Math 55 Lecture 2
Zusammenfassung
TLDRThe lecture introduces propositional logic, focusing on logical operators like 'not', 'or', 'and', and how they combine propositions that are statements either true or false. Key concepts like logical equivalence and compound propositions are discussed, followed by introducing propositional functions and quantifiers to address collections of objects. These functions allow making broad or specific statements about sets of objects in a concise manner. The interaction of quantifiers with logical operators—like the negation which flips quantifiers—and the nuances of nested quantifiers are explored. Finally, rules of inference are presented as tools for deriving conclusions from known truths, emphasizing simple tautologies as foundational to reasoning in mathematics.
Mitbringsel
- 📚 Introduction to key concepts of propositional logic.
- ✍️ Discussed logical operators: 'not', 'or', 'and'.
- 🔄 Examined equivalence of compound propositions.
- 🧮 Introduced propositional functions and quantifiers.
- 🔍 Explored logical equivalence and tautologies.
- 🧩 Discussed rules of inference and mathematical reasoning.
- ⚙️ Explained how negation flips quantifiers in logic.
- 🔀 Described nesting and interaction of multiple quantifiers.
- ❓ Shared examples of logical statements with different quantifiers.
- 🔗 Highlighted the use of truth tables and basic tautologies.
Zeitleiste
- 00:00:00 - 00:05:00
Review of propositional logic elements like propositions, logical operators (not, or, and), and compound propositions' equivalence. Introduction of topics for current lecture: wrapping up equivalence of compound propositions and introducing propositional functions, quantifiers, and rules of inference.
- 00:05:00 - 00:10:00
Description of tautology (a proposition always true) and contradiction (a proposition always false) in logical equivalence. Introduction of the concept that logical equivalence can be expressed as a proposition and exemplified through tautologies' practical role in reasoning.
- 00:10:00 - 00:15:00
Explanation of the truth conditions of tautologies, contradictions, and contingencies using truth tables. Discussion on how tautologies, despite seeming uninteresting, capture meaningful reasoning patterns. Introduction of useful simple tautologies as examples.
- 00:15:00 - 00:20:00
Mention of De Morgan’s laws for logical operations and how negations can be tested using truth tables. Explanation of logical equivalence among complex propositions with quantifiers using universal and existential quantifiers. Introduction to detail of propositional functions with examples.
- 00:20:00 - 00:25:00
Power of propositional functions explained through the precise description of infinite objects. Definition of a propositional function as a statement containing variables that becomes a proposition when variables are instantiated, with examples given illustrating its use.
- 00:25:00 - 00:30:00
Introduction of universal quantification and existential quantification. Explanation of how these transform propositional functions into propositions. Examples used to show how domains affect truth values and the role of quantifiers in constructing mathematical statements.
- 00:30:00 - 00:35:00
Explanation of negation in quantifiers highlighting De Morgan's laws for quantifiers. Description of the negation of universal and existential quantifiers and revelation that negation flips the types. Examples include writing negation meaning in English to solidify understanding.
- 00:35:00 - 00:40:00
Discussion on nested quantifiers and changing their order. Examples illustrating same quantifier order is interchangeable but mixed quantifier order matters. Clarification on subtle differences caused by mixing universal and existential quantifiers with scenario examples.
- 00:40:00 - 00:45:00
Importance of quantifier order in logic. Different scenarios showing how altering order between universal and existential quantifiers changes statement truthfulness. Practical examples of real-world implications such as height comparisons.
- 00:45:00 - 00:50:00
More examples of how negation interacts with compound quantifiers. Explanation of how negation affects logical form when dealing with multiple quantifiers, continuing the key point that flipping quantifiers significantly changes logical implications.
- 00:50:00 - 00:55:00
Clarification of intricacies in quantifier interaction, especially changes in truth value with differing contexts. Further examples illustrate the clear role in mathematical and logical reasoning as seen in mathematical properties like inverse multiplicative existence.
- 00:55:00 - 01:00:00
Introduction to rules of inference, showcasing basic logical steps in reasoning through examples. Explanation of tautology’s role in inference with practical propositions laid out. Use of simple examples like "if it's raining, the dog is wet" to understand basic logical deduction.
- 01:00:00 - 01:05:00
Deeper dive into logical inference rules, showing foundational inference rules such as modus ponens with Latin-named rules. Explanation of inference language origin as tautologies and how they drive reasoning processes in forming new conclusions.
- 01:05:00 - 01:10:00
Definition and function of an argument in propositional logic. Introduction to valid arguments using sequences of statements where each follows logically from the previous with given premises. Exemplification of forming valid arguments step-by-step with logical linkage of premises to conclusion.
- 01:10:00 - 01:15:00
Illustration of complex rules of inference with propositional functions and quantifiers. Description of universal instantiation and generalization alongside examples to display their clarity and role in structured argumentation.
- 01:15:00 - 01:22:34
More intricate examples showcasing inference rules application on logical arguments. Case studies identify and showcase logic usage in structured proof construction, illustrating links between premises and conclusions within mathematical logic context.
Mind Map
Häufig gestellte Fragen
What is propositional logic?
Propositional logic involves the use of propositions that are statements either true or false and uses logical operators to combine them.
What is a tautology in logic?
A tautology is a compound proposition that is always true, regardless of the truth values of the individual variables.
What are rules of inference?
Rules of inference are methods for deriving new propositions from existing ones based on logical reasoning.
What makes an argument valid?
An argument is considered valid if its conclusion logically follows from its premises using rules of inference.
What is the difference between universal and existential quantifiers?
Universal quantifiers express that a propositional function holds for every element in a domain, while existential quantifiers assert that there is at least one element for which the function holds.
What does logical equivalence mean in propositional logic?
Logical equivalence between compound propositions means they have the same truth value across all possible scenarios.
What are De Morgan's Laws in the context of logic?
De Morgan's Laws explain how negation interacts with conjunction and disjunction; they also extend to quantifiers in logical statements.
What is a propositional function?
It involves variables and is not a complete proposition until the variables are specified.
Weitere Video-Zusammenfassungen anzeigen
Everything you need to know about the Anxious Preoccupied
This is Boring, but it made me over $2,400,000
5 Aspergers Symptoms You NEED To Know (Asperger Syndrome)
The Making Of Latino Identity: An American Story
Apke person ki current feelings kya hai ? 🌷 || Tarot Reading (Hindi)
Elders' Wisdom Series: Magic and Power
- 00:00:03um
- 00:00:04so welcome to lecture two
- 00:00:16and um
- 00:00:20okay so
- 00:00:21so so last time
- 00:00:25uh we introduced like the very basic
- 00:00:28concepts of propositional logic so we
- 00:00:31introduced
- 00:00:33propositions
- 00:00:35proposition was just a statement that's
- 00:00:37either
- 00:00:38true or false but not both
- 00:00:39[Music]
- 00:00:42uh we talked about uh logical operators
- 00:00:49namely not
- 00:00:50or
- 00:00:52and
- 00:00:54as well as some
- 00:00:57things you could derive from those such
- 00:00:58as conditionals by conditionals et
- 00:01:00cetera
- 00:01:05and we talked about
- 00:01:11when compound propositions are
- 00:01:13equivalent
- 00:01:19and today what we're going to do is
- 00:01:20we're going to do three things so we're
- 00:01:21going to continue talking about
- 00:01:23we're going to briefly wrap up
- 00:01:25equivalence of compound propositions so
- 00:01:27logical equivalence
- 00:01:37and then we're going to greatly enhance
- 00:01:39this language
- 00:01:41to talk about
- 00:01:42collections of objects
- 00:01:45by introducing
- 00:01:47propositional
- 00:01:48[Music]
- 00:01:52functions and quantifiers
- 00:01:59and then finally we're going to
- 00:02:02talk about
- 00:02:03rules of inference
- 00:02:08which are basically ways of combining
- 00:02:11propositions that you know
- 00:02:13to get new propositions and that's
- 00:02:15ultimately how
- 00:02:16how how mathematics is done so roughly
- 00:02:18this is how to build
- 00:02:22uh
- 00:02:25or you know how how did it use well i'll
- 00:02:28say what it is later
- 00:02:30so let me begin by talking about this
- 00:02:34um
- 00:02:36so recall
- 00:02:39that i said two compound propositions
- 00:02:45let's say c1 and c2 are logically
- 00:02:47equivalent
- 00:02:51if
- 00:02:52they both have the same truth value
- 00:03:03uh for regardless of the value truth
- 00:03:05values of the constituent
- 00:03:08of the propositional variables
- 00:03:10for all
- 00:03:13values
- 00:03:15of propositional variables
- 00:03:20and um
- 00:03:24uh
- 00:03:25one sort of cute remark is that this
- 00:03:28notion of
- 00:03:30equivalence of prop
- 00:03:31of two compound propositions can itself
- 00:03:34be written as a proposition
- 00:03:36so c1 is equivalent to c2
- 00:03:38is the same as
- 00:03:41saying that c1 if and only if
- 00:03:44c2 is always true
- 00:03:49so it is equivalent to the proposition
- 00:03:50true
- 00:03:52and and this type of situation has a
- 00:03:54special name and we're going to see it a
- 00:03:55lot in the course
- 00:03:56this is called a tautology so let me
- 00:03:58just
- 00:04:05yeah so let me just
- 00:04:07introduce a small piece of terminology
- 00:04:12um compound proposition c
- 00:04:16is a uh tautology
- 00:04:22if it's always true so it's logically
- 00:04:24equivalent to true so it doesn't matter
- 00:04:26what
- 00:04:28uh proper the propositional variables
- 00:04:30are it's always true for example
- 00:04:33um
- 00:04:33[Music]
- 00:04:35the proposition p implies q
- 00:04:39if and only if
- 00:04:41not q
- 00:04:42implies not p
- 00:04:46so that's that's always true regardless
- 00:04:48of the truth values of p and q that's
- 00:04:50saying that the
- 00:04:52conditional is logically equivalent to
- 00:04:54the contrapositive
- 00:04:59and we'll say that a compound
- 00:05:01proposition is a contradiction
- 00:05:08if it's logically equivalent to false
- 00:05:11uh so can anybody think of a
- 00:05:13propositional variable a compound
- 00:05:15proposition that's a contradiction
- 00:05:19like p and not p yeah p and not p that's
- 00:05:22the simplest one
- 00:05:25and otherwise it's called
- 00:05:27contingent
- 00:05:33and you can think about these three
- 00:05:35cases in terms of their truth tables
- 00:05:36right a tautology has a property that
- 00:05:39all the rows in its truth table
- 00:05:41are t
- 00:05:42they're all true
- 00:05:44a contradiction all the rows are false
- 00:05:47and a
- 00:05:49proposition is contingent if some of the
- 00:05:51rows are true and some of them are false
- 00:05:55so
- 00:05:56so tautology seemed like kind of a
- 00:05:58boring thing right like well if it's
- 00:06:01always true then what's you know what's
- 00:06:02the point right that doesn't sound very
- 00:06:04interesting
- 00:06:05but tautologies can actually
- 00:06:07capture
- 00:06:08interesting
- 00:06:09[Music]
- 00:06:10well patterns of reasoning so here are
- 00:06:12some examples of some easy but
- 00:06:14interesting tautologies
- 00:06:26okay sorry could you scroll up for a
- 00:06:28second because i think you cut off like
- 00:06:30part of the bottom so i couldn't see all
- 00:06:32of the notes like the bottom row i can't
- 00:06:35see it for some reason i don't know why
- 00:06:37so you can't see the bottom row uh yeah
- 00:06:40so i can only see up to a contradiction
- 00:06:42and then i can't see anything else
- 00:06:45oh wait never mind i
- 00:06:56so there okay there's the one we wrote
- 00:06:57over here
- 00:07:01um
- 00:07:02and then here's another one
- 00:07:04p implies q
- 00:07:05[Music]
- 00:07:07and
- 00:07:08p
- 00:07:09this whole thing implies q
- 00:07:14okay so if p then q is true and if and
- 00:07:17if p is true then q has to be true
- 00:07:20here's another one p implies p or q
- 00:07:27and p and q
- 00:07:28implies p so
- 00:07:30these are kind of you know if you want
- 00:07:32you can check these using a truth table
- 00:07:35but uh these are really
- 00:07:38uh you know
- 00:07:39basic enough that we
- 00:07:41basically that everybody has an
- 00:07:42intuitive understanding of them
- 00:07:45and these are examples of topologies and
- 00:07:46we'll be coming back to the
- 00:07:48uh to them later and the reason i want
- 00:07:50to introduce this in the beginning of
- 00:07:51the lecture is that
- 00:07:54the idea is
- 00:07:55the key idea in math is
- 00:07:59we will use lots
- 00:08:02of
- 00:08:04these
- 00:08:06you know simple
- 00:08:10tautologies
- 00:08:12uh to derive
- 00:08:14interesting ones
- 00:08:21okay
- 00:08:22so that's all i want to say about
- 00:08:23logical equivalence and tautologies
- 00:08:26which was very little any questions
- 00:08:27about that
- 00:08:37okay so let's move on to item two
- 00:08:39propositional functions and quantifiers
- 00:08:41so by the way this was section 1.3 and
- 00:08:43this is like 1.4 to 1.5
- 00:08:51so what's the motivation
- 00:08:53for all this so the motivation is
- 00:08:58is that we want to be able to reason
- 00:08:59precisely
- 00:09:02about large collections of objects right
- 00:09:04so
- 00:09:06we want to be able to
- 00:09:08[Music]
- 00:09:10say things like
- 00:09:14i don't know every integer is even or
- 00:09:16odd
- 00:09:23and right now we don't have
- 00:09:25uh you know propositional logic doesn't
- 00:09:27let us do that right because right now
- 00:09:30we would have to say something like well
- 00:09:31one
- 00:09:32you know we could try writing a
- 00:09:34proposition that says this which is like
- 00:09:36okay 1 is
- 00:09:37even or 1 is odd
- 00:09:41and
- 00:09:432 is even
- 00:09:45or 2 is odd
- 00:09:47and dot or dot but you can see that you
- 00:09:49can't actually write this down right
- 00:09:51because you have infinitely many objects
- 00:09:53to consider
- 00:09:54so we want to be able to write
- 00:09:55statements like this in a precise
- 00:09:56concise way and that that's
- 00:09:59uh
- 00:10:00that's the
- 00:10:02reason why we have these propositional
- 00:10:03functions so let me define what that is
- 00:10:07so a propositional function
- 00:10:15um
- 00:10:16let me use let me make sure i use
- 00:10:18exactly the definition of the book
- 00:10:25um
- 00:10:26okay
- 00:10:27is a statement
- 00:10:33containing one or more variables
- 00:10:41from from a domain
- 00:10:49which becomes a proposition when each of
- 00:10:51the variables is instantiated
- 00:11:14okay so
- 00:11:15this definition rests on these two other
- 00:11:17important notions of variables in a
- 00:11:19domain
- 00:11:21um
- 00:11:22so let me just show you some examples so
- 00:11:25for example
- 00:11:27p of x being
- 00:11:29x is even
- 00:11:32this is a propositional function
- 00:11:35and the domain here is uh
- 00:11:38sorry
- 00:11:39integers
- 00:11:41uh yes
- 00:11:42uh what is the last word in the
- 00:11:44definition accounts oh instantiated
- 00:11:47sorry yeah instantiated
- 00:11:49okay thank you
- 00:11:52so so so this is x is even is not a
- 00:11:55proposition by itself right
- 00:11:57because it's not true or false because
- 00:11:59we don't know what x is but when you
- 00:12:01plug in x
- 00:12:02from this domain which is the integers
- 00:12:04so the domain have the domain must be
- 00:12:06specified often it's implicitly
- 00:12:08specified
- 00:12:19um because you know for saying something
- 00:12:20is even well
- 00:12:22okay that the domain could be integers
- 00:12:24or positive integers or something like
- 00:12:25that
- 00:12:27and and once you plug in a particular
- 00:12:29integer this becomes a proposition right
- 00:12:31like for example
- 00:12:33p of
- 00:12:332
- 00:12:35is the statement 2 is even
- 00:12:38and this is actually a legitimate
- 00:12:39proposition
- 00:12:41but the first thing is not a proposition
- 00:12:42it's a propositional function
- 00:12:46and and you can have
- 00:12:49you can have a propositional function
- 00:12:50with more than one variable for example
- 00:12:52q
- 00:12:52x comma y
- 00:12:54is
- 00:12:55x is less than y
- 00:12:57and let's again say the domain
- 00:13:00c integers
- 00:13:02so this applies to pairs of integers
- 00:13:07okay so now once you have this this idea
- 00:13:09of propositional function so sometimes
- 00:13:11also called the predicate
- 00:13:21um so we'll use those terms
- 00:13:22interchangeably
- 00:13:25um
- 00:13:27then uh now you can make uh
- 00:13:30statements like the one we want like
- 00:13:31every integer is even where every
- 00:13:33integer is odd with one more ingredient
- 00:13:35which is a quantifier so there so let me
- 00:13:38now introduce quantifiers is one of the
- 00:13:40key
- 00:13:41definitions of the lecture and maybe of
- 00:13:44course
- 00:13:47so
- 00:13:48the
- 00:13:49universal quantification
- 00:13:59of um
- 00:14:03of a propositional function of p of x
- 00:14:07is the statement professor would you be
- 00:14:09able to go to the last slide really
- 00:14:10quick
- 00:14:12uh yeah
- 00:14:16so by the way um
- 00:14:18uh
- 00:14:19i i guess don't uh feel compelled to
- 00:14:21copy the notes since we'll be posting
- 00:14:23them but um
- 00:14:24[Music]
- 00:14:25yeah
- 00:14:28okay um
- 00:14:32so so the universal quantification of p
- 00:14:34of x is the statement um
- 00:14:35[Music]
- 00:14:37for every
- 00:14:39x in the domain
- 00:14:44uh p of x
- 00:14:46so for every x in the domain the
- 00:14:48p of x is true
- 00:14:51uh and this is denoted
- 00:14:57for all x
- 00:14:58v of x
- 00:15:00this is a very important notation that
- 00:15:02we'll be seeing a lot in the course
- 00:15:05and the way this is read is um
- 00:15:07this is read as
- 00:15:10for all x
- 00:15:14uh and this is a legitimate this is a
- 00:15:16proposition
- 00:15:18okay because
- 00:15:20this is actually something that either
- 00:15:21is true or not so for for example
- 00:15:26for every x
- 00:15:29x is even
- 00:15:32this is the universal quantification of
- 00:15:34the
- 00:15:36propositional function x is even and the
- 00:15:38domain is
- 00:15:40let's say the integers
- 00:15:43so is this true or false
- 00:15:46false false right because there there
- 00:15:48are odd integers so it's not true that
- 00:15:51for every integer
- 00:15:54okay
- 00:15:56[Music]
- 00:15:59and the
- 00:16:01complementary
- 00:16:04operation
- 00:16:07is the existential quantification so the
- 00:16:10existential quantification
- 00:16:19of a propositional function v of x is
- 00:16:22the statement
- 00:16:26there exists
- 00:16:30an x in the domain
- 00:16:37such that
- 00:16:39uh p of x
- 00:16:42so for example
- 00:16:44and okay
- 00:16:45of course there's a there's a notation
- 00:16:46for this which i'll write down so
- 00:16:48denoted
- 00:16:52uh there exists x
- 00:17:01and this is read
- 00:17:03there as there exists
- 00:17:09there exists x and sometimes in here you
- 00:17:11say such that
- 00:17:15so the corresponding example the
- 00:17:17existential quantification of the same
- 00:17:18statement would be there exists x
- 00:17:22such that x is even
- 00:17:27and
- 00:17:28again the domain
- 00:17:30is the integers
- 00:17:33in this statement uh and is this true or
- 00:17:35false
- 00:17:37true yeah true because there is for
- 00:17:39example two as an integer
- 00:17:42and so the beauty of this construction
- 00:17:43is you have you know a finite statement
- 00:17:46that actually says something about all
- 00:17:47the integers
- 00:17:49and this is kind of the power of math
- 00:17:50you can prove these finite statements
- 00:17:52that actually say something about
- 00:17:53infinitely many
- 00:17:55uh
- 00:17:56situations
- 00:17:58and okay let me let's look at a more
- 00:18:00interesting example
- 00:18:06uh here's another example
- 00:18:08uh there exists an x
- 00:18:11so that x squared equals two
- 00:18:13and again the domain is
- 00:18:15the integers
- 00:18:17is this true or false
- 00:18:19false false there's no integers so that
- 00:18:22it's square equal this square is 2. on
- 00:18:24the other hand if i look at the same
- 00:18:25statement
- 00:18:28but the domain i'm interested in is the
- 00:18:29real numbers
- 00:18:32then true then this is true so the point
- 00:18:35i want to make is that the truth or
- 00:18:36falsehood
- 00:18:38of a quantified statement
- 00:18:40depends on the domain so you have to you
- 00:18:43must always know what the domain is
- 00:18:44otherwise it's not clear if it's true or
- 00:18:46false
- 00:18:49professor is it sufficient to just write
- 00:18:51that it's an element of the integer set
- 00:18:53or the real number set instead of
- 00:18:55writing on the side that's a great
- 00:18:57question um can we write
- 00:19:02uh there exists an x in the integer set
- 00:19:05such that x squared equals two
- 00:19:08and uh the answer is yes
- 00:19:10and we will do that starting next week
- 00:19:12we just haven't introduced set notation
- 00:19:15yet and that's not a prerequisite for
- 00:19:16the class but we'll start doing that
- 00:19:18next week
- 00:19:26but in the meantime here here's a sort
- 00:19:28of interesting remark
- 00:19:30if you don't want to write the domain if
- 00:19:31you want to be really explicit about the
- 00:19:33domain
- 00:19:34um
- 00:19:36you you could also
- 00:19:41specify
- 00:19:43domain
- 00:19:45using
- 00:19:47a conjunction
- 00:19:50so for example you could say there
- 00:19:52exists an x so that x is an integer
- 00:19:56and x squared equals 2.
- 00:19:59so and
- 00:20:00in the mean time you can do that as well
- 00:20:02or you could say okay for every x
- 00:20:05x is an integer
- 00:20:08implies x is even
- 00:20:13um i have a question so um
- 00:20:17would a universal quantification or an
- 00:20:19existential quantification be considered
- 00:20:21as a propositional function or as a
- 00:20:25proposition
- 00:20:27uh right so the
- 00:20:29once you quantify a propositional
- 00:20:31function
- 00:20:33then there's a legitimate proposition it
- 00:20:35becomes a proposition because it's
- 00:20:36either true or false
- 00:20:39once so once all the variables so
- 00:20:41actually i should make a sort of
- 00:20:43explicit point about this
- 00:20:48so um
- 00:20:50a variable
- 00:20:52which appears in a quantifier is called
- 00:20:54bound
- 00:21:06so you know i mean
- 00:21:09okay for example if we
- 00:21:14if you know if we look at the statement
- 00:21:16above right
- 00:21:18then this the bound refers to the fact
- 00:21:20that this x is the same as this x
- 00:21:23and the same as actually all occurrences
- 00:21:25of x appearing in here
- 00:21:28so maybe they'll use red to indicate
- 00:21:30that i'm talking about this arrow
- 00:21:33this x refers to all the x's in here
- 00:21:38okay
- 00:21:38and um
- 00:21:41that's what turns the propositional
- 00:21:42function into a proposition
- 00:21:46right so before without the quantifier
- 00:21:49it wasn't true or false because we
- 00:21:50didn't know what x was right
- 00:21:52once you add the quantifier
- 00:21:54it's making it very clear what which x
- 00:21:57we're considering right so
- 00:21:59the universal quantification is saying
- 00:22:01that it has to be true for every x in
- 00:22:02the domain and the existential
- 00:22:04quantification is saying there is at
- 00:22:06least one x such that it's true
- 00:22:09and now there's no ambiguity that's
- 00:22:10either is true or false
- 00:22:13okay
- 00:22:14so so um so to answer your question um
- 00:22:22[Music]
- 00:22:23a statement
- 00:22:27in which
- 00:22:30all variables
- 00:22:33are bound
- 00:22:35is
- 00:22:36a proposition
- 00:22:40otherwise it isn't right if you have a
- 00:22:41variable that's not bound
- 00:22:44then
- 00:22:45wow the truth or falsehood of the
- 00:22:46proposition can depend on the value
- 00:22:54okay
- 00:22:57um
- 00:23:00so
- 00:23:01we're going to look at a bunch of more
- 00:23:02examples but any questions so far
- 00:23:14okay
- 00:23:19so now i want to talk about how these
- 00:23:22quantifiers
- 00:23:23interact with
- 00:23:24the logical operators so not or and
- 00:23:28that we discussed earlier
- 00:23:30and also how they interact with each
- 00:23:32other
- 00:23:34so let me begin by talking about uh
- 00:23:36negation
- 00:23:39sorry i think someone is maybe
- 00:23:42maybe someone needs to mute themselves
- 00:23:45okay
- 00:23:55okay so so so let me um
- 00:24:00start with an example
- 00:24:04um
- 00:24:04[Music]
- 00:24:06so let's consider the statement
- 00:24:09that um
- 00:24:14let's see which statement yeah how about
- 00:24:15this
- 00:24:16so let's consider the statement
- 00:24:20every integer
- 00:24:22is prime
- 00:24:26okay so that
- 00:24:28in in this in this
- 00:24:31language of propositional logic that's
- 00:24:33the statement
- 00:24:36for every x
- 00:24:38x is prime
- 00:24:41and the domain is integers
- 00:24:45um
- 00:24:49now what's the negation of this
- 00:24:50statement well
- 00:24:52in english
- 00:24:54you know uh
- 00:24:56what's the um
- 00:25:00the negation is well it's not the case
- 00:25:01that every integer is prime
- 00:25:04but what's another way to say that
- 00:25:05that's a little bit more concrete
- 00:25:08there is an integer that is not prime
- 00:25:10there is an integer that's not prime
- 00:25:19there is an integer that
- 00:25:21[Music]
- 00:25:25composite i guess is the opposite of
- 00:25:27being prime
- 00:25:31and
- 00:25:32and you know that statement is there
- 00:25:34exists an x
- 00:25:37such that
- 00:25:38uh
- 00:25:40well
- 00:25:41the negation of this is true
- 00:25:46right there exists an x such that
- 00:25:49um
- 00:25:50x is not prep
- 00:25:52and so and so the the sort of general
- 00:25:55pattern here
- 00:26:02which is very important to remember and
- 00:26:03very useful
- 00:26:05is that the negation of a universally
- 00:26:08quantified statement
- 00:26:12is
- 00:26:15a an existentially quantified statement
- 00:26:22and uh
- 00:26:25the negation of
- 00:26:28an existentially quantified statement
- 00:26:35is a universally quantified statement
- 00:26:42okay so this is this is an important
- 00:26:44sort of logical maneuver that occurs a
- 00:26:46lot
- 00:26:47uh sometimes this is referred to as
- 00:26:49demorgan laws
- 00:26:54for quantified statements
- 00:26:59and the way to remember it is well when
- 00:27:01you negate a quantified statement you
- 00:27:02flip the quantifiers right so
- 00:27:05the way to remember it is that the knot
- 00:27:07flips
- 00:27:09the quantifiers
- 00:27:12it turns for all into exists and exists
- 00:27:14in the form
- 00:27:21and okay this de morgan i guess i maybe
- 00:27:24it was in the reading but let me just
- 00:27:26remind you that
- 00:27:28de morgan's laws just the vanilla
- 00:27:30demorgan's laws refers to a set of
- 00:27:32tautologies which i could add to this
- 00:27:34simple list here
- 00:27:38and those are that the negation
- 00:27:41of p or q
- 00:27:42[Music]
- 00:27:43is negation of p and negation of q
- 00:27:47and indication of p and q
- 00:27:50is negation of p or negation of q
- 00:27:54this is these are called the morgan's
- 00:27:56laws
- 00:28:00professor could you go back um one slide
- 00:28:02real quick
- 00:28:04buy back you mean back to here
- 00:28:07yes thank you
- 00:28:10so i see that a number of people raise
- 00:28:12their hand so please just unmute and ask
- 00:28:17how would you prove de morgan's laws for
- 00:28:20quantifiers
- 00:28:22uh that's a great question
- 00:28:24so we will we will get to that we'll
- 00:28:27develop such a really great question how
- 00:28:29would you prove this
- 00:28:36and the answer is we'll use rules of
- 00:28:38inference which are something we'll
- 00:28:39develop at the end of the lecture
- 00:28:42so it's a really good question because
- 00:28:44if you go back to these legit these sort
- 00:28:45of vanilla de morgan's laws
- 00:28:47how would you how would you prove this
- 00:28:49anybody know
- 00:28:53truth tables yeah you can check using
- 00:28:55truth tables
- 00:29:01but
- 00:29:02these de morgan's laws for quantifiers
- 00:29:05not so easy right
- 00:29:06because
- 00:29:08i mean what's the truth table now there
- 00:29:10could be infinitely many x right so how
- 00:29:12do you check a statement like this and
- 00:29:14that's exactly where rules of inference
- 00:29:15are going to come in
- 00:29:19um
- 00:29:22and i guess i should make one more
- 00:29:23remark
- 00:29:27so i used this this notation
- 00:29:30of logical equivalent right
- 00:29:37previously i only defined that for
- 00:29:38compound propositions but now i'm using
- 00:29:40it to talk about
- 00:29:43these statements that have quantifiers
- 00:29:45and propositional functions
- 00:29:47so what does that mean well
- 00:29:50so
- 00:29:51i'll just write the definition here
- 00:29:53so two statements
- 00:29:57involving
- 00:30:00quantifiers
- 00:30:04are logically equivalent
- 00:30:06logically equivalent
- 00:30:11if they have the same truth value
- 00:30:20for
- 00:30:20all um
- 00:30:25values
- 00:30:27of the propositional functions up here
- 00:30:29sorry of the propositional variables
- 00:30:34and all
- 00:30:36domains
- 00:30:39uh all domains for which the quantifiers
- 00:30:41make sense
- 00:30:42okay so logical equivalence
- 00:30:45so this statement that's written here is
- 00:30:46very strong it means that it doesn't
- 00:30:48matter what domain you're talking about
- 00:30:50this always works it doesn't depend on
- 00:30:52the domain
- 00:30:57so
- 00:31:00any questions about negation of
- 00:31:02quantifiers
- 00:31:13can we go over the last remark one more
- 00:31:15time please
- 00:31:17uh yeah so the last remark is actually
- 00:31:19uh
- 00:31:20you know let me just make it a
- 00:31:22definition actually it's it's a
- 00:31:24definition
- 00:31:26of this notion of logical equivalence
- 00:31:29of two
- 00:31:30propositions that that could involve
- 00:31:32quantifiers right like these like
- 00:31:34what's written in this blue box and the
- 00:31:36claim is that
- 00:31:38you know two such propositions are
- 00:31:40logically equivalent if they have the
- 00:31:41same truth value
- 00:31:43regardless of which
- 00:31:45domain
- 00:31:46the quantifiers are over
- 00:31:49right so before we had a few statements
- 00:31:52or even here right
- 00:31:54we have we have
- 00:31:55uh we have the statement up at the top
- 00:31:58of the slide and it has different
- 00:32:00interpretations depending on the domain
- 00:32:02right if the domain is integers it means
- 00:32:04one thing if it's real numbers it means
- 00:32:05something else
- 00:32:08logical equivalence is a very strong
- 00:32:10definition which says that
- 00:32:12two statements are logically equivalent
- 00:32:14if they always have the truth value it
- 00:32:16doesn't matter which domain you use
- 00:32:18so this is these these are equivalent in
- 00:32:20a very strong sense
- 00:32:23does
- 00:32:24bijection diverge from logical
- 00:32:26equivalence in this way
- 00:32:28yeah so we haven't defined bijection yet
- 00:32:30but bijection is something having to do
- 00:32:32with functions this is not something
- 00:32:34that has to do with functions this is
- 00:32:35something that has to do with
- 00:32:36propositions
- 00:32:39thank
- 00:32:40you professor can you um just really
- 00:32:43quick to the some simple but useful
- 00:32:45topologies i just didn't catch the
- 00:32:47demorgan
- 00:32:48oh sure yeah so simple but useful
- 00:32:50tautologies
- 00:32:53the morgan's laws are saying well you
- 00:32:55know
- 00:32:56[Music]
- 00:33:00the negation of
- 00:33:02b or q is the negation of p and the
- 00:33:04negation of q
- 00:33:12so
- 00:33:12um
- 00:33:14oh thank you i just needed the last one
- 00:33:15here okay
- 00:33:19okay so so somebody asked this great
- 00:33:21question how do we establish these we'll
- 00:33:22get to us at the end of the lecture
- 00:33:24hopefully if i have time
- 00:33:27okay so so negation is one
- 00:33:30sort of subtle interesting thing that
- 00:33:32happens with quantifiers
- 00:33:33uh an even more
- 00:33:35subtle thing is what happens when you
- 00:33:37have multiple quantifiers
- 00:33:40okay so nesting of quantifiers
- 00:33:50so what do i mean by nesting
- 00:33:53so
- 00:33:55uh what i mean is i i can
- 00:33:58i can have multiple variables
- 00:34:00and have multiple quantifiers right
- 00:34:04so for example
- 00:34:06let's consider the following statement
- 00:34:08for every x
- 00:34:10for every y
- 00:34:13x plus y equals y plus x and let's
- 00:34:17assume the domain is integers
- 00:34:22okay
- 00:34:23now
- 00:34:26if you unpack this
- 00:34:29you know uh what is this really saying
- 00:34:31in english it's saying well for every
- 00:34:34integer x
- 00:34:37something happens right and that
- 00:34:39something that happens is this whole
- 00:34:41thing
- 00:34:42which is itself a propositional function
- 00:34:47so so if this was the propositional
- 00:34:49function
- 00:34:50q of x y because it depends on two
- 00:34:52variables
- 00:34:55this is a different propositional
- 00:34:57function p that depends only on x why
- 00:35:00does it depend only on x
- 00:35:11oh i mean y is bound right so it's very
- 00:35:14so
- 00:35:15if you plug in the value of x this
- 00:35:17becomes a proposition
- 00:35:19so this is a propositional function that
- 00:35:21only depends on x you don't need to plug
- 00:35:22in a value of y
- 00:35:24because
- 00:35:25that's included in the definition of p
- 00:35:27of x
- 00:35:29so this is saying for every integer x
- 00:35:33um for every
- 00:35:35integer y
- 00:35:38or you know maybe just to clarify and
- 00:35:40say it is the case that
- 00:35:44for every integer y
- 00:35:46x plus y equals y plus x
- 00:35:53so you can stack these things uh
- 00:35:56together
- 00:36:01now
- 00:36:04when when you do this um
- 00:36:06[Music]
- 00:36:08you can do this with existential
- 00:36:09quantifier as well you can
- 00:36:12you can
- 00:36:13so so by the way so so what factors is
- 00:36:15it expressing it's expressing that
- 00:36:17addition of integers is commutative that
- 00:36:19the order in which you add things
- 00:36:20doesn't matter
- 00:36:21so it's expressing a kind of important
- 00:36:24but basic fact about arithmetic
- 00:36:30and uh
- 00:36:32yes would you have to specif would you
- 00:36:34not need to specify the domain for both
- 00:36:35the
- 00:36:36variables in the quantify it like in
- 00:36:39them absolutely absolutely so so by
- 00:36:42integers i just mean integers for both
- 00:36:44so you would have to specify
- 00:36:47thank you
- 00:36:49um
- 00:36:51and
- 00:36:52uh you know similarly there are some so
- 00:36:56okay so one nice feature that happens
- 00:36:58when you have multiple universal
- 00:36:59quantifiers
- 00:37:02is that
- 00:37:06you can switch the order for all x for
- 00:37:08all y
- 00:37:09p of x y well let's call it q since
- 00:37:12that's what it was called here
- 00:37:15it's the same
- 00:37:16as for all y for all x
- 00:37:19u of x y
- 00:37:21and again we won't
- 00:37:23belabor how to establish this um
- 00:37:26uh
- 00:37:27for now although we'll see some
- 00:37:30techniques how to do it at the end of
- 00:37:31the lecture but
- 00:37:32it's
- 00:37:33well it's it's um
- 00:37:36it's simple enough that we'll just treat
- 00:37:37it as self-evident for now
- 00:37:42okay
- 00:37:44um
- 00:37:45and and you can do the same thing for
- 00:37:47existential quantifiers so for example
- 00:37:50we can do
- 00:37:53here's an interesting one
- 00:37:55uh there exists an x and there exists a
- 00:37:58y there is just an x such that there
- 00:37:59exists a y
- 00:38:02such that uh
- 00:38:07let's see what do i
- 00:38:12what example do i want to do
- 00:38:25okay let's do this x squared plus y
- 00:38:27squared equals zero
- 00:38:29and again over integers
- 00:38:35so
- 00:38:36what's that saying it's saying that
- 00:38:38there are two integers there's a pair of
- 00:38:40integers so that the sum of their
- 00:38:41squares is zero
- 00:38:46so by the way is that true or false
- 00:38:52is it true
- 00:38:54zero zero true it's true because of zero
- 00:38:57zero right
- 00:38:59it's true because uh consider
- 00:39:03x equals y equals zero
- 00:39:06and and this is the same again logically
- 00:39:08as if you switch the quantifiers
- 00:39:13so so maybe um
- 00:39:14[Music]
- 00:39:16yeah
- 00:39:18and again that's because if you switch
- 00:39:20the order you're just you're still
- 00:39:21looking for a pair and it doesn't matter
- 00:39:23what order you write it in
- 00:39:25now the more interesting thing happens
- 00:39:27when you have an existential quantifier
- 00:39:29and
- 00:39:30a
- 00:39:32universal quantifier in the same
- 00:39:34statement
- 00:39:44so the more subtle thing is let's again
- 00:39:46look at an example
- 00:39:49uh so the example is
- 00:39:52let's do this here for every x
- 00:39:55there exists a y
- 00:39:57so that y equals x squared
- 00:40:02again over into this
- 00:40:06okay
- 00:40:08so what is this saying
- 00:40:11can somebody say what it's saying in
- 00:40:12words
- 00:40:18for all
- 00:40:19x there exists a y where x squared
- 00:40:22equals y along the integers for every
- 00:40:25integer there's some other integer
- 00:40:27that's equal to a square
- 00:40:29is that true
- 00:40:32no the fourth
- 00:40:39well um
- 00:40:42yeah that's true
- 00:40:46integer square
- 00:40:48yeah there is
- 00:40:50oh
- 00:40:50yeah why such that
- 00:40:55y equals x squared
- 00:40:57and
- 00:40:58we'll talk a little bit more towards the
- 00:41:00end of the lecture how to like
- 00:41:03you know prove something like this but
- 00:41:05in this in this case
- 00:41:06the english sentence is true if you for
- 00:41:08every integer so first of all notice
- 00:41:11that it's actually hard it's a little
- 00:41:12tricky to even conceptualize what the
- 00:41:14statement means
- 00:41:16and this is one of the
- 00:41:18key difficulties in getting to higher
- 00:41:20level math that you have a lot of
- 00:41:21statements with alternating quantifiers
- 00:41:27um
- 00:41:28and that's something you'll learn more
- 00:41:29through practice
- 00:41:31um but yeah this is saying for every
- 00:41:33number there's some other number that's
- 00:41:35equal to its square well the answer is
- 00:41:36yeah there is you just take your x and
- 00:41:38square
- 00:41:39and then
- 00:41:40now you have a number y that's equal to
- 00:41:42its square
- 00:41:44however
- 00:41:45this is
- 00:41:46not the same as or let me say versus
- 00:41:51if you just flip the order there exists
- 00:41:54a y such that for all x
- 00:41:56uh y equals x squared
- 00:42:01this is saying there exists
- 00:42:05uh an integer y just one integer
- 00:42:09such that every other for every other
- 00:42:12integer x x squared is equal to y
- 00:42:28okay so saying that there's one number
- 00:42:30so that for every other number when you
- 00:42:32square it you get that first number
- 00:42:34is that true
- 00:42:35false no that's false right so this is
- 00:42:38true this is four so these are not the
- 00:42:40same in general
- 00:42:41so if you have two different quantifiers
- 00:42:43you can't just switch the order
- 00:42:46okay
- 00:42:55and okay maybe this was a little tricky
- 00:42:57because it was sort of
- 00:42:59about numbers just to make this clear
- 00:43:02let me since this is a very important
- 00:43:04point let me show you one more example
- 00:43:09example is um
- 00:43:15[Music]
- 00:43:22yeah okay
- 00:43:25for every x
- 00:43:28uh
- 00:43:29so now the domain is people in this
- 00:43:31class
- 00:43:37uh so statement is um
- 00:43:42for every person in this class there
- 00:43:44exists another person in this class
- 00:43:46so that that person is strictly taller
- 00:43:53then x
- 00:43:56so this is saying for everybody in this
- 00:43:57class
- 00:44:00there's a person
- 00:44:02who is taller than them is is that true
- 00:44:06well that would be false because there's
- 00:44:09a tallest person
- 00:44:11yeah this is false because there's a
- 00:44:12tallest person right
- 00:44:22uh
- 00:44:22[Music]
- 00:44:31on the other hand if you write this
- 00:44:32statement that there exists a person
- 00:44:34says that for every person x
- 00:44:38uh
- 00:44:40y is strictly taller than x
- 00:44:47so saying there is one person
- 00:44:49who is strictly taller than everybody
- 00:44:51else
- 00:44:55actually okay uh
- 00:44:59this is um
- 00:45:05isn't this maybe true yeah this is also
- 00:45:07false actually okay maybe this wasn't a
- 00:45:09good example this is also false
- 00:45:11actually
- 00:45:13uh
- 00:45:16why is this false
- 00:45:18is it because both y and x are taken
- 00:45:21from the same domain so you'd be
- 00:45:22comparing the same person
- 00:45:24yeah the person can't be strictly taller
- 00:45:26than themselves so let's um
- 00:45:28okay fine
- 00:45:29maybe so
- 00:45:31maybe i should uh
- 00:45:34here let's um
- 00:45:35[Music]
- 00:45:38let's fix this example let's say the
- 00:45:40statement is during this for every x or
- 00:45:42because it's a y so that
- 00:45:45x is equal to y or
- 00:45:48so that'll fix this right
- 00:45:53or
- 00:45:54okay
- 00:45:55so no so now
- 00:45:56so now this is actually making sense
- 00:45:58that the first statement is well for
- 00:46:00every person
- 00:46:02there is a person
- 00:46:04who's either equal to them
- 00:46:07or strictly taller than them
- 00:46:10actually no sorry that messes it up
- 00:46:12because for every person there is there
- 00:46:14is a person equal to them okay
- 00:46:16okay let's just leave these as false
- 00:46:17maybe this wasn't a good example
- 00:46:20but um you can see that the meaning of
- 00:46:21these statements is different that
- 00:46:23they're false for different reasons
- 00:46:28so the the general point i want to
- 00:46:31emphasize here is that you can't switch
- 00:46:32the order in general
- 00:46:36um
- 00:46:39so any questions about this
- 00:46:56oh why is the second one false again
- 00:47:00well so um
- 00:47:02the second one is false because
- 00:47:04let's say i took y to be the tallest
- 00:47:06person right
- 00:47:10then i need that for every person in the
- 00:47:12class including y themselves
- 00:47:15y has to be strictly taller than them
- 00:47:19but a person is not strictly taller than
- 00:47:21themselves right
- 00:47:26yes
- 00:47:27thank you
- 00:47:30so maybe that wasn't such a great
- 00:47:32example but you can see that the the
- 00:47:33meanings of the statements are different
- 00:47:37um so the point that you're trying to
- 00:47:39demonstrate here is that if there's
- 00:47:41mixed quantifiers they can't be switched
- 00:47:44and we say that they're they're
- 00:47:45logically equivalent they might not be
- 00:47:48they might not be exactly
- 00:47:49so may not so if they're all the same
- 00:47:51quantifier you can switch them there's
- 00:47:53no problem but if they're different
- 00:47:55quantifiers you you have to be very
- 00:47:57careful about the order
- 00:48:00the first example is really the good one
- 00:48:02the second one is maybe not such a great
- 00:48:03example
- 00:48:05because they both ended up being false
- 00:48:06but
- 00:48:07anyway
- 00:48:11uh professor i'm sorry but i still kind
- 00:48:13of don't understand the first
- 00:48:15part the first um um
- 00:48:20uh you mean the one about the square
- 00:48:23no the uh y is strictly taller than x uh
- 00:48:26for all x there exists a y
- 00:48:29right so the same thing is saying that
- 00:48:30for every person in this class
- 00:48:34there is a person in this class
- 00:48:37who is strictly taller than them
- 00:48:42and the reason that's false is because
- 00:48:44why is the tallest person
- 00:48:47well the reason is that what if you take
- 00:48:49x to be the tallest person
- 00:48:54then there's nobody strictly taller than
- 00:48:56them right so it's false
- 00:48:59oh okay thank you
- 00:49:00yeah i mean you know maybe this wasn't
- 00:49:02just a good example uh
- 00:49:05because it's because it's kind of false
- 00:49:08for uh
- 00:49:11um
- 00:49:13i mean okay
- 00:49:14if
- 00:49:16let's let's try to salvage this
- 00:49:24um
- 00:49:43for the second statement and then it
- 00:49:44would be true because
- 00:49:46it would be for everybody except himself
- 00:49:51okay
- 00:49:52um so so so you could uh so basically
- 00:49:55you're saying
- 00:49:56that um
- 00:50:01well i want i want the same statement i
- 00:50:03guess in this example so so so you're
- 00:50:05saying
- 00:50:06that
- 00:50:07here x
- 00:50:09not equal to y
- 00:50:10implies
- 00:50:11y is strictly lower than x
- 00:50:16yeah like even the quantifier outside
- 00:50:19right like
- 00:50:20there exists a y that for every x not
- 00:50:22equal to y y is strictly taller than x
- 00:50:25within the room
- 00:50:30okay um yeah i mean
- 00:50:33the reason it's getting tricky is i
- 00:50:34wanted to have the same statement above
- 00:50:36and then this is going to significantly
- 00:50:37change the meaning of that statement so
- 00:50:39maybe let's just leave this example for
- 00:50:41now as a
- 00:50:43indication of how
- 00:50:44of how uh i guess how uh quickly the
- 00:50:47meaning can change by changing
- 00:50:50you know
- 00:50:50adding words like strictly
- 00:50:53okay
- 00:50:54so
- 00:50:55so so one let me let me do one more uh
- 00:50:58example
- 00:50:59so in particular
- 00:51:06uh if you combine what we learned about
- 00:51:10uh nesting and about negation
- 00:51:14uh you you get um
- 00:51:16[Music]
- 00:51:18the negation of there exists
- 00:51:21x that's it for all y
- 00:51:23uh q of x y
- 00:51:26so what's the negation of that going to
- 00:51:27be well by de morgan
- 00:51:30this is going to be
- 00:51:31for all x the negation of
- 00:51:35for all y q of x y
- 00:51:44and then by de morgan again
- 00:51:46this is going to be for all x
- 00:51:48there exists y so it's the negation of x
- 00:51:51y
- 00:51:55okay so if you negate a statement with
- 00:51:57multiple quantifiers it still flips the
- 00:51:59quantifiers it just sort of passes
- 00:52:00through or flips them one by one
- 00:52:07okay
- 00:52:08um
- 00:52:10don't don't worry about this we're going
- 00:52:11to get tons and tons of practice with
- 00:52:13this in the semester it's really
- 00:52:14something that's going to come up almost
- 00:52:16in every class or every lecture
- 00:52:21um
- 00:52:26uh also i have a question about this
- 00:52:28part really quick in the last line
- 00:52:30because um for every
- 00:52:34uh y
- 00:52:35and the negation part in front of it
- 00:52:36that changes it into that last line um
- 00:52:41oh okay got it thank you i just applied
- 00:52:43this de morgan for quantifiers twice
- 00:52:47yeah i can see thank you
- 00:52:50okay
- 00:52:53um
- 00:52:55and and you know there are many
- 00:52:56interesting examples of statements that
- 00:52:58involve multiple quantifiers let me just
- 00:53:00give another one
- 00:53:02another one
- 00:53:03that i like is
- 00:53:06for every x there exists a y
- 00:53:09so that if x is not equal to zero
- 00:53:12then x y equals 1 and this the domain is
- 00:53:16real numbers
- 00:53:18so what fact is this expressing
- 00:53:24every number has an inverse
- 00:53:26every number that's not zero has an
- 00:53:28inverse if exit for every real number
- 00:53:31there exists another real number y so
- 00:53:33that if x is not zero then x times y
- 00:53:35equals function and that number is one
- 00:53:37over x
- 00:53:38and what's the negation of this well the
- 00:53:40negation of this
- 00:53:45is that there exists a real number such
- 00:53:48that for every y
- 00:53:51the negation of this conditional holds
- 00:54:04okay
- 00:54:07and
- 00:54:09well so
- 00:54:11what's the negation of a conditional
- 00:54:13anybody see how to write that down
- 00:54:24make a little box here what's the
- 00:54:26negation of b implies q
- 00:54:32for every x there is not an inverse
- 00:54:36why
- 00:54:38is it
- 00:54:40no nevermind
- 00:54:42okay just a second
- 00:55:04okay this is really annoying i thought i
- 00:55:06i've changed my graphics drivers hoping
- 00:55:09not to have this problem again but let
- 00:55:11me
- 00:55:11it looks like i'm having this problem
- 00:55:13with the colors again so let me fix it
- 00:55:54professor i think you're muted
- 00:55:57oh sorry yeah i was saying well i guess
- 00:55:59we got a little break out of it which is
- 00:56:01not so bad for one class
- 00:56:03so
- 00:56:04okay so let me now get to
- 00:56:08the third part which is ruler inference
- 00:56:16can you see this
- 00:56:20okay so yes as i was saying we've been
- 00:56:23talking about how to write and how to
- 00:56:26write statements with a precise
- 00:56:28meaning and truth value and now we're
- 00:56:30going to talk about how to
- 00:56:32um
- 00:56:33write arguments which establish the
- 00:56:36establish the truth values of new
- 00:56:38statements that we would of new
- 00:56:41statements
- 00:56:42so how basically how to prove new
- 00:56:44statements
- 00:56:46uh and so the key device for doing this
- 00:56:49is what's called a rule of inference
- 00:56:52let me
- 00:56:54start with an example
- 00:57:08so here's an example
- 00:57:10um
- 00:57:13here's one proposition it is uh if it is
- 00:57:16raining
- 00:57:21the dog is wet
- 00:57:26and here's another statement it is
- 00:57:27raining
- 00:57:32so now
- 00:57:34so now you know intuitively we make this
- 00:57:36argument all the time we can conclude
- 00:57:37that the dog is wet
- 00:57:42but what is actually the logical device
- 00:57:44behind this deduction well it's actually
- 00:57:46a tautology
- 00:57:47so let's say it is raining is the
- 00:57:53is the proposition r
- 00:57:55and the dog is wet
- 00:57:57is a proposition w
- 00:57:59and the first proposition is r implies w
- 00:58:03the second proposition is r
- 00:58:05and the conclusion is w
- 00:58:09now this was actually one of the
- 00:58:11sort of simple
- 00:58:13easy tautologies on the second slide of
- 00:58:15this lecture
- 00:58:17if you recall
- 00:58:19okay so so so what was the reasoning
- 00:58:22process here well this was
- 00:58:24what we really used here is the
- 00:58:25tautology
- 00:58:29r implies w
- 00:58:31and w sorry and r
- 00:58:37implies w
- 00:58:41okay and
- 00:58:42you know
- 00:58:44this okay this has a fancy latin name
- 00:58:46it's called modus
- 00:58:48opponens or something which i can never
- 00:58:50remember and you don't have to memorize
- 00:58:51these names but the key point is that
- 00:58:53this little tautology is what enabled us
- 00:58:55to do this reasoning
- 00:58:57and you have slightly more complicated
- 00:58:58examples of that like okay
- 00:59:01if it is raining the dog is wet so
- 00:59:04that's just r implies s again
- 00:59:08and then
- 00:59:09the dog is not wet
- 00:59:15then well then you conclude that it is
- 00:59:17not raining
- 00:59:22right so this is not w and this is not
- 00:59:26sorry not s this is a w
- 00:59:29and then this is not r right
- 00:59:34but how do you actually make this
- 00:59:35deduction
- 00:59:37well again behind this there is a
- 00:59:39tautology
- 00:59:41the tautology is
- 00:59:44that okay p implies q or in this case r
- 00:59:47implies w
- 00:59:52and not w
- 00:59:54implies not r
- 00:59:56this is also a tautology
- 01:00:01this also has some latin latin name i
- 01:00:03don't remember what it's called
- 01:00:06but the point is that inference logical
- 01:00:08inference is really driven by a
- 01:00:09tautology it's driven by these little
- 01:00:11obvious
- 01:00:12statements
- 01:00:14and there's you know a list of the most
- 01:00:16common ones that you can you can view in
- 01:00:18the book here
- 01:00:19so
- 01:00:22here's the here's here's the book if you
- 01:00:24go to if you go to section 1.6 there's a
- 01:00:27table of rules of inference and these
- 01:00:29are basically
- 01:00:31you know many of them are the little
- 01:00:32simple tautologies we wrote at the
- 01:00:34beginning of the lecture they can all be
- 01:00:36easily verified and they all have
- 01:00:38complicated latin names which you don't
- 01:00:40need to know
- 01:00:44okay
- 01:00:45and so these are what are called rules
- 01:00:47of inference uh for propositional logic
- 01:00:50they're just these baby tautologies that
- 01:00:52you stitch together to
- 01:00:54to reach new true propositions given
- 01:00:57some propositions you already know to be
- 01:00:59true
- 01:01:01so let me um
- 01:01:04i guess just formally define
- 01:01:08this um
- 01:01:24so reasoning is driven by these sort of
- 01:01:26useful pathologies and yeah let me just
- 01:01:29use the definitions the definition
- 01:01:32so rules of inference are just useful
- 01:01:33tautologies
- 01:01:48used to derive
- 01:01:51uh well
- 01:01:54true propositions
- 01:01:59from
- 01:02:00some
- 01:02:01[Music]
- 01:02:03okay to drive
- 01:02:05from well from some
- 01:02:07known true propositions
- 01:02:16and okay this definition is not really
- 01:02:18important the definition that is
- 01:02:20important is which which actually has a
- 01:02:22mathematical meaning is an argument so
- 01:02:24an argument
- 01:02:27is a sequence
- 01:02:31of statements
- 01:02:33in the sense of
- 01:02:34propositional logic
- 01:02:45and um
- 01:02:49the last of which is called a conclusion
- 01:03:02and the argument is valid
- 01:03:07uh if each statement follows from
- 01:03:10the previous ones and some rules of
- 01:03:12inference
- 01:03:26the previous ones uh
- 01:03:30rules
- 01:03:35okay so if you just have a sequence of
- 01:03:36statements
- 01:03:37but they don't have the structure it's
- 01:03:39not a valid argument it's an invalid
- 01:03:41argument
- 01:03:42it's so valid argument is a bunch of
- 01:03:44baby steps
- 01:03:46uh connect namely these topologies
- 01:03:48connecting
- 01:03:50uh
- 01:03:50a sequence of propositions so let me
- 01:03:52give you an example of about an
- 01:03:54interesting valid off argument
- 01:04:02[Music]
- 01:04:08okay for example
- 01:04:13um
- 01:04:30yeah okay
- 01:04:32so
- 01:04:35so here's an argument proving
- 01:04:40that the following is true
- 01:04:42p
- 01:04:43and q
- 01:04:44implies
- 01:04:46p or q
- 01:04:51uh so so this is a tautology
- 01:04:59okay so what's the argument
- 01:05:04well
- 01:05:06i have that p
- 01:05:08and q implies p
- 01:05:12so that's a tautology
- 01:05:14that's already a rule of inference
- 01:05:18and i have uh
- 01:05:20i believe this is called uh
- 01:05:22this has a name it doesn't matter but
- 01:05:24it's kind of obvious
- 01:05:27um
- 01:05:28then i have p implies p or q
- 01:05:31this is also tautology
- 01:05:36and now i can chain these together to
- 01:05:39get that p
- 01:05:40and q implies p or q
- 01:05:44i think this is called hypothetical
- 01:05:45syllogism
- 01:05:49which is just another tautology
- 01:05:53so i have three statements
- 01:05:55and the structure is that you know the
- 01:05:57first two are tautologies and the third
- 01:05:59one follows by combining the first two
- 01:06:01and let's say this is the conclusion
- 01:06:05okay
- 01:06:07and i should say an argument often
- 01:06:09starts by assuming
- 01:06:12a collection of statements which are
- 01:06:14called premises so
- 01:06:17um
- 01:06:20in this case there are no premises
- 01:06:22everything is a tautology
- 01:06:30okay um
- 01:06:34let's do a more interesting example this
- 01:06:35one was kind of kind of
- 01:06:44basic what's more interesting is a rule
- 01:06:47of inference
- 01:06:52for quantifiers
- 01:07:00so so there are four rules of inference
- 01:07:01for quantifiers
- 01:07:05so one is that
- 01:07:07the statement for all x p of x
- 01:07:10implies
- 01:07:14pfc
- 01:07:18for arbitrary c
- 01:07:23in the domain
- 01:07:28okay so so an example of this is
- 01:07:33um
- 01:07:36so for example let's say
- 01:07:41you know uh
- 01:07:43an exam so this is called universal
- 01:07:45instantiation
- 01:07:46you don't need to know the names
- 01:07:52uh and an example of this universal
- 01:07:55instantiation
- 01:07:57is
- 01:07:58well
- 01:08:00for every
- 01:08:01human
- 01:08:03x x is mortal
- 01:08:09and you know this implies that let's say
- 01:08:12nikhil is mortal
- 01:08:16but you could plug in anybody here
- 01:08:17anybody who's a human
- 01:08:20and the reverse of this is what's called
- 01:08:23universal generalization
- 01:08:31and what that says is that
- 01:08:34if if you can show that for an arbitrary
- 01:08:37element of the domain
- 01:08:39a certain propositional function holds
- 01:08:42that implies that the
- 01:08:45quantified statement for all xp of x is
- 01:08:48true
- 01:08:54so so
- 01:08:55an example of universal generalization
- 01:08:58is
- 01:09:01you know let's say i say assume
- 01:09:06you know
- 01:09:07well i mean okay maybe this
- 01:09:11uh maybe
- 01:09:12i'll leave this example uh for a little
- 01:09:14later actually
- 01:09:18and then the the there are some similar
- 01:09:20rules of inference for the existential
- 01:09:21quantifier so the statement there exists
- 01:09:24x so that p of x
- 01:09:26this implies so this is existential
- 01:09:31instantiation
- 01:09:35this implies that p of c
- 01:09:37is true
- 01:09:42for some
- 01:09:43for some
- 01:09:44c into the way
- 01:09:50so what that means is that if you know
- 01:09:51that if you know that the statement
- 01:09:53written above is true
- 01:09:55then there must be some one point in the
- 01:09:57i mean it's almost a definition of the
- 01:09:59existential quantifier there must be
- 01:10:00some
- 01:10:01uh element in the domain for which that
- 01:10:03statement holds
- 01:10:05and this is called existential
- 01:10:06generalization
- 01:10:13so so this is sort of a is sort of a
- 01:10:15subtle concept let me give an example of
- 01:10:18existential generalization
- 01:10:24let's say i just have that nikhil is
- 01:10:26mortal
- 01:10:29what can i conclude from that
- 01:10:32i can conclude that there exists
- 01:10:35a human
- 01:10:36so that the human is mortal
- 01:10:40right because nikhil is a human
- 01:10:42so so
- 01:10:47um
- 01:10:47[Music]
- 01:10:49i mean okay the implicit domain in all
- 01:10:51these examples is humans right
- 01:10:55or
- 01:10:56or
- 01:10:58yeah mortal means will die and human
- 01:11:00means human being
- 01:11:05now this might seem like kind of just uh
- 01:11:12a word game but the content of this is
- 01:11:14what's written above
- 01:11:16is is a proposition with a quantifier
- 01:11:18right
- 01:11:19and
- 01:11:21for example over here
- 01:11:24uh there's no particular
- 01:11:26element of the domain that's being
- 01:11:28considered it's just a statement about
- 01:11:29the domain at large
- 01:11:31so what universal instantiation is
- 01:11:33saying is that
- 01:11:36if you know something is true for every
- 01:11:37every element of the domain you can you
- 01:11:39can choose an arbitrary element of the
- 01:11:41domain and then you know that statement
- 01:11:42is true for that element
- 01:11:48so
- 01:11:50okay
- 01:11:52let me um
- 01:11:55do one example illustrating i'll do a
- 01:11:58classical sort of example from a couple
- 01:12:00of hundred years ago illustrating how
- 01:12:02these are used in writing proofs
- 01:12:08so this example is due to lewis carroll
- 01:12:11who wrote alice in wonderland and was
- 01:12:12also a mathematician
- 01:12:14whose interests were logic and linear
- 01:12:16algebra
- 01:12:18and so here's an here's an informal
- 01:12:20argument
- 01:12:24the argument is
- 01:12:25all lions are fierce
- 01:12:31some lions
- 01:12:34don't drink coffee
- 01:12:40therefore some fierce creatures don't
- 01:12:42drink coffee
- 01:12:53now how do we turn this into a formal
- 01:12:55argument that uses these rules of
- 01:12:58inference
- 01:12:59so let me demonstrate that
- 01:13:05so first let's define some
- 01:13:07uh
- 01:13:09propositional functions so l of x is x
- 01:13:12is a line
- 01:13:16f of x is
- 01:13:18x is fierce
- 01:13:21and c of x is
- 01:13:23x drinks coffee
- 01:13:28and the domain for all of these is let's
- 01:13:30say all living creatures
- 01:13:35so so so informally what do these
- 01:13:37statements refer to well the first name
- 01:13:39is saying for every x for every creature
- 01:13:42if that's if l if it's a lion then it's
- 01:13:45fierce l x implies f of x
- 01:13:48the second statement is that
- 01:13:52there is an x
- 01:13:56such that
- 01:13:59x is a lion and
- 01:14:02exactly not x drinks coffee exactly
- 01:14:06so there exists
- 01:14:08there exists the creature so that that
- 01:14:10creature is a lion
- 01:14:12and it doesn't drink often
- 01:14:15and then the third statement is
- 01:14:18there is x
- 01:14:20such that x is fierce
- 01:14:24and x does not drink coffee or not
- 01:14:28ex drinks coffee yeah not c of x so we
- 01:14:31want to conclude the third from the
- 01:14:32first two but how do we do that right
- 01:14:34like the same seems to make sense but
- 01:14:36let's do it formally
- 01:14:38so i'm now so again i might take out
- 01:14:40this one extra minute i'll write down
- 01:14:42all the steps in this formal argument
- 01:14:45okay
- 01:14:46so so so so let's do the formal argument
- 01:14:49right
- 01:14:50okay
- 01:14:51so all lions are fierce that's uh um
- 01:14:55that's a that's a premise
- 01:14:57so for all x l of x implies f of x
- 01:15:03that's a premise
- 01:15:08now
- 01:15:09um
- 01:15:12actually sorry i don't want to hit that
- 01:15:13first sorry sorry uh so so so what am i
- 01:15:16going to do i'm going to start with the
- 01:15:17second premise some lines don't drink
- 01:15:19coffee
- 01:15:20so there exists an x
- 01:15:22so that it's a lion
- 01:15:24and doesn't drink coffee
- 01:15:28that's a premise
- 01:15:29number two
- 01:15:31now i'm going to use existential
- 01:15:35instantiation
- 01:15:36to say hey this implies that there has
- 01:15:38to be some particular lion that doesn't
- 01:15:40drink coffee
- 01:15:42right so this means
- 01:15:44l of
- 01:15:45let's just call it
- 01:15:47uh
- 01:15:48well let's just call it a
- 01:15:50and not c of a
- 01:15:55uh for some particular
- 01:16:00okay and here i used existential
- 01:16:02instantiation
- 01:16:04and so the benefit so when i write proof
- 01:16:06i always have this metaphor of a table
- 01:16:08in the background
- 01:16:10and what the table has on it is some
- 01:16:12particular objects
- 01:16:15which are bound uh usually come from
- 01:16:17being bound variables with a quantifier
- 01:16:19so now there's
- 01:16:20a creature on the table which is a lion
- 01:16:23and it doesn't drink coffee
- 01:16:26right
- 01:16:28okay
- 01:16:30now elevate and not survey well this
- 01:16:32implies that just l of a
- 01:16:35why this is because p and q implies p
- 01:16:38that's one of those rules of inference
- 01:16:40right
- 01:16:44okay
- 01:16:45but now i have another premise that all
- 01:16:47lines are fierce right so i have that
- 01:16:49for all x
- 01:16:51l of
- 01:16:53x
- 01:16:53implies f of x
- 01:16:59this is premise number one
- 01:17:05this is saying something about all
- 01:17:07creatures
- 01:17:08but now i can apply it
- 01:17:10to remember
- 01:17:12universal instantiation means i can
- 01:17:14apply it to any element of the domain so
- 01:17:16in particular i can apply it to this
- 01:17:17line a that's sitting on the table
- 01:17:20so this implies l of a implies
- 01:17:23f a
- 01:17:24this is a universal
- 01:17:29for the a that i have on the table this
- 01:17:31is universal instantiation
- 01:17:36okay
- 01:17:40now if i combine statements let's give
- 01:17:43these names if i combine
- 01:17:45statement star and statement double star
- 01:17:49then i get
- 01:17:50that um
- 01:17:53f a right
- 01:17:56because i mean uh
- 01:18:00that's just modus ponens actually right
- 01:18:06but now i have on the table
- 01:18:10um f of a
- 01:18:12and i also have c of a
- 01:18:14uh sorry not c of a
- 01:18:17and i have that because
- 01:18:19i have uh from the second statement l of
- 01:18:21a and not c of a and so then i have the
- 01:18:23end of those f of a and not c of a
- 01:18:30and now by existential generalization i
- 01:18:32get that there exists an x
- 01:18:36so that f of x
- 01:18:38and not c of x
- 01:18:40this is existential generalization
- 01:18:44okay so that was
- 01:18:48an example of how you use these rules of
- 01:18:50inference
- 01:18:52to prove something right to formalize
- 01:18:54this argument
- 01:18:57and we're going to do a lot more of this
- 01:18:58in the next lecture the main thing i
- 01:19:00want to introduce is this metaphor of
- 01:19:01this table that these quantifiers allow
- 01:19:03you to put things on the table
- 01:19:05and then you have specific objects
- 01:19:07instead of having to think about this
- 01:19:08whole universal object as a whole of
- 01:19:10objects
- 01:19:11anyway um really sorry for those
- 01:19:13technical difficulties again i i
- 01:19:16don't know i'll find
- 01:19:17some way around it for next time
- 01:19:20but thanks
- 01:19:21thank you
- 01:19:23thank you
- 01:19:24thank you thank you thank you
- 01:19:34thank you
- 01:19:47i want to ask in what situations would
- 01:19:49you use um
- 01:19:51in what situations would use
- 01:19:53uh equal to t and um
- 01:19:56and uh the compound from the opposition
- 01:19:59uh
- 01:20:01yeah the compound proposition
- 01:20:03with t
- 01:20:06uh the compound proposition uh
- 01:20:10which compound proposition
- 01:20:12um
- 01:20:14if you if you're saying that something
- 01:20:16is true would you say
- 01:20:18in what cases would you use equal to t
- 01:20:20in what cases okay i see i see yeah so
- 01:20:23you're right so implicitly what i'm
- 01:20:25writing here is i'm writing a sequence
- 01:20:27of true statements right
- 01:20:30so this is a valid argument because each
- 01:20:32statement is either a premise
- 01:20:34which is something that was given to me
- 01:20:36or it follows from the previous
- 01:20:38statement by applying a rule of
- 01:20:40influence
- 01:20:41so implicitly what i'm saying here is
- 01:20:43actually that all these statements are
- 01:20:45true and i guess you're asking
- 01:20:47why am i not saying so and so is true
- 01:20:49right
- 01:20:52yeah
- 01:20:54um
- 01:20:56it seems like you use different ones for
- 01:20:59different situations like if you have a
- 01:21:01uh if maybe if you have a statement
- 01:21:03versus a um
- 01:21:04uh
- 01:21:06versus a proposition but i can't
- 01:21:08entirely tell uh when
- 01:21:10you do use it when you don't use it okay
- 01:21:13so
- 01:21:15so there is true um
- 01:21:19so so let's see i haven't been using it
- 01:21:21recently i used it in the knights and
- 01:21:23knaves uh situation right
- 01:21:26and and part of the reason for that is
- 01:21:29that
- 01:21:30i was actually doing something a little
- 01:21:32bit different there i was trying to find
- 01:21:34out if there is an assignment of truth
- 01:21:36values which makes certain propositions
- 01:21:38true
- 01:21:40what i'm doing here is a little bit
- 01:21:42different what i'm doing here is i'm
- 01:21:43saying hey here are two
- 01:21:46two propositions that i know are true
- 01:21:49can i use those to deduce some other
- 01:21:51proposition
- 01:21:54so basically i'm not writing it here
- 01:21:57because it would be redundant that i'm
- 01:21:58not writing any statements that are
- 01:22:00false here
- 01:22:01yeah i'm staying in the realm of true
- 01:22:04statements and when you write a proof
- 01:22:06yeah it's implicitly assumed that
- 01:22:07whatever you are writing is true unless
- 01:22:10you're writing kind of a
- 01:22:12you know a meta statement which is about
- 01:22:14another statement and saying that that's
- 01:22:16false or something like that
- 01:22:21does that answer the question
- 01:22:25kind of uh
- 01:22:26can i type something out sure
- Propositional Logic
- Logical Operators
- Tautologies
- Quantifiers
- Rules of Inference
- Logical Equivalence
- Propositional Functions