1 / 15

F22H1 Logic and Proof Week 6

F22H1 Logic and Proof Week 6. Reasoning. How can we show that this is a tautology (section 11.2):. The hard way: “logical calculation” The “easy” way: “reasoning” That’s what chapter 11 is all about: Logical Calculation : use well defined rules one by one and you will

Download Presentation

F22H1 Logic and Proof Week 6

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. F22H1 Logic and Proof Week 6 Reasoning

  2. How can we show that this is a tautology (section 11.2): The hard way: “logical calculation” The “easy” way: “reasoning” That’s what chapter 11 is all about: Logical Calculation: use well defined rules one by one and you will slowly get towards the thing that you are trying to prove. Reasoning: (logical calculation, but with a few hints, tips and additional rules) is more like common sense.

  3. Of course, we can do a truth table to show that this is always T – however you can’t do that with, e.g., 100 logical variables. So we need to learn reasoning. We start with this. Why?? Because Lemma 7.3.4. Says this: So, if our calculation eventually gets to “P => R”, using steps that are either or then we will have proved what we want to prove

  4. This is the next step: Understand? Next: Tricky! But straightforward

  5. Next this: Understand it? Also known as False-elimination. Next, we can go a long way with rules from chap 7: Actually this only uses AND-weakening

  6. The remainder is fairly quick and easy: So from Lemma 7.3.4. We have now proved the tautology we wanted to prove.

  7. Koyaanasqatsi

  8. A brand new dawn … Let’s just assume, for the time being, that the whole first bit is true {Assumption} (1) Now let’s make another assumption: • {Assumption} • P • {from (1) and (2)} • Q • {from (1) and (3)} • R • {we assumed P (2) and derived R (4), this means:} • 5) P => R {We assumed (1), and got (5), this means:} 6)

  9. Inference This is the general rule for inference: You can be creative about when to make an inference and what to base it on, but of course it has to be valid.

  10. Some valid inference rules • {Tautology} • {Implication and double negation} • (2) • {Follows from (1) and (2) – called } • (3) • {Assume} • … • {follows from (1) -- • (m) • {follows from (1) and (m) if there are no assumptions between (1) • and (m) that the derivation of (m) relies on -- • (m+1)

  11. Reasoning by Contradiction This is an extremely useful inference rule, very often used, often called reductio ad absurdum The idea is: assume the negation of what you want to prove – If reasoning then leads to a contradiction (i.e. leads to False), then you can infer (i.e. you have proved) the negation of your assumption. • {Assume} • … {via valid inferences but no other assumptions we get …} • (m) False • {it follows that the original assumption must be False, so • we can infer the following} • (m+1)

  12. E.g. Let’s prove that 10 is an even number. • To do this by Contradiction, we first assume that • “10 is even” is False: • {Assumption} • 10 is an odd number • {this follows from (1) • (2) 10 = 2k + 1 for some k in N • {this follows from (2), by simple algebra} • (3) 9 = 2k for some k in N • {simple algebra, follows from (3)} • (4) k = 4.5 and k in N • {This follows from (4), since it is a contradiction} • (5) False • {We have now proved this, via proof by contradiction} • (6) 10 is an even number

  13. Prove that this: Implies: It stands to reason, when you look at it. Let’s prove it by contradiction • {Assume} • { Implication} • {De Morgan, double negation, and associativity} • {follows from (3) by AND-elimination, twice} • (4) • {we can see that (4) is a contradiction, so we have proved this: • (5)

More Related