PROJECT 2

Build valid arguments of a given set of

propositional logics and quantified statements
using rules of inferences

Presented by :- Dhaneswar Sahu (230101120258)

Yuvraj Sharma (230101120260)
Ashish Kumar Mandal (230101120262)
Swarup Nayak (230101120267)
Vishal Kumar (230101120269)
Prince Kumar (23010112070)

Guided by :- Dr . Aditya Kumar Pati

 CONTENTS

 ARGUMENT
 RULE OF INFERENCE
 QUANTIFIERS
 TYPES OF QUANTIFIERS
 INFERENCE THEORY OF PREDICATE CALCULUS
 PROBLEM TO PROVE CONCLUSION FROM THE FOLLOWING PREMISES
 PROBLEM BASED ON CP RULE
 QUANTIFIERS

When the variables in a propositional function are assigned values, the resulting statement becomes a
proposition with a certain truth value .However , there is an other important way, called quantification, to
create a proposition from a propositional function.

TYPES OF QUANTIFIERS

The universal quantification of P(x)is the statement “P(x)for all values of x in the domain.” The notation
∀x P(x) denotes the universal quantification of P(x). Here ∀ is called the universal quantifier. We read
∀x P(x) as “for all x P(x)” or “for every x P(x).”An element for which P(x)is false is called a counterexample
of ∀x P(x).

EXAMPLE : Let P(x)be the statement “x +1 >x.” What is the truth value of the quantification ∀ xP(x), where
the domain consists of all real numbers?
Solution : Because P(x)is true for all real numbers x, the quantification ∀x P(x) is true.

The existential quantification of P(x)is the proposition “There exists an element x in the domain such
that P(x).” We use the notation ∃x P(x) for the existential quantification of P(x). Here ∃ is called the
existential quantifier.

EXAMPLE : Let P(x)denote the statement “x>3.” What is the truth value of the quantification ∃ xP(x), where
the domain consists of all real numbers?
Solution: Because “x>3” is sometimes true—for instance, when x = 4—the existential quantification of
P(x),which is∃ x P(x),is true.
RULE US :-

Universal specification is the rule of inference which states that one can conclude that P(c) is true , if
∀x P(x) is true, where c is an arbitrary member of the universe of discourse . This rule is also called thee
universal instantiation.

RULE ES :-

Existential specification is the rule which allows us to know conclude that P(c) is true, If ∃x P(x) is true, where
c is not an arbitrary member of the universe , but one for Which P(c) is true. Usually we will not know what c is
but know that it exists. Since it exists we may call it as c. this rule is also called as the existential instantiation.

RULE UG :-

Universal generalisation is the rule which states that ∀x P(x) is true, if P(c) Is true, where c is an
arbitrary member (not a specific member) of the Universe of discourse.

RULE EG :-

Existential generalisation is the rule that is used to conclude that ∃x P(x)Is true when P(c)
is true, where c is a particular member of the universe of discourse.
Rules of inference :
The rules which are used to obtain a valid conclusion from a
set of premises are known as Rules of inference

1. Rule “P” : Supplying a premises at any step of derivation

2. Rule “T” : Deriving a new formula at any step of derivation
using its previous formulae.
3. Rule “CP” (Conditional proof) : A valid conclusion C => B can
be derive from a set of premises A1 , A2 , A3 …. An ,
if A1 ^ A2 ^ A3 ……^An ^ C => B is a tautology.
2. prove that R S is a valid conclusion from the following premises
P Q, P → R, Q → S
Solution:
PREMISES USED NO. OF INFERENCE RULES OF INFERENCE
{1} 1. P Q RULE P
{1} 2. ¬P→Q RULE T (1→2) BY E18
{3} 3. Q→S RULE P
{1,3} 4. ¬P→S RULE T (2 3→4)
{5} 5. P→R RULE P
{5} 6. ¬R→¬P RULE T (5→6)(CONTRAPOSITIVE)
{1,3,5} 7. ¬R→S RULE T (4 6→7)
{1,3,5} 8. R S RULE T(7→8)by E18

R S is a valid conclusion from the given premises

3. Show that “ S ” is a valid conclusion from the following

Premises : P → ¬ Q
Q R
¬S → P
¬R

Conclusion : S
Premises used Number of inference Rules of inference
{1} 1. Q R RULE P
{2} 2. ¬R RULE P
{1,2} 3. Q RULE T(1 2→3)
{4} 4. P→ ¬Q RULE P
{4} 5.Q→ ¬P RULE T(4→5(Contrapositive)
{6} 6. ¬S→P RULE P
{6} 7. ¬P→S RULE T (6→7(Contrapositive)
{4,6} 8. Q→S RULE T (5 7→8)
{1,2,4,6} 9. S RULE T (3 8 →9)

S is valid conclusion from the given premises

4. USING RULE CP( CONDITIONAL PROOF) ,

Show that R → S is a valid conclusion for a given premises

Premises : P →(Q → S),

¬ R P,
Q
Conclusion: R → S
Premises Used Number of Inference Rules Of Inference
{1} 1. ¬R P RULE P
{1} 2. R→P RULE T(1→2)
{3} 3. R RULE P (Assumed premise)
{1,3} 4. P RULE T(2 3→4)
{5} 5. P→(Q→S) RULE P
{1,3,5} 6. Q→S RULE T(4 5→6)
{7} 7. Q RULE P
{1,3,5,7} 8. S RULE T(6 7→8)
{1,3,5,7} 9. R→S RULE CP(3 8→9)

R → S is a valid conclusion from the premises

Premises used Number of inference Rules of inference

{1} 1. x(H(x) →M(x)) RULE P

{1} 2. H(x) →M(x) RULE US (1→2)

{3} 3. H(S) RULE P

{1,3} 4. M(S) RULE T (2 3→4)

M(S) IS A VALID CONCLUSION FROM THE GIVEN PREMISES

3. All canny integers are non slotty
3 is canny
All bumpy integers are slotty
Therefore, there is an integer that is not bumpy
SOL :
Let ,
C(x) : x is a canny integer
C : canny
B(x) : x is a bumpy
S(x) : x is a slotty

1. All canny integers are non slotty : ( x( C(x) → ¬S(x))

2. 3 is canny : C(3)
3. All bumpy integers are slotty : x( B(x) → S(x))
4. Therefore, there is an integer that is not bumpy
: x ¬B(x)
Premises used Number of premises Rules of inference
{1} 1. x( C(x) → ¬S(x)) RULE P
{1} 2. C(3) → ¬S(3) RULE US (1→2)
{3} 3. C(3) RULE P
{1,3} 4. ¬S(3) RULE T (2 3→4)
{5} 5. x( B(x) → S(x)) RULE P
{5} 6. B(3) → S(3)) RULE US (5→6)

{1,3,5} 7. ¬B(3) RULE T (4 6→7)

{1,3,5} 8. x ¬B(x) RULE EG (7→8)

x ¬B(x) is a valid conclusion from the premises