Introduction to Logic

Propositional Analysis

Prof. Ammar Mohammed

Professor of Computer Sceince
Cairo University
Fall 2022
 Programme

Properties of Sentences
Validity, Contingency, Unsatisfiability
Satisfiability and Falsifiability

Relationships between Sentences

Equivalence, Entailment, Consistency

Theorems connecting these Properties and Relationships

Equivalence Theorem
Unsatisfiability Theorem
Deduction Theorem
Consistency Theorem
Properties of Sentences
 Truth Tables
A truth table is a table of all possible interpretations
for the propositional constants in a language.

One column per constant.

One row per interpretation.

For a language with n constants,

there are 2n interpretations.
Example
Oddities
 Properties of Sentences

A sentence is valid if and only if

Valid
every interpretation satisfies it.

A sentence is contingent if and only if

Contingent some interpretation satisfies it and
some interpretation falsifies it.

A sentence is unsatisfiable if and

Unsatisfiable only if no interpretation satisfies it.
 Properties of Sentences

Valid

}
A sentences is satisfiable if and only
if it is either valid or contingent.
Contingent

} A sentences is falsifiable if and only

if it is contingent or unsatisfiable.
Unsatisfiable
 Properties of Sentences
Say whether each of the following sentences is valid,
contingent, or unsatisfiable.
Properties of Sentences
 Logical Equivalence

A sentence φ is logically equivalent to a sentence ψ if and

only if every truth assignment that satisfies φ satisfies ψ and
every truth assignment that satisfies ψ satisfies φ.

(¬ p Ù ¬ q) is logically equivalent to ¬ (p Ú q)

p is logically equivalent to ¬¬p

Exercise : Check that

(p Þ q) is logically equivalent
to (¬p Ú q)
Another Comparison of Sentences

(p Ù q) is not logically equivalent to (p Ú q)

 Logical Entailment

A premise j logically entails a conclusion y (written as

j ⊨ y) if and only if every interpretation that satisfies j
also satisfies y.

(p Ù q) ⊨ (p Ú q)
p ⊨ (p Ú q)
(p Ù q) ⊨ p

p ⊭ (p Ù q)
Logical Entailment ¹ Logical Equivalence

p ⊨ (p Ú q)

(p Ú q) ⊭ p

Analogy in arithmetic: inequalities rather than equations

 Sets of Premises

A set of premises D logically entails a conclusion j

(written as D ⊨ j) if and only if every interpretation that
satisfies all of the premises also satisfies the conclusion.

{p, q} ⊨ (p Ù q)
 Sets of Conclusions

A premise j logically entails a set of conclusions if and

only if every interpretation that satisfies the premise
satisfies all of the conclusions.

(p Ù q) ⊨ {p, q}
 Truth Table Method

We can check for logical entailment by comparing tables

of all possible interpretations.

In the first table, eliminate all rows that do not satisfy

premises.

In the second table, eliminate all rows that do not satisfy

the conclusion.

If the remaining rows in the first table are a subset of the

remaining rows in the second table, then the premises
logically entail the conclusion.
 Example
If Mary loves Pat, then Mary loves Quincy.
If it is Monday, then Mary loves Pat or Quincy.
If it is Monday, does Mary love Quincy?

v ( p=>q)
v (m=> p v q )
v m => q
 Logical Consistency

A sentence φ is consistent with a sentence ψ if and only

if there is a truth assignment that satisfies both φ and ψ.

p is logically consistent with q

(p Ú q) is logically consistent with (¬p Ú ¬q)

p is not consistent with ¬p

H.W Check that :

(p Þ q) is logically consistent
with (¬p Ú q)
Connections
 Equivalence Theorem
Theorem: A sentence φ and a sentence ψ are logically
equivalent if and only if the sentence (φ ⇔ ψ) is valid.

(¬p Ú q) is logically equivalent to ( p => q)

 Equivalence Theorem
Theorem: A sentence φ and a sentence ψ are logically
equivalent if and only if the sentence (φ ⇔ ψ) is valid.

Is ¬(pÙq) logically equivalent to (¬pÚ¬q)?

Is (¬(pÙq) Û (¬pÚ¬q)) valid?

Upshot: We can determine logical equivalence between

sentences by checking validity of a single sentence.
 Unsatisfiability Theorem
Theorem: D ⊨ j if and only if D È {¬j} is
unsatisfiable.
Proof: Suppose that D ⊨ j. If an interpretation satisfies D, then it
must also satisfy j. But then it cannot satisfy ¬j. Therefore, D È
{¬j} is unsatisfiable.

Suppose that D È {¬j} is unsatisfiable. Then every interpretation

that satisfies D must fail to satisfy ¬j, i.e. it must satisfy j.
Therefore, D ⊨ j.

Upshot: We can determine logical entailment between

sentences by checking unsatisfiability of a single
sentence.
 Example
{(pÞq), (m Þ pÚq)} ⊨ (mÞq)?
Is {(pÞq), (m Þ pÚq),¬(mÞq)} unsatisfiable?

m p q
T T T
T T F
T F T
T F F
F T T
F T F
F F T
F F F
 Deduction Theorem
Theorem: A sentence φ logically entails a sentence ψ if
and only if (φ ⇒ ψ) is valid.

More generally, a finite set of sentences {φ , ... , φ}

1

logically entails φ if and only if the compound sentence

(φ ∧ ... ∧ φ ⇒ φ) is valid.
1 n

{(pÞq), (m Þ pÚq)} ⊨ (mÞq)?

Is ((pÞq) ∧ (m Þ pÚq) Þ (mÞq)) valid?

Upshot: We can determine logical entailment between

sentences by checking validity of a single sentence.
 Consistency Theorem
Theorem: A sentence φ is logically consistent with a
sentence ψ if and only if the sentence (φ ∧ ψ) is
satisfiable. More generally, a sentence φ is logically
consistent with a finite set of sentences {φ1, ... , φn} if
and only if the compound sentence (φ1 ∧ ... ∧ φn ∧ φ) is
satisfiable.

Is (pÚq) consistent with (¬pÚ¬q)?

Is ((pÚq) Ù (¬pÚ¬q)) satisfiable?

Upshot: We can determine consistency of sentences by

checking satisfiability of a single sentence.