Consider the sentence “He was a member of the Boston Red Sox.” There is no way that we can assign a truth value to this sentence unless “he” is specified. For that reason, we would not consider it a proposition. However, “he” can be considered a variable that holds a place for any name. We might want to restrict the value of “he” to all names in the major-league baseball record books. If that is the case, we say that the sentence is a proposition over the set of major-league baseball players, past and present.
Let \(U\) be a nonempty set. A proposition over \(U\) is a sentence that contains a variable that can take on any value in \(U\) and that has a definite truth value as a result of any such substitution.
A few propositions over the subsets of \(\mathbb{P}\) are \((A =\emptyset ) \lor (A = \mathbb{P} )\text{,}\)\(3 \in A\text{,}\) and \(A \cap \{1, 2, 3\}\neq \emptyset\text{.}\)
All of the laws of logic that we listed in Section 3.4 are valid for propositions over a universe. For example, if \(p\) and \(q\) are propositions over the integers, we can be certain that \(p \land q \Rightarrow p\text{,}\) because \((p \land q) \to p\) is a tautology and is true no matter what values the variables in \(p\) and \(q\) are given. If we specify \(p\) and \(q\) to be \(p(n) : n < 4\) and \(q(n) : n < 8\text{,}\) we can also say that \(p\) implies \(p \land q\text{.}\) This is not a usual implication, but for the propositions under discussion, it is true. One way of describing this situation in general is with truth sets.
The truth set of the proposition \(\{1, 2\} \cap A = \emptyset\text{,}\) taken as a proposition over the power set of \(\{1, 2, 3, 4\}\) is \(\{\emptyset , \{3\}, \{4\}, \{3, 4\}\}\text{.}\)
Over the universe \(\mathbb{Z}\) (the integers), the truth set of \(4x^2- 3x = 0\) is \(\{0\}\text{.}\) If the universe is expanded to the rational numbers, the truth set becomes \(\{0, 3/4\}\text{.}\) The term solution set is often used for the truth set of an equation such as the one in this example.
The truth sets of compound propositions can be expressed in terms of the truth sets of simple propositions. For example, if \(a \in T_{p\land q}\) if and only if \(a\) makes \(p \land q\) true. This is true if and only if \(a\) makes both \(p\) and \(q\) true, which, in turn, is true if and only if \(a \in T_p\cap T_q\text{.}\) This explains why the truth set of the conjunction of two propositions equals the intersection of the truth sets of the two propositions. The following list summarizes the connection between compound and simple truth sets
Definition3.6.9.Equivalence of propositions over a universe.
Two propositions, \(p\) and \(q\text{,}\) are equivalent if \(p \leftrightarrow q\) is a tautology. In terms of truth sets, this means that \(p\) and \(q\) are equivalent if \(T_p=T_q\) .
Since the truth set of \(p \rightarrow q\) is \(T_p{}^c\cup T_q\text{,}\) the Venn diagram for \(T_{p\to q}\) in Figure 12 shows that \(p \Rightarrow q\) when \(T_p\subseteq T_q\text{.}\)
Suppose that \(s\) is a proposition over \(\{1, 2,\dots, 8\}\text{.}\) If \(T_s = \{1, 3, 5, 7\}\text{,}\) give two examples of propositions that are equivalent to \(s\text{.}\)