0

The question is a mouthful but it comes from an exercise in which I was asked to explain why modus ponens is sound with respect to the semantics expressed by the truth-table.

Many things are not clear, what does it refer by 'semantics' of a truth table? Sound is when all the rules in the system are true, how can I get the rules from a truth table?

Is it OK if I place a column in the truth table that represents P ∧ (P → Q) to see that every time this is true then Q is also true?

How would I do this if I had to show implication introduction is sound with a truth table?

1

I will not give you the full answer as this looks like homework, but I will show you how to do it instead:

You need to show that from P ∧ (PQ) logically follows that Q - this is what the modus ponens says.

Therefore, you need to prove (P ∧ (PQ)) → Q is always true, that is, independently of P and Q.

To do this, you can indeed use a truth table:

 P | Q | P ∧ (P → Q) | (P ∧ (P → Q)) → Q
---+---+-------------+-------------------
 0 | 0 | ...         | ...
 0 | 1 | ...         | ...
 1 | 0 | ...         | ...
 1 | 1 | ...         | ...

The last column should contain all ones.


NB: this is the same as your suggestion to "place a column in the truth table that represents P^(P->Q) to see that every time this is true then Q is also true", however, I preferred to show you the mathematically correct way to solve any logical problem.

  • It was not homework but it comes from a mock paper I'm using to review for an exam. I still appreciate your help. – FaureHu Jan 7 '15 at 7:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.