copyright © 2003-2014 curt hill rules of inference what is a valid argument?
TRANSCRIPT
Copyright © 2003-2014 Curt Hill
Rules of Inference
What is a valid argument?
Introduction
• I used to have a friend who did not like mushrooms
• Therefore he argued:– Everyone who has cancer ate
mushrooms– Therefore mushrooms cause cancer
• Is this a valid argument?– Why or why not?
Copyright © 2003-2014 Curt Hill
Valid Arguments• An argument is a sequence of
statements• It ends in a conclusion• Each of the statements should be
– Given as true or obviously true in their own right
– Follow from preceding statements
• A valid argument is trustworthy• A fallacy is not
– Usually violates the rules
Copyright © 2003-2014 Curt Hill
Argument
• An argument contains premises and a conclusion
• The last statement is the conclusion
• All the previous statements are premises
• Showing that the form is valid is important– This will be the basis of a proof, which
we shall consider soonCopyright © 2003-2014 Curt Hill
Rhetoric
• Much of what we have in an argument is originally derived from what is and is not valid in a lawyer’s argument to a jury
• Aristotle noticed that a slick lawyer could argue that right was wrong and any number of other fallacies
• He publishes which arguments are valid and which are not
Copyright © 2003-2014 Curt Hill
Copyright © 2003-2014 Curt Hill
Four Types of Statements• Each denoted by a letter• Universal affirmative
– All S is P– A
• Universal negative– No S is P– E
• Particular affirmative– Some S is P– I
• Particular negative– Some S is not P– O
Copyright © 2003-2014 Curt Hill
Four types (continued)
• In each of these statements:– S which is the subject– P is the predicate
• All or no have the obvious meanings
• Some means one or more
Copyright © 2003-2014 Curt Hill
Syllogism
• Aristotle's main form was a syllogism
• Each syllogism consisted of two premises (a major and minor) and one conclusion
• The premises and conclusion are of one of previous four statement types
Copyright © 2003-2014 Curt Hill
Syllogism
• Example– All cats eat mice– Felix is a cat– Therefore Felix eats mice
• Statement types– First is universal affirmative– Second is a particular affirmative– Third is a particular affirmative
Rules of Inference• A valid argument form has been
proven to be trustworthy– Often a syllogism
• One of the rules of inference is modus ponens– Also known as the law of detachment
• The form is that we have an implication and assert the antecedent
• This guarantees the consequent• A table of inference rules is in Rosen
Copyright © 2003-2014 Curt Hill
Pictorially
Copyright © 2003-2014 Curt Hill
P PQ _____QThis is the same as:(P(PQ)) Q
Modus Ponens
• This is just one of many syllogisms that is a tautology
• A tautology is an expression that is always true– The truth table may only have Trues
for the column of the expression
• Consider Modus Ponens again
Copyright © 2003-2014 Curt Hill
Modus Ponens Truth Table
Copyright © 2003-2014 Curt Hill
P Q PQ P(PQ) (P(PQ))Q
T T T T T
T F F F T
F T T F T
F F T F T
Truth Tables• You may prove things with truth
tables• However there are problems with such
an approach• Many variables make the truth table
large• The calculation of each cell is
somewhat error prone– Real mathematicians disdain such an
approach
• Instead we use arguments
Copyright © 2003-2014 Curt Hill
Rules of Inference
• An inference rule allows us to assert the conclusion
• Another way to consider the rules of inference are as rewrite rules
• That is if we have the two propositions of an inference rule then we can rewrite these two as a new proposition
• We now build arguments using this process
Copyright © 2003-2014 Curt Hill
Example (1 of 3) – Definitions
• Consider the following hypotheses– If it does not rain then the sailboat
race will occur and a lifesaving demonstration will occur
– If the sailboat race occurs then a trophy will be awarded
– The trophy is not awarded
• We want to show it rained
Copyright © 2003-2014 Curt Hill
Example (2 of 3) – Variables
• Let rain be r• Let sailboat race be s• Let lifesaving demonstration be l• Let trophy be t• Our given hypotheses are:
rsl– st t
Copyright © 2003-2014 Curt Hill
Example (3 of 3) – Argument
1. st – hypothesis2. t – hypothesis 3. s – modus tollens using 1,24. rsl – hypothesis 5. rs – simplification of 4 6. r – modus tollens using 3, 57. r – double negative using 6
Copyright © 2003-2014 Curt Hill
Example commentary
• Each proposition was either:– A hypothesis – A new proposition that was derived
from previous propositions and inference rules
• We move in a step by step manner from the hypotheses to a conclusion
• Multiple conclusions are possible– For example we may conclude also
that the life saving demonstration was not held
Copyright © 2003-2014 Curt Hill
Resolution
• The resolution rule of inference has received considerable attention – ((pq) (pr))(qr)
• It has been used as the single inference rule for automated systems– Prolog programing language– Theorem provers
Copyright © 2003-2014 Curt Hill
Fallacy
• Just as there are many valid rules of inference there are many invalid rules of inference
• These invalid rules are typically not tautologies– They have one or more false values in
the relevant column of the truth table
• Lets consider the variations of the implication
Copyright © 2003-2014 Curt Hill
Recall
Copyright © 2006-2014 - Curt Hill
p q p qImplicati
on
q pConvers
e
¬p ¬q
inverse
¬q ¬p contrapositi
ve
T T T T T T
T F F T T F
F T T F F T
F F T T T T
Copyright © 2003-2014 Curt Hill
Converse• Consider any number of implications
involving a subset belonging to a superset
• All cats are mammals, which is cm and true
• While the converse is not: all mammals are cats, mc
• This is not to say that p q and q p may not have the same truth value– They may or may not depending on the p
and q that is chosen– When p and q are equivalent they do have
same truth value
Copyright © 2003-2014 Curt Hill
The inverse
• Negate both sides of the implication– Thus the inverse of is pq is p q
• The inverse also does not have the same truth value as the implication
• Consider again subset – All cats are mammals, which is cm
and true– If not a cat then not a mammal is
false, c m
Copyright © 2003-2014 Curt Hill
The contrapositive
• This is the inverted converse, we negate both items and reverse the antecedent and consequence– Thus if the implication is pq then
the contrapositive is q p
• This one is a winner in that it has the same logical value as the implication
• Consider again subset – If not a mammal then not a cat is
true, m c
Quantified Statements• Just as there are inference rules for
propositions, there are also inference rules involving quantification and propositions
• These four are shown as Table 2 in Rosen– Universal instantiation and generalization– Existential instantiation and
generalization
• Other manipulations of quantification also exist
Copyright © 2003-2014 Curt Hill
Example
• Given that: x(P(x) Q(x)) x(P(x) Q(x) R(x))
• Show that x(R(x) P(x))
Copyright © 2003-2014 Curt Hill
Example continued1. x(P(x) Q(x) R(x)) - Given2. (P(x) Q(x) R(x) – univ instant3. R(x) (P(x) Q(x)) – contrapos4. R(x) (P(x) Q(x)) – deMorgans5. R(x) (P(x) Q(x)) – double neg 6. x(P(x) Q(x)) – given7. P(x) Q(x) – universal instant8. R(x) (P(x) Q(x)P(x)Q(x)) – Add 5,79. R(x) (P(x)P(x)) – Resolution10. R(x) (P(x)) – Idempotency11. x(R(x) P(x)) – univ gen
Copyright © 2003-2014 Curt Hill
Exercises
• 1.6• 5, 9, 23, 27
Copyright © 2003-2014 Curt Hill