Math 626 Autumn 2013 Solution Set # 2 p.

. 52 #1 (a) The connectives allowed are all that we need to use disjunctive normal form. So the easiest (although by no means the only) solution is to write the DNF for this function G, just by writing out the four inputs on which G gives the output T : (([((A) (B )) (C )] [((A) (B )) C ]) ([((A) B ) (C )] [(A (B )) (C )])). (b) This is harder, and there is no really obvious procedure to follow (except for systematically trying out every w built from A, B , and C which uses at most ve connective symbols and avoids and ). Here is one solution: ([(A (B C )) (B C )]). p. 52 #5 As suggested, we show that every w built from the sentence symbols A and B using only the connectives , , , , and + must have an even number of T s given by the four possible truth assignments for A and B . Base case: Suppose uses no connectives; say is the sentence symbol A. The four possible truth assignments are: 1 2 3 4 : : : : A T T F F B T F T F T T F F

There are exactly two T s in the column, and 2 is an even number, so this case works. The same holds if is the sentence symbol B . (Of course, the truth table is a bit dierent, but there are still exactly two T s in the column.) So the base case is nished. Inductive step: Suppose that for every w built from A and B using the given connectives at most n times (and using no other connectives), we know that there are an even number of T s among 1 (), 2 (), 3 (), 4 (). Let be built from A and B using the given connectives (n + 1) times. Now i ( ) = T and i ( ) = F for all i = 1, . . . , 4, so if is of either of these forms, then we have either 4 or 0 T s, respectively, without even using the inductive hypothesis. If is ( ) for some , then the inductive hypothesis for says that there are an even number b of T s among 1 ( ), 2 ( ), 3 ( ), 4 ( ).

But then 1 (), 2 (), 3 (), 4 () contains exactly (4 b) T s, and (4 b) is also even. Next we consider the case where is ( ). Again, the inductive hypothesis applies to both and . If i ( ) = T for all four assignments, then i ( ) = i ( ), which equals T for an even number of assignments. If i ( ) = F for all four assignments, then i ( ) is the opposite of i ( ), so i ( ) = T for an even number of assignments. The same analysis holds if either all i ( ) = T or all i ( ) = F . It only remains to consider the cases in which exactly two assignments make true and exactly two make true. So suppose that 1 ( ) = 2 ( ) = T (so 3 ( ) = 4 ( ) = F ). If 1 ( ) = 2 ( ) = T , then all i ( ) = T . If 1 ( ) = 2 ( ) = F , then all i ( ) = F . Otherwise exactly one of 1 ( ) and 2 ( ) is T . In this case two i ( ) are T , and the other two are F . So in each case we get an even number of T values. Moreover, the same happens if 1 ( ) = 3 ( ) = T and 2 ( ) = 4 ( ) = F , or if we have any other combination with exactly two T s among 1 ( ), 2 ( ), 3 ( ), 4 ( ). Finally we consider the case where is ( + ). But this is tautologically equivalent to (( )). By the discussion above, ( ) is T for an even number of i , and therefore so is its negation. This completes the inductive step, and so, by induction, the theorem holds. It follows that there is no way to build a w tautologically equivalent to (A B ) using only the given connectives, since (A B ) is true in three of the four assignments and false under 2 . Thus the given set of connectives is not complete. p. 52 #6 First, to see that the set S = {, , +} is complete, it suces to write a tautological equivalent of () which uses only these three connectives. This is readily done: the w (( ( + )) is true exactly when is false, since ( + ) is always false. Since () and ( ) can both be expressed using the connectives from S (the latter because itself is in S ), Theorem 15D, along with a lemma from class, shows that S is complete. Now S has seven proper subsets, but to show that they are all incomplete, it is sucient to show that each of S0 = {, +}, S1 = {, +}, and S2 = {, } is incomplete, since every other proper subset of S is a subset of one of these three sets. But S0 is incomplete, because in problem 5 above, we saw that the larger set { , , , , +} is incomplete. To see that S2 is incomplete, let be the truth assignment with (A) = T ,

and notice that every w built using only the sentence symbol A and the connectives and also has () = T . (This is an easy induction. If is a sentence symbol, then must be A, so () = (A) = T . If is ( ) or ( ), then by inductive hypothesis ( ) = ( ) = T , and so in both cases () = T as well.) Since (A) = F , no w built from A using and can be tautologically equivalent to (A), and so S2 is incomplete. Notice that the exact same argument as the preceding one (for S2 ) shows that the set {, } is incomplete as well. This seems irrelevant, but we now use it to show that S1 is incomplete. For every w built using only connectives from S1 , let be the w we get by replacing each sentence symbol in with its negation and replacing each in by and each + in by . This should remind you of p. 28, problem 9. As there, we show that, for every built from just S1 , and () are tautologically equivalent. When is either a sentence symbol or ( ), the argument is just as in problem 9. When is ( + ), is ( ), and each of the following is tautologically equivalent to the next: ( ) (( ) ( )) ( ) (( + )) ()

(by inductive hypothesis)

This completes the induction, showing that () and are indeed tautologically equivalent whenever is built just from + and . But now, if S1 were complete, then {, } would also be complete, by the following procedure. For each w , let be the w gotten by replacing every sentence symbol in by its negation. Then nd an which is tautologically equivalent to (( )) and uses only and + (using the assumption that S1 is complete). Next, note that would be a w built from negations of sentence symbols using only and . (That is, does use , but only in front of a sentence symbol, never in front of any more complicated w, and moreover, every sentence symbol in has a in front of it.) This is tautologically equivalent to (), by our argument above, hence tautologically equivalent to . Finally, if we remove one negation connective from each sentence symbol in each of and , we are left with tautologically equivalent formulas, one of which is just itself, and the other of which uses only and . Therefore, under the assumption that S1 is complete, the set {, } must also be complete. Since we saw above that this is not the case, S1 cannot be complete. Question: is there a quicker way to prove that S1 is incomplete? p. 53 #9 (a) The easiest solution is to nd a w in DNF which is tautologically equivalent to (A B C ), and then apply De Morgans Laws to (). First we recall that (A B C ) is an abbreviated version of (A (B C )), according to item 4 on p. 33. We call this w , and nd its values under all possible truth

assignments: A T T T T F F F F B T T F F T T F F C T F T F T F T F (B C ) (A (B C )) T T F F F F T T T F F T F T T F F T T F T F F T

So is tautologically equivalent to the DNF w: (A B C ) (A B C ) (A B C ) (A B C ). And ( ) is tautologically equivalent to the negation of this formula, which, using De Morgan, is in turn tautologically equivalent to: (A B C ) (A B C ) (A B C ) (A B C ). (Check this with a truth table!) (b) The same process can be applied to any w . By Corollary 15C, there exists a w in DNF tautologically equivalent to (). So is tautologically equivalent to ( ), and the result follows from: Lemma: The negation ( ) of a w in DNF is tautologically equivalent to some other w in CNF. Proof : Say that is the disjunction (1 k ), as on p. 49. Then ( ) is tautologically equivalent to (1 ) (2 ) (k ). But each i is a conjunction (i1 ini ), so each (i ) is tautologically equivalent to (i1 ) (i2 ) (ini ) and since each ij is either a sentence symbol or the negation of a sentence symbol, each (ij ) is either the negation of a sentence symbol, or else a double-negation, tautologically equivalent to the original sentence symbol. Substituting this all into the original equivalent for ( ) gives a w in CNF, as required. p. 54 # 12 We claim rst that no w built using only connectives from the set {, , } and the sentence symbols A and B can be true in exactly three of the four possible truth assignments on A and B . As usual, we prove this by induction on the number of connectives in . If contains no connectives, then is a sentence symbol, either A or B , and each of these is true in exactly two of 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 . (Truth assignments are the same as in p. 53 # 5 above.)

Now assume the statement for ws with at most n connectives, and let have (n + 1) connectives. If the last connective in is , then is true in all four assignments, and if the last connective in is , then is true in none of the four assignments. So we need only consider the case where is ( ), with and both satisfying the inductive hypothesis. Now if is true under at most two of the four assignments, then cannot be true in any more than those two. If is true under more than two assignments, then by inductive hypothesis is true in all four assignments, and so is true under precisely those assignments which satisfy . By inductive hypothesis, there cannot be exactly three of these, and so cannot be true in exactly three truth assignments. This completes the induction. Finally, the w (A B ) is true in exactly three of the four assignments 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , so it cannot be tautologically equivalent to any w built from A and B using only , , and . Thus {, , } is not a complete set.