Scribd
Upload
108 views4 pages

Logical Equivalences

This document defines logical equivalences and introduces various logical equivalence laws. It provides examples of tautologies, contradictions and contingencies. Logical equivalence between two propositions p and q is defined as p ↔ q being a tautology. Various logical equivalence laws are listed, such as idempotent laws, identity laws, inverse laws, commutative laws, associative laws, distributive laws, De Morgan's laws, implication conversion law, contrapositive law, and reductio ad absurdum law. Exercises are provided to use truth tables or logical proofs to show certain propositions are logically equivalent based on these laws.

Uploaded by

Adriana Lima
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
108 views4 pages

Logical Equivalences

This document defines logical equivalences and introduces various logical equivalence laws. It provides examples of tautologies, contradictions and contingencies. Logical equivalence between two propositions p and q is defined as p ↔ q being a tautology. Various logical equivalence laws are listed, such as idempotent laws, identity laws, inverse laws, commutative laws, associative laws, distributive laws, De Morgan's laws, implication conversion law, contrapositive law, and reductio ad absurdum law. Exercises are provided to use truth tables or logical proofs to show certain propositions are logically equivalent based on these laws.

Uploaded by

Adriana Lima
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/ 4

Logical 1

Equiv.
Logical Equivalences

Def. A compound proposition that is always true, no matter what the truth
values of the (simple) propositions that occur in it, is called tautology. A
compound proposition that is always false, no matter what, is called a
contradiction. A proposition that is neither a tautology nor a contradiction
is called a contingency.

Examples: Indicate whether the propositions are:


(A) tautologies (B) contradictions or (C) contingencies.
Proposition type
p ∨ ¬p
p ∧ ¬p
x+7=18 for every real
number x

Def. The propositions p and q are called logically equivalent if p ↔ q is a


tautology. The notation p ≡ q denotes that p and q are logically equivalent.

Objective of the section:

You must learn to determine if two propositions are logically equivalent and
how to simply compound propositions by the
• truth table method and
• by the logical proof method (using the tables of logical equivalences.)

Exercise 1: Use truth tables to show that ~ ~p ≡ p (the double negation law)
is valid.

Exercise 2: Use truth tables to show that p ∧ T ≡ p (an identity law) is valid.

Note: Any equivalence termed a “law” will be proven by truth table, but
all others by proof (as we shall see next).
Logical 2
Equiv.
Equivalence Name
p∨ p ≡ p Idempotent laws
p∧ p ≡ p
p∧ T ≡ p Identity laws
p∨ F ≡ p
p ∨ ~p≡ T Inverse laws
p ∧ ~p≡ F
p ∨ T ≡T Domination laws
p ∧ F ≡F
p∨ q ≡ q∨ p Commutative laws
p∧q ≡ q∧p
~ ~p ≡ p Double negation law
(p ∨ q ) ∨ r ≡ p ∨ (q ∨ r ) Associative laws
(p ∧ q ) ∧ r ≡ p ∧ (q ∧ r )
p ∨ (q ∧ r ) ≡ (p ∨ q ) ∧ (p ∨ r ) Distributive laws
p ∧ (q ∨ r ) ≡ (p ∧ q ) ∨ (p ∧ r )
~(p ∧ q) ≡ ~p ∨ ~q De Morgan's laws
~(p ∨ q) ≡ ~p ∧ ~q
(p → q) ≡ ~p ∨ q Implication conversion law
(p → q) ≡ ~q → ~p Contrapositive law
(p → q) ≡ (p ∧ ~q) → F Reductio ad absurdum law

Exercise 3: Use a truth tables to show that ~(p ∧ q) ≡ ~p ∨ ~q

Exercise 4: Use a truth tables to show that ~(p ∧ q) and ~p ∧ ~q are not
equivalent.
Logical 3
Equiv.
Exercise 5: For each of the following name the equivalence law that
guarantees the statement.

i. [ (p ∧ q) ∨ ~(p ∧ q) ] ≡ T ________________________
ii. [ (p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ q) ] ≡ (p ∧ q) ___________________
iii. ~ [(p ∧ q) ∨ r ] ≡ ~(p ∧ q) ∧ ~r __________________
iv. (p ∧ q) → q ≡ ~(p ∧ q) ∨ q _____________________
v. (p ∧ q) ∨ (q ∨ r) ≡ ((p ∧ q) ∨ q) ∨ r _____________________
vi. Let A be a set. The statement “for any x, x ∈ A and x ∉ A” is false
by which law? _____________________

Exercise 6: Without truth tables to show that


~(~p ∧ q) ≡ p ∨ ~q

Exercise 7: Simplify the Boolean expression ~(p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ q)

Exercise 8: Simplify the Boolean expression ~p ∧ (p ∨ q))


Logical 4
Equiv.
Exercise 9: Without truth tables to show that
~(p ∨ (~p ∧ q)) ≡ ~(p ∨ q)

Exercise 10: Without truth tables to show that ~ p → q ≡ p ∨ q.

Exercise 11: Without truth tables to show that ~ (p → q) ≡ p ∧ ~q.

Exercise 12: Determine whether or not the statement x ← x + 1 will be


executed in the following sequence of statements:
a ← 7; b ← 4
if ~[(a < b) ∧ (b ≥ 5)] then x ← x + 1

You might also like