LOGIC

Introduction to logic
 What is logic?
 Why is it useful?
 Types of logic
 Propositional logic

 Predicate logic
Introduction to logic
 What is logic?
 Why is it useful?
 Types of logic
 Propositional logic

 Predicate logic
What is logic?

“Logic is the
beginning of
wisdom, not the
end”
What is logic?
 Logic : The branch of philosophy
concerned with analysing the
patterns of reasoning by which a
conclusion is drawn from a set of
premises, without reference to
meaning or context
Why study logic?
 Logic is concerned with two key
skills, which any computer
engineer or scientist should have:
 Abstraction
 Formalisation
Why is logic important?
 Logic is a formalisation of reasoning.

 Logic is a formal language for

deducing knowledge from a small
number of explicitly stated premises
(or hypotheses, axioms, facts)
 Logic provides a formal framework for
representing knowledge
 Logic differentiates between the
structure and content of an argument
 What is proposition?
Def: A proposition is a statement that is either true or
false. or
A proposition is a declarative sentence that is either true
or false,but not both.
e.g. “It is raining in Delhi.”
e.g. “The square of 5 is 16”.

Some propositions may not be easily verified:

e.g. “The universe is infinite.”
 Topic #1.0 – Propositional Logic: Operators

The Negation Operator

The negation operator “¬” (NOT) transforms
a prop. into its logical negation.
E.g. If p = “I have brown hair.”
then ¬p = “I do not have brown hair.”
The truth table for NOT:
p ¬p
T F
T :≡ True; F :≡ False
“:≡” means “is defined as” F T
Operand Result
column column
 Logic
• Notation for propositions: Truth Values
– If it’s true, denoted by T;
– If it’s false, denoted by F
– Used in truth tables:
P P

T F
F T
 Compound Propositions
Composite

Composed of subpropositions & various connectives

Primitive or not composite

E.g. This book is good and cheap

 Propositional Variable

Symbol representing any proposition

real variable (x)

not propositon but can be replaced by a proposition

 Basic Logical Operators

1. Conjunction , p∧q (and)

2. Disjunction, p∨q (or)

3. Negation ¬ p(not)
 Topic #1.0 – Propositional Logic: Operators

The Conjunction Operator

The binary conjunction operator “∧”
(AND) combines two propositions
to form their logical conjunction.
E.g. If p=“I will have salad for
lunch.” and q=“I will have soup for
dinner.”, then p∧q=“I will have
salad for lunch and
I will have soup for dinner.”
 Logic
• More with Truth Tables: conjunction
• If you have propositions p and q, the
proposition “p and q” is true when
they’re both true, and false otherwise:
P Q P^Q

T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F
 Topic #1.0 – Propositional Logic: Operators

The Disjunction Operator

The binary disjunction operator “∨” (OR)
combines two propositions to form their
logical disjunction.
p=“My car has a bad engine.”
q=“My car has a bad carburetor.” ∨
p∨q=“Either my car has a bad engine, or
my car has a bad carburetor.”
After the downward-
pointing “axe” of “∨”
splits the wood, you
can take 1 piece OR the
other, or both.
 Logic
• More with Truth Tables: disjunction
• If you have propositions p and q, the
proposition “p or q” is false when
they’re both false, and true otherwise:
P Q PvQ

T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F
 Propositional calculus.
• truth tables for logical connectives

P ~P P Q P∧Q P∨Q
T F T T T T
F T T F F T
F T F T
F F F F
 Example
If p represents “ This book is good” and q represents
This book is cheap”, write the following sentences in
symbolic form:
(a) This book is good and cheap.
(b) This book is costly but good
(c) This book is neither good nor cheap
(d) This book is not good but cheap
(e) This book is good or cheap
(a) p∧q (b)(¬q) ∧p (c)(¬p) ∧(¬q)
(d)(¬ p)∧q (e)p∨q
 Topic #1.0 – Propositional Logic: Operators
The Implication (conditional)
Operator
The implication p → q states that p implies
q.
I.e., If p is true, then q is true; but if p is not
true, then q could be either true or false.
E.g., let p = “You study hard.”
q = “You will get a good grade.”
p → q = “If you study hard, then you will get
a good grade.”
 Logic
• More with Truth Tables: implication p q
• If you have propositions p and q, the implication
p q of p and q is false when p is true and q is
false and is true otherwise:

p q p q

T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
 Logic
• More with Truth Tables: implication p q
• Other ways to refer to this implication:
– q if p if p, q q whenever p
– p only if q q is necessary for p
– If p, then q p is sufficient for q p implies q

p q p q

T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
•
Logic
More with Truth Tables: implication p q
• In other words, p is the hypothesis (or
antecedent or premise); and q is the conclusion
(or consequence)

p q p q

T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
 Topic #1.0 – Propositional Logic: Operators

The biconditional operator

The biconditional p ↔ q states that p is true if and
only if (IFF) q is true.
p = “Bush wins the 2005 election.”
q = “Bush will be president for all of 2006.”
p ↔ q = “If, and only if, Bush wins the 2005
election, Bush will be president for all of 2006.”

2006
2005 I’m still
here!
• More with Tables: biconditional p q
• True when p and q have the same truth
values and is false otherwise
• Other ways to express it: p IFF q; p is
necessary and sufficient for q; if p then q,
and vice versa
p q p q

T T T
T F F
F T F
F F T
 Proposition
Let P(p,q,........) denote an expression constructed from
logical variables p,q,......., which take on the value True(T)
or False(F), and the logical connectives ∧, ∨, and ¬
E.g. P(p,q) = ¬ (p ∧ ¬ q)
p q ¬q p∧¬q ¬ (p ∧ ¬ q)

T T F F T

T F T F
T

F T F F T

F F T F T
 Well-Formed Formulas(wff)

(i) If P is a propositional variable then it is wff.

(ii) If x is wff , then ~ x is a wff.
(iii) If x and y are wff , then (x∨y), (x∧y), (x⇒y),
(x⇔y)are wffs.
(iv) A string of symbols is a wff iff it is obtained
by finitely many applications of (i)-(iii)

A wff is not a proposition , but if we substitute the

proposition in place of propositional variable , we get
a proposition.
 Another method of constructing a
truth table

p q ¬ (p ¬ q)
∧
T T T T F F T
T F F T T T F
F T T F F F T
F F T F F T F
step 4 1 3 2 1
 Propositional calculus cont.

• Truth tables for common sentences

• (P⇒Q)=(~Q⇒~P) /contrapositive equivalence

P Q ~Q ~P P⇒Q ~Q⇒~P
T T F F T T
T F T F F F
F T F T T T
F F T T T T
 Propositional calculus cont.

• Truth tables for common sentences

• (~P⇒Q)=(P∨Q) and (P ⇒ Q)=(~P ∨ Q)
/disjunctive equivalence

P Q ~P ~P⇒
Q P∨
Q P⇒
Q ~P∨
Q
T T F T T T T
T F F T T F F
F T T T T T T
F F T F F T T
Construct truth table for p∨¬q and (p∨q)
 Logic - Equivalences

Propositional Equivalences
In mathematical arguments, you can replace a statement or
proposition with another statement or proposition with the
same truth value
Tautology: A compound proposition (combination of
propositions using logical operators) that is always True,
no matter what the truth values of the propositions that are
in it
Contradiction: a compound proposition that is always false
Contingency: proposition that is neither a tautology or a
contradiction
 Logic - Equivalences
• Propositional Equivalences
p p pv p p^ p
T F T F
F T T F

Contingency tautology contradiction

 Principle of Substitution
Let P(p,q,.......) be a tautology , and let
P1(p,q,......),P2(p,q,......),...... be any propositions.
Since P(p,q,........) does not depend upon the
particular truth values of its variables p,q,..., we can
substitute P1 for p , P2 for q, in the tautology
P(p,q,.....) and still have tautology.

Theorem- If P(p,q,....) is a tautology, then

P(P1,P2,.....) is a tautology for any propositions
P1,P2,..........
 Logical Equivalence

P(p,q,.....) ≡ Q(p,q,........) (if identical truth tables)

e.g. ¬ ¬ p ≡ p,
p∨p≡p

Show that (p∧q) ∨(p∧ ¬q) ≡ p

 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Show ¬( p V q ) and ¬ p Λ ¬ q are logically equivalent

using truth tables.

p q pVq ¬(p V q) ¬p ¬q (¬p Λ ¬ q)

T T T F F F F
T F T F F T F
F T T F T F F
F F F T T T T

Logically equivalent using truth tables

 Logic - Equivalences
• Logical Equivalences: compound propositions
that have the same truth value in all possible cases
words, denotes logical equivalence between
p and q, for example.
p q pvq (p v q) p q p^ q Truth Table
T T T F F F F for (p v q)
and p ^ q
T F T F F T F
F T T F T F F
F F F T T T T

These are logically equivalent

 other tautologies:
• commutative law:
P∧Q = Q∧ P
P∨Q=Q∨P
• associative law:
P∧(Q∧R) = (P∧Q)∧R
P∨(Q∨R) = (P∨Q)∨R
• distributive law:
P∨(Q∧R) = (P∨Q)∧(P∨R)
P∧(Q∨R) = (P∧Q)∨(P∧R)
• deMorgan's Law:
∼(P∨Q) = (∼P∧∼Q)
∼(P∧Q) = (∼P∨∼Q)
 Logic - Equivalences(Laws of Algebra)
Logical Equivalences: (T denotes any proposition
that is always true, F denotes one that is always
false)
p^T p identity laws
pvF p
pvT T domination laws
p^F F
pvp p idempotent laws
p^p p
( p) p double negation laws
pvq qvp commutative laws
 Logic - Equivalences(Laws of Algebra)

• Logical Equivalences: (T denotes any proposition that is

always true, F denotes one that is always false)
(p v q) v r p v (q v r) Associative laws
(p ^ q) ^ r p ^ (q ^ r)
(p v (q ^ r) (p v q) ^ (p v r) Distributive laws
p ^ (q v r) (p ^ q) v (p ^ r)
(p ^ q) pv q DeMorgan’s Laws
(p v q) p^ q

These laws can be used to prove whether different

compound propositions are logically equivalent
 Useful Law # 1 p V ¬ p ⇔T

Useful Law # 2 pΛ¬ p⇔ F

Useful Law # 3 p q⇔¬ pVq

 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove ¬ (p V (¬p Λ q)) ⇔ ¬ p Λ ¬q,

This is easy to prove using the truth table. But now we

want to prove it using the logical equivalences.
 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove ¬ (p V (¬p Λ q)) ⇔ ¬ p Λ ¬q,

Some guidance in proving using logical equivalences.

1. Do implication first

Note: How many laws have to do with implies???

When trying to decide which laws to use in a proof, first

ask yourself, are there any implications to prove. If there
are then use the third useful law
 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove ¬ (p V (¬p Λ q)) ⇔ ¬ p Λ ¬q,

2. Do DeMorgan’s second

Next ask yourself, are there any negations with and/or

operators? If there are, then use DeMorgan’s Law.
 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove ¬ (p V (¬p Λ q)) ⇔ ¬ p Λ ¬q,

3. Use Distributative Law

Next ask yourself, are there both and & or operators? If

there are, then use the Distributive Law.
 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove ¬ (p V (¬p Λ q)) ⇔ ¬ p Λ ¬q,

4. Use Double Negation Anytime

5. Use Other Laws as they Apply

 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove ¬ (p V (¬p Λ q)) ⇔ ¬ p Λ ¬q,

We are trying to make both sides equivalent.

Begin with the left hand side.

Try to make it expressed as the right hand side
by using your laws.
 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove ¬ (p V (¬p Λ q)) ⇔ ¬ p Λ ¬q,

Do we have any implications?

no
Can we use DeMorgan’s law?
Yes

¬ (p V (¬p Λ q))
 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove ¬ (p V (¬p Λ q)) ⇔ ¬ p Λ ¬q,

How do we use DeMorgan’s law?

DeMorgan’s Law ¬ ( p V q) ⇔ ¬p Λ ¬q

¬ (p V (¬p Λ q))
⇔ ¬ p Λ ¬ (¬p Λ q)
 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove ¬ (p V (¬p Λ q)) ⇔ ¬ p Λ ¬q,

Now we have
¬ (p V (¬p Λ q)) ⇔ ¬ p Λ ¬ (¬p Λ q)) DeMorgan’s Law

Do we have any implications?

no
Can we use DeMorgan’s law?
yes
¬ (¬p Λ q)
 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove ¬ (p V (¬p Λ q)) ⇔ ¬ p Λ ¬q,

How do we use DeMorgan’s law?

DeMorgan’s Law ¬( p V q) ⇔ ¬p Λ ¬q

¬ (¬p Λ q) ⇔ ¬ (¬ p) V ¬q
 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove ¬ (p V (¬p Λ q)) ⇔ ¬ p Λ ¬q,

Now we have
¬ (p V (¬p Λ q)) ⇔ ¬ p Λ ¬ (¬p Λ q)) DeMorgan’s Law
⇔ ¬ p Λ [¬ (¬p) V ¬q)] ) DeMorgan’s Law

Now we can use the double negation.

¬ p Λ [¬ (¬p) V ¬q)] ⇔ ¬pΛ ( p V ¬q)

 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Now we have
¬ (p V (¬p Λ q)) ⇔ ¬ p Λ ¬ (¬p Λ q)) DeMorgan’s Law
⇔ ¬ p Λ [¬ (¬p) V ¬q)] ) DeMorgan’s Law
⇔ ¬ p Λ (p V ¬q) Double negation

Do we have any implications? no

Can we use DeMorgan’s law? no
Can we use the distributive law? Yes

¬ p Λ (p V ¬q)
 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

How do we use the distributive law?

Distributive Law p Λ (q V r) ⇔ (p Λ q) V (p Λ r)

¬ p Λ (p V ¬q) ⇔ (¬p Λ p) V (¬p Λ ¬q )

 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Now we have
¬ (p V (¬p Λ q)) ⇔ ¬ p Λ ¬ (¬p Λ q)) DeMorgan’s Law
⇔ ¬ p Λ [¬ (¬p) V ¬q)] ) DeMorgan’s Law
⇔ ¬ p Λ (p V ¬q) Double negation

⇔ (¬ p Λ p) V (¬ p Λ ¬q) Distributative Law

Do we have any implications? no

Can weuse DeMorgan’s law? no
Can we use the distributive law? no
Can we use any of the useful laws? Yes

Useful Law # 2 pΛ¬ p⇔ F

 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

How do we use Useful Law #2?

Useful Law #2p Λ ¬ p ⇔ F

(¬ p Λ p) V (¬ p Λ ¬q) ⇔

F V (¬ p Λ ¬q)
 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Now we have
¬ (p V (¬p Λ q)) ⇔ ¬ p Λ ¬ (¬p Λ q)) DeMorgan’s Law
⇔ ¬ p Λ [¬ (¬p) V ¬q)] ) DeMorgan’s Law
⇔ ¬ p Λ (p V ¬q) Double negation
⇔ (¬ p Λ p) V (¬ p Λ ¬q) Distributative Law
⇔ (F) V (¬ p Λ ¬q)

Do we have any implications? no

Can we use DeMorgan’s law? no
Can we use the distributive law? no
Can we use any of the useful laws? No

Now weneed to look at the result and determine

how we might get to that answer.
 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Now we have
¬ (p V (¬p Λ q)) ⇔ ¬ p Λ ¬ (¬p Λ q)) DeMorgan’s Law
⇔ ¬ p Λ [¬ (¬p) V ¬q)] ) DeMorgan’s Law
⇔ ¬ p Λ (p V ¬q) Double negation
⇔ (¬ p Λ p) V (¬ p Λ ¬q) Distributative Law
⇔ (F) V (¬ p Λ ¬q)

What do we have? (F) V (¬ p Λ ¬q)

What are we trying to get? ¬ p Λ ¬q

What do we need to get this result?

We need the identity law. How can we get there?

 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

How do we get to the identity law?

Commutative Laws p V q ⇔ q V p

F V (¬ p Λ ¬q) ⇔ (¬ p Λ ¬q) V F

Now apply the identity law?

Identity Law p V F ⇔ p
(¬ p Λ ¬q) V F ⇔ (¬ p Λ ¬q)
 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove ¬ (p V (¬p Λ q)) ⇔ ¬ p Λ ¬q,

¬ (p V (¬p Λ q)) ⇔ ¬ p Λ ¬ (¬p Λ q)) DeMorgan’s Law

⇔ ¬ p Λ [¬ (¬p) V ¬q)] ) DeMorgan’s Law
⇔ ¬ p Λ (p V ¬q) Double negation

⇔ (¬ p Λ p) V (¬ p Λ ¬q) Distributive Law

⇔ (F) V (¬ p Λ ¬q)
⇔ (¬ p Λ ¬q) V (F) Commutative Law
⇔ ¬ p Λ ¬q Identity Law
 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove (p Λ q) → ( p V q) is a Tautology.

How do we express this?

Prove (p Λ q) → ( p V q) ⇔ T
 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove (p Λ q) → ( p V q) ⇔ T

(p Λ q) → ( p V q) ⇔ T

Do we have any implications? Yes

(p Λ q) → ( p V q) ⇔ T
 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

How do you use Useful Law #3?

Useful Law #3 ( p → q )⇔ ¬ p V q

(p Λ q) → ( p V q) ⇔ ¬ ( p Λ q) V ( p V q)
 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove (p Λ q) → ( p V q) is a Tautology.

Now we have
(pΛq)→(pVq)⇔
⇔ ¬( p Λ q) V ( p V q)

Do we have any implications? no

Can we use DeMorgan’s law? Yes
 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

How do we use DeMorgan’s law?

DeMorgan’s Law
¬ ( p Λ q) ⇔ ¬ p V ¬q
¬( p Λ q) V ( p V q) ⇔ ( ¬ p V ¬ q) V ( p V q)
 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Now we have
(p Λ q) → ( p V q) ⇔ T
⇔ ¬( p Λ q) V ( p V q)
⇔ ( ¬ p V ¬ q) V ( p V q) DeMorgan’s Law

Do we have any implications? no

Can we use DeMorgan’s law? no
Can we use the distributive law? no
Can we use any of the useful laws? No
 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES
Now we have
(p Λ q) → ( p V q) ⇔ T
⇔ ¬( p Λ q) V ( p V q)
⇔ ( ¬ p V ¬ q) V ( p V q) DeMorgan’s Law

What do we have? ( ¬ p V ¬ q) V ( p V q)
What are we trying to get? T

What do weneed to get this result?

We need UL #1 or Identity law or Domination Law.

 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Since we have all V (ors), we will try UL#1.

How can we get there?

Use the Associative Law

Associative Laws (p V q) V r ⇔ p V (q V r)

( ¬ p V ¬ q) V ( p V q) ⇔ ¬ p V (¬ q V p) V q
 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Then Use the Commulative Law

Commulative Laws pVq⇔ qVp

¬ p V (¬ q V p) V q ⇔ ¬ p V (p V ¬ q) V q
 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Then Again use the Associative Law

Associative Laws (p V q) V r ⇔ p V (q V r)

¬ p V (p V ¬ q) V q ⇔ (¬ p V p) V (¬ q V q)
 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Then we can use Useful Law #1.

Useful Law#1 pV¬ p⇔ T

(¬ p V p) V (¬ q V q) ⇔ T V T
 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

And finally the Domination Law.

Domination Laws pVT⇔T

T V T ⇔ T
 PROPOSITIONAL EQUIVALENCES

Prove (p Λ q) → ( p V q) is a Tautology.

(p Λ q) → ( p V q) ⇔ T
⇔ ¬( p Λ q) V ( p V q)
⇔ ( ¬ p V ¬ q) V ( p V q) DeMorgan’s Law

⇔ ( ¬ p V p) V (¬ q V q) Associative Law
⇔ ( ¬ p V p) V (¬ q V q) Commulative Law
⇔ ( T ) V ( T ) Useful Law # 1
⇔ T V T Domination Law
 Prove
¬(p → q) ⇔ (p Λ ¬q)

Show that
((p∨q) Λ¬(¬p Λ(¬q ∨ ¬r))) ∨(¬p Λ ¬q) ∨(¬p Λ¬r)
is a tautology.
 Arguments
In logical reasoning , a certain number of propositions
are assumed to be true and based on the assumption some
other proposition is derived(deduced or inferred)
premises
conclusion
Definition - An argument p1,p2,p3,.......,pn q
is said to be valid if q is true whenever all premises
p1,p2,......,pn are true.

valid argument
fallacy
Theorem - The argument p1,p2,p3,.......,pn q
is valid iff the proposition (p1∧p2 ∧........... ∧pn) q
is a tautology
Inference Rules - General Form
• An Inference Rule is
– A pattern establishing that if we know that a
set of antecedent statements of certain forms
are all true, then we can validly deduce that a
certain related consequent statement is true.
• antecedent 1
antecedent 2 …
∴ consequent “∴” means
“therefore”
 Some Inference Rules
• p Rule of Addition
∴ p∨q
• p∧q Rule of Simplification
∴p
• p Rule of Conjunction
q
∴ p∧q
 Some Inference Rules
• p
• p→q (law of detachment)
∴q “the mode of
affirming”

• ¬q
“the mode of denying”
p→q
∴¬p
 Syllogism Inference Rules
• p→q Rule of hypothetical
q→r syllogism
∴p→r

• p∨q Rule of disjunctive

¬p syllogism
∴q
 Formal Proof Example
• Suppose we have the following premises:
“It is not sunny and it is cold.”
“We will swim only if it is sunny.”
“If we do not swim, then we will play.”
“If we play, then we will be home early.”
• Given these premises, prove the theorem
“We will be home early” using inference rules.
 Proof Example cont.
• Let us adopt the following abbreviations:
– p = “It is sunny”; q = “It is cold”;
r = “We will swim”; s = “We will play”;
t = “We will be home early”.
• Then, the premises can be written as:
(1) ¬p∧ q (2) r → p
(3) ¬r → s (4) s→ t
 Proof Example cont.
Step Proved by
1. ¬p ∧ q Premise #1.
2. ¬p Simplification of 1.
3. r→p Premise #2.
4. ¬r rules 2,3.
5. ¬r→s Premise #3.
6. s rules 4,5.
7. s→t Premise #4.
8. t rules 6,7.
 Example

Consider the following argument:

S1:If a man is a bachelor, he is unhappy
S2:If a man is unhappy, he dies young
----------------------------------------------------
S:Bachelors die young
 Predicate Calculus
* Ram is a student
* Shyam is a student
* x is a student
* ‘ is a student ‘ - Predicate

e.g. “2x + 3y = 4z”

Definition- A part of a declarative sentence describing

the properties of an object or relation among objects is
called a predicate.
 Predicate Calculus

* Let A be a given set . A propositional function(or an open

sentence or condition) defined on A is an expression p(x)
which has property that p(a) is true or false for each
a ∈ A.
*A - domain of p(x)
*T p - all elements of A for which p(a) is true is called the truth
set of p(x)
*T p= {x:x ∈ A, p(x) is true}or T p = {x:p(x)}
 Predicate Calculus
e.g.- 1. x is the father of y - P(x,y)
2. 2x+3y = 4z - S(x,y,z)
P(x,y) , S(x,y,z) are not propositions but if x=2 , y=0 and z =1
in S(x,y,z) or S(2,0,1) is proposition with truth value T
e.g. Find the truth set of each propositional function p(x)
defined on the set N of positive integers.
(a) Let p(x) be “x+2>7”
(b) Let p(x) be “x+5<3”
(c) Let p(x) be “x+5>1”

(a) {x:x∈N, x+2 >7} = {6,7,8,.......}, (c) {x:x∈N, x+5>1} = N

(b) {x:x∈N, x+5<3} = φ
 Predicate Calculus

Definition - For a declarative sentence involving a predicate

, the universe of discourse , or simply the universe, is the
set of all possible values which can be assigned to variables.

e.g. -1. For p(x): “x is a student “ the universe of discourse

is the set of all human names.
e.g. - E(n): “n is an even integer”
 Logic - Quantifiers
• Let’s say you have a predicate like P(x) and
you want to apply a statement for all possible
values of x. You can use quantifiers to do
this.
• The notation x P(x) shows the universal
quantification of P(x), with the upside-down A
as the universal quantifier.
– It says, FOR ALL x P(x) or FOR EVERY x P(x)
 Logic - Quantifiers
• An example: Every student in JUIT has
studied Maths could be expressed as:
– x (S(x)  P(x))
• Where P(x) denotes that x has studied Maths
• And S(x) denotes that x is in JUIT
• And the arrow denotes “then”
 Logic - Quantifiers
– Existential Quantifier of a proposition: there exists
an element x in the universe of discourse such
that P(x) is true
– That is, there is AN x, or at least ONE x, such that
P(x) is true
– In this case, one would use the backwards E to
denote this type quantifier rather than the all
inclusive upside down A:
• x P(x)
• For example, if P(x) was the statement x > 89, and your
data set included test scores of 65, 72, 85, 88, and 95
what would be the existential quantification of P(x)?
– TRUE!
 Example

“For all x there is a y such that x is greater

than y and less than y+1”.

In the universe of rational numbers, with the

usual interpretation of “+” and “<“, this
sentence is true.

In the universe of integers, this sentence is

false.
 Further Examples
1) Similar quantifiers are order independent

2) Different quantifiers are not

3) If P is true of an object, so is Q

4) This is the negation of the above: for some object, P is true but
Q is false.
 Relations between negation,
universal and existential quantifiers

~∃X p(X) = ∀X ~p(X)

~ ∀X p(X) = ∃X ~ p(X)
∃X p(X) = ∃Y p(Y)
∀X q(X) = ∀Y q(Y)
∀X (p(X) ∧ q(X)) = ∀X p(X) ∧ ∀Y q(Y)
∃X (p(X) ∨ q(X)) = ∃X p(X) ∨ ∃Y q(Y)
Negation of Quantified Statements
“All math majors are male”

“It is not the case that all math majors are male” or
“There exists at least one math major who is a female”

M- the set of math majors

¬(∀ x ∈M)(x is a male) ≡ (∃x ∈M)(x is not male)

¬(∀ x ∈M)p(x) ≡ (∃x ∈M) ¬p(x)

or ¬ ∀ x p(x) ≡ ∃x ¬p
 De Morgans Law
¬ (∀x∈A)p(x) ≡ ( ∃ x∈A) ¬ p(x)

¬ ( ∃ x∈A) p(x) ≡ (∀x∈A) ¬ p(x)

e.g. “For all positive integers n we have n+2 >8”

“There exists a positive integer n such that n+2not>8”
 Negating Quantified Statements
with More than One Variable
e.g. ¬[(∀x ∃y ∃z, p(x,y,z)] ≡ ∃x ¬[∃y ∃z, p(x,y,z)]
≡ ∃x ∀y [¬ ∃z, p(x,y,z)]
≡ ∃x ∀y ∀ z, ¬ p(x,y,z)]
e.g. L is the limit of a sequence
a1 ,.............. follows ∀ε > 0, ∃n0 ∈ N , ∀n > n0 , a n − L < ε

L is not the limit of the sequence

a1 , a 2 ,............ when ∃ε > 0, ∀n0 ∈ N , ∃n > n0 , a n − L ≥ ε