1

DISCRETE MATHEMATICS
MATH301
Chapter 1: The Foundations: Logic and
Proofs

Dr. Nahid Sultana

Email: nszakir@[Link]

Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017.

3/1/2023
 1.2 Applications of Propositional Logic
2

Translating English Sentences

 Steps to convert an English sentence to a statement in
propositional logic
1. Identify propositions and represent using propositional
variables.
2. Determine appropriate logical connectives.
Example: “If I go to school or to the hospital, I will not go
shopping.” If p or q then not r.
 p: I go to school
 q: I go to the hospital
 r: I will go shopping
Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023
 Example
3

Problem: Translate the following sentence into

propositional logic:
“You can access the Internet from campus only if you are a
computer science major or you are not a freshman.”
Solution:
a=“You can access the internet from campus,”
c=“You are a computer science major,”
f=“You are a freshman.”
a→ (c ∨ ¬ f )
Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023
 1.3 Propositional Equivalences
4

Tautologies, Contradictions, and Contingencies.

Logical Equivalence
 Important Logical Equivalences
 Showing Logical Equivalence

Propositional Satisfiability

Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023

Tautologies, Contradictions, and
Contingencies
5

A compound proposition that is always true for all possible combination

of truth values of the propositional variables is called a tautology.
Example: p ∨¬p

A compound proposition that is always false for all possible combination

of truth values of the propositional variables is called a contradiction.
Example: p ∧¬p
A contingency is a proposition which is neither a tautology nor a
contradiction, such as p
P ¬p p ∨¬p p ∧¬p
T F T F
F T T F

Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023

 Logical Equivalence
6

 Two propositions are logically equivalent if they always have the

same truth value.
 Two compound propositions p and q are logically equivalent if p↔q
is a tautology.
Example: Show using a truth table that the conditional is equivalent
to the contrapositive.
p q p →q ~q ~p ~q → ~p

T T T F F T

T F F T F F

F T T F T T

F F T T T T
Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023
 Logical Equivalence
7

Example: Show using truth tables that the converse and inverse of an
implication are not equivalent to the implication.

p q Implication Converse ~p ~q Inverse

p →q q→p ~p→~q

T T T T F F T
T F F T F T T
F T T F T F F
F F T T T T T
Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023
 De Morgan’s Laws
8

This truth table shows that De Morgan’s Second Law holds.

p q ¬p ¬q (p∨q) ¬(p∨q) ¬p∧¬q

T T F F T F F
T F F T T F F
F T T F T F F
F F T T F T T

Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023

 Key Logical Equivalences
9

Identity Laws: ,

Domination Laws: ,

Idempotent laws: ,

 Double Negation Law:

Negation Laws: ,
Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023
 Key Logical Equivalences (cont)
10

Commutative Laws: ,

Associative Laws:

Distributive Laws:

Absorption Laws: ,

Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023

 More Logical Equivalences
11

Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023

 Propositional Satisfiability
12

A compound proposition is satisfiable if there is an

assignment of truth values to its variables that make
it true.
 Such an assignment is called a solution of this
particular satisfiability problem.
When no such assignments exist, the compound
proposition is unsatisfiable.
A compound proposition is unsatisfiable if and only
if its negation is a tautology.
Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023
 Propositional Satisfiability (cont.)
13

Example: Determine the satisfiability of the following compound propositions:

Solution: Satisfiable. Assign T to p, q, and r.

Solution: Satisfiable. Assign T to p and F to q.

Solution: Not satisfiable. Check each possible assignment of truth values to

the propositional variables and none will make the proposition true.
Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023
 1.4 Predicates and Quantifiers
14

 Predicates
 Variables
 Quantifiers
 Universal Quantifier
 Existential Quantifier

 Negating Quantifiers
 De Morgan’s Laws for Quantifiers
 Translating English to Logic
Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023
 Introducing Predicate Logic
15

 Predicate logic uses the following new features:

 Variables: x, y, z
 Predicates: P(x), M(x)

 Quantifiers (to be covered in a few slides):

 Propositional functions are a generalization of

propositions.
 They contain variables and a predicate, e.g., P(x)
 Variables can be replaced by elements from their
domain.

Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023

 Propositional Functions
16

 Suppose p(x): “x > 3” is an open statement (propositional

function).
 When a value has been assigned to the variable x, the
propositional function p(x) becomes a proposition and has a truth
value (either true or false). As x varies the truth values of p(x) varies.

Example: Suppose p(x): x >3. What are the truth values of p(2)
and p(4).
 We can also have statement involve more than one variable. For
example consider the statement p(x, y): x=y+3.
Example: Suppose p(x, y): x=y+3. What are the truth values of
16
p(1,2) and p(3,0). Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023
 Examples of Propositional Functions
17

 Let “x + y = z” be denoted by R(x, y, z) and the domain U (for all three variables)
be the integers. Find these truth values:
 R(2,-1,5)
 Solution: F
 R(3,4,7)
 Solution: T
 R(x, 3, z)
 Solution: Not a Proposition
 Now let “x - y = z” be denoted by Q(x, y, z), with U as the integers. Find these truth
values:
 Q(2,-1,3)
 Solution: T
 Q(3,4,7)
 Solution: F
 Q(x, 3, z)
Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023
 Solution: Not a Proposition
 Quantifiers
18

 We need quantifiers to express the meaning of English words

including all and some:
 “All men are Mortal.”
 “Some students do not use cell phone.”
 The two most important quantifiers are:
 Universal Quantifier, “For all,” symbol: 
 Existential Quantifier, “There exists,” symbol: 
 We write as in x P(x) and x P(x).
 x P(x) asserts P(x) is true for every x in the domain.
 x P(x) asserts P(x) is true for some x in the domain.
 The quantifiers are said to bind the variable x in these expressions.
Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023
 Quantifier (cont…)
19

 x P(x) is read as “For all x, P(x)” or “For every x, P(x)”

Examples:
1) If P(x) denotes “x > 0” and U is the integers, then x P(x) is
false.
2) If P(x) denotes “x > 0” and U is the positive integers, then
x P(x) is true.
3) If P(x) denotes “x is even” and U is the integers, then  x P(x)
is false.

19

Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023

 Quantifier (cont…)
20

x P(x) is read as “For some x, P(x)”, or as “There is an x such that

P(x),” or “For at least one x, P(x).”
Examples:
1. If P(x) denotes “x > 0” and U is the integers, then x P(x)
is true. It is also true if U is the positive integers.
2. If P(x) denotes “x < 0” and U is the positive integers, then
x P(x) is false.
3. If P(x) denotes “x is even” and U is the integers, then x
P(x) is true.

20
Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023
 Quantifier (cont…)
21

21
 Thinking about Quantifiers
24
22

 When the domain of discourse is finite, we can think of

quantification as looping through the elements of the domain.
 To evaluate x P(x) loop through all x in the domain.

 If at every step P(x) is true, then x P(x) is true.

 If at a step P(x) is false, then x P(x) is false and the loop terminates.
 To evaluate x P(x) loop through all x in the domain.
 If at some step, P(x) is true, then x P(x) is true and the loop
terminates.
 If the loop ends without finding an x for which P(x) is true, then x P(x)
is false.
 Even if the domains are infinite, we can still think of the quantifiers
in this fashion, but the loops will not terminate in some cases.
Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023
 Properties of Quantifiers
23

 The truth value of x P(x) and  x P(x) depend on both the

propositional function P(x) and on the domain U.
 Examples:
 If U is the positive integers and P(x) is the statement “x < 2”, then
x P(x) is true, but  x P(x) is false.
 If U is the negative integers and P(x) is the statement “x < 2”, then
both x P(x) and  x P(x) are true.
 If U consists of 3, 4, and 5, and P(x) is the statement “x > 2”, then
both x P(x) and  x P(x) are true. But if P(x) is the statement
“x < 2”, then both x P(x) and  x P(x) are false.

Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023

 Precedence of Quantifiers
24

 The quantifiers  and  have higher precedence than all the

logical operators.
 For example, x P(x) ∨ Q(x) means (x P(x))∨ Q(x)
x (P(x) ∨ Q(x)) means something different.
 Unfortunately, often people write x P(x) ∨ Q(x) when they
mean  x (P(x) ∨ Q(x)).

Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023

 Translating from English to Logic
25

Example 1: Translate the following sentence into predicate logic: “Every

student in this class has taken a course in Java.”
Solution:
First decide on the domain U.
Solution 1: -If U is all students in this class,
-define J(x) denoting “x has taken a course in Java”
-translate as x J(x).

Solution 2: -But if U is all people,

-define S(x) denoting “x is a student in this class”
“For every person x, if person x is a student in this class then x has taken a course in
Java.”
-translate asx (S(x)→ J(x)).

x (S(x) ∧ J(x))
is not correct. --all people are students in this class and have taken a course in Java.
Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023
 Translating from English to Logic
26

Example 2: Translate the following sentence into predicate logic:

“Some student in this class has taken a course in Java.”
Solution:
First decide on the domain U.
Solution 1: If U is all students in this class,
--translate as x J(x)
Solution 2: But if U is all people,
“there is a person x who is a student in this class and who has taken Java.”
--then translate as x (S(x) ∧ J(x))

x (S(x)→ J(x))
--is not correct. –is true when there is someone not in the class
--because, in that case, for such a person x, S(x) → J(x) becomes either F→T
or F→F, both of which are true.
Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023
 Equivalences in Predicate Logic
27

 Statements involving predicates and quantifiers are logically

equivalent if and only if they have the same truth value
 for every predicate substituted into these statements and
 for every domain of discourse used for the variables in the
expressions.
 The notation S ≡T indicates that S and T are logically equivalent.
 Example: x ¬¬S(x) ≡ x S(x)

Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023

 Thinking about Quantifiers as
Conjunctions and Disjunctions
28

 If the domain is finite, a universally quantified proposition is equivalent to a

conjunction of propositions without quantifiers and an existentially quantified
proposition is equivalent to a disjunction of propositions without quantifiers.
 If U consists of the integers 1,2, and 3:

 Even if the domains are infinite, you can still think of the quantifiers in this fashion,
but the equivalent expressions without quantifiers will be infinitely long.

Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023

 Negating Quantified Expressions
29

 Consider with p(x): “x is a female”

and D=student in this class
“All students in this class are female”
 Negation:
“It is not the case that all students in this class are female.”
 This implies that
“There is a student in this class who is not female.”
------This is a existential quantification of the negation of p(x).
Theorem:
Analogous Theorem:
Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023
Negating Quantified Expressions
(Cont…)
30

Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023

 Translation from English to Logic
31

Examples:
1. “Some student in this class has visited Mexico.”

Solution: Let M(x): “x has visited Mexico”

and S(x): “x is a student in this class,”
and U be all people.
x (S(x) ∧ M(x))
2. “Every student in this class has visited Canada or Mexico.”

Solution: Add C(x): “x has visited Canada.”

x (S(x)→ (M(x)∨C(x)))

Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023

 Arguments
32

 Definition: A logical argument is a finite set of propositions

(premises or hypothesis) followed by a proposition (conclusion).
Denoted by:

 Suppose the premises are all true, then conclusion may be either
true or false.
 When the conclusion is true then the argument is said to be valid.
 When the conclusion is false then the argument is said to be invalid
32
or fallacy. Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023
 Arguments (cont…)
33

 Show that the argument is valid.

 Show that the argument is invalid.

 Show that the argument is valid.

Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023 33

 1.5 Nested Quantifiers
34

Nested Quantifiers
Order of Quantifiers
Translating from Nested Quantifiers into English
Translating Mathematical Statements into Statements
involving Nested Quantifiers.
Translated English Sentences into Logical Expressions.
Negating Nested Quantifiers.

Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023

 Nested Quantifiers
35

 Nested quantifiers are often necessary to express the meaning of

sentences in English as well as important concepts in computer science
and mathematics.

Example: “Every real number has an inverse” is

x y(x + y = 0)
where the domains of x and y are the real numbers.

 We can also think of nested propositional functions:

x y(x + y = 0) can be viewed as x Q(x)
where Q(x): y P(x, y), where P(x, y) is (x + y = 0)

Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023

 Order of Quantifiers
36

Examples:
 Let P(x,y) be the statement “x + y = y + x.”
Assume that U is the real numbers.
Then x yP(x,y) andy xP(x,y) have the same truth value.

 Let Q(x,y) be the statement “x + y = 0.”

Assume that U is the real numbers.
Then x yP(x,y) is true, but y xP(x,y) is false.

Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023

 Questions on Order of Quantifiers
37

Example 1: Let U be the real numbers,

Define P(x,y) : x ∙ y = 0
What is the truth value of the following:
1. xyP(x,y)
Answer: False
2. xyP(x,y)
Answer: True
3. xy P(x,y)
Answer: True
4. x  y P(x,y)
Answer: True
Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023
 Questions on Order of Quantifiers
38

Example 2: Let U be the real numbers,

Define P(x,y) : x / y = 1
What is the truth value of the following:
1. xyP(x,y)
Answer: False
2. xyP(x,y)
Answer: True
3. xy P(x,y)
Answer: False
4. x  y P(x,y)
Answer: True
Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023
 Quantifications of Two Variables
39

Statement When True? When False

P(x,y) is true for every pair There is a pair x, y for
x,y. which P(x,y) is false.

For every x there is a y for There is an x such that

which P(x,y) is true. P(x,y) is false for every y.
There is an x for which For every x there is a y for
P(x,y) is true for every y. which P(x,y) is false.
There is a pair x, y for P(x,y) is false for every
which P(x,y) is true. pair x,y

Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023

 Translating Nested Quantifiers into
40
English
Example 1: Translate the statement
x (C(x )∨ y (C(y ) ∧ F(x, y)))
where C(x) is “x has a computer,”
and F(x,y) is “x and y are friends,”
and the domain for both x and y consists of all students in your
school.

Solution: Every student in your school has a computer or has a

friend who has a computer.

Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023

 Translating Mathematical Statements
41
into Predicate Logic
Example : Translate “The sum of two positive integers is
always positive” into a logical expression.
Solution:
1. Rewrite the statement to make the implied quantifiers and
domains explicit:
“For every two integers, if these integers are both positive, then the
sum of these integers is positive.”
2. Introduce the variables x and y, and specify the domain,
to obtain:
“For all positive integers x and y, x + y is positive.”
3. The result is:
x  y ((x > 0)∧ (y > 0)→ (x + y > 0))
where the domain of both variables consists of all integers

Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023

 Translating English into Logical
42
Expressions Example
Example: Use quantifiers to express the statement
“There is a woman who has taken a flight on every
airline in the world.”
Solution:
1. Let P(w,f) be “w has taken f ” and Q(f,a) be “f is a
flight on a .”
2. The domain of w is all women, the domain of f is all
flights, and the domain of a is all airlines.
3. Then the statement can be expressed as:
w a f (P(w,f ) ∧ Q(f,a))
Copyright © Nahid Sultana, 2016-2017. 3/1/2023
Questions on Translation from English
Choose the obvious predicates and express in predicate logic.
Example 1: “Brothers are siblings.”
Solution: x y (B(x,y) → S(x,y))
Example 2: “Siblinghood is symmetric.”
Solution: x y (S(x,y) → S(y,x))
Example 3: “Everybody loves somebody.”
Solution: x y L(x,y)
Example 4: “There is someone who is loved by everyone.”
Solution: y x L(x,y)
Example 5: “There is someone who loves someone.”
Solution: x y L(x,y)
Example 6: “Everyone loves himself”
Solution: x L(x,x)
Negating Nested Quantifiers
Example 1: Recall the logical expression developed three slides back:
w a f (P(w,f ) ∧ Q(f,a))
Part 1: Use quantifiers to express the statement that “There does not exist a woman who has
taken a flight on every airline in the world.”
Solution: ¬w a f (P(w,f ) ∧ Q(f,a))
Part 2: Now use De Morgan’s Laws to move the negation as far inwards as possible.
Solution:
1. ¬w a f (P(w,f ) ∧ Q(f,a))
2. w ¬ a f (P(w,f ) ∧ Q(f,a)) by De Morgan’s for 
3. w  a ¬ f (P(w,f ) ∧ Q(f,a)) by De Morgan’s for 
4. w  a f ¬ (P(w,f ) ∧ Q(f,a)) by De Morgan’s for 
5. w  a f (¬ P(w,f ) ∨ ¬ Q(f,a)) by De Morgan’s for ∧.
Part 3: Can you translate the result back into English?
Solution:
“For every woman there is an airline such that for all flights, this woman has not taken that
flight or that flight is not on this airline”