Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Concepts
Truth Function Truth Table Logically equivalent Contradictory
Consistent
Inconsistent Valid Invalid
How to
Use truth tables to test
q
T F T F
pq
T F F F
pq
T T T F
pq
T F T T
p q
T F F T
Given the truth tables for the connectives we can compute the truth value of sentences built out of them if we know the truth values of their parts. We can do this because the connectives are truth functional!
Pairs of sentences
Equivalent Contradictory Neither Arguments
Sentences
Tautology (tautologous sentence) Necessarily true True in every truth value assignment Self-contradictory sentence Necessarily false False in every truth value assignment Contingent sentence
(Q
P)
(Q
P)
(Q
P)
Now we need to assign truth values to each sentence letter on each row of the column underneath it. We assign these truth values according to a standard pattern.
The column under the first sentence letter gets half true,
half false; the column under the second sentence letter has half true, half false for rows where the first is true and
half true, half false for rows where the first is false; the
column under the third subdivides in the same way, and so on.
Etc The column for the first type letter is half T and half F, the second subdivides that, the third subdivides the second, and so on...
1 2 3 4
T F
T T F F
T F T F
T T T T F F F F
T T F F T T F F
T F T F T F T F
We dont give you great big truth tables on tests because we have to grade them!
T T T T T T T T F F F F F F F F
T T T T F F F F T T T T F F F F
T T F F T T F F T T F F T T F F
T F T F T F T F T F T F T F T F
P
T T F F
(Q
P)
P
T T F F
(Q
P)
T T F F
P
T T F F
(Q
T F T F
P)
T T F F
Now weve assigned truth values to all the sentence letters and are ready to compute truth values for the whole sentence working from smaller to larger subformulas.
P
T T F F
(Q
T F T F
P)
T T F F
We want truth values for ~ P in the column under its main connective. Well compute them from the truth values under P given the truth table for negation.
~
F F T T
P
T T F F
(Q
T F T F
P)
T T F F
Got it! The truth values for ~ P are in the column under its main connective.
~
F F T T
P
T T F F
(Q
T F T F
P)
T T F F
Now we want to computer truth values for Q P so well look at the truth values for its antecedent and consequent.
~
F F T T
P
T T F F
(Q
P)
T T T F T T T F F F T F
Weve computed truth values for Q P and now have what we need to compute truth values for the whole sentence were testing
~
F F T T
P
T T F F
(Q
P)
T T T F T T T F F F T F
At last we can compute truth values for ~P (Q P)! To do that we look at the truth values for ~P and Q P, which are under their main connectives.
~
F F T T
P
T T F F
T T T T
(Q
P)
T T T F T T T F F F T F
Now we have truth values for ~P (Q P) in the main column of the truth table--the boxed column under the main connective.
~
F F T T
P
T T F F
T T T T
(Q
P)
T T T F T T T F F F T F
The truth table is complete! Now we just have to read down the main column to determine whether the sentence is tautologous, self-contradictory or contingent.
~
F F T T
P
T T F F
T T T T
(Q
P)
T T T F T T T F F F T F
~
F F T T
P
T T F F
T T T T
(Q
P)
T T T F T T T F F F T F
Pairs of Sentences
Equivalent
Contradictory
Necessarily have opposite truth value Have opposite truth value in every truth value assignment Neither Neither equivalent nor contradictory
~ (P Q) / ~ P ~ Q
~ (P Q) / ~P ~ Q
~ (P Q) / ~ P ~ Q
Be careful about identifying main connectives! The main connective of ~(PQ) is ~, not !
~ (P Q)
/ ~ P ~ Q
T T F F
T F T F
T T F F
T F T F
~ ( P Q)
/ ~ P
~ Q
T T T T T F F T T F F F
T T F F
T F T F
~ ( P Q)
/ ~ P
~ Q
F F F T
T T T T T F F T T F F F
T T F F
T F T F
~ (P Q) / ~ P
~ Q
F F F T
T T T T T F F T T F F F
F T F T T F T F
T F T F
~ (P Q) / ~ P
~ Q
F F F T
T T T T T F F T T F F F
F T F T T F T F
F T T F F T T F
~ ( P Q) / ~ P
~ Q
F F F T
T T T T T F F T T F F F
F T F F T F T F T F T F F F T T F T T F
~ ( P Q) / ~ P
~ Q
F F F T
T T T T T F F T T F F F
F T F F T F T F T F T F F F T T F T T F
The truth table is complete and were ready to read it to see what it tells us.
~ ( P Q) / ~ P
~ Q
F F F T
T T T T T F F T T F F F
F T F F T F T F T F T F F F T T F T T F
Equivalent
Sets of Sentences
Consistent
They can all be true together There is some truth value assignment that makes all of the sentences true Inconsistent Not consistent: they cant all be true together There is no truth value assignment that makes all of the sentences true
T T T F F T F T
T F T F
F T F T F T F F T F T T T F F F
T F T F
T T T F F T F T
T F T F
F T F T F T F F T F T T T F F F
T F T F
sentences is inconsistent.
T T T F
This row shows consistency
T F T F
F T F T F T F F T F T T T F F F
T F T F
F T F T
Consistent or inconsistent? Consistent We talk about sets of sentences being consistent or inconsistent. We dont talk about rows of a truth table being consistent or inconsistent--that makes no sense!
T T T F F T F T
T F T F
T F FT T T TF F F FT F F TF
T F T F
Consistent or inconsistent? Inconsistent Suppose things were a little different Now theres no row where all main columns get T so this set of sentences is inconsistent!
Arguments
Valid Its not logically possible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion false There is no truth value assignment that makes all the premises true and the conclusion false. Invalid Not valid.
There is some truth value assignment that makes all the premises true and the conclusion false
T T T F F T F T
T F T F
F T T F F T T F
T T T T T F F T T F F F
Do the truth table with slashes between premises and a double slash
T T T F F T F T
T F T F
F T T F F T T F
T T T T T F F T T F F F
T T T F F T
This row shows invalidity
T F T F
F T T F F T T F
T T T T T F F T T F F F
F T
The argument is invalid because theres a row in which all premises get T and the conclusion gets F. That shows that its possible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion
Validity
Given certain information about premises and conclusion we can sometimes determine whether an argument is valid or invalid.
Suppose the conclusion of an argument is a tautology: does this show the argument is valid, is invalid or is this not enough information to determine whether its valid or invalid?
Conclusion is a tautology
P1 / P2 / . . . Pn // C T T T T
Must be valid
Must be invalid
Conclusion is a tautology
P1 / P2 / . . . Pn // C
T T T T
Theres no row in which the conclusion is false so
Theres no row in which all the premises are true and the conclusion is false so The argument must be valid.
Must be valid
Must be invalid
Must be valid
Must be invalid
Theres no row in which all the premises are true so Theres no row in which all the premises are true and the conclusion is false so The argument must be valid.
Must be valid
Must be invalid
Must be valid
Must be invalid
T F
Theres no row in which all the premises and the negation of the conclusion are all true so Theres no row in which all the premises are true and the conclusion itself is false (by definition of negation!) so The argument must be valid. Must be valid Must be invalid Can be valid or invalid
Reductio ad Absurdem
In reductio arguments (a.k.a indirect proof, proof by contradiction) we exploit the fact that from inconsistent premises anything followsincluding a contradiction.
We show that the premises + negation of conclusion of an argument are inconsistent by deriving a contradiction from them
Testing for consistency, for example, only the presence or absence of an all T row is relevant!
F F T F
Q / Q
T
This row shows consistency
T F T T
T F T F
F T F T T F T F
T F T
T F T F
T F F
Consistent or inconsistent? Consistent Only the pink row matters! Is there some way we could have saved ourselves the trouble of filling in all the other rows?
What we need
To short-cut the truth table test for consistency we need a procedure that will do two things: Construct a truth value assignment in which all sentences are true, if there is one and Show conclusively that there is no truth value assignment that makes all sentences true if there isnt one Short-cut truth tables (Hurley 6.5) do both these jobs. Truth trees do them better!
To test for consistency we write the sentences on a single line with slashes between them
We assign true to each of the sentences by writing T under its main connective And attempt to construct a truth value assignment that gets that result
Write the sentences on one line with slashes between them Assign true to each sentence by writing T under its main connective
Assign forced truth values. We start with the last sentence because assigning true to the other sentences doesnt force truth values on their parts.
Now that weve assigned a truth value to A, other truth values are forced by that: All the other As must be false too!
This forces more truth values: Since A is false, to make the first sentence true we have to assign true to Bwhich makes all the Bs true.
F T
T F
Since B is false, C must be false in order to make the conditional, C B, true--so we have another forced truth value: all Cs have to be false
F F
F T
T F
Now we can complete the truth value assignmentand theres only one way to do it: by assigning false to C A, since both of its parts are false.
F F
F T
T F
But this isnt a possible truth value assignment because it says that the conditional, B (C A), is true even though its antecedent is true and its consequent false.
And theres no way to avoid this since all truth values were forced!
F F
F T
T F
This shows that theres no truth value assignment that makes all sentences true Therefore that this set of sentences is inconsistent.
T T
F T
T F
Note: if you assigned truth values in a different order the problem will pop up in a different place (see Hurley p. 40)but it will pop up somewhere, like a lump under the carpet!
To test for validity we write the argument on a single line with slashes between the premises and a double slash between the last premise and the conclusion
We assign true to each of the premises by writing T under its main connective, and false to the conclusion by writing F under its main connective And attempt to construct a truth value assignment that gets that result If thats possible, the argument is invalid If its not possible, the argument is valid
C) / B // C A
T F
We assign true to each of the premises by writing T under its main connective and assign false to the conclusion by writing F under its main connective.
C) / B // C A
T T F F
Making the conclusion, C A, false forces C to be true and A to be false since thats the only case in which a conditional is false.
C) / B // C A
T T T F F
This forces truth values on all the other Cs and As: all the Cs get true and and the As get false
C) / B // C A
T T F T F F
There are more forced truth values: since B is true, B must be false, so we assign F to all the Bs And now that we know A is false, A must be true.
/ B // C A
T F T F F
Now we can complete the table by filling in the truth value for the first premise. So the first premise is a true conditional with a true antecedent and true consequentand thats ok. The other sentences are ok too.
/ B // C A
T F T F F
Since everythings ok, this is a possible truth value assignment Since this truth value assignment makes all the premises true and the conclusion false the argument is shown to be invalid.