Discrete Mathematics

Propositional Equivalences (1.2)

• A tautology is a proposition which is always true .

• A contradiction is a proposition which is always false .

• A contingency is a proposition which neither a tautology

2
 Tautologies and contradictions
The easiest way to see if a compound
proposition is a tautology/contradiction is to
use a truth table.

p p p p p p p p
F T T F T F
T F T T F F

L3 3
 Tautology example
Demonstrate that
[¬p (p q )]q
is a tautology in two ways:
1. Using a truth table – show that
[¬p (p q )]q is always true
2. Using a proof .

L3 4
 Tautology by truth table

p q ¬p p q ¬p (p q ) [¬p (p q )]q

T F

F T

F F

L3 5
 Tautology by truth table

p q ¬p p q ¬p (p q ) [¬p (p q )]q

T F F

F T T

F F T

L3 6
 Tautology by truth table

p q ¬p p q ¬p (p q ) [¬p (p q )]q

T F F T

F T T T

F F T F

L3 7
 Tautology by truth table

p q ¬p p q ¬p (p q ) [¬p (p q )]q

T F F T F

F T T T T

F F T F F

L3 8
 Tautology by truth table

p q ¬p p q ¬p (p q ) [¬p (p q )]q

T F F T F T

F T T T T T

F F T F F T

L3 9
 Logical Equivalences: Definition
• Definition: Propositions p and q are logically
equivalent if p  q is a tautology.
• Informally, p and q are equivalent if whenever
p is true, q is true, and vice versa
• Notation: p  q (p is equivalent to q), p  q,
and p  q
• Alert:  is not a logical connective
 Logical Equivalence of Conditional and
Contrapositive

The easiest way to check for logical equivalence is to

p q p q p q ¬q ¬p ¬q¬p
T T T T T F F T
T F F T F T F F
F T T F T F T T
F F T F F T T T

L3 11
Tables of Logical Equivalences
 Identity laws
 Like adding 0
 Domination laws
 Like multiplying by
0
 Idempotent laws
 Delete
redundancies
 Double negation
 “I don’t like you,
not”
 Commutativity
 Like “x+y = y+x”
 Associativity
 Like “(x+y)+z = x+
(y+z)”
 Distributivity
 Like “(x+y)z =
xz+yz”
L3 12
 De Morgan
Logical Equivalences

13
Logical Equivalences

14
Using Logical Equivalences: Example 1
• Logical equivalences can be used to construct
additional logical equivalences
• Example: Show that (p  q) q is a tautology
0. (p  q) q
1.  (p  q)  q Implication Law
on 0
2.  (p  q)  q De Morgan’s Law (1st) on 1
3.  p  (q  q) Associative Law on 2
4.  p  T Negation Law on 3
5.  T Domination Law on 4
 Using Logical Equivalences: Example 2
• Example (Exercise 17)*: Show that (p  q)  (p  q)
• Sometimes it helps to start with the second proposition (p  q)
0. (p  q)
1.  (p  q)  (q  p) Equivalence Law on 0
2.  (p  q)  (q  p) Implication Law on 1
3.  (((p  q)  (q  p))) Double negation on 2
4.  ((p  q)  (q  p)) De Morgan’s Law…
5.  ((p  q)  (q  p)) De Morgan’s Law
6.  ((p  q)  (p  p)  (q  q)  (q  p)) Distribution Law
7.  ((p  q)  (q  p)) Identity Law
8.  ((q  p )  (p  q)) Implication Law
9.  (p  q) Equivalence Law
*See Table 8 (p 25) but you are not allowed to use the table for the proof
Using Logical Equivalences: Example 3
• Show that (q  p)  (p  q)  q
0. (q  p)  (p  q)
1.  (q  p)  (p  q) Implication Law
2.  (q  p)  (p  q) De Morgan’s
& Double negation
3.  (q  p)  (q  p) Commutative Law
4.  q  (p  p) Distributive Law
5.  q  1 Identity Law
q Identity Law
 Tautology by proof
[¬p (p q )]q
 [(¬p p)(¬p q)]q Distributive
 [ F  (¬p q)]q ULE
 [¬p q ]q Identity
 ¬ [¬p q ]  q ULE
 [¬(¬p) ¬q ]  q DeMorgan
 [p  ¬q ]  q Double Negation
 p  [¬q q ] Associative
 p  [q ¬q ] Commutative
pT ULE
T Domination

L3 18