Rules of Inference#
To deduce new statements from the statements whose truth that we already know, rules of inference are used.
Rules of inference are standard logical templates used to build valid arguments and prove conclusions from given premises in propositional logic.
Addition#
If \(P\) is a premise, we cna use Addition rule to derive \(P \vee Q\).
Example
Let \(P\): “He studies very hard”
Therefore: “Either he studies very hard or he is a very bad student.”
Here, \(Q\) is the proposition “He is a very bad student”.
Conjunction#
If \(P\) and \(Q\) are two premises, we can use conjunction rule to derive \(P \wedge Q\).
Example
Let \(P\): “He studies very hard.”
Let \(Q\): “He is the best boy in the class.”
Therefore: “He studies very hard and he is the best boy in the class.”
Simplification#
If \(P \wedge Q\) is a premise, we can use simplification rule to derive \(P\).
Example
Let \(P \wedge Q\): “He studies very hard and he is the best boy in the class.”
Therefore: “He studies very hard.”
Modus Ponens#
If \(P\) and \(P \rightarrow Q\) are two premises, we can use modus ponens to derive \(Q\).
Example
Let \(P \rightarrow Q\): “If you have a password, then you can log on to Facebook.”
Let \(P\): “You have a password.”
Therefore: “You can log on to Facebook.”
Modus Tollens#
If \(P \rightarrow Q\) and \(\lnot Q\) are two premises, we can use modus tollens to derive \(\lnot P\).
Example
Let \(P \rightarrow Q\): “If you have a password, then you can log on to Facebook.”
Let \(\lnot Q\): “You cannot log on to Facebook.”
Therefore: “You do not have a password.”
Disjunctive Syllogism#
If \(\lnot P\) and \(P \vee Q\) are two premises, we can use disjunctive syllogism to derive \(Q\).
Example
Let \(\lnot P\): “The ice cream is not vanilla flavored.”
Let \(P \vee Q\): “The ice cream is either vanilla flavored or chocolate flavored.”
Therefore: “The ice cream is chocolate flavored.”
Hypothetical Syllogism#
If \(P \rightarrow Q\) and \(Q \rightarrow R\) are two premises, we can use hypothetical syllogism to derive \(P \rightarrow R\).
Example
Let \(P \rightarrow Q\): “If it rains, I shall not go to school.”
Let \(Q \rightarrow R\): “If I don’t go to school, I won’t need to do homework.”
Therefore: “If it rains, I won’t need to do homework.”
Constructive Dilemma#
If \((P \rightarrow Q) \wedge (R \rightarrow S)\) and \(P \vee R\) are two premises, we can use constructive dilemma to derive \(Q \vee S\).
Example
Let \(P \rightarrow Q\): “If it rains, I will take a leave.”
Let \(R \rightarrow S\): “If it is hot outside, I will go for a shower.”
Let \(P \vee R\): “Either it will rain or it is hot outside.”
Therefore: “I will take a leave or I will go for a shower.”
Destructive Dilemma#
If \((P \rightarrow Q) \wedge (R \rightarrow S)\) and \(\lnot Q \vee \lnot S\) are two premises, we can use destructive dilemma to derive \(\lnot P \vee \lnot R\).
Example
Let \(P \rightarrow Q\): “If it rains, I will take a leave.”
Let \(R \rightarrow S\): “If it is hot outside, I will go for a shower.”
Let \(\lnot Q \vee \lnot S\): “Either I will not take a leave or I will not go for a shower.”
Therefore: “Either it does not rain or it is not hot outside.”