Sunteți pe pagina 1din 39

 LECTURE PREVIEW

HYPOTHETICAL
PROPOSITION
 Hypothetical Proposition is a compound proposition that does not
affirm nor negate themselves but only the nature and validity of
their connection
TYPES OF HYPOTHETICAL
PROPOSITION
 Conditional Proposition express real dependence between a condition
(antecedent)which is usually introduced by the word IF and the conditioned
(consequent) introduced by the word then.
EXAMPLE:
1. If Francis is the brother of James, then Francis is the child of Jame’s father
2. If you get operated then you'll survive
3. If you please everybody
 Disjunctive Proposition expresses alternatives (disjuncts) all of which cannot be true
or false together but only one can be true, and other must be false
1. The vehicle is either moving or not moving
2. The request is either answered or unanswered
3. The patient is either dead or alive
Conjunctive Proposition is one that denies the simultaneously possibility of the
alternatives(conjunct).The conjunct have to be incompatible ,ie. they cannot all be true
simultaneously.
EXAMPLES:
1. One cannot go downstairs and meet himself coming up at the same time
2. A man cannot walk forward and backward at the same time
3. The accuses cannot be both innocent and guilty at the same time.
Hypothetical Syllogism is a Syllogism that has a
hypothetical proposition as one of its premises.

1. Pure hypothetical syllogism A syllogism that contains only hypothetical propositions.


EXAMPLES:
If the first native is a politician, then he lies.
If he lies, then he denies being a politician.
Therefore, the first native denies being a politician
2. Mixed hypothetical syllogism A syllogism that contains one conditional (or
hypothetical) premise, and one categorical premise.
Therefore if the first native is a politician, then he denies being a politician.
1. Modus ponens A mixed hypothetical syllogism in which the first premise is a conditional
proposition, the second premise affirms the antecedent of that conditional, and the
conclusion affirms the consequent of that conditional.
 Rule for a valid modus ponens
Affirm the antecedent in the major premise, and affirm the consequent in the conclusion
If Bacon wrote Hamlet, then Bacon was a great writer.
Bacon was a great writer.
Therefore Bacon wrote Hamlet.
If the second native told the truth, then only one native is a politician.
The second native told the truth.
Therefore only one native is a politician
 Fallacy of affirming the consequent A fallacy in which, from the truth of the consequent of
a conditional proposition, the conclusion is reached that the antecedent of that
conditional is true
 Rules for valid Modus tollens: deny the consequent in the minor premise,deny the
antecedent in the conclusion.

 Fallacy of denying the antecedent A fallacy in which, from the negation of the
antecedent of a conditional proposition, the conclusion is reached that the
consequent of that conditional is false
2. Modus Tollens is a mixed hypothetical syllogism in which the first premise is a
conditional proposition, the second premise is the denial of the consequent of that
conditional, and the conclusion is the denial of the antecedent of that conditional.
EXAMPLES:
If the one-eyed prisoner saw two red hats, then he could tell the color of the hat on his
own head.
The one-eyed prisoner could not tell the color of the hat on his own head.
Therefore the one-eyed prisoner did not see two red hats.

If Carl embezzled the college funds, then Carl is guilty of a felony.


Carl did not embezzle the college funds.
Therefore Carl is not guilty of a felony.
3. Disjunctive Syllogism A syllogism in which one of the premises is a disjunction, the other
premise is the denial or the contradictory of one of the two disjuncts in the first premise, and
the conclusion is the statement that the other disjunct in that first premise is true.
Rules for valid disjunctive syllogism
Deny one disjunct in the minor premise affirm the remaining disjunct in the conclusion.
 Examples:
She was either arrogant or stupid. Either Smith is in New York or Smith is in Paris
She was arrogant. Smith is in New York.
Therefore she was not stupid. Therefore Smith is not in Paris.
4. Conjunctive Syllogism is a syllogism when the major premise is a compound proposition.It is
one which assert two alternatives cannot be both true at the same time.
Rules for valid disjunctive syllogism
 Affirm the true conjunct in the minor premise and deny the remaining conjunct in the
conclusion

He cannot be in manila and cebu at the same time


But he is manila
Therefore he cannot be now in Manila.

The player cannot be both short and tall


The player is not tall
Therefore the player is short.
 Simple statement A statement that does not contain any other statement as a
component.
 Compound statement A statement that contains two or more statements as
components.
 Component A part of a compound statement that is itself a statement, and is of such a
nature that, if replaced in the larger statement by any other statement, the result will be
meaningful.
 Conjunction A truth-functional connective meaning “and,” symbolized by the dot, •. A
statement of the form p • q is true if and only if p is true and q is true
 Conjunct Each one of the component statements connected in a conjunctive
statement
1. Modus Ponens (M.P) 2. Modus Tollens (M.T) 3. Disjunctive Syllogism (D.S)
P⊃Q P⊃Q PvQ PvQ
P ~Q ~P ~Q
/∴ Q /∴ ~P /∴ Q /∴ P
4. Conjunctive Syllogism (CONJ)
P•Q P•Q
P Q
/∴ ~ Q /∴ ~P
Operator Name Logical Function Used to translate

~ Tilde Negation not, it is not the case that

• Dot Conjunction and, also, moreover

v Wedge Disjunct or, unless

⊃ Horse shoe Implication if . . . then . . . , only if

≡ Equivalence if and only if


CONDITIONAL( if .. Then ) CONJUNCTION AND OR BUT BICONDITIONAL IF AND ONLY IF

DISJUNCTION EITHER OR
Determine the truth values of the following symbolized statements. Let A, B, and C be true
and X, Y, and Z be false. Circle your answer.
1. A • X 2. B • ~Y 3. X v ~Y 4. ~C v Z 5. (C ≡ ~A) v ( Y ≡ Z )
T F T T F T F F T F F F

F T T F F T

F
6. ~(A • ~C) ⊃ (~X ⊃ B) 7. ~[( B v ~C) • ~ ( X v Z )] 8.~ ~[~( X ⊃ C) ≡ ~( B ⊃ Z)]
F T T T F T F F T F F T

F T T F F T

T F F
9. { ~[( C v ~B) • (Z v ~A) ] • ~[ ~(B v Y) • (~X v Z) ]}
F T T T T F F F
T T T F

T F

F
10. (Z ⊃ C) ⊃ {[(~X ⊃ B) ⊃ (C ⊃ Y)] ≡ [(Z ⊃ X) ⊃ (~Y ⊃ Z)]}
F T T T T F F F T F

T T F T F

F F

T
1. (Av B) ⊃(A•B) LOGICAL TRANSLATION: (P v Q) ⊃(P•Q)

Av B /∴ A•B P v Q /∴ P•Q

P Q PvQ P•Q (P v Q) ⊃ (P•Q) PvQ P• Q


T T T T T T T
T F T F F T F
F T T F F T F
F F F F T F F
2. E ⊃ F P⊃Q
F⊃E/∴EvF Q ⊃ P/ ∴ P v Q

P Q P⊃Q Q⊃P PvQ


T T T T T
T F F T T
F T T F T
F F T T F
3. (O v P) ⊃ Q (P v Q) ⊃ R
Q ⊃(P • Q) /∴ (O v P) ⊃ (O • P) R ⊃ (P • Q) /∴ (P v Q) ⊃ (P•Q)

P Q R PvQ P •Q (P v Q) ⊃ R R ⊃ (P•Q) (P v Q) ⊃ (P•Q)


T T T T T T T T
T T F T T F T T
T F T T F T F F
T F F T F F T F
F T T T F T F F
F T F T F F T F
F F T F F T F T
F F F F F T T T
1. If Angola achieves stability, then both Botswana and Chad will adopt more liberal
policies. But Botswana will not adopt a more liberal policy. Therefore Angola will not
achieve stability.
A ⊃ (B • C) P ⊃ (Q • R)
~B /∴ ~A ~Q /∴ ~P

P Q R ~P ~Q Q•R P ⊃ (Q • R) ~Q /∴ ~P
T T T F F T T F F
T T F F F T T F F
T F T F T F F T F
T F F F T F F T F
F T T T F F T F T
F T F T F F T F T
F F T T T F T T T
F F F T T F T T T
2. If Denmark refuses to join the European Community, then, if Estonia remains in the Russian
sphere of influence, then Finland will reject a free trade policy. Estonia will remain in the
Russian sphere of influence. So if Denmark refuses to join the European Community, then
Finland will reject a free-trade policy.
D ⊃(E ⊃ F) P ⊃ (Q ⊃R)
E /∴ D ⊃ F Q /∴ P ⊃ R
P Q R (Q ⊃ R) P ⊃ (Q ⊃R) Q /∴P ⊃ R
T T T T T T T
T T F F F T F
T F T T T F T
T F F T F F F
F T T T T T T
F T F F T T T
F F T T T F T
F F F T T F T
3. If Greece strengthens its democratic institutions, then Hungary will pursue a more
independent policy. If Greece strengthens its democratic institutions, then the Italian
government will feel less threatened. Hence, if Hungary pursues a more independent policy,
the Italian government will feel less threatened.
G⊃H P⊃Q
G ⊃ I /∴ H ⊃ I P ⊃ R /∴ Q ⊃ R
P Q R P⊃Q P⊃R /∴ Q ⊃ R
T T T T T T
T T F T F F
T F T F T T
T F F F F T
F T T T T T
F T F T T F
F F T T T T
F F F T T T
4. If Japan continues to increase the export of automobiles, then either Korea or Laos will
suffer economic decline. Korea will not suffer economic decline. It follows that if Japan
continues to increase the export of automobiles, then Laos will suffer economic decline.
J ⊃(K v L) P ⊃(Q v R)
~K /∴ K ⊃ L ~Q /∴ Q ⊃ R
P Q R ~Q Q v R P ⊃ (Q v R) ~Q Q⊃R
T T T F T T F T
T T F F T T F F
T F T T T T T T
T F F T T T T T
F T T F T T F T
F T F F T T F F
F F T T F T T T
F F F T F T T T
 Rules of inference The rules that permit valid inferences from statements assumed as
premises. Twenty-three rules of inference are set forth in this text: nine elementary valid
argument forms, ten logical equivalences whose members may replace one another, and
four rules governing instantiation and generalization in quantified logic.

 Natural deduction A method of proving the validity of a deductive argument by using the
rules of inference.

 Formal proof of validity A sequence of statements each of which is either a premise of a


given argument, or follows from the preceding statements of the sequence by one of the
rules of inference, or by logical equivalence, where the last statement in the sequence is
the conclusion of the argument whose validity is proved.

 Elementary valid argument Any one of a set of specified deductive arguments that serve as
rules of inference and that may therefore be used in constructing a formal proof of validity.
RULES OF INFERENCE
1. Modus Ponens (MP) 2. Modus Tollens (MT) 3. Disjunctive Syllogism (DS)
1. P ⊃ Q 1. P ⊃ Q 1. P v Q 1. P v Q
2. P 2. ~Q 2. ~P 2. ~Q
3. / Q 3. / ~P 3. / Q 3. / P
4. Conjunction (Conj) 5. Hypothetical Syllogism (H.S) 6. Constructive dilemma (C.D)
1. P 1. P ⊃ Q 1. (P ⊃ Q) • (R ⊃ S)
2. Q 2. Q ⊃ R 2. PvR
3. / P • Q 3. / P ⊃ R 3. /QvS
7. Simplification (Simp) 8. Absorption (Abs) 9. Addition (Add)
1. P • Q 1. P • Q 1. P ⊃ Q 1. P
2. / P 2. / Q 2. / P ⊃ (P •Q) 2. / P v Q
10. Destructive Dilemma (D.D)
1. (P ⊃ Q) •(R ⊃ S)
2. ~Qv ~S
3. ~P v R
EXAMPLES:
1. A ⊃ B 1. J • L
2. B ⊃ C 2. A v C
3. C ⊃ D 3. C ⊃ ~L /.’. A
4.~D 4. L Simp 1
5. A v E /.’. E 5. ~C M.T 3,4
6. A ⊃ C H,S 1,2 6. A D.S 2,5
7. A ⊃ D H,S 6,3
8. ~A M,T 7,4
9. E D,S 5,8
⊃≡v•
Activity:
1. (A • B) ⊃ C / ∴ (A • B) ⊃ [(A •B) • C]

2.(D v E) •( F v G) /∴ D v E

3. (H⊃ I) /∴ ( H ⊃ I) v (H ⊃ ~I)

4. ~( J •K) • (L ⊃~M) /∴ ~(J • K)

5. [(N ⊃( O •P)] •[( Q ⊃( O •R)]


N v Q / ∴ (O •P) v (O •R)
6. 1. (X v Y) ⊃ ~( Z •~A)
2. ~~(Z •~A) / ∴ ~( X v Y)

7. 1. (S ≡T) v [( U • V) v ( U •W)]
2. ~(S ≡T) /∴ ( U • V) v ( U •W)

8. 1. ~(B •C) ⊃ ( DvE)


2. ~(B •C) /∴ ( DvE)

9. 1. ( F ≡ G) ⊃ (~ G •~F)
2. (~G•~F) ⊃ ( G ⊃ F)/∴ ( F ≡ G) ⊃ ( G ⊃ F)

10. 1. ( I ≡ H) ⊃ ~(H•~I)
2. ~(H•~I) ⊃ ( H ⊃ I) /∴ ( I ≡ H) ⊃ ( H ⊃ I)
1) 1. A • B 2) 1. ( E v F) • (G v H) 3) 1. I ⊃ J
2. (A v C) ⊃ D /∴ A • D 2. (E ⊃ G)•(F ⊃ H) 2. J ⊃ K
3. ~G /∴ H 3. L ⊃ M
4. I v L /∴ K v M
4) 1. Q ⊃ R 5) 1. N ⊃ O
2. ~S (T ⊃ U) 2. (N • O) ⊃ P
3. S (Q v T) 3. ~(N • P) /∴ ~N
4. ~S /∴ R v U
1. If either Gertrude or Herbert wins, then both Jens and Kenneth lose. Gertrude wins.
Therefore Jens loses.
(G—Gertrude wins; H —Herbert wins; J —Jens loses; K—Kenneth loses.)
1. (G v H) ⊃ (J • K)
2. G /∴ J
2. If Adriana joins, then the club’s social prestige will rise; and if Boris joins, then the club’s
financial position will be more secure. Either Adriana or Boris will join. If the club’s social
prestige rises, then Boris will join; and if the club’s financial position becomes more secure,
then Wilson will join. Therefore either Boris or Wilson will join.
(A —Adriana joins; S —The club’s social prestige rises; B —Boris joins; F —The club’s financial
position is more secure; W —Wilson joins.)
1. (A ⊃ S) • (B ⊃ F)
2. Av B
3. (S ⊃ B) •(F ⊃ W) /∴ B v W
3. If Brown received the message, then she took the plane; and if she took the plane, then
she will not be late for the meeting. If the message was incorrectly addressed, then Brown
will be late for the meeting. Either Brown received the message or the message was
incorrectly addressed. Therefore either Brown took the plane or she will be late for the
meeting.
(R—Brown received the message; P —Brown took the plane; L —Brown will be late for the
meeting; T —The message was incorrectly addressed.)
1. (R ⊃ P) • (T ⊃ ~L)
2. T⊃L
3. R v T /∴ P v L
4. If Nihar buys the lot, then an office building will be constructed; whereas if Payton buys the
lot, then it will be quickly sold again. If Rivers buys the lot, then a store will be constructed;
and if a store is constructed, then Thompson will offer to lease it. Either Nihar or Rivers will buy
the lot. Therefore either an office building or a store will be constructed.
(N —Nihar buys the lot; O —An office building will be constructed; P —Payton buys the lot;
Q —The lot will be quickly sold again; R —Rivers buys the lot; S —A store will be constructed;
T —Thompson will offer to lease the store.)
1. (N ⊃ O) •(P ⊃ Q)
2. (R ⊃ S) •(S ⊃ T)
3. N v R /∴ O v S
5. If rain continues, then the river rises. If rain continues and the river rises, then the bridge
will wash out. If the continuation of rain would cause the bridge to wash out, then a single
road is not sufficient for the town. Either a single road is sufficient for the town or the traffic
engineers have made a mistake. Therefore the traffic engineers have made a mistake.
(C —Rain continues; R —The river rises; B —The bridge washes out; S —A single road is
sufficient for the town; M—The traffic engineers have made a mistake.)
1. C⊃R
2. (C • R) ⊃ B
3. (C ⊃ B) ⊃ ~S
4. S v M /∴ M
5. C ⊃ (C • R ) Abs. 1
6. C ⊃ B HS, 5,2
7. ~S MP. 1,2
8. M DS. 4,7
 For each of the following arguments, it is possible to provide a formal proof of validity by
adding just three statements to the premises. Writing these out, carefully and accurately,
will strengthen your command of the rules of inference, a needed preparation for the
construction of proofs that are more extended and more complex.

S-ar putea să vă placă și