Logical Equivalence

Given any proposition variables p, q, and r, a tautology t and a contradiction c, the

following logical equivalences hold:

1. Idempotent Laws
a. p∨q≡p
b. p∧q≡p
.

2. Involution Law
~~p ≡ p
.

3. Commutative Laws
a. p∨q≡q∨p
b. p ∧ q ≡ q ∧ p
.

4. Associative Laws
a. (p ∨ q) ∨ r ≡ p ∨ (q ∨ r)
b. (p ∧ q) ∧ r ≡ p ∧ (q ∧ r)
.

5. Distributive Laws
a. p ∨ (q ∧ r) ≡ (p ∨ q) ∧ (p ∨ r)
b. p ∧ (q ∨ r) ≡ (p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r)
.

6. Identity Laws
a. p∨c≡p
b. p ∧ t ≡ p
c. p∨t≡t
d. p ∧ c ≡ c
.

7. Complement Laws
a. p ∨ ~p ≡ t
b. p ∧ ~p ≡ c
c. ~t ≡ c
d. ~c ≡ t
.

8. Absorption Laws
a. p ∧ (p ∨ q) ≡ p
b. p ∨ (p ∧ q) ≡ p
.
 9 DeMorgan's Law
a. ~(p ∨ q) ≡ ~p ∧ ~q
b. ~(p ∧ q) ≡ ~p ∨ ~q

Truth Tables, Tautologies, and Logical Equivalence

Mathematics normally works with a two-valued logic: Every statement is
either True or False. You can use truth tables to determine the truth or falsity of a
complicated statement based on the truth or falsity of its simple components.

A statement in sentential logic is built from simple statements using the logical
connectives   ,   ,   ,   , and   . I'll construct tables which show how the truth
or falsity of a statement built with these connective depends on the truth or falsity of
its components.

Here's the table for negation:

This table is easy to understand. If P is true, its negation   is false. If P is false,

then   is {\it true}.

 should be true when both P and Q are true, and false otherwise:

 is true if either P is true or Q is true (or both). It's only false if both P and Q

are false.
Here's the table for logical implication:

To understand why this table is the way it is, consider the following example:

"If you get an A, then I'll give you a dollar."

The statement will be true if I keep my promise and false if I don't.

Suppose it's true that you get an A and it's true that I give you a dollar. Since I kept
my promise, the implication is {\it true}. This corresponds to the first line in the table.

Suppose it's true that you get an A but it's false that I give you a dollar. Since
I didn't keep my promise, the implication is false. This corresponds to the second line
in the table.

What if it's false that you get an A? Whether or not I give you a dollar, I haven't
broken my promise. Thus, the implication can't be false, so (since this is a two-valued
logic) it must be true. This explains the last two lines of the table.

 means that P and Q are equivalent. So the double implication is true if P and

Q are both true or if P and Q are both false; otherwise, the double implication is
false.
You should remember --- or be able to construct --- the truth tables for the logical
connectives. You'll use these tables to construct tables for more complicated
sentences. It's easier to demonstrate what to do than to describe it in words, so
you'll see the procedure worked out in the examples.

Remarks. 1. When you're constructing a truth table, you have to consider all possible
assignments of True (T) and False (F) to the component statements. For example,
suppose the component statements are P, Q, and R. Each of these statements can be
either true or false, so there are   possibilities.

When you're listing the possibilities, you should assign truth values to the
component statements in a systematic way to avoid duplication or omission. The
easiest approach is to use lexicographic ordering. Thus, for a compound statement
with three components P, Q, and R, I would list the possibilities this way:

2. There are different ways of setting up truth tables. You can, for instance, write the
truth values "under" the logical connectives of the compound statement, gradually
building up to the column for the "primary" connective.

I'll write things out the long way, by constructing columns for each "piece" of the
compound statement and gradually building up to the compound statement.
Example. Construct a truth table for the formula   .

A tautology is a formula which is "always true" --- that is, it is true for every
assignment of truth values to its simple components. You can think of a tautology as
a rule of logic.

The opposite of a tautology is a contradiction, a formula which is "always false". In

other words, a contradiction is false for every assignment of truth values to its simple
components.

Example. Show that   is a tautology.

I construct the truth table for   and show that the formula is
always true.

The last column contains only T's. Therefore, the formula is a tautology.

Example. Construct a truth table for   .

Example. Suppose

"  " is true.

"  " is false.

"Calvin Butterball has purple socks" is true.

Determine the truth value of the statement

For simplicity, let

P="  ".

Q="  ".

R = "Calvin Butterball has purple socks".

I want to determine the truth value of   . Since I was given specific
truth values for P, Q, and R, I set up a truth table with a single row using the given
values for P, Q, and R:
Therefore, the statement is true.

Two statements X and Y are logically equivalent if   is a tautology. Another

way to say this is: For each assignment of truth values to the simple
statements which make up X and Y, the statements X and Y have identical truth
values.

From a practical point of view, you can replace a statement in a proof by any logically
equivalent statement.

To test whether X and Y are logically equivalent, you could set up a truth table to test
whether   is a tautology --- that is, whether   "has all T's in its column".
However, it's easier to set up a table containing X and Y and then check whether the
columns for X and for Y are the same.

Example. Show that   and   are logically equivalent.

Since the columns for   and   are identical, the two statements are
logically equivalent. This tautology is called Conditional Disjunction. You can use this
equivalence to replace a conditional by a disjunction.

There are an infinite number of tautologies and logical equivalences; I've listed a few
below; a more extensive list is given at the end of this section.
When a tautology has the form of a biconditional, the two statements which make
up the biconditional are logically equivalent. Hence, you can replace one side with
the other without changing the logical meaning.

Example. Write down the negation of the following statements, simplifying so that

only simple statements are negated.

(a) 

(b) 

I showed that   and   are logically equivalent in an earlier example.

Example. Use DeMorgan's Law to write the negation of the following statement,

simplifying so that only simple statements are negated:

"Calvin is not home or Bonzo is at the movies."

Let C be the statement "Calvin is home" and let B be the statement "Bonzo is at the
moves". The given statement is   . I'm supposed to negate the statement,
then simplify:
The result is "Calvin is home and Bonzo is not at the movies".

Example. Use DeMorgan's Law to write the negation of the following statement,

simplifying so that only simple statements are negated:

"If Phoebe buys a pizza, then Calvin buys popcorn."

Let P be the statement "Phoebe buys a pizza" and let C be the statement "Calvin
buys popcorn". The given statement is   . To simplify the negation, I'll use
the Conditional Disjunction tautology which says

That is, I can replace   with   (or vice versa).

Here, then, is the negation and simplification:

The result is "Phoebe buys the pizza and Calvin doesn't buy popcorn".

Example. Replace the following statement with its contrapositive:

"If x and y are rational, then   is rational."

By the contrapositive equivalence, this statement is the same as "If   is not
rational, then it is not the case that both x and y are rational".

Example. Show that the inverse and the converse of a conditional are logically
equivalent.

Let   be the conditional. The inverse is   . The converse is   .

I could show that the inverse and converse are equivalent by constructing a truth
table for   . I'll use some known tautologies instead.
Start with   :

Remember that I can replace a statement with one that is logically equivalent. For
example, in the last step I replaced   with Q, because the two statements are
equivalent by Double negation.

Example. Suppose x is a real number. Consider the statement

"If   , then   ."

Construct the converse, the inverse, and the contrapositive. Determine the truth or
falsity of the four statements --- the original statement, the converse, the inverse,
and the contrapositive --- using your knowledge of algebra.

The converse is "If   , then   ".

The inverse is "If   , then   ".

The contrapositive is "If   , then   ".

The original statement is false:   , but   . Since the original statement is

eqiuivalent to the contrapositive, the contrapositive must be false as well.

The converse is true. The inverse is logically equivalent to the converse, so the
inverse is true as well.

List of Tautologies
A logical equivalence is a statement that two mathematical sentence forms are
completely interchangeable:
if one is true, so is the other; if one is false, so is the other.

For example, we could express that an implication is equivalent to its contrapositive in

either of the following ways:

A⇒BA⇒B     is (logically) equivalent to     (not B)⇒(not A)

(not B)⇒(not A) 
or 
 ‘ (A⇒B)  ⟺  ((not B)⇒(not A))(A⇒B)  ⟺  ((
not B)⇒(not A))’     is a logical equivalence
In this section, you will construct truth tables involving implications, equivalences,
negations,
and the mathematical words ‘and’ and ‘or’.
In the process, you'll be introduced to many useful logical equivalences,
and will start to develop intuition for investigating logical equivalences.

NEGATING ‘AND’ AND ‘OR’ SENTENCES:   DE

MORGAN'S LAWS

How can a sentence ‘ A and BA and B ’ be false?

The only time an ‘and’ sentence is true is when both subsentences are true.
So, an ‘and’ sentence is false when at least one of the subsentences is false.

Precisely, the truth table below shows that:

not(A and B)not(A and B)       is equivalent to       
(not A) or (not B)(not A) or (not B)
Here's the intuition you should have when looking at this sentence.
Start with (1) and work your way to (6):

entence ... (3) ... when ... (4) ... AA is false ... (5) ... or


  

B)(A and B (not A)(not A  or  
is equivalent tois
⏞ )⏞ ⏞
equivalent to⏞
In particular, note that you say ‘is false’ when you see the word ‘not’.
 A 
an not( n n (not A (not(A and B)
d  A an ot  ot  ) or (n )⟺((not A) o
AB B d B) A B ot B) r (not B))
A B A  not( n n (not A (not(A and B)
an A an ot  ot  ) or (n )⟺((not A) o
d  d B) A B ot B) r (not B))
B
T T T F F F F T

T F F T F T T T

F T F T T F T T

F F F T T T T T

Here's the critical observation:

not(A and B)not(A and B)’ and
the columns for ‘

‘(not A) or (not B)(not A) or (not B)’ are identical!

Some people like to think of this as a sort of distributive law, except that ‘and’
changes to ‘or’ in the distribution process.

For simplicity, in the subsequent truth tables we will not include the last column—the
one that shows that the ‘is equivalent to’ statement is always true.
This last column takes up a lot of space, and makes things look more complicated than
they really are.
It is equally convincing to compare the two relevant columns, to show that they are
identical.

IMPORTANCE OF ASSOCIATIVE LAWS

Think about this:
the reason that we can write things like  1+2+31+2+3 without ambiguity,
is because
both  (1+2)+3(1+2)+3  and  1+(2+3)1+(2+3)  give the same
result.
If they produced different results, then we'd have to write the parentheses every time
we worked with these expressions.

You'll prove in the exercises that:

(A or B) or C(A or B) or C       is equivalent to       
A or (B or C)A or (B or C)
Below, it is shown that:
(A and B) and C(A and B) and C       is equivalent to       
A and (B and C)A and (B and C)
A or B or CA or B or C’   and  
Thus (yeh!) we can write   ‘

‘A and B and CA and B and C’   without ambiguity.

Note that the truth table below involves three subsentences ( AA, BB,

and  C C ),
so there are 23=823=8 rows needed to cover all possible truth values.
Always list the eight rows in exactly the order that is shown here.

A B C A an (A and B)  B an A and (B a

A B C d BA  and C(A a d CB  nd C)A an
and  nd B) and  and  d (B and C
 B C C )
T T T T T T T

T T F T F F F

T F T F F F F

T F F F F F F

F T T F F T F

F T F F F F F

F F T F F F F

F F F F F F F

In the exercises, you will construct truth tables to prove all the following logical
equivalences.

LOGICAL EQUIVALENCES
...
is
NAME
eq
/
uiv
DESC
RIPTI
1st1st sentence ale 2nd2nd sentence INTUITION
nt
ON
to .
..

de
Morga not(A and  ...
is (not A) or (not  an ‘and’ sentence
is false
n's
B)not(A a eq
B)(not A) or ( when
Law:
negatin nd B)
uiv
ale not B) AA is false
or BB is false
g an nt
‘and’ to .
sentenc
..
e

de
... an ‘or’ sentence
Morga
is is false
n's
Law:
not(A or  eq (not A) and (n when
uiv
negatin
g an
B)not(A o ale ot B)(not A) a AA is false
‘or’ r B) nt
to . nd (not B) and BB is
sentenc false
..
e

...
(A and B)  is
associa eq A and (B and  the grouping
tivity and C(A a uiv doesn't matter
C)A and (B an
of
nd B) and  ale in an ‘and’
‘and’ nt
d C) sentence
C to .
..

...
is
(A or B) o eq the grouping
associa
uiv A or (B or C) doesn't matter
tivity r C(A or 
of ‘or’
ale
A or (B or C) in an ‘or’
B) or C nt
to .
sentence

..

...
is
commu eq
tativity A and BA  uiv B and AB and  the order doesn't
matter in an
of
‘and’ and B ale
nt A ‘and’ sentence
to .
..
 ...
is
eq
commu A or BA o uiv
the order doesn't
tativity B or AB or A matter in an ‘or’
of ‘or’ r B ale
nt
sentence
to .
..

...
is
negating twice in
law of eq
double not(not A) uiv
succession
AA gets you back to
negatio
n not(not A) ale
nt
where you
started
to .
..

... similar
is (A or B) and ( to: a(b+c)
A or (B a eq
distribu
uiv A or C)(A or  =ab+aca(
tive nd C)A or 
law
ale
B) and (A or  b+c)=ab
(B and C) nt
to .
..
C) +ac
... similar
is (A and B) or ( to: a(b+c)
A and (B  eq
distribu
uiv A and C)(A a =ab+aca(
tive or C)A an
law
ale
nd B) or (A an b+c)=ab
d (B or C) nt
to .
..
d C) +ac
alternat
e form A⇒BA⇒ ...
is (not A) or B(n an implication is
true when
of an eq the hypothesis is
 uiv
ale false or
implica
tion B nt
to .
ot A) or B the conclusion is
true
..

...
is
contrap
eq (not B)⇒(not 
ositive A⇒BA⇒ uiv
an implication is
of an
ale A)(not B equivalent to
implica B its contrapositive
tion
nt
to . )⇒(not A)
..

...
is an implication is
negatin eq false when
g an not(A⇒B) uiv A and (not B) the hypothesis is
implica
tion not(A⇒B) ale
nt A and (not B) true and
the conclusion is
to . false
..

...
is this is
bicondi eq (A⇒B) and (B justification for
tional A⟺BA uiv the ‘double
stateme ale ⇒A)(A⇒B) a arrow’
⟺B
nt nt
to . nd (B⇒A) that is used for
equivalence
..

TAUTOLOGIES
A tautology is a mathematical sentence form that is always true.
For example, ‘(A and B)⇒A(A and B)⇒A’ is a tautology, as
the truth table below confirms:
A B A and BA an (A and B)⇒A(A and 
A B d B B)⇒A
T T T T

T F F T

F T F T

F F F T

Here's the intuition for the tautology

(A and B)⇒A(A and B)⇒A
‘ ’:
the only way an ‘and’ sentence is true is when both subsentences are true.
Thus, if ‘ A and BA and B’ is true, then (in particular) AA must be
true.
Check that ‘ (A and B)⇒B(A and B)⇒B’ is also a tautology.
Note that a logical equivalence is a particular type of tautology—
one that tells us that two different sentence forms always have the same truth values,
regardless of the truth values of the components.

DIFFERENCE IN USAGE BETWEEN THE WORDS

‘TAUTOLOGY’ AND ‘IDENTITY’
Although the words ‘identity’ and ‘tautology’ are both used in mathematics to refer to
sentences that are always true,
there is a slight difference in usage.

The word ‘tautology’ tends to be used in logic, where the ‘pieces’ of the (always true)
sentence have the choice of being either true or false.
For example, ‘ (A and B)⇒A(A and B)⇒A’ is a tautology:  
the sentence is always true;   the ‘pieces’ AA and BB can be true or false.
The sentence ‘ A or (not A)A or (not A)’ is another tautology:  
the sentence is always true; the ‘piece’ AA can be true or false.

The word ‘identity’, on the other hand, tends to be used for mathematical
sentences outside of the realm of logic that are always true.
Here are some examples from algebra and trigonometry (and don't worry if something
is unfamiliar here):

 ‘ 2 x −y =(x−y)(x+y)x2−y2=(x−y)(x+y)’ is an
2
identity from algebra.
xx and yy represent real numbers.
Here, 

No matter what real numbers xx and yy are chosen, the sentence is true.

You should recognize this as the formula for factoring a difference of squares.
 ‘ sin θ+cos2θ=1sin2⁡θ+cos2⁡θ=1’ is an identity from
2
trigonometry.
Here, you can think of  θθ  (the Greek letter ‘theta’) as a real number, or the
measure of an angle.
This is such an important identity that it's given a name—the Pythagorean
Identity.
(And—yes—there is a connection to the Pythagorean Theorem!)
 |a+b|≤|a|+|b||a+b|≤|a|+|b|’ is an identity from algebra.
‘

Here, aa and bb represent real numbers.

Note that identities don't need to be statements of equality.

We finish with two important tautologies that allow us to ‘chain’ results together:

LAW OF SYLLOGISM
The following compound mathematical sentence is true,
for all possible truth values of  PP, QQ, and RR:
 If  ((P⇒Q) and (Q⇒R))((P⇒Q) and (Q⇒R)) then 
(P⇒R)(P⇒R)
Here's the intuition:
Whenever PP is true, so is QQ; and,
whenever QQ is true, so is RR; so,

whenever PP is true, so is RR.

LAW OF DETACHMENT
The following compound mathematical sentence is true,
for all possible truth values of  PP and QQ:
(P and (P⇒Q)) ⇒ Q(P and (P⇒Q)) ⇒ Q
Here's the intuition:
PP is true; and,
If 

whenever PP is true, so is QQ; then,

QQ must be true.