Math 170: Project #11 Part 1

Math Project #11 Part 1

Ben Filippo, Tyler Nicholson, & Joseph Martineau
Math 170-01
T/Th 10:00am - 11:50am
Professor Stanica
October 3, 2014

Math 170: Project #11 Part 1

Summary:
An argument is a sequence of statements. The statements included in an argument,
excluding the last one, are known as premises, assumptions, or hypotheses. The final
statement of the argument is known as the conclusion.
An argument form is a sequence of statement forms. For an argument form to be
valid, all statements that cause the premises to be true, which are known as the critical
rows, must all cause the conclusion to be true. By saying this we are stating that the
argument is valid in its given form. If all the premises are true yet the conclusion is false,
no matter if another critical row is valid, the argument form is invalid.
When an argument form has two premises, the first being the major premise and the
second the minor premise and a conclusion it is called a syllogism.
The major premise tends to be in the form p implies q (written with logical connectives
as "p -> q"). This is the conditional statement, which is read as "if p, then q." This
means that if p (the hypothesis) is true, then q (the conclusion) is also true. The minor
premise often (but not always) states that either p or q happened or did not happen
(written as ~p or ~q, and read as not p or not q), which leads to the conclusion. The
conclusion is written with the symbol , which stands for therefore. When evaluating
an argument as valid or invalid, we assume that the premises are true.
Rule of Inference
Modus Ponens: It means method of affirming where the conclusion is an affirmation.
It takes the form of: If p premise occurs then q conclusion occurs too.
Modus Tollens: It is like the previous except it examines the contradiction.
It takes the form of: If q premise does not occur then p conclusion does not occur either.
Generalization:
It takes two forms:
If p statement is true then p or q is true for any other statement q.
If q statement is true then p or q is true for any other statement p.
Specialization:
Like Generalization this takes two forms:
If statement p and q are true then specifically p is true.
If statement p and q are true then specifically q is true.
Elimination:
It takes two forms:
If statement p or q are true, given q is not, then p is true.
If statement p or q are true, given p is not, then q is true.

Math 170: Project #11 Part 1

Transitivity:
Given statement p implies statement q, q implies r. It is valid to say that p implies r as
well.
Proof by Division into Cases:
Given statement p or q can be true, p implies statement r, q implies r. It is valid to say
that r is true.
Application:
It is a form of deduction through listing of true statements to narrow in on a conclusion.
Fallacies
An error in reasoning that produces an invalid argument.
Converse Error: It is also known as affirming the conclusion.
It takes the form of: if q premise occurs then p conclusion occurs too.
Inverse Error: It is also known as negating the hypothesis.
It takes the form of: if p premise does not occur then q conclusion does not occur either.
Questions:

Section 2.3
Some of the arguments in 2432 are valid, whereas others exhibit the converse or
the inverse error. Use symbols to write the logical form of each argument. If the
argument is valid, identify the rule of inference that guarantees its validity.
Otherwise, state whether the converse or the inverse error is made.
Problem:
28. If there are as many rational numbers as there are irrational numbers, then the set
of all irrational numbers is infinite. The set of all irrational numbers is infinite. There
are as many rational numbers as there are irrational numbers.
Solution:
This argument begins with the premise, represented by the variable p: there are as
many rational numbers as there are irrational numbers. The word implies is
represented by ->, so the given premise implies the conclusion, represented by the
variable q: the set of all irrational numbers is infinite. Now, given that the conclusion, q,
is true, the argument states that the premise, p, must be true as well.
p -> q
q
p

Math 170: Project #11 Part 1

This is not a valid argument and the reason is explained by the Converse Error; which
states that just because the conclusion is true, it cannot be inferred that the offered
premise is also true. This does not deal with whether or not both the premise and
conclusion are true, but rather, the form in which the argument takes. By taking this
form, we would get away with saying something like, If Bob is a cat, then he is a
mammal. Bob is a mammal. Bob is a cat., when there is no proof that Bob really is a
cat.
Problem:
29. If at least one of these two numbers is divisible by 6, then the product of these two
numbers is divisible by 6. Neither of these two numbers is divisible by 6. The product
of these two numbers is not divisible by 6.
Solution:
This argument begins with the premise, represented by the variable p: at least one of
these two numbers is divisible by 6. The word implies is represented by ->, so the
given premise implies the conclusion, represented by the variable q: the product of
these two numbers is divisible by 6, represented by q. Now, given the negation, or the
opposite, of p, ~p, the argument offers the conclusion in negated form, ~ q.
p -> q
~p
~q
This is not a valid argument and the reason is explained by the Inverse Error; which
states that even if the premise is not true, it cannot be proven that the conclusion is also
not true. An example demonstrating the Inverse Error based on the given argument
would be that neither 2 nor 3 are divisible by 6 but 2x3=6 and 6/6=1.
Problem:
30. If this computer program is correct, then it produces the correct output when run
with the test data my teacher gave me. This computer program produces the correct
output when run with the test data my teacher gave me. This computer program is
correct.
Solution:
Recognize that the argument contains two premises. The major premise is a conditional
statement that takes the form of if p, then q. Both p and q are propositions, which
stand for sentences. We can take p as the computer program is correct, and q as the
computer program produces the correct output when run with the test data my teacher

Math 170: Project #11 Part 1

gave me. The minor premise is q. The conclusion affirms that q happened, therefore p
also happened. Written with logical connectives, this argument looks like:
p -> q
q
p
This is a converse error. Just because the conclusion occurs does not mean that the
hypothesis is true. Another way of verifying the argument is invalid is to think logically.
While the computer program does produce the correct output with certain test data, that
does not mean the computer program will produce the correct output with a different set
of test data, which means that the computer program would be incorrect. Because there
is an instance where the conclusion is wrong, the argument is invalid.

Section 3.3
Problem:
40.
In informal speech most sentences of the form There is _________ every _______ are
intended to be understood as meaning _______ ________ , even though the
existential quantifier there is comes before the universal quantifier every. Note that this
interpretation applies to the following well-known sentences. Rewrite them using
quantifiers and variables.
a. There is a sucker born every minute.
b. There is a time for every purpose under heaven.
Solution:
Let us consider the following. The phrase there is can be reflected by the existential
quantifier and the phrase every is represented through the universal quantifier .
Rewritten, without values, we are given the phrase _______ ________ . A more
detailed representation would be the following:
x in set D, y in set E such that x and y satisfy property P(x, y).
A) There is a sucker born every minute.
In the problem There is a sucker born every minute.:
We can represent minute by the variable x. (Domain)
We can represent sucker by the variable y. (Codomain)
We can represent the property was born by the variable P(x,y). (Predicate)

Math 170: Project #11 Part 1

We can now satisfy the property of P(x, y), now represented as P(minute, sucker).
With this information we can now state:
minute x, a sucker y
For every minute (x), there is a sucker (y)
Now we have set the variables in the correct spots and must represent property P(x,y):
minute x, a sucker y, such that P(minute,sucker)
This gives us our answer:
minute x, a sucker y, such that y was born in minute x.
For every minute x, there is a sucker y, such that a sucker y was born in minute x.
B) There is a time for every purpose under heaven.

In the problem There is a time for every purpose under heaven.:

We can represent purpose by the variable x. (Domain)
We can represent time by the variable y. (Codomain)
We can represent the property under heaven by the variable P(x,y). (Predicate)
We can now satisfy the property of P(x, y), now represented as P(purpose, time).
With this information we can now state:
purpose x, a time y
For every purpose(x), there is a time (y)
Now we have set the variables in the correct spots and must represent property P(x,y):
purpose x, a time y, such that P(purpose, time)
This gives us our answer:
purpose x, a time y, such that x under heaven exists in minute y.
For every purpose x, there is a time y, such that x under heaven exists in minute y.

Biography:
Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege (1848-1925) was a German logician who
introduced logical quantifiers. He, along with American philosopher Charles Sanders
Peirce, both independently came up with this idea. Gottlob Frege was born in Wismar, a
town in what is now Germany. He attended a gymnasium (the German equivalent to a
6

Math 170: Project #11 Part 1

U.S. high school) and graduated in 1869 (O'Connor and Robertson). After graduation,
he continued his education at the University of Jena where he obtained a mathematics
ph.D in 1873 (Zalta).
Gottlob Frege taught at Jena, where he performed his duties with minimal
interaction with other students and faculty. In 1879, Gottlob Frege published
Begriffsschrift, eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen
Denkens, which in English translates to Conceptual notation, a formal language
modelled on that of arithmetic, for pure thought. In the third volume of the Routledge
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the authors state that, ...[Gottlob Frege] first presented his
conception of rational justification. In effect, it constitutes perhaps the greatest single
contribution to logic ever made and it was, in any event, the most important advance
since Aristotle, (George and Heck, 765-778).
As the quote above says, this work was incredibly important to advancing the
field of logic, and by extension, vital to discrete mathematics. In his book, Gottlob Frege
lays out ...a logical system with negation, implication, universal quantification, [and]
essentially the idea of truth tables, (O'Connor and Robertson). However, while the
ideas were there, the notation Gottlob Frege used differs greatly and is unrecognizable
from the notation used today. Below is a table showing how the notation differs between
Freges quantified statements and todays quantified statements:

Math 170: Project #11 Part 1

Figure 1: The differences between Frege Notation and Modern Notation (Zalta).
Gottlob Frege would go on to make other important contributions to mathematics,
such as in the field of number theory, and in philosophy. His next published book was
Die Grundgesetze der Arithmetik, Vol 1, which translates to The Basic Laws of
Arithmetic and built upon his earlier work in Begriffsschrift. While his contributions to
academia were largely ignored by his contemporaries, other intellectuals began to
recognize his genius after his death. Gottlob Frege's work had a lasting effect on
mathematics and even had significance in the development of computer science.
Without a doubt, he played an important role in a number of fields (Weiner).

Math 170: Project #11 Part 1

Bibliography
A George and R Heck, Gottlob Frege (1848-1925), in E Craig (ed.), Routledge
Encyclopedia of Philosophy Vol 3 (London, 1998), 765-778.
J Weiner, Frege: Past Masters (Oxford, 1999).
O'Connor, J.J., and E.F. Robertson. "Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege." Frege
Biography. 1 Nov. 2002. Web. 20 Sept. 2014. <http://www-history.mcs.stand.ac.uk/Biographies/Frege.html>.
Zalta, Edward. "Gottlob Frege." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall
2014 Edition). Stanford University, 14 Sept. 1995. Web. 20 Sept. 2014.
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/frege/>.