Lecture 3

Compound Propositions, Logical Equivalence

 Biconditional Statements
De nition: Let p and q be propositions. The biconditional statement, denoted by p ↔ q,
is the statement “p if and only if q”.
p ↔ q is meant to be “If p, then q and if q, then p”.
p ↔ q is true when both p and q have the same truth value and is false otherwise.
Truth Table of biconditional statement (↔)

p q p→q q→p p↔q

F F T T T
F T T F F
T F F T F
T T T T T
fi
 Biconditional Statements

Example:
p = Sam can take the ight.
q = Sam buys a ticket.
p ↔ q = Sam can take the ight if and only if Sam buys a ticket

Some more ways to express p ↔ q.

‣ p is necessary and su cient for q. (∵ p ↔ q ≡ (p → q) ∧ (q → p))
‣ p i q.
ff
ffi
fl
fl
Constructing “Bigger” Compound Propositions
Repeatedly apply logical operator ¬, ∧ , ∨ , → , ↔ on propositions to create bigger
propositions.

Example: p q ¬q p ∨ ¬q p∧q (p ∨ ¬q) → (p ∧ q)

p q ¬q p ∨ ¬q p ∧ q (p ∨ ¬q) → (p ∧ q)

Truth table of F F T T F F
(p ∨ ¬q) → (p ∧ q) F T F F F T
T F T T F F
T T F T T T
Precedence of Logical Operators
Tip: Using parentheses with every application of logical operator speci es the order in which
logical operators in a compound proposition are to applied.

Example: p q ( ¬q) (p ∨ ¬q) (p ∧ q) ((p ∨ ( ¬q)) → (p ∧ q))

When parentheses are not present, then the order in which logical operator are applied can
be determined from the following order of precedence:

¬ ∧ ∨ → ↔

1 2 3 4 5

fi
Precedence of Logical Operators

¬ ∧ ∨ → ↔
Order of precedence:
1 2 3 4 5

Example:

p ∨ q ∧ r is p ∨ (q ∧ r) not (p ∨ q) ∧ r.

p ∨ q → r is (p ∨ q) → r not p ∨ (q → r).

p ∨ ¬q → p ∧ q is (p ∨ ( ¬q)) → (p ∧ q) not p ∨ ((( ¬q) → p) ∧ q).

Tautology and Contradiction

Will use the term “compound proposition” for expressions formed from propositional
variables and logical operators such as (p ∨ q) → ¬r, ¬p → (q ∧ r), etc.

Some special compound propositions.

‣ A compound proposition that is always true irrespective of the truth values of the
propositional variables is called a tautology, such as p ∨ ¬p.
‣ A compound proposition that is always false irrespective of the truth values of the
propositional variables is called a contradiction, such as p ∧ ¬p.
‣ A compound proposition that is neither a tautology nor a contradiction is called a
contingency, such as p ∧ q.
 Logical Equivalence
Compound propositions that have the same truth values in all possible cases are called
logically equivalent.

De nition: Compound propositions p and q containing same set of propositional variables

are logically equivalent, denoted by p ≡ q, if p ↔ q is a tautology.

Example: Show that ¬p ∨ q ≡ p → q

p q ¬p ¬p ∨ q p↔q
F F T T T
F T T T T
T F F F F
T T F T T
fi
Logical Equivalence
Example: Show that ¬(p ∨ q) ≡ ¬p ∧ ¬q

p q ¬p ¬q p∨q ¬(p ∨ q) ¬p ∧ ¬q
F F T T F T T
F T T F T F F
T F F T T F F
T T F F T F F

DeMorgan’s Law: 1. ¬(p ∨ q) ≡ ¬p ∧ ¬q

2. ¬(p ∧ q) ≡ ¬p ∨ ¬q
Important Logical Equivalences

p∧T ≡p ¬(p ∨ q) ≡ ¬p ∧ ¬q
Identity Laws: De Morgan’s Laws:
p∨F≡p ¬(p ∧ q) ≡ ¬p ∨ ¬q
p∨T ≡T
Domination Laws: Double Negation Law: ¬( ¬p) ≡ p
p∧F≡F

p∧p≡p p∧q≡q∧p
Idempotent Laws: Commutative Laws:
p∨p≡p p∨q≡q∨p

Note: p, q, r, etc. can be compound propositions.

For instance, ¬((p ∧ q) ∨ (s → t)) ≡ ¬(p ∧ q) ∧ ¬(s → t)
Important Logical Equivalences

p ∨ (p ∧ q) ≡ p
Absorption Law:
p ∧ (p ∨ q) ≡ p
p ∧ ¬p ≡ F
Negation Laws:
p ∨ ¬p ≡ T

(p ∨ q) ∨ r ≡ p ∨ (q ∨ r)
Associative Laws:
(p ∧ q) ∧ r ≡ p ∧ (q ∧ r)
p ∨ (q ∧ r) ≡ (p ∨ q) ∧ (p ∨ r)
Distributive Laws:
p ∧ (q ∨ r) ≡ (p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r)