Propositional-Logic
Question 1 |
Which one of the following choices is correct?
Both S1and S2 are tautologies. | |
Neither S1and S2 are tautology. | |
S1is not a tautology but S2is a tautology. | |
S1is a tautology but S2is not a tautology. |
A tautology is a formula which is "always true" . That is, it is true for every assignment of truth values to its simple components.
Method 1:
S1: (~p ^ (p Vq)) →q
The implication is false only for T->F condition.
Let's consider q as false, then
(~p ^ (p Vq)) will be (~p ^ (p VF)) = (~p ^ (p)) =F.
It is always F->F which is true for implication. So there are no cases that return false, thus its always True i.e. its Tautology.
S2:
q->(~p (p Vq))
The false case for implication occurs at T->F case.
Let q=T then (~p (p Vq)) = (~p (p VT))= ~p. (It can be false for p=T).
So there is a case which yields T->F = F. Thus its not Valid or Not a Tautology.
Method 2:
Question 2 |
(a) Let * be a Boolean operation defined as
If C = A * B then evaluate and fill in the blanks:
(i) A * A = _______
(ii) C * A = _______
(b) Solve the following boolean equations for the values of A, B and C:
Theory Explanation. |
Question 3 |
Obtain the principal (canonical) conjunctive normal form of the propositional formula
(p ∧ q) V (¬q ∧ r)
Where ‘∧’ is logical and, ‘v’ is inclusive or and ¬ is negation.
Theory Explanation. |
Question 4 |
Which one of the following predicate formulae is NOT logically valid?
Note that W is a predicate formula without any free occurrence of x.
∃x(p(x) → W) ≡ ∀x p(x) → W | |
∀x(p(x) → W) ≡ ∀x p(x) → W
| |
∃x(p(x) ∧ W) ≡ ∃x p(x) ∧ W | |
∀x(p(x) ∨ W) ≡ ∀x p(x) ∨ W |
~p→q ≡ ~p∨q
Demorgan laws:
~(∀x(a(x)) ≡ ∃x~a(x)
~(∃x(a(x)) ≡ ∀x~a(x)
(A) ∃x(p(x)→w) ≡ ∀x p(x)→w
LHS: ∃x(p(x)→w) ≡ ∃x(~p(x)∨w)
≡ ∃x(~p(x))∨w
Demorgan’s law:
~(∀x(a(x)) = ∃x ~ a(x)
≡ ~(∀x P(x)) ∨ w
≡ (∀x) P(x) → w ≡ RHS
It’s valid.
(B) ∀x(P(x) → w) ≡ ∀x(~P(x) ∨ w)
≡ ∀x(~P(x)) ∨ w
≡ ~(∃x P(x)) ∨ w
≡ ∃x P(x) → w
This is not equal to RHS.
(C) ∃x(P(x) ∧ w) ≡ ∃x P(x) ∧ w
‘w’ is not a term which contains x.
So the quantifier does not have any impact on ‘w’.
Thus it can be written as
∃x(P(x)) ∧ w) ≡ ∃x P(x) ∧ w
(D) ∀(x)(P(x) ∨ w) ≡ ∀x P(x) ∨ w
‘w’ is not a term which contains ‘x’.
So the quantifier does not have an impact on ‘w’.
Thus ∀(x)(P(x) ∨ w) ≡ ∀x P(x) ∨ w
Question 5 |
What is the correct translation of the following statement into mathematical logic?
“Some real numbers are rational”
∃x (real(x) ∨ rational(x)) | |
∀x (real(x) → rational(x)) | |
∃x (real(x) ∧ rational(x)) | |
∃x (rational(x) → real(x)) |
∃x (real(x) ∧ rational(x))
(A) ∃x(real(x) ∨ rational(x))
means There exists some number, which are either real or rational.
(B) ∀x (real(x)→rational(x))
If a number is real then it is rational.
(D) ∃x (rational(x)→real(x))
There exists a number such that if it is rational then it is real.
Question 6 |
Consider the following logical inferences.
- I1: If it rains then the cricket match will not be played.
The cricket match was played.
Inference: There was no rain.
I2: If it rains then the cricket match will not be played.
It did not rain.
Inference: The cricket match was played.
Which of the following is TRUE?
Both I1 and I2 are correct inferences | |
I1 is correct but I2 is not a correct inference | |
I1 is not correct but I2 is a correct inference | |
Both I1 and I2 are not correct inferences |
The cricket match was played.
Let p = it rains
q = playing cricket/ match played
If (it rains) then (the match will not be played)
p ⇒ (∼q)
Inference: There was no rain. (i.e., p = F)
So for any F ⇒ (∼q) is true.
So this inference is valid.
I2: If it rains then the cricket match will not be played.
It did not rain.
p ⇒ (∼q)
Inference: The cricket match was played.
q = T
p ⇒ (∼q)
p ⇒ (∼T)
p ⇒ F
This is false for p = T, so this is not true.
Question 7 |
Which of the following is false? Read ∧ as AND, ∨ as OR, ~ as NOT, → as one way implication and ↔ as two way implication.
((x → y) ∧ x) → y | |
((x → y) ∧ (x ∧ y)) → x | |
(x → (x ∨ ψ)) | |
((x ∨ y) ↔ (x → y) |
then option (D) will be False.
Question 8 |
Which of the following propositions is a tautology?
(p ∨ q) → p | |
p ∨ (q → p) | |
p ∨ (p → q) | |
p → (p → q) |
Question 9 |
What is the converse of the following assertion?
I stay only if you go.
I stay if you go | |
If I stay then you go | |
If you do not go then I do not stay | |
If I do not stay then you go |
⇒ i.e., A→B
Where A = If I stay; B = you go
Converse for (A→B) is (B→A)
⇒ If you go then I stay.
Question 10 |
(a) Show that the formula [(~p ∨ q) ⇒ (q ⇒ p)] is not a tautology.
(b) Let A be a tautology and B be any other formula. Prove that (A ∨ B) is a tautology.
Theory Explanation. |
Question 11 |
Let a, b, c, d be propositions. Assume that the equivalence a ↔ (b ∨ -b) and b ↔ c hold. Then the truth-value of the formula (a ∧ b) → (a ∧ c) ∨ d is always
True | |
False | |
Same as the truth-value of b | |
Same as the truth-value of d |
Given ⇒ (a∧b) → (a∧c) ∨d
⇒ (a∧b) → (a∧c) ∨d (b⇔c)
⇒ T∨d
⇒ T
Question 12 |
Consider two well-formed formulas in prepositional logic
F1: P ⇒ ¬P F2: (P⇒¬P)∨(¬P⇒P)
Which of the following statements is correct?
F1 is satisfiable, F2 is valid | |
F1 unsatisfiable, F2 is satisfiable | |
F1 is unsatisfiable, F2 is valid | |
F1 and F2 are both satisfiable |
F1 is satisfiable; F2 is valid.
Question 13 |
“If X then Y unless Z” is represented by which of the following formulas in prepositional logic? (“¬“, is negation, “∧” is conjunction, and “→” is implication)
(X∧¬Z)→Y | |
(X∧Y)→¬Z | |
X→(Y∧¬Z) | |
(X→Y)∧¬Z |
⇒ Z ∨ ¬X ∨ Y
⇒ ¬X ∨ Z ∨ Y
Option A:
(X ∧ ¬Z) → Y = ¬(X ∧ ¬Z ) ∨ Y = ¬X ∨ Z ∨ Y Hence, option (A) is correct.
Question 14 |
The following resolution rule is used in logic programming.
Derive clause (P ∨ Q) from clauses (P ∨ R), (Q ∨ ¬R)
Which of the following statements related to this rule is FALSE?
((P ∨ R) ∧ (Q ∨ ¬R)) ⇒ (P ∨ Q) is logically valid | |
(P ∨ Q) ⇒ ((P ∨ R) ∧ (Q ∨ ¬R)) is logically valid
| |
(P ∨ Q) is satisfiable if and only if (P∨R) ∧ (Q∨¬R) is satisfiable | |
(P ∨ Q) ⇒ FALSE if and only if both P and Q are unsatisfiable
|
It is may be True (or) False depending on values. So this is not valid.
Question 15 |
Consider the following formula a and its two interpretations I1 and I2
α: (∀x)[Px ⇔ (∀y)[Qxy ⇔ ¬Qyy]] ⇒ (∀x)[¬Px] I1: Domain: the set of natural numbers Px ≡ 'x is a prime number' Qxy ≡ 'y divides x' I2: same as I1 except that Px = 'x is a composite number'.
Which of the following statements is true?
I1 satisfies α, I2 does not | |
I2 satisfies α, I1 does not
| |
Neither I2 nor I1 satisfies α
| |
Both I1 and I2 satisfy α |
(∀x)[Px ⇔ (∀y)[Qxy ⇔ ¬Qyy]] ⇒(∀x)[¬Px]
Qyy is always true, because y divide y, then ¬Qyy is false.
∀x[(P(x) ⇔ ∀y [Qxy ⇔ False]]
∀y [Qxy ⇔ False] can be written as ∀y[¬axy]
⇒(∀x)[P(x) ⇔ ∀y[¬Qxy]]
Here, ¬Qxy says that y doesnot divides x, which is not always be true.
For example, if x=y then it is false then ∀y[¬Qxy] is not true for all values of y.
⇒(∀x)[P(x) ⇔ False]
⇒(∀x)[¬P(x) = RHS]
LHS = RHS
⇒ Irrespective of x, whether x is prime of composite number I1 and I2 satisfies α.
Question 16 |
Which of the following is a valid first order formula? (Here α and β are first order formulae with x as their only free variable)
((∀x)[α] ⇒ (∀x)[β]) ⇒ (∀x)[α⇒β]
| |
(∀x)[α] ⇒ (∃x)[α ∧ β] | |
((∀x)[α ∨ β] ⇒ (∃x)[α] ⇒ (∀x)[α] | |
(∀x)[α ⇒ β] ⇒ ((∀x)[α] ⇒ (∀x)[β]) |
Here, α, β are holding values of x. Then and RHS saying that α holding the value of x and β is holding value of x.
Then LHS ⇒ RHS.
Question 17 |
Show that proposition C is a logical consequence of the formula
A ∧ (A →(B ∨ C)) ∧ (B → ~A)
Using truth tables.
Theory Explanation. |
Question 18 |
(a) Uses Modus ponens (A, A →|= B) or resolution to show that the following set is inconsistent:
(1) Q(x) → P(x)V ~ R(a) (2) R(a) ~ Q(a) (3) Q(a) (4) ~ P(y)
Where x and y are universally quantified variables, a is a constant and P, Q, R are monadic predicates.
(b) Let S be the set of all integers and let n > 1 be a fixed integer. Define for a, b ∈ S, a R biff a-b is a multiple of n. Show that R is an equivalence relation and finds its equivalence classes for n = 5.
Theory Explanation. |
Question 19 |
S is a contradiction. | |
The anecdote of S is logically equivalent to the consequent of S. | |
S is a tautology. | |
S is neither a tautology nor a contradiction. |
Question 20 |
Consider the following first order logic formula in which R is a binary relation symbol.
∀x∀y (R(x, y) => R(y, x))The formula is
satisfiable and valid | |
satisfiable and so is its negation | |
unsatisfiable but its negation is valid | |
satisfiable but its negation is unsatisfiable |
Question 21 |
Which one of these first-order logic formula is valid?
∀x(P(x) ⇒ Q(x)) ⇒ (∀xP(x) ⇒ ∀xQ(x)) | |
∃x(P(x) ∨ Q(x)) ⇒ (∃xP(x) ⇒ ∃xQ(x)) | |
∃x(P(x) ∧ Q(x)) (∃xP(x) ∧ ∃xQ(x)) | |
∀x∃y P(x, y) ⇒ ∃y∀x P(x, y) |
RHS = if P(x) holds for all x, then Q(x) holds for all x
LHS ⇒ RHS (✔)
RHS ⇒ LHS (️×)
Question 22 |
Which of the following first order formula is logically valid? Here α(x) is a first order formula with x as a free variable, and β is a first order formula with no free variable.
[β→(∃x,α(x))]→[∀x,β→α(x)] | |
[∃x,β→α(x)]→[β→(∀x,α(x))] | |
[(∃x,α(x))→β]→[∀x,α(x)→β] | |
[(∀x,α(x))→β]→[∀x,α(x)→β] |
L.H.S. : If there is an x such that α(x) is true, then β is true.
R.H.S. : For all x, if α(x) true, then β is true.
Here, the given LHS and RHS are to be same as β is a formula which can be independent of x (if β is true for one x, it is true for every x, and vice-versa).
Here, LHS = RHS
So, Option C is valid.
Question 23 |
Which of the following is the negation of [∀x, α →(∃y, β →(∀ u, ∃v, y))]
[∃x, α → (∀y, β → (∃u, ∀v, y))] | |
[∃x, α → (∀y, β → (∃u, ∀ v, ¬y))] | |
[∀x, ¬α → (∃y, ¬β → (∀u, ∃v, ¬y))] | |
[∃x, α ʌ (∀y, β ʌ (∃u, ∀v, ¬y))] |
⇔ [∃x, [α × ~(∃y, β → (∀u, ∃v, y))]
⇔ [∃x, [α × ∀y, ~(β → (∀u, ∃v, y)]
⇔ [∃x, [α × ∀y, ~(β × ~(∀u, ∃v, y)]
⇔ [∃x, [α × ∀y(β × (∃u, ∀v, y)]
Question 24 |
Which of the following well-formed formulas are equivalent?
P → Q | |
¬Q → ¬P | |
¬P ∨ Q | |
¬Q → P | |
A, B and C. |
¬Q → ¬P ⇔ Q ∨ ¬P
¬P ∨ Q ⇔ ¬P ∨ Q
¬Q → P ⇔ Q ∨ P
A, B and C are equivalent.
Question 25 |
Choose the correct alternatives (More than one may be correct). Indicate which of the following well-formed formulae are valid:
(P⇒Q) ∧ (Q⇒R) ⇒ (P⇒R) | |
(P⇒Q) ⇒ (¬P⇒¬Q) | |
(P∧(¬P∨¬Q)) ⇒ Q
| |
(P⇒R) ∨ (Q⇒R) ⇒ ((P∨Q)⇒R) |
Since implication A → B is False only when A = T and B = F. So to prove any implication is valid or not try to get
TRUE → FALSE, if we succeed then it is not valid, if we not then well formed formula is valid.
So, for option (A),
Substitute P=T and R=F
RHS:
P→R becomes False.
LHS:
(P→Q) ∧ (P→R)
To get true here we need T∧T. So substitute Q=T which makes P→Q TRUE and P→R FALSE.
So, T∧F = F which makes LHS = False.
Hence, we are unable to get T→F which proves well formed formula given in option (A) is valid.
Similarly, try for (B), (C), (D). We get T → F in these options which says these well formed formula is invalid.
Question 26 |
The following propositional statement is (P → (Q v R)) → ((P v Q) → R)
satisfiable but not valid
| |
valid | |
a contradiction | |
None of the above |
If P=T; Q=T; R=T
(P→(T∨T)) → ((T∨T)→R)
(P→T) → (T→R)
(T→T) → (T→T)
T→T
T(Satisfiable)
Question 27 |
Identify the correct translation into logical notation of the following assertion.
"Some boys in the class are taller than all the girls"
Note: taller(x,y) is true if x is taller than y.
(∃x) (boy(x) → (∀y) (girl(y) ∧ taller(x,y))) | |
(∃x) (boy(x) ∧ (∀y) (girl(y) ∧ taller(x,y))) | |
(∃x) (boy(x) → (∀y) (girl(y) → taller(x,y))) | |
(∃x) (boy(x) ∧ (∀y) (girl(y) → taller(x,y))) |
'∧' → predicts statements are always true, no matter the value of x.
'→' → predicts there is no need of left predicate to be true always, but whenever it becomes true, then right predicate must be true.
Option D:
There exists a some boys who are taller than of all girls y.
Question 28 |
Which one of the following well formed formulae is a tautology?
∀x ∃y R(x,y) ↔ ∃y ∀x R(x,y)
| |
(∀x [∃y R(x,y) → S(x,y)]) → ∀x∃y S(x,y)
| |
[∀x ∃y (P(x,y) → R(x,y)] ↔ [∀x ∃y (¬ P(x,y)∨R(x,y)] | |
∀x ∀y P(x,y) → ∀x ∀y P(y,x) |
[∀x ∃y (P(x,y) → R(x,y)] ↔ [∀x ∃y (¬ P(x,y)∨R(x,y)] is a tautology.
Question 29 |
A | |
B | |
C | |
D |
Question 30 |
Which one of the following well-formed formulae in predicate calculus is NOT valid?
(∀x p(x) ⇒ ∀x q(x)) ⇒ (∃x ¬p(x) ∨ ∀x q(x)) | |
(∃x p(x) ∨ ∃x q(x)) ⇒ ∃x (p(x) ∨ q(x)) | |
∃x (p(x) ∧ q(x)) ⇒ (∃x p(x) ∧ ∃x q(x)) | |
∀x (p(x) ∨ q(x)) ⇒ (∀x p(x) ∨ ∀x q(x)) |
But in option (D), we can generate T → F.
Hence, not valid.
Question 31 |
(i) false
(ii) Q
(iii) true
(iv) P ∨ Q
(v) ¬Q ∨ P
The number of expressions given above that are logically implied by P ∧ (P ⇒ Q) is _________.
4 | |
5 | |
6 | |
7 |
(P ∧ (P → Q))→ expression is a tautology. So we have to find
How many tautological formulas are there for the given inputs.
(P ∧ (P → Q)) → True is always tautology
(P ∧ (P → Q)) → False is not a tautology
(P ∧ (P → Q)) → Q is a tautology
(P ∧ (P → Q)) → ¬Q ∨ P is a tautology
(P ∧ (P → Q)) → P ∨ Q is a tautology
So there are 4 expressions logically implied by (P ∧ (P → Q))
Question 32 |
∃x P(x) ∧ ∀yQ(x, y) | |
∀x∀yQ(x, y) | |
∃y∀x P(x) ⇒ Q(x, y) | |
∃x P(x) ∧ ∃yQ(x, y) |
Question 33 |
I. p ⇒ q
II. q ⇒ p
III. (¬q) ∨ p
IV. (¬p) ∨ q
I only | |
I and IV only | |
II only | |
II and III only |
Construct Truth tables:
~p ⇒ ~q
II, III are equivalent to (~p) ⇒ (~q)
Method 2:
(I) p⇒q ≡ ~p∨q
(II) q⇒p ≡ ~q∨p
(III) (~q) ∨ p ≡ ~q∨p
(IV) (~p) ∨ p ≡ ~p∨q
Also, from question:
(~p) ⇒ (~q)
≡ p∨~q
So, (II) & (III) are equivalent to the statement given in question.
Question 34 |
φ ≡ ∃s∃t∃u∀v∀w∀x∀y ψ(s,t,u,v,w,x,y)
where ψ(s,t,u,v,w,x,y) is a quantifier-free first-order logic formula using only predicate symbols, and possibly equality, but no function symbols. Suppose φ has a model with a universe containing 7 elements.
Which one of the following statements is necessarily true?
There exists at least one model of φ with universe of size less than or equal to 3. | |
There exists no model of φ with universe of size less than or equal to 3.
| |
There exists no model of φ with universe of size greater than 7. | |
Every model of φ has a universe of size equal to 7. |
"∃" there exists quantifier decides whether a sentence belong to the model or not.
i.e., ~∃ will make it not belong to the model. (1) We have ‘7’ elements in the universe, So max. size of universe in a model = ‘7’
(2) There are three '∃' quantifiers, which makes that a model have atleast “3” elements. So, min. size of universe in model = ‘7’.
(A) is False because: (2)
(B) is true
(C) is false because of (1)
(D) is false, because these all models with size {3 to 7} not only ‘7’.
Question 35 |
Consider the first order predicate formula φ:
- ∀x[(∀z z|x ⇒ ((z = x) ∨ (z = 1))) ⇒ ∃w (w > x) ∧ (∀z z|w ⇒ ((w = z) ∨ (z = 1)))]
Here 'a|b' denotes that 'a divides b', where a and b are integers. Consider the following sets:
-
S1. {1, 2, 3, ..., 100}
S2. Set of all positive integers
S3. Set of all integers
Which of the above sets satisfy φ?
S1 and S3 | |
S1, S2 and S3 | |
S2 and S3 | |
S1 and S2 |
One of the case:
If -7 is a number which is prime (either divided by -7 or 1 only). then there exists some number like -3 which is larger than -7 also satisfy the property (either divided by -3 or 1 only).
So, S3 is correct
It's true for all integers too.
Question 36 |
S1: (P # Q) # R = P # (Q # R)
S2: Q # R = R # Q
Which of the following is/are true for the Boolean variables P, Q and R?
Only S1 is True | |
Only S2 is True | |
Both S1 and S2 are True | |
Neither S1 nor S2 are True |
Question 37 |
P and Q are two propositions. Which of the following logical expressions are equivalent?
- I. P∨∼Q
II. ∼(∼P∧Q)
III. (P∧Q)∨(P∧∼Q)∨(∼P∧∼Q)
IV. (P∧Q)∨(P∧∼Q)∨(∼P∧Q)
Only I and II | |
Only I, II and III | |
Only I, II and IV | |
All of I, II, III and IV |
II. ∼(∼P∧Q)⇒(P∨∼Q)≡I (✔️)
III. (P×Q)∨(P×∼Q)∨(∼P×∼Q)
P∧(Q∨∼Q)∨(∼P∧∼Q)
P∨(∼P×∼Q)
(P∨∼P)×(P∨∼Q)
(P∨∼Q)≡I=II (✔️)
IV. (P×Q)∨(P∧∼Q)∨(∼P×Q)
P×(Q∨∼Q)∨(∼P∧Q)
P∨(∼P×Q)
(P∨∼P)×(P∨Q)
(P∨Q)≠I (❌)
So I≡II≡III (✔️)
Question 38 |
Let fsa and pda be two predicates such that fsa(x) means x is a finite state automaton, and pda(y) means that y is a pushdown automaton. Let equivalent be another predicate such that equivalent (a, b) means a and b are equivalent. Which of the following first order logic statements represents the following:
Each finite state automaton has an equivalent pushdown automaton
(∀x fsa(x)) ⇒ (∃y pda(y) ∧ equivalent(x,y)) | |
∼∀y(∃x fsa(x) ⇒ pda(y) ∧ equivalent(x,y)) | |
∀x ∃y(fsa(x) ∧ pda(y) ∧ equivalent(x,y)) | |
∀x ∃y(fsa(y)∧ pda(x) ∧ equivalent(x,y)) |
Option A:
If everything is a FSA. Then there exists an equivalent PDA for everything.
Option B:
Not for the case Y, if there exists a FSA then it can have equivalent PDA.
Option C:
Everything is a PDA and consists equivalent PDA.
Option D:
Everything is a PDA and has exist an equivalent FSA. In option A we are getting the equivalent of a and b.
So answer is option A.
Question 39 |
Let P, Q and R be three atomic prepositional assertions. Let X denote (P ∨ Q) → R and Y denote (P → R) ∨ (Q → R). Which one of the following is a tautology?
X ≡ Y | |
X → Y | |
Y → X | |
¬Y → X |
⇒ ∼(P∨Q) ∨ R
⇒ (∼P∧∼Q) ∨ R
⇒ (∼P∨R) × (∼Q∨R)
⇒ (P→R) ∧ (Q→R)
Option B: X→Y
[(P→R) × (Q→R)] → [(P→R) ∨ (Q→R)]
∼[(P→R) × (Q→R) ∨ (P→R) ∨ (Q→R)]
[∼(P→R) ∨ ∼(Q→R)] ∨ [(P→R) ∨ (Q→R)]
[∼(P→R) ∨ (P→R)] ∨ [∼(P→R) ∨ (Q→R)] ∨ [(Q→R) ∨ (P→R)] ∨ [∼(Q→R) ∨ (Q→R)]
T ∨ [∼(P→R) ∨ (Q→R)] ∨ [(Q→R) ∨ (P→R)] V T
T (✔️)