# §1.2 Propositional Equivalence - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 22

§1.2 Propositional Equivalence. Two syntactically ( i.e., textually) different compound propositions may be the semantically identical ( i.e., have the same meaning). We call them equivalent . Learn: Various equivalence rules or laws .

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

§1.2 Propositional Equivalence

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

### §1.2 Propositional Equivalence

• Two syntactically (i.e., textually) different compound propositions may be the semantically identical (i.e., have the same meaning). We call them equivalent. Learn:

• Various equivalence rules or laws.

• How to prove equivalences using symbolic derivations.

A tautology is a compound proposition that is trueno matter what the truth values of its atomic (or component) propositions are!

Ex.p  p[What is its truth table?]

A contradictionis a compound proposition that is false no matter what! Ex.p  p[Truth table?]

Other compound props. are contingencies.

### Logical Equivalence

p  q

• Compound propositions p and q are logically equivalent to each other (written p q, or pq) IFFp and q contain the same truth values as each other in all rows of their truth tables.

• Question: How many different propositions can be constructed from n propositional variables?

### Proving Equivalence via Truth Tables

Ex. Prove that pq  (p  q).

F

T

T

T

F

T

T

F

F

T

T

F

T

F

T

T

F

F

F

T

### Proving Equivalence via Abbreviated Truth Tables

Try to find a counter example

Ex. Prove that pq  (p  q).

Case 1: Try left side false, right side true

• Assume p=F andq=F, then (p  q) =F.

Case 2: Try right side false, left side true

• Assume(p  q) F, then (p  q) T, then p  qT, thenp=F andq=F, then pq=F.

### Logical Non-Equivalence

Ex. p q and q p are not logically equivalent Prove that.

### Equivalence Laws

• Equivalence Laws provide a pattern or template that can be used to match all or part of a much more complicated proposition and to find an equivalence for it.

• Equivalent expressions can always be substituted for each other in a more complex expression - useful for simplification.

### Equivalence Laws - Examples

• Identity: pT  p pF  p

• Domination: pT  T pF  F

• Idempotent: pp  p pp  p

• Double negation: p  p

• Commutative: pq  qp pq  qp

• Associative: (pq)r  p(qr) (pq)r  p(qr)

### More Equivalence Laws

• Distributive: p(qr)(pq)(pr)p(qr)(pq)(pr)

• De Morgan’s:(p1p2…pn)  (p1p2…pn)(p1p2…pn)  (p1p2…pn)

• Trivial tautology/contradiction:p  p  T p  p  F

• Implication: pq  p q

### More Equivalence Laws

• Absurdity: (p q)  (p  q ) p

• Contrapositive: pq  q  p

• Absorption: p  (p  q)  p p  (p  q)  p

• Exportation: (p  q)  r  p (q  R)

### Defining Operators via Equivalences

Using equivalences, we can define operators in terms of other operators:

• Exclusive or: p q  (pq)  (pq)p q  (pq)  (qp)

• Implies: pq p q

• Biconditional: pq (pq) (qp)pq (p q)

p  q  (p  q)  ( p  q)

### Tautology Example

Demonstrate that

[¬p(p q )]q

is a tautology in two ways:

• Using a truth table (did above)

• Using a proof relying on “Equivalence Laws” to derive True through a series of logical equivalences

### Tautology by proof

[¬p(p q )]q

 [(¬pp)(¬pq)]q Distributive

 [ F  (¬pq)]q Trivial Contradiction

 [¬pq ]q Identity

¬ [¬pq ] q Implies

 [¬(¬p)¬q ] q DeMorgan

 [p ¬q ] q Double Negation

p  [¬q q ]Associative

p  [q ¬q ]Commutative

p  T Trivial Tautology

 TDomination

### Normal or Canonical Forms

• Normal or Canonical Forms：Unique representations of a proposition

• Examples: Construct a simple proposition of two variables which is true only when

• P is true and Q is false:

• P is true and Q is true:

• P is true and Q is false or P is true and Q is true:

### Disjunctive Normal Form

A disjunction of conjunctions where

• every variable or its negation is represented once in each conjunction (a minterm)

• each minterms appears only once

• Important in switching theory, simplification in the design of circuits.

### To find the minterms of the DNF

• Use the rows of the truth table where the proposition is 1 or True

• If a zero appears under a variable, use the negation of the propositional variable in the minterm

• If a one appears, use the propositional variable.

• Example: Find the DNF of

### Example

• Find the DNF of

• There are 5 cases where the proposition is true, hence 5 minterms. Rows 1,2,3, 5 and 7 produce the following disjunction of minterms:

### Conjunctive Normal Form

Similarly, Conjunctive Normal Form is a conjunction of disjunctions where

• every variable or its negation is represented once in each disjunction (a maxterm)

• each maxterms appears only once

### To find the maxterms of the CNF

• Use the rows of the truth table where the proposition is 0 or False

• If a one appears under a variable, use the negation of the propositional variable in the maxterm

• If a zero appears, use the propositional variable.

• Example: Find the CNF of

### Example

• Find the CNF of

• There are 3 cases where the proposition is false, hence 3 maxterms. Rows 4, 6 and 8 produce the following conjunction of maxterms:

(P Q )¬R  (P ¬Q  ¬R) (¬P Q  ¬R) (¬P  ¬Q  ¬R)

### Blackboard Exercises for 1.2

Worked out on the black-board.

• “I don’t drink and drive” is logically equivalent to “If I drink, then I don’t drive”

### Review: Propositional Logic (§§1.1-1.2)

• Atomic propositions: p, q, r, …

• Boolean operators:      

• Compound propositions: s : (p q)  r

• Equivalences:pq  (p  q)

• Proving equivalences using:

• Truth tables.

• Symbolic derivations. p q  r …

• Next: PREDICATE LOGIC