DeMorgan’s Laws and the Biconditional

Philosophy and Logic

Sections 2.3, 2.4
(“Some difficult combinations”)
Some difficult combinations
Not both p and q = ~(p & q)
We won’t both sing and dance.
A negation of a conjunction.
Both not p and not q = (~p & ~q)
We won’t sing and we won’t dance.
A conjunction of negations.
 ~(p & q) ≠ (~p & ~q)
These are not equivalent to one another.
The first says: it is not the case that both will
happen.
The second says: it is the case that both will not
happen.
 Difficulties, continued
Neither p nor q =
Not either p or q =
It is not the case that either p or q = ~(p v q)
We will neither sing nor dance.
A negation of a disjunction.
Either not p or not q = (~p v ~q)
Either we won’t sing or we won’t dance.
A disjunction of negations.
 ~(p v q) ≠ (~p v ~q)
These too are not equivalent to one another.
The first says: neither will happen.
The second says: one or the other of them won’t
happen.
 We need a fourth connective
• The preceding formulations use “=“ incorrectly.
• Clearly the sentences are different sentences. What
we want to say is that the two sentences have
equivalent truth conditions
No matter what pattern of on/off switches occurs in the
world, these two sentences will light up at exactly the
same times.
• One is on (true) if and only if the other is on
(true). For this we need....
 Biconditional
symbol: ≡ (triple bar)
translation: if and only if

P Q P≡Q

T T T

T F F

F T F

F F T
Simplest rule: True only if the truth-
values match

P Q P≡Q

T T T

T F F

F T F

F F T
That is: True only if both are True
OR both are False
(it's the second clause that gets forgotten)

P Q P≡Q

T T T

T F F

F T F

F F T
 DeMorgan’s Laws
A conjunction (p & q) is true if and only if
both conjuncts are true.

So it is false ( ~(p & q)) if one or the other of

the conjuncts is false. That is:
~(p & q) ≡ (~p v ~q)
Not both p and q ≡ Either not p or not q.
 DeMorgan’s Laws (2)
A disjunction is false ( ~(p v q)) if and only
if both disjuncts are false. So:
~(p v q) ≡ (~p & ~ q)
Neither p nor q ≡ Both not p and not q.
 Cross correlations
~(p & q) ≡ (~p v ~q)
(~p & ~ q) ≡ ~(p v q)

Not both p and q ≡ Either not p or not q

Both not p and not q ≡ Neither p nor q
 In English
It is not the case that we will both sing and
dance. ≡ Either we will not sing or we will
not dance.
~(s & d) ≡ (~s v ~d)
Both we will not sing and we will not dance.
≡ We will neither sing nor dance.
(~s & ~d) ≡ ~(s v d)
 ~(p & q) ≡ (~p v ~q)

P Q
 ~(p & q) ≡ (~p v ~q)

P Q p&q
 ~(p & q) ≡ (~p v ~q)

P Q p & q ~(p & q)

 ~(p & q) ≡ (~p v ~q)

P Q p & q ~(p & q) ~p ~q

 ~(p & q) ≡ (~p v ~q)

P Q p & q ~(p & q) ~p ~q ~p v ~q

 ~(p & q) ≡ (~p v ~q)

P Q p & q ~(p & q) ~p ~q ~p v ~q ~(p& q) ≡ (~p v ~q)

 ~(p & q) ≡ (~p v ~q)

P Q p & q ~(p & q) ~p ~q ~p v ~q ~(p& q) ≡ (~p v ~q)

T T

T F

F T

T F
 ~(p & q) ≡ (~p v ~q)

P Q p & q ~(p & q) ~p ~q ~p v ~q ~(p& q) ≡ (~p v ~q)

T T T

T F F

F T F

T F F
 ~(p & q) ≡ (~p v ~q)

P Q p & q ~(p & q) ~p ~q ~p v ~q ~(p& q) ≡ (~p v ~q)

T T T F

T F F T

F T F T

T F F T
 ~(p & q) ≡ (~p v ~q)

P Q p & q ~(p & q) ~p ~q ~p v ~q ~(p& q) ≡ (~p v ~q)

T T T F F

T F F T F

F T F T T

F F F T T
 ~(p & q) ≡ (~p v ~q)

P Q p & q ~(p & q) ~p ~q ~p v ~q ~(p& q) ≡ (~p v ~q)

T T T F F F

T F F T F T

F T F T T F

F F F T T T
 ~(p & q) ≡ (~p v ~q)

P Q p & q ~(p & q) ~p ~q ~p v ~q ~(p& q) ≡ (~p v ~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
 ~(p & q) ≡ (~p v ~q)

P Q p & q ~(p & q) ~p ~q ~p v ~q ~(p& q) ≡ (~p v ~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
 ~(p & q) ≡ (~p v ~q)

P Q p & q ~(p & q) ~p ~q ~p v ~q ~(p& q) ≡ (~p v ~q)

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
 Symbolize & test for validity
Valerie is either a doctor or a lawyer.

Valerie is neither a doctor nor a stockbroker.

Hence Valerie is a lawyer.

D: Valerie is a doctor.
L: Valerie is a lawyer.
S: Valerie is a stockbroker.
Valerie is either a doctor or a lawyer.
DvL
Valerie is neither a doctor nor a stockbroker.

Hence Valerie is a lawyer.

D: Valerie is a doctor.
L: Valerie is a lawyer.
S: Valerie is a stockbroker.
Valerie is either a doctor or a lawyer.
DvL
Valerie is neither a doctor nor a stockbroker.
~(D v S)
Hence Valerie is a lawyer.

D: Valerie is a doctor.
L: Valerie is a lawyer.
S: Valerie is a stockbroker.
Valerie is either a doctor or a lawyer.
DvL
Valerie is neither a doctor nor a stockbroker.
~(D v S)
Hence Valerie is a lawyer.
L
D: Valerie is a doctor.
L: Valerie is a lawyer.
S: Valerie is a stockbroker.
 The test
• Construct a truth table. Use a separate column for
each premise. Put the conclusion on the rightmost
end.
• Compute the values.
• Ask: Is there any row where all the premises are
true and the conclusion is false?
• If yes: the argument is invalid.
• If no: the argument is valid.
DvL
~(D v S)
Therefore, L
 DvL
~(D v S)
Therefore, L

D L S
 DvL
~(D v S)
Therefore, L

D L S DvL
 DvL
~(D v S)
Therefore, L

D L S DvL (D v S)
 DvL
~(D v S)
Therefore, L

D L S DvL (D v S) ~(D v S)
 DvL
~(D v S)
Therefore, L

D L S DvL (D v S) ~(D v S) L
 DvL
~(D v S)
Therefore, L

D L S DvL (D v S) ~(D v S) L
T
T
T
T
F
F
F
F
 DvL
~(D v S)
Therefore, L

D L S DvL (D v S) ~(D v S) L
T T
T T
T F
T F
F T
F T
F F
F F
 DvL
~(D v S)
Therefore, L

D L S DvL (D v S) ~(D v S) L
T T T
T T F
T F T
T F F
F T T
F T F
F F T
F F F
 DvL
~(D v S)
Therefore, L

D L S DvL (D v S) ~(D v S) L
T T T
T T F
T F T
T F F
F T T
F T F
F F T F
F F F F
 DvL
~(D v S)
Therefore, L

D L S DvL (D v S) ~(D v S) L
T T T T
T T F T
T F T T
T F F T
F T T T
F T F T
F F T F
F F F F
 DvL
~(D v S)
Therefore, L

D L S DvL (D v S) ~(D v S) L
T T T T
T T F T
T F T T
T F F T
F T T T
F T F T F
F F T F
F F F F F
 DvL
~(D v S)
Therefore, L

D L S DvL (D v S) ~(D v S) L
T T T T T
T T F T T
T F T T T
T F F T T
F T T T T
F T F T F
F F T F T
F F F F F
 DvL
~(D v S)
Therefore, L

D L S DvL (D v S) ~(D v S) L
T T T T T F
T T F T T F
T F T T T F
T F F T T F
F T T T T F
F T F T F T
F F T F T F
F F F F F T
 DvL
~(D v S)
Therefore, L

D L S DvL (D v S) ~(D v S) L
T T T T T F T
T T F T T F T
T F T T T F F
T F F T T F F
F T T T T F T
F T F T F T T
F F T F T F F
F F F F F T F
 The test
• Is there any row where all the premises are
true and the conclusion is false?
• If yes: the argument is invalid.
• If no: the argument is valid.
 The test
• Is there any row where all the premises are
true and the conclusion is false?
Note that on any row we need to look only
at the columns for the premises and for the
conclusion. The other columns can be
ignored!
Mark the premise columns somehow, and
put the conclusion in your last column.
 DvL
~(D v S)
Therefore, L

D L S DvL (D v S) ~(D v S) L
T T T T T F T
T T F T T F T
T F T T T F F
T F F T T F F
F T T T T F T
F T F T F T T
F F T F T F F
F F F F F T F
 DvL
No such row. VALID!
~(D v S)
Therefore, L

D L S DvL (D v S) ~(D v S) L
T T T T T F T
T T F T T F T
T F T T T F F
T F F T T F F
F T T T T F T
F T F T F T T
F F T F T F F
F F F F F T F