Existential Elimination Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College 

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Artificial Intelligence
Advertisements

Rules of Inference Rosen 1.5.
Methods of Proof. Methods of Proof The Vicky Pollard Proof Technique Prove that when n is even n2 is even. Assume n is 0, then n2 is 0, and that is.
Hypotheticals: The If/Then Form Hypothetical arguments are usually more obvious than categorical ones. A hypothetical argument has an “if/then” pattern.
1 Valid and Invalid arguments. 2 Definition of Argument Sequence of statements: Statement 1; Statement 2; Therefore, Statement 3. Statements 1 and 2 are.
Inference Rules Universal Instantiation Existential Generalization
The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
Theory Of Automata By Dr. MM Alam
CPSC 121: Models of Computation Unit 6 Rewriting Predicate Logic Statements Based on slides by Patrice Belleville and Steve Wolfman.
Deduction In addition to being able to represent facts, or real- world statements, as formulas, we want to be able to manipulate facts, e.g., derive new.
Refutation, Part 1: Counterexamples & Reductio Kareem Khalifa Philosophy Department Middlebury College.
F22H1 Logic and Proof Week 7 Clausal Form and Resolution.
Deductive Validity In this tutorial you will learn how to determine whether deductive arguments are valid or invalid. Chapter 3.b.
FOL Practice. Models A model for FOL requires 3 things: A set of things in the world called the UD A list of constants A list of predicates, relations,
Proofs in Predicate Logic A rule of inference applies only if the main operator of the line is the right main operator. So if the line is a simple statement,
Copyright © 2006 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.1-1 ICS 410: Programming Languages Chapter 3 : Describing Syntax and Semantics Axiomatic Semantics.
Formal Logic Proof Methods Direct Proof / Natural Deduction Conditional Proof (Implication Introduction) Reductio ad Absurdum Resolution Refutation.
Reading: Chapter 4, section 4 Nongraded Homework: Problems at the end of section 4. Graded Homework #4 is due at the beginning of class on Friday. You.
Dr. Muhammed Al-Mulhem 1ICS ICS 535 Design and Implementation of Programming Languages Part 1 Fundamentals (Chapter 4) Axiomatic Semantics ICS 535.
Proofs, Recursion and Analysis of Algorithms Mathematical Structures for Computer Science Chapter 2.1 Copyright © 2006 W.H. Freeman & Co.MSCS SlidesProofs,
Existential Introduction Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College.
Mathematical Induction Readings on induction. (a) Weiss, Sec. 7.2, page 233 (b) Course slides for lecture and notes recitation. Every criticism from a.
Fall 2002CMSC Discrete Structures1 Let’s proceed to… Mathematical Reasoning.
The Marriage Problem Finding an Optimal Stopping Procedure.
Methods of Proof & Proof Strategies
Proofs in Predicate Logic A rule of inference applies only if the main operator of the line is the right main operator. So if the line is a simple statement,
Reading and Writing Mathematical Proofs
Deduction, Induction, & Truth Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College.
1 Georgia Tech, IIC, GVU, 2006 MAGIC Lab Rossignac Lecture 03: PROOFS Section 1.5 Jarek Rossignac CS1050: Understanding.
CSE 311: Foundations of Computing Fall 2013 Lecture 8: More Proofs.
Universal Introduction and Quantifier Exchange Rules.
March 3, 2015Applied Discrete Mathematics Week 5: Mathematical Reasoning 1Arguments Just like a rule of inference, an argument consists of one or more.
Section 3.1: Proof Strategy Now that we have a fair amount of experience with proofs, we will start to prove more difficult theorems. Our experience so.
Proofs1 Elementary Discrete Mathematics Jim Skon.
APPLICATIONS OF DIFFERENTIATION Indeterminate Forms and L’Hospital’s Rule APPLICATIONS OF DIFFERENTIATION In this section, we will learn: How to.
3 DERIVATIVES. In this section, we will learn about: Differentiating composite functions using the Chain Rule. DERIVATIVES 3.5 The Chain Rule.
1 Sections 1.5 & 3.1 Methods of Proof / Proof Strategy.
Quantifiers, Predicates, and Names Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College Universals, by Dena Shottenkirk.
Philosophy 148 Chapter 7. AffirmativeNegative UniversalA: All S are PE: No S is P ParticularI: Some S is PO: Some S is not P.
In this section, we will investigate how to take the derivative of a function that is the composition of multiple functions.
Hypothetical Derivations Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College.
Basic Inference Rules Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College.
3 DERIVATIVES.  Remember, they are valid only when x is measured in radians.  For more details see Chapter 3, Section 4 or the PowerPoint file Chapter3_Sec4.ppt.
APPLICATIONS OF DIFFERENTIATION 4. We will see that many of the results of this chapter depend on one central fact—the Mean Value Theorem.
Of 38 lecture 13: propositional logic – part II. of 38 propositional logic Gentzen system PROP_G design to be simple syntax and vocabulary the same as.
Overview Mathematical Induction Derivations Recursive Inference Parse Trees Equivalence of Inference, Derivations, and Parse Trees.
INDUCTION Slides of Ken Birman, Cornell University.
2.3 Methods of Proof.
Dr. Naveed Riaz Design and Analysis of Algorithms 1 1 Formal Methods in Software Engineering Lecture # 25.
ARGUMENTS Chapter 15. INTRODUCTION All research projects require some argumentation An argument simply ‘combines’ existing facts to derive new facts,
Chapter Ten Relational Predicate Logic. 1. Relational Predicates We now broaden our coverage of predicate logic to include relational predicates. This.
More Proofs. REVIEW The Rule of Assumption: A Assumption is the easiest rule to learn. It says at any stage in the derivation, we may write down any.
Metalogic Soundness and Completeness. Two Notions of Logical Consequence Validity: If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. Provability:
Theorems and Shortcuts Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College.
EXAMPLE 3 Write an indirect proof Write an indirect proof that an odd number is not divisible by 4. GIVEN : x is an odd number. PROVE : x is not divisible.
Valid and Invalid Arguments
DIFFERENTIATION RULES
Skepticism David Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Today’s Topics Universes of Discourse
Existential Elimination
Mathematical Reasoning
CS 220: Discrete Structures and their Applications
Midterm Discussion.
Intermediate Value Theorem
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 3a Evaluating an argument
Intermediate Value Theorem
Universal Elimination
Proofs in Predicate Logic
Mathematical Reasoning
Scientific Method Vocabulary
Presentation transcript:

Existential Elimination Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College 

Overview An example Existential Elimination: 3 Steps Qualifications and tricks Examples

An example Somebody in this class is a musician and a soccer player. Therefore, someone is a musician.  x(Cx&(Mx&Sx))├  xMx –This is clearly valid, yet we don’t have a way of proving that it’s valid.

A (quasi-)commonsensical way of proving this… For the sake of argument, let’s call the soccer-playing musician in our class Miles. Now since Miles is a musician, it follows that someone is a musician. So, we’ve proven our argument. Existential Elimination (  E) codifies the reasoning implicit in this passage.

Existential Elimination, Step 1 of 3 Begin with a given statement in which  is the main operator. Our example: Somebody in this class is a musician and a soccer player. 1.  x (Cx&(Mx&Sx))A

Step 2 of 3 Hypothesize for  E by taking the statement from Step 1, removing the , and replacing all instances of the variable associated with  with a name that has not been used elsewhere in the derivation. 1.  x (Cx&(Mx&Sx))A 2. | Cm & (Mm & Sm)H for  E

Step 3 of 3 Derive your desired conclusion, and exit the world of hypothesis by repeating the last line in the world of hypothesis and citing the lines constituting your hypothetical derivation, plus the line in Step 1.

Example of Step 3 1.  x(Cx&(Mx&Sx))A 2. | Cm & (Mm & Sm)H for  E 3.| Mm & Sm2 &E 4.| Mm3 &E 5.|  xMx4  I 6.  xMx1, 2-5  E WTP:  xMx Notice that all  E’s “stutter” …but are otherwise structured like other hypothetical derivations (~I,  I) However, they have an extra number in the last line. INSPIRATION  ELIMINATION

Example of Step 3 1.  x(Cx&(Mx&Sx))A 2. | Cm & (Mm & Sm)H for  E 3.| Mm & Sm2 &E 4.| Mm3 &E 5.|  xMx4  I 6.  xMx1, 2-5  E Someone in this class is a soccer-playing musician For the sake of argument, let’s call him Miles Since Miles is a musician… ….someone is a musician. WTP:  xMx

Special qualifications to the Las Vegas Rule… A name used in a hypothesis for  E cannot leave the world of hypothesis. So the following is not legitimate: 1.  x(Cx&(Mx&Sx))A 2. | Cm & (Mm & Sm)H for  E 3.| Mm & Sm2 &E 4. | Mm3 &E 5.Mm1,2-4  E Think about what this inference says: Someone in the class is a soccer-playing musician. So Miles is a musician. Clearly invalid!

Further qualifications… It’s also illegitimate to use a name that appears outside of the world of hypothesis in forming your initial hypothesis for  E. 1.  x(Cx & (Mx & Sx))A 2.MaA 3. |Ca & (Ma & Sa)H for  E

Important word of caution Existential elimination is probably the trickiest rule to implement in a proof strategy. It doesn’t provide easy fodder for reverse engineering.

An important trick… EFQ is really helpful, particularly when you have an  E nested inside of a ~I. The way to think about this: –In the ~I world of hypothesis, you want a contradiction –So the entire purpose of hypothesizing for  E is to get this contradiction.

Example: Nolt ├ ~  x(Fx&~Fx) 1. |  x(Fx&~Fx)H for ~I 2.||Fa & ~FaH for  E 3.||Fa2 &E 4.||~Fa2 &E 5.|| P&~P3,4 EFQ 6.| P & ~P1,2-5  E 7. ~  x(Fx&~Fx)1-6 ~I

More examples: Nolt  x(Fx&Gx) ├  xFx &  xGx 1.  x(Fx&Gx)A 2.| Fa & GaH for  E 3.| Fa2 &E 4.|  xFx3  I 5.| Ga2&E 6.|  xGx5  I 7. |  xFx &  xGx4,6 &I 8.  xFx &  xGx1, 2-7  E

Nolt  xFx → Ga ├ Fb→  xGx 1.  xFx → GaA 2.|FbH for →I 3.|  xFx2  I 4.|Ga1,3 →E 5.|  xGx4  I 6. Fb→  xGx2-5 →I

Nolt  x~~Fx ├  xFx 1.  x~~FxA 2.|~~FaH for  E 3.|Fa2 ~E 4.|  xFx3  I 5.  xFx1, 2-4  E Note that you HAVE to use ~E or else you won’t have the right kind of lines to trigger  E

Nolt ├  xFx ↔  yFy 1. |  xFxH for →I 2.||FaH for  E 3.||  yFy2  I 4.|  yFy1,2-3  E 5.  xFx →  yFy1-4 →I 6.|  yFyH for →I 7.||FaH for  E 8.||  xFx7  I 9.|  xFx6,7-8  E 10.  yFy →  xFx6-9 →I 11.  xFx ↔  yFy5,10  I

Nolt  x(Fx v Gx) ├  xFx v  xGx 1.  x(Fx v Gx)A 2. |Fa v GaH for  E 3.||FaH for →I 4.||  xFx3  I 5.||  xFx v  xGx4 vI 6.|Fa →(  xFx v  xGx)3-5 →I 7.||GaH for →I 8.||  xGx7  I 9.||  xFx v  xGx 8 vI 10.|Ga→(  xFx v  xGx)7-9 →I 11.|  xFx v  xGx2,6,10 vE 12.  xFx v  xGx1, 2-11  E