CvSU Vision Soldiers Hills IV, Molino VI, DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER STUDIES

premier universityin historic Cavite ed for excellence in City of Bacoor, Cavite

COSC 50 LEARNING MODULES
the ent of morally upright and competitive individuals.
�� (046) 476 - 5029 CvSU Mission
www.cvsu.edu.ph Cavite State University shall provide
Republic of the Philippines excellent, equitable and relevant educational
opportunities in the arts, science and technology through
CAVITE STATE UNIVERSITY Bacoor quality instruction and relevant research and development
activities.
City Campus It shall produce professional, skilled and

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY COSC 50: DISCREET STRUCTURES 1

First Semester, AY 2022 – 2023

Prepared by: MIRISA S. MUNDO

EMMANUEL ORAPA
ANLISSA S. TORRES
AIDA M. PENSON
INSTRUCTORS
 1

Lesson 1 Method of Deduction Module 4

In theory, truth tables are adequate to test the validity of any argument of the general type we
have considered. In practice, however, they become unwieldy as the number of component
statement increases. A more efficient method of establishing the validity of an extended
argument is to deduce its conclusion from its premises by a sequence of elementary arguments,
each of which is known to be valid. This technique accords fairly well with ordinary methods of
argumentation.

An equally reliable method of proving validity is by the use of the rules of inference successively
to derive the conclusion of a deductive argument. This of course should be done with meticulous
care. This method improves on the truth-table method in two ways: 1) it is vastly more efficient,
and 2) it enables us to follow the flow of the reasoning process from the premises to the
conclusion and is therefore much more intuitive and more illuminating. The method is often
called natural deduction. Using natural deduction, we can provide a formal proof of the
validity of an argument that is valid.
A formal proof of validity is given by doing the following:
1. Write the premises and the statements that we deduce from the argument in a single
column, and setting off in another column, to the right of each statement, its
“justification,” or the reason we give for including it in the proof.
2. List all the premises first, then the logic (e.g. inference rules) used to get at the
conclusion (which will be listed last).

Consider, for example, the following argument and its translation into symbols.
 2
Argument Symbols

If Anderson was nominated, then she went to Boston. A→B

If she went to Boston, then she campaigned there. B→C
If she campaigned there, she met Douglas. C→D
Anderson did not meet Douglas.
Either Anderson was nominated or someone more eligible was ¬D
selected. Therefore, someone more eligible was selected. A˅E
∴E

The formal proof of the example argument is written as:

1. A→B
2. B→C
3. C→D
4. ¬D 5. A˅E ∴E The justification for each statement (the with the
6. AC 7. AD 8. A right most column) consists of the abbreviation for the rule of inference
9. E numbers of the preceding statements used to get it
1, 2 H.S. 6, 3 H.S. 7, 4 M.T. 5, 8 D.S. from which that line is inferred, together

Definition of Formal Proof - a sequence of statements, each of which is either a premise of that
argument or follows from preceding statements of the sequence by an elementary valid
argument, such that the last statement in the sequence is the conclusion of the argument whose
validity is being proved.

To deduce new statements from the statements whose truth that we already know, Rules of
Inference are used.
What are Rules of Inference for?
Mathematical logic is often used for logical proofs. Proofs are valid arguments that determine
the truth values of mathematical statements.
An argument is a sequence ofstatements. The last statement isthe conclusion and all its
preceding statements are called premises (or hypothesis). The symbol “∴∴”, (read therefore) is
placed before the conclusion. A valid argument is one where the conclusion follows from the
truth values of the premises.
Rules of Inference provide the templates or guidelines for constructing valid arguments from
the statements that we already have.

3
Table of Rules of Inference
 Rule of Inference Name Rule of Inference Name

P Addition P∨Q Disjunctive Syllogism

∴P∨Q (Add.) ¬P (D.S.)
∴Q

P Conjunction P→Q Hypothetical

Q (Conj.) Q→R Syllogism (H.S.)
∴P��Q ∴P→R

P��Q Simplification (P→Q)��(R→S) Constructive Dilemma

∴P (Simp.) P∨R (C.D.)
∴Q∨S

P→Q Modus Ponens (P→Q)��(R→S) Destructive Dilemma

P (M.P.) ¬Q∨¬S (D.D.)
∴Q ∴¬P∨¬R

P→Q Modus Tollens

¬Q (M.T.)
∴¬P

1. Addition: If P is a premise, we can use Addition rule to derive P∨Q.

P
∴P∨Q
Example: Let P be the proposition, “He studies very hard” is true
Therefore − "Either he studies very hard or he is a very bad student." Here
Q is the proposition “he is a very bad student”.

2. Conjunction: If P and Q are two premises, we can use Conjunction rule to derive
P��Q. P
Q
∴P��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"

3. Simplification: If P��Q is a premise, we can use Simplification rule to derive P.

4
P��Q
∴P
 Example: "He studies very hard and he is the best boy in the class", P��Q
Therefore − "He studies very hard"

4. Modus Ponens: If P and P→Q are two premises, we can use Modus Ponens to derive
Q. P→Q
P
∴Q

Example "If you have a password, then you can log on to facebook", P→Q
"You have a password", P
Therefore − "You can log on to facebook"

5. Modus Tollens: If P→Q and ¬Q are two premises, we can use Modus Tollens
to derive ¬P.
P→Q
¬Q
∴¬P

Example "If you have a password, then you can log on to facebook", P→Q
"You cannot log on to facebook", ¬Q
Therefore − "You do not have a password "

6. Disjunctive Syllogism: If ¬P and P∨Q are two premises, we can use Disjunctive
Syllogism to derive Q.
¬P
P∨Q
∴Q
Example "The ice cream is not vanilla flavored", ¬P¬P
"The ice cream is either vanilla flavored or chocolate flavored",
P∨QP∨Q Therefore − "The ice cream is chocolate
flavored”

7. Hypothetical Syllogism: If P→Q and Q→R are two premises, we can use
Hypothetical Syllogism to derive P→R
P→Q
Q→R
∴P→R

Example "If it rains, I shall stay at home”, P→Q

"If I shall stay at home, I will read a book", Q→R

5
Therefore − "If it rains, I will read a book"
 8. Constructive Dilemma: If (P→Q)��(R→S) and P∨R are two premises, we can
use constructive dilemma to derive Q∨S.

(P→Q)��(R→S)
P∨R
∴Q∨S

Example “If it rains, I will take a leave”, (P→Q)

“If it is hot outside, I will go for a shower”, (R→S)
“Either it will rain or it is hot outside”, P∨R
Therefore − "I will take a leave or I will go for a shower"

9. Destructive Dilemma: If (P→Q)��(R→S) and ¬Q∨¬S are two premises, we can

use destructive dilemma to derive ¬P∨¬R.

(P→Q)��(R→S)
¬Q∨¬S
∴¬P∨¬R

Example “If it rains, I will take a leave”, (P→Q)

“If it is hot outside, I will go for a shower”, (R→S)
“Either I will not take a leave or I will not go for a shower”, ¬Q∨¬S
Therefore − "Either it does not rain or it is not hot outside"

Exercise:
Prove the following given the premises using rules of inference.
1. W→X
2. (W→Y)→(Z˅X)
3. (W��X)→Y
4. ¬Z
∴X

Lesson 2 Rules of Replacement

The rules of replacement are logical equivalences or logically equivalent sentence forms,
which allow us to replace or substitute one member of a pair in the process of proving the
validity of arguments. These are important because there are cases wherein the rules of
inference may not

6
be employed in proving or demonstrating the validity of arguments. Hence, when cases like this
occur, the rules of replacement may be the best, if not the only, method that can be employed in
proving the validity of arguments.
 The rules of inference are forms of valid arguments, while the rules of replacement are forms
of equivalent propositions. This is the reason why we have the symbol ∴ (read as
“therefore”) in rules of inference, while in rules of replacement, we
use the equivalent sign ≡ (read as “if and only of”) between two
propositions.
Rule of Replacement Name Rule of Replacement Name

P ≡ ¬¬P Double (P→Q) ≡ (¬Q ∨¬P) Transposition

Negation (Trans.)
(D.N.)

P��Q ≡ Q��P Commutation [(P��(Q ∨ R)] ≡ Distribution

P∨Q ≡ Q∨P (Comm.) [(P��Q) ∨(P��R)] (Dist.)
[(P∨(Q �� R)] ≡ [(P∨Q)
�� (P∨R)]

[(P��Q)��R] ≡ Association P ≡ (P˅P) Tautology

[P��(Q��R)] (Assoc.) P ≡ (P��P) (Taut.)
[(P∨Q)∨R] ≡
[P∨(Q∨R)]

¬ (P��Q) ≡ (¬P∨¬Q) De Morgan’s [(P��Q)→R] ≡ [P→(Q→R)] Exportation

¬ (P∨Q) ≡ (¬P��¬Q) Law (Exp.)
(D.M.)

P→Q ≡ (¬P∨Q) Material P ≡ Q≡ [(P→Q) �� (Q→P)] Material

Implication P ≡ Q≡ [(P��Q) ∨ Equivalence
(M.I.) (¬P��¬Q)] (M.E.)

1. Double Negation (D.N.)

Intuitively clear to everyone, this rule simply asserts that nay statement is
logically equivalent to the negation of the negation of that statement.

2. Transposition (Trans.)
This logical equivalence permits us to turn any conditional statement around. We know
that if any conditional statement is true, then if its consequent is false, its antecedent
must also be false. Therefore, any conditional statement is logically equivalent to the
conditional statement asserting that the negation of its consequent implies the negation
of its antecedent.

7
3. Material Implication (M.I.)
This logical equivalence does no more than to formulate the definition of material
implication. This shows that P→Q simply means that either the antecedent P is
false of the consequent Q is true.

4. Material Equivalence (M.E.)

 The two variants of this rule simply assert the two essential meanings of material
equivalence. Two statements are materially equivalent if they both have the same truth
value; therefore, the assertion of their material equivalence is logically equivalent to
asserting that they are both true, or that they are both false. In addition, if two statements
are both true, they must materially imply one another, and likewise if they are both
false, they must materially imply one another. Therefore, the statement that they are
materially equivalent is logically equivalent to the statement that they imply one
another.

5. Exportation (Exp.)
This replacement rule states a logical biconditional that is intuitively clear upon
reflection. If one asserts that two propositions conjoined are known to imply a third,
that is logically equivalent to asserting that if one of those two propositions is known to
be true, then the truth of the other must imply the truth of the third.

6. Tautology (Taut.)
This rule of replacement simply state that any statement is logically equivalent to
the disjunctions of itself with itself, and that any statement is logically equivalent to
the conjunction of itself with itself.
7. De Morgan’s Law (D.M.)
De Morgan’s Law has two variants. One variant asserts that when we deny that two
propositions are both true, that is logically equivalent to asserting that either one of
them is false, or the other one is false, or they are both false. The second variant asserts
that when we deny that either of two propositions is true, that is logically equivalent to
asserting that both of them are false.

8. Commutation (Comm.)
These two equivalences simply assert that the order of statement of the elements of a
conjunction, or of a disjunction, does not matter. We are allowed to turn them around, to
commute them, because whichever order happens to appear, the meanings remain
exactly the same.

9. Association (Assoc.)
These two equivalences do no more than allow us to group statements differently. If
we know three different statements to be true, to assert that P is true along with R and
R clumped, is logically equivalent to asserting to asserting that P and Q clumped is true
along with R.

8
10. Distribution (Dist.)
 9
The first variant asserts merely that the conjunction of one statement with the disjunction
of two other statements is logically equivalent to either the disjunction of the first with
the second or the disjunction of the first with the third. The second variant asserts merely
that the disjunction of one statement with the conjunction of two others is logically
equivalent to the conjunction of the disjunction of the first and the second and the
disjunction of the first and the third.

10