154 lines
5.7 KiB
Markdown
154 lines
5.7 KiB
Markdown
**Notes on Slides and Exercises**
|
||
|
||
**Slide 0: Learning Objectives**
|
||
- Prove equivalence of formulae using truth tables.
|
||
- Remember and use laws of equivalence.
|
||
- Carry out a transformational proof.
|
||
|
||
**Slide 1: Contents**
|
||
- Why is propositional logic called Boolean logic/algebra?
|
||
- Using truth tables to prove two formulae are identical in meaning.
|
||
- A problem with truth tables.
|
||
- Laws of logic.
|
||
- Famous applications.
|
||
- Summary, reading and references.
|
||
|
||
**Slide 2: George Boole (1815-1864)**
|
||
- Son of a shoemaker, self-taught mathematician.
|
||
- Professed mathematics at Queens College, Cork, Ireland.
|
||
- Seminal work: attempted to apply algebraic and arithmetic principles to logic.
|
||
|
||
**Slide 3: Logical Equivalence (≡)**
|
||
- Two formulae are equivalent if they have identical truth values under all possible assignments.
|
||
- Example: p ≡ p ∨ p (Idempotence)
|
||
|
||
**Slide 4: Two Approaches to Logical Equivalence**
|
||
1. Truth tables
|
||
- Example: p ≡ ¬p (Negation)
|
||
2. Transformational proofs
|
||
- Uses laws of logic to prove equivalence.
|
||
|
||
**Slide 5: Logical Equivalence with One Variable**
|
||
- Truth table for p ≡ p ∨ p (Idempotence)
|
||
- T | T | T
|
||
F | F | F
|
||
|
||
**Slide 6: Logical Equivalence with Two Variables**
|
||
- Truth table for p ∨ q ≡ q ∨ p (Commutativity)
|
||
- T | T | T | T
|
||
F | T | T | T
|
||
T | F | T | F
|
||
F | F | F | F
|
||
|
||
**Slide 7: Exercise - De Morgan's First Law**
|
||
- Prove ¬(p ∧ q) ≡ ¬p ∨ ¬q using a truth table.
|
||
|
||
**Slide 8: Solution to Exercise**
|
||
- Truth table for ¬(p ∧ q) ≡ ¬p ∨ ¬q
|
||
- T | F | F | T | F | F | T | F | F | F
|
||
F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | T
|
||
|
||
**Slide 9: Logical Equivalence with Three Variables**
|
||
- Truth table for (p ∨ q) ∨ r ≡ p ∨ (q ∨ r) (Associativity)
|
||
- Example: (2 × 3) × 4 = 2 × (3 × 4)
|
||
|
||
**Slide 10: A Problem with Truth Tables**
|
||
- Truth tables become increasingly tedious as the number of variables increases.
|
||
- n | Number of rows in truth table (2^n)
|
||
1 | 2
|
||
2 | 4
|
||
3 | 8
|
||
|
||
**Slide 11: Laws of Logic**
|
||
- Idempotence: p ≡ p ∨ p, p ≡ p ∧ p
|
||
- Commutativity: p ∨ q ≡ q ∨ p, p ∧ q ≡ q ∧ p
|
||
- Associativity: (p ∨ q) ∨ r ≡ p ∨ (q ∨ r), etc.
|
||
- Negation law: ¬¬p ≡ p
|
||
- Law of equivalence: p ⇔ q ≡ (p ⇒ q) ∧ (q ⇒ p)
|
||
- Law of implication: p ⇒ q ≡ ¬p ∨ q
|
||
- Contraposition Law: p ⇒ q ≡ ¬q ⇒ ¬p
|
||
- De Morgan's first law: ¬(p ∧ q) ≡ ¬p ∨ ¬q
|
||
- De Morgan's second law: ¬(p ∨ q) ≡ ¬p ∧ ¬q
|
||
|
||
**Slide 12: Proof of De Morgan's Second Law**
|
||
- Using laws of logic to prove ¬(p ∨ q) ≡ ¬p ∧ ¬q.
|
||
|
||
**Slide 13: Idempotence**
|
||
- Proof of p ∧ p ≡ p using laws of logic.
|
||
- p ∧ p ≡ ¬¬p ∧ ¬¬p (Negation law twice)
|
||
- ≡ ¬(¬p ∨ ¬p) (De Morgan's second law)
|
||
- ≡ ¬false (Law of contradiction)
|
||
- ≡ p (Simplification)
|
||
|
||
**Slide 14: Commutative Laws of Logic**
|
||
- Proof of p ∧ q ≡ q ∧ p using laws of logic.
|
||
- p ∧ q ≡ ¬¬p ∧ ¬¬q (Negation law twice)
|
||
- ≡ ¬(¬p ∨ ¬q) (De Morgan's second law)
|
||
- ≡ ¬(¬q ∨ ¬p) (Commutativity of ∨)
|
||
- ≡ q ∧ p (Negation law twice)
|
||
|
||
**Slide 15: Associative Laws of Logic**
|
||
- Example: (a × b) × c ≡ a × (b × c)
|
||
|
||
**Slide 16: Distributive Laws of Logic**
|
||
- Example: a × (b + c) ≡ (a × b) + (a × c)
|
||
|
||
**Slide 17: T versus true and F versus false**
|
||
- T represents a formula is true, F represents it is false.
|
||
- Example: p ∧ true ≡ p (Law of simplification)
|
||
|
||
**Slide 18: Laws involving true and false**
|
||
- Law of excluded middle: p ∨ ¬p ≡ true
|
||
- Law of contradiction: p ∧ ¬p ≡ false
|
||
- Laws of simplification: p ∧ true ≡ p, p ∨ true ≡ true, p ∧ false ≡ false, p ∨ false ≡ p
|
||
|
||
**Slide 19: Two More Laws of Simplification**
|
||
- Proofs for:
|
||
- p ∨ (p ∧ q) ≡ p
|
||
- p ∧ (p ∨ q) ≡ p
|
||
|
||
**Slide 20: Transformational Proofs**
|
||
- Two implicit rules:
|
||
- Substitution Rule: Replace a sub-formula with an equivalent one without changing the meaning.
|
||
- Transitivity Rule: If p ≡ q and q ≡ r, then p ≡ r.
|
||
- Example: Modus Tollens (¬q ∧ (p ⇒ q) ⇒ ¬p)
|
||
- Proof using laws of logic.
|
||
|
||
**Slide 21: Exercise**
|
||
- Fill in the missing steps to prove (p ∨ q) ∧ (¬p ∨ q) ≡ q using transformational proofs.
|
||
- Solution:
|
||
- (p ∨ q) ∧ (¬p ∨ q)
|
||
- ≡ (q ∨ p) ∧ (¬p ∨ q) (Commutativity)
|
||
- ≡ q ∨ (p ∧ ¬p) (Distributive law)
|
||
- ≡ q ∨ false (Law of contradiction)
|
||
- ≡ q (Simplification)
|
||
|
||
**Slide 22: Example - Accommodation**
|
||
- Prove ¬p ⇒ (q ∨ r) ≡ (¬p ∧ ¬q) ⇒ r using transformational proofs.
|
||
- Solution:
|
||
- Proof using laws of logic.
|
||
|
||
**Slide 23: Famous Applications**
|
||
- Analysis of complex conditional commands in programming.
|
||
- Design of digital circuits.
|
||
- Algebraic approach to formal specifications in software engineering.
|
||
|
||
**Slide 24: Summary**
|
||
- Boole's system was the foundation for propositional logic.
|
||
- Two approaches to establishing equivalence:
|
||
- Truth tables (tedious with many variables)
|
||
- Transformational proofs (uses laws of logic)
|
||
- Summary slides on Boole's system, truth tables, and transformational proofs.
|
||
|
||
**Slide 25: Reading and References**
|
||
- Recommended textbook: Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2022). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (4th ed.). Pearson.
|
||
- Additional references:
|
||
- Nissanke, M. (1999). Introductory Logic and Sets for Computer Scientists. Addison-Wesley.
|
||
- Gray, P. (1984). Logic, Algebra and Databases. John Wiley & Sons.
|
||
|
||
**Exercises:**
|
||
1. Prove the laws of idempotence, commutative, associative, and distributive using truth tables.
|
||
2. Prove De Morgan's laws using truth tables or transformational proofs.
|
||
3. Prove the laws involving true and false using truth tables or transformational proofs.
|
||
4. Prove the laws of simplification using truth tables or transformational proofs.
|
||
5. Prove the equivalence of two given formulae using transformational proofs (as demonstrated in slides 21 and 22). |