Inference Theory

• Inference theory is concerned with

the inferring of a conclusion from
certain hypothesis or basic assumptions,
called premises, by applying certain
principles of reasoning, called rules of
inference.
Note :
Suppose that an implication of the form

𝒑𝟏 ∧ 𝒑𝟐 ∧ 𝒑𝟑 ∧ ⋯ ∧ 𝒑𝒏 ⟶ 𝒒 is a tautology,
then we say that 𝒒 logically follows from
𝒑𝟏 , 𝒑𝟐 , … , 𝒑𝒏 . The 𝒑𝒊 ’s are called the
hypotheses or premises and 𝒒 is called the
conclusion.
 RULES OF INFERENCE

When a conclusion is derived from

a set of premises by using rules of
reasoning, then such a process of
derivation is called a deduction or a
formal proof and the argument is
called a valid argument.
 We state two basic rules of inference called
rules 𝐏 and 𝐓.
RULE 𝐏 : A premise may be introduced at
any step in the derivation.
RULE 𝐓 :A formula may be introduced in
the derivation, if 𝑺 is tautologically
implied by one or more preceding
formulas in the derivation.
 RULES OF INFERENCE
RULE IN TAUTOLOGICAL NAME OF THE RULE
FORM

SIMPLIFICATION
q

ADDITION

CONJUNCTION
MODUS PONENS
MODUS TOLLENS
HYPOTHETICAL
SYLLOGISM
DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM
1.Show that 𝑺 is a valid inference from the
premises 𝑷 →∼ 𝑸, 𝑸 ∨ 𝑹, ∼ 𝑺 → 𝑷 and ∼ 𝑹.

Solution:

Step No Statement Reason

1 Rule P

2 Rule P

3 Rule T 1,2 Disjunctive Syllogism.

4 Rule P

5 Rule T 3,4 Modus Tollens

6 Rule P
Rule T 5,6 Modus Tollens and
7
double negation.
2.Show that 𝑹 ∧ (𝑷 ∨ 𝑸) is a valid conclusion
from the premises 𝑷 ∨ 𝑸, 𝑸 → 𝑹, 𝑷 → 𝑴, ¬𝑴.
Solution:

Step No Statement Reason

1 Rule P
2 Rule P
3 Rule T 1.2 Modus Tollens
4 Rule P
5 Rule T 3,4 Disjunctive Syllogism
6 Rule P
7 Rule T 5,6 Modus Ponens
8 Rule T 7,4 Conjunction.
3.Show that (𝑷 → 𝑸) ∧ (𝑹 → 𝑺), 𝑸 → 𝑴 ∧ 𝑺 → 𝑵 ,
¬(𝑴 ∧ 𝑵) and 𝑷 → 𝑹 ⟹ ¬𝑷.

SOLUTION:

Step No. Statement Reason

1 Rule P

2 Rule T, 1 Simplification

3 Rule T, 1 Simplification

4 Rule P

5 Rule T, 4 Simplification

6 Rule T, 4 Simplification
Step No Statement Reason

7 Rule T 2,5 Hypothetical Syllogism

8 Rule T 3,6 Hypothetical Syllogism

9 Rule P

10 Rule T 9,8 Hypothetical Syllogism

Rule T 7,10
11

12 Rule P

13 Rule T 11,12 Modus Tollens

4.Using rules of inference, show that 𝑺 ∨ 𝑹 is
tautologically implied by (𝑷 ∨ 𝑸) ∧ (𝑷 → 𝑹) ∧ (𝑸 → 𝑺)
Solution:
Step No Statement Reason
1 Rule P
2 Rule T 1,
3 Rule T 2,
4 Rule P
5 Rule T 3,4 Hypothetical Syllogism
6 Rule T 5,
7 Rule T 6,
8 Rule P
9 Rule T 7,8 Hypothetical Syllogism
10 Rule T 9,
11 Rule T 10,
RULE CP OR RULE OF CONDITIONAL PROOF

In addition to the two basic rules of

inference 𝑷 and 𝑻, we have one more basic
rule called Rule CP, which is stated below:

RULE CP : If a formula 𝑆 can be derived from

another formula 𝑟 and a set of

premises, then the statement 𝑟 → 𝑠

can be derived from the set of

premises alone.
NOTE :

If the conclusion is of the form 𝒓 → 𝒔, we

will take 𝒓 as an additional premise and

derive 𝒔 using the given premises and 𝒓.

5.Show that 𝑹 → 𝑺 can be derived from
the premises 𝑷 → 𝑸 → 𝑺 , ¬𝑹 ∨ 𝑷 and 𝑸.
Solution:
Step No Statement Reason

1 Rule P

2 Rule P

3 Rule T 1.2 Disjunctive Syllogism

4 Rule P

5 Rule T 3,4 Modus Ponens

6 Rule P

7 Rule T 5,6 Modus Ponens

8 S Rule CP.
6.Prove that 𝑨 → ¬𝑫 is a conclusion from the premises
𝑨 → (𝑩 ∨ 𝑪), 𝑩 → ¬𝑨 and 𝐃 → ¬C by using conditional
proof.
Solution:
Step No Statement Reason

1 Rule P (Additional Premise)

2 Rule P
3 Rule T 1,2 Modus Ponens
4 Rule P
5 B Rule T 1,4 Modus Tollens
6 Rule T 5,3 Disjunctive Syllogism
7 Rule P
8 Rule T 6,7 Modus Tollens
9 D Rule CP
 INCONSISTENT PREMISES
• A set of premises 𝑯𝟏 , 𝑯𝟐 , … … … . , 𝑯𝒏 is
said to be inconsistent, if their
conjunctions implies a contradiction.

• (i.e) 𝑯𝟏 ∧ 𝑯𝟐 ∧ ⋯ ∧ 𝑯𝒏 ⇒ 𝑹 ∧ ¬𝑹, for some

formula 𝑹.

• A set of premises is said to be

consistent if it is not inconsistent.
7. Show that the premises 𝑷 → 𝑸, 𝑷 → 𝑹, 𝑸 → ¬𝑹, 𝑷
are inconsistent.
Solution:

Step Statement Reason

1 Rule P
2 Rule P
3 Rule T 1,2 Modus Ponens
4 Rule P
5 Rule T 3,4 Modus Ponens
6 Rule P
7 Rule T 5,6 Modus Tollens
8 Rule T 1,7 Conjunction.

Hence the given premises are inconsistent.

8. Show that the premises 𝒂 → (𝒃 → 𝒄), 𝒅 → (𝒃 ∧ ¬𝒄)
and (𝒂 ∧ 𝒅) are inconsistent.

Solution :
Step Statement Reason

1 Rule P

2 Rule T 1, Simplification

3 Rule T 1, Simplification

4 Rule P

5 Rule T 2,4 Modus Ponens

 Step Statement Reason

6 Rule P

7 Rule T 3,6 Modus Ponens

8 Rule T 7, Simplification

9 Rule T 7, Simplification

10 Rule T 8,5 Modus Ponens

11 Rule T 10,9 Conjunction

Hence the given premises are inconsistent.

 INDIRECT METHOD OF PROOF

The notion of inconsistency is

used to derive a proof at times. This
procedure is called the indirect
method of proof or proof by
contradiction or reduction.
 The technique used in indirect
method:

➢ Introduce the negation of the desired

conclusion as a new premise.

➢ From the new premise, together with

the given premises derive a
contradiction.
9. Use indirect method of proof to derive 𝑷 → ¬𝑺
from the premises 𝑷 → (𝑸 ∨ 𝑹), 𝑸 → ¬𝑷, 𝑺 → ¬𝑹
and 𝑷.
Solution:
By indirect method of proof , first we find negation
of the conclusion and take it as additional premise.
¬(𝑷 → ¬𝑺) ≡ ¬(¬𝑷 ∨ ¬𝑺) (By 𝑷 → 𝑸 ≡ ¬𝑷 ∨ 𝑸)
≡𝑷∧𝑺 (By Demorgan’s law)

Step Statement Reason

1 Rule P (Additional Premise)
2 Rule T 1, Simplification
3 Rule T 1, Simplification
4 Rule P
5 Rule T 2,4 Modus Ponens
Step Statement Reason

6 Rule P

7 Rule T 3,6 Modus Ponens

8 Rule T 5,7 Disjunctive Syllogism

9 Rule P

10 Rule P

11 Rule T 9,10 Modus Tollens

12 Rule T 8,11 Conjunction

10. Using indirect method, show that 𝑹 → ¬𝑸, 𝑹 ∨ 𝑺
𝑺 → ¬𝑸, 𝑷 → 𝑸 ⇒ ¬𝑷.
Solution:
By inditect method of proof, first we find negation of
the conclusion and take it as additional premise.
¬(¬𝑷) ≡ 𝑷

Step Statement Reason

1 Rule P (Additional Premise)

2 Rule P
3 Rule T 1,2 Modus Ponens
Step Statement Reason

4 Rule P

5 Rule T 3,4 Modus Tollens

6 Rule P

7 Rule T 5,6 Disjunctive Syllogism

8 Rule P

9 Rule T 7,8 Modus Ponens

10 Rule T 3,9 Conjunction

1. Find the validity of the following argument:
If the prices of fuel increases then the prices of
commodities increase.
If the prices of fuel increases then oil companies
make profit.
If the prices of commodities increase then oil
companies do not make profit.
Hence the price of fuel does not increase.

Solution:

Let P : The prices of fuel increases.

Q : The prices of commodities increase.

R : Oil companies make profit.

The premises are 𝑷 → 𝑸, 𝑷 → 𝑹, 𝑸 → ¬𝑹 ⇒ ¬𝑷.

 Step Statement Reason

1 Rule P

2 Rule P

3 Rule T 1,2 Hypothetical Syllogism

4 Rule T 3,

5 Rule T 4,

6 Rule P

7 Rule T 6,5 Hypothetical Syllogism

8 Rule T 7,

9 Rule T 8,

Hence the given argument is valid.

2.Show that “It rained” is a conclusion obtained from
the statements.
“If it does not rain or if there is no traffic
dislocation, then the sports day will be held and the
cultural programme will go on”. “If the sports day is
held , the trophy will be awarded” and “the trophy was
not awarded”.

Solution:
Let P : It rains
Q : There is traffic dislocation
R : Sports day will be held
S : Cultural programme will go on
T : Trophy will be awarded.
The premises are (¬𝑷 ∨ ¬𝑸) → (𝑹 ∧ 𝑺), 𝑹 → 𝑻, ¬𝑻 ⇒ 𝑷
Step Statement Reason

1 Rule P

2 Rule P

3 Rule T 1,2 Modus Tollens

4 Rule T 3, Addition

5 Rule T 4, Demorgan’s law

6 Rule P

7 Rule T 6, Demorgan’s law

8 Rule T 5,7 Modus Tollens

9 Rule T 8,

10 Rule T 9, Simplification
 Predicate Calculus
• Sometimes it was not possible to express
the fact that any two atomic statements have
some features in common.
• In order to investigate questions of this
nature, we introduce the concept of a predicate
in an atomic statement.
• The logic based upon the analysis of
predicate in any statement is called predicate
calculus.
Example 1:

1) John is a Bachelor.

2) Smith is a Bachelor.

Here “is a Bachelor” is called

predicate.

Denote the predicate by 𝑩, John by 𝒋 and

Smith by 𝒔 .

Therefore, the two statements (1) and

(2) can be written as 𝑩(𝒋) and 𝑩(𝒔).
• In general any statement of the type 𝑷
is 𝑸 where is 𝑸 is a predicate and 𝒑 is the
subject can be denoted by 𝑸(𝒑).

Example 2:

“John is a Bachelor and this painting is

red”.
This can be written in
symbolic form as 𝑩(𝒋) ∧ 𝑹(𝒑) where 𝑩 is a
Bachelor, 𝒋 denote John, 𝑹 denotes red and
𝒑 denotes painting.
 Universe of Discourse
The domain (universe of discourse or
simply universe) of a predicate variable is
the set of all possible values that may be
substituted in place of the variable.
The statement 𝒙 < 𝟓 can be denote by
𝑷(𝒙), where 𝑷 is the predicate “is less than
5” and 𝒙 is the variable.
 When a particular value is assigned to 𝒙, 𝐏(𝒙)
is a proposition and has a truth value.
Example:
1) 𝐏(𝟐) is 𝟐 < 𝟓, which is true.
2) 𝐏(𝟔) is 𝟔 < 𝟓, which is false.
The statement 𝒙 − 𝒚 = 𝟏 can be denoted by
𝑷(𝒙, 𝒚), where 𝑷 is the predicate and 𝒙, 𝒚 are the
variables.
When particular values are assigned to 𝒙 and
𝒚, 𝑷(𝒙, 𝒚) is a proposition and has a truth value.
• There is another way to get propositions or
statements from predicates which is known
as quantification.

• There are two types of quantifiers

1. Universal quantifier.

2. Existential quantifier.
 Universal Quantifier

Let 𝑷(𝒙) be a proposition function with

universe 𝑨. The statement “for every 𝒙 ∈ 𝑨, 𝑷(𝒙) is
true” is the universal quantification of 𝑷(𝒙). It is
denoted by ∀𝒙 ∈ 𝑨, 𝑷(𝒙) or ∀𝒙 𝑷(𝒙).

Note :

The phrases “for every 𝒙”, “for all 𝒙”, “for

each 𝒙” have the same meaning and all these can
be denoted by (𝒙) or ∀𝒙.
 ∀𝒙 𝑷(𝒙) has a truth value and it is assigned as below
∀𝒙 𝑷(𝒙) is true if it is true for every 𝒙 ∈ 𝑨.
∀𝒙 𝑷(𝒙) is false iff 𝑷(𝒙) is false for atleast one 𝒙 in 𝑨.
Example:
Let 𝑷(𝒙) be the statement "𝒙 < 𝟓“ . What is the
truth value of the quantification ∀𝒙 𝑷(𝒙), where the
universe of discourse is 𝑹 (the set of all real numbers).

Solution: Clearly 𝑷 𝒙 is not true for all 𝒙 , since

𝑷 𝟔 : 𝟔 < 𝟓 is false.

Therefore, ∀𝒙 𝑷(𝒙) is false.

 Existential Quantifier

Let 𝑷(𝒙) be a propositional function

with universe 𝑨, if there exists an 𝒙 in 𝑨
such that 𝑷(𝒙) is true, then we write it as
∃𝒙 𝑷(𝒙) or ∃𝒙 ∈ 𝑨 𝑷(𝒙). The quantifier “∃𝒙“
is called the existential quantifier and it
denotes the phrase “there exists”.
Note :
The phrases “there is a 𝒙”, “there is some
𝒙”, “there is atleast one 𝒙”, have the same
meaning as “there exists an 𝒙” and all these
can be denoted by ∃𝐱.
Example:
Let 𝑷(𝒙) : 𝒙 + 𝟐 < 𝟓
The existential quantification of 𝑷(𝒙), ∃𝒙 𝑷(𝒙)
is a true statement because 𝑷 𝟐 : 𝟐 + 𝟐 < 𝟓 is a
true statement.
 Free and Bound Variables

• Given a formula containing a part of the

form 𝒙 𝑷(𝒙) or ∃𝒙 𝑷(𝒙), such a part is called
an 𝒙-bound part of the formula.

• Any occurrence of 𝒙 in an 𝒙-bound part of a

formula is called a bound occurrence of 𝒙,
while any occurrence of 𝒙 or of any variable
that is not a bound occurrence is called a
free occurrence.
 Further the formula 𝑷(𝒙) either in 𝒙 𝑷(𝒙) or in
∃𝒙 𝑷(𝒙) is described as the scope of the quantifier.
Example :
1) 𝐱 𝐏(𝐱, 𝐲).
𝑷(𝒙, 𝒚) is the scope of the quantifier and all
occurences of 𝒙 are bound occurences, while the
occurrence of 𝒚 is a free occurrence.

2) 𝐱 𝐏 𝐱 →𝐐 𝐱 .
Scope of the universal quantifier is 𝐏 𝒙 → 𝐐 𝒙
and all occurences of 𝒙 are bound.
3) (𝐱)(𝐏 𝐱 → ∃𝐲 𝐑 𝐱, 𝐲 )

The scope of (𝒙) is 𝑷(𝒙) → ∃𝒚 𝑹(𝒙, 𝒚)

while the scope of (∃𝒚) is 𝑹(𝒙, 𝒚).

All occurrences of 𝒙 and 𝒚 are bound

occurences.
1. Give the symbolic form of “Some men
are giants”.

Solution :

Let 𝑴 𝒙 : 𝒙 is a man.

𝑮 𝒙 ∶ 𝒙 is a giant.

The symbolic form is

∃𝐱 𝐌 𝐱 ∧ 𝐆 𝐱 .
2. Give the symbolic form of “All cats have
tails” and “No cats have tail” .
Solution :

Let 𝐂 𝐱 ∶ 𝐱 is a cat.

𝐓 𝐱 ∶ 𝐱 has a tail.

The symbolic form of (1) is

∀𝐱 𝐂 𝐱 →𝐓 𝐱 .

The symbolic form of (2) is

∀𝒙 𝑪 𝒙 → ¬𝑻 𝒙 .
3.Negate the statement : “ Every student in
this class is intelligent” in two different
ways.
Solution :

Form 1 :

There is a student in this class who is not

intelligent.

Form 2 :

It is not the case that every student in this

class is intelligent.
4. Find the truth value of ∀𝒙 𝒙𝟐 ≥ 𝒙 if the
universe of discourse consists of all real numbers.
Also write the negation of the given statement.

Solution :

The truth value of the given statement is False.

For example for the real number

𝒙 = 𝟎. 𝟓, 𝒙𝟐 = 𝟎. 𝟐𝟓 < 𝒙 = 𝟎. 𝟓

Negation of the given statement is

¬ ∀𝒙 𝒙𝟐 ≥ 𝒙 = ∃𝒙 ¬ 𝒙𝟐 ≥ 𝒙 = ∃𝒙 𝒙𝟐 < 𝒙 .
 Inference Theory for Predicate
Calculus

• In addition to rules of inference for

propositions, we shall now consider some
important rules of inference for quantified
statements.
• During the course of derivation it may be
necessary to eliminate the quantifiers.
• This is done by rules of specification 𝐔𝐒
and 𝐄𝐒.
• Once the quantifiers are eliminated, we
proceed as in propositional calculus to
reach the conclusion.

• Sometimes we may require to reach the

conclusion in quantified form.

• This is done by rules of generalization 𝐔𝐆

and 𝐄𝐆.
• Rule 𝐔𝐒 :

Universal specification is the rule of

inference which says that we can conclude
𝐏(𝐜) is true for an arbitrary element 𝐜 of
the universe of discourse if ∀𝐱 𝐏(𝐱) is true.

∀𝐱 𝐏 𝐱 ⇒ 𝐏(𝐜) for some 𝐜.

• Rule 𝐄𝐒 :

Existential specification is the rule

of inference which says that there is an
element 𝐜 in the universe of discourse for
which 𝐏(𝐜) is true if ∃𝐱 𝐏 𝒙 is true.

∃𝒙 𝐏 𝒙 ⇒ 𝐏(𝐜) for particular 𝐜.

• Rule 𝐔𝐆 :

Universal generalization is the rule

of inference which says that ∀𝐱 𝐏(𝐱) is true
if 𝐏(𝐜) is true for an arbitrary element 𝒄 of
the universe of discourse.

𝐏 𝐜 ⇒ ∀𝐱 𝐏(𝐱) for an arbitrary 𝐜.

• Rule 𝐄𝐆 :

Existential generalization is the rule

of inference which says that for a
particular element 𝐜 of the universe of
discourse if 𝐏(𝐜) is true then ∃𝐱 𝐏(𝐱) is
true.

𝐏 𝐜 ⇒ ∃𝐱 𝐏(𝐱) for some 𝐜.

 1.Prove that ∀𝐱 𝑷 𝒙 → 𝑸 𝒙 ,
∀𝒙 𝑹 𝒙 → ¬𝑸 𝒙 ⇒ ∀𝒙 𝑹 𝒙 → ¬𝑷 𝒙 .
Solution :

Step Statement Reason

1 Rule P

2 Rule US, 1

3 Rule P

4 Rule US, 3

5 Rule T 2, Contrapositive

6 Rule T 4,5 Hypothetical Syllogism

7 Rule UG, 6
 2. Use indirect method to prove that the
conclusion ∃𝐳 𝐐(𝐳) follows from the premises
∀𝒙 𝑷 𝒙 → 𝑸 𝒙 and ∃𝒚 𝑷(𝒚).

Solution :
By using indirect method, we take ¬ ∃𝐳 𝐐(𝐳) as
additional premise.

Step Statement Reason

1 Rule P (Additional Premise)

2 Rule T 1, Demorgan’s law

3 Rule US, 2
Step Statement Reason

4 Rule P

5 Rule US, 4

6 Rule P

7 Rule ES, 6

8 a) Rule T 7,5 Modus Ponens

9 Rule T 8,3 Conjunction

10 Contradiction
 3. Use indirect method of proof to prove that
∀𝐱 𝑷 𝒙 ∨𝑸 𝒙 ⇒ ∀𝐱 𝐏 𝐱 ∨ ∃𝐱 𝐐(𝐱).

Solution :
By using indirect method, we take ¬ ∀𝐱 𝐏 𝐱 ∨ ∃𝐱 𝐐 𝐱 as
additional premise.

Step Statement Reason

1 Rule P (Additional Premise)

2 Rule T 1, Demorgan’s law

3 Rule T 2, Simplification

4 Rule T 2, Smplification
Step Statement Reason

5 Rule T 3,

6 Rule T 4,

7 Rule ES, 5

8 Rule US, 6

9 Rule P

10 Rule US, 9

11 Rule T 10,7 Disjunctive Syllogism

13 Rule T 11,8 Conjunction

14 F Contradiction
 4. Prove that ∀𝒙 𝑷 𝒙 → 𝑸 𝒚 ∧𝑹 𝒙 ,
∃𝒙 𝑷 𝒙 ⇒ 𝑸 𝒚 ∧ ∃𝒙 𝑷 𝒙 ∧ 𝑹 𝒙 .
Solution :
Step Statement Reason
1 Rule P

2 Rule US, 1
3 Rule P
4 Rule ES, 3
5 Rule T 4,2 Modus Ponens
6 Rule T 5, Simplification
7 Rule T 5, Simplification
8 Rule T 4,7 Conjunction
9 Rule EG, 8
10 Rule T 6,9 Conjunction
1.Establish the validity of the following argument
All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore
Socrates is mortal.

Solution :
Let 𝑯 𝒙 ∶ 𝒙 is a man.
𝑴 𝒙 ∶ 𝒙 is a mortal.
The premises are
𝒙 𝑯 𝒙 →𝑴 𝒙 ,𝑯 𝒔 ⇒𝑴 𝒔 .
Step Statement Reason
1 Rule P
2 Rule US, 1
3 Rule P
4 Rule T 3,2 Modus Ponens

Hence, the given argument is valid.

2. Use of rule of inference to prove that the
premises “ A student in this class has not read
the book” and “ Everyone in this class passed the
first exam” imply the conclusion “Someone who
passed the first exam has not read the book”.

Solution :

Let 𝐂 𝐱 ∶ 𝐱 is in this class.

𝐁 𝐱 ∶ 𝐱 has read the book.

𝐏 𝐱 ∶ 𝐱 passed the exam.

The premises are

∃𝐱 𝐂 𝐱 ∧ ¬𝐁 𝐱 , ∀𝐱 𝐂 𝐱 → 𝐏 𝐱 ⇒ ∃𝒙 𝑷 𝒙 ∧ ¬𝑩 𝒙 .
Step Statement Reason

1 Rule P

2 Rule ES, 1

3 Rule T 2, Simplification

4 Rule T 2, Simplification

5 Rule P

6 Rule US, 5

7 Rule T 3,6 Modus Ponens

8 Rule T 7,4 Conjunction

9 Rule EG, 8
3. Verify the validity of the following argument. Every living
thing is a plant or an animal. John’s gold fish is alive and
it is not a plant. All animals have hearts. Therefore,
John’s gold fish has a heart.

Solution :
Universe of discourse : Set of all living things.

𝑷 𝒙 ∶ 𝒙 is a plant.

𝑨 𝒙 ∶ 𝒙 is an animal.

𝑯 𝒙 ∶ 𝒙 has a heart.

𝒈 ∶ John’s gold fish.

The premises are
𝒙 𝑷 𝒙 ∨𝑨 𝒙 , ¬𝑷 𝒈 , 𝒙 𝑨 𝒙 →𝑯 𝒙 ⇒𝑯 𝒈 .
Step Statement Reason

1 Rule P

2 Rule US, 1

3 Rule P

4 Rule T 3,2 Disjunctive Syllogism

5 Rule P

6 Rule US, 5

7 Rule T 4,6 Modus Ponens

Hence the given argument is valid.

 Nested Quantifier
• When we consider propositional
functions containing two or more
variables it is possible, quantifiers occur
in combinations with respect to the
variable.
• Nested quantifiers are quantifiers that
occur within the scope of other
quantifiers.
Example: ∀𝒙 ∃𝒚 𝒙 + 𝒚 = 𝟎 .
• This means that for every real number 𝒙
there exists a real number 𝒚 such that
𝒙 + 𝒚 = 𝟎.
1.Express the statement ‘For every ‘𝒙’ there exists a
‘𝒚’ such that 𝒙𝟐 + 𝒚𝟐 ≥ 𝟏𝟎𝟎” in symbolic form.

Solution :

Let 𝑮 𝒙 , 𝒚 : 𝒙𝟐 + 𝒚𝟐 ≥ 𝟏𝟎𝟎

The symbolic form is

𝒙 ∃ 𝒚 𝑮 𝒙,𝒚 .
2. Let 𝐐 𝒙, 𝒚, 𝒛 denote the statement "𝒙 + 𝒚 = 𝒛" defined
on the universe of discourse 𝒁 , the set of all
integers. What are the truth values of the
propositions 𝑸 𝟏, 𝟏, 𝟏 and 𝑸 𝟏, 𝟏, 𝟐 .

Solution :
𝑸 𝟏, 𝟏, 𝟏 ∶ 𝟏 + 𝟏 = 𝟏 which is False.

𝑸 𝟏, 𝟏, 𝟐 ∶ 𝟏 + 𝟏 = 𝟐 which is True.
3. Symbolize the following statement with and without
using the set of positive integers as the universe of
discourse “ Given any positive integer, there is a
greater positive integer”.

Solution :
(1) Universe of discourse : Set of positive integers.
Let 𝑮 𝒙, 𝒚 ∶ 𝒙 is greater than 𝒚.
The symbolic form is
𝒙 ∃𝒚 𝑮 𝒙 , 𝒚 .
(2) Universe of discourse : Set of integers.
Let 𝑷 𝒙 ∶ 𝒙 is a positive integer.
𝑮 𝒙, 𝒚 ∶ 𝒙 is greater than 𝒚.
The symbolic form is
𝒙 𝑷 𝒙 → ∃𝒚 𝑷 𝒚 ∧ 𝑮 𝒙 , 𝒚 .
 3.Show that ¬ 𝑷 𝒂, 𝒃 follows logically from
𝒙 𝒚 𝑷 𝒙, 𝒚 → 𝑾 𝒙, 𝒚 and ¬ 𝑾 𝒂, 𝒃 .

Solution :

Step Statement Reason

1 Rule P

2 Rule US, 1

3 Rule US, 2

4 Rule P

5 Rule T 4,3 Modus Tollens

 Methods of Proof
• Proofs play an important role in the
development of mathematics because they
guarantee the correctness of mathematical
results.

• Mathematical results or computer

algorithms are accepted only when they are
proved by using the various rules of inference.

• Usually, we use two methods of proof in

mathematics.

(1) Direct Proof and (2) Indirect Proof.

• A theorem in mathematics is a true
proposition. Many theorems are implications of
the form 𝑯 → 𝑪, where 𝑯 ≡ 𝑯𝟏 ∧ 𝑯𝟐 ∧ ⋯ ∧ 𝑯𝒏 is a
conjunction of hypotheses and 𝑪 is the
conclusion. Proving a theorem means verifying
𝑯 → 𝑪 is a tautology.

1. Direct Proof :

In direct proof we assume the hypothesis

𝑯𝟏 , 𝑯𝟐 , … , 𝑯𝒏 are true and using the rules of
inference and known facts we prove that 𝑪 is true.
Thus we prove 𝑯 → 𝑪 is true.
2. There are two types of indirect proof :

(a) Proof by contraposition.

(b) Proof by contradiction.

(a) Proof by contraposition :

Proof by contraposition is a very useful and powerful
method.

• It uses the contrapositive equivalence 𝑯 → 𝑪 ≡ ¬𝑪 →

¬𝑯. In this method, we assume the conclusion 𝑪 is
false, then using the rules of inference and known
facts we prove some hypothesis 𝑯𝟏 is also false and
hence 𝑯 is false.

• This means that indirectly the conclusion is true.

(b) Proof by contradiction :

Proof by contradiction is based on the law

of reduction and 𝒑 → 𝒒 ≡ 𝒑 ∧ ¬𝒒 → 𝑭.

ie. 𝑯 → 𝑪 ≡ 𝑯 ∧ ¬𝑪 → 𝑭, where 𝑯 ≡ 𝑯𝟏 ∧ 𝑯𝟐 ∧ ⋯ ∧ 𝑯𝒏 .

In this method, we assume the conclusion 𝑪 is

false and all 𝑯𝒊 are true( ie 𝑯 is true).

Then by using the rules of inference we reach a

contradiction 𝑭. This implies that our assumption
𝑪 is false is wrong.

Thus, indirectly we prove 𝑯 → 𝑪.

1. Give an indirect proof of the theorem
“ If 𝟑𝒏 + 𝟐 is odd then 𝒏 is odd”.

Solution :

If n is even, then 𝟑𝒏 is also even.

When an even number 𝟐 is added, 𝟑𝒏 + 𝟐 is
also an even number.

Hence the theorem.

2.Prove that 𝟐 is irrational by giving a
proof using contradiction.

Solution :

Let 𝑷 be the proposition “ 𝟐 is irrational”.

Suppose that ∼ 𝑷 is true.

Then 𝟐 is rational.
𝒂
So, 𝟐 = , where 𝒂 and 𝒃 have no common
𝒃

factors.

𝒂 𝒂𝟐
𝟐= ⇒ 𝟐=
𝒃 𝒃𝟐
Hence 𝒂𝟐 = 𝟐 𝒃𝟐 .
This means that 𝒂𝟐 is even, implying that 𝒂 is
even.
Furthermore, 𝒂 = 𝟐𝒄 for some integer 𝒄.
Therefore, 𝟐𝒄 𝟐 = 𝟐 𝒃𝟐
𝟒 𝒄𝟐 = 𝟐 𝒃𝟐
⇒ 𝒃𝟐 = 𝟐 𝒄𝟐
This means that 𝒃𝟐 is also even and hence 𝒃 is
even.
Therefore, 𝐛 = 𝟐𝒌 for some integer 𝒌.
Thus 𝒂 and 𝒃 are even.

Hence they have a common factor 𝟐.

This contradicts the assumption 𝒂 and 𝒃 have

no common factors.

Thus our assumption 𝟐 is rational is wrong.

Hence, 𝟐 is irrational.