0% found this document useful (0 votes)
121 views20 pages

CSE 103: Discrete Mathematics Chapter 1.1.-1.3: Propositional Logic

This document outlines key concepts in propositional logic from chapters 1.1-1.3 of a discrete mathematics textbook. It defines propositions, logical connectives like negation, conjunction, disjunction, implication, and biconditional. It provides truth tables for these connectives and discusses logical equivalences using laws like De Morgan's laws, distribution, identity and more. An example proof is given to demonstrate deriving logical equivalences in propositional logic.

Uploaded by

Abu OUbaida
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
121 views20 pages

CSE 103: Discrete Mathematics Chapter 1.1.-1.3: Propositional Logic

This document outlines key concepts in propositional logic from chapters 1.1-1.3 of a discrete mathematics textbook. It defines propositions, logical connectives like negation, conjunction, disjunction, implication, and biconditional. It provides truth tables for these connectives and discusses logical equivalences using laws like De Morgan's laws, distribution, identity and more. An example proof is given to demonstrate deriving logical equivalences in propositional logic.

Uploaded by

Abu OUbaida
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 20

CSE 103: Discrete Mathematics

Chapter 1.1.-1.3: Propositional Logic

1 / 21
Outline

1 Propositions

2 Logical Equivalences

Richard Mayr (University of Edinburgh, UK) Discrete Mathematics. Chapter 1.1-1.3 2 / 21


Propositions

A proposition is a declarative sentence that is either true or false


but not both. Examples of propositions:
The Moon is made of green cheese.
Trenton is the capital of New
Jersey. Toronto is the capital of
Canada.
1+0=1
0+0=2
Examples that are not propositions.
Sit down!
What time is it?
x+1=2
x+y=z

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.”

 Ex. CS1207 is NOT Belal’s favorite class.

p p
Truth table for negation:
T F Notice
F T that p is
a
propositio
n!
Disjunction

The disjunction of propositions p and q is denoted by p ∨ q and


has this truth table:

Disjunction corresponds to English “or.”


p  q is when p or q (or both) are true.

Ex. Michael is brave OR nuts.

p q p ∨q
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F
6 / 21
Conjunction

The disjunction of propositions p and q is denoted by p ∧ q and


has this truth table:

Conjunction corresponds to English “and.”


p  q is true exactly when p and q are both true.

Ex. Amy is curious AND clever.

p q p∧q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F
7 / 21
Implication

If p and q are propositions, then p → q is a conditional statement


or implication which is read as “if p, then q” and has this truth
table: 2 meaning
1.If p then q that means if p is true then q must be true, the p→q
will be true.
2. p implies q means if p true then q will be true.
p q p →q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
In p → q, p is the hypothesis (antecedent or premise) and q is the
conclusion (or consequence).
Implication can be expressed by p → q ≡ ¬p ∨ q
8 / 21
Understanding Implication

In p → q there does not need to be any connection between the


antecedent or the consequent. The meaning depends only on the
truth values of p and q.
One way to view the logical conditional is to think of an obligation
or contract. “If I am elected, then I will lower taxes.”
Let p = I am elected & q = I will lower taxes

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.

How do the converse, contrapositive, and inverse


relate to p → q ?
p → q ≡ ¬p ∨ q so ¬(p → q)≡ p ∨ ¬q so p  q
  q  p
converse ≡ contrapositive ?
11 / 21
Biconditional
If p and q are propositions, then the biconditional proposition p ↔ q
has this truth table. “If I am elected, then I will lower taxes.”

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

Truth table proving De


Morgan’s second law.

p q ¬p ¬q (p∨q) ¬(p∨q) ¬p∧¬q


T T F F T F F
T F F T T F F
F T T F T F F
F F T T F T T

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

To prove: ¬(p ∨ (¬p ∧ q)) ≡ ¬p ∧ ¬q

¬(p ∨ (¬p ∧ q)) ≡ ¬p ∧ ¬(¬p ∧ q) by De Morgan’s 2nd law


≡ ¬p ∧ (¬(¬p) ∨ ¬q) by De Morgan’s first law
≡ ¬p ∧ (p ∨ ¬q) by the double negation law
≡ (¬p ∧ p) ∨ (¬p ∧ ¬q) by the 2nd distributive law
≡ F ∨ (¬p ∧ ¬q) because ¬p ∧ p ≡ F
≡ (¬p ∧ ¬q) ∨ F by commutativity of disj.
≡ ¬p ∧ ¬q by the identity law for F

19 / 21
Reference:
Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications
- Rosen

20 / 21

You might also like