4/21

Conditional and Indirect Proof in M

●​ IP and CP work just as well in M as they did in PL, with one small restriction

●​ Never UG (universally generalize) inside an assumption on a variable that is free

○​ Can only UG after you discharge

●​ All lines of an indented sequence are within the scope of the assumption

●​ CP- assume antecedent of the goal to then make consequent

●​ Unbound variable always considered general, can be ins

●​ If goal is UG conditional, assume antecedent is free variable

●​ EI before UI

1.​ (UDA)(Px ) Bx)

2.​ (UDAx)(Bx ) Rx) ​ / (Ex)Px )(Ex)Rx

3.​ (Ex)Px ​ ACP

4.​ Px ​ 3, EI

5.​ Px ) Bx ​ 1, UI

6.​ Bx ) Rx ​ 2, UI

7.​ Px ) Rx ​ 5,6 HS

8.​ Rx ​ 4,7 MP

9.​ (Ex)Rx ​ 8, EG

10.​(Ex)Px ) Rx ​ 3,9 CP

1.​ (UDAx)(~Cx v Dx)

 2.​ ~(Ex)~(Dx = Tx) ​ / (UDAx)(Cx )Tx)

3.​ Cx ​ ACP (goal Tx)

4.​ (UDAx)(Dx = Tx) ​ 2, QE (QE has 4 diff versions) (get quantifier as main operator)

5.​

4/9

Ex. of Regimentation

●​ She should not take office since the margin of victory is less than 1% and since the votes

are still being counted.

○​ The margin of victory is less than 1%

○​ The votes are still being counted

○​ She should not take office

■​ A

■​ B ​ /~C

●​ Is invalid

○​ If the margin of victory is less than 1% and the votes are still being counted then

she should not take office

■​ (A . B) ) C

●​ Is valid, but is it sound?

○​ Soundness = makes sense

●​ Words must refer either to my ideas or to something outside my mind. Since my ideas

precede my communication, words must refer to my ideas before they could refer to

anything else.

○​ Words must refer either to my ideas or to something outside my mind.

 ○​ My ideas precede my communication.

○​ Words must refer to my ideas before they could refer to anything else.

Syntax for M: Vocab

●​ Capital Letters A-Z used as 1-place predicate

●​ Lower-case letters used as singular terms

○​ A-u used as constants

○​ V-z used as variables

●​ 5 propositional operators:

○​ ~

○​ .

○​ V

○​ )

○​ BI

●​ 2 quanitifiers:

○​ A

○​ E

●​ Punctuation:

○​ ()

○​ []

○​ {}

●​ 1 place predicate

●​ 2 place predicate

●​ 3 place predicate
 ○​ If A=B and B=C then A=C

●​ Constant

○​ Specific subject; within the domain of discourse

●​ Variable

○​ Can represent anything

●​ Scope of an operator is its range of application; the scope of a quanitifier is whatever

formula immediately follows the quantifier

○​ (Ex)(Dx . Px)

■​ There exists something that D is not

●​ Bound vs free variables

●​ Open sentence

○​ Has free variables

●​ Closed sentence

○​ Has bound variables

●​ Translation:

○​ Proper english sentence will ALWAYS be closed

●​ Quantifier is always the MO

●​ Person (P) predicate only for when you are talking about stuff AND people
4/7

2 Categorical claims in M

(∀x)(Cx ) Mx) → (∃x)(Cx . ~Mx)

(∃x)(Cx . ~Mx) → (∀x)(Cx ) ~Mx)

(∀x)(Cx ) Mx) DOES NOT EQUAL (∃x)(Cx . Mx)

(∀x)(Cx ) ~Mx) DOES NOT EQUAL

Translate the following

●​ Everyone taking logic is happy

○​ Key:

■​ Tx: x is taking logic

■​ Hx: x is happy

●​ Hx is unbound/out of scope without parentheses

●​ Every variable must be bound by a quantifier

○​ (∀x)(Tx ) Hx)

●​ No one taking logic is happy

○​ Tx: x is taking logic

○​ Hx: x is happy

○​ (∀x)(Tx ) ~Hx) or ~(∃x)(Tx . Hx)

■​ Why is negation at the H?

●​ Some people taking logic are happy

○​ (∃x)(Tx . Hx)

■​ Existential has .

■​ Universal has )
 ●​ For translating 4 standard categorical claims

●​ Some people taking logic are not happy

○​ (∃x)(Tx . ~Hx)

●​ Not all Americans are rude = Some Americans are not rude

○​ ~(∀x)(Ax ) Rx)

○​ (∃x)(Ax . ~Rx)

●​ Conversational implicature

○​ “Some people are happy” implies that some people are not

■​ But in logic those 2 claims are not congruent and the implication doesn’t

apply

○​ Some people who are taking logic are happy and some people who are taking

logic are not

■​ (∃x)(Lx . ~Hx) . (∃x)(Lx . Hx)

●​ Something is in the water

●​ Someone is in the water

○​ Both ∃, but the DOMAIN of second claim is narrower: rules out all things that

are not people. We add a predicate for personhood, such as Px

●​ Something is in the water

○​ (∃x)Wx

●​ Someone is in the water

○​ (∃x)(Px . Wx)

■​ Existential affirmative claim

●​ Person predicate: use as needed

 ○​ Don’t use it is it’s clear from context the domain is only people

○​ If the domain is people and things use P

●​ Someone large and angry is on my desk

○​ Key:

■​ Lx: x is large

■​ Ax: x is angry

■​ Dx: x is on my desk

■​ Px: x is on my desk

○​ (∃x){Px . [(Lx . Ax) . Dx]}

■​ Syntax tree

●​ Px . [(Lx . Ax) . Dx]

●​ Px​ (Lx . Ax) . Dx

●​ Anyone who has been to Berlin has seen the Brandenburg Gate.

○​ (∀x)[(Px . Bx) ) Gx]

●​ Everyone who visits Antwerp returns.

○​ (∀x)[(Px . Ax) ) Rx]

●​ No one in Liechtenstein visits Nantes.

○​ ~(∃x)[(Px . Lx) . Nx] OR (∀x)[Px . Lx) ) ~Nx]

●​ Constant: term that picks out single member of the domain

○​ Ex. Alfred is asking a question

○​ Key:

■​ Qa

●​ All members are allowed in.

 ○​ (∀x)(Mx ) Ax)

●​ Only members are allowed in.

○​ (∀x)(Ax ) Mx)

○​ Only switches the antecedent (like in PL)

●​ (∃x)(Mx . ~Ax)

●​ All and only members are allowed in

○​ (∀x)(Ax bi Mx)

●​ Only logic students are happy

○​ (∀x)(Hx ) Lx)

4/1

Key Concepts:

●​ Domain (of discourse, of quantification)

●​ Reference/Denotation

●​ Sense/Connotation

●​ Ex. I’m not going to put out the food until everyone gets here

○​ Refers to domain of objects you already know

○​ Domain of discourse is referring to everyone registered in this class

●​ Proofs include backbone of material moving forward

●​ Subject predicate relations

○​ In “Jefferson read Suetonius.” the predicate is “red Suetonius” and the subject is

“jefferson”

○​ Judy is lucky

■​ Judy- is the term; lowercase

 ■​ Lucky- is the predicate; capital letter

■​ Predicate comes before the term

■​ Translation: Lj

○​ Emerson is a friendly transcendentalist

■​ Emerson- e

■​ Friendly transcendentalist- F

●​ Fx: x is a friendly transcendentalist

■​ Translation: Fe

○​ Socrates wore a chiton

■​ Socrates- s

■​ Wore a chiton- W

●​ Wx: x wore a chiton

■​ Translation: Cs

○​ Marina is rapidly learning Bertrand Russell’s logic

■​ Marina- m

■​ Rapidly learning BR logic-

●​ Rx: x is rapidly learning Bertrand Russell’s logic

■​ Translation: Rm

○​ Fj . Lm

■​ Translation: Judy is a friendly transcendentalist and Marina is lucky

●​ Domain of discourse are people and gets a lower case letter

Monadic Predicate: the Language of M

●​ Monadic: taking one turn

●​ Predicate logic: captures subject/predicate relations

●​ Vocab of M includes

○​ Lower case letters, singular terms - two types

○​ Upper case letters letters, predicates

○​ Operators (~, ., v, )

○​ Quantifiers and variables

■​ Upside down A (∀): All, everything, all, any (conjunction)

●​ Can’t occur when specific name is there

●​ Ex. John plays piano

○​ Pj

○​ Can’t be UDA

■​ Backwards E: Existential, some, something, at least (disjunction)

■​ Proper name: calls for no qualifier

●​ Closed sentence: predicate of M followed by constant and expresses a proposition

○​ “Everyone is paying attention.”

■​ Everyone:

■​ Px: x is paying attention

■​ (UpsidedownAx)Px

○​ Quantifier with no variable is open/scope

○​ Scope: quantifiers are operators and not truth values; whatever wff is immediately

to the right

■​ Are monogamous lovers

●​ ∀x(Px . (∃x)Qx)
 ○​ X cannot have more than one variable attached

○​ UDAx(Px . (BEy)Qy)

●​ (∀x)(Px . Gx) is correct

○​ Ex. All cats are mammals

■​ Cx: is a cat

■​ Mx: x is a mammal

●​ 2 predicates

■​ (∀x)(Cx ) Mx)

●​ Universal: conditional

○​ “If this is the case, it will always be this”

○​ Ex. No cats are lizards.

■​ (∀x)(Cx ) ~Lx)

●​ If it’s a cat, it’s NOT a lizard

○​ Ex. Some cats are tabbies

■​ (∃x)(Cx . Tx)

●​ Existential: conjunct

●​ After the word “some” ALWAYS going to have at least 2 variables

to express the relationship between

○​ Ex. Some cats are not tabbies

■​ (∃x)(Cx . ~Tx)

○​ Ex. (∀x)(Fx ) Gx)

○​ (∀x) Fx ) (UDAx) Gx

○​ (∀x)Fx = ~(∃x)~Fx
○​ (∃)Fx = ~(∀x)~Fx
3/17

Biconditional Rules that are very much like their counterparts

●​ MP

○​ S

●​ BMP

●​ HS

○​ A ) B

○​ B ) Y ​ ​ /A)Y

●​ BHS

○​ A bi B

○​ B bi Y ​ / A bi Y

●​ BMT

○​ A bi B

○​ ~A ​ / ~B

●​ Cf. MT

○​ A ) B

○​ ~ B ​ / ~A

●​ BDM

○​ ~ (A bi B) 2-arrow ~A bi B

○​ ~ (B bi A)​ 1, BCM

○​ ~ B bi A ​ 2 BDM

●​ Biconditional Inversion (BInver)

○​ A bi B 2-arrow ~A bi ~B
Exam 2:

●​ Simplifying negated conditionals

○​ Ex.

■​ ~ (A ) B)

■​ ~ (~A v B)​ Implication

■​ ~ ~ A . ~ B​ DeMorgan

●​ Can now simplify since conjunction is now the MO

■​ A . ~ B​

●​ Double negation

■​ A ​ Simplification

■​ ~ B

●​ Be able to do advanced proofs

3 takeaways of Explosion (Absurdity)

1.​ Characteristic of classical systems of inference

a.​ Bivalent: 1 or 0, never both, never neither

b.​ Compositional:

2.​ Any and every WFF can be derived from contradiction

3.​ Contradictory sets of beliefs are “irrational”

3/03/25

Rules of Equivalence 1

●​ Rule of Equivalence: pair of logically equivalent wff forms

○​ Also called “rules of replacement”

●​ Metallurgical symbol two-arrow means ‘is logically equivalent to’

●​ Have rules in front when doing proofs

●​ DeMorgan’s Law

●​ Association

○​ Can shift parentheses of truth function only when function is the same

●​ Distribution

○​ Either A and B or A and G are going

○​ (A . B) v (A . G)

○​ A . (B v Y) 2-arrow (A . B) v (A . Y)

○​ A v (B . Y) 2-arrow (A v B) . (A v Y)

●​ Commutativity

○​ Swap the sides of conjunction or any disjunction

○​ A v B 2-arrows B v A

○​ A . B 2-arrows B . A

■​ (A ) B) v ~C

■​ ~C v (A ) B) ​ 1 Com

●​ Double negation

○​ Any formula and line can add 2 negations at a time; add 2 or takeaway 2

○​ ~(~A v B)

○​ A v B ​ 1, DN

■​ Invalid since not a true double negation

○​ ~A v B

○​ A

○​ ~ ~A ​ 2, DN
 ■​ All it means is that the truth is not not A

○​ B ​ 1, 3 DS

○​ Use equivalence to help derive your goal

○​ ~(P . Q)

○​ P

○​ ~ Q ) R ​ /R

■​ DeMorgan right away

○​ ~ P v ~ Q ​ 1, Dem

○​ ~ ~ P ​ ​ 2, DN

○​ ~ Q ​ ​ 4, 5 DS

○​ R ​ ​ 3, 6 MP

●​ Examples

○​ (A v B) ) C

○​ (B v A) ) C ​ 1 Commutativity

1.​ ~[(G . H) . I]

a.​ IMMEDIATELY DeMorgan’s Law because negation and conjunction

2.​ G . I ​ /~H

3.​ ~(G . H) v ~I ​ /DeM

4.​ ~ I v ~(G . H) ​​ 3 Com

5.​ I . G ​ ​ 2 Com

6.​ I ​ ​ 5 Simp

7.​ ~ ~I​ ​ 6 DN

8.​ ~(G . H) ​ ​ 4,7 DS

 9.​ ~ G v ~ H​ ​ 8 Dem

10.​G ​ 2 simp

11.​~ ~ G ​ ​ 10 DN

12.​~ H​ ​ 9,11 DS

1.​ P . (~Q v R)

a.​ Mislead with Distribution

i.​ Why doesn’t work?

1.​ Once you use, there’s nowhere for you to go next

b.​ Instead, do simplification

i.​ Always simplify if can’t find what to do

2.​ ~P v Q ​ /P . R

3.​ P​ 1 Simp

4.​ (~ Q v R) . P ​ 1 Com

5.​ ~Q v R​​ 4 Simp

6.​ ~ ~ P ​ ​ 3 DN

7.​ Q ​ ​ 2, 6 DS

8.​ ~ ~ Q ​ ​ 7 DN

9.​ R ​ ​ 5,8 DS

10.​P . R ​ ​ 3,9 Conj.

2/24/25

3.2-3.3 Rules of Inference and Equivalence 2

●​ Rule of Conjunction
 ○​ We have apples

○​ We have bananas

■​ So we have both apples and bananas

○​ A

○​ B​ /A.B

●​ Modus Ponens

○​ First premise is a conditional; second premise is the antecedent of the conditional

○​ A ) (C vD)

○​ A

○​ C v D

●​ Modus Tollens

○​ A ) B

○​ ~B​ / ~A

○​ Fallacy of affirming the consequent

■​ A ) B

■​ B​ /A

○​ Fallacy of denying the antecedent

■​ A ) B

■​ ~A​ /~B

○​ Ex. If I study philosophy, then I write essays

●​ Disjunctive Syllogism

○​ A v B

○​ ~ A​ /B
 ■​ If not one, then by default you get the other

■​ Ex. soup or salad

●​ If not soup, then your getting salad

●​ Hypothetical Syllogism

○​ A ) B

○​ B ) Y ​ /A)Y

■​ Cannot create counterexample, so will always be valid

●​ QED

○​ Ends a proof

●​ Rule of Addition

○​ We have apples

○​ Therefore, we have either apples or bananas

○​ A​ /AvB

■​ Where’d the B come from?

●​ It doesn’t contradict anything said before, and it wouldn’t matter if

it did

●​ Conjunction

■​ Addition used only with v not with .

●​ Invalid!

○​ Addition introduces DISJUNCTION to previous WFF

■​ You can say “... or anything.”

●​ Rule of Simplification

○​ Opposite of Conjunction
 ■​ Can take out a premise

●​ A . B​ / A

●​ Just take out one of the conjuncts if and when there’s a conjunction

and put on new line of proof

●​ Can ONLY do with conjunction (.)

■​ Simp.

●​ A . B

●​ / A

■​ Conj.

●​ A

●​ B

●​ / A . B

●​ Constructive Dilemma

○​ P1. If I have avocados then breakfast is good!

■​ Conditional

○​ P2. If I have garlic then dinner is good!

■​ Conditional

○​ P3. I do have either avocados or garlic…

■​ Disjunct

○​ C. Thus, either breakfast or dinner is good!

■​ Disjunct

○​ A ) B

○​ Gamma ) O
 ○​ A v Gamma​ / B v O

■​ Which means one of these consequents must be true

■​ Refer to ALL 3 previous lines in conclusion

○​ 1. (S v P) ) ~G

○​ 2. H ) G

○​ 3. S . P​​ / ~H

■​ Modus tollens coming

○​ 1. (S . P) ) (Rv Q)

○​ 2. S

○​ 3. ~R

○​ 4. P ​ / Q v D

○​ 5. S . P​​ 2,4 conj.

○​ 6. R v Q​ 1,5 MP

○​ 7. Q​ ​ 3,6 DS

○​ 8. Q v D​ 7, add.

■​ QED

■​ D is an unknown

■​ Which means you’ll be using rule of addition by isolating Q

●​ The last proofs in exercise sets are generally the hardest so do

those if in need of challenge

●​ Rules of inference vs rules of equivalence

●​ Substitution instance- of a set of wffs of PL that match the form on the rule

○​ DeMorgan’s Laws (DM):

 ■​ ~(a v b) 2 arrows pointing in each direction ~a . ~b

●​ MO is tilde; MO is conjunct

■​ ~ (a . B) 2 arrows pointing in each direction ~a v ~b

●​ Rules of equivalence as they are equivalent to each other but 2nd

one is simplified

●​ Rules of equivalence/rules of replacement apply to any part of WFF

○​ 1. ~(A . B) ) ~P

○​ 2. (~A v ~B) ) ~P​ 1, DM

■​ Rules of inference can’t do this! Makes you move from something to

something new and must work on MO!

●​ Metalogic- Examining presuppositions we have about logic

○​ Bonus question on Exam #1

●​ Semantics- interpretation or meaning

●​ Double turnstile

●​ Semantic validity- to say that (upside down L/setgamma) + beta is to say that on every

interpretation where v(upside down L/setgamma) = 1, it’s also the case that v (beta) = 1

●​ Bonus exam question:

○​ Can you determine the validity of the argument if there’s a

self-contradiction/inconsistent

■​ It is valid but is unsound

○​ Conclusion of argument is a tautology

■​ {gamma} / beta

■​ Beta is a tautology
 ●​ Always going to be valid since value of beta will always be 1 as it

is a tautology

●​ If conclusion is tautology, argument will always be valid

■​ {G} / B

●​ One member of {G} is a tautology, and B is a contingency

2/19/25

3.1 Rules of Inference 1

●​ Hypothetical syllogism (HS): a rule of inference of PL with the form; must have 2

conditionals

○​ A ) B

○​ B ) Y / a ) y

○​ Formulas in between don’t matter, just those two

●​ Ex. I’ve looked in the fridge and we don’t have apples but we have bananas

○​ Disjunctive syllogism

●​ Ex. If there is no God then life has no meaning

●​ If life has no meaning then there is no motivation to act

●​ Thus, if there is no God then there is no motivation to act

○​ ~G ) ~M

○​ ~M ) ~A

○​ ~G ) ~A

○​ Hypothetical syllogism formula:

■​ Alpha ) Beta

■​ Beta ) gamma / alpha ) gamma

 ○​ MP:

■​ Alpha ) B

■​ Alpha / B

○​ MT:

■​ Alpha ) B

■​ ~B / ~alpha

●​ Logic is both useful and fun

●​ If logic is both useful and fun then I will take logic

●​ Have rules next to when doing proofs

○​ MEMORIZE

●​ NEVER reference own lines

○​ Ex. don’t reference line 5 on line 5, on line 5 can only reference lines 1-4 and so

on and so forth

●​ Syntactic Validity in PL:

○​ Alpha + beta

○​ If I have a proof from the premises to the conclusion (alpha to beta), then the

argument (alpha / beta) is valid

●​ Every argument you can make a table for with a counterexample means it is invalid

meaning there is no set of rules that can apply to the table as it is invalid

○​ Prevents from proving false things and inability to prove true things

●​ Do hw proofs; more than one way to do proofs

○​ Email with questions to verify

1.​ A ) B
 2.​ B v C

3.​ ~C / B

4.​ B

a.​ Lines 2,3 prove the proof is a DS

b.​ QED

5.​ ~A ) B

6.​ A ) C

7.​ ~C / B

8.​ ~A 2,3 MT

9.​ B 1,4 MP

1.​ A ) B

2.​ B ) (D ) C)

3.​ A

4.​ D / C

5.​ A ) (D ) C) 1,2 HS

6.​ (D ) C) 5,3 MP

7.​ C 6,4 MP

2/5/25

3.1 Rules of Inference 1

●​ derivation/proof: a sequence of formulas, every member of which is an assumed premise

or follows from earlier wffs in the sequence according to specified rules; definition will

adjust in 3.9
 ●​ System of inference- constructed by first specifying language, then by adding rules

governing derivations: how get a new wff

Equivalent Sentences

1.​ Neither Bush Sr. nor Bush Jr. were Democrats.

2.​ Bush Jr. was not a Dem and Bush Sr. was not a Dem.

a.​ ~)S v J)

b.​ ~S . ~J

S J ~ (S v J) ~ S . ~ J

1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1

1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0

0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1

0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
●​ Scope: operator and its pieces

●​ AIM- Atomic, Innermost, Main Operator

○​ Atomic sentences

○​ Negated atomic sentences

○​ Nested (inner) WFFs

○​ Main operator

2/3/25

Exam 1:

●​ Translate from English (natural language) to PL

●​ Identify WFFs

●​ Truth tables for 5 things:

 ○​ Is a sentence a tautology, contingency, or self-contradiction?

○​ Is a SET (2 or more) of sentences equivalent?

○​ Is a SET (2 or more) of sentences contradictory?

○​ Is a SET (2 or more) of sentences consistent?

○​ Is an argument valid?

●​

R S ~ (R v S) ~ (~ R . ~ S)

1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1

1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
●​ If 3 atomic sentences/variables, 8 rows

●​ Counterexample (PL): One argument valuation (row) where all premises = T, and

conclusion = F

○​ Counterexample is NOT good for determining whether argument is good or bad;

valid or invalid

●​ Valid argument structures preserve truth. Invalid ones do not.

●​ Modus ponens-

○​ If Annie is a normal dog, then Annie can bark.

○​ Annie can bark.

○​ Therefore, Annie is a normal dog.

●​

A B C (~ A v B ) C A . B

1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1

1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0

1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1

0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1

0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0

0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
●​ Valid, no counterexample

○​ Is valid because there are no true operators with false conclusion

●​ Bivalent/Binary logic

○​ Variables can ONLY be either true or false at one time

○​ Variables cannot be either true or false at the same time or neither true nor false

●​ Compositionality- the meaning of the whole sentence is the truth function value (?)

Practice

●​ “Not the case” = negation

●​ Determine how many rows needed in truth table

○​ Exponent formula: 2^n n = number of sentence variables

●​ Contingency- under some conditions its true, under some conditions its false; contingent

on the inputs

●​ Self contradiction- can never be true

●​ Tautology- can only be true

●​ A . (B v A); is a contingent

A B A . (B v A)

1 1 1 1 1 1 1
 1 0 1 1 0 1 1

0 1 0 0 1 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

●​ ~A . (B v A); contingency

A B ~ A . (B v A)

1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1

1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1

0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
●​ ~[A . (B v A)]; contingency

A B ~ [A . (B v A)]

1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1

1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1

0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
●​ A ) ~A; contingency

A A ) ~ A

1 1 0 0 1

0 0 1 1 0

●​

1/29/25

Material Implication: Necessary and Sufficient

 ●​ Oxygen is necessary for fire.

○​ F O

○​ The necessary thing is the consequent

●​ Drinking enough water is sufficient to hydrate you

○​ W ) H

○​ Sufficient thing is the antecedent

●​ If it’s raining and cold then I won’t leave the house today.

○​ (R . C) ) ~H

●​ AIM

○​ Atomic sentence first to get values

○​ Innermost operators are next to get values

○​ Main operator is last to get value

01/27/25

Facts about Arguments

●​ Main concept: entailment (logical consequence), two ways we’ll define:

○​ (M) gamma is a logical consequence of (upside down L symbol), if it is not

possible for the members of L to be true and gamma false

○​ A list of true premises does not make a good argument

○​ (Ded) gamma is a logical consequence of L if there is a deduction of gamma from

L by chain of legitimate gap-free (self-evident) rules of inference

●​ They are made of sentences (propositions) and only one conclusion

○​ Simple/atomic statements (complete sentences)

○​ Negations “not”
 ○​ Conjunctions “and:

○​ Disjunctions “or”

○​ Conditionals “if…then”

○​ Biconditional “if and only if”

●​ WFF- well formed formula

○​ Must have capital letters

●​ Parentheses Examples

○​ It is not the case that both andrew and barry are going to the party

■​ ~A . ~B

○​ Either you’re nice or you’re alone

■​ N v A

○​ Either you answer the phone or we won’t know who it is

■​ P: you answer the phone

■​ W: we will know who it is

■​ P v ~W

●​ Disjunction V

○​ Translates “or”, “unless”, and related terms

○​ Binary operation- joins two props

○​ Two meanings for English “or”:

○​ Inclusive: “A or B or both”

●​ Complex Disjunctions

○​ Either you get coffee or go to the store or go home

■​ C v S v H is NOT a WFF
 ●​ No main operator

■​ C v(S v H)

●​ Parentheses indicate main operator

○​ If my feet hurt, I won’t go dancing

■​ F ) ~D

●​ Tilde negates whatever on it’s right, so parenthesis unnecessary

●​ Conditional with “only”

○​ Whatever comes after “only if” is the consequent

■​ You will pass, if you study

●​ S ) P

■​ You will pass only if you study

●​ P ) S

●​ “Only if” switches the antecedent and consequent

01/22/25

Arguments:

●​ Deductive- if premise is true conclusion has to be

○​ Connection between premise and conclusion is absolute

○​ Argument is valid or invalid

●​ Inductive- probable as opposed to absolute

○​ Stronger or weaker (on a scale)

○​ Argument is strong or weak

■​ Ex. 14% of BCC students have some kind of BCC clothing item

■​ Therefore, joey probably has a BCC clothing item

 ●​ Is a weak argument since the probability of him having it is low as

opposed to the percentage being 99%

■​ Germ theory of disease is a good theory on how disease is caused

●​ Scientific method hypothesis are inductive due to inability to be

100% absolute

○​ No inductive arguments this semester

●​ Arguments can be valid but not sound

○​ Every sound argument has to be valid

●​ Conditional- connection between two atomic (simple) sentence

○​ If, then type sentences/arguments are conditional

○​ First part is antecedent

○​ Consequent is the following

■​ If you fuck around, then you find out

●​ Disjunction- when there’s an or withing two atomic sentences; conclusion is NOT atomic

sentence though

○​ The negative or not is the difference that makes it unatomic

■​ This is negation, cannot be in atomic/simple sentence as they are complex

Logically important words

●​ Simple statements (complete sentences)- EITHER get one or zero for each atomic

sentence

●​ Negations “not”(~)-

●​ Conjunctions “and” (.)-

●​ Disjunctions “or” (v)- one or the other or both

 ●​ Conditionals “if…then” (>)

○​ Ex. if you get an A, then the professor will buy you pizza

○​ Conditional is only false once, in the scenario where you get an A and the

professor doesn’t get you pizza

●​ Biconditional “if, and only if,” (= 3 lines)-

Examples

●​ If Jeff and Zach go to the party, then I will not go!

○​ Antecedent is a conjunction

○​ Consequent is negated

○​ J Z I= (J . Z )> ~ I

■​ Must add in parentheses or its ambiguous otherwise

●​ You will not fail logic

○​ Negation

●​ Jeff is going to the party but zach is not

○​ A . ~ B

○​ Right conjunct (antecedent)

○​ Left conjunct negates right conjunct

Valid vs Sound

●​ If a premise is false than it is unsound

●​ If a an argument follows the formula correctly it is valid

●​ Validity does not equal soundness

●​ Validity- if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true

●​ Soundness- if the truth value of both premises are actually true

01/15/14

Intro to Logic

Logic = structure + form > content

Is your cat meowing at you for food considered a language?

-​ No, while its a form of communication it doesn’t have a structured form for words

Communication- only one of the requirements necessary for a language

Every language must have:

-​ Syntax: how its strung together

-​ Difference between natural vs. formal language

-​ Semantics:

-​ Fallacy of equivocation