1.

5 Propositional Logic
Propositional Logic is replacing statements with another statement with the same truth value. This can be
made easier knowing the compound propositions according to their possible truth value.

A tautology is always true while contradictions are compound propositions that are always false. A
contingency is neither a tautology nor a contradiction.

1.2.1 Logical Equivalences

Propositions p and q are logically equivalent (denoted as p ≡ q) if they can be replaced by each other
since they have the same truth value.

The following is the Table of Logical Equivalence:

The following are the rules of Logical Equivalence:

1. p → q ≡ ¬p ˅ q
2. p → q ≡ ¬q → ¬p
3. p ˅ q ≡ ¬p → q
4. p ˄ q ≡ ¬p → ¬q
5. ¬(p → q) ≡ p ˄¬q
6. (p →q) ˄ (p→r) ≡ p→ (q ˄ r)
7. (p →r) ˄ (q→r) ≡ (p˅q) → r
8. (p→q) ˅ (p→r) ≡ p→(q ˅ r)
9. (p→r) ˅ (q→r) ≡ (p˄q) →r

The following are the rules of Logical Equivalence:

1. p ↔ q ≡ (p →q ) ˄ (q → p)
2. p ↔ q ≡ ¬p ↔ ¬ q
3. p ↔ q ≡ (p ˄ q) ˅ (¬p → ¬q)
4. ¬(p ↔ q) ≡ p ↔ ¬q

Logical equivalence can be proven using truth table method.

 For example, prove that ¬[p [p (¬p ˄ q)] ≡ ¬p ˄ ¬q using truth table method.

Given that each line of combinations of both propositions have the same truth values, the two
compound propositions are logically equivalent. Using the Table of Logical Equivalence:

1.6 Predicates and Quantifiers

Predicate Calculus is a way to create a proposition from a propositional function. This is done using
Predicates and Quantifies.

1.3.1 Predicates
Predicate is a property that the subject can have. The symbol P(x) read as “P at x” takes that the truth
value is determined once the variable x is assigned a value – that is, P(x) becomes a proposition
having a value of either true or false.

For example, let P(x) denote “x+3 ≤ 10”, what is the truth value of P(4) and P(7). Substituting the
values for x+3 ≤ 10 with P(4), then it is 4 + 3 ≤ 10. When evaluated 7 ≤ 10 – hence, P(4) is true.

For P(7) on, evaluating 7 + 3 ≤ 10 yields 10 ≤ 10 – hence P(7) is still true.

1.3.2 Quantifiers
Quantification is a way to create a proposition from propositional function. There are two types of
quantifiers:

a. Universal Quantifiers
A universal quantifier asserts that a property is true for all values of a variable in a particular
domain called Universe of Discourse. It asserts that P(x) is true for all values of x in the
universe of discourse. Denoted as ∀xP(x), it is read as “For all x, P at x” or “For every x, P
at x.”
 Let P(x) be the statement “x + 1 > x”, what is the truth value of ∀xP(x) where the universe of
discourse consistent of all integers?

Since P(x) is true for all real numbers x as any real number when added with 1 becomes
greater than itself, the quantification ∀xP(x) is true.
A counter example is a value of x from the Universe of Discourse that makes ∀xP(x) false.

b. Existential Quantifiers
An existential quantifier asserts there is an element with a certain property. It asserts that
P(x) is true for at least one value of x in the universe of discourse. Denoted as ∃xP(x), it is
read as “There exists an x such that P at x.”

Let P(x) be the statement “x = x + 1”, what is the truth value of ∃xP(x) where the universe of
discourse consistent of all real numbers?

Since P(x) is false for every real number ∃xP(x) is false.

A bound variable is a quantifier used on a variable x. The scope of a quantifier is part of the logical
expression to which the quantifier is applied. For example ∀x∃y(P(x)  Q(y)), both x and y are bound
variables. The scope of ∀x is P(x) and ∃y binds y in Q(y). When a variable is not bound by any
quantifier, it is called free variable.

A universal quantifier when negated becomes an existential quantifier and vise versa. For example,
with an existential quantifier:

Let P(x) denote

“A student in this class has taken a course in Data Analytics.”
then ∃xP(x) denotes
“There exists a student in this class who has taken a course in Data Analytics.”
Hence, negation ∃xP(x) denotes
“It is not the case that there exists a student in this class
who has taken a course in Data Analytics.”
Finally, ∀xP(x) denotes the final negation
“Every student in this class has taken a not taken a course in Data Analytics.”

For a universal quantifier,

Let P(x) denote

“A student in this class has taken a course in Data Analytics.”
then ∀xP(x) denotes
“Every student in this class has taken a course in Data Analytics.”
Hence, negation ∀xP(x) denotes
“It is not the case that every student in this class who has taken a course in Data Analytics.”
Finally, ∃xP(x) denotes the final negation
“There exists a student in this class who has not taken a course in Data Analytics.”
 1.3.3 Negating Nested Quantifiers

Negating nested quantifiers is strategically done by applying the negation starting from left to right. For
example:

“There does not exist a student who has taken every course on every university in the world.”

When converted in logical expression, the statement is:

∃s∀c∃u(P(s,c)  Q(c,u))
Then to negate, the following is the illustration

∃s∀c∃u(P(s,c)  Q(c,u))

∃s∀c∃u(P(s,c)  Q(c,u))

∀s∀c∃u(P(s,c)  Q(c,u))

∀s∃c∃u(P(s,c)  Q(c,u))

∀s∃c∀u (P(s,c)  Q(c,u))

∀s∃c∀u ( P(s,c)   Q(c,u))

1.7 Translating Quantified Statements to Logical Expressions

In order to translate English statements into logical expressions, the following steps can be followed:

Step 1: Express in quantified statement.

Step 2: Set the universe of discourse.
Step 3: Introduce the variable x
Step 4: Set the predicates and quantifiers.
Step 5: Translate.

For example, translate the statement, “Every student in this class has studied Logic.” Following the
steps:

Step 1: Express in quantified statement.

“For every student in this class, that student has studied Logic.”
Step 2: Set the universe of discourse.
This class
Step 3: Introduce the variable x
“For every student x in this class, x has studied Logic.”
Step 4: Set the predicates and quantifiers.
Let S(x) = x is a student in this class
Let L(x) = x has studied Logic
Step 5: Translate.
 ∀xL(x)

The translation differs when the universe of discourse changes. For example,

Step 1: Express in quantified statement.

“For every student in this class, that student has studied Logic.”
Step 2: Set the universe of discourse.
All students in TAU
Step 3: Introduce the variable x
“For every student x in this class, x has studied Logic.”
Step 4: Set the predicates and quantifiers.
Let S(x) = x is a student in this class
Let L(x) = x has studied Logic
Step 5: Translate considering that a student has to belong in the class to say that he has
studied logic, hence:
∀x(S(x) →L(x))
1.3.5 Translating Quantified Logical Expressions into English Statements

When translating logical expressions into English statements, the predicates should be stated of the
proposition they represent. Example, translate ∀x(C(x)  ∃y(C(y)  F(x,y))):

Let C(x) : “x has a computer.”

Let F(x,y) : “ x and y are friends.”

Then ∀x(C(x)  ∃y(C(y)  F(x,y))): is

“For every student x, x has a computer or there exists a student y such that y has a computer
and x and y are friends.”

1.4 Methods of Proof

Proving is concerned with when a mathematical argument is correct and what methods can be used to
construct such a correct one. Theorems which are propositions, fact, result or statement that can be shown
to be true. A sequence of statements that form an argument to demonstrate that a theorem is true is a
proof. With this, a simple theorem used in the proof of other theorems is called a lemma
(lemmas/lemmata). A corollary which is a proposition, establishes directly from a theorem that has been
proven while a conjecture is also a proposition or statement whose truth value is unknown.
The following rules of inference can be used in proof.

These rules can also be used in methods of proof on quantified statements.

The example below is a method of proof on a quantified statement.

Premise 1: Everyone in Discrete Mathematics class has taken a course in Computer Science.

Premise 2: Marla is a student in this class.

Conclusion: Marla has taken a course in Computer Science.

Given the aforementioned syllogism, the first step is to translate the syllogism to logical expressions –
hence,
Another complete example of a method of proof for quantified statement is provided below:

The following are some theorems:

1. Direct Proofs. The implication p→q proven by showing that if p is True, then 1 must also be true.
This shows that the combinations p=True and q=False never occurs.
2. Indirect Proofs. Since implication p→q is equivalent to its contrapositive ¬q→¬p; the implication
p→q can be proved by showing that its contrapositive is True.
3. Vacuous and Trivial Proof. Suppose that the hypothesis p of an implication p→q is False. Then
the implication p→q is True, because the statement has the form F→F or F→T – hence, True.
Vacuous Proof proofs are used to establish special causes of theorems that state that an implication
is True for a positive integer.
4. Proofs by Contradiction. Suppose that a contradiction q can be found so that ¬p→q is True that
is ¬p→F is True. Then the proposition ¬p must be False. Consequently, p must be True. This can
be used when a contradiction such as (r ˄ ¬r); can be found so that it is possible to show that the
implication ¬p → (r ˄ ¬r) is True.
5. Proofs by Cases. An original implication with a hypothesis made up of disjunction of propositions
p1, p2,…pn can be proved by proving each of the n implications p1 → q = 1, 2, … n, individually.
6. Proofs by Equivalence. To prove a theorem that is a biconditional (p ↔ q) where p and q are
proposition, the tautology (p ↔ q) ↔ [(p → q) ˄ (q → p)] can be used. That is, the proposition “p if
and only if q” can be proved if both the implications “if p then q” and “if q, then p” are True.

Theorems on quantifiers are as follows:

Existence Proofs. Theorems that are assertions that objects of a particular type exist. ꓱxP(x) where
P is a predicate.

1. Constructive. Finding element a such that P(a) is True.

Example. Show that there is a positive integer that can be written as the sum of cubes of
positive integers in two different ways.

1729 = 103 + 93 = 123 + 13

 2. Non-constructive Existence Proof. We do not find an element such that P(x) is True but prove
that ꓱxP(x) is True.

Example. Show that there is a positive integer that can be written as the sum of cubes of
positive integers in two different ways.

1729 = 103 + 93 = 123 + 13

Utilization of Learning

Direction: On one whole sheet of YELLOW PAD/PAPER, perform the indicated operations or answer
the questions in the following items.

3. Negate the quantified statement ∀x∃y[P(x,y)  ∀x∃yQ(x,y)].

2. Prove the logical equivalence of the p ˅ (q ˅ r) ≡ (p ˅ q) ˄ (p ˅ r) using truth table.

3. What are the truth value of the propositions R(1, 2, 3) and R(0, 0, 1) given R(x, y, z) = “x + y =z”?

4. What is the truth value of ∀xP(x), where P(x) is the statement “x2 <10” given the universe of discourse
consist of the positive integers not exceeding 4?

5. What is the truth value of ∃xP(x) where P(x) is the statement “x2 > 10” and the universe of discourse
consists of the positive integers not exceeding 4?

12. Prove that the following quantified premises produce the conclusion

1. ꓱx(C(x) ˄ ¬B(x))

2. ꓯx(C(x) → P(x))

∴ ꓱx(P(x) ˄ ¬B(x))

NOTE:
1. Submit at my table at IT Center Server/Faculty room ON/BEFORE 5:00PM.

2. ROTC Cadets/Cadettes or Officers who will participate on today’s event are EXEMPTED.