Scribd
Upload
156 views3 pages

Rosen 7 e Extra Examples 0103

This document provides 4 examples of logical equivalences involving propositional logic from Rosen's Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications textbook. The examples include proving equivalences using truth tables and logical steps. One example translates a newspaper headline into logical notation. Another example proves the equivalence of two logical statements by replacing one with equivalent statements until the second is obtained. The final example rewrites a logical statement using only the connectives "¬" and "∧".

Uploaded by

cero9794041
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
156 views3 pages

Rosen 7 e Extra Examples 0103

This document provides 4 examples of logical equivalences involving propositional logic from Rosen's Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications textbook. The examples include proving equivalences using truth tables and logical steps. One example translates a newspaper headline into logical notation. Another example proves the equivalence of two logical statements by replacing one with equivalent statements until the second is obtained. The final example rewrites a logical statement using only the connectives "¬" and "∧".

Uploaded by

cero9794041
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Show All Solutions

Rosen, Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications, 7th edition


Extra Examples
Section 1.3—Propositional Equivalences

— Page references correspond to locations of Extra Examples icons in the textbook.

p.26, icon below Table 2


#1. Prove that ¬[r ∨ (q ∧ (¬r → ¬p))] ≡ ¬r ∧ (p ∨ ¬q) by using a truth table.

See Solution
Solution:
We construct the truth tables for ¬[r ∨ (q ∧ (¬r → ¬p))] and for ¬r ∧ (p ∨ ¬q), and show that they are
identical. We insert “intermediate” columns as we build each of the propositions.
p q r ¬p ¬r ¬r→¬p q∧(¬r→¬p) r ∨ (q∧(¬r→¬p)) ¬(r∨(q∧(¬r→¬p))) p∨¬q ¬r∧(p∨¬q)
T T T F F T T T F T F
T T F F T F F F T T T
T F T F F T F T F T F
T F F F T F F F T T T
F T T T F T T T F F F
F T F T T T T T F F F
F F T T F T F T F T F
F F F T T T F F T T T
Note that the ninth and eleventh columns are identical. Therefore the two propositions are equivalent.

p.26, icon below Table 2


#2. Show that ¬(p ∨ q) ≡ ¬p ∨ ¬q.

See Solution
Solution:
To show that these two propositions are not equivalent, we need to find values for p and q such that ¬(p ∨ q)
and ¬p∨¬q have different truth values. One way to do this is to construct the truth table for each proposition
and show that their truth values are different in at least one case. In this case we obtain
p q ¬p ¬q p ∨ q ¬(p ∨ q) ¬p ∨ ¬q
T T F F T F F
T F F T T F T
F T T F T F T
F F T T F T T
In the second row of the truth table (the case where p is true and q is false), the proposition ¬(p ∨ q) is false,
but the proposition ¬p ∨ ¬q is true. Therefore, the two propositions are not equivalent. (Note that the truth
values for the two propositions also differ in the third row.)

p.29, icon at Example 6


#1. Prove that ¬[r ∨ (q ∧ (¬r → ¬p))] ≡ ¬r ∧ (p ∨ ¬q) by using a series of logical equivalences.

1
See Solution
Solution:
We will begin with ¬[r ∨(q ∧(¬r → ¬p))] and use rules of logic to show that this is equivalent to ¬r ∧(p∨¬q).
Here is one possible proof:
¬[r ∨ (q ∧ (¬r → ¬p))] ≡ ¬r ∧ ¬(q ∧ (¬r → ¬p)) De Morgan’s law
≡ ¬r ∧ ¬(q ∧ (¬¬r ∨ ¬p)) conditional rewritten as disjunction
≡ ¬r ∧ ¬(q ∧ (r ∨ ¬p)) double negation law
≡ ¬r ∧ (¬q ∨ ¬(r ∨ ¬p)) De Morgan’s law
≡ ¬r ∧ (¬q ∨ (¬r ∧ p)) De Morgan’s law and double negation
≡ (¬r ∧ ¬q) ∨ (¬r ∧ (¬r ∧ p)) distributive law
≡ (¬r ∧ ¬q) ∨ ((¬r ∧ ¬r) ∧ p) associative law
≡ (¬r ∧ ¬q) ∨ (¬r ∧ p) idempotent law
≡ ¬r ∧ (¬q ∨ p) distributive law
≡ ¬r ∧ (p ∨ ¬q) commutative law

p.2 9, icon at Example 6


#2. Here is a newspaper headline:
“Legislature Fails to Override Governor’s Veto of Bill to Cancel Sales Tax Reform.”
Did the legislature vote in favor of or against sales tax reform?
See Solution
Solution:
The issue is sales tax reform, so we let s stand for “sales tax reform is supported”. We unravel the negatives
one at a time. The bill to cancel sales tax reform is ¬s, and the governor’s veto of this bill is ¬¬s. Overriding
this would be ¬¬¬s, and failing to override is ¬¬¬¬s. Therefore, using the double negation law twice, the
headline ¬¬¬¬s is equivalent to s, and hence the Legislature supports sales tax reform.

p.2 9, icon at Example 6


#3. Suppose you want to prove a theorem of the form p → (q ∨ r). Prove that this is equivalent to showing
that (p ∧ ¬q) → r.
See Solution
Solution:
We will give a proof by replacing the first statement by equivalent statements until finally the second
statement is obtained. (We will use the equivalence a → b ≡ ¬a ∨ b twice.)
p → (q ∨ r)≡ ¬p ∨ (q ∨ r)
≡ (¬p ∨ q) ∨ r
≡ ¬(p ∧ ¬q) ∨ r
≡ (p ∧ ¬q) → r.
We could also give a proof by constructing the truth table for each statement and showing that the two
statements have the same truth values.

p.2 9, icon at Example 6

2
#4. Write the statement p → (¬q ∧ r) using only the connectives ¬ and ∧.
See Solution
Solution:
We need to remove the implication sign. Note that an implication A → B is equivalent to ¬A∨B. Therefore,
we can rewrite p → (¬q ∧ r) as
¬p ∨ (¬q ∧ r).
De Morgan’s law will allow us to change this to an equivalent form without using ∨. Take De Morgan’s law
¬(A ∨ B) ≡ ¬A ∧ ¬B and negate both sides to obtain

A ∨ B ≡ ¬(¬A ∧ ¬B).

Using ¬p in place of A and ¬q ∧ r in place of B, we have

p → (¬q ∧ r) ≡ ¬p ∨ (¬q ∧ r) ≡ ¬(p ∧ ¬(¬q ∧ r)).

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy