(Note: Examples were taken from the book “ Discrete Mathematics with Applications”

by Kenneth Rosen and Discrete Mathematics: A Mathematical Reasoning by Susanna

Epp)
Topic 3: Logical Equivalence
• Definition
Two statement forms are called logically equivalent if, and only if, they have identical
truth values for each possible substitution of statements for their statement variables.
The logical equivalence of statement forms P and Q is denoted by writing P ≡ Q.
Two statements are called logically equivalent if, and only if, they have logically
equivalent forms when identical component statement variables are used to replace
identical component statements.

p q p∧q q∧ p
T T T T
T F F F
F T F F
F F F F
↑ ↑
p ∧ q and q ∧ p always
have the same truth
values, so they are
logically equivalent

Testing Whether Two Statement Forms P and Q Are Logically Equivalent

1. Construct a truth table with one column for the truth values of P and another
column for the truth values of Q.
2. Check each combination of truth values of the statement variables to see whether
the truth value of P is the same as the truth value of Q.
a. If in each row the truth value of P is the same as the truth value of Q, then P
and Q are logically equivalent.
b. If in some row P has a different truth value from Q, then P and Q are not
logically equivalent.

Double Negative Property: ∼(∼p) ≡ p

Construct a truth table to show that the negation of the negation of a statement is
logically equivalent to the statement, annotating the table with a sentence of explanation.

0
~p ~Gp )

T F T

T F
F
→
Example :Showing Nonequivalence
Show that the statement forms ∼(p ∧ q) and ∼p ∧ ∼q are not logically equivalent. Solution
This method uses a truth table annotated with a sentence of explanation.

p g np
-

g pig -
( Png) 712178

I T F F T F F
T F = T F T F
F T T F F T F

F F T T F T T
> (Png) and
nprtg
are not logically
Tautologies and Contradictions equivalent .

Tautology – is a statement form that is always true regardless of the truth values of
the individual statement substituted for its statement variables.

Contradiction – is the statement form that is always false regardless of the truth
values of the individual statement s substituted for its statement variables.

Contingency – is neither a tautology nor a contradictory.

Examples: Show that the following are tautology, contradictory and contingency
statements.
1. p v ~p
P np pvnp

T F T

F T T

.
: This is a tautology .
 2. p∧~p
0
up PMP This is a

T F F contradiction .

F T F

3. p→~p p up p→~p The> is a

1T F F
contingency
F T T

4. (~p ∧ q) ∧ (q → p)

◦
g~p~p.iq * → p trprq )1(q→p)
T T F F T F
T F F F T F
F T T T F F

F F T F T F

this is
a contradictory statement .

Example: Show that ¬(p ∨ q) and ¬p ∧ ¬q are logically equivalent

-

Solution:

P 78 P V8 - ( Pro) npr > g

TP

T T F F T F F

T F F T T F F
T T F F
F T F
F F T T F T T
the truth value )
since column 6 and column 7 have same ,

i. ~
( PVO) and >
prig
are
logically equivalent .
 This logical equivalence is one of the two De Morgan laws, shown in example above, named after
the English mathematician Augustus De Morgan, of the mid-nineteenth century.

Negations of And and Or: De Morgan’s Laws

Example: Applying De Morgan’s Laws than or

more 20016s
Write negations for each of the following statements: to
equal
.

=P
a. John is 6 feet tall and he weighs at least 200 pounds.
b. The bus was late or Tom’s watch was slow.
than too lbs
feet tall he less
a.) John not weighs
.

is a or

watch not slow

Tom's
was

late and
.

not
b) The bus was

Example: Show that p → q and ¬p ∨ q are logically equivalent.

They have
P G P TPVF P -2g
the same

T T F T T truth values ,

T F F F F : They are

F
T T T T logically
F F T J T equivalent .
 i
Example: Show that p ∨ (q ∧ r) and (p ∨ q) ∧ (p ∨ r) are logically equivalent. This is the
distributive law of disjunction over conjunction.
16 8 a 2
'

p g- ✓ Jnr pvlqrr) Prg Prr Cpvarlrlpvr)

T T T T T T T T

T T F F T T T T

T F T F T T T T

T F F F T T T T

F T T T T T T T
T F F
F F T F F
F F T F
F T F
F
F F F F F F F F
 TABLE 6 Logical Equivalences. TABLE 7 Logical Equivalences
Involving Conditional Statements.
Equivalence Name
p∧T≡p Identity laws p → q ≡ ¬p ∨ q t
p ∨ F ≡ p✓
r ee
p → q ≡ ¬q → ¬p
-

p∨T≡T Domination laws p ∨ q ≡ ¬p → q

p∧F≡F p ∧ q ≡ ¬(p → ¬q)

p∨p ≡p Idempotent laws ¬(p → q) ≡ p ∧ ¬q

p∧p ≡p (p → q) ∧ (p → r) ≡ p → (q ∧ r)

¬(¬p) ≡ p Double negation law (p → r) ∧ (q → r) ≡ (p ∨ q) → r

(p → q) ∨ (p → r) ≡ p → (q ∨ r)
p∨q ≡q ∨p Commutative laws
p∧q ≡q ∧p (p → r) ∨ (q → r) ≡ (p ∧ q) → r

(p ∨ q) ∨ r ≡ p ∨ (q ∨ r) Associative laws
(p ∧ q) ∧ r ≡ p ∧ (q ∧ r)

p ∨ (q ∧ r) ≡ (p ∨ q) ∧ (p ∨ r) Distributive laws TABLE 8 Logical

p ∧ (q ∨ r) ≡ (p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r) Equivalences Involving
Biconditional Statements.
¬(p ∧ q) ≡ ¬p ∨ ¬q De Morgan’s laws
p ↔ q ≡ (p → q) ∧ (q → p)
¬(p ∨ q) ≡ ¬p ∧ ¬q ~
•
p ↔ q ≡ ¬p ↔ ¬q
p ∨ (p ∧ q) ≡ p Absorption laws
p ↔ q ≡ (p ∧ q) ∨ (¬p ∧ ¬q)
p ∧ (p ∨ q) ≡ p

€
¬(p ↔ q) ≡ p ↔ ¬q
p ∨ ¬p ≡ T Negation laws
-
p ∧ ¬p ≡ F

Example: Show that ¬(p → q) and p ∧ ¬q are logically equivalent without using truth
table.

Gp g)
7-1
✓ → Table
Solution: + p → ( g)
7
=
Demonym's
I ? tip ) 17g →

→ Double
I P ^ →
g Negation
 Example: Show that ¬(p ∨ (¬p ∧ q)) and ¬p ∧ ¬q are logically equivalent by developing
a series of logical equivalences.

-
( pv fiprq) ) =
rip prq)
> De thorgan 's
= -
p
^
! tip) ✓ a
g)
Double negation
= ^ (P ✓ > g) -

p
Distributive
-

✗ Pnp ) g)
-

= Gpa
negation
v >

Gpr g)
-

☒ ✓ >

'

-
Identity laws

= 7PM q

Example: Show that (p ∧ q) → (p ∨ q) is a tautology without using truth table.

Solution:
Cpr g) I (png) v ( pvq)
Cpr g)
→ >

g) ✓ (Pro)
pv
-

tip up )
v frqvq)
=
ATE ① Table 7. I

≤ $-0T ✓
② De
Morgan 's
= Mt ③ Associative
④ Negation laws
ARGUMENT

Argument – In mathematics and logic an argument is not a dispute. It is a sequence of

statements ending in a conclusion.

Valid argument – no matter what particular statements is substituted for the statement
variables in its premises, if the resulting premises are all true, then the conclusion is
also true.

Testing the validity of the argument

1. Identify the premises and the conclusion of the argument form.

2. Construct a truth table showing and identify the critical. The critical row is where
all the truth value of the premises is true.
3. If one of the critical rows has false, conclusion then the argument is invalid.
Example. Determine if the argument is valid.

p → q ∨ ∼r
q → p∧r
∴ p→r

Solution:
P q r >
rqv
-
r
prr p -7 qrtr q → prr p→r

T T T F T T T T T
T T F T T F T F F
T F T F F T F T T

T F F T T F T T
⊕
FT T F T F T F T

F T F T T F T F T

f- F T F F F T T T
F F F T T F T T T
valid
The argument is not
Rules of Inference

Modus Ponens ( Law of Detachment)

Given the form

If p then q.
p
∴q
If the first premise is true and then the second premise is detached from the
hypothesis of the second first premise, then it is safe to conclude p.

p -7g -
q P→q*r qq
Example:
T T T t T
If it is raining, then the ground is wet. P
T T F
It is raining. : .
T
T F

F T T F T

∴ the ground is wet

______________________ F F T F F

Example: 7 Tr
→
If it is raining, then the ground is wet. p q
The ground is wet.

∴ ________________________ ÷
no
conclusion
 ?r"
A
→
Modus Tollens: (Method of denying) p q
i.
If it is raining, then the ground is wet.
The ground is not wet.
It is not
∴ _________________________
raining

Additional Valid Argument Forms: Rules of Inference

Generalization: These forms of logic are used to make generalizations. For example,
according to the first statement, if p is true, then more generally, "p or q" is true for any
other statement q.
'

.
=
Suppose you're given the job of counting the upperclassmen at your school as an
example. You are wondering what class Anton is in, and they say he's a junior.

Anton is a Junior

-
? Anton is a
Junior or a senior

Specialization. r

For example, suppose you are looking for someone who knows the graph algorithms to
work on a project with you. You find that both numerical analysis and graph algorithms
are common to Ana.
-

Ana know } numerical analysis and

graph algorithms

-
'

.
Ana knws graph algorithm
Elimination. Such ways of logic claim that when you only have two options and you can
rule out one, the other must be the case.

i
For example, suppose you know that for a given number x,
x−5=0 or -
x+3=0.
If x is not negative, then x is not equal to -3
-

✗ -5=0
∴ __________________________

Transitivity (Chain Rule)

Many arguments in mathematics contain chains of if-then statements. From the fact that
one statement implies a second and the second implies a third, you can conclude that
the first statement implies the third.

Here is an example:

If a figure is a triangle then the figure is a polygon.

If a figure is a polygon then it has straight edge.

∴ ___________________________________________

example:
If 18,486 is divisible by 18, then 18,486 is divisible by 9.
If 18,486 is divisible by 9, then the sum of the digits of 18,486 is divisible by 9.

∴ _____________________________________________

Proof by Division into Cases: It often happens that you know one thing or another is
true. If you can show that in either case a certain conclusion follows, then this conclusion
must also be true.

Example:
x is positive or x is negative.
If x is positive, then x2 > 0.
If x is negative, then x2 > 0.

∴ ______________________________