Scribd
Upload
42 views2 pages

LOGICAL EQUIVALENCES Examples

The document presents logical equivalences and proofs demonstrating that certain statements are tautologies or logically equivalent. It includes detailed solutions for five problems, applying logical laws such as De Morgan's Laws, Associative Laws, and Negation Laws. Each proof concludes with the verification of the tautology or equivalence in question.

Uploaded by

elagolalab
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
42 views2 pages

LOGICAL EQUIVALENCES Examples

The document presents logical equivalences and proofs demonstrating that certain statements are tautologies or logically equivalent. It includes detailed solutions for five problems, applying logical laws such as De Morgan's Laws, Associative Laws, and Negation Laws. Each proof concludes with the verification of the tautology or equivalence in question.

Uploaded by

elagolalab
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

LOGICAL EQUIVALENCES

(Reviewer)

Mary Grace M. Nebab, LPT


Prepared by:

1. Show that [¬ p ∧( p ∨ q)]→ q is a tautology.

Solution:
[¬ p ∧( p ∨ q)]→ q
≡¬[¬ p ∧( p∨ q)]∨q Logical Equivalence involving conditional statement
≡[ p ∨ ¬( p ∨ q)]∨ q De Morgan’s Laws
≡[ p ∨(¬ p ∧¬ q)]∨q De Morgan’s Laws
≡( p ∨¬ p)∧(¬ q ∨ q) Associative Laws
≡T ∧T Negation Laws

2. Show that [( p → q)∧(q → r )]→[ p → r ]is a tautology.

Solution:

[( p → q)∧(q → r )]→[ p → r ]

≡ [ ¬ ( ¬ p ∨q ) ∨ ¬ ( ¬ q ∨r ) ] ∨ [ ¬ p ∨r ] Logical Equivalence involving conditional statement


≡ [ ( p ∧¬ q ) ∨ ( q ∧¬r ) ] ∨ [ ¬ p ∨ r ] De Morgan’s Laws
≡ [ ( p ∧¬ r ) ∨ ( q ∧¬ q ) ] ∨ [ ¬ p ∨ r ] Associative Laws
≡ [ ( p ∧¬ r ) ∨ F ] ∨ [ ¬ p ∨ r ] Negation Laws
≡ ( p ∧¬ r ) ∨(¬ p∨ r ) Identity Law
≡ ( p ∧¬ p ) ∨ ( ¬r ∨r ) Associative Laws
≡ F ∨T Negation Laws
≡T Conjunction

3. Show that ¬[ p ∨(¬ p ∧ q)] and (¬ p ∧¬ q) are logically equivalent.

Solution:

¬[ p ∨(¬ p ∧ q)]
sss ≡¬ p ∧ ¬(¬ p ∧q) De Morgan’s Laws
≡¬ p ∧ ¬(p ∨ ¬q) De Morgan’s Laws
≡(¬ p ∧¬ p)∨¬ q Associative Laws
≡¬ p ∧ ¬q Idempotent Laws
4. Show that [ ¬ p → ( q ∧¬ q ) ] and p are logically equivalent.

Solution:

[ ¬ p → ( q ∧¬ q ) ]
≡¬(¬ p) ∨(q ∧¬ q) Logical Equivalence involving conditional statements
≡ p ∧(q ∧ ¬q) De Morgan’s Laws
≡ p∧F Negation Laws
≡p Identity Laws

5. Show that ( p q) p is a tautology

Solution:

( p q) p
≡¬ ( p ∧ q ) ∨ p Logical Equivalence involving conditional statements
≡ (¬ p ∨ ¬q ) ∨ p De Morgan’s Laws
≡¿ ¬ p ¿ ∨¬ q Associative Laws
≡T ∨¬ q Negation Laws
≡T Domination Laws

You might also like