From edbaa0d72caa64d2db7c066fdfa31d80c5c2685a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: eggy Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 12:30:51 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] ece108: truth tables part 2 --- docs/1b/ece108.md | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+) diff --git a/docs/1b/ece108.md b/docs/1b/ece108.md index a3a8da2..11040c4 100644 --- a/docs/1b/ece108.md +++ b/docs/1b/ece108.md @@ -49,6 +49,11 @@ The **disjunction** operator is equivalent to logical **OR**. $$p\vee q$$ +### Proposation relations + +!!! definition + A **tautology** is a statement that is always true, regardless of its statement variables. + The **implication** sign requires that if $p$ is true, $q$ is true, such that *$p$ implies $q$*. The first symbol is the **hypothesis** and the second symbol is the **conclusion**. $$p\implies q$$ @@ -60,4 +65,48 @@ $$p\implies q$$ | F | T | T | | F | F | F | +The **inference** sign represents the inverse of the implication sign, such that $p$ **is implied by** $q$. It is equivalent to $q\implies p$. +$$p\impliedby q$$ + +The **if and only if** sign requires that the two propositions imply each other — i.e., that the state of $p$ is the same as the state of $q$. It is equivalent to $(p\implies q)\wedge (p\impliedby q)$. + +$$p\iff q$$ + +The **logical equivalence** sign represents if the truth values for both statements are **the same for all possible variables**, such that the two are **equivalent statements**. + +$$p\equiv q$$ + +$p\equiv q$ can also be defined as true when $p\iff q$ is a tautology. + +!!! warning + $p\equiv q$ is *not a proposition* itself but instead *describes* propositions. $p\iff q$ is the propositional equivalent. + +## Common theorems + +The **double negation rule** states that if $p$ is a proposition: + +$$\neg(\neg p)\equiv p$$ + +!!! tip "Proof" + Note that: + | $p$ | $\neg p$ | $\neg(\neg p)$ + | --- | --- | --- | + | T | F | T | + | F | T | F | + + Because the truth values of $p$ and $\neg(\neg p)$ for all possible truth values are equal, by definition, it follows that $p\equiv\neg(\neg p)$. + +!!! warning + Proofs must include the definition of what is being proven, and any relevant evidence must be used to describe why. + +The two **De Morgan's Laws** allow distributing the negation operator in a dis/conjunction if the junction is inverted. + +$$ +\neg(p\vee q)\equiv(\neg p)\wedge(\neg q) \\ +\neg(p\wedge q)\equiv(\neg p)\vee(\neg q) +$$ + +An implication can be expressed as a disjunction. As long as it is stated, it can used as its definition. + +$$p\implies \equiv (\neg p)\vee q$$