Evanalysis
1.1Source-backedEmbedded interactionEstimated reading time: 4 min

1.1 Propositional logic

Define propositions carefully, read Boolean connectives with the correct precedence, and use truth tables to check equivalence and valid inference patterns.

Note collections

MATH1090: Set theory

Rigorous course notes on logic, sets, and number construction, written in short linked sections with careful proofs and examples.

Chapter 1

Logic

Reasoning tools for statements, connectives, and quantifiers.

Chapter 2

Sets and relations

Basic set language, functions, and relations.

Chapter 4

Order and completeness

Total order, bounds, supremum and infimum, and the completeness gap between Q and R.

Logic begins with statements that are already complete enough to be judged true or false. That sounds simple, but the distinction matters throughout the course: once a statement is not yet closed, it cannot be treated as a proposition.

Propositions and truth values

Definition

Proposition

A proposition is a statement with a definite truth value. It is either true or false, and nothing in between.

The point of the definition is not to make logic abstract for its own sake. It is to separate statements that can be tested from statements that are still unfinished.

Examples:

  • 2+2=42 + 2 = 4 is a proposition.
  • Every even number is divisible by 2 is a proposition.
  • Open the window. is not a proposition, because it is a command.
  • x+1=3x + 1 = 3 is not yet a proposition if x has not been fixed.

Common mistake

A formula with a free variable is not automatically a proposition

If the truth of a sentence still depends on an unspecified variable, then the sentence is open, not closed. You must either assign a value to the variable or bind it later with a quantifier.

Worked example

Decide which statements are propositions

Consider the following three statements:

  1. 7 is prime.
  2. x2+1>0x^2 + 1 > 0.
  3. Please hand in the worksheet.

Statement 1 is a proposition, and it is true. Statement 2 is not a proposition yet, because its truth value depends on the choice of x. Statement 3 is not a proposition, because it is a request rather than a claim.

Solution

Why the distinction matters

The Boolean alphabet

The course uses five connectives repeatedly:

| Symbol | Read as | Main idea | | --- | --- | --- | | ¬P¬P | not PP | flips the truth value | | PQP ∧ Q | PP and QQ | true only when both are true | | PQP ∨ Q | PP or QQ | true when at least one is true | | PQP → Q | if PP, then QQ | false only when PP is true and QQ is false | | P ↔ Q | PP if and only if QQ | true when the two sides match |

These are not just informal abbreviations. They are the basic symbols of the logic language, and they are the tools used to build more complicated statements.

The order of operations is also fixed:

  1. ¬¬
  2. and
  3. and

If that order still leaves ambiguity, add parentheses.

Worked example

Parse a formula before reading it

The formula ¬ABC¬A ∧ B ∨ C is read as

(¬AB)C.(¬A ∧ B) ∨ C.

The outer comes after the ¬¬ and the . So the statement says: either AA is false and BB is true, or CC is true.

If you meant something else, you must say so explicitly with parentheses.

Solution

Why this is not cosmetic

Truth tables and equivalence

A Boolean formula can be evaluated once the truth values of its component propositions are known. That is what a truth table records.

Theorem

Useful equivalences

The following equivalences are standard and should become automatic:

PQ¬PQP → Q \equiv ¬P ∨ QPQ(PQ)(QP)P ↔ Q \equiv (P → Q) ∧ (Q → P)¬(PQ)¬P¬Q¬(P ∧ Q) \equiv ¬P ∨ ¬Q¬(PQ)¬P¬Q¬(P ∨ Q) \equiv ¬P ∧ ¬Q¬¬PP¬¬P \equiv P

These are not philosophy statements. They are truth-table identities.

Worked example

Check implication with a truth table

The implication PQP → Q is false in exactly one case: when PP is true and QQ is false. In every other case it is true.

| PP | QQ | PQP → Q | | --- | --- | --- | | TT | TT | TT | | TT | FF | FF | | FF | TT | TT | | FF | FF | TT |

So PQP → Q does not mean that PP and QQ are both true. It means that the case PP true and QQ false is ruled out.

Solution

Why this matters

Rules of inference

The lecture notes and homework use several deduction patterns repeatedly.

Theorem

Common inference patterns

If PQP → Q and PP are true, then QQ is true. This is modus ponens.

If PQP → Q and ¬Q¬Q are true, then ¬P¬P is true. This is modus tollens.

If PQP → Q and QRQ → R are true, then PRP → R is true. This is hypothetical syllogism.

If PQP ∨ Q and ¬P¬P are true, then QQ is true. This is disjunctive syllogism.

These patterns are important because they are the logic version of a valid calculation. If the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true.

Worked example

A valid chain of implications

Suppose you know

AB,BC,A.A → B,\qquad B → C,\qquad A.

Then you may conclude BB from the first and third statements, and then CC from the second statement.

The conclusion CC follows from the premises because every step preserves truth.

Solution

How to recognize the argument

Common mistake

Do not confuse valid and invalid implication patterns

From PQP → Q and QQ, you cannot conclude PP. That fallacy is called affirming the consequent.

From PQP → Q and ¬P¬P, you cannot conclude ¬Q¬Q. That fallacy is called denying the antecedent.

Quick checks

Quick check

Which of these are propositions: 2+2=42 + 2 = 4, Open the window., x+1=3x + 1 = 3?

2+2=42 + 2 = 4 is a proposition. Open the window. is not. x+1=3x + 1 = 3 is not a proposition until x is fixed.

Solution

Answer

Quick check

Insert parentheses into ¬ABC¬A ∧ B ∨ C using the standard order of operations.

Remember that ¬¬ binds first, then and .

Solution

Answer

Quick check

Which of the following is logically equivalent to PQP → Q: ¬PQ¬P ∨ Q or PQP ∧ Q?

Check the truth condition of implication.

Solution

Answer

Quick check

Is the argument PQP → Q, QQ, therefore PP valid?

Test the conclusion against the case where PP is false.

Solution

Answer

Embedded check

Use the interactive table to test formulas against the truth values you assign.

Read and try

Trace one truth table

The live builder lets you switch formulas and inspect how each row changes the final truth value.

PQP → Q
TTT
TFF
FTT
FFT

Read this first

If you want the quantifier version of the language, read 1.3 Quantifiers and negation.

Prerequisites

This section can be read on its own.

Key terms in this unit

More notes in this series