Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Unit 3 Propositional Logic:

Truth Table II

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya

School of Mathematical Sciences

T.U., Kirtipur
January 7, 2024

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 1 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Summary

1 Comparing Statements
Classification of Statements
Comparing Statements

2 Truth Tables for Arguments

3 Indirect Truth Tables

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 2 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Classifying Statements

Statements are divided into three groups

according to their truth values:
1 Tautology

2 Contradiction

3 Contingent statements

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 3 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

1. Tautology
A compound statement/proposition is called a
tautology (or logically true statement) if it is
true regardless of the truth values of its
components.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 4 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

1. Tautology
A compound statement/proposition is called a
tautology (or logically true statement) if it is
true regardless of the truth values of its
components.

2. Contradiction
A compound statement is called a contradiction
(or logically false statement) if it is false
regardless of the truth values of its components.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 4 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

3. Contingent statements
A compound statement is called a contingent
statement if its truth value varies depending on
the truth values of its components.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 5 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

3. Contingent statements
A compound statement is called a contingent
statement if its truth value varies depending on
the truth values of its components.

Example
Let p and q be two statements. Then the
statement
• p ∨ ∼ p is a tautology.
• p ∧ ∼ p is a contradiction.
• p ⇒ q is contingent.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 5 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Example
Prove that the statement

∼ (p ∧ q) ⇔ ( ∼ p) ∨ ( ∼ q)

is a tautology.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 6 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Solution.
p q p∧q ∼ (p ∧ q) ⇔ ∼ p∨ ∼ q ∼p ∼q
T T T F T F F F
T F F T T T F T
F T F T T T T F
F F F T T T T T

We see that there is no line in the table on which

shows the biconditional is false. So, the statement

∼ (p ∧ q) ⇔ (∼ p) ∨ (∼ q)

is true whatever the truth values of p and q are.

Hence it is a tautology.
Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 7 / 66
Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Example.
Prove that the statement

(G ∨ H) ⇔ ∼G ∧ ∼H

is a contradiction.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 8 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Solution.
G H G ∨H ⇔ ∼G ∧ ∼H ∼G ∼H
T T T F F F F
T F T F F F T
F T T F F T F
F F F F T T T

We see that there is no line in the table on which

shows the biconditional is true. So, the statement

(G ∨H) ⇔ ∼G ∧ ∼H

is false whatever the truth values of G and H are.

Hence it is a contradiction.
Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 9 / 66
Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Problems.
Use truth tables to determine whether the
following statements are tautology, contradiction,
or contingent:
1 ((p ⇒ q) ∧ p) ⇒ q

2 (p ∧ q) ∨ p

3 (p ⇒ p) ⇒ p

4 (p ⇒ q) ∧ (p ∨ ∼ q)

5 (p ⇒ q) ⇔ ( ∼ p ∧ q)

6 (p ⇒ q) ∧ (p ∧ ∼ q)

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 10 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Comparing Statements

Equivalent statements
Two statements are said to be logically
equivalent if they have the same truth value on
each line under their main operator.

Contradictory statements
Two statements are said to be contradictory if
they have opposite truth values on each line
under their main operator.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 11 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Consistent statements
Two or more statements are said to be
consistent if there is at least one line on which
both (or all) of them turn out to be true,

Inconsistent statements
Two or more statements are said to be
inconsistent if there is no line on which both (or
all) of them turn out to be true.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 12 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Problem
Show that the propositions p ⇒ q and
∼ q ⇒ ∼ p are logically equivalent.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 13 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Solution.

p ⇒ q ∼q ⇒ ∼p
T T T F T F
T F F T F F
F T T F T T
F T F T T T

We observe that the propositions p ⇒ q and

∼ q ⇒ ∼ p have the same true values in all cases.
Hence the propositions are logically equivalent.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 14 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Problem
Show that the propositions p ⇒ q and p ∧ ∼ q
are contradictory.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 15 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Solution.

p ⇒ q p ∧ ∼q
T T T T F F
T F F T T T
F T T F F F
F T F F F T

We observe that the propositions p ⇒ q and

p ∧ ∼ q have opposite true values in all cases.
Hence the propositions are contradictory.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 16 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Problem
Show that the propositions p ∨ q and p ∧ q are
consistent.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 17 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Solution.

p ∨ q p ∧ q
T T T T T T
T T F T F F
F T T F F T
F F F F F F

We observe that the propositions p ∨ q and p ∧ q

are true when p and q both are true (first lines in
the tables). Hence the propositions are consistent.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 18 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Problem
Show that the propositions p ⇔ q and p ∧ ∼ q
are inconsistent.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 19 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Solution.

p ⇔ q p ∧ ∼q
T T T T F F
T F F T T T
F F T F F F
F T F F F T

We observe that there is no case in which the

truth values of p ⇔ q and p ∧ ∼ q are both true.
Hence the propositions are inconsistent.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 20 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Truth Tables for Arguments

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 21 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

To construct a truth table for testing the validity

of an argument, follow these steps:
1 Symbolize the arguments using letters to

represent the simple propositions.

2 Draw a truth table for the symbolized

argument as if it were a proposition broken

into parts, outlining the columns
representing the premises and conclusion.
3 Look for a line in which all of the premises

are true and the conclusion is false. If such a

line exists, the argument is invalid; if not, it
is valid.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 22 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

For example, let us test the following argument

for validity:
If juvenile killers are as responsible for their
crimes as adults are, then execution is a
justifiable punishment. Juvenile killers are not as
responsible for their crimes as adults are.
Therefore, execution is not a justifiable
punishment.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 23 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Let
p : juvenile killers are as responsible for their
crimes as adults are,
q : execution is a justifiable punishment.
Then the given argument is
p ⇒ q
∼p
∴ ∼q

Now a truth table may be constructed as follows.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 24 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

First, prepare a truth table as shown below:

p q p ⇒ q ∼p ∼q
T T
T F
F T
F F

Then complete the truth table using the rules for

determining the truth values of connectives.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 25 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Thus, we obtain

p q p ⇒ q ∼p ∼q
T T T F F
T F F F T
F T T T F
F F T T T

Look at the table carefully.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 26 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

We see that the only possible situations in which

the premises arc both true are those represented
by the third and fourth rows.

p q p ⇒ q ∼p ∼q
T T T F F
T F F F T
F T T T F
F F T T T

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 27 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

We see that the only possible situations in which

the premises arc both true are those represented
by the third and fourth rows.

p q p ⇒ q ∼p ∼q
T T T F F
T F F F T
F T T T F
F F T T T

But we observe that in the third row the

conclusion is false even though both premises are
true. The argument is therefore invalid.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 27 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Consider the following argument:

p ⇒ q
∼q
∴ ∼ p.
Now a truth table may be constructed as follows.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 28 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

p q p ⇒ q ∼q ∼p
T T T F F
T F F T F
F T T F T
F F T T T
Inspection of the table reveals that the only
possible situation in which the premises arc both
true is that represented by the fourth line. And
we see that in the fourth line the conclusion is
true. The argument is therefore valid.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 29 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Test for validity using the truth table

Identify rows in which the premises are all true.
• If the conclusion is true in all rows where the
premises are all true, the argument is valid.
• If the conclusion is false in any such row, the
argument is invalid.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 30 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Consider the argument

(p ∨ q) ⇒ r
p
∴ r.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 31 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Prepare a truth table as follows:

(p ∨ q) ⇒ r p r
T T T T T
T T F T F
T F T T T
T F F T F
F T T F T
F T F F F
F F T F T
F F F F F

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 32 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

We now fill the premise columns with the

corresponding truth values using the rules for
connectives. We obtain the truth table as follows:
(p ∨ q) ⇒ r p r
T T T T T T T
T T T F F T F
T T F T T T T
T T F F F T F
F T T T T F T
F T T F F F F
F F F T T F T
F F F T F F F

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 33 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

(p ∨ q) ⇒ r p r
T T T T T T T
T T T F F T F
T T F T T T T
T T F F F T F
F T T T T F T
F T T F F F F
F F F T T F T
F F F T F F F
There are just two rows on which the premises
are both true, and the conclusion is true on both
rows. So the argument is valid.
Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 34 / 66
Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Indirect Truth Tables

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 35 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

There is a better way to construct truth tables

that is shorter and allows us to do truth tables
for longer arguments containing more simple
statements: indirect truth tables.
Let us construct it for simple statements.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 36 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

1. Suppose that ∼ p is true. We express this by

writing
∼ p
T
Since a statement and its negation have opposite
truth values, we can say immediately that p must
be false.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 37 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

1. Suppose that ∼ p is true. We express this by

writing
∼ p
T
Since a statement and its negation have opposite
truth values, we can say immediately that p must
be false.Thus,
∼ p
T F

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 37 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

2. Suppose that p ∧ q is true. We express this

by writing
p ∧ q
T
We know that the truth of p ∧ q indicates that
both p and q are true.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 38 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

2. Suppose that p ∧ q is true. We express this

by writing
p ∧ q
T
We know that the truth of p ∧ q indicates that
both p and q are true.So,
p ∧ q
T T T

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 38 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Suppose that
p ∧ q
F
We know that the falsity of p ∧ q indicates that p
or q is false.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 39 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Suppose that
p ∧ q
F
We know that the falsity of p ∧ q indicates that p
or q is false.Thus,
p ∧ q
T F F
F F T
F F F

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 39 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

3. Suppose that
p ∨ q
T
We know the truth of p ∨ q indicates that p or q
is true.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 40 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

3. Suppose that
p ∨ q
T
We know the truth of p ∨ q indicates that p or q
is true.So,
p ∨ q
T T T
F T T
T T F

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 40 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Suppose that p ∨ q is false. Then

p ∨ q
F
We know the falsity of p ∨ q indicates that both p
and q are false.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 41 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Suppose that p ∨ q is false. Then

p ∨ q
F
We know the falsity of p ∨ q indicates that both p
and q are false.So,
p ∨ q
F F F

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 41 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

4. Suppose that p ⇒ q is true. Then

p ⇒ q
T
We know the truth of p ⇒ q indicates that ∼ p
or q is true.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 42 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

4. Suppose that p ⇒ q is true. Then

p ⇒ q
T
We know the truth of p ⇒ q indicates that ∼ p
or q is true.So,
p ⇒ q
T T T
F T T
F T F

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 42 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Suppose that p ⇒ q is false. Then

p ⇒ q
F
We know the falsity of p ⇒ q that p is true and q
is false.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 43 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Suppose that p ⇒ q is false. Then

p ⇒ q
F
We know the falsity of p ⇒ q that p is true and q
is false.So,
p ∨ q
T F F

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 43 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

We can test the validity of an argument by

constructing an indirect truth table.
Remember!
1 ASSUME that the argument is INVALID.

Then place a T under the main connective of

every premise, and an F under the main
connective of the conclusion.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 44 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

We can test the validity of an argument by

constructing an indirect truth table.
Remember!
1 ASSUME that the argument is INVALID.

Then place a T under the main connective of

every premise, and an F under the main
connective of the conclusion.
2 Fill in the values for everything else based on

the values from your assumption. DO NOT

put down a value unless you are absolutely
sure that it cannot be anything else, i.e. Do
NOT guess.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 44 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Example
Consider the argument:
r ⇒∼s
s∧ ∼ p
∼q ⇒ r
∴ p⇔∼q

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 45 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Step 1. We write premises and conclusion in a

single line. Place a single slash between the
premises, and a double slash between the last
premise and the conclusion as shown below.
r ⇒∼ s / s ∧ ∼ p / ∼ q ⇒r // p ⇔ ∼ q

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 46 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Step 1. We write premises and conclusion in a

single line. Place a single slash between the
premises, and a double slash between the last
premise and the conclusion as shown below.
r ⇒∼ s / s ∧ ∼ p / ∼ q ⇒r // p ⇔ ∼ q

Step 2. We suppose that the argument is

invalid. Place a T under the main connective of
every premise, and an F under the main
connective of the conclusion as follows.
r ⇒∼ s / s ∧ ∼ p / ∼ q ⇒r // p ⇔ ∼ q

T T T F
Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 46 / 66
Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Step 3. At this stage, the only place we can put

down values is for the 2nd premise. There is only
one way that a conjunction is true, and that’s
when both sides are true. So, put down T’s under
the MAIN CONNECTIVE on either side of that
“and”.
r ⇒∼ s / s ∧ ∼ p / ∼ q ⇒r // p ⇔ ∼ q

T T T T F T F

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 47 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Step 4. So the s and the tilde get the T’s, and

then the p gets an F because it would be the
opposite of the tilde. Now every s and p will get
those values, and the tildes attached to them will
be the opposite.
r ⇒∼ s / s ∧ ∼ p / ∼ q ⇒r // p ⇔ ∼ q

T F T T T T F T F F

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 48 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Step 5. Looking at what we have left, we can

either go to the 1st premise, or to the conclusion.
Both statements have enough information for us
to figure out the rest of the values for that
statement. We now pick 1st premise and then go
to the conclusion and then the remaining gaps
will be filled
r ⇒∼ s / s ∧ ∼ p / ∼ q ⇒r // p ⇔ ∼ q

F T F T T T T F T F T F F F T F

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 49 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Step 6. Now that everything that can be filled

out is filled out, we will go through checking for
inconsistencies in the rules (definitions of the
logical operators).
Essentially, we are looking to see if one of the
rules has been broken. When you are checking,
start small.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 50 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

• First make sure all your letters share the

same value (all r’s must be F etc.)
• Next, make sure tildes next to letters are the
opposite of the letter.
• Then look at the small statements inside
parentheses.
• Then make sure tildes on the outside of
parentheses are opposite the main connective
on the inside.
• Then check the larger statements and so on.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 51 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

In this example, notice that there is a problem in

the 3rd premise. The ∼ on the left is T, and the
q on the right is F. That should make the whole
conditional statement F. DON’T change it! Just
box the immediate problem.
This “problem” or inconsistence with the
conditional rule proves that our original
assumption (that the argument was invalid) was
wrong. So instead of being invalid, the argument
is VALID.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 52 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

If you found NO problems, then that would

mean that your assumption was correct
and that the argument really is invalid!

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 53 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Class Work

Use indirect truth tables to determine whether

the following symbolized arguments are valid or
invalid.
1 ∼ p ⇒ (q ∨ r), ∼ q ∴ r ⇒ p.
2 p ⇒ q, r ⇒ q ∴ p ⇒ r.
3 p ⇒ q, q ⇒ r ∴ p ⇒ r.
4 p ⇔ (q ⇒ r), ∼ q ∨ r, ∼ q ∴ ∼ p.
5 p ⇒ (q ∨ r), r ⇒ s ∴ p ⇒ s.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 54 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Testing Consistency
We test a series of statements for consistency using
indirect truth tables. For it
1 Write the statements on a line, separating each with a
single slash mark.
2 Assume that the statements are consistent.
3 Assign a T to the main operator of each statement
4 Compute the truth values of the components.
5 If this computation leads necessarily to a
contradiction, then the statements are inconsistent.
6 If no contradiction is reached, the statements are
consistent.
Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 55 / 66
Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Problem.
Determine the consistency of the set of
statements:
A ∧B
B ⇒ (C ∨ A)
C ⇒ ∼B
∼A

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 56 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Solution. We write the statements on a line,

separating each with a single slash mark.
A ∧B / B ⇒(C ∨ A) / C ⇒∼ B / ∼A

We then assign T to each of the main operators:

A ∧B / B ⇒(C ∨ A) / C ⇒∼ B / ∼A

T / T / T / T

We can now compute the truth value of A.

A ∧B / B ⇒(C ∨ A) / C ⇒∼ B / ∼A

F T T F T TF
Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 57 / 66
Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Next, we can compute the truth value of B.

A ∧B / B ⇒(C ∨ A) / C ⇒∼ B / ∼A

F TT TT F T T TF

Next, we enter the truth values of C and C ∨ A

in the second statement.
A ∧B / B ⇒(C ∨ A) / C ⇒∼ B / ∼A

F TT TT T T F T T TF

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 58 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Finally, the truth values of C and B are carried to

the third statement:
A ∧B / B ⇒(C ∨ A) / C ⇒∼ B / ∼A

F TT TT T T F TTF T TF

We see that this computation leads necessarily to

a contradiction (third statement). Therefore, the
group of statements is inconsistent.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 59 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Here is another example.

The statements are written on a single line, and a
T is assigned to each of the main operators:
A ⇒(B ∧ C)/ C ⇒∼ A / B ∨ A //B ⇒C

T / T / T // F

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 60 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Since all of the statements can be true in three

ways, we select one of them (the fourth) and
figure all of the ways it can be true:
A ⇒(B ∧ C)/ C ⇒∼ A / B ∨ A //B ⇒C

T T T TTT
F TT
F TF

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 61 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Filling out the first line we obtain

A ⇒(B ∧ C)/ C ⇒∼ A / B ∨ A //B ⇒C

F TTTT TTTF TTF TTT

F TT
F TF

We see that there is no no contradiction. So the

statements are consistent.

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 62 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Problem. Determine the consistency of the set

of statements:
P ⇒ ∼Q
R∨Q
∼R

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 63 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Solution. We write the statements on a line,

separating each with a single slash mark.
P ⇒ ∼Q / R∨ Q/ ∼R

We then assign T to each of the main operators:

P ⇒ ∼Q / R∨ Q/ ∼R
T T T

We can now compute the truth value of R.

P ⇒ ∼Q / R∨ Q/ ∼R
T F T TF

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 64 / 66

Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Next, we can compute the truth values of ∼R

and Q
P ⇒ ∼Q / R ∨ Q / ∼R
T T F T T TF

Finally, we complete writing truth values.

P ⇒ ∼Q / R ∨ Q / ∼R
F T F T F T T TF

We see that all the statements are true.

Therefore, the group of the statements is
consistent.
Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 65 / 66
Classification TT for Arguments Indirect TT

Determine whether the following pairs of

statements are logically equivalent, contradictory,
consistent, or inconsistent.
1 R ∧(Q∨S ), (S∨R) ∧(Q∨R)

2 H ∧(K∨J ), ( J ∧H )∨ (H ∧K )

3 Z ∧(C ⇔ P ), C ⇔ (Z ∧ ∼P )

4 Q ⇒ ∼(K∨F ), (K ∧Q) ∨ (F ∧Q)

Prof.Dr.P.M.Bajracharya Truth Table 66 / 66