Rules of Inference

Rosen 1.6
Proofs in mathematics are valid arguments

An argument is a sequence of statements that end in a conclusion

By valid we mean the conclusion must follow from the truth of the preceding
statements or premises

Premises: all its preceding statements are called premises (or hypothesis)

We use rules of inference to construct valid arguments

Valid Arguments in Propositional Logic

Is this a valid argument?

If you listen you will hear what I’m saying

You are listening
Therefore, you hear what I am saying

Let p represent the statement “you listen”

Let q represent the statement “you hear what I am saying”

p q
The argument has the form: p
q
Valid Arguments in Propositional Logic

p q
p
(( p  q )  p )  q is a tautology (always
true)
q
p q p  q ( p  q )  p (( p  q )  p )  q
0 0 1 0 1
0 1 1 0 1
1 0 0 0 1
1 1 1 1 1

This is another way of saying that

 therefore
Valid Arguments in Propositional Logic

When we replace statements/propositions with propositional variables

we have an argument form.

Defn:
An argument (in propositional logic) is a sequence of propositions.
All but the final proposition are called premises.
The last proposition is the conclusion
The argument is valid iff the truth of all premises implies the conclusion is true
An argument form is a sequence of compound propositions
Valid Arguments in Propositional Logic

The argument form with premises p1 , p2 ,  , pn

q
and conclusion

is valid when ( p1  p2    pn )  q is a tautology

We prove that an argument form is valid by using the laws of inference

But we could use a truth table. Why not?

Validity – A deductive argument is said to be valid
• if and only if it takes a form that makes it
impossible for the premises to be true and
• the conclusion nevertheless to be false.
Rules of Inference for Propositional Logic The 1st law

p q
p modus ponens
aka
law of detachment
q

modus ponens (Latin) translates to “mode that affirms”

Rules of Inference for Propositional Logic modus ponens
p q
p
q

If it’s a nice day we’ll go to the beach. Assume the hypothesis

“it’s a nice day” is true. Then by modus ponens it follows that
“we’ll go to the beach”.
The rules of inference Page 66
Another view on what we are doing

You might think of this as some sort of game.

You are given some statement, and you want to see if it is a

valid argument and true

You translate the statement into argument form using propositional

variables, and make sure you have the premises right, and clear what
is the conclusion

You then want to get from premises/hypotheses (A) to the conclusion (B)
using the rules of inference.

So, get from A to B using as “moves” the rules of inference

Using the rules of inference to build arguments An example

It is not sunny this afternoon and it is colder than yesterday.

If we go swimming it is sunny.
If we do not go swimming then we will take a canoe trip.
If we take a canoe trip then we will be home by sunset.
We will be home by sunset
Using the rules of inference to build arguments An example

1. It is not sunny this afternoon and it is colder than yesterday.

2. If we go swimming it is sunny.
3. If we do not go swimming then we will take a canoe trip.
4. If we take a canoe trip then we will be home by sunset.
5. We will be home by sunset

p It is sunny this afternoon 1. p  q

q It is colder than yesterday 2. r p
r We go swimming
3.  r  s
s We will take a canoe trip
t We will be home by sunset (the conclusion) 4. s t
5. t

propositions hypotheses
Using the rules of inference to build arguments An example
1. p  q
p It is sunny this afternoon
q It is colder than yesterday
2. r p
r We go swimming 3.  r  s
s We will take a canoe trip 4. s t
t We will be home by sunset (the conclusion)
5. t
Step
Step Reason
Reason
Reason
pp  qq Hypothesis
1.  Hypothesis
Hypothesis Rule of inference
p q
Tautology Name

p [ p  ( p  q )]  q Modus ponens

2.  p Simplification
Simplifica tionusing
using(1)
(1) q
q
p q [ q  ( p  q )]   p Modus tollen
3. r  p Hypothesis
Hypothesis p
p q

4.  r Modus
Modustollens
tollensusing
using(2)
(2)and
and(3)
(3) q r
p r
[( p  q )  (q  r )]  ( p  r ) Hypothetical syllogism

p q
5.  r  s Hypothesis p (( p  q )   p )  q Disjunctiv e syllogism
q

6. s Modus ponens using (4) and (5) p

p q
p  ( p  q) Addition

p q
7. s  t Hypothesis p
p
( p  q)  p Simplification

8. t Modus ponens using (6) and (7) q

p q
(( p )  (q ))  ( p  q ) Conjunctio n

p q
p  r [( p  q )  ( p  r )]  ( p  r ) Resolution
q  r