Anda di halaman 1dari 6

Partial truth tables

By Russell Dale (c) Russell Dale, 2014: All rights reserved. When problems have 5 or more elementary sentences in them, you need to have 32 or more lines of a truth table. That is a lot of work and takes a lot of time. Instead of doing all those rows, though, you can create what are called partial truth tables!. " partial truth table is a truth table that you build on the assumption that all the premises are true. It allows you to ignore rows in which one or more premise is false. #o, it saves time. "lso, if an argument is invalid, you $ust need to find a case in which all the premises are true and the conclusion is false. If you can create such a case, then you don%t have to consider &'&() possible case. That one case is all you need to prove that the argument is invalid. *et%s see how to do this. #uppose that you want to use a truth table to see whether +" , -. and " entails -. /irst create a truth table shape like this with $ust one blank row0 A B (A B) A B

1ow, assign a T to all the premises0 A B (A B) T A T B

If you are assigning T to the second premise, which is "!, then that means that the sentence letter "! is T for this row. #o, we write that in under the sentence letter column all the way on the left itself0 A B T (A B) T A T B

/rom this assumption, you can see that - must be T on that row too, since if "! is T and +" , -.! is T, then -! cannot be /0 it must be T. If we made -! an /, then given that "! is T, +" , -.! would have to be /. -ut, we need +" , -.! to be T. #o, -! 23#T be T. #o put that in all the way on the left in the column for -! as well as in the -! that is the conclusion0 A B T T (A B) T A T B T

There is no other way for "** the premises to be T here. "nd, we can see that if we have made all the
Partial truth tables (c) Russell Dale, 2014: All rights reserved. Page 1 o !

premises T, we have also, in doing so, made the conclusion T as well. Thus, we have proven through this partial truth table that the argument that concludes -! from +" , -.! and "! is '"*I4. *et%s do an invalid argument, so that you can see what that looks like when you do things by this method. 5ow about the "ffirming the 6onse7uent! argument +which we know to be invalid already.8 That argument tries to make " follow from +" , -. and -. *et%s make a partial truth table! for this and see what happens. /irst we make the framework for a truth table0 A B (A B) B A

1ow, we assign T to all the premises0 A B (A B) T B T A

We see that -! has T this time, so we write that in the left9side column for -!0 A B T (A B) T B T A

1ow we ask ourselves, If I assign / to "!, the conclusion, would I have to change anything I $ust did8! #ince -! is T +since we made "** the premises T., I can make "! either / or T, and I still get T for the first premise. #o, I write down an / for "!, and I am done0 A B F T (A B) T B T A F

I am done because this shows that it is possible to make all the premises T and the conclusion / at the same time. 4oing partial truth tables like this clearly saves a lot of time. *et%s do a really big one and see how that works. 6onsider this argument0 ++* : 2. , +1 ; <.. ++= : >I. , +>1 ; >5.. ++= : &. , +* ; ?..

Partial truth tables (c) Russell Dale, 2014: All rights reserved. Page 2 o !

>= /irst we set up a basic truth table framework for this with $ust one row0
L M N K J I H E G ((L M) (N & K)) ((J I) (N & H)) ((J E) (L & G)) J

1ow we assign T to all the premises0

L M N K J I H E G ((L M) (N & K)) T

((J I) (N & H)) T

((J E) (L & G)) T

We are specifically interested in the case where the conclusion is /, so let%s make it / as well.
L M N K J I H E G ((L M) (N & K)) T ((J I) (N & H)) T ((J E) (L & G)) T J F

If the conclusion here is /, then =! must be T. #o, let%s write that in0
L M N K J I H E G ((L M) (N & K)) T T ((J I) (N & H)) T ((J E) (L & G)) T J F

1ow, if =! is T, then for premises 2 and 3, the antecedent of the conditional 23#T be T as well. #o, we write that in0
L M N K J I H E G ((L M) (N & K)) T T ((J I) (N & H)) T T ((J E) (L & G)) T T J F

-ut, if the left side of those conditionals is T, the right side of those conditionals must be T as well since we want each of those premises as a whole to be T. #o, we write that in0
L M N K J I H E G ((L M) (N & K)) T T ((J I) (N & H)) T T T ((J E) (L & G)) T T T J F

-ut, since the conse7uents of those two conditionals are ;! sentences, both con$uncts for each of them must be T. #o, for premise 2, that will mean that >1! and >5! will each be T. -ut, that means that both 1! and 5! will have to be /. #o, let%s write all of that in0
L M N K J I H E G ((L M) (N & K)) F T F T ((J I) (N & H)) T T T T T ((J E) (L & G)) T T T J F

"nd for premise 3, we see that *! and ?! will have to be T. #o we write that in, too0
Partial truth tables (c) Russell Dale, 2014: All rights reserved. Page " o !

L M N K J I H E G ((L M) (N & K)) T F T F T T

((J I) (N & H)) T T T T T

((J E) (L & G)) T T T

J F

-ut, if *! is T, then the antecedent of premise @ will be T. *et%s write that in0
L M N K J I H E G ((L M) (N & K)) T F T F T T T ((J I) (N & H)) T T T T T ((J E) (L & G)) T T T J F

-ut, if the antecedent of premise @ is T, then we will have to make the conse7uent of premise @ a T as well, in order to keep premise @ T0
L M N K J I H E G ((L M) (N & K)) T F T F T T T T ((J I) (N & H)) T T T T T ((J E) (L & G)) T T T J F

-ut, if the conse7uent of premise @ is T, this can only be if both 1! is T and <! is T. -ut, here we run into a problemA We have already seen that in order to make all the premises T and the conclusion / we 23#T make 1! B /. This is because premise 2 couldn%t be T unless 1! B / +see above where we already reasoned this out.. -ut, now we see that we must make 1! T in order to keep premise @ T. We cannot do both. Therefore it is impossible to assign all T%s to the premises here and an / to the conclusion. That means there is no possible way for all the premises to be T and the conclusion /. #o the argument is '"*I4A We can double check our work here by trying to prove the conclusion on the basis of the premises. The proof is actually 7uite straightforward. *et%s try0 @. ++* : 2. , +1 ; <.. 2. ++= : >I. , +>1 ; >5.. 3. ++= : &. , +* ; ?.. C. 5. D. E. F. G. @H. @@. @2. = += : >I. +>1 ; >5. += : &. +* ; ?. * +* : 2. +1 ; <. 1 "ssumption "ssumption "ssumption "ssumption :I C ,& 2, 5 :I C ,& 3, E ;& F :I G ,& @, @H ;& @@
Partial truth tables (c) Russell Dale, 2014: All rights reserved. Page 4 o !

@3. @C. >= I. &. 4.

>1

;& D >I C9@3

1otice that the crucial contradiction we derive here on the assumption that the conclusion is / +that is, that =! is T. is 1! and >1!, which is eJactly the contradiction we had in the partial truth table we did above. Try to prove with a partial truth table whether or not the following argument is valid or invalid0 +K : +I ; (.. +K , >I. +I , >(. +K : 2. +)ou might try this on your own before looking at how I do itA. *et%s set up a partial truth table for this0 P Q R M (P (Q & R)) (P Q) (Q R) (P M)

#o, we assign T to all the premises and / to the conclusion0 P Q R M (P (Q & R)) T (P Q) T (Q R) T (P M) F

/or the conclusion here to be /, both K! and 2! 23#T be / since a ! sentence is / if and only if both dis$uncts are /. #o, K! and 2! must be /0 P Q R M F F (P (Q & R)) T (P Q) T (Q R) T (P M) F

-ut, if K! is /, then in premise @, +I ; (.! must be T and this can only be if both I! is T and (! is T. #o, let%s write all that in0 P Q R M F T T F (P (Q & R)) T T (P Q) T (Q R) T (P M) F

-ut, now we know "** the truth value assignments for the elementary sentences of our argument.
Partial truth tables (c) Russell Dale, 2014: All rights reserved. Page # o !

*et%s see whether this assignment is consistent with our supposition that all the premises are true and the conclusion is false. #ince K! must be /, premise 2 is fine. -ut, since I! must be T and (! must also be T, premise 3 will have a true antecedent and a false conse7uentA Lur assumption that premise 3 is T, then, is not consistent with the truth values we must have to make all the premises T and the conclusion /. #o, it is impossible for all the premises to be T and the conclusion /. Therefore the argument is '"*I4. "gain, we can check our work by doing a proof of +K : 2.! from +K : +I ; (..!, +K , >I.!, and +I , >(.!. "nd, again, the proof here is straightforward. @. +K : +I ; (.. 2. +K , >I. 3. +I , >(. C. 5. D. E. F. G. @H. @@. @2. @3. +K : 2. I. &. 4. >+K : 2. +>K ; >2. >K +I ; (. ( +>I : >(. >>( I >I "ssumption "ssumption "ssumption "ssumption 4e2 C ;& 5 :& @, D ;& E 26 3 :& G, @H ;& E :& G, @H >& C9@2

Partial truth tables (c) Russell Dale, 2014: All rights reserved. Page ! o !

Anda mungkin juga menyukai