Mathematical Reasoning - Discrete Structures - Lecture Slides, Slides of Discrete Structures and Graph Theory

These solved exam paper are very easy to understand and very helpful to built a concept about the foundation of computers and discrete structures.The key points discuss in these notes are:Mathematical Reasoning, Program Verification, Conducting Proofs, Artificial Intelligence, Drawing Inferences, Mathematical Arguments, Rules of Inference, Incorrect Reasoning, Fallacies, Corollary Proposition

Typology: Slides

2012/2013

Uploaded on 04/27/2013

ashakiran
ashakiran 🇮🇳

4.5

(27)

261 documents

1 / 22

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Let’s proceed to…
Mathematical Reasoning
Docsity.com
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa
pfd
pfe
pff
pf12
pf13
pf14
pf15
pf16

Partial preview of the text

Download Mathematical Reasoning - Discrete Structures - Lecture Slides and more Slides Discrete Structures and Graph Theory in PDF only on Docsity!

Let’s proceed to…

• Mathematical Reasoning

Mathematical Reasoning

  • We need mathematical reasoning to
  • determine whether a mathematical argument is correct or incorrect and
  • construct mathematical arguments.
  • Mathematical reasoning is not only important for conducting proofs and program verification , but also for artificial intelligence systems (drawing inferences).

Terminology

  • A lemma is a simple theorem used as an intermediate result in the proof of another theorem.
  • A corollary is a proposition that follows directly from a theorem that has been proved.
  • A conjecture is a statement whose truth value is unknown. Once it is proven, it becomes a theorem.

Rules of Inference

  • Rules of inference provide the justification of the steps used in a proof.
  • One important rule is called modus ponens or the law of detachment. It is based on the tautology (p∧(p→q)) → q. We write it in the following way:
  • p
  • p → q

  • ∴ q

The two hypotheses p and p → q are written in a column, and the conclusion below a bar, where ∴ means “therefore”.

Rules of Inference

  • p

  • ∴ p∨q Addition

p∧q


∴ p Simplification

p q


∴ p∧q

Conjunction

¬q p→q


∴ ¬p

Modus tollens

p→q q→r


∴ p→r

Hypothetical syllogism

p∨q ¬p


∴ q

Disjunctive syllogism

Arguments

  • Just like a rule of inference, an argument consists of one or more hypotheses and a conclusion.
  • We say that an argument is valid , if whenever all its hypotheses are true, its conclusion is also true.
  • However, if any hypothesis is false, even a valid argument can lead to an incorrect conclusion.

Arguments

  • Which rule of inference was used in the last argument?
  • p: “101 is divisible by 3.”
  • q: “101^2 is divisible by 9.”

p p→q


∴ q

Modus ponens

Unfortunately, one of the hypotheses (p) is false. Therefore, the conclusion q is incorrect.

Arguments

  • Another example:
  • “If it rains today, then we will not have a barbeque today. If we do not have a barbeque today, then we will have a barbeque tomorrow. Therefore, if it rains today, then we will have a barbeque tomorrow.”
  • This is a valid argument: If its hypotheses are true, then its conclusion is also true.

Arguments

  • Another example:
  • Gary is either intelligent or a good actor.
  • If Gary is intelligent, then he can count from 1 to 10.
  • Gary can only count from 1 to 2.
  • Therefore, Gary is a good actor.
  • i: “Gary is intelligent.”
  • a: “Gary is a good actor.”
  • c: “Gary can count from 1 to 10.”

Arguments

  • i: “Gary is intelligent.” a: “Gary is a good actor.” c: “Gary can count from 1 to 10.”
  • Step 1: ¬c Hypothesis
  • Step 2: i → c Hypothesis
  • Step 3: ¬i Modus tollens Steps 1 & 2
  • Step 4: a ∨ i Hypothesis
  • Step 5: a Disjunctive Syllogism Steps 3 & 4
  • Conclusion: a (“Gary is a good actor.”)

Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements

  • • (^) __________∀x P(x)
  • ∴ P(c) if c∈U

Universal instantiation

P(c) for an arbitrary c___________________∈U

∴ ∀x P(x)

Universal generalization

______________________^ ∃x P(x) ∴ P(c) for some element c∈U

Existential instantiation

P(c) for some element c____________________∈U

∴ ∃x P(x)

Existential generalization

Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements

  • Example:
  • Every UMBC student is a genius.
  • George is a UMBC student.
  • Therefore, George is a genius.
  • U(x): “x is a UMBC student.”
  • G(x): “x is a genius.”

Proving Theorems

  • Direct proof:
  • An implication p→q can be proved by showing that if p is true, then q is also true.
  • Example: Give a direct proof of the theorem “If n is odd, then n^2 is odd.”
  • Idea: Assume that the hypothesis of this implication is true (n is odd). Then use rules of inference and known theorems to show that q must also be true (n^2 is odd).

Proving Theorems

  • n is odd.
  • Then n = 2k + 1, where k is an integer.
  • Consequently, n^2 = (2k + 1) 2.
  • = 4k 2 + 4k + 1
  • = 2(2k 2 + 2k) + 1
  • Since n^2 can be written in this form, it is odd.