RSS

Logic

22 Oct

We spent a day or so on Logic and truth tables. It is a big deal that the conditional statement and the contrapositive are logically equivalent. So big of a deal that indirect proofs are based on that fact. So I want my students to see through truth tables that the conditional and contrapositive produce the same truth values.

We start with this example of the Law of Detachment. (A quick Internet search produced no source, and I have no memory about where I got this.)

Law of Detachment: If p →q is a true conditional and p is true, then q is true.

Example: Jordan knows that if he misses the practice the day before the game, then he will not be a starting player in the game. Jordan misses practice on Tuesday, so he concludes that he will not start in the game on Wednesday.

After an example of the Law of Syllogism (which could otherwise be known as the transitive property for conditional statements), we used a few Venn diagrams with conditional statements. We did one together.

10-20-2013 Image006

And then I let students move around the text to match the given conditionals.

10-20-2013 Image007      10-20-2013 Image011

Is the conclusion valid? Or can you find a counterexample?

10-20-2013 Image008     10-20-2013 Image012

10-20-2013 Image014     10-20-2013 Image013

Then we moved to a brief introduction of symbolic logic. We created truth tables for and, or, and implies. We talked about the difference between the exclusive or and or. (If you ask my daughter whether she wants chocolate cake OR strawberry pie, she will always answer both.)

Screen Shot 2013-10-20 at 5.26.56 PM

We talked about the truth values for implies. Why is it that if p is true and q is false, we say that p→q is false, but if p is false and q is true, we say that p→q is true? I remember having a hard time grasping this concept in college – and my professor used an example of it raining purple cats and dogs. Which I didn’t get. It’s taken me years to get this, but I think I finally do get it. I used the example from the Law of Detachment. The team has a rule that if you miss practice the day before the game, you don’t get to start. We’re evaluating the validity of that statement.

Screen Shot 2013-10-20 at 5.37.41 PM

The first row is the Law of Detachment. Jordan misses practice. Jordan doesn’t start. The conditional (team rule) is true.

The second row says that Jordan misses practice, but the conclusion is false. Jordan does get to start. If Jordan misses practice and does get to start in the game, then the conditional statement (team rule) is really false.

The third row says that Jordan didn’t miss practice and doesn’t start in the game. Which is fine. And doesn’t contradict the conditional statement (team rule). So we get a true outcome.

The fourth row saw that Jordan didn’t miss practice and does get to start in the game. Which is also fine. And doesn’t contradict the conditional statement (team rule). So we get a true outcome.

After practicing a few truth tables, we created truth tables for an original statement, inverse, converse, and contrapositive.

What do you notice? They each have 3 trues and 1 false. What else do you notice? (Long pauses ensue.) Finally someone notices. The outcomes for the original statement and the contrapositive are the same. The outcomes for the inverse and the converse are the same. Which is a big deal.

Screen Shot 2013-10-20 at 5.27.13 PM

The original statement and the contrapositive are logically equivalent. The inverse and the converse are logically equivalent.

We teach students that to prove a statement indirectly, they should assume the conclusion is false and show that there is a contradiction. I want my students to know why this works.

And then of course it would be nice for them to transfer this information not only to proofs but also to standardized test type questions.

Screen Shot 2013-10-21 at 9.05.00 AM

Screen Shot 2013-10-21 at 9.05.31 AM

Important? I think so, but I guess I am not sure. I don’t know how many of these students will go on to major in something where they need to use indirect proofs. I just know that I wish I had some idea about why indirect proofs worked when I was in school. Either way, the journey continues …

Advertisements
 
1 Comment

Posted by on October 22, 2013 in Angles & Triangles, Geometry

 

Tags: , , , , ,

One response to “Logic

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: