Section 1.1 covers the basics of logic: Statements, open sentences, truth tables, negation, conjunction, and disjunction. The authors use “Aunt Buosone” in several examples. I’m excited to see what other characters I meet. The math isn’t new to me yet, but the name “Buosone” sure is.

I have never taught logic to this extent. When I taught geometry, we spent quite a bit of time discussing logic and especially reasoning, but we never actually worked with truth tables. In early August each year, I would convince myself that spending time with truth tables and doing a deep dive into logic would be a great learning experience for my students and would pay off in the long run. But each year, I backed off and decided to only spend time on “geometry” logic and not on “discrete math” logic. The payoff for truth tables didn’t seem great enough, and we did a ton of great thinking and reasoning without them. I wonder if many geometry teachers include truth tables in their curriculum. If not, do they show up anywhere in the curriculum? I learned about truth tables in PDM – Precalculus and Discrete Mathematics – using the Chicago series (UCSMP). Given the emphasis on coding, I’m curious where discrete math fits into the curriculum.

Anyway, I like making truth tables. Well, I don’t mind it. I guess it gets tedious after a while, especially once you understand them. I did find the word problems interesting. Here’s an example:

That’s just a good problem, the sort I might have given my geometry students back in the day. Although the problem does not specifically call for a truth table, I made one anyway:

While this made the questions extremely easy to answer, I wonder what value the truth table really has here. I thought about the questions and answered them before making the truth table and used it to confirm my answers. The truth table certainly adds clarity, but in doing so, does it actually remove some of the critical thinking necessary to answer the questions? Or does it seem that way only because I have a fairly strong background in logic?

**Curriculum Connections**

This chapter included a number of logic puzzles. You know the type – Alice and Bob go to the same school, Bob and Carol both major in history, … Which person studies physics and is under six feet tall? I’ve never done much with this sort of puzzle, but I know students tend to like them. Definitely a good resource to have around to allow for easy differentiation after an activity.

**Questions to Ponder**

Does constructing truth tables help students develop logical thinking and reasoning skills? Does the process become rote? Is it just another procedure to learn?

How does the knowledge gained through learning about elementary logic help students to learn about mathematical proof? What do we gain by studying logic at this level?

What are the consequences of differences between mathematical language and the vernacular? How can we help students learn how and when to use *and*, *or*, and *not* correctly within a mathematical context? Does the idea of an *inclusive or* pose a significant barrier to student understanding, and if so, how do we overcome it?