Rohini 94416260214

ROHINI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
The Theory of Inference
The main aim of logic is to provide rules of inference, or principles of reasoning.
Here, we are concerned with the inferring of a conclusion from given premises.
We are going to check the logical validity of the conclusion, from the given set of
premises by making use of Equivalence rule and implication rule, the theory
associated with such things is called inference theory.
Direct Method
When a conclusion is derived from a set of premises by using the accepted rules of
reasoning, then such a process of derivation is called a direct proof.
Indirect method of proof:
(i) Method of Contradiction:
In order to show that a conclusion C follows logically from the premises
𝐻1, 𝐻2 , . . . , 𝐻𝑚 , we assume that C is false and consider ¬𝐶 as an additional
premises. If the new set of premises gives contradict value, then the assumption
¬𝐶 is true does not hold simultaneously with 𝐻1 ∧ 𝐻2,∧ . .. ∧ 𝐻𝑚 .
Therefore, C is true whenever 𝐻1 ∧ 𝐻2 ,∧ . .. ∧ 𝐻𝑚 ids true. Thus C follows
logically from the premises 𝐻1, 𝐻2 , . . . , 𝐻𝑚 .
(ii) Method of contrapositive:
MA8351 DISCRETE MATHEMATICS

In order to prove 𝐻1 ∧ 𝐻2 ,∧ . .. ∧ 𝐻𝑚 ⇒ 𝐶, if we prove
¬𝐶 ⇒ ¬(𝐻1 ∧ 𝐻2 ,∧ . .. ∧ 𝐻𝑚 ) then the original problem follows. This method is
called contrapositive method.
Rules of Inference
Rule P: A premise may be introduced at any point in the derivation.
Rule T: A formula S may be introduced at any point in a derivation if S is
tautologically implied by any one or more of the preceding formulas.
Rule CP: If S can be derived from R and set of premises, then 𝑅 → 𝑆 can be
derived from the set of premises alone.
Remark:
(i) Rule CP means Rule of Conditional Proof.
(ii) Rule CP is also called the deduction theorem.
Implication Rule:
𝑃, 𝑃 → 𝑄 ⇒ 𝑄 Modus Phones
¬𝑄, 𝑃 → 𝑄 ⇒ ¬𝑃 Modus Tollens
¬𝑃, 𝑃 ∨ 𝑄 ⇒ 𝑄 Disjunctive syllogism
𝑃 → 𝑄, 𝑄 → 𝑅 ⇒ 𝑃 → 𝑅 Hypothetical syllogism (or) chain rule

𝑃, 𝑄 ⇒ 𝑃 ∧ 𝑄 Simplification rule
𝑃, 𝑄 ⇒ 𝑃 ∨ 𝑄 Addition rule
𝑃 ∧ ¬𝑄 ⇒ ¬(𝑃 → 𝑄 ) Equivalence rule
Note:
In the derivation, we should use all the rules but exactly once. Also, the order is
immaterial.
1.Demonstrate that R is a valid inference from the premises 𝑷 → 𝑸, 𝑸 →
𝑹&𝑷
Solution:
{1} 1)𝑃 → 𝑄 Rule P
{2} 2)𝑄 → 𝑅 Rule P
{1, 2} 3)𝑃 → 𝑅 Rule T (𝑃 → 𝑄, 𝑄 → 𝑅 ⇒ 𝑃 → 𝑅)
{4} 4)𝑃 Rule P
{1, 2, 4} 5)𝑅 Rule T (𝑃, 𝑃 → 𝑄 ⇒ 𝑄)
2. Show that ¬𝑷 follows logically from the premises ¬(𝑷 ∧ ¬𝑸), (¬𝑸 ∨
𝑹) &¬𝑹

Solution:
Given premises are ¬(𝑃 ∧ ¬𝑄 ), (¬𝑄 ∨ 𝑅 ), ¬𝑅
Conclusion: &¬𝑅
{1} 1)¬(𝑃 ∧ ¬𝑄 ) Rule P
{2} 2))¬𝑃 ∨ 𝑄 Rule T (Demorgan’s law)
{1} 3)𝑃 → 𝑄 Rule T (𝑃 → 𝑄 ⇔ ¬𝑃 ∨ 𝑅)
{4} 4)¬𝑄 ∨ 𝑅 Rule P
{4} 5)𝑄 → 𝑅 Rule T (𝑃 → 𝑄 ⇔ ¬𝑃 ∨ 𝑅)
{1, 4} 6) 𝑃 → 𝑅 Rule T (𝑃 → 𝑄, 𝑄 → 𝑅 ⇒ 𝑃 → 𝑅)
{7} 7) ¬𝑅 Rule P
{1, 4, 7} 8) ¬𝑃 Rule T ¬𝑄, 𝑃 → 𝑄 ⇒ ¬𝑃
Consistency and Inconsistency of Premises
A set of formulae 𝐻1 , 𝐻2 , . . . , 𝐻𝑚 is said to be inconsistent if their conjunction
implies contradiction.
i.e., 𝐻1 ∧ 𝐻2 ∧ . . .∧ 𝐻𝑚 ⇒ 𝑅 ∧ ¬𝑅 for some formulae R.
Note:𝑅 ∧ ¬𝑅 ⇔ 𝐹
Consistent:

A set of formulae 𝐻1, 𝐻2 , . . . , 𝐻𝑚 is said to be consistent if their conjunction
implies tautology.
Inconsistent:
A set of formula 𝐻1, 𝐻2 , . . . , 𝐻𝑚 is said to be consistent if it is not inconsistent.
1.Show that 𝑷 → 𝑸, 𝑷 → 𝑹, 𝑸 → ¬𝑹 & 𝑃 are inconsistent.
Solution:
{1} 1)𝑃 → 𝑄 Rule P
{2} 2)𝑄 → ¬𝑅 Rule P
{1, 2} 3)𝑃 → ¬𝑅 Rule T
{4} 4)𝑃 Rule P
{1, 2, 4} 5)¬𝑅 Rule T
{6} 6)𝑃 → 𝑅 Rule P
{1, 2, 4, 6} 7)¬𝑃 Rule T
{1, 2, 4, 6} 8)𝑃 ∧ ¬𝑃 Rule T
Which is nothing but false value.
Hence given set of premises are inconsistent.
2. Prove that 𝑷 → 𝑸, 𝑸 → 𝑹, 𝑺 → ¬𝑹 & 𝑃⋀𝑆 are inconsistent.

Solution:
{1} 1)𝑃 → 𝑄 Rule P
{2} 2)𝑄 → 𝑅 Rule P
{1, 2} 3)𝑃 → 𝑅 Rule T
{4} 4)𝑆 → ¬𝑅 Rule P
{ 4} 5)𝑅 → ¬𝑆 Rule T
{1, 2, 4} 6)𝑃 → ¬𝑆 Rule T
{1, 2, 4} 7)¬𝑃 ∨ ¬𝑆 Rule T
{1, 2, 4} 8)¬(𝑃 ∧ 𝑆) Rule T
{ 9} 9)𝑃 ∧ 𝑆 Rule P
{1, 2, 4, 9} 10)(𝑃 ∧ 𝑆) ∧ ¬(𝑃 ∧ 𝑆) Rule T
3. Prove that 𝒂 → (𝒃 → 𝒄), 𝒅 → (𝒃 ∧ ¬𝒄), & 𝑎 ∧ 𝑑 are inconsistent.
Solution:
{1} 1)𝑎 ∧ 𝑑 Rule P
{1} 2)𝑎, 𝑑 Rule T

{3} 3)𝑎 → (𝑏 → 𝑐 ) Rule P
{1, 3} 4)𝑏 → 𝑐 Rule T
{1, 3} 5)¬𝑏 ∨ 𝑐 Rule T
{6} 6)𝑑 → (𝑏 ∧ ¬𝑐 ) Rule P
{6} 7)¬(𝑏 ∧ ¬𝑐 ) → ¬𝑑 Rule T
{6} 8))¬𝑏 ∨ 𝑐 → ¬𝑑 Rule T
{1, 3, 6} 9) ¬𝑑 Rule T
{1, 3, 6} 10) 𝑑 ∧ ¬𝑑 Rule T

Rohini 94416260214

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rohini 94416260214

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rohini 94416260214

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ROHINI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

The Theory of Inference

The main aim of logic is to provide rules of inference, or principles of reasoning.

associated with such things is called inference theory.

reasoning, then such a process of derivation is called a direct proof.

Indirect method of proof:

(i) Method of Contradiction:

In order to show that a conclusion C follows logically from the premises

𝐻1, 𝐻2 , . . . , 𝐻𝑚 , we assume that C is false and consider ¬𝐶 as an additional

¬𝐶 is true does not hold simultaneously with 𝐻1 ∧ 𝐻2,∧ . .. ∧ 𝐻𝑚 .

Therefore, C is true whenever 𝐻1 ∧ 𝐻2 ,∧ . .. ∧ 𝐻𝑚 ids true. Thus C follows

logically from the premises 𝐻1, 𝐻2 , . . . , 𝐻𝑚 .

(ii) Method of contrapositive:

MA8351 DISCRETE MATHEMATICS

In order to prove 𝐻1 ∧ 𝐻2 ,∧ . .. ∧ 𝐻𝑚 ⇒ 𝐶, if we prove

¬𝐶 ⇒ ¬(𝐻1 ∧ 𝐻2 ,∧ . .. ∧ 𝐻𝑚 ) then the original problem follows. This method is

called contrapositive method.

Rule P: A premise may be introduced at any point in the derivation.

Rule T: A formula S may be introduced at any point in a derivation if S is

tautologically implied by any one or more of the preceding formulas.

derived from the set of premises alone.

(i) Rule CP means Rule of Conditional Proof.

(ii) Rule CP is also called the deduction theorem.

¬𝑄, 𝑃 → 𝑄 ⇒ ¬𝑃 Modus Tollens

¬𝑃, 𝑃 ∨ 𝑄 ⇒ 𝑄 Disjunctive syllogism

𝑃 → 𝑄, 𝑄 → 𝑅 ⇒ 𝑃 → 𝑅 Hypothetical syllogism (or) chain rule

MA8351 DISCRETE MATHEMATICS

𝑃 ∧ ¬𝑄 ⇒ ¬(𝑃 → 𝑄 ) Equivalence rule

1.Demonstrate that R is a valid inference from the premises 𝑷 → 𝑸, 𝑸 →

{1} 1)𝑃 → 𝑄 Rule P

{2} 2)𝑄 → 𝑅 Rule P

{1, 2} 3)𝑃 → 𝑅 Rule T (𝑃 → 𝑄, 𝑄 → 𝑅 ⇒ 𝑃 → 𝑅)

{4} 4)𝑃 Rule P

{1, 2, 4} 5)𝑅 Rule T (𝑃, 𝑃 → 𝑄 ⇒ 𝑄)

MA8351 DISCRETE MATHEMATICS

Given premises are ¬(𝑃 ∧ ¬𝑄 ), (¬𝑄 ∨ 𝑅 ), ¬𝑅

{1} 1)¬(𝑃 ∧ ¬𝑄 ) Rule P

{2} 2))¬𝑃 ∨ 𝑄 Rule T (Demorgan’s law)

{1} 3)𝑃 → 𝑄 Rule T (𝑃 → 𝑄 ⇔ ¬𝑃 ∨ 𝑅)

{4} 4)¬𝑄 ∨ 𝑅 Rule P

{4} 5)𝑄 → 𝑅 Rule T (𝑃 → 𝑄 ⇔ ¬𝑃 ∨ 𝑅)

{1, 4, 7} 8) ¬𝑃 Rule T ¬𝑄, 𝑃 → 𝑄 ⇒ ¬𝑃

Consistency and Inconsistency of Premises

A set of formulae 𝐻1 , 𝐻2 , . . . , 𝐻𝑚 is said to be inconsistent if their conjunction

i.e., 𝐻1 ∧ 𝐻2 ∧ . . .∧ 𝐻𝑚 ⇒ 𝑅 ∧ ¬𝑅 for some formulae R.

MA8351 DISCRETE MATHEMATICS

A set of formulae 𝐻1, 𝐻2 , . . . , 𝐻𝑚 is said to be consistent if their conjunction

A set of formula 𝐻1, 𝐻2 , . . . , 𝐻𝑚 is said to be consistent if it is not inconsistent.

1.Show that 𝑷 → 𝑸, 𝑷 → 𝑹, 𝑸 → ¬𝑹 & 𝑃 are inconsistent.

{1} 1)𝑃 → 𝑄 Rule P

{2} 2)𝑄 → ¬𝑅 Rule P

{1, 2} 3)𝑃 → ¬𝑅 Rule T

{4} 4)𝑃 Rule P

{1, 2, 4} 5)¬𝑅 Rule T

{6} 6)𝑃 → 𝑅 Rule P

{1, 2, 4, 6} 7)¬𝑃 Rule T

{1, 2, 4, 6} 8)𝑃 ∧ ¬𝑃 Rule T

Which is nothing but false value.

Hence given set of premises are inconsistent.