Math 55 Lecture 2

01:22:34
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXKEhC8hD-c

Summary

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.

Takeaways

  • 📚 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.

Timeline

  • 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.

Show more

Mind Map

Video Q&A

  • 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.

View more video summaries

Get instant access to free YouTube video summaries powered by AI!
Subtitles
en
Auto Scroll:
  • 00:00:03
    um
  • 00:00:04
    so welcome to lecture two
  • 00:00:16
    and um
  • 00:00:20
    okay so
  • 00:00:21
    so so last time
  • 00:00:25
    uh we introduced like the very basic
  • 00:00:28
    concepts of propositional logic so we
  • 00:00:31
    introduced
  • 00:00:33
    propositions
  • 00:00:35
    proposition was just a statement that's
  • 00:00:37
    either
  • 00:00:38
    true or false but not both
  • 00:00:39
    [Music]
  • 00:00:42
    uh we talked about uh logical operators
  • 00:00:49
    namely not
  • 00:00:50
    or
  • 00:00:52
    and
  • 00:00:54
    as well as some
  • 00:00:57
    things you could derive from those such
  • 00:00:58
    as conditionals by conditionals et
  • 00:01:00
    cetera
  • 00:01:05
    and we talked about
  • 00:01:11
    when compound propositions are
  • 00:01:13
    equivalent
  • 00:01:19
    and today what we're going to do is
  • 00:01:20
    we're going to do three things so we're
  • 00:01:21
    going to continue talking about
  • 00:01:23
    we're going to briefly wrap up
  • 00:01:25
    equivalence of compound propositions so
  • 00:01:27
    logical equivalence
  • 00:01:37
    and then we're going to greatly enhance
  • 00:01:39
    this language
  • 00:01:41
    to talk about
  • 00:01:42
    collections of objects
  • 00:01:45
    by introducing
  • 00:01:47
    propositional
  • 00:01:48
    [Music]
  • 00:01:52
    functions and quantifiers
  • 00:01:59
    and then finally we're going to
  • 00:02:02
    talk about
  • 00:02:03
    rules of inference
  • 00:02:08
    which are basically ways of combining
  • 00:02:11
    propositions that you know
  • 00:02:13
    to get new propositions and that's
  • 00:02:15
    ultimately how
  • 00:02:16
    how how mathematics is done so roughly
  • 00:02:18
    this is how to build
  • 00:02:22
    uh
  • 00:02:25
    or you know how how did it use well i'll
  • 00:02:28
    say what it is later
  • 00:02:30
    so let me begin by talking about this
  • 00:02:34
    um
  • 00:02:36
    so recall
  • 00:02:39
    that i said two compound propositions
  • 00:02:45
    let's say c1 and c2 are logically
  • 00:02:47
    equivalent
  • 00:02:51
    if
  • 00:02:52
    they both have the same truth value
  • 00:03:03
    uh for regardless of the value truth
  • 00:03:05
    values of the constituent
  • 00:03:08
    of the propositional variables
  • 00:03:10
    for all
  • 00:03:13
    values
  • 00:03:15
    of propositional variables
  • 00:03:20
    and um
  • 00:03:24
    uh
  • 00:03:25
    one sort of cute remark is that this
  • 00:03:28
    notion of
  • 00:03:30
    equivalence of prop
  • 00:03:31
    of two compound propositions can itself
  • 00:03:34
    be written as a proposition
  • 00:03:36
    so c1 is equivalent to c2
  • 00:03:38
    is the same as
  • 00:03:41
    saying that c1 if and only if
  • 00:03:44
    c2 is always true
  • 00:03:49
    so it is equivalent to the proposition
  • 00:03:50
    true
  • 00:03:52
    and and this type of situation has a
  • 00:03:54
    special name and we're going to see it a
  • 00:03:55
    lot in the course
  • 00:03:56
    this is called a tautology so let me
  • 00:03:58
    just
  • 00:04:05
    yeah so let me just
  • 00:04:07
    introduce a small piece of terminology
  • 00:04:12
    um compound proposition c
  • 00:04:16
    is a uh tautology
  • 00:04:22
    if it's always true so it's logically
  • 00:04:24
    equivalent to true so it doesn't matter
  • 00:04:26
    what
  • 00:04:28
    uh proper the propositional variables
  • 00:04:30
    are it's always true for example
  • 00:04:33
    um
  • 00:04:33
    [Music]
  • 00:04:35
    the proposition p implies q
  • 00:04:39
    if and only if
  • 00:04:41
    not q
  • 00:04:42
    implies not p
  • 00:04:46
    so that's that's always true regardless
  • 00:04:48
    of the truth values of p and q that's
  • 00:04:50
    saying that the
  • 00:04:52
    conditional is logically equivalent to
  • 00:04:54
    the contrapositive
  • 00:04:59
    and we'll say that a compound
  • 00:05:01
    proposition is a contradiction
  • 00:05:08
    if it's logically equivalent to false
  • 00:05:11
    uh so can anybody think of a
  • 00:05:13
    propositional variable a compound
  • 00:05:15
    proposition that's a contradiction
  • 00:05:19
    like p and not p yeah p and not p that's
  • 00:05:22
    the simplest one
  • 00:05:25
    and otherwise it's called
  • 00:05:27
    contingent
  • 00:05:33
    and you can think about these three
  • 00:05:35
    cases in terms of their truth tables
  • 00:05:36
    right a tautology has a property that
  • 00:05:39
    all the rows in its truth table
  • 00:05:41
    are t
  • 00:05:42
    they're all true
  • 00:05:44
    a contradiction all the rows are false
  • 00:05:47
    and a
  • 00:05:49
    proposition is contingent if some of the
  • 00:05:51
    rows are true and some of them are false
  • 00:05:55
    so
  • 00:05:56
    so tautology seemed like kind of a
  • 00:05:58
    boring thing right like well if it's
  • 00:06:01
    always true then what's you know what's
  • 00:06:02
    the point right that doesn't sound very
  • 00:06:04
    interesting
  • 00:06:05
    but tautologies can actually
  • 00:06:07
    capture
  • 00:06:08
    interesting
  • 00:06:09
    [Music]
  • 00:06:10
    well patterns of reasoning so here are
  • 00:06:12
    some examples of some easy but
  • 00:06:14
    interesting tautologies
  • 00:06:26
    okay sorry could you scroll up for a
  • 00:06:28
    second because i think you cut off like
  • 00:06:30
    part of the bottom so i couldn't see all
  • 00:06:32
    of the notes like the bottom row i can't
  • 00:06:35
    see it for some reason i don't know why
  • 00:06:37
    so you can't see the bottom row uh yeah
  • 00:06:40
    so i can only see up to a contradiction
  • 00:06:42
    and then i can't see anything else
  • 00:06:45
    oh wait never mind i
  • 00:06:56
    so there okay there's the one we wrote
  • 00:06:57
    over here
  • 00:07:01
    um
  • 00:07:02
    and then here's another one
  • 00:07:04
    p implies q
  • 00:07:05
    [Music]
  • 00:07:07
    and
  • 00:07:08
    p
  • 00:07:09
    this whole thing implies q
  • 00:07:14
    okay so if p then q is true and if and
  • 00:07:17
    if p is true then q has to be true
  • 00:07:20
    here's another one p implies p or q
  • 00:07:27
    and p and q
  • 00:07:28
    implies p so
  • 00:07:30
    these are kind of you know if you want
  • 00:07:32
    you can check these using a truth table
  • 00:07:35
    but uh these are really
  • 00:07:38
    uh you know
  • 00:07:39
    basic enough that we
  • 00:07:41
    basically that everybody has an
  • 00:07:42
    intuitive understanding of them
  • 00:07:45
    and these are examples of topologies and
  • 00:07:46
    we'll be coming back to the
  • 00:07:48
    uh to them later and the reason i want
  • 00:07:50
    to introduce this in the beginning of
  • 00:07:51
    the lecture is that
  • 00:07:54
    the idea is
  • 00:07:55
    the key idea in math is
  • 00:07:59
    we will use lots
  • 00:08:02
    of
  • 00:08:04
    these
  • 00:08:06
    you know simple
  • 00:08:10
    tautologies
  • 00:08:12
    uh to derive
  • 00:08:14
    interesting ones
  • 00:08:21
    okay
  • 00:08:22
    so that's all i want to say about
  • 00:08:23
    logical equivalence and tautologies
  • 00:08:26
    which was very little any questions
  • 00:08:27
    about that
  • 00:08:37
    okay so let's move on to item two
  • 00:08:39
    propositional functions and quantifiers
  • 00:08:41
    so by the way this was section 1.3 and
  • 00:08:43
    this is like 1.4 to 1.5
  • 00:08:51
    so what's the motivation
  • 00:08:53
    for all this so the motivation is
  • 00:08:58
    is that we want to be able to reason
  • 00:08:59
    precisely
  • 00:09:02
    about large collections of objects right
  • 00:09:04
    so
  • 00:09:06
    we want to be able to
  • 00:09:08
    [Music]
  • 00:09:10
    say things like
  • 00:09:14
    i don't know every integer is even or
  • 00:09:16
    odd
  • 00:09:23
    and right now we don't have
  • 00:09:25
    uh you know propositional logic doesn't
  • 00:09:27
    let us do that right because right now
  • 00:09:30
    we would have to say something like well
  • 00:09:31
    one
  • 00:09:32
    you know we could try writing a
  • 00:09:34
    proposition that says this which is like
  • 00:09:36
    okay 1 is
  • 00:09:37
    even or 1 is odd
  • 00:09:41
    and
  • 00:09:43
    2 is even
  • 00:09:45
    or 2 is odd
  • 00:09:47
    and dot or dot but you can see that you
  • 00:09:49
    can't actually write this down right
  • 00:09:51
    because you have infinitely many objects
  • 00:09:53
    to consider
  • 00:09:54
    so we want to be able to write
  • 00:09:55
    statements like this in a precise
  • 00:09:56
    concise way and that that's
  • 00:09:59
    uh
  • 00:10:00
    that's the
  • 00:10:02
    reason why we have these propositional
  • 00:10:03
    functions so let me define what that is
  • 00:10:07
    so a propositional function
  • 00:10:15
    um
  • 00:10:16
    let me use let me make sure i use
  • 00:10:18
    exactly the definition of the book
  • 00:10:25
    um
  • 00:10:26
    okay
  • 00:10:27
    is a statement
  • 00:10:33
    containing one or more variables
  • 00:10:41
    from from a domain
  • 00:10:49
    which becomes a proposition when each of
  • 00:10:51
    the variables is instantiated
  • 00:11:14
    okay so
  • 00:11:15
    this definition rests on these two other
  • 00:11:17
    important notions of variables in a
  • 00:11:19
    domain
  • 00:11:21
    um
  • 00:11:22
    so let me just show you some examples so
  • 00:11:25
    for example
  • 00:11:27
    p of x being
  • 00:11:29
    x is even
  • 00:11:32
    this is a propositional function
  • 00:11:35
    and the domain here is uh
  • 00:11:38
    sorry
  • 00:11:39
    integers
  • 00:11:41
    uh yes
  • 00:11:42
    uh what is the last word in the
  • 00:11:44
    definition accounts oh instantiated
  • 00:11:47
    sorry yeah instantiated
  • 00:11:49
    okay thank you
  • 00:11:52
    so so so this is x is even is not a
  • 00:11:55
    proposition by itself right
  • 00:11:57
    because it's not true or false because
  • 00:11:59
    we don't know what x is but when you
  • 00:12:01
    plug in x
  • 00:12:02
    from this domain which is the integers
  • 00:12:04
    so the domain have the domain must be
  • 00:12:06
    specified often it's implicitly
  • 00:12:08
    specified
  • 00:12:19
    um because you know for saying something
  • 00:12:20
    is even well
  • 00:12:22
    okay that the domain could be integers
  • 00:12:24
    or positive integers or something like
  • 00:12:25
    that
  • 00:12:27
    and and once you plug in a particular
  • 00:12:29
    integer this becomes a proposition right
  • 00:12:31
    like for example
  • 00:12:33
    p of
  • 00:12:33
    2
  • 00:12:35
    is the statement 2 is even
  • 00:12:38
    and this is actually a legitimate
  • 00:12:39
    proposition
  • 00:12:41
    but the first thing is not a proposition
  • 00:12:42
    it's a propositional function
  • 00:12:46
    and and you can have
  • 00:12:49
    you can have a propositional function
  • 00:12:50
    with more than one variable for example
  • 00:12:52
    q
  • 00:12:52
    x comma y
  • 00:12:54
    is
  • 00:12:55
    x is less than y
  • 00:12:57
    and let's again say the domain
  • 00:13:00
    c integers
  • 00:13:02
    so this applies to pairs of integers
  • 00:13:07
    okay so now once you have this this idea
  • 00:13:09
    of propositional function so sometimes
  • 00:13:11
    also called the predicate
  • 00:13:21
    um so we'll use those terms
  • 00:13:22
    interchangeably
  • 00:13:25
    um
  • 00:13:27
    then uh now you can make uh
  • 00:13:30
    statements like the one we want like
  • 00:13:31
    every integer is even where every
  • 00:13:33
    integer is odd with one more ingredient
  • 00:13:35
    which is a quantifier so there so let me
  • 00:13:38
    now introduce quantifiers is one of the
  • 00:13:40
    key
  • 00:13:41
    definitions of the lecture and maybe of
  • 00:13:44
    course
  • 00:13:47
    so
  • 00:13:48
    the
  • 00:13:49
    universal quantification
  • 00:13:59
    of um
  • 00:14:03
    of a propositional function of p of x
  • 00:14:07
    is the statement professor would you be
  • 00:14:09
    able to go to the last slide really
  • 00:14:10
    quick
  • 00:14:12
    uh yeah
  • 00:14:16
    so by the way um
  • 00:14:18
    uh
  • 00:14:19
    i i guess don't uh feel compelled to
  • 00:14:21
    copy the notes since we'll be posting
  • 00:14:23
    them but um
  • 00:14:24
    [Music]
  • 00:14:25
    yeah
  • 00:14:28
    okay um
  • 00:14:32
    so so the universal quantification of p
  • 00:14:34
    of x is the statement um
  • 00:14:35
    [Music]
  • 00:14:37
    for every
  • 00:14:39
    x in the domain
  • 00:14:44
    uh p of x
  • 00:14:46
    so for every x in the domain the
  • 00:14:48
    p of x is true
  • 00:14:51
    uh and this is denoted
  • 00:14:57
    for all x
  • 00:14:58
    v of x
  • 00:15:00
    this is a very important notation that
  • 00:15:02
    we'll be seeing a lot in the course
  • 00:15:05
    and the way this is read is um
  • 00:15:07
    this is read as
  • 00:15:10
    for all x
  • 00:15:14
    uh and this is a legitimate this is a
  • 00:15:16
    proposition
  • 00:15:18
    okay because
  • 00:15:20
    this is actually something that either
  • 00:15:21
    is true or not so for for example
  • 00:15:26
    for every x
  • 00:15:29
    x is even
  • 00:15:32
    this is the universal quantification of
  • 00:15:34
    the
  • 00:15:36
    propositional function x is even and the
  • 00:15:38
    domain is
  • 00:15:40
    let's say the integers
  • 00:15:43
    so is this true or false
  • 00:15:46
    false false right because there there
  • 00:15:48
    are odd integers so it's not true that
  • 00:15:51
    for every integer
  • 00:15:54
    okay
  • 00:15:56
    [Music]
  • 00:15:59
    and the
  • 00:16:01
    complementary
  • 00:16:04
    operation
  • 00:16:07
    is the existential quantification so the
  • 00:16:10
    existential quantification
  • 00:16:19
    of a propositional function v of x is
  • 00:16:22
    the statement
  • 00:16:26
    there exists
  • 00:16:30
    an x in the domain
  • 00:16:37
    such that
  • 00:16:39
    uh p of x
  • 00:16:42
    so for example
  • 00:16:44
    and okay
  • 00:16:45
    of course there's a there's a notation
  • 00:16:46
    for this which i'll write down so
  • 00:16:48
    denoted
  • 00:16:52
    uh there exists x
  • 00:17:01
    and this is read
  • 00:17:03
    there as there exists
  • 00:17:09
    there exists x and sometimes in here you
  • 00:17:11
    say such that
  • 00:17:15
    so the corresponding example the
  • 00:17:17
    existential quantification of the same
  • 00:17:18
    statement would be there exists x
  • 00:17:22
    such that x is even
  • 00:17:27
    and
  • 00:17:28
    again the domain
  • 00:17:30
    is the integers
  • 00:17:33
    in this statement uh and is this true or
  • 00:17:35
    false
  • 00:17:37
    true yeah true because there is for
  • 00:17:39
    example two as an integer
  • 00:17:42
    and so the beauty of this construction
  • 00:17:43
    is you have you know a finite statement
  • 00:17:46
    that actually says something about all
  • 00:17:47
    the integers
  • 00:17:49
    and this is kind of the power of math
  • 00:17:50
    you can prove these finite statements
  • 00:17:52
    that actually say something about
  • 00:17:53
    infinitely many
  • 00:17:55
    uh
  • 00:17:56
    situations
  • 00:17:58
    and okay let me let's look at a more
  • 00:18:00
    interesting example
  • 00:18:06
    uh here's another example
  • 00:18:08
    uh there exists an x
  • 00:18:11
    so that x squared equals two
  • 00:18:13
    and again the domain is
  • 00:18:15
    the integers
  • 00:18:17
    is this true or false
  • 00:18:19
    false false there's no integers so that
  • 00:18:22
    it's square equal this square is 2. on
  • 00:18:24
    the other hand if i look at the same
  • 00:18:25
    statement
  • 00:18:28
    but the domain i'm interested in is the
  • 00:18:29
    real numbers
  • 00:18:32
    then true then this is true so the point
  • 00:18:35
    i want to make is that the truth or
  • 00:18:36
    falsehood
  • 00:18:38
    of a quantified statement
  • 00:18:40
    depends on the domain so you have to you
  • 00:18:43
    must always know what the domain is
  • 00:18:44
    otherwise it's not clear if it's true or
  • 00:18:46
    false
  • 00:18:49
    professor is it sufficient to just write
  • 00:18:51
    that it's an element of the integer set
  • 00:18:53
    or the real number set instead of
  • 00:18:55
    writing on the side that's a great
  • 00:18:57
    question um can we write
  • 00:19:02
    uh there exists an x in the integer set
  • 00:19:05
    such that x squared equals two
  • 00:19:08
    and uh the answer is yes
  • 00:19:10
    and we will do that starting next week
  • 00:19:12
    we just haven't introduced set notation
  • 00:19:15
    yet and that's not a prerequisite for
  • 00:19:16
    the class but we'll start doing that
  • 00:19:18
    next week
  • 00:19:26
    but in the meantime here here's a sort
  • 00:19:28
    of interesting remark
  • 00:19:30
    if you don't want to write the domain if
  • 00:19:31
    you want to be really explicit about the
  • 00:19:33
    domain
  • 00:19:34
    um
  • 00:19:36
    you you could also
  • 00:19:41
    specify
  • 00:19:43
    domain
  • 00:19:45
    using
  • 00:19:47
    a conjunction
  • 00:19:50
    so for example you could say there
  • 00:19:52
    exists an x so that x is an integer
  • 00:19:56
    and x squared equals 2.
  • 00:19:59
    so and
  • 00:20:00
    in the mean time you can do that as well
  • 00:20:02
    or you could say okay for every x
  • 00:20:05
    x is an integer
  • 00:20:08
    implies x is even
  • 00:20:13
    um i have a question so um
  • 00:20:17
    would a universal quantification or an
  • 00:20:19
    existential quantification be considered
  • 00:20:21
    as a propositional function or as a
  • 00:20:25
    proposition
  • 00:20:27
    uh right so the
  • 00:20:29
    once you quantify a propositional
  • 00:20:31
    function
  • 00:20:33
    then there's a legitimate proposition it
  • 00:20:35
    becomes a proposition because it's
  • 00:20:36
    either true or false
  • 00:20:39
    once so once all the variables so
  • 00:20:41
    actually i should make a sort of
  • 00:20:43
    explicit point about this
  • 00:20:48
    so um
  • 00:20:50
    a variable
  • 00:20:52
    which appears in a quantifier is called
  • 00:20:54
    bound
  • 00:21:06
    so you know i mean
  • 00:21:09
    okay for example if we
  • 00:21:14
    if you know if we look at the statement
  • 00:21:16
    above right
  • 00:21:18
    then this the bound refers to the fact
  • 00:21:20
    that this x is the same as this x
  • 00:21:23
    and the same as actually all occurrences
  • 00:21:25
    of x appearing in here
  • 00:21:28
    so maybe they'll use red to indicate
  • 00:21:30
    that i'm talking about this arrow
  • 00:21:33
    this x refers to all the x's in here
  • 00:21:38
    okay
  • 00:21:38
    and um
  • 00:21:41
    that's what turns the propositional
  • 00:21:42
    function into a proposition
  • 00:21:46
    right so before without the quantifier
  • 00:21:49
    it wasn't true or false because we
  • 00:21:50
    didn't know what x was right
  • 00:21:52
    once you add the quantifier
  • 00:21:54
    it's making it very clear what which x
  • 00:21:57
    we're considering right so
  • 00:21:59
    the universal quantification is saying
  • 00:22:01
    that it has to be true for every x in
  • 00:22:02
    the domain and the existential
  • 00:22:04
    quantification is saying there is at
  • 00:22:06
    least one x such that it's true
  • 00:22:09
    and now there's no ambiguity that's
  • 00:22:10
    either is true or false
  • 00:22:13
    okay
  • 00:22:14
    so so um so to answer your question um
  • 00:22:22
    [Music]
  • 00:22:23
    a statement
  • 00:22:27
    in which
  • 00:22:30
    all variables
  • 00:22:33
    are bound
  • 00:22:35
    is
  • 00:22:36
    a proposition
  • 00:22:40
    otherwise it isn't right if you have a
  • 00:22:41
    variable that's not bound
  • 00:22:44
    then
  • 00:22:45
    wow the truth or falsehood of the
  • 00:22:46
    proposition can depend on the value
  • 00:22:54
    okay
  • 00:22:57
    um
  • 00:23:00
    so
  • 00:23:01
    we're going to look at a bunch of more
  • 00:23:02
    examples but any questions so far
  • 00:23:14
    okay
  • 00:23:19
    so now i want to talk about how these
  • 00:23:22
    quantifiers
  • 00:23:23
    interact with
  • 00:23:24
    the logical operators so not or and
  • 00:23:28
    that we discussed earlier
  • 00:23:30
    and also how they interact with each
  • 00:23:32
    other
  • 00:23:34
    so let me begin by talking about uh
  • 00:23:36
    negation
  • 00:23:39
    sorry i think someone is maybe
  • 00:23:42
    maybe someone needs to mute themselves
  • 00:23:45
    okay
  • 00:23:55
    okay so so so let me um
  • 00:24:00
    start with an example
  • 00:24:04
    um
  • 00:24:04
    [Music]
  • 00:24:06
    so let's consider the statement
  • 00:24:09
    that um
  • 00:24:14
    let's see which statement yeah how about
  • 00:24:15
    this
  • 00:24:16
    so let's consider the statement
  • 00:24:20
    every integer
  • 00:24:22
    is prime
  • 00:24:26
    okay so that
  • 00:24:28
    in in this in this
  • 00:24:31
    language of propositional logic that's
  • 00:24:33
    the statement
  • 00:24:36
    for every x
  • 00:24:38
    x is prime
  • 00:24:41
    and the domain is integers
  • 00:24:45
    um
  • 00:24:49
    now what's the negation of this
  • 00:24:50
    statement well
  • 00:24:52
    in english
  • 00:24:54
    you know uh
  • 00:24:56
    what's the um
  • 00:25:00
    the negation is well it's not the case
  • 00:25:01
    that every integer is prime
  • 00:25:04
    but what's another way to say that
  • 00:25:05
    that's a little bit more concrete
  • 00:25:08
    there is an integer that is not prime
  • 00:25:10
    there is an integer that's not prime
  • 00:25:19
    there is an integer that
  • 00:25:21
    [Music]
  • 00:25:25
    composite i guess is the opposite of
  • 00:25:27
    being prime
  • 00:25:31
    and
  • 00:25:32
    and you know that statement is there
  • 00:25:34
    exists an x
  • 00:25:37
    such that
  • 00:25:38
    uh
  • 00:25:40
    well
  • 00:25:41
    the negation of this is true
  • 00:25:46
    right there exists an x such that
  • 00:25:49
    um
  • 00:25:50
    x is not prep
  • 00:25:52
    and so and so the the sort of general
  • 00:25:55
    pattern here
  • 00:26:02
    which is very important to remember and
  • 00:26:03
    very useful
  • 00:26:05
    is that the negation of a universally
  • 00:26:08
    quantified statement
  • 00:26:12
    is
  • 00:26:15
    a an existentially quantified statement
  • 00:26:22
    and uh
  • 00:26:25
    the negation of
  • 00:26:28
    an existentially quantified statement
  • 00:26:35
    is a universally quantified statement
  • 00:26:42
    okay so this is this is an important
  • 00:26:44
    sort of logical maneuver that occurs a
  • 00:26:46
    lot
  • 00:26:47
    uh sometimes this is referred to as
  • 00:26:49
    demorgan laws
  • 00:26:54
    for quantified statements
  • 00:26:59
    and the way to remember it is well when
  • 00:27:01
    you negate a quantified statement you
  • 00:27:02
    flip the quantifiers right so
  • 00:27:05
    the way to remember it is that the knot
  • 00:27:07
    flips
  • 00:27:09
    the quantifiers
  • 00:27:12
    it turns for all into exists and exists
  • 00:27:14
    in the form
  • 00:27:21
    and okay this de morgan i guess i maybe
  • 00:27:24
    it was in the reading but let me just
  • 00:27:26
    remind you that
  • 00:27:28
    de morgan's laws just the vanilla
  • 00:27:30
    demorgan's laws refers to a set of
  • 00:27:32
    tautologies which i could add to this
  • 00:27:34
    simple list here
  • 00:27:38
    and those are that the negation
  • 00:27:41
    of p or q
  • 00:27:42
    [Music]
  • 00:27:43
    is negation of p and negation of q
  • 00:27:47
    and indication of p and q
  • 00:27:50
    is negation of p or negation of q
  • 00:27:54
    this is these are called the morgan's
  • 00:27:56
    laws
  • 00:28:00
    professor could you go back um one slide
  • 00:28:02
    real quick
  • 00:28:04
    buy back you mean back to here
  • 00:28:07
    yes thank you
  • 00:28:10
    so i see that a number of people raise
  • 00:28:12
    their hand so please just unmute and ask
  • 00:28:17
    how would you prove de morgan's laws for
  • 00:28:20
    quantifiers
  • 00:28:22
    uh that's a great question
  • 00:28:24
    so we will we will get to that we'll
  • 00:28:27
    develop such a really great question how
  • 00:28:29
    would you prove this
  • 00:28:36
    and the answer is we'll use rules of
  • 00:28:38
    inference which are something we'll
  • 00:28:39
    develop at the end of the lecture
  • 00:28:42
    so it's a really good question because
  • 00:28:44
    if you go back to these legit these sort
  • 00:28:45
    of vanilla de morgan's laws
  • 00:28:47
    how would you how would you prove this
  • 00:28:49
    anybody know
  • 00:28:53
    truth tables yeah you can check using
  • 00:28:55
    truth tables
  • 00:29:01
    but
  • 00:29:02
    these de morgan's laws for quantifiers
  • 00:29:05
    not so easy right
  • 00:29:06
    because
  • 00:29:08
    i mean what's the truth table now there
  • 00:29:10
    could be infinitely many x right so how
  • 00:29:12
    do you check a statement like this and
  • 00:29:14
    that's exactly where rules of inference
  • 00:29:15
    are going to come in
  • 00:29:19
    um
  • 00:29:22
    and i guess i should make one more
  • 00:29:23
    remark
  • 00:29:27
    so i used this this notation
  • 00:29:30
    of logical equivalent right
  • 00:29:37
    previously i only defined that for
  • 00:29:38
    compound propositions but now i'm using
  • 00:29:40
    it to talk about
  • 00:29:43
    these statements that have quantifiers
  • 00:29:45
    and propositional functions
  • 00:29:47
    so what does that mean well
  • 00:29:50
    so
  • 00:29:51
    i'll just write the definition here
  • 00:29:53
    so two statements
  • 00:29:57
    involving
  • 00:30:00
    quantifiers
  • 00:30:04
    are logically equivalent
  • 00:30:06
    logically equivalent
  • 00:30:11
    if they have the same truth value
  • 00:30:20
    for
  • 00:30:20
    all um
  • 00:30:25
    values
  • 00:30:27
    of the propositional functions up here
  • 00:30:29
    sorry of the propositional variables
  • 00:30:34
    and all
  • 00:30:36
    domains
  • 00:30:39
    uh all domains for which the quantifiers
  • 00:30:41
    make sense
  • 00:30:42
    okay so logical equivalence
  • 00:30:45
    so this statement that's written here is
  • 00:30:46
    very strong it means that it doesn't
  • 00:30:48
    matter what domain you're talking about
  • 00:30:50
    this always works it doesn't depend on
  • 00:30:52
    the domain
  • 00:30:57
    so
  • 00:31:00
    any questions about negation of
  • 00:31:02
    quantifiers
  • 00:31:13
    can we go over the last remark one more
  • 00:31:15
    time please
  • 00:31:17
    uh yeah so the last remark is actually
  • 00:31:19
    uh
  • 00:31:20
    you know let me just make it a
  • 00:31:22
    definition actually it's it's a
  • 00:31:24
    definition
  • 00:31:26
    of this notion of logical equivalence
  • 00:31:29
    of two
  • 00:31:30
    propositions that that could involve
  • 00:31:32
    quantifiers right like these like
  • 00:31:34
    what's written in this blue box and the
  • 00:31:36
    claim is that
  • 00:31:38
    you know two such propositions are
  • 00:31:40
    logically equivalent if they have the
  • 00:31:41
    same truth value
  • 00:31:43
    regardless of which
  • 00:31:45
    domain
  • 00:31:46
    the quantifiers are over
  • 00:31:49
    right so before we had a few statements
  • 00:31:52
    or even here right
  • 00:31:54
    we have we have
  • 00:31:55
    uh we have the statement up at the top
  • 00:31:58
    of the slide and it has different
  • 00:32:00
    interpretations depending on the domain
  • 00:32:02
    right if the domain is integers it means
  • 00:32:04
    one thing if it's real numbers it means
  • 00:32:05
    something else
  • 00:32:08
    logical equivalence is a very strong
  • 00:32:10
    definition which says that
  • 00:32:12
    two statements are logically equivalent
  • 00:32:14
    if they always have the truth value it
  • 00:32:16
    doesn't matter which domain you use
  • 00:32:18
    so this is these these are equivalent in
  • 00:32:20
    a very strong sense
  • 00:32:23
    does
  • 00:32:24
    bijection diverge from logical
  • 00:32:26
    equivalence in this way
  • 00:32:28
    yeah so we haven't defined bijection yet
  • 00:32:30
    but bijection is something having to do
  • 00:32:32
    with functions this is not something
  • 00:32:34
    that has to do with functions this is
  • 00:32:35
    something that has to do with
  • 00:32:36
    propositions
  • 00:32:39
    thank
  • 00:32:40
    you professor can you um just really
  • 00:32:43
    quick to the some simple but useful
  • 00:32:45
    topologies i just didn't catch the
  • 00:32:47
    demorgan
  • 00:32:48
    oh sure yeah so simple but useful
  • 00:32:50
    tautologies
  • 00:32:53
    the morgan's laws are saying well you
  • 00:32:55
    know
  • 00:32:56
    [Music]
  • 00:33:00
    the negation of
  • 00:33:02
    b or q is the negation of p and the
  • 00:33:04
    negation of q
  • 00:33:12
    so
  • 00:33:12
    um
  • 00:33:14
    oh thank you i just needed the last one
  • 00:33:15
    here okay
  • 00:33:19
    okay so so somebody asked this great
  • 00:33:21
    question how do we establish these we'll
  • 00:33:22
    get to us at the end of the lecture
  • 00:33:24
    hopefully if i have time
  • 00:33:27
    okay so so negation is one
  • 00:33:30
    sort of subtle interesting thing that
  • 00:33:32
    happens with quantifiers
  • 00:33:33
    uh an even more
  • 00:33:35
    subtle thing is what happens when you
  • 00:33:37
    have multiple quantifiers
  • 00:33:40
    okay so nesting of quantifiers
  • 00:33:50
    so what do i mean by nesting
  • 00:33:53
    so
  • 00:33:55
    uh what i mean is i i can
  • 00:33:58
    i can have multiple variables
  • 00:34:00
    and have multiple quantifiers right
  • 00:34:04
    so for example
  • 00:34:06
    let's consider the following statement
  • 00:34:08
    for every x
  • 00:34:10
    for every y
  • 00:34:13
    x plus y equals y plus x and let's
  • 00:34:17
    assume the domain is integers
  • 00:34:22
    okay
  • 00:34:23
    now
  • 00:34:26
    if you unpack this
  • 00:34:29
    you know uh what is this really saying
  • 00:34:31
    in english it's saying well for every
  • 00:34:34
    integer x
  • 00:34:37
    something happens right and that
  • 00:34:39
    something that happens is this whole
  • 00:34:41
    thing
  • 00:34:42
    which is itself a propositional function
  • 00:34:47
    so so if this was the propositional
  • 00:34:49
    function
  • 00:34:50
    q of x y because it depends on two
  • 00:34:52
    variables
  • 00:34:55
    this is a different propositional
  • 00:34:57
    function p that depends only on x why
  • 00:35:00
    does it depend only on x
  • 00:35:11
    oh i mean y is bound right so it's very
  • 00:35:14
    so
  • 00:35:15
    if you plug in the value of x this
  • 00:35:17
    becomes a proposition
  • 00:35:19
    so this is a propositional function that
  • 00:35:21
    only depends on x you don't need to plug
  • 00:35:22
    in a value of y
  • 00:35:24
    because
  • 00:35:25
    that's included in the definition of p
  • 00:35:27
    of x
  • 00:35:29
    so this is saying for every integer x
  • 00:35:33
    um for every
  • 00:35:35
    integer y
  • 00:35:38
    or you know maybe just to clarify and
  • 00:35:40
    say it is the case that
  • 00:35:44
    for every integer y
  • 00:35:46
    x plus y equals y plus x
  • 00:35:53
    so you can stack these things uh
  • 00:35:56
    together
  • 00:36:01
    now
  • 00:36:04
    when when you do this um
  • 00:36:06
    [Music]
  • 00:36:08
    you can do this with existential
  • 00:36:09
    quantifier as well you can
  • 00:36:12
    you can
  • 00:36:13
    so so by the way so so what factors is
  • 00:36:15
    it expressing it's expressing that
  • 00:36:17
    addition of integers is commutative that
  • 00:36:19
    the order in which you add things
  • 00:36:20
    doesn't matter
  • 00:36:21
    so it's expressing a kind of important
  • 00:36:24
    but basic fact about arithmetic
  • 00:36:30
    and uh
  • 00:36:32
    yes would you have to specif would you
  • 00:36:34
    not need to specify the domain for both
  • 00:36:35
    the
  • 00:36:36
    variables in the quantify it like in
  • 00:36:39
    them absolutely absolutely so so by
  • 00:36:42
    integers i just mean integers for both
  • 00:36:44
    so you would have to specify
  • 00:36:47
    thank you
  • 00:36:49
    um
  • 00:36:51
    and
  • 00:36:52
    uh you know similarly there are some so
  • 00:36:56
    okay so one nice feature that happens
  • 00:36:58
    when you have multiple universal
  • 00:36:59
    quantifiers
  • 00:37:02
    is that
  • 00:37:06
    you can switch the order for all x for
  • 00:37:08
    all y
  • 00:37:09
    p of x y well let's call it q since
  • 00:37:12
    that's what it was called here
  • 00:37:15
    it's the same
  • 00:37:16
    as for all y for all x
  • 00:37:19
    u of x y
  • 00:37:21
    and again we won't
  • 00:37:23
    belabor how to establish this um
  • 00:37:26
    uh
  • 00:37:27
    for now although we'll see some
  • 00:37:30
    techniques how to do it at the end of
  • 00:37:31
    the lecture but
  • 00:37:32
    it's
  • 00:37:33
    well it's it's um
  • 00:37:36
    it's simple enough that we'll just treat
  • 00:37:37
    it as self-evident for now
  • 00:37:42
    okay
  • 00:37:44
    um
  • 00:37:45
    and and you can do the same thing for
  • 00:37:47
    existential quantifiers so for example
  • 00:37:50
    we can do
  • 00:37:53
    here's an interesting one
  • 00:37:55
    uh there exists an x and there exists a
  • 00:37:58
    y there is just an x such that there
  • 00:37:59
    exists a y
  • 00:38:02
    such that uh
  • 00:38:07
    let's see what do i
  • 00:38:12
    what example do i want to do
  • 00:38:25
    okay let's do this x squared plus y
  • 00:38:27
    squared equals zero
  • 00:38:29
    and again over integers
  • 00:38:35
    so
  • 00:38:36
    what's that saying it's saying that
  • 00:38:38
    there are two integers there's a pair of
  • 00:38:40
    integers so that the sum of their
  • 00:38:41
    squares is zero
  • 00:38:46
    so by the way is that true or false
  • 00:38:52
    is it true
  • 00:38:54
    zero zero true it's true because of zero
  • 00:38:57
    zero right
  • 00:38:59
    it's true because uh consider
  • 00:39:03
    x equals y equals zero
  • 00:39:06
    and and this is the same again logically
  • 00:39:08
    as if you switch the quantifiers
  • 00:39:13
    so so maybe um
  • 00:39:14
    [Music]
  • 00:39:16
    yeah
  • 00:39:18
    and again that's because if you switch
  • 00:39:20
    the order you're just you're still
  • 00:39:21
    looking for a pair and it doesn't matter
  • 00:39:23
    what order you write it in
  • 00:39:25
    now the more interesting thing happens
  • 00:39:27
    when you have an existential quantifier
  • 00:39:29
    and
  • 00:39:30
    a
  • 00:39:32
    universal quantifier in the same
  • 00:39:34
    statement
  • 00:39:44
    so the more subtle thing is let's again
  • 00:39:46
    look at an example
  • 00:39:49
    uh so the example is
  • 00:39:52
    let's do this here for every x
  • 00:39:55
    there exists a y
  • 00:39:57
    so that y equals x squared
  • 00:40:02
    again over into this
  • 00:40:06
    okay
  • 00:40:08
    so what is this saying
  • 00:40:11
    can somebody say what it's saying in
  • 00:40:12
    words
  • 00:40:18
    for all
  • 00:40:19
    x there exists a y where x squared
  • 00:40:22
    equals y along the integers for every
  • 00:40:25
    integer there's some other integer
  • 00:40:27
    that's equal to a square
  • 00:40:29
    is that true
  • 00:40:32
    no the fourth
  • 00:40:39
    well um
  • 00:40:42
    yeah that's true
  • 00:40:46
    integer square
  • 00:40:48
    yeah there is
  • 00:40:50
    oh
  • 00:40:50
    yeah why such that
  • 00:40:55
    y equals x squared
  • 00:40:57
    and
  • 00:40:58
    we'll talk a little bit more towards the
  • 00:41:00
    end of the lecture how to like
  • 00:41:03
    you know prove something like this but
  • 00:41:05
    in this in this case
  • 00:41:06
    the english sentence is true if you for
  • 00:41:08
    every integer so first of all notice
  • 00:41:11
    that it's actually hard it's a little
  • 00:41:12
    tricky to even conceptualize what the
  • 00:41:14
    statement means
  • 00:41:16
    and this is one of the
  • 00:41:18
    key difficulties in getting to higher
  • 00:41:20
    level math that you have a lot of
  • 00:41:21
    statements with alternating quantifiers
  • 00:41:27
    um
  • 00:41:28
    and that's something you'll learn more
  • 00:41:29
    through practice
  • 00:41:31
    um but yeah this is saying for every
  • 00:41:33
    number there's some other number that's
  • 00:41:35
    equal to its square well the answer is
  • 00:41:36
    yeah there is you just take your x and
  • 00:41:38
    square
  • 00:41:39
    and then
  • 00:41:40
    now you have a number y that's equal to
  • 00:41:42
    its square
  • 00:41:44
    however
  • 00:41:45
    this is
  • 00:41:46
    not the same as or let me say versus
  • 00:41:51
    if you just flip the order there exists
  • 00:41:54
    a y such that for all x
  • 00:41:56
    uh y equals x squared
  • 00:42:01
    this is saying there exists
  • 00:42:05
    uh an integer y just one integer
  • 00:42:09
    such that every other for every other
  • 00:42:12
    integer x x squared is equal to y
  • 00:42:28
    okay so saying that there's one number
  • 00:42:30
    so that for every other number when you
  • 00:42:32
    square it you get that first number
  • 00:42:34
    is that true
  • 00:42:35
    false no that's false right so this is
  • 00:42:38
    true this is four so these are not the
  • 00:42:40
    same in general
  • 00:42:41
    so if you have two different quantifiers
  • 00:42:43
    you can't just switch the order
  • 00:42:46
    okay
  • 00:42:55
    and okay maybe this was a little tricky
  • 00:42:57
    because it was sort of
  • 00:42:59
    about numbers just to make this clear
  • 00:43:02
    let me since this is a very important
  • 00:43:04
    point let me show you one more example
  • 00:43:09
    example is um
  • 00:43:15
    [Music]
  • 00:43:22
    yeah okay
  • 00:43:25
    for every x
  • 00:43:28
    uh
  • 00:43:29
    so now the domain is people in this
  • 00:43:31
    class
  • 00:43:37
    uh so statement is um
  • 00:43:42
    for every person in this class there
  • 00:43:44
    exists another person in this class
  • 00:43:46
    so that that person is strictly taller
  • 00:43:53
    then x
  • 00:43:56
    so this is saying for everybody in this
  • 00:43:57
    class
  • 00:44:00
    there's a person
  • 00:44:02
    who is taller than them is is that true
  • 00:44:06
    well that would be false because there's
  • 00:44:09
    a tallest person
  • 00:44:11
    yeah this is false because there's a
  • 00:44:12
    tallest person right
  • 00:44:22
    uh
  • 00:44:22
    [Music]
  • 00:44:31
    on the other hand if you write this
  • 00:44:32
    statement that there exists a person
  • 00:44:34
    says that for every person x
  • 00:44:38
    uh
  • 00:44:40
    y is strictly taller than x
  • 00:44:47
    so saying there is one person
  • 00:44:49
    who is strictly taller than everybody
  • 00:44:51
    else
  • 00:44:55
    actually okay uh
  • 00:44:59
    this is um
  • 00:45:05
    isn't this maybe true yeah this is also
  • 00:45:07
    false actually okay maybe this wasn't a
  • 00:45:09
    good example this is also false
  • 00:45:11
    actually
  • 00:45:13
    uh
  • 00:45:16
    why is this false
  • 00:45:18
    is it because both y and x are taken
  • 00:45:21
    from the same domain so you'd be
  • 00:45:22
    comparing the same person
  • 00:45:24
    yeah the person can't be strictly taller
  • 00:45:26
    than themselves so let's um
  • 00:45:28
    okay fine
  • 00:45:29
    maybe so
  • 00:45:31
    maybe i should uh
  • 00:45:34
    here let's um
  • 00:45:35
    [Music]
  • 00:45:38
    let's fix this example let's say the
  • 00:45:40
    statement is during this for every x or
  • 00:45:42
    because it's a y so that
  • 00:45:45
    x is equal to y or
  • 00:45:48
    so that'll fix this right
  • 00:45:53
    or
  • 00:45:54
    okay
  • 00:45:55
    so no so now
  • 00:45:56
    so now this is actually making sense
  • 00:45:58
    that the first statement is well for
  • 00:46:00
    every person
  • 00:46:02
    there is a person
  • 00:46:04
    who's either equal to them
  • 00:46:07
    or strictly taller than them
  • 00:46:10
    actually no sorry that messes it up
  • 00:46:12
    because for every person there is there
  • 00:46:14
    is a person equal to them okay
  • 00:46:16
    okay let's just leave these as false
  • 00:46:17
    maybe this wasn't a good example
  • 00:46:20
    but um you can see that the meaning of
  • 00:46:21
    these statements is different that
  • 00:46:23
    they're false for different reasons
  • 00:46:28
    so the the general point i want to
  • 00:46:31
    emphasize here is that you can't switch
  • 00:46:32
    the order in general
  • 00:46:36
    um
  • 00:46:39
    so any questions about this
  • 00:46:56
    oh why is the second one false again
  • 00:47:00
    well so um
  • 00:47:02
    the second one is false because
  • 00:47:04
    let's say i took y to be the tallest
  • 00:47:06
    person right
  • 00:47:10
    then i need that for every person in the
  • 00:47:12
    class including y themselves
  • 00:47:15
    y has to be strictly taller than them
  • 00:47:19
    but a person is not strictly taller than
  • 00:47:21
    themselves right
  • 00:47:26
    yes
  • 00:47:27
    thank you
  • 00:47:30
    so maybe that wasn't such a great
  • 00:47:32
    example but you can see that the the
  • 00:47:33
    meanings of the statements are different
  • 00:47:37
    um so the point that you're trying to
  • 00:47:39
    demonstrate here is that if there's
  • 00:47:41
    mixed quantifiers they can't be switched
  • 00:47:44
    and we say that they're they're
  • 00:47:45
    logically equivalent they might not be
  • 00:47:48
    they might not be exactly
  • 00:47:49
    so may not so if they're all the same
  • 00:47:51
    quantifier you can switch them there's
  • 00:47:53
    no problem but if they're different
  • 00:47:55
    quantifiers you you have to be very
  • 00:47:57
    careful about the order
  • 00:48:00
    the first example is really the good one
  • 00:48:02
    the second one is maybe not such a great
  • 00:48:03
    example
  • 00:48:05
    because they both ended up being false
  • 00:48:06
    but
  • 00:48:07
    anyway
  • 00:48:11
    uh professor i'm sorry but i still kind
  • 00:48:13
    of don't understand the first
  • 00:48:15
    part the first um um
  • 00:48:20
    uh you mean the one about the square
  • 00:48:23
    no the uh y is strictly taller than x uh
  • 00:48:26
    for all x there exists a y
  • 00:48:29
    right so the same thing is saying that
  • 00:48:30
    for every person in this class
  • 00:48:34
    there is a person in this class
  • 00:48:37
    who is strictly taller than them
  • 00:48:42
    and the reason that's false is because
  • 00:48:44
    why is the tallest person
  • 00:48:47
    well the reason is that what if you take
  • 00:48:49
    x to be the tallest person
  • 00:48:54
    then there's nobody strictly taller than
  • 00:48:56
    them right so it's false
  • 00:48:59
    oh okay thank you
  • 00:49:00
    yeah i mean you know maybe this wasn't
  • 00:49:02
    just a good example uh
  • 00:49:05
    because it's because it's kind of false
  • 00:49:08
    for uh
  • 00:49:11
    um
  • 00:49:13
    i mean okay
  • 00:49:14
    if
  • 00:49:16
    let's let's try to salvage this
  • 00:49:24
    um
  • 00:49:43
    for the second statement and then it
  • 00:49:44
    would be true because
  • 00:49:46
    it would be for everybody except himself
  • 00:49:51
    okay
  • 00:49:52
    um so so so you could uh so basically
  • 00:49:55
    you're saying
  • 00:49:56
    that um
  • 00:50:01
    well i want i want the same statement i
  • 00:50:03
    guess in this example so so so you're
  • 00:50:05
    saying
  • 00:50:06
    that
  • 00:50:07
    here x
  • 00:50:09
    not equal to y
  • 00:50:10
    implies
  • 00:50:11
    y is strictly lower than x
  • 00:50:16
    yeah like even the quantifier outside
  • 00:50:19
    right like
  • 00:50:20
    there exists a y that for every x not
  • 00:50:22
    equal to y y is strictly taller than x
  • 00:50:25
    within the room
  • 00:50:30
    okay um yeah i mean
  • 00:50:33
    the reason it's getting tricky is i
  • 00:50:34
    wanted to have the same statement above
  • 00:50:36
    and then this is going to significantly
  • 00:50:37
    change the meaning of that statement so
  • 00:50:39
    maybe let's just leave this example for
  • 00:50:41
    now as a
  • 00:50:43
    indication of how
  • 00:50:44
    of how uh i guess how uh quickly the
  • 00:50:47
    meaning can change by changing
  • 00:50:50
    you know
  • 00:50:50
    adding words like strictly
  • 00:50:53
    okay
  • 00:50:54
    so
  • 00:50:55
    so so one let me let me do one more uh
  • 00:50:58
    example
  • 00:50:59
    so in particular
  • 00:51:06
    uh if you combine what we learned about
  • 00:51:10
    uh nesting and about negation
  • 00:51:14
    uh you you get um
  • 00:51:16
    [Music]
  • 00:51:18
    the negation of there exists
  • 00:51:21
    x that's it for all y
  • 00:51:23
    uh q of x y
  • 00:51:26
    so what's the negation of that going to
  • 00:51:27
    be well by de morgan
  • 00:51:30
    this is going to be
  • 00:51:31
    for all x the negation of
  • 00:51:35
    for all y q of x y
  • 00:51:44
    and then by de morgan again
  • 00:51:46
    this is going to be for all x
  • 00:51:48
    there exists y so it's the negation of x
  • 00:51:51
    y
  • 00:51:55
    okay so if you negate a statement with
  • 00:51:57
    multiple quantifiers it still flips the
  • 00:51:59
    quantifiers it just sort of passes
  • 00:52:00
    through or flips them one by one
  • 00:52:07
    okay
  • 00:52:08
    um
  • 00:52:10
    don't don't worry about this we're going
  • 00:52:11
    to get tons and tons of practice with
  • 00:52:13
    this in the semester it's really
  • 00:52:14
    something that's going to come up almost
  • 00:52:16
    in every class or every lecture
  • 00:52:21
    um
  • 00:52:26
    uh also i have a question about this
  • 00:52:28
    part really quick in the last line
  • 00:52:30
    because um for every
  • 00:52:34
    uh y
  • 00:52:35
    and the negation part in front of it
  • 00:52:36
    that changes it into that last line um
  • 00:52:41
    oh okay got it thank you i just applied
  • 00:52:43
    this de morgan for quantifiers twice
  • 00:52:47
    yeah i can see thank you
  • 00:52:50
    okay
  • 00:52:53
    um
  • 00:52:55
    and and you know there are many
  • 00:52:56
    interesting examples of statements that
  • 00:52:58
    involve multiple quantifiers let me just
  • 00:53:00
    give another one
  • 00:53:02
    another one
  • 00:53:03
    that i like is
  • 00:53:06
    for every x there exists a y
  • 00:53:09
    so that if x is not equal to zero
  • 00:53:12
    then x y equals 1 and this the domain is
  • 00:53:16
    real numbers
  • 00:53:18
    so what fact is this expressing
  • 00:53:24
    every number has an inverse
  • 00:53:26
    every number that's not zero has an
  • 00:53:28
    inverse if exit for every real number
  • 00:53:31
    there exists another real number y so
  • 00:53:33
    that if x is not zero then x times y
  • 00:53:35
    equals function and that number is one
  • 00:53:37
    over x
  • 00:53:38
    and what's the negation of this well the
  • 00:53:40
    negation of this
  • 00:53:45
    is that there exists a real number such
  • 00:53:48
    that for every y
  • 00:53:51
    the negation of this conditional holds
  • 00:54:04
    okay
  • 00:54:07
    and
  • 00:54:09
    well so
  • 00:54:11
    what's the negation of a conditional
  • 00:54:13
    anybody see how to write that down
  • 00:54:24
    make a little box here what's the
  • 00:54:26
    negation of b implies q
  • 00:54:32
    for every x there is not an inverse
  • 00:54:36
    why
  • 00:54:38
    is it
  • 00:54:40
    no nevermind
  • 00:54:42
    okay just a second
  • 00:55:04
    okay this is really annoying i thought i
  • 00:55:06
    i've changed my graphics drivers hoping
  • 00:55:09
    not to have this problem again but let
  • 00:55:11
    me
  • 00:55:11
    it looks like i'm having this problem
  • 00:55:13
    with the colors again so let me fix it
  • 00:55:54
    professor i think you're muted
  • 00:55:57
    oh sorry yeah i was saying well i guess
  • 00:55:59
    we got a little break out of it which is
  • 00:56:01
    not so bad for one class
  • 00:56:03
    so
  • 00:56:04
    okay so let me now get to
  • 00:56:08
    the third part which is ruler inference
  • 00:56:16
    can you see this
  • 00:56:20
    okay so yes as i was saying we've been
  • 00:56:23
    talking about how to write and how to
  • 00:56:26
    write statements with a precise
  • 00:56:28
    meaning and truth value and now we're
  • 00:56:30
    going to talk about how to
  • 00:56:32
    um
  • 00:56:33
    write arguments which establish the
  • 00:56:36
    establish the truth values of new
  • 00:56:38
    statements that we would of new
  • 00:56:41
    statements
  • 00:56:42
    so how basically how to prove new
  • 00:56:44
    statements
  • 00:56:46
    uh and so the key device for doing this
  • 00:56:49
    is what's called a rule of inference
  • 00:56:52
    let me
  • 00:56:54
    start with an example
  • 00:57:08
    so here's an example
  • 00:57:10
    um
  • 00:57:13
    here's one proposition it is uh if it is
  • 00:57:16
    raining
  • 00:57:21
    the dog is wet
  • 00:57:26
    and here's another statement it is
  • 00:57:27
    raining
  • 00:57:32
    so now
  • 00:57:34
    so now you know intuitively we make this
  • 00:57:36
    argument all the time we can conclude
  • 00:57:37
    that the dog is wet
  • 00:57:42
    but what is actually the logical device
  • 00:57:44
    behind this deduction well it's actually
  • 00:57:46
    a tautology
  • 00:57:47
    so let's say it is raining is the
  • 00:57:53
    is the proposition r
  • 00:57:55
    and the dog is wet
  • 00:57:57
    is a proposition w
  • 00:57:59
    and the first proposition is r implies w
  • 00:58:03
    the second proposition is r
  • 00:58:05
    and the conclusion is w
  • 00:58:09
    now this was actually one of the
  • 00:58:11
    sort of simple
  • 00:58:13
    easy tautologies on the second slide of
  • 00:58:15
    this lecture
  • 00:58:17
    if you recall
  • 00:58:19
    okay so so so what was the reasoning
  • 00:58:22
    process here well this was
  • 00:58:24
    what we really used here is the
  • 00:58:25
    tautology
  • 00:58:29
    r implies w
  • 00:58:31
    and w sorry and r
  • 00:58:37
    implies w
  • 00:58:41
    okay and
  • 00:58:42
    you know
  • 00:58:44
    this okay this has a fancy latin name
  • 00:58:46
    it's called modus
  • 00:58:48
    opponens or something which i can never
  • 00:58:50
    remember and you don't have to memorize
  • 00:58:51
    these names but the key point is that
  • 00:58:53
    this little tautology is what enabled us
  • 00:58:55
    to do this reasoning
  • 00:58:57
    and you have slightly more complicated
  • 00:58:58
    examples of that like okay
  • 00:59:01
    if it is raining the dog is wet so
  • 00:59:04
    that's just r implies s again
  • 00:59:08
    and then
  • 00:59:09
    the dog is not wet
  • 00:59:15
    then well then you conclude that it is
  • 00:59:17
    not raining
  • 00:59:22
    right so this is not w and this is not
  • 00:59:26
    sorry not s this is a w
  • 00:59:29
    and then this is not r right
  • 00:59:34
    but how do you actually make this
  • 00:59:35
    deduction
  • 00:59:37
    well again behind this there is a
  • 00:59:39
    tautology
  • 00:59:41
    the tautology is
  • 00:59:44
    that okay p implies q or in this case r
  • 00:59:47
    implies w
  • 00:59:52
    and not w
  • 00:59:54
    implies not r
  • 00:59:56
    this is also a tautology
  • 01:00:01
    this also has some latin latin name i
  • 01:00:03
    don't remember what it's called
  • 01:00:06
    but the point is that inference logical
  • 01:00:08
    inference is really driven by a
  • 01:00:09
    tautology it's driven by these little
  • 01:00:11
    obvious
  • 01:00:12
    statements
  • 01:00:14
    and there's you know a list of the most
  • 01:00:16
    common ones that you can you can view in
  • 01:00:18
    the book here
  • 01:00:19
    so
  • 01:00:22
    here's the here's here's the book if you
  • 01:00:24
    go to if you go to section 1.6 there's a
  • 01:00:27
    table of rules of inference and these
  • 01:00:29
    are basically
  • 01:00:31
    you know many of them are the little
  • 01:00:32
    simple tautologies we wrote at the
  • 01:00:34
    beginning of the lecture they can all be
  • 01:00:36
    easily verified and they all have
  • 01:00:38
    complicated latin names which you don't
  • 01:00:40
    need to know
  • 01:00:44
    okay
  • 01:00:45
    and so these are what are called rules
  • 01:00:47
    of inference uh for propositional logic
  • 01:00:50
    they're just these baby tautologies that
  • 01:00:52
    you stitch together to
  • 01:00:54
    to reach new true propositions given
  • 01:00:57
    some propositions you already know to be
  • 01:00:59
    true
  • 01:01:01
    so let me um
  • 01:01:04
    i guess just formally define
  • 01:01:08
    this um
  • 01:01:24
    so reasoning is driven by these sort of
  • 01:01:26
    useful pathologies and yeah let me just
  • 01:01:29
    use the definitions the definition
  • 01:01:32
    so rules of inference are just useful
  • 01:01:33
    tautologies
  • 01:01:48
    used to derive
  • 01:01:51
    uh well
  • 01:01:54
    true propositions
  • 01:01:59
    from
  • 01:02:00
    some
  • 01:02:01
    [Music]
  • 01:02:03
    okay to drive
  • 01:02:05
    from well from some
  • 01:02:07
    known true propositions
  • 01:02:16
    and okay this definition is not really
  • 01:02:18
    important the definition that is
  • 01:02:20
    important is which which actually has a
  • 01:02:22
    mathematical meaning is an argument so
  • 01:02:24
    an argument
  • 01:02:27
    is a sequence
  • 01:02:31
    of statements
  • 01:02:33
    in the sense of
  • 01:02:34
    propositional logic
  • 01:02:45
    and um
  • 01:02:49
    the last of which is called a conclusion
  • 01:03:02
    and the argument is valid
  • 01:03:07
    uh if each statement follows from
  • 01:03:10
    the previous ones and some rules of
  • 01:03:12
    inference
  • 01:03:26
    the previous ones uh
  • 01:03:30
    rules
  • 01:03:35
    okay so if you just have a sequence of
  • 01:03:36
    statements
  • 01:03:37
    but they don't have the structure it's
  • 01:03:39
    not a valid argument it's an invalid
  • 01:03:41
    argument
  • 01:03:42
    it's so valid argument is a bunch of
  • 01:03:44
    baby steps
  • 01:03:46
    uh connect namely these topologies
  • 01:03:48
    connecting
  • 01:03:50
    uh
  • 01:03:50
    a sequence of propositions so let me
  • 01:03:52
    give you an example of about an
  • 01:03:54
    interesting valid off argument
  • 01:04:02
    [Music]
  • 01:04:08
    okay for example
  • 01:04:13
    um
  • 01:04:30
    yeah okay
  • 01:04:32
    so
  • 01:04:35
    so here's an argument proving
  • 01:04:40
    that the following is true
  • 01:04:42
    p
  • 01:04:43
    and q
  • 01:04:44
    implies
  • 01:04:46
    p or q
  • 01:04:51
    uh so so this is a tautology
  • 01:04:59
    okay so what's the argument
  • 01:05:04
    well
  • 01:05:06
    i have that p
  • 01:05:08
    and q implies p
  • 01:05:12
    so that's a tautology
  • 01:05:14
    that's already a rule of inference
  • 01:05:18
    and i have uh
  • 01:05:20
    i believe this is called uh
  • 01:05:22
    this has a name it doesn't matter but
  • 01:05:24
    it's kind of obvious
  • 01:05:27
    um
  • 01:05:28
    then i have p implies p or q
  • 01:05:31
    this is also tautology
  • 01:05:36
    and now i can chain these together to
  • 01:05:39
    get that p
  • 01:05:40
    and q implies p or q
  • 01:05:44
    i think this is called hypothetical
  • 01:05:45
    syllogism
  • 01:05:49
    which is just another tautology
  • 01:05:53
    so i have three statements
  • 01:05:55
    and the structure is that you know the
  • 01:05:57
    first two are tautologies and the third
  • 01:05:59
    one follows by combining the first two
  • 01:06:01
    and let's say this is the conclusion
  • 01:06:05
    okay
  • 01:06:07
    and i should say an argument often
  • 01:06:09
    starts by assuming
  • 01:06:12
    a collection of statements which are
  • 01:06:14
    called premises so
  • 01:06:17
    um
  • 01:06:20
    in this case there are no premises
  • 01:06:22
    everything is a tautology
  • 01:06:30
    okay um
  • 01:06:34
    let's do a more interesting example this
  • 01:06:35
    one was kind of kind of
  • 01:06:44
    basic what's more interesting is a rule
  • 01:06:47
    of inference
  • 01:06:52
    for quantifiers
  • 01:07:00
    so so there are four rules of inference
  • 01:07:01
    for quantifiers
  • 01:07:05
    so one is that
  • 01:07:07
    the statement for all x p of x
  • 01:07:10
    implies
  • 01:07:14
    pfc
  • 01:07:18
    for arbitrary c
  • 01:07:23
    in the domain
  • 01:07:28
    okay so so an example of this is
  • 01:07:33
    um
  • 01:07:36
    so for example let's say
  • 01:07:41
    you know uh
  • 01:07:43
    an exam so this is called universal
  • 01:07:45
    instantiation
  • 01:07:46
    you don't need to know the names
  • 01:07:52
    uh and an example of this universal
  • 01:07:55
    instantiation
  • 01:07:57
    is
  • 01:07:58
    well
  • 01:08:00
    for every
  • 01:08:01
    human
  • 01:08:03
    x x is mortal
  • 01:08:09
    and you know this implies that let's say
  • 01:08:12
    nikhil is mortal
  • 01:08:16
    but you could plug in anybody here
  • 01:08:17
    anybody who's a human
  • 01:08:20
    and the reverse of this is what's called
  • 01:08:23
    universal generalization
  • 01:08:31
    and what that says is that
  • 01:08:34
    if if you can show that for an arbitrary
  • 01:08:37
    element of the domain
  • 01:08:39
    a certain propositional function holds
  • 01:08:42
    that implies that the
  • 01:08:45
    quantified statement for all xp of x is
  • 01:08:48
    true
  • 01:08:54
    so so
  • 01:08:55
    an example of universal generalization
  • 01:08:58
    is
  • 01:09:01
    you know let's say i say assume
  • 01:09:06
    you know
  • 01:09:07
    well i mean okay maybe this
  • 01:09:11
    uh maybe
  • 01:09:12
    i'll leave this example uh for a little
  • 01:09:14
    later actually
  • 01:09:18
    and then the the there are some similar
  • 01:09:20
    rules of inference for the existential
  • 01:09:21
    quantifier so the statement there exists
  • 01:09:24
    x so that p of x
  • 01:09:26
    this implies so this is existential
  • 01:09:31
    instantiation
  • 01:09:35
    this implies that p of c
  • 01:09:37
    is true
  • 01:09:42
    for some
  • 01:09:43
    for some
  • 01:09:44
    c into the way
  • 01:09:50
    so what that means is that if you know
  • 01:09:51
    that if you know that the statement
  • 01:09:53
    written above is true
  • 01:09:55
    then there must be some one point in the
  • 01:09:57
    i mean it's almost a definition of the
  • 01:09:59
    existential quantifier there must be
  • 01:10:00
    some
  • 01:10:01
    uh element in the domain for which that
  • 01:10:03
    statement holds
  • 01:10:05
    and this is called existential
  • 01:10:06
    generalization
  • 01:10:13
    so so this is sort of a is sort of a
  • 01:10:15
    subtle concept let me give an example of
  • 01:10:18
    existential generalization
  • 01:10:24
    let's say i just have that nikhil is
  • 01:10:26
    mortal
  • 01:10:29
    what can i conclude from that
  • 01:10:32
    i can conclude that there exists
  • 01:10:35
    a human
  • 01:10:36
    so that the human is mortal
  • 01:10:40
    right because nikhil is a human
  • 01:10:42
    so so
  • 01:10:47
    um
  • 01:10:47
    [Music]
  • 01:10:49
    i mean okay the implicit domain in all
  • 01:10:51
    these examples is humans right
  • 01:10:55
    or
  • 01:10:56
    or
  • 01:10:58
    yeah mortal means will die and human
  • 01:11:00
    means human being
  • 01:11:05
    now this might seem like kind of just uh
  • 01:11:12
    a word game but the content of this is
  • 01:11:14
    what's written above
  • 01:11:16
    is is a proposition with a quantifier
  • 01:11:18
    right
  • 01:11:19
    and
  • 01:11:21
    for example over here
  • 01:11:24
    uh there's no particular
  • 01:11:26
    element of the domain that's being
  • 01:11:28
    considered it's just a statement about
  • 01:11:29
    the domain at large
  • 01:11:31
    so what universal instantiation is
  • 01:11:33
    saying is that
  • 01:11:36
    if you know something is true for every
  • 01:11:37
    every element of the domain you can you
  • 01:11:39
    can choose an arbitrary element of the
  • 01:11:41
    domain and then you know that statement
  • 01:11:42
    is true for that element
  • 01:11:48
    so
  • 01:11:50
    okay
  • 01:11:52
    let me um
  • 01:11:55
    do one example illustrating i'll do a
  • 01:11:58
    classical sort of example from a couple
  • 01:12:00
    of hundred years ago illustrating how
  • 01:12:02
    these are used in writing proofs
  • 01:12:08
    so this example is due to lewis carroll
  • 01:12:11
    who wrote alice in wonderland and was
  • 01:12:12
    also a mathematician
  • 01:12:14
    whose interests were logic and linear
  • 01:12:16
    algebra
  • 01:12:18
    and so here's an here's an informal
  • 01:12:20
    argument
  • 01:12:24
    the argument is
  • 01:12:25
    all lions are fierce
  • 01:12:31
    some lions
  • 01:12:34
    don't drink coffee
  • 01:12:40
    therefore some fierce creatures don't
  • 01:12:42
    drink coffee
  • 01:12:53
    now how do we turn this into a formal
  • 01:12:55
    argument that uses these rules of
  • 01:12:58
    inference
  • 01:12:59
    so let me demonstrate that
  • 01:13:05
    so first let's define some
  • 01:13:07
    uh
  • 01:13:09
    propositional functions so l of x is x
  • 01:13:12
    is a line
  • 01:13:16
    f of x is
  • 01:13:18
    x is fierce
  • 01:13:21
    and c of x is
  • 01:13:23
    x drinks coffee
  • 01:13:28
    and the domain for all of these is let's
  • 01:13:30
    say all living creatures
  • 01:13:35
    so so so informally what do these
  • 01:13:37
    statements refer to well the first name
  • 01:13:39
    is saying for every x for every creature
  • 01:13:42
    if that's if l if it's a lion then it's
  • 01:13:45
    fierce l x implies f of x
  • 01:13:48
    the second statement is that
  • 01:13:52
    there is an x
  • 01:13:56
    such that
  • 01:13:59
    x is a lion and
  • 01:14:02
    exactly not x drinks coffee exactly
  • 01:14:06
    so there exists
  • 01:14:08
    there exists the creature so that that
  • 01:14:10
    creature is a lion
  • 01:14:12
    and it doesn't drink often
  • 01:14:15
    and then the third statement is
  • 01:14:18
    there is x
  • 01:14:20
    such that x is fierce
  • 01:14:24
    and x does not drink coffee or not
  • 01:14:28
    ex drinks coffee yeah not c of x so we
  • 01:14:31
    want to conclude the third from the
  • 01:14:32
    first two but how do we do that right
  • 01:14:34
    like the same seems to make sense but
  • 01:14:36
    let's do it formally
  • 01:14:38
    so i'm now so again i might take out
  • 01:14:40
    this one extra minute i'll write down
  • 01:14:42
    all the steps in this formal argument
  • 01:14:45
    okay
  • 01:14:46
    so so so so let's do the formal argument
  • 01:14:49
    right
  • 01:14:50
    okay
  • 01:14:51
    so all lions are fierce that's uh um
  • 01:14:55
    that's a that's a premise
  • 01:14:57
    so for all x l of x implies f of x
  • 01:15:03
    that's a premise
  • 01:15:08
    now
  • 01:15:09
    um
  • 01:15:12
    actually sorry i don't want to hit that
  • 01:15:13
    first sorry sorry uh so so so what am i
  • 01:15:16
    going to do i'm going to start with the
  • 01:15:17
    second premise some lines don't drink
  • 01:15:19
    coffee
  • 01:15:20
    so there exists an x
  • 01:15:22
    so that it's a lion
  • 01:15:24
    and doesn't drink coffee
  • 01:15:28
    that's a premise
  • 01:15:29
    number two
  • 01:15:31
    now i'm going to use existential
  • 01:15:35
    instantiation
  • 01:15:36
    to say hey this implies that there has
  • 01:15:38
    to be some particular lion that doesn't
  • 01:15:40
    drink coffee
  • 01:15:42
    right so this means
  • 01:15:44
    l of
  • 01:15:45
    let's just call it
  • 01:15:47
    uh
  • 01:15:48
    well let's just call it a
  • 01:15:50
    and not c of a
  • 01:15:55
    uh for some particular
  • 01:16:00
    okay and here i used existential
  • 01:16:02
    instantiation
  • 01:16:04
    and so the benefit so when i write proof
  • 01:16:06
    i always have this metaphor of a table
  • 01:16:08
    in the background
  • 01:16:10
    and what the table has on it is some
  • 01:16:12
    particular objects
  • 01:16:15
    which are bound uh usually come from
  • 01:16:17
    being bound variables with a quantifier
  • 01:16:19
    so now there's
  • 01:16:20
    a creature on the table which is a lion
  • 01:16:23
    and it doesn't drink coffee
  • 01:16:26
    right
  • 01:16:28
    okay
  • 01:16:30
    now elevate and not survey well this
  • 01:16:32
    implies that just l of a
  • 01:16:35
    why this is because p and q implies p
  • 01:16:38
    that's one of those rules of inference
  • 01:16:40
    right
  • 01:16:44
    okay
  • 01:16:45
    but now i have another premise that all
  • 01:16:47
    lines are fierce right so i have that
  • 01:16:49
    for all x
  • 01:16:51
    l of
  • 01:16:53
    x
  • 01:16:53
    implies f of x
  • 01:16:59
    this is premise number one
  • 01:17:05
    this is saying something about all
  • 01:17:07
    creatures
  • 01:17:08
    but now i can apply it
  • 01:17:10
    to remember
  • 01:17:12
    universal instantiation means i can
  • 01:17:14
    apply it to any element of the domain so
  • 01:17:16
    in particular i can apply it to this
  • 01:17:17
    line a that's sitting on the table
  • 01:17:20
    so this implies l of a implies
  • 01:17:23
    f a
  • 01:17:24
    this is a universal
  • 01:17:29
    for the a that i have on the table this
  • 01:17:31
    is universal instantiation
  • 01:17:36
    okay
  • 01:17:40
    now if i combine statements let's give
  • 01:17:43
    these names if i combine
  • 01:17:45
    statement star and statement double star
  • 01:17:49
    then i get
  • 01:17:50
    that um
  • 01:17:53
    f a right
  • 01:17:56
    because i mean uh
  • 01:18:00
    that's just modus ponens actually right
  • 01:18:06
    but now i have on the table
  • 01:18:10
    um f of a
  • 01:18:12
    and i also have c of a
  • 01:18:14
    uh sorry not c of a
  • 01:18:17
    and i have that because
  • 01:18:19
    i have uh from the second statement l of
  • 01:18:21
    a and not c of a and so then i have the
  • 01:18:23
    end of those f of a and not c of a
  • 01:18:30
    and now by existential generalization i
  • 01:18:32
    get that there exists an x
  • 01:18:36
    so that f of x
  • 01:18:38
    and not c of x
  • 01:18:40
    this is existential generalization
  • 01:18:44
    okay so that was
  • 01:18:48
    an example of how you use these rules of
  • 01:18:50
    inference
  • 01:18:52
    to prove something right to formalize
  • 01:18:54
    this argument
  • 01:18:57
    and we're going to do a lot more of this
  • 01:18:58
    in the next lecture the main thing i
  • 01:19:00
    want to introduce is this metaphor of
  • 01:19:01
    this table that these quantifiers allow
  • 01:19:03
    you to put things on the table
  • 01:19:05
    and then you have specific objects
  • 01:19:07
    instead of having to think about this
  • 01:19:08
    whole universal object as a whole of
  • 01:19:10
    objects
  • 01:19:11
    anyway um really sorry for those
  • 01:19:13
    technical difficulties again i i
  • 01:19:16
    don't know i'll find
  • 01:19:17
    some way around it for next time
  • 01:19:20
    but thanks
  • 01:19:21
    thank you
  • 01:19:23
    thank you
  • 01:19:24
    thank you thank you thank you
  • 01:19:34
    thank you
  • 01:19:47
    i want to ask in what situations would
  • 01:19:49
    you use um
  • 01:19:51
    in what situations would use
  • 01:19:53
    uh equal to t and um
  • 01:19:56
    and uh the compound from the opposition
  • 01:19:59
    uh
  • 01:20:01
    yeah the compound proposition
  • 01:20:03
    with t
  • 01:20:06
    uh the compound proposition uh
  • 01:20:10
    which compound proposition
  • 01:20:12
    um
  • 01:20:14
    if you if you're saying that something
  • 01:20:16
    is true would you say
  • 01:20:18
    in what cases would you use equal to t
  • 01:20:20
    in what cases okay i see i see yeah so
  • 01:20:23
    you're right so implicitly what i'm
  • 01:20:25
    writing here is i'm writing a sequence
  • 01:20:27
    of true statements right
  • 01:20:30
    so this is a valid argument because each
  • 01:20:32
    statement is either a premise
  • 01:20:34
    which is something that was given to me
  • 01:20:36
    or it follows from the previous
  • 01:20:38
    statement by applying a rule of
  • 01:20:40
    influence
  • 01:20:41
    so implicitly what i'm saying here is
  • 01:20:43
    actually that all these statements are
  • 01:20:45
    true and i guess you're asking
  • 01:20:47
    why am i not saying so and so is true
  • 01:20:49
    right
  • 01:20:52
    yeah
  • 01:20:54
    um
  • 01:20:56
    it seems like you use different ones for
  • 01:20:59
    different situations like if you have a
  • 01:21:01
    uh if maybe if you have a statement
  • 01:21:03
    versus a um
  • 01:21:04
    uh
  • 01:21:06
    versus a proposition but i can't
  • 01:21:08
    entirely tell uh when
  • 01:21:10
    you do use it when you don't use it okay
  • 01:21:13
    so
  • 01:21:15
    so there is true um
  • 01:21:19
    so so let's see i haven't been using it
  • 01:21:21
    recently i used it in the knights and
  • 01:21:23
    knaves uh situation right
  • 01:21:26
    and and part of the reason for that is
  • 01:21:29
    that
  • 01:21:30
    i was actually doing something a little
  • 01:21:32
    bit different there i was trying to find
  • 01:21:34
    out if there is an assignment of truth
  • 01:21:36
    values which makes certain propositions
  • 01:21:38
    true
  • 01:21:40
    what i'm doing here is a little bit
  • 01:21:42
    different what i'm doing here is i'm
  • 01:21:43
    saying hey here are two
  • 01:21:46
    two propositions that i know are true
  • 01:21:49
    can i use those to deduce some other
  • 01:21:51
    proposition
  • 01:21:54
    so basically i'm not writing it here
  • 01:21:57
    because it would be redundant that i'm
  • 01:21:58
    not writing any statements that are
  • 01:22:00
    false here
  • 01:22:01
    yeah i'm staying in the realm of true
  • 01:22:04
    statements and when you write a proof
  • 01:22:06
    yeah it's implicitly assumed that
  • 01:22:07
    whatever you are writing is true unless
  • 01:22:10
    you're writing kind of a
  • 01:22:12
    you know a meta statement which is about
  • 01:22:14
    another statement and saying that that's
  • 01:22:16
    false or something like that
  • 01:22:21
    does that answer the question
  • 01:22:25
    kind of uh
  • 01:22:26
    can i type something out sure
Tags
  • Propositional Logic
  • Logical Operators
  • Tautologies
  • Quantifiers
  • Rules of Inference
  • Logical Equivalence
  • Propositional Functions