Scribd
Upload
7 views

4-PROPOSITIONAL-LOGIC

The document discusses logical implications, tautologies, contradictions, and contingencies in compound propositions. It provides definitions and examples, including truth tables to classify propositions and demonstrate logical equivalences. Additionally, it outlines rules of replacement for proving logical equivalences and includes practice exercises for further understanding.

Uploaded by

larvianzon.cvt
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
7 views

4-PROPOSITIONAL-LOGIC

The document discusses logical implications, tautologies, contradictions, and contingencies in compound propositions. It provides definitions and examples, including truth tables to classify propositions and demonstrate logical equivalences. Additionally, it outlines rules of replacement for proving logical equivalences and includes practice exercises for further understanding.

Uploaded by

larvianzon.cvt
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 21

Module 4

LOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
and EQUIVALENCES
Tautology, Contradiction, and
Contingency
A compound proposition that is always true
for all possible truth values of the constituent
propositions, is called a tautology.
A compound proposition that is always
false for all possible truth values of the
constituent propositions, is called a
contradiction.
A compound proposition that is neither a
tautology nor contradiction is called a
contingency.
Tautology, Contradiction, and
Contingency
Example
By constructing truth tables determine whether
the given compound proposition is a tautology,
contradiction or contingency.

a. p → ( p → q )

b. ( p → q )  ( p  q )

c. ( p → q ) → ( p  q )
Tautology, Contradiction, and
Contingency
Solution
a. Based on the table below, the proposition is a
tautology.
Tautology, Contradiction, and
Contingency
Solution
b. The table below shows that the given
proposition is a contradiction.
Tautology, Contradiction, and
Contingency
Solution
c. The table below shows that the given
proposition is a contingency.
Logical Implications
Given compound propositions Pand Q, if
P → Q is a tautology then P logically implies
Q, denoted as P  Q.

Example
Show that ( p  q )  q   p .
Solution
Based on the following truth table, ( p  q )  q
logically implies p since ( p  q )  q  → p is a
tautology.
Logical Implications
( p  q )  q   p
Logical Equivalences

The propositions Pand Q are logically


equivalent, denoted as P  Q or P  Q ,
whenever P  Q is a tautology.

Example
Show that ( p → q )  ( p → r )  p → (q  r ) .
Solution
The truth table on the next slide shows that
( p → q )  ( p → r ) is logically equivalent to p → (q  r )
since ( p → q )  ( p → r )  p → (q  r ) is a tautology.
Logical Equivalences
Rules of Replacement
The table on the next slide lists the most
important logical equivalences. These
equivalences are called Rules of Replacement.
Each of these equivalences may be verified
using truth table.

When proving logical equivalences


involving more than three atomic propositions a
series of rules of replacement is used instead of
truth tables.
Rules of Replacement
Rules of Replacement
Rules of Replacement
Example
Write the rule of replacement used to justify
each line if the proof of the following equivalence.
Rules of Replacement
Solution
You can easily verify the rule used in each line
from the table of Rules of Replacement.

Material Implication

Double Negation
Material Implication

Associative

Commutative
Associative
Material Implication
Rules of Replacement
Example
Prove the following logical equivalences using
Rules of Replacement.
a. ( p → q )  p  q
b. ( p → r )  (q → r )  ( p  q ) → r
Solution
a. ( p → q )  p  q
Proof: ( p → q )  (p  q ) Material Implication
 p  q De Morgan’s Law
 p  q Double Negation
Rules of Replacement
b. ( p → r )  (q → r )  ( p  q ) → r
Proof:
( p → r )  (q → r )  (p  r )  (q  r ) Material Implication
 (r  p )  (r  q ) Commutative Law
 r  (p  q ) Distributive Law
 (p  q )  r Commutative Law
 ( p  q )  r De Morgan’s Law
 (p  q ) → r Material Implication
Practice Exercise 4
I. By constructing truth tables, determine if the
given proposition is a tautology, contradiction,
or contingency.
a. ( p  q ) → p
b. ( p → q )  p  q
c. p  ( p  q )  q
d. ( p → q )  (q → r ) → ( p → r )
e. p  (q  r )  (( p  r )  q )
Practice Exercise 4
II. By constructing truth tables, prove the each of
the following logical implications.
a. ( p  q )  ( p  q )
b. q  ( p  q )  p
c. ( p  q )  ( p → r )  (q → r )  r
III. By constructing truth tables, prove the each
of the following logical equivalences.
a. ( p  q )  p  q
b. p → (q → r )  q → ( p  r )
Practice Exercise 4
IV. Write the rule of replacement in the following
proof of logical equivalences.

V. Prove the following logical equivalences using


rules of replacement.
a. ( p → r )  (q → r )  ( p  q ) → r
b. ( p  q ) → r   ( p  r ) → q 
References

Rosen, Kenneth H. (2008). Discrete Mathematics


and its Applications. 6th edition . Boston: Mc-Graw
Hill.

Dacanay, Elvena, Lupague (2011). Introduction to


Mathematical Logic. Manila: Mc-Graw Hill.

You might also like