NPTEL Course on Discrete Mathematics

Lecture 4 : Rules of Inference

Dr. Ashish Choudhury

IIIT Bangalore
 Lecture Overview
 Valid arguments
 Rules of inference
 Fallacies
 Valid Arguments in Propositional Logic
 If you know the password then  If you have access to the network
you can log onto the network Premises then you can change your grade
 You know the password  You have access to the network

Therefore Therefore

 You can log onto the network Conclusion  You can change your grade

 Any similarity in the arguments ?

 When can we say the argument form is valid ?

Premises  If is a tautology
𝑝 Argument
form (If all the premises are true then the
Conclusion ∴𝑞
conclusion should also be true)
 Argument Form and Its Validity
𝑃1
Premises 𝑃2 Argument form
𝑃𝑛
Conclusion ∴𝑄

 The above argument form is called valid, provided

is a tautology

 If the argument form is valid, then is called a logical consequence of , …,

 Rules of Inference
𝑃1  How to check if a given argument form is valid ?
𝑃2 is a tautology ?
𝑃𝑛
 Truth-table method will be infeasible for large
∴𝑄 arguments

 Rules of inference
 Simple argument forms whose validity can be easily established

 Acts as a building block for proving validity of large arguments

 Some Standard Rules of Inferences

(Modus ponen) (Modus tollen) (Hypothetical (Disjunctive

syllogism) syllogism)

(Addition) (Simplification) (Conjunction) (Resolution)

 Building Arguments Using Rules of Inferences
 It is not sunny this afternoon and it is colder than yesterday
𝑝 𝑞
 We will go swimming only if it is sunny this afternoon

𝑟 ¬𝑝 ?
We will be home by
sunset
 If we do not go swimming then we will take a canoe trip
¬𝑟 𝑠 𝑡
 If we take a canoe trip, then we will be home by sunset
𝑝∧ 𝑞
𝑠 𝑡
¬𝑟 → 𝑠

∴𝑡
 Building Arguments Using Rules of Inferences
Step Reason
1. Premise
𝑝∧ 𝑞
2. Simplification on (1)

¬𝑟 → 𝑠 3. Contrapositive of the premise

4. Modus ponen on (2), (3)
∴𝑡 5. Modus ponen on (4) and premise
6. Modus ponen on (5) and premise

 At each step we used an already known true statement to derive a new

statement
 Fallacies
 Valid looking incorrect arguments

Fallacy of affirming the conclusion Fallacy of denying the hypothesis

𝑞 ¬𝑝
∴𝑝 ∴¬ 𝑞
“If you solve every problem of Rosen’s book, “If you solve every problem of Rosen’s book,
you will learn DM”. you will learn DM”.
“You learnt DM”. “You did not solved every problem of
Rosen’s book”.
“Therefore, you solved every problem of Rosen’s
book”. “You did not learn DM”.
 False argument, as DM could be learnt  False argument, as DM could be learnt
by watching NPTEL videos as well by watching NPTEL videos as well
References for Today’s Lecture