{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

# 5 - LECTURE 5 QUANTIFICATION(2.9-2.10 We must give lengthy...

This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

LECTURE 5: QUANTIFICATION ( § 2.9-2.10) We must give lengthy deliberation to what has to be decided once and for all. Publilius Syrus ( 100 BC) 1. Fundamental logical equivalences Theorem 1. Let P , Q , and R be statements. 1. Commutative laws 1a. P Q Q P . 1.b P Q Q P . 2. Associative laws 2a. P ( Q R ) ( P Q ) R . 2b. P ( Q R ) ( P Q ) R . 3. Distributive laws 3a. P ( Q R ) ( P Q ) ( P R ) . 3b. P ( Q R ) ( P Q ) ( P R ) . 4. DeMorgan’s laws 4a. ( P Q ) ( P ) ( Q ) . 4b. ( P Q ) ( P ) ( Q ) . 5. Double negation: ∼∼ P P . 6. Theorem 2.17: P Q ( P ) Q . Example 2. Prove ( P Q ) P ( Q ). Proof. ( P Q ) ≡∼ (( P ) Q ) Theorem 2.17 ≡∼∼ P ∧ ∼ Q DeMorgan’s law P ∧ ∼ Q Double negation . Basically, we can treat like an equals symbol. We can save time, instead of writing out long truth tables. 2. Quantification Given an open sentence P ( x ); x S

This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}