can be used as building blocks to construct more complicated valid argument forms.

Discrete Structures I We will now introduce the most important rules of inference in propositional logic.
Predicates and Quantifiers
Departement of Computer Science – IT College – University of Bahrain
Dr. Amine Mahjoub, Dr. Youssef Jaziri, Mrs Sarra Essa – 2016/2017 –
Semester 2

1 Introduction
Proofs in mathematics are valid arguments that establish the truth of mathema-
tical statements. By an argument, we mean a sequence of statements that end with
a conclusion. By valid, we mean that the conclusion, or final statement of the ar-
gument, must follow from the truth of the preceding statements, or premises, of
the argument. That is, an argument is valid if and only if it is impossible for all
the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. To deduce new statements
from statements we already have, we use rules of inference which are templates for
constructing valid arguments. Rules of inference are our basic tools for establishing
the truth of statements.

2 Valid Arguments in Propositional Logic

Definition 1. An argument in propositional logic is a sequence of propositions. All
but the final proposition in the argument are called premises and the final proposition
is called the conclusion. An argument is valid if the truth of all its premises implies
that the conclusion is true. An argument form in propositional logic is a sequence of
compound propositions involving propositional variables. An argument form is valid
no matter which particular propositions are substituted for the propositional variables
in its premises, the conclusion is true if the premises are all true.

From the definition of a valid argument form we see that the argument form with
premises p1 , p2 , . . . , pn and conclusion q is valid, when (p1 ∧ p2 ∧ . . . ∧ pn ) → q is a Example : Show that the premises ”It is not sunny this afternoon and it is colder
tautology. than yesterday”, ”We will go swimming only if it is sunny”, ”If we do not go
swimming, then we will take a canoe trip” and ”If we take a canoe trip, then we will
be home by sunset” lead to the conclusion ”We will be home by sunset”.
3 Rules of Inference for Propositional Logic Let p be the proposition ”It is sunny this afternoon”, q the proposition ”It is colder
than yesterday”, r the proposition ”We will go swimming”, s the proposition ”We
We can always use a truth table to show that an argument form is valid.We do will take a canoe trip”, and t the proposition ”We will be home by sunset”. Then
this by showing that whenever the premises are true, the conclusion must also be the premises become ¬p ∧ q, r −→ p ,¬r −→ s, and s −→ t . The conclusion is
true. However, this can be a tedious approach. For example, when an argument simply t . We need to give a valid argument with premises ¬p ∧ q, r −→ p, ¬r −→ s,
form involves 10 different propositional variables, to use a truth table to show this and s −→ t and conclusion t.
argument form is valid requires 210 = 1024 different rows. Fortunately, we do not We construct an argument to show that our premises lead to the desired conclusion
have to resort to truth tables. Instead, we can first establish the validity of some as follows.
relatively simple argument forms, called rules of inference. These rules of inference

1
 Step Reason Exercise 4 :
1. ¬p ∧ q Premise Hellen was not in the bedroom and the light was on. The light was off when the
2. ¬p Simplification using (1) diamond ring was stolen. If Hellen went to the bedroom, then the light was off. The
3. r −→ p Premise diamond ring is stolen or Hellen was in kitchen . If Hellen was in the kitchen, then
4. ¬r Modus tollens using (2) and (3) She drank water. If hellen ate an orange then she was thirsty and did not drink water.
Therefore, neither the diamond ring stolen nor Hellen ate an orange .
5. ¬r −→ s Premise
6. s Modus ponens using (4) and (5) 1. Convert the above argument into symbolic form.
7. s −→ t Premise 2. Using the inference rules, show the above argument is valid.
8. t Modus ponens using (6) and (7)
Exercise 5 :
Using rules of inferences show the following argument is valid.
4 Exercises
1. p −→ (q −→ r)
Exercise 1 :
2. p ∨ s
If my golden ring is on the table, then it is neither beside the bathroom mirror nor 3. r −→ p
in the jewelry box. My golden ring is not in my finger and it is not in my bag. If I 4. t −→ q
did not lose my golden ring, then it is in my bag. My golden ring is in my finger or
5. ¬s
in the jewelry box. Therefore, my golden ring is not on the table and I lost it.
∴ ¬r −→ ¬t
1. Convert the above argument into symbolic form.
2. Using the inference rules, show the above argument is valid.
Exercise 6 :
Exercise 2 : Show taht the following argument is valid or not using truth table
The red ball is under the first cup or it is not under the third cup. If the red ball is
1. p ∧ q
not under the second cup or it is under the fourth cup then the red ball is not under
the first cup. The red ball is under the third cup but it is not under the fifth cup. 2. p −→ r ∧ q
Therefore, the red ball is under the second cup. 3. r −→ p
1. Convert the above argument into symbolic form. ∴ ¬r

2. Using the inference rules, show the above argument is valid.

Exercise 7 :
Exercise 3 :
Show if the argument is valid or not using truth table.
The cat neither under the bed nor in the kitchen. The cat does not drink water unless
it did not eat the cake. If the cat ate the mouse, then it is either under the bed or in 1.¬p ∨ q → r
the kitchen. The cat either drank water or ate the mouse. Therefore, if the cat ate 2.¬r ∧ ¬q
the cake, then it is not under the bed. 3.p ∧ ¬r → q
1. Convert the above argument into symbolic form. 4.∴ q ∧ ¬r
2. Using the inference rules, show the above argument is valid.

2
Exercise 8 : Exercise 11 :
John said If you are smart or work hard, then you will pass the course. you are Show the argument is invalid using truth assignment.
did not pass the course. therefore you are smart or do not work hard. Harry said If p −→ q
you are not smart and do not work hard, then you will not pass the course. you are r∨q
did not pass the course. therefore you are smart and work hard. find whether John ¬s −→ ¬t
or Harry argument is valid using truth table. ¬q ∨ s
¬s ∧ ¬q
w∨t
Exercise 9 :
¬p ∧ r −→ u
State if the following arguments are valid or not. ∴ ¬u ∧ ¬w

p∧q Exercise 12 :
p −→ (r ∧ q)
Show the argument is invalid using truth assignment.
1. r −→ (s ∨ t)
¬d −→ ¬c
¬s
p −→ d ⊕ c
∴t
d ∨ ¬c −→ (r −→ q)
p ∨ ¬q → ¬r p ∨ ¬q ∧ r
¬s ∨ q ¬t ∨ q −→ c
t ∴ t ∧ ¬c ←→ r
2.
¬p → ¬t
p ∧ ¬r → s
∴q

p −→ q
s −→ ¬q
t −→ ¬u ∨ s
3.
¬r ∨ ¬(¬t ∨ u)
¬p ∧ t
∴ r −→ u

Exercise 10 :
Show the argument is valid .
I placed my key in the bedroom but not under the sofa. If I sat in the dinning room,
then my key is not in the bed room or in my pocket. If I did not sit in the dinning
room, then my key is in bathroom room or it is under the sofa. My key is not in my
pocket. Therefore, if I wash my face, then my key is in bathroom. Discrete Structure I – Rules of Inferences Generated by LATEX