Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Logical Equivalences Note

    Uploaded by

    Macy Tan
    168 views12 pages
    - The document outlines logical equivalences that can be used when proving statements logically, including identity laws, domination laws, associative laws, distribution laws, De Morgan's laws, and implication/biconditional equivalences. - It explains the proof process involves stating assumptions, logical steps justified by equivalences, and concluding what was to be proved. - Examples are given of proving statements like (p∧¬q)∨q ≡ p∨q and proving statements are tautologies.

    Original Description:

    Suitable for Computer Science students and researches.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    - The document outlines logical equivalences that can be used when proving statements logically, including identity laws, domination laws, associative laws, distribution laws, De Morgan's laws, and implication/biconditional equivalences. - It explains the proof process involves stating assumptions, logical steps justified by equivalences, and concluding what was to be proved. - Examples are given of proving statements like (p∧¬q)∨q ≡ p∨q and proving statements are tautologies.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    168 views12 pages

    Logical Equivalences Note

    Uploaded by

    Macy Tan
    - The document outlines logical equivalences that can be used when proving statements logically, including identity laws, domination laws, associative laws, distribution laws, De Morgan's laws, and implication/biconditional equivalences. - It explains the proof process involves stating assumptions, logical steps justified by equivalences, and concluding what was to be proved. - Examples are given of proving statements like (p∧¬q)∨q ≡ p∨q and proving statements are tautologies.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 12

    Proofs Using Logical Equivalences

    Rosen 1.2

    List of Logical Equivalences


    pT p; pT T; pp p; (p) p pq qp; pq qp pF p pF F pp p Identity Laws Domination Laws Idempotent Laws Double Negation Law Commutative Laws

    (pq) r p (qr); (pq) r p (qr) Associative Laws

    List of Equivalences
    p(qr) (pq)(pr) p(qr) (pq)(pr)
    (pq)(p q) (pq)(p q) p p T p p F (pq) (p q) pq(pq) (qp)

    Distribution Laws
    De Morgans Laws Miscellaneous Or Tautology And Contradiction Implication Equivalence Biconditional Equivalence

    The Proof Process


    Assumptions

    Logical Steps

    -Definitions -Already-proved equivalences -Statements (e.g., arithmetic or algebraic)

    Conclusion (That which was to be proved)

    Prove: (pq) q pq
    (pq) q q (pq) (qp) (q q) (qp) T qp pq Left-Hand Statement Commutative Distributive Or Tautology Identity Commutative

    Begin with exactly the left-hand side statement End with exactly what is on the right Justify EVERY step with a logical equivalence

    Prove: (pq) q pq
    (pq) q Left-Hand Statement q (pq) Commutative (qp) (q q) Distributive Why did we need this step?
    Our logical equivalence specified that is distributive on the right. This does not guarantee the equivalence works on the left!

    Ex.: Matrix multiplication is not always commutative


    (Note that whether or not is distributive on the left is not the point here.)

    Prove: p q q p
    pq p q q p (q) p q p
    Contrapositive

    Implication Equivalence Commutative Double Negation Implication Equivalence

    Prove: p p q is a tautology
    Must show that the statement is true for any value of p,q.

    ppq p (p q) Implication Equivalence (p p) q Associative (p p) q Commutative Tq Or Tautology qT Commutative T Domination This tautology is called the addition rule of inference.

    Why do I have to justify everything?


    Note that your operation must have the same order of operands as the rule you quote unless you have already proven (and cite the proof) that order is not important.
    3+4 = 4+3 3/4 4/3 A*B B*A for everything (for example, matrix multiplication)

    Prove: (pq) p is a tautology


    (pq) p (pq) p (pq) p (qp) p q (p p) q (p p) q T T
    Implication Equivalence DeMorgans Commutative Associative Commutative Or Tautology Domination

    Prove or Disprove
    p q p q ??? To prove that something is not true it is enough to provide one counter-example. (Something that is true must be true in every case.) p q pq pq FT T F The statements are not logically equivalent

    Prove:p q p q
    p q (pq) (qp) (pq) (qp) (pq) (qp) (qp) (pq) (qp) (pq) (qp) (pq) p q
    Biconditional Equivalence Implication Equivalence (x2) Double Negation Commutative Double Negation Implication Equivalence (x2) Biconditional Equivalence

    You might also like