Assignment7 Group2

ASSISGNMENT 7
Foundation of Mathematics
Lecturer :
Ronal Rifandi, S.Pd., M.Sc
By :
Dian Kurniati A (19029080)
Rendy B Suharsono (19029044)
Tasya Putri Sari (19029115)
Study Program : Mathematics Education

Department : Mathematics
Faculty : MIPA
Padang State University

2019
1. Rules for Making Conclusion
By following the rules of inferences, we can prove the validity of the argument. The trick
is to take the premise to form arguments and create further conclusions. Then, this advanced
conclusion can be used as material to make further conclusions until getting the final result.
The rules used in the conclusion rule (Rule of Interferences) is as below

1) Modus Ponen (MP)
Modus Ponens is one of the simplest and justified ways oftake inferences. In the form of
a symbol of being:
p⇒q
p
∴q
Example:
Premise 1 : If today is raining, then meeting is cancel.
Premise 2 : Today is raining.
Conclusion : Then the meeting is canceled.
2) Modus Tollen (MT)

Modus tollen is a method of take inference that is justified in logical terms. This
method works based on the premise shaped if p then q. By drawing conclusions if not q
then not p. The Tollens mode is also called a counterpositive rule.
In the form of a symbol of being:
p⇒q
~q
∴ ~p
Example:
Premise 1 : If it's raining today, then the road is wet.
Premise 2 : The road is not wet.
Conclusion : Today is not raining.
3) Simplification
pvq
∴p
Example:
p v q: "He studies very hard and he is the best boy in the class",
∴: "He studies very hard"
4) Conjunction
p
q
∴pvq
Example:
p: “He studies very hard”
q: “He is the best boy in the class”
∴ "He studies very hard and he is the best boy in the class
5) Hypothetical Syllogism (HS)

p ⇒q
q⇒r
∴p ⇒ r
Example:
p ⇒q: If we dispose of trash in its place, then environment is clean.
q ⇒r: If the environment is clean, then life will be more comfortable.
∴ p ⇒ r: So if we dispose of trash in its place, then life will be more
Comfortable
6) Disjunctive Syllogism (DS)

pvq
~p
∴q
Example
p v q: "The ice cream is either vanilla flavored or chocolate flavored",
~p: "The ice cream is not vanilla flavored",
∴q: "The ice cream is chocolate flavored”
7) Constructive Dilemma (CD)

p ⇒q
r⇒s
pvr
∴q v s
Example:
p ⇒q: If it rains, I will take a leave”
r ⇒ s: “If it is hot outside, I will go for a shower”,
p v r “Either it will rain or it is hot outside”,
Therefore − "I will take a leave or I will go for a shower
8) Destructive Dilemma (DD)
p⇒q
r⇒s
~q v ~s
∴~p v ~r
Example:
p ⇒ q: If it rains, I will take a leave”
r ⇒ s: “If it is hot outside, I will go for a shower”
~q v ~s: “Either I will not take a leave or I will not go for a shower”
∴~p v ~r: "Either it does not rain or it is not hot outside"
9) Addition (Add)
P
∴p v q
Example:
p: Let P be the proposition, “He studies very hard” is true
∴p v q: "Either he studies very hard Or he is a very bad student." Here Q is the
proposition “he is a very bad student”.
2. Rule of Replacement
In equivalence talks, we already know that the two statements are mentioned equivalent if
it has the same truth value. Then if partial or the whole of a compound statement exchanged with
another statement which is logically equivalent, then the truth value of the new compound
statement it will be the same as the truth value of the original compound statement. This rule the
so-called exchange rules.
This rule allows us to withdraw conclusion of a statement as a result of the exchange of

all or part of a statement with a statement that is equivalent to the part we are replacing.
The rules contained in the Rule of Replacements are as follows:
1. De Morgan's Theorem (de M)
~ (p ∧ q) ≡ ~ p ∨ ~ q
~ (p ∨ q) ≡ ~ p ∧ ~ q
2. Commutative (Comm)
p∧ q ≡ q ∧ p
p∨ q ≡ q ∨ p
3. Associative (Ass)
(p∧ q) ∧r≡ p ∧ (q ∧ r)
(p∨ q) ∨r≡ p ∨ (q ∨ r)
4. Distributive (Distr)
p∧ (q ∨ r) ≡ (p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r)
p∨ (q ∧ r) ≡ (p ∨ q) ∧ (p ∨ r)
5. Double Negation (DN)
~ (~ p) ≡ p
6. Transposition (Trans)
p⇒ q ≡ ~ q ⇒ ~ p
7. Material implications (IMPL)
p⇒ q ≡ ~ p ∨ q
8. Material equivalence (equivalent)
p⇔ q ≡ (p ⇒ q) ∧ (q ⇒ p)
p⇔ q ≡ (p ∧ q) ∨ (~ p ∧ ~ q)
9. Export (Eksp)
(p∧ q) ⇒r≡ p ⇒ (q ⇒ r)
10. Tautology (Link)
p≡ (p ∨ p)
p≡ (p ∧ p)
The statements above are mutually equivalent, one can replace one another to each other.
This means we can swap the left statement for the statementon the right and vice versa.
Example:
1. Arrange formal proof of the validity of the following argument
(p∨ q) ⇒ (r ∧ s)
~r
∴~q
The process of proving the validity of the arguments above is as follows:
1. (p∨ q) ⇒ (r ∧ s) Pr
2. ~ r Pr / ∴ ~ q
3. ~ r ∨ ~ s 2, Add
4. ~ (r ∧ s) 3, de M
5. ~ (p ∨ q) 1,4 MT
6. ~ p ∧ ~ q 5, de M
7. ~ q ∧ ~ p 6, Kom
8. ~ q 7, Simp

Assignment7 Group2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assignment7 Group2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assignment7 Group2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASSISGNMENT 7

Ronal Rifandi, S.Pd., M.Sc

Dian Kurniati A (19029080)

Rendy B Suharsono (19029044)

Tasya Putri Sari (19029115)

Study Program : Mathematics Education

Padang State University

The rules used in the conclusion rule (Rule of Interferences) is as below

2) Modus Tollen (MT)

∴: "He studies very hard"

p: “He studies very hard”

q: “He is the best boy in the class”

5) Hypothetical Syllogism (HS)

6) Disjunctive Syllogism (DS)

∴q: "The ice cream is chocolate flavored”

7) Constructive Dilemma (CD)

This rule allows us to withdraw conclusion of a statement as a result of the exchange of

1. De Morgan's Theorem (de M)

7. Material implications (IMPL)

8. Material equivalence (equivalent)

10. Tautology (Link)

You might also like