Creating a proposition from a truth table using only ~ ⋀ and v












2












$begingroup$


I have to find a simple expression for the third column in the truth table using only the logical connectives I've mention above. There are two questions that are involved here.



Problem 1:



Truth table relating to the first problem:



enter image description here



Part 1



All expressions in which p and q return true.



Row 1:  p ⋀ q

Row 3: ~p ⋀ q

Row 4: ~p ⋀ ~q



Thus the expression that satisfy each outcome is: (p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q)



Simplified Expression: 

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~(p ⋁ q)

 DeMorgan’s Law 

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~(q ⋁ p)

 Commutative Law

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ ((p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p) ⋀ ((q ⋁ ~q) ⋁ p)

 Associative Law

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ ((p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p) ⋀ (True ⋁ p)

 Definition of ⋁

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ ((p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p) ⋀ True

 Definition of ⋁

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ ((~p ⋁ p) ⋀ (~p ⋁ q))  ⋀ True

 Distributive Law

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (True ⋀ (~p ⋁ q))  ⋀ True

 P ⋀ True ≡ P

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (~p ⋁ q)  ⋀ True

 P ⋀ True ≡ P

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (~p ⋁ q)


Note: I already knew that the answer was (~p v q) but I had to show how I got there.



Problem 2:



Here is the truth table relating to problem number 2:



enter image description here



Part 2 



Row 2:  p ⋀ ~q

Row 3: ~p ⋀ q



Thus the expression that satisfy each outcome is: (p ⋀ ~q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q)



Simplified Expression:

(p ⋀ ~q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q)  ≡ (~p ⋁ ~q) ⋀ (p ⋁ q) 

Rewrite the expression in a conjunction format.

(p ⋀ ~q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q)  ≡ ~(p ⋀ q) ⋀ (p ⋁ q) 

DeMorgan’s Law

(p ⋀ ~q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q)  ≡ ~(p ⋀ q) ⋀ (p ⋁ q)


Note: I'm not sure if it's possible to simply further



All I'm asking is for someone to check if the steps that I took are right.



Edit: New proof for number 1 please verify!



(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p ⋀ (~q ⋁ q) Distributive Law

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p ⋀ T Definition of v 

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p Definition of and

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ ~p  ⋁ (p ⋀ q) commutative Law 

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (~p ⋁ p) ⋀ (~p ⋁ q) Distributive Law

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ True ⋀ (~p ⋁ q) definition of v 

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ ~p ⋁ q definition of and





logic propositional-calculus







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    You may want to look up Karnaugh maps, a good way to find simplified forms of boolean expressions up to 4 variables.
    $endgroup$
    – augurar
    Jun 1 '15 at 19:35






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The first one is correct. For the second one, $(plandneg q)lor(neg pland q)$ is already the most succinct expression. Note that this is in fact $neg(pleftrightarrow q)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Demosthene
    Jun 1 '15 at 19:38










  • $begingroup$
    @Demosthene Alright thanks for checking.
    $endgroup$
    – Deathslice
    Jun 1 '15 at 19:39










  • $begingroup$
    @Demosthene The first one is most definitely not correct. The author says that he/she gets from "(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~(q ⋁ p)" to "((p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p) ⋀ ((q ⋁ ~q) ⋁ p)" by an associative law.
    $endgroup$
    – Doug Spoonwood
    Jun 1 '15 at 19:54










  • $begingroup$
    The new proof looks fine.
    $endgroup$
    – Doug Spoonwood
    Jun 1 '15 at 23:43
















2












$begingroup$


I have to find a simple expression for the third column in the truth table using only the logical connectives I've mention above. There are two questions that are involved here.



Problem 1:



Truth table relating to the first problem:



enter image description here



Part 1



All expressions in which p and q return true.



Row 1:  p ⋀ q

Row 3: ~p ⋀ q

Row 4: ~p ⋀ ~q



Thus the expression that satisfy each outcome is: (p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q)



Simplified Expression: 

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~(p ⋁ q)

 DeMorgan’s Law 

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~(q ⋁ p)

 Commutative Law

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ ((p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p) ⋀ ((q ⋁ ~q) ⋁ p)

 Associative Law

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ ((p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p) ⋀ (True ⋁ p)

 Definition of ⋁

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ ((p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p) ⋀ True

 Definition of ⋁

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ ((~p ⋁ p) ⋀ (~p ⋁ q))  ⋀ True

 Distributive Law

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (True ⋀ (~p ⋁ q))  ⋀ True

 P ⋀ True ≡ P

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (~p ⋁ q)  ⋀ True

 P ⋀ True ≡ P

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (~p ⋁ q)


Note: I already knew that the answer was (~p v q) but I had to show how I got there.



Problem 2:



Here is the truth table relating to problem number 2:



enter image description here



Part 2 



Row 2:  p ⋀ ~q

Row 3: ~p ⋀ q



Thus the expression that satisfy each outcome is: (p ⋀ ~q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q)



Simplified Expression:

(p ⋀ ~q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q)  ≡ (~p ⋁ ~q) ⋀ (p ⋁ q) 

Rewrite the expression in a conjunction format.

(p ⋀ ~q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q)  ≡ ~(p ⋀ q) ⋀ (p ⋁ q) 

DeMorgan’s Law

(p ⋀ ~q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q)  ≡ ~(p ⋀ q) ⋀ (p ⋁ q)


Note: I'm not sure if it's possible to simply further



All I'm asking is for someone to check if the steps that I took are right.



Edit: New proof for number 1 please verify!



(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p ⋀ (~q ⋁ q) Distributive Law

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p ⋀ T Definition of v 

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p Definition of and

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ ~p  ⋁ (p ⋀ q) commutative Law 

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (~p ⋁ p) ⋀ (~p ⋁ q) Distributive Law

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ True ⋀ (~p ⋁ q) definition of v 

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ ~p ⋁ q definition of and





logic propositional-calculus







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    You may want to look up Karnaugh maps, a good way to find simplified forms of boolean expressions up to 4 variables.
    $endgroup$
    – augurar
    Jun 1 '15 at 19:35






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The first one is correct. For the second one, $(plandneg q)lor(neg pland q)$ is already the most succinct expression. Note that this is in fact $neg(pleftrightarrow q)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Demosthene
    Jun 1 '15 at 19:38










  • $begingroup$
    @Demosthene Alright thanks for checking.
    $endgroup$
    – Deathslice
    Jun 1 '15 at 19:39










  • $begingroup$
    @Demosthene The first one is most definitely not correct. The author says that he/she gets from "(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~(q ⋁ p)" to "((p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p) ⋀ ((q ⋁ ~q) ⋁ p)" by an associative law.
    $endgroup$
    – Doug Spoonwood
    Jun 1 '15 at 19:54










  • $begingroup$
    The new proof looks fine.
    $endgroup$
    – Doug Spoonwood
    Jun 1 '15 at 23:43














2












2








2





$begingroup$


I have to find a simple expression for the third column in the truth table using only the logical connectives I've mention above. There are two questions that are involved here.



Problem 1:



Truth table relating to the first problem:



enter image description here



Part 1



All expressions in which p and q return true.



Row 1:  p ⋀ q

Row 3: ~p ⋀ q

Row 4: ~p ⋀ ~q



Thus the expression that satisfy each outcome is: (p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q)



Simplified Expression: 

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~(p ⋁ q)

 DeMorgan’s Law 

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~(q ⋁ p)

 Commutative Law

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ ((p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p) ⋀ ((q ⋁ ~q) ⋁ p)

 Associative Law

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ ((p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p) ⋀ (True ⋁ p)

 Definition of ⋁

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ ((p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p) ⋀ True

 Definition of ⋁

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ ((~p ⋁ p) ⋀ (~p ⋁ q))  ⋀ True

 Distributive Law

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (True ⋀ (~p ⋁ q))  ⋀ True

 P ⋀ True ≡ P

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (~p ⋁ q)  ⋀ True

 P ⋀ True ≡ P

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (~p ⋁ q)


Note: I already knew that the answer was (~p v q) but I had to show how I got there.



Problem 2:



Here is the truth table relating to problem number 2:



enter image description here



Part 2 



Row 2:  p ⋀ ~q

Row 3: ~p ⋀ q



Thus the expression that satisfy each outcome is: (p ⋀ ~q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q)



Simplified Expression:

(p ⋀ ~q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q)  ≡ (~p ⋁ ~q) ⋀ (p ⋁ q) 

Rewrite the expression in a conjunction format.

(p ⋀ ~q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q)  ≡ ~(p ⋀ q) ⋀ (p ⋁ q) 

DeMorgan’s Law

(p ⋀ ~q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q)  ≡ ~(p ⋀ q) ⋀ (p ⋁ q)


Note: I'm not sure if it's possible to simply further



All I'm asking is for someone to check if the steps that I took are right.



Edit: New proof for number 1 please verify!



(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p ⋀ (~q ⋁ q) Distributive Law

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p ⋀ T Definition of v 

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p Definition of and

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ ~p  ⋁ (p ⋀ q) commutative Law 

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (~p ⋁ p) ⋀ (~p ⋁ q) Distributive Law

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ True ⋀ (~p ⋁ q) definition of v 

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ ~p ⋁ q definition of and





logic propositional-calculus







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I have to find a simple expression for the third column in the truth table using only the logical connectives I've mention above. There are two questions that are involved here.



Problem 1:



Truth table relating to the first problem:



enter image description here



Part 1



All expressions in which p and q return true.



Row 1:  p ⋀ q

Row 3: ~p ⋀ q

Row 4: ~p ⋀ ~q



Thus the expression that satisfy each outcome is: (p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q)



Simplified Expression: 

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~(p ⋁ q)

 DeMorgan’s Law 

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~(q ⋁ p)

 Commutative Law

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ ((p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p) ⋀ ((q ⋁ ~q) ⋁ p)

 Associative Law

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ ((p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p) ⋀ (True ⋁ p)

 Definition of ⋁

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ ((p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p) ⋀ True

 Definition of ⋁

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ ((~p ⋁ p) ⋀ (~p ⋁ q))  ⋀ True

 Distributive Law

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (True ⋀ (~p ⋁ q))  ⋀ True

 P ⋀ True ≡ P

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (~p ⋁ q)  ⋀ True

 P ⋀ True ≡ P

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (~p ⋁ q)


Note: I already knew that the answer was (~p v q) but I had to show how I got there.



Problem 2:



Here is the truth table relating to problem number 2:



enter image description here



Part 2 



Row 2:  p ⋀ ~q

Row 3: ~p ⋀ q



Thus the expression that satisfy each outcome is: (p ⋀ ~q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q)



Simplified Expression:

(p ⋀ ~q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q)  ≡ (~p ⋁ ~q) ⋀ (p ⋁ q) 

Rewrite the expression in a conjunction format.

(p ⋀ ~q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q)  ≡ ~(p ⋀ q) ⋀ (p ⋁ q) 

DeMorgan’s Law

(p ⋀ ~q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q)  ≡ ~(p ⋀ q) ⋀ (p ⋁ q)


Note: I'm not sure if it's possible to simply further



All I'm asking is for someone to check if the steps that I took are right.



Edit: New proof for number 1 please verify!



(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p ⋀ (~q ⋁ q) Distributive Law

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p ⋀ T Definition of v 

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p Definition of and

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ ~p  ⋁ (p ⋀ q) commutative Law 

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ (~p ⋁ p) ⋀ (~p ⋁ q) Distributive Law

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ True ⋀ (~p ⋁ q) definition of v 

(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ ~q) ≡ ~p ⋁ q definition of and





logic propositional-calculus




logic propositional-calculus






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jun 1 '15 at 21:47







Deathslice

















asked Jun 1 '15 at 19:31









DeathsliceDeathslice

12619




12619








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    You may want to look up Karnaugh maps, a good way to find simplified forms of boolean expressions up to 4 variables.
    $endgroup$
    – augurar
    Jun 1 '15 at 19:35






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The first one is correct. For the second one, $(plandneg q)lor(neg pland q)$ is already the most succinct expression. Note that this is in fact $neg(pleftrightarrow q)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Demosthene
    Jun 1 '15 at 19:38










  • $begingroup$
    @Demosthene Alright thanks for checking.
    $endgroup$
    – Deathslice
    Jun 1 '15 at 19:39










  • $begingroup$
    @Demosthene The first one is most definitely not correct. The author says that he/she gets from "(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~(q ⋁ p)" to "((p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p) ⋀ ((q ⋁ ~q) ⋁ p)" by an associative law.
    $endgroup$
    – Doug Spoonwood
    Jun 1 '15 at 19:54










  • $begingroup$
    The new proof looks fine.
    $endgroup$
    – Doug Spoonwood
    Jun 1 '15 at 23:43














  • 3




    $begingroup$
    You may want to look up Karnaugh maps, a good way to find simplified forms of boolean expressions up to 4 variables.
    $endgroup$
    – augurar
    Jun 1 '15 at 19:35






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The first one is correct. For the second one, $(plandneg q)lor(neg pland q)$ is already the most succinct expression. Note that this is in fact $neg(pleftrightarrow q)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Demosthene
    Jun 1 '15 at 19:38










  • $begingroup$
    @Demosthene Alright thanks for checking.
    $endgroup$
    – Deathslice
    Jun 1 '15 at 19:39










  • $begingroup$
    @Demosthene The first one is most definitely not correct. The author says that he/she gets from "(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~(q ⋁ p)" to "((p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p) ⋀ ((q ⋁ ~q) ⋁ p)" by an associative law.
    $endgroup$
    – Doug Spoonwood
    Jun 1 '15 at 19:54










  • $begingroup$
    The new proof looks fine.
    $endgroup$
    – Doug Spoonwood
    Jun 1 '15 at 23:43








3




3




$begingroup$
You may want to look up Karnaugh maps, a good way to find simplified forms of boolean expressions up to 4 variables.
$endgroup$
– augurar
Jun 1 '15 at 19:35




$begingroup$
You may want to look up Karnaugh maps, a good way to find simplified forms of boolean expressions up to 4 variables.
$endgroup$
– augurar
Jun 1 '15 at 19:35




3




3




$begingroup$
The first one is correct. For the second one, $(plandneg q)lor(neg pland q)$ is already the most succinct expression. Note that this is in fact $neg(pleftrightarrow q)$.
$endgroup$
– Demosthene
Jun 1 '15 at 19:38




$begingroup$
The first one is correct. For the second one, $(plandneg q)lor(neg pland q)$ is already the most succinct expression. Note that this is in fact $neg(pleftrightarrow q)$.
$endgroup$
– Demosthene
Jun 1 '15 at 19:38












$begingroup$
@Demosthene Alright thanks for checking.
$endgroup$
– Deathslice
Jun 1 '15 at 19:39




$begingroup$
@Demosthene Alright thanks for checking.
$endgroup$
– Deathslice
Jun 1 '15 at 19:39












$begingroup$
@Demosthene The first one is most definitely not correct. The author says that he/she gets from "(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~(q ⋁ p)" to "((p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p) ⋀ ((q ⋁ ~q) ⋁ p)" by an associative law.
$endgroup$
– Doug Spoonwood
Jun 1 '15 at 19:54




$begingroup$
@Demosthene The first one is most definitely not correct. The author says that he/she gets from "(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~(q ⋁ p)" to "((p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p) ⋀ ((q ⋁ ~q) ⋁ p)" by an associative law.
$endgroup$
– Doug Spoonwood
Jun 1 '15 at 19:54












$begingroup$
The new proof looks fine.
$endgroup$
– Doug Spoonwood
Jun 1 '15 at 23:43




$begingroup$
The new proof looks fine.
$endgroup$
– Doug Spoonwood
Jun 1 '15 at 23:43










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















0












$begingroup$

A way to check that such steps are correct can get understood by writing out the specific use of the logical laws you've used, and then highlighting in some way via underlining or circling where you made the replacement. I'll provide an example.



I use Polish notation. So, your first problem starts with



A A Kpq KNpq K NpNq.



You use the De Morgan's law which says that



K NxNy = NA x y in your first step.



Thus, we'll highlight the relevant part of the relevant formula.



A A Kpq KNpq K NpNq.



And substituting in De Morgan's law we have



K NpNq = NA p q.



Now making the replacement we see that



A A Kpq KNpq NA p q is correct.



In your problem you say that



"(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~(q ⋁ p)"



leads to



"((p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p) ⋀ ((q ⋁ ~q) ⋁ p)"



via the associative law (for ⋁?).



I don't follow. Which part did you replace? To me it looks like the first part you replaced was the parentheses with a blank. You replaced



"(~p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~(q ⋁ p)" with "~p) ⋀ ((q ⋁ ~q) ⋁ p)". I'm very sure that no law allows you to do that.



You went from



" ((p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p) ⋀ True"



to



"((~p ⋁ p) ⋀ (~p ⋁ q)) ⋀ True"



You can do that, but I encourage you to look at the relevant distributive law more closely. I suspect you'll find it doesn't allow you to do exactly what you did here... you need another law invoked also.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for the suggestions. What I normally do is to check if both sides remain logically equivalent. In regards to what I did when it came to the associative law, that is where I was having a slight doubt of what I was doing. I thought that maybe having the same logical operator would allow me to perform the associative law and then do what I did after that.
    $endgroup$
    – Deathslice
    Jun 1 '15 at 20:03










  • $begingroup$
    In any case, the last expression that I got for the problem is right because it satisfy each condition in the truth table. Therefore, (~p v q) is logically equivalent to p implies q.
    $endgroup$
    – Deathslice
    Jun 1 '15 at 20:05










  • $begingroup$
    If I rewrite the expressions like this (~(~p v ~q) v ~(p v ~q)) v ~(p v q), could I then use the associative law?
    $endgroup$
    – Deathslice
    Jun 1 '15 at 20:22










  • $begingroup$
    How would I use the associative law for something like this: ~(~q ⋁ ~p) ⋁ ~p ⋀ T
    $endgroup$
    – Deathslice
    Jun 1 '15 at 21:02










  • $begingroup$
    I make a new proof for number 1 can you please check?
    $endgroup$
    – Deathslice
    Jun 1 '15 at 21:22











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1308277%2fcreating-a-proposition-from-a-truth-table-using-only-%25e2%258b%2580-and-v%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









0












$begingroup$

A way to check that such steps are correct can get understood by writing out the specific use of the logical laws you've used, and then highlighting in some way via underlining or circling where you made the replacement. I'll provide an example.



I use Polish notation. So, your first problem starts with



A A Kpq KNpq K NpNq.



You use the De Morgan's law which says that



K NxNy = NA x y in your first step.



Thus, we'll highlight the relevant part of the relevant formula.



A A Kpq KNpq K NpNq.



And substituting in De Morgan's law we have



K NpNq = NA p q.



Now making the replacement we see that



A A Kpq KNpq NA p q is correct.



In your problem you say that



"(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~(q ⋁ p)"



leads to



"((p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p) ⋀ ((q ⋁ ~q) ⋁ p)"



via the associative law (for ⋁?).



I don't follow. Which part did you replace? To me it looks like the first part you replaced was the parentheses with a blank. You replaced



"(~p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~(q ⋁ p)" with "~p) ⋀ ((q ⋁ ~q) ⋁ p)". I'm very sure that no law allows you to do that.



You went from



" ((p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p) ⋀ True"



to



"((~p ⋁ p) ⋀ (~p ⋁ q)) ⋀ True"



You can do that, but I encourage you to look at the relevant distributive law more closely. I suspect you'll find it doesn't allow you to do exactly what you did here... you need another law invoked also.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for the suggestions. What I normally do is to check if both sides remain logically equivalent. In regards to what I did when it came to the associative law, that is where I was having a slight doubt of what I was doing. I thought that maybe having the same logical operator would allow me to perform the associative law and then do what I did after that.
    $endgroup$
    – Deathslice
    Jun 1 '15 at 20:03










  • $begingroup$
    In any case, the last expression that I got for the problem is right because it satisfy each condition in the truth table. Therefore, (~p v q) is logically equivalent to p implies q.
    $endgroup$
    – Deathslice
    Jun 1 '15 at 20:05










  • $begingroup$
    If I rewrite the expressions like this (~(~p v ~q) v ~(p v ~q)) v ~(p v q), could I then use the associative law?
    $endgroup$
    – Deathslice
    Jun 1 '15 at 20:22










  • $begingroup$
    How would I use the associative law for something like this: ~(~q ⋁ ~p) ⋁ ~p ⋀ T
    $endgroup$
    – Deathslice
    Jun 1 '15 at 21:02










  • $begingroup$
    I make a new proof for number 1 can you please check?
    $endgroup$
    – Deathslice
    Jun 1 '15 at 21:22
















0












$begingroup$

A way to check that such steps are correct can get understood by writing out the specific use of the logical laws you've used, and then highlighting in some way via underlining or circling where you made the replacement. I'll provide an example.



I use Polish notation. So, your first problem starts with



A A Kpq KNpq K NpNq.



You use the De Morgan's law which says that



K NxNy = NA x y in your first step.



Thus, we'll highlight the relevant part of the relevant formula.



A A Kpq KNpq K NpNq.



And substituting in De Morgan's law we have



K NpNq = NA p q.



Now making the replacement we see that



A A Kpq KNpq NA p q is correct.



In your problem you say that



"(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~(q ⋁ p)"



leads to



"((p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p) ⋀ ((q ⋁ ~q) ⋁ p)"



via the associative law (for ⋁?).



I don't follow. Which part did you replace? To me it looks like the first part you replaced was the parentheses with a blank. You replaced



"(~p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~(q ⋁ p)" with "~p) ⋀ ((q ⋁ ~q) ⋁ p)". I'm very sure that no law allows you to do that.



You went from



" ((p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p) ⋀ True"



to



"((~p ⋁ p) ⋀ (~p ⋁ q)) ⋀ True"



You can do that, but I encourage you to look at the relevant distributive law more closely. I suspect you'll find it doesn't allow you to do exactly what you did here... you need another law invoked also.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for the suggestions. What I normally do is to check if both sides remain logically equivalent. In regards to what I did when it came to the associative law, that is where I was having a slight doubt of what I was doing. I thought that maybe having the same logical operator would allow me to perform the associative law and then do what I did after that.
    $endgroup$
    – Deathslice
    Jun 1 '15 at 20:03










  • $begingroup$
    In any case, the last expression that I got for the problem is right because it satisfy each condition in the truth table. Therefore, (~p v q) is logically equivalent to p implies q.
    $endgroup$
    – Deathslice
    Jun 1 '15 at 20:05










  • $begingroup$
    If I rewrite the expressions like this (~(~p v ~q) v ~(p v ~q)) v ~(p v q), could I then use the associative law?
    $endgroup$
    – Deathslice
    Jun 1 '15 at 20:22










  • $begingroup$
    How would I use the associative law for something like this: ~(~q ⋁ ~p) ⋁ ~p ⋀ T
    $endgroup$
    – Deathslice
    Jun 1 '15 at 21:02










  • $begingroup$
    I make a new proof for number 1 can you please check?
    $endgroup$
    – Deathslice
    Jun 1 '15 at 21:22














0












0








0





$begingroup$

A way to check that such steps are correct can get understood by writing out the specific use of the logical laws you've used, and then highlighting in some way via underlining or circling where you made the replacement. I'll provide an example.



I use Polish notation. So, your first problem starts with



A A Kpq KNpq K NpNq.



You use the De Morgan's law which says that



K NxNy = NA x y in your first step.



Thus, we'll highlight the relevant part of the relevant formula.



A A Kpq KNpq K NpNq.



And substituting in De Morgan's law we have



K NpNq = NA p q.



Now making the replacement we see that



A A Kpq KNpq NA p q is correct.



In your problem you say that



"(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~(q ⋁ p)"



leads to



"((p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p) ⋀ ((q ⋁ ~q) ⋁ p)"



via the associative law (for ⋁?).



I don't follow. Which part did you replace? To me it looks like the first part you replaced was the parentheses with a blank. You replaced



"(~p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~(q ⋁ p)" with "~p) ⋀ ((q ⋁ ~q) ⋁ p)". I'm very sure that no law allows you to do that.



You went from



" ((p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p) ⋀ True"



to



"((~p ⋁ p) ⋀ (~p ⋁ q)) ⋀ True"



You can do that, but I encourage you to look at the relevant distributive law more closely. I suspect you'll find it doesn't allow you to do exactly what you did here... you need another law invoked also.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



A way to check that such steps are correct can get understood by writing out the specific use of the logical laws you've used, and then highlighting in some way via underlining or circling where you made the replacement. I'll provide an example.



I use Polish notation. So, your first problem starts with



A A Kpq KNpq K NpNq.



You use the De Morgan's law which says that



K NxNy = NA x y in your first step.



Thus, we'll highlight the relevant part of the relevant formula.



A A Kpq KNpq K NpNq.



And substituting in De Morgan's law we have



K NpNq = NA p q.



Now making the replacement we see that



A A Kpq KNpq NA p q is correct.



In your problem you say that



"(p ⋀ q) ⋁ (~p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~(q ⋁ p)"



leads to



"((p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p) ⋀ ((q ⋁ ~q) ⋁ p)"



via the associative law (for ⋁?).



I don't follow. Which part did you replace? To me it looks like the first part you replaced was the parentheses with a blank. You replaced



"(~p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~(q ⋁ p)" with "~p) ⋀ ((q ⋁ ~q) ⋁ p)". I'm very sure that no law allows you to do that.



You went from



" ((p ⋀ q) ⋁ ~p) ⋀ True"



to



"((~p ⋁ p) ⋀ (~p ⋁ q)) ⋀ True"



You can do that, but I encourage you to look at the relevant distributive law more closely. I suspect you'll find it doesn't allow you to do exactly what you did here... you need another law invoked also.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Jun 1 '15 at 19:52









Doug SpoonwoodDoug Spoonwood

8,08212244




8,08212244












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for the suggestions. What I normally do is to check if both sides remain logically equivalent. In regards to what I did when it came to the associative law, that is where I was having a slight doubt of what I was doing. I thought that maybe having the same logical operator would allow me to perform the associative law and then do what I did after that.
    $endgroup$
    – Deathslice
    Jun 1 '15 at 20:03










  • $begingroup$
    In any case, the last expression that I got for the problem is right because it satisfy each condition in the truth table. Therefore, (~p v q) is logically equivalent to p implies q.
    $endgroup$
    – Deathslice
    Jun 1 '15 at 20:05










  • $begingroup$
    If I rewrite the expressions like this (~(~p v ~q) v ~(p v ~q)) v ~(p v q), could I then use the associative law?
    $endgroup$
    – Deathslice
    Jun 1 '15 at 20:22










  • $begingroup$
    How would I use the associative law for something like this: ~(~q ⋁ ~p) ⋁ ~p ⋀ T
    $endgroup$
    – Deathslice
    Jun 1 '15 at 21:02










  • $begingroup$
    I make a new proof for number 1 can you please check?
    $endgroup$
    – Deathslice
    Jun 1 '15 at 21:22


















  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for the suggestions. What I normally do is to check if both sides remain logically equivalent. In regards to what I did when it came to the associative law, that is where I was having a slight doubt of what I was doing. I thought that maybe having the same logical operator would allow me to perform the associative law and then do what I did after that.
    $endgroup$
    – Deathslice
    Jun 1 '15 at 20:03










  • $begingroup$
    In any case, the last expression that I got for the problem is right because it satisfy each condition in the truth table. Therefore, (~p v q) is logically equivalent to p implies q.
    $endgroup$
    – Deathslice
    Jun 1 '15 at 20:05










  • $begingroup$
    If I rewrite the expressions like this (~(~p v ~q) v ~(p v ~q)) v ~(p v q), could I then use the associative law?
    $endgroup$
    – Deathslice
    Jun 1 '15 at 20:22










  • $begingroup$
    How would I use the associative law for something like this: ~(~q ⋁ ~p) ⋁ ~p ⋀ T
    $endgroup$
    – Deathslice
    Jun 1 '15 at 21:02










  • $begingroup$
    I make a new proof for number 1 can you please check?
    $endgroup$
    – Deathslice
    Jun 1 '15 at 21:22
















$begingroup$
Thanks for the suggestions. What I normally do is to check if both sides remain logically equivalent. In regards to what I did when it came to the associative law, that is where I was having a slight doubt of what I was doing. I thought that maybe having the same logical operator would allow me to perform the associative law and then do what I did after that.
$endgroup$
– Deathslice
Jun 1 '15 at 20:03




$begingroup$
Thanks for the suggestions. What I normally do is to check if both sides remain logically equivalent. In regards to what I did when it came to the associative law, that is where I was having a slight doubt of what I was doing. I thought that maybe having the same logical operator would allow me to perform the associative law and then do what I did after that.
$endgroup$
– Deathslice
Jun 1 '15 at 20:03












$begingroup$
In any case, the last expression that I got for the problem is right because it satisfy each condition in the truth table. Therefore, (~p v q) is logically equivalent to p implies q.
$endgroup$
– Deathslice
Jun 1 '15 at 20:05




$begingroup$
In any case, the last expression that I got for the problem is right because it satisfy each condition in the truth table. Therefore, (~p v q) is logically equivalent to p implies q.
$endgroup$
– Deathslice
Jun 1 '15 at 20:05












$begingroup$
If I rewrite the expressions like this (~(~p v ~q) v ~(p v ~q)) v ~(p v q), could I then use the associative law?
$endgroup$
– Deathslice
Jun 1 '15 at 20:22




$begingroup$
If I rewrite the expressions like this (~(~p v ~q) v ~(p v ~q)) v ~(p v q), could I then use the associative law?
$endgroup$
– Deathslice
Jun 1 '15 at 20:22












$begingroup$
How would I use the associative law for something like this: ~(~q ⋁ ~p) ⋁ ~p ⋀ T
$endgroup$
– Deathslice
Jun 1 '15 at 21:02




$begingroup$
How would I use the associative law for something like this: ~(~q ⋁ ~p) ⋁ ~p ⋀ T
$endgroup$
– Deathslice
Jun 1 '15 at 21:02












$begingroup$
I make a new proof for number 1 can you please check?
$endgroup$
– Deathslice
Jun 1 '15 at 21:22




$begingroup$
I make a new proof for number 1 can you please check?
$endgroup$
– Deathslice
Jun 1 '15 at 21:22


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1308277%2fcreating-a-proposition-from-a-truth-table-using-only-%25e2%258b%2580-and-v%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Bundesstraße 106

Image
Dieser Artikel beschreibt die Bundesstraße 106 in Deutschland. Zur gleichnamigen Straße in Österreich siehe Mölltal Straße. Vorlage:Infobox hochrangige Straße/Wartung/DE-B Bundesstraße 106 in Deutschland Karte Basisdaten Betreiber: Deutschland  Bundesrepublik Deutschland Straßenbeginn: Wismar ( 53° 54′  N , 11° 24′  O 53.900536 11.396875 ) Straßenende: Schwerin ( 53° 36′  N , 11° 24′  O 53.592785 11.404892 ) Gesamtlänge: 40,7 km Bundesland: Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Ausbauzustand: zweistreifig [1] Bundesstraße 106 in Schwerin (Umgehungsstraße) Straßenverlauf Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Landkreis Nordwestmecklenburg Ortsumgehung Wismar Wallensteingraben über   Dorf Mecklenburg Wallensteingraben Groß Stieten Bad Kleinen OT Niendorf Bahnstrecke Lübeck–Bad Kleinen Zickhusen Lübstorf Klein Trebbow OT Kirch Stück
Read more

Verónica Boquete

Image
Verónica Boquete im Trikot der Nationalmannschaft (2013) Personalia Name Verónica Boquete Giadans Geburtstag 9. April 1987 Geburtsort Santiago de Compostela, Spanien Größe 159 cm Position Mittelfeld / Sturm Juniorinnen Jahre Station 2001–2005 Xuventú Aguiño Frauen Jahre Station Spiele (Tore) 1 2005–2008 Prainsa Zaragoza 83 (40) 2008–2010 Espanyol Barcelona 53 (30) 2010 Buffalo Flash 9 0 (9) 2010 Chicago Red Stars 3 0 (1) 2010–2011 Espanyol Barcelona 26 (41) 2011 Philadelphia Independence 13 0 (5) 2011 Energija Woronesch 5 0 (1) 2012–2014 Tyresö FF 39 (14) 2014 Portland Thorns FC 15 0 (4) 2014–2015 1. FFC Frankfurt 23 0 (7) 2015–2016 FC Bayern München 9 0 (0) 2016–2018 Paris Saint-Germain 31 0 (8) 2018 Peking BG Phoenix 2019– Utah Royals FC 0 0 (0) Nationalmannschaft Jahre Auswahl
Read more

Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten

Image
Die Lage des Ida-Boy-Ed-Gartens, rot markiert Der Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten Der Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten, Blick von der Wakenitzmauer durch das Tor in der Stadtmauer Der Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten ist eine Straße der Lübecker Altstadt. Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 Lage 2 Geschichte 3 Literatur 4 Weblinks Lage | Der etwa 90 Meter lange Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten befindet sich an der nördlichen Spitze der Altstadtinsel, vor dem Burgtor. Die in einem Bogen durch eine Grünanlage hangaufwärts führende Straße verbindet die Wakenitzmauer mit der Burgtorbrücke. Geschichte | Der heutige Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten wurde ursprünglich als Verlängerung der Wakenitzmauer angelegt. 1903 wurde in den erhaltenen Teil der mittelalterlichen Stadtmauer, an dem die Wakenitzmauer bei der Einmündung der Kaiserstraße begann, ein Tor mit einem großen Bogen für die Durchführung der Straße und zwei kleineren seitlichen Öffnungen für Fußgänger gebrochen, um für die neu errichteten Wohnhäuser in diesem Bereich
Read more