Proofs Using Logical

Equivalences
Rosen 1.2
 List of Logical Equivalences
pT  p; pF  p Identity Laws

pT  T; pF  F Domination Laws

pp  p; pp  p Idempotent Laws

(p)  p Double Negation Law

pq  qp; pq  qp Commutative Laws

(pq) r  p (qr); (pq)  r  p  (qr)

Associative Laws
 List of Equivalences
p(qr)  (pq)(pr) Distribution Laws
p(qr)  (pq)(pr)

(pq)(p  q) De Morgan’s Laws

(pq)(p  q)
Miscellaneous
p  p  T Or Tautology
p  p  F And Contradiction
(pq)  (p  q) Implication Equivalence

pq(pq)  (qp) Biconditional Equivalence

The Proof Process

Assumptions

-Definitions
Logical Steps -Already-proved equivalences
-Statements (e.g., arithmetic
or algebraic)

Conclusion
(That which was to be proved)
 Prove: (pq)  q  pq
(pq)  q Left-Hand Statement
 q  (pq) Commutative
 (qp)  (q q) Distributive
 (qp)  T Or Tautology
 qp Identity
 pq Commutative
Begin with exactly the left-hand side statement
End with exactly what is on the right
Justify EVERY step with a logical equivalence
 Prove: (pq)  q  pq
(pq)  q Left-Hand Statement
 q  (pq) Commutative
(qp)  (q q) Distributive
Why did we need this step?
Our logical equivalence specified that  is distributive on the
right. This does not guarantee the equivalence works on the
left!
Ex.: Matrix multiplication is not always commutative
(Note that whether or not  is distributive on the left is not the
point here.)
 Prove: p  q  q  p
Contrapositive
pq
 p  q Implication Equivalence
 q  p Commutative
 (q)  p Double Negation
 q  p Implication Equivalence
 Prove: p  p  q is a tautology
Must show that the statement is true for any value of p,q.
ppq
 p  (p  q) Implication Equivalence
 (p  p)  q Associative
 (p  p)  q Commutative
 Tq Or Tautology
 qT Commutative
T Domination
This tautology is called the addition rule of
inference.
 Why do I have to justify
everything?
• Note that your operation must have the
same order of operands as the rule you
quote unless you have already proven (and
cite the proof) that order is not important.
• 3+4 = 4+3
• 3/4  4/3
• A*B  B*A for everything (for example, matrix
multiplication)
 Prove: (pq)  p is a tautology
(pq)  p
 (pq)  p Implication Equivalence
 (pq)  p DeMorgan’s
 (qp)  p Commutative
 q (p  p) Associative
 q (p  p) Commutative
 q T Or Tautology
 T Domination
 Prove or Disprove
p  q  p  q ???
To prove that something is not true it is
enough to provide one counter-example.
(Something that is true must be true in
every case.)
p q pq pq
FT T F
The statements are not logically equivalent
 Prove:p  q p  q
p  q
 (pq)  (qp) Biconditional Equivalence
 (pq)  (qp) Implication Equivalence (x2)
 (pq)  (qp) Double Negation
 (qp)  (pq) Commutative
 (qp)  (pq) Double Negation
 (qp)  (pq) Implication Equivalence (x2)
 p  q Biconditional Equivalence