Week 2

Propositional Logic
Dr. Nehad Ramaha,
Computer Engineering Department
Karabük Universities 1
The class notes are a compilation and edition from many sources. The instructor does not claim intellectual property or ownership of the lecture notes.
 Because implication statements play such an
essential role in mathematics, a variety of
terminology is used to express p → q:
 “if p, then q”.
 “q, if p”.
 “p, only if q”.
 “p implies q”.
 “p is sufficient for q”.
 “q is necessary for p”.
 “q follows from p”.

2
 Example:
◦ Proposition p: Alice is smart.
◦ Proposition q: Alice is honest.
 p → q:
◦ That Alice is smart is sufficient for Alice to be honest.
◦ “Alice is honest” if “Alice is smart”.
 q → p:
◦ That Alice is smart is necessary for Alice to be honest.
◦ “Alice is honest” only if “Alice is smart”.

3
 Another binary operator bidirectional implication
↔: p↔q corresponds to p is T if and only if q is T.
 Example: A student gets A if and only if his
weighted total is ≥90%.
 Truth table for bidirectional implication:
p q p↔q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F T 4
 Actually, Exclusive Or ⨁ operator can be
expressed by using other operators:
◦ p ⨁ q is the same as : ¬ (p↔q).
 Truth table for XOR operator:
p q p⨁q
T T F
T F T
F T T
F F F
5
 Operator Precedence
¬ 1
˄ 2
˅ 3
→ 4
↔ 5
 Example:
◦ ¬p ^ q means (¬ p) ^ q
◦ p ^ q → r means (p ^ q) →r

6
 Using the logic operators, we can construct more
complicated logical formulas. (They are called
compound propositions)
 Example:
◦ Proposition p: Alice is smart.
◦ Proposition q: Alice is honest.
 ¬p ^ q: Alice is not smart but honest.
 p ˅ (¬p ^ q): Either Alice is smart, or she is not
smart but honest.
 p→¬q: If Alice is smart, then she is not honest.

7
 We can also go in the other direction, translating
English sentences to logical formulas:
 Example:
◦ Proposition p: Alice is smart.
◦ Proposition q: Alice is honest.
 Alice is either smart or honest, but Alice is not
honest if she is smart:
◦ (p ˅ q) ^ (p →¬ q).
 That Alice is smart is necessary and sufficient for
Alice to be honest:
◦ (q → p) ^ (p → q). (This is often written as p ↔ q).

8
 Definitions:
◦ A compound proposition that is always True is
called a tautology.
◦ Two propositions p and q are logically equivalent if
their truth tables are the same.
◦ Namely, p and q are logically equivalent if p ↔ q is
a tautology, (q → p) ^ (p → q).
◦ If p and q are logically equivalent, we write p ≡ q.

9
 Example:
◦ Look at the following two compound propositions: p→q and q˅¬p.

p q p→q p q ¬p q∨¬ p
T T T T T F T
T F F T F F F
F T T F T T T
F F T F F T T

 The last column of the two truth tables are identical. Therefore
(p→q) and (q˅¬p) are logically equivalent.
 So (p→q) ↔ (q˅¬p) is a tautology.
 Thus: (p→q) ≡ (q˅¬p).

10
 Example:
◦ By using truth table, prove p ⨁ q ≡ ¬ (p ↔ q).
p q p⨁q p q (p ↔ q) ¬ (p ↔ q)
T T T T
T F T F
F T F T
F F F F

 Try at home, Exercises 1 to 6 (at page 34 of the

11
 We have a number of rules for logical
equivalence. For example: De Morgan Law
 De Morgan Law:
◦ ¬(p ˄ q) ≡ ¬ p ˅ ¬ q (1)
◦ ¬(p ˅ q) ≡ ¬ p ˄ ¬ q (2)
 The following is the truth table proof for (1).
p q p˄q ¬(p˄ q) p q ¬p ¬q ¬p˅¬q
T T T F T T F F F
T F F T T F F T T
F T F T F T T F T
F F F T F F T T T
12
 Distributivity lows:
◦ p ∧ (q ∨ r) ≡ (p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r) (1)
◦ p ∨ (q ∧ r) ≡ (p ∨ q) ∧ (p ∨ r) (2)

 The following is the truth table proof of (2). The proof of (1) is
similar.

13
 Contrapositives low:
◦ Contrapositive of p → q is ¬q → ¬p. They are logically equivalent.
◦ p → q ≡ ¬q → ¬p

 The following is the truth table proof of (1).

14
15
16
 By using these laws, we can prove two
propositions are logical equivalent.
 Example 1: Prove ¬ (p ˅ (¬p ˄ q)) ≡ ¬p ˄ ¬q.

and double negation low

Negation low

Identity low

17
Note: K→L ≡ ¬ K ˅ L

18
19