Lecture 4

Logical Equivalences

77
 Motivation

• Suppose that you and your friend are learning logic

• You two are trying to relate rain with playing
• You are relating them in this way:
If it rains, then we shall not go to play
• But your friend is saying like this:
If we are playing, then it is not raining
• Are these two statements same?
• Do they mean that rain and condition for not to play are
equivalent to each other?
• This is logical equivalence
• This will be the topic of this lecture
• Exercise: Can you find some other examples like this?

78
 Logical Equivalency by Truth Tables
Truth Table for
• Logical equivalence between two compound p→q and pq
propositions p and q can be shown in many ways p q p p→q pq
• The easiest way is to show it by truth table T T F T T
• p and q are logically equivalent if their truth T F F F F
values are same for every rows in the table
F T T T T
• Example: Show that (pq) and (p→q) are
F F T T T
logically equivalent
• Combined truth table for (pq) and (p→q) is this
• The two right-side columns are same for every row =
• So, they are logically equivalent
• (pq) is used instead of (p→q) in many places and is
called a definition of implication

79
 Logical Equivalency by Tautology

• If a compound proposition is always true (for all rows in

its truth table) then it is called tautology
• If it is always false, then it is called contradiction
• Example: pp is tautology Truth Table for some Tautology
• Example: pp is contradiction and Contradiction
• Example: pT is not tautology or p p T pp pp pT
contradiction T F T T F T
• See the right-side table for the above T F T T F T
three examples F T T T F F
• Exercise: Decide by truth table whether F T T T F F
the followings are tautology, contradiction, or none
• pp, pp, pp, pT, pF, pp, pF, TF

80
 Logical Equivalency by Tautology

• Suppose that p and q are two logically equivalent

compound statements
• Their truth table can be extended by one more column
for pq
Truth Table for p  q
• Since p and q are same for all rows,
p q Pq
this column will be true for all rows,
T
that means it will be tautology
T
• If they are not logically equivalent,
then pq is not tautology T
• So, logical equivalence can also be T
defined as: p and q are logically equivalent if pq is
tautology. Otherwise, not

81
 Logical Equivalency by Tautology

• Example: (p→q) and (pq) are logically equivalent as

(p→q)(pq) is tautology. See the truth table below
Truth Table for (p→q) (pq)
p q p p→q pq (p→q)(pq)
p equivalent q
T T F T T T
when
T F F F F T
F T T T T T p  q tautology

F F T T T T

• Exercise: Show by tautology that each of the following

pairs of statements are logically equivalent:
(a) (p→q) and (q→p) (b) (pq) and (pq)

82
 Logical Equivalency by Tautology

• Example: Show that (pq) and (pq) are logically

equivalent. This equivalency is called De-Morgan’s law
Truth Table for De-Morgan Law: (pq)(pq)
p q p q pq (pq) pq (pq)  pq)
T T F F T F F T
T F F T T F F T
F T T F T F F T
F F T T F T T T

• Exercise: The other part of De-Morgan’s law is that

(pq) and (pq) are logically equivalent. Prove this
equivalency by tautology

83
 Logical Equivalency by Tautology

• Example: (p→q)→r and p→(q→r) are not logically

equivalent, because the last column is not tautology
Truth Table for ((p→q)→r) and (p→(q→r))
p q r p→q (p→q)→r q→r p→(q→r) ((p→q)→r)  (p→(q→r))
T T T T T T T T
T T F T F F F T p, q not
T F T F T T T T equivalent
T F F F T T T T
when
F T T T T T T T
p  q is not
F T F T F F T F
F F T T T T T T tautology
F F F T F T T T

84
Common Logical Logical Equivalence Name
Equivalences pT  p
pF  p
Identity law

pT  T
Domination law
• So far, we have seen some pairs of pF  F

logically equivalent propositions pp  p

Idempotent law
pp  p
• They commonly appear in logical
p  p Double negation
statements
pq  qp
• They are also used to prove other pq  qp
Commutative law
logically equivalent propositions (pq)r  p(qr)  pqr
Associative law
• That’s why they have some names (pq)r  p(qr)  pqr
• Those are simple-but-conceptual (pq)r  (pr)(qr)
Distribution law
• The right-side table gives the most (pq)r  (pr)(qr)
common list of them (pq)  (pq)
De-Morgan’s law
(pq)  (pq)
• Exercise: Prove Absorption law and
pp  T
Distribution law by tautology pp  F
Negation law

85
 Common Logical Equivalences

• Logical equivalences can be used to express some

English statements in equivalent forms
• Example: Rephrase by double-negation: …
associative
• “It is not true that he is not good” can be rephrased law
as “He is good” (it is like Good = Good) …
• Example: Negation by De-Morgan’s law distribution
• Negation of the statement “Omer’s car is Toyota law
…
and white” by De-Morgan’s law is “Omer’s car is De-Morgan’s
not Toyota or not white” law
• It is like (Toyotawhite) = Toyotawhite …
• Exercise: Express the negation of “Ali or his brother is
coming” by De-Morgan’s law

86
 Logical Equivalence Name
Common Logical p→q  pq Definition of implication
Equivalences p→q  p→q Contrapositive
Definition of bi-
pq  (p→q)(q→p)
conditional
• Right-side table gives some Bi-conditional of
more common logical pq  pq
negations
equivalences involving
implication and bi-conditional
• Example: Rephrase by contrapositive
• Recall the example at the beginning of this lecture
• Your statement was: “If it rains, then no play”
• By contrapositive, this is same as: “Play means no
rain” (this was your friend’s statement)
• So, your and your friend’s statements are equivalent
• Exercise: Can you rephrase the statement “new car iff
A+” by “no new car iff no A+”? How?

87
 Logical Equivalency by Derivation

• We can show two propositions are logically equivalent

Starting
by going from one proposition to other
proposition
• We can use existing know logical equivalences (laws)
gradually one after another
• We can find those laws in the tables that we have seen
Use
• At each step, we mention the name of the law used known
• This method is called logical equivalency by logical laws
derivation
• Example: Show by derivation that p→p is a tautology
(that means, p→p and T are logically equivalent)
Target
p→p  pp // by the definition of implication
proposition
T // by negation law

88
 Logical Equivalency by Derivation

• Example: Show by logical derivation that (p→r)(q→r)

Starting
and (pq)→r are logically equivalent proposition
• Solution: (p→r)(q→r)
 (pr)(qr) // by definition of implication
// applied twice Use
 (pr)qr // by associative law known
 prqr // by associative law laws
 pqrr // by commutative law
 (pq)(rr) // by associative law applied twice
 (pq)r // by idempotent law
Target
 (pq)r // by De-Morgan’s law proposition
 (pq)→r // by the definition of implication

89
 Logical Equivalency by Derivation

• Example: Show by logical derivation that ((pq)→p)

Starting
is a contradiction (that means, ((pq)→p) and F are
proposition
logically equivalent)
((pq)→p)
 ((pq)p) // by definition of implication
Use
 (pq)p // by De-Morgan’s law known
 (pq)p // by double negation laws
 p(pq) // by commutative law
 (pp)q // by associative law
 Fq // by negation law
Target
F // by domination law
proposition
• Exercise: Show the above contradiction by truth table

90
 Truth Tables vs Logical Derivations

• We have seen two techniques to prove logical

equivalency: (1) truth tables and (2) logical derivation
• Both techniques have advantages over other Truth tables
• Constructing truth tables are straight forward and easier easier, but
• But they are lengthy and have many rows and columns lengthy
• On the other hand, logical derivations are concise, but
vs
they are more conceptual and need more intellect
• Exercise: Prove logical equivalency of the following pairs Derivation
of propositions by truth tables and by logical derivations shorter, but
conceptual
(a) (pq) and (pq) (b) (p→q)(p→r) and
p→(qr) (c) (p(pq))→q and T
(d) (p(p→q))→q and F

91