Lecture 5: Propositional

Equivalences
Andrew Katumba
2011
Announcements
CAT I is on Thursday 24th March :
8am – 10 am

2
Agenda
Tautologies
Logical Equivalences

3
Readings
Sections 4.5, 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8 of
Schaum’s Outline of Discrete
Mathematics (pg 77)
Solved problems are on page 82

4
Tautologies, contradictions,
contingencies
DEF: A compound proposition is called a tautology if
no matter what truth values its atomic propositions
have, its own truth value is T.
EG: p  ¬p (Law of excluded middle)
The opposite to a tautology, is a compound proposition
that’s always false –a contradiction.
EG: p  ¬p
On the other hand, a compound proposition whose
truth value isn’t constant is called a contingency.
EG: p  ¬p

5
Tautologies and contradictions
The easiest way to see if a compound
proposition is a tautology/contradiction
is to use a truth table.
p p p p p p p p
F T T F T F
T F T T F F

6
 Tautology example Part 1
Demonstrate that
[¬p (p q )]q
is a tautology in two ways:
1. Using a truth table – show that
[¬p (p q )]q is always true
2. Using a proof (will get to this later).

7
 Tautology by truth table
p q ¬p p q ¬p (p q ) [¬p (p q )]q
T T

T F

F T

F F

8
 Tautology by truth table
p q ¬p p q ¬p (p q ) [¬p (p q )]q
T T F

T F F

F T T

F F T

9
 Tautology by truth table
p q ¬p p q ¬p (p q ) [¬p (p q )]q
T T F T

T F F T

F T T T

F F T F

10
 Tautology by truth table
p q ¬p p q ¬p (p q ) [¬p (p q )]q
T T F T F

T F F T F

F T T T T

F F T F F

11
 Tautology by truth table
p q ¬p p q ¬p (p q ) [¬p (p q )]q
T T F T F T

T F F T F T

F T T T T T

F F T F F T

12
 Tautologies, contradictions
and programming
Tautologies and contradictions in your
code usually correspond to poor
programming design. EG:
 while(x <= 3 || x > 3)
x++;
 if(x > y)
if(x == y)
return “never got here”;

13
 Logical Equivalences
DEF: Two compound propositions p, q are
logically equivalent if their biconditional
joining p  q is a tautology. Logical
equivalence is denoted by p  q.
EG: The contrapositive of a logical implication
is the reversal of the implication, while
negating both components. I.e. the
contrapositive of p q is ¬q ¬p . As we’ll
see next: p q  ¬q ¬p

14
 Logical Equivalence of
Conditional and Contrapositive
The easiest way to check for logical equivalence
is to see if the truth tables of both variants
have identical last columns:

p q p q p q ¬q ¬p ¬q¬p

Q: why does this work given definition of  ?

15
 Logical Equivalence of
Conditional and Contrapositive
The easiest way to check for logical equivalence
is to see if the truth tables of both variants
have identical last columns:

p q p q p q ¬q ¬p ¬q¬p
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

Q: why does this work given definition of  ?

16
 Logical Equivalence of
Conditional and Contrapositive
The easiest way to check for logical equivalence
is to see if the truth tables of both variants
have identical last columns:

p q p q p q ¬q ¬p ¬q¬p
T T T T T
T F F T F
F T T F T
F F T F F

Q: why does this work given definition of  ?

17
 Logical Equivalence of
Conditional and Contrapositive
The easiest way to check for logical equivalence
is to see if the truth tables of both variants
have identical last columns:

p q p q p q ¬q ¬p ¬q¬p
T T T T T F
T F F T F T
F T T F T F
F F T F F T

Q: why does this work given definition of  ?

18
 Logical Equivalence of
Conditional and Contrapositive
The easiest way to check for logical equivalence
is to see if the truth tables of both variants
have identical last columns:

p q p q p q ¬q ¬p ¬q¬p
T T T T T F F
T F F T F T F
F T T F T F T
F F T F F T T

Q: why does this work given definition of  ?

L3 19
 Logical Equivalence of
Conditional and Contrapositive
The easiest way to check for logical equivalence
is to see if the truth tables of both variants
have identical last columns:

p q p q p q ¬q ¬p ¬q¬p
T T T T T F F T
T F F T F T F F
F T T F T F T T
F F T F F T T T

Q: why does this work given definition of  ?

20
 Logical Equivalences
A: p q by definition means that p  q
is a tautology. Furthermore, the
biconditional is true exactly when the
truth values of p and of q are identical.
So if the last column of truth tables of
p and of q is identical, the biconditional
join of both is a tautology.

21
 Logical Non-Equivalence of
Conditional and Converse
The converse of a logical implication is the reversal of the implication. I.e. the
converse of p q is q p.
EG: The converse of “If Donald is a duck then Donald is a bird.” is “If Donald is a
bird then Donald is a duck.”
As we’ll see next: p q and q p are not logically equivalent.

22
Logical Non-Equivalence of
Conditional and Converse
p q p q q p (p q)  (q p)

23
Logical Non-Equivalence of
Conditional and Converse
p q p q q p (p q)  (q p)
T T
T F
F T
F F

24
Logical Non-Equivalence of
Conditional and Converse
p q p q q p (p q)  (q p)
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

25
Logical Non-Equivalence of
Conditional and Converse
p q p q q p (p q)  (q p)
T T T T
T F F T
F T T F
F F T T

26
Logical Non-Equivalence of
Conditional and Converse
p q p q q p (p q)  (q p)
T T T T T
T F F T F
F T T F F
F F T T T

27
Derivational Proof Techniques
When compound propositions involve more and
more atomic components, the size of the
truth table for the compound propositions
increases
Q1: How many rows are required to construct
the truth-table of:
( (q(pr ))  ((sr)t) )  (qr )
Q2: How many rows are required to construct
the truth-table of a proposition involving n
atomic components?

28
Derivational Proof Techniques
A1: 32 rows, each additional variable doubles
the number of rows
A2: In general, 2n rows
Therefore, as compound propositions grow in
complexity, truth tables become more and
more unwieldy. Checking for
tautologies/logical equivalences of complex
propositions can become a chore, especially if
the problem is obvious.

29
Derivational Proof Techniques
EG: consider the compound proposition
(p p )  ((sr)t) )  (qr )

Q: Why is this a tautology?

30
Derivational Proof Techniques
A: Part of it is a tautology (p p ) and
the disjunction of True with any other
compound proposition is still True:
(p p )  ((sr)t ))  (qr )
 T  ((sr)t ))  (qr )
 T
Derivational techniques formalize the
intuition of this example.

31
 Tables of Logical Equivalences

 Identity laws
Like adding 0
 Domination laws
Like multiplying by 0
 Idempotent laws
Delete redundancies
 Double negation
“I don’t like you, not”
 Commutativity
Like “x+y = y+x”
 Associativity
Like “(x+y)+z = y+(x+z)”
 Distributivity
Like “(x+y)z = xz+yz”
L3 32
 De Morgan
Tables of Logical Equivalences

 Excluded middle
 Negating creates opposite
 Definition of implication in
terms of Not and Or

33
 DeMorgan Identities
DeMorgan’s identities allow for simplification of
negations of complex expressions
Conjunctional negation:
(p1p2…pn)  (p1p2…pn)
“It’s not the case that all are true iff one is false.”
Disjunctional negation:
(p1p2…pn)  (p1p2…pn)
“It’s not the case that one is true iff all are false.”

34
 Tautology example Part 2
Demonstrate that
[¬p (p q )]q
is a tautology in two ways:
1. Using a truth table (did above)
2. Using a proof relying on Tables 5 and
6 of Rosen, section 1.2 to derive True
through a series of logical
equivalences

35
 Tautology by proof
[¬p (p q )]q

36
 Tautology by proof
[¬p (p q )]q
 [(¬p p)(¬p q)]q Distributive

37
 Tautology by proof
[¬p (p q )]q
 [(¬p p)(¬p q)]q Distributive
 [ F  (¬p q)]q ULE

38
 Tautology by proof
[¬p (p q )]q
 [(¬p p)(¬p q)]q Distributive
 [ F  (¬p q)]q ULE
 [¬p q ]q Identity

39
 Tautology by proof
[¬p (p q )]q
 [(¬p p)(¬p q)]q Distributive
 [ F  (¬p q)]q ULE
 [¬p q ]q Identity
 ¬ [¬p q ]  q ULE

40
 Tautology by proof
[¬p (p q )]q
 [(¬p p)(¬p q)]q Distributive
 [ F  (¬p q)]q ULE
 [¬p q ]q Identity
 ¬ [¬p q ]  q ULE
 [¬(¬p) ¬q ]  q DeMorgan

41
 Tautology by proof
[¬p (p q )]q
 [(¬p p)(¬p q)]q Distributive
 [ F  (¬p q)]q ULE
 [¬p q ]q Identity
 ¬ [¬p q ]  q ULE
 [¬(¬p) ¬q ]  q DeMorgan
 [p  ¬q ]  q Double Negation

42
 Tautology by proof
[¬p (p q )]q
 [(¬p p)(¬p q)]q Distributive
 [ F  (¬p q)]q ULE
 [¬p q ]q Identity
 ¬ [¬p q ]  q ULE
 [¬(¬p) ¬q ]  q DeMorgan
 [p  ¬q ]  q Double Negation
 p  [¬q q ] Associative

43
 Tautology by proof
[¬p (p q )]q
 [(¬p p)(¬p q)]q Distributive
 [ F  (¬p q)]q ULE
 [¬p q ]q Identity
 ¬ [¬p q ]  q ULE
 [¬(¬p) ¬q ]  q DeMorgan
 [p  ¬q ]  q Double Negation
 p  [¬q q ] Associative
 p  [q ¬q ] Commutative

44
 Tautology by proof
[¬p (p q )]q
 [(¬p p)(¬p q)]q Distributive
 [ F  (¬p q)]q ULE
 [¬p q ]q Identity
 ¬ [¬p q ]  q ULE
 [¬(¬p) ¬q ]  q DeMorgan
 [p  ¬q ]  q Double Negation
 p  [¬q q ] Associative
 p  [q ¬q ] Commutative
pT ULE

45
 Tautology by proof
[¬p (p q )]q
 [(¬p p)(¬p q)]q Distributive
 [ F  (¬p q)]q ULE
 [¬p q ]q Identity
 ¬ [¬p q ]  q ULE
 [¬(¬p) ¬q ]  q DeMorgan
 [p  ¬q ]  q Double Negation
 p  [¬q q ] Associative
 p  [q ¬q ] Commutative
pT ULE
T Domination

46
 Exercise
1. “I don’t drink and drive” is logically
equivalent to “If I drink, then I don’t
drive”

47