Handout No.

1
Phil. 015
Zoltan Domotor
Department of Philosophy, University of Pennsylvania
January 29, 2016
DERIVATIONS IN SENTENTIAL LOGIC
This handout includes a large variety of derivations (proofs) of logical
theorems and argument-forms in the language of sentential logic LSL, using the traditional ten basic rules of derivation or inference (recalled below)
and some previously proven results. We proceed from simple theorems and
arguments to increasingly more complex ones that often depend on other
theorems and arguments. Feel free to use any of these solved problems in
your work by quoting their labels, e.g., Theorem T1,T2, and so on.
Handout No.1 is intended to summarize and simplify the treatment of natural deduction in G. Forbes MODERN LOGIC, without altering the scope
of the classical sentential logic framework.
The basic rules of derivation an introduction rule and a corresponding elimination rule for each of the five basic logical connectives ( & , , , , )
are symbolized in a simple argument-form (or inference-form) as follows:
1. Introduction and Elimination of Conjunction:
Introduction of & , symbolized by I & :
(Note that MODERN LOGIC uses a reversed notation & I in
which the connective comes first and the introduction/elimination
symbol comes last. This is of course a matter of convention. Feel
free to use either notation.)
From any formulas P and Q in LSL1 that we may infer their
conjunction P & Q:
1

Since, P, Q, R, are sentential letters in the object language LSL, in all rules of
inference we should use Greek capital letters , , , , serving as sentence variables belonging to the metalanguage, so that stands for P or P Q or P & Q, etc., and
likewise for and . However, for the sake of simplicity, in Handout No. 1, the metalanguage notation for sentantial variables will not be used. Of course, you should remember
that in all rules of inference the symbols P and Q stand any sentence in LSL.

P
Q
P & Q
Elimination of & , symbolized by E & : From any conjunction P &
Q in LSL we may infer either conjuncts:
(i)

(ii)
P & Q
P

P & Q
Q

In view of the truth-table definition of conjunction, the foregoing rules

are intuitively obvious, since by definition of & from a conjunction
we can easily infer either conjunct, and from a pair of given premises
we can always infer their conjunction. However, we want these rules to
be used rigorously in a proof protocol (derivation).
A proof of the validity of a formal argument (argument-form) is a
finite sequence of consecutively numbered lines, e.g., (1) (2) (3)
(7) (illustrated below), each consisting of a formal sentence (formula)
together with a list of premise numbers (on the far left) and a list of used
rules (on the far right) such that each sentence is introduced according
to one of 10 rules of inference. The conclusion of the argument appears
on the last line of the sequence in which the premise numbers (on the
far left) are only the line numbers of assumptions in the argument.
To illustrate the application of rules of inference we first rewrite the
conjunction and elimination rules into a proof protocol form:
a1 , . . . , an (i) P & Q
a1 , . . . , an (j) P

i &E

On the left-hand size of the first row of the rule we have the premisenumbers a1 , . . . , an that indicate how sentence P & Q on line (i) is
arrived at. The rule & E or rather E & (elimination of conjunction)
together with the line number (i) fully justifies line (j) with sentence
P.
Since this form of presentation of rules may appear to be too sophisticated to some, we shall considerably simplify the natural deduction
system and its proof protocols. But first we complete the list of rules
for all logical (sentential) connectives.

2. Introduction and Elimation of Disjunction:

Introduction of , symbolized by I: From any sentence P we may
infer the disjunction of P with any sentence Q:
(i)

(ii)
P
PQ

P
QP

Elimation of , symbolized by E:
PQ
PR
QR
R

3. Introduction and Elimination of Biconditional:

Introduction of , symbolized by I:
PQ
QP
PQ

Elimination of , symbolized by E:
(i)

(ii)
PQ
PQ

PQ
QP

4. Introduction and Elimination of Conditional:

Introduction of :
This introduction rule is called a Conditional Proof and is symbolized by C or I. Given a derivation of a sentence R from

hypothesis2 P and perhaps other premises Q, we may discharge

the hypothesis P from the list of supplementary assumptions and
infer from premise Q only the conditional conclusion P R,
with the hypothesis P now placed as the antecendent (first term)
of the conditional.
(i) If under hypothesis P

(ii) then P can be discharged as

P
H
Q
Q
PR H
!
R
We indicate the removal of hypothesis P from the list of supplementary premises by a slashed H: H
!.
Elimination of :
This elimination rule is called Modus Ponens and is symbolized
by MP or E .
P
PQ
Q

5. Introduction and Elimation of Negation:

Introduction of :
This rule is called Reductio ad Absurdum and is symbolized by
RAA. Given a derivation of a contradiction R & R from a
hypothesis P and possibly other assumptions Q, we may discharge
the hypothesis P and infer P from Q alone:
(i) If under hypothesis P

(ii) then we have

P
H
Q
R &R
2

Q
P H
!

In MODERN LOGIC, Forbes uses the term assumption instead of hypothesis, and
what we call assumptions he calls premises. The term hypothesis seems to fit the
patterns of scientific reasoning better than the term assumption. Be that as it may, in
some cases logicians do not have an agreed-upon universal terminology.

Elimation of , symbolized by E:
P
P
A proof or derivation in sentential logic is a finite sequence of consecutively numbered lines, each consisting of a formula in the language textbfLSL
of sentential logic together with its line number (on the left) and rules used
(on the right), such that on each line the sentence is a given assumption or
a temporary hypothesis, or it follows from some previous lines in accordance
with any of the ten rules itemized above. If based on assumptions P1 , P2 , . . .,
sentence Q appears on the last line in which all premises belong to P1 , P2 , . . .,
then the sequence of sentences under consideration is called the derivation
(proof) of Q from P1 , P2 , . . ..
SOLVED PROBLEMS IN SENTENTIAL LOGIC
T0

P P
Proof.
1
2

P
P P

H
1,1 C, H
!

This is about the simplest proof we can have in sentential logic! Here
Line 1 serves as both the hypothesis and conclusion (antecendent and
consequent of the conditional). The hypothesis is conditionalized out in
Line 2. Of course, a sentence validly follows from itself, so that P P
is logically true! Please notice that we use a backslashed H
! to indicate
that we have discharged the hypothesis. This is a useful reminder when
there are several hypotheses involved in the proof. Eventually we will
simplify even this sort of pedantic proof protocol. Also, observe that
(unlike Forbes) we do not list the premise numbers on the far left of
each line, and we do not put the line numbering in parantheses. Finally,
the single turnstile in front of a formal sentence indicates that it
is a logically true (i.e., follows from the 10 basic rules without any
assumptions).
The argument-form
P P
has the simplest proof:
5

Proof.
1

A (assumption)

Here Line 1 is both the assumption and conclusion. Another triviality

is:
T1

P P P
Proof.
1
2
3
4
5
6

P P
P
P
P &P
P
P

A
H (for RAA)
1,2 MP,H
2,3 I & ,H
2-4 RAA,H
!
5, E

Because a hypothesis in sentential logic can be discharged either by

conditioning or by RAA, to help the reader, we may indicate the purpose of our hypothesis in parantheses on the line where it is introduced.
Notice also that we keep the hypothesis (whether directly relevant or
not) on all subsequent lines, until it is discharged. Finally, as a small
exercise, please prove the following variant of the foregoing theorem:
P P P . You will need only one hypothesis. Later on, we shall
indicate only the introduction of a hypothesis by entering H on the
right-hand side of the line of the hypothesis, and then enter symbol H
!
on the line, where the hypothesis is discharged.
Sometimes we need two (or more) hypotheses, as in the next logical
theorem.
T2

Q (P Q)
Proof.
1
2
3
4
5
6

Q
P
QQ
Q
P Q
Q (P Q)

H (for C)
H(for C)
T0,H, H
1,3 MP,H,H
2,5 C, H, H
!
1,5 C, H
!

On Line 3 we have introduced a substitution instance of a previously

proven theorem, namely T0. This is legitimate because after Line 3 we
could simply insert the proof of T0 and then continue with the proof
as before. This is of course not necessary because we could have copied
Line 1 and then conditionalize. The objective here is to show some
extra degrees of freedom in proving logical theorems. Finally, observe
6

that the theorem is quite intuitive: Given Q and then given anything
else, say P , as antecendents, then the consequent is trivially Q.
If there are no assumptions, one may need several hypotheses, as in
the theorem below, that must be conditioned out before the proof is
complete.
T3

(P Q) [(Q R) (P R)]
Proof.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

T4

P Q
QR
P
Q
R
P R
(Q R) (P R)
(P Q) [(Q R) (P R)]

H (for C)
H(for C)
H(for C)
1,3 MP,H, H, H
2,4 MP, H, H, H
3,5 C,H, H, H
!

2,6 C,H, H
!
1,7C,H
!

(P & Q) R P (Q R)
Proof.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

(P & Q) R
P
Q
P & Q
R
QR
P (Q R)

A
H(for C)
H(for C)
2,I & ,H, H
1,4 MP, H, H
3,5 C,H, H
!
2,6 C, H
!

The foregoing is called the Law of Exportation. Its point is that if assumptions are made conjunctively, then they can be made sequentially.
The converse is also true, but we need more assistant theorems (or
lemmas) before we can prove it. The next theorem illustrates Modus
Tollens in the form of a theorem: If you deny the consequent, then you
must deny the the antecendent as well, given the conditional P Q.
T5

P Q, Q P
Proof.
1
2
3
4
5
6

P Q
Q
P
Q
Q &Q
P

A
A
H(for RAA)
1,3 MP, H
2,4I & ,H
3-5, RAA, H
!
7

This theorem gives the popular so-called Contraposition Law, proven

basically in the same way.
T6

(P Q) ( Q P )
Proof.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

H (for C)
H (for another C)
H(for RAA)
1,3 MP, H,H, H
2,4I & ,H,H, H
3-5, RAA, H,H, H
!
2,6 C,H, H
!
1,7 C, H
!

P Q
Q
P
Q
Q &Q
P
Q P
(P Q) ( Q P )

Upon inspecting the proof you will note that for reasons of proof nesting
the hypotheses are discharged in the reversed order: the one introduced
last is discharged first. We can think of proofs and their subproofs as
boxes within boxes.
Let us return to the Law of Contradiction, stating that from contradictory assumptions anything follows.
T7

P, P Q
Proof.
1
2
3
4
5
6

P
P
Q
P &P
Q
Q

A
A
H (for RAA)
1,2 I & , H
3-4 RAA, H
!
5, E

The same theorem can be formulated as follows:

T8

P ( P Q)
Proof.
1
2
3
4
5

P
P
Q
P Q
P ( P Q)

H (for C
H (for C)
1,2 T7,H, H
2,3 C, H, H
!
1,4 C, H
!

Clearly, the sister theorem

P (P Q)
8

can be shown to be valid in the same way as above. Soon we will need
the reverse condition for double negation:
T9

P P
Proof.
1
2
3
4
5

P
P
P &P
P
P P

H (for C
H (for RAA)
1,2 I & ,H, H
2,3 RAA, H, H
!
1,4 C, H
!

Next, we prove the dual Contraposition Law :

T10

( P Q) (Q P )
Proof.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

H (for C)
H (for another C)
2, T9 MP,
1,3 T5,H, H
4E,H,H
2,5 C, H, H
!
1,6 C,H
!

P Q
Q
Q
P
P
QP
( P Q) (Q P )

Here is a mixed variant of the law above:

T11

( P Q) ( Q P )
Proof.
1
2
3
4
5
6

H (for C)
H (for another C)
1,2 T5,H, H
3E,H,H
2,5 C, H, H
!
1,5 C,H
!

P Q
Q
P
P
QP
( P Q) ( Q P )

As an easy exercise, you should prove

(P Q) (Q P )
The next two theorems are very useful within the context of negated
conditionals:
T12

(P Q) P
Proof.
9

1
2
3

P (P Q)
[P (P Q)] [ (P Q) P ]
(P Q) P

T8 (a variant of T8)
T11
1,2 MP

Observe that in this proof all we do is quote some substitution instances

of previously proven theorems and apply Modus Ponens to them.
We prove the dual of the foregoing in the same way:
T13

(P Q) Q
Proof.
1
2
3

Q (P Q)
[Q (P Q)] [ (P Q) Q]
(P Q) Q

T2
T6
1,2 MP

The next theorem has many applications.

T14

P Q, P Q
Proof.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

P Q
P
P
Q
P Q
QQ
Q

A
A
H (for C)
2,3 T7, H
3,4 C, H
!
T0
1,5,6E

Often it is useful to convert a conditional into a disjunction. Here is

the theorem for it.
T15

P Q P Q
Proof.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

P Q
( P Q)
P
Q
P Q
( P Q) & ( P Q)
P
P Q
( P Q) & ( P Q)
( P Q)
P Q

A
H (for RAA)
H (for another RAA)
1,3 MP H, H
4 I,H,H
2,5 I & , H, H
3-6 RAA, H,H
!
7, I , H
2,8 I & , H
2-9 RAA, H
!
10 E

Here is the first half of De Morgans Law :

10

T16

(P & Q) P Q
Proof. The proof requires far more lines than usual. One way to proceed
is to prove a couple of lemmas and then put together the entire proof
using all relevant lemmas. We will have such examples in the second
handout. The proof of this theorem is on the next page.
1 (P & Q)
A
2 ( P Q)
H (for RAA)
3 P
H (for another RAA)
4 P Q
3 I,H, H
5 ( P Q) & ( P Q) 2,4 I & ,H,H
6 P
2-5 RAAH, H
!
7 P
6 E, H
8 Q
H (for a new RAA)
9 P Q)
8 I,H, H
10 ( P Q) & ( P Q) 2,9 I & , H, H
11 Q
8-10 RAA,H, H
!
12 Q
11E , H
13 P & Q
7,12 I & H
14 (P & Q) & (P & Q)
13,1 I & , H
15 ( P Q)
2-14 RAA, H
!
16 P Q
15 E
Next, we prove the Law of Importation:

T17

P (Q R) (P & Q) R
Proof.
1 P (Q R)
A
2 [(P & Q) R]
H (for RAA)
3 P & Q
2,T12 MP, H
4 R
2 T13 MP, H
5 P
3E&,H
6 Q
3E&,H
7 R
1, 5, 6 MP 2, H
8 R &R
4,7 I &
9 [(P & Q) R] 2-8 RAA, H
!
10 (P & Q) R
9 E
In this example the proof protocol is considerably simplified. For example, in Line 3 we quote a theorem without presenting it on the previous
line and simultaneosuly apply Modus Ponens to it. On Line 7, we apply Modus Ponens twice without writing out the obvious steps. These
are some of the simplifications in proofs that we shall use in predicate
logic.
11