Advanced Engineering Mathematics for ECE

LESSON #2: Methods of Formal Proof

Mathematical logic is often used for logical proofs. Proofs are valid arguments that determine
the truth values of mathematical statements.

An argument is a sequence of statements or it is a finite sequence of p1, p2, … pn, q statements.

The last statement is the conclusion and all its preceding statements are called premises (or
hypothesis). The symbol “∴”, (read therefore) is placed before the conclusion. An argument p1,
p2, … pn, q is called valid if

(p1 ˄ p2 ˄ … ˄ pn) → q

is a tautology.

Example:

1. Consider the following argument

If Peter solved 8 problems correctly then Peter obtained a grade of 95. Peter
solved 8 problems correctly. Therefore, Peter obtained a grade of 95.

Solution:

Let
p: Peter solved 8 problems correctly.
q: Peter obtained a grade of 95.

Writing the given argument symbolically:

p→q
p
∴q

It can be written in the form [(p → q) ˄ p] → q

We use the logical matrix to determine the argument’s validity

p q p→q (p→q) ˄ p [(p→q)˄p] →q

0 0 1 0 1
0 1 1 0 1
1 0 0 0 1
1 1 1 1 1

Since [(p → q) ˄ p] → q is tautology, the argument is a VALID ARGUMENT

2. Consider the following argument

If Rowena solved 8 problems correctly then Rowena obtained a grade of 90. Rowena
obtained a grade of 90. Therefore, Rowena solved 8 problems correctly.

Solution:

Let
p: Rowena solved 8 problems correctly.
q: Rowena obtained a grade of 90.

Writing the given argument symbolically:

p→q
q
∴p

It can be written in the form [(p → q) ˄ q] → p

We use the logical matrix to determine the argument’s validity

p q p→q (p→q) ˄ q [(p→q)˄q] →p

0 0 1 0 1
0 1 1 1 0
1 0 0 0 1
1 1 1 1 1

Since [(p → q) ˄ q] → p is not tautology, the argument is NOT A VALID ARGUMENT.

RULE OF INFERENCE

Rules of Inference provide the templates or guidelines for constructing valid arguments from the
statements given.

Table of Rules of Inference

Rule of Inference Name Rule of Inference Name

P P∨Q
∴P∨Q Addition ¬P Disjunctive Syllogism
∴Q

P P→Q
Q Conjunction Q→R Hypothetical Syllogism
∴P∧Q ∴P→R

P∧Q (P→Q)∧(R→S)
∴P Simplification P∨R Constructive Dilemma
∴Q∨S

P→Q (P→Q)∧(R→S)
P Modus Ponens ¬Q∨¬S Destructive Dilemma
∴Q ∴¬P∨¬R

P→Q
¬Q Modus Tollens
∴¬P

Formal Proofs of Validity

Given an argument with premises p1, p2, … pn and conclusion q, a formal proof of the validity of
the argument consists of a lists of propositions which terminates with q, that is

(p1 ˄ p2 ˄ … ˄ pn) → q .

Every proposition in the list must satisfy one or more of the following criteria:

1. It is a premise of the argument

2. It can be derived from one or more of the propositions already included in the list using
one of the rules of inference
3. It is equivalent to a proposition already included in the list because one of the
replacement rules guarantees the logical equivalence of the appropriate underlying
propositional forms.
Examples:

1. Construct a formal proof of the validity of the following argument:

If Hayley is taking up civil engineering then Peter is taking up electrical

engineering. Hayley is taking up civil engineering and Rowena is taking up electronics
engineering. Therefore, Peter is taking up electrical engineering.

Solution:

We symbolize the simple propositions, let

H: Hayley is taking up civil engineering

P: Peter is taking up electrical engineering
R: Rowena is taking up electronics engineering

Premises are:

H→P
H˄R

Conclusion is

∴P

Using the rules of inference, we commence the formal proof as follows:

1. H→P Premise
2. H˄R Premise
3. H Simplification 2
4. P Modus Ponens 1, 3
2. Construct a formal proof of the validity of the following argument:

If Hayley is correct then his solution is correct and if Peter is correct then his
calculation is correct. Peter is correct. Therefore, Hayley’s solution is correct or Peter’s
calculation is correct.

Solution:

We symbolize the simple propositions, let

H: Hayley is correct.
S: Hayley’s solution is correct
P: Peter is correct
C: Peter’s calculation is correct

Premises are:

(H → S) ˄ (P → C)
P

Conclusion is

∴H˅C

Using the rules of inference, we commence the formal proof as follows:

1. (H → S) ˄ (P → C) Premise
2. P Premise
3. P˅H Addition 2
4. H˅A Commutative 3
5. S˅C Constructive Dilemma 1, 4

or

1. (H → S) ˄ (P → C) Premise
2. P Premise
3. (P →C) ˄ (H →S) Commutative law 1
4. P→C Simplification 3
5. C Modus Ponens 2, 4
6. C˅S Addition 5
7. S˅C Commutative law 6
3. Construct a formal proof of the validity of the following argument:

If we have a seminar on microcontrollers then we will invite an authorized

distributor and a trainer. If we invite an authorized distributor or a trainer then we must
invite a module programmer. Therefore, if we have a seminar on microcontrollers then
we must invite a module programmer.