems at the end of section 4. Graded Homework #4 is due at the beginning of class on Friday. You.
For Monday, read Chapter 4, Sections 1 and 2. Nongraded homework: Problems on pages Graded HW #4 is due on Friday, Feb. 11, at the beginning of.
The semantics of SL   Defining logical notions (validity, logical equivalence, and so forth) in terms of truth-value assignments   A truth-value assignment:
No new reading for Wednesday. Exam #2 is Friday. Office hours today are cancelled. Rescheduled for tomorrow, 2-4 p.m. Talk today at 3:15 in HUM 1B50. Colin.
No new reading for Monday or Wednesday Exam #2 is next Friday, and we’ll review and work on proofs on Monday and Wed.
For Friday, read Chapter 3, section 4. Nongraded Homework: Problems at the end of section 4, set I only; Power of Logic web tutor, 7.4, A, B, and C. Graded.
Logical and Rule-Based Reasoning Part I. Logical Models and Reasoning Big Question: Do people think logically?
Adapted from Discrete Math
1.5 Rules of Inference.
2.5 Verifying Arguments Write arguments symbolically. Determine when arguments are valid or invalid. Recognize form of standard arguments. Recognize common.
Truth-Table Definition of Validity An argument is truth-table valid if it is impossible for the premises to all be True and the conclusion False. I.e.,
Review I Rosen , 3.1 Know your definitions!
Chapter Six Sentential Logic Truth Trees. 1. The Sentential Logic Truth Tree Method People who developed the truth tree method: J. Hintikka— “model sets”
2.3Logical Implication: Rules of Inference From the notion of a valid argument, we begin a formal study of what we shall mean by an argument and when such.
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 3: Semantics PHIL 121: Methods of Reasoning March 13, 2013 Instructor:Karin Howe Binghamton University.
Today’s Topics Introduction to Proofs Rules of Inference Rules of Equivalence.
Section 1.2: Propositional Equivalences In the process of reasoning, we often replace a known statement with an equivalent statement that more closely.
Thinking Mathematically Arguments and Truth Tables.
No new reading for Wednesday. Keep working on chapter 5, section 3. Exam #3 is next Monday.
Higher / Int.2 Philosophy 12. Our Learning  Fallacy Reminder  Summary following Homework NAB  Class NAB.
Analyzing Arguments Section 1.5. Valid arguments An argument consists of two parts: the hypotheses (premises) and the conclusion. An argument is valid.
Symbolic Logic and Rules of Inference. whatislogic.php If Tom is a philosopher, then Tom is poor. Tom is a philosopher.
Chapter Eight Predicate Logic Semantics. 1. Interpretations in Predicate Logic An argument is valid in predicate logic iff there is no valuation on 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 =
Truth Tables, Continued 6.3 and 6.4 March 14th. 6.3 Truth tables for propositions Remember: a truth table gives the truth value of a compound proposition.
Logic.
Truth Tables How to build them
Principles of Computing – UFCFA3-30-1
Evaluating truth tables
Argument Lecture 5.
Truth Tables Hurley
Truth Trees.
3.5 Symbolic Arguments.
Midterm Discussion.
The Logic of Declarative Statements
Logical Truth To show a statement A is a logic truth (tautology) ...
6.3 Truth Tables for Propositions
TRUTH TABLES.
Introductory Logic PHI 120
1.2 Propositional Equivalences
6.4 Truth Tables for Arguments
Logical and Rule-Based Reasoning Part I
For Wednesday, read Chapter 4, section 3 (pp )
Chapter 2: Geometric Reasoning
If there is any case in which true premises lead to a false conclusion, the argument is invalid. Therefore this argument is INVALID.
3.5 Symbolic Arguments.
If there is any case in which true premises lead to a false conclusion, the argument is invalid. Therefore this argument is INVALID.
Presentation transcript:

For Wednesday, read Chapter 3, section 4. Nongraded Homework: Problems at the end of section 4, set I only; Power of Logic web tutor, 7.4, A, B, and C Graded HW#3 is due at the beginning of class on Friday.

~ [ ~ ( ~ A → B) ↔ (A & ~ D)] Let’s say that A and B are false and D is true.

Using truth-tables to classify formulae: First, construct a truth-table: 1. determine the number of rows needed; this is 2 n, where n = the number of distinct sentence letters in the formula; 2. write the formula horizontally across the top of the table

3. To the left of the formula, list (horizontally, left to right) the distinct statement letters in the order in which they appear in the formula; put alternating Ts and  s beneath the sentence letter to the far right (closest to the premises); moving to the left, continue to fill in Ts and  s, doubling the size of the groups of Ts and  s for each new letter you come to. The last letter to the left should have 2 n /2 Ts followed by 2 n /2  s beneath it.

Calculate truth-values of the entire formula on each row of the truth-table. Tautology: True on every row of its truth-table (Ts all the way down underneath the main connective) Contradiction: False on every row of its truth-table (  s all the way down underneath the main connective) Contingent Statement: True on at least one row and false on at least one row of its truth-table (at least one T and at least one  underneath the main connective).

A B (A ↔ B) → ( ~ A & ~ B) T T T     T   T   T  T  T T    T T T T T * Answer: Contingent

A B A → [~ (A & B) → ~ B] T T T   T T  T  T T  T T  T T   T * Answer: Tautology

F G ~ (F → G) & G T T  T  T    T  T     * Answer: Contradiction

Using truth-tables to test for logical equivalence: Make a truth-table that includes both formulae. If their truth-values match on each row, they are logically equivalent; if there is even one line where the truth-values of the two statements (as a whole) don’t match, the statements are not logically equivalent.

D G ~ D v ~ G ~ (D & G) T T     T T   T T T   T T T  T    T T T T  * * * * On each line, the value of the m.o.’s match each other. So, these two statements are logically equivalent.

Using Truth-tables to test arguments for validity. Place the entire argument on a truth-table: list the premises from left to right, separated by commas; put the conclusion on the far right after a ‘  ’  Fill out the table. If there is at least one row where all premises are true and the conclusion false, then the argument is invalid; if there is no row with all true premises and a false conclusion, the argument is valid.

Z S GZ → (S v G), Z & G  S T T T T T T T T T  T T  T T  T T T T  ***** T        T T T T  T  T  T T  T   T T T      T    * * * * * * Answer: Invalid

Why does it work? Each row on the truth-table represents a relevant possibility (an interpretation), and taken together the rows represent all of the relevant possibilities (all possible interpretations). So, if there is a row on the truth-table with all true premises and a false conclusion, then it is possible to have all true premises and a false conclusion—thus the argument is invalid; and if there is no row with all true premises and a false conclusion, it is impossible to have all true premises and a false conclusion, and by definition, the argument is valid.

P Q SP → Q, S → Q, ~ Q  ~ P & ~ S T T T T T     T T  T T    T T  T   T    T    T T   T  T T T T  T    T  T T  T T T   T T  T T      T T T T T T

Answer? Valid. There is no line showing all true premises and a false conclusion. Thus, it is impossible for the argument to have all true premises and a false conclusion. So, the reasoning can’t go wrong. Whenever the premises are all true, the conclusion is as well. Remember, when an argument is valid, there is no particular line that proves validity.

A B GA → (B & G), ~ B  A  ~ B T T T T  T T    T  T   T      T T T   T  T    T T T   T F F F Answer: Invalid, proven by line seven