MDSlides1 2013

Mathematics for computer science
conf.dr. Bostan Viorel

Spring 2013 Lecture 1
conf.dr. Bostan Viorel () MathDisc Spring 2013 Lecture 1 1 / 35
Mathematical Logic
1
Stefan Bilaniuk, A problem course in mathematical logic.
2
Eric Lehman, F.Thomson Leighton, Albert R. Meyer, Math for
computer science, MIT course.
3
Victor Besliu, Matematica discreta, UTM.
Mathematical Logic
Denition
Mathematical logic is concerned with formalizing and analyzing the kinds
of reasoning used in mathematics.
Part of the problem with formalizing mathematical reasoning is the
necessity of precisely specifying the language(s) in which it is to be done.
The natural languages spoken by humans wont do: they are so complex
and continually changing as to be impossible to pin down completely.
Mathematical Logic
Denition
Mathematical Logic
Denition
Mathematical Logic. Some history
Entscheidungsproblem
Given a set of hypotheses and some statement , is there an eective
method for determining whether or not the hypotheses in are sucient
to prove ?
Historically, this question arose out of David Hilberts scheme to secure
the foundations of mathematics by axiomatizing mathematics in 1st-order
logic, showing that the axioms in question do not give rise to any
contradictions, and that they suce to prove or disprove every statement
(which is where the Entscheidungsproblem comes in).
If the answer to the Entscheidungsproblem were "yes" in general, the
eective method(s) in question might put mathematicians out of business.
to prove ?
to prove ?
David Hilbert (1862-1943)
Trying to nd a suitable formalization of the notion of "eective
method", mathematicians developed abstract models of computation in
the 1930s: recursive functions, calculus, Turing machines, and
grammars.
These models are very dierent, but they were all essentially equivalent in
what they could do.
grammars.
what they could do.
grammars.
These models are very dierent,
but they were all essentially equivalent in
what they could do.
grammars.
what they could do.
This suggested the (empirical, not mathematical!) principle:
Church-Turing Thesis
A function is eectively computable in principle in the real world if and only
if it is computable by (any) one of the abstract models mentioned above.
Alonzo Church
(1903-1995)
Alan Turing
(1912-1954)
Alonzo Church
(1903-1995)
Alan Turing
(1912-1954)
Alonzo Church
(1903-1995)
Alan Turing
(1912-1954)
Mathematical Logic
Consider some sequences taken from English language:
1
"You may have cake or you may have ice cream."
2
"If you dont clean your room, then you wont play Counter Strike!"
3
"If pigs can y, then you can understand the Banach-Tarsky
Theorem."
4
"If you can solve any problem we come up with in this class, then you
get grade 10 for this course."
5
"Every human has a dream."
Mathematical Logic
1
2
3
Theorem."
4
5
Mathematical Logic
1
2
3
Theorem."
4
5
Mathematical Logic
1
2
3
Theorem."
4
5
Mathematical Logic
1
2
3
Theorem."
4
5
Mathematical Logic
Can you have both cake and ice cream or must you choose just one desert?
If you arent playing the game, does it mean that you didnt clean your
room?
"If pigs can y, then you can understand the Banach-Tarsky Theorem."
If this is true, then is the Banach-Tarsky Theorem incomprehensible?
Mathematical Logic
room?
Mathematical Logic
room?
Mathematical Logic
room?
Mathematical Logic
room?
Mathematical Logic
room?
Mathematical Logic
"If you can solve any problem we come up with in this class, then you get
grade 10 for this course."
If you can solve some problems we come up with but not all, then do you
get a 10 for the course?
And can you still get a 10 even if you cant solve any of the problems?
Does the last sentence imply that all humans have the same dream or
might they each have a dierent dream?
Mathematical Logic
Mathematical Logic
Mathematical Logic
Mathematical Logic
Mathematical Logic
Some uncertainty is tolerable in normal conversation. But ...
Imperativ!
We need to formulate ideas precisely as in mathematics. The ambiguities
inherent in everyday language become a real problem!
We cant hope to make an exact argument if were not sure exactly what
the individual words mean.
To get around the ambiguity of English, mathematicians have devised a
special language for talking about logical relationships.
This language mostly uses ordinary English words and phrases such as
"or", "implies", and "for all".
But mathematicians endow these words with denitions more precise than
those found in an ordinary dictionary.
Mathematical Logic
Imperativ!
We need to formulate ideas precisely as in mathematics.
The ambiguities
Mathematical Logic
Imperativ!
Mathematical Logic
Imperativ!
Mathematical Logic
Imperativ!
Mathematical Logic
Imperativ!
Mathematical Logic
Imperativ!
"or",
"implies", and "for all".
Mathematical Logic
Imperativ!
"or", "implies",
and "for all".
Mathematical Logic
Imperativ!
Mathematical Logic
Imperativ!
Propositional Logic
Propositional logic formalizes the reasoning that can be done with
connectives such as not , and, or, and if . . . then.
Dene the formal language of propositional logic, L
P
by specifying its
symbols and rules for assembling these symbols into the formulas of the
language.
Denition
The symbols of L
P
are:
1
Parentheses: ( and )
2
Connectives: : and !
3
Atomic formulas: A
0
, A
1
, A
2
, . . . , A
n
, . . .
Propositional Logic
P
by specifying its
language.
Denition
The symbols of L
P
are:
1
2
3
Atomic formulas: A
0
, A
1
, A
2
, . . . , A
n
, . . .
Propositional Logic
P
by specifying its
language.
Denition
The symbols of L
P
are:
1
2
3
Atomic formulas: A
0
, A
1
, A
2
, . . . , A
n
, . . .
Propositional Logic
How to put together the symbols of L
P
?
Denition
The formulas of L
P
are those nite sequences or strings of the symbols
given in previous denition which satisfy the following rules:
1
Every atomic formula is a formula;
2
If is a formula, then (:) is a formula;
3
If and are formulas, then ( ! ) is a formula;
4
No other sequence of symbols is a formula.
Use lower-case Greek characters to represent formulas, and upper-case
Greek characters to represent sets of formulas.
Propositional Logic
P
?
Denition
The formulas of L
P
1
2
3
4
Propositional Logic
P
?
Denition
The formulas of L
P
1
2
3
4
Propositional Logic
A
0
= "The moon is red"
A
1
= "The moon is made of cheese"
Then
(A
0
! (:A
1
))
means
If the moon is red, then it is not made of cheese!
These are formulas:
A
2013
,(A
100
! A
1
),(A
0
! A
0
),((:A
1
) ! (A
2
! A
231
))
These are NOT formulas:
X
2
,(A
3
),(A
0
! (:A
1
),(A
7
:A
1
),A
2
! A
0
Propositional Logic
A
0
= "The moon is red"
A
1
Then
(A
0
! (:A
1
))
means
These are formulas:
A
2013
,(A
100
! A
1
),(A
0
! A
0
),((:A
1
) ! (A
2
! A
231
))
X
2
,(A
3
),(A
0
! (:A
1
),(A
7
:A
1
),A
2
! A
0
Propositional Logic
A
0
= "The moon is red"
A
1
Then
(A
0
! (:A
1
))
means
These are formulas:
A
2013
,(A
100
! A
1
),(A
0
! A
0
),((:A
1
) ! (A
2
! A
231
))
X
2
,(A
3
),(A
0
! (:A
1
),(A
7
:A
1
),A
2
! A
0
Propositional Logic
A
0
= "The moon is red"
A
1
Then
(A
0
! (:A
1
))
means
These are formulas:
A
2013
,(A
100
! A
1
),(A
0
! A
0
),((:A
1
) ! (A
2
! A
231
))
X
2
,(A
3
),(A
0
! (:A
1
),(A
7
:A
1
),A
2
! A
0
Propositional Logic
A
0
= "The moon is red"
A
1
Then
(A
0
! (:A
1
))
means
These are formulas:
A
2013
,(A
100
! A
1
),(A
0
! A
0
),((:A
1
) ! (A
2
! A
231
))
X
2
,(A
3
),(A
0
! (:A
1
),(A
7
:A
1
),A
2
! A
0
Propositional Logic
A
0
= "The moon is red"
A
1
Then
(A
0
! (:A
1
))
means
These are formulas:
A
2013
,
(A
100
! A
1
),(A
0
! A
0
),((:A
1
) ! (A
2
! A
231
))
X
2
,(A
3
),(A
0
! (:A
1
),(A
7
:A
1
),A
2
! A
0
Propositional Logic
A
0
= "The moon is red"
A
1
Then
(A
0
! (:A
1
))
means
These are formulas:
A
2013
,(A
100
! A
1
),
(A
0
! A
0
),((:A
1
) ! (A
2
! A
231
))
X
2
,(A
3
),(A
0
! (:A
1
),(A
7
:A
1
),A
2
! A
0
Propositional Logic
A
0
= "The moon is red"
A
1
Then
(A
0
! (:A
1
))
means
These are formulas:
A
2013
,(A
100
! A
1
),(A
0
! A
0
),
((:A
1
) ! (A
2
! A
231
))
X
2
,(A
3
),(A
0
! (:A
1
),(A
7
:A
1
),A
2
! A
0
Propositional Logic
A
0
= "The moon is red"
A
1
Then
(A
0
! (:A
1
))
means
These are formulas:
A
2013
,(A
100
! A
1
),(A
0
! A
0
),((:A
1
) ! (A
2
! A
231
))
X
2
,(A
3
),(A
0
! (:A
1
),(A
7
:A
1
),A
2
! A
0
Propositional Logic
A
0
= "The moon is red"
A
1
Then
(A
0
! (:A
1
))
means
These are formulas:
A
2013
,(A
100
! A
1
),(A
0
! A
0
),((:A
1
) ! (A
2
! A
231
))
X
2
,(A
3
),(A
0
! (:A
1
),(A
7
:A
1
),A
2
! A
0
Propositional Logic
A
0
= "The moon is red"
A
1
Then
(A
0
! (:A
1
))
means
These are formulas:
A
2013
,(A
100
! A
1
),(A
0
! A
0
),((:A
1
) ! (A
2
! A
231
))
X
2
,
(A
3
),(A
0
! (:A
1
),(A
7
:A
1
),A
2
! A
0
Propositional Logic
A
0
= "The moon is red"
A
1
Then
(A
0
! (:A
1
))
means
These are formulas:
A
2013
,(A
100
! A
1
),(A
0
! A
0
),((:A
1
) ! (A
2
! A
231
))
X
2
,(A
3
),
(A
0
! (:A
1
),(A
7
:A
1
),A
2
! A
0
Propositional Logic
A
0
= "The moon is red"
A
1
Then
(A
0
! (:A
1
))
means
These are formulas:
A
2013
,(A
100
! A
1
),(A
0
! A
0
),((:A
1
) ! (A
2
! A
231
))
X
2
,(A
3
),(A
0
! (:A
1
),
(A
7
:A
1
),A
2
! A
0
Propositional Logic
A
0
= "The moon is red"
A
1
Then
(A
0
! (:A
1
))
means
These are formulas:
A
2013
,(A
100
! A
1
),(A
0
! A
0
),((:A
1
) ! (A
2
! A
231
))
X
2
,(A
3
),(A
0
! (:A
1
),(A
7
:A
1
),
A
2
! A
0
Propositional Logic
A
0
= "The moon is red"
A
1
Then
(A
0
! (:A
1
))
means
These are formulas:
A
2013
,(A
100
! A
1
),(A
0
! A
0
),((:A
1
) ! (A
2
! A
231
))
X
2
,(A
3
),(A
0
! (:A
1
),(A
7
:A
1
),A
2
! A
0
Propositional Logic
Use the symbols ^, _, and $ to represent and, or, and if and only if,
respectively.
Since they are not among the symbols of L
P
, we will use them as
abbreviations for certain constructions involving only : : and ! .
Namely,
( ^ ) is short for (:( ! (:)))
( _ ) is short for ((:) ! )
( $ ) is short for (( ! ) ^ ( ! ))
"The moon is red and made of cheese" is written as (A
0
Â
1
) .
Or actually is (:(A
0
! (:A
1
)))
Propositional Logic
respectively.
P
Namely,
( ^ ) is short for (:( ! (:)))
( _ ) is short for ((:) ! )
( $ ) is short for (( ! ) ^ ( ! ))
0
Â
1
) .
Or actually is (:(A
0
! (:A
1
)))
Propositional Logic
respectively.
P
Namely,
( ^ ) is short for (:( ! (:)))
( _ ) is short for ((:) ! )
( $ ) is short for (( ! ) ^ ( ! ))
0
Â
1
) .
Or actually is (:(A
0
! (:A
1
)))
Propositional Logic
respectively.
P
Namely,
( ^ ) is short for (:( ! (:)))
( _ ) is short for ((:) ! )
( $ ) is short for (( ! ) ^ ( ! ))
0
Â
1
) .
Or actually is (:(A
0
! (:A
1
)))
Propositional Logic
respectively.
P
Namely,
( ^ ) is short for (:( ! (:)))
( _ ) is short for ((:) ! )
( $ ) is short for (( ! ) ^ ( ! ))
0
Â
1
) .
Or actually is (:(A
0
! (:A
1
)))
Propositional Logic
respectively.
P
Namely,
( ^ ) is short for (:( ! (:)))
( _ ) is short for ((:) ! )
( $ ) is short for (( ! ) ^ ( ! ))
0
Â
1
) .
Or actually is (:(A
0
! (:A
1
)))
Propositional Logic
respectively.
P
Namely,
( ^ ) is short for (:( ! (:)))
( _ ) is short for ((:) ! )
( $ ) is short for (( ! ) ^ ( ! ))
0
Â
1
) .
Or actually is (:(A
0
! (:A
1
)))
Propositional Logic
respectively.
P
Namely,
( ^ ) is short for (:( ! (:)))
( _ ) is short for ((:) ! )
( $ ) is short for (( ! ) ^ ( ! ))
0
Â
1
) .
Or actually is (:(A
0
! (:A
1
)))
Propositional Logic
respectively.
P
Namely,
( ^ ) is short for (:( ! (:)))
( _ ) is short for ((:) ! )
( $ ) is short for (( ! ) ^ ( ! ))
0
Â
1
) .
Or actually is (:(A
0
! (:A
1
)))
Propositional Logic
For simplicity adapt informal conventions (that will allow us to use fewer
parentheses):
Drop the outermost parentheses in a formula, writing ! instead
of ( ! ) and : instead of (:);
Let : take precedence over ! when parentheses are missing, so
: ! is short for ((:) ! ), and t the informal connectives
into this scheme by letting the order of precedence be:
:, ^, _, !, $;
Group repetitions of !, ^, _, or $ to the right when parentheses
are missing, so ! ! is short for (( ! ) ! ) .
Propositional Logic
parentheses):
:, ^, _, !, $;
Propositional Logic
parentheses):
:, ^, _, !, $;
Propositional Logic
Denition
Suppose is a formula of L
P
. The set of subformulas of , S(), is
dened as follows:
1
If is an atomic formula, then S() = fg ;
2
If is (:), then S() = S() [ f:g ;
3
If is ( ! ), then S() = S() [S() [ f( ! )g .
For example, let be the formula
(((:A
0
) ! A
1
) ! (A
2
! (:A
1
)))
Then
S() = fA
0
, A
1
, A
2
, (:A
0
) , ((:A
0
) ! A
1
) , (:A
1
), (A
2
! (:A
1
)), g
Propositional Logic
Denition
P
dened as follows:
1
2
If is (:), then S() = S() [ f:g ;
3
If is ( ! ), then S() = S() [S() [ f( ! )g .
(((:A
0
) ! A
1
) ! (A
2
! (:A
1
)))
Then
S() = fA
0
, A
1
, A
2
, (:A
0
) , ((:A
0
) ! A
1
) , (:A
1
), (A
2
! (:A
1
)), g
Propositional Logic
Denition
P
dened as follows:
1
2
If is (:), then S() = S() [ f:g ;
3
If is ( ! ), then S() = S() [S() [ f( ! )g .
(((:A
0
) ! A
1
) ! (A
2
! (:A
1
)))
Then
S() = fA
0
, A
1
, A
2
, (:A
0
) , ((:A
0
) ! A
1
) , (:A
1
), (A
2
! (:A
1
)), g
Propositional Logic
Observe that dropping parentheses convention allow us to rewrite
(((:A
0
) ! A
1
) ! (A
2
! (:A
1
)))
in
(:A
0
! A
1
) ! (A
2
! :A
1
)
and
S() = fA
0
, A
1
, A
2
, (:A
0
) , ((:A
0
) ! A
1
) , (:A
1
), (A
2
! (:A
1
)), g
can be rewritten as
S() = fA
0
, A
1
, A
2
, :A
0
, :A
0
! A
1
, :A
1
, A
2
! :A
1
, g
Propositional Logic
(((:A
0
) ! A
1
) ! (A
2
! (:A
1
)))
in
(:A
0
! A
1
) ! (A
2
! :A
1
)
and
S() = fA
0
, A
1
, A
2
, (:A
0
) , ((:A
0
) ! A
1
) , (:A
1
), (A
2
! (:A
1
)), g
can be rewritten as
S() = fA
0
, A
1
, A
2
, :A
0
, :A
0
! A
1
, :A
1
, A
2
! :A
1
, g
Propositional Logic
(((:A
0
) ! A
1
) ! (A
2
! (:A
1
)))
in
(:A
0
! A
1
) ! (A
2
! :A
1
)
and
S() = fA
0
, A
1
, A
2
, (:A
0
) , ((:A
0
) ! A
1
) , (:A
1
), (A
2
! (:A
1
)), g
can be rewritten as
S() = fA
0
, A
1
, A
2
, :A
0
, :A
0
! A
1
, :A
1
, A
2
! :A
1
, g
Propositional Logic
(((:A
0
) ! A
1
) ! (A
2
! (:A
1
)))
in
(:A
0
! A
1
) ! (A
2
! :A
1
)
and
S() = fA
0
, A
1
, A
2
, (:A
0
) , ((:A
0
) ! A
1
) , (:A
1
), (A
2
! (:A
1
)), g
can be rewritten as
S() = fA
0
, A
1
, A
2
, :A
0
, :A
0
! A
1
, :A
1
, A
2
! :A
1
, g
Propositional Logic
:A
0
^ :A
1
$ :(A
0
_A
1
)
Using parentheses it should be
(((:A
0
) ^ (:A
1
)) $ (:(A
0
_A
1
)))
The subformullas are
S() = fA
0
, A
1
, :A
0
, :A
1
, :A
0
^ :A
1
, A
0
_A
1
, :(A
0
_A
1
), g
Propositional Logic
:A
0
^ :A
1
$ :(A
0
_A
1
)
(((:A
0
) ^ (:A
1
)) $ (:(A
0
_A
1
)))
S() = fA
0
, A
1
, :A
0
, :A
1
, :A
0
^ :A
1
, A
0
_A
1
, :(A
0
_A
1
), g
Propositional Logic
:A
0
^ :A
1
$ :(A
0
_A
1
)
(((:A
0
) ^ (:A
1
)) $ (:(A
0
_A
1
)))
S() = fA
0
, A
1
, :A
0
, :A
1
, :A
0
^ :A
1
, A
0
_A
1
, :(A
0
_A
1
), g
Propositional Logic
Whether a given formula of L
P
is true or false usually depends on how
we interpret the atomic formulas which appear in .
If = fA
2
g and A
2
= "2 + 2 = 4", then is True,
but if A
2
= "The moon is made of cheese", it is False.
Not any statement can be assigned true or false value.
A
0
= "This statement is false"
At this stage logical relationships are important.
Lets dene how any assignment of truth values T ("true") and F ("false")
to atomic formulas of L
P
can be extended to all other formulas.
We will also get a reasonable denition of what it means for a formula of
L
P
to follow logically from other formulas.
Propositional Logic
P
If = fA
2
g and A
2
= "2 + 2 = 4",
then is True,
but if A
2
A
0
P
L
P
Propositional Logic
P
If = fA
2
g and A
2
= "2 + 2 = 4", then is True,
but if A
2
A
0
P
L
P
Propositional Logic
P
If = fA
2
g and A
2
= "2 + 2 = 4", then is True,
but if A
2
= "The moon is made of cheese",
it is False.
A
0
P
L
P
Propositional Logic
P
If = fA
2
g and A
2
= "2 + 2 = 4", then is True,
but if A
2
A
0
P
L
P
Propositional Logic
P
If = fA
2
g and A
2
= "2 + 2 = 4", then is True,
but if A
2
A
0
P
L
P
Propositional Logic
P
If = fA
2
g and A
2
= "2 + 2 = 4", then is True,
but if A
2
A
0
P
L
P
Propositional Logic
P
If = fA
2
g and A
2
= "2 + 2 = 4", then is True,
but if A
2
A
0
P
L
P
Propositional Logic
P
If = fA
2
g and A
2
= "2 + 2 = 4", then is True,
but if A
2
A
0
P
L
P
Propositional Logic
P
If = fA
2
g and A
2
= "2 + 2 = 4", then is True,
but if A
2
A
0
P
L
P
Propositional Logic
Denition
A truth assignment is a function v whose domain is the set of all formulas
of L
P
and whose range is the set fT; Fg of truth values, such that:
1
v(A
n
) is dened for every atomic formula A
n
.
2
For any formula ,
v((:)) =

T, if v() = F,
F, if v() = T,
3
For any formulas and ,
v(( ! )) =

F, if v() = T and v() = F
T, otherwise,
Truth assignment of implication, !, means that T ! F is false.
Propositional Logic
Denition
of L
P
1
v(A
n
n
.
2
For any formula ,
v((:)) =

T, if v() = F,
F, if v() = T,
3
v(( ! )) =

T, otherwise,
Propositional Logic
Denition
of L
P
1
v(A
n
n
.
2
For any formula ,
v((:)) =

T, if v() = F,
F, if v() = T,
3
v(( ! )) =

T, otherwise,
Propositional Logic
Denition
of L
P
1
v(A
n
n
.
2
For any formula ,
v((:)) =

T, if v() = F,
F, if v() = T,
3
v(( ! )) =

T, otherwise,
Propositional Logic
Denition
of L
P
1
v(A
n
n
.
2
For any formula ,
v((:)) =

T, if v() = F,
F, if v() = T,
3
v(( ! )) =

T, otherwise,
Propositional Logic
Denition
of L
P
1
v(A
n
n
.
2
For any formula ,
v((:)) =

T, if v() = F,
F, if v() = T,
3
v(( ! )) =

T, otherwise,
Propositional Logic
Example.
Suppose v is a truth assignment such that v(A
0
) = T and v(A
1
) = F.
Then we want to know the truth assignmemnt
v(((:A
1
) ! (A
0
! A
1
)))
A
0
A
1
(:A
1
) (A
0
! A
1
) ((:A
1
) ! (A
0
! A
1
))
T F T F F
In other words we showed that if v(A
0
) = T and v(A
1
) = F, then
v(((:A
1
) ! (A
0
! A
1
))) = F
What if another truth asignment is given? Say v(A
0
) = F and v(A
1
) = F.
Propositional Logic
Example.
0
) = T and v(A
1
) = F.
v(((:A
1
) ! (A
0
! A
1
)))
A
0
A
1
(:A
1
) (A
0
! A
1
) ((:A
1
) ! (A
0
! A
1
))
T F T F F
0
) = T and v(A
1
) = F, then
v(((:A
1
) ! (A
0
! A
1
))) = F
0
) = F and v(A
1
) = F.
Propositional Logic
Example.
0
) = T and v(A
1
) = F.
v(((:A
1
) ! (A
0
! A
1
)))
A
0
A
1
(:A
1
) (A
0
! A
1
) ((:A
1
) ! (A
0
! A
1
))
T F T F F
0
) = T and v(A
1
) = F, then
v(((:A
1
) ! (A
0
! A
1
))) = F
0
) = F and v(A
1
) = F.
Propositional Logic
Example.
0
) = T and v(A
1
) = F.
v(((:A
1
) ! (A
0
! A
1
)))
A
0
A
1
(:A
1
) (A
0
! A
1
) ((:A
1
) ! (A
0
! A
1
))
T F T F F
0
) = T and v(A
1
) = F, then
v(((:A
1
) ! (A
0
! A
1
))) = F
0
) = F and v(A
1
) = F.
Propositional Logic
Example.
0
) = T and v(A
1
) = F.
v(((:A
1
) ! (A
0
! A
1
)))
A
0
A
1
(:A
1
) (A
0
! A
1
) ((:A
1
) ! (A
0
! A
1
))
T F T F F
0
) = T and v(A
1
) = F, then
v(((:A
1
) ! (A
0
! A
1
))) = F
0
) = F and v(A
1
) = F.
Propositional Logic
Example.
0
) = T and v(A
1
) = F.
v(((:A
1
) ! (A
0
! A
1
)))
A
0
A
1
(:A
1
) (A
0
! A
1
) ((:A
1
) ! (A
0
! A
1
))
T F T F F
0
) = T and v(A
1
) = F, then
v(((:A
1
) ! (A
0
! A
1
))) = F
What if another truth asignment is given?
Say v(A
0
) = F and v(A
1
) = F.
Propositional Logic
Example.
0
) = T and v(A
1
) = F.
v(((:A
1
) ! (A
0
! A
1
)))
A
0
A
1
(:A
1
) (A
0
! A
1
) ((:A
1
) ! (A
0
! A
1
))
T F T F F
0
) = T and v(A
1
) = F, then
v(((:A
1
) ! (A
0
! A
1
))) = F
0
) = F and v(A
1
) = F.
Propositional Logic
Construct the so-called truth table with all possible truth asignments:
A
0
A
1
(:A
1
) (A
0
! A
1
) ((:A
1
) ! (A
0
! A
1
))
T T F T T
T F T F F
F T F T T
F F T T T
Clearly, if there are three atomic formulas present, then we will have 8
possible dierent truth asignments.
How about n atomic formulas? Answer: 2
n
possible truth asignments
Propositional Logic
A
0
A
1
(:A
1
) (A
0
! A
1
) ((:A
1
) ! (A
0
! A
1
))
T T F T T
T F T F F
F T F T T
F F T T T
n
Propositional Logic
A
0
A
1
(:A
1
) (A
0
! A
1
) ((:A
1
) ! (A
0
! A
1
))
T T F T T
T F T F F
F T F T T
F F T T T
n
Propositional Logic
A
0
A
1
(:A
1
) (A
0
! A
1
) ((:A
1
) ! (A
0
! A
1
))
T T F T T
T F T F F
F T F T T
F F T T T
How about n atomic formulas?
Answer: 2
n
Propositional Logic
A
0
A
1
(:A
1
) (A
0
! A
1
) ((:A
1
) ! (A
0
! A
1
))
T T F T T
T F T F F
F T F T T
F F T T T
How about n atomic formulas? Answer:
2
n
Propositional Logic
A
0
A
1
(:A
1
) (A
0
! A
1
) ((:A
1
) ! (A
0
! A
1
))
T T F T T
T F T F F
F T F T T
F F T T T
n
Propositional Logic
A
0
A
1
A
2
. . . A
n1
A
n
Subformulas
T T T . . . T T
T T T . . . T F
T T T . . . F F
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F F F . . . F T
F F F . . . F F
Propositional Logic
Proposition
Suppose is any formula and u and v are truth assignments such that
u(A
n
) = v(A
n
) for all atomic formulas A
n
which occur in . Then
u() = v().
Corollary
Suppose u and v are truth assignments such that u(A
n
) = v(A
n
) for every
atomic formulaA
n
. Then u = v, i.e. u() = v() for every formula .
Propositional Logic
Proposition
Suppose is any formula and u and v are truth assignments such that
u(A
n
) = v(A
n
) for all atomic formulas A
n
which occur in . Then
u() = v().
Corollary
Suppose u and v are truth assignments such that u(A
n
) = v(A
n
) for every
atomic formulaA
n
. Then u = v, i.e. u() = v() for every formula .
Propositional Logic
:
T F
F T
!
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
^ :( ! (:))
T T T T
T F F F
F T F F
F F F F
Propositional Logic
:
T F
F T
!
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
^ :( ! (:))
T T T T
T F F F
F T F F
F F F F
Propositional Logic
:
T F
F T
!
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
^ :( ! (:))
T T T T
T F F F
F T F F
F F F F
Propositional Logic
_
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F
$
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F T
Propositional Logic
_
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F
$
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F T
Propositional Logic
Denition
If v is a truth assignment and is a formula, we will often say that v
satises if v() = T . Similarly, if is a set of formulas, we will often
say that v satises if v() = T for every 2 . We will say that
(respectively, ) is satisable if there is some truth assignment which
satises it.
Denition
A formula is a tautology if it is satised by every truth assignment.
For example, ! is a tautology.
Denition
A formula is a contradiction if there is no truth assignment which
satises it.
For example, ! : is a contradiction.
Propositional Logic
Denition
satises it.
Denition
Denition
satises it.
Propositional Logic
Denition
satises it.
Denition
Denition
satises it.
Propositional Logic
Denition
satises it.
Denition
Denition
satises it.
Propositional Logic
Example. Show that A
3
! (A
4
! A
3
) is a tautology.
Construct the
truth table
A
3
A
4
(A
4
! A
3
) A
3
! (A
4
! A
3
)
T T T T
T F T T
F T F T
F F T T
Propositional Logic
3
! (A
4
! A
3
) is a tautology. Construct the
truth table
A
3
A
4
(A
4
! A
3
) A
3
! (A
4
! A
3
)
T T T T
T F T T
F T F T
F F T T
Propositional Logic
3
! (A
4
! A
3
) is a tautology. Construct the
truth table
A
3
A
4
(A
4
! A
3
) A
3
! (A
4
! A
3
)
T T T T
T F T T
F T F T
F F T T
Propositional Logic
Proposition
If is any formula, then ((:) _ ) is a tautology and ((:) ^ ) is a
contradiction.
Proof.
It follows from the truth tables
: (:) _
T F T
F T T
: (:) ^
T F F
F T F
Propositional Logic
Proposition
contradiction.
Proof.
: (:) _
T F T
F T T
: (:) ^
T F F
F T F
Propositional Logic
Proposition
contradiction.
Proof.
: (:) _
T F T
F T T
: (:) ^
T F F
F T F
Propositional Logic
Proposition
contradiction.
Proof.
: (:) _
T F T
F T T
: (:) ^
T F F
F T F
Propositional Logic
Denition
A proposition is a statement that is either true or false.
Note that even if this denition is quite general it excludes such sentences
as
1
"O Romeo, Romeo! Wherefore art thou Romeo?"
2
"Dont be stupid."
3
"Learn mathematics!"
Proposition
2 + 3 = 5.
Proposition
Pigs can y.
Propositional Logic
Denition
as
1
2
"Dont be stupid."
3
Proposition
2 + 3 = 5.
Proposition
Pigs can y.
Propositional Logic
Denition
as
1
2
"Dont be stupid."
3
Proposition
2 + 3 = 5.
Proposition
Pigs can y.
Propositional Logic
Denition
as
1
2
"Dont be stupid."
3
Proposition
2 + 3 = 5.
Proposition
Pigs can y.
Propositional Logic
Denition
as
1
2
"Dont be stupid."
3
Proposition
2 + 3 = 5.
Proposition
Pigs can y.
Propositional Logic
Denition
as
1
2
"Dont be stupid."
3
Proposition
2 + 3 = 5.
Proposition
Pigs can y.
Propositional Logic
Denition
as
1
2
"Dont be stupid."
3
Proposition
2 + 3 = 5.
Proposition
Pigs can y.
Propositional Logic
Proposition A
All Greeks are human.
Proposition B
All humans are mortal.
Proposition C
All Greeks are mortal.
Archimedes spent some time playing with such sentences in the 4th
century BC.
If A is true, and B is true, then C is also true!
Propositional Logic
Proposition A
Proposition B
Proposition C
century BC.
Propositional Logic
Proposition A
Proposition B
Proposition C
century BC.
Propositional Logic
Proposition A
Proposition B
Proposition C
century BC.
Propositional Logic
Proposition A
Proposition B
Proposition C
century BC.
Propositional Logic
Archimedes developed an early form of logic.
Propositional Logic
Archimedes developed an early form of logic.
Propositional Logic
Proposition
Let p(n) = n
2
+n + 41. Then 8n 2 N, p(n) is a prime number.
p(0) = 41 : prime
p(1) = 43 : prime
p(2) = 47 : prime
p(3) = 57 : prime
So far so good!
p(20) = 461 : prime!
Beautiful!
p(39) = 1601 : prime!
Propositional Logic
Proposition
Let p(n) = n
2
p(0) = 41 : prime
p(1) = 43 : prime
p(2) = 47 : prime
p(3) = 57 : prime
So far so good!
p(20) = 461 : prime!
Beautiful!
p(39) = 1601 : prime!
Propositional Logic
Proposition
Let p(n) = n
2
p(0) = 41 : prime
p(1) = 43 : prime
p(2) = 47 : prime
p(3) = 57 : prime
So far so good!
p(20) = 461 : prime!
Beautiful!
p(39) = 1601 : prime!
Propositional Logic
Proposition
Let p(n) = n
2
p(0) = 41 : prime
p(1) = 43 : prime
p(2) = 47 : prime
p(3) = 57 : prime
So far so good!
p(20) = 461 : prime!
Beautiful!
p(39) = 1601 : prime!
Propositional Logic
Proposition
Let p(n) = n
2
p(0) = 41 : prime
p(1) = 43 : prime
p(2) = 47 : prime
p(3) = 57 : prime
So far so good!
p(20) = 461 : prime!
Beautiful!
p(39) = 1601 : prime!
Propositional Logic
Proposition
Let p(n) = n
2
p(0) = 41 : prime
p(1) = 43 : prime
p(2) = 47 : prime
p(3) = 57 : prime
So far so good!
p(20) = 461 : prime!
Beautiful!
p(39) = 1601 : prime!
Propositional Logic
Proposition
Let p(n) = n
2
p(0) = 41 : prime
p(1) = 43 : prime
p(2) = 47 : prime
p(3) = 57 : prime
So far so good!
p(20) = 461 : prime!
Beautiful!
p(39) = 1601 : prime!
Propositional Logic
Proposition
Let p(n) = n
2
p(0) = 41 : prime
p(1) = 43 : prime
p(2) = 47 : prime
p(3) = 57 : prime
So far so good!
p(20) = 461 : prime!
Beautiful!
p(39) = 1601 : prime!
Propositional Logic
Proposition
Let p(n) = n
2
p(40) = 1681 : Not prime!
p(40) = 402 + 40 + 41
= 40(40 + 1) + 41
= 40 41 + 41
= 41 41
Therefore, the above proposition is FALSE!
Propositional Logic
Proposition
Let p(n) = n
2
p(40) = 1681 : Not prime!
p(40) = 402 + 40 + 41
= 40(40 + 1) + 41
= 40 41 + 41
= 41 41
Propositional Logic
Proposition
Let p(n) = n
2
p(40) = 1681 : Not prime!
p(40) = 402 + 40 + 41
= 40(40 + 1) + 41
= 40 41 + 41
= 41 41
Propositional Logic
Proposition
"a
4
+b
4
+c
4
= d
4
has no solutions, where a, b, c and d are positive
integers "
In logical notations (mathematicians like notations a lot!) it says
8a 2 Z
+
, 8b 2 Z
+
, 8c 2 Z
+
, 8d 2 Z
+
, a
4
+b
4
+c
4
6= d
4
.
8a, b, c, d 2 Z
+
, a
4
+b
4
+c
4
6= d
4
.
Euler made this conjecture in 1769. For 218 years no one knew whether
this proposition was true or false.
Finally, Noam Elkies from Harvard University found a solution to the
equation:
a = 2682440, b = 15365639, c = 18796760, d = 20615673.
So the proposition is false!
Propositional Logic
Proposition
"a
4
+b
4
+c
4
= d
4
integers "
8a 2 Z
+
, 8b 2 Z
+
, 8c 2 Z
+
, 8d 2 Z
+
, a
4
+b
4
+c
4
6= d
4
.
8a, b, c, d 2 Z
+
, a
4
+b
4
+c
4
6= d
4
.
equation:
a = 2682440, b = 15365639, c = 18796760, d = 20615673.
Propositional Logic
Proposition
"a
4
+b
4
+c
4
= d
4
integers "
8a 2 Z
+
, 8b 2 Z
+
, 8c 2 Z
+
, 8d 2 Z
+
, a
4
+b
4
+c
4
6= d
4
.
8a, b, c, d 2 Z
+
, a
4
+b
4
+c
4
6= d
4
.
equation:
a = 2682440, b = 15365639, c = 18796760, d = 20615673.
Propositional Logic
Proposition
"a
4
+b
4
+c
4
= d
4
integers "
8a 2 Z
+
, 8b 2 Z
+
, 8c 2 Z
+
, 8d 2 Z
+
, a
4
+b
4
+c
4
6= d
4
.
8a, b, c, d 2 Z
+
, a
4
+b
4
+c
4
6= d
4
.
equation:
a = 2682440, b = 15365639, c = 18796760, d = 20615673.
Propositional Logic
Proposition
"a
4
+b
4
+c
4
= d
4
integers "
8a 2 Z
+
, 8b 2 Z
+
, 8c 2 Z
+
, 8d 2 Z
+
, a
4
+b
4
+c
4
6= d
4
.
8a, b, c, d 2 Z
+
, a
4
+b
4
+c
4
6= d
4
.
equation:
a = 2682440, b = 15365639, c = 18796760, d = 20615673.
Propositional Logic
Proposition
"a
4
+b
4
+c
4
= d
4
integers "
8a 2 Z
+
, 8b 2 Z
+
, 8c 2 Z
+
, 8d 2 Z
+
, a
4
+b
4
+c
4
6= d
4
.
8a, b, c, d 2 Z
+
, a
4
+b
4
+c
4
6= d
4
.
equation:
a = 2682440, b = 15365639, c = 18796760, d = 20615673.

MDSlides1 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

MDSlides1 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MDSlides1 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mathematics for computer science

conf.dr. Bostan Viorel

You might also like