INSTRUCTIONAL LEARNING MATERIALS

Course: S MATH 1 (Reasoning in Mathematics)

Unit 2: Propositional Equivalences
Lesson No.: 4 (Logical Equivalences)
Coverage: Weeks 4-6 (8 Hours)
Professor: MICHAEL M. BACOLOD

Objectives:
At the end of the lesson, the students must have:
1. Discussed the definition and usage of propositional equivalences.
2. Distinguished different classification of compound proposition according to
possible truth values.
3. Appreciated the language of mathematics as it applies to the real life situation.

Introduction:

In this lesson, we will discuss the concepts and definitions of logical equivalences.
Further, this lesson will discuss on how to classify compound proposition according to
possible truth values. These concepts are taken from the book Discrete Mathematics
and its Application, 6th Edition by Rosen and Krithivasan.

Definition 2.4.1 A compound proposition that is always true, no matter what the truth
values of the propositions that occur in it, is called a tautology. A compound proposition
that is always false is called a contradiction. A compound proposition that is neither a
tautology nor a contradiction is called a contingency.

Example 2.4.2 Construct the truth table for the p ∨ ¬ p and p ∧ ¬p .

Table 4.1: Examples of a Tautology and a Contradiction.

p ¬p p ∨¬p p ∧ ¬p
T F T F
F T T F

On the Table 4.1, we consider truth table for the p∨ ¬ p and p ∧ ¬p, since p ∨ ¬p

is always true, then it is a tautology. Further, since p ∧ ¬p is always false, then it is a

contradiction.
Definition 2.4.3 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.

Otherwise, the notation p ≢ q denotes that p and q are not logically equivalent.

Example 2.4.4 Show that ¬(p ∨ q) and ¬p ∧ ¬q are logically equivalent.

Solution. Using the truth table, then we have:
Table 4.2. A demonstration that ¬(p ∨ q) and ¬p ∧ ¬q are logically equivalent.
p q p ∨q ¬(p ∨ q) ¬p ¬q ¬p ∧¬q ¬(p ∨ q) ↔ ¬p∧¬q
T T T F F F F T
T F T F F T F T
F T T F T F F T
F F F T T T T T

Since ¬(p ∨ q) ↔ ¬p∧¬q is a tautology, hence ¬(p ∨ q) and ¬p ∧ ¬q are logically

equivalent, that is ¬(p ∨ q) ≡ ¬p ∧ ¬q.
The problem presented on the Example 2.4.3 is an example of established
equivalences called De Morgan’s Law. Other, established equivalences are presented
on the sections.

Example 2.4.5 Show that (¬p ∨ q) and (p → q) are logically equivalent.

Table 4.3. A demonstration that (¬p ∨ q) and (p  q) are logically equivalent.
p q ¬p ¬p ∨ q p→q ¬(p ∨ q) ↔ (¬p∧¬q)
T T F T T T
T F F F F T
F T T T T T
F F T T T T

Since that (¬p ∨ q) ↔ (p → q) is a tautology, hence that (¬p ∨ q) and (p → q) are

logically equivalent, that is that (¬p ∨ q) ≡ (p → q).
The following are established equivalences. They are also called logical
identities. These are taken from Rosen, K. H., & Krithivasan, K.
 Table 4.4: Basic Rules of Replacement or Logical equivalences.
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) ∧ (p ∨ r)
Distributive Laws
p ∧ (q ∨ r) ≡ (p ∧ q) ∨ (p ∧ r)
(p ∨ q) ∨ r ≡ p ∨ (q ∨ r)
Associative Laws
(p ∧ q) ∧ r ≡ p ∧ (q ∧ r)
¬(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

Example 2.4.6 Show that p ∨ (q ∧ r) and (p ∨ q) ∧ (p ∨ r) are logically equivalent.

This is the left distributive law of disjunction over conjunction.
Solution:
Table 4.5: A demonstration that p ∨(q∧r) and (p∨q) ∧ (p∨r) are logically equivalent.
p q r q∧r p ∨(q∧r) p∨q p∨r (p∨q) ∧ (p∨r) p ∨(q∧r) ↔ (p∨q) ∧ (p∨r)
T T T T T T T T T
T T F F T T T T T
T F T F T T T T T
T F F F T T T T T
F T T T T T T T T
F T F F F T F F T
F F T F F F T F T
F F F F F F F F T

Since p ∨(q∧r) ↔ (p∨q) ∧ (p∨r) is a tautology, hence p ∨(q∧r) and (p∨q) ∧ (p∨r)
are logically equivalent, that is p ∨(q∧r) ≡ (p∨q) ∧ (p∨r) .

Example 2.4.6 Determine which of the converse, contrapositive and inverse statements
that are logically equivalent with the original conditional statements.
Solution 1. Determining the truth value of (p → q) ↔ (q →p).
Table 4.6. A demonstration that (p→q) and (q→p) are not logically equivalent.
p q p→q q →p (p → q) ↔ (q →p)
T T T T T
T F F T F
F T T F F
F F T T T

Since (p→q) ↔ (q→p) is a contingency, thus (p→q) and (q→p) are not logically
equivalent, that is (p→q) ≢ (q→p).
Solution 2. Determining the truth value of (p→q) ↔ (¬q → ¬p)
Table 4.7. A demonstration that (p→q) and (¬q → ¬p) are logically equivalent.
p q p→q ¬q ¬p ¬q → ¬p (p→ q)↔ (¬q → ¬p)
T T T F F T T
T F F T F F T
F T T F T T T
F F T T T T T
 Since (p→q) ↔ (¬q→¬p) is a tautology, thus (p→q) and (¬q→¬p) are logically
equivalent, that is (p→q) ≡ (¬q→¬p).

Solution 3. Determining the truth value of (p → q) ↔ (¬p→¬q).

Table 4.8. A demonstration that (p→q) and (¬p→¬q) are not logically equivalent.
p q p→q ¬p ¬q (¬p→¬q) (p → q) ↔ (¬p→¬q)
T T T F F T T
T F F F T T F
F T T T F F F
F F T T T T T

Since (p→q) ↔ (¬p→¬q) is a contingency, thus (p→q) and (¬p→¬q) are not
logically equivalent, that is (p→q) ≢ (¬p→¬q).

Other Logical Equivalences

The following are Logical Equivalences Involving Conditional and Biconditional
Statements.
Table 4.9. Logical Equivalences Involving Conditional Statements.
p→q ≡ ¬p ∨ q Conditional as Disjunction
p→q ≡ ¬q →¬p Contrapositive
¬(p → q) ≡ p ∧ ¬q Negation of Conditional
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
 Table 4.10. Logical Equivalences Involving Biconditional Statements.
p↔q ≡ (p → q) ∧ (q → p) Biconditional as Implication
p↔q ≡ ¬p ↔ ¬q
p↔q ≡ (p ∧ q) ∨ (¬p ∧ ¬q)
¬ (p ↔ q) ≡ p ↔ ¬q

Using De Morgan’s Laws

The two logical equivalences known as De Morgan’s laws are particularly important.
They tell us how to negate conjunctions and how to negate disjunctions. In particular,
the equivalence ¬(p ∧ q) ≡ ¬p ∨ ¬q tells us that the negation of conjunction a is formed
by taking the disjunction of the negations of the component propositions. Similarly, ¬(p
∨ q) ≡ ¬p ∧ ¬q tells us that the negation of disjunction is formed by taking the
conjunction of the negations of the component propositions.

Example 2.4.7 Use De Morgan’s laws to express the negations of “Miguel has a
cellphone and he has a laptop computer” and “Heather will go to the concert or Steve
will go to the concert.”

Solution: Let p be “Miguel has a cellphone” and q be “Miguel has a laptop computer.”
Then “Miguel has a cellphone and he has a laptop computer” can be represented by p ∧
q. By the De Morgan’s law of the negation of conjunction, ¬(p ∧ q) is logically
equivalent to ¬p ∨ ¬q. Consequently, we can express the negation of our original
statement as “Miguel does not have a cellphone or he does not have a laptop computer”

Let r be “Heather will go to the concert” and s be “Steve will go to the concert.”
Then “Heather will go to the concert or Steve will go to the concert” can be represented
by r ∨ s. By De Morgan’s law of the negation of disjunction, ¬(r ∨ s) is logically
equivalent to ¬r ∧ ¬s. Consequently, we can express the negation of our original
statement as “Heather will not go to the concert and Steve will not go to the concert”.
Name: _________________________________ Date: __________
Course/Year: ____________________________ Score: _________
Activity 5
Logical Equivalences
Instruction: Satisfy the following problems. Provide your answer on the space provided
for each item.

1. Use truth tables to verify these equivalences.

a. p ∧ T ≡ p

b. p ∨ F ≡ p

c. p ∨ T ≡ T

d. p ∧ F ≡ F

e. p ∨ p ≡ p

f. p ∧ p ≡ p
2. Use the truth tables to verify commutative laws.

a. p ∨ q ≡ q ∨ p

b. p ∧ q ≡ q ∧ p

3. Use the truth tables to verify associative laws.

a. (p ∨ q) ∨ r ≡ p ∨ (q ∨ r)

b. (p ∧ q) ∧ r ≡ p ∧ (q ∧ r)
4. Use De Morgan’s laws to find the negation of each of the following propositions
and afterwards determine its truth value:

a. X2 = 25 for X = 5 or for X = -5.

b. √25 is equal to +5 and -5.

c. The sum of the two odd whole numbers is always even and its product is
always odd.

d. The sum of the two even whole numbers is always even or its product is
always even.

5. Show that each of these conditional statements is a tautology by using truth

tables.
a. [¬p ∧ (p ∨ q)] → q

b. [(p → q) ∧ (q → r)] → (p → r)
c. [p ∧ (p → q)] → q

d. [(p ∨ q) ∧ (p → r)] ∧ (q → r)] → r