Associated Topics || Dr. Math Home || Search Dr. Math

Logic Laws

```Date: 03/04/2003 at 20:36:25
From: Jessica
Subject: Logic laws

We are learning about logic. I do not understand the laws of
inference, simplification, disjunctive inference, and disjunctive
```

```
Date: 03/06/2003 at 23:11:23
From: Doctor Achilles
Subject: Re: Logic laws

Hi Jessica,

Thanks for writing to Dr. Math.

For a "crash course" in symbolic logic, see the Dr. Math FAQ:

http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/symbolic_logic.html

The "crash course" doesn't use the same terms to refer to all of the
give you background in logic and show you a systematic way to think

1) "inference."  This refers to what the crash course calls "->elim"
or what some people call "modus ponens."  The rule is this:

If you have:

(A -> B)

And you have:

A

Then you can conclude:

B

This follows almost directly from the meaning of "->" or "if...,
then."  The statement

(A -> B)

means that if A is true, then B must also be true.  It doen't say
anything about whether A or B actually is true, it just gives a
relationship between them. However, if we also know

A

that is, we also know that A is true, *then* we can conclude that B
is true as well.

2) "simplification."  This is called "^elimination" in the crash
course.  The law is this:

If you have:

(A ^ B)

Then you can conclude:

A

And/or you can conclude:

B

The reason is fairly easy to see from the definition of "^" or "and."
We know for starters that

(A ^ B)

is a true statement. This means that *both* A and B *have* to be true.
So we can conclude A is true from that, or if we prefer we can
conclude B is true, or if we like we can make both of those
conclusions.

3) "disjunctive inference". This is also sometimes called "disjunctive
syllogism." The rule states:

If you have:

(A v B)

And you have:

~A

Then you can conclude:

B

[As a side note, the rule also works if you have (A v B) and you have
~B, then you can conclude A.]

This one is a little trickier (it's one of the advanced rules in the
crash course).  Let's take this step by step.

We start off with

(A v B)

This means that *either* A is true, or B is true, or both are true.
So there are three possible ways that (A v B) could be true:

First, A is true and B is false.

Second, A is false and B is true.

Third, A is true and B is true.

So far we have no idea which of these three is actually the case.

But then we see that we also have

~B

This means that B is false. Let's review are three possible scenarios:

First, A is true and B is false. (This one still may be correct.)

Second, A is false and B is true. (Since we just found out that B is
false, this *cannot* be correct.)

Third, A is true and B is true. (Since we just found out that B is
false, this *cannot* be correct.)

So the only scenario that can possibly be correct is: A is true and B
is false.  We can take that and make a logical statement out of it:

(A ^ ~B)

And by simplification we can get from that

A

So A must be true if we start with (A v B) and ~B.

course. It's a fairly short rule, but it seems like cheating so it
is hard to feel comfortable using it.

If you have:

A

Then you are allowed to conclude:

(A v B)

It doesn't matter what B is. B could be something completely new that
you just made up. B could be something that appears as part of another
line in the same problem. B could even be something that you know is
false!

How can that work? How can we go around just willy-nilly adding
letters to the end of sentences?

A

So we know that A is true. No matter what we do with the rest of the
problem, we can be sure that A will always be true.

What if we know already that B is true? Well, in that case (A v B)
will come out true because the disjunction of 2 truths will be true.

What if we know already that B is false? Well, in that case (A v B)
will still come out true because the disjunction of a truth with a
falsehood still comes out true.

What if we don't know whether B is false? What if we saw it earlier,
but never could prove one way or the other? What if we just made B up?
In that case, we don't know whether B is true or false, but *either
way* (A v B) will be true (we just proved that in the first two cases
above).

Basically, as long as we start off with

A

and we know that A is true, we can be sure that (A v B) will be true,
no matter what B is.

One final note: I have used A and B for every example, this (of
course) works for any sentence letters, it also works for more
complicated sentences so if you have something like:

[(A v B) -> (B ^ C)]

and

(A v B)

then you can do inference on it and conclude

(B ^ C)

I hope this helps. If you have other questions or you'd like to talk

- Doctor Achilles, The Math Forum
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/
```
Associated Topics:
High School Logic
Middle School Logic

Search the Dr. Math Library:

 Find items containing (put spaces between keywords):   Click only once for faster results: [ Choose "whole words" when searching for a word like age.] all keywords, in any order at least one, that exact phrase parts of words whole words

Submit your own question to Dr. Math
Math Forum Home || Math Library || Quick Reference || Math Forum Search