1

The Fundamentals of Logic

Propositional Equivalences
Credit
D. Fisher
Rosen
M. Nojoumian
Husni Al-Muhtaseb
 2
Propositional Equivalences
• Tautologies, Contradictions, and Contingencies.

• Logical Equivalence
• Important Logical Equivalences
• Showing Logical Equivalence

• Propositional Satisfiability

• Sudoku Puzzle
 3
Tautologies, Contradictions, and
Contingencies
• A tautology is a proposition which is always
true. Example: p ∨ ¬p
• A contradiction is a proposition which is
always false. Example: p ∧ ¬p
• A contingency is a proposition which is
neither a tautology nor a contradiction
Example: p p ¬p p ∨ ¬p p ∧ ¬p
F T T F
T F T F
 4
Logically Equivalent
• Two compound propositions r and s are
logically equivalent if r ↔ s is a
tautology.
• Denoted by r ⇔ s or as r ≡ s
where r and s are compound propositions.
• In other words, two compound propositions
r and s are equivalent if and only if the
columns in a truth table giving their truth
values agree.
 5
Logically Equivalent
• The following truth table shows r : ¬p ∨ q is
equivalent to s: p → q. (and s is Equivalent to r)
r= s=
p q ¬p ¬p ∨ q p → q r ↔ s
F F T T T T
F T T T T T
T F F F F T So r ≡ s
T T F T T T (r ⇔ s )
 6
De Morgan’s Laws
¬(p ∧ q) ≡ ¬p ∨ ¬q ¬p ∨ ¬q ≡ ¬(p ∧ q)
¬(p ∨ q) ≡ ¬p ∧ ¬q ¬p ∧ ¬q ≡ ¬(p ∨ q)
This truth table shows that De Morgan’s Second Law holds.
p q ¬p ¬q (p ∨q) ¬(p ∨q) ¬p ∧¬q
F F T T F T T
F T T F T F F
T F F T T F F
T T F F T F F
 7

Key Logical Equivalences

• Identity Laws: p∧T≡p p∨F≡p
p≡p∧T p≡p∨F
• Domination Laws: p ∨ T ≡ T p∧F≡F
T≡p∨T F≡p∧F
• Idempotent laws: p ∨ p ≡ p p∧p≡p
p≡p∨p p≡p∧p
• Double Negation Law: ¬(¬p) ≡ p
p ≡ ¬(¬p)
• Negation Laws: p ∨ ¬p ≡ T p ∧ ¬p ≡ F
T ≡ p ∨ ¬p F ≡ p ∧ ¬p
 8

Key Logical Equivalences (cont)

• Commutative Laws: p ∨ q ≡ q ∨ p
p∧q≡q∧p
• Associative Laws: (p ∨ q) ∨ r ≡ p ∨ (q ∨ r)
(p ∧ q) ∧ r ≡ p ∧ (q ∧ r)
• Distributive Laws: p ∨ (q ∧ r) ≡ (p ∨ q) ∧ (p ∨ r)
p ∧ (q ∨ r) ≡ (p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r)
• Absorption Laws: p ∨ (p ∧ q) ≡ p
p ∧ (p ∨ q) ≡ p
 9
Logical equivalences involving conditional statement
p → q ≡ ¬p ∨ q ¬(p → q) ≡ p ∧ ¬q
p → q ≡ ¬q → ¬p (p → q) ∧ (p → r) ≡ p → (q ∧ r)
p ∨ q ≡ ¬p → q (p → q) ∨ (p → r) ≡ p → (q ∨ r)
p ∧ q ≡ ¬(p → ¬q) (p → r) ∧ (q → r) ≡ (p ∨ q) → r
(p → r) ∨ (q → r) ≡ (p ∧ q) → r

¬p ∨ q ≡ p → q p ∧ ¬q ≡ ¬(p → q)
¬q → ¬p ≡ p → q p → (q ∧ r) ≡ (p → q) ∧ (p → r)
¬p → q ≡ p ∨ q p → (q ∨ r) ≡ (p → q) ∨ (p → r)
¬(p → ¬q) ≡ p ∧ q (p ∨ q) → r ≡ (p → r) ∧ (q → r)
(p ∧ q) → r ≡ (p → r) ∨ (q → r)
 10
Logical equivalences involving biconditionals
p ↔ q ≡ (p → q) ∧ (q → p)
p ↔ q ≡ ¬p ↔ ¬q
p ↔ q ≡ (p ∧ q) ∨ (¬p ∧ ¬q)
¬(p ↔ q) ≡ p ↔ ¬q
Review: List of Logical Equivalences 11

p  Tp ; p  F  p Identity Laws

p  T T ; p  F  F Domination Laws

p  p p ; p  p  p Idempotent Laws

(p)  p Double Negation Law

pqq p ; pq  q p Commutative Laws

(p  q)  r  p  (q  r) ; (p  q)  r  p  (q  r)
Associative Laws
 12
List of Equivalences
p  (q  r)  (p  q)  (p  r) Distribution Laws
p  (q  r)  (p  q)  (p  r)
(p  q)  (p  q) De Morgan’s Laws
(p  q)  (p  q)
p  p  T OR Tautology
p  p  F AND Contradiction
(p → q)  (p  q) Implication Equivalence
pq  (p → q)  (q → p) Biconditional Equivalence
 13
Constructing New Logical Equivalences
• We can show that two expressions are
logically equivalent by developing a
series of logically equivalent statements.
• To prove that A  B, we produce a series
of equivalences beginning with A and
ending with B. A  A1
A1  A2
AB .
.
.

An  B
 14
Equivalence Proofs
Example: Show that (p  (p  q))
is logically equivalent to (p  q)
Solution:
(p  (p  q))  p  (p  q) 2nd De Morgan L
 p  [(p )  q)] 1st De Morgan L
 p  (p   q) Double Negation L
 (p  p)  (p  q) 2nd Distribution L
 F  (p  q) (p  p)  F
 (p  q)  F Commutative L for Disjunction
 (p  q) Identity L for F
 15
Prove: p → q  q → p Contrapositive

p→q
 p  q Implication Equivalence
p → q ≡ ¬p ∨ q
 q  p Commutative
 (q)  p Double Negation
 q → p Implication Equivalence
 16
Prove: (p  q)  q  p  q
(p  q)  q Left-Hand Statement
 q  (p  q) Commutative
 (q  p)  (q  q) Distributive
 (q  p)  T OR Tautology
qp Identity
pq Commutative
Begin with exactly the left-hand side statement
End with exactly what is on the right
Justify EVERY step with a logical equivalence
 17
Prove: p  q  p  q
p  q p ↔ q ≡ (p → q) ∧ (q → p)
 (p → q)  (q → p) Biconditional Equivalence
 (p  q)  (q  p) Implication Equivalence (twice)
p → q ≡ ¬p ∨ q
 (p  q)  (q  p) Double Negation
 (q  p)  (p  q) Commutative twice
 (q  p)  (p  q) Double Negation
 (q → p)  (p → q) Implication Equivalence (twice)
 (p → q)  (q → p) Commutative
 p  q Biconditional Equivalence
 18
Why do I have to justify everything?
• Note that your operation must have the same
order of operands as the rule you quote unless
you have already proven that order is not
important (and cite the proof) .
3+4=4+3
3/44/3
A * B  B * A for everything (for example, matrix
multiplication)
 19
Propositional Satisfiability
• A compound proposition is satisfiable if there is an
assignment of truth values to its variables that make it
true. When no such assignments exist, the compound
proposition is unsatisfiable.

• A compound proposition is unsatisfiable if and only if its

negation is a tautology.
 20
Propositional Satisfiability
Example: Determine the satisfiability of the following
compound propositions:
(p ∨￢q) ∧ (q ∨￢r) ∧ (r ∨￢p)
Solution: Satisfiable. Assign T to p, q, and r.
(p ∨ q ∨ r) ∧ (￢p ∨￢q ∨￢r)
Solution: Satisfiable. Assign T to p and F to q.
(p ∨￢q) ∧ (q ∨￢r) ∧ (r ∨￢p) ∧ (p ∨ q ∨ r) ∧ (￢p ∨￢q ∨￢r)
Solution: Unsatisfiable – Find out. Hint
(p ∨￢q) ∧ (q ∨￢r) ∧ (r ∨￢p) and (p ∨ q ∨ r) ∧ (￢p ∨￢q ∨￢r) must both be true. For the first to be true, the three variables
must have the same truth values, and for the second to be true, at least one of three variables must be true and at least one
must be false. However, these conditions are contradictory. From these observations we conclude that no assignment of truth
values to p, q, and r makes the compound proposition true. Hence, it is unsatisfiable.
 21

• Notation:
• ‫=𝑗ڀ‬1 𝑝𝑗 is used for p1  p2  …  pn
𝑛

• 𝑛
‫=𝑗ٿ‬1 𝑝𝑗 is used for p1  p2  …  pn
 22

Credit D. Fisher
 23
Sudoku puzzle
• A Sudoku puzzle is represented by a 9 × 9 grid made up
of nine 3 × 3 subgrids, known as blocks.
• For each puzzle, some of the 81 cells, called givens, are
assigned one of the numbers 1, 2, . . . , 9, and the other
cells are blank.
• The puzzle is solved by assigning a number to each blank
cell so that every row, every column, and every one of the
nine 3 × 3 blocks contains each of the nine possible
numbers.
• Note that instead of using a 9 × 9 grid, Sudoku
puzzles can be based on n2 × n2 grids, for any
positive integer n, with the n2 × n2 grid made up
of n2 subgrids (n × n) .
Easy 4 by 4 puzzle

4 3 1 2
2 1 3 4
3 2 4 1
1 4 2 3
24
Easy 4 by 4 puzzle

3 1 4 2
4 2 3 1
1 3 2 4
2 4 1 3
25
Easy 4 by 4 puzzle

4 1 2 3
2 3 1 4
3 2 4 1
1 4 3 2
26
Easy 4 by 4 puzzle

3 1 4 2
4 2 3 1
2 3 1 4
1 4 2 3
27
 4 by 4 puzzle

1 3 4 2
2 4 3 1
4 1 2 3
3 2 1 4
28
 4 by 4 puzzle

2 3 4 1
4 1 3 2
3 2 1 4
1 4 2 3
29
 4 by 4 puzzle

3 1 4 2
4 2 3 1
1 3 2 4
2 4 1 3
30
 4 by 4 puzzle

1 4 2 3
3 2 4 1
4 1 3 2
2 3 1 4
31
 9 6 2 7
4 3 8 6
8 1 9 2
1 5 8 3 4 9
7 9
9 8 6 5 1 3
5 9 7 3 2
9 6 4 8
4 2 1 5
32
5 9 3 8 6 2 1 4 7
7 2 4 1 5 3 9 8 6
6 8 1 9 7 4 2 3 5
1 5 8 3 4 9 7 6 2
3 7 6 5 2 1 4 9 8
2 4 9 7 8 6 5 1 3
8 1 5 6 9 7 3 2 4
9 6 2 4 3 5 8 7 1
4 3 7 2 1 8 6 5 9
33
 34
Sudoku and logic?
• Let p(i, j, n) denote the proposition asserting
that the cell in row i and column j has the
value n column 1 column 2 column 3 column 4
p(1, 3, 1) p(1, 1, n1) row 1
p(1, 4, 2) p(1, 2, n2)
p(2, 1, 2) p(1, 3, n3)
row 2

--- p(1, 4, n4) row 3

p(4, 4, 3) row 4
n1 + n2 + n3 + n4 = 10