Scribd
Upload
98 views22 pages

Propositional Equivalences

The document defines tautologies, contradictions, and contingencies as they relate to propositional logic. It also discusses logically equivalent propositions and provides several examples of logical equivalences using truth tables. Key logical rules are presented, including De Morgan's Laws, identity laws, and distributive laws. Methods for showing logical equivalence and propositional satisfiability are also summarized.

Uploaded by

Travis
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
98 views22 pages

Propositional Equivalences

The document defines tautologies, contradictions, and contingencies as they relate to propositional logic. It also discusses logically equivalent propositions and provides several examples of logical equivalences using truth tables. Key logical rules are presented, including De Morgan's Laws, identity laws, and distributive laws. Methods for showing logical equivalence and propositional satisfiability are also summarized.

Uploaded by

Travis
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/ 22

Tautologies, Contradictions, and

Contingencies
 A tautology is a proposition which is always true.
 Example: p ∨¬p

 A contradiction is a proposition which is always false.


 Example: p ∧¬p

 A contingency is a proposition which is neither a tautology


nor a contradiction

P ¬p p ∨¬p p ∧¬p
T F T F
F T T F
Logically Equivalent
 Two compound propositions p and q are logically equivalent if p↔q
is a tautology.
 We write this as p⇔q or as p≡q where p and q are compound
propositions.
 Two compound propositions p and q are equivalent if and only if the
columns in a truth table giving their truth values agree.
 This truth table shows ¬p ∨ q is equivalent to p → q.

p q ¬p ¬p ∨ q p→ q
T T F T T
T F F F F
F T T T T
F F T T T
De Morgan’s Laws

This truth table shows that De Morgan’s Second Law holds.

p q ¬p ¬q (p∨q) ¬(p∨q) ¬p∧¬q


T T F F T F F
T F F T T F F
F T T F T F F
F F T T F T T
Key Logical Equivalences
 Identity Laws:

 Domination Laws:
Key Logical Equivalences (cont.)
 Idempotent laws:

 Double Negation Law:

 Negation Laws:
Key Logical Equivalences (cont.)
 Commutative Laws:

 Associative Laws:
Key Logical Equivalences (cont.)
 Distributive Laws:

 Absorption Laws:
More Logical Equivalences
Constructing New Logical Equivalences
 We can show that two expressions are logically equivalent by
developing a series of logically equivalent statements.

 To prove that , we produce a series of equivalences beginning


with A and ending with B, as follow:

 Keep in mind that whenever a proposition (represented by a


propositional variable) occurs in the equivalences listed earlier, it may
be replaced by an arbitrarily complex compound proposition.
Equivalence Proofs
Example #1: Show that is logically
equivalent to

Solution:
Equivalence Proofs
Example #2: Show that is a tautology.

Solution:
Propositional Satisfiability
 A compound proposition is satisfiable if there is an
assignment of truth values to its variables that make it
true. When no such assignments exist, the compound
proposition is unsatisfiable.

 A compound proposition is unsatisfiable if and only if


its negation is a tautology.
Propositional Satisfiability
 Example #1: Determine the satisfiability of the following
compound propositions:

Solution: Satisfiable. Assign T to p, q, and r.


Propositional Satisfiability
 Example #2: Determine the satisfiability of the following
compound propositions:

Solution: Satisfiable. Assign T to p and F to q.


Propositional Satisfiability
 Example #3: Determine the satisfiability of the following
compound propositions:

Solution: Not satisfiable. Check each possible assignment


of truth values to the propositional variables and none will
make the proposition true.
Notation for Sudoku application (optional)

The following notations are needed for the next example.


Sudoku (optional)
 A Sudoku puzzle is represented by a 99 grid made up of
nine 33 subgrids, known as blocks. Some of the 81 cells of
the puzzle are assigned one of the numbers 1,2, …, 9.

 The puzzle is solved by assigning numbers to each blank cell


so that every row, column and block contains each of the nine
possible numbers.

 Example:
Encoding the Sudoku as a Satisfiability
Problem (optional)
 Let p(i,j,n) denote the proposition that is true when
the number n is in the cell in the ith row and the jth
column.

 There are 99  9 = 729 such propositions.

 In the sample puzzle p(5,1,6) is true, but p(5,j,6) is false


for j = 2,3,…9
Encoding (cont)
 For each cell with a given value, assert p(d,j,n), when
the cell in row i and column j has the given value.
 Assert that every row contains every number.

 Assert that every column contains every number.


Encoding (cont)
 Assert that each of the 3 x 3 blocks contain every
number.

(this is tricky - ideas from chapter 4 help)

 Assert that no cell contains more than one number.


Take the conjunction over all values of n, n’, i, and j,
where each variable ranges from 1 to 9 and ,
of
Solving the Sudoku Satisfiability
Problems (optional)
 To solve a Sudoku puzzle, we need to find an assignment of
truth values to the 729 variables of the form p(i,j,n) that makes
the conjunction of the assertions true. Those variables that are
assigned T yield a solution to the puzzle.

 A truth table can always be used to determine the satisfiability of


a compound proposition. But this is too complex even for
modern computers for large problems.

 There has been much work on developing efficient methods for


solving satisfiability problems as many practical problems can be
translated into satisfiability problems.

You might also like