Homework 6: Bring to Class on Monday Feb 28th
Do the following derivations:
(1) P <> Q ; ~R > P / ~Q > R
(1) P <> Q
(2) ~R > P
(3) SHOW: ~Q > R
(4)  ~Q
(5)  SHOW: R
(6)   P > Q
(7)   ~P
(8)   ~R
(9)   R
Pr
Pr
CD
As
DD
1,<>O
4,6,>O
2,7,
1. A > B
2. B
 3. A
 4. B
 5. [Contradiction]
6. A
 1. P
  2. Q
  3. P
 4. Q>P
5. P>(Q>P)
1. A v B
2. A>C
3. B>D
 4. A
  5. C
 6. C v D

 7. B
 8. D
 9. C v D

10. C v D
1. A<>B
2. B<>C
 3. A
 4. B
 5
Unit 3 Practice Exam Answers:
Using the suggested abbreviations (the capitalized words), translate each of the following
into the language of predicate logic:
Section A: covers material from chapter 6
1.
KAY is a JUNIOR. [2]
Jk [all or nothing]
2. BARRY a
Unit 3 Practice Exam:
Using the suggested abbreviations (the capitalized words), translate each of the following
into the language of predicate logic:
Section A: covers material from chapter 6
1.
KAY is a JUNIOR. [2]
2. BARRY and JESS are SOPHOMORES [3]
3
Tips:
Refer to the review notes to see how to do the various types of derivations and strategies.
Follow these steps once youve written the problem out (i.e. once youve put the premises
on separate lines and announced that you are going to show the conclu
Translations in Predicate Logic:
Difference from sentential logic:
Recall that in sentential logic (what we did for the first two exams) we used upper case
letters to translate declarative sentences (that is, sentences that are true or false). For
example
Introduction to Logic: 730:201:01
Instructor: Jon Winterbottom
Practice Exam 1
This exam is divided into three sections. The exam is out of 100 points. The first section
covers material from chapter 1 and chapter 2 (exercise sets 1 and 2) of the textbook
Introduction to Logic: 730:201:01
Instructor: Jon Winterbottom
Practice Exam 1
This exam is divided into three sections. The exam is out of 100 points. The first section
covers material from chapter 1 and chapter 2 (exercise sets 1 and 2) of the textbook
Second Exam Review Notes:
Derivations in sentential logic:
In this section we look at a technique designed to allow us to prove that valid arguments
are in fact valid. Notice that all the arguments we deal with in this section are valid.
Getting started:
Inference Rules:
_
AmpersandIn (&I):
A
B
B
A
_
_
A&B
B&A
_
_
AmpersandOut (&O):
A&B
A&B
_
_
A
B
_
_
WedgeIn (vI):
A
A
_
_
AvB
BvA
_
_
WedgeOut (vO):
AvB
AvB
~A
~B
_
_
B
A
_
_
DoubleArrowIn (I):
AB
AB
B A
BA
_
_
AB
BA
_
_
DoubleArrowOut (O)
AB
AB
_
Homework 10 : ANSWERS
I haven't crossed out the showlines or put in the boxes (technical inadequacy on my part!). You
will need to do these things on the exam however to get full credit.
Don't forget that using ID always works (so where I've solved the pr
Monday September 20, 2010
2.11 do, but invalid page 53
Connectives
, Negation. ; F(a). a does not have property F
 Truth Table
P  , P
TF
FT
^ Conjunction. F(a) ^ F(b) a holds property F, and b holds property F.
 Truth Table
p q  p^q
TTT
TFF
FT
eHandout
Business & Professional Ethics
Lecture
This Lecture Addresses Issues of Occupational Health and Safety
Here are some tragic cases to think about as you considered the subject of occupational health
and safety:
1. The Triangle Factory Fire. On a
No.9
eHandout Business&ProfessionalEthics
RepugnanceandtheMarket
The New York Times/
January 31, 2008
Economists Dissect the Yuck Factor
By PATRICIA COHEN
WASHINGTON You can kill a horse to make pet food in California, but not to feed a person. You can
h
Lecture3:TypesofReasoning
i.
deductive:logicallyconclusive
ii.
inductive:probablebutnot100%conclusive
iii.
valid:argumentthatsucceedsinprovidinglogicaldecisivelogicalsupport(premise
trueandconclusiontrue)
iv.
invalid:failstoprovidesupport(premisetrueandco
TESTSTUDYGUIDE
TheNatureofTheory
I. premises:statementsaboutobservationorotherevidencetobe
explained
II. explanation:claimaboutwhythestateofaffairsisthatwayitis
III. pattern:phenomenonQ.EprovidesthebestexplanationforQ.
Therefore,itisprobablethatEistrue.
o
Intro to Logic Notes
1/25/2016
Argument= df. A sequence of statements, one of which is claimed to follow from the others.
The conclusion
Therefore,.
It Follows that,.
Hence,.
Thus,.
Consequently,.
The Premises
Indicators:
Because,.
As,.
Since,.
For,.
The
THE METHOD OF INTERPERTATION
The basic idea: The method of interpretation is a way to show an argument in predicate logic is
invalid. An argument in predicate logic is invalid if there is a universe in which its premises are
true and its conclusion is fal
Homework 10 : Derivations in Predicate Logic:
Bring to class on Monday 18th April
Relevant new rules: (a) universalout (O) and (b) existentialintroduction (I). (see 8.18.7)
For the first five questions you will need to use O. For questions 69, both O
Homework For Monday 21st February: ANSWERS
Show that the following arguments are valid using direct derivation:
(1) (P v Q) > R ; Q ; Q > T / R & T
(1) (P v Q) > R
(2) Q
(3) Q > T
(4) SHOW: R & T
(5)  T
(6)  P v Q
(7)  R
(8)  R & T
Pr
Pr
Pr
DD
2,3
Introduction to Logic, Spring 2011
Winterbottom
Homework for Monday January 24th 2011:
Print out this paper and write your answers on it. Don't forget to put your name on it.
Bring your answers to class (and have them ready at the beginning of class on Mo