0% found this document useful (0 votes)

327 views903 pages

Discrete Structures Course Syllabus

This document contains the syllabus information for an introductory discrete structures course taught by John Theado at the University of South Florida. It outlines the textbook, course topics including logic, sets, relations, and counting, required materials, course format, grade distribution with exams, homework, and quizzes accounting for most of the grade, grading scale, policies on incomplete work and makeups, and expectations for students to take responsibility for their own learning and grades.

Uploaded by

Waqar Ali Soomro

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

327 views903 pages

Discrete Structures Course Syllabus

Uploaded by

Waqar Ali Soomro

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 903

Intro to Discrete Structures

COT 3100 - Spring 2021

Lecture Slides

John Theado, PhD

Department of Mathematics and Statistics

University of South Florida

February 9, 2022

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 1 / 157

Syllabus Information

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 2 / 157

Syllabus Information

Textbook and Course Topics

Textbook: Discrete Mathematics with Applications, 5th Edition by Susanna Epp.

Course Topics:

I Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements,

I Statements and forms, Negation, Conjunction, Disjunction, Conditional
I Logical Equivalences, Arguments and forms, Validity/Invalidity, Soundness

I Chapter 3: Predicates and Quantified Statements

I Predicates and Truth Sets
I Universal and Extistential Quantifiers, Multiple Quantifiers
I Arguments involving Quantifiers

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 3 / 157

Syllabus Information

clickers. Occasionally we will have brief clicker questions worth at least partial
credit for participation.
I To participate in any clicker questions, you must be present for the entire
lecture. Do not ask me or anyone else if these have occurred or will occur.
I Responding to clicker questions without being present for the full lecture,
responding for another student, or otherwise attempting to time these as a
means of receiving credit but avoiding attendance is considered a violation
of the academic integrity policy.

I Webassign Homework (15%) - There will be regular homework given on

Webassign.
I You are expected to work on these immediately upon availability and make
reasonable progress.
I Waiting until at or near the deadline to complete most of it is not considered
reasonable progress.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 7 / 157

Syllabus Information

I Quizzes (15%) - Occasionally we will have a quiz, either in class, in Canvas, or

some other format. These may be given with little to no notice. Check Canvas
every day for announcements/quizzes.
I Exams (60%) - We will have three scheduled exams, each containing material
covered up to that point not already tested, although possibly involving earlier
concepts. The final, third exam, will not be comprehensive.

Rest assured, all exam content will make use of the concepts we intend to cover even
if you have not encountered the particular problems.

I The “A” students will be able to identify which concepts are needed to solve any
problems encountered and apply those concepts to do so.
I Other students may be able to get by on some easier problems, but not be able
to tackle on more difficult ones.

Approach each homework and practice problem with the goal of producing solutions,
not simply finding answers.
Work toward each solution with pen and paper, knowing at each step how you arrived
there and which concept(s) you used, before being content with your solution.
John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 8 / 157
Syllabus Information

Grading Scale

Your most up to date course average will be visible on Canvas.

Grading Scale
97.00 ≤ A+ < 100.00 74.00 ≤ C < 77.00
94.00 ≤ A < 97.00 70.00 ≤ C- < 74.00
90.00 ≤ A- < 94.00 67.00 ≤ D+ < 70.00
87.00 ≤ B+ < 90.00 64.00 ≤ D < 67.00
84.00 ≤ B < 87.00 60.00 ≤ D- < 64.00
80.00 ≤ B- < 83.00 0.00 ≤ F < 60.00
77.00 ≤ C+ < 80.00

Warning: Final grades will not be rounded, e.g. a 69.99 is considered a D+.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 9 / 157

Syllabus Information

Incomplete Work and Make-up Considerations

Your final grade will be computed based on a reasonable amount of missed work:

I Attendance/Participation - About four (4) sessions will be dropped.

I Webassign Homework - Roughly 85% completion for full credit for each of of the
three homework sets.
I Quizzes - One (1) quiz will be dropped.
I Exams - All exams must be taken, but a make-up exam for valid excuses may be
granted if appropriate.

To recover intangible benefits of missed work, such as observing class and the
opportunity to practice, read the textbook, my notes, and look for problems in the text.
As such, requests for extensions on these will not be considered. Email requests for
extensions will go unanswered.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 10 / 157

Syllabus Information

If you are falling behind due to extreme circumstances where the automatic
remedies are insufficient, plan to meet with me to discuss the need and a plan.

I If anticipated, inform me of the extreme circumstances immediately.

I Bring supporting documentation.
I Work on available coursework and exam prep until our meeting, using the
textbook and notes to refer back to relevant earlier material.
I Missed attendance cannot be made up.

No make-up work will be given until meeting unless circumstances absolutely

require it, in which case it will not apply toward the grade until at least the
meeting.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 11 / 157

Syllabus Information

Roles and Expectations

One of my roles in this course is to set it up, which is mostly complete, and maintain
and make necessary adjustments during the semester.
Although I wish for your success in this and all of your other courses and endeavors, I
am not here to directly affect your grade. Your grade is your responsibility.
My other major role is to help you learn the material, by giving lectures, hosting Friday
sessions, and being available Tuesday to visi with, in order to indirectly help you
achieve a good grade.
If your goal is to maximize your grade while minimizing your learning and effort, then
the grade distribution/scale and requirements are clear. Don’t expect my assistance.
If your goal is to learn as much as possible in order to earn your best grade, then feel
free to seek my help in this regard.
Regardless, do so within the bounds of academic integrity, by behaving, acting, and
communicating with honest intent.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 12 / 157

Syllabus Information

Other expectations:

I Respectful as well as honest communication, whether verbal or written, with me,

SMART Lab staff, and other students.
I Coming to class and attending the Friday sessions, or otherwise accepting the
consequences when you do not.
I Starting and finishing assignments at the earliest opportunity, or otherwise
accepting the consequences for not doing so.
I Log into Canvas and Webassign every day, to stay informed by looking for new
announcements (not merely reading announcement emails), new additions to
our class page, marking deadlines, dates AND times, on your calendar, and
anything else necessary to stay engaged with the course, or accept the
consequences for not doing so.
I Staying informed of and availing yourself of any resources available to help
succeeed, or accept the consequences for not doing so.
I Make plans and time to accomplish all of these and, if you expect to be
successful, put in the time, effort, and attention for this course as for your other
courses. Otherwise, accept the consequence for not doing so.
John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 13 / 157
Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound

Statements

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 14 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical

Equivalence

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 15 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Introduction

An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of

an assertion.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 16 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Introduction

An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of

an assertion.

I The last statement of the sequence is called the conclusion.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 16 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Introduction

An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of

an assertion.

I The last statement of the sequence is called the conclusion.

I The preceding statements are called the premises.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 16 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Introduction

An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of

an assertion.

I The last statement of the sequence is called the conclusion.

I The preceding statements are called the premises.

In logic, we distinguish the form of an argument from its contents.

The following two arguments have different contents but the same form:

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 16 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Introduction

An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of

an assertion.

I The last statement of the sequence is called the conclusion.

I The preceding statements are called the premises.

In logic, we distinguish the form of an argument from its contents.

The following two arguments have different contents but the same form:

If the bell rings or the flag drops, then the race is over.
∴ If the race is not over, then the bell hasn’t rung and
the flag hasn’t dropped.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 16 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Introduction

An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of

an assertion.

I The last statement of the sequence is called the conclusion.

I The preceding statements are called the premises.

In logic, we distinguish the form of an argument from its contents.

The following two arguments have different contents but the same form:

If the bell rings or the flag drops, then the race is over.
∴ If the race is not over, then the bell hasn’t rung and
the flag hasn’t dropped.

If x = −2 or x = 2 then x 2 = 4
∴ If x 2 6= 4 then x 6= −2 and x 6= 2.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 16 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

These statements have the following valid argument form.

If p or q then r .
∴ If not r then not p and not q.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 17 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

These statements have the following valid argument form.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 17 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

These statements have the following valid argument form.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 17 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

These statements have the following valid argument form.

If p or q then r .
∴ If not r then not p and not q.
It is a valid form since any substitution for the component statements p, q, and
r which make all the premise(s) true guarantees the truth of the conclusion.
Not every argument is valid, such as when you can have true premises but a
false conclusion.
Additionally, not every valid argument is used soundly, i.e. when not all
premises are true.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 17 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

both (or neither).
We often symbolize a statement with letters like p, q, and r .
Examples:

I Let q be the statement I have an umbrella.
I Then “p and q”, or symbolically p ∧ q, symbolizes the compound
statement It is raining and I have an umbrella.

Remark: When distinguishing a statement from a non-statement, it not

important that you can determine its truth value, which may be impossible.
Rather, it is important that it must have one, and only one.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 18 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 19 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Which of the following sentences should we consider as

statements?

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 19 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Which of the following sentences should we consider as

statements?

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 19 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Which of the following sentences should we consider as

statements?

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 19 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Compound Statements

A compound statement is a statement formed from simpler statements using

connectives such as and, or , and not, symbolized with ∧, ∨, and ∼
respectively.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 20 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Compound Statements

A compound statement is a statement formed from simpler statements using

connectives such as and, or , and not, symbolized with ∧, ∨, and ∼
respectively.
Example: Consider the statements

p :It is raining.
q :I will bring an umbrella.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 20 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Compound Statements

A compound statement is a statement formed from simpler statements using

connectives such as and, or , and not, symbolized with ∧, ∨, and ∼
respectively.
Example: Consider the statements

p :It is raining.
q :I will bring an umbrella.

Then ∼p ∨ q symbolizes the statement It is not raining or I will bring an

umbrella.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 20 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Compound Statements

A compound statement is a statement formed from simpler statements using

connectives such as and, or , and not, symbolized with ∧, ∨, and ∼
respectively.
Example: Consider the statements

p :It is raining.
q :I will bring an umbrella.

Then ∼p ∨ q symbolizes the statement It is not raining or I will bring an

umbrella.
Remark: Order of operations specifies that ∼ is evaluated first, i.e. the above
statement is equivalent to (∼p) ∨ q rather than ∼(p ∨ q ). This is analogous to
the fact that −1 + 2 is equal to 1 but not −3.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 20 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Let p and q be statements.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 21 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Let p and q be statements.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 21 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Let p and q be statements.

I The negation of p is “not p” or “It is not the case that p” which we denote
as ∼p (or occasionally ¬p). It always has the opposite truth value of p: If
p is true then ∼p is false; if p is false then ∼p is true.
I The conjunction of p and q is “p and q”. It is true only when both p and
q are true. If either p or q is false, or both are false, then p ∧ q is false.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 21 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Let p and q be statements.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 21 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Let p and q be statements.

Remark 1: Although we often use “or” exclusively in language, meaning p or q

but not both, mathematicians and logicians use it inclusively, which allow that
p and q both be true for the disjunction to be true.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 21 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Let p and q be statements.

Remark 1: Although we often use “or” exclusively in language, meaning p or q

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 21 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Let p and q be statements.

Remark 1: Although we often use “or” exclusively in language, meaning p or q

but not both, mathematicians and logicians use it inclusively, which allow that
p and q both be true for the disjunction to be true.
Remark 2: It is possible to encounter compound statements using connectives
other than “and”, “or”, and “not” such as “but” and “neither-nor”. In these
cases, “p but q” means “p and q” (p ∧ q) and “neither p nor q” means “not p
and not q” (∼p ∧ ∼q).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 21 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Symbolize the given statements using

p :It is raining.
q :I will bring an umbrella.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 22 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Symbolize the given statements using

p :It is raining.
q :I will bring an umbrella.

1. It is raining and I will bring an umbrella.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 22 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Symbolize the given statements using

p :It is raining.
q :I will bring an umbrella.

1. It is raining and I will bring an umbrella. p ∧ q

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 22 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Symbolize the given statements using

p :It is raining.
q :I will bring an umbrella.

1. It is raining and I will bring an umbrella. p ∧ q

2. It is raining or I will bring an umbrella.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 22 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Symbolize the given statements using

p :It is raining.
q :I will bring an umbrella.

1. It is raining and I will bring an umbrella. p ∧ q

2. It is raining or I will bring an umbrella. p ∨ q

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 22 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Symbolize the given statements using

p :It is raining.
q :I will bring an umbrella.

1. It is raining and I will bring an umbrella. p ∧ q

2. It is raining or I will bring an umbrella. p ∨ q
3. It is not raining or I will bring an umbrella.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 22 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Symbolize the given statements using

p :It is raining.
q :I will bring an umbrella.

1. It is raining and I will bring an umbrella. p ∧ q

2. It is raining or I will bring an umbrella. p ∨ q
3. It is not raining or I will bring an umbrella. ∼p ∨ q

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 22 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Symbolize the given statements using

p :It is raining.
q :I will bring an umbrella.

1. It is raining and I will bring an umbrella. p ∧ q

2. It is raining or I will bring an umbrella. p ∨ q
3. It is not raining or I will bring an umbrella. ∼p ∨ q
4. It is not raining but I will bring an umbrella.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 22 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Symbolize the given statements using

p :It is raining.
q :I will bring an umbrella.

1. It is raining and I will bring an umbrella. p ∧ q

2. It is raining or I will bring an umbrella. p ∨ q
3. It is not raining or I will bring an umbrella. ∼p ∨ q
4. It is not raining but I will bring an umbrella. ∼p ∧ q

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 22 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Symbolize the given statements using

p :It is raining.
q :I will bring an umbrella.

1. It is raining and I will bring an umbrella. p ∧ q

2. It is raining or I will bring an umbrella. p ∨ q
3. It is not raining or I will bring an umbrella. ∼p ∨ q
4. It is not raining but I will bring an umbrella. ∼p ∧ q
5. It is neither raining nor will I bring an umbrella.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 22 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Symbolize the given statements using

p :It is raining.
q :I will bring an umbrella.

1. It is raining and I will bring an umbrella. p ∧ q

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 22 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Recall notation for inequalities:

x ≤a means x <a or x =a
a≤x ≤b means a≤x and x ≤ b.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 23 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Recall notation for inequalities:

x ≤a means x <a or x =a
a≤x ≤b means a≤x and x ≤ b.
Example: For an x ∈ R, let p, q, and r symbolize the statements −1 < x,
x < 5, and x = 5 respectively. Symbolize the following statements in terms of
p, q, and r :

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 23 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Recall notation for inequalities:

1. x ≤ 5

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 23 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Recall notation for inequalities:

1. x ≤ 5 q ∨ r , i.e. x is less than 5 or x is equal to 5.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 23 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Recall notation for inequalities:

1. x ≤ 5 q ∨ r , i.e. x is less than 5 or x is equal to 5.

2. −1 < x < 5

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 23 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Recall notation for inequalities:

1. x ≤ 5 q ∨ r , i.e. x is less than 5 or x is equal to 5.

2. −1 < x < 5 p ∧ q, i.e x > −1 and x < 5.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 23 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Recall notation for inequalities:

1. x ≤ 5 q ∨ r , i.e. x is less than 5 or x is equal to 5.

2. −1 < x < 5 p ∧ q, i.e x > −1 and x < 5.
3. −1 < x ≤ 5

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 23 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Recall notation for inequalities:

1. x ≤ 5 q ∨ r , i.e. x is less than 5 or x is equal to 5.

2. −1 < x < 5 p ∧ q, i.e x > −1 and x < 5.
3. −1 < x ≤ 5 p ∧ (q ∨ r ).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 23 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Recall notation for inequalities:

1. x ≤ 5 q ∨ r , i.e. x is less than 5 or x is equal to 5.

2. −1 < x < 5 p ∧ q, i.e x > −1 and x < 5.
3. −1 < x ≤ 5 p ∧ (q ∨ r ).
4. x ≤ −1

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 23 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Recall notation for inequalities:

1. x ≤ 5 q ∨ r , i.e. x is less than 5 or x is equal to 5.

2. −1 < x < 5 p ∧ q, i.e x > −1 and x < 5.
3. −1 < x ≤ 5 p ∧ (q ∨ r ).
4. x ≤ −1 ∼p since x > −1 and x ≤ −1 always have opposite truth
values for any value of x.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 23 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Statement Forms and Truth Tables

A statement form (or propositional form) is an expression made up of

statement variables (such as p, q, and r ), and logical connectives (such as ∼,
∧, and ∨) that becomes a statement when actual statements are substituted
for the component statement variables.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 24 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Statement Forms and Truth Tables

A statement form (or propositional form) is an expression made up of

statement variables (such as p, q, and r ), and logical connectives (such as ∼,
∧, and ∨) that becomes a statement when actual statements are substituted
for the component statement variables.
The truth table for a given statement form gives the truth values
corresponding to all possible combinations of truth values for its component
statement variable.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 24 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Statement Forms and Truth Tables

A statement form (or propositional form) is an expression made up of

p ∼p
T F
F T

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 24 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Statement Forms and Truth Tables

A statement form (or propositional form) is an expression made up of

p ∼p
T F
F T
Note that since ∼p has n = 1 components involved, the truth table will have
2n = 21 = 2 rows for each possible combination of truth values.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 24 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Given statement variables p and q, let us construct a truth table for
their conjunction (p ∧ q) and disjunction (p ∨ q).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 25 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Given statement variables p and q, let us construct a truth table for
their conjunction (p ∧ q) and disjunction (p ∨ q).

p q

Make columns for each component statement.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 25 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Given statement variables p and q, let us construct a truth table for
their conjunction (p ∧ q) and disjunction (p ∨ q).

p q
T
F
T
F

Alternate true (T) and (F) false for the last component statement variable.
This will be our convention.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 25 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Given statement variables p and q, let us construct a truth table for
their conjunction (p ∧ q) and disjunction (p ∨ q).

p q
T T
T F
F T
F F

Alternate two trues and two falses for the previous column.
This will account for all possible truth values for components.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 25 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Given statement variables p and q, let us construct a truth table for
their conjunction (p ∧ q) and disjunction (p ∨ q).

p q p∧q
T T
T F
F T
F F

Add a column for the conjunction.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 25 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Given statement variables p and q, let us construct a truth table for
their conjunction (p ∧ q) and disjunction (p ∨ q).

p q p∧q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F

Fill in the truth values for each row corresponding to the component values.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 25 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Given statement variables p and q, let us construct a truth table for
their conjunction (p ∧ q) and disjunction (p ∨ q).

p q p∧q p∨q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F

Now do the same for the disjunction.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 25 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Given statement variables p and q, let us construct a truth table for
their conjunction (p ∧ q) and disjunction (p ∨ q).

p q p∧q p∨q
T T T T
T F F T
F T F T
F F F F

Now do the same for the disjunction.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 25 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Given statement variables p and q, let us construct a truth table for
their conjunction (p ∧ q) and disjunction (p ∨ q).

p q p∧q p∨q
T T T T
T F F T
F T F T
F F F F

We have completed the truth table.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 25 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Construct a truth table for the statement form (p ∧ q ) ∨ ∼r .

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 26 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Construct a truth table for the statement form (p ∧ q ) ∨ ∼r .

p q r

Make columns for each component statement.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 26 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Construct a truth table for the statement form (p ∧ q ) ∨ ∼r .

p q r
T
F
T
F
T
F
T
F
Alternate T and F for the r column.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 26 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Construct a truth table for the statement form (p ∧ q ) ∨ ∼r .

p q r
T T
T F
F T
F F
T T
T F
F T
F F
Alternate TT and FF for the q column to the left.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 26 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Construct a truth table for the statement form (p ∧ q ) ∨ ∼r .

p q r
T T T
T T F
T F T
T F F
F T T
F T F
F F T
F F F
Alternate TTTT and FFFF for the p column to the left.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 26 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Construct a truth table for the statement form (p ∧ q ) ∨ ∼r .

p q r p∧q
T T T T
T T F T
T F T F
T F F F
F T T F
F T F F
F F T F
F F F F
Make a helper column for the component p ∧ q and fill.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 26 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Construct a truth table for the statement form (p ∧ q ) ∨ ∼r .

p q r p∧q ∼r
T T T T F
T T F T T
T F T F F
T F F F T
F T T F F
F T F F T
F F T F F
F F F F T
Make a helper column for the component ∼r and fill.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 26 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Construct a truth table for the statement form (p ∧ q ) ∨ ∼r .

p q r p∧q ∼r (p ∧ q ) ∨ ∼r
T T T T F T
T T F T T T
T F T F F F
T F F F T T
F T T F F F
F T F F T T
F F T F F F
F F F F T T
Complete the table from the helper columns.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 26 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Construct a truth table for the statement form (p ∧ q ) ∨ ∼r .

p q r p∧q ∼r (p ∧ q ) ∨ ∼r
T T T T F T
T T F T T T
T F T F F F
T F F F T T
F T T F F F
F T F F T T
F F T F F F
F F F F T T

Note: Strictly speaking, helper columns are not necessary. We use them,
however, to work toward the final statement in a way that each new column is
formed simply as a conjunction, disjunction, or negation involving previous
columns.
John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 26 / 157
Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Exercise: Consider the previously mentioned exclusive or, which may be

symbolized as p xor q or p ⊕ q, meaning p or q but not both.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 27 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Exercise: Consider the previously mentioned exclusive or, which may be

symbolized as p xor q or p ⊕ q, meaning p or q but not both. Construct a
statement form for p ⊕ q using ∧, ∨, and ∼ and form a truth table. Is the result
what you expect?

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 27 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Logical Equivalence
Consider statement forms A and B possibly using some of the same statement
variables.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 28 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Logical Equivalence
Consider statement forms A and B possibly using some of the same statement
variables.
That is, for example, A could represent ∼p ∨ q and B some other statement
form.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 28 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 28 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 28 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Logical Equivalence
Consider statement forms A and B possibly using some of the same statement
variables.
That is, for example, A could represent ∼p ∨ q and B some other statement
form.
A and B are considered logically equivalent, denoted A ≡ B, if any
substitution of statement variables with statements (or truth values) results in
the same truth value.
In other words, two statement forms are equivalent if they have identical
columns in a truth table.
In the same way, two statement forms, presented in two different truth tables,
are equivalent if they have identical columns so long as they are consistently
labeled such as by our convention!

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 28 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: (double negation) The statement form p is logically equivalent to

∼(∼p), i.e. p ≡ ∼(∼p).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 29 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: (double negation) The statement form p is logically equivalent to

∼(∼p), i.e. p ≡ ∼(∼p).
Proof: Substituting either a true or false statement for p yields the same truth
value for ∼(∼p), as evidenced by the following truth table:

p ∼p ∼(∼p)
T F T
F T F

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 29 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: (double negation) The statement form p is logically equivalent to

∼(∼p), i.e. p ≡ ∼(∼p).
Proof: Substituting either a true or false statement for p yields the same truth
value for ∼(∼p), as evidenced by the following truth table:

p ∼p ∼(∼p)
T F T
F T F

Note the identical columns for both p and ∼(∼p).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 29 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Question: Does ∼ distribute with ∧ and ∨ in the same way that multiplication
distributes over addition?

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 30 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 30 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 30 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Question: Does ∼ distribute with ∧ and ∨ in the same way that multiplication
distributes over addition?
Solution: Not exactly. Let’s look at a truth table for both ∼(p ∧ q ) and
∼p ∧ ∼q:
p q p∧q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 30 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 30 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 30 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 30 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 30 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 30 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 30 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 30 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 30 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Since the columns for ∼(p ∧ q ) and ∼p ∧ ∼q do not match, the statements
are not equivalent, and hence the analogous distributive property does not
always hold.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 30 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Since the columns for ∼(p ∧ q ) and ∼p ∧ ∼q do not match, the statements
are not equivalent, and hence the analogous distributive property does not
always hold.
However, if we add a column for ∼p ∨ ∼q we see that it is equivalent to
∼(p ∧ q ).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 30 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

De Morgan’s Laws

De Morgan’s laws:
i. ∼(p ∧ q ) ≡ ∼p ∨ ∼q
ii. ∼(p ∨ q ) ≡ ∼p ∧ ∼q

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 31 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

De Morgan’s Laws

De Morgan’s laws:
i. ∼(p ∧ q ) ≡ ∼p ∨ ∼q
ii. ∼(p ∨ q ) ≡ ∼p ∧ ∼q
The first law may be read as the negation of the conjunction is equivalent to
the disjunction of the negations.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 31 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

De Morgan’s Laws

De Morgan’s laws:
i. ∼(p ∧ q ) ≡ ∼p ∨ ∼q
ii. ∼(p ∨ q ) ≡ ∼p ∧ ∼q
The first law may be read as the negation of the conjunction is equivalent to
the disjunction of the negations.
The second law may be read as the negation of the disjunction is equivalent to
the conjunction of the negations.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 31 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

De Morgan’s Laws

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 31 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Negate the statement −2 ≤ x < 5.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 32 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Negate the statement −2 ≤ x < 5.

Solution: Intuitively, this statement is true only for those values of x in the interval
[−2, 5), so the negation will be true for all values of x outside this interval, meaning x
is is either in (−∞, −2) or [5, ∞). That is, x < −2 or x ≥ 5. Let’s see:

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 32 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Negate the statement −2 ≤ x < 5.

I If p is the statement −2 ≤ x and q the statement x < 5, then p ∧ q symbolizes

the statement −2 ≤ x < 5.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 32 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Negate the statement −2 ≤ x < 5.

I If p is the statement −2 ≤ x and q the statement x < 5, then p ∧ q symbolizes

the statement −2 ≤ x < 5.
I By De Morgan’s law’s, the negation ∼(p ∧ q ) is equivalent to ∼p ∨ ∼q.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 32 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Negate the statement −2 ≤ x < 5.

I If p is the statement −2 ≤ x and q the statement x < 5, then p ∧ q symbolizes

the statement −2 ≤ x < 5.
I By De Morgan’s law’s, the negation ∼(p ∧ q ) is equivalent to ∼p ∨ ∼q.
I Then ∼p is the statement x < −2 and ∼q is the statement x ≥ 5 so the
negation ∼p ∨ ∼q is the statement x < −2 or x ≥ 5 as expected.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 32 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Negate the statement −2 ≤ x < 5.

I If p is the statement −2 ≤ x and q the statement x < 5, then p ∧ q symbolizes

Remark: The original statement, in the universe of real numbers, is equivalent to

saying x is in the interval [−2, 5).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 32 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Negate the statement −2 ≤ x < 5.

I If p is the statement −2 ≤ x and q the statement x < 5, then p ∧ q symbolizes

Remark: The original statement, in the universe of real numbers, is equivalent to

saying x is in the interval [−2, 5).
The negation is saying that x is not in this interval, which is to say x is in
(−∞, −2) ∪ [5, ∞).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 32 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Negate the statement −2 ≤ x < 5.

I If p is the statement −2 ≤ x and q the statement x < 5, then p ∧ q symbolizes

Remark: The original statement, in the universe of real numbers, is equivalent to

saying x is in the interval [−2, 5).
The negation is saying that x is not in this interval, which is to say x is in
(−∞, −2) ∪ [5, ∞).
Conceptually, it may be easier for problem solving, to use logic as a tool for solving
such problems, and not the only tool!

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 32 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Negate the statement −2 ≤ x < 5 and 0 ≤ x < 7.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 33 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Negate the statement −2 ≤ x < 5 and 0 ≤ x < 7.

Solution: We could break this into a statement involving four separate
statement variables and form the negation with De Morgan’s Law, but that is
messy!

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 33 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Negate the statement −2 ≤ x < 5 and 0 ≤ x < 7.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 33 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Negate the statement −2 ≤ x < 5 and 0 ≤ x < 7.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 33 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Negate the statement −2 ≤ x < 5 and 0 ≤ x < 7.

Solution: We could break this into a statement involving four separate
statement variables and form the negation with De Morgan’s Law, but that is
messy!
Simplify the statement first: if −2 ≤ x < 5 and 0 ≤ x < 7, i.e. x is in both
intervals [−2, 5) and [0, 7), which is to say that x is in the intersection [0, 5),
then this is the same as 0 ≤ x < 5.
Now we have two statement variables instead of four, but we can also say that
the negation says that x is outside of this interval [0, 5), i.e. in the set
(−∞, 0) ∪ [5, ∞).
That is to say the negation is x < 0 or 5 ≤ x.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 33 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Negate the statement −2 ≤ x < 5 and 0 ≤ x < 7.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 33 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Tautologies and Contradictions

A tautology or tautological statement is a statement form that is always

true, regardless of the truth values of its component statements.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 34 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Tautologies and Contradictions

A tautology or tautological statement is a statement form that is always

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 34 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Tautologies and Contradictions

A tautology or tautological statement is a statement form that is always

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 34 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Tautologies and Contradictions

A tautology or tautological statement is a statement form that is always

true, regardless of the truth values of its component statements.
A contradiction or contradictory statement is a statement form that is
always false, regardless of the truth values of its component statements.
Example: Show that p ∨ ∼p is a tautology and p ∧ ∼p is a contradiction.
Solution: These should be obvious from the definitions: either a statement or
its negation must be true (p ∨ ∼p), while a statement and its negation cannot
both be true (p ∧ ∼p), but let’s make a truth table:

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 34 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Tautologies and Contradictions

A tautology or tautological statement is a statement form that is always

Summary of Logical Equivalences

Let p, q, r be statement variables, t a tautology, and c a contradiction. Then

1. Commutative laws: p∧q ≡ q ∧p p∨q ≡ q ∨p

2. Associative laws: (p ∧ q ) ∧ r ≡ p ∧ (q ∧ r ) ( p ∨ q ) ∨ r ≡ p ∨ (q ∨ r )
3. Distributive laws: p ∧ (q ∨ r ) ≡ (p ∧ q ) ∨ (p ∧ r ) p ∨ (q ∧ r ) ≡ (p ∨ q ) ∧ (p ∨ r )
4. Identity laws: p∧t ≡ p p∨c ≡ p
5. Negation laws: p ∨ ∼p ≡ t p ∧ ∼p ≡ c
6. Double negative law: ∼(∼p) ≡ p
7. Idempotent laws: p∧p ≡ p p∨p ≡ p
8. Universal bound laws: p∨t ≡ t p∧c ≡ c
9. De Morgan’s laws: ∼(p ∧ q ) ≡ ∼p ∨ ∼q ∼(p ∨ q ) ≡ ∼p ∧ ∼q
10. Absorbtion laws: p ∨ (p ∧ q ) ≡ p p ∧ (p ∨ q ) ≡ p
11. Negations of t and c ∼t ≡ c ∼c ≡ t

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 35 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Summary of Logical Equivalences

Let p, q, r be statement variables, t a tautology, and c a contradiction. Then

1. Commutative laws: p∧q ≡ q ∧p p∨q ≡ q ∨p

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 35 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Verify the logical equivalence ∼(∼p ∧ q ) ∧ (p ∨ q ) ≡ p by

simplifying the left hand side to produce the right hand side.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 36 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Verify the logical equivalence ∼(∼p ∧ q ) ∧ (p ∨ q ) ≡ p by

simplifying the left hand side to produce the right hand side.
Solution:

∼(∼p ∧ q ) ∧ (p ∨ q )

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 36 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Verify the logical equivalence ∼(∼p ∧ q ) ∧ (p ∨ q ) ≡ p by

simplifying the left hand side to produce the right hand side.
Solution:

∼(∼p ∧ q ) ∧ (p ∨ q ) ≡ (∼(∼p) ∨ ∼q ) ∧ (p ∨ q ) by De Morgan’s law

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 36 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Verify the logical equivalence ∼(∼p ∧ q ) ∧ (p ∨ q ) ≡ p by

simplifying the left hand side to produce the right hand side.
Solution:

∼(∼p ∧ q ) ∧ (p ∨ q ) ≡ (∼(∼p) ∨ ∼q ) ∧ (p ∨ q ) by De Morgan’s law

≡ (p ∨ ∼q ) ∧ (p ∨ q ) by the double negative law

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 36 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Verify the logical equivalence ∼(∼p ∧ q ) ∧ (p ∨ q ) ≡ p by

simplifying the left hand side to produce the right hand side.
Solution:

∼(∼p ∧ q ) ∧ (p ∨ q ) ≡ (∼(∼p) ∨ ∼q ) ∧ (p ∨ q ) by De Morgan’s law

≡ (p ∨ ∼q ) ∧ (p ∨ q ) by the double negative law
≡ p ∨ (∼q ∧ q ) by the distributive law

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 36 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Verify the logical equivalence ∼(∼p ∧ q ) ∧ (p ∨ q ) ≡ p by

simplifying the left hand side to produce the right hand side.
Solution:

∼(∼p ∧ q ) ∧ (p ∨ q ) ≡ (∼(∼p) ∨ ∼q ) ∧ (p ∨ q ) by De Morgan’s law

≡ (p ∨ ∼q ) ∧ (p ∨ q ) by the double negative law
≡ p ∨ (∼q ∧ q ) by the distributive law
≡ p ∨ (q ∧ ∼q ) by the commutative law

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 36 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Verify the logical equivalence ∼(∼p ∧ q ) ∧ (p ∨ q ) ≡ p by

simplifying the left hand side to produce the right hand side.
Solution:

∼(∼p ∧ q ) ∧ (p ∨ q ) ≡ (∼(∼p) ∨ ∼q ) ∧ (p ∨ q ) by De Morgan’s law

≡ (p ∨ ∼q ) ∧ (p ∨ q ) by the double negative law
≡ p ∨ (∼q ∧ q ) by the distributive law
≡ p ∨ (q ∧ ∼q ) by the commutative law
≡ p∨c by the negation law

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 36 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Verify the logical equivalence ∼(∼p ∧ q ) ∧ (p ∨ q ) ≡ p by

simplifying the left hand side to produce the right hand side.
Solution:

∼(∼p ∧ q ) ∧ (p ∨ q ) ≡ (∼(∼p) ∨ ∼q ) ∧ (p ∨ q ) by De Morgan’s law

≡ (p ∨ ∼q ) ∧ (p ∨ q ) by the double negative law
≡ p ∨ (∼q ∧ q ) by the distributive law
≡ p ∨ (q ∧ ∼q ) by the commutative law
≡ p∨c by the negation law
≡p by the identity law

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 36 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 1: Logical Forms and Logical Equivalence

Example: Verify the logical equivalence ∼(∼p ∧ q ) ∧ (p ∨ q ) ≡ p by

simplifying the left hand side to produce the right hand side.
Solution:

∼(∼p ∧ q ) ∧ (p ∨ q ) ≡ (∼(∼p) ∨ ∼q ) ∧ (p ∨ q ) by De Morgan’s law

Exercise: Verify the equivalence instead with a truth table.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 36 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Section 2: Conditional Statements

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 37 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Conditional Statements

Let p and q be statements. A sentence of the form “If p then q”, denoted
symbolically as p → q is called a conditional statement where

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 38 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Conditional Statements

Let p and q be statements. A sentence of the form “If p then q”, denoted
symbolically as p → q is called a conditional statement where

I p is called the hypothesis or antecedent.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 38 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Conditional Statements

Let p and q be statements. A sentence of the form “If p then q”, denoted
symbolically as p → q is called a conditional statement where

I p is called the hypothesis or antecedent.

I q is called the conclusion or consequent.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 38 / 157

If you reboot the computer , then the

| {z } {zbe resolved} .
| issue will
p q

Under what circumstances did the agent speak falsely?

p q p→q Explanation
T T

T F

F T
F F

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 39 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Suppose you are on call with a tech support agent about a
computer issue. The agent states:

If you reboot the computer , then the

| {z } {zbe resolved} .
| issue will
p q

Under what circumstances did the agent speak falsely?

p q p→q Explanation
T T T If you reboot, and this solves the issue, the
agent spoke true.
T F

F T
F F

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 39 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Suppose you are on call with a tech support agent about a
computer issue. The agent states:

If you reboot the computer , then the

| {z } {zbe resolved} .
| issue will
p q

Under what circumstances did the agent speak falsely?

p q p→q Explanation
T T T If you reboot, and this solves the issue, the
agent spoke true.
T F F If you reboot, but this does not solve the issue,
the agent spoke falsely.
F T
F F

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 39 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Suppose you are on call with a tech support agent about a
computer issue. The agent states:

If you reboot the computer , then the

| {z } {zbe resolved} .
| issue will
p q

Under what circumstances did the agent speak falsely?

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 39 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Suppose you are on call with a tech support agent about a
computer issue. The agent states:

If you reboot the computer , then the

| {z } {zbe resolved} .
| issue will
p q

Under what circumstances did the agent speak falsely?

p q p→q Explanation
T T T If you reboot, and this solves the issue, the
agent spoke true.
T F F If you reboot, but this does not solve the issue,
the agent spoke falsely.
F T T But if you refuse to reboot, we cannot say that
F F T agent spoke falsely no matter what happens.
A conditional statement that is true because the hypothesis is false is called
vacuously true or true by default.
John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 39 / 157
Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example 1: Let x be a real number. If x has a terminating decimal expansion, then x

is rational.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 40 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example 1: Let x be a real number. If x has a terminating decimal expansion, then x

is rational.
Observe that the hypothesis is not always satisfied for any real number x, say as when
x = π or x = 13 . However,

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 40 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example 1: Let x be a real number. If x has a terminating decimal expansion, then x

is rational.
Observe that the hypothesis is not always satisfied for any real number x, say as when
x = π or x = 13 . However,

I If x has a terminating decimal expansion, then x is rational.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 40 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example 1: Let x be a real number. If x has a terminating decimal expansion, then x

is rational.
Observe that the hypothesis is not always satisfied for any real number x, say as when
x = π or x = 13 . However,

I If x has a terminating decimal expansion, then x is rational.

I If x does not have a terminating decimal expansion, i.e. the hypothesis is false, it
may or may not be rational, i.e. the consequent may be true or false.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 40 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example 1: Let x be a real number. If x has a terminating decimal expansion, then x

is rational.
Observe that the hypothesis is not always satisfied for any real number x, say as when
x = π or x = 13 . However,

I If x has a terminating decimal expansion, then x is rational.

I If x does not have a terminating decimal expansion, i.e. the hypothesis is false, it
may or may not be rational, i.e. the consequent may be true or false.

Regardless, we want this statement to always be true, and the consequent considered
true conditionally based on the truth of the hypothesis.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 40 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example 1: Let x be a real number. If x has a terminating decimal expansion, then x

is rational.
Observe that the hypothesis is not always satisfied for any real number x, say as when
x = π or x = 13 . However,

I If x has a terminating decimal expansion, then x is rational.

I If x does not have a terminating decimal expansion, i.e. the hypothesis is false, it
may or may not be rational, i.e. the consequent may be true or false.

Regardless, we want this statement to always be true, and the consequent considered
true conditionally based on the truth of the hypothesis.
Example 2: Consider the statement

If 0 = 1 then 1 = 2.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 40 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example 1: Let x be a real number. If x has a terminating decimal expansion, then x

is rational.
Observe that the hypothesis is not always satisfied for any real number x, say as when
x = π or x = 13 . However,

I If x has a terminating decimal expansion, then x is rational.

I If x does not have a terminating decimal expansion, i.e. the hypothesis is false, it
may or may not be rational, i.e. the consequent may be true or false.

Regardless, we want this statement to always be true, and the consequent considered
true conditionally based on the truth of the hypothesis.
Example 2: Consider the statement

If 0 = 1 then 1 = 2.

As strange as it may seem, this statement is vacuously true by virtue of always having
a false hypothesis. Contrary to Example 1 though, it does not have much use outside
of being an example.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 40 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Construct a truth table for p ∨ ∼q → ∼p.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 41 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Construct a truth table for p ∨ ∼q → ∼p.

Solution: Note that the precedence of → is low, so that that will be resolved
last. We should be comfortable filling most of the truth table at this point.

p q ∼q p ∨ ∼q ∼p
T T F T F
T F T T F
F T F F T
F F T T T

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 41 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Construct a truth table for p ∨ ∼q → ∼p.

Solution: Note that the precedence of → is low, so that that will be resolved
last. We should be comfortable filling most of the truth table at this point.

p q ∼q p ∨ ∼q ∼p p ∨ ∼q → ∼p
T T F T F
T F T T F
F T F F T
F F T T T

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 41 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Construct a truth table for p ∨ ∼q → ∼p.

Solution: Note that the precedence of → is low, so that that will be resolved
last. We should be comfortable filling most of the truth table at this point.

p q ∼q p ∨ ∼q ∼p p ∨ ∼q → ∼p
T T F T F F
T F T T F
F T F F T
F F T T T

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 41 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Construct a truth table for p ∨ ∼q → ∼p.

Solution: Note that the precedence of → is low, so that that will be resolved
last. We should be comfortable filling most of the truth table at this point.

p q ∼q p ∨ ∼q ∼p p ∨ ∼q → ∼p
T T F T F F
T F T T F F
F T F F T
F F T T T

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 41 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Construct a truth table for p ∨ ∼q → ∼p.

Solution: Note that the precedence of → is low, so that that will be resolved
last. We should be comfortable filling most of the truth table at this point.

p q ∼q p ∨ ∼q ∼p p ∨ ∼q → ∼p
T T F T F F
T F T T F F
F T F F T T
F F T T T

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 41 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Construct a truth table for p ∨ ∼q → ∼p.

Solution: Note that the precedence of → is low, so that that will be resolved
last. We should be comfortable filling most of the truth table at this point.

p q ∼q p ∨ ∼q ∼p p ∨ ∼q → ∼p
T T F T F F
T F T T F F
F T F F T T
F F T T T T

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 41 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Construct a truth table for p ∨ ∼q → ∼p.

Solution: Note that the precedence of → is low, so that that will be resolved
last. We should be comfortable filling most of the truth table at this point.

p q ∼q p ∨ ∼q ∼p p ∨ ∼q → ∼p
T T F T F F
T F T T F F
F T F F T T
F F T T T T
Remark: While ∨ and ∧ are commutative, → is not. We must be careful when
determining the truth table for conditionals.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 41 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r )

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 42 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r )

p q r

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 42 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r )

p q r
T
F
T
F
T
F
T
F

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 42 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r )

p q r
T T
T F
F T
F F
T T
T F
F T
F F

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 42 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r )

p q r
T T T
T T F
T F T
T F F
F T T
F T F
F F T
F F F

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 42 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r )

p q r p∨q
T T T T
T T F T
T F T T
T F F T
F T T T
F T F T
F F T F
F F F F

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 42 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r )

p q r p∨q p∨q → r
T T T T
T T F T
T F T T
T F F T
F T T T
F T F T
F F T F
F F F F

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 42 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r )

p q r p∨q p∨q → r
T T T T
T T F T
T F T T
T F F T
F T T T
F T F T
F F T F
F F F F

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 42 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r )

p q r p∨q p∨q → r
T T T T
T T F T
T F T T
T F F T
F T T T
F T F T
F F T F T
F F F F T

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 42 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r )

p q r p∨q p∨q → r
T T T T T
T T F T F
T F T T T
T F F T F
F T T T T
F T F T F
F F T F T
F F F F T

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 42 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r )

p q r p∨q p∨q → r p→r

T T T T T
T T F T F
T F T T T
T F F T F
F T T T T
F T F T F
F F T F T
F F F F T

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 42 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r )

p q r p∨q p∨q → r p→r

T T T T T
T T F T F
T F T T T
T F F T F
F T T T T
F T F T F
F F T F T
F F F F T

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 42 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r )

p q r p∨q p∨q → r p→r

T T T T T
T T F T F
T F T T T
T F F T F
F T T T T T
F T F T F T
F F T F T T
F F F F T T

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 42 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r )

p q r p∨q p∨q → r p→r

T T T T T T
T T F T F F
T F T T T T
T F F T F F
F T T T T T
F T F T F T
F F T F T T
F F F F T T

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 42 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r )

p q r p∨q p∨q → r p→r q→r

T T T T T T
T T F T F F
T F T T T T
T F F T F F
F T T T T T
F T F T F T
F F T F T T
F F F F T T

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 42 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r )

p q r p∨q p∨q → r p→r q→r

T T T T T T
T T F T F F
T F T T T T
T F F T F F
F T T T T T
F T F T F T
F F T F T T
F F F F T T

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 42 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r )

p q r p∨q p∨q → r p→r q→r

T T T T T T
T T F T F F
T F T T T T T
T F F T F F T
F T T T T T
F T F T F T
F F T F T T T
F F F F T T T

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 42 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r )

p q r p∨q p∨q → r p→r q→r

T T T T T T T
T T F T F F F
T F T T T T T
T F F T F F T
F T T T T T T
F T F T F T F
F F T F T T T
F F F F T T T

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 42 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r )

p q r p∨q p∨q → r p→r q→r p → r ∧q → r

T T T T T T T
T T F T F F F
T F T T T T T
T F F T F F T
F T T T T T T
F T F T F T F
F F T F T T T
F F F F T T T

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 42 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r )

p q r p∨q p∨q → r p→r q→r p → r ∧q → r

T T T T T T T T
T T F T F F F F
T F T T T T T T
T F F T F F T F
F T T T T T T T
F T F T F T F F
F F T F T T T T
F F F F T T T T

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 42 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example: Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r )

p q r p∨q p∨q → r p→r q→r p → r ∧q → r

T T T T T T T T
T T F T F F F F
T F T T T T T T
T F F T F F T F
F T T T T T T T
F T F T F T F F
F F T F T T T T
F F F F T T T T
The equivalence is established by verifying the two statements have identical
columns.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 42 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example (cont.): Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r ) .

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 43 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example (cont.): Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r ) .

Proof: We can also prove it with an argument.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 43 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example (cont.): Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r ) .

Proof: We can also prove it with an argument. Let’s consider two cases:

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 43 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example (cont.): Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r ) .

Proof: We can also prove it with an argument. Let’s consider two cases:
Case 1: r is true.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 43 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example (cont.): Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r ) .

Proof: We can also prove it with an argument. Let’s consider two cases:
Case 1: r is true. Then each conditional in the logical expression above is true.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 43 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example (cont.): Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r ) .

Proof: We can also prove it with an argument. Let’s consider two cases:
Case 1: r is true. Then each conditional in the logical expression above is true. This
makes the conjunction in the RHS true.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 43 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example (cont.): Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r ) .

Proof: We can also prove it with an argument. Let’s consider two cases:
Case 1: r is true. Then each conditional in the logical expression above is true. This
makes the conjunction in the RHS true. In this case, the LHS and RHS both have the
same truth value of true.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 43 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example (cont.): Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ ( p → r ) ∧ ( q → r ).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 43 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example (cont.): Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ ( p → r ) ∧ ( q → r ).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 43 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example (cont.): Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ ( p → r ) ∧ ( q → r ).

I Case 2a: If p ∨ q is false, both p and q must be false, making the hypothesis in
each conditional above false.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 43 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example (cont.): Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r ) .

I Case 2a: If p ∨ q is false, both p and q must be false, making the hypothesis in
each conditional above false. Then each conditional above will be vacuously
true.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 43 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example (cont.): Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r ) .

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 43 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example (cont.): Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r ).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 43 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example (cont.): Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ ( p → r )∧( q → r ).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 43 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example (cont.): Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ ( p → r )∧( q → r ).

I Case 2a: If p ∨ q is false, both p and q must be false, making the hypothesis in
each conditional above false. Then each conditional above will be vacuously
true. Hence the conjunction in the RHS true and both sides have the same truth
value again.
I Case 2b: Otherwise at least one of p or q is true making the hypothesis in the
LHS true. This makes the entire LHS false. Whether or not p, q, or both are true,
at least one of the conditionals will be false, making the conjunction false.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 43 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example (cont.): Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r ) .

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 43 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Example (cont.): Prove the equivalence p ∨ q → r ≡ (p → r ) ∧ (q → r ) .

Since we have demonstrated the equivalence in all possible cases, the proof is
complete.
John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 43 / 157
Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Consider the algorthmic difference between the previous proof and proving via
a truth table. If you were to approach this as a programming project, which
code would look nicer?

if p and q and r then if r then

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 44 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Consider the algorthmic difference between the previous proof and proving via
a truth table. If you were to approach this as a programming project, which
code would look nicer?

if p and q and r then if r then

Check statements Check statements assuming r
else if p and q and not r then is true
Check statements else
else if p and not q and r then Check statements assuming r
Check statements is false
. end if
.
.
end if
The approach on the left will get the job done, but the approach on the right
might involve less work, particularly in the case that r is true in our example.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 44 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Equivalent Or and Contrapositive Forms and Negation

Consider the statements p → q and ∼p ∨ q. You can easily verify the
equivalence with a truth table, but observe:

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 45 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Equivalent Or and Contrapositive Forms and Negation

Consider the statements p → q and ∼p ∨ q. You can easily verify the
equivalence with a truth table, but observe:

I If p → q is vacuously true, then p is false, in which case ∼p is true,

making ∼p ∨ q true, the same as p → q.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 45 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Equivalent Or and Contrapositive Forms and Negation

Consider the statements p → q and ∼p ∨ q. You can easily verify the
equivalence with a truth table, but observe:

I If p → q is vacuously true, then p is false, in which case ∼p is true,

making ∼p ∨ q true, the same as p → q.
I Otherwise, p is true, making ∼p false, in which case the truth value of
both p → q and ∼p ∨ q is the same as q.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 45 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Equivalent Or and Contrapositive Forms and Negation

Consider the statements p → q and ∼p ∨ q. You can easily verify the
equivalence with a truth table, but observe:

I If p → q is vacuously true, then p is false, in which case ∼p is true,

making ∼p ∨ q true, the same as p → q.
I Otherwise, p is true, making ∼p false, in which case the truth value of
both p → q and ∼p ∨ q is the same as q.

Regardless, p → q and ∼p ∨ q always have the same truth value no matter

what truth values are given for p and q.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 45 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Equivalent Or and Contrapositive Forms and Negation

Consider the statements p → q and ∼p ∨ q. You can easily verify the
equivalence with a truth table, but observe:

I If p → q is vacuously true, then p is false, in which case ∼p is true,

making ∼p ∨ q true, the same as p → q.
I Otherwise, p is true, making ∼p false, in which case the truth value of
both p → q and ∼p ∨ q is the same as q.

Regardless, p → q and ∼p ∨ q always have the same truth value no matter

what truth values are given for p and q.
Now, if we negate p → q, we have

∼(p → q )

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 45 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Equivalent Or and Contrapositive Forms and Negation

Consider the statements p → q and ∼p ∨ q. You can easily verify the
equivalence with a truth table, but observe:

I If p → q is vacuously true, then p is false, in which case ∼p is true,

making ∼p ∨ q true, the same as p → q.
I Otherwise, p is true, making ∼p false, in which case the truth value of
both p → q and ∼p ∨ q is the same as q.

Regardless, p → q and ∼p ∨ q always have the same truth value no matter

what truth values are given for p and q.
Now, if we negate p → q, we have

∼(p → q ) ≡ ∼(∼p ∨ q ) since p → q ≡ ∼p ∨ q

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 45 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Equivalent Or and Contrapositive Forms and Negation

Consider the statements p → q and ∼p ∨ q. You can easily verify the
equivalence with a truth table, but observe:

I If p → q is vacuously true, then p is false, in which case ∼p is true,

making ∼p ∨ q true, the same as p → q.
I Otherwise, p is true, making ∼p false, in which case the truth value of
both p → q and ∼p ∨ q is the same as q.

Regardless, p → q and ∼p ∨ q always have the same truth value no matter

what truth values are given for p and q.
Now, if we negate p → q, we have

∼(p → q ) ≡ ∼(∼p ∨ q ) since p → q ≡ ∼p ∨ q

≡ ∼(∼p) ∧ ∼q by De Morgan’s law.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 45 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Equivalent Or and Contrapositive Forms and Negation

Consider the statements p → q and ∼p ∨ q. You can easily verify the
equivalence with a truth table, but observe:

I If p → q is vacuously true, then p is false, in which case ∼p is true,

making ∼p ∨ q true, the same as p → q.
I Otherwise, p is true, making ∼p false, in which case the truth value of
both p → q and ∼p ∨ q is the same as q.

Regardless, p → q and ∼p ∨ q always have the same truth value no matter

what truth values are given for p and q.
Now, if we negate p → q, we have

∼(p → q ) ≡ ∼(∼p ∨ q ) since p → q ≡ ∼p ∨ q

≡ ∼(∼p) ∧ ∼q by De Morgan’s law.
≡ p ∧ ∼q by double negation.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 45 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

The contrapositive of “If p, then q” is “If not q, then not p. Symbolically, the
contrapositive of p → q is ∼q → ∼p.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 46 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

The contrapositive of “If p, then q” is “If not q, then not p. Symbolically, the
contrapositive of p → q is ∼q → ∼p.
Observe that any conditional statement is equivalent to its contrapositive:

∼q → ∼p

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 46 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

∼q → ∼p ≡ q ∨ ∼p Equivalent disjunction.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 46 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

∼q → ∼p ≡ q ∨ ∼p Equivalent disjunction.
≡ ∼p ∨ q Commutativity of ∨.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 46 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

∼q → ∼p ≡ q ∨ ∼p Equivalent disjunction.
≡ ∼p ∨ q Commutativity of ∨.
≡p→q Equivalent conditional.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 46 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

∼q → ∼p ≡ q ∨ ∼p Equivalent disjunction.
≡ ∼p ∨ q Commutativity of ∨.
≡p→q Equivalent conditional.

To summarize,
Statement
Name Example In Words
Form

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 46 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

∼q → ∼p ≡ q ∨ ∼p Equivalent disjunction.
≡ ∼p ∨ q Commutativity of ∨.
≡p→q Equivalent conditional.

To summarize,
Statement
Name Example In Words
Form
p→q Conditional If it rains, I will bring an umbrella.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 46 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

∼q → ∼p ≡ q ∨ ∼p Equivalent disjunction.
≡ ∼p ∨ q Commutativity of ∨.
≡p→q Equivalent conditional.

To summarize,
Statement
Name Example In Words
Form
p→q Conditional If it rains, I will bring an umbrella.
∼p ∨ q Equivalent Disjunction It won’t rain, or I will bring an umbrella.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 46 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

∼q → ∼p ≡ q ∨ ∼p Equivalent disjunction.
≡ ∼p ∨ q Commutativity of ∨.
≡p→q Equivalent conditional.

To summarize,
Statement
Name Example In Words
Form
p→q Conditional If it rains, I will bring an umbrella.
∼p ∨ q Equivalent Disjunction It won’t rain, or I will bring an umbrella.
Equivalent If I do not bring an umbrella, it did not
∼q → ∼p
Contrapositive rain.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 46 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

∼q → ∼p ≡ q ∨ ∼p Equivalent disjunction.
≡ ∼p ∨ q Commutativity of ∨.
≡p→q Equivalent conditional.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 46 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Converse and Inverse

If we have a conditional statement p → q then

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 47 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Converse and Inverse

If we have a conditional statement p → q then

I The converse of p → q is the statement q → p.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 47 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Converse and Inverse

If we have a conditional statement p → q then

I The converse of p → q is the statement q → p.

I The inverse of p → q is the statement ∼p → ∼q.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 47 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

If, Only If, Necessity, and Sufficiency

To understand the various phrasing of a conditional statement involving if, only
if, necessity, and sufficiency, let us look at a truth table where p → q is true:

p q p→q Equivalent Phrasing for p → q

T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 48 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

If, Only If, Necessity, and Sufficiency

To understand the various phrasing of a conditional statement involving if, only
if, necessity, and sufficiency, let us look at a truth table where p → q is true:

p q p→q Equivalent Phrasing for p → q

T T T q if p.
T F F
F T T
F F T

I To say “q if p” is the same as saying “If p then q”.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 48 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

If, Only If, Necessity, and Sufficiency

To understand the various phrasing of a conditional statement involving if, only
if, necessity, and sufficiency, let us look at a truth table where p → q is true:

p q p→q Equivalent Phrasing for p → q

T T T q if p.
T F F p only if q.
F T T
F F T

I To say “q if p” is the same as saying “If p then q”.

I Observe that in rows where p → q is true, that p is true only if q is true, so
we can say “p only if q”.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 48 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

If, Only If, Necessity, and Sufficiency

To understand the various phrasing of a conditional statement involving if, only
if, necessity, and sufficiency, let us look at a truth table where p → q is true:

p q p→q Equivalent Phrasing for p → q

T T T q if p.
T F F p only if q.
F T T p is sufficient for q.
F F T

I To say “q if p” is the same as saying “If p then q”.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 48 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

If, Only If, Necessity, and Sufficiency

To understand the various phrasing of a conditional statement involving if, only
if, necessity, and sufficiency, let us look at a truth table where p → q is true:

p q p→q Equivalent Phrasing for p → q

T T T q if p.
T F F p only if q.
F T T p is sufficient for q.
F F T q is necessary for p.

I To say “q if p” is the same as saying “If p then q”.

I Observe that in rows where p → q is true, that p is true only if q is true, so
we can say “p only if q”.
I Additionally, to say that “p is sufficient for q” means that it is enough for p
to be true to conclude the truth of q, i.e. p implies q.
I To say “q is necessary for p” means that q being true is a requirement for
p to be true.
John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 48 / 157
Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

The Biconditional

Consider the statement form p → q ∧ q → p, i.e. p implies q and q implies p.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 49 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

The Biconditional

Consider the statement form p → q ∧ q → p, i.e. p implies q and q implies p.

I Because p → q, we can say that p only if q or p is sufficient for q.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 49 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

The Biconditional

Consider the statement form p → q ∧ q → p, i.e. p implies q and q implies p.

I Because p → q, we can say that p only if q or p is sufficient for q.

I Because q → p, we can also say that p if q or p is necessary for q.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 49 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

The Biconditional

Consider the statement form p → q ∧ q → p, i.e. p implies q and q implies p.

I Because p → q, we can say that p only if q or p is sufficient for q.

I Because q → p, we can also say that p if q or p is necessary for q.

I p if and only if q,
I p is necessary and sufficient for q.

Define the biconditional p ↔ q to be true whenever p and q have the same

truth values, and false otherwise.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 49 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

The Biconditional

Consider the statement form p → q ∧ q → p, i.e. p implies q and q implies p.

I Because p → q, we can say that p only if q or p is sufficient for q.

I Because q → p, we can also say that p if q or p is necessary for q.

That is, two ways to state p → q ∧ q → p are

Order of Operations

Evaluate logical operators in the following order:

1. ∼ Evaluate negations first.

2. ∨, ∧ Evaluate ∨ and ∧ second, using parentheses if both are present.
3. →, ↔ Evaluate → and ↔ last, using parentheses if both are present.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 51 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Order of Operations

Evaluate logical operators in the following order:

1. ∼ Evaluate negations first.

2. ∨, ∧ Evaluate ∨ and ∧ second, using parentheses if both are present.
3. →, ↔ Evaluate → and ↔ last, using parentheses if both are present.

Note that p ∨ q ∧ r , for example, is ambiguous and should be avoided.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 51 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 2: Conditional Statements

Order of Operations

Evaluate logical operators in the following order:

1. ∼ Evaluate negations first.

2. ∨, ∧ Evaluate ∨ and ∧ second, using parentheses if both are present.
3. →, ↔ Evaluate → and ↔ last, using parentheses if both are present.

Note that p ∨ q ∧ r , for example, is ambiguous and should be avoided.

Exercise: Demonstrate the ambiguity by showing that (p ∨ q ) ∧ r and
p ∨ (q ∧ r ) are not logically equivalent.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 51 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 52 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Arguments

An argument form is a sequence of statement forms, called premises,

assumptions, or hypotheses, followed by a statement form called the
conclusion, which may be preceded by the symbol ∴ meaning “therefore”.

assumptions, or hypotheses, followed by a statement form called the
conclusion, which may be preceded by the symbol ∴ meaning “therefore”.
To make an argument, we replace the statement forms of the argument with
statements.
An argument form is considered valid if, given any substitution of statements
for statement forms that make all the premises true, the resulting statement of
the conclusion must also be true.
We consider any argument made with a valid form a valid argument, whether
the substution yields true premises (and hence a true conclusion) or not.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 53 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Arguments

An argument form is a sequence of statement forms, called premises,

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 53 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Valid argument forms may be thought of as machines which verify the truth of
their conclusion when used to make sound arguments. Some things to keep in
mind:

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 54 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Valid argument forms may be thought of as machines which verify the truth of
their conclusion when used to make sound arguments. Some things to keep in
mind:

I A valid but unsound argument may yield an objectively true conclusion,

but that truth is not verified by the argument.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 54 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Valid argument forms may be thought of as machines which verify the truth of
their conclusion when used to make sound arguments. Some things to keep in
mind:

I A valid but unsound argument may yield an objectively true conclusion,

but that truth is not verified by the argument.
I Similarly, one can make an invalid argument, where the resulting
premises are true statements, but the conclusion is not verified by the
argument.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 54 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Valid argument forms may be thought of as machines which verify the truth of
their conclusion when used to make sound arguments. Some things to keep in
mind:

I A valid but unsound argument may yield an objectively true conclusion,

but that truth is not verified by the argument.
I Similarly, one can make an invalid argument, where the resulting
premises are true statements, but the conclusion is not verified by the
argument.
I Arguments that are neither valid nor sound do nothing to verify the truth
of the conclusion.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 54 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Valid argument forms may be thought of as machines which verify the truth of
their conclusion when used to make sound arguments. Some things to keep in
mind:

I A valid but unsound argument may yield an objectively true conclusion,

We will begin by looking at the most basic argument form, modus ponens.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 54 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Consider following modus ponens argument form and its truth table:
p q p→q p q
If p, then q T T T T T
p T F F T F
∴ q F T T F T
F F T F F

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 55 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Consider following modus ponens argument form and its truth table:
p q p→q p q
If p, then q T T T T T
p T F F T F
∴ q F T T F T
F F T F F

We have statement variables p and q, premises p → q and p, and the

conclusion q.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 55 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Consider following modus ponens argument form and its truth table:
p q p→q p q
If p, then q T T T T T
p T F F T F
∴ q F T T F T
F F T F F

We have statement variables p and q, premises p → q and p, and the

conclusion q.
Any row where we have all true premises, we have a true conclusion, so this
argument is valid.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 55 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Consider following modus ponens argument form and its truth table:
p q p→q p q
If p, then q T T T T T
p T F F T F
∴ q F T T F T
F F T F F

We have statement variables p and q, premises p → q and p, and the

conclusion q.
Any row where we have all true premises, we have a true conclusion, so this
argument is valid.
In this case, we can only make sound arguments using modus ponens when p
and q are both true.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 55 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Example 1: Consider the valid and sound argument

If Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal.

Socrates is a man.
∴ Socrates is mortal.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 56 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Example 1: Consider the valid and sound argument

If Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal.

Socrates is a man.
∴ Socrates is mortal.
Since this is a modus ponens argument, we accept the truth of the conclusion
given the truth of the premises.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 56 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Example 1: Consider the valid and sound argument

If Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal.

Socrates is a man.
∴ Socrates is mortal.
Since this is a modus ponens argument, we accept the truth of the conclusion
given the truth of the premises.
Example 2: Consider the valid but unsound argument

If the Earth is flat, then the Earth is round.

The Earth is flat.
∴ The Earth is Round.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 56 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Example 1: Consider the valid and sound argument

If Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal.

If the Earth is flat, then the Earth is round.

The Earth is flat.
∴ The Earth is Round.
This is a valid argument for using a valid form, and we even have a true
conclusion and vacuously true first premise, but the false second premise
makes this argument unsound, and hence the truth of the conclusion is not
verified by the argument.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 56 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Example: Consider the invalid argument

If you study hard, you will get an A.

You got an A.
∴ You studied hard.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 57 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Example: Consider the invalid argument

If you study hard, you will get an A.

You got an A.
∴ You studied hard.
This argument is invalid even if you both study hard and get an A! That is, the
premises and conclusion are true.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 57 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Example: Consider the invalid argument

If you study hard, you will get an A.

You got an A.
∴ You studied hard.
This argument is invalid even if you both study hard and get an A! That is, the
premises and conclusion are true.
Consider its form and the associated truth table
p q p→q q p
If p, then q T T T T T
q T F F F T
∴ p F T T T F
F F T F F

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 57 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Example: Consider the invalid argument

If you study hard, you will get an A.

The truth of the premises do not guarantee a true conclusion, so this argument
is invalid.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 57 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Example: Consider the invalid argument

If you study hard, you will get an A.

The truth of the premises do not guarantee a true conclusion, so this argument
is invalid.
This argument form is a fallacy known as the converse error or
affirming the consequent.
John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 57 / 157
Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Determining the Validity or Invalidity of an Argument

You may determine the validity or invalidity of an argument via truth table as
follows:

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 58 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Determining the Validity or Invalidity of an Argument

You may determine the validity or invalidity of an argument via truth table as
follows:

I Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 58 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Determining the Validity or Invalidity of an Argument

You may determine the validity or invalidity of an argument via truth table as
follows:

I Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.

I Construct a truth table showing the truth values of all premises and the
conclusion.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 58 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Determining the Validity or Invalidity of an Argument

You may determine the validity or invalidity of an argument via truth table as
follows:

I Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.

I Construct a truth table showing the truth values of all premises and the
conclusion.
I Identify critical rows where all the premises are true.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 58 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Determining the Validity or Invalidity of an Argument

You may determine the validity or invalidity of an argument via truth table as
follows:

I Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.

I Construct a truth table showing the truth values of all premises and the
conclusion.
I Identify critical rows where all the premises are true.
I If the conclusion in any critical row is false, the argument form is invalid.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 58 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Determining the Validity or Invalidity of an Argument

You may determine the validity or invalidity of an argument via truth table as
follows:

I Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Example: Determine the validity or invalidity of

p → q ∨ ∼r
q → p∧r
∴p→r

Solution 1: Construct a truth table:

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 60 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Example: Determine the validity or invalidity of

p → q ∨ ∼r
q → p∧r
∴p→r

Solution 2: Alternatively, since we are looking for situations where the premises are
true, but the conclusion is false, we will assume a false conclusion and see if there are
any cases where all the premises are all true, and conclude the argument is invalid,
and otherwise conclude it is valid.
Observe that the conclusion p → r is false when p is true and r is false.
The second premise can only be true when q is false.
The first premise is true regardless of the value of q.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 60 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Example: Determine the validity or invalidity of

Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens

If p, then q
p
∴ q
It is valid as we have already seen with a truth table, but we can reason its
validity assuming the truth of the premises:

I The truth of the premise p tells us p is true.

I The truth of the conditional p → q and the truth of p tell us q must be true.
I Therefore, the conclusion q is true.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 61 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Example: The following is an example of modus ponens:

If the sum of the digits of 371,487 is divisible by 3,

then 371,487 is divisible by 3.
The sum of the digits of 371,487 is divisible by 3.
∴ 371,487 is divisible by 3.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 62 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

The following argument form is called modus tollens or denying the

consequent:

p q p→q ∼q ∼p
If p, then q T T T F F
∼q T F F T F
∴ ∼p F T T F T
F F T T T

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 63 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

The following argument form is called modus tollens or denying the

consequent:

p q p→q ∼q ∼p
If p, then q T T T F F
∼q T F F T F
∴ ∼p F T T F T
F F T T T

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 63 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

The following argument form is called modus tollens or denying the

consequent:

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 63 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

The following argument form is called modus tollens or denying the

consequent:

p q p→q ∼q ∼p
If p, then q T T T F F
∼q T F F T F
∴ ∼p F T T F T
F F T T T
The truth table demonstrates the validity, but if we replace the conditional with
the equivalent contrapositive, then the argument form is equivalent to modus
ponens.
Example: The following is an example of modus tollens:
If Zeus is human, then Zeus is mortal.
Zeus is not mortal.
∴ Zeus is not human.

This could be because the argument itself is invalid, but also result from using
ambiguous premises, circular reasoning by assuming the conclusion, or
jumping to a conclusion without adequate grounds.
Example: The following argument misuses a valid form (modus ponens), with
premises that may be considered true in an ambiguous sense:

If John is mad, then he should be locked in an asylum.

John is mad.
∴ John should be locked in an asylum.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 64 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Logical Fallacies

A fallacy is an error in reasoning that results in a faulty argument.

If John is mad, then he should be locked in an asylum.

John is mad.
∴ John should be locked in an asylum.
The ambiguity of the word “mad” in this argument makes it a fallacy. The
statements “John is mad” are applied differently, so this is an invalid argument
disguised as a valid one.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 64 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

We have already discussed the converse error a.k.a. affirming the consequent,
as a fallacy. It is often confused with the valid modus ponens form.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 65 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 65 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

We have already discussed the converse error a.k.a. affirming the consequent,
as a fallacy. It is often confused with the valid modus ponens form.
We also have the inverse fallacy, a.k.a. denying the antecedent. It has the
invalid form
If p, then q.
∼p
∴ ∼q
If p is false, the premises become true, but we cannot deduce the conclusion
either way.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 65 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 65 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Rules of Inference

A rule of inference is an argument form, like modus ponens or modus tollens, that is
valid. We will give some common examples.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 66 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Rules of Inference

A rule of inference is an argument form, like modus ponens or modus tollens, that is
valid. We will give some common examples.
The following valid argument forms are called generalization:

p q
∴ p∨q ∴ p∨q

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 66 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Rules of Inference

A rule of inference is an argument form, like modus ponens or modus tollens, that is
valid. We will give some common examples.
The following valid argument forms are called generalization:

p q
∴ p∨q ∴ p∨q

Example: Consider the statements

p : Anton is a junior.
q : Anton is a senior.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 66 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Rules of Inference

A rule of inference is an argument form, like modus ponens or modus tollens, that is
valid. We will give some common examples.
The following valid argument forms are called generalization:

p q
∴ p∨q ∴ p∨q

Example: Consider the statements

p : Anton is a junior.
q : Anton is a senior.

Then p ∨ q, the statement that Anton is a junior or senior, also means that Anton is an
upperclassman.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 66 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Rules of Inference

A rule of inference is an argument form, like modus ponens or modus tollens, that is
valid. We will give some common examples.
The following valid argument forms are called generalization:

p q
∴ p∨q ∴ p∨q

Example: Consider the statements

p : Anton is a junior.
q : Anton is a senior.

Then p ∨ q, the statement that Anton is a junior or senior, also means that Anton is an
upperclassman.
We then infer from the fact that if Anton is a junior (p), that more generally, he is an
upperclassman (p ∨ q ).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 66 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

The following valid argument forms are called specialization:

p∧q p∧q
∴p ∴q

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 67 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

The following valid argument forms are called specialization:

p∧q p∧q
∴p ∴q

Example: Consider the statements

p : Ana knows numerical analysis.

q : Ana knows graph algorithms.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 67 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

The following valid argument forms are called specialization:

p∧q p∧q
∴p ∴q

Example: Consider the statements

p : Ana knows numerical analysis.

q : Ana knows graph algorithms.

If we discover that Ana knows both numerical analysis and graph algorithms
(p ∧ q ), that in particular, she knows graph algorithms (q).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 67 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

The following valid argument forms are called elimination:

p∨q p∨q
∼q ∼p
∴p ∴q

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 68 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

The following valid argument forms are called elimination:

p∨q p∨q
∼q ∼p
∴p ∴q

Example: Find the positive roots of x 2 − x − 6 = 0.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 68 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

The following valid argument forms are called elimination:

p∨q p∨q
∼q ∼p
∴p ∴q

Example: Find the positive roots of x 2 − x − 6 = 0.

Solution: When factoring and setting to the factors equal to zero, we have that
x − 3 = 0 or x + 2 = 0, meaning x = 3 or x = −2 (p ∨ q).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 68 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

The following valid argument forms are called elimination:

p∨q p∨q
∼q ∼p
∴p ∴q

Example: Find the positive roots of x 2 − x − 6 = 0.

Solution: When factoring and setting to the factors equal to zero, we have that
x − 3 = 0 or x + 2 = 0, meaning x = 3 or x = −2 (p ∨ q). Knowing that we
want x to be the positive root, and hence q is false, we infer that p is true, and
therefore x = 3.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 68 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

The following valid argument form is called Transitivity:

p→q
q→r
∴p→r

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 69 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

The following valid argument form is called Transitivity:

p→q
q→r
∴p→r

Example: We often reason in mathematics using a chain of if-then statements.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 69 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

The following valid argument form is called Transitivity:

p→q
q→r
∴p→r

Example: We often reason in mathematics using a chain of if-then statements.

Consider the following argument, which is valid by transitivity:

If n is divisible by 18, then n is divisible by 9.

If n is divisible by 9, then the sum of its decimal digits is divisible by 9.
∴ If n is divisible by 18, then the sum of its decimal digits is divisible by 9.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 69 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

p∨q
p→r
q→r
∴r

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 70 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

The following valid argument form is called Division into Cases:

p∨q
p→r
q→r
∴r

I Use the fact that an integer n is either even or odd (p ∨ q).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 70 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

The following valid argument form is called Division into Cases:

p∨q
p→r
q→r
∴r

I Use the fact that an integer n is either even or odd (p ∨ q).

I Show that n being odd implies that n(n + 1) is even (p → r ).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 70 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

The following valid argument form is called Division into Cases:

p∨q
p→r
q→r
∴r

I Use the fact that an integer n is either even or odd (p ∨ q).

I Show that n being odd implies that n(n + 1) is even (p → r ).
I Show that n being even implies that n(n + 1) is even (q → r ).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 70 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

A More Complex Argument

Example: Suppose that you lost your glasses. Furthermore, you know the following
statements (premises) are true:

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 71 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

A More Complex Argument

Example: Suppose that you lost your glasses. Furthermore, you know the following
statements (premises) are true:

Example: Suppose that you lost your glasses. Furthermore, you know the following
statements (premises) are true:

I (RK → GK ) If I was reading my notes in the kitchen (RK ), then my glasses are
on the kitchen table (GK ).
I (GK → SB) If my glasses are on the kitchen table (GK ), then I saw them at
breakfast (SB).
I (∼SB) I did not see my glasses at breakfast.
I (RL ∨ RK ) I was reading my notes in the living room (RL) or I was reading my
notes in the kitchen (RK ).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 71 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

A More Complex Argument

Example: Suppose that you lost your glasses. Furthermore, you know the following
statements (premises) are true:

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 71 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

A More Complex Argument

Example: Suppose that you lost your glasses. Furthermore, you know the following
statements (premises) are true:

Let’s deduce that the glasses are on the coffee table (GC).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 71 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Arguments:
Simple Statements
RK : Reading in kitchen
GK : Glassess on kitchen table
SB: Saw at breakfast
RL: Reading in living room
GC: Glasses on coffee table

Starting Premises
1. RK → GK
2. GK → SB
3. ∼SB
4. RL ∨ RK
5. RL → GC

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 72 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Starting Premises
1. RK → GK
2. GK → SB
3. ∼SB
4. RL ∨ RK
5. RL → GC

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 72 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Arguments:
Simple Statements
1. RK → GK Premise 1
RK : Reading in kitchen
GK → SB Premise 2
GK : Glassess on kitchen table
∴ RK → SB Transitivity
SB: Saw at breakfast
RL: Reading in living room
2. RK → SB Conclusion 1
GC: Glasses on coffee table
∼SB Premise 3
∴ ∼RK Modus Tollens
Starting Premises
1. RK → GK
2. GK → SB
3. ∼SB
4. RL ∨ RK
5. RL → GC

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 72 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

4. RL ∨ RK ∴ RL Elimination

5. RL → GC

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 72 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

4. RL ∨ RK ∴ RL Elimination

5. RL → GC
4. RL → GC Premise 5
RL Conclusion 3
∴ GC Modus Ponens

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 72 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Question: Consider instead, this following argument form:

p→q
q→r
r →p
∴p↔q↔r

Is this a valid argument?

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 73 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Question: Consider instead, this following argument form:

p→q
q→r
r →p
∴p↔q↔r

Is this a valid argument?

Answer: Yes! The conclusion is only false if some of p, q, and r have different
truth values, in which case transitivity will yield a false premise (T → F ). If p
implies q implies r implies p, the statements are equivalent, and hence all false
or all true.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 73 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Contradiction Rule

The following valid argument form is called the Contradiction Rule:

∼p → c, where c is a contradiction
∴p

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 74 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Contradiction Rule

The following valid argument form is called the Contradiction Rule:

∼p → c, where c is a contradiction
∴p

This argument form can be powerful in mathematics when a direct proof is

unavailable or particularly challenging.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 74 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Contradiction Rule

The following valid argument form is called the Contradiction Rule:

∼p → c, where c is a contradiction
∴p

This argument form can be powerful in mathematics when a direct proof is

unavailable or particularly challenging.
It is valid because any time the conclusion p is false, the premise must also be
false, i.e. the only critical row in the truth table that allows for a true premise
has a true conclusion.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 74 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Example: The logician Raymond Smullyan describes an island containing two types
of people: knights who always tell the truth and knaves who always lie.
You visit the island and are approached by two natives A and B who each approach
you as follows

A says :B is a knight.
B says :A and I are of opposite type.

What can conclude about A and B?

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 75 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

A says :B is a knight.
B says :A and I are of opposite type.

What can conclude about A and B?

Solution: A and B can both be knaves since their statements are both lies in this
case. Let’s logically exclude any other possibilities.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 75 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Example (cont.): A says: B is a knight.

B says: A and I are of opposite type.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 76 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Example (cont.): A says: B is a knight.

B says: A and I are of opposite type.

Suppose A is a knight. suppose ∼p

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 76 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Example (cont.): A says: B is a knight.

B says: A and I are of opposite type.

Suppose A is a knight. suppose ∼p

∴ A tells only the truth. by definition of a knight

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 76 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Example (cont.): A says: B is a knight.

B says: A and I are of opposite type.

Suppose A is a knight. suppose ∼p

∴ A tells only the truth. by definition of a knight
∴ B is a knight. since A spoke true

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 76 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Example (cont.): A says: B is a knight.

B says: A and I are of opposite type.

Suppose A is a knight. suppose ∼p

∴ A tells only the truth. by definition of a knight
∴ B is a knight. since A spoke true
∴ B tells only the truth. by definition of a knight

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 76 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Example (cont.): A says: B is a knight.

B says: A and I are of opposite type.

Suppose A is a knight. suppose ∼p

∴ A tells only the truth. by definition of a knight
∴ B is a knight. since A spoke true
∴ B tells only the truth. by definition of a knight
∴ A and B are opposite types. since B spoke true

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 76 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Example (cont.): A says: B is a knight.

B says: A and I are of opposite type.

Suppose A is a knight. suppose ∼p

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 76 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Example (cont.): A says: B is a knight.

B says: A and I are of opposite type.

Suppose A is a knight. suppose ∼p

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 76 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Example (cont.): A says: B is a knight.

B says: A and I are of opposite type.

Suppose A is a knight. suppose ∼p

∴ A tells only the truth. by definition of a knight
∴ B is a knight. since A spoke true
∴ B tells only the truth. by definition of a knight
∴ A and B are opposite types. since B spoke true
∴ This contradicts that A and B ∼p → c by some transitivity
are both knights.
∴ A is not a knight. p is true by contradiction rule
∴ A is a knave. by elimination (A is a knight or knave)

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 76 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Example (cont.): A says: B is a knight.

B says: A and I are of opposite type.

Suppose A is a knight. suppose ∼p

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 76 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Example (cont.): A says: B is a knight.

B says: A and I are of opposite type.

Suppose A is a knight. suppose ∼p

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 76 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Example (cont.): A says: B is a knight.

B says: A and I are of opposite type.

Suppose A is a knight. suppose ∼p

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 76 / 157

Chapter 2: The Logic of Compound Statements Section 3: Valid and Invalid Arguments

Summary of Rules of Inference

Modus Ponens p→q Elimination a. p∨q b. p∨q

p ∼q ∼p
∴ q ∴ p ∴ q
Modus Tollens p→q Transitivity p→q
∼q q→r
∴ ∼p ∴ p→r
Generalization a. p b. q Division Into Cases p∨q
∴ p∨q ∴ p∨q p→r
Specialization a. p∧q b. p∧q q→r
∴ p ∴ q ∴ r
Conjunction p Contradiction ∼p → c
q ∴ p
∴ p∧q

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 77 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified

Statements

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 78 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified

Statements

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 79 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Predicates
Consider the sentence
x 2 + 2 = 11.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 80 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Predicates
Consider the sentence
x 2 + 2 = 11.
In the domain of real numbers, this sentence is true when x = 3 or x = −3, and false
otherwise.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 80 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Predicates
Consider the sentence
x 2 + 2 = 11.
In the domain of real numbers, this sentence is true when x = 3 or x = −3, and false
otherwise.
If we symbolize this open sentence as P (x ), it may be thought of as a function from
the set R of real numbers to a set of statements, each with a truth value:

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 80 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

I For example, P (−3) is the true statement (−3)2 + 2 = 11.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 80 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

I For example, P (−3) is the true statement (−3)2 + 2 = 11.

I Then P (1) = 12 + 2 = 11 would be false statement.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 80 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

I For example, P (−3) is the true statement (−3)2 + 2 = 11.

I Then P (1) = 12 + 2 = 11 would be false statement.

This type sentence P (x ) is called a predicate, open sentence, or

propositional function where the domain of the variable is the set of all values x we
may consider, which for this example is R.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 80 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

I For example, P (−3) is the true statement (−3)2 + 2 = 11.

I Then P (1) = 12 + 2 = 11 would be false statement.

This type sentence P (x ) is called a predicate, open sentence, or

propositional function where the domain of the variable is the set of all values x we
may consider, which for this example is R.
The truth set of a predicate is the subset of the domain for which the resulting
statement is true, which in this case, is the set {−3, 3} consisting of the solutions to
the equation.
John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 80 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

We can form predicates using more than one, but finitely many variables. Consider
these examples, and their truth sets:

Symbol Domain Predicate Truth Set

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 81 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

We can form predicates using more than one, but finitely many variables. Consider
these examples, and their truth sets:

Symbol Domain Predicate Truth Set

P (x ) R x 2 + 2 = 11 {−3, 3}

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 81 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

We can form predicates using more than one, but finitely many variables. Consider
these examples, and their truth sets:

Symbol Domain Predicate Truth Set

P (x ) R x 2 + 2 = 11 {−3, 3}
The line in R2 through the
Q (x , y ) R×R x +y = 0
origin with slope −1.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 81 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

We can form predicates using more than one, but finitely many variables. Consider
these examples, and their truth sets:

Symbol Domain Predicate Truth Set

P (x ) R x 2 + 2 = 11 {−3, 3}
The line in R2 through the
Q (x , y ) R×R x +y = 0
origin with slope −1.
If n is even then n2 is
E (n) Z
even.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 81 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

We can form predicates using more than one, but finitely many variables. Consider
these examples, and their truth sets:

Symbol Domain Predicate Truth Set

P (x ) R x 2 + 2 = 11 {−3, 3}
The line in R2 through the
Q (x , y ) R×R x +y = 0
origin with slope −1.
If n is even then n2 is
E (n) Z
even.

The predicate E (n) is true for all integers n ∈ Z, but vacuously true in the case of odd
integers!

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 81 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Universal and Existential Truth

Observe that the predicate P (x ) : x 2 + 2 = 11, on the domain R of real

numbers, is true in an existential sense since there are real solutions, i.e.
values of x which satisfy the equation.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 82 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Universal and Existential Truth

Observe that the predicate P (x ) : x 2 + 2 = 11, on the domain R of real

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 82 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Universal and Existential Truth

Observe that the predicate P (x ) : x 2 + 2 = 11, on the domain R of real

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 82 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Universal and Existential Truth

Observe that the predicate P (x ) : x 2 + 2 = 11, on the domain R of real

numbers, is true in an existential sense since there are real solutions, i.e.
values of x which satisfy the equation.
Clearly it is not universally true, since there are values of x in the domain for
which P (x ) is false.
We could make a true existential statement by claiming the existence of a real
number x such that P (x ) is true.
Some predicates, as we have seen, are true for all values in the domain, i.e.
the entire truth set, and are hence universally true.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 82 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Universal and Existential Truth

Observe that the predicate P (x ) : x 2 + 2 = 11, on the domain R of real

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 82 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Quantified Statements
A quantified statement is formed from predicates by adding quantifiers like “some”
or “all” to make existential and universal statements.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 83 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Quantified Statements
A quantified statement is formed from predicates by adding quantifiers like “some”
or “all” to make existential and universal statements.
A universal statement using a predicate Q (x ) with a domain D is a statement of the
form (or using equivalent wording), ∀x ∈ D : Q (x ), and read as “for all x in D, Q (x )”.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 83 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

I A universal statement Q (x ) is true if it holds true for all x in D.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 83 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

I A universal statement Q (x ) is true if it holds true for all x in D.

I It is false if there exists some x in D for which Q (x ) is false, where such an x
serves as a counterexample to the universal statement.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 83 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

I A universal statement Q (x ) is true if it holds true for all x in D.

I It is false if there exists some x in D for which Q (x ) is false, where such an x
serves as a counterexample to the universal statement.

An existential statement using a predicate Q (x ) with domain D is a statement of the

form (or using equivalent wording), ∃x ∈ D : Q (x ), read as “there exists x in D such
that Q (x ).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 83 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

I A universal statement Q (x ) is true if it holds true for all x in D.

I It is false if there exists some x in D for which Q (x ) is false, where such an x
serves as a counterexample to the universal statement.

An existential statement using a predicate Q (x ) with domain D is a statement of the

form (or using equivalent wording), ∃x ∈ D : Q (x ), read as “there exists x in D such
that Q (x ).

I An existential statement Q (x ) is true if it holds true for at least one x in D.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 83 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

I A universal statement Q (x ) is true if it holds true for all x in D.

I It is false if there exists some x in D for which Q (x ) is false, where such an x
serves as a counterexample to the universal statement.

An existential statement using a predicate Q (x ) with domain D is a statement of the

form (or using equivalent wording), ∃x ∈ D : Q (x ), read as “there exists x in D such
that Q (x ).

I An existential statement Q (x ) is true if it holds true for at least one x in D.

I It is false if there are no x in D for which it is true.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 83 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

I A universal statement Q (x ) is true if it holds true for all x in D.

I It is false if there exists some x in D for which Q (x ) is false, where such an x
serves as a counterexample to the universal statement.

An existential statement using a predicate Q (x ) with domain D is a statement of the

form (or using equivalent wording), ∃x ∈ D : Q (x ), read as “there exists x in D such
that Q (x ).

I An existential statement Q (x ) is true if it holds true for at least one x in D.

I It is false if there are no x in D for which it is true.

Remark: We may often omit the domain specification for the variable if it is
understood, e.g. ∀x , Q (x ) instead of ∀x ∈ D , Q (x ).
John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 83 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Example: Consider the predicate x 2 ≥ x in some domain D.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 84 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Example: Consider the predicate x 2 ≥ x in some domain D.

a. For D = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, the universal statement ∀x ∈ D, x 2 ≥ x is true,

which can be verified by the method of exhaustion by verifying that the
predicate holds for each element in this finite set.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 84 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Example: Consider the predicate x 2 ≥ x in some domain D.

a. For D = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, the universal statement ∀x ∈ D, x 2 ≥ x is true,

which can be verified by the method of exhaustion by verifying that the
predicate holds for each element in this finite set.
b. For D = R, the universal statement ∀x ∈ R, x 2 ≥ x is false, which is
demonstrated by the counterexample x = 12 .

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 84 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Example: Consider the predicate x 2 ≥ x in some domain D.

a. For D = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, the universal statement ∀x ∈ D, x 2 ≥ x is true,

Observe that the truth set for a. is the set D itself, i.e. a universal statement is
true if the truth set is equal to the domain.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 84 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Example: Consider the predicate x 2 ≥ x in some domain D.

a. For D = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, the universal statement ∀x ∈ D, x 2 ≥ x is true,

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 84 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Example: Consider the predicate x 2 ≥ x in some domain D.

a. For D = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, the universal statement ∀x ∈ D, x 2 ≥ x is true,

Observe that the truth set for a. is the set D itself, i.e. a universal statement is
true if the truth set is equal to the domain.
The truth set for b. is the set (−∞, 0] ∪ [1, ∞) which is certainly not all of R.
In both cases, the predicate x 2 ≥ x is true existentially on the given domains
since the truth set is not empty, i.e. there exists an x such that x 2 ≥ x whether
D = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} or D = R.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 84 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Example: Consider the predicate m2 = m in some domain D.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 85 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Example: Consider the predicate m2 = m in some domain D.

a. For D = Z+ , the set of positive integers, the existential statement ∃x ∈ D:

m2 = m is true, as is demonstrated by m = 1.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 85 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Example: Consider the predicate m2 = m in some domain D.

a. For D = Z+ , the set of positive integers, the existential statement ∃x ∈ D:

m2 = m is true, as is demonstrated by m = 1.
b. For D = {5, 6, 7, 8}, the existential statement ∃m ∈ D: m2 = m is false,
since none of the numbers here is equal to its square.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 85 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Example: Consider the predicate m2 = m in some domain D.

a. For D = Z+ , the set of positive integers, the existential statement ∃x ∈ D:

m2 = m is true, as is demonstrated by m = 1.
b. For D = {5, 6, 7, 8}, the existential statement ∃m ∈ D: m2 = m is false,
since none of the numbers here is equal to its square.

The truth set for a. is the set {1} which is nonempty and so existence is true
as claimed.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 85 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Example: Consider the predicate m2 = m in some domain D.

a. For D = Z+ , the set of positive integers, the existential statement ∃x ∈ D:

m2 = m is true, as is demonstrated by m = 1.
b. For D = {5, 6, 7, 8}, the existential statement ∃m ∈ D: m2 = m is false,
since none of the numbers here is equal to its square.

The truth set for a. is the set {1} which is nonempty and so existence is true
as claimed.
The truth set for b. is the empty set, so the existential statement is false.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 85 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Example: Consider the predicate m2 = m in some domain D.

a. For D = Z+ , the set of positive integers, the existential statement ∃x ∈ D:

m2 = m is true, as is demonstrated by m = 1.
b. For D = {5, 6, 7, 8}, the existential statement ∃m ∈ D: m2 = m is false,
since none of the numbers here is equal to its square.

The truth set for a. is the set {1} which is nonempty and so existence is true
as claimed.
The truth set for b. is the empty set, so the existential statement is false.
Neither a. nor b. are universally true, of course, on their respective domains.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 85 / 157

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 87 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Conditional Statements and Quantification

Consider the statement

If a number is an integer, then it is rational.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 88 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Conditional Statements and Quantification

Conditional Statements and Quantification

Consider the statement

If a number is an integer, then it is rational.
Perhaps, in context, by number we mean real number, the domain of our statement.
Consider predicates P (x ): x is an integer and Q (x ): x is rational. Then P (x ) → Q (x )
is also a predicate.
The above statement is implicitly quantified and universal, equivalent to saying
For all real numbers x, if x is an integer, then x is rational.
This symbolizes as ∀x ∈ R : P (x ) → Q (x ).
In each case, the conditional statement is true vacuously for all non-integers, such as
π or 31 .

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 88 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Conditional Statements and Quantification

Consider the statement

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 88 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Let P (x ) and Q (x ) be predicates with common domain D.

I The notation P (x ) =⇒ Q (x ) means that every element in the truth set of P (x )

is in the truth set of Q (x ), i.e ∀x , P (x ) → Q (x ).
I The notation P (x ) ⇐⇒ Q (x ) means that P (x ) and Q (x ) have identical truth
sets, i.e. ∀x , P (x ) ↔ Q (x ).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 89 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Let P (x ) and Q (x ) be predicates with common domain D.

I The notation P (x ) =⇒ Q (x ) means that every element in the truth set of P (x )

is in the truth set of Q (x ), i.e ∀x , P (x ) → Q (x ).
I The notation P (x ) ⇐⇒ Q (x ) means that P (x ) and Q (x ) have identical truth
sets, i.e. ∀x , P (x ) ↔ Q (x ).

Example: Determine the relationship using =⇒ and ⇐⇒ among the following:

I Q (n): n is a factor of 8.
I R (n): n is a factor of 4.
I S (n): n < 5 and n 6= 3.

where n ∈ Z+ .

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 89 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Let P (x ) and Q (x ) be predicates with common domain D.

I The notation P (x ) =⇒ Q (x ) means that every element in the truth set of P (x )

is in the truth set of Q (x ), i.e ∀x , P (x ) → Q (x ).
I The notation P (x ) ⇐⇒ Q (x ) means that P (x ) and Q (x ) have identical truth
sets, i.e. ∀x , P (x ) ↔ Q (x ).

Example: Determine the relationship using =⇒ and ⇐⇒ among the following:

I Q (n): n is a factor of 8.
I R (n): n is a factor of 4.
I S (n): n < 5 and n 6= 3.

where n ∈ Z+ .
Solution: The truth set of Q (n) is {1, 2, 4, 8} while R (n) and S (n) both have the
same truth set {1, 2, 4}.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 89 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Let P (x ) and Q (x ) be predicates with common domain D.

I The notation P (x ) =⇒ Q (x ) means that every element in the truth set of P (x )

is in the truth set of Q (x ), i.e ∀x , P (x ) → Q (x ).
I The notation P (x ) ⇐⇒ Q (x ) means that P (x ) and Q (x ) have identical truth
sets, i.e. ∀x , P (x ) ↔ Q (x ).

Example: Determine the relationship using =⇒ and ⇐⇒ among the following:

I Q (n): n is a factor of 8.
I R (n): n is a factor of 4.
I S (n): n < 5 and n 6= 3.

where n ∈ Z+ .
Solution: The truth set of Q (n) is {1, 2, 4, 8} while R (n) and S (n) both have the
same truth set {1, 2, 4}.
Then R (n) =⇒ Q (n), and S (n) =⇒ Q (n) while R (n) ⇐⇒ S (n).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 89 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

A statement of the form ∀x ∈ U : P (x ) → Q (x ) as we had before is called a

universal conditional statement, which is one of the most important forms of
a mathematical statement. If true, we have that

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 90 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

A statement of the form ∀x ∈ U : P (x ) → Q (x ) as we had before is called a

universal conditional statement, which is one of the most important forms of
a mathematical statement. If true, we have that

I In some universal set we are studying, such as R,

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 90 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

A statement of the form ∀x ∈ U : P (x ) → Q (x ) as we had before is called a

universal conditional statement, which is one of the most important forms of
a mathematical statement. If true, we have that

I In some universal set we are studying, such as R,

I values of x for which a condition P (x ) is true,

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 90 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

A statement of the form ∀x ∈ U : P (x ) → Q (x ) as we had before is called a

universal conditional statement, which is one of the most important forms of
a mathematical statement. If true, we have that

I In some universal set we are studying, such as R,

I values of x for which a condition P (x ) is true,
I we have the fact that Q (x ) is true.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 90 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

A statement of the form ∀x ∈ U : P (x ) → Q (x ) as we had before is called a

universal conditional statement, which is one of the most important forms of
a mathematical statement. If true, we have that

I In some universal set we are studying, such as R,

I values of x for which a condition P (x ) is true,
I we have the fact that Q (x ) is true.

We can form the converse, inverse, and contrapositive of universal

conditional statements and expect in general for the equivalences to hold.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 90 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

A statement of the form ∀x ∈ U : P (x ) → Q (x ) as we had before is called a

universal conditional statement, which is one of the most important forms of
a mathematical statement. If true, we have that

I In some universal set we are studying, such as R,

I values of x for which a condition P (x ) is true,
I we have the fact that Q (x ) is true.

We can form the converse, inverse, and contrapositive of universal

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 90 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

A statement of the form ∀x ∈ U : P (x ) → Q (x ) as we had before is called a

universal conditional statement, which is one of the most important forms of
a mathematical statement. If true, we have that

I In some universal set we are studying, such as R,

I values of x for which a condition P (x ) is true,
I we have the fact that Q (x ) is true.

We can form the converse, inverse, and contrapositive of universal

conditional statements and expect in general for the equivalences to hold.
The converse of “∀x ∈ R : if x is an integer then x is rational,” would be false,
since not all rational numbers are integers.
The inverse, being equivalent to the converse, would expectedly be false: if x
is not an integer, it does not mean that x is not rational.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 90 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

A statement of the form ∀x ∈ U : P (x ) → Q (x ) as we had before is called a

universal conditional statement, which is one of the most important forms of
a mathematical statement. If true, we have that

I In some universal set we are studying, such as R,

I values of x for which a condition P (x ) is true,
I we have the fact that Q (x ) is true.

We can form the converse, inverse, and contrapositive of universal

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 90 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Consider the statements “For all real numbers x, if x is an integer then x is

rational.”

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 91 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Consider the statements “For all real numbers x, if x is an integer then x is

rational.”
We could equivalently say “For all integers x, x is rational,” or even more
concisely, “All integers are rational.”

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 91 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Consider the statements “For all real numbers x, if x is an integer then x is

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 91 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Consider the statements “For all real numbers x, if x is an integer then x is

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 91 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Consider the statements “For all real numbers x, if x is an integer then x is

rational.”
We could equivalently say “For all integers x, x is rational,” or even more
concisely, “All integers are rational.”
Let P (x ) be the predicate that x is an integer and Q (x ) be the predicate that x
is rational, as before.
If D is the truth set of P (x ), then for all x ∈ D, P (x ) → Q (x ) is true, if and only
if Q (x ) is true.
Generally, a universal conditional statement ∀x ∈ U, P (x ) → Q (x ) is
equivalent to ∀x ∈ D , Q (x ) when D is the truth set of P (x ).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 91 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Consider the statements “For all real numbers x, if x is an integer then x is

I If an animal is a human, then it is a mammal. (∀x ∈ A, H (x ) → M (x ))

I All humans are mammals. (∀x ∈ H, M (x ))

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 91 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Consider the following statements:

(1) For every integer x, x 2 ≥ 0.

(2) There exists a real number x such that x 3 = 8.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 92 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Bound Variables and Scope

Consider the following statements:

(1) For every integer x, x 2 ≥ 0.

(2) There exists a real number x such that x 3 = 8.

Although both statements make reference to the variable x, the variable serves
a different function in each case.
In each case, the variable is bound by the quantifier that introduces it.
The scope of each variable begins when the quantifier introduces it, and ends
with the end of the statement.
Compare this to local variables in computer programs that are bound by the
function defining it, with a scope restricted to that function.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 92 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Bound Variables and Scope

Consider the following statements:

(1) For every integer x, x 2 ≥ 0.

(2) There exists a real number x such that x 3 = 8.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 92 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Equivalence of Existential Statements

Example: Consider the statement that there exists an integer n that is both
prime and even.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 93 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Equivalence of Existential Statements

Example: Consider the statement that there exists an integer n that is both
prime and even.
If P (n) is the predicate that n is prime, and E (n) the predicate that n is even,
we may equivalently write the given statement as

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 93 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Equivalence of Existential Statements

I ∃n such that P (n) ∧ E (n).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 93 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Equivalence of Existential Statements

I ∃n such that P (n) ∧ E (n).

I ∃ a prime number n such that E (n).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 93 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Equivalence of Existential Statements

I ∃n such that P (n) ∧ E (n).

I ∃ a prime number n such that E (n).
I ∃ an even number n such that P (n).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 93 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Negations of Quantified Statements

Consider the statement

All mathematicians wear glasses.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 94 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Negations of Quantified Statements

Consider the statement

All mathematicians wear glasses.

You might be tempted to negate this as

No mathematicians wear glasses.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 94 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Negations of Quantified Statements

Consider the statement

All mathematicians wear glasses.

You might be tempted to negate this as

No mathematicians wear glasses.

Recall however that any statement, quantified or otherwise, is true if and only if
its negation is false, meaning they must always have opposite truth values.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 94 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Negations of Quantified Statements

Consider the statement

All mathematicians wear glasses.

You might be tempted to negate this as

No mathematicians wear glasses.

Recall however that any statement, quantified or otherwise, is true if and only if
its negation is false, meaning they must always have opposite truth values.
What if some, but not all mathematicians wear glasses? Then the two
statements above are both false! So they cannot be negations of each other.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 94 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Negations of Quantified Statements

Consider the statement

All mathematicians wear glasses.

You might be tempted to negate this as

No mathematicians wear glasses.

Some mathematicians do not wear glasses.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 94 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Consider the domain D of mathematicians and the predicate P (x ): x wears

glasses. Let us formalize the intuition from before:

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 95 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Consider the domain D of mathematicians and the predicate P (x ): x wears

glasses. Let us formalize the intuition from before:

I I claim that ∀x ∈ D , P (x ), i.e. All mathematicians wear glasses.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 95 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Consider the domain D of mathematicians and the predicate P (x ): x wears

glasses. Let us formalize the intuition from before:

I I claim that ∀x ∈ D , P (x ), i.e. All mathematicians wear glasses.

I To prove me wrong, you find a counterexample and demonstrate the the
existence of a mathematician that does not wear glasses.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 95 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Consider the domain D of mathematicians and the predicate P (x ): x wears

glasses. Let us formalize the intuition from before:

I I claim that ∀x ∈ D , P (x ), i.e. All mathematicians wear glasses.

I To prove me wrong, you find a counterexample and demonstrate the the
existence of a mathematician that does not wear glasses.
I That is, you demonstate that ∃x ∈ D : ∼P (x ), the statement that Some
mathematician does not wear glasses.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 95 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Consider the domain D of mathematicians and the predicate P (x ): x wears

glasses. Let us formalize the intuition from before:

I I claim that ∀x ∈ D , P (x ), i.e. All mathematicians wear glasses.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 95 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Consider the domain D of mathematicians and the predicate P (x ): x wears

glasses. Let us formalize the intuition from before:

I I claim that ∀x ∈ D , P (x ), i.e. All mathematicians wear glasses.

As such, given a predicate P (x ) with domain D, we have that

∀x ∈ D , P (x ) negates to ∃x ∈ D such that ∼P (x )

and
∃x ∈ D such that P (x ) negates to ∀x ∈ D , ∼P (x )

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 95 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Example: Negate the following statements:

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 96 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Example: Negate the following statements:

I All primes are odd.

Example: Negate the following statements:

Negating Universal Conditional Statements

Recall that a conditional statement p → q has the equivalent negation, p ∧ ∼q,

i,e, the negation of “If p, then q,” is “p, but not q.”

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 97 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Negating Universal Conditional Statements

Recall that a conditional statement p → q has the equivalent negation, p ∧ ∼q,

i,e, the negation of “If p, then q,” is “p, but not q.”
As such, a universal conditional statement ∀x , P (x ) → Q (x ) will have the
predicate negate as P (x ) ∧ ∼Q (x ). We therefore have that

∀x , P (x ) → Q (x ) negates to ∃x such that P (x ) ∧ ∼Q (x ).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 97 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Negating Universal Conditional Statements

Recall that a conditional statement p → q has the equivalent negation, p ∧ ∼q,

∀x , P (x ) → Q (x ) negates to ∃x such that P (x ) ∧ ∼Q (x ).

Example: Negate the following statements:

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 97 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Negating Universal Conditional Statements

Recall that a conditional statement p → q has the equivalent negation, p ∧ ∼q,

∀x , P (x ) → Q (x ) negates to ∃x such that P (x ) ∧ ∼Q (x ).

Example: Negate the following statements:

I ∀ persons p, if p is blond, then p has blue eyes.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 97 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Negating Universal Conditional Statements

Recall that a conditional statement p → q has the equivalent negation, p ∧ ∼q,

∀x , P (x ) → Q (x ) negates to ∃x such that P (x ) ∧ ∼Q (x ).

Example: Negate the following statements:

I ∀ persons p, if p is blond, then p has blue eyes.

Negation: ∃ a person p, such that p is blond, but does not have blue eyes.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 97 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Negating Universal Conditional Statements

Recall that a conditional statement p → q has the equivalent negation, p ∧ ∼q,

∀x , P (x ) → Q (x ) negates to ∃x such that P (x ) ∧ ∼Q (x ).

Example: Negate the following statements:

I ∀ persons p, if p is blond, then p has blue eyes.

Negation: ∃ a person p, such that p is blond, but does not have blue eyes.
I If a computer program has more than 100,000 lines of code, then it
contains a bug.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 97 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Negating Universal Conditional Statements

Recall that a conditional statement p → q has the equivalent negation, p ∧ ∼q,

∀x , P (x ) → Q (x ) negates to ∃x such that P (x ) ∧ ∼Q (x ).

Example: Negate the following statements:

I ∀ persons p, if p is blond, then p has blue eyes.

Negation: ∃ a person p, such that p is blond, but does not have blue eyes.
I If a computer program has more than 100,000 lines of code, then it
contains a bug.
Negation: There is at least one computer program that has more than
100,000 lines of code, but does not contain a bug.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 97 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Vacuous Truth in Universal Conditional Statements

Just as a conditional statement can be true vacuously, i.e. given ∀x ∈ D, if P (x ) then

Q (x ), the hypothesis P (x ) may not be true for any element of the domain.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 98 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Vacuous Truth in Universal Conditional Statements

Just as a conditional statement can be true vacuously, i.e. given ∀x ∈ D, if P (x ) then

Q (x ), the hypothesis P (x ) may not be true for any element of the domain.
Consider the statement
All balls in the bowl are blue.

and its negation

There exists a ball in the bowl that is not blue.

where the domain is a set of balls that may or may not be in the bowl.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 98 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Vacuous Truth in Universal Conditional Statements

Just as a conditional statement can be true vacuously, i.e. given ∀x ∈ D, if P (x ) then

Q (x ), the hypothesis P (x ) may not be true for any element of the domain.
Consider the statement
All balls in the bowl are blue.

and its negation

There exists a ball in the bowl that is not blue.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 98 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Vacuous Truth in Universal Conditional Statements

Just as a conditional statement can be true vacuously, i.e. given ∀x ∈ D, if P (x ) then

Q (x ), the hypothesis P (x ) may not be true for any element of the domain.
Consider the statement
All balls in the bowl are blue.

and its negation

There exists a ball in the bowl that is not blue.

where the domain is a set of balls that may or may not be in the bowl.
If the bowl is non-empty, then these statements certainly have opposite truth values,
depending on whether one of the balls is blue.
Even if the bowl is empty, we want these statements to negate each other, meaning
the second statement is false, and the first one is true.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 98 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Vacuous Truth in Universal Conditional Statements

Just as a conditional statement can be true vacuously, i.e. given ∀x ∈ D, if P (x ) then

Q (x ), the hypothesis P (x ) may not be true for any element of the domain.
Consider the statement
All balls in the bowl are blue.

and its negation

There exists a ball in the bowl that is not blue.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 98 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

The Relation Among ∀, ∃, ∧, and ∨

Let Q (x ) be a predicate, with finite domain D = {x1 , x2 , . . . , xn }.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 99 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

The Relation Among ∀, ∃, ∧, and ∨

Let Q (x ) be a predicate, with finite domain D = {x1 , x2 , . . . , xn }. Then the

statements
∀x ∈ D , Q (x ) and Q (x1 ) ∧ Q (x2 ) ∧ . . . ∧ Q (xn )
are equivalent.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 99 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

The Relation Among ∀, ∃, ∧, and ∨

Let Q (x ) be a predicate, with finite domain D = {x1 , x2 , . . . , xn }. Then the

statements
∀x ∈ D , Q (x ) and Q (x1 ) ∧ Q (x2 ) ∧ . . . ∧ Q (xn )
are equivalent. By De Morgan’s Law, the negation of the conjunction is the
disjunction of the negations, i.e. if not all of Q (xi ) are true, there must be one
that is not, i.e the equivalent statements

∃x ∈ D such that ∼Q (x ) and ∼Q (x1 ) ∨ ∼Q (x2 ) ∨ . . . ∨ ∼Q (xn )

negate the statements above.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 99 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

The Relation Among ∀, ∃, ∧, and ∨

Let Q (x ) be a predicate, with finite domain D = {x1 , x2 , . . . , xn }. Then the

∃x ∈ D such that ∼Q (x ) and ∼Q (x1 ) ∨ ∼Q (x2 ) ∨ . . . ∨ ∼Q (xn )

negate the statements above.

This essentially demonstrates, in the case of a finite domain at least, why
∀x ∈ D , P (x ) negates to ∃x ∈ D such that ∼P (x ).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 99 / 157

Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Multiple Quantifiers
Consider the statement

There is a person supervising every detail of the production process.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 100 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Multiple Quantifiers
Consider the statement

There is a person supervising every detail of the production process.

Which of these statements best describe the meaning here?

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 100 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Multiple Quantifiers
Consider the statement

There is a person supervising every detail of the production process.

Which of these statements best describe the meaning here?

I There is one single person supervising each detail of the process.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 100 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Multiple Quantifiers
Consider the statement

There is a person supervising every detail of the production process.

Which of these statements best describe the meaning here?

I There is one single person supervising each detail of the process.

I For any detail of the production process, there is a person supervising that
detail, but different details might have different supervisors.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 100 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Multiple Quantifiers
Consider the statement

There is a person supervising every detail of the production process.

Which of these statements best describe the meaning here?

I There is one single person supervising each detail of the process.

I For any detail of the production process, there is a person supervising that
detail, but different details might have different supervisors.

As it turns out, both meanings can be interpreted, but clearly both meanings are not
equivalent. We need to be careful.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 100 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Multiple Quantifiers
Consider the statement

There is a person supervising every detail of the production process.

Which of these statements best describe the meaning here?

I There is one single person supervising each detail of the process.

I For any detail of the production process, there is a person supervising that
detail, but different details might have different supervisors.

As it turns out, both meanings can be interpreted, but clearly both meanings are not
equivalent. We need to be careful.
Let P (x , y ) be the predicate “person x supervises detail y . Then

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 100 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Multiple Quantifiers
Consider the statement

There is a person supervising every detail of the production process.

Which of these statements best describe the meaning here?

I There is one single person supervising each detail of the process.

I For any detail of the production process, there is a person supervising that
detail, but different details might have different supervisors.

As it turns out, both meanings can be interpreted, but clearly both meanings are not
equivalent. We need to be careful.
Let P (x , y ) be the predicate “person x supervises detail y . Then

I ∃x such that ∀y , P (x , y ) symbolizes the meaning that one person supervises all
the details.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 100 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Multiple Quantifiers
Consider the statement

There is a person supervising every detail of the production process.

Which of these statements best describe the meaning here?

I There is one single person supervising each detail of the process.

I For any detail of the production process, there is a person supervising that
detail, but different details might have different supervisors.

As it turns out, both meanings can be interpreted, but clearly both meanings are not
equivalent. We need to be careful.
Let P (x , y ) be the predicate “person x supervises detail y . Then

I ∃x such that ∀y , P (x , y ) symbolizes the meaning that one person supervises all
the details.
I ∀y , ∃x such that P (x , y ) symbolizes the meaning that for each detail, there is a
person supervising that detail.
John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 100 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Example: The reciprocal of a nonzero real number a is a nonzero real

number b such that ab = 1.
Let D = R − {0} be the set of nonzero real numbers and P (a, b) the predicate
“ab = 1.” Which statement is correct?

I ∀a ∈ D , ∃b ∈ D such that P (a, b).

I ∃a ∈ D such that ∀b ∈ D, P (a, b).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 101 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Example: The reciprocal of a nonzero real number a is a nonzero real

number b such that ab = 1.
Let D = R − {0} be the set of nonzero real numbers and P (a, b) the predicate
“ab = 1.” Which statement is correct?

I ∀a ∈ D , ∃b ∈ D such that P (a, b). 3

I ∃a ∈ D such that ∀b ∈ D, P (a, b). 7

The first statement symbolizes that every nonzero real number has a
reciprocal, but the second one symbolizes that some real number has a
product of 1 with every real number.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 101 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Example: The reciprocal of a nonzero real number a is a nonzero real

number b such that ab = 1.
Let D = R − {0} be the set of nonzero real numbers and P (a, b) the predicate
“ab = 1.” Which statement is correct?

I ∀a ∈ D , ∃b ∈ D such that P (a, b). 3

I ∃a ∈ D such that ∀b ∈ D, P (a, b). 7

The first statement symbolizes that every nonzero real number has a
reciprocal, but the second one symbolizes that some real number has a
product of 1 with every real number.
Recall the definition of the scope of a variable. In the first statement, the scope
of a in the universal statement extends to the existential one while the scope of
the existential statement begins in the middle of the universal one.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 101 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Example: The reciprocal of a nonzero real number a is a nonzero real

number b such that ab = 1.
Let D = R − {0} be the set of nonzero real numbers and P (a, b) the predicate
“ab = 1.” Which statement is correct?

I ∀a ∈ D , ∃b ∈ D such that P (a, b). 3

I ∃a ∈ D such that ∀b ∈ D, P (a, b). 7

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 101 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Negating Statements with Multiple Quantifiers

Negating statements with multiple quantifiers is just an extra step.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 102 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Negating Statements with Multiple Quantifiers

Negating statements with multiple quantifiers is just an extra step. The statement
∀x , ∃y : P (x , y ) is simply a universal statement using an existental one as a predicate.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 102 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Negating Statements with Multiple Quantifiers

Negating statements with multiple quantifiers is just an extra step. The statement
∀x , ∃y : P (x , y ) is simply a universal statement using an existental one as a predicate.
We will find the negation of by simply adding an extra step to negate the inner
quantified statements(s)

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 102 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Negating Statements with Multiple Quantifiers

∼[∀x , ∃y : P (x , y )] Negate the original statement

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 102 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Negating Statements with Multiple Quantifiers

∼[∀x , ∃y : P (x , y )] Negate the original statement

≡ ∃x : ∼[∃y : P (x , y )] Negate the universal statement

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 102 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Negating Statements with Multiple Quantifiers

∼[∀x , ∃y : P (x , y )] Negate the original statement

≡ ∃x : ∼[∃y : P (x , y )] Negate the universal statement
≡ ∃x : ∀y , ∼P (x , y ) Negate the existential statement

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 102 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Negating Statements with Multiple Quantifiers

∼[∀x , ∃y : P (x , y )] Negate the original statement

≡ ∃x : ∼[∃y : P (x , y )] Negate the universal statement
≡ ∃x : ∀y , ∼P (x , y ) Negate the existential statement

That is, the statement

For all x, there exists y such that P (x , y )

negates to
There exists x, such that for all y , not P (x , y )

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 102 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Negating Statements with Multiple Quantifiers

∼[∀x , ∃y : P (x , y )] Negate the original statement

≡ ∃x : ∼[∃y : P (x , y )] Negate the universal statement
≡ ∃x : ∀y , ∼P (x , y ) Negate the existential statement

That is, the statement

For all x, there exists y such that P (x , y )

negates to
There exists x, such that for all y , not P (x , y )

So if it is not the case that every detail x has a supervisor y , then some detail x must
not have any y supervising!

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 102 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

We negate similarly when an existential statement has a universal predicate

and we summarize:
Statement Negation
∀x , ∃y such that P (x , y ) ∃x such that ∀y , ∼P (x , y )
∃x such that ∀y , P (x , y ) ∀x , ∃y such that ∼P (x , y )

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 103 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Example: Recall from Calculus the concept of a limit of a function f as t

approaches some number x.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 104 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Example: Recall from Calculus the concept of a limit of a function f as t

approaches some number x. We say the function has a limit at x if

There exists a real number L such that for every real ε > 0, there exists a real
number δ > 0 such that for all real numbers t, if 0 < |x − t | < δ then
|f (t ) − L| < ε .

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 104 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Example: Recall from Calculus the concept of a limit of a function f as t

approaches some number x. We say the function has a limit at x if

There exists a real number L such that for every real ε > 0, there exists a real
number δ > 0 such that for all real numbers t, if 0 < |x − t | < δ then
|f (t ) − L| < ε .

We may symbolize this as

∃L ∈ R : ∀ε > 0, ∃δ > 0 : ∀t ∈ R, 0 < |x − t | < δ → |f (t ) − L| < ε.

which negates to

∀L ∈ R : ∃ε > 0, ∀δ > 0 : ∃t ∈ R, 0 < |x − t | < δ ∧ |f (t ) − L| ≥ ε.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 104 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Example: Recall from Calculus the concept of a limit of a function f as t

approaches some number x. We say the function has a limit at x if

There exists a real number L such that for every real ε > 0, there exists a real
number δ > 0 such that for all real numbers t, if 0 < |x − t | < δ then
|f (t ) − L| < ε .

We may symbolize this as

∃L ∈ R : ∀ε > 0, ∃δ > 0 : ∀t ∈ R, 0 < |x − t | < δ → |f (t ) − L| < ε.

which negates to

∀L ∈ R : ∃ε > 0, ∀δ > 0 : ∃t ∈ R, 0 < |x − t | < δ ∧ |f (t ) − L| ≥ ε.

We may read this as For every real number L, there exists an ε > 0 such that
for every real number δ > 0, there exists a real number t such that
0 < |x − t | < δ but |f (t ) − L| ≥ ε .

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 104 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Mathematical Induction
Recall the Modus Ponens rule of inference.
p→q
p
∴ q

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 105 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Mathematical Induction
Recall the Modus Ponens rule of inference. We also have a Universal Modus Ponens.
p→q ∀x , P (x ) → Q (x )
p P (a)
∴ q ∴ Q (a).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 105 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Mathematical Induction
Recall the Modus Ponens rule of inference. We also have a Universal Modus Ponens.
p→q ∀x , P (x ) → Q (x )
p P (a)
∴ q ∴ Q (a).
We reason the validity as follows, using the rule of universal instantiation: if something
is true for everything in a set, it is true for any particular thing in that set:

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 105 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

I If the first premise is true, then in particular, P (a) → Q (a) is true for a given a.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 105 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

I If the first premise is true, then in particular, P (a) → Q (a) is true for a given a.
I Since P (a) is true, we can infer by Modus Ponens that Q (a) is true.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 105 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

I If the first premise is true, then in particular, P (a) → Q (a) is true for a given a.
I Since P (a) is true, we can infer by Modus Ponens that Q (a) is true.

Now consider the following argument,

All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.
∴ Socrates is mortal.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 105 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Other Universal Rules of Inference

Modus Ponens ∀x , P (x ) → Q (x ) Transitivity ∀x , P (x ) → Q (x )

P (a) ∀x , Q (x ) → R (x )
∴ Q (a ) ∴ ∀x , P (x ) → R (x )
Modus Tollens ∀x , P (x ) → Q (x )
∼Q (a)
∴ ∼P (a)

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 106 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Consider the predicate P (n) whose domain is the set Z+ of positive integers
and suppose we would like to prove that ∀n ∈ Z+ , P (n).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 107 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

Consider the predicate P (n) whose domain is the set Z+ of positive integers
and suppose we would like to prove that ∀n ∈ Z+ , P (n).
The following argument form is known as the (weak) principle of
mathematical induction:

P (1)
∀k ∈ Z+ , P (k ) → P (k + 1)
∴ ∀n ∈ Z+ , P (n)
where

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 107 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

P (1)
∀k ∈ Z+ , P (k ) → P (k + 1)
∴ ∀n ∈ Z+ , P (n)
where

I A proof of the first premise is called the base case.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 107 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

P (1)
∀k ∈ Z+ , P (k ) → P (k + 1)
∴ ∀n ∈ Z+ , P (n)
where

I A proof of the first premise is called the base case.

I A proof of the second premise is called the inductive step.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 107 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

P (1)
∀k ∈ Z+ , P (k ) → P (k + 1)
∴ ∀n ∈ Z+ , P (n)
where

I A proof of the first premise is called the base case.

I A proof of the second premise is called the inductive step.
I The antecedent P (k ) in the inductive step is called the induction
hypothesis.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 107 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

P (1)
∀k ∈ Z+ , P (k ) → P (k + 1)
∴ ∀n ∈ Z+ , P (n)
where

I A proof of the first premise is called the base case.

I A proof of the second premise is called the inductive step.
I The antecedent P (k ) in the inductive step is called the induction
hypothesis.

That is, if one can demonstrate P (1) is true, and then demonstrate that P (k )
implies P (k + 1) for every integer k ≥ 1, then P (n) must be true for all integers
n ≥ 1.
John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 107 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

You may think of mathematical induction as follows:

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 108 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

You may think of mathematical induction as follows:

I Suppose you have an infinite sequence of dominoes lined up so that, if any

domino falls, the following domino falls.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 108 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

You may think of mathematical induction as follows:

I Suppose you have an infinite sequence of dominoes lined up so that, if any

domino falls, the following domino falls.
I The base case is the proof of the first domino falling.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 108 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

You may think of mathematical induction as follows:

I Suppose you have an infinite sequence of dominoes lined up so that, if any

domino falls, the following domino falls.
I The base case is the proof of the first domino falling.
I The induction hypothesis is the statement that the k th domino will fall. Proving
the inductive step is showing that this implies the (k + 1)th domino will fall.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 108 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

You may think of mathematical induction as follows:

I Suppose you have an infinite sequence of dominoes lined up so that, if any

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 108 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

You may think of mathematical induction as follows:

I Suppose you have an infinite sequence of dominoes lined up so that, if any

Exercise: Prove that the sum of the first n positive odd integers is n2 by

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 108 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

You may think of mathematical induction as follows:

I Suppose you have an infinite sequence of dominoes lined up so that, if any

Exercise: Prove that the sum of the first n positive odd integers is n2 by

I Showing that the sum of the first positive odd integer (1) equals 12 .

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 108 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

You may think of mathematical induction as follows:

I Suppose you have an infinite sequence of dominoes lined up so that, if any

Exercise: Prove that the sum of the first n positive odd integers is n2 by

I Showing that the sum of the first positive odd integer (1) equals 12 .
I Assume as the induction hypothesis that the sum of the first k squares is k 2 , i.e.

1 + 3 + 5 + ... + (2k − 1) = k 2 .

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 108 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

You may think of mathematical induction as follows:

I Suppose you have an infinite sequence of dominoes lined up so that, if any

Exercise: Prove that the sum of the first n positive odd integers is n2 by

I Showing that the sum of the first positive odd integer (1) equals 12 .
I Assume as the induction hypothesis that the sum of the first k squares is k 2 , i.e.

1 + 3 + 5 + ... + (2k − 1) = k 2 .

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 108 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

You may think of mathematical induction as follows:

I Suppose you have an infinite sequence of dominoes lined up so that, if any

Exercise: Prove that the sum of the first n positive odd integers is n2 by

I Showing that the sum of the first positive odd integer (1) equals 12 .
I Assume as the induction hypothesis that the sum of the first k squares is k 2 , i.e.

1 + 3 + 5 + ... + (2k − 1) = k 2 .

I Show that from this, we get that the sum of the first k + 1 positive integers is
(k + 1)2 , by adding 2(k + 1) − 1 (the (k + 1)th odd number) to both sides, and
factor the right hand side of the equation.
I Conclude that the statement is true for any n.
John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 108 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

n
n=1: ∑ (2t − 1) = n2
t =1

1 = 1

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 109 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

n
n=2: ∑ (2t − 1) = n2
t =1

1 + 3 = 4

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 109 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

n
n=3: ∑ (2t − 1) = n2
t =1

1 + 3 + 5 = 9

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 109 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

n
n=4: ∑ (2t − 1) = n2
t =1

1 + 3 + 5 + 7 = 16

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 109 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

n
n=5: ∑ (2t − 1) = n2
t =1

1 + 3 + 5 + 7 + 9 = 25

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 109 / 157
Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements Section 1-4: Predicates and Quantified Statements

n
n=6: ∑ (2t − 1) = n2
t =1

1 + 3 + 5 + 7 + 9 + 11 = 36

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 109 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory

Chapter 6: Set Theory

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 110 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 0: Set Language

Section 0: Set Language

Note: Much of the material for this section we will go over quickly may be
found in §1.2.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 111 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 0: Set Language

Set Definitions
A set is a well-defined collection of distinct objects called members or elements.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 112 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 0: Set Language

Set Definitions
A set is a well-defined collection of distinct objects called members or elements.
To be well-defined, membership must not be ambiguous, meaning that an object
either belongs to the set or, exclusively, it does not.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 112 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 0: Set Language

I C – the set of all complex numbers.

I R – the set of all real numbers.
I Z – the set of all integers.
I Q - the set of all rational numbers.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 112 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 0: Set Language

I C – the set of all complex numbers.

I R – the set of all real numbers.
I Z – the set of all integers.
I Q - the set of all rational numbers.

For a set A, we will use the notation x ∈ A, read as “x is in A” to indicate that x is a

member of the set A, and use x 6∈ A to indicate that x is not a member of A.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 112 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 0: Set Language

I C – the set of all complex numbers.

I R – the set of all real numbers.
I Z – the set of all integers.
I Q - the set of all rational numbers.

For a set A, we will use the notation x ∈ A, read as “x is in A” to indicate that x is a

member of the set A, and use x 6∈ A to indicate that x is not a member of A.
We say a set A is a subset of B, and write A ⊆ B, if every element of A is an element
of B, i.e. ∀x, if x ∈ A then x ∈ B.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 112 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 0: Set Language

I C – the set of all complex numbers.

I R – the set of all real numbers.
I Z – the set of all integers.
I Q - the set of all rational numbers.

For a set A, we will use the notation x ∈ A, read as “x is in A” to indicate that x is a

member of the set A, and use x 6∈ A to indicate that x is not a member of A.
We say a set A is a subset of B, and write A ⊆ B, if every element of A is an element
of B, i.e. ∀x, if x ∈ A then x ∈ B.
Otherwise, if A is not a subset of B, we write A 6⊆ B, in which case ∃x such that x ∈ A
but x 6∈ B.
John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 112 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 0: Set Language

7
Example: Consider the numbers numbers 5, 22
, π , and the imaginary unit i.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 113 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 0: Set Language

7
Example: Consider the numbers numbers 5, 22
, π , and the imaginary unit i.
I We can truthfully write 5 ∈ C, 7
∈ C, π ∈ C, and i ∈ C since the set of
22
complex numbers contains all real numbers as well as the imaginary unit.
I We can also write 5 ∈ R, 7
∈ R and π ∈ R since these are real
22
numbers, but we must write i 6∈ R since it is not a real number.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 113 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 0: Set Language

Example: How are C, R, Q, and Z related?

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 113 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 0: Set Language

Example: How are C, R, Q, and Z related?

Z ⊆ Q ⊆ R ⊆ C.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 113 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 0: Set Language

Example: How are C, R, Q, and Z related?

Z ⊆ Q ⊆ R ⊆ C.

We may use + or − as a superscript to indicate positive or negative elements

of these sets, such as Z+ to mean positive integers or R− to mean negative
real numbers.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 113 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 0: Set Language

We can introduce sets with a description, e.g. let S be the set of students in this class.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 114 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 0: Set Language

We can introduce sets with a description, e.g. let S be the set of students in this class.
We can use set-roster or more simply roster notation to list the elements of a set: let
A = {x , y , z } for example.
We may use ellipsis to avoid having to list every element, such as the set
E = {2, 4, 6, 8, . . .} to mean the set of positive even integers or
A = {1, 2, 3, . . . , 99, 100} to mean the first one hundred positive integers.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 114 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 0: Set Language

{n ∈ Z | n is even} or {x | x is an even integer} or {2n | n ∈ Z}

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 114 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 0: Set Language

{n ∈ Z | n is even} or {x | x is an even integer} or {2n | n ∈ Z}

In general, if P (x ) is any predicate whose domain is S, set-builder notation is

essentially written as
{x ∈ S | P (x )} or {x | P (x )}
The resulting set is the truth set of P (x ). In the latter case, we need to be careful how
we specify P (x ).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 114 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 0: Set Language

{n ∈ Z | n is even} or {x | x is an even integer} or {2n | n ∈ Z}

In general, if P (x ) is any predicate whose domain is S, set-builder notation is

essentially written as
{x ∈ S | P (x )} or {x | P (x )}
The resulting set is the truth set of P (x ). In the latter case, we need to be careful how
we specify P (x ).
It is common to see : instead of | in set-builder notation, either of which are read as
“such that”.
John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 114 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 0: Set Language

I We may denote the set of all multiplicatively invertible real numbers by

R× where
R× = {a ∈ R : ∃b ∈ R such that ab = 1}

I The half-open interval [0, 1) in set-builder notation is

[0, 1) = {x ∈ R : 0 ≤ x < 1}

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 115 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 0: Set Language

Subsets and Set Equality

Given two sets A and B, we say A = B if every element of A is an element of B

and every element of B is an element of A, i.e.

A = B ⇐⇒ A ⊆ B and B ⊆ A.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 116 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 0: Set Language

Subsets and Set Equality

Given two sets A and B, we say A = B if every element of A is an element of B

and every element of B is an element of A, i.e.

A = B ⇐⇒ A ⊆ B and B ⊆ A.

If A is a subset of B, but A 6= B, we call A a proper subset of B. This occurs

when A ⊆ B, but at least one element of B is not also in A.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 116 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 0: Set Language

Subsets and Set Equality

Given two sets A and B, we say A = B if every element of A is an element of B

and every element of B is an element of A, i.e.

A = B ⇐⇒ A ⊆ B and B ⊆ A.

If A is a subset of B, but A 6= B, we call A a proper subset of B. This occurs

when A ⊆ B, but at least one element of B is not also in A.
Example: Let A = {1, 2, 3} and B = {4, 3, 2, 1}. Then, A ⊆ B and in fact A is a
proper subset of B.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 116 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 0: Set Language

Cartesian Product

Given elements a and b, the symbol (a, b) denotes the ordered pair
consisting of a and b together with the specification that a is the first element
and b is the second element.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 117 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 0: Set Language

Cartesian Product

Given elements a and b, the symbol (a, b) denotes the ordered pair
consisting of a and b together with the specification that a is the first element
and b is the second element.
Two ordered pairs (a, b) and (c , d ) are equal if and only if a = c and b = d, i.e.

(a, b) = (c , d ) ⇐⇒ a = c and b = d

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 117 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 0: Set Language

Cartesian Product

(a, b) = (c , d ) ⇐⇒ a = c and b = d

Let A and B be sets. The Cartesian product of A and B is an entirely new set
A × B consisting of all ordered pairs (a, b) such that a ∈ A and b ∈ B, i.e.

A × B = {(a, b) : a ∈ A and b ∈ B }

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 117 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 0: Set Language

Cartesian Product

(a, b) = (c , d ) ⇐⇒ a = c and b = d

Let A and B be sets. The Cartesian product of A and B is an entirely new set
A × B consisting of all ordered pairs (a, b) such that a ∈ A and b ∈ B, i.e.

A × B = {(a, b) : a ∈ A and b ∈ B }

Remark: The set A × B is entirely different from both A and B and formally,
neither A or B are subsets of A × B or belong to the same universal set.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 117 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 0: Set Language

Example: Consider the set R × R, often denoted as R2 , a.k.a. the Cartesian

plane or xy-plane. It consists of all ordered pairs (x , y ), sometimes called
points, where x and y are real numbers.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 118 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 0: Set Language

Example: Consider the set R × R, often denoted as R2 , a.k.a. the Cartesian

plane or xy-plane. It consists of all ordered pairs (x , y ), sometimes called
points, where x and y are real numbers.
Consider the set
(x , y ) ∈ R × R : x 2 + y 2 = 1 .

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 118 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 0: Set Language

Example: Consider the set R × R, often denoted as R2 , a.k.a. the Cartesian

plane or xy-plane. It consists of all ordered pairs (x , y ), sometimes called
points, where x and y are real numbers.
Consider the set
(x , y ) ∈ R × R : x 2 + y 2 = 1 .

This is the set of all points in the xy-plane that lie on the unit circle.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 118 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 0: Set Language

Example: Consider the set R × R, often denoted as R2 , a.k.a. the Cartesian

plane or xy-plane. It consists of all ordered pairs (x , y ), sometimes called
points, where x and y are real numbers.
Consider the set
(x , y ) ∈ R × R : x 2 + y 2 = 1 .

This is the set of all points in the xy-plane that lie on the unit circle.
A real-valued function f (x ) of a real variable may be defined as as subset of
R × R where
f = {(x , y ) ∈ R × R : y = f (x )} .

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 118 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 0: Set Language

Example: Consider the set R × R, often denoted as R2 , a.k.a. the Cartesian

plane or xy-plane. It consists of all ordered pairs (x , y ), sometimes called
points, where x and y are real numbers.
Consider the set
(x , y ) ∈ R × R : x 2 + y 2 = 1 .

If f (x ) = x 2 , then f ⊆ R × R is the set of all points lying on the parabola y = x 2 .

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 118 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Section 1-4: Set Theory

Note: We will present things in a slightly different order than the book, moving
from more basic and intuitive ideas to more advanced ones.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 119 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Venn Diagrams

Venn diagrams, named for British mathematician John Venn, are used to present
relations among sets.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 120 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Venn Diagrams

Venn diagrams, named for British mathematician John Venn, are used to present
relations among sets.
If A ⊆ B, we could have

A B A=B

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 120 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Venn Diagrams

Venn diagrams, named for British mathematician John Venn, are used to present
relations among sets.
If A ⊆ B, we could have

A B A=B

If A 6⊆ B we could have

A
A B A B
B

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 120 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

The sets Z, Q, and R, of integers, rational numbers, and real numbers

respectively, have the following relationship:

Z Q R

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 121 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Set Operations

I The union of A and B is the set formed by taking members belonging to

A, B or both, to make another set:
A ∪ B = {x : x ∈ A or x ∈ B } .

I The intersection of A and B is the set formed by taking members

common to both A and B to make another set:
A ∩ B = {x : x ∈ A and x ∈ B } .

I The difference or relative complement of A and B is the set formed by

taking members belonging to A, but not B, to make another set:
A − B = {x : x ∈ A and x 6∈ B } .

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 122 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Often, we would like to consider sets that are contained within (i.e. subsets of)
some larger set, such as the set of real numbers R, the set of integers Z, or
any other set of interest.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 123 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Often, we would like to consider sets that are contained within (i.e. subsets of)
some larger set, such as the set of real numbers R, the set of integers Z, or
any other set of interest.
We call such a set of interest the universal set or universe, and often
introduce the set as U or U.
If A is contained in some universe U , we call the set U − A, denoted as Ac , the
complement of A in U , and it contains all those members of U not in A.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 123 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

A B

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 124 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

We may use a Venn diagram to illustrate the set operations:

A B

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 124 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let U = {a, b, c , d , e, f , g } be the universal set containing

A = {a, c , e, g } and B = {d , e, f , g }. Then

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 125 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let U = {a, b, c , d , e, f , g } be the universal set containing

A = {a, c , e, g } and B = {d , e, f , g }. Then

A ∪ B = {a, c , d , e, f , g }

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 125 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let U = {a, b, c , d , e, f , g } be the universal set containing

A = {a, c , e, g } and B = {d , e, f , g }. Then

A ∪ B = {a, c , d , e, f , g } A ∩ B = {e , g }

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 125 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let U = {a, b, c , d , e, f , g } be the universal set containing

A = {a, c , e, g } and B = {d , e, f , g }. Then

A ∪ B = {a, c , d , e, f , g } A ∩ B = {e , g }
A − B = {a, c }

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 125 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let U = {a, b, c , d , e, f , g } be the universal set containing

A = {a, c , e, g } and B = {d , e, f , g }. Then

A ∪ B = {a, c , d , e, f , g } A ∩ B = {e , g }
A − B = {a, c } B − A = {d , f }

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 125 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let U = {a, b, c , d , e, f , g } be the universal set containing

A = {a, c , e, g } and B = {d , e, f , g }. Then

A ∪ B = {a, c , d , e, f , g } A ∩ B = {e , g }
A − B = {a, c } B − A = {d , f }
c
A = {b, d , f }

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 125 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let U = {a, b, c , d , e, f , g } be the universal set containing

A = {a, c , e, g } and B = {d , e, f , g }. Then

A ∪ B = {a, c , d , e, f , g } A ∩ B = {e , g }
A − B = {a, c } B − A = {d , f }
c
A = {b, d , f } B c = {a , b , c }

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 125 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

A = {a, c , e, g } and B = {d , e, f , g }. Then

A ∪ B = {a, c , d , e, f , g } A ∩ B = {e , g }
A − B = {a, c } B − A = {d , f }
c
A = {b, d , f } B c = {a , b , c }

U
A B
a e d
c g f

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 125 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let U = {a, b, c , d , e, f , g } be the universal set containing

A = {a, c , e, g } and B = {d , e, f , g }. Then

A ∪ B = {a, c , d , e, f , g } A ∩ B = {e , g }
A − B = {a, c } B − A = {d , f }
c
A = {b, d , f } B c = {a , b , c }

U
A B
a e d
c g f

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 125 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Interval Notation

Let R be the universal set. Then intervals are subsets of R where for a < b
we have

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 126 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Interval Notation

Let R be the universal set. Then intervals are subsets of R where for a < b
we have

(a, b) = {x ∈ R : a < x < b}

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 126 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Interval Notation

Let R be the universal set. Then intervals are subsets of R where for a < b
we have

(a , b ] = {x ∈ R : a < x ≤ b } [a, b) = {x ∈ R : a ≤ x < b}

(a, ∞) = {x ∈ R : x > a} [a, ∞) = {x ∈ R : x ≥ a}

(−∞, b) = {x ∈ R : x < b}

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 126 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Interval Notation

Let R be the universal set. Then intervals are subsets of R where for a < b
we have

(a, b) = {x ∈ R : a < x < b} [a , b ] = {x ∈ R : a ≤ x ≤ b }

(a , b ] = {x ∈ R : a < x ≤ b } [a, b) = {x ∈ R : a ≤ x < b}

Symbols ∞ and −∞ are used to indicate unbounded intervals

(a, ∞) = {x ∈ R : x > a} [a, ∞) = {x ∈ R : x ≥ a}

(−∞, b) = {x ∈ R : x < b} (−∞, b] = {x ∈ R : x ≤ b}

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 126 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let R be the universal set and

A = (−1, 0] = {x ∈ R : −1 < x ≤ 0} B = [0, 1) = {x ∈ R : 0 ≤ x < 1}

Find A ∪ B, A ∩ B, B − A, and Ac .

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 127 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let R be the universal set and

A = (−1, 0] = {x ∈ R : −1 < x ≤ 0} B = [0, 1) = {x ∈ R : 0 ≤ x < 1}

Find A ∪ B, A ∩ B, B − A, and Ac .

Solution:

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 127 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let R be the universal set and

A = (−1, 0] = {x ∈ R : −1 < x ≤ 0} B = [0, 1) = {x ∈ R : 0 ≤ x < 1}

Find A ∪ B, A ∩ B, B − A, and Ac .

Solution: A ∪ B = {x ∈ R : x ∈ (−1, 0] or x ∈ [0, 1)}

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 127 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let R be the universal set and

A = (−1, 0] = {x ∈ R : −1 < x ≤ 0} B = [0, 1) = {x ∈ R : 0 ≤ x < 1}

Find A ∪ B, A ∩ B, B − A, and Ac .

Solution: A ∪ B = {x ∈ R : x ∈ (−1, 0] or x ∈ [0, 1)}

= {x ∈ R : x ∈ (−1, 1)}

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 127 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let R be the universal set and

A = (−1, 0] = {x ∈ R : −1 < x ≤ 0} B = [0, 1) = {x ∈ R : 0 ≤ x < 1}

Find A ∪ B, A ∩ B, B − A, and Ac .

Solution: A ∪ B = {x ∈ R : x ∈ (−1, 0] or x ∈ [0, 1)}

= {x ∈ R : x ∈ (−1, 1)}
= (−1, 1)

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 127 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let R be the universal set and

A = (−1, 0] = {x ∈ R : −1 < x ≤ 0} B = [0, 1) = {x ∈ R : 0 ≤ x < 1}

Find A ∪ B, A ∩ B, B − A, and Ac .

Solution: A ∪ B = {x ∈ R : x ∈ (−1, 0] or x ∈ [0, 1)}

= {x ∈ R : x ∈ (−1, 1)}
= (−1, 1)
A ∩ B = {x ∈ R : x ∈ (−1, 0] and x ∈ [0, 1)}

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 127 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let R be the universal set and

A = (−1, 0] = {x ∈ R : −1 < x ≤ 0} B = [0, 1) = {x ∈ R : 0 ≤ x < 1}

Find A ∪ B, A ∩ B, B − A, and Ac .

Solution: A ∪ B = {x ∈ R : x ∈ (−1, 0] or x ∈ [0, 1)}

= {x ∈ R : x ∈ (−1, 1)}
= (−1, 1)
A ∩ B = {x ∈ R : x ∈ (−1, 0] and x ∈ [0, 1)}
= {0}

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 127 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let R be the universal set and

A = (−1, 0] = {x ∈ R : −1 < x ≤ 0} B = [0, 1) = {x ∈ R : 0 ≤ x < 1}

Find A ∪ B, A ∩ B, B − A, and Ac .

Solution: A ∪ B = {x ∈ R : x ∈ (−1, 0] or x ∈ [0, 1)}

= {x ∈ R : x ∈ (−1, 1)}
= (−1, 1)
A ∩ B = {x ∈ R : x ∈ (−1, 0] and x ∈ [0, 1)}
= {0}
B − A = {x ∈ R : x ∈ [0, 1) but x 6∈ (−1, 0]}

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 127 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let R be the universal set and

A = (−1, 0] = {x ∈ R : −1 < x ≤ 0} B = [0, 1) = {x ∈ R : 0 ≤ x < 1}

Find A ∪ B, A ∩ B, B − A, and Ac .

Solution: A ∪ B = {x ∈ R : x ∈ (−1, 0] or x ∈ [0, 1)}

= {x ∈ R : x ∈ (−1, 1)}
= (−1, 1)
A ∩ B = {x ∈ R : x ∈ (−1, 0] and x ∈ [0, 1)}
= {0}
B − A = {x ∈ R : x ∈ [0, 1) but x 6∈ (−1, 0]}
= (0, 1)

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 127 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let R be the universal set and

A = (−1, 0] = {x ∈ R : −1 < x ≤ 0} B = [0, 1) = {x ∈ R : 0 ≤ x < 1}

Find A ∪ B, A ∩ B, B − A, and Ac .

Solution: A ∪ B = {x ∈ R : x ∈ (−1, 0] or x ∈ [0, 1)}

= {x ∈ R : x ∈ (−1, 1)}
= (−1, 1)
A ∩ B = {x ∈ R : x ∈ (−1, 0] and x ∈ [0, 1)}
= {0}
B − A = {x ∈ R : x ∈ [0, 1) but x 6∈ (−1, 0]}
= (0, 1)
Ac = {x ∈ R : x 6∈ (−1, 0]}

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 127 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let R be the universal set and

A = (−1, 0] = {x ∈ R : −1 < x ≤ 0} B = [0, 1) = {x ∈ R : 0 ≤ x < 1}

Find A ∪ B, A ∩ B, B − A, and Ac .

Solution: A ∪ B = {x ∈ R : x ∈ (−1, 0] or x ∈ [0, 1)}

= {x ∈ R : x ∈ (−1, 1)}
= (−1, 1)
A ∩ B = {x ∈ R : x ∈ (−1, 0] and x ∈ [0, 1)}
= {0}
B − A = {x ∈ R : x ∈ [0, 1) but x 6∈ (−1, 0]}
= (0, 1)
Ac = {x ∈ R : x 6∈ (−1, 0]}
= {x ∈ R : it is not the case that − 1 < x ≤ 0}

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 127 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let R be the universal set and

A = (−1, 0] = {x ∈ R : −1 < x ≤ 0} B = [0, 1) = {x ∈ R : 0 ≤ x < 1}

Find A ∪ B, A ∩ B, B − A, and Ac .

Solution: A ∪ B = {x ∈ R : x ∈ (−1, 0] or x ∈ [0, 1)}

= {x ∈ R : x ∈ (−1, 1)}
= (−1, 1)
A ∩ B = {x ∈ R : x ∈ (−1, 0] and x ∈ [0, 1)}
= {0}
B − A = {x ∈ R : x ∈ [0, 1) but x 6∈ (−1, 0]}
= (0, 1)
Ac = {x ∈ R : x 6∈ (−1, 0]}
= {x ∈ R : it is not the case that − 1 < x ≤ 0}
= {x ∈ R : it is not the case that − 1 < x and x ≤ 0}

I A ∩ B where A = {1, 3} and B = {2, 4}.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 128 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

The Empty Set

I A ∩ B where A = {1, 3} and B = {2, 4}.

I {x ∈ R : x 2 = −1} since no real number has a negative square.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 128 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

The Empty Set

I A ∩ B where A = {1, 3} and B = {2, 4}.

I {x ∈ R : x 2 = −1} since no real number has a negative square.
I {x ∈ R : 3 < x < 2} since no x is both larger than 3 and smaller than 2.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 128 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

The Empty Set

I A ∩ B where A = {1, 3} and B = {2, 4}.

I {x ∈ R : x 2 = −1} since no real number has a negative square.
I {x ∈ R : 3 < x < 2} since no x is both larger than 3 and smaller than 2.
I {n ∈ Z : 4 < n < 5} since no integer is strictly between 4 and 5.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 128 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Subsets: Proof and Disproof

For a set A to be a subset of a set B, it means that

∀x , if x ∈ A then x ∈ B .

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 129 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Subsets: Proof and Disproof

For a set A to be a subset of a set B, it means that

∀x , if x ∈ A then x ∈ B .

To prove A ⊆ B then our strategy is to

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 129 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Subsets: Proof and Disproof

For a set A to be a subset of a set B, it means that

∀x , if x ∈ A then x ∈ B .

To prove A ⊆ B then our strategy is to

I Suppose that x is a particular, but arbitrary element of A.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 129 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Subsets: Proof and Disproof

For a set A to be a subset of a set B, it means that

∀x , if x ∈ A then x ∈ B .

To prove A ⊆ B then our strategy is to

I Suppose that x is a particular, but arbitrary element of A.

I Then, show through a sequence of logical arguments that x is an element
of B.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 129 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Subsets: Proof and Disproof

For a set A to be a subset of a set B, it means that

∀x , if x ∈ A then x ∈ B .

To prove A ⊆ B then our strategy is to

I Suppose that x is a particular, but arbitrary element of A.

I Then, show through a sequence of logical arguments that x is an element
of B.

To prove A 6⊆ B means to find a counterexample, i.e. prove the negation

∃x such that x ∈ A but x 6∈ B .

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 129 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Prove that A ⊆ B where

A = {m ∈ Z : m = 6r + 12 for some r ∈ Z}
B = {n ∈ Z : n = 3s for some s ∈ Z}

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 130 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Prove that A ⊆ B where

A = {m ∈ Z : m = 6r + 12 for some r ∈ Z}
B = {n ∈ Z : n = 3s for some s ∈ Z}

Proof:

I First, suppose x ∈ A.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 130 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Prove that A ⊆ B where

A = {m ∈ Z : m = 6r + 12 for some r ∈ Z}
B = {n ∈ Z : n = 3s for some s ∈ Z}

Proof:

I First, suppose x ∈ A.
I Since x ∈ A, we have that x = 6r + 12 for some r ∈ Z, by definition of A.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 130 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Prove that A ⊆ B where

A = {m ∈ Z : m = 6r + 12 for some r ∈ Z}
B = {n ∈ Z : n = 3s for some s ∈ Z}

Proof:

I First, suppose x ∈ A.
I Since x ∈ A, we have that x = 6r + 12 for some r ∈ Z, by definition of A.
I In furtherance of our goal, we can factor 6r + 12 as 3(2r + 4).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 130 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Prove that A ⊆ B where

A = {m ∈ Z : m = 6r + 12 for some r ∈ Z}
B = {n ∈ Z : n = 3s for some s ∈ Z}

Proof:

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 130 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Prove that A ⊆ B where

A = {m ∈ Z : m = 6r + 12 for some r ∈ Z}
B = {n ∈ Z : n = 3s for some s ∈ Z}

Proof:

I First, suppose x ∈ A.
I Since x ∈ A, we have that x = 6r + 12 for some r ∈ Z, by definition of A.
I In furtherance of our goal, we can factor 6r + 12 as 3(2r + 4).
I To demonstrate this is in the form for something in B, let s = 2r + 4.
I Then s ∈ Z since r ∈ Z.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 130 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Prove that A ⊆ B where

A = {m ∈ Z : m = 6r + 12 for some r ∈ Z}
B = {n ∈ Z : n = 3s for some s ∈ Z}

Proof:

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 130 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Prove that A ⊆ B where

A = {m ∈ Z : m = 6r + 12 for some r ∈ Z}
B = {n ∈ Z : n = 3s for some s ∈ Z}

Proof:

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 130 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Prove that A ⊆ B where

A = {m ∈ Z : m = 6r + 12 for some r ∈ Z}
B = {n ∈ Z : n = 3s for some s ∈ Z}

Proof:

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 130 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Prove that B 6⊆ A where

A = {m ∈ Z : m = 6r + 12 for some r ∈ Z}
B = {n ∈ Z : n = 3s for some s ∈ Z}

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 131 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Prove that B 6⊆ A where

A = {m ∈ Z : m = 6r + 12 for some r ∈ Z}
B = {n ∈ Z : n = 3s for some s ∈ Z}

Proof: Out strategy is to demonstrate the existence of an element that is in B,

but not in A. Any will do, but 3 ∈ B is relatively simple.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 131 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Prove that B 6⊆ A where

A = {m ∈ Z : m = 6r + 12 for some r ∈ Z}
B = {n ∈ Z : n = 3s for some s ∈ Z}

Proof: Out strategy is to demonstrate the existence of an element that is in B,

but not in A. Any will do, but 3 ∈ B is relatively simple.
To see that 3 6∈ A it would have to satisfy 3 = 6r + 12 for some integer r , but
then

6r + 12 = 3
=⇒ 6r = −9
−9 −3
=⇒ r= = .
6 2

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 131 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Given sets A and B, we say A equals B, written A = B, if every element of A is

in B and every element of B is in A, i.e

A = B ⇐⇒ A ⊆ B and B ⊆ A.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 132 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Given sets A and B, we say A equals B, written A = B, if every element of A is

in B and every element of B is in A, i.e

Let U be a universal set containing sets A, B, and C. Then,

U (a) A ∪ B = B ∪ A and A ∩ B = B ∩ A

A B

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 133 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Basic Set Facts

Let U be a universal set containing sets A, B, and C. Then,

U (a) A ∪ B = B ∪ A and A ∩ B = B ∩ A
(b) (A ∪ B ) ∪ C = A ∪ (B ∪ C ) and

Let A and B be subsets of a universal set U . Then,

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 134 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Procedural Versions of Set Definitions

Let A and B be subsets of a universal set U . Then,

1. x ∈ A ∪ B ⇐⇒ x ∈ A or x ∈ B

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 134 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Procedural Versions of Set Definitions

Let A and B be subsets of a universal set U . Then,

1. x ∈ A ∪ B ⇐⇒ x ∈ A or x ∈ B
2. x ∈ A ∩ B ⇐⇒ x ∈ A and x ∈ B

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 134 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Procedural Versions of Set Definitions

Let A and B be subsets of a universal set U . Then,

1. x ∈ A ∪ B ⇐⇒ x ∈ A or x ∈ B
2. x ∈ A ∩ B ⇐⇒ x ∈ A and x ∈ B
3. x ∈ A − B ⇐⇒ x ∈ A but x 6∈ B

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 134 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Procedural Versions of Set Definitions

Let A and B be subsets of a universal set U . Then,

1. x ∈ A ∪ B ⇐⇒ x ∈ A or x ∈ B
2. x ∈ A ∩ B ⇐⇒ x ∈ A and x ∈ B
3. x ∈ A − B ⇐⇒ x ∈ A but x 6∈ B
4. x ∈ Ac ⇐⇒ x 6∈ A

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 134 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Procedural Versions of Set Definitions

Let A and B be subsets of a universal set U . Then,

1. x ∈ A ∪ B ⇐⇒ x ∈ A or x ∈ B
2. x ∈ A ∩ B ⇐⇒ x ∈ A and x ∈ B
3. x ∈ A − B ⇐⇒ x ∈ A but x 6∈ B
4. x ∈ Ac ⇐⇒ x 6∈ A
5. (x , y ) ∈ A × B ⇐⇒ x ∈ A and y ∈ B

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 134 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Procedural Versions of Set Definitions

Let A and B be subsets of a universal set U . Then,

Example: Prove that A ∩ B ⊆ A ∪ B.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 134 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Procedural Versions of Set Definitions

Let A and B be subsets of a universal set U . Then,

Example: Prove that A ∩ B ⊆ A ∪ B.

I Let x ∈ A ∩ B.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 134 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Procedural Versions of Set Definitions

Let A and B be subsets of a universal set U . Then,

Example: Prove that A ∩ B ⊆ A ∪ B.

I Let x ∈ A ∩ B.
I Then x ∈ A and x ∈ B.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 134 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Procedural Versions of Set Definitions

Let A and B be subsets of a universal set U . Then,

Example: Prove that A ∩ B ⊆ A ∪ B.

I Let x ∈ A ∩ B.
I Then x ∈ A and x ∈ B.
I If this is true, then x ∈ A or x ∈ B is also true.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 134 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Procedural Versions of Set Definitions

Let A and B be subsets of a universal set U . Then,

Example: Prove that A ∩ B ⊆ A ∪ B.

I Let x ∈ A ∩ B.
I Then x ∈ A and x ∈ B.
I If this is true, then x ∈ A or x ∈ B is also true.
I Thus x ∈ A ∪ B.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 134 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Procedural Versions of Set Definitions

Let A and B be subsets of a universal set U . Then,

Example: Prove that A ∩ B ⊆ A ∪ B.

I Let x ∈ A ∩ B.
I Then x ∈ A and x ∈ B.
I If this is true, then x ∈ A or x ∈ B is also true.
I Thus x ∈ A ∪ B.
I Therefore, A ∩ B ⊆ A ∪ B.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 134 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Theorem: We have the following subset relations:

i. A ∩ B ⊆ A and A ∩ B ⊆ B,
ii. A ⊆ A ∪ B and B ⊆ A ∪ B, and
iii. if A ⊆ B and B ⊆ C, then A ⊆ C.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 135 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Theorem: We have the following subset relations:

i. A ∩ B ⊆ A and A ∩ B ⊆ B,
ii. A ⊆ A ∪ B and B ⊆ A ∪ B, and
iii. if A ⊆ B and B ⊆ C, then A ⊆ C.

Proof (partial): In each case, let x be an element in the LHS and we will use
the rules of inference from Chapter 2:

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 135 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Theorem: We have the following subset relations:

i. A ∩ B ⊆ A and A ∩ B ⊆ B,
ii. A ⊆ A ∪ B and B ⊆ A ∪ B, and
iii. if A ⊆ B and B ⊆ C, then A ⊆ C.

Proof (partial): In each case, let x be an element in the LHS and we will use
the rules of inference from Chapter 2:

i. Specialization.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 135 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Theorem: We have the following subset relations:

i. A ∩ B ⊆ A and A ∩ B ⊆ B,
ii. A ⊆ A ∪ B and B ⊆ A ∪ B, and
iii. if A ⊆ B and B ⊆ C, then A ⊆ C.

Proof (partial): In each case, let x be an element in the LHS and we will use
the rules of inference from Chapter 2:

i. Specialization.
ii. Generalization.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 135 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Theorem: We have the following subset relations:

i. A ∩ B ⊆ A and A ∩ B ⊆ B,
ii. A ⊆ A ∪ B and B ⊆ A ∪ B, and
iii. if A ⊆ B and B ⊆ C, then A ⊆ C.

Proof (partial): In each case, let x be an element in the LHS and we will use
the rules of inference from Chapter 2:

i. Specialization.
ii. Generalization.
iii. Transitivity.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 135 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Proof that A ∩ B ⊆ A:

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 136 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Proof that A ∩ B ⊆ A:

I Let x ∈ A ∩ B.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 136 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Proof that A ∩ B ⊆ A:

I Let x ∈ A ∩ B.
I Then x ∈ A and x ∈ B.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 136 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Proof that A ∩ B ⊆ A:

I Let x ∈ A ∩ B.
I Then x ∈ A and x ∈ B.
I In particular, (by specialization), x ∈ A.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 136 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Proof that A ∩ B ⊆ A:

I Let x ∈ A ∩ B.
I Then x ∈ A and x ∈ B.
I In particular, (by specialization), x ∈ A.
I Thefore, A ∩ B ⊆ A.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 136 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Proof that A ∩ B ⊆ A:

I Let x ∈ A ∩ B.
I Then x ∈ A and x ∈ B.
I In particular, (by specialization), x ∈ A.
I Thefore, A ∩ B ⊆ A.

Exercise: Similarly argue the truth of the remain parts of the previous theorem.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 136 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

De Morgan’s Laws
Theorem: If A and B are any two sets in some universe U , then

(a) (A ∪ B )c = Ac ∩ B c
(b) (A ∩ B )c = Ac ∪ B c

Proof: De Morgan’s Laws for sets are true for the same reason as in logic:

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 137 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

De Morgan’s Laws
Theorem: If A and B are any two sets in some universe U , then

(a) (A ∪ B )c = Ac ∩ B c
(b) (A ∩ B )c = Ac ∪ B c

Proof: De Morgan’s Laws for sets are true for the same reason as in logic:

x ∈ (A ∪ B )c

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 137 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

De Morgan’s Laws
Theorem: If A and B are any two sets in some universe U , then

(a) (A ∪ B )c = Ac ∩ B c
(b) (A ∩ B )c = Ac ∪ B c

Proof: De Morgan’s Laws for sets are true for the same reason as in logic:

x ∈ (A ∪ B )c
⇐⇒ x 6∈ A ∪ B Procedure for complement

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 137 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

De Morgan’s Laws
Theorem: If A and B are any two sets in some universe U , then

(a) (A ∪ B )c = Ac ∩ B c
(b) (A ∩ B )c = Ac ∪ B c

Proof: De Morgan’s Laws for sets are true for the same reason as in logic:

x ∈ (A ∪ B )c
⇐⇒ x 6∈ A ∪ B Procedure for complement
⇐⇒ ∼(x ∈ A ∪ B ) Definition of 6∈

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 137 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

De Morgan’s Laws
Theorem: If A and B are any two sets in some universe U , then

(a) (A ∪ B )c = Ac ∩ B c
(b) (A ∩ B )c = Ac ∪ B c

Proof: De Morgan’s Laws for sets are true for the same reason as in logic:

x ∈ (A ∪ B )c
⇐⇒ x 6∈ A ∪ B Procedure for complement
⇐⇒ ∼(x ∈ A ∪ B ) Definition of 6∈
⇐⇒ ∼(x ∈ A ∨ x ∈ B ) Procedure for union

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 137 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

De Morgan’s Laws
Theorem: If A and B are any two sets in some universe U , then

(a) (A ∪ B )c = Ac ∩ B c
(b) (A ∩ B )c = Ac ∪ B c

Proof: De Morgan’s Laws for sets are true for the same reason as in logic:

x ∈ (A ∪ B )c
⇐⇒ x 6∈ A ∪ B Procedure for complement
⇐⇒ ∼(x ∈ A ∪ B ) Definition of 6∈
⇐⇒ ∼(x ∈ A ∨ x ∈ B ) Procedure for union
⇐⇒ ∼(x ∈ A) ∧ ∼(x ∈ B ) Logical De Morgan’s Law

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 137 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

De Morgan’s Laws
Theorem: If A and B are any two sets in some universe U , then

(a) (A ∪ B )c = Ac ∩ B c
(b) (A ∩ B )c = Ac ∪ B c

Proof: De Morgan’s Laws for sets are true for the same reason as in logic:

x ∈ (A ∪ B )c
⇐⇒ x 6∈ A ∪ B Procedure for complement
⇐⇒ ∼(x ∈ A ∪ B ) Definition of 6∈
⇐⇒ ∼(x ∈ A ∨ x ∈ B ) Procedure for union
⇐⇒ ∼(x ∈ A) ∧ ∼(x ∈ B ) Logical De Morgan’s Law
⇐⇒ x 6∈ A ∧ x 6∈ B Definition of 6∈

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 137 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

De Morgan’s Laws
Theorem: If A and B are any two sets in some universe U , then

(a) (A ∪ B )c = Ac ∩ B c
(b) (A ∩ B )c = Ac ∪ B c

Proof: De Morgan’s Laws for sets are true for the same reason as in logic:

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 137 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

De Morgan’s Laws
Theorem: If A and B are any two sets in some universe U , then

(a) (A ∪ B )c = Ac ∩ B c
(b) (A ∩ B )c = Ac ∪ B c

Proof: De Morgan’s Laws for sets are true for the same reason as in logic:

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 137 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Boolean Algebras

Look at the similarities between logical and set equivalences:

Commutative laws: p∧q ≡ q ∧p p∨q ≡ q ∨p

Associative laws: (p ∧ q ) ∧ r ≡ p ∧ (q ∧ r ) (p ∨ q ) ∨ r ≡ p ∨ (q ∨ r )
Distributive laws: p ∧ (q ∨ r ) ≡ (p ∧ q ) ∨ (p ∧ r ) p ∨ (q ∧ r ) ≡ (p ∨ q ) ∧ (p ∨ r )
Identity laws: p∧t ≡ p p∨c ≡ p
Negation laws: p ∨ ∼p ≡ t p ∧ ∼p ≡ c
Double negative law: ∼(∼p) ≡ p
Idempotent laws: p∧p ≡ p p∨p ≡ p
Universal bound laws: p∨t ≡ t p∧c ≡ c
De Morgan’s laws: ∼(p ∧ q ) ≡ ∼p ∨ ∼q ∼(p ∨ q ) ≡ ∼p ∧ ∼q
Absorbtion laws: p ∨ (p ∧ q ) ≡ p p ∧ (p ∨ q ) ≡ p
Negations: ∼t ≡ c ∼c ≡ t

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 138 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Boolean Algebras

Look at the similarities between logical and set equivalences:

Commutative laws: A∩B = B∩A A∪B = B∪A

Associative laws: (A ∩ B ) ∩ C ≡ A ∩ (B ∩ C ) ( A ∪ B ) ∪ C ≡ A ∪ (B ∪ C )
Distributive laws: A ∩ (B ∪ C ) ≡ (A ∩ B ) ∪ (A ∩ C ) A ∪ (B ∩ C ) ≡ (A ∪ B ) ∩ (A ∪ C )
Identity laws: A∩U ≡ A A ∪ 0/ ≡ A
Negation laws: A ∪ Ac ≡ U A ∩ Ac ≡ 0/
Double negative law: (Ac )c ≡ A
Idempotent laws: A∩A ≡ A A∪A ≡ A
Universal bound laws: A∪U ≡ U A ∩ 0/ ≡ 0/
De Morgan’s laws: (A ∩ B )c ≡ Ac ∪ B c (A ∪ B )c ≡ A c ∩ B c
Absorbtion laws: A ∪ (A ∩ B ) ≡ A A ∩ (A ∪ B ) ≡ A
Complements: U c = 0/ 0/ c = U

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 138 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

This similarity occurs because each are examples of Boolean algebras.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 139 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

This similarity occurs because each are examples of Boolean algebras.

The set of statement forms, together with operations ∨, ∧, and ∼ form a Boolean
Algebra.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 139 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

This similarity occurs because each are examples of Boolean algebras.

The set of statement forms, together with operations ∨, ∧, and ∼ form a Boolean
Algebra.
Similarly, power set of an n element set, together with operations, ∪, ∩, and
complements form another Boolean algebra.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 139 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

This similarity occurs because each are examples of Boolean algebras.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 139 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

This similarity occurs because each are examples of Boolean algebras.

1. Commutativity: ∀a, b ∈ B : a + b = b + a and a · b = b · a.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 139 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

This similarity occurs because each are examples of Boolean algebras.

1. Commutativity: ∀a, b ∈ B : a + b = b + a and a · b = b · a.

2. Associativity: ∀a, b, c ∈ B : (a + b) + c = a + (b + c ) and (a · b) · c = a · (b · c ).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 139 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

This similarity occurs because each are examples of Boolean algebras.

1. Commutativity: ∀a, b ∈ B : a + b = b + a and a · b = b · a.

2. Associativity: ∀a, b, c ∈ B : (a + b) + c = a + (b + c ) and (a · b) · c = a · (b · c ).
3. Distribution: ∀a, b, c ∈ B : a + (b · c ) = (a + b) · (a + c ) and
a · (b + c ) = (a · b) + (a · c ).

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 139 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

This similarity occurs because each are examples of Boolean algebras.

1. Commutativity: ∀a, b ∈ B : a + b = b + a and a · b = b · a.

2. Associativity: ∀a, b, c ∈ B : (a + b) + c = a + (b + c ) and (a · b) · c = a · (b · c ).
3. Distribution: ∀a, b, c ∈ B : a + (b · c ) = (a + b) · (a + c ) and
a · (b + c ) = (a · b) + (a · c ).
4. Identities: There are distinct elements 0 and 1 satisfying a + 0 = a and a · 1 = a
for each a ∈ B .

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 139 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

This similarity occurs because each are examples of Boolean algebras.

1. Commutativity: ∀a, b ∈ B : a + b = b + a and a · b = b · a.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 139 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Theorem: A Boolean algebra B with operations + and · satisfy:

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 140 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Theorem: A Boolean algebra B with operations + and · satisfy:

1. Unique complements: ∀a, x ∈ B , if a + x = 1 and a · x = 0, then x = a.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 140 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Theorem: A Boolean algebra B with operations + and · satisfy:

1. Unique complements: ∀a, x ∈ B , if a + x = 1 and a · x = 0, then x = a.

2. Unique identities: If there is an element x satisfying a + x = a for every
a ∈ B then x = 0, and if there is an element y satisfying a · y = a for each
a ∈ B , then y = 1.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 140 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Theorem: A Boolean algebra B with operations + and · satisfy:

1. Unique complements: ∀a, x ∈ B , if a + x = 1 and a · x = 0, then x = a.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 140 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Theorem: A Boolean algebra B with operations + and · satisfy:

1. Unique complements: ∀a, x ∈ B , if a + x = 1 and a · x = 0, then x = a.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 140 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Theorem: A Boolean algebra B with operations + and · satisfy:

1. Unique complements: ∀a, x ∈ B , if a + x = 1 and a · x = 0, then x = a.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 140 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Theorem: A Boolean algebra B with operations + and · satisfy:

1. Unique complements: ∀a, x ∈ B , if a + x = 1 and a · x = 0, then x = a.

2. Unique identities: If there is an element x satisfying a + x = a for every
a ∈ B then x = 0, and if there is an element y satisfying a · y = a for each
a ∈ B , then y = 1.
3. Double complement law: ∀a ∈ B , a = a.
4. Idempotent law: For every a ∈ B , a + a = a and a · a = a.
5. Universal bound law: ∀a ∈ B , a + 1 = 1 and a · 0 = 0.
6. De Morgan’s laws: ∀a, b ∈ B , a + b = a · b and a · b = a + b.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 140 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Theorem: A Boolean algebra B with operations + and · satisfy:

1. Unique complements: ∀a, x ∈ B , if a + x = 1 and a · x = 0, then x = a.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 140 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Theorem: A Boolean algebra B with operations + and · satisfy:

1. Unique complements: ∀a, x ∈ B , if a + x = 1 and a · x = 0, then x = a.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 140 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Theorem: A Boolean algebra B with operations + and · satisfy:

1. Unique complements: ∀a, x ∈ B , if a + x = 1 and a · x = 0, then x = a.

Exercise: Prove these laws from the definition. They are analagous to the
same laws for logical forms and sets.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 140 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Proofs Involving Cartesian Products

Example: Prove that (A × B ) ∪ (C × D ) ⊆ (A ∪ C ) × (B ∪ D )

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 141 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Proofs Involving Cartesian Products

Example: Prove that (A × B ) ∪ (C × D ) ⊆ (A ∪ C ) × (B ∪ D )

(x , y ) ∈ (A × B ) ∪ (C × D )

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 141 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Proofs Involving Cartesian Products

Example: Prove that (A × B ) ∪ (C × D ) ⊆ (A ∪ C ) × (B ∪ D )

(x , y ) ∈ (A × B ) ∪ (C × D )
=⇒ (x , y ) ∈ (A × B ) ∨ (x , y ) ∈ (C × D ) By procedural definition.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 141 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Proofs Involving Cartesian Products

Example: Prove that (A × B ) ∪ (C × D ) ⊆ (A ∪ C ) × (B ∪ D )

(x , y ) ∈ (A × B ) ∪ (C × D )
=⇒ (x , y ) ∈ (A × B ) ∨ (x , y ) ∈ (C × D ) By procedural definition.
=⇒ (x ∈ A ∧ y ∈ B ) ∨ (x ∈ C ∧ y ∈ D ) By procedural definition.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 141 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Proofs Involving Cartesian Products

Example: Prove that (A × B ) ∪ (C × D ) ⊆ (A ∪ C ) × (B ∪ D )

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 141 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Proofs Involving Cartesian Products

Example: Prove that (A × B ) ∪ (C × D ) ⊆ (A ∪ C ) × (B ∪ D )

(x , y ) ∈ (A × B ) ∪ (C × D )
=⇒ (x , y ) ∈ (A × B ) ∨ (x , y ) ∈ (C × D ) By procedural definition.
=⇒ (x ∈ A ∧ y ∈ B ) ∨ (x ∈ C ∧ y ∈ D ) By procedural definition.
=⇒ [(x ∈ A ∧ y ∈ B ) ∨ x ∈ C ] ∧ [(x ∈ A ∧ y ∈ B ) ∨ y ∈ D ] Logical distributive property.
=⇒ [x ∈ A ∨ x ∈ C ] ∧ [y ∈ B ∨ y ∈ D ] By Specialization.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 141 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Proofs Involving Cartesian Products

Example: Prove that (A × B ) ∪ (C × D ) ⊆ (A ∪ C ) × (B ∪ D )

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 141 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Proofs Involving Cartesian Products

Example: Prove that (A × B ) ∪ (C × D ) ⊆ (A ∪ C ) × (B ∪ D )

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 141 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Proofs Involving The Empty Set

Fact: The empty set is a subset of every set.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 142 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Fact: The empty set is a subset of every set.

Proof: By definition. Recall that

A ⊆ B ⇐⇒ ∀x , if x ∈ A then x ∈ B .

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 142 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

To prove a set is empty, we may assume it contains an element, and derive a

contradiction.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 143 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

To prove a set is empty, we may assume it contains an element, and derive a

contradiction.
Proposition: If A ⊆ B and B ⊆ C c , then A ∩ C = 0/ .

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 143 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

To prove a set is empty, we may assume it contains an element, and derive a

contradiction.
Proposition: If A ⊆ B and B ⊆ C c , then A ∩ C = 0/ .
Proof:

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 143 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

To prove a set is empty, we may assume it contains an element, and derive a

contradiction.
Proposition: If A ⊆ B and B ⊆ C c , then A ∩ C = 0/ .
Proof:

I Let A, B, and C be any sets satisfying the hypothesis.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 143 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

To prove a set is empty, we may assume it contains an element, and derive a

contradiction.
Proposition: If A ⊆ B and B ⊆ C c , then A ∩ C = 0/ .
Proof:

I Let A, B, and C be any sets satisfying the hypothesis.

I Suppose, to the contrary, that A ∩ C 6= 0/ .

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 143 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

To prove a set is empty, we may assume it contains an element, and derive a

contradiction.
Proposition: If A ⊆ B and B ⊆ C c , then A ∩ C = 0/ .
Proof:

I Let A, B, and C be any sets satisfying the hypothesis.

I Suppose, to the contrary, that A ∩ C 6= 0/ .
I Then x ∈ A ∩ C for some element x.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 143 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

To prove a set is empty, we may assume it contains an element, and derive a

contradiction.
Proposition: If A ⊆ B and B ⊆ C c , then A ∩ C = 0/ .
Proof:

I Let A, B, and C be any sets satisfying the hypothesis.

I Suppose, to the contrary, that A ∩ C 6= 0/ .
I Then x ∈ A ∩ C for some element x.
I Then x ∈ A and x ∈ C.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 143 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

To prove a set is empty, we may assume it contains an element, and derive a

contradiction.
Proposition: If A ⊆ B and B ⊆ C c , then A ∩ C = 0/ .
Proof:

I Let A, B, and C be any sets satisfying the hypothesis.

I Suppose, to the contrary, that A ∩ C 6= 0/ .
I Then x ∈ A ∩ C for some element x.
I Then x ∈ A and x ∈ C.
I Since A ⊆ B, we have that x ∈ B.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 143 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

To prove a set is empty, we may assume it contains an element, and derive a

contradiction.
Proposition: If A ⊆ B and B ⊆ C c , then A ∩ C = 0/ .
Proof:

I Let A, B, and C be any sets satisfying the hypothesis.

I Suppose, to the contrary, that A ∩ C 6= 0/ .
I Then x ∈ A ∩ C for some element x.
I Then x ∈ A and x ∈ C.
I Since A ⊆ B, we have that x ∈ B.
I Since B ⊆ C c , we have that x ∈ C c .

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 143 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

To prove a set is empty, we may assume it contains an element, and derive a

contradiction.
Proposition: If A ⊆ B and B ⊆ C c , then A ∩ C = 0/ .
Proof:

I Let A, B, and C be any sets satisfying the hypothesis.

I Suppose, to the contrary, that A ∩ C 6= 0/ .
I Then x ∈ A ∩ C for some element x.
I Then x ∈ A and x ∈ C.
I Since A ⊆ B, we have that x ∈ B.
I Since B ⊆ C c , we have that x ∈ C c .
I Since x ∈ C c , we have x 6∈ C.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 143 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

To prove a set is empty, we may assume it contains an element, and derive a

contradiction.
Proposition: If A ⊆ B and B ⊆ C c , then A ∩ C = 0/ .
Proof:

I Let A, B, and C be any sets satisfying the hypothesis.

I Suppose, to the contrary, that A ∩ C 6= 0/ .
I Then x ∈ A ∩ C for some element x.
I Then x ∈ A and x ∈ C.
I Since A ⊆ B, we have that x ∈ B.
I Since B ⊆ C c , we have that x ∈ C c .
I Since x ∈ C c , we have x 6∈ C.
I We have a contradiction: x ∈ C and x 6∈ C.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 143 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

To prove a set is empty, we may assume it contains an element, and derive a

contradiction.
Proposition: If A ⊆ B and B ⊆ C c , then A ∩ C = 0/ .
Proof:

I Let A, B, and C be any sets satisfying the hypothesis.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 143 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Unions and Intersections for Indexed Collections

Let A1 , A2 , A3 , . . . be subsets of a univesal set U . Then,

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 144 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Unions and Intersections for Indexed Collections

Let A1 , A2 , A3 , . . . be subsets of a univesal set U . Then,

n
[
Ai = {x ∈ U : x ∈ Ai for at least one i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , n}
i =1

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 144 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Unions and Intersections for Indexed Collections

Let A1 , A2 , A3 , . . . be subsets of a univesal set U . Then,

n
[
Ai = {x ∈ U : x ∈ Ai for at least one i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , n}
i =1
∞
[
Ai = x ∈ U : ∃i ∈ Z+ such that x ∈ Ai

i =1

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 144 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Unions and Intersections for Indexed Collections

Let A1 , A2 , A3 , . . . be subsets of a univesal set U . Then,

n
[
Ai = {x ∈ U : x ∈ Ai for at least one i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , n}
i =1
∞
[
Ai = x ∈ U : ∃i ∈ Z+ such that x ∈ Ai

i =1
\n
Ai = {x ∈ U : x ∈ Ai for all i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , n}
i =1

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 144 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Unions and Intersections for Indexed Collections

Let A1 , A2 , A3 , . . . be subsets of a univesal set U . Then,

n
[
Ai = {x ∈ U : x ∈ Ai for at least one i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , n}
i =1
∞
[
Ai = x ∈ U : ∃i ∈ Z+ such that x ∈ Ai

i =1
\n
Ai = {x ∈ U : x ∈ Ai for all i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , n}
i =1
∞
\
Ai = x ∈ U : ∀i ∈ Z+ we have x ∈ Ai

i =1

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 144 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Unions and Intersections for Indexed Collections

Let A1 , A2 , A3 , . . . be subsets of a univesal set U . Then,

Alternatively, we have that ni=1 Ai is the same as A1 ∪ A2 ∪ . . . ∪ An and ni=1 Ai is the

S T

same as A1 ∩ A2 ∩ . . . ∩ An .

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 144 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let Ai = − 1i , 1i = x ∈ R : − 1i < x < 1

i
. Find

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 145 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let Ai = − 1i , 1i = x ∈ R : − 1i < x < 1

i
. Find

1. A1 ∪ A2 ∪ A3

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 145 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let Ai = − 1i , 1i = x ∈ R : − 1i < x < 1

i
. Find

1 1 1 1
1. A1 ∪ A2 ∪ A3 = x ∈ R : x is in at least one of (−1, 1) , − , , − ,
2 2 3 3

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 145 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let Ai = − 1i , 1i = x ∈ R : − 1i < x < 1

i
. Find

1 1 1 1
1. A1 ∪ A2 ∪ A3 = x ∈ R : x is in at least one of (−1, 1) , − , , − ,
2 2 3 3
= (−1, 1)

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 145 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let Ai = − 1i , 1i = x ∈ R : − 1i < x < 1

i
. Find

1 1 1 1
1. A1 ∪ A2 ∪ A3 = x ∈ R : x is in at least one of (−1, 1) , − , , − ,
2 2 3 3
= (−1, 1)

2. A1 ∩ A2 ∩ A3

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 145 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let Ai = − 1i , 1i = x ∈ R : − 1i < x < 1

i
. Find

1 1 1 1
1. A1 ∪ A2 ∪ A3 = x ∈ R : x is in at least one of (−1, 1) , − , , − ,
2 2 3 3
= (−1, 1)

1 1 1 1
2. A1 ∩ A2 ∩ A3 = x ∈ R : x is in each (−1, 1) , − , , − ,
2 2 3 3

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 145 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let Ai = − 1i , 1i = x ∈ R : − 1i < x < 1

i
. Find

1 1 1 1
1. A1 ∪ A2 ∪ A3 = x ∈ R : x is in at least one of (−1, 1) , − , , − ,
2 2 3 3
= (−1, 1)

1 1 1 1
2. A1 ∩ A2 ∩ A3 = x ∈ R : x is in each (−1, 1) , − , , − ,
2 2 3 3

1 1
= − ,
3 3

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 145 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let Ai = − 1i , 1i = x ∈ R : − 1i < x < 1

i
. Find

1 1 1 1
1. A1 ∪ A2 ∪ A3 = x ∈ R : x is in at least one of (−1, 1) , − , , − ,
2 2 3 3
= (−1, 1)

1 1 1 1
2. A1 ∩ A2 ∩ A3 = x ∈ R : x is in each (−1, 1) , − , , − ,
2 2 3 3

1 1
= − ,
3 3
∞
[
3. Ai
i =1

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 145 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let Ai = − 1i , 1i = x ∈ R : − 1i < x < 1

i
. Find

1 1 1 1
1. A1 ∪ A2 ∪ A3 = x ∈ R : x is in at least one of (−1, 1) , − , , − ,
2 2 3 3
= (−1, 1)

1 1 1 1
2. A1 ∩ A2 ∩ A3 = x ∈ R : x is in each (−1, 1) , − , , − ,
2 2 3 3

1 1
= − ,
3 3
∞
[ 1 1
3. Ai = x ∈ R : x is in at least one of the intervals − ,
i =1
i i

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 145 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let Ai = − 1i , 1i = x ∈ R : − 1i < x < 1

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 145 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let Ai = − 1i , 1i = x ∈ R : − 1i < x < 1

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 145 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let Ai = − 1i , 1i = x ∈ R : − 1i < x < 1

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 145 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Example: Let Ai = − 1i , 1i = x ∈ R : − 1i < x < 1

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 145 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

A Generalized Distributive Law

Let A, B1 , B2 , . . . , Bn , . . . be sets.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 146 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

A Generalized Distributive Law

Let A, B1 , B2 , . . . , Bn , . . . be sets. Then,
∞
\ ∞
\ ∞
[ ∞
[
A∪ Bi = (A ∪ Bi ) and A ∩ Bi = (A ∩ Bi )
i =1 i =1 i =1 i =1

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 146 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

A Generalized Distributive Law

Let A, B1 , B2 , . . . , Bn , . . . be sets. Then,
∞
\ ∞
\ ∞
[ ∞
[
A∪ Bi = (A ∪ Bi ) and A ∩ Bi = (A ∩ Bi )
i =1 i =1 i =1 i =1

Proof (of the first equality):

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 146 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

A Generalized Distributive Law

Let A, B1 , B2 , . . . , Bn , . . . be sets. Then,
∞
\ ∞
\ ∞
[ ∞
[
A∪ Bi = (A ∪ Bi ) and A ∩ Bi = (A ∩ Bi )
i =1 i =1 i =1 i =1

LHS ⊆ RHS : RHS ⊆ LHS :

I Let x ∈ A ∪ i =1 Bi .
T∞

I Then x ∈ A or x ∈ ∞
T
i =1 Bi .
I If x ∈ A then ∀i , x ∈ A ∪ Bi
I If x ∈ ∞
T
i =1 Bi , then
∀i , x ∈ A ∪ Bi .
I Thus, x ∈ RHS.
I Therefore, LHS ⊆ RHS

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 146 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

A Generalized Distributive Law

Let A, B1 , B2 , . . . , Bn , . . . be sets. Then,
∞
\ ∞
\ ∞
[ ∞
[
A∪ Bi = (A ∪ Bi ) and A ∩ Bi = (A ∩ Bi )
i =1 i =1 i =1 i =1

Proof (of the first equality):

LHS ⊆ RHS : RHS ⊆ LHS :

I Let x ∈ A ∪ i =1 Bi . I Let x ∈ ∞
T∞
i =1 (A ∪ Bi ).
T

Therefore, LHS = RHS.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 146 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Partitions of Sets

Often, we would like to take a set, say A and partition it into a number of other
sets where each member of A belongs to exactly one set in the partition.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 147 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Partitions of Sets

Often, we would like to take a set, say A and partition it into a number of other
sets where each member of A belongs to exactly one set in the partition.
For this, we want distinct sets in this partition to nonoverlapping, i.e. disjoint.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 147 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Partitions of Sets

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 147 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Partitions of Sets

I The world’s land is partitioned into countries.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 147 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Partitions of Sets

I The world’s land is partitioned into countries.

I Similarly, the U.S. is partitioned into states.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 147 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Partitions of Sets

I The world’s land is partitioned into countries.

I Similarly, the U.S. is partitioned into states.
I The integers Z may be partitioned into two sets, the even integers and
the odd integers.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 147 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Partitions of Sets

I The world’s land is partitioned into countries.

I Similarly, the U.S. is partitioned into states.
I The integers Z may be partitioned into two sets, the even integers and
the odd integers.
I The real numbers R may be partitioned into rationals Q and irrationals
Qc .

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 147 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Partitions of Sets

I The world’s land is partitioned into countries.

Before we can formally define a partition, we introduce some terminology.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 147 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Two sets A and B are called disjoint if they have no common elements, i.e their
intersection is empty. Symbolically,

A and B are disjoint ⇐⇒ A ∩ B = 0.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 148 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Two sets A and B are called disjoint if they have no common elements, i.e their
intersection is empty. Symbolically,

A and B are disjoint ⇐⇒ A ∩ B = 0.

Example: For A = {1, 3, 5} and B = {2, 4, 6} we have that A and B are disjoint.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 148 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Two sets A and B are called disjoint if they have no common elements, i.e their
intersection is empty. Symbolically,

A and B are disjoint ⇐⇒ A ∩ B = 0.

Example: For A = {1, 3, 5} and B = {2, 4, 6} we have that A and B are disjoint.
Sets A1 , A2 , A3 , . . . are called mutually disjoint (or pairwise disjoint or
nonoverlapping) if no two sets Ai and Aj with distinct subscripts have any elements
in common, i.e. are disjoint. That is, for any pair of integers i and j,

Ai ∩ Aj = 0/ whenever i 6= j .

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 148 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

A finite or infinite collection of nonempty sets {A1 , A2 , A3 , . . .} is called a partition of a

set A when

I The sets A1 , A2 , A3 , . . . are mutually disjoint.

T0 = {n ∈ Z : n = 3k for some integer k },

T1 = {n ∈ Z : n = 3k + 1 for some integer k }, and
T2 = {n ∈ Z : n = 3k + 2 for some integer k }?

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 149 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

A finite or infinite collection of nonempty sets {A1 , A2 , A3 , . . .} is called a partition of a

set A when

I A is the union of all Ai , and

I The sets A1 , A2 , A3 , . . . are mutually disjoint.

T0 = {n ∈ Z : n = 3k for some integer k },

T1 = {n ∈ Z : n = 3k + 1 for some integer k }, and
T2 = {n ∈ Z : n = 3k + 2 for some integer k }?

Solution: Yes, by the quotient-remainder theorem, every integer can be represented

in exactly one of the forms 3k , 3k + 1, or 3k + 2, making this a partition.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 149 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Power Sets

Let A be a set. The power set of A, denoted by P(A), is the set containing all subsets
of A.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 150 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Power Sets

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 150 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Power Sets

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 150 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Power Sets

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 150 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Power Sets

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 150 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Power Sets

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 150 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Power Sets

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 150 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Power Sets

{a}

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 150 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Power Sets

{a} 1

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 150 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Power Sets

Let A be a set. The power set of A, denoted by P(A), is the set containing all subsets
of A.
Recall that the cardinality of a finite set A, denoted as |A|, is the number of elements
contained in the set. Observe that
Set A |A| Power
n o Set |P(A)|
0/ 0 0/ 1
n o
{a} 1 / {a}
0,

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 150 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Power Sets

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 150 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Power Sets

{a, b}

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 150 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Power Sets

{a, b} 2

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 150 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Power Sets

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 150 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Power Sets

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 150 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Power Sets

{a, b, c }

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 150 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Power Sets

{a, b, c } 3

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 150 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Power Sets

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 150 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Power Sets

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 150 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Power Sets

The cardinality of the power set of any finite set A is 2|A| . For this reason, we often see
2A as a notation for the power set.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 150 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Disproving a Set Property

Is the following set property true for all possible sets A, B, and C?

(A − B ) ∪ (B − C ) = A − C

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 151 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 152 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Instead, compare
(A − B ) ∪ (B − C ) = A − C
to the false logical equivalence

(a ∧ ∼b) ∨ (b ∧ ∼c ) ≡ a ∧ ∼c

which is demonstrated to be false, for example, when b is true but a and c are
false.
We can, looking at both of these, and the Venn diagram, to construct a
counterexample in the case that B contains an element in neither A nor C.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 152 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Instead, compare
(A − B ) ∪ (B − C ) = A − C
to the false logical equivalence

(a ∧ ∼b) ∨ (b ∧ ∼c ) ≡ a ∧ ∼c

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 152 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

“Algebraic” Proofs of Set Identities

Example: Prove that (A ∪ B ) − C = (A − C ) ∪ (B − C )

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 153 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

“Algebraic” Proofs of Set Identities

Example: Prove that (A ∪ B ) − C = (A − C ) ∪ (B − C )

Proof: We will use the set facts from section 6.2 instead of showing that each
side is a subset of the other:

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 153 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

“Algebraic” Proofs of Set Identities

Example: Prove that (A ∪ B ) − C = (A − C ) ∪ (B − C )

Proof: We will use the set facts from section 6.2 instead of showing that each
side is a subset of the other:

(A ∪ B ) − C

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 153 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

“Algebraic” Proofs of Set Identities

Example: Prove that (A ∪ B ) − C = (A − C ) ∪ (B − C )

Proof: We will use the set facts from section 6.2 instead of showing that each
side is a subset of the other:

(A ∪ B ) − C = (A ∪ B ) ∩ C c Set difference law

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 153 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

“Algebraic” Proofs of Set Identities

Example: Prove that (A ∪ B ) − C = (A − C ) ∪ (B − C )

Proof: We will use the set facts from section 6.2 instead of showing that each
side is a subset of the other:

(A ∪ B ) − C = (A ∪ B ) ∩ C c Set difference law

c
= C ∩ (A ∪ B ) Commutative law for ∩

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 153 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

“Algebraic” Proofs of Set Identities

Example: Prove that (A ∪ B ) − C = (A − C ) ∪ (B − C )

Proof: We will use the set facts from section 6.2 instead of showing that each
side is a subset of the other:

(A ∪ B ) − C = (A ∪ B ) ∩ C c Set difference law

c
= C ∩ (A ∪ B ) Commutative law for ∩
c c
= (C ∩ A) ∪ (C ∩ B ) Distributive law

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 153 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

“Algebraic” Proofs of Set Identities

Example: Prove that (A ∪ B ) − C = (A − C ) ∪ (B − C )

Proof: We will use the set facts from section 6.2 instead of showing that each
side is a subset of the other:

(A ∪ B ) − C = (A ∪ B ) ∩ C c Set difference law

c
= C ∩ (A ∪ B ) Commutative law for ∩
c c
= (C ∩ A) ∪ (C ∩ B ) Distributive law
c c
= (A ∩ C ) ∪ (B ∩ C ) Commutative law for ∩

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 153 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

“Algebraic” Proofs of Set Identities

Example: Prove that (A ∪ B ) − C = (A − C ) ∪ (B − C )

Proof: We will use the set facts from section 6.2 instead of showing that each
side is a subset of the other:

(A ∪ B ) − C = (A ∪ B ) ∩ C c Set difference law

c
= C ∩ (A ∪ B ) Commutative law for ∩
c c
= (C ∩ A) ∪ (C ∩ B ) Distributive law
c c
= (A ∩ C ) ∪ (B ∩ C ) Commutative law for ∩
= ( A − C ) ∪ (B − C ) Set difference law

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 153 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Russell’s Paradox
Recall that the Power Set P(A) of a set A is a set containing other sets: those subsets
of A. This set is well-defined.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 154 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

Russell’s Paradox
Recall that the Power Set P(A) of a set A is a set containing other sets: those subsets
of A. This set is well-defined.
Question: What about other sets containing sets? Is there, for instance, a set of all
sets? Somehow a super-universal set containing everything?
Solution: Consider that such a set existed. It would contain, as a subset, a set S
consisting of all sets that do not contain themselves, i.e.

S = {A : A is a set such that A 6∈ A}.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 154 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

S = {A : A is a set such that A 6∈ A}.

Now we ask, does S contain itself, i.e. is S ∈ S? Well, there are two possibilities, it
does or it doesn’t. Let’s consider these.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 154 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

S = {A : A is a set such that A 6∈ A}.

Now we ask, does S contain itself, i.e. is S ∈ S? Well, there are two possibilities, it
does or it doesn’t. Let’s consider these.

I Suppose S ∈ S. By the definition of S, S 6∈ S. This is a contradiction.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 154 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

S = {A : A is a set such that A 6∈ A}.

Now we ask, does S contain itself, i.e. is S ∈ S? Well, there are two possibilities, it
does or it doesn’t. Let’s consider these.

I Suppose S ∈ S. By the definition of S, S 6∈ S. This is a contradiction.

I Suppose S 6∈ S. By the definition of S, S ∈ S. This is a contradiction.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 154 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

S = {A : A is a set such that A 6∈ A}.

Now we ask, does S contain itself, i.e. is S ∈ S? Well, there are two possibilities, it
does or it doesn’t. Let’s consider these.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 156 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

What happens if we run Test (Test )?

I If Test (Test ) eventually terminates, it was because the algorithm

CheckHalt (Test , Test ) determined Test (Test ) would loop forever, a
contradiction.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 156 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

What happens if we run Test (Test )?

I If Test (Test ) eventually terminates, it was because the algorithm

CheckHalt (Test , Test ) determined Test (Test ) would loop forever, a
contradiction.
I If Test (Test ) loops forever, it was because the algorithm
CheckHalt (Test , Test ) determined Test (Test ) would eventually halt, a
contradiction.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 156 / 157
Chapter 6: Set Theory Section 1-4: Set Theory

What happens if we run Test (Test )?

I If Test (Test ) eventually terminates, it was because the algorithm

Either way, we reach a contradiction, so no such algorithm CheckHalt (X , D )

can exist.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 156 / 157
References

References

Epp, Susanna S. Discrete mathematics with applications. Boston, MA:

Cengage Learning, 2020. Print.

John Theado, PhD Intro to Discrete Structures February 9, 2022 157 / 157

Syllabus
No ratings yet
Syllabus
2 pages
(COT) Syllabus
No ratings yet
(COT) Syllabus
18 pages
DMS Lecture 1
No ratings yet
DMS Lecture 1
18 pages
Discrete - Structure Weekly Breakup.
No ratings yet
Discrete - Structure Weekly Breakup.
4 pages
Syllabus
No ratings yet
Syllabus
1 page
0 Intro
No ratings yet
0 Intro
19 pages
COT3100 Introduction To Discrete Structures
No ratings yet
COT3100 Introduction To Discrete Structures
11 pages
Discrete Structures Course Outline Fall 2022 CS
100% (1)
Discrete Structures Course Outline Fall 2022 CS
3 pages
Discrete Structures Introductory Lecture
No ratings yet
Discrete Structures Introductory Lecture
14 pages
Discrete Structure
No ratings yet
Discrete Structure
1 page
Discrete Structures LectureWise Plan
No ratings yet
Discrete Structures LectureWise Plan
6 pages
Discrete Structures Course Overview
No ratings yet
Discrete Structures Course Overview
14 pages
Course Outlines
No ratings yet
Course Outlines
7 pages
Discrete Mathematics Syllabus
No ratings yet
Discrete Mathematics Syllabus
11 pages
Discrete Structures CLS's and PLO's With Weekly Course Contents
100% (1)
Discrete Structures CLS's and PLO's With Weekly Course Contents
6 pages
CE Course Syllabus - 222CPE-2018
No ratings yet
CE Course Syllabus - 222CPE-2018
1 page
Discrete Structures Course Outline Fall 2022 CS
No ratings yet
Discrete Structures Course Outline Fall 2022 CS
3 pages
ADA University - SITE - Syllabus Discrete Structures-Fall 2024
No ratings yet
ADA University - SITE - Syllabus Discrete Structures-Fall 2024
6 pages
Dynamichandout Sep17
No ratings yet
Dynamichandout Sep17
3 pages
Course Outline Discrete - 2
No ratings yet
Course Outline Discrete - 2
7 pages
1728544664ge 167
No ratings yet
1728544664ge 167
1 page
Discrete Structures Course Guide
No ratings yet
Discrete Structures Course Guide
6 pages
Discrete Structure
No ratings yet
Discrete Structure
1 page
CS 5002 Syllabus
No ratings yet
CS 5002 Syllabus
8 pages
1727943590ge 167
No ratings yet
1727943590ge 167
1 page
Discrete Math for Freshmen
No ratings yet
Discrete Math for Freshmen
7 pages
Syllabus
No ratings yet
Syllabus
5 pages
Discrete Math Structures Course Guide
No ratings yet
Discrete Math Structures Course Guide
21 pages
Discrete Structures Course Outline Fall 2021 CS
No ratings yet
Discrete Structures Course Outline Fall 2021 CS
3 pages
2021-2022 Fall MATH163 Course Outline
No ratings yet
2021-2022 Fall MATH163 Course Outline
4 pages
CSN202 DM Course Description Document 2025-26 Odd Semester
No ratings yet
CSN202 DM Course Description Document 2025-26 Odd Semester
5 pages
Teaching Plan: B U 13 N S R, K W: WWW - Bahria.edu - PK
No ratings yet
Teaching Plan: B U 13 N S R, K W: WWW - Bahria.edu - PK
5 pages
CourseOutline - Discrete Structures Fall 2022
No ratings yet
CourseOutline - Discrete Structures Fall 2022
4 pages
Discrete Math for Computer Science
No ratings yet
Discrete Math for Computer Science
5 pages
Syllabus
No ratings yet
Syllabus
7 pages
Unit3 DIS
No ratings yet
Unit3 DIS
100 pages
Discrete Structures for CS Students
No ratings yet
Discrete Structures for CS Students
7 pages
Cssyll18-19 DMS
No ratings yet
Cssyll18-19 DMS
2 pages
DiscreteS Course Outline Fall 2024
No ratings yet
DiscreteS Course Outline Fall 2024
2 pages
Discrete Math Course Overview
No ratings yet
Discrete Math Course Overview
3 pages
Syllabus - Discrete Structures and Graph Theory
No ratings yet
Syllabus - Discrete Structures and Graph Theory
2 pages
Fall24 Outline Discrete 3I HS
No ratings yet
Fall24 Outline Discrete 3I HS
8 pages
Discrete
No ratings yet
Discrete
83 pages
Discrete Math Course Syllabus
No ratings yet
Discrete Math Course Syllabus
3 pages
CS203 PDF
No ratings yet
CS203 PDF
1 page
20CS2101 - Discrete Mathematical Structures
No ratings yet
20CS2101 - Discrete Mathematical Structures
2 pages
Programming Fundamentals (CSC-101) - Theory: TH TH
No ratings yet
Programming Fundamentals (CSC-101) - Theory: TH TH
3 pages
Discrete Math for CS Students
No ratings yet
Discrete Math for CS Students
9 pages
Discrete Structures I Outline
No ratings yet
Discrete Structures I Outline
5 pages
Discrete Math for Engineers
No ratings yet
Discrete Math for Engineers
5 pages
Discrete Structures Course Guide
0% (1)
Discrete Structures Course Guide
5 pages
CCOM3020 Syllabus
No ratings yet
CCOM3020 Syllabus
6 pages
Math 241 - Syllabus - Form
No ratings yet
Math 241 - Syllabus - Form
3 pages
Discrete Structures
No ratings yet
Discrete Structures
3 pages
CS204 Syllabus (2024 Summer)
No ratings yet
CS204 Syllabus (2024 Summer)
3 pages
Discrete Structures 1.1
No ratings yet
Discrete Structures 1.1
117 pages
MDU CSE B.Tech 2nd Year Syllabus
No ratings yet
MDU CSE B.Tech 2nd Year Syllabus
21 pages
cmsc55 Syllabus
No ratings yet
cmsc55 Syllabus
3 pages
Discrete Structures for B.Tech Students
No ratings yet
Discrete Structures for B.Tech Students
113 pages
MATH 1030-004, Quiz 5 Solution Spring 2011: APR N Ny
No ratings yet
MATH 1030-004, Quiz 5 Solution Spring 2011: APR N Ny
2 pages
Course Requirement For MS in Economics and Finance
No ratings yet
Course Requirement For MS in Economics and Finance
2 pages
Matrix Algebra For Engineers: Jeffrey R. Chasnov
No ratings yet
Matrix Algebra For Engineers: Jeffrey R. Chasnov
143 pages
Calculus and Complex Numbers Guide
No ratings yet
Calculus and Complex Numbers Guide
1 page
COT3100 Exam 1 SG
No ratings yet
COT3100 Exam 1 SG
1 page
Acc Bal Cert 02-02-2022T17 16 34
No ratings yet
Acc Bal Cert 02-02-2022T17 16 34
1 page
Acc Maint Cert 01-02-2022T21 09 27
No ratings yet
Acc Maint Cert 01-02-2022T21 09 27
1 page
Fall 2021 DS5003 Assignment # 1
No ratings yet
Fall 2021 DS5003 Assignment # 1
4 pages
Bisection Method Analysis
No ratings yet
Bisection Method Analysis
7 pages
Pure Mathematics - 2019
No ratings yet
Pure Mathematics - 2019
2 pages
Analysis of A Complex Kind: Week 2 Lecture 1: Complex Functions
100% (1)
Analysis of A Complex Kind: Week 2 Lecture 1: Complex Functions
15 pages
BSRT 1 Logic PDF
No ratings yet
BSRT 1 Logic PDF
19 pages
Proposition
No ratings yet
Proposition
25 pages
(Ebook) Logic: The Basics by Beall, JC Logan, Shay A. ISBN 9781317528609, 1317528603 All Chapters Available
No ratings yet
(Ebook) Logic: The Basics by Beall, JC Logan, Shay A. ISBN 9781317528609, 1317528603 All Chapters Available
106 pages
Performs The Different Types of Operations On Propositions
No ratings yet
Performs The Different Types of Operations On Propositions
22 pages
Artificial Intelligence
No ratings yet
Artificial Intelligence
67 pages
PPCL User Guide
No ratings yet
PPCL User Guide
152 pages
AdrijaRay Maths 4th Sem Report
No ratings yet
AdrijaRay Maths 4th Sem Report
12 pages
Department of Computer Science, CUI Lahore Campus: CSC102 - Discrete Structures by Mahwish Waqas
No ratings yet
Department of Computer Science, CUI Lahore Campus: CSC102 - Discrete Structures by Mahwish Waqas
41 pages
Fundamentals of Logic
No ratings yet
Fundamentals of Logic
13 pages
Language of Mathematics - Elementary Logic
No ratings yet
Language of Mathematics - Elementary Logic
13 pages
Unit-3. - Knowldge Representaion Reasoning
No ratings yet
Unit-3. - Knowldge Representaion Reasoning
20 pages
AIES - 3. Part 2
No ratings yet
AIES - 3. Part 2
120 pages
FINAL CHAPTERS 1 5 With Bibliography and Appendices
No ratings yet
FINAL CHAPTERS 1 5 With Bibliography and Appendices
86 pages
Math IT Test Bank 1st Edition
100% (66)
Math IT Test Bank 1st Edition
5 pages
Logical Connectives
No ratings yet
Logical Connectives
45 pages
Discrete Mathematics: Propositional Calculus
No ratings yet
Discrete Mathematics: Propositional Calculus
125 pages
Mathematics in The Modern World: Gematmw
No ratings yet
Mathematics in The Modern World: Gematmw
109 pages
Logical Connectives: Conjunctions and Disjunctions
No ratings yet
Logical Connectives: Conjunctions and Disjunctions
52 pages
Intro to Mathematical Logic
No ratings yet
Intro to Mathematical Logic
42 pages
Modal Logic: Three Grades Explained
No ratings yet
Modal Logic: Three Grades Explained
19 pages
Introduction to HDL Programming
No ratings yet
Introduction to HDL Programming
33 pages
Lojban Words
No ratings yet
Lojban Words
213 pages
Logic and Truth Tables for Students
No ratings yet
Logic and Truth Tables for Students
4 pages
Mathematical Logic: Key Concepts & Truth Tables
100% (1)
Mathematical Logic: Key Concepts & Truth Tables
214 pages
Microsoft Visual Basic 2012: Reloaded: Fifth Edition
No ratings yet
Microsoft Visual Basic 2012: Reloaded: Fifth Edition
46 pages
Unit III - Knowledge Representation
100% (1)
Unit III - Knowledge Representation
21 pages
DSTL Unit 3
No ratings yet
DSTL Unit 3
23 pages
DSD Full
No ratings yet
DSD Full
426 pages
A New Approach To Quantum Logic PDF
100% (1)
A New Approach To Quantum Logic PDF
194 pages
Intro to Logic for Students
No ratings yet
Intro to Logic for Students
4 pages