Implications & Equivalences between Statements

Proofs & Fundamentals

October 2020

1 The Basic Implications

Implication is defined as the case when statement P → Q is a tautology. The following implications are used
extensively (in order of simplicity).
1. Modus Ponens:
(P → Q) ∧ P =⇒ Q

2. Modus Tollens:
(P → Q) ∧ ¬Q =⇒ ¬P

3. Simplification 1 :
P ∧ Q =⇒ P

4. Simplification 2 :
P ∧ Q =⇒ Q

5. Addition 1 :
P =⇒ P ∨ Q

6. Addition 2 :
Q =⇒ P ∨ Q

7. Modus Tollendo Ponens 1 :

(P ∧ Q) ∧ ¬P =⇒ Q

8. Modus Tollendo Ponens 2 :

(P ∧ Q) ∧ ¬Q =⇒ P

9. Biconditional-Conditional 1 :
P ↔ Q =⇒ P → Q

10. Biconditional-Conditional 2 :
P ↔ Q =⇒ Q → P

11. Conditional-Biconditional :
(P → Q) ∧ (Q → P ) =⇒ P ↔ Q

12. Hypothetical Syllogism:

(P → Q) ∧ (Q → R) =⇒ P → R

13. Constructive Dilemma:

(P → Q) ∧ (R → S) ∧ (P ∨ R) =⇒ Q ∨ S

1
2 The Basic Equivalences
An Equivalence between two statements are reached when statement P ↔ Q is a tautology. Refer below for
some basic equivalences that will be useful in proofs (in order of simplicity).
1. Double Negation:
¬(¬P ) ⇔ P

2. Commutative Law 1 :
P ∨Q⇔Q∨P

3. Commutative Law 2 :
P ∧Q⇔Q∧P

4. Associative Law 1 :
(P ∨ Q) ∨ R ⇔ P ∨ (Q ∨ R)

5. Associative Law 2 :
(P ∧ Q) ∧ R ⇔ P ∧ (Q ∧ R)

6. Distributive Law 1 :
P ∧ (Q ∨ R) ⇔ (P ∧ Q) ∨ (P ∧ R)

7. Distributive Law 2 :
P ∨ (Q ∧ R) ⇔ (P ∨ Q) ∧ (P ∨ R)

8. Unnamed 1 :
P → Q ⇔ ¬P ∨ Q

9. ? Contrapositive:
P → Q ⇔ ¬Q → ¬P

10. Unnamed 2 :
P ↔Q⇔Q↔P

11. ? Unnamed 3 :
P ↔ Q ⇔ (P → Q) ∧ (Q → P )

12. ? De Morgan’s Law 1 :

¬(P ∧ Q) ⇔ ¬P ∨ ¬Q

13. ? De Morgan’s Law 2 :

¬(P ∨ Q) ⇔ ¬P ∧ ¬Q

14. ? Unnamed 4 :
¬(P → Q) ⇔ P ∧ ¬Q

15. ? Unnamed 5 :
¬(P ↔ Q) ⇔ (P ∧ ¬Q) ∨ (¬P ∧ Q)

? - Signifies the results reader might have used in past unknowingly.