Discrete Structures Lecture 2

CSD101 - Discrete Structures
(Discrete Mathematics)
Spring 2017
Lecture-2
Applications of Propositional Logic

Logical Equivalence
Applications of Propositional Logic
• Translating English sentences (Formalization)
• System Specifications
• Boolean Searches
• Logic circuits
Translating English Sentences
• Steps to convert an English sentence to a statement in

propositional logic
• Identify atomic propositions and represent using
propositional variables.
• Determine appropriate logical connectives
• “I have neither given nor received help on this exam”
Let p = I have given help on this exam
q = I have received help on this exam
¬p ¬q
• Rephrase: It is not the case that either I have given or

received help on this exams
¬(p ∨ q)
• “If I go to Harry’s or to the country, I will not go shopping.”
• Let p = I go to Harry’s
• q = I go to the country.
• r = I will go shopping.
• If p or q then not r
(p ∨ q) → ￢ r
• Let p = It is below freezing
q = It is snowing
a) It is below freezing and it is snowing
b) It is below freezing but not snowing
c) It is not below freezing and it is not snowing
d) It is either snowing or below freezing (or both)
e) If it is below freezing, it is also snowing
f) It is either below freezing or it is snowing (not both), but it
is not snowing if it is below freezing
g) That it is below freezing is necessary and sufficient for it to
be snowing
• “You can access the Internet from campus only if you are
a computer science major or you are not a freshman.”
• Let a = You can access the Internet from campus

c = You are a computer science major
and f = You are a freshman” respectively
• a only if c or not f
a → (c ∨ ￢ f ).
Exercise
• Let p and q be the propositions “The election is decided”
and “The votes have been counted,” respectively. Express
each of these compound propositions as an English
sentence.
System Specifications
• System and Software engineers take requirements in
English and express them in a precise specification
language based on logic.
• The automated reply cannot be sent when the file system

is full
p = The automated reply can be sent
q = The system is full
Consistency
• System specifications should be consistent, They should

not contain conflicting requirements that could be used to
derive a contradiction
• When specifications are not consistent, there would be no

way to develop a system that satisfies all specifications
• A list of propositions is consistent if it is possible to

assign truth values to the proposition variables so that
each proposition is true.
Determine whether these system specifications are
consistent:
1. The diagnostic message is stored in the buffer or it is
retransmitted.
2. The diagnostic message is not stored in the buffer.
3. If the diagnostic message is stored in the buffer, then it
is retransmitted.
• Determine whether these system specifications are
consistent:
1. The diagnostic message is stored in the buffer or it is
retransmitted.
2. The diagnostic message is not stored in the buffer.
3. If the diagnostic message is stored in the buffer, then it
is retransmitted.
• p = The diagnostic message is stored in the buffer
2. ¬𝒑 3. 𝒑→𝒒
• q = The diagnostic message is retransmitted
• 1. ∨
1. 2. 3.
Reasoning
• An assignment of truth values that makes all three
specifications true must have p false to make true.
• Because we want to be true but must be false, q must be
true.
• Because is true when is false and is true
• we conclude that these specifications are consistent
• Let us do it with truth table now
• Is it remain consistent if the specification
“The diagnostic message is not retransmitted” is
added?
p: The diagnostic message is stored in the buffer
q: The diagnostic message is retransmitted
1. 2. 3.
• Is it remain consistent if the specification
“The diagnostic message is not retransmitted” is
added?
p: The diagnostic message is stored in the buffer
q: The diagnostic message is retransmitted
1. 2. 3.
4.
Inconsistent
Propositional Equivalence
• An important type of step used in a mathematical
argument is the replacement of a statement with another
statement with the same truth value
• Propositional Equivalence is extensively used in the

construction of mathematical arguments.
Tautology and Contradiction
• A compound proposition that is always true, no matter
what the truth values of the propositional variables that
occur in it, is called a tautology. A compound proposition
that is always false is called a contradiction.
p ￢p p∨ ￢p p∧ ￢p
T F T F
F T T F
• Show that (p ∧ q)  p is a tautology.

Logical Equivalence
• Compound propositions that have the same truth values
in all possible cases are called logically equivalent.
• The compound propositions p and q are called logically

equivalent if p ↔ q is a tautology.
• The notation p ≡ q denotes that p and q are logically

equivalent.
Logical Equivalence
p q pq p q ¬p q  ¬p
T T T T T F T
T F F T F F F
F T T F T T T
F F T F F T T
Logical Equivalence
• Converse
The proposition q → p is converse of p → q.
• Contrapositive
The contrapositive of p → q is the proposition ￢ q → ￢
p.
• Inverse
The proposition ￢ p → ￢ q is called the inverse of p → q.
Logical Equivalence
Implication Inverse Converse Contrapositive

p q p q pq p  q qp q  p
T T F F T T T T
T F F T F T T F
F T T F T F F T
F F T T T T T T
Logical Equivalence
Equivalence Name
p∧T≡p Identity laws
p∨F≡p
p∨T≡T Domination laws
p∧F≡F
p∨p≡p Idempotent laws
p∧p≡p
￢ ( ￢ p) ≡ p Double negation law
p∨q≡q∨p Commutative laws
p∧q≡q∧p
(p ∨ q) ∨ r ≡ p ∨ (q ∨ r) Associative laws
(p ∧ q) ∧ r ≡ p ∧ (q ∧ r)
p ∨ (q ∧ r) ≡ (p ∨ q) ∧ (p ∨ r) Distribution Laws
p ∧ (q ∨ r) ≡ (p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r)
Logical Equivalence
• Distributive: p  (q  r)  (p  q)  (p  r)
p q r q r p  (q  r) (p  q) (p  r) (p  q)  (p  r)
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
F T F F F T F F
F F T F F F T F
F F F F F F F F
Logical Equivalence
Equivalence Name
￢ (p ∧ q) ≡ ￢ p ∨ ￢ q De Morgan’s laws
￢ (p ∨ q) ≡ ￢ p ∧ ￢ q
p ∨ (p ∧ q) ≡ p Absorption laws
p ∧ (p ∨ q) ≡ p
p∨￢p≡T Negation laws
p∧￢p≡F
Logical Equivalence involving Implication
Logical Equivalence involving Implication

p→q≡ ￢p∨q
p→q≡ ￢q→￢p
p∨q≡ ￢p→q
p ∧ q ≡ ￢ (p → ￢ q)
￢ (p → q) ≡ p ∧ ￢ q
(p → q) ∧ (p → r) ≡ p → (q ∧ r)
(p → r) ∧ (q → r) ≡ (p ∨ q) → r
(p → q) ∨ (p → r) ≡ p → (q ∨ r)
(p → r) ∨ (q → r) ≡ (p ∧ q) → r
Logical Equivalence involving Bi-conditional
Logical Equivalence involving Bi-conditional

p ↔ q ≡ (p → q) ∧ (q → p)
p↔q≡ ￢p↔￢q
p ↔ q ≡ (p ∧ q) ∨ ( ￢ p ∧ ￢ q)
￢ (p ↔ q) ≡ p ↔ ￢ q
Proof using Logical Equivalence
• Show that (p  q)  q  p  q is logically equivalent.
(p  q)  q
º (p  q)  q DeMorgan’s
º (p  q)  q Double negation
º p  (q  q) Associative
º p  q Idempotent
•
Show that (p  q)  q is a Tautology.
Proof:
(p  q)  q
º (p  q)  q Implication
º( p   q)  q De Morgan
º p  ( q  q) Associative
º p  T Negation
ºT Dominations
• Show that [p  (p  q)]  q is a tautology.
[p  (p  q)]  q
 [p  (p  q)]  q Substitution for 
 [(p  p)  (p  q)]  q Distributive
 [ F  (p  q)]  q Negation
 (p  q)  q Identity
 (p  q)  q Substitution for 
 (p  q)  q DeMorgan’s
 p  (q  q ) Associative
 p  T Negation
T Domination
Show that  ( p  ( p  q))  p   q is logically equivalent.
L.H .S  ( p  ( p  q ))
 p   ( p  q ) DeMorgan's Law
 p  ( ( p )   q ) DeMorgan's Law
 p  ( p   q ) Double Negation Law
( p  p )  ( p   q ) Distributive Law
 F  ( p   q ) Negation Law
( p   q )  F Commutative Law
 p   q Identity Law
R.H .S
Chapter Reading
• Chapter 1, Kenneth H. Rosen, Discrete Mathematics and
Its Applications, Section 1.2,1.3
Chapter Exercise ( For Practice)
• Section 1.2: Question # 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ,12
• Section 1.3: Question # 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Discrete Structures Lecture 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Discrete Structures Lecture 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Discrete Structures Lecture 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CSD101 - Discrete Structures

Applications of Propositional Logic

• Steps to convert an English sentence to a statement in

• Rephrase: It is not the case that either I have given or

• Let a = You can access the Internet from campus

• The automated reply cannot be sent when the file system

• System specifications should be consistent, They should

• When specifications are not consistent, there would be no

• A list of propositions is consistent if it is possible to

• Propositional Equivalence is extensively used in the

• Show that (p ∧ q)  p is a tautology.

• The compound propositions p and q are called logically

• The notation p ≡ q denotes that p and q are logically

Implication Inverse Converse Contrapositive

Logical Equivalence involving Implication

Logical Equivalence involving Bi-conditional

• Show that (p  q)  q  p  q is logically equivalent.

You might also like