1 / 14

CS 285- Discrete Mathematics

CS 285- Discrete Mathematics. Lecture 3 . Section 1.2 Propositional equivalences. Two syntactically (i.e. textually) different compound propositions may be semantically identical (i.e., have the same meaning). We call them equivalent. Learning outcome:

bian
Download Presentation

CS 285- Discrete Mathematics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation 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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CS 285- Discrete Mathematics Lecture 3

  2. Section 1.2 Propositional equivalences • Two syntactically (i.e. textually) different compound propositions may be semantically identical (i.e., have the same meaning). We call them equivalent. • Learning outcome: • Various equivalence rules or laws. • How to prove equivalences using symbolic derivations. Propositional equivalences

  3. Tautologies and Contradictions • A tautology is a compound proposition that is true no matter what the truth values of its atomic propositions are! • Ex. p ∨ ¬p [What is its truth table?] • A contradiction is a compound proposition that is false no matter what! • Ex. p ∧ ¬p [Truth table?] • Other compound props. are contingencies. Propositional equivalences

  4. Logical Equivalence • Compound proposition p is logically equivalent to compound proposition q, written p⇔ q, IFF the compound proposition p↔q is a tautology. • Compound propositions p and q are logically equivalent to each other IFF p and q contain the same truth values as each other in all rows of their truth tables. Propositional equivalences

  5. Proving Equivalence via Truth Tables • Ex. Prove that p ∨ q ⇔ ¬(¬p ∧ ¬q) Propositional equivalences

  6. Equivalence Laws • These are similar to the arithmetic identities you may have learned in algebra, but for propositional equivalences instead. • They 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. • 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 Propositional equivalences

  7. Equivalence Laws - Examples • Commutative: p∨q ⇔ q∨pp∧q ⇔ q∧p • Associative: (p∨q)∨r ⇔ p∨(q∨r) (p∧q)∧r ⇔ p∧(q∧r) • Distributive: p∨(q∧r) ⇔ (p∨q)∧(p∨r) p∧(q∨r) ⇔ (p∧q)∨(p∧r) • De Morgan’s: ¬(p∧q) ⇔ ¬p ∨ ¬q ¬(p∨q) ⇔ ¬p ∧ ¬q • Trivial tautology/contradiction: p ∨ ¬p ⇔ T p ∧ ¬p ⇔ F Propositional equivalences

  8. 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) Propositional equivalences

  9. Proving Equivalences • We can prove equivalences using: • Truth tables. • Symbolicderivations. p ⇔ q ⇔ r … Propositional equivalences

  10. Prove Equivalences using a Truth Table • Examples: 1- Show that ¬ (p ∨ q) and ¬ p ∧ ¬ q are logically equivalent 2- Show that p → q and ¬ p ∨ q are logically equivalent 3- Show that p ∨(q ∧ r) and (p ∨ q) ∧(p ∨ r) are logically equivalent Propositional equivalences

  11. Prove Equivalences using Symbolic Derivations -- I • Show that ¬ (p → q) and p ∧ ¬ q are equivalent • ¬ (p → q) ⇔ ¬(¬ p ∨ q) (shown earlier) ⇔ ¬(¬ p) ∧ ¬ q (De Morgan’s) ⇔ p ∧ ¬ q (Double Negation) Propositional equivalences

  12. Prove Equivalences using Symbolic Derivations -- II • Show that (p ∧ q) → (p ∨ q) is a tautology • (p ∧q)→(p ∨ q) ⇔ ¬(p ∧q) ∨ (p ∨ q) ⇔ (¬p ∨ ¬q) ∨ (p ∨ q) ⇔ (¬p ∨ p) ∨ (¬q ∨ q) ⇔ T∨ T ⇔ T Propositional equivalences

  13. Prove Equivalences using Symbolic Derivation -- III • Check using a symbolic derivation whether: (p ∧ ¬q) → (p ⊕ r) ⇔ ¬p ∨ q ∨ ¬r [Expand definition of →] (p ∧ ¬q) → (p ⊕ r) ⇔ ¬(p ∧ ¬q) ∨ (p ⊕ r) [Expand definition of ⊕] ⇔ ¬(p ∧ ¬q) ∨ ((p ∨ r) ∧ ¬(p ∧ r)) [DeMorgan’s Law] ⇔ (¬p ∨ q) ∨ ((p ∨ r) ∧ ¬(p ∧ r)) [∨ commutes] ⇔ (q ∨ ¬p) ∨ ((p ∨ r) ∧ ¬(p ∧ r)) [∨ associative] ⇔ q ∨ (¬p ∨ ((p ∨ r) ∧ ¬(p ∧ r))) [distrib. ∨ over ∧] ⇔ q ∨ (((¬p ∨ (p ∨ r)) ∧ (¬p ∨ ¬(p ∧ r))) Propositional equivalences

  14. Cont. • [assoc.] ⇔ q ∨ (((¬p ∨ p) ∨ r) ∧ (¬p ∨ ¬(p ∧ r))) • [trivial taut.] ⇔ q ∨ ((T ∨ r) ∧ (¬p ∨ ¬(p ∧ r))) • [domination] ⇔ q ∨ (T ∧ (¬p ∨ ¬(p ∧ r))) • [identity] ⇔ q ∨ (¬p ∨ ¬(p ∧ r)) • [DeMorgan’s] ⇔ q ∨ (¬p ∨ (¬p ∨ ¬r)) • [Assoc.] ⇔ q ∨ ((¬p ∨ ¬p) ∨ ¬r) • [Idempotent] ⇔ q ∨ (¬p ∨ ¬r) • [Assoc.] ⇔ (q ∨ ¬p) ∨ ¬r • [Commut.] ⇔ ¬p ∨ q ∨ ¬r Propositional equivalences

More Related