APPORTIONMENT

- distributing something proportionally to different groups.

Hamilton Method (used 1850-1900)

1. Compute the standard divisor, d = total population/total number of seats

2. Compute the standard quota for each state, Q = state’s population/d
3. Round each state’s standard quota Q down to the nearest integer. Each state will get at least this many seats, but
must get at least one.
4. Give any additional seats one at a time (until no seats are left) to the states with the largest fractional parts of their
standard quotas

Hamilton Method in Action (Alabama + D.C)

Alabama:

1. Standard divisor,

d = total population/house seats

d = 320,820,975/435

d = 737,519.46

2. Alabama Standard Quota,

Q = state population/d

Q = 4,802,982/737,519.48

Q = 6.51

3. Round Q down to nearest integer (must be at least 1)

New Q = 6

D.C.:

1. Total population/house seats

d = 737,519.48

2. D.C. Standard Quota

Q = state population/d

Q = 601,723/737,519.48

Q = 0.82

3. Round Q down to nearest integer (must be at least 1)

New Q = 0 (must be at least 1 though!)

New Q = 1
Hamilton Method Example:

Suppose that the Province of Tarlac will be sending 40 trucks to selected Towns of the Province to be used by
participants in the parade of the Founding Anniversary Celebration of the Province. Determine the apportionment of the
trucks using Hamilton Method.

Town Participants Standard Quota Lower Quota (round Final

down) Apportionment
Anao 135 7.7143 7 +1 8
San Jose 78 4.4571 4 +1 5
Lapaz 200 11.4286 11 11
Gerona 90 5.1429 5 5
Paniqui 77 4.4000 4 4
Camiling 120 6.8571 6 +1 7
Total 700 37 40

Trucks to be used in the parade: 40

Standard Divisor: 17.5

1. Standard Divisor: Total/trucks (700/40 = 17.5)

2. Standard Quota: divide Participants to SD (135/17.5 = 7.7142) – 4 decimal places
3. Lower Quota: round down (wag pansinin ang decimal places at kunin lang ang whole number) then total it.
4. If lower quota doesn’t get 40: add 1 to high decimal places to get 40
5. Final Apportionment: check lower quota

Jefferson Method (used 1790-1840)

1. Compute md, the modified divisor.

2. Compute mQ, the modified quota for each state. mQ = state’s population/md
3. Round each state’s modified quota mQ down to the nearest integer.
4. Give each state this integer number of seats.

Jefferson Method in Action (Alabama + D.C.)

Alabama:

1. Modified divisor (a number I made up)

md = 739,000

2. Modified Quota,

mQ = state pop/md

mQ = 4,802,982/739,000

mQ = 6.499

3. Round mQ down to nearest integer

New Q = 6
D.C.:

1. Total pop/house seats

md = 739,000

2. D.C. Modified Quota

mQ = state pop/md

mQ = 601,723/739,000

mQ = 0.82

3. Round Q down to nearest integer

New Q = 0

Uh oh! Jefferson Method doesn’t work too well

Jefferson Method MSD<SD

Town Participants Modified Standard Lower Quota (round Final

Quota down) Apportionment
Anao 135 8.4375 8 8
San Jose 78 4.8750 4 4
Lapaz 200 12.5000 12 12
Gerona 90 5.6250 5 5
Paniqui 77 4.8125 4 4
Camiling 120 7.5000 7 7
Total 700 40 40

Trucks to be used in the parade: 40

Standard Divisor: 17.5

MSD (modified standard divisor): 16

1. Modified Standard Quota: divide participants by MSD (135/16 = 8.4375)

2. Lower Quota: get the whole number
3. Final Apportionment: get the whole number
Adam’s Method

Steps:

1. Compute md, the modified divisor.

2. Compute mQ, the modified quota for each state.
3. Round each state’s modified quota mQ up to the nearest integer.
4. Give each state this integer number of seats.

Adam’s Method MSD>SD

Town Participants Modified Standard Upper Quota Final

Quota Apportionment
Anao 135 7.0130 8 8
San Jose 78 4.0519 5 5
Lapaz 200 10.3896 11 11
Gerona 90 4.6753 5 5
Paniqui 77 4.0000 4 4
Camiling 120 6.2338 7 7
Total 700 40 40

Trucks to be used in the parade: 40

Standard Divisor: 17.5

MSD (modified standard divisor): 19.25

1. Modified Standard Quota: divide participants by MSD (135/19.25 = 7.0130)

2. Upper Quota: plus 1 to the whole number part of MSD
3. Final Apportionment: get the whole number
Webster Method (1840 – 1850; 1910 – 1940)

Steps:

1. Compute md, the modified divisor

2. Compute mQ, the modified quota for each state

mQ = state’s population/md

3. Round each state’s modified quota mQ up to the nearest integer if its fractional part is greater than or equal to .5
and down to the nearest integer if its fractional part is less than .5
4. Give each state this integer number of seats

Webster Method MSD<>SD

Town Participants Modified Standard Rounded Value Final

Quota Apportionment
Anao 135 7.7810 8 8
San Jose 78 4.4957 4 4
Lapaz 200 11.5274 12 12
Gerona 90 5.1873 5 5
Paniqui 77 4.4380 4 4
Camiling 120 6.9164 7 7
Total 700 40 40

Trucks to be used in the parade: 40

Standard Divisor: 17.5

MSD (modified standard divisor): 17.35

1. Modified Standard Quota: divide participants by MSD (135/19.25 = 7.0130)

2. Rounded Value: round off the whole number (< or >= 5)
3. Final Apportionment: get the rounded value
Huntington-Hill Method (1940 – present)

Steps:

1. Compute md, the modified divisor

2. Compute mQ, the modified quota for each state
3. Take two integers, one is mQ rounded up, the other is mQ rounded dow. Take geometric mean (square root of
mQ1*mQ2). If mQ is less than geometric mean, round down. If mQ is greater than it, round up.
4. Give each state this integer number of seats

Huntington-Hill Method in Action (Alabama and D.C.)

Alabama:

1. Modified divisor (a number I made up)

md = 745,000

2. Modified Quota,

md = state pop/md

md = 4,802,982/745,000

md = 6,446

3. Round mQ down and up to nearest integer

New Q = 6/7

4. Geometric mean = sqrt(6*7) = 6.46

mQ < Geometric mean, so we round down

5. Reps = 6

D.C.:

1. Total pop/ house seats

md = 745,000

2. Modified Quota,

mQ = state pop/md

mQ = 601,723/745,000

mQ = 0.808

3. Round Q down and up to nearest integer

New mQ = 0/1

4. Geometric mean = sqrt(0*1) = 0

mQ>Geometric mean, so we round up

5. Reps = 1
Huntington-Hill Method

Town Participants Modified Lower Upper Geometric SQ>=GM (rndup)

Standard Quota Quota Quota Mean SQ<GM (rndwn)

Rounded Value
Anao 135 7.7542 7 8 7.48331 8
San Jose 78 4.4802 4 5 4.47214 5
Lapaz 200 11.4877 11 12 11.48913 11
Gerona 90 5.1694 5 6 5.47723 5
Paniqui 77 4.4227 4 5 4.47214 4
Camiling 120 6.8926 6 7 6.48074 7
Total 700 40

Trucks to be used in the parade: 40

Standard Divisor: 17.5

MSD (modified standard divisor): 17.41

1. Modified Standard Quota: divide participants by MSD (135/17.41 = 7.7542)

2. Lower Quota: get the whole number
3. Upper Quota: plus 1 to the whole number part of MSD or Lower Quota
4. Geometric Mean: multiply lower quota by upper quota and take the square root of the product
5. Rounded Value: If MSQ>=GM (roundup); MSQ<GM (rundown)
PARADOX OF APPORTIONMENT

• These flaws apply only to Hamilton’s method and do not apply to Jefferson’s, Webster’s, or Adam’s method
• In 1980, the Balinski and Young’s Impossibility Theorem stated that there is no perfect apportionment method that
satisfies the quota rule and avoids any paradoxes.

ALABAMA PARADOX (using Hamilton’s)

• Alabama Paradox – an increase in the number of available items causes a group to lose an item (even though
populations remain the same)

10 seats 11 seats
State Pop Quota Initial Final Quota Initial Final
X 6 4.286 4 4 4.714 4 5
Y 6 4.286 4 4 4.714 4 5
Z 2 1.429 1 +1 2 1.571 1 1
Total 14 10 9 10 11 9 11

POPULATION PARADOX (using Hamilton’s)

Population Paradox – Group A can lose an item to group B even when the rate of growth of the population of Group A is
greater than in Group B.

State Pop 2000 Quota Initial Final Pop 2010 Quota Initial Final
X 5300 3.383 3 +1 4 6800 3.627 3 3
(^28%)
Y 9900 6.319 6 6 12500 6.667 6 7
(^26%)
Z 22400 14.298 14 14 25700 13.707 13 14
(^15%)
Total 37600 24 23 24 45000 24 22 24

NEW STATES PARADOX

New States Paradox – the addition of a new group, with a corresponding increase in the number of available items, can
cause a change in the apportionment of items of among the other groups.

Pop Quota Initial Final

Dist X 10450 10.45 10 10
Dist Y 89550 89.55 89 +1 90
Total 100000 100 99 100

Pop Quota Initial Final

Dist X 10450 10.43 10 11
Dist Y 89550 89.34 89 89
Dist A 5250 5.24 5 5
Total 105250 105 104 105
VOTING

Voting is a sacred right and power that citizens in democratic country exercise to select their leaders. But it is sometimes
hard to understand why the best candidates do not always win elections. In 1992, former President Fidel V. Ramos won
the Presidential election not because he was popular but because he gained the most number of votes in an election
based on plurality. In plurality voting, it is possible to elect someone who has less than majority support.

THE PLURALITY METHOD

• Each voter votes for one candidate and the candidate with the most votes win.
• The winning candidate does not need to have a majority of the votes. Majority vote means over 50% of the people
voting must vote for the candidate.
• In case of a tie, a special runoff election may be held. If votes are ranked, the candidate with the greatest number
of first-place votes is declared the winner.
• Alternative choices are not considered in this method; hence its extent is somewhat limited.

PLURALITY WITH ELIMINATION METHOD (WITHOUT RANK)

• Each person votes for a candidate.

• If a candidate receives a majority of votes, that candidate is declared the winner.
• If no candidate receives a majority of votes, then the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and a new
election is held.
• This process continues until receives a majority of votes.
• Limitation: Holding several expensive and time consuming.

PLURALITY WITH ELIMINATION METHOD (WITH RANK OR INSTANT RUNOFF METHOD)

• First, eliminate the candidate with the fewest number of first-place votes.
• If two or more of these alternatives have the same number of first-place votes, all are eliminated unless that would
eliminate all alternatives. In that case, a different method of voting must be used.
• Adjust the voter’s ranking of the remaining candidates.
• Repeat the same process of elimination and adjustment until only two candidates are left.
• The candidate with the majority of votes wins the election.

BORDA COUNT METHOD OF VOTING

• If there are n candidates or issues in an election, each voter ranks the candidates or issues by giving n points to
the voter’s first choice, n-1 points to the voter’s second choice, and so on, with the voter’s least choice receiving 1
point.
• The candidate or issue that receives the greatest total points is the winner.

PAIRWISE COMPARISON VOTING METHOD

• Each candidate is compared one-on-one with each of the other candidates (Head-to-Head Method)
• A candidate receives 1 point for a win, 0.5 points for a tie, and 0 points for a loss.
• The candidate with the greatest number of points wins the election.
PREFERENCE BALLOT

➢ A preference ballot is one where the voter ranks the choices of candidates in terms of partiality. It is considered
one of the best ways of ensuring that the most popular candidate wins by a majority vote.

People online ranked their preference of five contestants in a contest, using 1 for their favorite and five for their least
favorite. Results of the text votes were tailed below.

Contestant Rankings
Gloria 5 1 4 3 1
Joseph 4 5 1 2 2
Rodrigo 3 4 5 1 3
Ferdinand 2 3 2 5 4
Jerome 1 2 3 4 5
# of voters 140 98 50 175 49

Questions:

1. How many people voted? 140 + 98 + 50 + 175 + 49 = 512

2. How many people voted for contestants in the order of Rodrigo, Joseph, Gloria, Jerome, Ferdinand? 175
3. How many people picked Gloria as their first choice? 98 + 49 = 147
4. How many people picked Jerome as their first choice? 140

SOLUTION USING PLURALITY METHOD

• Each voter votes for one candidate and the candidate with the most votes wins.
• The winning candidate does not need to have a majority of votes. Majority vote means over 50% of the people
voting must vote for the candidate.
• In case of a tie, a special runoff election may be held. If votes are ranked, the candidate with the greatest number
of first-place votes is declared the winner.
• Alternative choices are not considered in this method; hence its extent is somewhat limited.

Contestant Rankings
Gloria 5 1 4 3 1
Joseph 4 5 1 2 2
Rodrigo 3 4 5 1 3
Ferdinand 2 3 2 5 4
Jerome 1 2 3 4 5
# of voters 140 98 50 175 49

Contestant First place votes

Gloria 98 + 49 = 147
Joseph 50
Rodrigo 175
Ferdinand 0
Jerome 140

Rodrigo wins the contest since he received 175 votes which is the most number of votes.
SOLUTION USING PLURALITY WITH ELIMINATION METHOD

• First, eliminate the candidate with the fewest number of first-place votes.
• If two or more these alternatives have the same number of first-place votes, all are eliminated unless that would
eliminate all alternatives. In that case, a different method of voting must be used.
• Adjust the voter’s rankings of the remaining candidates.
• Repeat the same process of elimination and adjustment until only two candidates are left.
• The candidate with the majority of votes wins the election.

Contestant Rankings
Gloria 5 1 4 3 1
Joseph 4 5 1 2 2
Rodrigo 3 4 5 1 3
Ferdinand 2 3 2 5 4
Jerome 1 2 3 4 5
# of voters 140 98 50 175 49

Ferdinand eliminated, make adjustments of the ranking.

Contestant Rankings
Gloria 4 1 3 3 1
Joseph 3 4 1 2 2
Rodrigo 2 3 4 1 3
Ferdinand 2 3 2 5 4
Jerome 1 2 2 4 4
# of voters 140 98 50 175 49

Contestant First place votes

Gloria 98 + 49 = 147
Joseph 50
Rodrigo 175
Jerome 140

Joseph eliminated, make adjustments of the rankings.

Contestant Rankings
Gloria 3 1 2 2 1
Joseph 3 4 1 2 2
Rodrigo 2 3 3 1 2
Ferdinand 2 3 2 5 4
Jerome 1 2 1 3 3
# of voters 140 98 50 175 49

Contestant First place votes

Gloria 98 + 49 = 147
Rodrigo 175
Jerome 140 + 50 = 190
Gloria eliminated, make adjustments of the rankings.

Contestant Rankings
Gloria 3 1 2 2 1
Joseph 3 4 1 2 2
Rodrigo 2 2 2 1 1
Ferdinand 2 3 2 5 4
Jerome 1 1 1 2 2
# of voters 140 98 50 175 49

Contestant First place votes

Rodrigo 175 + 49 = 224
Jerome 140 + 50 + 98 = 288

Majority = 512/2 = 256

288 is greater than majority of votes, thus Jerome wins the election.

SOLUTION USING BORDA COUNT METHOD

• If there are n candidates or issues in an election, each voter ranks the candidates or issues by giving n points to
the voter’s first choice, n-1 points to the voter’s second choice, and so on, with the voter’s least choice receiving 1
point.
• The candidate or issue that receives the greatest total points is the winner.

1 = 5 pts

2 = 4 pts

3 = 3 pts

4 = 2 pts

5 = 1 pts

Contestant Rankings
Gloria 5 1 4 3 1
Joseph 4 5 1 2 2
Rodrigo 3 4 5 1 3
Ferdinand 2 3 2 5 4
Jerome 1 2 3 4 5
# of voters 140 98 50 175 49

Contestant Points
Gloria 1 pts 5 pts 2 pts 3 pts 5 pts
Joseph 2 pts 1 pts 5 pts 4 pts 4 pts
Rodrigo 3 pts 2 pts 1 pts 5 pts 3 pts
Ferdinand 4 pts 3 pts 4 pts 1 pts 2 pts
Jerome 5 pts 4 pts 3 pts 2 pts 1 pts
# of voters 140 98 50 175 49
 Contestant Rankings Total
Gloria 1(140) 5(98) 2(50) 3(175) 5(49) 1(140) 1500
Joseph 2(140) 1(98) 5(50) 4(175) 4(49) 2(140) 1524
Rodrigo 3(140) 2(98) 1(50) 5(175) 3(49) 3(140) 1688
Ferdinand 4(140) 3(98) 4(50) 1(175) 2(49) 4(140) 1327
Jerome 5(140) 4(98) 3(50) 2(175) 1(49) 5(140) 1641
# of voters 140 98 50 175 49 140

Getting 1688 points using Borda Count Method, Rodrigo wins the contest.

SOLUTION USING PAIRWISE COMPARISON METHOD

• Each candidate is compared one-on-one with each of the other candidates (Head-to-Head Method)
• A candidate receives 1 point for a win, 0.5 points for a tie, and 0 points for a loss.
• The candidate with the greatest number of points wins the election.

Contestant Rankings
A. Gloria 5 1 4 3 1
B. Joseph 4 5 1 2 2
C. Rodrigo 3 4 5 1 3
D. Ferdinand 2 3 2 5 4
E. Jerome 1 2 3 4 5
# of voters 140 98 50 175 49

A vs B B vs C C vs D

A: 98 + 49 = 147 B: 50 + 49 = 99 C: 175 + 49 = 224

B: 140 + 50 + 175 = 365 (win) C: 140 + 98 + 175 = 413 (win) D: 140 + 98 + 50 = 288 (win)

A vs C B vs D C vs E

A: 98 + 50 + 49 = 197 B: 50 + 175 + 49 = 274 (win) C: 175 + 49 = 224

C: 140 + 175 = 315 (win) D: 140 + 98 = 238 E: 140 + 98 + 50 = 288 (win)

A vs D B vs E D vs E

A: 98 + 175 + 49 = 322 (win) B: 50 + 175 + 49 = 274 (win) D: 50 + 49 = 99

D: 140 + 50 = 190 E: 140 + 98 = 238 E: 140 + 98 + 175 = 413 (win)

A vs E

A: 98 + 175 + 49 = 322 (win)

E: 140 + 50 = 190
 Contestant # of points
A. Gloria II
B. Joseph III
C. Rodrigo II
D. Ferdinand I
E. Jerome II

Joseph wins contest, he got 3 points using Pairwise Method Comparison.

COMPARISON OF THE FOUR METHODS

Contestant Rankings
Gloria 5 1 4 3 1
Joseph 4 5 1 2 2
Rodrigo 3 4 5 1 3
Ferdinand 2 3 2 5 4
Jerome 1 2 3 4 5
# of voters 140 98 50 175 49

Method of Voting Winner

Plurality Rodrigo
Plurality with Elimination Jerome
Borda Count Rodrigo
Pairwise Comparison Joseph

If the results of the four methods of voting are look into, as shown in the table, it is seen how the winner varies from one
method to another.

FAIRNESS CRITERIA

Majority Criterion – the candidate who receives a majority of the first-place votes should be declared the winner.

Monotonicity Criterion – if the candidate A wins an election then candidate A will also win the election if the only change
in the voter’s preferences is that supporters of a different candidate change their votes to support candidate A.

Condorcet Criterion – if candidate X is favored when compared head-to-head (individually) with each of the other
candidates then candidate X should be declared the winner.

Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives – if a candidate wins an election, the winner should remain the winner in any
recount in which losing candidates withdraw from the race.

Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem – there is no voting method involving three or more choices that satisfies all four fairness
criteria
DISCRETE MATHEMATICS

I. Mathematical Logic

“Although mathematics is both a science and an art, special characteristics distinguish mathematics from the
humanities and other sciences. Particularly important is the kind of reasoning that typifies mathematics. The natural or social
scientist generally makes observations of particular cases or phenomena and seeks a general theory that describes or
explains the observations. This approach is called inductive reasoning, and it is tested by making further observations. If
the results are incompatible with theoretical expectations, the scientist usually must reject or modify his theory.
The mathematician, too, frequently uses inductive reasoning in attempting to describe patters and relationships
among quantities and structures. The characteristic thinking of the mathematician, however, is deductive reasoning, in which
one uses logic to draw conclusions based on statements accepted as true. The conclusions of a mathematician are proved
to be true, provided that assumptions are true. If a mathematical theory predicts results incompatible with reality, the fault
will lie not in the theory but with the inapplicability of the theory to that portion of reality. Indeed, the mathematician is not
restricted to the study of observable phenomena, even though mathematics can trace its development back to the need to
describe spatial relations (geometry), and motion (calculus) or to solve numerical problems (algebra). Using logic, the
mathematician can draw conclusions about any mathematical structure imaginable.”
The basics of logic and the idea of proof is important in many areas other than mathematics. For example, the
thought processes used to construct an algorithm for a computer program are much like those used to develop the proof of
a theorem.

Inductive reasoning is a method of drawing conclusions by going from the specific to the general. It's usually contrasted
with deductive reasoning, where you go from general information to specific conclusions. Inductive reasoning is also called
inductive logic or bottom-up reasoning.

Specific observation→
Pattern recognition→
General conclusion→

What is LOGIC?
Logic is an instrument for appraising the correctness of reasoning. One of the main aims of logic is to provide rules by which
one can determine whether any particular argument or reasoning is valid.

FUNDAMENTALS OF LOGIC

1. Proposition - a declarative statement that is either true or false, but not both.

Examples:
The square root of 2 is irrational.
1+1=5
In the year 2010, more Filipinos will go to Canada.
-5 75

Determine whether the statement is a proposition or not.

a. What is the value?
b. The square root of 25 is 6.
c. X = 8
d. This sentence is false.
e. Cats are animals.

Notation:
The truth values of propositions are:
1 or T for true
0 or F for false
Capital letters are used to denote propositions.
 2. Negation of a Proposition
- Formed by introducing the word “not” in a proper place in the proposition.

Suppose P is a proposition
¬P is the negation of P

Truth Table:
P ¬P

1 0

0 1

Examples:
It is not the case that the square root of 10 is greater than 4.
10 is not divisible by 2.

LOGICAL CONNECTIVES
Most mathematical statements are combinations of simpler statements, formed through some choice of the words
or, and, and not, or the phrase if – then, and if and only if.

3. Conjunction of Propositions
Definition: Let P and Q be propositions. The proposition “P and Q” denoted by P ˄ Q, is the proposition that is true
when both P and Q are true and is false otherwise. The proposition P ˄ Q is called the conjunction of P and Q.

Truth Table:
P Q P˄Q

1 1 1

1 0 0

0 1 0

0 0 0

Examples:
6<7 and 7<8
2 * 4 = 16 and a quart is larger than a liter

4. Disjunction

Definition: Let P and Q be propositions. The proposition “P or Q” denoted by P ˅ Q, is the proposition that is false
when both P and Q are false and is true otherwise. The proposition P ˅ Q is called the disjunction of P and Q.

Truth Table:
P Q P˅Q

1 1 1

1 0 1

0 1 1
 0 0 0

Examples:
Venus is smaller than earth or 1 + 4 = 5
The square root of 2 is less than the square root of 3 or chicken have wings.

5. Implication or Conditional Statement

Definition: Let P and Q be propositions. The implication P → Q is the proposition that is false when P is true and
Q is false. In this implication P is called the premise or the hypothesis, and Q is called the consequence or
conclusion.
(P → Q) read as:
o If P then Q
Truth Table:
P Q P→Q

1 1 1

1 0 0

0 1 1

0 0 1

Examples:
If triangle ABC is isosceles, then the base angles A and B are equal.
Mars has 10 moons implies that 1 + 1 = 2.
1 + 2 = 3 implies that 1<0.
If the sun shines tomorrow then I will play basketball.
If you get 100 in the final exam then you will pass the course.

Converse, Contra-positive and Inverse

There are some related implications that can be formed from p→q.

The proposition q→p is called the converse of p→q.

The proposition ¬q → ¬p is called the contra-positive of p→q.
The proposition ¬p → ¬q is called the inverse of p→q.

Examples:

“The price of crude oil goes up whenever the US goes to war”

Proposition in the if-then form:

“If the US goes to war, then the price of crude oil goes up”

Contra-positive: ¬q → ¬p

“If the price of crude oil does not go up, then the US does not go to war”
 Converse: q→p

“If the US goes to war, then the price of crude oil goes up”

Inverse: ¬p → ¬q

“If the price of crude oil does not go up, then the US does not go to war”

6. Bi-condition or Logical Equivalence

Definition: Let P and Q be propositions. The bi-conditional P ↔ Q is the proposition that is true when P and Q
have the same truth values.
(P ↔ Q) read as: P if and only if Q
(P ↔ Q) is equal to ((P → Q) ˄ (Q → P))

Truth Table:
P Q P→Q Q→P P↔Q
(P → Q) ˄ (Q → P)

1 1 1 1 1

1 0 0 1 0

0 1 1 0 0

0 0 1 1 1

Examples:
A rectangle is a square if and only if the rectangle’s diagonals are perpendicular.
5+6 = 6 and only if 7+1 = 10
7. Exclusive Or

Definition: Let p and q be propositions. The exclusive or of p and q denoted by p ⊕ q is the proposition that is true when
exactly one of p and q is true and is false otherwise.

Examples:
Either you can have a milk or a glass of orange juice for breakfast.

Truth Table:
P Q P⊕Q

1 1 0

1 0 1

0 1 1

0 0 0

Major Connectives

When two or more connectives are present in a statement, one of them is the dominant or major connective. The
major connective is shown by using parentheses.

Examples:
 1. In the statement “x=1 or x=2, and y=3”, the major connective is conjunction.
2. (s˄t) → r
3. [(P→Q) ˄ (Q→R)] ˅ Q
4. (x = 0 ) ˅ (x > 0 ˄ y ≠ 1)
5. [(x=1) ˅ (x >1) → (y=4)] ˄ (y<z)

USEFUL TRANSLATIONS

P˄Q
P and Q P despite Q
P but Q Despite P, Q
P although Q P inspite of Q
Although P, Q P whereas Q
Not only P, but also Q P yet Q
While P, Q P while Q

P˅Q
P or Q
P and/or Q
P or Q or both
P unless Q
Either P or Q

P→Q
If P then Q
If P, Q
Q provided that P
Q in case of P
Q if P

P↔Q
P if and only if Q
If P and only then Q
If and only if P, Q
P just incase Q
If P, and only if Q

TYPES OF PROPOSITIONAL FORMS

1. TAUTOLOGY
- A proposition that is always true under all possible combination of truth values for all component propositions.

Example: (P ˄ Q) → P

P Q P˄Q (P ˄ Q) → P P→Q
1 1 1 1 1
1 0 0 1 0
0 1 0 1 1
0 0 0 1 1
 2. CONTRADICTION OR ABSURDITY
- A proposition that is always false under all possible combination of truth values of the component propositions

Example: P ˄¬ P

P ¬P P ˄¬ P
1 0 0
0 1 0

3. CONTINGENCY
- The combination of tautology and contradiction
- A proposition which is either a tautology nor a contradiction

Example: P ˅ Q → P

P Q P˅Q P˅Q→P P→Q

1 1 1 1 1
1 0 1 1 0
0 1 1 0 1
0 0 0 1 1