K.

SREELATHA
ASST.PROFESSOR
ECM DEPT.
 SYLLABUS AND TEXT BOOKS

 Unit-1: Propositional logic

 Unit-2: First order Logic
 Unit-3: Relations and Algebraic Structures
 Unit-4: Elementary Combinatorics
 Unit-5: Recurrence relations
 Unit-6: Graph theory
Text Books:
Discrete Mathematical Structures With Applications to Computer Science

Jean Paul Tremblay, Rampurkar Manohar

Discrete Mathematics for Computer Scientists and Mathematicians

Joe L. Mott, Abraham Kandel, Théodore P. Baker

 Definition of discrete mathematics
 Definition: It is a study of discrete structures which
are abstract mathematical models dealing with
discrete objects and relationship between them .
 Eg : sets , permutations ,graphs etc (objects)
Q)Why should we study?
 data is mentioned briefly not completely
 Its not maths to learn and need not go in depth .
 It helps the students to think in mathematical
manner .
Q)What are the fields they are used ?
 Proving programs are correct - AI,
PROLOG(Resolution principle), TOC
 Mathematical logic
 Logic : GREEK LOGIC given by Aristotle and Socrates
 Assertion : An assertion is a statement
 Proposition : It is an assertion which is either True or False.
Def: A declarative sentence to which it is meaningful to assign one and only one
of the truth values “true denoted by “1” or “false denoted by 0”. We call
such sentences as Propositions.
Proposition are :
Ex. London is a city.
1. 4 is a prime
2. Ex. 2+3 = 4
Not Propositions:
1. What is your name?
2. Close the door, Are you leaving? , Buy four books.( giving order)
3. X+Y=4 depends on values of X and Y & X=3
Assertion which are not propositions .
“This statement is False.” ( we cannot associate a TRUE to it)
If it is TRUE it is FALSE ,If it is FALSE , it is true -“liar paradox”
 Atomic and Compound statements
 Atomic statement : A statement which can not be divided
further, is called atomic statement (Simple statement or
primary statement).
These statements are denoted by p,q,r,s,……
Ex. Milk is white Ex. 2+3 = 5
 Compound Statement : Two or more simple statements can be
combined to form a new statement. These new statements are
called Compound statements or Molecular Statements or
Propositional function or Statement formulas.
Ex. It is raining today and there are 20 tables in this room.
 Compound statements can be formed from atomic statements
through the use of following sentential connectives.
not, and , or , if …then and if and only if .
 Proposition variables
 Denotes arbitrary proposition with unspecified
truth value P,Q,R ……..
1. P And Q
2. P Or Q
3. Not P
We can connect them with logical connectors.
P: John is 6’ tall
Q: There are 4 cows in the barn
P and Q: John is 6’ tall and there are 4 cows in the
barn
P Or Q: John is 6’ tall or there are 4 cows in the
barn.
Truth table
P And Q: John is 6’ tall and there are 4 cows in the barn

P Q P ^Q
F F F
F T F
T F F
T T T

P Q P ^Q
0 0 0 Conjunctive syllogism: If p  q
is false and p is true, then q is
0 1 0 false.
1 0 0
1 1 1
P Or Q: John is 6’ tall or there are 4 cows in
the barn.
 This is a compound statement .If one of the
stmt is T then both will be true .This is called
as Inclusive OR.(OR)
Disjunctive syllogism: If p  q is true and p is
false, then q is true.
P Q PVQ
0 0 0 P ¬P
0 1 1 0 1
1 0 1 1 0
1 1 1 UNARY OPERATOR
 Connectives
 Negation: If p is a statement, then the negation
of p, written as ~p and read as “ not p ” is a
statement.
Ex. p : London is a city.
~p : London is not a city.
 The truth table for not p is given below.

p ~p
T F
F T
 Truth tables
 Our basic concern is to determine the truth value of a statement
formula for each possible combination of the truth values of the
component statements.
 A table showing all such truth values is called the truth table of
the formula.
 Ex.1 Construct truth table for the statement formula P  Q

P Q Q P  Q
F F T T
F T F F
T F T T
T T F T
 Truth tables - Examples
Ex : 2 Construct the truth table for (PQ)  P

P Q PQ P (PQ)  P

F F F T T
F T T T T
T F T F T
T T T F T
 Truth tables - Examples
Ex.3 Construct the truth table for (PQ)  (QP)

P Q PQ QP (PQ)  (QP)

F F T T T
F T T F F
T F F T F
T T T T T

Note:
(PQ)  {(PQ)  (QP)}
For definiteness let us list our assumptions about
propositions.

 The law of excluded middle: For every

proposition p, either p is true or p is false.

 The law of contradiction: For every proposition

p, it is not the case that p is both true and false.
 Exclusive OR (either ,Or)
P Q P ⊕Q
0 0 0
0 1 1
1 0 1
1 1 0

Well Formed Formula of propositional logic (Wff)

 Well formed formulas
 A well formed formula can be generated by the following rules.
1. A statement variable standing alone is a well formed formula.
2. If P is a well formed formula, then ~P is a well formed formula.
3. If P and Q are well formed formulas, then (PQ) , (PQ) , (PQ)
and (PQ) are well formed formulas.
4. A string of symbols containing the statement variables, connectives
and parenthesis is a well formed formula, iff it can be obtained by
finitely many applications of the rules 1,2 and 3.
 Ex. (PQ) , (PQ) , (P (PQ) ) , (P (Q R)) and
(PQ) (PQ) are well formed formulas.
 Ex. PQ , (PQ )Q ) and (P Q )  (Q) are not well
formed formulas.
Implication (Conditional) PQ
 If p and q are two propositions, then the statement PQ
which is read as “ if P, then Q ” or “ P implies Q “.
 The statement PQ has truth value iff p is true and q is
false; otherwise it has a truth value T.
P Q PQ
F F T
F T T
T F F
T T T
 P: Premise, hypothesis, antecedent
 Q : Conclusion , Consequence
 A false antecedent P implies any proposition Q.
 A true consequent Q is implied by any proposition P
 It can also be written as P ⊃ Q
 More on Implication
 The opposite of pq is p  q
 The converse of pq is qp
 The contra positive of pq is q  p
 Note : pq is logically equivalent to q  p
i.e., pq  q  p
or pq  q  p
* Ex. p: Today is Sunday
q: Today is Holiday
pq : If today is Sunday, then today is Holiday
q  p : If today is not Holiday, then today is not Sunday
 If pq is true then it’s converse q  p need not be true.
 If pq is true then it’s opposite p  q need not be true.
Antecedent and consequent
 It need not be related at all
Eg: If the moon is made of cheese , then the earth
is not round.
The compound stmt is True .It is of the form
F=>F (Greek logic allows that )
Hence we can read it as:
 If P , then Q
 P only if Q
 P is a sufficient condition for Q
 Q is necessary condition for P
 Q if P
 Q follows from P
 Q provided P
 Q is a logical consequence of Q whenever P
 Q whenever P
Biconditional (if and only if) pq

 Biconditional : If p and q are two propositions, then

the statement pq, which is read as “p if and only
if q” is called a biconditional statement.
 The statement pq has the truth value T
whenever both p and q have identical truth values.
p q pq
F F T
F T F
T F F
T T T
 Tautology and Contradiction

 Tautology : A propositional function (Statement formula)

whose value is true for all possible values of the
propositional variables is called a Tautology ( A Universally
valid formula or a logical truth).
Ex: P  P is a tautology.
Ex. ( P  P )  Q is a tautology.
 Contradiction (Absurdity): A propositional function whose
truth value is always false is called a Contradiction
Ex. P  P is a Contradiction .
Ex. ( P  P )  Q is a Contradiction
 Contingency: A propositional function that is neither a
tautology nor a contradiction is called a Contingency.
Ex. P  Q , P  Q , P Q, ….
Logical Equivalence & Tautological Implication

 Logical Equivalence : Two propositional functions P and Q are

logically equivalent, if they have same truth tables. Then we
write
P  Q or P  Q
Ex: (P )  P
Ex: ( P  Q )  ( P  Q ).
Note : The symbol  is not a connective
 A Statement P is said to tautologically imply a Statement Q if
and only if PQ is a tautology. We shall denote this as P  Q.
 Here, P and Q are related to the extent that, Whenever P has
the truth value then so does Q.
 Every logical implication is an implication, but all implications
are not logical implications.
More on Implications

 If P  Q and Q  P , then PQ.

 If PQ then PQ is a tautology.
 Ex: Show that ( P Q )  ( P  Q )

P Q PQ P PQ
F F T T T
F T T T T
T F F F F
T T T F T

 Since columns 3 and 5 are identical, The result follows

Ex.Construct truth table for [(pq) (r)]  p]

 The truth table is given below

p q r pq r (pq) (r) [(pq) (r)] p]

F F F F T T F
F F T F F F T
F T F F T T F
F T T F F F T
T F F F T T T
T F T F F F F
T T F T T T T
T T T T F T T
Ex. Show that (PQ)  (Q  P)

 Let us prove the result using truth table.

P Q PQ Q P (Q P)

F F T T T T
F T T F T T
T F F T F F
T T T F F T
Ex. Using truth tables, show that ( P  Q )  (Q)
is a tautology

 The truth table is given below.

P Q PQ ( P  Q ) Q ( P  Q )  (Q)

F F T F T T
F T T F F T
T F F T T T
T T T F F T
Equivalences

Commutative laws:
 PQQP
 PQQP
Asociative laws:
 (PQ)RP(QR)
 (PQ)RP(QR)
Distributive laws:
 P(QR)(PQ)(PR)
 P(QR)(PQ)(PR)
Demorgan’s laws:
  ( P  Q)   P   Q
  ( P  Q)   P   Q
More Equivalences

  ( P )  P (Double negation)
 P P  P
 PP  P
 PPT
 PPF
 R(PP)R
 R(PP)R
 R(PP)T
 R(PP)F
 P  Q  ( P  Q)
 ( P  Q )  (P   Q)
 P  Q  ( Q   P )
More Equivalences

• PFP
• PTT
• PFF
• PTP
• P  ( Q  R)  ( P  Q )  R
•  ( P  Q )  (P   Q)
• (P  Q )  [( P  Q)  ( Q  P )]
• ( P  Q )  [( P  Q)  ( P   Q )]
• Absorption laws
• P(PQ)P
• P(PQ)P
Ex. Without using truth tables, Show that
P  ( Q  R)  ( P  Q )  R

 Proof:
L.H.S = P  (Q  R)
 P  (Q  R) (Since A  B  ( A  B))
 P  (Q  R)
 (P  Q)  R (By associative property)
 ( P  Q )  R (By demorgan’s law)
 (PQ)R
= R.H.S
Ex. Without using truth tables, Show that
( P  Q )  P is a tautology.

Proof:
Consider, ( P  Q )  P
 ( Q  P )  P ( By commutative law )
 Q  (P  P ) ( By associative property)
 Q  T
 T
 ( P  Q )  P is a tautology.
Ex. Show that the Statement formula
( P  Q )  (PQ)  P is a tautology.

 Proof : Consider,
 {( P  Q )  (PQ)}  P (Associative law)
 {(P  Q )  (PQ)}  P ( Demorgan’s law)
  {P  (Q  Q)}  P (Distributive law)
  {P  T }  P
  {P }  P
  T
  ( P  Q )  (PQ)  P is a tautology
Ex. Show that [{( P  Q )  ( P  Q )}  R ]  R

 Proof: L.H.S = {( P  Q )  ( P  Q )}  R
  {T}R (Since P  Q  ( P  Q))
  R
 = R.H.S

 Ex. Show that {( P  Q )  ( P  Q )} is a Contradiction.

 Proof : Let P  Q = R
 Consider, {( P  Q )  ( P  Q )}
  { R  R }
  F
  { ( P  Q )  ( P  Q )} is a contradiction.
Ex. Show that (P  (Q  R))  ( Q  R )  (P  R)  R

 Proof : Consider,
 {P  (Q  R)}  ( Q  R )  (P  R)
  {(P  Q)  R}  {( Q  R )  (P  R)}, By associative
law
  { (P  Q)  R}  {(Q  P )  R} , By distributive
law
  {(P  Q)  R}  {(Q  P )  R} , By Demorgan’s law
  {(P  Q)  (Q  P ) } R, By distributive law
  {T } R (Since, A  A  T)
  R
Ex. S.T. ((P  Q)  (P  (Q  R)))  ( P  Q)  (P   R)

is a tautology.

 Consider,
 [(P  Q)  {P  (Q  R)}]  {(P  Q)  (P  R)}
 [(P  Q)  {P  (Q  R)}]  {(P  Q)  (P  R)}
(By De morgan’s laws)
 [(P  Q)  {P  (Q  R)}]  {(P  Q)  (P  R)}
(By De morgan’s laws)
 [(P  Q)  {P  Q) (P  R)}]  {(P  Q)  (P  R)}
(By Distributive law)
  {(P  Q)  (P  R)}  {(P  Q)  (P  R)}
(Since A  A  A)
 T ( Since A  A T)
Implications ,Arguments,Inferences

 Inference (Argument): From a set of premises (called

Hypotheses)
{H1, H2, …., Hn } a conclusion C follows logically iff H1  H2  …. 
Hn  C.
• The rules of inference are criteria for determining the validity of
an argument.
• Any conclusion which is arrived at by following these rules is
called a valid conclusion, and the argument is called a valid
argument.
• The following statements are equivalent.
• 1. {H1 , H2 , …. , Hn }  C is a logical implication.
• 2. ( H1  H2  ….  Hn) C is a tautology.
• 3. {H1 , H2 ,…. , Hn }  C is a valid argument.
Rules of Inference (Logical Implications)

1) Simplification rules:
 a) (P  Q)  P
(P  Q)  P is a tautology.
P logically follows from (P  Q)

 b) (P  Q)  Q
(P  Q)  Q is a tautology.
Q logically follows from (P  Q)
Contd.,

2) Addition rules:
• a) P  (P  Q)
P  (P  Q) is a tautology
(P  Q) logically follows from P

 b) Q  ( P  Q )
Q  (P  Q) is a tautology
(P  Q) logically follows from Q
Rules of Inference (contd.,)

 3) P (P  Q)
P (P  Q) is a tautology
(P  Q) logically follows from P

 4) Q  ( P  Q)
Q (P  Q) is a tautology
(P  Q) logically follows from Q
Contd.,
 5) (P  Q)  P
(P  Q)  P is a tautology (or)
P follows from (P  Q)

 6) (P  Q )  (Q)
(P  Q )  (Q) is a tautology
Q logically follows from (P  Q)
Rules of Inference (Contd.,)

7) Disjunctive syllogism
{P, P  Q}  Q

{P  ( P  Q)}  Q is a tautology.

The inference PQ

P
Q is valid
Contd.,

8) Conjunctive syllogism
{(P  Q) , P}  Q

{(P  Q)  P }  Q is a tautology.

The inference (P  Q)

P
 Q is valid
Contd.,

 8) Modus ponens (Rule of detachment)

 { P , PQ }  Q
 { P  (PQ) }  Q is a Tautology
 The argument
PQ
P
 Q is valid
Contd.,
 Ex: The following argument is valid.
A) If today is a Sunday then today is a Holiday
B) Today is Sunday
C : Hence, Today is Holiday
 9) Modus tollens

 { PQ, Q }  P
 { (PQ)  Q}  (P) is a Tautology
 The argument
PQ
Q
------------
 P is valid
 Ex: The following argument is valid.
A) If today is a Sunday then today is a Holiday
B) Today is not Holiday
C : Hence, Today is not Sunday
Rule of Transitivity (Hypothetical Syllogism)

 { PQ, QR }  (PR)

 { (PQ)  (QR}  (PR) is a Tautology
 The argument
PQ
QR
------------
 PR is valid
 Ex: The following argument is valid.
A) If I Study well, then I will get distinction.
B) If I get distinction, then I will get a Good Job.
C:  If I Study well, then I will get a good job
Dilemma

 The Inference
PQ
PR
QR
------------
R is a valid Inference.

 {P  Q, PR, QR }  R is a logical implication.

 {(PQ)  (PR}  (QR) }  R is a Tautology

Constructive dilemma

 The Inference
PQ
PR
QS
------------
 R  S is a valid Inference.

 {P  Q, PR, QS }  ( R  S ) is a logical implication.

 {(PQ)  (PR}  (QS) }  (R  S) is a Tautology

Destructive Dilemma

 The Inference
PR
QS
R  S
----------------
 P  Q is a valid Inference.

 { PR, QS, R  S }  (P  Q ) is a logical

implication.

 {(PR)  (QS)  (R  S )}  (P  Q) is a Tautology

Conjunction and Conjunctive Syllogism
 Conjunction
P, Q
----------
 (PQ)
 Conjunctive Syllogism:
 {(PQ), P }  Q
 {(PQ) P } Q is a tautology.
 (PQ)
P
--------
Q
Fallacies

 1. The fallacy of affirming the Consequent (or affirming the

converse):
PQ
Q
_________
P Fallacy
Ex: Consider, the following argument
If today is Mahatma Gandhi’s Birth day, then today is October
2nd.
Today is October 2nd.
 Today is Mahatma Gandhi’s Birth day.
The argument is not valid
2. Fallacy of denying the antecedent
( Or Assuming the opposite)
 Consider the following
PQ
P
_________
Q Fallacy
 Ex: Consider the following argument:
H1 : If today is Sunday, then today is Holiday
H2 : Today is not Sunday
C :  Today is not Holiday
The argument is not Valid.This is the fallacy of assuming the
opposite.
The non sequitur fallacy

 P,Q
---------
 R is a fallacy.
Ex: Consider the following argument:
1. India’s Capital is New Delhi
2. Milk is White
C:  Sun rises in the East.
The conclusion does not follow from the premises.
Hence, the argument is invalid.
Ex: Show that R follows logically from the premises
PQ, QR, P

 Proof: Consider the premises,

PQ -----(1)
QR -----(2)
P ------(3)
From (1) and (2), By the rule of transitivity,we have
PR --------(4)
From (3) and (4), By the rule of Modus ponens,
R follows.
 R logically follows from the given premises
Ex: Show that P follows logically from the premises
PQ, QR, R

 Proof: Consider the premises,

PQ -----(1)
QR -----(2)
R ------(3)
From (1) and (2), By the rule of transitivity,we have
PR --------(4)
From (3) and (4), By the rule of Modus tollens,
P follows.
 P logically follows from the given premises
Ex: Show that R follows logically from the premises
PQ, QR, PM, M

 Proof: Consider the premises,

P  Q -----(1)
Q  R -----(2)
P  M -----(3)
M ------(4)
From (3) and (4), By the rule of Modus tollens, we have
P --------(5)
From (1) and (5), By the rule of Disjunctive Syllogism,we have
Q --------(4)
From (2) and (4), By the rule of Modus ponens,
R follows.
Ex: Show that (R  S) follows logically from the premises
C  D, (C  D) H, H (A B), (A B)  (R  S )

 Proof: Consider the premises,

(C  D) -----(1)
(C  D)  H -----(2)
H  (A B) -----(3)
(A B)  (R  S ) ------(4)

From (2),(3) and (4), By the rule of Transitivity, we have

(C  D)  (R  S ) --------(5)

From (1) and (5), By the rule of Modus ponens,

(R  S) follows.
Ex: Show that S follows logically from the premises
P  (R S), RP, P

 Proof: Consider the premises,

P  (R S) -----(1)
R  P -----(2)
P -----(3)
From (1) and (3), By the rule of Modus ponens, we have
(R S) ------(4)
From (2), By Contra positive equivalence, we have
PR -------(5)
(3) and (5), By the rule of Modus ponens, we have
R --------(6)
From (4) and (6), By the rule of Modus ponens, S follows.
Ex: Show that W follows logically from the premises
TR, S, T  W, R  S.

 Proof: Consider the premises,

T  R ------(1)
S -----(2)
TW -----(3)
RS -----(4)
From (1), By Contra positive equivalence, we have
RT -------(5)
From, (5) and (3), By the rule of Transitivity, we have
R W --------(6)
From (4) and (2), By the rule of Disjunctive syllogism,we have
R ---------- (7)
 From(6)and (7), By the rule of Modus ponens, W follows
Ex: Show that TP follows logically from the premises
R(ST), R  W, P S, W

 Proof: Consider the premises,

R(ST) ------(1)
R  W -----(2)
P S -----(3)
W -----(4)
From (2) and (4), By the rule of Disjunctive syllogism,we have
R ---------(5)
From(1)and (5), By the rule of Modus ponens, we have
S T ---------(6)
From, (3) and (6), By the rule of Transitivity, we have
P  T ---------(7)
 ( T P ) (By Contra positive equivalence)
Conditional Proof (CP rule)

 Theorem: If {H1, H2, …., Hn } and P imply Q, then

{H1, H2, …., Hn } imply (PQ).

 Proof: From our assumption we have,

(H1 H2  ….  Hn  P)  Q
This assumption means (H1 H2  ….  Hn  P)  Q is a
tautology.
Using the equivalence P (Q R)  (P  Q)  R
We can say that (H1 H2  ….  Hn)  ( PQ ) is a tautology.
Hence the theorem.
 Rule CP : If we can derive Q from P and a set of
premises,then we can derive PQ from the set of premises
alone
Ex:Show that RS can be derived from the premises
p (Q S), RP, Q

 Solution: Instead of deriving RS, we shall include R as an

additional premise and show S first.
p (Q S) …..(1)
RP …..(2)
Q ……(3)
R …….(4)
From (2) and (4), By the rule of Disjunctive syllogism,we have
P ---------(5)
From(1)and (5), By the rule of Modus ponens, we have
Q S ………….(6)
From(3)and (6), By the rule of Modus ponens, S follows
 By CP rule, RS follows from the given premises.
Consistency, Inconsistency and Proof by Contradiction

 A set of formulas {H1, H2, …., Hn} is said to be consistent, if

their conjunction has truth value T for some assignment of
the truth values to the atomic variables appearing in H1, H2,
…., Hn .
 A set of formulas {H1, H2, …., Hn} is said to be inconsistent, if
their conjunction implies a contradiction. that is
(H1 H2  ….  Hn )  (R  R) where R is any formula.
 Proof by Contradiction :
In order to show that,a conclusion C logically follows from the
premises H1, H2, …., Hn ,We assume that C is false and
Consider C as additional premise.
If the new set of premises is inconsistent, then our
assumption is wrong. Hence C follows.
Ex: Show that the following set of premises are inconsistent.
P Q, P R, Q  R, P

 Proof: Consider the premises,

PQ ------(1)
PR -----(2)
Q R -----(3)
P ----(4)
From (1) and (3), By the rule of transitivity, we have
P R …….(5)
From(2)and (4), By the rule of Modus ponens, R follows
From(4)and (5), By the rule of Modus ponens, R follows
But, R and R cannot be simultaneously true (Contradiction).
Hence, the given premises are inconsistent.
Ex: Show that the following set of premises are inconsistent.
R  M, R  S, M, S

 Proof: Consider the premises,

RM ------(1)
R  S ----(2)
M -----(3)
S ----------(4)
From (1) and (3), By the rule of Disjunctive Syllogism,we have
R ……….(5)
From(2)and (4), By the rule of Disjunctive Syllogism, We have
R ………..(6)
But, R and R cannot be simultaneously true (Contradiction).
Hence, the given premises are inconsistent.
Ex: Show that (PQ) follows from (P  Q)

 Solution: Let us introduce (PQ) as an additional premise

and show that this leads to contradiction.
(PQ) ….(1)
Which is equivalent to
(PQ) ….(2)
From (2), P follows
Given that, (P  Q) …..(3)
From (3), P follows
But, P and P cannot be simultaneously true (Contradiction).
 Our assumption is false.
Hence (PQ) follows from (P  Q)
Ex: Show that P follows from the premises PQ, (P  Q)

 Solution: Let us introduce P as an additional premise and

show that this leads to contradiction.
P ….(1)
PQ …..(2)
(PQ) ….(3)
From (1) and (2), By the rule of Moden ponens, we have
Q …….(4)
From (1) and (4), We have
( PQ) …….(5)
But, (3) and (5) cannot be simultaneously true (Contradiction).
 Our assumption is false.
Hence, P follows from the premises PQ, (P  Q)
Ex: Verify that the following argument is valid by using the rules of
inference (Here, H1 , H2 , …. are premises and C is conclusion) :

H1 : If Joe is a Mathematician, then he is ambitious.

H2 : If Joe is an early riser, then he does not like oat meal.
H3 : If Joe is ambitious, then he is an early riser
C : Hence, if Joe is a Mathematician, then he does not like oat
meal.
 Solution: Let us make the following representations
p : Joe is a Mathematician.
q : Joe is ambitious
r : Joe is an early riser
s : Joe likes oat meal
The symbolic form of the given argument is
Contd.,

H1 : pq ….(1)
H2 : rs ….(2)
H3 : qr …..(3)
From (1) and (3), By the rule of transitivity, we have
pr ……(4)
From (4) and (2), By the rule of transitivity, we have
p  s ……(5)
i.e., if Joe is a Mathematician, then he does not like oat meal.
 The conclusion logically follows from the premises.
Hence, the argument is valid
Ex: Verify that the following argument is valid by using the rules of
inference (Here, H1 , H2 , …. are premises and C is conclusion) :

H1 : If Cliffton does not live in France, then he does not

speak French.
H2 : Cliffton does not drive a Datsun.
H3 : If Cliffton lives in France, then he rides a Bicycle.
H4 : Either Cliffton speaks French,or he drives a Datsun.
C : Hence, Cliffton drives a bicycle.
 Solution: Let us make the following representations
p : Cliffton lives in France.
q : Cliffton speaks French.
r : Cliffton drives a Datsun.
s : Cliffton drives a Bicycle.
The symbolic form of the given argument is
Contd.,

 H1 : p q …..(1)
H2 : r …..(2)
H3 : p  s …..(3)
H4 : q  r …….(4)
From (2) and (4), By the rule of Disjunctive Syllogism,we have
q ……..(5)
(1)  q  p …….(6)
From (5) and (6), By the rule of Modus ponens, we have
P ……(7)
From (3) and (7), By the rule of Modus ponens, s follows
 The conclusion logically follows from the premises.
Hence, the argument is valid
Ex:Using Symbolic logic, Show that the following premises
are inconsistent

1. If Jack misses many classes through illness,then he fails high

school.
2. If Jack fails high school, then he is uneducated.
3. If Jack reads a lot of books, then he is not uneducated.
4. Jack misses many classes through illness and reads a lot of
books.
 Solution: Let us make the following representations
p : Jack misses many classes through illness
q : Jack fails high school
r : Jack is uneducated
s : Jack reads a lot of books
Now, the given premises can be represented as
Contd.,

p  q …..(1) q  r …..(2)
s  r …..(3) p  s …..(4)
From (1) and (2), By transitivity, p r …..(5)
From(3), By Contra positive equivalence, r  s ….. (6)
From (5) and (6), By transitivity, we have
p s …..(7)
From(4), we have
p …..(8)
From (7) and (8), By the rule of modus ponens, s follows
From (4), s follows
But, s and s cannot be simultaneously true (Contradiction).
Hence, the given premises are inconsistent
Ex:Using Symbolic logic,prove the following argument

If A works hard, then either B or C will enjoy themselves.

If B enjoys himself, then A will not work hard.
If D enjoys himself, then C will not enjoy himself.
Therefore, If A works hard, then D will not enjoy himself .
 Solution: Let us use the following representations.
A : A works hard.
B : B will enjoy himself.
C : C will enjoy himself.
D : D will enjoy himself.
Now, we have to show that, A  D follows from
A (B  C) , B  A and D  C
Contd.,

A (B  C) ….(1) B  A ….(2)
D  C ….(3) A …. (4) ( Additional premise)
From, (1) and (4), By modus ponens, We have
(B  C) ……(5)
(2)  A  B …. (6)
From, (4) and (6), By modus ponens, B ….(7) follows.
From (5) and (7), By the rule of Disjunctive Syllogism, we have
C ….(8)
(3)  C D …. (9)
From (8) and (9), By modus ponens, D follows
Hence, By CP rule, A  D follows
Properties of operations on implication
(P  Q)  ((~P)  Q)
(P  Q)  (~Q  ~P)
(P  Q)  ((P  Q)  (Q  P))
~(P  Q)  (P  ~Q)
~(P  Q)  ((P  ~Q)  (Q  ~P))
P Q  (P  Q)  (~P  ~Q)
Normal forms

 Elementary product:A product of the variables and their

negations in a formula is called an Elementary product.
Ex: P, PQ, PQ, PQ R
 Elementary Sum: A Sum of the variables and their negations
in a formula is called an Elementary Sum.
Ex: P, P  Q, P  Q, P Q R
 Disjunctive normal form: A formula which is equivalent to a
given formula and which consists of a sum of elementary
products is called a disjunctive normal form.
 Ex: (P )  ( PQ )  (PQ).
 Ex: ( PQ )  (PQ)  (PQ R ).
Normal forms (contd.,)

 Conjunctive normal form: A formula which is equivalent to a

given formula and which consists of a product of elementary
sums is called a conjunctive normal form.
Ex: (P )  ( P  Q ) (P  Q).
Ex: ( P  Q )  (P  Q) (P  Q  R ).
Disjunctive Normal Forms
A formula equivalent to a given formula and consists of a
sum of elementary products of the given formula.

Examples
1. Obtain Disjunctive Normal Form of P  (P  Q).
P  (P  Q)  P  (~P  Q)
 (P  ~P)  (P  Q)
2.Obtain Disjunctive Normal Form of ~(P  Q)  (P  Q).
~(P  Q)  (P  Q)
 (~(P  Q)  (P  Q))  ((P  Q)  ~(P  Q))
since [R  S  (R  S)  (~R  ~S)]
~(P  Q)  (P  Q)
 (~P  ~Q  P  Q)  ((P  Q)  (~P  ~Q)

 (~P  ~Q  P  Q)  ((P  Q)  (~P  ~Q))

 (~P  ~Q  P  Q)  ((P  Q)  ~P)

 ((P  Q)  ~Q)

 (~P  ~Q  P  Q)  (P  ~P)  (Q  ~P)

 (P  ~Q)  (Q  ~Q)
Conjunctive Normal Forms
A formula equivalent to a given formula and consists of a product of
elementary sums of the given formula.

Examples
1. Obtain Conjunctive Normal Form of P  (P  Q).
P  (P  Q)  P  (~P  Q)
2.Obtain Conjunctive Normal Form of ~(P  Q)  (P  Q).
~(P  Q)  (P  Q)
 (~(P  Q)  (P  Q))  ((P  Q)  ~(P  Q))
since [R  S  (R  S)  (S  R)]

~(P  Q)  (P  Q)
 ((P  Q)  (P  Q))  (~(P  Q)  (~P  ~Q)

 ((P  Q  P)  (P  Q  Q))
 ((~P  ~Q)  (~P  ~Q)

 (P  Q  P)  (P  Q  Q)
 (~P  ~Q  ~P)  (~P  ~Q  ~Q)
3.Obtain Conjunctive Normal Form of Q  (P  ~Q)  (~P  ~Q).
Q  (P  ~Q)  (~P  ~Q)
 Q  ((P  ~P)  ~Q)

 (Q  (P  ~P))  (Q  ~Q)

 (Q  P  ~P)  (Q  ~Q)
1. P {(P Q) ~(~Q  ~ P))
2. ~{P(QR)}
3. (~P  ~ Q) (P  ~ Q)
4. (P (Q R))(~P  (~Q  ~ R))
5. (~P  ~ Q) (P  ~ Q) (CNF)
Principal Disjunctive Normal Forms

 Let P and Q be two statement variables.

 Let us construct all possible formulas which consists of
conjunctions of P or its negation and conjunctions of Q or its
negation.
 None of the formulas should contain both a variable and its
negation.
Ex: either P  Q or Q  P is included but not both.
 For two variables P and Q , there are 22 such formulas given
by
P  Q, P  ~ Q , ~ P  Q and ~ P  ~ Q
 these formulas are called minterms.
 From the truth tables of these minterms, it is clear that no two
minterms are equivalent
 Each minterm has the truth value T for exactly one combination of
the truth values of the variables P and Q.
 For a given formula , an equivalent formula consisting of disjunction
of minterms only is known as its principal disjunctive normal form.
 Also called sum-of –products canonical form.
 Min terms: Let P and Q are two statement variables. Let us
construct all possible formulas which consist of conjunctions of P or
its negation and conjunctions of Q or its negation.
For two variables P and Q, there are 22 such formulas given by
PQ, PQ, PQ, PQ
These formulas are called ‘min terms’.
 For three variables P,Q and R, there are 23 such formulas
given by
PQ R, PQ R, PQ R, PQ R,
PQ R, PQ R, PQ R, PQ R
These min terms are denoted by m0, m1 , …, m7 respectively.

 In general, there are 2n min terms for n variables.

Ex. Obtain the Principal Disjunctive normal forms of the following
PQ , P  Q, (PQ)

 Solution:

P Q PQ PQ PQ (PQ)

F F T F F T
F T T T F T
T F F T F T
 PQ T  (PQ)
T T
 (PQ)  T(PQ) T F
 P  Q  (PQ)  (PQ)  (PQ)
 (PQ)  (PQ)  (PQ)  (PQ)
Ex. Obtain the Principal Disjunctive normal form of the following
P  {(PQ)  (P  Q)}

 Given formula is, [ P  {(PQ)  (P  Q)} ] = A (say)

The truth table for A is given below.

P Q PQ P  Q {(PQ)  A
(P  Q)}
F F T F F T
F T T F F T
T F F F F F
T T T T T T
 A  (PQ)  (PQ)  (PQ)
 Which is the PDNF for A .
Ex. Obtain the Principal Disjunctive normal form of the following
(P  Q)  (Q  R)  (P  R )

 Solution: Consider, (P  Q)  (Q  R)  (P  R )

  {(P  Q)  (R  R)} 
{(P  P)  (Q  R) } 
{(P  R )  (Q  Q)}

(PQ R)  (PQ R)  (PQ R) (PQ R)

Which is the PDNF for the given formula.

Ex. Obtain the Principal Disjunctive normal form of the following
(P  Q)  (P  R )
= A (say)

P Q R P  Q P (P  R) A
F F F T T F F
F F T T T T T
F T F F T F F
F T T F T T F
T F F F F T F
T F T F F T F
T T F T F T T
T T R)  T
T (PQ
 A  (PQ R) F(PQTR) =  (mT1, m6, m7)
Principal Conjunctive normal forms
(Product of Sums canonical forms)
 Max terms: For a given number of variables, the max term
consists of disjunctions in which each variable or its
negation, but not both, appears only once.
For two variables P and Q, there are 22 such formulas given
by
(P  Q), (P  Q), (P  Q), (P  Q).
These formulas are called ‘max terms’.
 For three variables P,Q and R, there are 23 such formulas
given by
PQR, P  Q  R, P  Q  R, P  Q  R,
P  Q  R, P  Q  R, P  Q  R, P  Q 
R
These max terms are denoted by M0, M1 , …, M7
respectively.
 In general, there are 2n Max terms for n variables.
PCNF (Contd.,)

 Mi =  mi
 M0 =  m0
= (PQ R) = (P  Q  R)
 M1 =  m1
= (PQ R) = (P  Q   R)
 M2 =  m2
= (PQ R) = (P   Q  R)
 Principal Conjunctive normal form (Product of Sums
canonical form) : For a given formula, an equivalent
formula consisting of conjunctions of max terms only is
known as Principal Conjunctive normal form.
Principal Conjunctive Normal Forms

 Let us construct all possible formulas which consists of

conjunctions of P or its negation and conjunctions of Q or its
negation.
 None of the formulas should contain both a variable and its
negation.
Ex: either P  Q or Q  P is included but not both.
 For two variables P and Q , there are 22 such formulas given
by
P  Q, P  ~ Q , ~ P  Q and ~ P  ~ Q
 these formulas are called maxterms.
 For a given formula , an equivalent formula consisting of
conjunctions of maxterms only is known as its principal
conjunctive normal form.
 Also called products-of-sums canonical form.
Ex. Obtain the Principal Conjunctive normal forms of the following
PQ , P  Q, (PQ)

P Q PQ PQ PQ (PQ)

F F T F T F
F T T F F T
T F F F F T
T T T T T F
 The PCNF’s are
 PQ  (P  Q)
 P  Q  (P  Q)  (P  Q)  (P  Q)
 (PQ)  (P  Q)  (P  Q)
EX. Obtain the Principal Conjunctive normal form of the formula
given by (P  R)  (Q  P)

 Solution: (P  R)  (Q  P)
 (P  R)  {(PQ)  (QP)}
 (P  R)  (P  Q)  (Q  P)
 { (P  R)  (Q  Q) } 
{ (P  Q)  (R  R) } 
{ (Q  P)  (R  R) }
 (P  Q  R)  (P  Q  R)  (P  Q  R) 
( P  Q  R)  (P  Q  R)
= (0,2,3,4,5)
Which is the required PCNF.
Max terms and Min terms

 *
P Q R Min terms mi Max terms Mi

F F F m0 : PQ R M0 : PQR

F F T m1 : PQ R M1 : P  Q  R
F T F m2 : PQ R M2 : P  Q  R
F T T m3 : PQ R M3 : P  Q  R
T F F m4 : PQ R M4 : P  Q  R
T F T m5 : PQ R M5 : P  Q  R
T T F m6 : PQ R M6 : P  Q  R
T T T m7 : PQ R M7 : P  Q  R
Ex. Obtain the Principal Conjunctive normal form and Principal
disjunctive normal form of A, where A = (P  Q) (P  R )

P Q R P  Q P P  R A
F F F F T F F
F F T F T T T
F T F F T F F
F T T F T T T
T F F F F F F
T F T F F F F
T T F T F F T
T of AT= (0,2,4,5)
The PCNF T T F F T
A  (P  Q  R)  (P  Q  R)  (P  Q  R) (P  Q  R)
Contd.,

The PDNF of A = (1,3,6,7)

A  (PQ R)  (PQ R)  (PQ R)  (PQ R)