Propositional Equivalences

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Propositional Equivalences
Advertisements

CSE 311: Foundations of Computing Fall 2013 Lecture 3: Logic and Boolean algebra.
© by Kenneth H. Rosen, Discrete Mathematics & its Applications, Sixth Edition, Mc Graw-Hill, 2007 Chapter 1: (Part 2): The Foundations: Logic and Proofs.
Goals Determine the true value of statements with AND, OR, IF..THEN. Negate statements with the connectives above Construct truth tables Understand when.
Propositions and Connectives Conditionals and Bi-conditionals Quantifiers.
Uses for Truth Tables Determine the truth conditions for any compound statementDetermine the truth conditions for any compound statement Determine whether.
1 CA 208 Logic PQ PQPQPQPQPQPQPQPQ
1 CA 208 Logic Ex4 Commutativity (P  Q)  Associativity P  (Q  R)  (P  Q)  R Distributivity P  (Q  R)  Idempotency.
1 Section 1.2 Propositional Equivalences. 2 Equivalent Propositions Have the same truth table Can be used interchangeably For example, exclusive or and.
First Order Logic. Propositional Logic A proposition is a declarative sentence (a sentence that declares a fact) that is either true or false, but not.
CSE 311 Foundations of Computing I Autumn 2011 Lecture 2 More Propositional Logic Application: Circuits Propositional Equivalence.
Propositional Equivalence Goal: Show how propositional equivalences are established & introduce the most important such equivalences.
Rosen 1.6. Approaches to Proofs Membership tables (similar to truth tables) Convert to a problem in propositional logic, prove, then convert back Use.
Discrete Mathematics Goals of a Discrete Mathematics Learn how to think mathematically 1. Mathematical Reasoning Foundation for discussions of methods.
CSci 2011 Discrete Mathematics Lecture 3 CSci 2011.
Mathematical Structures A collection of objects with operations defined on them and the accompanying properties form a mathematical structure or system.
Propositional Equivalences
The Foundations Logic and Proofs by raedRASHEED 2014.
Lecture 1.2: Equivalences, and Predicate Logic* CS 250, Discrete Structures, Fall 2011 Nitesh Saxena *Adopted from previous lectures by Cinda Heeren, Zeph.
September1999 CMSC 203 / 0201 Fall 2002 Week #1 – 28/30 August 2002 Prof. Marie desJardins.
Section 1.2: Propositional Equivalences In the process of reasoning, we often replace a known statement with an equivalent statement that more closely.
Logical Form and Logical Equivalence M Logical Form Example 1 If the syntax is faulty or execution results in division by zero, then the program.
Chapter 1: The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
Chapter 1: The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
What is Reasoning  Logical reasoning is the process of drawing conclusions from premises using rules of inference.  These inference rules are results.
UMBC CMSC 203, Section Fall CMSC 203, Section 0401 Discrete Structures Fall 2004 Matt Gaston
CSci 2011 Recap ^Propositional operation summary not andorconditionalBi-conditional pq ppqqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpq TTFFTTTT TFFTFTFF FTTFFTTF FFTTFFTT.
Symbolic Logic The Following slide were written using materials from the Book: The Following slide were written using materials from the Book: Discrete.
Mathematics for Computing Lecture 2: Computer Logic and Truth Tables Dr Andrew Purkiss-Trew Cancer Research UK
Spring 2003CMSC Discrete Structures1 Let’s get started with... Logic !
Mathematics for Comter I Lecture 3: Logic (2) Propositional Equivalences Predicates and Quantifiers.
 To combine propositions using connectives  To construct the truth table of a given compound proposition  To define de Morgan Law for logic  To define.
Law of logic Lecture 4.
 Conjunctive Normal Form: A logic form must satisfy one of the following conditions 1) It must be a single variable (A) 2) It must be the negation of.
2. The Logic of Compound Statements Summary
Propositional Equivalences
The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
Advanced Algorithms Analysis and Design
CSE15 Discrete Mathematics 01/23/17
Lecture 03 Logic and Propositional Calculus Profs. Koike and Yukita
Citra Noviyasari, S.Si, MT
Logical Equivalence of Propositions
CSE 311 Foundations of Computing I
(CSC 102) Discrete Structures Lecture 2.
Discussion #10 Logical Equivalences
CSE 2353 – September 4th 2002 Logic.
Discrete Mathematics Lecture # 2.
Discrete Structures for Computer Science
Chapter 8 Logic Topics
Administrivia Course Web:
1.2 Propositional Equivalences
Propositional Equivalences
CS100: Discrete structures
Propositional Equivalence (§1.2)
CS 220: Discrete Structures and their Applications
CSE 311 Foundations of Computing I
Propositional Equivalences
CSE 311 Foundations of Computing I
CSE 311 Foundations of Computing I
CSS 342 Data Structures, Algorithms, and Discrete Mathematics I
Lecture 2: Propositional Equivalences
Discrete Mathematics Lecture # 3.
CSE 321 Discrete Structures
1.2 Propositional Equivalences
1.2 Propositional Equivalences
Logic Logic is a discipline that studies the principles and methods used to construct valid arguments. An argument is a related sequence of statements.
Discrete Structures Prepositional Logic 2
A THREE-BALL GAME.
The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
Concepts of Computation
Presentation transcript:

Propositional Equivalences Section 1.2

Example You cannot ride the roller coaster if you are under 4 feet tall unless you are older than 16 years old.

Basic Terminology A tautology is a proposition which is always true. p  p A contradiction is a proposition that is always false. p  p A contingency is a proposition that is neither a tautology nor a contradiction. p  q  r

Logical Equivalences Two propositions p and q are logically equivalent if they have the same truth values in all possible cases. Two propositions p and q are logically equivalent if p  q is a tautology. Notation: p  q or p  q

Determining Logical Equivalence Use a truth table. Show that (p  q) and p  q are logically equivalent. Not a very efficient method, WHY? Solution: Develop a series of equivalences.

Important Equivalences Identity p  T  p p  F  p Domination p  T  T p  F  F Idempotent p  p  p p  p  p Double Negation ( p)  p

Important Equivalences Commutative p  q  q  p p  q  q  p Associative (p  q)  r  p  (q  r) (p  q)  r  p  (q  r) Distributive p  (q  r)  (p  q)  (p  r) p  (q  r)  (p  q)  (p  r) De Morgan’s (p  q)  p  q (p  q)  p  q

Important Equivalences Absorption p  (p  q)  p p  (p  q)  p Negation p  p  T p  p  F

Example Show that (p  (p  q)) and p  q are logically equivalent.

Important Equivalences Involving Implications p → q  p  q p → q   q →  p (p → q)  (p → r)  p → (q  r) (p → q)  (p → r)  p → (q  r) p↔ q  (p → q)  (q → p)

Example Show that (p  q)  (p  q) is a tautology.

Next Lecture 1.3 Predicates and Quantifiers