I

R
S www.irss.academyirmbr.com July 2018

S International Review of Social Sciences Vol. 6 Issue.7

Condition Simplification by Logic

SADIA TARIQ
MS Scholar

SAJJAD ABBAS
PhD Scholar
Barani Institute of Sciences, Sahiwal Campus
Email: [email protected]

HABIB ULLAH
MS Scholar

Abstract
Formal specification of software is the major concern for every software client nowadays. No organizations
try to get the reliable and accurate software solutions. The one of the best way to get maximum accuracy in
solutions is achieved by the techniques used for formal specification of software engineering. Propositional
Logic (PL) is the one the simplest and oldest techniques with its grounds in mathematics to formally specify
a program with the using of Hoare’s Triple. Propositional logic is the branch of mathematics which is
being used by many of science disciplines for formal specification of real time problems. Every problem
which exists can be stated in any English like language can also be transferred using propositional logic
and its validity and invalidity can be checked, verified and proved using laws and logical equivalence of
Propositional Logic. PL provides us verity of rules that can be applied into computer programming to
formally specify a computer program and provide several mechanisms for checking their valid and proof.
This paper will present a unique and different use of propositional logic, its laws, and especially the logical
equivalence in the processing of Software development life cycle. We have used Pl in coding part of
software for condition simplification. Conditions are the primitive and basic parts of software code and it
enable to get a simplified version of complex conditions prior to code it; it will surely give us simplification
of code. With the help of code examples it will be proved that how propositional logic can be used for the
condition simplification, and hence reduction of code size and logic circuitry of a computer program.

Keywords: Logic, Laws of Logic, Logical Equliances, AND, OR, NOT, Implifciation and Bi-conditioanl
implification.

Introduction
Formal methods are an important part of the students' education as it helps to train them to treat the
specification of software in software development life cycle (Colin J Burgess). In graduate courses, we
have had students read the literature on formal methods usage, including practical applications (A. K.
Sobel, 2002), educational benefits (J. Hatcliff , 1990) , and the “myth buster” papers that debunk popular
misconceptions about formal methods (J. P. Bowen, 1995). Formal methods are mathematical and
procedural techniques which are used to specify complex systems formally in terms of mathematical
entities. Formal specification makes it possible and reliable to verify the accuracy of even more rigorous
and complex systems using these formal models. This proves that accuracy testing is conducted in more
empirical fashion (kneethe H. Rosen, fifth edition). With the arrival of Java language, an progression

ISSN 2309-0081 Tariq, Abbas & Ullah (2018) 316

I
R
S www.irss.academyirmbr.com July 2018

S International Review of Social Sciences Vol. 6 Issue.7

expansion started in formal specification that was the beginning of several Java-specific notations. These
include iContract, J@va, JASS, jContractor, and JML (D. Bartetzko , 2001).

Formal Specification is the first phase of formal modeling of a complex system. Use of formal methods and
formal specification is now heavily adopted by software engineers to make a 100% accurate applications.
formal methods can be used to describe any approach which utilizes a formal specification language and
specifies the role of that formal specification during the software development life cycle (Colin J Burgess).
Some software applications demand hundred percent accuracy for example, air ticketing system, missile
embedded systems and any real time applications. There are many examples of software bugs which yield a
loss of budgets and even human lives. In the process of writing formal specification of software, an
engineer thoroughly expresses this software in terms of formal methods. Propositional logic, Object
Constraint Language, Algebraic expression, Z specification and many others formal methods are examples
of formal methods. The formal modeling languages or we can say that specifications use fixed grammars to
provide an additional benefit of modeling complex software systems against some predefined types
provided in programming languages. The expressing of formal specification is a system that is same one as
we translate English problems statement into Propositional Logic constructors or into Algebraic notation.

Propositional logic is the building block for computer. In the early days of computing, computer was
known as logic machine. In fact, Propositional logic participate an important role in computer design,
programming and use of computer (Van Chan Ngo, 2012). Rules of logic can specify the mathematical
statements in a definite manner. For example “An integer exists which is not the sum of two other integers”
(M.G. Meulen, 2010). Another example is “the sum of any positive n positive integer is always n (n+1)/2”.
Propositional logic is a basis for mathematical and computing nature of sciences. Since computer is based
on Boolean algebra, a mathematical branch, hence PL has important practical applications in the system
development life cycle, system specification, computer programming and designing of programming
language (M.G. Meulen, 2010). Formal specification using logic and other mathematical techniques can be
applied to compiler construction as well (M. Collins, 1998). Propositional logic is one of the oldest
mathematical formal methods used to specify the Programs.

Statements within a first order logic can easily be transferred into computer programs (Walton, 1954). In
this paper we would start with the introduction to Propositional Logic, its rules of inference, proof using
laws of logic and laws of logical equivalence to their application in the coding phase of a program life
cycle. A branch of logic is predicate logic which is sometimes refers to programming language (Walton,
1954).

In the analysis section we have discussed some code of programs which have nested conditions and
conjunct conditions, and then with the help of PL, we have tried to simplify them. This will also improves
the quality of software as quality should be proven correct with variety of techniques (M. H. Van EMDIN,
1976).

Related Work
The problems involved in the systematic development of professional software are numerous and hard to
tackle. Any formal specification language can be used to describe the desired behavior of the software in
abstract manner (J. Hatcliff, 2012). A lot of work has been done in development of formal methods and we
have a great number of lists of these methods. But the motivation to use these models is increasing now day
by day. Many big incidents in the history of world that caused human to die have been observed only due to
software bugs. The reason behind that was the lack of use of formal methods and formal specifications.

Nico Plat in his thesis work done describe a convenient model for transformation of problem into software.
This model provides a framework, that is used to identify defects in the process and solutions for these

ISSN 2309-0081 Tariq, Abbas & Ullah (2018) 317

I
R
S www.irss.academyirmbr.com July 2018

S International Review of Social Sciences Vol. 6 Issue.7

defects. This model was based certain assumption form the motivation taken from use of formal
specifications.

M. Collins in his work about Formal Methods in back 1998 mentioned that “Simple propositions expressed
by Propositional Logic automatically provide help for the verification of more complex theorems” (Kneethe
H. Rosen, fifth edition). Since propositions used in Algebraic expressions are literals and could be
represented by single identifiers.

Gene Fisher and Corrigan Johnson worked in the same domain and proposed a tool “Spest”. This tool is
used to generate unit testing code from a formal program specification (Gene Fisher). They proved that it
can be used handle some of the difficulties while testing and it is easy to produce readable test code that can
be extendible too. Other directly related tools for test generation tools are JMLUnit (Y. Cheon, 2002) and
JMLUnitNG (D. M. Zimmerman, 2010) that have been developed for JML. The Spest system with its easy
and stand-alone graphical user interface make it easy for its users to select code files and generate the tests.
Then these tests code uses the TestNG library (C. Beust, 2007).

The very first authentic work in the direction of program construction for calculating implementation from
specification is being done by Roland Backhouse, the author of world famous book “Program
Construction”. http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~rcb/papers/papers.html Here is the list of world famous
publications regarding formal specifications (Roland Backhouse). Roland used logic for his all kinds of
research related to program construction. In this famous book “Program construction” he explained logic
with reference to computer programs, Hoare’s triple and formal specifications.

Proposition: A statement that can prove to be true or false is called a proposition. For example, “x+y=3”
can be proved true or false if we know the values of x and y variables in this expression. Proposition are
denoted by letters when they are manipulated and the truth value of a proposition is denoted by T if it is
true and F if it is False.

Propositional logic: The branch of logic which deals with these propositions is called Propositional
calculus or Propositional Logic.

Compound Proposition: when two or more propositions are joined using conjunction or disjunction
operators then these are called compound proposition. There are three basic operation for a proposition,
AND, OR and NOT operator. For example “Today is Sunday and it rains usually in the winter”. Let P
denotes the statement “Today is Sunday”, Q denotes the statement “it rains usually in the winter” then the
compound proposition can be represented as;

P ^ Q (^ is used to denote the AND logic operator)

Here are truth tables for AND, OR, and NOT operators.

TABLE 1 NOT LOGICAL OPERATOR

P ~P
T F
F T

TABLE 2 AND LOGICAL OPERATOR

P Q P ^Q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F

ISSN 2309-0081 Tariq, Abbas & Ullah (2018) 318

I
R
S www.irss.academyirmbr.com July 2018

S International Review of Social Sciences Vol. 6 Issue.7

TABLE 3 OR LOGICAL OPERATOR

P Q PvQ
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F

Conditional Statement: These statement are called sometime the implication, Let P and Q are two
implications the Implication defines the logic relationship between them as mentioned in the following
truth table. This logic relation and law is equal to if statement of a programming language, if P then Q. Its
truth table value is false when only Q is false and P is true and otherwise true for all other combination.

TABLE 4 P -> Q (IMPLICATION)

P Q P-> Q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

Bi-conditional Statement: If P implies Q and Q also implies P then we can say that this is a bi-conditional
statement. In P ↔ Q, proposition is true when P and Q have same values otherwise false.

TABLE 5 P -> Q (IMPLICATION)

P Q P ↔Q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F T

Propositional Equivalence: In computer programming sometimes we have many complex if and

conditional structures, examples have been displayed in the next section, we need to replace the condition
with some simple and equal conditions here we need Propositional equivalence to impart his role. If two
simple or compound propositions have same truth values then they are said to be the logically equal to each
other and we can replace them with each other. For Example let consider the following two equal
compound proposition, we have proved here with the help of truth table, it can be proved using many other
ways as well.

P-> Q = ~P v Q

TABLE 6 OR LOGICAL OPERATOR

P Q ~P v Q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

From table 4 and table 6 it is apparent that above propositions are logically equivalent; the truth values are
same for both the compound proposition.

This logical Equivalence is extremely a constructive element of formal methods by which we can specify a
program and we can simplify a computer program’s code significantly. Logical Equivalence is
commutative, associative, distributive, and symmetric in nature.
ISSN 2309-0081 Tariq, Abbas & Ullah (2018) 319
I
R
S www.irss.academyirmbr.com July 2018

S International Review of Social Sciences Vol. 6 Issue.7

Tautology: A compound proposition formula is valid which is always true no matter what the values of its
propositions that formed this is called tautology. For example P v ~P is always true (can be shown in Truth
table).

Contradiction: A compound proposition which is always false no matter what the values of its propositions
that shaped this is called contradiction. For example P ^ ~P is always false (can be shown in Truth table).

Logical Equivalence (LE): Now it is easy to define Logical Equivalence that if P and Q are two
Propositions and their bi-conditional is tautology then these are logically equivalence. If every model of a
Preposition P is a also a model of Proposition Q then P ≡ Q holds (M. Collins , 1998) and they can be
written as;

If P ↔ Q=T (Tautology)

Then P and Q have logical equivalence. Symbolically we write them as P ≡ Q. For example the DeMorgan
Laws have logical equivalence. Here is the table that shows the results.

TABLE 7 PROOF OF DEMORGAN LAW (LE)

P Q PvQ ~(PvQ) ~P ~Q ~P^~Q
T T T F F F F
T F T F F T F
F T T F T F F
F F F T F T T

Here we can see that Logical equivalence holds for DeMorgan’s Laws. This LE has some basic properties
in nature which are as follows. The main objective of these rules is to provide the semantics to prove all
valid and statements and their entailments.

Commutative Laws

pÙq ≡q
pÚq ≡qÚ p

Associative Laws

(pÙq ) Ùr ≡ pÙ(q Ùr)

(pÚq ) Úr ≡ pÚ(q Úr)

Distributive Laws

pÙ(qÚr) ≡(pÙq ) Ú( pÙr)

pÚ(q Ùr) ≡(pÚq ) Ù( pÚr)

Identity Laws

pÙt ≡p
pÚc≡p

Negation Laws

p Ú ~p ≡ t
p Ù ~p ≡ c

ISSN 2309-0081 Tariq, Abbas & Ullah (2018) 320

I
R
S www.irss.academyirmbr.com July 2018

S International Review of Social Sciences Vol. 6 Issue.7

Double Negation Law

~( ~p) ≡ p

Idempotent Laws

pÙp≡p
pÚp≡p

DeMorgan’s Laws

~ ( p Ù q ) ≡ ~p Ú ~q
~ ( p Ú q ) ≡ ~p Ù ~q

Universal Bound Laws

pÚt≡t
pÙc ≡c

Absorption Laws

pÚ(p Ùq) ≡p
pÙ(p Úq) ≡p

Negation of t and c

~t ≡ c
~c ≡ t

Analysis
This is our main section where I have tried to explain the use of logic and its laws to simplify the conditions
used in a program coding. I used above stated logic laws and logic rules to carry out the condition
simplification proves. Figure-1 shows the flow of work done in this simplification. For the first part I haves
proved my code simplification proves with the help of two examples which might be used as basic to
extend this research for future work to make it more clear and workable.

FIGURE-1
ISSN 2309-0081 Tariq, Abbas & Ullah (2018) 321
I
R
S www.irss.academyirmbr.com July 2018

S International Review of Social Sciences Vol. 6 Issue.7

From Figure-1 it is apparent that it is a simple straight forward process to simplify the complex conditions
in coding to simpler one. The key point is to precisely and accurately using transformations from conditions
to symbols and converse and the application of laws of logic.

In the preceding both examples it can be observed how these activities are being carried out in sequence
and the resultant conditions are so short and cute to handle.

Example 1:

if ((stFine > stRegFee) and not (( stFine > stRegFee) and (srEnrollment <1500)))

statement(s);
else
statement(s)

Assign Symbols to Conditions

Let we translate above stated if conditions into propositional logical statements, as mentioned in
introduction section that we use letter to denote proposition then Let

P = stFee > stRegFee

Q= stEnrollment <1500

Rewrite conditions using logic constructors

We can write it as

if ((stFine > stRegFee) and not (( stFine > stRegFee) and (stEnrollment <1500)))

≡(P ^ ~(P^Q))

Apply laws of logic to simplify the equation

Now with the help of above discussed rules of equivalence and laws of logic we can simple this logical
statement as follows

≡ ( P ^ ~P v ~Q)
≡ ( P ^ ~P) v ~Q)
≡C v ~Q
≡~Q
≡ if (Not(stEnrollment < 1500))

Assign Conditions to symbols

Hence simplified version of the above stated conditions in the example will be
if (Not(stEnrollment < 1500))

statement(s)
else
statement(s)

Now we will observe logical equivalence of simplified condition with its previous version from where we
had started. With the help of truth table, the simplest proving technique we can observe that
ISSN 2309-0081 Tariq, Abbas & Ullah (2018) 322
I
R
S www.irss.academyirmbr.com July 2018

S International Review of Social Sciences Vol. 6 Issue.7

TABLE 8 PROOF FOR EXAMPLE 1 (LE)

P Q ~P ~Q P^~P (P v ~(P ^Q) ~Q
T T F F F F F
T F F T F T T
F T T F F F F
F F T T F T T

We can see that in the last two highlighted columns we obtain same values, hence the above proof is
correct and we can replace the conditions already mentioned in the if() to this simple version. ;

Example 2:

This real life example is taking for a University registration system in which the following is the criteria for
allotting project or internship to a student. A student can be allotted project if and only if it fulfills any one
of following conditions;

 He has passed 15 credit hours and CGPA is greater than or equal to 1.75.
 He has not passed 15 credit hours but CGPA is greater than or equal to 1.75.
 He has passed 15 credit hours but CGPA is not greater than or equal to 1.75.

If((crPassed=15 && cgpa>=15) || (crPassed!=15 && cgpa>=15) || (crPassed=15 && cgpa<15)) then
Alotporject()= “Yes”;
Else
Alotproject()= “No”

Let we define proposition as;

P denotes “Pass credit hours equal to 15”

Q denotes “CGPA >= 1.75 “

 He has passed 15 credit hours and CGPA is greater than or equal to 1.75= (P^Q).
 He has not passed 15 credit hours but CGPA is greater than or equal to 1.75= (~P^Q).
 He has passed 15 credit hours but CGPA is not greater than or equal to 1.75=(P^~Q).

By combing these using with OR operator we have (as is mentioned anyone can be fulfilled) hence the
compound proposition becomes:

If((crPassed=15 && cgpa>=15) || (crPassed!=15 && cgpa>=15) || (crPassed=15 && cgpa<15))

≡(P  Q) (~P  Q)  (P ~ Q)

Now using laws of logic and equivalence we try to simplify it

≡(P ^ Q) v (~P ^ Q) v (P ^ ~Q)

≡ (P v ~P) ^ Q v (P ^ ~ Q)
≡ t ^ Q v (P ^ ~Q)
≡ Q v (P ^~ Q)
≡ (Q v P) ^ (Q v ~ Q)
≡ (Q v P) ^ t
≡Q v P
≡P v Q
≡If(crPassed=15 || cgpa>=1.75)
ISSN 2309-0081 Tariq, Abbas & Ullah (2018) 323
I
R
S www.irss.academyirmbr.com July 2018

S International Review of Social Sciences Vol. 6 Issue.7

Conclusion
As shown in the above examples it is clear that if we have multiple conditions in a source code with
conjunction or disjunction operator then by using laws of logic or using truth table we can simplify the code
and hence decrease code size and complexity, which will surely decrease the defect rates per Kilo Line Of
Code. Use of Formal Specification certain applications looks authentic but is future to spread in large
spectrum of applications is still under conditions (Colin J Burgess).

References
An introduction to laws of thought, Walton, London 1954.
A. K. Sobel and M. Clarkson. Formal methods application: An empirical tale of software development.
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(3):308–320, 2002.
A. Hall. Seven myths of formal methods. IEEE Software, 12:11–19, 1990. [12] J. Hatcliff, G. T. Leavens,
K
C. Beust and H. Suleiman. Next Generation Java Testing: TestNG and Advanced Concepts. Addison-
Wesley Professional, 2007.
C. Jaspan, M. Keeling, L. Maccherone, G. L. Zenarosa, and M. Shaw. Software mythbusters explore formal
methods. IEEE Software, 26(6):60–63, 2009.
D. Bartetzko, C. Fischer, M. M¨oller, and H. Wehrheim. Jass – java with assertions. Electronic Notes in
Theoretical Comp. Sci, 55(2):103–117, 2001.
Discrete mathematics by kneethe H. Rosen, fifth edition.
D. M. Zimmerman and R. Nagmoti. Jmlunit: The next generation. In Proc. of the 2010 Intl. Conference on
Formal Verification of Object-oriented Software, FoVeOOS’10, pages 183–197, Berlin, Heidelberg,
2011. Springer-Verlag.
Experiments with Formal Methods in Software
Engineering….http://nicoplat.com/sites/default/files/nicoplat-phd-thesis.pdf
Formal Methods, M. Collins, Carnegie Mellon University 1998.
Formal Verification of Transformations on Abstract Clocks in Synchronous Compilers, Van Chan Ngo, Sep
2012.
G. T. Leavens, A. L. Baker, and C. Ruby. Preliminary design of jml: A behavioral interface specification
language for java. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes, 31(3):1–38, May 2006.
http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/2900000/2899424/p224-
fisher.pdf?ip=43.245.8.26&id=2899424&acc=OPEN&key=4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E
38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E6D218144511F3437&CFID=653447577&CFTOKEN=7777128
8&__acm__=1470706360_63c91dc6e8eb6135e67ca417b916b6e1
I. B. Bourdonov, A. V. Demakov, A. A. Jarov, A. Kossatchev, V. V. Kuliamin, A. Petrenko, and S. V.
Zelenov. Java specification extension for automated test development. In Revised Papers from the 4th
Intl. Andrei Ershov Memorial Conference on Perspectives of System Informatics: Akademgorodok,
Novosibirsk, Russia, PSI ’02, pages 301–307, London, UK, UK, 2001. Springer-Verlag.
J. Hatcliff, G. T. Leavens, K. R. M. Leino, P. Muller, ¨ and M. Parkinson. Behavioral interface specification
languages. ACM Comput. Surv., 44(3):16:1–16:58, June 2012.
J. P. Bowen and M. G. Hinchey. Seven more myths of formal methods. IEEE Software, 12(4):34–41, 1995.
Logic and formal verification by Jeremy Avigad, June 2009.
M. Karaorman and P. Abercrombie. jcontractor: Introducing design-by-contract to java using reflective
bytecode instrumentation. Formal Methods in System Design, 27:275–312, 2005.
Making Formal Methods More Relevant to Software Engineering Students via Automated Test Generation
Gene Fisher Department of Computer Science California Polytechnic State University San Luis
Obispo, CA 93407 [email protected] Corrigan Johnson Department of Computer Science California
Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 [email protected]
Philosophy 220A: Symbolic Logic-I, Department of Philosophy, University of British Columbia, and
September 6, 2004.

ISSN 2309-0081 Tariq, Abbas & Ullah (2018) 324

I
R
S www.irss.academyirmbr.com July 2018

S International Review of Social Sciences Vol. 6 Issue.7

R. Kramer. icontract - the java(tm) design by contract(tm) tool. Technology of Object-Oriented Languages,
Intl. Conference on, 0:295–308, 1998.
Roland Backhouse http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~rcb/papers/papers.html
Semantics of predicate logic as a programming language, M. H. Van EMDIN Scotland. 1976.
T. Margaria and B. Steffen, editors. ISoLA’12: Proc. of the 5th Intl. Conference on Leveraging
Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation: Applications and Case Studies - Volume
Part II, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012. Springer-Verlag.
The Role of Formal Methods in Software Engineering Education and Industry Colin J Burgess University
of Bristol Department of Computer Science University of Bristol Bristol, BS8 1TR England.
Verification of PLC source code using, propositional logic, M.G. Meulen, April 2010.
Y. Cheon and G. T. Leavens. A simple and practical approach to unit testing: The jml and junit way. In
Proc. of the 16th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, ECOOP ’02, pages 231–
255, London, UK, UK, 2002. Springer-Verlag.

ISSN 2309-0081 Tariq, Abbas & Ullah (2018) 325