Harold’s Logic Cheat Sheet

4 November 2024

The Seven Basic Logical Symbols

Operator Symbol Example English

 Conjunction

∧, ∧, ∧, ⋀,
 p and q

p∧q
 p, but q
1) Intersection  despite the fact that p, q
∧  even though p, q
 although p, q
 overlap

∨, ∨, ∨, ⋁,
 Disjunction
p∨q
 p or q
2) Union
∨  inclusive or
 both combined
3) Negation ¬, ￢ ¬p  not p
 if p then q
 if p, q

→, →, →, ⟶,
 q if p

⇒, ⟹
 p implies q
4) Conditional p→q
 p only if q
 q in case that p
 p is sufficient for q
 q is necessary for p
 p iff q
↔, ⟷, ↔, ⇔,
p⟷q
 p if and only if q
⟺
5) Biconditional  p is necessary and sufficient for q
 if p then q, and conversely
 if not p then not q, and conversely

∀x ∀x p(x)
 for all
6) Universal
 for any
Quantifier
 for each
∃x ∃x p(x)
7) Existential  there exists
Quantifier  there is at least one
 is identical to

≡, ≡, ≡
 is equivalent to
expression1 ≡
Equivalence  is defined as
expression2
 the two expressions always have
the same truth value
 The structure of all mathematical statements can be understood using these symbols.
 All mathematical reasoning can be analyzed in terms of the proper use of these symbols.

Copyright © 2021 - 2024 by Harold Toomey, WyzAnt Tutor

1
Logical Connective Laws / Equivalences

Law Union Example Intersection Example

Identity Laws p∨F≡p p∧T≡p
p∨T≡T p∧F≡F
Domination, Null, or

p∨p≡p p∧p≡p
Universal Bound Laws
Idempotent Laws
Double Negations or
¬ ¬p ≡ p
p ∨ ¬p ≡ T p ∧ ¬p ≡ F
Involution Law
Negation, Complement, or

p∨q≡q∨p p∧q≡q∧p
Complementary Laws ¬F ≡ T ¬T ≡ F

(p ∨ q) ∨ r ≡ p ∨ (q ∨ r) (p ∧ q) ∧ r ≡ p ∧ (q ∧ r)
Commutative Laws

p ∧ (q ∨ r) ≡ (p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r) p ∨ (q ∧ r) ≡ (p ∨ q) ∧ (p ∨ r)
Associative Laws

(p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ ¬q) ≡ p (p ∨ q) ∧ (p ∨ ¬q) ≡ p
Distributive Laws

p ∨ (p ∧ q) ≡ p p ∧ (p ∨ q) ≡ p
Uniting Laws

p ∨ q ≡ ¬(¬p ∧ ¬q)
Absorption Laws
p ∧ q ≡ ¬(¬p ∨ ¬q)
¬(p ∨ q) ≡ ¬p ∧ ¬q
¬(p ∧ q) ≡ ¬p ∨ ¬q
De Morgan’s Law
(p ∨ ¬q) → r ≡ ¬r → (¬p ∧ q)
(Propositional Logic)

(p ∨ q) ∧ (¬p ∨ r) ≡ (p ∧ q) ∨ (¬p ∧ r) ≡
(p ∧ r) ∨ (¬p ∧ q) (p ∨ r) ∧ (¬p ∨ q)
Multiplying and Factoring
Laws
(p ∧ q) ∨ (q ∧ r) ∨ (¬p ∧ r) ≡ (p ∨ q) ∧ (q ∨ r) ∧ (¬p ∨ r) ≡
(p ∧ q) ∨ (¬p ∧ r) (p ∨ q) ∧ (¬p ∨ r)
Consensus Laws

p ∨ (⊤) ≡ ⊤
p ∧ (⊤) ≡ p
p ∨ ¬p ≡ ⊤ (True)
¬(⊤) = ⊥
Tautology Laws (⊤)

p ∧ (⊥) ≡ ⊥
p ∨ (⊥) ≡ p
p ∧ ¬p ≡ ⊥ (False)
¬(⊥) ≡ ⊤
Contradiction Laws (⊥)

Exclusive Or Laws (⊕) p ⊕ q ≡ (p ∨ q) ∨ ¬(p ∧ q) p ⊕ q ≡ (¬p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∨ ¬q)

Copyright © 2021-2024 by Harold Toomey, WyzAnt Tutor 2

The Sixteen Logical Operations on Two Variables

# Venn Sym Logical Notation(s) Name(s)

0000 ⊥ 0 Contradiction; falsehood; antilogy; constant 0

0001 ∧ x ∧ y , xy , x∧ y Conjunction; AND

0010 ⊃ x ∧ y , x ⊅ y ,[ x > y ] , x ∸ y Nonimplication; difference; but not

0011 ∟ x Left projection

0100 ⊂ x ∧ y , x ⊄ y ,[x < y ], y ∸ x Converse nonimplication; not ... but

0101 𝖱 y Right projection

0110 ⨁ x ⨁ y ,x ≢ y , x
y
Exclusive disjunction; nonequivalence; XOR

0111 ∨ x ∨ y , x∨ y (Inclusive) disjunction; and/or; OR

1000 ⊽ x∧ y ,x ∨ y ,x ⊽ y , x↓ y Nondisjunction; joint denial; neither... NOR

1001 ≡ x≡ y ,x ⟷ y ,x ⇔ y Equivalence; if and only if; IFF

1010 R y , ¬ y ,! y , y Right complementation; NOT

1011 ⊂ x∨ y ,x ⊂ y ,x ⇐ y ,[x ≥ y ], x
y
Converse implication; IF

1100 ∟ x ,¬ x , ! x , x Left complementation; NOT

x ∨ y , x ⊃ y , x⇒
1101 ⊃ Implication; only if; if … then
y ,[x ≤ y], y
x

1110 ⊼ x ∨ y , x ∧ y , x ⊼ y , x∨ y Nonconjunction; not both … and; NAND

1111 ⊤ 1 Affirmation; validity; tautology; constant 1

Donald E. Knuth (1968). 7.1.1 Boolean Basics, The Art of Computer Programming, Pre-fascicle 0B: The
sixteen logical operations in two variables. See also Wikipedia, Truth function.

Copyright © 2021-2024 by Harold Toomey, WyzAnt Tutor 3

Logical Conditional Connective Laws

Law or Logical Is Equivalent To

Description
Statement Expression (≡)
¬p ∨ q
¬(p ∧ ¬q)

p ∨ q ≡ ¬p → q
Logical Equivalences:

p ∧ q ≡ ¬(p → ¬q)
Conditional, If ... Then,
¬(p → q) ≡ p ∧ ¬q
Conditional Laws p→q
Implication
(p → q) ∧ (p → r) ≡ p → (q ∧ r)
(p → q) ∨ (p → r) ≡ p → (q ∨ r)
(p → r) ∧ (q → r) ≡ (p ∧ q) → r
(p → r) ∨ (q → r) ≡ (p ∨ q) → r
(p → q) ∧ (q → p)
(p → q) ∧ (¬p → ¬q)
(p ∧ q) ∨ (¬p ∧ ¬q)
Biconditional Bi-conditional, If and only If, iff,
p↔q ¬p ↔ ¬q
Laws XNOR
Logical Equivalences:
¬(p ↔ q) ≡ p ↔ ¬q
Sufficient p is a sufficient
The truth of p suffices to guarantee the truth of q.
Condition condition for q
Necessary q is a necessary For p to be true, it is necessary for q to be true also.
Condition condition for p ¬q → ¬p
Is logically equivalent to (p ≡ ¬
p⟹q
p≡q
Equivalence p↔q ¬ p)
Is equivalent to

≢q→p
Contrapositive p→q ≡ ¬q → ¬p True

≢ ¬p → ¬q
Converse* p→q False
Inverse* p→q False

Copyright © 2021-2024 by Harold Toomey, WyzAnt Tutor 4

Rules of Inference with Propositions

Rule Name Rule Logic Example

Givens. It is raining today.
Hypothesis
First lines of a proof. You live in McKinney, Texas.

Therefore.
Therefore ∴
In conclusion.

p It is raining today.
Modus Ponens p→q If it is raining today, I will not ride my bike to school.
∴q Therefore, I will not ride my bike to school.

¬q If Sam studied for his test, then Sam passed his test.
Modus Tollens p→q Sam did not pass his test.
∴¬ p Therefore, Sam did not study for his test.

It is raining today.
Addition, p
Therefore, it is either It is raining today or snowing
Generalization ∴ p∨q
today or both.

Simplification, p∧q It is rainy today and it is windy today.

Specialization ∴p Therefore, it is rainy today.

Sam studied for his test.

p
Sam passed his test.
Conjunction q
Therefore, Sam studied for his test and Sam passed his
∴ p∧q
test.

p→q If you are mad then you will yell.

Hypothetical
q→r If you yell then you will wake the baby.
Syllogism, Transitivity
∴ p→r Therefore, if you are mad then you will wake the baby.

p∨q Sam studied for his test or Sam took a nap.

Disjunctive Syllogism,
¬p Sam did not study for his test.
Elimination
∴q Therefore, Sam took a nap.

p∨ q Your shirt is red or your pants are blue.

Resolution ¬ p ∨q Your shirt is not red or your pants are blue.
∴q∨r Therefore, your pants are blue or your shoes are white.

p ∨q It is raining or it is Monday.
Proof by Division into p→r It is raining so it is wet.
Cases q →r It is Monday so it is wet.
∴r It is wet.

¬ p→F If it is not raining is a false statement, then it is raining.

Contradiction Rule
∴p

Copyright © 2021-2024 by Harold Toomey, WyzAnt Tutor 5

Logical Predicates

Logical
Definition Is Equivalent To (≡) Description
Expression
 Universe of Discourse
Universe of All possible inputs in a given
U  Universal Set
Discourse range
 Universe
𝔻
Domain of All possible inputs in a given  Domain of Discourse
Discourse range  Universe of Discourse
 Must be True or False
Proposition or p: “Roxy is a
p  Cannot be a question
Logical Statement mammal”
 Cannot be a command
 A logical statement
whose truth value is a
function of one or more
P(x): “x is a variables
Predicate P(x)
mammal”  Truth depends upon the
input variable x
 P(x) ≠ a number
 P(5) is a proposition
q: ∀x ∈ 𝔻,
 Is either True or False
“For all x in the domain of  A quantified predicate
P(x): “x is a
Example discourse, P(x) is a mammal.” turns it into a logical
mammal”
Statements statement
Predicate with two input
T(x, y) “x is a twin of y.”
variables

T = {a ∈ A | P(a)}
T = {a | P(a)}
Truth Set The set of all values of x that
a ∈T
T = P(x)
(Single Free make the statement p(x) true
Variable)

{(a, b) ∈ A × B | P(a, b)}

Example: P(x1), P(x2), and P(x3) are True

(a, b) ∈ T
T = P(x, y) Cross product truth set
Truth Set {(p, n) ∈ P × ℕ | the person p has n children} = {(John, 2), …}

{(p, c, n) ∈ P × C × ℕ | the person p has lived in the city c for n

(Ordered Pair)
Examples:
years}

Copyright © 2021-2024 by Harold Toomey, WyzAnt Tutor 6

Logical Quantifiers

Logical
Definition Is Equivalent To (≡) English
Expression
 for all

∀x P(x)
“For all x in the domain, P(x) is true”  all elements

∀x ∈ P(x)
 for each member
∀x ∈ A P(x) ≡ ∀x (x ∈ A → P(x))
∀x ∈ 𝔻, P(x)
 any
Universal
 every
Quantifier

∀x, if x is in 𝔻
 everyone
(∀) For the finite set domain of discourse
 everybody

∀x P(x) ≡ P(a1) ∧ P(a2) ∧ … ∧ P(ak)

{a1, a2, …, ak},
then P(x)  everything
 x could be anything at
all
 there exists an x
“There exists x in the domain, such  there is
that P(x) is true”  some
∃x P(x)  someone
∃x ∈ P(x)
Existential
For the finite set domain of discourse  somebody
∃x ∈ 𝔻, P(x)
Quantifier
∃x P(x) ≡ P(a1) ∨ P(a2) ∨ … ∨ P(ak)
{a1, a2, …, ak},  at least one value of x
(∃)
 there is at least one x

P(x) ≠ ∅
 it is the case that

equal to ∅
 the truth set is not

there is a unique x in P(x) such that …  unique

∃x (P(x) ∧ ¬ y (P(y) ∧ y ≠ x))

 there is a unique x

∃!x P(x)
 there exists exactly
∃x (P(x) ∧ ∀y (P(y) → y = x))
Uniqueness
one
∃x ∀y (P(y) ↔ y = x)
Quantifier
(∃!)  there is exactly one x
such that P(x)
∃x P(x) ∧ ∀y ∀z((P(y) ∧ P(z)) → y = z)

¬ [∃x P(x)] ∀x ¬P(x)

 nobody
Negated
 no one
¬ [∀x P(x)] ∃x ¬P(x)
Existential
 not one
Quantifier
 there does not exist
PEMDAS for Logic: Applied Left to Right
1. Parenthesis ()

3. Quantifiers (∀, ∃) ∀x P(x) ∧ Q(x) ≡

2. Logical NOT (¬) Example :

(∀x P(x)) ∧ Q(x)

Order of
Precedence 4. Logical AND (∧)

6. Logical Conditional (→)

5. Logical OR (∨)

7. Logical Biconditional (↔)

Copyright © 2021-2024 by Harold Toomey, WyzAnt Tutor 7

Quantifier Laws

Is Equivalent Description / Example /

Definition Logical Expression
To (≡) • English
Abbreviation ∃x (x ∈ A ∧ ¬P(x)) ∃x ∈ A ¬P(x) Simplification
∀x ∈ A P(x) ∀x (x ∈ A → P(x))
Expanding
Complication
∀x ¬P(x)
Abbreviation
¬∃x P(x)  nobody’s perfect
∃x ¬P(x)
Quantifier Negation
 not everyone is perfect
Laws ¬∀x P(x)
x ∈ A → P(x) x ∉ A ∨ P(x) p → q ≡ ¬p ∨ q
 someone is imperfect
Conditional Law
x∈A ¬(x ∉ A) Swap ∈ with ∉, or vice versa
Subset Negation

¬∀x P(x) ≡ ∃x ¬P(x)

Law

¬∃x P(x) ≡ ∀x ¬P(x)

¬∀x ∀y P(x, y) ≡ ∃x ∃y ¬P(x, y)

De Morgan’s Law
De Morgan’s Law for single and
¬∀x ∃y P(x, y) ≡ ∃x ∀y ¬P(x, y)
(Quantifier
nested quantifiers
¬∃x ∀y P(x, y) ≡ ∀x ∃y ¬P(x, y)
Negation)

¬∃x ∃y P(x, y) ≡ ∀x ∀y ¬P(x, y)

∀x ∀y ∀y ∀x  for all objects x and y, …
∃x ∃y ∃y ∃x
 there are objects x and y
such that …

Counterexample for x, y ∈ ℤ:
Nested / Multiple- False
∀x ∃y P(x, y) ≢ ∃x ∀y P(x, y)
∀x ∃y (x + y = 0) ≡ True
Quantified

∃x ∀y (x + y = 0) ≡ False
Statements

¬(∀x ∃y P(x, y)) ∃x ∀y ¬P(x, y)

¬(∃x ∀y P(x, y)) ∀x ∃y ¬P(x, y)
Negation of multiply-quantified

∀x (P(x) → ∃y Q(x, y)) ≡

statements

∀x ∃y (P(x) → Q(x, y))

You can move a quantifier left
Moving Quantifiers
if the variable is not used yet

Quantifier Logic Examples

Action Logical Statement English

∀x ∀y P(x, y)  everyone <did something>
Everyone
∀x ∀y (x ≠ y) → P(x, y)
NOTE: includes (x = y) to everyone
 everyone <did something>
Everyone Else
∀x ∃y ((x ≠ y) ∧ P(x, y))
NOTE: excludes (x = y) to everyone else
 everyone <did something>
Someone Else
∃x (P(x) ∧ ∀y ((x ≠ y) → ¬P(y))) ≡
NOTE: excludes (x = y) to someone else

∃!x P(x)
 exactly one person <did
Exactly One
something>
No One ¬∃x (P(x)  no one <did something>

Copyright © 2021-2024 by Harold Toomey, WyzAnt Tutor 8

Valid Quantifier Formulas

A B
∀x (P(x) ∧ Q(x)) (∀x P(x) ∧ ∀x Q(x))
∃x (P(x) ∧ Q(x)) (∃x P(x) ∧ ∃x Q(x))
≡

∀x (P(x) ∨ Q(x)) (∀x P(x) ∨ ∀x Q(x))

→

∃x (P(x) ∨ Q(x)) (∃x P(x) ∨ ∃x Q(x))

←

∀x (P(x) → Q(x)) (∃x P(x) → ∀x Q(x))

≡

∃x (P(x) → Q(x)) (∀x P(x) → ∃x Q(x))

←

∀x ¬P(x)
≡

∃x ¬P(x)
≡ ¬∃x P(x)

∀x ∃y T(x, y) ∃y ∀x T(x, y)
≡ ¬∀x P(x)

∀x ∀y T(x, y) ∀y ∀x T(x, y)
←

∃x ∃y T(x, y) ∃y ∃x T(x, y)
≡

∀x (P(x) ∨ R) (∀x P(x) ∨ R)

≡

∃x (P(x) ∧ R) (∃x P(x) ∧ R)

≡

∀x (P(x) → R)
≡

∃x (P(x) → R)
≡ (∃x P(x) → R)

∀x (R → Q(x)) (R → ∀x Q(x))
→ (∀x P(x) → R)

∃x (R → Q(x)) (R → ∃x Q(x))
≡

∀x R
→

∃x R
← R
→ R

Note: The above formulas are valid in classical first-order logic assuming that x does not occur free in R.

Invalid Quantifier Formulas

A B Counterexample
∃x (P(x) ∧ Q(x)) (∃x P(x) ∧ ∃x Q(x))
∀x (P(x) ∨ Q(x)) (∀x P(x) ∨ ∀x Q(x))
← D = {a, b}, M = {P(a), Q(b)}

∀x (P(x) → Q(x)) (∃x P(x) → ∀x Q(x))

→ D = {a, b}, M = {P(a), Q(b)}

∀x ∃y T(x, y) ∃y ∀x T(x, y)
→ D = {a, b}, M = {P(a), Q(a)}

∃x (P(x) → R)
→ D = {a, b}, M = {T(a, b), T(b, a)}

∃x (R → Q(x)) (R → ∃x Q(x))
← (∀x P(x) → R) D = Ø, M = {R}

∀x R
← D = Ø, M = Ø

∃x R
→ R D = Ø, M = Ø
← R D = Ø, M = {R}

Note: if empty domains are not allowed, then the last four implications above are in fact valid.

Copyright © 2021-2024 by Harold Toomey, WyzAnt Tutor 9

Logical Truth Tables

⊼ ⊽ ⊻,⊕ ⊙
Conjunction NAND Disjunction NOR XOR XNOR Negation

∧ ∨
p q (and) (or) (not)
¬P
F F F T F T F T
F T F T T F T F T
T F F T T F T F F
T T T F T F F T

Material Implication Biconditional Tautology Contradiction

⊤ ⊥
p q (If … Then) (Iff) (True) (False)
→ ↔
F F T T T F
F T T F T F
T F F F T F
T T T T T F

Blank Truth Tables

Inputs Output Inputs Output

p q r s x y z p q r x y
F F F F F F F
F F F T F F T
F F T F F T F
F F T T F T T
F T F F T F F
F T F T T F T
F T T F T T F
F T T T T T T
T F F F
T F F T
T F T F Inputs Output
T F T T p q x
T T F F F F
T T F T F T
T T T F T F
T T T T T T

Copyright © 2021-2024 by Harold Toomey, WyzAnt Tutor 10

Sources

SNHU MAT 230 - Discrete Mathematics, zyBooks.

See also
 Harold’s Sets Cheat Sheet
 Harold’s Boolean Algebra Cheat Sheet
 Harold’s Proofs Cheat Sheet

https://byjus.com/maths/set-theory-symbols/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_function#Table_of_binary_truth_functions

https://nokyotsu.com/qscripts/2014/07/distribution-of-quantifiers-over-logic-connectives.html

Donald E. Knuth (1968). 7.1.1 Boolean Basics, The Art of Computer Programming, Pre-fascicle 0B: The
sixteen logical operations in two variables.

Copyright © 2021-2024 by Harold Toomey, WyzAnt Tutor 11