0 Up votes0 Down votes

1 views9 pagesGraph Theory

Jul 01, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

Graph Theory

© All Rights Reserved

1 views

Graph Theory

© All Rights Reserved

- Dynamic Trading
- Discrete Mathematics Lecture Slides
- Semantics Assignment Final
- EJ1142227
- Leaving Loneliness a Workbook
- Essential of Trading
- 209 0809F L02 Section01 02 Conditional Propositions and Logical Equivalence Notes
- Cs2351 Artificial Intelligence 2 Marks
- DSGT-unit1
- mathematical-reasoning
- Mathematics Mathematical Reasoning
- twos-company-the-humbug-of-many-logical-values.pdf
- 1
- Lecture 1- 5
- Frankfurt -- Philosophical Certainty -- The Philosophical Review -- V71n3pp303-327
- 2-sat e-maxx ru (english translated)
- neuroling_6.pdf
- lsj.pdf
- Renko Ashi Trading System 2
- Alzheimers Biomarkers

You are on page 1of 9

Let p(x) & Q(x) be open statement defined for a given universe..

Logical equivalence

The two statement p(x) & Q(x) are said to be logically equivalent

then p(a) Q(a) is true for each replacement a from the universe.

Then we write

( x) ( P(x) Q(x))

Logical Implication

If the implication p(a) -> Q(a) is true for each a in the universe

then we write ( x) ( P(x) => Q(x)) and we say that p(x) logically implies

Q(x).

Converse , Inverse and Contrapositive of a statement of the form ,

( x) ( P(x)-> q(x))

The converse of ( x) ( p(x) -> q(x)) is ( x) ( p(x) -> q(x)).

Inverse : ( x) ( p(x) -> q(x))

Contrapositive: ( x) ( q(x) -> p(x))

Important Equivalences:

The statements ( x) ( P(x)-> Q(x)) and its contrapositive ( x)

( p(x) -> q(x)) are logically equivalent.

i.e ( x) ( P(x)-> Q(x)) <==> ( x) ( Q(x) -> P(x))

further, converse & inverse statements are logically equivalent.

i.e ( x) (Q(x)->p(x)) <= = > ( x) ) ( P(x) -> Q(x)).

Problems:

1.

Proof:

Assume that ( x) (p(x) q(x)) is true.

There is atleast one element c in the universe for which p(c)

q (c) is true.

But , p(c) q(c) => p(c)

From the truthe of p (c) we have the true statement ( x) (p(x) an another

true statement similarly, we obtain true statement ( x) (q(x).

( x) (p(x) ( x) q(x)) is also true statement.

Hence ( x) (p(x) ( x) q(x)) is true wherever ( x) (p(x) q(x)) is true, it

follows that

( x) (p(x) q(x)) => ( x) (p(x) ( x) q(x) .

Note:

In a similar way, we can show that , ( x) (p(x) q(x)) => ( x)

(p(x) ( x) q(x)) is a valid statement & so we have,

( x) (p(x) q(x)) =>( x) (p(x) ( x) q(x)).

2) Prove that

a)

[ ( x) p(x) v ( x) q(x)] -> [ p(x)vq(x)] is logically valid.

b)

Also show by counter examples

( x) [p(x) v q(x)] -> ( x) p(x) v ( x) q(x) is not valid.

Proof:

Suppose that, ( x) p(x) v ( x) q(x) is true.

one of the statements ( x) p(x) & ( x) q(x) must be true.

If ( x) p(x) is true , then for every element a in the universe p(a) is true

& hence p(a) v q(a) is true.

a)

element a in the universe.

In both the cases, p(a) v a(a) true for all elements a in the

universe.

[( x) p(x) v q(x)] is true and hence,

b)

Now consider,

( x) [p(x)vq(x)] , where p(x) : s is even integer & q(x): x is a prime integer

& the universe of discause {2,4,6,3,7}.

For this universe, the statement

( x) [p(x)vq(x)] is true.

But both ( x) p(x) &( x) q(x) are not true .

To show ( x) [p(x)vq(x)] is true while

( x) p(x) V ( x) q(x) is not true.

( x) [ p(x) v q(x)] -> [( x) p(x) v ( x) q(x)]

Is not a valid statement.

3.show that

equivalent.

Soln:

To show those are not logically equivalent,

Let p(x) : x is positive &

Q(x) : x is negative

With universe of discause: The set of integers.

Then x p(x) x Q(x) is true but

x ( p(x) Q(x)) is false.

Soln:

Assume that x p(x) v x q(x) is true.

Case (i)

x p(x) is true & xq(x) is true.

( x) [ p(x) v q(x)] is true.

Case (ii)

x p(x) is true &

( x) [ p(x)

v q(x)] is true.

Case (iii)

x p(x) is false & xq(x) is true

For every a in the universe of p(a) is false & q(a) is true & therefore

p(a)vq(a) is true.

x

[p(x) v q(x)] is true statement.

x p(x)

form ( x) A( x) and ( x) B(x).

Soln:

Let A(x): x A, B(x):xB

Since A & B are non-empty ( x) A( x) & ( x) B(x) are both true.

But ( x)[ A( x) B(x)] is false since AB =

... ( x)[ A( x) B(x)] need not be a conclusion from ( x) A( x) &( x)

B(x).

Equivalences

1. (x) [A(x) v B(x) ] (x) A(x) v (x) B(x)

2. (x) [A(x) B(x)] (x) A(x) (x) B(x)

3. (x) A(x) (x) A(x)

4. (x) A(x) (x) A(x)

5. (x) [A v B(x) ] A v (x) B (x)

6. (x) [A B (x) ] A (x) B(x)

7. (x) A(x) B (x) (A(x) B)

8. (x) A(x) B (x) (A(x) B)

9. A (x) B(x) (x) (A B(x))

10. A (x) B(x) (x) (A B(x))

Implications

1. (x) A(x) v (x) B(x) (x) [ A(x) v B(x)]

2. (x) [A(x) B(x)] (x) A(x) (x) B(x)

3. [B-> A(x)] [ B-> (x)A(x)]

variable.

For any set of open statements in the variable x & for

prescribed universe, we have the following logical implications &

equivalences.

2. ( x) (p(x) v q(x) ) ( x) p(x) v ( x) q(x)

3. ( x) [p(x) q(x)] ( x) p(x) ( x) q(x)

4. ( x) p(x) v ( x) q(x) ( x) [p(x)vq(x)]

5. ( x) [p(x) q(x) r(x)] ( x) [(p(x) q(x)] r(x)]

6. (x) [p(x)->q(x)] (x) ( p(x) v q(x))

7. ( x) ( p(x)) ( x) p(x)

8. ( x) (p(x) Q(x)) ( x) ( p(x) v Q(x)

9. ( x) (p(x) v Q(x)) ( x) ( p(x) Q(x)

10.( x) [p(x)->Q(x)] [( x) p(x) ->( x) Q(x)]

The following rules are used for negative statements with one

quantities.

1.

2.

3.

4.

(x) p(x)) ( x) ( p(x))

( (x) p(x)) ( x) (p(x))

PROBLEM:

1. Prove that [( x) p(x) -> Q(x) ] ( x) [p(x) Q(x)]

Sol:

[( ) p(x) -> Q(x)] ( x) [p(x) -> Q(x)]

( x) [p(x) -> Q(x)]

Note:

( x) [R(x) S(x)] [ x] [R(x) S(x)]

[ x) [ R(x) S(x)]

1.

2.

3.

4.

( x) [p(x) Q(x)]

( x) [P(x) Q(x)]

( x) [P(x) -> Q(x)]

( x) [p(x)vQ(x) -> R(x)]

Soln:

1. ( x) [p(x) Q(x)]

Negation of the statement is

( x) [p(x) Q(x)] ( x) [ p(x) v Q(x)]

( x) [ p(x) Q(x)]

2. (( x) [p(x) Q(x)]

( x) [p(x) Q(x)]

( x) ( p(x) Q(x))

( x) [ (p(x) v Q(x))

[( x) [ p(x) -> Q(x)] ]

( x) [(p(x) -> Q(x)]

( x) [ (p(x) v Q(x)]

( x) [(p(x) v Q(x)]

4. ( x) [(p(x) v Q(x) -> R(x)]

( x) [ p(x) v Q(x) R(x)]

( x) [p(x) v Q(x) R (x)]

i) ( x) p(x) ( x)q(y)

v) (( x U) (x+6=25)

vi) ( x U) (x<25)

Sol:

[( x)p(x) ( y) q(y)]

<-> [( x) p(x)] v [( y) q(y)]

i)

[( x) p(x) ( x) q(y)]

< == > [( x) p(x)] v [( x )q(y)]

ii)

iii)

iv)

v)

( x) p(x) ( y) q(y)

( x) p(x) ( x) q(y)

( x U) (x+6 25)

whether

the

resulting

statement

is

true

or

flase.

Assume that the universe of discourse is the set of all real

number.

i)

( x) ( m) (x2<m)

ii)

( m) ( ( x) (x2 m)

Sol:

(i)

meaning of ( x) ( m) is that there exist some real number x

such that x2 m for every real number m.The statement is false as

there is some real number x such that (x2 m) for every m is not

possible.

[( m) ( x) (x2<m)] is ( m)( x) (x2 m ).

The meaning of this statement is that for every real number m,

there exists some real number x such (x2 m). The statement is

true as for every m, there exists some greatest real number x

such that (x2 m ).

(ii)

5.

number. Using quantifiers, express the following statement.

(i)

3 is irrational

(ii) Subtraction of any two rational number is rational

Sol:

(i)

(ii)

(x) (y) [(x-y) is rational]

- Discrete Mathematics Lecture SlidesUploaded byhatetheschool
- Semantics Assignment FinalUploaded byHon Kin Ho
- EJ1142227Uploaded byDea RusTam
- 209 0809F L02 Section01 02 Conditional Propositions and Logical Equivalence NotesUploaded byscenaria
- Cs2351 Artificial Intelligence 2 MarksUploaded bycute_guddy
- DSGT-unit1Uploaded byMs.K. Kusumalatha
- mathematical-reasoningUploaded byapi-19625511
- Mathematics Mathematical ReasoningUploaded byshamim2608
- twos-company-the-humbug-of-many-logical-values.pdfUploaded byWalter Carnielli
- 1Uploaded byYasmeen El-Kholy
- Lecture 1- 5Uploaded byJosah Carla Carbungco Macaraig
- Frankfurt -- Philosophical Certainty -- The Philosophical Review -- V71n3pp303-327Uploaded byDick Dick
- 2-sat e-maxx ru (english translated)Uploaded byLeandro Vianna
- neuroling_6.pdfUploaded byAnia
- lsj.pdfUploaded byJosé Manuel Niño

- Dynamic TradingUploaded byJon Jijong
- Renko Ashi Trading System 2Uploaded bytuneraxxx
- Leaving Loneliness a WorkbookUploaded byJon Jijong
- Alzheimers BiomarkersUploaded byJon Jijong
- Essential of TradingUploaded bysoumya ranjan panda
- Stock Market TradingUploaded bybothernolonger
- Warehouse EssentialsUploaded byJon Jijong
- IndicatorsUploaded byvvenu_chowdary
- Candlestick PatternsUploaded byekdownload
- Graph Theory Session 2Uploaded byJon Jijong
- Ryan Jones - Money ManagementUploaded byPhong Ta
- Graph TheoryUploaded byJon Jijong
- Graph Theory - Session 36Uploaded byJon Jijong
- Graph Theory SESSION_5Uploaded byJon Jijong
- SESSION_4Uploaded byJon Jijong
- Graph Theory Session_-_2 (1)Uploaded byJon Jijong
- Session_-_3 (1)Uploaded byJon Jijong
- Graph Theory Session 33Uploaded byJon Jijong
- Graph Theory Session 28Uploaded byJon Jijong
- Graph Theory Session 34Uploaded byJon Jijong
- Graph Theory Session 26Uploaded byJon Jijong
- Graph Theory Session 27Uploaded byJon Jijong
- Session 38Uploaded byJon Jijong
- Graph Theory Session 35Uploaded byJon Jijong
- Graph Theory Session 37Uploaded byJon Jijong
- Graph Theory Session 1Uploaded byJon Jijong
- Graph Theory SESSION_7Uploaded byJon Jijong
- Graph Theory SESSION_6Uploaded byJon Jijong

- chapter 2 unit plan geometryUploaded byapi-252175882
- C1U2LomcUploaded bySadeep Madhushan
- Mladen Dolar "Where Does Power Come From"Uploaded bySharika Thiranagama
- Dm ReviewerUploaded byAlyssa Karla Nortez Apura
- 07_Fuzzy_Systems.unlocked.pdfUploaded byKristin Gay
- math 100 docUploaded byWinnie Mutuku
- G8DLL_Q2W8_LC36-37Uploaded byJavier Sebog Chanielou
- Algebraic Logic and Algebraic MathematicsUploaded byalex_az
- Propositions and LawsUploaded byジェシー
- Rules of InferenceUploaded byprakash
- Logic GateUploaded byAkihiko Jiraiya Nelvin
- MMW Language Sets and LogicUploaded byTriphon Gyle Balidiong
- SME1 Wks3-8Uploaded byErin Gallagher
- mhtcet-iseet-mathematics-book.pdfUploaded byCarl Luke
- Phil12 W10 Conditional Statement Valid Arguments(1!11!2010)Uploaded byJohnnyBernales
- Lecture on fuzzy logic controlUploaded byHEMANT KUMAR
- Discrete Mathematics_An Open Introduction - Oscar LevinUploaded byprashantnasa
- MATH 10 REVIEWER.docxUploaded byFelix Michael Toothless
- Hector-Neri_Castañeda thinking and doingUploaded byAndrés Serrano
- LegTech ReviewerUploaded byMaris Gabornes
- Introduction to LogicUploaded byLen-Len Cobsilen
- Language_Proof and LogicUploaded byLucian Dabuleanu
- 2-sat e-maxx ru (english translated)Uploaded byLeandro Vianna
- 4. BCS2213 - Introduction to TLAUploaded byChian Soonkai
- 310 Artificial IntelligenceUploaded bykaidy
- 07Uploaded bySayeth Saabith
- Math ReasoningUploaded bykumaravello
- encyclopediadefilosofia.pdfUploaded byEleanna Delusion
- ch1-1Uploaded bychunnan_hung
- Legtech SummaryUploaded bysofia

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.