Truth Tables and Validity Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College pqrSp v qr & s~(p v q)~p~q~p & ~q~(p v q) -> (r & s) (~p & ~q) ->

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
TRUTH TABLES Section 1.3.
Advertisements

Computing Truth Value.
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.
Constructing a Truth Table
Logic & Critical Reasoning
Truth Tables Presented by: Tutorial Services The Math Center.
1. Propositions A proposition is a declarative sentence that is either true or false. Examples of propositions: The Moon is made of green cheese. Trenton.
Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc. Section 3.2 Truth Tables for Negation, Conjunction, and Disjunction.
Review: Logic of Categories = Categorical Logic.
DEDUCTIVE REASONING: PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC Purposes: To analyze complex claims and deductive argument forms To determine what arguments are valid or not.
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.
1 Section 1.2 Propositional Equivalences. 2 Equivalent Propositions Have the same truth table Can be used interchangeably For example, exclusive or and.
Conditional Statements & Material Implication Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College.
Propositional Logic Lecture 2: Sep 9. Conditional Statement If p then q p is called the hypothesis; q is called the conclusion “If your GPA is 4.0, then.
Propositional Logic 7/16/ Propositional Logic A proposition is a statement that is either true or false. We give propositions names such as p, q,
Chapter 3 Introduction to Logic © 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.
Truth Tables for Negation, Conjunction, and Disjunction.
3.2 – Truth Tables and Equivalent Statements
TRUTH TABLES. Introduction Statements have truth values They are either true or false but not both Statements may be simple or compound Compound statements.
Logic ChAPTER 3.
Copyright 2013, 2010, 2007, Pearson, Education, Inc. Section 3.2 Truth Tables for Negation, Conjunction, and Disjunction.
Validity: Long and short truth tables Sign In! Week 10! Homework Due Review: MP,MT,CA Validity: Long truth tables Short truth table method Evaluations!
The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
Propositional Logic.
Intro to Discrete Structures
Section 1-4 Logic Katelyn Donovan MAT 202 Dr. Marinas January 19, 2006.
Chapter 8 Logic DP Studies. Content A Propositions B Compound propositions C Truth tables and logical equivalence D Implication and equivalence E Converse,
Deduction, Induction, & Truth Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College.
BY: MISS FARAH ADIBAH ADNAN IMK. CHAPTER OUTLINE: PART III 1.3 ELEMENTARY LOGIC INTRODUCTION PROPOSITION COMPOUND STATEMENTS LOGICAL.
Reason and Argument Chapter 6 (2/3). A symbol for the exclusive ‘or’ We will use ұ for the exclusive ‘or’ Strictly speaking, this connective is not necessary.
MATH 102 Contemporary Math S. Rook
Discrete Mathematics Lecture1 Miss.Amal Alshardy.
Predicate Logic. TRUTH-TABLE REMINDERS The problem people had the most trouble with was 1e: construct a truth-table for: (P & (~Q & R)) Many of you only.
HAWKES LEARNING Students Count. Success Matters. Copyright © 2015 by Hawkes Learning/Quant Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Section 3.2 Truth Tables.
LOGIC Lesson 2.1. What is an on-the-spot Quiz  This quiz is defined by me.  While I’m having my lectures, you have to be alert.  Because there are.
Chapter 7 Logic, Sets, and Counting
Chapter 3: Semantics PHIL 121: Methods of Reasoning March 13, 2013 Instructor:Karin Howe Binghamton University.
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.
MLS 570 Critical Thinking Reading Notes for Fogelin: Propositional Logic Fall Term 2006 North Central College.
Chapter 8 – Symbolic Logic Professor D’Ascoli. Symbolic Logic Because the appraisal of arguments is made difficult by the peculiarities of natural language,
Basic Inference Rules Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College.
How do I show that two compound propositions are logically equivalent?
Review Given p: Today is Thursday q: Tomorrow is Friday
Truth Tables Geometry Unit 11, Lesson 6 Mrs. King.
Thinking Mathematically
Chapter 7 Logic, Sets, and Counting Section 1 Logic.
Proof of Invalidity Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College.
Propositional Logic ITCS 2175 (Rosen Section 1.1, 1.2)
LOGIC.
Section 1.1. Section Summary Propositions Connectives Negation Conjunction Disjunction Implication; contrapositive, inverse, converse Biconditional Truth.
CSNB143 – Discrete Structure Topic 4 – Logic. Learning Outcomes Students should be able to define statement. Students should be able to identify connectives.
Propositional Logic A symbolic representation of deductive inference. Use upper case letters to represent simple propositions. E.g. Friday class rocks.
TRUTH TABLES. Introduction The truth value of a statement is the classification as true or false which denoted by T or F. A truth table is a listing of.
Notes - Truth Tables fun, fun, and more fun!!!!. A compound statement is created by combining two or more statements, p and q.
Logic UNIT 1.
Statement Forms and Material Equivalence Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College.
Joan Ridgway. If a proposition is not indeterminate then it is either true (T) or false (F). True and False are complementary events. For two propositions,
UNIT 01 – LESSON 10 - LOGIC ESSENTIAL QUESTION HOW DO YOU USE LOGICAL REASONING TO PROVE STATEMENTS ARE TRUE? SCHOLARS WILL DETERMINE TRUTH VALUES OF NEGATIONS,
Invitation to Critical Thinking Chapter 7 Lecture Notes Chapter 7.
Outline Logic Propositional Logic Well formed formula Truth table
Section 1.1. Propositions A proposition is a declarative sentence that is either true or false. Examples of propositions: a) The Moon is made of green.
Mathematics for Computing Lecture 2: Computer Logic and Truth Tables Dr Andrew Purkiss-Trew Cancer Research UK
TRUTH TABLES Edited from the original by: Mimi Opkins CECS 100 Fall 2011 Thanks for the ppt.
 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Slide Chapter 3 Introduction to Logic.
Propositional and predicate logic
Chapter 1. Chapter Summary  Propositional Logic  The Language of Propositions (1.1)  Logical Equivalences (1.3)  Predicate Logic  The Language of.
Chapter 1 Logic and proofs
Section 3.2: Truth Tables for Negation, Conjunction, and Disjunction
Logical Operators (Connectives) We will examine the following logical operators: Negation (NOT,  ) Negation (NOT,  ) Conjunction (AND,  ) Conjunction.
TRUTH TABLES.
Presentation transcript:

Truth Tables and Validity Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College pqrSp v qr & s~(p v q)~p~q~p & ~q~(p v q) -> (r & s) (~p & ~q) -> (r & s) TTTTTFFFTT TTTFTFFFTT TTFTTFFFTT TTFFTFFFTT TFTTTFFFTT TFTFTFFFTT TFFTTFFFTT TFFFTFFFTT FTTTTFTFFTT FTTFTFTFFTT FTFTTFTFFTT FTFTTFTFFTT FFTTFTTTTTTT FFTFFFTTF FFFTFFTTF FFFFFFTTF P1C

Overview Why this matters How truth tables work How to work truth tables –The basic method –The shortcut Sample Exercises

Reminder: The Official Definition of Deductive Validity  A deductive argument is valid when, if all of its premises are true, its conclusion must be true.  This is the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT CONCEPT IN THE CLASS!!!!!!!!!  Failure to define validity properly is an automatic 5 point penalty on anything you do! You’ll also be very confused if you don’t get this concept.

Why this matters Thus far, testing for validity has involved devising counterexamples. –This method has limitations We may not be creative enough to devise a counterexample for an invalid argument. So we will not always be reliable in testing for validity. Truth tables provide an algorithm for testing for validity, in which no creativity is required, however… Truth tables can also enhance our creativity in devising counterexamples.

How truth tables work Recall: An argument is valid if, when all of its premises are true, its conclusion must also be true. Equivalently, there is no way in which all of the premises are true and the conclusion is false. Truth tables specify all the different ways in which premises and conclusions can be true and false. –“Where there’s a row, there’s a way.” Thus, an argument is valid if there is no row on a truth table in which all of its premises are true and its conclusion is false.

Where there’s a row, there’s a way Recall that the truth/falsity of compound statements is a function of the truth/falsity of simple statements Truth tables specify all of the different combinations of truth and falsity of simple statements So truth tables tell us all the different ways compound statements can be true or false.

Where there’s a row, there’s a way: Illustration with ‘&’ pqp & q TT T F F T F F T F F F

More on how truth tables work Note that validity says nothing about cases in which: –Some of the premises are false –All of the premises are false Lesson: Focus on the rows in which all of the premises are true.

How to work truth tables in 5 easy steps 1.Set up guide columns. 2.Set up an additional column for every premise and the conclusion. Clearly mark these columns with “P’s” for each premise, and “C” for the conclusion. 3.Add more columns to help interpret complex propositions. 4.Using your knowledge of the truth-tables for conjunction ‘&’, disjunction ‘v’, negation ‘~’, material implication ‘→’, and material equivalence ‘↔’, fill out the table. 5.Look at all of the columns with P’s and C’s above them. If there are one or more rows in which all of the P-columns have T’s and the C-column has an F, then you have an invalid argument; otherwise the argument is valid.

Step 1: Setting up guide columns First, count the number of simple propositions in the argument or proposition under consideration. Call this number N. Ex A. Suppose you are asked to discern the validity of the following argument: ~q |- [(p → q) → p] → p. There are two simple propositions—p and q—thus N=2.

More on guide columns Next, set up a table with 2 N + 1 rows. Place the simple propositions in the top row in the leftmost columns. These columns are called guide columns. Continuing with ~q |- [(p → q) → p] → p, there would 2 N +1 rows= = 4+1 = 5 rows, this leads to the following: p q

Filling out guide columns For the leftmost guide column, the top 2 N-1 rows will be True, the bottom 2 N-1 rows will be false. In other words, the top half of the leftmost column will be true, the bottom half will be false. In our example, the top 2 N-1 rows will be = 2 1 = the top 2 rows. Thus we fill in the top half of the leftmost column with T’s, and the bottom with F’s. pq T T F F

More on filling out guide columns For the next column, the top 2 N-2 rows will be T, the next 2 N-2 rows will be F, the next 2 N-2 rows will be T, etc. In this case, the top quarter will be T, the next quarter will be F, the third quarter will be T, the last quarter will be F. Continue raising 2 to a lower power until the rows alternate between T and F, i.e., when the (2 0th or) 1st row is T, the next (2 0 = 1) row is F, and so on. In our example, this means just one more step—2 2-2 = 2 0 = 1 so alternate every 1 row between T and F. Thus, you’re done constructing guide columns for ~q |- [(p → q) → p] → p pq T T F F T F T F

What you’ve done so far… You’ve presented all of the possible ways in which to interpret the argument you’re out to analyze.

Step 2: Columns for premises and conclusions Set up an additional column for every premise and the conclusion. Mark “P” above the columns corresponding to premises and “C” above the column corresponding to the conclusion. In our example, we have one premise, ~q, and one conclusion, [(p → q) → p] → p. Thus, we add two columns to our truth-table. pq~q [(p → q) → p] → p TT TF FT FF PCPC

Step 3: Add more columns to interpret complex propositions First, for each complex premise/conclusion, count the number of logical operators. Call this number M. Add M-1 columns to the truth table. There are 3 logical operators in this conclusion, so add 3-1 = 2 additional columns pq~q [(p → q) → p] → p TT TF FT FF →→ PCPC

More on additional columns Next, analyze the compound statement, such that each of the additional columns corresponds to the scope of the operator in question. pq~q [(p → q) → p] → p TT TF FT FF → → (p → q)→pp → q PCPC

Step 4: Filling out the table Using your knowledge of the truth-tables for conjunction ‘&’, disjunction ‘v’, negation ‘~’, material implication ‘→’, and material equivalence ‘↔’, fill out the table. pq p → q(p → q) → p ~q [(p → q) → p] → p TT TF FT FF TFTTTFTT FTFTFTFT T T F F T T T T PCPC

Step 5: Reading the truth table Look at all of the columns with P’s and C’s above them. If there are one or more rows in which all of the P-columns have T’s and the C-column has an F, then you have an invalid argument; otherwise the argument is valid. IMPORTANT: This does NOT mean that if you have ONE row with F’s in the P- columns or T’s in the C-column that you have a valid argument—you need to prove that there are NO rows in the ENTIRE truth table that have all T’s in the P- columns and an F in the C-column in order to have a valid argument. In this example, there is NO row in which P = T and C = F. Therefore the argument is valid. pq p → q(p → q) → p ~q [(p → q) → p] → p TTTTFT TFFTTT FTTFFT FFTFTT PCPC

Shortcut in Step 4 First, determine which of the premises and conclusion is the easiest in terms of figuring out the truth values. Fill this column first. pq p → q(p → q) → p ~q [(p → q) → p] → p TT TF FT FF PCPC FTFTFTFT

Shortcut, Continued Since an invalid argument can only occur when the premises are true and the conclusion is false, any rows in which either a premise is false or the conclusion is true can be ignored, since it will be irrelevant to determining the invalidity of the argument. pq p → q(p → q) → p ~q [(p → q) → p] → p TTF TFT FTF FFT PCPC IGNORE! F T T FT T

Exercise B2 (C v D)  (C & D), C & D├ C v D CDC v DC & D (C v D)  (C & D) TT TF FT FF CP2P2 P1P1 TTTFTTTF IGNORE! F VALID!

Exercise B10 U  (V v W), (V&W)  ~U ├ ~U UVW~UV v WV & W U  (V v W) (V&W)  ~U TTTTFFFFTTTTFFFF TTFFTTFFTTFFTTFF TFTFTFTFTFTFTFTF C P1P2P1P2 FFFFTTTTFFFFTTTT IGNORE! TTTFTTTF TTTFTTTF TFFTFF FTTFTT INVALID!

Exercise C7 If terrorists’ demands are met, then lawlessness will be rewarded. If terrorists’ demands are not met, then innocent hostages will be murdered. So either lawlessness will be rewarded or innocent hostages will be murdered. T  L, ~T  I |- L v I TLI~T T  L~T  I L v I TTT TTF TFT TFF FTT FTF FFT FFF IGNORE TTTFTTTFTTTFTTTF VALID! IGNORE P1P2CP1P2C F TTF

Exercise B8 (O v P)  Q, Q  (O & P)├ (O v P)  (O & P) OPQO v PO & P (OvP)  Q Q  (O&P) (OvP)  (O&P) TTT TTF TFT TFF FTT FTF FFT FFF TTTTTTFFTTTTTTFF TTFFFFFFTTFFFFFF TTFFFFTTTTFFFFTT IGNORE! FTFTFTFT F F VALID! P1P2CP1P2C