Lecture 3: Propositional Equivalences

Zeph Grunschlag

Copyright Zeph Grunschlag, 2001-2002.

Announcements
OHs today moved to 3:30-5pm HW1 due next Monday CVN (Columbia Video Network) is hiring work-study camera operators, multimedia and video streaming people. No experience required. Contact technical@cvn.columbia.edu.
L3 2

Agenda
Tautologies Logical Equivalences

L3

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 thats always false a contradiction. EG: p p On the other hand, a compound proposition whose truth value isnt constant is called a contingency. EG: p p

L3

Tautologies and contradictions

The easiest way to see if a compound proposition is a tautology/contradiction is to use a truth table.
p F T
p T F

p p T T

p F T

p T F

p p F F

L3

Tautology example (1.2.8.a) 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).

L3

Tautology by truth table

p q p p q p (p q ) [p (p q )]q
T T T F F T F F

L3

Tautology by truth table

p q p p q p (p q ) [p (p q )]q
T T T F F T F F F F T T

L3

Tautology by truth table

p q p p q p (p q ) [p (p q )]q
T T T F F T F F F F T T T T T F

L3

Tautology by truth table

p q p p q p (p q ) [p (p q )]q
T T T F F T F F F F T T T T T F F F T F

L3

10

Tautology by truth table

p q p p q p (p q ) [p (p q )]q
T T T F F T F F F F T T T T T F F F T F T T T T

L3

11

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;

L3

12

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 well see next: p q q p
L3 13

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 qp

Q: why does this work given definition of ?

L3 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 T T F F q T F T F p q T F T T p q
q p qp

Q: why does this work given definition of ?

L3 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 T T F F q T F T F p q T F T T p T T F F q T F T F
q p qp

Q: why does this work given definition of ?

L3 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 T T F F q T F T F p q T F T T p T T F F q T F T F
q F T F T p qp

Q: why does this work given definition of ?

L3 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 T T F F q T F T F p q T F T T p T T F F q T F T F
q F T F T p F F T T qp

Q: why does this work given definition of ?

L3 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 T T F F q T F T F p q T F T T p T T F F q T F T F
q F T F T p F F T T qp T F T T

Q: why does this work given definition of ?

L3 19

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.

L3

20

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 well see next: p q and q p are not logically equivalent.

L3

21

Logical Non-Equivalence of Conditional and Converse

p q p q q p
(p q) (q p)

L3

22

Logical Non-Equivalence of Conditional and Converse

p T T F F q T F T F p q q p
(p q) (q p)

L3

23

Logical Non-Equivalence of Conditional and Converse

p T T F F q T F T F p q T F T T q p
(p q) (q p)

L3

24

Logical Non-Equivalence of Conditional and Converse

p T T F F q T F T F p q T F T T q p T T F T
(p q) (q p)

L3

25

Logical Non-Equivalence of Conditional and Converse

p T T F F q T F T F p q T F T T q p T T F T
(p q) (q p) T F F T

L3

26

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(pr )) ((sr)t) ) (qr ) Q2: How many rows are required to construct the truth-table of a proposition involving n atomic components?
L3 27

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.
L3 28

Derivational Proof Techniques

EG: consider the compound proposition (p p ) ((sr)t) ) (qr ) Q: Why is this a tautology?

L3

29

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 ) ((sr)t )) (qr ) T ((sr)t )) (qr ) T Derivational techniques formalize the intuition of this example.
L3 30

Tables of Logical Equivalences

! Identity laws
Like adding 0

! Domination laws
Like multiplying by 0

! Idempotent laws
Delete redundancies

! Double negation
I dont like you, not

! Commutativity Like x+y = y+x ! Associativity Like (x+y)+z = y+(x+z) ! Distributivity Like (x+y)z = xz+yz ! De Morgan
L3

31

Tables of Logical Equivalences

! Excluded middle ! Negating creates opposite ! Definition of implication in

terms of Not and Or

L3

32

DeMorgan Identities
DeMorgans identities allow for simplification of negations of complex expressions Conjunctional negation:
(p1p2pn) (p1p2pn) Its not the case that all are true iff one is false.

Disjunctional negation:
(p1p2pn) (p1p2pn) Its not the case that one is true iff all are false.

L3

33

Tautology example (1.2.8.a) 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
L3 34

[p (p q )]q

Tautology by proof

L3

35

[p (p q )]q

Tautology by proof
Distributive

[(p p)(p q)]q

L3

36

[p (p q )]q

Tautology by proof
Distributive ULE

[(p p)(p q)]q [ F (p q)]q

L3

37

[p (p q )]q

Tautology by proof
Distributive ULE Identity

[(p p)(p q)]q [ F (p q)]q [p q ]q

L3

38

[p (p q )]q

Tautology by proof
Distributive ULE Identity ULE

[(p p)(p q)]q [ F (p q)]q [p q ]q [p q ] q

L3

39

[p (p q )]q

Tautology by proof
Distributive ULE Identity ULE DeMorgan

[(p p)(p q)]q [ F (p q)]q [p q ]q [p q ] q [(p) q ] q

L3

40

[p (p q )]q

Tautology by proof
Distributive ULE Identity ULE DeMorgan Double Negation

[(p p)(p q)]q [ F (p q)]q [p q ]q [p q ] q [(p) q ] q [p q ] q

L3

41

[p (p q )]q

Tautology by proof
Distributive ULE Identity ULE DeMorgan Double Negation Associative

[(p p)(p q)]q [ F (p q)]q [p q ]q [p q ] q [(p) q ] q [p q ] q p [q q ]

L3

42

[p (p q )]q

Tautology by proof
Distributive ULE Identity ULE DeMorgan Double Negation Associative Commutative

[(p p)(p q)]q [ F (p q)]q [p q ]q [p q ] q [(p) q ] q [p q ] q p [q q ] p [q q ]

L3

43

[p (p q )]q

Tautology by proof
Distributive ULE Identity ULE DeMorgan Double Negation Associative Commutative ULE

[(p p)(p q)]q [ F (p q)]q [p q ]q [p q ] q [(p) q ] q [p q ] q p [q q ] p [q q ] pT

L3

44

[p (p q )]q

Tautology by proof
Distributive ULE Identity ULE DeMorgan Double Negation Associative Commutative ULE Domination
45

[(p p)(p q)]q [ F (p q)]q [p q ]q [p q ] q [(p) q ] q [p q ] q p [q q ] p [q q ] pT T

L3

Examples for section 1.2

Worked out on the black-board. 1. I dont drink and drive is logically equivalent to If I drink, then I dont drive 2. Write a Java method that represents the compound proposition (p"q)#"r

L3

46