Symbolic Logic

Why do we study Symbolic Logic?

 To create more Logical neural work—it helps habits of thinking in a more logical
manner.
 Symbolized arguments can be more accurately determined.
 Understand how computer works.
 Better understand mathematics.
Conversion of proposition into symbols:
E.g., Darwin is a great singer. –D
Darwin is a great singer and dancer. – D and E
I am either singing of dogging in the rain. – C or G
It is either rainy of cloudy. – R or C
Dogs don’t like cats. – not D
If it is raining, then the road is wet. – If A, then W
I will jump of the cliff if and only if you do. – C if and only if Y
5 Operators
(tilde)- negation E.g., p (not p)
. (dot) – conjunction (and, also)
V (wedge)- disjunction (or, unless)
(horseshoe)- implication/ condition (if…then)
(Triple bar)- equivalence/ biconditional (if and only if)
1. What is alive can die. (Ants are much alive)
Ergo, ants can die.
Subjects that deal critical thinking are heard. (Logic deals with critical thinking)
Therefore, logic is hard.
2. Cycling extracts sweat.
One example of a good sport is cycling.
Seminarians love a good sport.
Therefore, seminarian extract sweat.
 Coffee makes us awake.
An addicting drink is coffee.
Everyone is having an addicting drink.
Therefore, everyone is awake.
3. A false dilemma and its counter dilemma or rebuttal

a.) If we drink coffee, then we stay awake.

If we take sleeping pills, then we stay awake.

Either we stay awake or we rest.

So, we drink coffee or take sleeping pills.

Rebuttal: Complex constructive dilemma

If we drink coffee, then we stay awake.

If we take sleeping pills, then we stay awake.

Either we drink coffee or we take sleeping pills.

So, we stay awake or we rest.

b.) If I want to be full, then I eat and drink.

Either not to eat or not to be full.

So not drink.

Rebuttal: If I want to be full, then I drink or eat.

Either not to eat or drink.

So, I will not be full.

Sample representation using the symbols

1. If Bill is bald, Fred is not fat.

P ⊃, ~ Q

2. Either many people attend to the concert.

PvQ
 3. It is not the case that if I turn in my homework

~ (P -> Q)

4. Neither John Paul nor Sam will win the championship.

~ (P v Q)

Truth Tables: used to determine when a compound statement is true or false.

How to write a truth table:

1. Create a column for each sentence.

2. Create another column for each additional or more complex expression in order
of complexity

3. Fill in all possible truth values for all simple sentences.

4. Start from left to right in the columns using previous columns to deduce the
truth value of the current columns.

Statements from Statement form

Statement form: any sequence of symbols containing no statements, but

containing statement variables connected in such a way that when
statements are consistently substituted for the statement variables, the
result is a statement.

E.g., P v Q (Statement form)

Specific form: refers to a given statement form from which a statement results by
substituting consistently a different simple statement for each different
statement variable.

E.g., P v Q (Statement form) = a specific statement form for: the blind

man has a red hat or the blind man has a white hat.

A statement form carries truthfulness or falsity in their values.

Truth values in identified through:

 Tautologous/ Tautology- If all statements have Ts.

 Contradictory - If all statements have Fs.
 Contingent - If both statements have Ts and Fs
Biconditional or equivalent statements/ propositions

-two statements with equivalent truth values, symbolized by (triple bars) ≡ or



-If the answer columns are not identical, the statements are not equivalent.

-Logically equivalent= equivalent/ biconditional statements

Ex: P ^ (Q v R)  (P ^ Q) v (P ^ R)

P Q R (Q v R) P^ (QVR) (P^Q) (P^R) (P^R)v(P^R) “O”

T T T T T T T T T

T T F T T T F T T

T F T T T F T T T

T F F F F F F F F

F T T T F F F F F

F T F T F F F F F

F F T T F F F F F

F F F F F F F F F

Tautologous

If the tire is flat, then the tire is not out of balance. P  -Q

The tire is not out of balance or the tire is not flat. -Q v -P

The tire is not flat, and the tire is not out of balance. -P ^ -Q

If the tire is not out balance, then the tire is not flat. -Q-P
It is not true that the tire is both out of balance and flat.

- (P ^ Q)

P Q (P ^ Q) -(P ^ Q)

T T T F

T F F T

F T F T

T F F T

The tire is not out of balance or the tire is not flat.

- P v -Q

P Q -P -Q -P v -Q

T T F F F

T F F T T

F T T F T

F F T T T

- (P^Q)  -P v -Q

De Morgan’s Law: two statements can be logically equivalent to each other, conjunctive
and disjunctive statements, as well as, conditional statements.

1. Conjunctive statements and disjunctive statements, there is a need to negate the

statement as well as the logical connector.

E.g., - (P^Q)  -P v -Q

- (PvQ)  -P ^ -Q
 2. Conditional statements are logically equivalent with disjunctive statements. To
change a conditional statement into a disjunction, we first negate the antecedent,
change the conditional symbol/ logical connector to a disjunction symbol/ logical
connector, keep the consequent the same.

E.g., If the cows are in the pasture, then the horses are not in the barn.

-P-Q

- P  - Q  P v -Q

The cows are in the pasture or the horses are not in the barn.

Variations of Conditional Statements:

1. Converse of the conditional make the consequent the antecedent.

P  Q (Conditional Statement)

Q  P (Converse of the Conditional Statement)

2. Inverse of the conditional negates both the antecedent and the consequent.

P  Q (Conditional statement)

-P-Q (Inverse of the condition)

3. Contrapositive of the conditional makes the antecedent the consequent and

negates both the antecedent and the consequent.

P  Q (Conditional statement)

-Q  -P (Contrapositive of the conditional)

Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens and disjunctive syllogism

PQ

So, Q

[ (P Q) ^ P]  Q
Rules of Inference

Take two or more true inputs, which are the premises of the syllogism
output as new statement that must be true as a result of the inputs.

1. Modus Ponens

Modus Ponendo Ponens: The way that affirm by affirming.

[ (P  Q) ^ P]  Q

1. PQ If I am Patrick Estrera, I am humble.

2. P I am Patrick Estrera.

3. So, Q I am humble.

2. Modus Tollens

Modus Tollendo Tollens: The way that denies by denying.

[ (PQ) ^ -Q]  -P

1. P  Q If I am Patrick, I am humble.

2. -Q I am not humble.

3. So, -P I am not Patrick.

Proof MT with MP

1. P  Q 1 Contraposition

2. -Q 2, 3 Mp/ Modus Ponens

3. -Q  -P

4. -P

3. Hypothetical Syllogism

PQ

QR

So, P  R

[ (P  Q) ^ (Q R)]
4. Disjunctive Syllogism

PvQ

-P

…Q

[ (P v Q) ^ - P] Q

5. Addition

So, P v Q

P  (P v Q)

6. Simplification

P^Q

So, Q

(P ^ Q) Q

7. Conjunction

So, P ^ Q

(P) ^ (Q)  (P ^ Q)

8. Resolution

-P v R

PvQ

So, Q v R

[ (-P v R) ^ (P v Q)] (Q v R)

 From Proposition

[(-P v R) ^ (P v Q)] (Q v R) the conclusion is valid because it logically follows

the validity of the premises Q

Table to show the flow of the argument

Statement Table reasons

1 premise premise

2 premise Premise

Rules of inference we use

based from the premises in
the statement table.

P ^ ( P  Q)  Q

1 P ^ (P Q) Premises

2 P Simplification 1

3 PQ Simplification 2

4 Q MP 2, 3

“John work hard. If John works hard then is not having fun. If John is not having fun, then he
will not make any friends. Therefore, John will not make any friends.”
Let: P = John works hard. Q= he is having fun. R= He makes friend.

P 1. P premise

P-Q 2. P-Q premise

-Q-R 3. -Q MP 1,2

So, -R 4. -Q  -R premise

5. -R MP 3,4
I.

1. (P ^ Q) v R Contingent

P Q R (P ^ Q) (P ^ Q) v R

T T T E T

T T F T T

T F T F T

T F F F F

F T T F T

F T F F F

F F T F T

F F F F F

2. (P ^ Q) v (Q ^ R) Contingent

P Q R P^Q Q^R (P ^ Q) v (Q ^ R)

T T T T T T

T T F T F T

T F T F F F

T F F F F F

F T T F T T

F T F F F F

F F T F F F

F F F F F F
 3 – (P ^ Q) Contingent

P Q P^Q - (P ^ Q)

T T T F

T F F T

F T F T

F F F T

4. – P ^ - Q Contingent
P Q -P -Q -P ^ -Q
T T F F F
T F F T F
F T T F F
F F T T T

5. (P Q) ^ (QR) Contingent

P Q R PQ QR (P Q) ^ (QR)
T T T T T T
T T F T F F
T F T F T F
T F F F T F
F T T T T T
F T F T F F
F F T T T T
F F F T T T
6. (P ^ Q) ^ (P ^ -Q) Contingent
P Q P^Q - (P ^ Q) -Q (P ^ -Q) (P ^ Q) ^ (P ^ -Q)
 T T T F F F F
T F F T T T T
F T F T F F F
F F F T T F F
7. (P ^ Q) (Q ^ P) Tautologous
P Q P^Q Q^P (P ^ Q) (Q ^ P)
T T T T T
T F F F T
F T F F T
F F F F T

8. – [(P ^ Q)  (Q ^ P)] Contradictory

P Q P^Q Q^P (P ^ Q)  (Q ^ P) – [(P ^ Q)  (Q ^ P)]
T T T T T F
T F F F T F
F T F F T F
F F F F T F
II.
1. (- P v -Q)  (P - Q) Logically equivalent
P Q -P -Q (- P v -Q) (P - Q) (- P v -Q)  (P - Q)
T T F F F F T
T F F T T T T
F T T F T T T
F F T T T T T

2. – (PQ)  (P ^ -Q) Logically equivalent

P Q -Q PQ – (PQ) (P ^ -Q) – (PQ)  (P ^ -Q)
T T F T F F T
T F T F T T T
F T F T F F T
F F T T F F T

3. (PQ)  [P (P^Q)]

P Q
T T
T F
F T
F F
PQ P^Q P (P^Q) (PQ)  [P (P^Q)]
T T T T
F F F T
T F T T
T F T T
 4. [(PvQ) ^ - (P^Q)]  - (PQ) Logically Equivalent
P Q PvQ P^ - (P^Q) [(PvQ) ^ - (P^Q)] PQ - (PQ) [(PvQ) ^ - (P^Q)]  - (PQ)
Q
T T T T F F T F T
T F T F T T F T T
F T T F T T F T T
F F F F T F T F T

P Q R (Q v R) P ^ (Q v R) (P ^ Q) (P ^ R) [(P ^ Q) v (P ^ R)] [P ^ (Q v R)]  [(P ^ Q) v (P ^

R)]
T T T T T T T T T
T T F T T T F T T
T F T T T F T T T
T F F F F F F F T
F T T T F F F F T
F T F T F F F F T
F F T T F F F F T
F F F F F F F F T
5. [P ^ (Q v R)]  [(P ^ Q) v (P ^ R)] Logically Equivalent

III. Q Modus Ponens 1,2

1. P  Q ∴ (P ^ Q)
Q^P Simplification 1
P^Q Simplification 2
(Q ^ P) ∴ (P ^ Q) Conjunction 4. P  -P ∴ -P
2. (P v Q) ∴ (Q v P) P Simplification 1
PvQ P  -P Simplification 2
QvP Addition -P Modus Tollens 1,2
3. (P  Q) ^ P) ∴ Q 5. P  Q ∴ P  (P ^ Q)
PQ Simplification 1 PQ Simplification 1
^P Simplification 2 P Simplification 2
(P ^ Q) Conjunction
P  (P ^ Q) Simplification 1,2