SlideShare a Scribd company logo

Truth table analysis

Download as PPT, PDF
Janet Stemwedel, profile picture
Janet Stemwedel

The document discusses how truth tables can be used to determine the logical status of propositions and arguments. Truth tables assign truth values (True/False) to propositions based on the truth values of their component statements, allowing the logical status of single propositions and groups of propositions to be determined. The logical status can be tautology, contradiction, contingent, equivalent, satisfiable/consistent, or unsatisfiable/inconsistent depending on the truth values. Validity of arguments can also be determined from truth tables by checking if the conclusion is true in all rows where the premises are true. Examples of truth tables are provided to illustrate these concepts.

Education
1 of 86
Downloaded 85 times
1
2
3
4
Most read
5
Most read
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Most read
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
Truth-Table Analysis Phil 57 section 3 San Jose State University Fall 2010
What are truth-tables good for? Working out the truth value of a formula from the truth values of the atomic formulae in it. Defining the behavior of logical connectives used to build complex formulae.
What are truth-tables good for? Determining the logical status of a single proposition. Determining the logical status of a group of propositions. Determining the validity of an argument.
The logical status of a proposition. Some propositions are always true: It will rain or it won’t. Some propositions are never true: The universe is empty and not empty. Most propositions are true in some conditions and false in others: Today is hot.
The logical status of a proposition. Can use truth-tables to distinguish these different kinds of propositions. Logical status Description Truth-Table Tautology Always true Every row T Contradiction Always false Every row F Contingent Depends on circumstances Some row T, some row F
The logical status of a proposition. Consider P  ~P P ~P P  ~P
The logical status of a proposition. Consider P  ~P P ~P P  ~P T F
The logical status of a proposition. Consider P  ~P P ~P P  ~P T F F T
The logical status of a proposition. Consider P  ~P P ~P P  ~P T F F F T F
The logical status of a proposition. Consider P  ~P Truth-value for P  ~P is F in every row. (Contradiction) P ~P P  ~P T F F F T F
The logical status of a proposition. Consider P  ~P P ~P P  ~P
The logical status of a proposition. Consider P  ~P P ~P P  ~P T F
The logical status of a proposition. Consider P  ~P P ~P P  ~P T F F T
The logical status of a proposition. Consider P  ~P P ~P P  ~P T F T F T T
The logical status of a proposition. Consider P  ~P Truth-value for P  ~P is T in every row. (Tautology) P ~P P  ~P T F T F T T
The logical status of a group of propositions. Do two different claims mean the same thing? Can two different claims both be true? Must one of a pair of claims be false if the other is true?
The logical status of a group of propositions. Logical Status Description Truth-Table Equivalent Mean the same thing, logically The truth-tables are identical Satisfiable/consistent Possibly all true. There is some row where all propositions are true. Unsatisfiable/inconsistent Can’t all be true. No row where all propositions are true.
Rules for building truth-tables: As many columns as: Statement letters Non-atomic formulae The formula to be computed 2 N rows, where N= number of atomic statement letters.
Truth-table to evaluate ((P  Q)  ~R) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (formula) P Q R ~R (P  Q) ((P  Q)  ~R) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Truth-table to evaluate ((P  Q)  ~R) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (formula) P Q R ~R (P  Q) ((P  Q)  ~R) 1 T 2 T 3 T 4 T 5 F 6 F 7 F 8 F
Truth-table to evaluate ((P  Q)  ~R) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (formula) P Q R ~R (P  Q) ((P  Q)  ~R) 1 T T 2 T T 3 T F 4 T F 5 F T 6 F T 7 F F 8 F F
Truth-table to evaluate ((P  Q)  ~R) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (formula) P Q R ~R (P  Q) ((P  Q)  ~R) 1 T T T 2 T T F 3 T F T 4 T F F 5 F T T 6 F T F 7 F F T 8 F F F
Truth-table to evaluate ((P  Q)  ~R) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (formula) P Q R ~R (P  Q) ((P  Q)  ~R) 1 T T T F 2 T T F T 3 T F T F 4 T F F T 5 F T T F 6 F T F T 7 F F T F 8 F F F T
Truth-table to evaluate ((P  Q)  ~R) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (formula) P Q R ~R (P  Q) ((P  Q)  ~R) 1 T T T F T 2 T T F T T 3 T F T F F 4 T F F T F 5 F T T F F 6 F T F T F 7 F F T F F 8 F F F T F
Truth-table to evaluate ((P  Q)  ~R) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (formula) P Q R ~R (P  Q) ((P  Q)  ~R) 1 T T T F T F 2 T T F T T T 3 T F T F F T 4 T F F T F T 5 F T T F F T 6 F T F T F T 7 F F T F F T 8 F F F T F T
Determining the logical status of (~P  P) 1 2 3 (formula) P ~P (~P  P) 1 2
Determining the logical status of (~P  P) 1 2 3 (formula) P ~P (~P  P) 1 T 2 F
Determining the logical status of (~P  P) 1 2 3 (formula) P ~P (~P  P) 1 T F 2 F T
Determining the logical status of (~P  P) 1 2 3 (formula) P ~P (~P  P) 1 T F T 2 F T F
Determining the logical status of (~P  P) Formula is CONTINGENT. 1 2 3 (formula) P ~P (~P  P) 1 T F T 2 F T F
Determining the logical status of (P  ~Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q ~Q (P  ~Q) 1 2 3 4
Determining the logical status of (P  ~Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q ~Q (P  ~Q) 1 T 2 T 3 F 4 F
Determining the logical status of (P  ~Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q ~Q (P  ~Q) 1 T T 2 T F 3 F T 4 F F
Determining the logical status of (P  ~Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q ~Q (P  ~Q) 1 T T F 2 T F T 3 F T F 4 F F T
Determining the logical status of (P  ~Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q ~Q (P  ~Q) 1 T T F F 2 T F T T 3 F T F F 4 F F T F
Steps for determining logical status of a proposition. Create truth-table with right number of rows and columns. Compute truth-value of every formula on every row using truth-values of atomic statements for the row. Check for the logical status by checking the relevant rows.
The logical status of a proposition. Can use truth-tables to distinguish these different kinds of propositions. Logical status Description Truth-Table Tautology Always true Every row T Contradiction Always false Every row F Contingent Depends on circumstances Some row T, some row F
Determining the logical status of a group of propositions. Build truth-table to give side-by-side comparison of the truth values of the propositions. Doing this in a single truth-table is the best way to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison.
Logical status of ~(P  Q), (~P  ~Q) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 P Q ~P ~Q (P  Q) ~(P  Q) (~P  ~Q) 1 2 3 4
Logical status of ~(P  Q), (~P  ~Q) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 P Q ~P ~Q (P  Q) ~(P  Q) (~P  ~Q) 1 T 2 T 3 F 4 F
Logical status of ~(P  Q), (~P  ~Q) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 P Q ~P ~Q (P  Q) ~(P  Q) (~P  ~Q) 1 T T 2 T F 3 F T 4 F F
Logical status of ~(P  Q), (~P  ~Q) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 P Q ~P ~Q (P  Q) ~(P  Q) (~P  ~Q) 1 T T F 2 T F F 3 F T T 4 F F T
Logical status of ~(P  Q), (~P  ~Q) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 P Q ~P ~Q (P  Q) ~(P  Q) (~P  ~Q) 1 T T F F 2 T F F T 3 F T T F 4 F F T T
Logical status of ~(P  Q), (~P  ~Q) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 P Q ~P ~Q (P  Q) ~(P  Q) (~P  ~Q) 1 T T F F T 2 T F F T F 3 F T T F F 4 F F T T F
Logical status of ~(P  Q), (~P  ~Q) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 P Q ~P ~Q (P  Q) ~(P  Q) (~P  ~Q) 1 T T F F T F 2 T F F T F T 3 F T T F F T 4 F F T T F T
Logical status of ~(P  Q), (~P  ~Q) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 P Q ~P ~Q (P  Q) ~(P  Q) (~P  ~Q) 1 T T F F T F F 2 T F F T F T T 3 F T T F F T T 4 F F T T F T T
Logical status of ~(P  Q), (~P  ~Q) Both formulae have the same truth-values on every row ( equivalent ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 P Q ~P ~Q (P  Q) ~(P  Q) (~P  ~Q) 1 T T F F T F F 2 T F F T F T T 3 F T T F F T T 4 F F T T F T T
Logical status of (P  Q), (P  Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q (P  Q) (P  Q) 1 2 3 4
Logical status of (P  Q), (P  Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q (P  Q) (P  Q) 1 T 2 T 3 F 4 F
Logical status of (P  Q), (P  Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q (P  Q) (P  Q) 1 T T 2 T F 3 F T 4 F F
Logical status of (P  Q), (P  Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q (P  Q) (P  Q) 1 T T T 2 T F F 3 F T F 4 F F F
Logical status of (P  Q), (P  Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q (P  Q) (P  Q) 1 T T T T 2 T F F T 3 F T F T 4 F F F F
Logical status of (P  Q), (P  Q) A row (1) where both formulae are T ( satisfiable, but not equivalent ) 1 2 3 4 P Q (P  Q) (P  Q) 1 T T T T 2 T F F T 3 F T F T 4 F F F F
Logical status of (P  ~Q), (P  Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q ~Q (P  ~Q) (P  Q) 1 2 3 4
Logical status of (P  ~Q), (P  Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q ~Q (P  ~Q) (P  Q) 1 T 2 T 3 F 4 F
Logical status of (P  ~Q), (P  Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q ~Q (P  ~Q) (P  Q) 1 T T 2 T F 3 F T 4 F F
Logical status of (P  ~Q), (P  Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q ~Q (P  ~Q) (P  Q) 1 T T F 2 T F T 3 F T F 4 F F T
Logical status of (P  ~Q), (P  Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q ~Q (P  ~Q) (P  Q) 1 T T F F 2 T F T T 3 F T F T 4 F F T T
Logical status of (P  ~Q), (P  Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q ~Q (P  ~Q) (P  Q) 1 T T F F T 2 T F T T F 3 F T F T F 4 F F T T F
Logical status of (P  ~Q), (P  Q) NO row where both formulae are T ( unsatisfiable ) 1 2 3 4 P Q ~Q (P  ~Q) (P  Q) 1 T T F F T 2 T F T T F 3 F T F T F 4 F F T T F
Steps for determining logical status of group of propositions. Create truth-table with right number of rows and columns. Compute truth-value of every formula on every row using truth-values of atomic statements for the row. Check for the logical status by checking the relevant rows.
The logical status of a group of propositions. Logical Status Description Truth-Table Equivalent Mean the same thing, logically The truth-tables are identical Satisfiable/consistent Possibly all true. There is some row where all propositions are true. Unsatisfiable/inconsistent Can’t all be true. No row where all propositions are true.
Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Remember that a valid argument is one where, if all the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Remember that a valid argument is one where, if all the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Build truth table that includes formulae for premises and conclusion.
Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Remember that a valid argument is one where, if all the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Build truth table that includes formulae for premises and conclusion. If there’s a row where the premises are true and the conclusion is false, argument is invalid .
Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Remember that a valid argument is one where, if all the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Build truth table that includes formulae for premises and conclusion. If there’s a row where the premises are true and the conclusion is false, argument is invalid . Otherwise, argument is valid.
Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. If John wins the election, then Mary will run for Governor. John did not win the election. (Conclusion) So, Mary will not run for Governor.
Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. If John wins the election, then Mary will run for Governor. John did not win the election. (Conclusion) So, Mary will not run for Governor. P = John wins the election. Q = Mary will run for Governor.
Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. If John wins the election, then Mary will run for Governor. (P  Q) John did not win the election. ~P (Conclusion) So, Mary will not run for Governor. ~Q P = John wins the election. Q = Mary will run for Governor.
Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Pr1 Pr2 C P Q (P  Q) ~P ~Q 1 2 3 4
Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Pr1 Pr2 C P Q (P  Q) ~P ~Q 1 T 2 T 3 F 4 F
Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Pr1 Pr2 C P Q (P  Q) ~P ~Q 1 T T 2 T F 3 F T 4 F F
Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Pr1 Pr2 C P Q (P  Q) ~P ~Q 1 T T T 2 T F F 3 F T T 4 F F T
Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Pr1 Pr2 C P Q (P  Q) ~P ~Q 1 T T T F 2 T F F F 3 F T T T 4 F F T T
Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Pr1 Pr2 C P Q (P  Q) ~P ~Q 1 T T T F F 2 T F F F T 3 F T T T F 4 F F T T T
Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. ROW 3: Both premises true, conclusion false. Argument is invalid! Pr1 Pr2 C P Q (P  Q) ~P ~Q 1 T T T F F 2 T F F F T 3 F T T T F 4 F F T T T
Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. If John wins the election, then Mary will run for Governor. John won the election. (Conclusion) So, Mary will run for Governor. P = John wins the election. Q = Mary will run for Governor.
Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. If John wins the election, then Mary will run for Governor. (P  Q) John won the election. P (Conclusion) So, Mary will run for Governor. Q P = John wins the election. Q = Mary will run for Governor.
Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Pr1 Pr2 C P Q (P  Q) P Q 1 2 3 4
Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Pr1 Pr2 C P Q (P  Q) P Q 1 T 2 T 3 F 4 F
Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Pr1 Pr2 C P Q (P  Q) P Q 1 T T 2 T F 3 F T 4 F F
Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Pr1 Pr2 C P Q (P  Q) P Q 1 T T T 2 T F F 3 F T T 4 F F T
Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Pr1 Pr2 C P Q (P  Q) P Q 1 T T T T 2 T F F T 3 F T T F 4 F F T F
Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Pr1 Pr2 C P Q (P  Q) P Q 1 T T T T T 2 T F F T F 3 F T T F T 4 F F T F F
Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. ROW 1: Both premises true, conclusion true. Argument is valid! Pr1 Pr2 C P Q (P  Q) P Q 1 T T T T T 2 T F F T F 3 F T T F T 4 F F T F F
Important note for homework: Some of the expressions you’ll be evaluating in truth-tables use alternate notation.  means ~  means   means 

More Related Content

PDF
Probability game
Cheryl Terry
 
PDF
9 3 angles of elevation and depression
MsKendall
 
PDF
Lesson 21: Antiderivatives (slides)
Matthew Leingang
 
PPT
Relations and functions
cannout
 
PPTX
Introduction to statistics
ScholarsPoint1
 
PPTX
Presentation on kurtosis statistics
rishi ram khanal
 
PPTX
Research Process
Visva Bharati University
 
PPTX
Points, Lines, and Planes (Undefined terms in Geometry) PPT
Department of Education - Philippines
 
Probability game
Cheryl Terry
 
9 3 angles of elevation and depression
MsKendall
 
Lesson 21: Antiderivatives (slides)
Matthew Leingang
 
Relations and functions
cannout
 
Introduction to statistics
ScholarsPoint1
 
Presentation on kurtosis statistics
rishi ram khanal
 
Research Process
Visva Bharati University
 
Points, Lines, and Planes (Undefined terms in Geometry) PPT
Department of Education - Philippines
 

What's hot (9)

PPTX
Point Estimation
Pabna University of Science & Technology
 
PPTX
Determining the Inverse, Converse, and Contrapositive of an If-then Statement...
Ma. Loiel Salome Nabelon
 
PPTX
LESSON 7 ILLUSTRATING RANDOM SAMPLING G11
MaamLyca
 
PPTX
7-Identifying-Regions-of-Ares-Under-Normal-Curve.pptx
dominicdaltoncaling2
 
PDF
Data presentation
Weam Banjar
 
PPTX
6.3 area under norm curve
leblance
 
PPTX
Measures of position. gouped data
Armathia Sambrano
 
PDF
BAS-CAL-LESSON-1-LIMITS-OF-A-FUNCTION.pdf
ostiadess
 
PPTX
Goodness of-fit
Long Beach City College
 
Point Estimation
Pabna University of Science & Technology
 
Determining the Inverse, Converse, and Contrapositive of an If-then Statement...
Ma. Loiel Salome Nabelon
 
LESSON 7 ILLUSTRATING RANDOM SAMPLING G11
MaamLyca
 
7-Identifying-Regions-of-Ares-Under-Normal-Curve.pptx
dominicdaltoncaling2
 
Data presentation
Weam Banjar
 
6.3 area under norm curve
leblance
 
Measures of position. gouped data
Armathia Sambrano
 
BAS-CAL-LESSON-1-LIMITS-OF-A-FUNCTION.pdf
ostiadess
 
Goodness of-fit
Long Beach City College
 
Ad

Viewers also liked (20)

PPT
Indirect-table Analysis
Janet Stemwedel
 
PPTX
IS 151 Lecture 3
wajanga
 
PPT
Chap 10(structure and unions)
Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Science and Technology University
 
PPT
IS 139 Lecture 7
wajanga
 
PPTX
IS 151 - Lecture 3
wajanga
 
PPTX
Chapter one
kiran acharya
 
PPTX
IS 151 Lecture 2
wajanga
 
PPT
Cd unit i
thulasib1
 
PPT
pointer, structure ,union and intro to file handling
Rai University
 
PPTX
aaالمملكة العربية السعودية
abdullah259
 
PPTX
Logical and Conditional Operator In C language
Abdul Rehman
 
PPTX
C Structures and Unions
Dhrumil Patel
 
PPT
Logic gates
prasanna chitra
 
PPTX
Hierarchical Memory System
Jenny Galino
 
PPT
C Structures & Unions
Ram Sagar Mourya
 
PPTX
Memory Hierarchy
Trinity Dwarka
 
PPT
Truth tables
walkerlj
 
PPTX
Discrete math Truth Table
University of Potsdam
 
PPTX
C pointer
University of Potsdam
 
PDF
Introduction to compilers
Bilal Maqbool ツ
 
Indirect-table Analysis
Janet Stemwedel
 
IS 151 Lecture 3
wajanga
 
Chap 10(structure and unions)
Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Science and Technology University
 
IS 139 Lecture 7
wajanga
 
IS 151 - Lecture 3
wajanga
 
Chapter one
kiran acharya
 
IS 151 Lecture 2
wajanga
 
Cd unit i
thulasib1
 
pointer, structure ,union and intro to file handling
Rai University
 
aaالمملكة العربية السعودية
abdullah259
 
Logical and Conditional Operator In C language
Abdul Rehman
 
C Structures and Unions
Dhrumil Patel
 
Logic gates
prasanna chitra
 
Hierarchical Memory System
Jenny Galino
 
C Structures & Unions
Ram Sagar Mourya
 
Memory Hierarchy
Trinity Dwarka
 
Truth tables
walkerlj
 
Discrete math Truth Table
University of Potsdam
 
C pointer
University of Potsdam
 
Introduction to compilers
Bilal Maqbool ツ
 
Ad

Similar to Truth table analysis (20)

PDF
null-12.pdf
MOHAMMEDASHIK71
 
PDF
null-12.pdf
MOHAMMEDASHIK71
 
PPTX
Discreate Truth tables and laws of logic
ZenLooper
 
PPTX
Discrete Structure/Mathematics INTRODUCTION TO LOGICAL STATMENTS
ZainabIshfaq8
 
PPT
Mathematical foundations of computer science
BindhuBhargaviTalasi
 
PPTX
Propositional logic
ForwardBlog Enewzletter
 
PPTX
Logic - Logical Propositions
JosefMikaeldelCorro
 
PDF
2-exe-1.pdfxjdjsjwkakaksjxudjzjjsjsjsjdhdjdhd
RACHANASRIVASTAVA22
 
PPTX
3. Derived Logical Connectives logical.pptx
shuvo2305101830
 
DOCX
LOGIC
shahzadebaujiti
 
PDF
Logic and proof
Suresh Ram
 
PPTX
DIShshshhshwhwhhCRETE-MATHEMATICS-_2.pptx
chanchanmendez5
 
PDF
Maths teachers guide For freshman course.pdf
habtamu292245
 
PPTX
L4-IntroducClick to edit Master title styletion to logic.pptx
FahmiOlayah
 
PPTX
Discrete Structure/Mathematics - iNTRODUCTION TO IMPLICATION
ZainabIshfaq8
 
DOCX
Truth table a.r
Syed Umair
 
PDF
Chapter 1 Logic of Compound Statements
guestd166eb5
 
PPTX
Nature of Logic.pptx
Math101BSCA1C
 
PDF
unit-3.pdf SRM MATHS DISCREATE MATHS 2024
bhuvaneshdp7
 
PPTX
UNIT-III-PPT.pptx
DakshBaveja
 
null-12.pdf
MOHAMMEDASHIK71
 
null-12.pdf
MOHAMMEDASHIK71
 
Discreate Truth tables and laws of logic
ZenLooper
 
Discrete Structure/Mathematics INTRODUCTION TO LOGICAL STATMENTS
ZainabIshfaq8
 
Mathematical foundations of computer science
BindhuBhargaviTalasi
 
Propositional logic
ForwardBlog Enewzletter
 
Logic - Logical Propositions
JosefMikaeldelCorro
 
2-exe-1.pdfxjdjsjwkakaksjxudjzjjsjsjsjdhdjdhd
RACHANASRIVASTAVA22
 
3. Derived Logical Connectives logical.pptx
shuvo2305101830
 
LOGIC
shahzadebaujiti
 
Logic and proof
Suresh Ram
 
DIShshshhshwhwhhCRETE-MATHEMATICS-_2.pptx
chanchanmendez5
 
Maths teachers guide For freshman course.pdf
habtamu292245
 
L4-IntroducClick to edit Master title styletion to logic.pptx
FahmiOlayah
 
Discrete Structure/Mathematics - iNTRODUCTION TO IMPLICATION
ZainabIshfaq8
 
Truth table a.r
Syed Umair
 
Chapter 1 Logic of Compound Statements
guestd166eb5
 
Nature of Logic.pptx
Math101BSCA1C
 
unit-3.pdf SRM MATHS DISCREATE MATHS 2024
bhuvaneshdp7
 
UNIT-III-PPT.pptx
DakshBaveja
 

More from Janet Stemwedel (20)

PPT
Climategate and scientific methodology
Janet Stemwedel
 
PPT
P160 Kuhn and his Critics
Janet Stemwedel
 
PPT
P160 Duhem and Quine
Janet Stemwedel
 
PPT
P160 Hempel, Hume, Deduction, and Induction
Janet Stemwedel
 
PPT
Lect10 Human Subjects: History
Janet Stemwedel
 
PPT
Lect11 Human Subjects: Regulations
Janet Stemwedel
 
PPT
Lec12 Human Subjects:Global Issues
Janet Stemwedel
 
PPT
Lec13 Scientific Papers and Communications
Janet Stemwedel
 
PPT
Lec 14 Authorship Issues
Janet Stemwedel
 
PPT
Lec15 Patents and Intellectual Property
Janet Stemwedel
 
PPT
Lec16 International Strategies for Scientific Dialogue
Janet Stemwedel
 
PPT
Explanation classroomversion
Janet Stemwedel
 
PPT
P160 antirealismclassroomversion
Janet Stemwedel
 
PPT
P160 naturalismclassroomlect
Janet Stemwedel
 
PPT
Feminist Critiques of Science
Janet Stemwedel
 
PPT
Translating English to Propositional Logic
Janet Stemwedel
 
PPT
P160 Kuhn classroom Lecture 2
Janet Stemwedel
 
PPT
Propositional logic
Janet Stemwedel
 
PPT
Kuhn: Paradigms and Normal Science
Janet Stemwedel
 
PPT
Syntax and semantics of propositional logic
Janet Stemwedel
 
Climategate and scientific methodology
Janet Stemwedel
 
P160 Kuhn and his Critics
Janet Stemwedel
 
P160 Duhem and Quine
Janet Stemwedel
 
P160 Hempel, Hume, Deduction, and Induction
Janet Stemwedel
 
Lect10 Human Subjects: History
Janet Stemwedel
 
Lect11 Human Subjects: Regulations
Janet Stemwedel
 
Lec12 Human Subjects:Global Issues
Janet Stemwedel
 
Lec13 Scientific Papers and Communications
Janet Stemwedel
 
Lec 14 Authorship Issues
Janet Stemwedel
 
Lec15 Patents and Intellectual Property
Janet Stemwedel
 
Lec16 International Strategies for Scientific Dialogue
Janet Stemwedel
 
Explanation classroomversion
Janet Stemwedel
 
P160 antirealismclassroomversion
Janet Stemwedel
 
P160 naturalismclassroomlect
Janet Stemwedel
 
Feminist Critiques of Science
Janet Stemwedel
 
Translating English to Propositional Logic
Janet Stemwedel
 
P160 Kuhn classroom Lecture 2
Janet Stemwedel
 
Propositional logic
Janet Stemwedel
 
Kuhn: Paradigms and Normal Science
Janet Stemwedel
 
Syntax and semantics of propositional logic
Janet Stemwedel
 

Recently uploaded (20)

PPTX
History, Philosophy and sociology of education (1).pptx
tmdth1
 
PDF
Black Hat USA 2025 - Micro ICS Summit - ICS/OT Threat Landscape
Chris Sistrunk
 
PPTX
Final Presentation General Medicine 03-08-2024.pptx
ZaheerAhmad228692
 
PDF
Classroom Observation Tools for Teachers
Nicaramirez
 
PPTX
Tissue processing ( HISTOPATHOLOGICAL TECHNIQUE
mathiasmelwyn7
 
PDF
Supply Chain Operations Speaking Notes -ICLT Program
labyankof
 
PDF
ChatGPT for Dummies - Pam Baker Ccesa007.pdf
Demetrio Ccesa Rayme
 
PPTX
202450812 BayCHI UCSC-SV 20250812 v17.pptx
home
 
PDF
Weekly quiz Compilation Jan -July 25.pdf
Nitin Suresh
 
PDF
Paper A Mock Exam 9_ Attempt review.pdf.
SameeraNaveed2
 
PDF
Practical Manual AGRO-233 Principles and Practices of Natural Farming
MilindKhedekar2
 
PDF
IGGE1 Understanding the Self1234567891011
rhea22labucay
 
PPTX
UV-Visible spectroscopy..pptx UV-Visible Spectroscopy – Electronic Transition...
Samruddhi Khonde
 
PPTX
CHAPTER IV. MAN AND BIOSPHERE AND ITS TOTALITY.pptx
greciamaycalambro
 
PPTX
1st Inaugural Professorial Lecture held on 19th February 2020 (Governance and...
kawisojames10
 
DOC
Soft-furnishing-By-Architect-A.F.M.Mohiuddin-Akhand.doc
ArchitectAFMMohiuddi
 
PPTX
Onco Emergencies - Spinal cord compression Superior vena cava syndrome Febr...
Medpopz
 
PPTX
Chinmaya Tiranga Azadi Quiz (Class 7-8 )
Nitin Suresh
 
PDF
Indian roads congress 037 - 2012 Flexible pavement
offersjackpot
 
PDF
احياء السادس العلمي - الفصل الثالث (التكاثر) منهج متميزين/كلية بغداد/موهوبين
S LS
 
History, Philosophy and sociology of education (1).pptx
tmdth1
 
Black Hat USA 2025 - Micro ICS Summit - ICS/OT Threat Landscape
Chris Sistrunk
 
Final Presentation General Medicine 03-08-2024.pptx
ZaheerAhmad228692
 
Classroom Observation Tools for Teachers
Nicaramirez
 
Tissue processing ( HISTOPATHOLOGICAL TECHNIQUE
mathiasmelwyn7
 
Supply Chain Operations Speaking Notes -ICLT Program
labyankof
 
ChatGPT for Dummies - Pam Baker Ccesa007.pdf
Demetrio Ccesa Rayme
 
202450812 BayCHI UCSC-SV 20250812 v17.pptx
home
 
Weekly quiz Compilation Jan -July 25.pdf
Nitin Suresh
 
Paper A Mock Exam 9_ Attempt review.pdf.
SameeraNaveed2
 
Practical Manual AGRO-233 Principles and Practices of Natural Farming
MilindKhedekar2
 
IGGE1 Understanding the Self1234567891011
rhea22labucay
 
UV-Visible spectroscopy..pptx UV-Visible Spectroscopy – Electronic Transition...
Samruddhi Khonde
 
CHAPTER IV. MAN AND BIOSPHERE AND ITS TOTALITY.pptx
greciamaycalambro
 
1st Inaugural Professorial Lecture held on 19th February 2020 (Governance and...
kawisojames10
 
Soft-furnishing-By-Architect-A.F.M.Mohiuddin-Akhand.doc
ArchitectAFMMohiuddi
 
Onco Emergencies - Spinal cord compression Superior vena cava syndrome Febr...
Medpopz
 
Chinmaya Tiranga Azadi Quiz (Class 7-8 )
Nitin Suresh
 
Indian roads congress 037 - 2012 Flexible pavement
offersjackpot
 
احياء السادس العلمي - الفصل الثالث (التكاثر) منهج متميزين/كلية بغداد/موهوبين
S LS
 

Truth table analysis

  • 1. Truth-Table Analysis Phil 57 section 3 San Jose State University Fall 2010
  • 2. What are truth-tables good for? Working out the truth value of a formula from the truth values of the atomic formulae in it. Defining the behavior of logical connectives used to build complex formulae.
  • 3. What are truth-tables good for? Determining the logical status of a single proposition. Determining the logical status of a group of propositions. Determining the validity of an argument.
  • 4. The logical status of a proposition. Some propositions are always true: It will rain or it won’t. Some propositions are never true: The universe is empty and not empty. Most propositions are true in some conditions and false in others: Today is hot.
  • 5. The logical status of a proposition. Can use truth-tables to distinguish these different kinds of propositions. Logical status Description Truth-Table Tautology Always true Every row T Contradiction Always false Every row F Contingent Depends on circumstances Some row T, some row F
  • 6. The logical status of a proposition. Consider P  ~P P ~P P  ~P
  • 7. The logical status of a proposition. Consider P  ~P P ~P P  ~P T F
  • 8. The logical status of a proposition. Consider P  ~P P ~P P  ~P T F F T
  • 9. The logical status of a proposition. Consider P  ~P P ~P P  ~P T F F F T F
  • 10. The logical status of a proposition. Consider P  ~P Truth-value for P  ~P is F in every row. (Contradiction) P ~P P  ~P T F F F T F
  • 11. The logical status of a proposition. Consider P  ~P P ~P P  ~P
  • 12. The logical status of a proposition. Consider P  ~P P ~P P  ~P T F
  • 13. The logical status of a proposition. Consider P  ~P P ~P P  ~P T F F T
  • 14. The logical status of a proposition. Consider P  ~P P ~P P  ~P T F T F T T
  • 15. The logical status of a proposition. Consider P  ~P Truth-value for P  ~P is T in every row. (Tautology) P ~P P  ~P T F T F T T
  • 16. The logical status of a group of propositions. Do two different claims mean the same thing? Can two different claims both be true? Must one of a pair of claims be false if the other is true?
  • 17. The logical status of a group of propositions. Logical Status Description Truth-Table Equivalent Mean the same thing, logically The truth-tables are identical Satisfiable/consistent Possibly all true. There is some row where all propositions are true. Unsatisfiable/inconsistent Can’t all be true. No row where all propositions are true.
  • 18. Rules for building truth-tables: As many columns as: Statement letters Non-atomic formulae The formula to be computed 2 N rows, where N= number of atomic statement letters.
  • 19. Truth-table to evaluate ((P  Q)  ~R) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (formula) P Q R ~R (P  Q) ((P  Q)  ~R) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
  • 20. Truth-table to evaluate ((P  Q)  ~R) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (formula) P Q R ~R (P  Q) ((P  Q)  ~R) 1 T 2 T 3 T 4 T 5 F 6 F 7 F 8 F
  • 21. Truth-table to evaluate ((P  Q)  ~R) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (formula) P Q R ~R (P  Q) ((P  Q)  ~R) 1 T T 2 T T 3 T F 4 T F 5 F T 6 F T 7 F F 8 F F
  • 22. Truth-table to evaluate ((P  Q)  ~R) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (formula) P Q R ~R (P  Q) ((P  Q)  ~R) 1 T T T 2 T T F 3 T F T 4 T F F 5 F T T 6 F T F 7 F F T 8 F F F
  • 23. Truth-table to evaluate ((P  Q)  ~R) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (formula) P Q R ~R (P  Q) ((P  Q)  ~R) 1 T T T F 2 T T F T 3 T F T F 4 T F F T 5 F T T F 6 F T F T 7 F F T F 8 F F F T
  • 24. Truth-table to evaluate ((P  Q)  ~R) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (formula) P Q R ~R (P  Q) ((P  Q)  ~R) 1 T T T F T 2 T T F T T 3 T F T F F 4 T F F T F 5 F T T F F 6 F T F T F 7 F F T F F 8 F F F T F
  • 25. Truth-table to evaluate ((P  Q)  ~R) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (formula) P Q R ~R (P  Q) ((P  Q)  ~R) 1 T T T F T F 2 T T F T T T 3 T F T F F T 4 T F F T F T 5 F T T F F T 6 F T F T F T 7 F F T F F T 8 F F F T F T
  • 26. Determining the logical status of (~P  P) 1 2 3 (formula) P ~P (~P  P) 1 2
  • 27. Determining the logical status of (~P  P) 1 2 3 (formula) P ~P (~P  P) 1 T 2 F
  • 28. Determining the logical status of (~P  P) 1 2 3 (formula) P ~P (~P  P) 1 T F 2 F T
  • 29. Determining the logical status of (~P  P) 1 2 3 (formula) P ~P (~P  P) 1 T F T 2 F T F
  • 30. Determining the logical status of (~P  P) Formula is CONTINGENT. 1 2 3 (formula) P ~P (~P  P) 1 T F T 2 F T F
  • 31. Determining the logical status of (P  ~Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q ~Q (P  ~Q) 1 2 3 4
  • 32. Determining the logical status of (P  ~Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q ~Q (P  ~Q) 1 T 2 T 3 F 4 F
  • 33. Determining the logical status of (P  ~Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q ~Q (P  ~Q) 1 T T 2 T F 3 F T 4 F F
  • 34. Determining the logical status of (P  ~Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q ~Q (P  ~Q) 1 T T F 2 T F T 3 F T F 4 F F T
  • 35. Determining the logical status of (P  ~Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q ~Q (P  ~Q) 1 T T F F 2 T F T T 3 F T F F 4 F F T F
  • 36. Steps for determining logical status of a proposition. Create truth-table with right number of rows and columns. Compute truth-value of every formula on every row using truth-values of atomic statements for the row. Check for the logical status by checking the relevant rows.
  • 37. The logical status of a proposition. Can use truth-tables to distinguish these different kinds of propositions. Logical status Description Truth-Table Tautology Always true Every row T Contradiction Always false Every row F Contingent Depends on circumstances Some row T, some row F
  • 38. Determining the logical status of a group of propositions. Build truth-table to give side-by-side comparison of the truth values of the propositions. Doing this in a single truth-table is the best way to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison.
  • 39. Logical status of ~(P  Q), (~P  ~Q) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 P Q ~P ~Q (P  Q) ~(P  Q) (~P  ~Q) 1 2 3 4
  • 40. Logical status of ~(P  Q), (~P  ~Q) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 P Q ~P ~Q (P  Q) ~(P  Q) (~P  ~Q) 1 T 2 T 3 F 4 F
  • 41. Logical status of ~(P  Q), (~P  ~Q) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 P Q ~P ~Q (P  Q) ~(P  Q) (~P  ~Q) 1 T T 2 T F 3 F T 4 F F
  • 42. Logical status of ~(P  Q), (~P  ~Q) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 P Q ~P ~Q (P  Q) ~(P  Q) (~P  ~Q) 1 T T F 2 T F F 3 F T T 4 F F T
  • 43. Logical status of ~(P  Q), (~P  ~Q) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 P Q ~P ~Q (P  Q) ~(P  Q) (~P  ~Q) 1 T T F F 2 T F F T 3 F T T F 4 F F T T
  • 44. Logical status of ~(P  Q), (~P  ~Q) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 P Q ~P ~Q (P  Q) ~(P  Q) (~P  ~Q) 1 T T F F T 2 T F F T F 3 F T T F F 4 F F T T F
  • 45. Logical status of ~(P  Q), (~P  ~Q) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 P Q ~P ~Q (P  Q) ~(P  Q) (~P  ~Q) 1 T T F F T F 2 T F F T F T 3 F T T F F T 4 F F T T F T
  • 46. Logical status of ~(P  Q), (~P  ~Q) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 P Q ~P ~Q (P  Q) ~(P  Q) (~P  ~Q) 1 T T F F T F F 2 T F F T F T T 3 F T T F F T T 4 F F T T F T T
  • 47. Logical status of ~(P  Q), (~P  ~Q) Both formulae have the same truth-values on every row ( equivalent ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 P Q ~P ~Q (P  Q) ~(P  Q) (~P  ~Q) 1 T T F F T F F 2 T F F T F T T 3 F T T F F T T 4 F F T T F T T
  • 48. Logical status of (P  Q), (P  Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q (P  Q) (P  Q) 1 2 3 4
  • 49. Logical status of (P  Q), (P  Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q (P  Q) (P  Q) 1 T 2 T 3 F 4 F
  • 50. Logical status of (P  Q), (P  Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q (P  Q) (P  Q) 1 T T 2 T F 3 F T 4 F F
  • 51. Logical status of (P  Q), (P  Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q (P  Q) (P  Q) 1 T T T 2 T F F 3 F T F 4 F F F
  • 52. Logical status of (P  Q), (P  Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q (P  Q) (P  Q) 1 T T T T 2 T F F T 3 F T F T 4 F F F F
  • 53. Logical status of (P  Q), (P  Q) A row (1) where both formulae are T ( satisfiable, but not equivalent ) 1 2 3 4 P Q (P  Q) (P  Q) 1 T T T T 2 T F F T 3 F T F T 4 F F F F
  • 54. Logical status of (P  ~Q), (P  Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q ~Q (P  ~Q) (P  Q) 1 2 3 4
  • 55. Logical status of (P  ~Q), (P  Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q ~Q (P  ~Q) (P  Q) 1 T 2 T 3 F 4 F
  • 56. Logical status of (P  ~Q), (P  Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q ~Q (P  ~Q) (P  Q) 1 T T 2 T F 3 F T 4 F F
  • 57. Logical status of (P  ~Q), (P  Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q ~Q (P  ~Q) (P  Q) 1 T T F 2 T F T 3 F T F 4 F F T
  • 58. Logical status of (P  ~Q), (P  Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q ~Q (P  ~Q) (P  Q) 1 T T F F 2 T F T T 3 F T F T 4 F F T T
  • 59. Logical status of (P  ~Q), (P  Q) 1 2 3 4 P Q ~Q (P  ~Q) (P  Q) 1 T T F F T 2 T F T T F 3 F T F T F 4 F F T T F
  • 60. Logical status of (P  ~Q), (P  Q) NO row where both formulae are T ( unsatisfiable ) 1 2 3 4 P Q ~Q (P  ~Q) (P  Q) 1 T T F F T 2 T F T T F 3 F T F T F 4 F F T T F
  • 61. Steps for determining logical status of group of propositions. Create truth-table with right number of rows and columns. Compute truth-value of every formula on every row using truth-values of atomic statements for the row. Check for the logical status by checking the relevant rows.
  • 62. The logical status of a group of propositions. Logical Status Description Truth-Table Equivalent Mean the same thing, logically The truth-tables are identical Satisfiable/consistent Possibly all true. There is some row where all propositions are true. Unsatisfiable/inconsistent Can’t all be true. No row where all propositions are true.
  • 63. Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Remember that a valid argument is one where, if all the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
  • 64. Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Remember that a valid argument is one where, if all the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Build truth table that includes formulae for premises and conclusion.
  • 65. Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Remember that a valid argument is one where, if all the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Build truth table that includes formulae for premises and conclusion. If there’s a row where the premises are true and the conclusion is false, argument is invalid .
  • 66. Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Remember that a valid argument is one where, if all the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Build truth table that includes formulae for premises and conclusion. If there’s a row where the premises are true and the conclusion is false, argument is invalid . Otherwise, argument is valid.
  • 67. Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. If John wins the election, then Mary will run for Governor. John did not win the election. (Conclusion) So, Mary will not run for Governor.
  • 68. Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. If John wins the election, then Mary will run for Governor. John did not win the election. (Conclusion) So, Mary will not run for Governor. P = John wins the election. Q = Mary will run for Governor.
  • 69. Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. If John wins the election, then Mary will run for Governor. (P  Q) John did not win the election. ~P (Conclusion) So, Mary will not run for Governor. ~Q P = John wins the election. Q = Mary will run for Governor.
  • 70. Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Pr1 Pr2 C P Q (P  Q) ~P ~Q 1 2 3 4
  • 71. Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Pr1 Pr2 C P Q (P  Q) ~P ~Q 1 T 2 T 3 F 4 F
  • 72. Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Pr1 Pr2 C P Q (P  Q) ~P ~Q 1 T T 2 T F 3 F T 4 F F
  • 73. Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Pr1 Pr2 C P Q (P  Q) ~P ~Q 1 T T T 2 T F F 3 F T T 4 F F T
  • 74. Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Pr1 Pr2 C P Q (P  Q) ~P ~Q 1 T T T F 2 T F F F 3 F T T T 4 F F T T
  • 75. Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Pr1 Pr2 C P Q (P  Q) ~P ~Q 1 T T T F F 2 T F F F T 3 F T T T F 4 F F T T T
  • 76. Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. ROW 3: Both premises true, conclusion false. Argument is invalid! Pr1 Pr2 C P Q (P  Q) ~P ~Q 1 T T T F F 2 T F F F T 3 F T T T F 4 F F T T T
  • 77. Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. If John wins the election, then Mary will run for Governor. John won the election. (Conclusion) So, Mary will run for Governor. P = John wins the election. Q = Mary will run for Governor.
  • 78. Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. If John wins the election, then Mary will run for Governor. (P  Q) John won the election. P (Conclusion) So, Mary will run for Governor. Q P = John wins the election. Q = Mary will run for Governor.
  • 79. Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Pr1 Pr2 C P Q (P  Q) P Q 1 2 3 4
  • 80. Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Pr1 Pr2 C P Q (P  Q) P Q 1 T 2 T 3 F 4 F
  • 81. Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Pr1 Pr2 C P Q (P  Q) P Q 1 T T 2 T F 3 F T 4 F F
  • 82. Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Pr1 Pr2 C P Q (P  Q) P Q 1 T T T 2 T F F 3 F T T 4 F F T
  • 83. Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Pr1 Pr2 C P Q (P  Q) P Q 1 T T T T 2 T F F T 3 F T T F 4 F F T F
  • 84. Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. Pr1 Pr2 C P Q (P  Q) P Q 1 T T T T T 2 T F F T F 3 F T T F T 4 F F T F F
  • 85. Determining the validity of an argument via truth-tables. ROW 1: Both premises true, conclusion true. Argument is valid! Pr1 Pr2 C P Q (P  Q) P Q 1 T T T T T 2 T F F T F 3 F T T F T 4 F F T F F
  • 86. Important note for homework: Some of the expressions you’ll be evaluating in truth-tables use alternate notation.  means ~  means   means 