Discrete Mathematics

(CSC 0611101)

Md. Morshed Ali

Lecturer
Uttara University

Chapter 1
1.2 Propositional Equivalences
 Tautology
 Tautology: a compound proposition that is always
true is called a tautology.

• Examples:
a) p  ¬p
b) The professor is either a woman or a man
c) People either like watching TV or they don’t
 Contradiction
 Contradiction: A compound proposition that is
always false is called a contradiction.

• Examples:
a) p  ¬p
b) x is prime and x is an even integer greater than 8
c) All men are good and all men are bad
 Contingency
• Contingency: A compound proposition that is neither
a tautology nor a contradiction is called a
contingency.
• In other words, a compound proposition whose truth
value isn’t constant is called a contingency .
 Tautology and Contradiction

• The easiest way to see if a compound proposition is

a tautology/contradiction is to use a truth table.
Tautology and Contradiction
 Tautology example
 Q: Show that [¬p (p q )]q is a tautology.

• Solution: We can show it in two ways:

1)Using a truth table – show that [¬p (p q )]q is
always true
2) Using a proof (will get to this later).

7
 Tautology by truth table

p q ¬p p q ¬p (p q ) [¬p (p q )]q

T T

T F

F T

F F

8
 Tautology by truth table

p q ¬p p  q ¬p (p q ) [¬p (p q )]q

T T F

T F F

F T T

F F T

9
 Tautology by truth table

p q ¬p p q ¬p (p q ) [¬p (p q )]q

T T F T

T F F T

F T T T
F F T F

10
 Tautology by truth table

p q ¬p p q ¬p (p q ) [¬p (p q )]q

T T F T F

T F F T F

F T T T T

F F T F F

11
 Tautology by truth table
p q ¬p p q ¬p (p q ) [¬p (p q )]q

T T F T F T

T F F T F T

F T T T T T
F F T F F T
Since the truth table shows all the true values of compound proposition [¬p
(p q )]q are true(T), so it is a tautology.

12
 Class Work

1) Determine whether ¬ (p  q)  p is a tautology

or contradiction.

2) Determine whether p  (q ¬p) is a tautology or

contradiction.
 Logical Equivalence
• Compound propositions that have the same truth
values in all possible cases are called logically
equivalent.

• Definition : Compound propositions p and q are

logically equivalent if p  q is a tautology (denoted
by p  q or p  q )
De Morgan’s Laws
 Example 2 (page 22)

• Show that ¬ (p  q) and ¬p ¬q are logically

equivalent.
 Example 3 (page 23)

Because the truth values of p  q and ¬ p  q agree, they are

logically equivalent.
 Example 4 (page 23)

Distributive Law of disjunction over conjunction

 Derivational Proof Techniques
• When compound propositions involve more and
more propositional variables, the size of the truth
table for the compound propositions increases

Q1: How many rows are required to construct the

truth-table of:
( (q  (pr ))  ((s  r)  t) )  (q  r )

Q2: How many rows are required to construct the

truth-table of a proposition involving n propositional
variables?

19
 Derivational Proof Techniques
A1: 32 rows, each additional variable doubles the
number of rows
A2: In general, 2n rows

• Therefore, as compound propositions grow in

complexity, truth tables become more and more
unwieldy. Checking for tautologies/logical
equivalences of complex propositions can become
a chore, especially if the problem is obvious.

20
 Derivational Proof Techniques
 Q: Show that the compound proposition
(p p )  ((s  r)  t) )  ( q r ) is a tautology.

21
 Derivational Proof Techniques
A : Part of it is a tautology (p p ) and the disjunction
of True with any other compound proposition is still
True:
(p p )  ( (s  r)   t ))  ( q r )
 T  ( (s  r)   t ))  ( q r )
 T
Derivational techniques formalize the intuition of this
example.

22
Table 6 ( page 24 )  Rosen, 6th edition
 Tables of Logical Equivalences
6th Edition
Table 6 ( page 24 ) : Rosen

Kazi A Kalpoma 24
25
 Example 2 (p.22): Show that
¬ (p  q) and ¬ p ¬q are logically equivalent
 Tables of Useful Logical
Equivalences(ULE)

• Excluded middle
• Negating creates opposite
• Definition of implication in
terms of Not and Or


27
ULE 3

28
Example 7 (page 26)

29
 Tautology example
 Show that [¬p (p q )]q is a tautology using a series of
logical equivalences.

30
 Tautology by proof
[¬p (p q )]q
 [(¬p p)(¬p q)]q Distributive

 [ F  (¬p q)]q

 [¬p q ]q Identity

 ¬ [¬p q ]  q ULE

 [¬(¬p) ¬q ]  q De Morgan

 ( p  ¬q )  q Double Negation

 p  [¬q q ] Associative

pT ULE
T Domination

31
Example 8 ( page 27)

32
 Exercises
 Questions 1-5 without using a Truth Table
1. Determine whether (¬p  (q p))  ¬q is tautology.
2. Determine whether (¬q  (p q))  ¬p is tautology.
3. Show that [p  (p  q)]  q is a tautology.
4. Show that [(p q) (p  r)] and [p  ( q  r)] are logically
equivalent.
5. Show that [(p q) (q  p)] and p q are logically
equivalent.

** Exercises (Page 28,29) ==> 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17

33
 Answer 1
• (¬p  (q p))  ¬q
• (¬p  (¬q  p))  ¬q
• ((¬p ¬q)  (¬p  p))  ¬q
• ((¬p ¬q)  F)  ¬q
• (¬p  ¬q)  ¬q
• ¬(¬p  ¬q)  ¬q
• p  q  ¬q
• pT
• T

34
 Answer 2
• (¬q  (p q))  ¬p
• (¬q  (¬p  q))  ¬p
• (¬q ¬p)  (¬q  q))  ¬p
• (¬q ¬p)  F  ¬p
• (¬q ¬p)  ¬p
• ¬(¬q ¬p)  ¬p
• q  p  ¬p
• qT
• T

35
 Answer 3

[p  (p  q)]  q
 [p  (p  q)]  q ULE (Substitution for  )
 [(p  p)  (p  q)]  q Distributive Law
 [ F  (p  q)]  q Negation Law
 (p  q)  q Identity Law
 (p  q)  q ULE (Substitution for  )
 (p  q)  q First De Morgan’s Law
 p  (q  q ) Associative Law
 p  T Negation Law
T Domination Law
36
 Summary
• What is Tautology and Contradiction?
• How to show logical equivalence?
• How to show whether a compound proposition is a
tautology?
– Use a truth table (Example 2, 3, 4 in Tables 3, 4, 5)
– Use logical identities (Example 6, 7, 8)
• Note: Make sure you learn the important
– Logical Equivalences in Table 6 (page 24) &
– ULE (e.g. p  q  ¬ p  q ) we discussed already.