DISCRETE MATHEMATICS

ECE MATH 311

TOPIC 3:
VALIDITY OF ARGUMENTS
& LOGICAL EQUIVALENCE
By: Edison A. Roxas, MSECE

OBJECTIVES
At the end of the topic, the students should be able to:
1. Recall Boolean Algebra Postulates and Theorems.
2. Define and distinguish tautology from contradiction;
3. Examine the truth table and its implications to some
premises;
4. Examine Logic Puzzle;
5. Determine if conclusion is valid for some premises;
6. Enumerate different logical equivalence; and
7. Establish and apply some of the logical equivalences.
earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

Table 3.1: Boolean Algebra

IDENTITY

X+0=X

X.1=X

COMPLEMENT

X + X = 1

X . X = 0

IDEMPOTENT

X+X=X

X.X=X

DOMINATION

X+1=1

X.0=0

INVOLUTION

(X) = X

COMMUTATIVE

X+Y=Y+X

XY = YX

ASSOCIATIVE

X + (Y + Z) = (X + Y) + Z

X(YZ) = (XY)Z

DISTRIBUTIVE

X (Y + Z) = XY + XZ

X + YZ = (X + Y) (X + Z)

DE MORGAN

(X + Y) = XY

(XY) = X + Y

ABSORPTION

X + XY = X

X (X + Y) = X

earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

EXAMPLE 3.1:
Simplify using Boolean Algebra the examples in
Example 1.5 and compare results.
a. F = xy + xy
b. F = (x+y)(x+y)
c. F = xyz + xy + xyz

earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

TAUTOLOGY & CONTRADICTION

It is an important class of compound
propositions that consists of those that are
always TRUE for all possible combinations of p
and q (or p, q and r). This is called tautology.
A compound proposition that is always FALSE is
called contradiction or absurdity.
A compound proposition p is a contradiction if
and only if ~p is a tautology.
A compound proposition is a contingent if it is
neither a tautology or contradiction.
earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

EXAMPLE 3.2:
Determine whether the following are tautology
or contradiction.

1. p p
2. ~ p p
3. ~[A (~A B)]
4. [p (p q)] q
5. (p ~q) (~p q)
6. (p q) (~q ~p)
7. [(p q) p] q
8. A [ ~ A (A B)]
earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

LOGIC PUZZLE
EXAMPLE 3.3:
Tony and his girlfriend Pepper was in a room
together with the other members of the
organization SHIELD. He was with Bruce;
Natasha; and their leader Nick. Suddenly a
momentary
power
interruptions
was
experienced; when the power was restored
they found Nick murdered. An inquiry was
held; and these are their statements:
earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

EXAMPLE 3.3 (contd):

Bruce: I am innocent ; Natasha was talking to Nick when
the power was interrupted.
Natasha: I am innocent; I was not talking to Nick when
the power was out.
Tony: I am innocent; Pepper committed the murder.
Pepper: I am innocent; one of the men committed the
murder.
Four of these eight statements are TRUE and four are
FALSE. Assuming only one person committed the
murder, who did it?
earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

VALIDITY OF ARGUMENTS
Complicated statements are analyze
using connectives and form a simpler
statement.
This simpler statement are then tested
for truth or falsity using a truth table.
If the final column of the truth table is a
TAUTOLOGY, then argument is
considered valid.
earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

EXAMPLE 3.4:
1. Show that the value R = (A (A B)) is a
contingent.
2. If A B is false, determine the truth table of
(~A) (AB)?

earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

10

EXAMPLE 3.5:
- Prove the validation of the argument given as:

The competition will start on time implies that

all contestants are present; if and only if all
the contestants are present or the
competition will not start on time.

earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

11

EXAMPLE 3.6:
Prove that the following is a valid argument.
p: Claire studies.
q: Claire plays volleyball.
r: Claire passes the board examination.
===
P1: If Claire studies, then she will pass the board examination.
P2: If Claire doesnt play volleyball, then shell study.
P3: Claire failed the board examination.
===
Prove that (P1^P2^P3) q is valid.

earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

12

LOGICAL EQUIVALENCE
Compound values that have the same truth
values in all possible cases are called logically
equivalent.
The compound proposition p and q are called
logically equivalent if pq is a tautology .
The notation p q denotes that p and q are
logically equivalent.
The symbol is not a compound proposition
but rather is the statement that pq is a
tautology .
earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

13

Table 3.2: LOGICAL EQUIVALENCE

1. Double Negation:

~~p p

2. Commutative Laws:

a. (pq) (qp)
b. (pq) (qp)
c. (pq) (qp)

3. Associative Laws: a. [(pq)r] [p(qr)]

b. [(pq)r] [p(qr)]
4. Distributive Laws: a. [p(q^r)] [(pq)^(pr)]
b. [p^(qr)] [(p^q)(p^r)]
5. Idempotent Laws: a. (pp) p
b. (p^p) p
earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

14

Table 3.2: LOGICAL EQUIVALENCE

6. Identity Laws:

a. (pF) p
b. (p^T) p

7. Domination Laws / Inverse Laws:

a. (pT) T
b. (p^F) F

8. Complement Laws / Negation Laws:

a. (p~p) T
b. (p^~p) F
earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

15

Table 3.2: LOGICAL EQUIVALENCE

9. DeMorgan Laws:

a. ~(pq) (~p^~q)
b. ~(p^q) (~p~q)
c. (pq) ~(~p^~q)
d. (p^q) ~(~p~q)

10. Contrapositive:

(pq) (~q~p)

11. Implication:

a. (pq) (~pq)
b. (pq) ~(p^~q)

earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

16

Table 3.2: LOGICAL EQUIVALENCE

12. Absorption Laws:
a. p(p^q) p
b. p^(pq) p
13. Equivalence:
a. (pq) (~pq)
b. (p^q) ~(p~q)

earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

17

EXAMPLE 3.7:
1. Prove that (AB)^~(~A^B) A
2. Show that ~(p+(~pxq)) and (~px~q) are
logically equivalent.
3. Show that (p^q) (pq) is a tautology.
Use the truth table.

earoxas @ UST 2013

Validity of Arguments & Logical Equivalence

18