Scribd
Upload
169 views18 pages

03 - ECE MATH 311 - Validity of Arguments and Logical Equivalence

This document discusses the topic of validity of arguments and logical equivalence in discrete mathematics. It begins by listing the key objectives of understanding Boolean algebra postulates and theorems, defining tautology and contradiction, examining truth tables, logic puzzles, determining valid conclusions, and logical equivalences. It then provides examples of simplifying Boolean algebra expressions, identifying tautologies and contradictions, solving a logic puzzle, using truth tables to test argument validity, and proving logical equivalences. The document aims to help students learn techniques for analyzing the structure of arguments and determining logical relationships.

Uploaded by

Gennie Brul
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
169 views18 pages

03 - ECE MATH 311 - Validity of Arguments and Logical Equivalence

This document discusses the topic of validity of arguments and logical equivalence in discrete mathematics. It begins by listing the key objectives of understanding Boolean algebra postulates and theorems, defining tautology and contradiction, examining truth tables, logic puzzles, determining valid conclusions, and logical equivalences. It then provides examples of simplifying Boolean algebra expressions, identifying tautologies and contradictions, solving a logic puzzle, using truth tables to test argument validity, and proving logical equivalences. The document aims to help students learn techniques for analyzing the structure of arguments and determining logical relationships.

Uploaded by

Gennie Brul
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 18

DISCRETE MATHEMATICS

ECE MATH 311

TOPIC 3:
VALIDITY OF ARGUMENTS
& LOGICAL EQUIVALENCE
By: Edison A. Roxas, MSECE

OBJECTIVES
At the end of the topic, the students should be able to:
1. Recall Boolean Algebra Postulates and Theorems.
2. Define and distinguish tautology from contradiction;
3. Examine the truth table and its implications to some
premises;
4. Examine Logic Puzzle;
5. Determine if conclusion is valid for some premises;
6. Enumerate different logical equivalence; and
7. Establish and apply some of the logical equivalences.
earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

Table 3.1: Boolean Algebra


IDENTITY

X+0=X

X.1=X

COMPLEMENT

X + X = 1

X . X = 0

IDEMPOTENT

X+X=X

X.X=X

DOMINATION

X+1=1

X.0=0

INVOLUTION

(X) = X

COMMUTATIVE

X+Y=Y+X

XY = YX

ASSOCIATIVE

X + (Y + Z) = (X + Y) + Z

X(YZ) = (XY)Z

DISTRIBUTIVE

X (Y + Z) = XY + XZ

X + YZ = (X + Y) (X + Z)

DE MORGAN

(X + Y) = XY

(XY) = X + Y

ABSORPTION

X + XY = X

X (X + Y) = X

earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

EXAMPLE 3.1:
Simplify using Boolean Algebra the examples in
Example 1.5 and compare results.
a. F = xy + xy
b. F = (x+y)(x+y)
c. F = xyz + xy + xyz

earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

TAUTOLOGY & CONTRADICTION


It is an important class of compound
propositions that consists of those that are
always TRUE for all possible combinations of p
and q (or p, q and r). This is called tautology.
A compound proposition that is always FALSE is
called contradiction or absurdity.
A compound proposition p is a contradiction if
and only if ~p is a tautology.
A compound proposition is a contingent if it is
neither a tautology or contradiction.
earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

EXAMPLE 3.2:
Determine whether the following are tautology
or contradiction.

1. p p
2. ~ p p
3. ~[A (~A B)]
4. [p (p q)] q
5. (p ~q) (~p q)
6. (p q) (~q ~p)
7. [(p q) p] q
8. A [ ~ A (A B)]
earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

LOGIC PUZZLE
EXAMPLE 3.3:
Tony and his girlfriend Pepper was in a room
together with the other members of the
organization SHIELD. He was with Bruce;
Natasha; and their leader Nick. Suddenly a
momentary
power
interruptions
was
experienced; when the power was restored
they found Nick murdered. An inquiry was
held; and these are their statements:
earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

EXAMPLE 3.3 (contd):


Bruce: I am innocent ; Natasha was talking to Nick when
the power was interrupted.
Natasha: I am innocent; I was not talking to Nick when
the power was out.
Tony: I am innocent; Pepper committed the murder.
Pepper: I am innocent; one of the men committed the
murder.
Four of these eight statements are TRUE and four are
FALSE. Assuming only one person committed the
murder, who did it?
earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

VALIDITY OF ARGUMENTS
Complicated statements are analyze
using connectives and form a simpler
statement.
This simpler statement are then tested
for truth or falsity using a truth table.
If the final column of the truth table is a
TAUTOLOGY, then argument is
considered valid.
earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

EXAMPLE 3.4:
1. Show that the value R = (A (A B)) is a
contingent.
2. If A B is false, determine the truth table of
(~A) (AB)?

earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

10

EXAMPLE 3.5:
- Prove the validation of the argument given as:

The competition will start on time implies that


all contestants are present; if and only if all
the contestants are present or the
competition will not start on time.

earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

11

EXAMPLE 3.6:
Prove that the following is a valid argument.
p: Claire studies.
q: Claire plays volleyball.
r: Claire passes the board examination.
===
P1: If Claire studies, then she will pass the board examination.
P2: If Claire doesnt play volleyball, then shell study.
P3: Claire failed the board examination.
===
Prove that (P1^P2^P3) q is valid.

earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

12

LOGICAL EQUIVALENCE
Compound values that have the same truth
values in all possible cases are called logically
equivalent.
The compound proposition p and q are called
logically equivalent if pq is a tautology .
The notation p q denotes that p and q are
logically equivalent.
The symbol is not a compound proposition
but rather is the statement that pq is a
tautology .
earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

13

Table 3.2: LOGICAL EQUIVALENCE


1. Double Negation:

~~p p

2. Commutative Laws:

a. (pq) (qp)
b. (pq) (qp)
c. (pq) (qp)

3. Associative Laws: a. [(pq)r] [p(qr)]


b. [(pq)r] [p(qr)]
4. Distributive Laws: a. [p(q^r)] [(pq)^(pr)]
b. [p^(qr)] [(p^q)(p^r)]
5. Idempotent Laws: a. (pp) p
b. (p^p) p
earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

14

Table 3.2: LOGICAL EQUIVALENCE


6. Identity Laws:

a. (pF) p
b. (p^T) p

7. Domination Laws / Inverse Laws:


a. (pT) T
b. (p^F) F

8. Complement Laws / Negation Laws:


a. (p~p) T
b. (p^~p) F
earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

15

Table 3.2: LOGICAL EQUIVALENCE


9. DeMorgan Laws:

a. ~(pq) (~p^~q)
b. ~(p^q) (~p~q)
c. (pq) ~(~p^~q)
d. (p^q) ~(~p~q)

10. Contrapositive:

(pq) (~q~p)

11. Implication:

a. (pq) (~pq)
b. (pq) ~(p^~q)

earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

16

Table 3.2: LOGICAL EQUIVALENCE


12. Absorption Laws:
a. p(p^q) p
b. p^(pq) p
13. Equivalence:
a. (pq) (~pq)
b. (p^q) ~(p~q)

earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

17

EXAMPLE 3.7:
1. Prove that (AB)^~(~A^B) A
2. Show that ~(p+(~pxq)) and (~px~q) are
logically equivalent.
3. Show that (p^q) (pq) is a tautology.
Use the truth table.

earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

18

You might also like