Logic Lectures

Lecture 1:
What is logic?
• Formal logic is the syntactic study of arguments using a formal language.
• In order words, in logic we use formal languages to study argument forms, not content
• Quotes: about
• The tool for distinguishing between the true and false “Averros (fbn Rushnd)
• Science as well as the art of reasoning- Richard Whately
Curriculum:
• 4 best out of 5 quizzes will be used (20% total)
• The exams take questions from weekly assignments
• Can't let things slide! (The entire course builds on itself)
• You need to get the textbook
• https://w2prod.sis.yorku.ca/Apps/WebObjects/cdm.woa/20/wo/BeF1Ib7xF9uOv30E3hXMbg/9.
1.9.17
Course material starts now:
• Validity- An argumet is valid if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion
fase
• Soundness- An argument is sound if the argument from is valid
• example: If you give me a dollar then I will buy you an ice cream, you give a daollar
• Therefore I will buy you an ice cream
• Translate the above example into the logical arguments:
• P-->Q
• P
____
• Q
• Elements of our symbolic language (for now)
1. Sentence letters. Part of our natural language. P through Z are wffs
2. Any sentence letter or symbolic sentice with a ~ in front of it is a wff
The tilde (~) represents negation loosely
• 3..→ = conditional. Any two sentence letters or symbolic sentences placed between brackets
with a → in between them is a wff
• (~) Loosely represents statements of the form if....then
• If P and Q are symbolic sentences, then so is (P--> Q)
Identifying Wffs
• (~(~P --> Q)--> R) is made up of ~(~P → Q) and R
• Break down even further ~(~P → Q) to (~P → Q)
• (~P → Q) = (P-->Q)
• P-->Q = P
Example
• ~ ~(~P → (Q → P))
• The connective is the first ~
• If you remove it you get
• ~(~P → (Q → P))
• Remove second
 • (~P → (Q → P))
• take away the connective (the → in the middle)
• ~P and (Q--> P)
• P and Q and P is if all the things are removed
Example two:
• ~ ~ (P → (P → ~Q)
• ~ (P → (P → ~Q)
• (P → (P → ~Q)
• P (P → ~Q)
• This is NOT a well formed formula because there are no brackets to complement the P
• ~ ~ (P → (P → ~Q) )
• The ) would make the statement valid
• Pages 3-13 (read) exercises on page
Subsidiary derivations (pg. 23)
• Occassionally a derivation cannot be complted with only assertion and another 'show' line must
be entered within the derivation. There are no rules dictacting what can be enetered as an
assertion but remember that the formula on the 'show' line can not be used until it is proven.
Once the assertion is proven, the derivation must be boxed and no formulas inside the box can
be used.
Midterm
• Midterm is next monday. Midterm is 25% (10 is on mc based on definitions). The definitions
have been covered both in text and class.
• Short answer: symbolization (5 marks)
• Derivation (3 possible derivations, choose 2, 5 marks each)
• Derivations do not require subsidiary derivations
• Derviations will be from the text and stuff we have done from class as examples.
Back to subsidiary derivations
• Subsidiary derivations are used when we can break down an argument using the basic inference
rules.
• Must close each subsidiary derivations before you do the derivation above it.
Example:
• P--> Q therefore P → ((Q → R) → R
1. Show P → ((Q → R) → R Assertion (CD)
2. P Assump (CD)
3. P → Q P1
4. Q 2,3 MP
5. Show (Q → R) → R Assertion (CD)
6. (Q--> R) Assumption (CD)
7. R 4, 6 MP
8. So now 5-7 has been proven. and 6,7 should be boxed out. However, (Q → R) → R can be used
now.
9. But since 5 has been proven, then the first show is proven as well
Example 2:
1. Show ~P → R Assertion (CD)
2. ~P Assumption (CD)
3. S--> R Premise 1
4. (Q → ~P) → S Premise 2
 5. Show Q--> ~P Assertion (CD)
6. Q Assumption (CD)
7. ~P 2R (Can't use the line above, but the repeat can be used as a tool). 5 is proven.
8. S 4,5 MP
9. R 3, 8 MP
Steps and strategic hints for doing a derivation
1. Write the conclusion of the argument on the first line with the word “show” in front of it.
Annotate this line with the word “assertion” and the type of derivation you will use
2. If the conclusion is conditional, then proceed using conditional derivation. In the second line
write the antecedent of the conditional annotating this line with “assumption (CD)”
3. To derive anything else, use ID (unless a direct derivation is obvious). In the next line write the
negation of the conclusion and annotated by writing “assumption (ID)””
4. Enter all premises as lines annotating as Premise 1, premise 2 etc.
5. Look over the usable lines of the derivation to detemine whether one of the inference can be
applied. Enter the result of the inference rule on a line annotating which lines were used and the
inference rule used e.g 2,4 (MP)
6. If no other inference rules can be applied, and if you are using direct direvation, check to see
whether a negated conditional occurs as a line. If so, try to derive the non-negated conditional in
a subsidiary derivation.
7. You can turn ~(P--> Q) into Show P → Q , then assume P under CD
Things people do wrong in derivations
• Incorrect applications of the rules take two forms. The first is applying a fallacy like denial of
the antecedent or affirmation of the consequent to lines of a derivation. The second is when the
formula on the show line is used before the 'show' is crossed out
1. Show Q
2. P P1 BAD (fallacy)
3. Q → P P2
4. Q 2,3 (MP)

1. Show P → Q Assertion (CD)

2. P Premise 1
3. Q 1,2 MP
4. (Can't use the show line as a premise!)
• Unwarranted assumption is when you use the assumption allowed by conditional or indirect
derviation but apply them to one of the premieses instead of the conclusion.
• Like P → Q is a premise, but you assume P. You can't do that!

• Begging the question is when we assume the conclusion that we are trying to show. This
happens generally when subsidiary derivation is not closed properly
1. Show ~Q Assertion (ID)
2. P Premise 1
3. Show Q Assertion (ID)
4. ~Q Assumption (ID)
5. You MUST prove the subsidiary show.
Proofs

• Theorem: An argument with an empty sequence of premises. ie. an argument with just a
conclusion and no premises
 • Proof: A proof is a derivation of an argument with no premises-a theorem
• When a formul can be derived with no premises we say that the formul is a theorem of our
system. This means that it is a tautology, it is always true.
• Theorem can also be used as lines in our derivation without requiring subsidiary derivations as
we sill see later (pg, 107, 125 theorems for our system)
• How to do proof:
Theorem 4 (first principle of syllogism showing the transivity of the conditional)
1. Show (P-> Q) → (Q → R) → (P → R) Assertion (CD) 3 3 refers to the last conditional
• Pretty much always start with conditional derivation. Breaks up theorem until we get to usable
lines
2. P →Q (Assumption CD)
3. Show (Q → R) → (P → R) Assumption CD 5
4. Q –> R Assumption CD
5. Show P → R Assertion (CD) 8
6. P Assumption (CD)
7. Q 2,6 MP
8. R 4,7 MP
Theorem 5 (second principle of syllogism showing the transitivity of the conditional
1. Show (Q--> R) → ((P → Q) → (P → R)) Assertion CD 3
2. Q → R Assumption CD
3. Show (P → Q) → (P → R) Assertion CD 5
4. P → Q
5. Show P → R Assertion (CD) 8
6. P Assumption (CD)
7. Q (4,6 MP)
8. R (2,7 MP)

Remember to cross out Show

Theorem 6
1. Show (P → (Q → R)) → ((P → Q) → (P → R)) Assertion CD
2. P → (Q → R) Assumption CD
3. Show (consequent) ((P → Q) → (P → R)) Assertion CD
4. P → Q Assumption CD
5. Show P → R Assertion CD
6. P Assumption CD
7. Q 4,6 MP
8. Q--> R 2,6 MP
9. R 7,8 MP

Theorem 16
1. Show (~P → ~Q ) → (Q → P) Assertion (CD)
2. ~P → ~Q Assumption (CD)
3. Show Q → P Assertion (CD)
4. Q Assumption (CD)
5. ~~Q 4 DN
6. ~~ P 2, 5 MT
7. P 6 DN
List of theorems are on page 127.

New symbols 06/10/2010

• Take this argument
1. Rob Ford does not like cyclists
2. Rob Ford's transportation proposal is ill-conceived
3. Therefore: Rob ford does not like cyclists and Rob Ford's transportaiont is ill conceived
• To represent and, we use a conjunction
Conjunction
• The conjunction represents the logical term 'and'. Some stylistic variants are 'but',. 'even thoguh'
and 'although'
• The conjuction is a two-place connective, it requires terms on both sides in order side to be well
formed.
• The terms on either side of the conjuction are called conjuncts
• Unlike with conditionals, it doesn't matter which side of the conjunction symbol the conjucts
appear on ie P^Q is the same as Q^P
The truth table for conjuctions
• Only True when both conjucts are true
• Any other combination results in being false
Another example:
You will do your logic homework or you will go out with your friends
You do not go out with your friends
Therefore you do your logic homework

The disjunction “v”

• Mnemonic: Think of conjunct (^) as ^nd and v for “versus”
• The disjunction represents the logical term 'or'. Some sylistic variants are 'unless', and 'either...
or...'
• The disjunction is a two-place connective, it requires terms on both sides in order to be well
formed
• The terms on either side of the disjunction are called disjuncts
• Unlike with conditionals, it doesn't matter which side of the disjunction symbol with disjuncts
appear on ie P vQ is the same as Q v P
Inclusive vs. exclusive dijunctions
1. Would you like to have some coffee or cake?
• its possible to say both
2. Over reading week I will go to Montreal or I will stay in Toronto
• It is not possible to do both
• Our system only has a symbol for the inclusive disjunction, so if we want to express an
exclusive disjunction we must add “but not both” So an exclusive disjunction becomes
• (PvQ)^~(P^Q)
• Truth table for disjunctions
• Everything F and F is F for disjunctions
• every other combination is T

1. Third example
I will help you with you logic work if and only if you come to my office hours
 2. You come to my office hours
Therefore I will help you with your logic work.

The biconditional ← →
• The biconditional represents the logical term 'if and only if' Some stylistic variants are 'just in
case' and 'exactly on the condition that'
• The biconditional is a two-place connective, it requires terms on both sides in order to be well
formed
• The terms on either side of the biconditional are called consituents
• Unlike with conditions, it doesn't which side of the biconditional symbols the constitutents
appear. P ← → Q = Q ← →
• Truth table: Either both True and either both false can only make the biconditional true
Conventional elmination of parentheses
• We still eliminate the outmost paratheses as we have been doing. So (Q^P) becomes Q^P
• Remember that when there is a negation of an entire conjunction/disjunction/
biconditionl/condtional the parentheses are necessary. So ~Q ^P is not the same ~(Q^P)
• Now we also can eliminate the parentheses distinguishing the breaks between conditional or
biconditionals and disjunctions or conjunctions
• This is because we read the logical formula as though the conditional or biconditional is the
greater break.
• ((Q v (R vP)) → ((S vP) ^ (Q v R) ← → S ^ T ))
Translation of new sentence forms (symbolization)
• The use of a : is an indication of a greater break
• P: Vanessa is a communist
• Q: Vanessa will sign the loyalty oath
• R: Vanessa is an anarchist
• S: Vanessa will speak to those that sign the loyalty oath
• Assuming that vanessa is a communist, she sill sign the loyalty oath; but if she is an anarachist,
she will neither sign the loyalty oath nor speak to those that do
• Assuming that P, Q; but if R, neither Q nor S
• but = ^
• Neither Q nor S can be symbolized ~(Q v S) OR (~Q ^ ~S)
• (P → Q) ^ (R → ~(QvS))
More inference rules:
1. Simplification (S)
• P^Q
______
• (P and Q are both valid)
2. Adjunction
• P
• Q
• P^Q
3. Addition
• P
• PvQ
OR
 • Q
• PvQ
4. Modus Tollendo Ponens (MTP)
• PvQ
• ~P
• Q (If P is false, the Q must be true)
• PvQ
• ~Q
• P
5. Biconditional-Conditional (HC)
• P←→Q
• P→Q

OR

• P←→Q
• Q→P
6. Conditional-Biconditional (CB)
• P→Q
• Q→P
• P←→Q
New rules for Omitting Parentheses
• Parentheses can now also be omitted around complex conjunctions and disjunctions
• So ((P v Q v R) becomes P v Q v R
• ((P ^ Q) ^ R) becomes P ^ Q ^ R
• When we are inserting the tacit parentheses we place brackets around the leftmost conjunction
or disjunction first working our way inwards
• So in the conjunction (P^(Q^$)) the parentheses may not be omitted
• With our new inference rules we have to be careful about omitted parentheses
• eg. P v Q
• R →S
• PvQ^R→S
• IMPORTANT that we put in parentheses to show how this was formed
• so the right way is
• (P v Q) ^ (R → S)
Another example
• Q→P
Q→PvS→T
• Right way to bracket: (Q → P) v (S → T)
• Totally wrong: Q → (P v S) –> T
Another example:
• ((P v Q) ^ R) → S
• R→S
• That is wrong cause the brackets differentiate meaning
 • Only way the top is valid is if the brackets are placed in the following manner
• (P v Q) ^ (R → S)
Another example
• Q→PvS→T
• ~ (Q → P)
• S→T
Extended strategies for derivations (She will send this)

10 MC, look for italicized words in book.

5 point, symbolize an argument. Based upon question we've done before
5 point, argument derivation. Has to be abbreviated. need theorem introduction and we need
combination of steps
Do one of two derivation: 5 points (no abbreviation required)

Theorem Introduction:
• Any of the proven theorems of the system can be introduced as a line in a derivation (can be
used in any derivation that we do)
• To do so you must indicate which theorem you are introducing and write out a legend for
replaced sentence letters (assuming that they have been replaced)
• You must replace all sentence letters consistently
• For example, if you replacing P with Q all and only the instances of P must be replaced.
• Don't memorize the theorem. We will be told which theorem to use.
• Makes derviations quicker and easier.
• Enter a line in your derivation and you write out which theorem it is that you're using.
• eg. t59 is P v ~P
• replace P with (P → Q)
• 4. (P → Q) v ~(P → Q) T59 P
(P → Q) ← so P is being replaced by (P → Q)
• More complicated example:
• T21 is ~(P → Q) → P
• We're going to exchange P for P^Q and We'll keep Q the same. Subbing P^Q into P we get
• ~((P^Q) → Q) → (P^Q) T21 P Q
• P^Q Q

Derivation: (P → S) → S. S → P therefore P *use T18 ~P –> (P → Q)*

1. Show P Assertion (ID)
2. ~P Asssumption (ID
3. (P → S) →S P1
4. S → P P2
5. ~ P → (P → S) T18 P for P and Q for S
6. P → S 2,5 MP
7. S 3,6 MP
8. ~S 2,4 MT

This cuts out a couple of steps. Simplifying It.

Second example:
Q → S. Q → R. R--> S therefore S *use T26 (P → Q) ^ (Q → R) → (P → R)
and T33 (P → Q) ^ (~P → Q) → Q*
1. Show S Assertion (DD)
2. ~Q → S P1
3. Q → R P2
4. R → S P3
5. (Q → R) ^ ( R → S) 3, 4 Adjectives
6. (Q → ) ^ (R → S) → (Q → S) T26 P for Q, Q for R, R for S
7. Q → S 5, 6 MP
8. (Q → S) ^ (~Q → S) 2,7 Adjunction
9. (Q → S) ^ (~Q → S) → S T33 (P for Q, Q for S)
10. S 8, 9 MP

Combination of Steps
• We can now forgo writing the premises out in our derivation.
• When we want to use one of the premises we refer to it by number in our annotation. Make sure
that the number you have applied to the premise is clear. (Generally the first listed premise is 1,
second is 2..)
• We can also no combine many inference rules into one line
• Example:
• 3. R
• 4. R → ~S
• 5. ~S → P
• 6. P 3,4 MP, 5 MP (I took 3,4 MP and then I used 5MP on the answer from 3,4)
• Some lines of a derviation cannot be abbreviated. All lines containing Assertions and
Assumptions must be written out. Also the line(s) used to close a derivation must be written out.
Example using abbreviation and combination of steps

1. (~Q → ~P) → (Q <----> P) T18 ~P → (P → Q)

1. Show (Q ← → P)
2. (~Q → ~P)
3. Q → 2S, T18 P for Q Q for P, MP, 2S, T18, MP, CB
^ That is crazy. It's not necessary to do that much abbreviation

• (T → P) → Q . P therefore Q use T2 Q → (P → Q)
^Try abbreviated at home.