Scribd
Upload
38 views

Lecture 02 Logical Implication & Equivalence and Rules of Inference

The document discusses logical implication, logical equivalence, and different logical connectives. It provides: 1) Definitions of implication (if p then q), converse, contrapositive, and inverse of conditional statements. 2) Definition of biconditional/bi-implication as "p if and only if q". 3) Precedence of logical operators and evaluation of compound propositions using truth tables. 4) Logical equivalence as when compound propositions have the same truth values. Various laws of equivalence like De Morgan's laws are given. 5) Logical implication as when a compound proposition P implies proposition Q if P->Q is a tautology. Common

Uploaded by

Dimi Legaspi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
38 views

Lecture 02 Logical Implication & Equivalence and Rules of Inference

The document discusses logical implication, logical equivalence, and different logical connectives. It provides: 1) Definitions of implication (if p then q), converse, contrapositive, and inverse of conditional statements. 2) Definition of biconditional/bi-implication as "p if and only if q". 3) Precedence of logical operators and evaluation of compound propositions using truth tables. 4) Logical equivalence as when compound propositions have the same truth values. Various laws of equivalence like De Morgan's laws are given. 5) Logical implication as when a compound proposition P implies proposition Q if P->Q is a tautology. Common

Uploaded by

Dimi Legaspi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 9

Lecture 02

Implication and Logical Equivalence


•Conditional/Implication.
  Let p and q be propositions. The
conditional statement pq is the proposition “if p, then q.” The
conditional statement p q is false when p is true and q is false, and
true otherwise. In the conditional statement p q, p is called the
hypothesis (or antecedent or premise) and q is called the conclusion
(or consequence).
“if p, then q” “if p, q”
“p is sufficient for q” “q if p”
“q when p” “a necessary condition for p is q”
“q unless ~p” “p implies q”
“p only if q” “a sufficient condition for q is p”
“q whenever p” “q is necessary for p”
“q follows from p”

e.g. TRUE or FALSE: “½ = 0.5 only if 2+3=7.”


Converse, Contrapositive and Inverse
••  
Converse: q p
• Contrapositive: ~q ~p
• Inverse: ~p ~q
e.g. Write the converse, contrapositive, and
inverse of the conditional “If Leah gets
perfect scores on her long exams, then she
will get 1.0.”
•Biconditional/bi-implication.
  Let p and q be
propositions. The biconditional statement
pq
is the proposition “p if and only if q.” The
biconditional statement p q is true when p and q
have the same truth values, and is false otherwise.

“p is necessary and sufficient for q”


“if p then q, and conversely”
“p iff q”
Precedence of Logical Operators
•~   , , , ,

e.g. Evaluate the truth value of


p q ~r
using a truth table
Logical Equivalence
••  
Compound propositions that have the
same truth values in all possible cases
• The compound propositions P and Q are
called logically equivalent if PQ is a
tautology.
• PQ
e.g. Show that a conditional and its
contrapositive are logically equivalent.
Logical Equivalence
• Compound
  propositions P and Q are logically equivalent “P 
Q” whenever P Q is a tautology

Name Equivalence
Name Equivalence Identity laws (pF)  p
Double Negation ~~p  p (pT)  p
Commutative laws (pq)  (qp) Domination laws (pT)  T
(pq)  (qp) (pF)  F
p qq p Negation laws (p~p)  T
Associative
Associative laws
laws [(pq) r]  [p(qr)] (p~p)  F
[(pq)r]  [p(qr)] ~(pq)  (~p ~q)
De Morgan’s laws
Distributive laws [p(qr)]  [(pq)(pr)] ~(pq)  (~p~q)
Distributive laws
[p(qr)]  [(pq)(pr)]
Contrapositive
Contrapositive (p q)  (~q ~p)
Idempotent laws (pp)  p Implication
Implication (p q)  (~pq)
(pp)  p (p q)  ~(p~q)
Idempotent laws Equivalence (pq)  [(pq) (qp)]
Equivalence
Examples:
•1.  Eliminate
the connective in the compound
proposition and simplify as much as possible.
(~p ~q) (q r)
2. Rewrite the compound proposition using only
the connectives ~ and .
(p q) (q r)
3. Show that ~(p q)  p~q using the laws on
equivalences.
Logical Implication
• Given compound propositions P and Q, we say that P logically
implies Q whenever P -> Q is a tautology. We write this as P
=> Q. P => Q means that P -> Q is a tautology.

Name Implication
Addition p (p q)
Simplification (p q) p
Modus ponens [p (p q)] q
Modus tollens [(p q) ~q] ~p
Disjunctive syllogism [(p q) ~p] q
Hypothetical syllogism [(p q) (q r)] (p r)

You might also like