‭Chapter 4: Sentential Logic : Truth Trees‬

‭Introduction‬
I‭n‬ ‭this‬ ‭chapter‬ ‭we‬ ‭provide‬ ‭an‬ ‭additional‬ ‭method,‬ ‭the‬ ‭truth-tree‬ ‭method,‬ ‭which‬ ‭provides‬ ‭a‬
‭systematic‬ ‭method‬ ‭of‬ ‭searching‬ ‭for‬ ‭truth-value‬ ‭assignments‬ ‭that‬ ‭are‬ ‭of‬ ‭special‬ ‭interest—for‬
‭example,‬ ‭a‬ ‭truth-value‬ ‭assignment‬ ‭on‬ ‭which‬ ‭a‬ ‭given‬ ‭sentence‬ ‭of‬ ‭SL‬ ‭is‬ ‭false,‬ ‭or‬‭a‬‭truth-value‬
‭assignment‬‭on‬‭which‬‭the‬‭premises‬‭of‬‭a‬‭given‬‭argument‬‭of‬‭SL‬‭are‬‭true‬‭and‬‭the‬‭conclusion‬‭false.‬
‭The truth-tree method also reveals when no such truth-value assignments exist.‬

‭Truth-Table Vs Truth Tree Method‬

‭ he‬ ‭truth-table‬ ‭method‬ ‭is‬ ‭mechanical.‬ ‭And‬ ‭the‬ ‭truth-tree‬ ‭method‬‭can‬‭easily‬‭be‬‭made.‬‭So,‬‭the‬
T
‭advantage‬ ‭of‬ ‭truth-tables‬ ‭is‬ ‭that‬ ‭they‬ ‭graphically‬ ‭display‬ ‭how‬ ‭the‬ ‭truth-values‬ ‭of‬ ‭compound‬
‭sentences are generated from the truth-values of their components.‬

‭ he‬ ‭disadvantage‬ ‭of‬ ‭truth-tables‬ ‭is‬ ‭that‬ ‭they‬ ‭become‬ ‭unwieldy‬ ‭when‬ ‭the‬ ‭number‬ ‭of‬ ‭distinct‬
T
‭atomic components of the sentence or sentences being tested is much greater than 3.‬

‭ lthough,‬ ‭sometimes‬ ‭truth-trees‬ ‭can‬ ‭also‬‭become‬‭unwieldy.‬‭However,‬‭the‬‭size‬‭and‬‭complexity‬

A
‭of‬ ‭truth-trees‬ ‭are‬ ‭not‬ ‭as‬ ‭direct‬ ‭a‬ ‭function‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭number‬ ‭of‬ ‭distinct‬ ‭atomic‬ ‭components‬ ‭of‬‭the‬
‭sentences being tested as are the size and complexity of truth-tables.‬

‭ ets‬ ‭of‬ ‭sentences‬ ‭with‬ ‭a‬ ‭large‬ ‭number‬ ‭of‬ ‭distinct‬ ‭atomic‬ ‭components‬ ‭frequently‬ ‭have‬
S
‭reasonably‬ ‭concise‬ ‭truth-trees.‬ ‭What‬ ‭is‬ ‭of‬ ‭theoretical‬ ‭importance‬ ‭here,‬ ‭as‬ ‭with‬‭truth-tables,‬‭is‬
‭that‬‭the‬‭truth-tree‬‭system‬‭can‬‭be‬‭used,‬‭for‬‭any‬‭finite‬‭set‬‭of‬‭sentences‬‭of‬‭SL,‬‭to‬‭yield,‬‭in‬‭a‬‭finite‬
‭number of steps.‬

‭Literals & Non-Literals‬

‭We will call‬‭atomic sentences‬‭and‬‭their negation‬‭s‬‭‘literals‬‭’.‬

I‭n‬ ‭this‬ ‭section‬ ‭we‬ ‭present‬ ‭the‬ ‭rules‬ ‭we‬ ‭will‬ ‭use‬ ‭to‬ ‭decompose‬ ‭nonliteral‬ ‭sentences‬‭of‬‭SL.‬‭By‬
‭using‬ ‭these‬ ‭rules‬ ‭we‬ ‭will‬ ‭be‬ ‭able‬ ‭to‬ ‭determine‬ ‭which‬‭atomic‬‭components‬‭of‬‭these‬‭non-literals‬
‭must‬ ‭be‬ ‭assigned‬ ‭the‬ ‭truth-value‬ ‭T‬ ‭and‬ ‭which‬ ‭must‬ ‭be‬ ‭assigned‬ ‭the‬ ‭truth-value‬ ‭F‬ ‭if‬ ‭those‬
‭non-literals are to be true on a truth-value assignment.‬

‭ e‬‭divide‬‭the‬‭non-‬‭literal‬‭sentences‬‭of‬‭SL‬‭into‬‭two‬‭groups,‬‭one‬‭group‬‭for‬‭each‬‭kind‬‭of‬‭binary‬
W
‭compound‬ ‭(conjunctions,‬ ‭disjunctions,‬ ‭material‬ ‭conditionals,‬ ‭and‬ ‭material‬ ‭biconditionals)‬ ‭and‬
‭one‬ ‭group‬ ‭for‬ ‭each‬ ‭kind‬ ‭of‬ ‭negation‬ ‭(negated‬ ‭negations,‬ ‭negated‬ ‭conjunctions,‬ ‭negated‬
‭disjunctions, negated material conditionals, and negated material biconditionals).‬
‭The Truth Tree Method‬
‭ he‬ ‭truth‬ ‭tree‬ ‭method,‬ ‭also‬ ‭known‬ ‭as‬‭the‬‭semantic‬‭tableau‬‭method,‬‭is‬‭a‬‭systematic‬‭approach‬
T
‭used‬ ‭in‬ ‭formal‬ ‭logic‬ ‭to‬ ‭analyze‬ ‭and‬ ‭determine‬ ‭the‬ ‭logical‬ ‭properties‬ ‭of‬ ‭statements‬ ‭or‬ ‭sets‬ ‭of‬
‭statements. It is especially useful for evaluating logical consistency, validity, and logical truth.‬

‭Overview of the Truth Tree Method:‬

‭ ‬ ‭truth‬ ‭tree‬ ‭begins‬ ‭with‬ ‭a‬ ‭set‬ ‭of‬ ‭statements‬ ‭that‬ ‭we‬ ‭wish‬ ‭to‬ ‭evaluate.‬ ‭Each‬ ‭statement‬ ‭is‬
A
‭decomposed‬‭step-by-step‬‭according‬‭to‬‭specific‬‭rules‬‭for‬‭each‬‭logical‬‭connective‬‭(e.g.,‬‭negation,‬
‭conjunction,‬ ‭disjunction).‬ ‭This‬ ‭process‬ ‭creates‬ ‭a‬ ‭branching‬ ‭tree‬ ‭structure‬ ‭where‬ ‭each‬ ‭branch‬
‭represents a different possible interpretation or truth assignment for the statements involved.‬

‭The truth tree method is often used to:‬

‭●‬ C ‭ heck‬ ‭Consistency‬‭:‬ ‭Determine‬ ‭if‬ ‭it‬ ‭is‬ ‭possible‬ ‭for‬ ‭all‬ ‭statements‬ ‭in‬ ‭a‬ ‭set‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭true‬
‭simultaneously.‬
‭●‬ ‭Determine‬ ‭Validity‬‭:‬ ‭Test‬ ‭if‬ ‭a‬ ‭given‬ ‭argument‬ ‭is‬ ‭valid‬ ‭by‬ ‭examining‬ ‭whether‬ ‭it‬ ‭is‬
‭impossible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false.‬
‭●‬ ‭Identify‬ ‭Logical‬ ‭Properties‬‭:‬ ‭Verify‬ ‭if‬ ‭a‬ ‭statement‬ ‭is‬ ‭a‬ ‭tautology,‬ ‭contradiction,‬ ‭or‬
‭contingent.‬

‭Truth-Trees Rules‬
‭ here‬ ‭are‬ ‭two‬ ‭groups‬ ‭of‬ ‭rules.‬ ‭First‬‭group‬‭1‬‭is‬‭called‬‭‘‬‭non-branching‬‭rules‬‭’‬‭because‬‭they‬‭do‬
T
‭not‬ ‭introduce‬ ‭new‬ ‭branches‬ ‭to‬ ‭a‬ ‭truth-tree‬ ‭and‬ ‭the‬ ‭second‬ ‭group‬ ‭2‬ ‭which‬ ‭adds‬ ‭branches‬ ‭is‬
‭called ‘‬‭branching rules‬‭’.‬

‭ he‬‭Truth-tree‬‭method‬‭decomposes‬‭the‬‭compound‬‭sentences‬‭to‬‭simple‬‭sentences,‬‭whose‬‭truth‬
T
‭is required for the truth of the given compound.‬

‭Non-Branching Rules‬

‭1‬
‭2‬

‭3‬

‭4‬

‭Branching Rules‬

‭5‬

‭6‬
 ‭7‬

‭8‬

‭9‬

‭Explanation‬

‭Non-Branching Rules‬

‭1.‬ A ‭ ‬ ‭sentence‬‭of‬‭the‬‭form‬‭~‬‭~‬‭P‬‭is‬‭true‬‭if‬‭and‬‭only‬‭if‬‭P‬‭is‬‭also‬‭true‬‭on‬‭that‬‭assignment,‬‭so‬
‭the‬‭answer‬‭to‬‭the‬‭question‬‭‘What‬‭sentence(s)‬‭have‬‭to‬‭be‬‭true‬‭for‬‭~‬‭~‬‭P‬‭to‬‭be‬‭true?’‬‭is‬‭P,‬
‭and hence we decompose ~ ~ P to P.‬
‭2.‬ ‭Similarly,‬‭a‬‭sentence‬‭of‬‭the‬‭form‬‭P‬‭&‬‭Q‬‭is‬‭true‬‭on‬‭if‬‭and‬‭only‬‭if‬‭P‬‭and‬‭Q‬‭are‬‭both‬‭true‬‭on‬
‭that assignment, so we decompose P & Q to P and to Q.‬
‭3.‬ ‭And‬ ‭a‬ ‭sentence‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭form‬‭~‬‭(P‬‭∨‬‭Q)‬‭is‬‭true‬‭on‬‭a‬‭truth-value‬‭assignment‬‭if‬‭and‬‭only‬‭if‬
‭both‬‭~‬‭P‬‭and‬‭~‬‭Q‬‭are‬‭true‬‭on‬‭that‬‭assignment.‬‭So‬‭we‬‭decompose‬‭~‬‭(P‬‭∨‬‭Q)‬‭to‬‭~‬‭P‬‭and‬‭to‬
‭~ Q.‬
‭4.‬ ‭Finally,‬‭a‬‭sentence‬‭of‬‭the‬‭form‬‭~‬‭(P‬‭⊃‬‭Q)‬‭is‬‭true‬ ‭if‬‭and‬‭only‬‭if‬‭its‬‭antecedent,‬‭P,‬‭is‬‭true‬‭on‬
‭that‬‭assignment‬‭and‬‭its‬‭consequent,‬‭Q,‬‭is‬‭false‬‭on‬‭that‬‭assignment,‬‭that‬‭is,‬‭if‬‭and‬‭only‬‭if‬
‭P‬‭and‬‭~‬‭Q‬‭are‬‭both‬‭true‬‭on‬‭that‬‭assignment.‬‭So‬‭we‬‭decompose‬‭~‬‭(P‬‭⊃‬‭Q)‬‭to‬‭P‬‭and‬‭to‬‭~‬
‭Q.‬

‭Branching Rules‬

‭ .‬ A
5 ‭ disjunction is true if either disjunct is true.‬
‭6.‬ ‭Rule‬‭for‬‭decomposing‬‭material‬‭conditionals‬‭reflects‬‭the‬‭fact‬‭that‬‭if‬‭a‬‭material‬‭conditional‬
‭is true, then either its antecedent P is false or its consequent Q is true.‬
 ‭7.‬ T ‭ he‬ ‭negation‬ ‭of‬ ‭a‬ ‭conjunction‬ ‭is‬ ‭true‬ ‭if‬ ‭and‬ ‭only‬ ‭if‬ ‭at‬ ‭least‬ ‭one‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭conjunction’s‬
‭components is false.‬
‭8.‬ ‭A‬‭material‬‭biconditional‬‭is‬‭true‬‭if‬‭and‬‭only‬‭if‬‭both‬‭of‬‭its‬‭immediate‬‭components‬‭are‬‭true‬‭or‬
‭both are false.‬
‭9.‬ ‭A‬ ‭negated‬ ‭material‬ ‭biconditional‬ ‭is‬ ‭true‬ ‭if‬ ‭and‬ ‭only‬ ‭if‬ ‭its‬ ‭immediate‬ ‭components‬ ‭have‬
‭different truth-values.‬

‭………………………………………………………………………………………‬

‭EXAMPLES‬
‭ xample‬ ‭1:‬ ‭Determine‬ ‭whether‬ ‭the‬ ‭set‬ ‭{‬ ‭~‬ ‭~‬ ‭B,‬ ‭C,‬ ‭~‬ ‭A,‬ ‭~‬ ‭(B‬ ‭⊃‬ ‭C)}‬ ‭is‬ ‭truth-functionally‬
E
‭consistent?‬

‭Sol.‬

‭The sentences on lines 2 and 3 are‬‭literals‬‭and do‬‭not need to be decomposed.‬

‭ he‬‭sentence‬‭on‬‭line‬‭1‬‭is‬‭a‬‭negated‬‭negation,‬‭and‬‭the‬‭rule‬‭for‬‭decomposing‬‭a‬‭negated‬‭negation‬
T
‭~‬‭~‬‭P‬‭instructs‬‭us‬‭to‬‭add‬‭P‬‭to‬‭our‬‭tree‬‭and‬‭to‬‭‘check‬‭off’‬‭the‬‭sentence‬‭~‬‭~‬‭P,‬‭indicating‬‭that‬‭it‬‭has‬
‭been decomposed.‬

‭ or‬ ‭line‬ ‭4,‬ ‭The‬ ‭rule‬ ‭Negated‬ ‭Material‬ ‭Conditional‬ ‭Decomposition‬ ‭calls‬ ‭for‬ ‭entering‬ ‭the‬
F
‭antecedent‬‭of the material conditional and the negation‬‭of its‬‭consequent‬‭on our tree.‬

‭ he‬‭lines‬‭6‬‭and‬‭7‬‭are‬‭both‬‭justified‬‭by‬‭Negated‬‭Material‬‭Conditional‬‭Decomposition,‬‭as‬‭that‬‭rule‬
T
‭requires‬‭entering‬‭two‬‭sentences‬‭on‬‭our‬‭tree.‬‭The‬‭tree‬‭now‬‭contains‬‭only‬‭literals‬‭and‬‭check-off‬
‭non-literals‬‭,‬ ‭so‬ ‭we‬ ‭have‬ ‭decomposed‬ ‭every‬ ‭sentence‬ ‭that‬ ‭can‬ ‭be‬ ‭decomposed.‬ ‭This‬ ‭is‬
‭indicated by the fact that every‬‭non-literal‬‭on the‬‭tree has been checked off.‬

‭ ur‬ ‭tree‬ ‭shows‬ ‭that‬‭the‬‭set‬‭we‬‭are‬‭testing‬‭is‬‭truth-functionally‬‭inconsistent‬‭because‬‭‘C’‬

O
‭and‬‭‘~‬‭C’‬‭cannot‬‭both‬‭be‬‭true‬‭on‬‭the‬‭same‬‭truth-value‬‭assignment.‬‭We‬‭have‬‭placed‬‭an‬‭‘X’‬
‭at‬ ‭the‬ ‭bottom‬ ‭of‬ ‭our‬ ‭tree‬ ‭to‬ ‭indicate‬‭that‬‭a‬‭truth-value‬‭assignment‬‭cannot‬‭be‬‭recovered‬
‭from this tree.‬

‭…………………………………………………………………………………….‬
‭ xample‬ ‭2:‬ ‭Test‬ ‭the‬ ‭set‬ ‭{(D‬ ‭&‬ ‭~‬ ‭A),‬ ‭~‬ ‭(B‬ ‭∨‬ ‭A),‬ ‭~‬ ‭~‬ ‭D,‬ ‭~‬ ‭(~‬ ‭A‬ ‭⊃‬ ‭B)}‬ ‭for‬ ‭truth-functional‬
E
‭consistency.‬

‭Sol.‬

‭The given set contains no literals. Every member of the set will have to be decomposed.‬

‭ or‬‭line‬‭1,‬‭we‬‭can‬‭use‬‭Ampersand‬‭Decomposition‬‭to‬‭decompose‬‭the‬‭sentence,‬‭which‬‭results‬‭in‬
F
‭adding two sentences to our tree.‬

‭ he‬ ‭sentence‬ ‭on‬ ‭line‬ ‭2‬‭is‬‭a‬‭negated‬‭disjunction.‬‭Negated‬‭Disjunction‬‭Decomposition‬‭specifies‬

T
‭that we add the negations of the two disjuncts to the tree.‬

‭ he‬ ‭sentence‬ ‭on‬ ‭line‬ ‭3‬ ‭is‬ ‭a‬ ‭negated‬ ‭negation.‬ ‭Decomposing‬ ‭it‬ ‭will‬ ‭result‬ ‭in‬ ‭adding‬‭‘D’‬‭to‬‭our‬
T
‭tree.‬

‭ he‬ ‭sentence‬ ‭on‬ ‭line‬ ‭4‬ ‭is‬ ‭a‬ ‭negated‬ ‭material‬ ‭conditional.‬‭Decomposing‬‭it‬‭will‬‭result‬‭in‬‭adding‬
T
‭both ‘~ A’ and ‘~ B’ to our tree.‬

‭ very‬‭sentence‬‭on‬‭our‬‭tree‬‭is‬‭now‬‭either‬‭a‬‭literal‬‭or‬‭a‬‭checked-off‬‭nonliteral,‬‭so‬‭the‬‭tree‬‭is‬
E
‭complete.‬ ‭We‬ ‭have‬ ‭placed‬ ‭a‬‭lower‬‭case‬‭‘o’‬‭at‬‭the‬‭bottom‬‭of‬‭our‬‭tree‬‭to‬‭indicate‬‭that‬‭the‬
‭tree‬ ‭is‬ ‭complete‬ ‭and‬‭is‬‭open,‬‭that‬‭is,‬‭it‬‭does‬‭not‬‭contain‬‭contradictory‬‭literals.‬‭This‬‭tree‬
‭shows that the set we are testing is truth-functionally consistent.‬

‭ he‬ ‭literals‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭tree‬ ‭and‬ ‭consequently‬ ‭every‬ ‭member‬ ‭of‬ ‭our‬ ‭set‬ ‭will‬ ‭be‬ ‭true‬ ‭on‬ ‭every‬
T
‭truth-value assignment that makes the following assignments to ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘D’:‬

‭…………………………………………………………………………………………‬
‭ xample‬ ‭3:‬ ‭Construct‬ ‭truth-tree‬ ‭to‬ ‭test‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭set‬ ‭{A‬ ‭⊃‬ ‭(B‬ ‭∨‬ ‭C),‬‭A‬‭&‬‭~‬‭C}‬‭for‬‭truth-functional‬
E
‭consistency.‬ ‭If‬ ‭the‬ ‭set‬ ‭is‬‭consistent,‬‭recover‬‭one‬‭set‬‭of‬‭truth-value‬‭assignments‬‭from‬‭your‬‭tree‬
‭that shows this.‬

‭Sol.‬

‭ e‬ ‭start‬ ‭by‬ ‭decomposing‬ ‭the‬ ‭sentence‬‭on‬‭line‬‭2,‬‭‘A‬‭&‬‭~‬‭C’,‬‭using‬‭Conjunction‬‭Decomposition‬

W
‭and entering the results, ‘A’ and ‘~ C,’ on lines 3 and 4, respectively.‬

‭ e‬‭next‬‭use‬‭Conditional‬‭Decomposition‬‭to‬‭decompose‬‭‘A‬‭⊃‬‭(B‬‭∨‬‭C)’.‬‭The‬‭result‬‭is‬‭a‬‭branch‬‭on‬
W
‭the left ending in ‘~ A’ and one on the right containing ‘B ∨ C’.‬

‭ he‬ ‭left‬ ‭branch‬ ‭closes‬ ‭immediately‬ ‭because‬ ‭contradictory‬ ‭literals,‬ ‭‘A’‬ ‭and‬ ‭‘~‬ ‭A’‬ ‭occur‬ ‭on‬ ‭that‬
T
‭branch.‬ ‭The‬ ‭right‬ ‭branch‬ ‭remains‬ ‭open‬ ‭as‬ ‭of‬ ‭line‬ ‭5.‬ ‭We‬ ‭next‬ ‭decompose‬ ‭‘B‬ ‭∨‬ ‭C’,‬ ‭using‬ ‭the‬
‭branching rule Disjunction Decomposition and entering ‘B’ on the left and ‘C’ on the right.‬

‭ he‬‭branch‬‭ending‬‭in‬‭‘C’‬‭closes,‬‭as‬‭it‬‭contains‬‭the‬‭contradictory‬‭literals‬‭‘~‬‭C’‬‭(at‬‭line‬‭4)‬‭and‬‭‘C’‬
T
‭(at line 6). The branch ending in ‘B’ remains open.‬

‭ s‬ ‭all‬ ‭non-literals‬ ‭on‬ ‭this‬ ‭branch‬ ‭have‬‭been‬‭decomposed‬‭we‬‭enter‬‭an‬‭‘o’‬‭below‬‭‘B’‬‭to‬‭indicate‬

A
‭that‬ ‭we‬ ‭have‬ ‭a‬ ‭completed‬ ‭open‬ ‭branch.‬‭From‬‭that‬‭branch‬‭we‬‭can‬‭recover‬‭a‬‭set‬‭of‬‭truth-value‬
‭assignments‬‭on‬‭which‬‭every‬‭member‬‭of‬‭the‬‭set‬‭{A‬‭⊃‬‭(B‬‭∨‬‭C),‬‭A‬‭&‬‭~‬‭C}‬‭is‬‭true,‬‭namely‬‭the‬‭set‬‭of‬
‭truth-value assignments that assign T to ‘A’ and to ‘B’ and F to ‘C’.‬

‭…………………………………………………………………………………….‬

‭ xample‬ ‭4:‬ ‭Construct‬ ‭truth-tree‬ ‭to‬‭test‬‭for‬‭the‬‭set‬‭{A‬‭⊃‬‭(B‬‭&‬‭~‬‭C),‬‭C‬‭≡~‬‭A}‬‭for‬‭truth-functional‬

E
‭consistency.‬ ‭If‬ ‭the‬ ‭set‬ ‭is‬‭consistent,‬‭recover‬‭one‬‭set‬‭of‬‭truth-value‬‭assignments‬‭from‬‭your‬‭tree‬
‭that shows this.‬

‭ ol.‬ ‭First,‬ ‭we‬ ‭decompose‬ ‭‘A‬ ‭⊃‬ ‭(B‬ ‭&‬ ‭~‬ ‭C)’,‬ ‭a‬ ‭material‬ ‭conditional,‬ ‭at‬ ‭line‬ ‭3.‬ ‭The‬ ‭rule‬ ‭for‬
S
‭decomposing‬‭material‬‭conditionals‬‭is‬‭a‬‭branching‬‭rule,‬‭so‬‭we‬‭enter‬‭‘~‬‭A’‬‭to‬‭the‬‭left‬‭and‬‭‘B‬‭&‬‭~‬‭C’‬
‭to the right.‬
‘‭B‬‭&‬‭~‬‭C’‬‭occurs‬‭on‬‭the‬‭right‬‭branch,‬‭but‬‭not‬‭on‬‭the‬‭left‬‭branch.‬‭Accordingly,‬‭we‬‭enter‬‭the‬‭results‬
‭of decomposing it only on the right branch.‬

‘‭C‬ ‭≡‬ ‭~‬ ‭A’‬ ‭occurs‬ ‭on‬ ‭both‬ ‭branches‬ ‭(both‬ ‭branches‬ ‭pass‬ ‭through‬ ‭it),‬ ‭so‬ ‭the‬ ‭results‬ ‭of‬
‭decomposing‬ ‭‘C‬ ‭≡‬ ‭~‬ ‭A’‬‭must‬‭be‬‭entered‬‭on‬‭both‬‭branches.‬‭Because‬‭the‬‭rule‬‭for‬‭decomposing‬
‭material biconditionals is a branching rule, the resulting tree has four branches.‬

‭ ne‬‭of‬‭the‬‭resulting‬‭four‬‭branches,‬‭the‬‭third‬‭from‬‭the‬‭left,‬‭contains‬‭a‬‭literal‬‭and‬‭its‬‭negation‬‭(‘C’‬
O
‭and ‘~ C’), so we put an ‘X’ below that branch.‬

‭ he‬‭only‬‭sentences‬‭on‬‭the‬‭leftmost‬‭branch‬‭are‬‭the‬‭literals‬‭‘~‬‭A’‬‭and‬‭‘C’‬‭and‬‭nonliteral‬‭sentences‬
T
‭that‬ ‭have‬ ‭been‬ ‭checked‬ ‭off.‬ ‭Therefore,‬ ‭all‬ ‭the‬ ‭sentences‬ ‭on‬ ‭this‬ ‭branch‬ ‭that‬ ‭can‬ ‭be‬
‭decomposed‬ ‭have‬ ‭been‬ ‭decomposed.‬ ‭This‬ ‭branch‬ ‭is‬ ‭open,‬ ‭that‬ ‭is,‬ ‭it‬ ‭does‬ ‭not‬ ‭contain‬
‭contradictory‬ ‭literals,‬ ‭and‬‭we‬‭have‬‭indicated‬‭this‬‭by‬‭placing‬‭a‬‭lower‬‭case‬‭‘o’‬‭below‬‭the‬‭branch.‬
‭The‬‭fact‬‭that‬‭this‬‭branch‬‭is‬‭open‬‭demonstrates‬‭that‬‭our‬‭set‬‭is‬‭consistent‬‭.‬‭From‬‭this‬‭branch‬
‭we‬ ‭can‬ ‭recover‬‭two‬‭sets‬‭of‬‭truth-value‬‭assignments‬‭on‬‭which‬‭every‬‭member‬‭of‬‭the‬‭set‬‭we‬‭are‬
‭testing‬‭is‬‭true.‬‭This‬‭is‬‭because‬‭while‬‭both‬‭‘~‬‭A’‬‭and‬‭‘C’‬‭occur‬‭on‬‭the‬‭branch,‬‭neither‬‭‘B’‬‭nor‬‭‘~‬‭B’‬
‭does.‬‭The‬‭significance‬‭of‬‭this‬‭is‬‭that‬‭so‬‭long‬‭as‬‭‘A’‬‭is‬‭assigned‬‭the‬‭truth-value‬‭F‬‭(because‬‭‘~‬‭A’‬
‭occurs‬‭on‬‭the‬‭branch)‬‭and‬‭‘C’‬‭is‬‭assigned‬‭the‬‭truth-value‬‭T‬‭(because‬‭‘C’‬‭occurs‬‭on‬‭the‬‭branch),‬
‭every‬ ‭member‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭set‬ ‭we‬ ‭are‬ ‭testing‬‭will‬‭be‬‭true,‬‭no‬‭matter‬‭what‬‭truth-value‬‭is‬‭assigned‬‭to‬
‭‘B’.‬

‘‭~‬‭~‬‭A’‬‭occurs‬‭on‬‭the‬‭second‬‭branch‬‭from‬‭the‬‭left‬‭and‬‭on‬‭the‬‭rightmost‬‭branch,‬‭and‬‭this‬‭sentence‬
‭has‬ ‭not‬ ‭been‬ ‭decomposed.‬ ‭If‬ ‭all‬ ‭we‬ ‭want‬ ‭to‬ ‭know‬ ‭is‬ ‭whether‬ ‭the‬ ‭set‬ ‭we‬ ‭are‬ ‭testing‬ ‭is‬
‭truth-functionally‬ ‭consistent‬ ‭we‬‭can‬‭stop‬‭at‬‭this‬‭point,‬‭for‬‭we‬‭have‬‭shown‬‭that‬‭it‬‭is.‬‭Completing‬
‭the‬ ‭tree‬ ‭will‬ ‭give‬‭us‬‭additional‬‭information,‬‭which‬‭we‬‭may‬‭or‬‭may‬‭not‬‭be‬‭interested‬‭in,‬‭namely,‬
‭completing‬ ‭the‬ ‭tree‬ ‭will‬ ‭show‬ ‭whether‬ ‭there‬ ‭are‬ ‭additional‬ ‭sets‬ ‭of‬‭truth-value‬‭assignments‬‭on‬
‭which‬ ‭every‬ ‭member‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭set‬ ‭is‬ ‭true.‬ ‭We‬ ‭complete‬ ‭the‬ ‭tree‬ ‭by‬ ‭decomposing‬ ‭‘~‬ ‭~‬ ‭A’‬ ‭to‬ ‭‘A’,‬
‭entering ‘A’ on each of the open branches.‬

‭ he‬ ‭second‬ ‭branch‬ ‭from‬ ‭the‬ ‭left‬‭now‬‭contains‬‭contradictory‬‭literals‬‭(‘A’‬‭and‬‭‘~‬‭A’),‬‭so‬‭we‬‭have‬

T
‭placed an ‘X’ below that branch.‬

‭ he‬ ‭rightmost‬ ‭branch‬ ‭contains‬ ‭only‬ ‭literals‬ ‭and‬ ‭checked-off‬ ‭non-literal‬ ‭sentences,‬ ‭and‬‭it‬‭does‬
T
‭not‬‭contain‬‭contradictory‬‭literals,‬‭so‬‭we‬‭place‬‭an‬‭‘o’‬‭below‬‭the‬‭branch.‬‭This‬‭branch‬‭reveals‬‭that‬
‭every‬‭member‬‭of‬‭our‬‭set‬‭will‬‭be‬‭true‬‭on‬‭every‬‭truth-value‬‭assignment‬‭that‬‭assigns‬‭the‬‭following‬
‭values to ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’:‬
‭……………………………………………………………………………………‬

‭ xample 5: Show that the set { ~ A ⊃ (B ⊃ ~ C) , ~ (B ⊃ D) , ~ (A ∨ C) } is truth-functionally‬

E
‭consistent.‬

‭Sol.‬

t‭he set of truth-value assignments that assign the following truth-values to the four sentence‬
‭letters:‬

‭………………………………………………………………………………..‬

‭Example 6: Show that the set {A ⊃ B, B ⊃ A, ~ A} is truth-functionally consistent.‬

‭Sol.‬

‭The tree has a completed open branch, so the set we are testing is truth-functionally‬

‭Consistent and yield the following truth-value assignments:‬

 ‭……………………………………………………………………………………………………‬

‭Example 7: Find if the set {A ⊃ (B & ~ C), ~ (C ∨ A), C ≡ ~ A} is consistent or inconsistent.‬

‭Sol.‬

t‭ he‬‭tree‬‭is‬‭closed‬‭,‬‭and‬‭the‬‭set‬‭we‬‭are‬‭testing,‬‭{A‬‭⊃‬‭(B‬‭&‬‭~‬‭C),‬‭~‬‭(C‬‭∨‬‭A),‬‭C‬‭≡‬‭~‬‭A},‬‭is‬ ‭therefore‬
‭truth functionally inconsistent.‬

‭……………………………………………………………………………………………………………‬

‭Truth-Functional Truth, Falsity, and Indeterminacy‬

‭ e‬ ‭know‬ ‭that‬ ‭each‬ ‭sentence‬ ‭of‬ ‭SL‬ ‭is‬ ‭either‬ ‭truth-functionally‬ ‭true,‬ ‭truth-functionally‬ ‭false,‬ ‭or‬
W
‭truth-functionally‬ ‭indeterminate.‬ ‭Truth-trees‬ ‭can‬ ‭be‬ ‭used‬ ‭to‬ ‭determine‬ ‭into‬ ‭which‬ ‭of‬ ‭these‬
‭categories a particular sentence of SL falls.‬
‭Suppose‬‭that‬‭we‬‭want‬‭to‬‭know‬‭whether‬‭a‬‭sentence‬‭P‬‭is‬‭truth-functionally‬‭false.‬‭Remember‬‭that,‬
‭if‬‭P‬‭is‬‭not‬‭truth‬‭functionally‬‭false,‬‭there‬‭is‬‭some‬‭truth-value‬‭assignment‬‭on‬‭which‬‭it‬‭is‬‭true;‬‭hence‬
‭the‬‭unit‬‭set‬‭{P}‬‭will‬‭be‬‭truth-functionally‬‭consistent.‬‭However,‬‭if‬‭P‬‭is‬‭truth-functionally‬‭false,‬‭there‬
‭is‬ ‭no‬ ‭truth-value‬ ‭assignment‬ ‭on‬ ‭which‬‭it‬‭is‬‭true;‬‭hence‬‭there‬‭is‬‭no‬‭assignment‬‭on‬‭which‬‭every‬
‭member of {P} is true, and so {P} is truth-functionally inconsistent.‬

I‭f‬‭for‬‭the‬‭negation‬‭of‬‭a‬‭sentence‬‭~A,‬‭there‬‭is‬‭no‬‭truth-value‬‭assignment‬‭on‬‭which‬‭the‬‭sentence‬‭A‬
‭is false, then the sentence A is truth-functionally true.‬
‭ ‬‭sentence‬‭is‬‭truth-functionally‬‭indeterminate‬‭if‬‭and‬‭only‬‭if‬‭it‬‭is‬‭neither‬‭truth‬‭functionally‬‭true‬‭nor‬
A
‭truth-functionally false.‬

‭Examples‬
‭ xample 8: Construct a tree for the set {[A ⊃ (B & C] & [~ (A ⊃ B) ∨ ~ (A ⊃ C)]} to find‬
E
‭whether this sentence is true or False or Indeterminate?‬
‭Sol.‬

‭ ll‬‭the‬‭branches‬‭of‬‭this‬‭tree‬‭are‬‭closed,‬‭so‬‭there‬‭is‬‭no‬‭truth-value‬‭assignment‬‭on‬‭which‬‭the‬‭one‬
A
‭member of the set we are testing is true. Hence the given sentence is truth-functionally false.‬

‭ xample‬ ‭9:‬ ‭Use‬ ‭the‬ ‭tree‬ ‭method‬ ‭to‬ ‭determine‬ ‭whether‬ ‭‘A‬ ‭⊃‬ ‭[B‬ ‭⊃‬ ‭(A‬ ‭⊃‬ ‭B)]’‬ ‭is‬
E
‭truth-functionally false.‬
‭Sol.‬
‭ his‬ ‭tree‬ ‭obviously‬ ‭has‬ ‭a‬ ‭completed‬ ‭open‬ ‭branch‬ ‭(in‬ ‭fact‬ ‭it‬ ‭has‬ ‭four),‬ ‭so‬ ‭the‬ ‭unit‬ ‭set‬ ‭we‬‭are‬
T
‭testing‬ ‭is‬ ‭truth-functionally‬ ‭consistent.‬ ‭Thus‬ ‭the‬ ‭set‬ ‭is‬ ‭true,‬ ‭and‬ ‭the‬ ‭given‬ ‭sentence‬ ‭is‬ ‭not‬
‭truth-functionally false.‬

‭ xample‬ ‭10:‬ ‭Use‬ ‭truth‬ ‭tree‬ ‭to‬ ‭find‬ ‭whether‬ ‭‘A‬ ‭⊃‬ ‭[B‬ ‭⊃‬ ‭(A‬ ‭⊃‬ ‭B)]’‬ ‭is‬ ‭truth-functionally‬
E
‭indeterminate or true.‬
‭Sol.‬‭If‬‭the‬‭sentence‬ ‭‘A‬‭⊃‬‭[B‬‭⊃‬‭(A‬‭⊃‬‭B)]’,‬‭is‬‭truth-functionally‬‭true,‬‭then‬‭its‬‭negation,‬‭‘~‬‭(A‬‭⊃‬‭[B‬‭⊃‬
‭(A ⊃ B)])’, must be truth-functionally false.‬
‭So‬ ‭we‬ ‭can‬ ‭determine‬ ‭whether‬ ‭the‬ ‭sentence‬ ‭is‬ ‭truth‬ ‭functionally‬ ‭true‬ ‭by‬ ‭testing‬ ‭whether‬ ‭its‬
‭negation‬ ‭is‬ ‭truth-functionally‬ ‭false,‬ ‭that‬‭is,‬‭by‬‭seeing‬‭whether‬‭the‬‭unit‬‭set‬‭of‬‭its‬‭negation‬‭has‬‭a‬
‭closed tree.‬

‭ he‬‭tree‬‭is‬‭closed.‬‭So‬‭there‬‭is‬‭no‬‭truth-value‬‭assignment‬‭on‬‭which‬‭the‬‭sentence‬‭‘~‬‭(A‬‭⊃‬‭[B‬‭⊃‬‭(A‬
T
‭⊃‬‭B)])’‬‭is‬‭true.‬‭Thus,‬‭negation‬‭of‬‭‘A⊃‬‭[B‬‭⊃‬‭(A‬‭⊃‬‭B)]’,‬‭is‬‭false.‬‭Therefore,‬‭the‬‭sentence‬‭‘A⊃‬‭[B‬‭⊃‬
‭(A ⊃ B)]’ is truth-functionally true.‬

‭ xample‬ ‭11:‬ ‭Consider‬ ‭the‬ ‭sentence‬ ‭‘(A‬ ‭∨‬ ‭~‬ ‭A)‬ ‭⊃‬ ‭(B‬ ‭⊃‬ ‭B)’.‬‭Use‬‭the‬‭truth‬‭tree‬‭method‬‭to‬
E
‭find if this sentence is a truth-functional truth.‬
‭Sol.‬
‭Truth-Functional Equivalence‬
I‭t‬‭refers‬‭to‬‭a‬‭relationship‬‭between‬‭two‬‭statements‬‭where‬‭they‬‭always‬‭have‬‭the‬‭same‬‭truth‬‭value‬
‭under‬ ‭every‬ ‭possible‬ ‭truth-value‬ ‭assignment.‬ ‭This‬ ‭means‬ ‭the‬ ‭truth‬ ‭tables‬‭for‬‭both‬‭statements‬
‭are‬ ‭identical.‬ ‭To‬ ‭determine‬ ‭equivalence,‬ ‭one‬ ‭can‬ ‭use‬ ‭truth‬ ‭tables‬ ‭or‬ ‭the‬ ‭truth‬ ‭tree‬‭method‬‭by‬
‭assuming‬‭their‬‭non-equivalence‬‭and‬‭checking‬‭for‬‭contradictions.‬‭If‬‭all‬‭branches‬‭of‬‭the‬‭truth‬‭tree‬
‭close, the statements are truth-functionally equivalent.‬
‭For‬‭example,‬‭sentences‬‭P‬‭and‬‭Q‬‭of‬‭SL‬‭are‬‭truth-functionally‬‭equivalent‬‭if‬‭and‬‭only‬‭if‬‭there‬‭is‬‭no‬
‭truth-value‬‭assignment‬‭on‬‭which‬‭P‬‭and‬‭Q‬‭have‬‭different‬‭truth-values.‬‭It‬‭follows‬‭that‬‭sentences‬‭P‬
‭and‬‭Q‬‭are‬‭truth-functionally‬‭equivalent‬‭if‬‭and‬‭only‬‭if‬‭their‬‭corresponding‬‭material‬‭biconditional,‬‭P‬
‭Q,‬‭is‬‭truth-functionally‬‭true.‬‭And‬‭that‬‭material‬‭biconditional‬‭is‬‭truth-functionally‬‭true‬‭if‬‭and‬‭only‬‭if‬
‭its‬ ‭negation‬ ‭is‬ ‭truth-functionally‬ ‭false.‬ ‭Since‬ ‭a‬ ‭sentence‬ ‭of‬ ‭SL‬ ‭is‬ ‭truth-functionally‬ ‭false‬ ‭if‬‭and‬
‭only if its unit set has a closed tree, it follows that:‬

‭Examples‬
‭ xample 12: Show that ‘(W & Y) ⊃ H’ is truth-functionally equivalent to ‘W ⊃ (Y ⊃ H)’.‬
E
‭Sol. To show that these sentences are equivalent, we need show only that their corresponding‬
‭material biconditional is truth-functionally true, and we can do this by showing that the negation‬
‭of that biconditional has a closed truth-tree.‬
‭ his‬ ‭tree‬ ‭is‬ ‭closed.‬ ‭The‬ ‭sentence‬ ‭at‬ ‭the‬ ‭top‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬‭tree‬‭is‬‭therefore‬‭false‬‭on‬‭every‬‭truth-value‬
T
‭assignment,‬ ‭and‬ ‭the‬ ‭biconditional‬ ‭of‬ ‭which‬ ‭it‬ ‭is‬ ‭the‬ ‭negation‬ ‭is‬ ‭therefore‬ ‭true‬ ‭on‬ ‭every‬
‭truth-value‬‭assignment.‬‭So‬‭the‬‭immediate‬‭components‬‭of‬‭that‬‭biconditional,‬‭‘(W‬‭&‬‭Y)‬‭⊃‬‭H’‬‭and‬
‭‘W ⊃ (Y ⊃ H)’, are truth functionally equivalent.‬

‭ xample 13: Showed that ‘E ∨ H’ and ‘(H ∨ J) ∨ E’ are not truth-functionally equivalent.‬
E
‭Sol.‬
‭ ince‬ ‭this‬ ‭truth-tree‬‭has‬‭a‬‭completed‬‭open‬‭branch,‬‭there‬‭is‬‭at‬‭least‬‭one‬‭truthvalue‬‭assignment‬
S
‭on‬ ‭which‬ ‭the‬ ‭sentence‬ ‭at‬ ‭the‬ ‭top‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭tree‬ ‭is‬ ‭true.‬ ‭That‬ ‭sentence‬ ‭is‬ ‭therefore‬ ‭not‬
‭truth-functionally‬ ‭false,‬ ‭and‬ ‭the‬ ‭biconditional‬ ‭of‬ ‭which‬ ‭it‬ ‭is‬ ‭the‬ ‭negation‬ ‭is‬ ‭thus‬ ‭not‬
‭truth-functionally‬ ‭true.‬ ‭It‬ ‭follows‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭sentences‬‭that‬‭are‬‭the‬‭immediate‬‭components‬‭of‬‭that‬
‭biconditional, ‘E ∨ H’ and ‘(H ∨ J) ∨ E’, are not truth-functionally equivalent.‬

‭Truth-Functional Entailment‬
‭ e‬‭can‬‭use‬‭truth-trees‬‭to‬‭test‬‭for‬‭truth-functional‬‭entailment.‬‭If‬‭P‬‭is‬‭a‬‭sentence‬‭of‬‭SL‬‭and‬ ‭T‬‭is‬‭a‬
W
‭set‬ ‭of‬ ‭sentences‬ ‭of‬ ‭SL,‬ ‭T‬ ‭truth-functionally‬ ‭entails‬ ‭P‬ ‭if‬ ‭and‬ ‭only‬ ‭if‬ ‭there‬ ‭is‬ ‭no‬ ‭truth-value‬
‭assignment‬ ‭on‬ ‭which‬ ‭every‬ ‭member‬ ‭of‬ ‭T‬ ‭is‬ ‭true‬ ‭and‬ ‭P‬ ‭is‬ ‭false.‬ ‭It‬ ‭follows‬ ‭that‬ ‭a‬ ‭set‬ ‭of‬
‭sentences‬‭truth-functionally‬‭entails‬‭a‬‭sentence‬‭P‬‭if‬‭and‬‭only‬‭if‬‭the‬‭set‬‭of‬‭sentences‬‭T‬‭∪‬‭T‬‭{~P}‬‭is‬
‭truth‬ ‭functionally‬ ‭inconsistent.‬ ‭Hence,‬ ‭to‬ ‭see‬ ‭if‬ ‭a‬ ‭finite‬ ‭set‬ ‭T‬ ‭truth-functionally‬ ‭entails‬ ‭P,‬ ‭we‬
‭construct‬ ‭a‬ ‭tree‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭members‬ ‭of‬ ‭T‬ ‭∪‬ ‭{~‬ ‭P}.‬ ‭Here‬ ‭we‬ ‭have‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭careful‬ ‭to‬ ‭negate‬ ‭the‬
‭allegedly entailed sentence before constructing the tree.‬

‭Examples‬
‭ xample 14: Does the set {B & K, N ⊃ ~ K, K ∨ ~ K} truth-functionally entail ‘B ⊃ N’?‬
E
‭Sol. We can find out by constructing a tree for {B & K, N ⊃ ~ K, K ∨ ~ K, ~ (B ⊃ N)}‬

‭ ince this truth-tree has a completed open branch, there is a truth-value assignment on which‬
S
‭all the sentences we are testing are true. Hence there is an assignment on which the members‬
‭of the set {B & K, N ⊃ ~ K, K ∨ ~ K} are all true and the sentence ‘B ⊃ N’ is false. So the‬
‭entailment does not hold.‬
‭ xample 15: Determine whether {~ J ∨ S, S ⊃ E} truth-functionally entails ‘J ⊃ E’ ?‬
E
‭Sol. As the following truth-tree shows:‬

‭All branches are closed, thus, {~ J ∨ S, S ⊃ E} does truth-functionally entail ‘J ⊃ E’.‬

‭Truth Functional Validity‬

‭ n‬‭argument‬‭is‬‭truth-functionally‬‭valid‬‭if‬‭and‬‭only‬‭if‬‭there‬‭is‬‭no‬‭truth‬‭value‬‭assignment‬‭on‬‭which‬
A
‭the‬ ‭premises‬ ‭are‬ ‭true‬‭and‬‭the‬‭conclusion‬‭false.‬‭It‬‭follows‬‭that‬‭an‬‭argument‬‭is‬‭truth-functionally‬
‭valid‬ ‭if‬ ‭and‬ ‭only‬ ‭if‬ ‭there‬ ‭is‬ ‭no‬ ‭truth-value‬ ‭assignment‬ ‭on‬ ‭which‬ ‭both‬ ‭the‬ ‭premises‬ ‭and‬ ‭the‬
‭negation‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭conclusion‬ ‭are‬‭true.‬‭Hence‬‭an‬‭argument‬‭is‬‭truth-functionally‬‭valid‬‭if‬‭and‬‭only‬‭if‬
‭the‬ ‭set‬ ‭consisting‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭premises‬ ‭and‬ ‭the‬ ‭negation‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭conclusion‬ ‭is‬ ‭truth‬ ‭functionally‬
‭Inconsistent.‬

‭Examples‬
‭ xample 16: Use the tree method to determine whether the following argument is‬
E
‭truth-functionally valid.‬

‭Sol. We construct a tree for the premises and the negation of the conclusion,‬
‭ his‬ ‭truth-tree‬ ‭is‬ ‭closed.‬ ‭Hence‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭argument‬ ‭from‬ ‭which‬ ‭the‬ ‭set‬ ‭was‬ ‭formed‬ ‭is‬
T
‭truth-functionally valid.‬

‭Example 17: Construct a truth-tree to test the following argument to check its validity.‬

‭ ol.‬‭Again,‬‭it‬‭is‬‭the‬‭negation‬‭of‬‭the‬‭conclusion‬‭that‬‭we‬‭use‬‭along‬‭with‬‭the‬‭premises,‬‭to‬‭construct‬
S
‭a truth tree.‬
‭ ecause‬ ‭this‬ ‭tree‬ ‭has‬ ‭open‬ ‭branches,‬ ‭thus‬ ‭the‬ ‭tree‬ ‭is‬ ‭not‬ ‭closed.‬ ‭So‬ ‭the‬ ‭argument‬ ‭we‬ ‭are‬
B
‭testing is truth-functionally invalid.‬

‭Practice Question:‬‭Test the‬‭following argument for validity:‬

‭‬ P
● ‭ remise 1: A→B‬
‭●‬ ‭Premise 2: ¬B‬
‭●‬ ‭Conclusion: ¬A‬

‭Terms associated with truth-trees:‬

‭Closed branch:‬ ‭A branch on which contradictory literals occur.‬

‭Open branch:‬ ‭A branch that is not closed.‬

‭ n‬ ‭open‬ ‭branch‬ ‭on‬ ‭which‬ ‭every‬ ‭sentence‬ ‭is‬ ‭either‬ ‭a‬‭literal‬‭or‬‭has‬

A
‭Completed open branch:‬
‭been decomposed (checked off).‬

‭Closed truth-tree:‬ ‭A truth-tree each of whose branches is closed.‬

‭Open truth-tree:‬ ‭A truth-tree that is not closed.‬

‭ ‬‭truth-tree‬‭each‬‭of‬‭whose‬‭branches‬‭is‬‭either‬‭closed‬‭or‬‭a‬‭completed‬
A
‭Completed truth-tree:‬
‭open branch.‬
 ‭Logical‬ ‭Decomposition‬ ‭Explanation‬
‭Form‬ ‭Rule‬

‭¬¬A‬ ‭A‬ ‭ ouble negation rule: ¬¬A simplifies to A, eliminating the two‬
D
‭negations.‬

‭A ∧ B‬ ‭A, B‬ ‭ onjunction rule: Both A and B must be true on the same‬

C
‭branch.‬

‭A ∨ B‬ ‭Branch: A | B‬ ‭ isjunction rule: Split into two branches, one assuming A is‬
D
‭true, the other assuming B is true.‬

‭A → B‬ ‭Branch: ¬A | B‬ ‭ onditional rule: A conditional is false only if A is true and B‬

C
‭is false. Split into ¬A on one branch and B on the other.‬

‭A ↔ B‬ ‭ ranch: (A, B) |‬
B ‭ iconditional rule: A biconditional is true if both A and B‬
B
‭(¬A, ¬B)‬ ‭have the same truth value. Create two branches, one with‬
‭both true (A, B) and the other with both false (¬A, ¬B).‬

‭¬(A ∧ B)‬ ‭Branch: ¬A | ¬B‬ ‭ egated conjunction rule: If A ∧ B is false, at least one of A‬
N
‭or B is false. Split into two branches: one with ¬A and the‬
‭other with ¬B.‬

‭¬(A ∨ B)‬ ‭¬A, ¬B‬ ‭ egated disjunction rule: If A ∨ B is false, both A and B are‬
N
‭false. Place both ¬A and ¬B on the same branch.‬
 ‭¬(A → B)‬ ‭A, ¬B‬ ‭ egated conditional rule: If A → B is false, A is true and B is‬
N
‭false. Place both A and ¬B on the same branch.‬

‭¬(A ↔ B)‬ B
‭ ranch: (A, ¬B) |‬ ‭ egated biconditional rule: A biconditional is false if A and B‬
N
‭(¬A, B)‬ ‭have opposite truth values. Create two branches: one with‬
‭(A, ¬B) and another with (¬A, B).‬

‭Explanation of Truth Tree Rules:‬

‭1.‬ D ‭ ouble Negation (¬¬A → A)‬

‭Removes the two negations, simplifying the statement to A.‬
‭2.‬ ‭Conjunction (A ∧ B)‬
‭Both components must be true, so add both A and B to the same branch.‬
‭3.‬ ‭Disjunction (A ∨ B)‬
‭Only‬ ‭one‬ ‭component‬ ‭needs‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭true,‬ ‭so‬ ‭split‬ ‭into‬ ‭two‬ ‭branches:‬ ‭one‬ ‭with‬ ‭A‬ ‭and‬
‭another with B.‬
‭4.‬ ‭Conditional (A → B)‬
‭A‬‭conditional‬‭is‬‭false‬‭if‬‭A‬‭is‬‭true‬‭and‬‭B‬‭is‬‭false.‬‭Branch‬‭into‬‭¬A‬‭on‬‭one‬‭branch‬‭and‬‭B‬‭on‬
‭the other.‬
‭5.‬ ‭Biconditional (A ↔ B)‬
‭A‬ ‭biconditional‬ ‭is‬ ‭true‬ ‭when‬ ‭A‬ ‭and‬‭B‬‭have‬‭the‬‭same‬‭truth‬‭value.‬‭Create‬‭two‬‭branches:‬
‭one with both A and B true, the other with both A and B false.‬
‭6.‬ ‭Negated Conjunction (¬(A ∧ B))‬
‭A‬‭conjunction‬‭is‬‭false‬‭if‬‭at‬‭least‬‭one‬‭component‬‭is‬‭false.‬‭Split‬‭into‬‭two‬‭branches:‬‭one‬‭with‬
‭¬A and another with ¬B.‬
‭7.‬ ‭Negated Disjunction (¬(A ∨ B))‬
‭A‬ ‭disjunction‬ ‭is‬ ‭false‬ ‭if‬ ‭both‬ ‭components‬ ‭are‬ ‭false,‬ ‭so‬ ‭add‬ ‭¬A‬ ‭and‬ ‭¬B‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭same‬
‭branch.‬
‭8.‬ ‭Negated Conditional (¬(A → B))‬
‭A‬ ‭conditional‬ ‭is‬ ‭false‬ ‭if‬ ‭A‬ ‭is‬ ‭true‬ ‭and‬ ‭B‬ ‭is‬ ‭false,‬ ‭so‬ ‭add‬ ‭both‬ ‭A‬ ‭and‬ ‭¬B‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭same‬
‭branch.‬
‭9.‬ ‭Negated Biconditional (¬(A ↔ B))‬
‭A‬‭biconditional‬‭is‬‭false‬‭if‬‭A‬‭and‬‭B‬‭have‬‭opposite‬‭truth‬‭values.‬‭Create‬‭two‬‭branches:‬‭one‬
‭with (A, ¬B) and another with (¬A, B).‬