Q1: Based on the concepts of basic logical laws (rules of inference) for propositions, check

the validity of the arguments:

A → B , A ∨C ,C → ¬ B , D→ B ,¬ C ∧ D ⟹ B ∧¬ C

Step 1: The first proposition says if A is true, then B is true. So, if we know A is true, we can

use that info to conclude that B is also true. Simple, right? This is just the basic idea behind

the law of detachment (modus ponens).

Step 2: Now, the second proposition tells us that either A is true, or C is true, or both could

be true. It's like saying one of them has to be true, but not necessarily both. This idea falls

under the law of disjunction.

Step 3: Moving on to the third one, it says if C is true, then B is not true. So, if we ever find

out C is true, we know for sure that B can't be true. This fits with the concept of the law of

detachment again.

Step 4: The fourth proposition is similar to the first one. It says if D is true, then B is true. So,

if we know D is true, we can confidently say B is also true. This is just like the first step,

applying the law of detachment.

Step 5: Lastly, we have the fifth proposition, which is a bit more complex. It says if C is not

true and D is true, then B is true and C is not true. This sounds like a mouthful, but it's just a

way of saying that if C isn't true and D is true, then B is true, and C must also not be true. It's

sort of a combination of different logical laws, including implication.

| A | B | C | D | A → B | A v C | C → ¬B | D → B | ¬C ∧ D | B ∧ ¬C | ¬C ∧ D ⟹ B ∧ ¬C |
|---|---|----|----|---------|---------|-----------|-----------|----------|------------|---------------------|
|T|T|T|T| T | T | F | T | F | F | T |
|T|T|T|F| T | T | F | F | F | F | T |
|T|T|F|T| T | T | T | T | F | F | T |
|T|T|F|F| T | T | T | F | F | F | T |
|T|F|T|T| F | T | F | T | T | F | T |
|T|F|T|F| F | T | F | F | F | F | T |
|T|F|F|T| F | T | T | T | F | F | T |
|T|F|F|F| F | T | T | F | F | F | T |
|F|T|T|T| T | T | F | T | T | T | T |
|F|T|T|F| T | T | F | F | F | F | T |
|F|T|F|T| T | F | T | T | T | F | T |
|F|T|F|F| T | F | T | F | T | F | T |
|F|F|T|T| T | T | F | T | T | F | T |
|F|F|T|F| T | T | F | F | T | F | T |
|F|F|F|T| T | F | T | T | T | F | T |
|F|F|F|F| T | F | T | F | T | F | T |

Now, let's see if these arguments hold up:

 If A is true, then, by the law of detachment, B is also true. This step is valid.

 If C is true, then, as per the third proposition, B is not true. However, this contradicts

our inference from Step 1. Thus, C cannot be true.

Hence, we establish that A must be true. Moreover, since A is true and A ∨ C holds, this

proposition is valid.
Additionally, if C is not true and D is true, as per the fifth proposition, we deduce that both B

is true and C is not true. Given our earlier deduction that C cannot be true, this proposition is

valid.

Therefore, all the propositions are valid, and the logical laws applied here are the law of

detachment (modus ponens), the law of disjunction, and the law of implication.

Q2: Quantifiers and their Types: Demystifying "How Much"

Imagine trying to describe the number of cookies in a jar without actually counting them.

That's where quantifiers come in! They are words like "all," "some," "few," and "many" that

help us express the quantity of something without giving an exact number.

There are two main types of quantifiers:

1. Universal Quantifiers: These strong statements claim something is true for every single

member of a group. They use words like "all," "every," and "any" (used in the negative

sense, meaning "not any").

Example: "All students in my class love pizza."

Symbolic Representation: ∀ (x) (Sx ⊃ Px)

 ∀ (x) - "For all x" (universal quantifier)

 Sx - "x is a student in my class"

 Px - "x loves pizza"

 ⊃ - "implies"
Truth: This statement is likely false. While many students might enjoy pizza, it's highly

improbable that every single one does.

2. Existential Quantifiers: These weaker statements claim that something is true for at least

one member of a group. They use words like "some," "any" (used in the positive sense), "a

few," and "a little."

Example: "There are some students in my class who dislike vegetables."

Symbolic Representation: ∃ (x) (Sx ∧ ¬Vx)

 ∃ (x) - "There exists an x" (existential quantifier)

 Sx - "x is a student in my class"

 ¬Vx - "x does not like vegetables" (¬ is the symbol for "not")

 ∧ - "and"

Truth: This statement is likely true. With diverse preferences, it's safe to assume that at least

one student in the class dislikes vegetables.

By combining these quantifiers with predicates (statements about elements), we can express

complex mathematical statements in a concise and clear manner. These statements can then

be analyzed to determine their truth value based on the properties of the sets involved.

Reference:

1) Doerr, A., & Levasseur, K. (2022). Applied discrete structures (3rd ed.). licensed under

CC BY-NC-SA
  Chapter 3 – Logic, sections and Quantifiers

2) Calcworkshop. (n.d.). Rules of Inference. Retrieved from

https://calcworkshop.com/logic/rules-inference/

3) Freeman, D. (n.d.). Predicates and Quantified. Retrieved from Saint Louis University

Department of Mathematics and Statistics website:

https://mathstat.slu.edu/~freeman/Discrete_Lecture_4.pdf