CSE 103: Discrete Mathematics Chapter 1.1.-1.3: Propositional Logic
CSE 103: Discrete Mathematics Chapter 1.1.-1.3: Propositional Logic
1 / 21
Outline
1 Propositions
2 Logical Equivalences
3 / 21
Propositional Logic
Constructing Propositions
Propositional Variables: p, q, r , s, . . .
The proposition that is always true is denoted by T and
the proposition that is always false is denoted by F.
Compound Propositions; constructed from logical connectives and
other propositions
Negation ¬
Conjunction ∧
Disjunction ∨
Implication →
Biconditional ↔
4 / 21
Propositional Logic -
negation
Suppose p is a proposition.
The negation of p is written p and has meaning:
“It is not the case that p.”
p p
Truth table for negation:
T F Notice
F T that p is
a
propositio
n!
Disjunction
p q p ∨q
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F
6 / 21
Conjunction
p q p∧q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F
7 / 21
Implication
9 / 21
Different Ways of Expressing p → q
if p, then q p implies q
if p, p only if q
q unless ¬p q when p
q if p q
p is sufficient for q whenever
q is necessary for p p
a sufficient q follows
condition for q is p from p
a
necessary
condition
for p is q
10 / 21
Converse, Contrapositive, and Inverse
q → p is the converse of p → q
¬q → ¬p is the contrapositive of p → q
¬p → ¬q is the inverse of p → q
Example: Find the converse, inverse, and contrapositive of
“It is raining is a sufficient condition for my not going to
town.” Solution:
converse: If I do not go to town, then it is raining.
inverse: If it is not raining, then I will go to town.
contrapositive: If I go to town, then it is not
raining.
p q p ↔q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F T
p ↔ q also reads as
p if and only if q
p iff q.
p is necessary and
sufficient for q
if p then q, and
conversely 12 / 21
Precedence of Logical Operators
¬
∧
∨
→
↔
Thus p ∨ q → ¬r is equivalent to (p ∨ q) → ¬r .
If the intended meaning is p ∨ (q → ¬r ) then parentheses must be
used.
13 / 21
Satisfiability, Tautology, Contradiction
A proposition is
satisfiable,
if its truth
table
contains
true at
least once.
Example:
p ∧ q.
a
tautology,
if it is
always
true. 14 / 21
Logical Equivalence
Definition
Two compound propositions p and q are logically equivalent if
the columns in a truth table giving their truth values agree.
This is written as p ≡ q.
It is easy to show:
Fact
p ≡ q if and only if p ↔ q is a tautology.
15 / 21
De Morgan’s Laws
¬(p ∧ q) ≡ ¬p ∨ ¬q
¬(p ∨ q) ≡ ¬p ∧ ¬q
16 / 21
Important Logical Equivalences
Domination laws: p ∨ T ≡ T, p ∧ F ≡ F
Identity laws: p ∧ T ≡ p, p ∨ F ≡ p
Idempotent laws: p ∧ p ≡ p, p ∨ p ≡ p
Double negation law: ¬(¬p) ≡ p
Negation laws: p ∨ ¬p ≡ T, p ∧ ¬p ≡ F
The first of the Negation laws is also called “law of excluded middle”.
Latin: “tertium non datur”.
Commutative laws: p ∧ q ≡ q ∧ p, p ∨ q ≡ q ∨ p
Associative laws: (p ∧ q) ∧ r ≡ p ∧ (q ∧ r
) (p ∨ q) ∨ r ≡ p ∨ (q ∨
Distributive laws: r)
p ∨ (q ∧ r ) ≡ (p ∨ q) ∧
Absorption laws: (p ∨ r )
p ∧ (q ∨ r ) ≡ (p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r )
p ∨ (p ∧ q) ≡ p, p ∧ (p ∨ q) ≡
p
17 / 21
More Logical Equivalences
18 / 21
A Proof in Propositional Logic
19 / 21
Reference:
Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications
- Rosen
20 / 21