# List of rules of inference

*34,190*pages on

this wiki

Assessment |
Biopsychology |
Comparative |
Cognitive |
Developmental |
Language |
Individual differences |
Personality |
Philosophy |
Social |

Methods |
Statistics |
Clinical |
Educational |
Industrial |
Professional items |
World psychology |

**Philosophy Index:**
Aesthetics ·
Epistemology ·
Ethics ·
Logic ·
Metaphysics ·
Consciousness ·
Philosophy of Language ·
Philosophy of Mind ·
Philosophy of Science ·
Social and Political philosophy ·
Philosophies ·
Philosophers ·
List of lists

This is a list of rules of inference, logical laws that relate to mathematical formulae.

## Contents

[show]## IntroductionEdit

**Rules of inference** are syntactical **transform** rules which one can use to infer a conclusion from a premise to create an argument. A set of rules can be used to infer any valid conclusion if it is complete, while never inferring an invalid conclusion, if it is sound. A sound and complete set of rules need not include every rule in the following list, as many of the rules are redundant, and can be proven with the other rules.

*Discharge rules* permit inference from a subderivation based on a temporary assumption. Below, the notation

indicates such a subderivation from the temporary assumption to .

## Rules for classical sentential calculusEdit

Sentential calculus is also known as propositional calculus.

### Rules for negationsEdit

- Reductio ad absurdum (or
*Negation Introduction*)

- Reductio ad absurdum (related to the law of excluded middle)

- Noncontradiction (or
*Negation Elimination*)

### Rules for conditionalsEdit

- Modus ponens (or
*Conditional Elimination*)

### Rules for conjunctionsEdit

- Adjunction (or
*Conjunction Introduction*)

- Simplification (or
*Conjunction Elimination*)

### Rules for disjunctionsEdit

- Addition (or
*Disjunction Introduction*)

### Rules for biconditionalsEdit

- Biconditional Elimination

## Rules of classical predicate calculusEdit

In the following rules, is exactly like except for having the term everywhere has the free variable .

- Universal Introduction (or
*Universal Generalization*)

Restriction 1: does not occur in .

Restriction 2: is not mentioned in any hypothesis or undischarged assumptions.

- Universal Elimination (or
*Universal Instantiation*)

Restriction: No free occurrence of in falls within the scope of a quantifier quantifying a variable occurring in .

- Existential Introduction (or
*Existential Generalization*)

Restriction: No free occurrence of in falls within the scope of a quantifier quantifying a variable occurring in .

- Existential Elimination (or
*Existential Instantiation*)

Restriction 1: No free occurrence of in falls within the scope of a quantifier quantifying a variable occurring in .

Restriction 2: There is no occurrence, free or bound, of in .

## Table: Rules of Inference - a short summaryEdit

The rules above can be summed up in the following table.^{[1]} The "Tautology" column shows how to interpret the notation of a given rule.

Rule of inference | Tautology | Name |
---|---|---|

Addition | ||

Simplification | ||

Conjunction | ||

Modus ponens | ||

Modus tollens | ||

Hypothetical syllogism | ||

Disjunctive syllogism | ||

Resolution |

All rules use the basic logic operators. A complete table of "logic operators" is shown by a truth table, giving definitions of all the possible (16) truth functions of 2 boolean variables (*p*, *q*):

p | q
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

T | T | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | T | T | T | T | T | T | T | T | ||

T | F | F | F | F | F | T | T | T | T | F | F | F | F | T | T | T | T | ||

F | T | F | F | T | T | F | F | T | T | F | F | T | T | F | F | T | T | ||

F | F | F | T | F | T | F | T | F | T | F | T | F | T | F | T | F | T |

where T = true and F = false, and, the columns are the logical operators: **0**, false, Contradiction; **1**, NOR, Logical NOR; **2**, Converse nonimplication; **3**, **¬p**, Negation; **4**, Material nonimplication; **5**, **¬q**, Negation; **6**, XOR, Exclusive disjunction; **7**, NAND, Logical NAND; **8**, AND, Logical conjunction; **9**, XNOR, If and only if, Logical biconditional; **10**, **q**, Projection function; **11**, if/then, Logical implication; **12**, **p**, Projection function; **13**, then/if, Converse implication; **14**, OR, Logical disjunction; **15**, true, Tautology.

Each logic operator can be used in a assertion about variables and operations, showing a basic rule of inference. Examples:

- The column-14 operator (OR), shows
*Addition rule*: when*p*=T (the hypothesis selects the first two lines of the table), we see (at column-14) that*p*∨*q*=T.- We can see also that, with the same premise, another conclusions are valid: columns 12, 14 and 15 are T.

- The column-8 operator (AND), shows
*Simplification rule*: when*p*∧*q*=T (first line of the table), we see that*p*=T.- With this premise, we also conclude that
*q*=T,*p*∨*q*=T, etc. as showed by columns 9-15.

- With this premise, we also conclude that
- The column-11 operator (IF/THEN), shows
*Modus ponens rule*: when*p*→*q*=T and*p*=T only one line of the truth table (the first) satisfies these two conditions. On this line,*q*is also true. Therefore, whenever p → q is true and p is true, q must also be true.

Machines and well-trained people use this look at table approach to do basic inferences, and to check if other inferences (for the same premises) can be obtained.

### Example 1Edit

Let us consider the following assumptions: "If it rains today, then we will not go on a canoe today. If we do not go on a canoe trip today, then we will go on a canoe trip tomorrow. Therefore (Mathematical symbol for "therefore" is ), if it rains today, we will go on a canoe trip tomorrow. To make use of the rules of inference in the above table we let be the proposition "If it rains today", be " We will not go on a canoe today" and let be "We will go on a canoe trip tomorrow". Then this argument is of the form:

### Example 2Edit

Let us consider a more complex set of assumptions: "It is not sunny today and it is colder than yesterday". "We will go swimming only if it is sunny", "If we do not go swimming, then we will have a barbecue", and "If we will have a barbecue, then we will be home by sunset" lead to the conclusion "We will be home before sunset." Proof by rules of inference: Let be the proposition "It is sunny this today", the proposition "It is colder than yesterday", the proposition "We will go swimming", the proposition "We will have a barbecue", and the proposition "We will be home by sunset". Then the hypotheses become and . Using our intuition we conjecture that the conclusion might be . Using the Rules of Inference table we can proof the conjecture easily:

Step | Reason |
---|---|

1. | Hypothesis |

2. | Simplification using Step 1 |

3. | Hypothesis |

4. | Modus tollens using Step 2 and 3 |

5. | Hypothesis |

6. | Modus ponens using Step 4 and 5 |

7. | Hypothesis |

8. | Modus ponens using Step 6 and 7 |

## ReferencesEdit

- ↑ Kenneth H. Rosen:
*Discrete Mathematics and its Applications*,Fifth Edition, p. 58.

This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia (view authors). |