Scribd
Upload
35 views30 pages

Chap 1, 1.5 Rules of Inference

The document discusses rules of inference in discrete mathematics. It defines rules of inference as logical steps to arrive at a conclusion based on given hypotheses or premises. Some common rules of inference covered include modus ponens, modus tollens, hypothetical syllogism, disjunctive syllogism, addition, simplification, conjunction, and resolution. Examples are provided to illustrate how each rule is applied. The document also discusses validity of arguments, important logical equivalences, quantified statements, and common fallacies to avoid in reasoning.

Uploaded by

abc
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
35 views30 pages

Chap 1, 1.5 Rules of Inference

The document discusses rules of inference in discrete mathematics. It defines rules of inference as logical steps to arrive at a conclusion based on given hypotheses or premises. Some common rules of inference covered include modus ponens, modus tollens, hypothetical syllogism, disjunctive syllogism, addition, simplification, conjunction, and resolution. Examples are provided to illustrate how each rule is applied. The document also discusses validity of arguments, important logical equivalences, quantified statements, and common fallacies to avoid in reasoning.

Uploaded by

abc
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 30

Discrete Mathematics

Chapter 1, Section 1.5


Rules of Inference
Rules of Inference

argument
H1
H2 H1, H2, … Hn the hypotheses (premises)
We use conjunction: H1 ^ H2 ^ H3…
Hn

C is the conclusion.
C
“” means “therefore” or “it follows that”
Validity of an Argument
• An argument is valid if
– whenever all hypotheses are true, the conclusion is also
true
• To prove that an argument is valid:
– Assume the hypotheses are true
– Use the rules of inference and logical equivalences to
determine that the conclusion is true
Some Rules of Inference
p
pq
------------------- [p  (p  q)]  q Modus ponens
mode that affirms
q

q
pq [ q  (p  q)]   p Modus tollens
-------------------
mode that denies
p

pq
qr
------------------- [(p  q)  (q  r)]  (p  r) Hypothetical
syllogism
pr

pq
p [(p  q)  p]  q Disjunctive
------------------- syllogism
Some Rules of Inference
p
-------------------
ppq Addition
pq

pq
------------------- pqp Simplification
p

p
q
------------------- [(p)  (q)]  (p  q) Conjunction
pq

pq
p  r [(p  q)  (p  r)]  (q  r) Resolution
-------------------
qr
Example: Modus Ponens
from Latin: mode that affirms

p
p→q ( p∧( p→q ))→q Modus Ponens
∴q

• In other words:
If the hypothesis p is true
and the hypothesis (p  q) is true
Then I can conclude q
Example: Modus Ponens
• p: “n is greater than 3”
• q: “n2 is greater than 9”

• Assuming that p q is true, then:


if is n greater than 3, it follows that n2 is greater than
9.
Example: Hypothetical syllogism

pq
qr Hypothetical syllogism
pr
____________________________________________

• If it rains today, then we will not have a barbecue


today.
• If we do not have a barbecue today, then we will have
a barbecue tomorrow
• Therefore, if it rains today, then we will have a
barbecue tomorrow.
Example: Simplification

p∧q ( p∧q )→ p Simplification


∴p

p: “it is below freezing”


q: “it is raining now”

• It is below freezing and raining now.


Therefore, it is below freezing.
Recap 1.2: Important Equivalences

pTp Identity

pFp
pTT Domination

pFF
ppp Idempotent

ppp
( p)  p Double Negation
Recap 1.2: Important Equivalences

pqqp Commutative

pqqp
(p  q)  r  p  (q  r) Associative

(p  q)  r  p  (q  r)
p  (q  r)  (p  q)  (p  r) Distributive

p  (q  r)  (p  q)  (p  r)
(p  q)  p  q De Morgan’s

(p  q)  p  q
Recap 1.2: Important Equivalences

p  (p  q)  p Absorption

p  (p  q)  p
p  p  T Negation

p  p  F
Example

• Consider the following logical argument:


– If horses fly or cows eat artichokes, then the
mosquito is the national bird.
– If the mosquito is the national bird then
peanut butter tastes good on hot dogs.
– But peanut butter tastes terrible on hot
dogs.
– Therefore, cows don’t eat artichokes.
Example
• Assignments:
p Horses fly
q Cows eat artichokes
r The mosquito is the national bird
s Peanut butter tastes good on hot dogs

• Represent the argument using the variables


(p  q)  r
rs Hypotheses
s
 q Conclusion
Example
Assertion Reasons
1. (p  q)  r Hypothesis
2. r  s Hypothesis
3. (p  q)  s Hypothetical syll. on 1. and 2.
4. s Hypothesis
5. (p  q) Modus tollens on 3. and 4.
6. p  q DeMorgan on 5.
7. q  p Commutative on 6.
8. q Simplification on 7.
We have obtained our conclusion: “cows don’t eat artichokes”
Example
• Show that the following argument is valid:
– It is not sunny this afternoon and it is colder than yesterday.
– We will go swimming only if it is sunny.
– If we do not go swimming, then we will take a canoe trip.
– If we take a canoe trip, then we will be home by sunset.
– Therefore, we will be home by sunset.
Example: Put into propositional form

p = it is sunny this afternoon


q = it is colder than yesterday
r = we will go swimming
s = we will take a canoe trip
t = we will be home by sunset
Example: Represent hypotheses
p  q It is not sunny this afternoon and it is colder
than yesterday

rp We will go swimming only if it is sunny

r  s If we do not go swimming, then we will take


a canoe trip

st If we take a canoe trip, then we will be home


by sunset

t We will be home by sunset


Example: Constuct logical argument

p  q Hypothesis
p Simplification using previous step
r  p Hypothesis
r Modus tollens using steps 2 and 3
r  s Hypothesis
s Modus ponens using steps 4 and 5
s  t Hypothesis
Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements

xP(x), then for any


C, therefore P(c) is true

xP(x)
therefore for at
least one specific c,
P(c) is true
Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements
In Universal Instantiation, we know that P(x) is true for all
values of x; therefore it must also be true of any
particular value of x, c.
In Universal Generalization, we know that P(c) is true for
any specific value of c; therefore it must be true for all
values, so x P(x).
In Existential Instantiation, we know that P(x) is true for at
least one specific value of x, c.
• In Universal Instantiation, we know that P(c) is true for
some particular value of c, so x P(x). Here c need not be
arbitrary but often is assumed to be.
Example
Show that the following argument is valid:
• Everyone in the discrete structures class
has taken a CSE course.
• Marla is a student in the discrete
structures class.
• Therefore, Marla has taken a CSE course.
Example:
Put into propositional form:
D(x) = x is in the discrete structures class
C(x) = x has taken a CSE course
Represent hypotheses:

x(D(x)  C(x)) Everyone in the discrete


structures class has taken a CS
course

D(Marla) Marla is a student in the discrete


structures class
Example: Constuct logical argument

STEP JUSTIFICATION
x(D(x)  C(x)) Premise

D(Marla)  C(Marla) Universal Instantiation using


step 1
D(Marla) Premise
C(Marla) Modus ponens using steps 2
and 3
Do as Exercise
• A student in this class has not read the book.
• Everyone in this class passed the first exam.
• Therefore, someone who passed the first exam has
not read the book.
Fallacies

• Fallacies resemble rules of inference but


are based on contingencies rather than
tautologies. They are incorrect
inferences.
• Three common fallacies
– Affirming the Consequent
– Denying the Hypothesis
– Circular Reasoning (begging the question)
Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent

p→q
q
(( p→q )∧q )→ p
∴p

• This argument is fallacious. ((p  q)  q)  p is not a


tautology and therefore not a rule of inference.
Example

If you do every problem in this book, then you will


learn discrete structures.
You learned discrete structures.
Therefore, you did every problem in this book.

• This is the “Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent”. You


might have learned discrete mathematics by paying
attention in class instead of by doing all the problems.
Fallacy of Denying the Hypothesis

p→q
¬p
(( p→q )∧¬p )→¬q
∴¬q

This argument is fallacious.


((p  q)  p)  q is not a tautology and therefore
not a rule of inference.
Example

If you do every problem in this book, then you will


learn discrete structures.
You did not do every problem in this book.
Therefore, you did not learn discrete structures.

This is the “Fallacy of Denying the Hypothesis”.


Even though you did not do every problem in
this book, you still might have learned discrete
structures by paying attention in class.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy