Discrete Mathematics

College of Computer Science & Engineering

Computer Science & AI Department

1
The Foundations:
Logic and Proofs

Chapter 1

2
The Foundations:
Logic and Proofs

Chapter 1 : Section 1.3

Propositional Equivalences

3
 Tautologies, Contradictions, and
Contingencies

Logical Equivalence

Outlin Using De Morgan’s Law

e Constructing New Logical

Equivalences

Propositional Satisfiability

4
 Tautologies,
1 Contradictions,
and Contingencies

5
Tautologies, Contradictions, and
Contingencies
 A tautology is a compound proposition that is true no matter
what the truth values of its atomic propositional variables
that occur in it
pp
 A contradiction is a compound proposition that is false no
matter what the truth values of its atomic propositions are
pp
 A compound proposition that’s neither a tautology nor a
contradiction is called a contingency.
P ¬p p ∨¬p p ∧¬p
T F T F
F T T F

6
Logical Equivalence
Show that (pq)(pq) is a tautology using truth table.

p q (pq) p q (pq) (p q)

F F F F T
F T F T T
T F F T T
T T T T T

7
2
Logical Equivalences

8
Proving Logical Equivalences
Compound propositions p and q are logically equivalent to each other IFF p and
q contain the same truth values as each other in all rows of their truth tables.

If p  q is a tautology then p and q are called logically equivalent, denoted by: p

q

logical equivalence  

Note  and  are not logical operators (connectives). Rather, they indicate a
kind of logical equality.

9
Proving Equivalence via Truth Tables
Prove that:
p q  (p  q).

p q p q  p  q  p   q  ( p   q)
F F F T T T F
F T T T F F T
T F T F T F T
T T T F F F T

Review examples 2, 3 and 4in your book on pages 27 and 28

10
 Proving Equivalence via Truth
Tables
Prove that
[r(q(r  p ))]  r(pq)

11
Important Equivalences

12
 Using De Morgan’s
2
Laws

13
De Morgan’s Laws

Use De Morgan’s laws to express the negations of the followings:

“Mohamed has a cellphone and he has a laptop computer”

and
“Hassan will go to the concert or Omar will go to the concert.”

14
De Morgan’s Laws
Let p be “Mohamed has a cellphone” and
q be “Mohamed has a laptop computer.”
Then “Mohamed has a cellphone and he has a laptop computer” can be represented by p ∧ q.

De Morgan’s laws:  (p  q)   p   q

 (p  q) can be expressed by:

“Mohamed does not have a cellphone or he
does not have a laptop computer.”

15
 Constructing New Logical
4
Equivalences

16
Defining Operators via Equivalences

Using equivalences, we can define operators in terms of other operators.

A proposition in a compound proposition can be replaced by a compound
proposition that is logically equivalent to it without changing the truth value of the
original compound proposition. For example:

Implication:
p q  p  q
Biconditional:
p  q  (p q)  (q p)

17
Example 1

Show that ¬(p ∨ (¬p ∧ q)) and ¬q ∧ ¬p are logically equivalent :

¬(p ∨ (¬p ∧ q)) ≡ ¬p ∧ ¬(¬p ∧ q) De Morgan’s law

≡ ¬p∧[¬(¬p)∨¬q] De Morgan’s law
≡ ¬p∧(p∨¬q) Double Negation law
≡ (¬p∧p)∨(¬p∧¬q) Distributive law
≡ F∨(¬p∧¬q) Negation law
≡ ¬p∧¬q Identity law

Review example 6 your book on page 31

18
Example 2
Show that [p  (p  q)]  q is a tautology without using truth tables.

We use  to show that [p  (p  q)]  q  T.

[p  (p  q)]  q
 [p  (p  q)]  q Implication law
 [(p  p)  (p  q)]  q Distributive law
 [ F  (p  q)]  q Negation law
 (p  q)  q Identity law
 (p  q)  q Implication law
 (p  q)  q DeMorgan’s law
 p  (q  q ) Associative law
 p  T Negation law
T Domination
19
Exercise 1

Show that
(pq)  (p)(q)

This tautology is known as De Morgan’s law.

Remember : Two compound propositions p and q are logically

equivalent if p↔q is a tautology.

20
Solution
p q  (p q) ( p)( q)  (p q) ( p)( q)
F F T T T

F T F F T

T F F F T

T T F F T

The statements  (p q) and ( p)( q) are logically

equivalent, so we write  (p q) ( p)( q).

21
Exercise2

Show that (p ∧ q) → (q ∨ p) is a tautology by using both methods

logical equivalence and Truth table

22
 Propositional
5
Satisfiability

23
Propositional Satisfiability

A compound proposition is satisfiable if there is

an assignment of truth values to its variables that
makes it true.

When no such assignments exists, the compound

proposition is unsatisfiable.

A compound proposition is unsatisfiable if and

only if its negation is a tautology.

24
Propositional Satisfiability
When we find a particular assignment of truth values that makes a compound proposition true, we have shown that it is satisfiable; such an assignment is called a solution of this particular satisfiability problem.

However, to show that a compound proposition is unsatisfiable, we need to show that every assignment of truth values to its variables makes it false.

We can use a truth table to study the satisfiability problem, however, it is often more efficient not to.

25
Example 1
Determine whether each of the compound propositions:

(p ↔ q) ∧ ( ￢ p ↔ q)
is satisfiable??
It is Not Satisfiable.

26
Example 2
Determine the satisfiability of the following compound propositions:

Note: instead of using a truth table to solve the problem, we will reason about
the truth values

Satisfiable. Assign T to p, q, and r (or assign F to all) i.e. all variables have the same truth values

Satisfiable. Assign T to p and F to q (at least one is true and at least one is false)

Not satisfiable. Check each possible assignment of truth values to the propositional variables and none will make the proposition true.

27
Applications of Satisfiability (self-
learning)

Many problems, in diverse areas such as robotics, software testing, artificial

intelligence planning, computer-aided design, machine vision, integrated
circuit design, scheduling, computer networking, and genetics, can be modeled
in terms of propositional satisfiability.
You may refer to the two examples: 10 and 11 in your book page 33 and 34

28
Summary

1
Tautologies, Contradictions, and Contingencies
1
Logical equivalences

1
Using De Morgan’s laws

1
Constructing new logical equivalences

1
Propositional satisfiability

29
Reference

• Textbook: “Discrete Mathematics and Its

Applications”, by Kenneth Rosen, 8th ed.
Chapter 1.3: Propositional Equivalences

30