[x~ith ,, :o:]

rkoors rok rkorosttoN\t tootc

wu\ vot wttt tt\kN tN uts cu\rtk
coNctrs
1hese are rhe ideas and conceprs ve`ve inrroduced in rhis chaprer. Lse hese summary seclons a he sar
ol each chaper o keep rack ol wha
you`re learnlng. We have qulzzes anJ
Jlscusslon lorums onllne lor you o prac
lce your skllls anJ ge lamlllar wlh each
ol hese conceps.
1:|iJity and sounJncss of argunenr forns.
erhod of assigning rrurh values.
Prooj trccs as a proof rechnique for proposirional logic, and rheir
rules for developnenr and conplerion: for each 2-place propo-
sirional connecrive, rvo rules: one posirive and one negarive.
Prooj trccs jor tcsting v:|iJity oj :rgumcnt jorms, raurology srarus of
fornulas, and sarisfiabiliry of fornulas.
SounJncss and .omp|ctcncss of rhe proof rree nerhod for proposi-
rional logic (undersrand rhe rheoren).
skttts
1hese are rhe skills you should be able ro denonsrrare.
Derernine if an :rgumcnt jorm is v:|iJ using trut| t:||cs.
Lse a prooj trcc ro derernine v:|iJity of argunenr forn, or rhe
st:tus of fornula.
Derernine vhen a proof rree is .omp|ctc|y Jcvc|opcJ.
Iron an open branch of a proof rree, .onstru.t : trut| v:|u:tion for
aronic fornulas rhar nakes all fornulas on rhe branch rrue.
z. rkorosttoN\t coNctrs r
In rhe previous chaprer ve looked ar rrurh rables for rhe language of
proposirional logic, and ve used rhen ro classify fornulas inro rhe rau-
rologies, rhe conrradicrions and rhe conringencies. Ve also looked ar
relarionships berveen pairs of fornulas. Ve can do nore rhan rhis, and
philosophers, especially, are inreresred in anorher kind of relarionship
berveen proposirionsrhe relarion of validiry, for an :rgumcnt.
z.. v\ttntv
An argunenr connecrs a collecrion of prcmiscs ro a .on.|usion. Ve of-
fer an argunenr vhen jusrify a .on.|usion on rhe basis of prcmiscs. or
all argunenrs are equally good. Iresunably, and arunenr is rc:||y |:J if
,
rhe prenises of rhe argunenr are all rrue and rhe conclusion is nor rrue.
1hen you`ve definirely nade a nisrake if you srep fron rhe prenises
ro rhe conclusion, because rhe prenises vere all good (all rrue) yer rhe
conclusion is nor (ir`s false). 1here, rhe nisrake you nake is a nisrake
in rhe :rgumcnt (rhe rransirion berveen rhe prenises and rhe conclu-
sion) and nor in rhe prenises rhenselves (rhey vere all rrue).
An argunenr, on rhe orher hand, is rc:||y gooJ if rhar nisrake .:n
ncvcr |:ppcn. 1har is, an argunenr is really goodve use rhe vord v:|iJ
for rhisif rhere is no possibiliry ar all vhere rhe prenises are rrue and
rhe conclusion is false. Cr if you like, ir`s valid if in any circunsrance
vhere rhe prenises are rrue, rhe conclusion is rrue, roo. In rhis vay, for
a valid argunenr, rhe conclusion is sonehov already conrained in rhe
conclusion. Any vay ro nake rhe vorld rhar nakes rhe prenises rrue
vill bring rhe conclusion along virh ir. 1here is no exrra infornarion
needed ro nake rhe conclusion rrue, over and above vhar is in rhe
prenises.
1his norivares rhe folloving definirion of validiry:
..
An argunenr is v:|iJ if and only if in :ny v:|u:tion u|crc t|c prcmiscs
:rc :|| truc, t|c .on.|usion is :|so truc.
Ior an argunenr virh prenises A
1
, A
2
, . . . , A
n
and conclusion
B, ve vrire A
1
, A
2
, . . . A
n
|= Bvhen rhe argunenr fronA
1
, A
2
, . . . , A
n
ro conclusion B is valid.
Vhen is a .o||c.tion or sct of prenises, ve also vrire |= B vhen
rhe argunenr fron prenises ro conclusion B is valid. 1he valid-
iry A
1
, A
2
, . . . A
n
|= B requires rrurh-rransfer fron rhe collecrion of
prenises A
1
, A
2
, . . . , A
n
ro rhe conclusion B.
Equivalenrly, an argunenr is valid if and only if rhere is no valuarion
vhere rhe prenises A
1
, A
2
, . . . , A
n
are all rrue and ar rhe sane rine rhe
conclusion B is false.
..
ix~xiii: Does (p & q) r, r |= p q?
You can ansver rhis by checking if rhere is a rov of a rrurh rable
vhere (p & q) r and r are rrue, and p q is false. You can
check rhis by doing a sinulraneous rrurh rable for rhe prenises and
rhe conclusion, and checking each rov.
8 iioois ioi iioiosi1ioN~i iocit th~i1ii :
ii~i1 oi x~ith ,, :o:
..
Here is rhe rrurh rable.
p q r (p & q) r r p q
0 0 0 1 1 1
0 0 1 1 0 1
0 1 0 1 1 1
0 1 1 1 0 1
1 0 0 0 1 0
1 0 1 1 0 0
1 1 0 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 0 1
Ve have highlir every rov vhere rhe prenises of rhe argunenr are
all rrue. And you can check rhar in rhese rovs, rhe conclusion is
rrue, roo. So, rhe argunenr is valid.
v~iiii1v ~Ni 1hi x~1iii~i toNii1ioN~i: Iron rhe relarionship be-
rveen logical consequence and raurologies, ve can also derive a corre-
sponding relarionship berveen argunenr v:|iJity and t:uto|ogics.
iiiUt1ioN 1hioiix six~N1it ioix`:
A
1
, A
2
, . . . , A
n
|= B
ij :nJ on|y ij
(A
1
& A
2
& & A
n
) B is a raurology
ij :nJ on|y ij
A
1
& A
2
& & A
n
|= B.
Can you see vhy rhese rhree srarenenrs are equivalenr? Iirsr, ve have
A
1
, A
2
, . . . , A
n
|= B if and only if in every rrurh valuarion i, if i(A
1
) =
i(A
2
) = = i(A
n
) = 1 rhen i(B) = 1 roo. 1his neans rhar in
every rrurh valuarion i, if i(A
1
& A
2
& & A
n
) = 1 rhen i(B) = 1
(since i(A
1
& A
2
& & A
n
) = 1 if and only if i(A
1
) = i(A
2
) =
i(A
n
) = 1. So, ir follovs rhar A
1
, A
2
, . . . , A
n
|= B if and only if ^ conjunclon ls rue ll anJ only ll each
ol he conjuncs are rue
A
1
& A
2
& & A
n
|= B. Lur A
1
& A
2
& & A
n
|= B if and
only if rhere`s sone valuarion i vhere i(A
1
& A
2
& & A
n
) = 1
and i(B) = 0. 1har happens if and only if rhere is sone valuarion i
vhere i((A
1
& A
2
& & A
n
) B) = 0, and rhar happens if and
only if (A
1
& A
2
& & A
n
) B is nor a raurology. So, A
1
&
A
2
& & A
n
|= B if and only if (A
1
& A
2
& & A
n
) B is
nor a raurology, or equivalenrly, A
1
& A
2
& & A
n
B if and only if
(A
1
& A
2
& & A
n
) B is a raurology.
:.: iioiosi1ioN~i toNtii1s n ,
..
ioi voU: 1esr vherher or nor p q, p r |= q r
..
~ N s v i i : 1 h e r r u r h r a b l e , v i r h r o v s h i g h l i r v h e r e r h e p r e n i s e s
a r e r r u e g i v e s u s r h e a n s v e r .
p q r p q p r q r
0 0 0 0 1 1
0 0 1 0 1 1
0 1 0 1 1 0
0 1 1 1 1 1
1 0 0 1 1 1
1 0 1 1 0 1
1 1 0 1 1 0
1 1 1 1 0 1
1 h e f i r r s a n d l a s r o f r h e s e r o v s ( r o v 3 i ( p ) = 0 , i ( q ) = 1 a n d
i ( r ) = 0 ; a n d r o v 7 i ( p ) = 1 , i ( q ) = 1 a n d i ( r ) = 0 ) h a v e r h e
p r e n i s e s r r u e a n d r h e c o n c l u s i o n f a l s e . 1 h i s s h o v s r h a r r h e a r g u -
n e n r f o r n i s n o r v a l i d . V e h a v e p q , p r | = q r .
You can resr nany differenr argunenr forns by doing sinulraneous
rrurh rables for rhe prenises and rhe conclusion. A .ountcrcx:mp|c is
a rov vhich nakes rhe prenises rrue and rhe conclusion false. An
argunenr virh no counrerexanple is v:|iJ.
..
ioi voU: Suppose you have an argunenr fron prenises ro con-
clusion B. And suppose B is a raurology. Vhar can you say abour
rhe argunenr?
Suppose rhe prenises are joinrly inconsisrenrrhar is, rhere
is no rov vhere rhe prenises are all rrue. Vhar can ve say abour
rhe argunenr fron ro B rhen?
Jhese lacs mean ha you can have a
vallJ argumen where he concluslon
has nohlng o Jo wlh he premlses
(ll he concluslon ls a auology or he
premlses are jolnly lnconslsen). Jhls
phenomenon promps some people o
search lor a Jllleren accoun ol vallJly,
accorJlng o whlch he premlses mus
be o he concluslon ol he ar
gumen. Jhese socalleJ loglcs
are very lnereslng, bu looklng a hem
woulJ ake us oo lar allelJ [1, 2, 9, 11].
..
~ N s v i i : I n b o r h c a s e s , r h e a r g u n e n r i s v a l i d , b e c a u s e r h e r e i s n o
c o u n r e r e x a n p l e . I n r h e f i r s r c a s e , s i n c e B i s a r a u r o l o g y , r h e r e i s n o
v a l u a r i o n v h e r e B i s f a l s e , s o r h e r e i s n o v a l u a r i o n v h i c h n a k e s a l l
o f r h e p r e n i s e s r r u e a n d B f a l s e .
C n r h e o r h e r h a n d , i f i s j o i n r l y i n c o n s i s r e n r , r h e n r h e r e i s n o
c o u n r e r e x a n p l e r o r h e a r g u n e n r f r o n r o B s i n c e r h e r e i s n o v a l -
u a r i o n v h e r e r h e e l e n e n r s o f a r e a l l r r u e .
,o iioois ioi iioiosi1ioN~i iocit th~i1ii :
ii~i1 oi x~ith ,, :o:
z..z \kotvtN rokvs
Argunenr forns are rhe forns of real-life argunenrs. Ve use rhe for-
nal validiry of an argunenr forn ro rell us sonerhing abour rhe validiry
of a real-life argunenr, expressed in a narural language. Here`s an ex-
anple. Consider rhe folloving rvo argunenrs. 1hey share a shape
or a forn, and rhe validiry of rhe rvo argunenrs is due ro rhe validiry
of rheir connon :rgumcnt jorm.
..
If generics derernines all our behaviour if p,
rhen people are nerely robors. rhen q
Ieople :rcn't nerely robors. nor q.
T|crcjorc,
Cenerics doesn`r derernine all our behaviour. nor p.
If living expenses in rhis ciry are high, if p,
rhen nany srudenrs are srruggling financially. rhen q.
or nany srudenrs are srruggling financially nor q.
T|crcjorc,
Living expenses in rhis ciry are nor high. nor p.
An argunenr has a given argunenr forn if you can find srarenenrs ro
subsrirure for rhe aronic proposirions in rhe forn, so rhar rhe resurl
you ger is (or is synonynous virh) rhe original argunenr.
xUi1iiii ioixs: 1his neans rhar one argunenr can be an insrance
of nulriple differenr forns. 1he rvo argunenrs ve have considered
here are :|so insrances of orher quire differenr argunenr forns, such as:
If p rhen q.
r.
T|crcjorc, s.
In rhis case, ve can find values for p, q, r and s such rhar vhen ve
subsrirure t|cm, ve ger rhe original argunenr. Ior exanple, if p is ge-
nerics derernines all our behaviour, q is people are nerely robors,
r is people aren`r nerely robors, and s is generics doesn`r derernine
all our behaviour rhen ve ger our original argunenr back. Ir has nore
rhan one forn, depending in hov nuch srrucrure is in focus. Virh t|is
forn, ve focus on rhe condirional in rhe firsr prenise and forger rhe
resr. (ny argunenr virh rvo prenises, rhe firsr of vhich is a condi-
rional, has rhe forn if p rhen q; r; rherfore s.)
:.: iioiosi1ioN~i toNtii1s n ,:
..
ioi voU: Vhar is vrong virh rhis argunenr forn, jusr fron look-
ing ar ir?
..
~ N s v i i : I r ` s i n v a l i d . A n y v a l u a r i o n r h a r n a k e s p , q a n d r r r u e a n d
s f a l s e n a k e s r h e p r e n i s e s r r u e a n d r h e c o n c l u s i o n f a l s e .
1har forn is, clearly, invalid, and ir has invalid insrances. Here`s an
exanple in an insrance of rhis forn.
If you are a logician, rhen you are a geek.
Creenhouse gas levels have increased.
T|crcjorc, rhe earrh is flar.
1his is cleary an invalid argunenr. Lur v:|iJ argunenrs can also be ln lac, we hlnk ha he premlses
are truc anJ he conlcuslon ja|c.
insrances of inv:|iJ forns. 1he rvo valid argunenrs ve`ve already seen
Jhe more lnereslng queslon ls hls.
Joes every vallJ argumen have a vallJ
lorm` Jha ls, Joes all argumen va
llJly come Jown o jcrma| vallJly`
are insrances of rhe invalid forn above, as vell as rhe valid forn ve`ve
already seen.
..
ioi voU: Vhich is rhe besr choice of argunenr forn for rhis con-
crere argunenr?
Ve can conclude rhar rhe people vill be unhappy. 1his
is because eirher rhe governnenr vill increase rhe rax
rare or ir von`r. If ir does, rhe people vill have less in-
cone ro spend and rhey vill be unhappy. If ir doesn`r,
rhere vill be fever public services and rhe people vill
be unhappy.

p
q r
q (s & p)
r (t & p)

q r
q (s & p)
r (t & p)
p

q q
q (s & p)
q (t & p)
p

p
q q
q (s & p)
q (t & p)
1o find rhe ansver, forn a dicrionary, locare rhe connecrives in rhe
prenises and conclusion, and rhen sinulraneously rranslare each srare-
nenr inro rhe language of proposirional logic using rhar dicrionary.
,: iioois ioi iioiosi1ioN~i iocit th~i1ii :
ii~i1 oi x~ith ,, :o:
..
~ N s v i i : L s i n g r h i s J i . t i o n : r y
p : 1 h e p e o p l e v i l l b e u n h a p p y .
q : 1 h e g o v e r n n e n r v i l l i n c r e a s e r h e r a x r a r e .
s : 1 h e p e o p l e v i l l h a v e l e s s i n c o n e r o s p e n d .
t : 1 h e r e v i l l b e f e v e r p u b l i c s e r v i c e s .
V e h a v e r h e f o l l o v i n g f o r n :

q q
q ( s & p )
q ( t & p )
p
is v~iiii1v iNoUch: Consider rhis argunenr.
(Prcmisc) If living expenses in rhis ciry are high,
rhen nany srudenrs are srruggling financially.
(Prcmisc) or nany srudenrs are srruggling financially.
(Con.|usion) Hcn.c, living expenses in rhis ciry are nor high.
QUis1ioN: 1his argunenr is validso vhy is rhere srill sonerhing
vrong virh ir? 1he conclusion is j:|sc, ar leasr vhen you consider el-
bourne, vhere living expenses are quire high.
..
iiiiNi1ioN: An argunenr is said ro be sounJ if and only if ir is an is
is v:|iJ, and in addirion, rhe prenises are in facr all rrue.
Hence rhe .on.|usion of a sound argunenr nusr also be rrue, since ir`s
valid, and rhe prenises are rrue.
1his conpleres our rour of nodels (inrerprerarions, rrurh rables) for
proposirional logic, and conceprs ve can define using rhose nodels.
Ve`ll rurn ro anorher vay of srudying logic, by vay of proojs rarher
rhan nodels. Ler`s srarr, by looking ar vhy proof sysrenslike proof
rreesare inporranr.
z.z rkoors rok rkorosttoN\t tootc. ktts
z.z. wuv wt Nttn rkoor ktts
Iroof rrees are useful and inporranr because of rhe problen of expo-
nenrial grovrh ve`ve already seen. As rhe nunber of aronic proposi-
rions increases, rhe nunber of rovs of rhe rrurh rable required ro check Wlh 60 aomlc proposllons, 2
60
> 10
18
rows are requlreJ.
rhese proposirions grovs ever fasrer. Ve von`r consider an argunenr
:.: iioois ioi iioiosi1ioN~i iocit: 1iiis ,
virh 60 aronic proposirions. Cne virh 4 vill be enough ro illusrrare
rhe poinr. Consider rhis argunenr:
lrcm If elbourne`s popularion reaches 5 nillion by 2032
rhen rhis ciry needs a nassive invesrnenr in eirher
public rransporr or roads.
lrcm If elbourne is serious abour conbaring clinare change,
rhen ir does nor need a nassive invesrnenr in roads.
T|crcjorc,
tcn: If elbourne`s popularion reaches 5 nillion by 2032
and rhis ciry is serious abour clinare change,
rhen ir needs a nassive invesrnenr in public rransporr.
Here is rhe dicrionary and fornalisarion:
p = elbourne`s popularion reaches 5 nillion by 2032.
q = elbourne needs a nassive invesrnenr in public rransporr.
r = elbourne needs a nassive invesrnenr in roads.
s = elbourne is serious abour clinare change.
p (q r)
s r
tcn:. (p & s) q
So, ve have an argunenr forn, virh four aronic proposirions, p, q, r
and s. Conplering a rrurh rable for rhis vill require 16 rovs. 1he rrurh
rable is in Iigure 2.1. Ve have highlir every rov vhere rhe conclusion
p q r s p (q r) s r (p & s) q
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0
0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1
0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1
0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1
1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1
1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1
Iigure 2.1: A 16 rov rrurh rable
of rhe argunenr is false. And you can check rhar in rhese rovs, rhe
one of rhe prenises is false, roo. So, rhe argunenr is v:|iJ. 1here is no
counrerexanple.
, iioois ioi iioiosi1ioN~i iocit th~i1ii :
ii~i1 oi x~ith ,, :o:
1his required a very lengrhy process of checking. Ir rakes a long
rine ro go rhrough every rov. 1his vorkload doubles virh every nev
aronic proposirion.
1hiii is ~ ni11ii v~v: Ve don`r need ro go rhrough cvcry rov of
rhe rrurh rable ro esrablish vherher rhere is a counrerexanple or nor.
Insread, ve could arrenpr ro |o.:tc a counrerexanple. Ve srarr off by
vriring our rhe prenises and rhe negarion of rhe conclusion, and in
a rov benearh rhen, arrenpr ro place values for each fornula, srarr-
ing virh rhe prenises gerring rhe value 1 an rhe conclusion gerring rhe
value 0, like rhis:
p q r s p (q r) s r (p & s) q
1 1 0
Cnce you gave rhis, you vork backvards, fron conplex fornulas ro Jhls ls a poln where he ol hls
class maerlal ls much more helplul,
because you can see he process workeJ
ou sepbysep.
rheir consriruenrs, inferring rhe value of rhe consriruenrs vhere possi-
ble fron rhe value of rhe fornula as a vhole. Iron here, for exanple,
given rhar (p & s) q is false, ir follovs rhar p & s is rrue (so p and
s are borh rrue) and q is false. 1his, rhen, is vhar begins ro derernine
rhe values of rhe aronic proposirions (if ve find a consisrenr valuarion,
rhar is). Ar rhis srage, ve have
p q r s p (q r) s r (p & s) q
1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
Ve can fill in rhe values of p, q and s elsevhere, ro ger:
p q r s p (q r) s r (p & s) q
1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
ov since s r is rrue and s is rrue, ve nusr have r be rrue, vhich
nakes r false.
p q r s p (q r) s r (p & s) q
1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0
Lur norice rhe problen virh p (q r). 1he condirional is neanr ro
be rrue, and p is rrue, ro, so q r nusr be rrue. Lur q and r are borh
false. So rhe value of q r is inpossible ro ser consisrenrly. Ve nark
ir virh a cross.
p q r s p (q r) s r (p & s) q
1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0
1here is no rov of a rrurh rable rhar can nake rhe prenies rrue and rhe
conclusion false. 1he argunenr is valid.
1his reasoning is a nuch nore efficienr rrearnenr of resring for va- Jhls echnlque ls somelmes calleJ he
mehoJ ol asslgnlng values`.
lidiry rhan navely collecring all of rhe rrurh rable rovs in rhe language.
Lnforrunarely, rhe rrace of rhe reasoning, once you`ve conplered ir, is
sinply a rov or rvo of zeros and ones, under rhe fornulas you`re resr-
ing. 1his gives very lirrle guidance as ro hov ro read rhis lisr of zeros
:.: iioois ioi iioiosi1ioN~i iocit: 1iiis ,,
and ones, lirrle idea of vhar sreps of reasoning vere raken, and in vhar
order. Trcc proojs are a vay of represenring rhar kind of reasoning nuch
nore explicirly. A rree proof fo rhis argunenr srarrs virh rhe prenise
and rhe negarion of rhe conclusion, vrirren dovn in one lisr.
..
p (q r)
.
s r
.
((p & s) q)
In a rree proof, vhenever ve vrire dovn a fornula ve`re raking ir ro
be rrue. So vriring dovn rhe prenises and rhe negarion of rhe con-
clusion indicares rhar ve`re arrenpring ro find a counrerexanple ro rhe
argunenr. 1he negarion of rhe conclusion is a negared condirional. So
if rhis is rrue, rhen rhe anrecedenr is rrue and rhe consequenr is false.
So ve can vrire rhe anrecedenr and rhe negarion of rhe consequenr.
1hese jo||ou fron vhar ve`ve already vrirren.
..
p (q r)
.
s r
.
((p & s) q)
.
p & s
.
q
Ve have narked ((p & s) q) virh a rick, indicaring rhar ve`ve
pro.csscJ ir. Ve have exrracred rhe infornarion fron ir rhar ve need.
1hen ve vrore dovn rhe conjuncrion p & s. If rhis is rrue, rhen so are
p and s. So ve`ll vrire rhese dovn, roo.
..
p (q r)
.
s r
.
((p & s) q)
.
p & s
.
q
.
p
.
s
and ve rick rhe p & s ro indicare rhar ir`s been processed, roo. 1he
fornulas lefr unricked are p (qr), s r, q, p and s. 1he lasr rhree
are inerr. 1here is no infornarion ro exrracr fron rhese, orher rhan rhe
vish ro nake q false, and p and s rrue. (Ve call aronic fornulas and
rheir negarions |itcr:|s. Lirerals don`r ger processed in rrees. All orher
fornulas are conplex, and can be processed. Lur lirerals jusr sir rhere
and rell you vhar is ro be rrue or false.) Lur s r is conplexir rells
us sonerhing. Ir rells us rhar eirher s is false or r is rrue. So, ve process kemember. ll a conJllonal ls
rue hen elher he aneceJen
ls lalse or he consequen ls rue.
rhis fornula and vrire dovn s and r in tuo Jistin.t |r:n.|cs.
,o iioois ioi iioiosi1ioN~i iocit th~i1ii :
ii~i1 oi x~ith ,, :o:
..
p (q r)
.
s r
.
((p & s) q)
.
p & s
.
q
.
p
.
s
.
s
.
r
So nov, our rree has rvo branches. Cne srarring ar rhe rop and going Nolce we have lckeJ s r. We won`
keep menlonlng when we`ve processeJ
lormulas lrom now. \ou`ve go he lJea,
we hope.
dovn ro s, a leaf, and rhe orher, srarring ar rhe rop and going dovn
ro r, rhe orher leaf. 1hese represenr rvo disrincr possibiliries. Lur rhe
firsr of rhese possibiliries isn`r acrually a possibiliry, beccause ve vanr s
ro be rrue (ve`d already vrirren rhar dovn) yer ve vanr s ro be rrue
roo. 1har can`r happen, so rhe lefr branch .
..
p (q r)
.
s r
.
((p & s) q)
.
p & s
.
q
.
p
.
s
.
s
.

.
r
Ve nark rhar branch virh a ro indicare rhar ir`s a dead end. In rhis
rree only one oprion is lefr. Ve have only one conplex unprocessed
fornula, rhe firsr prenise p (qr). 1his is a condirional, and ir rells
us rhar eirher p is false, or q r is rrue. So ve splir inro rvo branches,
one virh p and rhe orher virh q r.
..
p (q r)
.
s r
.
((p & s) q)
.
p & s
.
q
.
p
.
s
.
s
.

.
r
.
p
.

.
q r
1he lefr branch conrains p ar rhe leaf and p furrher up (in rhe rrunk)
so ve close rhar lefr branch innediarely. 1he righr branch, hovever,
:.: iioois ioi iioiosi1ioN~i iocit: 1iiis ,,
conrains q r vhich can irself be processed, by branching inro a q
branch, and an r branch.
..
p (q r)
.
s r
.
((p & s) q)
.
p & s
.
q
.
p
.
s
.
s
.

.
r
.
p
.

.
q r
.
q
.
r
And ve can norice rhar rhese rvo branches conrain conrradicrory pairs,
roo. Ior q our rre conrains q in rhe rrunk. Ior r, a lirrle srep up rhe
branch ve have r. So neirher of rhese branches is open. 1he resulr is
a rree in vhich every branch is closed.
..
p (q r)
.
s r
.
((p & s) q)
.
p & s
.
q
.
p
.
s
.
s
.

.
r
.
p
.

.
q r
.
q
.

.
r
.

So, ro resr rhe validiry of rhe argunenr fron prenises p (q r) and

s r ro conclusion (p & s) q, ve have rried ro nake rhe prcmiscs
truc and rhe .on.|usion j:|sc, bur all our arrenprs ro do so have lead ro
conrradicrions (and ve narked each branch virh a ). 1his shovs rhar
rhe argunenr is valid. 1here is no counrerexanple, no vay ro have rhe
prenises rrue and rhe conclusion false.
1his is an exanple of a iiooi 1iii, a gr:p|i.:| and mc.|:ni.:| vay of
derernining vherher an argunenr forn is valid, or vherher a fornula
is a raurology. 1he rree, read fron rop ro borron, clearly represenrs rhe
unfolding reasoning, as ve unpack each fornula inro irs consriruenr
parrs, and sysrenarically keep rrack of rhe oprions, closing sone off as
conrradicrions arise, and developing orhers, as far as ve can.
,8 iioois ioi iioiosi1ioN~i iocit th~i1ii :
ii~i1 oi x~ith ,, :o:
A rree for a ser of fornulas tiosis if and only if each of irs branches
conrains a conrradicrion. 1hen rhere`s no vay for rhe srarring fornulas
ro be rrue rogerher. So, if a rree srarring virh rhe fornula A closes,
rhen A is a conrradicrion. If a rree srarring virh A closes, rhen A is a
raurology. If a rree for and A closes, rhen rhe argunenr fron ro
A is valid.
In nany cases, conplering a proof rree for an argunenr vill be a nuch
shorrer process rhan conplering all 16 or 32 or 64. rovs of a rrurh
rable. Iroof rrees are an efficienr vay of nor only shoving rhar an ar-
gunenr is valid, bur doing so in such a vay rhar nakes rhe sreps of
reasoning explicir, and represenred in such a vay rhar rhey can be in-
dependenrly checked.
z.z.z kttts rok rkoor ktts rok rkorosttoN\t tootc
So, vhar are rhe rules for producing rrees? 1he firsr rules are rhe pro-
.cssing ru|cs. 1hese are rules for every conplex fornula.
..
toN}UNt1ioN iis}UNt1ioN toNii1ioN~i nitoNii1ioN~i tiosUii
..
A & B
.
A
.
B
..
AB
.
A
.
B
..
A B
.
A
.
B
..
A B
.
A
.
B
.
A
.
B
..
A
.
A
.

Nic~1ii Nic~1ii Nic~1ii Nic~1ii ioUnii

toN}UNt1ioN iis}UNt1ioN toNii1ioN~i nitoNii1ioN~i Nic~1ioN
..
(A & B)
.
A
.
B
..
(AB)
.
A
.
B
..
(A B)
.
A
.
B
..
(A B)
.
A
.
B
.
A
.
B
..
A
.
A
1here are rules for every kind of conplex fornula: for a conjunc-
rion, disjuncrion, condirional or bicondirional, and negared versions of
rhese, as vell as for a double negarion. Each of rhese rules is designed Check lor yoursell ha every lormula
ha ls no a lleral (no an aom or a
negaeJ aom) lalls lno esacly one
ol hese nlne klnJs. utN. look a he
maln conneclve or operaor ol each
nonlleral. ll l`s a negalon, l`s no a
negalon ol an aom, l`s a negalon ol
somehlng else.
ro exrracr infornarion rhar`s in rhe srarring fornulaand exrracr :|| of
rhar infornarion.
Ior exanple, if A & B is rrue, rhen Aand B are borh rrue. Cn rhe orher
hand rhe infornarion ve exrracr is enough ro reconsrrucr rhe srarring
fornulaif A and B are borh rrue, rhen A & B is rrue roo.
As anorher exanple, if (AB) is rrue, rhen eirher A is rrue or B is
rrue. Cn rhe orher hand, if eirher A or B is rrue, rhen (in eirher case)
(AB) is rrue. 1he sane holds for each of rhe orher rules roo.
Ler`s see if you undersrand hov rree proof rules vork. Consider rhe
folloving quesrion.
:.: iioois ioi iioiosi1ioN~i iocit: 1iiis ,,
..
ioi voU: Suppose ve define A B as neirher A nor B. Vhich
pair of rules is appropriare for A B?
(:) (|) (.)
..
A B
.
A
.
B
..
A B
.
A
.
B
..
A B
.
A
.
B
..
(A B)
.
A
.
B
..
(A B)
.
A
.
B
..
(A B)
.
A
.
B
..
~ N s v i i : ( . ) I f A B i s r r u e , r h e n n e i r h e r A n o r B i s r r u e , s o A o r
B a r e b o r h r r u e . I f A B i s n o r r r u e , r h e n e i r h e r A i s r r u e o r B i s
r r u e .
1he nosr inporranr condirion in rhe developnenr of rrees is rhe dis-
rincrion berveen closed and open branches.
..
tiosUii: A branch of a rree is .|oscJ vhen ir conrains a fornula and
irs negarion. Ir is opcn orhervise.
Civen rhe rree rules, ve develop a rree, srep by srep, srarring fron rhe
fornulas ar rhe rop of rhe rree, and vorking dovnards, adding rhe re-
sulr of processing a fornula ro each open branch in vhich rhe fornula
occurs.
..
i~i1i~iiv iiviioiii 1iiis: A p:rti:||y Jcvc|opcJ trcc for a ser of
fornulas is a proof rree srarring virh rhe fornulas in , in vhich
each fornula in rhe rree is eirher in , or follovs fron fornulas
higher up in rhe rree, by vay of rhe rree rules.
Iinally, rhe process can cnJ.
..
toxiii1ii 1iiis: A .omp|ctcJ trcc is a p:rti:||y Jcvc|opcJ trcc vhere
each conplex fornula in each open branch has been developed.
oo iioois ioi iioiosi1ioN~i iocit th~i1ii :
ii~i1 oi x~ith ,, :o:
..
No1~1ioN: Ve vrire ro say rhar a rree for closes. Ve
vrire A for , A ; in vords rhere is a proof fron ro
A.
So, ve vrire A ro say rhar a rree for A closesand rhar A is
a raurology. Ve vrire A ro say rhar a rree for A closesand
rhar A is a conrradicrion.
ix~xiii 1iii :: Here is a rree, vhich shovs rhar (p q) (r s)
(p r) (q s).
..
(p q) (r s)
.
((p r) (q s))
.
p r
.
(q s)
.
q
.
s
.
p q
.
p
.
p
.

.
r
.

.
q
.

.
r s
.
r
.
p
.

.
r
.

.
s
.

In rhis rree, rhere are rvo open branches, narked virh rhe upvard
poinring arrov. In rhe lefr of rhese branches, rhe lirerals are q, s, p
and r. Since rhis is a conplere open branch ve knov rhar rhe valuarion l`s gooJ praclce o check ha your ree
ls correc by checklng ha he valualon
lnJeeJ Joes make he premlse rue anJ
he concluslon lalse. ll hls Joesn` work,
hen you`ve maJe a mlsake ln he ree
somewhere.
vhich sers i(p) = 0, i(q) = 0, i(r) = 1, i(s) = 0 (naking each lireral in
rhar branch rrue) nakes all rhe fornulas in rhe branch rrue, and hence
nakes rhe prenise (p q) (r s) rrue and rhe conclusion (pr)
(q s) false.
(p q) (r s) (p r) (q s)
0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
1he sane goes for rhe orher open branch. In rhar branch, rhe lirerals
are q, s, p and r. So, rhe valuarion i(p) = 1, i(q) = 0, i(r) = 0,
i(s) = 0 also nakes rhe prenise rrue and rhe conclusion false.
(p q) (r s) (p r) (q s)
1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
1his is an exanple of using a proof rree ro consrrucr a counrerexanple
ro an argunenr forn. A closed rree counrs as a proof. A conplere
open rree is nor a proof, ir provides a .ountcrcx:mp|c. In rhis case, rhe
rvo open branches provide rvo differenr rrurh valuarions vhich nake
rhe prenise rrue and rhe conclusion false.
:.: iioois ioi iioiosi1ioN~i iocit: 1iiis o:
..
ioi voU: Check rhis rree:
..
p (q (r & s))
.
(p ((q r) & s))
.
p
.
((q r) & s)
.
p
.
q (r & s)
.
q
.
(q r)
.
q
.
r
.
s
.
r & s
.
r
.
s
.
(q r)
.
q
.
r
.
s
(:) 1here is a mist:|c.
(|) Ir`s .orrc.t, and every branch .|oscs.
(.) Ir`s .orrc.t, and rhere`s an opcn |r:n.|.
..
~ N s v i i : ( . ) 1 h e r h i r d b r a n c h f r o n r h e l e f r s r a y s o p e n , v i r h l i r e r a l s
p , q a n d s . ( o r i c e r h a r n e i r h e r r n o r r a p p e a r i n r h e b r a n c h a s
s i n g l e f o r n u l a s . ) Y o u c a n c h e c k r h a r a v a l u a r i o n v i r h i ( p ) = 1 ,
i ( q ) = 1 , i ( s ) = 0 a n d e i r h e r i ( r ) = 0 o r i ( r ) = 1 ( y o u c h o o s e ' )
n a k e s r h e p r e n i s e p ( q ( r & s ) ) r r u e a n d r h e c o n c l u s i o n
p ( ( q r ) & s ) f a l s e .
ix~xiii 1iii :: Here is anorher rree, rhis rine a closed rree, vhich
shovs rhar p (q r) (p & q) r.
..
p (q r)
.
((p & q) r)
.
p & q
.
r
.
p
.
q
.
p
.

.
q r
.
q
.

.
r
.

o: iioois ioi iioiosi1ioN~i iocit th~i1ii :

ii~i1 oi x~ith ,, :o:
1his rree closes. So ve cannor have rhe prenise p (q r) rrue and
rhe conclusion (p & q) r false.
..
ioi voU: Check rhis rree:
..
p & ((q r) s)
.
((p & q) (r s))
.
p
.
(q r) s
.
p & q
.
(r s)
.
p
.
q
.
r
.
s
.
q r
.
q
.

.
r
.

.
s
.

(:) 1here is a mist:|c.

(|) Ir`s .orrc.t, and every branch .|oscs.
(.) Ir`s .orrc.t, and rhere`s a .omp|ctc opcn |r:n.|.
..
~ N s v i i : ( : ) 1 h e r e i s a n i s r a k e . 1 h e l a s r s r e p , p r o c e s s i n g q r
s h o u l d r e s u l r i n r h e l e f r b r a n c h c o n r a i n i n g q , n o r q a s i r s r a n d s i n
r h i s r r e e . 1 h a r n e a n s r h a r r h e l e f r b r a n c h s h o u l d c l o s e , s i n c e i r c o n -
r a i n s q f u r r h e r u p r h e r r e e . 1 h e r r e e s h o u l d c l o s e . 1 h e a r g u n e n r
i s v a l i d .
ix~xiii 1iii : 1his is an open rree, vhich shovs rhar p (qr)
(p & q) r.
:.: iioois ioi iioiosi1ioN~i iocit: 1iiis o
..
p (q r)
.
((p & q) r)
.
p
.
q r
.
p & q
.
r
.
p
.
q
.
q
.

.
r
.

.
(p & q)
.
r
.
q
.
p
.

.
q
.
q
.

.
r
.
p
.

.
q
.
q
.

.
p
.
(q r)
.
q
.
r
.
p & q
.
r
.
p
.
q
.

.
(p & q)
.
r
.

1his rree has a nunber of bicondirional fornulas, and rhese rules in-
duce a grear deal of branching. In rhis case, rhe rree has rvo open
branches, borh of vhich have rhe sane lirerals, p, q and r. 1his neans
rhar a rrurh valuarion i vhere i(p) = i(q) = i(r) = 1 vill suffice ro
nake rhe prenise p (q r) rrue and rhe conclusion (p & q) r
false.
p (q r) (p & q) r
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1
1he resulr is genuinely a rrurh valuarion rhar nakes rhe prenise rrue
and rhe conclusion false. 1he argunenr is invalid.
z.z. wuv ktts \Nn ktu \rtts \oktt
Ve have seen rvo differenr vays ro spell our rhe norion of validiry.
An argunenr is valid jrom t|c point oj vicu oj moJc|s if ir has no coun-
rerexanple (no valuarion naking rhe prenises rrue and rhe conclusion
false). An argunenr is valid jrom t|c point oj vicu oj proojs if a proof rree
for ir closes. Ve`ll s|ou rhar rhese rvo definirions of validiry acrually
do anounr ro rhe sane rhing.
Cur firsr srep is vill be ro sinplify vhar ve`ll rry ro shov. Ienen-
ber A if and only if , A if a rree for and A closes. Ve`ll
use fornar virh |=, validiry defined in rerns of rrurh rables. Ve`ll say
rhar |= if and only if rhere is no valuarion rhar nakes every elenenr
of rrue. 1hen ir follovs rhar |= A if and only if , A |=.
Ve`ll shov, rhen, rhar if and only if |=. 1har is, a rree for
closes if and only if rhere is no valuarion vhere each nenber of is
rrue. Cr equivalenrly, if and only if |=. 1har is, a rree for srays
open if and only if rhere is sone valuarion vhere each nenber of is
rrue. 1har`s vhar ve`ll rry ro shov.
z.z. sotNnNtss. tr |= utN
1he firsr facr ve`ll shov is rhe sounJncss facr. 1har is, if rhere is a valua-
rion rhar nakes rrue, rhen a rree for srays open. 1his is nor difficulr
ro prove. Srarr virh a valuarion i rhar nakes rrue. Ve`ll call a ser
of fornulas s:jc if every nenber of rhar ser is rrue according ro i. 1he
o iioois ioi iioiosi1ioN~i iocit th~i1ii :
ii~i1 oi x~ith ,, :o:
srarring ser is safe, because rhar`s hov ve srarred virh i. Ve`ll shov
rhar any rree for vill have an enrire |r:n.| rhar is safe, vhich neans
rhar ir vill sray open. (Vhy? o .|oscJ branch is safe, since i cannor
nake borh a fornula and irs negarion rrue.)
1o shov rhis, ve shov rhar if a parrially developed rree has a safe
branch, and ve exrend rhar branch by vay of one of rhe rree rules, rhen
one of rhe branches rhar resulrs is safe, roo. 1o shov t|:t ve jusr need
ro check rhe rules. 1o renind you, here rhey are:
..
A & B
.
A
.
B
..
AB
.
A
.
B
..
A B
.
A
.
B
..
A B
.
A
.
B
.
A
.
B
..
(A & B)
.
A
.
B
..
(AB)
.
A
.
B
..
(A B)
.
A
.
B
..
(A B)
.
A
.
B
.
A
.
B
..
A
.
A
Ve jusr need ro check rhar for each of rhese rules, if rhe srarring fornula
is safe (rrue according ro i) rhen so are rhe ourpur fornulas on one of
rhe branches. I vill explain a fev cases, and leave rhe resr ro you. Ler`s
look ar rhe disjuncrion and negared disjuncrion rules. Suppose A B
is safe. 1his neans rhar i(A B) = 1 so eirher i(A) = 1 or i(B) = 1.
If i(A) = 1, rhen rhe lefr branch (conraining A) is safe. If i(B) = 1,
rhen rhe righr branch (conraining B) is safe. In eirher case, rhe ourpur
fornulas on one of rhe branches is safe, as ve desired.
Ior rhe negared disjuncrion rule, suppose (A B) is safe. 1his
neans rhar i((A B)) = 1, so i(A B) = 0 and hence, i(A) = 0 and
i(B) = 0. 1his neans rhar i(A) = 1 and i(B) = 1, so A and B are
safe, and rhese are rhe fornulas rhar resulr fron (A B) vhen you
process ir using rhe negared disjuncrion rule.
1he sane goes for rhe orher rules, as you can check. Vhenever
you srarr virh and a valuarion naking every elenenr in rrue, rhen
vhenever you develop rhe rree, ar leasr one branch renains safe, and
rherefore, rhe rree srays open. So, if |= rhen .
z.z., covrtttNtss. tr utN |=
Ve vanr ro shov rhe converse, if rhen |=rhar if a rree for srays
open, rhen rhere is sone valuarion vhich nakes rrue. If a conplere
rree for is open, rhen ve consrrucr a valuarion fron rhe lirerals on rhe
branch. Ve choose a valuarion rhar nakes all rhe lirerals rruerhere is
such a valuarion, serring i(p) = 1 if p is on rhe branch, and i(q) = 0 if
q is on rhe branch, and rhis vorks because rhe branch is open, ir does
nor conrain a fornula and irs negarion. 1hen ve shov rhar any of rhe
.omp|cx fornulas on rhe branch are also rrue. Any conplex fornula
is processed inro irs sinpler parrs, since rhe rree is conplere, so ve
vill shov rhar for any conplex fornula in rhe branch, if rhe resulrs of
:.: iioois ioi iioiosi1ioN~i iocit: 1iiis o,
processing rhar fornula are rrue in rhe valuarion, rhen so is rhe srarring
fornula. Ve clinb back up rhe rules in rhe rree, fron ourpur ro inpur.
Ler`s look ar rhe rules again, ro check rhar rhis condirion is sarisfied
for each rulerhar if rhe ouprur of a rule is rrue according ro a valua-
rion, so is rhe inpur, so rhe valuarion ve consrrucr our of rhe lirerals in
rhe branch nakes rrue each of rhe fornulas in rhe branch.
..
A & B
.
A
.
B
..
AB
.
A
.
B
..
A B
.
A
.
B
..
A B
.
A
.
B
.
A
.
B
..
(A & B)
.
A
.
B
..
(AB)
.
A
.
B
..
(A B)
.
A
.
B
..
(A B)
.
A
.
B
.
A
.
B
..
A
.
A
Ler`s check rhe disjuncrion and negared disjuncrion rules, as before.
Suppose A B is in rhe branch. 1har neans ir cones eirher fron rhe
A branch (vorking fron rhe borron) or rhe B branch. In eirher case,
if A is rrue in rhe valuarion, so is AB, r if B is rrue, so is AB.
Ior negared disjuncrion, suppose rhar (A B) is in rhe branch.
1har neans rhar A and B are borh in rhe branch. 1his neans rhar
A and B hold in rhe valuarion, so A and B are false in rhar valuarion,
and so is AB, vhich neans rhar (AB) is rrue in rhe valuarion.
1he sane holds for rhe orher rules. 1his neans rhar if (a con-
plere rree for has an open branch) rhen |= (rhere is a valuarion
naking and everyrhing in rhar branchrrue).
Conbining rhese rvo resulrs, ve have |= if and only if . 1har
is, validiry defined by nodels, and validiry defined by rrees, agree. Ve
have rvo definirions vhich carve ar rhe sane joinrs.
1ree proofs are a useful and eleganr proof sysren, virh a long her-
irage |3]. Ior an inporranr inrroducrion ro proof rrees, read Snullyan`s
Iirst-CrJcr Logi. |13]. Ior a nore recenr inrroducrion of logic using
rrees, consulr Hovson`s Logi. uit| Trccs |7].
oo iioois ioi iioiosi1ioN~i iocit th~i1ii :
[x~ith ,, :o:]

[:] ~i~N i. ~NiiisoN ~Ni NUii i. niiN~i. Ent:i|mcnt. T|c Logi. oj Pc|c-
v:n.c :nJ ^c.cssity, volune 1. Irinceron Lniversiry Iress, Irinceron,
1975. |Cired on page 50]
[:] ~i~N ioss ~NiiisoN, NUii i. niiN~i, ~Ni }. xith~ii iUNN. Ent:i|-
mcnt. T|c Logi. oj Pc|cv:n.c :nJ ^c.cssity, volune 2. Irinceron Lniver-
siry Iress, Irinceron, 1992. |Cired on page 50]
[] iiviNc h. ~Niiiis. Iron senanric rableaux ro Snullyan rrees: a his-
rory of rhe developnenr of rhe falsifiabiliry rree nerhod. MoJcrn Logi.,
1(1):3669, 1990. |Cired on page 66]
[] }t ni~ii ~Ni ciic iis1~ii. Logi.:| P|ur:|ism. Cxford Lniversiry Iress,
Cxford, 2006. |Cired on page 139]
[,] NUii niiN~i. Declararives are nor enough. P|i|osop|i.:| StuJics,
59(1):130, 1990. |Cired on page 13]
[o] n. ~. i~viv ~Ni h. ~. iiiis1iiv. IntroJu.tion to L:tti.cs :nJ CrJcr. Can-
bridge Lniversiry Iress, Canbridge, 1990. |Cired on page 125]
[,] toiiN hovsoN. Logi. uit| Trccs. n introJu.tion to sym|o|i. |ogi.. Iour-
ledge, 1996. |Cired on pages 6, 66]
[8] }~N iUx~siivitz. Cn Dererninisn. In i. noixovsxi, ediror, Sc|c.tcJ
Jor|s. orrh Holland, Ansrerdan, 1970. |Cired on page 129]
[,] iiviN i. x~iis. Pc|cv:nt Logi.. P|i|osop|i.:| Intcrprct:tion. Canbridge
Lniversiry Iress, 2004. |Cired on page 50]
[:o] iith~ii xoN1~cUi. Lniversal grannar. T|cori:, 36(3):373398,
1970. |Cired on page 142]
[::] ciic iis1~ii. egarion in Ielevanr Logics: Hov I Sropped Vor-
rying and Learned ro Love rhe Iourley Srar. In iov c~nn~v ~Ni
hiiNiith v~NsiNc, edirors, J|:t is ^cg:tion, volune 13 of p-
p|icJ Logi. Scrics, pages 5376. Kluver Acadenic Iublishers, 1999.
|Cired on page 50]
[::] ciic iis1~ii. Logi.. Iundanenrals of Ihilosophy. Iourledge, 2006.
|Cired on page 6]
[:] i. x. sxUiiv~N. Iirst-CrJcr Logi.. Springer-Verlag, Lerlin, 1968.
Ieprinred by Dover Iress, 1995. |Cired on page 66]
[:] 1ixo1hv viiii~xsoN. 1:gucncss. Iourledge, London; ev York,
1994. |Cired on page 139]
[:,] 1ixo1hv viiii~xsoN. Knou|cJgc :nJ Its Limits. Cxford Lniversiry
Iress, Cxford, 2002. |Cired on page 139]
:,
[x~ith ,, :o:]
tv\ot \ckNowttnotvtNs
Supcr C|uc Tu|c, reproduced virh pernission fron Supcr C|uc Corpo-
r:tion.
Ccorgc Loo|c in Co|our, :rtist un|noun (c. 1860)
|iUniit iox~iN], via Ji|imcJi: Commons.
nttp:))cccns.uikicdiu.czg)uiki)li1c:0cczgc_8cc1c_cc1cz.
pg
C|:r|cs S:nJcrs Pcir.c by Aurhor Lnknovn (c. 1900)
|iUniit iox~iN], via Ji|imcJi: Commons.
nttp:))cn.uikipcdiu.czg)uiki)Cnuz1cs_8undczs_icizcc.
C|:uJc S|:nnon virh his elecrronechanical nouse 1heseus.
Ieprinred virh pernission of Alcarel-Lucenr LSA Inc.
nttp:))uuu.1und1cy.nct)nistczy)izzcz)pzc)snunncn.nt1.
jan Lukasievicz (1935), p|otogr:p|cr un|noun |iUniit iox~iN].
nttp:))uuu.cu1cu1cus.czg)MutnUnivczsu1is)6)1ukus.pg
^o:m C|oms|y by nJrcu Pus| |tt-nv-:.o]
nttp:))uuu.t1ickz.cc)pnctcs)undzcuzusk)6608086070)
L:r|:r: P:rtcc |iUniit iox~iN], via Ji|imcJi: Commons
nttp:))cccns.uikicdiu.czg)uiki)li1c:8uzLuzu_puztcc.pg
JJo E|cp|:nt ^:tion:| P:r| by Lri:n Snc|son |tt-nv-:.o]
nttp:))uuu.t1ickz.cc)pnctcs)82660628uNuu)420421460
Toy c|cp|:nt snip by s:mmyJ:vis Jog |tt-nv-:.o]
nttp:))uuu.t1ickz.cc)pnctcs)26660122uNu6)6u67806486)
:,,
Cur .:t by irr:tion:| .:t |tt-nv-s~-:.o]
nttp:))uuu.t1ickz.cc)pnctcs)izzuticnu1_cut)867766u1
Z:. :nJ Crcg in ri:on: (january 2009) by C|ristinc P:r|cr,
reproduced virh pernission.
Ji|son Tcnnis P:.uct by Kcvcn P:yr:vi |tt-nv-s~-.o]
nttp:))cccns.uikicdiu.czg)uiki)li1c:wi1scn_1cnnis_
8ucquct.pg
Laprop by nysrica |iUniit iox~iN]
nttp:))cpcnc1ipuzt.czg)dctui1)16418)1uptcp-Ly-ysticu
T|om:s Ho||cs (1588-1679), English philosopher,
arrisr unknovn, |iUniit iox~iN] via Vikinedia Connons
nttp:))cccns.uikicdiu.czg)uiki)li1c:1ncus_ucLLcs.pcg
Portr:it oj CottjricJ Lci|ni: (1646-1716), Cernan philosopher,
arrisr Chrisroph Lernhard Irancke, circa 1700.
Herzog-Anron-Llrich-useun, Lraunschveig, Cernany.
|iUniit iox~iN] via Vikinedia Connons
nttp:))cccns.uikicdiu.czg)uiki)li1c:0ctttzicd_wi1nc1_
vcn_LciLniz.pg
Portr:it oj L:viJ Hi||crt (1862-1943), Cernan narhenarician,
arrisr unknovn |CC LY SA 2.0]; arhenarisches Iorschungsinsrirur
Cbervolfach, Cernany: archives of I. Ioquerre, Heidelberg.
nttp:))cupdL.tc.dc)dctui1?pnctc_id=024u
P|otogr:p| oj T|c St:.|cJ S|:tc S.u|pturc oj |:n Turing |y Stcp|cn Kctt|c,
Ihorograph by jon Callas fron San jose, LSA, |CC LY 2.0],
via Vikinedia Connons
:,o iiiiiiNtis
ii~i1 oi x~ith ,, :o:
nttp:))cccns.uikicdiu.czg)uiki)li1c:|1un_1uzing.pg
:,,