How To Make Truth Tables for Logical Statements
A
 B
 A ^ B


T
 T
 T

T
 F
 F

F
 T
 F

F
 F
 F

Basic Example
Frequently in symbolic logic, we make use of truth tables to help us determine the properties of an argument such as validity, consistency, and truthfunctionality. They let us figure out how compound sentences operate when we give their atomic, or most basic, sentences truth values (Bergmann 75). So how do we make truth tables and then use them to help us reach these conclusions?
We first need a list of all the atomic sentences that we are using in the argument and assign all the possible truth value combinations which can be done to them (76). If I have the argument A ^ B, otherwise known as "A and B," both must be true if the argument is to be true. We put all the atomic sentences on the left and the argument on the right side of the table. Below them, each row will have the truth value assignments for each atomic sentence, then each one gets plugged into the argument and you work in steps, like in math, to determine if the argument is true or false. Making the table above shows that I have listed all the possible combinations for the pair of sentences we had. We filled out the final column based on the truth of the atomic sentences within. With the 2 atomic sentences A and B, we had 4 possible pairings.
Formulaic Approach
Every time we add a new atomic sentence, we will double the number of possible combinations. 2 sentences give us 4 combinations, 8 give us 16, and so on and so forth. Mathematically speaking, if I have n number of atomic sentences, we will have 2^{n} possible combinations for that group of atomic sentences. We will have 2^{n1} T’s followed by 2^{n1} F’s in the first column, then 2^{n2 }T’s, 2^{n2} F’s, 2^{n2} T’s, and 2^{n2} F’s in the second column, until I am at the nth column, and have 2^{nn} = 2^{0} = 1 T, 1 F, and so on (78).
Once you have created all the possible truth value combinations, you turn to your argument. Start by plugging in the truth value each time you see the atomic sentence in the compound. Then you will apply negations, if any exist, and place the new truth value underneath it. Finally, we look at each compound and determine what the overall truth value is based off the atomic sentences. Once we have the truth of that compound, we place that value underneath the connective of the sentences. Once we have the final truth value of the argument, we either place an arrow over that column or we circle it (79, 80).
For example, the argument A v (B ^ ~ C) is shown below. 3 atomic sentences are visible, so we expect 2^{3} = 8 possible combinations, with 2^{31} = 2^{2} = 4 T’s in first column, then 4 F’s, 2^{32} = 2^{1} = 2 T’s, 2 F’s, 2 T’s, and 2 F’s in second column, and finally 2^{33} = 2^{0} = 1 T, 1 F, and so on. Plugging those values into each argument, we arrive at the conclusion of the argument which is presented in the center.
A
 B
 C
 A v (B ^ ~C)


T
 T
 T
 T

T
 T
 F
 T

T
 F
 T
 T

T
 F
 F
 T

F
 T
 T
 F

F
 T
 F
 T

F
 F
 T
 F

F
 F
 F
 F

Works Cited
Bergmann, Merrie, James Moor, and Jack Nelson. The Logic Book. New York: McGrawHill Higher Education, 2003. Print. 75, 7880.
© 2013 Leonard Kelley
More by this Author
 0
Throughout history, many famous contradictions in arguments and theories have arisen. Some have easy explanations while others leave one wondering how to resolve them.
 2
Through the use of negations, conjunctions and disjunctions in logic, we can build up to De Morgan's Laws, a very powerful tool in logic.
 2
Though we all know how to use the Pythagorean Theorem, few know of the many proofs that accompany this theorem. Many of them have ancient and surprising origins.
No comments yet.