1. (Single Sided) Trees We are not going to cover the double sided
tree method given in Chapter 11.
In my opinion, double sided trees are harder to learn.

2. Or Follow this link (Single Sided) Trees
We are not going to cover the double sided
tree method given in Chapter 11.
Instead, I will cover Single Sided Trees.
They are summarized in Appendix 4 (p. 233) and
explained in your course packet
in the section called “How to Make a Tree” Or
Follow this link

3. (Single Sided) Trees We are not going to cover the double sided
tree method given in Chapter 11.
In my opinion it is harder to learn.
Instead, I will cover Single Sided Trees.
They are summarized in Appendix 4 (p. 233) and
explained in your course packet
in the section called “How to Make a Tree”
Further information is given at
or on your Prop Logic CD in the file:
ch11a.txt

4. The truth table method can be very inefficient.
(Single Sided) Trees
The truth table method can be very inefficient.

5. The truth table method can be very inefficient.
(Single Sided) Trees
The truth table method can be very inefficient.
Number of variables Number of rows in the table
Exponential
Growth!

6. the premises are (all) T
The Basic Idea
Counterexample
A row of a table where
the premises are (all) T
and the conclusion is F.

7. the premises are (all) T
The Basic Idea
Counterexample
A row of a table where
the premises are (all) T
and the conclusion is F. P T
F T F
QT T F F
Q>-P | P>Q
T F T F
T T T
Counterexample

8. The Basic Idea Counterexample Counterexample A row of a table where
the premises are (all) T
and the conclusion is F. P T
F T F
QT T F F
Q>-P | P>Q
T F T F
T T T
Counterexample
If we had known to calculate row 3,
we would have needed to do only ¼
of the work.

9. For more click here The Basic Idea Counterexample Counterexample
A row of a table where
the premises are (all) T
and the conclusion is F. P T
F T F
QT T F F
Q>-P | P>Q
T F T F
T T T
Counterexample
The tree method helps us find counterexamples
quickly and efficiently.
For more click here