COS2661/202/1/2020

Tutorial letter 202/1/2020

Formal Logic 2
COS2661

Semester 1

School of Computing

IMPORTANT INFORMATION:

This tutorial letter contains the solution to Assignment 02 for Semester 1

 CONTENTS
Page

1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 3
2 SOLUTION TO ASSIGNMENT 02: SEMESTER 1 ....................................................................... 4

2
 COS2661/202

1 INTRODUCTION
Dear student,

This tutorial letter contains the solutions to Assignment 2.

TUTORIAL MATTER
You should already have received the material listed below. If any of it is missing, please contact the
Department of Despatch. You may also download it from the Internet – see tutorial letter
COSALLF/301/4/2020.

Tutorial letters:
COSALLF/301/4/2020
General information concerning the School of Computing and study at Unisa
Lecturers’ names and contact information
COS2661/101/3/2020
Information about COS2661 and the Assignments
COS2661/102/3/2020
Tutorial letter serving as Study Guide
COS2661/103/3/2020
Mathematics that may be needed
COS2661/201/1/2020
Solutions to Assignment 1 of First Semester 2020
COS2661/202/1/2020
This letter, Solutions to Assignment 2 of First Semester 2020

The COS2661 Team

3
2 SOLUTION TO ASSIGNMENT 02: SEMESTER 1
QUESTION 1 [10]
No. Answers Explanations
a) 3: c isn't either medium and left of b or This sentence is inferred from our premise by
right of d conjunction elimination. Notice again, as in the
example given in the video, the word "and" is not used
in the expression of this conjunction.
b) 3: Max is correct, because there is no The argument is that if the first disjunct (that b and d
situation in which b is small, d is large are identical) were true then we would have a
and b and d are names of the same contradiction since b and d are different sizes.
objects. Consequently, the second disjunct (that c is a
tetrahedron) must hold.
c) 1: (a) fills in the first conjunct of the Test out the behavior of Fitch for these defaults so you
cited conjunction and (b) conjoins all can see exactly how they work.
the cited formulas.
d) 4: The premises of the main proof, The contradiction is derivable because the assumption
together with the assumption of the and the premises taken together represents
subproof are mutually inconsistent. inconsistent information.
e) 4: Neither idempotent nor Material condition has neither of these properties.
commutative.
f) 3: P must be false. Because the right side of the biconditional is a
contradiction, it is always false. Since both sides of a
biconditional must agree in truth values for the
biconditional to be true, we can conclude that P is
false.
g) 4: “Dave has a good night's sleep only You recognized that "only if" represents a conditional
if he will prove a theorem. Last night, statement whose antecedent precedes the English
he slept quite well and so he will connective.
prove a theorem.
h) 3: All of the assumptions of every While the soundness theorem is only required to apply
subproof in which the step-in question to steps in the main proof, our proof uses the stronger
is embedded together with the claim that applies at every inference step, including
premises. those in subproofs at any depth of nesting.
i) 2: The set of logicians in this video. Here the domain just has two objects in it. So
'Everyone' is just two people, which is pretty clearly
not a lot of people.

j) 4: Collection of mortal men, one In this domain all of the men are mortal, and so the
aardvark and one penguin.
English sentence is true. However, the aardvark does
4
 COS2661/202

not satisfy the expression Man(x) and hence does not

satisfy Man(x) ∧ Mortal(x) and so the formal sentence
is false.
Since the sentences have different truth values then
one cannot be a good translation of the other.

QUESTION 2 [8]
No. T/F Statements Explanations
a) F Truth tables cannot But, although one can construct a truth table to
demonstrate logical demonstrate logical consequence for formulas with any
consequence for formulas number of atomic formulas, the number of rows required
containing more than 10 when there are a large number of atoms makes this
atoms. process infeasible and unilluminating in practice.
b) T Informal proof can sometimes It is important to note, however, that what makes one
explain why a logical proof clearer than another is more a matter of philosophy
consequence holds better than (or psychology) than of logic.
alternative methods.
c) T Not all connectives are truth With an informal proof, we might see compelling evidence
functional, and hence truth that something is so but, at this level, it is possible that an
tables do not capture the fully exception exists somewhere.
general case of logical
consequence.
d) F Informal proofs contain no While it's true that informal proofs often use English and
symbols and so can be can be easier to understand than formal proofs, they also
understood by everyone. often rely on symbols or diagrams. Moreover, most
important proofs in mathematics are informal, but they are
often inaccessible to non-experts. Since this statement is
false, it cannot be a good motivation for considering
informal proofs.

QUESTION 3 [12]
Question 3.1 (4)
The argument is valid. We want to prove the conclusion using the method of proof by contradiction, so let
us assume that Tshepo is not unhappy. By the third premise, then, it must be that Rutendo is not at
home. But the first premise tells us, among other things, that either Rutendo or Tapiwa is at home. It
would be a contradiction for Rutendo to be home, so Tapiwa must be. But by premise 2, Tshepo must
therefore be happy. Again, using premise 1, Tshepo must be unhappy. Thus, we have our contradiction.

5
This shows that our assumption that Tshepo was not unhappy must be false, so we have our desired
conclusion, using proof by contradiction.

Question 3.2 (4)

The argument is not valid. The following situation is a counterexample because the premises are all true
but the conclusion not:

Aggie is not shopping; Cecil is shopping, and they are not married.

First premise: true (because Aggie is not shopping)

Second premise: true (because Cecil is shopping)
Third premise: true (because Aggie and Cecil are not married)
Conclusion: false

Question 3.3 (4)

The argument is not valid. To show this, we sketch a situation where all three premises are true, but the
conclusion is not true:

Peter is not a student, Peter is hungry at 2:00, Pet has no patience.

First premise: true (because Peter is hungry at 2:00)

Second premise: true (because Pete has no patience)
Third premise: true (because Peter is not a student)
Conclusion: false

QUESTION 4 [5]
Below are a number of expressions. State which are terms, some are atomic wffs (well-formed formulae)
and some are neither.
No Expression Atomic (Well-formed
formulae)
a) Tet(y) wff
b) Logician(john) wff
c) father_of(quinn) term
d) 2 + y = z2 wff
e) Angry(x; y;2:00) neither

6
 COS2661/202

QUESTION 5 [18]
Question 5.1 (8)

1. C → (A  B)
2. C  A  B

3. C  Elim: 2
4. A  Elim: 2
5. B  Elim: 2
6. A  B → Elim: 1, 3

7. A
8. ⊥ ⊥ Intro: 4, 7

9.. B
10. ⊥ ⊥ Intro: 5, 9

11. ⊥  Elim: 6, 7-8, 9-10

Question 5.2 (10)

1. S
2. P → Q
3. Q → (R  S)
4. P R

5. R
6. Q → Elim: 2, 5
7. RS → Elim: 3, 6
8. R
9. R Reiteration: 8

10. S
11. ⊥ ⊥ Intro: 1, 10
12. R ⊥ Elim: 11

13. R  Elim 7, 8-9, 10-12

14. R
15. R Reiteration: 14

16. R  Elim 4, 5-13, 14-15

7
Question 5.3 (Please note this question was not marked)
Prove x[P(x) → yP(y)] from no premises

1. ¬x(P(x) → yP(y))

2. x¬(P(x) → yP(y)) Prev Thm(DeM): 1

3. ¬(P(b) → yP(y))  Elim: 2
4. ¬(P(b) → yP(y))  (P(b)  ¬yP(y)) Prev Thm: 2
5. P(b)  ¬yP(y)  Elim: 4,3
6. ¬yP(y) ٨ Elim: 5

7. ¬(P(c) → yP(y))  Elim:2

8. ¬(P(c) → yP(y))  (P(c) ٨¬yP(y)) Prev Thm: 2
9. P(c)  ¬yP(y)  Elim: 8,7
10. P(c)  Elim: 9
11. yP(y)  Intro: c 10
12. yP(y)  ¬yP(y)  Intro: 11,6
13. x(P(x) → yP(y)) ¬Intro: 1-12

QUESTION 6 [18]

Table 1
English FOL
Names
Billy billy
Student student
Logic logic
Sister sister
Chemistry chemistry
Geometry geometry

Predicates
x is a sister SisterOf(x,y)
x loves y Loves(x)
x failed y Failed(x, y)
x takes y Takes(x, y)
x fools y Fools(x, y)

In this question you have to translate English sentences into sentences of First Order Logic, using the
predicates and names given in Table 1.
8
 COS2661/202

Question 6.1
Billy has exactly one sister.
x (SisterOf(x, billy)  y ( SisterOf(y, billy) ↔ x = y))

Question 6.2
Only one student failed Logic.
x (Student(x)  Failed (x, logic)  y (Student(y)  Failed (y, logic) → x = y))

Question 6.3
Every student loves some other student.
x (Student(x) → y (Student(y)  ⌐ (x = y)  Loves (x, y)))

Question 6.4
Billy takes either Chemistry or Geometry (but not both).
Takes (billy, chemistry) ↔ ⌐Takes (billy, geometry)

Question 6.5
No student can fool all the other students.
⌐x (Student(x)  y (Student(y)  ⌐ (x = y) → Fools(x, y)))

Question 6.6
There is a student who is loved by every other student.
x (Student(x)  y (Student(y)  ⌐ (x = y) → Loves(y, x)))

QUESTION 7 [18]
In this question you have to translate sentences of First Order Logic into English sentences, using the
predicates and names given in Table 1.

Question 7.1
Takes(billy, logic)  Takes(billy, geometry)
Billy takes Logic or Geometry (or both).

Question 7.2
Loves(student, chemistry)  Failed(sister, logic)
The student loves Chemistry and the sister failed Logic.

9
Question 7.3
Takes(billy, logic)  ¬ Takes(bill, geometry)
Billy takes either Logic or Geometry (but not both)

Question 7.4
x Student(x)  y Student (y)  ¬ (x = y) → Loves(y, x))
There is a student who is loved by every other student.
Question 7.5
xy (SisterOf(x, billy)  SisterOf(y, billy) → (x = y)
Bill has at most one sister.

Question 7.6
¬x (Student(x)  y (Student (y)  ¬ (x = y) → Fools(x, y))
No student can fool all the other students.

©
UNISA 2020

10