Module 2.

2b Logical Equivalence and Forms of

Conditional Propositions

Learning Outcome(s): At the end of the lesson, the learner is able to identify logically
equivalent propositions, and illustrate different forms of conditional propositions.
Lesson Outline:
1. Define a logical equivalence.
2. Define different forms of conditional proposition.
3. Seatwork.

Definition. Two propositions 𝑝 and 𝑞 are logically equivalent, denoted by 𝑝 ⇔ 𝑞, if

they have the same truth values.
Logical equivalence can also be expressed in terms of a biconditional statement. Two
propositions 𝑝 and 𝑞 are logically equivalent if the proposition 𝑝 ↔ 𝑞 is always true (or
is a tautology).
Example 1. Show that (𝑝 → 𝑞) ⇔ [(∼ 𝑝) ∨ 𝑞]. We shall call this logical equivalence
the Switcheroo law.

Solution. We need to show that 𝑝 → 𝑞 and (∼ 𝑝) ∨ 𝑞 have the same truth values using
a truth table.

𝑝 𝑞 𝑝→𝑞 ∼𝑝 (∼ 𝑝) ∨ 𝑞 (𝑝 → 𝑞) ↔ [(∼ 𝑝) ∨ 𝑞]
T T T F T T
T F F F F T
F T T T T T
F F T T T T

Notice that the third and fifth rows of the truth table above contains the same truth
values in the same sequence. Similarly, the last column shows that the proposition
(𝑝 → 𝑞) ↔ [(∼ 𝑝) ∨ 𝑞] is a tautology. Both of these enable us to conclude that
(𝑝 → 𝑞) ⇔ [(∼ 𝑝) ∨ 𝑞].

The table below shows the different logical equivalences that are used when
manipulating compound propositions.
Theorem (Table of Logical Equivalences). Let 𝑝, 𝑞, and 𝑟 be propositions. We have
the following logical equivalences

Identity Laws (𝑝 ∧ 𝜏) ⇔ 𝑝 (𝑝 ∨ 𝜙) ⇔ 𝑝
Domination Laws (𝑝 ∨ 𝜏) ⇔ 𝜏 (𝑝 ∧ 𝜙) ⇔ 𝜙

1
 Idempotent Laws (𝑝 ∨ 𝑝) ⇔ 𝑝 (𝑝 ∧ 𝑝) ⇔ 𝑝
Inverse Laws [𝑝 ∨ (∼ 𝑝)] ⇔ 𝜏 [𝑝 ∧ (∼ 𝑝)] ⇔ 𝜙
Double Negation ∼ (∼ 𝑝) ⇔ 𝑝
Associative Laws 𝑝 ∨ 𝑞 ∨ 𝑟) ⇔ (𝑝 ∨ 𝑞) ∨ 𝑟
( 𝑝 ∧ (𝑞 ∧ 𝑟) ⇔ (𝑝 ∧ 𝑞) ∧ 𝑟
Commutative Laws 𝑝∨𝑞 ⇔𝑞∨𝑝 𝑝∧𝑞 ⇔𝑞∧𝑝
Distributive Laws 𝑝 ∨ (𝑞 ∧ 𝑟) ⇔ (𝑝 ∨ 𝑞) ∧ (𝑝 ∨ 𝑟) 𝑝 ∧ (𝑞 ∨ 𝑟) ⇔ (𝑝 ∧ 𝑞) ∨ (𝑝 ∧ 𝑟)
De Morgan’s Laws ∼ (𝑝 ∨ 𝑞) ⇔ (∼ 𝑝 ) ∧ (∼ 𝑞) ∼ (𝑝 ∧ 𝑞) ⇔ (∼ 𝑝) ∨ (∼ 𝑞)
Absorption Laws 𝑝 ∨ (𝑝 ∧ 𝑞) ⇔ 𝑝 𝑝 ∧ (𝑝 ∨ 𝑞) ⇔ 𝑝

Note: In the previous lecture, it was shown that 𝑝 ↔ 𝑞 has the same truth table as
(𝑝 → 𝑞) ∧ (𝑞 → 𝑝). Therefore, we can say that

𝑝 ↔ 𝑞 ⇔ [(𝑝 → 𝑞) ∧ (𝑞 → 𝑝)].
Example 2. Show that ∼ (𝑝 → 𝑞) ⇔ [𝑝 ∧ (∼ 𝑞)] using logical equivalences.
Solution. One way to do this is to construct a truth table for each logical expression
then show that they have the same truth values. Another method is to use the logical
equivalences to transform ∼ (𝑝 → 𝑞) into 𝑝 ∧ (∼ 𝑞).
Reason
∼ (𝑝 → 𝑞) Given
⇔ ∼ ((∼ 𝑝) ∨ 𝑞) Switcheroo
⇔ ∼ (∼ 𝑝 ) ∧ (∼ 𝑞) De Morgan’s Law
⇔ 𝑝 ∧ (∼ 𝑞) Double Negation

Example 3. Let 𝑝 and 𝑞 be propositions. Construct the truth tables for each of the
following conditionals: 𝑝 → 𝑞, 𝑞 → 𝑝, (∼ 𝑝) → (∼ 𝑞), (∼ 𝑞) → (∼ 𝑝).
Solution. We construct a single truth table containing each of the conditionals:

𝑝 𝑞 ∼𝑝 ∼𝑞 𝑝→𝑞 𝑞→𝑝 (∼ 𝑝) → (∼ 𝑞) (∼ 𝑞) → (∼ 𝑝)
T T F F T T T T
T F F T F T T F
F T T F T F F T
F F T T T T T T

Note that the fifth and eighth columns are the same, so we have shown that (𝑝 → 𝑞) ⇔
[(∼ 𝑞) → (∼ 𝑝)]. Likewise, since the sixth and seventh columns are identical, it follows
that (𝑞 → 𝑝) ⇔ [(∼ 𝑝) → (∼ 𝑞)].
The conditionals that we considered in the previous example are the different forms of
conditional propositions.
Definition. Suppose 𝑝 and 𝑞 are propositions. From the conditional proposition 𝑝 → 𝑞,
we derive three other conditional statements, namely its

2
 a. Converse: 𝑞 → 𝑝
b. Contrapositive: (∼ 𝑞) → (∼ 𝑝)
c. Inverse: (∼ 𝑝) → (∼ 𝑞)

Note that a conditional and the corresponding contrapositive are logically equivalent.
Likewise for a given conditional statement, its converse and inverse are logically
equivalent.
We can also show that (𝑝 → 𝑞) ⇔ [(∼ 𝑞) → (∼ 𝑝)] using logical equivalences in the
following manner.
Reason
(∼ 𝑞) → (∼ 𝑝) Given
⇔ ∼ (∼ 𝑞) ∨ (∼ 𝑝) Switcheroo
⇔ 𝑞 ∨ (∼ 𝑝) Double Negation
⇔ (∼ 𝑝) ∨ 𝑞 Commutative Law
⇔ 𝑝→𝑞 Switcheroo

Likewise, we can also show that (𝑞 → 𝑝) ⇔ [(∼ 𝑝) → (∼ 𝑞)] by means of logical

equivalences:
Reason
(∼ 𝑝) → (∼ 𝑞) Given
⇔ ∼ (∼ 𝑝) ∨ (∼ 𝑞) Switcheroo
⇔ 𝑝 ∨ (∼ 𝑞) Double Negation
⇔ (∼ 𝑞) ∨ 𝑝 Commutative Law
⇔ 𝑞→𝑝 Switcheroo

Example 4. Consider the following true conditional

𝑝 → 𝑞: “If Geebee is in Grade 11, then she is a senior high school student.”
State its (a) converse, (b) contrapositive, and (c) inverse and give the truth value of
each.
Solution.
a. Converse (𝑞 → 𝑝): “If Geebee is a senior high school student, then she is in Grade
11”. This is false.
b. Contrapositive ((∼ 𝑞) → (∼ 𝑝)): “If Geebee is not a senior high school student, then
she is not in Grade 11”. This is true.
c. Inverse ((∼ 𝑝) → (∼ 𝑞)): “If Geebee is not in Grade 11, then she is not a senior high
school student”. This is a false statement.
Example 5. Let 𝑝 → 𝑞 be the political slogan: “If there are no corrupt people, then there
are no poor people.” State the converse, contrapositive, and the inverse of 𝑝 → 𝑞.

3
Solution.
Converse (𝑞 → 𝑝): “If there are no poor people, then there are no corrupt people.”

Contrapositive ((∼ 𝑞) → (∼ 𝑝)): “If there are poor people, then there are corrupt
people.”
Inverse ((∼ 𝑝) → (∼ 𝑞)): “If there are corrupt people, then there are poor people.”

Exercises
1. Determine the converse, contrapositive and the inverse of the following conditional
propositions.
a. “If it is consumed in large volumes, then chocolate can be harmful to one’s health.”
b. “Whenever she will be given the chance to perform on stage, Whitney will sing all
her classic songs.”
c. “If Sheila will decide to enter through the front door, then she will be greeted by a
large group of press people.”
d. “Dana studied for the exam alone only if her boyfriend decided to go home early to
sleep.”
e. “If at least one student slept in class, then Lyn gave a difficult quiz to wake the
students.”

2. Verify the following logical equivalences using (a) the known logical equivalences,
and (b) truth tables.

a. 𝑝 ∧ 𝑞 ⇔∼ ((∼ 𝑝 ) ∨ (∼ 𝑞))

b. (∼ 𝑝) → (𝑞 → 𝑟) ⇔ 𝑞 → (𝑝 ∨ 𝑟)
c. 𝑝 ↔ 𝑞 ⇔ (∼ 𝑝) ↔ (∼ 𝑞)

d. (∼ (𝑝 ∨ 𝑞)) ∨ ((∼ 𝑝) ∧ 𝑞) ⇔∼ 𝑝