Discrete Structures

Lecture 3: Propositional Logic

based on slides by Jan Stelovsky
based on slides by Dr. Baek and Dr. Still
Originals by Dr. M. P. Frank and Dr. J.L. Gross
Provided by McGraw-Hill

Muhammad Adeel Zahid

Department of Computer Science
Government College University
Faisalabad
 Types of Propositions

• A Proposition can eb categorized into following three types

• Tautology
• Contradiction
• Contingency
• Tautology is a compound proposition that is always TRUE regardless of the truth
value of its atomic propositions
• ∨¬ , ∨
• I will take this course or I will not take this course
• Contradiction is a compound statement that is always FALSE regardless of the
truth value of its atomic propositions
• ∧¬ , ∧
• I will take this course and I will not take this course
• Contingency is a compound proposition that can either be TRUE or FALSE
• Neither a tautology nor a contradiction
• ∨ →

2
 Logical Equivalence

• Compound proposition p is logically equivalent to compound

proposition q, written ≡ or ⇔ if the compound proposition
↔ is a tautology

• Compound propositions p and q are logically equivalent to each other

iff p and q contain the same truth values as each other in all
corresponding rows of their truth tables

3
 Logical Equivalence: Proof via Truth Table

• Prove that ¬ ∧ ≡ ¬ ∨ ¬ (De Morgan’s Law)

¬ ¬ ¬( ∧ ) ¬ ∨¬

• Prove the following equivalences using truth table

• ¬ ∨ ≡ ¬ ∧ ¬ De Morgan’s Law
• → ≡¬ ∨
• ∨ ∧ ≡ ∨ ∧ ( ∨ ) Distributive Law

4
 Equivalence Laws

• They are like arithmetic identities but for propositional equivalences

• In trigonometry you might have come across identity
• sin 2 = 2 sin cos
• Similarly you have in propositional logic
• ¬ ∨ ≡ →
• You can replace one with another to further simplify/solve propositional
equations
• Identity: ∧ ≡ and ∨ ≡
• Domination: ∨ ≡ and ∧ ≡
• Idempotent: ∨ ≡ and ∧ ≡
• Double negation: ¬¬ ≡

5
 Equivalence Laws

• Commutative: ∨ ≡ ∨ and ∧ ≡ ∧
• Associative:
• ∨ ∨ ≡ ∨ ∨
• ∧ ∧ ≡ ∧ ∧
• Distributive
• ∨ ∧ ≡ ∨ ∧ ∨
• ∧ ∨ ≡ ∧ ∨ ∧
• De Morgan’s: ¬ ∨ ≡ ¬ ∧ ¬ and ¬ ∧ ≡¬ ∨¬
• Absorption: ∨ ∧ ≡ and ∧ ∨ ≡
• Trivial tautology/contradiction: ∨ ¬ ≡ ∧¬ ≡

6
 Operator Definitions via Equivalence

• Using equivalence, we can define operators in terms of other

operators
• ⊕ ≡ ∧¬ ∨ ¬ ∧
•≡ ∧ ¬ ∨ ¬ ∧ ( ∧ ¬ ∨ ) By distributive law
• ≡ ¬ ∨ ∧¬ ∧ ∨ ∧¬ By commutative law
• ≡ ¬ ∨ ∧ ¬ ∨¬ ∧ ∨ ∧ ∨¬ Distributive
•≡ ∧ ¬ ∨¬ ∧ ∨ ∧ Trivial Tautology
• ≡ ¬ ∨ ¬ ∧ ∨ Identity
• ≡ ¬ ∧ ∧ ∨ De Morgan
• ≡ ∨ ∧ ¬( ∧ ) Commutative

7
 Defining Operators via Equivalences

• Implication: → ≡ ¬ ∨
• Biconditional implication: ↔ ≡ → ∧ →
• Also, ↔ ≡ ¬ ⊕
• The above three equivalences have already been proved using truth
table
• You can use any of the equivalence laws and the equivalences proved
through truth table to simplify/solve your expressions

8
 Example Problem

• Prove that ¬ → ≡ ∧¬
•¬ → ≡ ¬ ¬ ∨ By expanding implication
• ≡ ¬ ¬ ∧ ¬ De Morgan’s Law
• ≡ ∧ ¬ Double negation

9
 Example Problem

• Prove that ∧ ¬ → ⊕ ≡ ¬ ∨ ∨ ¬ using symbolic

derivation (not by using truth table
• ∧¬ → ⊕
• ≡ ¬ ∧ ¬ ∨ ⊕ Expand implication
•≡¬ ∧¬ ∨ ∨ ∧ ¬( ∧ ) Expand exclusive OR
•≡ ¬ ∨ ∨ ∨ ∧¬ ∧ De Morgan
•≡ ∨¬ ∨ ∨ ∧¬ ∧ Commutative
•≡ ∨¬ ∨ ∨ ∧¬ ∧ Open brackets for disjunction
•≡ ∨ ¬ ∨ ∨ ∧¬ ∧ associative over disjunction

10
 Example Problem

•≡ ∨ ¬ ∨ ∨ ∧¬ ∧ copy over
•≡ ∨ ¬ ∨ ∨ ∧ (¬ ∨ ¬ ∧ Distributive
•≡ ∨ ∨ ∧ (¬ ∨ ¬ ∨ ¬ Tautology and De Morgan
•≡ ∨ ∧ ¬ ∨¬ Domination
• ≡ ∨ ¬ ∨ ¬ Identity
• ≡ ¬ ∨ ¬ ∨ Commutative
• ≡ ¬ ∨ ∨ ¬ Open brackets and re-arrange for same operator (OR)

11
 Predicate Logic

• Consider the statement, “Every student of this class has visited Mexico”
• How can we translate this statement into proposition(s)
• Suppose, we have only three students in the class namely Ahmed, Ali and
Yasir
• We can make propositions like
• = Ahmed has visited Mexico
• = Ali has visited Mexico
• = Yasir has visited Mexico
• And the above statement would translate to
• ∧ ∧
• What if class has 50 students?
• Do we make 50 propositions to translate a simple sentence?

12
 Predicate Logic

• Consider another sentence

• “For every integer x, x>0”
• Can we translate the above sentence into propositional logic?
• Set of integers is infinite unlike number of students in the class
• So, what do we need?
• We need propositional functions that can return TRUE or FALSE given their
input variables and we also need quantifiers
• In a statement “Ali has visited Mexico”, Ali is subject, object or the
entity and “has visited Mexico” is the predicate or the property about
that entity

13
 Predicate Logic

• A predicate is modeled as propositional function P(.) from subjects to

propositions
• E.g: P(x) = x has visited Mexico
• P(Ahmed) = Ahmed has visited Mexico
• We use upper case letters P, Q, R… to represent predicates and lower-
case letters to represent subjects or variables
• Consequently, applying a predicate to a subject is a proposition but
predicate itself is not a proposition
• P(x) = x has visited Mexico (not a proposition)
• P(Ali) = Ali has visited Mexico (This is a proposition)

14
 Propositional Functions

• The logic of predicate can be generalized to allow the propositional

functions that take multiple inputs
• E.g P(x,y,z) = x played cricket with y at z
• P(Ali, Yasir, Iqbal Stadium) = Ali played cricket with Yasir at Iqbal
Stadium
• Let P(x): x > 5
• P(4) means 4 > 5
• P(5) means 5 > 5
• P(9) means 9>5

15
 Examples

• Let C(x,y) : x is the capital of y

• C(Islamabad, Pakistan): Islamabad is the capital of Pakistan
• C(Lahore, Punjab): Lahore is the capital of Pakistan
• C(Sakkhar, Sindh): Sakkher is the capital of Sindh
• C(Washington DC, USA): Washington DC. is the capital of USA
• C(London, Ireland): London is the capital of Ireland

16
 What Next

• But how can we represent statements like

• Every student of this class has visited Mexico
• Every integer has an additive inverse
• Every integer has a multiplicative inverse
• For every integer x, there exists and integer y such that x + y = x
• We need quantifiers for this purpose

17