Group Members

  • Pang Kok An 032195
  • Muhd. Faiz Fahimi B. Razali 033225
  • Hasyazid B. Osman 033147
  • Nurul Nabilah Bt. Azman 032236
  • Nurul Fasihah Bt. Che Azmi 032220
  • Siti Aminah Bt. Ahmad Sahrel 032806
  • Roshatul Hidaya Bt. Rosdin 032558
  • Nusaibah Bt. Yahaya 032357

Sunday, 24 February 2013



Propositional Equivalences

Tautology
A compound proposition that is always true.

Contradiction
A compound proposition that is always false

Contingency
A compound proposition that is neither a tautology nor a contradiction.



Logical Equivalences

Compound proposition that have the same truth values in all possible cases. Means, compound propositions p and q are called logically equivalent if p ↔ q is a tautology.

Example of Tautology and Contradiction

p
q
p∨ -p
p ∧ -p
T
T
T
F
F
F
T
F

*p ∨-q is always true
*p ∧-q is always false


Logical equivalences tables

Name
Equivalence
Identity Laws
p ∧ T ≡ p
p ∨ F ≡ p
Domination Laws
p ∨ T ≡ T
p ∧ F ≡ F
Idempotent Laws
p ∨ p ≡ p
p ∧ p ≡ p
Negation Laws
p ∨¬p ≡ T
p ∧¬p ≡ F
Double Negation Law
¬(¬p) ≡ p

Commutative Law
p ∨ q ≡ q ∨ p
p ∧ q ≡ q ∧ p
Absorption Law
p ∨ (p ∧ q) ≡ p
p ∧ (p ∨ q) ≡ p
De Morgan’s Laws
¬(p ∧ q) ≡¬p ∨¬q
¬(p ∨ q) ≡¬p ∧¬q
Associative Laws
(p ∨ q) ∨ r ≡ p ∨ (q ∨ r)
(p ∧ q) ∧ r ≡ p ∧ (q ∧ r)
Distributive laws
p ∨ (q ∧ r) ≡ (p ∨ q) ∧ (p ∨ r)
p ∧ (q ∨ r) ≡ (p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r)

*T = Compound proposition is always true
*F = Compound proposition is always false


Logical Equivalences involving Conditional Statements

p → q ≡ ¬p ∨ q
p → q ≡ ¬q →¬p
p ∨ q ≡¬p → q
p ∧ q ≡¬(p →¬q)
¬(p → q) ≡ p ∧¬q
(p → q) ∧ (p → r) ≡ p → (q ∧ r)
(p → r) ∨ (q → r) ≡ (p ∧ q) → r
(p → q) ∨ (p → r) ≡ p → (q ∨ r)
(p → q) ∧ (p → r) ≡ p → (q ∧ r)


  


Logical Equivalences involving Biconditional Statements
p ↔ q ≡ ¬p ↔¬q
¬(p ↔ q) ≡ p ↔¬q
p ↔ q ≡ (p ∧ q) ∨ (¬p ∧¬q)
p ↔ q ≡ (p → q) ∧ (q → p)


Example Logical Equivalent.

Shows that are logical equivalents.

Double Negation Law
¬(¬p) ≡ p

p
-p
-(-p)
T
F
T
F
T
F

Commutative Law
p ∨ q ≡ q ∨ p

p
q
p ∨ q
q ∨ p
T
T
T
T
T
F
T
T
F
T
T
T
F
F
F
F

Associative Law
(p ∨ q) ∨ r ≡ p ∨ (q ∨ r)

p
q
r
(p ∨ q)
(p ∨ q) ∨ r
(q ∨ r)
p ∨ (q ∨ r)
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
F
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
F
T
T
F
T
F
F
T
T
T
T
T
F
F
F
T
T
T
T
F
F
T
F
T
T
T
F
F
F
F
F
F
F


Example Logical Equivalent involving Conditional Statement

Shows that are logical equivalents.
¬(p → q) ≡ p ∧¬q

p
q
¬(p → q)
¬q
p ∧¬q
T
T
F
F
F
T
F
T
T
T
F
T
F
F
F
F
F
F
T
F

(p → q) ∨ (p → r) ≡ p → (q ∨ r)

p
q
r
(p → q)
(p → r)
(p → q) ∨ (p → r)
(q ∨ r)
p → (q ∨ r)
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
F
T
F
T
T
T
T
F
T
F
T
T
T
T
T
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
F
T
F
T
T
T
T
T
F
F
T
T
T
T
T
T
F
F
F
T
T
T
F
T


Example Logical Equivalent involving Biconditional Statement
p ↔ q ≡ (p → q) ∧ (q → p)


p
q
p ↔ q
p → q
q → p
(p → q) ∧ (q → p)
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
F
F
F
T
F
F
T
F
T
F
F
F
F
T
T
T
T

 

No comments:

Post a Comment

1+1=