160 lines
5.5 KiB
Markdown
160 lines
5.5 KiB
Markdown
|
---
|
|||
|
|
tags:
|
|||
|
|
- logic
|
|||
|
|
- propositional-logic
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
# Truth-tables
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
We are already familiar with truth-tables from the previous entry on the
|
|||
|
|
_truth-functional connectives_ and the relationship between sentences,
|
|||
|
|
connectives and the overall truth-value of a sentence. Here we will look in
|
|||
|
|
further depth at how to build truth-tables and on their mathematical relation to
|
|||
|
|
binary truth-values. We will also look at examples of complex truth-tables for
|
|||
|
|
large compound expressions and the systematic steps we follow to derive the
|
|||
|
|
truth conditions of compound sentences from their simple constituents.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## Formulae for constructing truth-tables
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
For any truth-table, the number of rows it will contain is equal to $2n$ where:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- $n$ stands for the number of sentences
|
|||
|
|
- $2$ is the total number of possible truth values that the sentence may have:
|
|||
|
|
true or false.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
When we count the number of sentences, we mean atomic sentences. And we only
|
|||
|
|
count each sentence once. Hence for a compound sentence of the form
|
|||
|
|
$(\sim B \supset C) & (A \equiv B)$, $B$ occurs twice but there are only three
|
|||
|
|
sentences: $A$, $B$, and $C$.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Thus for the sentence $P & Q$ ,we have two sentences so $n$ is 2 which equals 4
|
|||
|
|
rows (2 x 2):
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
```
|
|||
|
|
P Q P & Q
|
|||
|
|
T T T
|
|||
|
|
T F F
|
|||
|
|
F T F
|
|||
|
|
F F F
|
|||
|
|
```
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
For the sentence $(P \lor Q) & R$ we have three sentences so $n$ is 3 which
|
|||
|
|
equals 8 rows (2 x 2 x 2):
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
```
|
|||
|
|
P Q R ( P ∨ Q ) & R
|
|||
|
|
T T T T
|
|||
|
|
T T F F
|
|||
|
|
T F T T
|
|||
|
|
T F F F
|
|||
|
|
F T T T
|
|||
|
|
F T F F
|
|||
|
|
F F T F
|
|||
|
|
F F F F
|
|||
|
|
```
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
For the single sentence $P$ we have one sentence so $n$ is 1 which equals 2 rows
|
|||
|
|
(2 x 1):
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
```
|
|||
|
|
P P
|
|||
|
|
T T
|
|||
|
|
F F
|
|||
|
|
```
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
This tells us how many rows the truth-table should have but it doesn't tell us
|
|||
|
|
what each row should consist in. In other words: how many Ts and Fs it should
|
|||
|
|
contain. This is fine with simple truth-tables since we can just alternate each
|
|||
|
|
value but for truth-tables with three sentences and more it is easy to make
|
|||
|
|
mistakes.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
To simplify this and ensure that we are including the right number of possible
|
|||
|
|
truth-values we can extend the formula to $2n^-i$. This formula tells us how
|
|||
|
|
many groups of T and F we should have in each column.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
We can already see that there is a pattern at work by looking at the columns of
|
|||
|
|
the truth tables above. If we take the sentence $(P \lor Q) & R$ we can see that
|
|||
|
|
for each sentence:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- $P$ consists in two sets of ${\textsf{T,T,T,T}}$ and ${\textsf{F,F,F,F}}$ with
|
|||
|
|
**four** elements per set
|
|||
|
|
- $Q$ consists in four sets of ${\textsf{T,T}}$ , ${\textsf{F,F}}$,
|
|||
|
|
${\textsf{T,T}}$ , ${\textsf{F,F}}$ with **two** elements per set
|
|||
|
|
- $R$ consists in eight sets of ${\textsf{T}}$, ${\textsf{F}}$, ${\textsf{T}}$,
|
|||
|
|
${\textsf{F}}$, ${\textsf{T}}$, ${\textsf{F}}$, ${\textsf{T}}$, ${\textsf{F}}$
|
|||
|
|
with **one** element per set.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
If we work through the formula we see that it returns 4, 2, 1:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
$$\begin{equation} \begin{split} 2n^-1 = 3 -1 \\ = 2 \\ = 2 \cdot 2 \\ = 4 \end{split} \end{equation}$$
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
$$
|
|||
|
|
\\begin{equation} \begin{split} 2n^-2 = 3 - 2 \\ = 1 \\ = 2 \cdot 1 \\ = 2 \end{split} \end{equation}
|
|||
|
|
$$
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
$$
|
|||
|
|
\\begin{equation} \begin{split} 2n^-3 = 3 - 3 \\ = 0 \\ = 2 \cdot 0 \\ = 1 \end{split} \end{equation}
|
|||
|
|
$$
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## Truth-table concepts
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Recursion
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
When we move to complex truth-tables with more than one connective we realise
|
|||
|
|
that truth-tables are recursive. The truth-tables for the truth-functional
|
|||
|
|
connectives provide all that we need to determine the truth-values of complex
|
|||
|
|
sentences:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
> The core truth-tables tell us how to determine the truth-value of a molecular
|
|||
|
|
> sentence given the truth-values of its
|
|||
|
|
> [immediate sentential components](Syntax%20of%20sentential%20logic.md). And if
|
|||
|
|
> the immediate sentential components of a molecular sentence are also
|
|||
|
|
> molecular, we can use the information in the characteristic truth-tables to
|
|||
|
|
> determine how the truth-value of each immediate component depends n the
|
|||
|
|
> truth-values of _its_ components and so on.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Truth-value assignment
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
> A truth-value assignment is an assignment of truth-values (either T or F) to
|
|||
|
|
> the atomic sentences of SL.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
When working on complex truth tables, we use the truth-assignment of atomic
|
|||
|
|
sentences to count as the values that we feed into the larger expressions at a
|
|||
|
|
higher level of the sentential abstraction.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Partial assignment
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
We talk about partial assignments of truth-values when we look at one specific
|
|||
|
|
row of the truth-table, independently of the others. The total set of partial
|
|||
|
|
assignments comprise all possible truth assignments for the given sentence.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## Working through complex truth-tables
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The truth-table below shows all truth-value assignments for the sentence
|
|||
|
|
$(\sim B \supset C) & (A \equiv B)$ :
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
```
|
|||
|
|
A B C ( ~ B ⊃ C ) & ( A ≡ B )
|
|||
|
|
T T T F T T T T T T T
|
|||
|
|
T T F F T T F T T T T
|
|||
|
|
T F T T F T T F T F F
|
|||
|
|
T F F T F F F F T F F
|
|||
|
|
F T T F T T T F F F T
|
|||
|
|
F T F F T T F F F F T
|
|||
|
|
F F T T F T T T F T F
|
|||
|
|
F F F T F F F F F T F
|
|||
|
|
```
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
As with algebra we work outwards from each set of brackets. The sequence for
|
|||
|
|
manually arriving at the above table would be roughly as follows:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1. For each sentence letter, copy the truth value for it in each row.
|
|||
|
|
1. Identify the connectives in the atomic sentences and the main overall
|
|||
|
|
sentence.
|
|||
|
|
1. Work out the truth-values for the smallest connectives and sub-compound
|
|||
|
|
sentences. The first should always be negation and then the other atomic
|
|||
|
|
connectives.
|
|||
|
|
1. Feed-in the truth-values of the atomic sentences as values into the main
|
|||
|
|
connective, through a process of elimination you then reach the core
|
|||
|
|
truth-assignments:
|