Commutativity:

When we say that the logical operators AND (∧) and OR (∨) are commutative, it means that the
order in which you combine the propositions does not affect the truth value of the resulting
compound proposition. In other words, if you switch the order of the propositions, the truth value
remains the same.

Here’s a clear example to illustrate this concept:

### Example with AND (∧)

Consider two propositions:

- ( P ): "It is raining."

- ( Q ): "It is cold."

The compound proposition ( P ) ∧ ( Q ) means "It is raining AND it is cold."

Now, let's see the truth table for ( P ) ∧ ( Q ) and ( Q ) ∧ ( P ):

|(P)|(Q)|(P)∧(Q)|(Q)∧(P)|

|--------|--------|------------------|------------------|

| True | True | True | True |

| True | False | False | False |

| False | True | False | False |

| False | False | False | False |

As you can see, ( P ) ∧ ( Q ) has the same truth values as ( Q ) ∧ ( P ) in all possible scenarios.
This demonstrates that AND (∧) is commutative.

### Example with OR (∨)

Consider the same propositions:

- ( P ): "It is raining."

- ( Q ): "It is cold."

The compound proposition ( P ) ∨ ( Q ) means "It is raining OR it is cold."

Now, let's see the truth table for ( P ) ∨ ( Q ) and ( Q ) ∨ ( P ):

|(P)|(Q)|(P)∨(Q)|(Q)∨(P)|

|--------|--------|------------------|------------------|

| True | True | True | True |

| True | False | True | True |

| False | True | True | True |

| False | False | False | False |

Again, ( P ) ∨ ( Q ) has the same truth values as ( Q ) ∨ ( P ) in all possible scenarios. This
demonstrates that OR (∨) is commutative.

### Summary
The commutative property of logical operators AND (∧) and OR (∨) ensures that the order of
the propositions does not matter. This means:

- ( P ) ∧ ( Q ) is logically ≡alent to ( Q ) ∧ ( P ).

- ( P ) ∨ ( Q ) is logically ≡alent to ( Q ) ∨ ( P ).

In both cases, rearranging the propositions does not change the truth value of the compound
statement.
 Associativity:
The associativity of the logical operators AND (∧) and OR (∨) means that when you group
propositions together using these operators, the way you group them doesn't change the overall
truth value of the expression. In other words, for any propositions (P), (Q), and (R):

1. ( (P and Q) and R ≡ P and (Q and R) )

2. ( (P or Q) or R ≡ P or (Q or R) )

To understand this with an example, let's construct truth tables for both cases.

### AND Operator (∧)

We need to show that ( (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 | 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 |
Notice that the columns for ((P ∧ Q) ∧ R) ∧ (P ∧ (Q ∧ R)) are identical. This demonstrates the
associativity of the ∧ operator.

### OR Operator (∨)

We need to show that ( (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 | F | T | T | T | T | T |

| T | F | F | T | T | F | T |

| F | T | T | T | T | T | T |

| F | T | F | T | T | T | T |

| F | F | T | F | T | T | T |

| F | F | F | F | F | F | F |

Again, the columns f∨ ((P ∨ Q) ∨ R) ∧ (P ∨ (Q ∨ R)) are identical. This demonstrates the
associativity of the ∨ operat∨.

In summary, the associativity of ∧ ∧ ∨ means that no matter how you group the propositions in
expressions involving only these operat∨s, the overall truth value remains unchanged.
 Distributivity:
Distributive laws in logic describe how certain logical operators distribute over each other,
allowing for the simplification of compound propositions. In the case of the AND (∧) and OR
(∨) operators, they distribute over each other according to the following rules:

1. ( P ∧ (Q ∨ R) ≡ (P ∧ Q) ∨ (P ∧ R) )

2. ( P ∨ (Q ∧ R) ≡ (P ∨ Q) ∧ (P ∨ R) )

In simpler terms, these laws state that you can distribute an AND or an OR operation over
another AND or OR operation respectively.

Let's illustrate the 1st example with truth table:

We want to simplify this using the distributive law.

First, we'll build the truth table for both the original proposition and the simplified version:

| P | Q | R | Q ∨ R | P ∧ (Q ∨ R) | P ∧ Q | P ∧ R | (P ∧ Q) ∨ (P ∧ R) |

|---|---|---|-------|------------|-------|-------|-------------------|

|T|T|T| T | T | T | T | T |

|T|T|F| T | T | T | F | T |

|T|F|T| T | T | F | T | T |

|T|F|F| F | F | F | F | F |

|F|T|T| T | F | F | F | F |

|F|T|F| T | F | F | F | F |

|F|F|T| T | F | F | F | F |
|F|F|F| F | F | F | F | F |

Let's illustrate the 2nd example with truth table:

Now, let's construct the truth table for both the original proposition and the simplified version:

| P | Q | R | Q ∧ R | P ∨ (Q ∧ R) | P ∨ Q | P ∨ R | (P ∨ Q) ∧ (P ∨ R) |

|---|---|---|-------|------------|-------|-------|-------------------|

|T|T|T| T | T | T | T | T |

|T|T|F| F | T | T | T | T |

|T|F|T| F | T | T | T | T |

|T|F|F| F | T | T | T | T |

|F|T|T| T | F | T | T | T |

|F|T|F| F | F | T | F | F |

|F|F|T| F | F | F | T | F |

|F|F|F| F | F | F | F | F |

In the truth table:

- Column ( P ∧ (Q ∨ R) ) represents the original proposition.

- Column ( (P ∧ Q) ∨ (P ∧ R) ) represents the simplified proposition using the distributive law.

As you can see, the truth values in the two columns match, indicating that the original
proposition and the simplified proposition are logically equivalent. This demonstrates the
validity of the distributive law.
 Idempotence:
Idempotence is a property in mathematics and logic where applying an operation multiple times
to a value yields the same result as applying it just once. In the context of logical operators, it
means that applying the operator multiple times to the same proposition doesn't change its truth
value.

Let's take the logical OR (denoted by ∨) as an example. The truth table for the OR operator is as
follows:

|P |Q |P∨Q|

|-----|-----|-------|

| True | True | True |

| True | False | True |

| False | True | True |

| False | False | False |

Now, let's see how idempotence applies to the OR operator:

If we apply the OR operator to a proposition P twice, it remains unchanged. Let's represent this
operation as P ∨ P:

|P |P∨P|

|-----|-------|

| True | True |

| False | False |

As you can see from the truth table above, whether P is true or false, applying the OR operator to
P twice yields the same result as applying it just once. This demonstrates the property of
idempotence for the OR operator.
 Absorption:
Absorption is a property in Boolean algebra that allows simplification of compound propositions
by eliminating redundant terms. This property states that in a compound expression involving
two variables, if one variable is present in both a term and its complement, the term without that
variable can be eliminated, as it doesn't affect the overall truth value of the expression.

Let’s consider an example: A ∨ (A ∧ B) is equivalent to A.

Let's demonstrate this using a truth table:

|A |B | A ∧ B | A ∨ (A ∧ B) |

|-------|-------|-------|-------------|

| True | True | True | True |

| True | False | False | True |

| False | True | False | False |

| False | False | False | False |

As you can see from the truth table, regardless of whether A and B are True or False, the result
of "A ∨ (A ∧ B)" is always the same as the value of A itself. When A is True, the entire
expression is True; when A is False, the entire expression is False.

This demonstrates that "A ∨ (A ∧ B)" simplifies to just A, showing that it is equivalent to A.
 De Morgan's Laws:
De Morgan's Laws are fundamental principles in logic that describe how negation interacts with
logical conjunction (AND) and disjunction (OR). There are two laws:

Sure, let's use two separate truth tables to illustrate each of De Morgan's Laws.

### First Law: ¬(P ∧ Q) ≡ (¬P ∨ ¬Q)

| P | Q | P ∧ Q | ¬(P ∧ Q) | ¬P | ¬Q | ¬P ∨ ¬Q |

|---|---|-------|---------|----|----|---------|

|T|T| T | F | F| F| F |

|T|F| F | T | F| T| T |

|F|T| F | T | T| F| T |

|F|F| F | T | T| T| T |

### Second Law: ¬(P ∨ Q) ≡ (¬P ∧ ¬Q)

| P | Q | P ∨ Q | ¬(P ∨ Q) | ¬P | ¬Q | ¬P ∧ ¬Q |

|---|---|-------|---------|----|----|---------|

|T|T| T | F | F| F| F |

|T|F| T | F | F| T| F |

|F|T| T | F | T| F| F |

|F|F| F | T | T| T| T |

In both truth tables:

1. The columns for ¬(P ∧ Q) and (¬P ∨ ¬Q) are identical, verifying the first law.

2. The columns for ¬(P ∨ Q) and (¬P ∧ ¬Q) are identical, verifying the second law.

These tables further demonstrate the validity of De Morgan's Laws by showing that the negation
of conjunction is equivalent to the disjunction of negations, and the negation of disjunction is
equivalent to the conjunction of negations.
 Converse:
The converse of a statement simply reverses the order of the hypothesis (P) and the conclusion
(Q). While the original statement might suggest a certain logical relationship between P and Q,
the converse statement doesn't necessarily have the same logical implications.

Let's use a simple example to illustrate this concept:

Original Statement: "If it is raining (P), then the ground is wet (Q)."

Converse Statement: "If the ground is wet (Q), then it is raining (P)."

Now, let's create a truth table to demonstrate the logical relationships between the original
statement and its converse:

| P (It is raining) | Q (The ground is wet) | Original Statement (P -> Q) | Converse Statement (Q -
> P) |

|-------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------|

| True | True | True | True |

| True | False | False | True |

| False | True | True | False |

| False | False | True | True |

In this truth table:

- When it is raining (P is true) and the ground is wet (Q is true), both the original statement and
the converse are true.

- When it is raining (P is true) but the ground is not wet (Q is false), the original statement is
false, but the converse is true.

- When it is not raining (P is false) but the ground is wet (Q is true), the original statement is
true, but the converse is false.
- When it is not raining (P is false) and the ground is not wet (Q is false), both the original
statement and the converse are true.

This truth table demonstrates that while the original statement and its converse may sometimes
have the same truth values, they can also have different truth values, indicating that the logical
relationship between P and Q is not necessarily preserved when you switch their positions.

Inverse:
Certainly! The concept of inverse statements comes from propositional logic, where you have
statements represented by variables (P, Q, etc.) and connectives like "if-then" (→). Let's break it
down:

Original statement: "If P, then Q" (P → Q)

Inverse statement: "If not P, then not Q" (¬P → ¬Q)

To understand this, let's create a truth table:

| P | Q | ¬P | ¬Q | P → Q | ¬P → ¬Q |

|---|---|----|----|-------|---------|

|T|T| F| F| T | T |

|T|F| F| T| F | T |

|F|T| T| F| T | F |

|F|F| T| T| T | T |

In the truth table:

- "T" stands for true, and "F" stands for false.

- ¬P means "not P" and ¬Q means "not Q".

- P → Q means "if P, then Q".

- ¬P → ¬Q means "if not P, then not Q".

Now, let's interpret:

- In the original statement (P → Q), the only time it's false is when P is true and Q is false.
- In the inverse statement (¬P → ¬Q), it's false when ¬P is true (meaning P is false) and ¬Q is
false (meaning Q is true).

So, in essence, the original statement and its inverse don't always have the same truth values.
They only share truth values when both P and Q are false, as seen in the truth table.

Tautology:
Sure, let's break it down. In logic, a tautology is a statement that is always true, no matter the
truth values of its individual parts. So, even if you vary the inputs (the truth values of its
constituent propositions), the overall statement will always come out as true.

A perfect example of a tautology is the statement "p OR NOT p", where "p" is any proposition.
This statement essentially says "either p is true or p is not true," which is always true, regardless
of whether p itself is true or false.

Here's the truth table for "p OR NOT p":

| p | NOT p | p OR NOT p |

| --- | ----- | ---------- |

|T | F | T |

|F | T | T |

As you can see, regardless of whether "p" is true (T) or false (F), the statement "p OR NOT p"
always evaluates to true (T). Thus, "p OR NOT p" is a tautology.
 Contrapositive:
Let's break down the definition first:

1. **Converse:** In a conditional statement "if P, then Q," the converse switches the hypothesis
(P) and the conclusion (Q) to form "if Q, then P."

2. **Negation:** Negating a statement means expressing its opposite or denying its truth.

3. **Contrapositive:** The contrapositive combines the structure of the converse (switching

hypothesis and conclusion) with negation.

So, if we have a conditional statement "if P, then Q," its contrapositive would be "if not Q, then
not P." This maintains the logical equivalence of the original statement.

Let's illustrate with an example and its truth table:

Example:

Conditional Statement: If it is raining (P), then the ground is wet (Q).

Converse: If the ground is wet (Q), then it is raining (P).

Contrapositive: If the ground is not wet (not Q), then it is not raining (not P).

Truth Table:
| P (It is raining) | Q (Ground is wet) | If P, then Q | Converse: If Q, then P | Contrapositive: If not
Q, then not P |

|-------------------|-------------------|--------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------------
|

| True | True | True | True | True |

| True | False | False | True | False |

| False | True | True | False | True |

| False | False | True | True | True |

In the truth table:

- "If P, then Q" is true in cases where P is true and Q is true, as well as when P is false
(regardless of Q's truth value). This is because the only time a conditional statement is false is
when the hypothesis is true and the conclusion is false.

- The converse, "If Q, then P," is true in cases where Q is true and P is true. It's false only when
Q is true and P is false.

- The contrapositive, "If not Q, then not P," follows the same logic. It's true when Q is false (not
true) and P is false (not true). It's false only when Q is false and P is true.

So, in terms of logical equivalence, the original statement and its contrapositive are always
equivalent, as are the converse and inverse.
 Contingency:
A contingency, in logic, is a compound statement formed by connecting two simpler statements
(propositions) using a logical connective like "if...then" or "and" or "or". Its truth value depends
on the truth values of its component propositions.

For example, let's consider the statement: "If it's raining, then I'll bring an umbrella."

Here, we have two propositions:

- P: It's raining.

- Q: I'll bring an umbrella.

The statement "If P, then Q" is a contingency because its truth depends on whether it's actually
raining and whether I actually bring an umbrella. Here's the truth table:

| P (It's raining) | Q (I'll bring an umbrella) | If P, then Q |

|------------------|----------------------------|--------------|

| True | True | True |

| True | False | False |

| False | True | True |

| False | False | True |

So, if it's raining and I bring an umbrella, the statement is true. If it's raining but I don't bring an
umbrella, the statement is false. If it's not raining (false) regardless of whether I bring an
umbrella or not, the statement is considered true. It's only false if it's raining and I fail to bring an
umbrella.
 Contradiction:
A contradiction is indeed a compound statement that is always false, regardless of the truth
values of its components. In simpler terms, it's a statement that asserts something and its opposite
simultaneously, which goes against the principles of logic.

A perfect example of a contradiction is the statement "It is raining and it is not raining." This
statement cannot be true in any situation because it asserts both the presence and absence of rain
at the same time. Let's construct a truth table to demonstrate:

| P (It is raining) | Q (It is not raining) | P ∧ Q (It is raining and it is not raining) |

|-------------------|-----------------------|---------------------------------------------|

| True | False | False |

| False | True | False |

| True | True | False |

| False | False | False |

As you can see from the truth table, regardless of whether it is raining (P) or not raining (Q), the
statement "It is raining and it is not raining" (P ∧ Q) always evaluates to false. This confirms
that it is indeed a contradiction.