Math 251W: Foundations of Advanced Mathematics, Spring 2011

Portfolio Assignment 2: §1.4-5

Name: Sean Fogerty

Problem 1.4.3(2,4,5): Write a derivation for each of the following valid arguments. State whether
the premises are consistent or inconsistent.

(2) If warthogs are smart, then they are interesting. Warthogs are not interesting or they are
sneaky. It is not the case that warthogs are pleasant or not smart. Therefore warthogs are
sneaky.
(4) If music soothes the soul then souls have ears. Music soothes the soul or musicians are calm.
It is not the case that souls have ears or musicians are calm. Therefore musicians have souls.
(5) Computers are useful and fun, and computers are time consuming. If computers are hard to
use, then they are not fun. If computers are not well designed, then they are hard to use.
Therefore computers are well designed.

Solution
(2) Let S be the statement ”warthogs are smart,” I be the statement ”warthogs are interesting,”
K be the statement ”Warthogs are sneaky,” P be the statement ”Warthogs are pleasant.”
Thus the given argument can be written symbolically as:

S→I
¬I ∨ K
¬(P ∨ ¬S)
K

We demonstrate this argument is valid and its premises are consistent with the following
derivation:

1 S→I
2 ¬I ∨ K
3 ¬(P ∨ ¬S)
4 I→K 2, 1.3.2.viii
5 S→K 1, 4, Hypothetical Syllogism
6 ¬P ∧ ¬(¬S) 3, De Morgan’s Law
7 ¬P ∧ S 6, Double Negation
8 S 7, Simplification
9 K 8, 5, Modus Ponens

(4) Let S be the statement ”Music soothes the soul,” E be the statement ”Souls have ears,” C
be the statement ”Musicians are calm,” M be the statement ”Musicians have souls.” Thus
the given argument can be written symbolically as:

S→E
S∨C
¬(E ∨ C)
M

We demonstrate this argument is valid and that its premises are inconsistent with the fol-
lowing derivations:

1
 1 S→E
2 S∨C
3 ¬(E ∨ C)
4 ¬E ∧ ¬C 3, De Morgan’s Law
5 ¬C 4, Simplification
6 S 5, 2, Modus Tollendo Ponens
7 ¬E 4, Simplification
8 E 6, 1, Modus Ponens
9 E∨M 9, Addition
10 M 7, 9, Modus Tollendo Ponens

(5) Let U be the statement ”computers are useful,” F be the statement ”computers are fun,” T
be the statement ”computers are time consuming,” H be the statement ”computers are hard
to use,” and D be the statement ”computers are well designed.” Thus the given argument
can be written symbolically as:

(U ∧ F ) ∧ T
H → ¬F
¬D → H
D

We demonstrate this argument is valid with the following derivation.

1 (U ∧ F ) ∧ T
2 H → ¬F
3 ¬D → H
4 ¬D → ¬F 2, 3, hypothetical syllogism
5 U ∧F 1, simplificaiton
6 F 5, simplification
7 ¬(¬D) 6, 4, modus tollens
8 D 7, double negation

Problem 1.5.11: Write a derivation for each of the following arguments.

(3)
(∀x ∈ Z)[(A(x) → R(x)) ∨ T (x)]
(∃x ∈ Z)[T (x) → P (x)]
(∀x ∈ Z)[A(x) ∧ ¬P (x)]
(∃x ∈ Z)[R(x)]

(4)
(∀x ∈ W )(∃y ∈ W )[E(x) → (M (x) ∨ N (y))]
¬(∀x ∈ W )[M (x)]
(∀x ∈ W )[E(x)]
(∃x ∈ W )[N (x)]

Solution

2
(3)
1 (∀x ∈ Z)[A(x) → R(x)) ∨ T (x)]
2 (∃x ∈ Z)[T (x) → P (x)]
3 (∀x ∈ Z)[A(x) ∧ ¬P (x)]
4 T (y) → P (y) 2, Existential Stantiation
5 [A(y) → R(y)] ∨ T (y) 1, Universal Stantiation
6 A(y) ∧ ¬P (y) 3, Universal Stantiation
7 A(y) 6, Simplification
8 ¬P (y) 6, Simplification
9 ¬T (y) 8, 4, Modus Tollens
10 A(y) → R(y) 9, 5, Modus Tollendo Ponens
11 R(y) 10, 7, Modus Ponens
12 (∃x ∈ Z)[R(x)] 11, Existential Generalization

(4)

1 (∀x ∈ W )(∃y ∈ W )[E(x) → (M (x) ∨ N (y))]

2 ¬(∀x ∈ W )[M (x)]
3 (∀x ∈ W )[E(x)]
4 (∃x ∈ W )[¬M (x)] 2, Negation
5 (∀x ∈ W )[E(x) → (M (x) ∨ N (a))] 1, Existential Instantiation
6 ¬M (b) 4, Existential Instantiation
7 E(b) → (M (b) ∨ N (a)) 5, Universal Instantiation
8 E(b) 3, Universal Instantiation
9 M (b) ∨ N (a) 7, 8, Modus Ponens
10 N (a) 9, 6, Modus Tollendo Ponens
11 (∃x ∈ W )[N (x)] 10, Existential Generalization