137 views

Uploaded by Anonymous nRgQtis

Just some notes

- Lec 05 Logic
- Electronics Tutorial (Good)
- 0136141390_Ch08_08 (1)
- MTK3013-Chapter1.1 Propositional Logic
- lec1
- Logic GatesMdSaifAhmed
- SELF POSSIBILITY OF CONVERSION OF A FALSE STATEMENT INTO A TRUE STATEMENT AND SELF POSSIBILITY OF CONVERSION OF A TRUE STATEMENT INTO A FALSE STATEMENT. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SIMILAR STATEMENTS AND SAME STATEMENTS.
- Lect W02 Chp 02b Propositional
- Boolean Algebra
- A. G. Hamilton - Logic for Mathematicians (1988, Cambridge University Press)
- Adders
- Restall2002.pdf
- CE02SL.pdf
- Aethena Script Commands
- tennant_igpl2002.pdf
- bdd
- Meaning, Presuppositions, Truth-relevance, Gödel's Theorem and the Liar Paradox
- slides-08
- Taller Matematica Discreta
- VARZI - Modal Logic - Class Notes

You are on page 1of 8

A Comprehensive Overview

e-jja

Ryerson University

Preface

Welcome students, this is going to be a written guide from the perspective of a student. From this, you

will be able to learn the basics of the course. This was primarily done to improve my writing while trying

to create something useful. I may never use these notes again, but they are really pretty. Please follow

along with these notes, and mark any corrections as I am only human.

1

Chapter 2.1

Definition: A statement is anything that is True or False

• 3·2=1

Notice the statement above does not need to be correct, but it has to have a defined state of true or false.

By this logic, we know that any expressions such as 2x + 1 = 4 are not statements as they are true for

some values of x and are false for others. Similarly, any question is not a statement as we cannot answer

it with true or false.

• X is greater than Y

• He is not a student

A compound statement is constructed with multiple statements joined by operators such as “not”, “and”,

“or”, “if then”. In order to simply logic, we use variables like p, q, and r to represent statements. This is

useful for compound statements as we are able to break up the problems into smaller pieces.

In other words if p is true, then ¬p is false. If you have use logic gates, it is similar to a not gate.

p ¬p

T F

F T

Definition: The conjunction of p and q; denoted by p ∧ q; is True if and only if both p and q are True.

In other words, it’s similar to an and gate. If either p or q is false or both are false then p ∧ q is false.

Remember, in the English language, “but” means “and”. For example, Tom is a student but he is not

smart.

p q p∧q

T T T

T F F

F T F

F F F

2

For example, we have already seen conjunctions in math:

a≤x≤b means a ≤ x and x ≤ b

But this is not a statement since we said that statements cannot have variables.

Definition: The disjunction of p and q; denoted by p ∨ q; is True if and only if both p and q are False.

A disjunction is also known as inclusive or. This makes sense, as the output is false if p or q is true, or

both.

p q p∨q

T T T

T F T

F T T

F F F

Definition: The conditional statement of q by p; denoted p =⇒ q; is False iff p is True and q is False.

Notice that the phase “if and only if” is shortened to iff. In the conditional statement p =⇒ q, we refer

to p as the hypothesis and q as the conclusion. Notice that if you have a False hypothesis, your conclusion

True or False, will always be true. But if your hypothesis is True, then your conclusion has to be True.

p q p =⇒ q

T T T

T F F

F T T

F F T

Now that we have developed a few basic ways to speak mathematically, we will try to focus our attention

on finding the truth tables for two statements.

(p ∨ q) ∧ ¬(p ∧ q)

First set up the input statements and their various states and solve the statement in pieces.

T T T F T F

T F F T T T

F T F T T T

F F F T F F

An important note to keep in mind is the order of operations: brackets, negation, conjunction, disjunction,

conditional. In a more simple manner, if we think of logic gates it is: brackets (), not ¬, and ∧, or ∨,

implies =⇒ .

3

(p ∧ q) ∨ (¬r)

Notice for this we have 3 inputs. Therefore, we known that there will be a total of 23 different combinations

in our truth table.

p q r p∧q ¬r (p ∧ q) ∨ (¬r)

T T T T F T

F T T F F F

T F T F F F

F F T F F F

T T F T T T

F T F F T T

T F F F T T

F F F F T T

Definition: Two statements are logically equivalent if their truth tables match on input and output.

¬(¬p) and p

p ¬p ¬(¬p) p

T F T T

F T F F

Notice that the columns are identical for ¬(¬p) and p. Therefore, ¬(¬p) ≡ p. The triple line equal sign is

use to show logical equivalence.

p q ¬(p ∨ q) ¬p ∧ ¬q

T T F F

T F F F

F T F F

F F T T

Therefore we see in the truth table that the columns are identical for ¬(p ∨ q) and ¬p ∧ ¬q. Notice, this

is the use of DeMorgan’s Law,“

¬(p ∨ q) ≡ ¬p ∧ ¬q

• ¬(p ∧ q) ≡ ¬p ∨ ¬q

• ¬(p ∨ q) ≡ ¬p ∧ ¬q

4

For DeMorgan’s Law, it’s easier to think of negation acting as a linear operator, and it returns the inverse

of any operator. If L is a linear operator, then L(x + y) = Lx + Ly. Similarly, if L was a linear operator

which returns an inverse operator, L(x + y) = Lx − Ly.

p q ¬p p =⇒ q ¬p ∨ q

T T F T T

T F F F F

F T T T T

F F T T T

Therefore, we have shown p =⇒ q ≡ ¬p ∨ q. This logical equivalence allows us to switch between the two

compound statements without restriction.

Definition: A tautology is a statement that is always True regardless of truth table input. Represented

by t.

Simple example of tautological statements is p ∨ ¬p.

p ¬p p ∨ ¬p

T F T

F T T

Definition: A contradiction is a statement which is always False regardless of truth table input. Rep-

resented by c.

Simple example of a contradictory statement is p ∧ ¬p

p ¬p p ∧ ¬p

T F F

F T F

T T T T T F F T

F T F T F F F F

From this, we find p ∧ t ≡ p, p ∧ c ≡ c, p ∨ t ≡ t, and p ∨ c ≡ p. There are more logical equivalences which

are commonly used, they are tabulated on the following page.

5

Given any statement variables p, q, r, a tautology t and a contradiction c, the following logical equivalences

hold,

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)

Identity Laws p∨t≡p p∧c≡p

Negation Laws p ∨ ¬p ≡ t p ∧ ¬p ≡ c

Double Negative Law ¬(¬p) ≡ p

Idempotent Laws p∧p≡p p∨p≡p

Universal Bound Laws p∨t≡t p∧c≡c

De Morgan’s Laws ¬(p ∧ q) ≡ ¬p ∨ ¬q ¬(p ∨ q) ≡ ¬p ∧ ¬q

Absorption Laws p ∧ (q ∨ r) ≡ p p ∨ (q ∧ r) ≡ p

Negations of t and c ¬t ≡ c ¬c ≡ t

p ∨ (p ∧ q)

(p ∨ p) ∧ (p ∨ q)

p ∧ (p ∨ q)

p ∧ (p ∨ q) ≡ p ∨ (p ∧ q)

We applied the distributive law which will be shown later in order to rearrange the statement. Using a

truth table we can show the absorption equivalence is true,

p q p∧q p ∨ (p ∧ q)

T T T T

T F T T

F T T F

F F F F

p =⇒ q ≡ ¬p ∧ q.

p =⇒ (q ∨ r) ≡ (p =⇒ q) ∨ (p =⇒ r)

¬p ∧ (q ∨ r) ≡

(¬p ∧ q) ∨ (¬p ∧ r) ≡

(p =⇒ q) ∨ (p =⇒ r) ≡

6

Verify the following logical equivalence,

((¬p ∧ q) ∨ ¬p) ∧ ((¬p ∧ q) ∨ ¬q) ≡

¬p ∧ (¬q ∨ (¬p ∧ q)) ≡

¬p ∧ ((¬q ∨ ¬p) ∧ (¬q ∨ q)) ≡

¬p ∧ ((¬q ∨ ¬p) ∧ t) ≡

¬p ∧ (¬q ∨ ¬p) ≡

¬p ≡ ¬p

Therefore, we have shown they are equivalent. Now we can introduce the idea of contrapositive, converse,

and inverse of a statement.

• The contrapositive of p =⇒ q is ¬q =⇒ ¬p

• The converse of p =⇒ q is q =⇒ p

• The inverse of p =⇒ q is ¬p =⇒ ¬q

Things to remember,

p =⇒ q ≡ ¬q =⇒ ¬p

p =⇒ q 6≡ q =⇒ p ≡ ¬p =⇒ ¬q

q =⇒ p ≡ ¬p =⇒ ¬q

As an additional note, you must remember that the negation of a conditional statement cannot begin with

an “if”

¬(p =⇒ q) = ¬(¬p ∨ q) = p ∧ ¬q

- Lec 05 LogicUploaded byRicky Repol
- Electronics Tutorial (Good)Uploaded byikasetyo
- 0136141390_Ch08_08 (1)Uploaded byDiane Pachao
- MTK3013-Chapter1.1 Propositional LogicUploaded byGetsi Jebamalar GJ
- lec1Uploaded byssambangi555
- Logic GatesMdSaifAhmedUploaded bymdkaifahmed
- SELF POSSIBILITY OF CONVERSION OF A FALSE STATEMENT INTO A TRUE STATEMENT AND SELF POSSIBILITY OF CONVERSION OF A TRUE STATEMENT INTO A FALSE STATEMENT. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SIMILAR STATEMENTS AND SAME STATEMENTS.Uploaded byAHLUSSUNNAH WAL JAMAA"AH [ASHA:'IRAH & MATURIDIYAH]
- Lect W02 Chp 02b PropositionalUploaded bySoleh My
- Boolean AlgebraUploaded byronwithfun
- A. G. Hamilton - Logic for Mathematicians (1988, Cambridge University Press)Uploaded byEmanuel Pontoni
- AddersUploaded bynoput
- Restall2002.pdfUploaded byYo Heijn
- CE02SL.pdfUploaded byjhon
- Aethena Script CommandsUploaded byCyr Evaristo Franco
- tennant_igpl2002.pdfUploaded byJoseph Vidal-Rosset
- bddUploaded byPratiksha Bothara
- Meaning, Presuppositions, Truth-relevance, Gödel's Theorem and the Liar ParadoxUploaded byX.Y. Newberry
- slides-08Uploaded bydon
- Taller Matematica DiscretaUploaded byAndres Felipe Benavides Montoya
- VARZI - Modal Logic - Class NotesUploaded byBósforo González

- acustica auditorioUploaded byMaria Del Pilar Vivas
- Time Travel and VedasUploaded byraviam
- Mountain Scouting FarrrichUploaded byHPFlashman
- NI Vision 8.2.1 Development ModuleUploaded byJossuarmm
- Dear Mr. Kilmer - Main CharacterUploaded byNoor Diana
- California Regs Conservation of Geothermal ResourcesUploaded byAlan Bailey
- Facility Perspectives v2#4 December 2008Uploaded byExecutive Media
- DH.pdfUploaded byMadalina Costache
- Asvaghosas GoldUploaded byNicolae George
- Growing-Orchids_Perlite.pdfUploaded bySatyanneshi ER
- How the Drums Talk and ParallelUploaded bySharon Baker
- Science Final Exam Review PacketUploaded byMoni Moore
- Layouts With Razor MVCUploaded byMohit Vaidh
- Organized Group a Central ServicesUploaded bydrramanareddy
- PsoriasisUploaded byAjayGupta
- Aguirre vs Rana _ BM 1036 _ June 10, 2003 _ JUploaded byjam1020va
- Broiler Farming Project ReportUploaded bySourabh Thakral
- Parts of a PleadingUploaded byMark Josep Reyes Perez
- Proverb and IdiomsUploaded bymail2sivaz
- Implementing Change: Change Management, Contingency, & Processual ApproachesUploaded bySyed Umair Anwer
- Entering the Serial Number Profile in the Material Master RecordUploaded byNaviin
- Aguinaldo vs CIR #Tax-1Uploaded byEarl Tagra
- RTS PMR Question Bank Chapter 24 2008Uploaded byiwan93
- dr. A. Hadi, Asam BasaUploaded byandi supriadi
- Artificial Light; A Narrative Inquiry Into the Nature of Abstraction, Immediacy, And Other Architectural Fictions by Keith MitnickUploaded byGraphic Kerdsup
- grantproposalUploaded byapi-278734738
- Updated free Belmont Stakes 2018 past performancesUploaded byJonathan
- United States v. Mark Anthony Dacres, Jr., 11th Cir. (2015)Uploaded byScribd Government Docs
- 3 -- Reading Comprehension PassagesUploaded bystocks301
- Outcomes Based EducationOBE REPORTUploaded byangelito