Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Formulas and are logically equivalent if and only if the statement of their material equivalence is a tautology. [ 2 ] The material equivalence of p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} (often written as p ↔ q {\displaystyle p\leftrightarrow q} ) is itself another statement in the same object language as p {\displaystyle p} and q ...
A tautology in first-order logic is a sentence that can be obtained by taking a tautology of propositional logic and uniformly replacing each propositional variable by a first-order formula (one formula per propositional variable).
In logic, a set of symbols is commonly used to express logical representation. The following table lists many common symbols, together with their name, how they should be read out loud, and the related field of mathematics.
Inspection of the tabular derivations for NAND and NOR, under each assignment of logical values to the functional arguments p and q, produces the identical patterns of functional values for ¬(p ∧ q) as for (¬p) ∨ (¬q), and for ¬(p ∨ q) as for (¬p) ∧ (¬q). Thus the first and second expressions in each pair are logically equivalent ...
With this premise, we also conclude that q=T, p∨q=T, etc. as shown by columns 9–15. The column-11 operator (IF/THEN), shows Modus ponens rule: when p→q=T and p=T only one line of the truth table (the first) satisfies these two conditions. On this line, q is also true. Therefore, whenever p → q is true and p is true, q must also be true.
Some of these connectives may be defined in terms of others: for instance, implication, p → q, may be defined in terms of disjunction and negation, as ¬p ∨ q; [74] and disjunction may be defined in terms of negation and conjunction, as ¬(¬p ∧ ¬q). [51]
The proof of 2.1 is roughly as follows: "primitive idea" 1.08 defines p → q = ~p ∨ q. Substituting p for q in this rule yields p → p = ~p ∨ p. Since p → p is true (this is Theorem 2.08, which is proved separately), then ~p ∨ p must be true. 2.11 p ∨ ~p (Permutation of the assertions is allowed by axiom 1.4)
Of its five connectives, {∧, ∨, →, ¬, ⊥}, only negation "¬" can be reduced to other connectives (see False (logic) § False, negation and contradiction for more). Neither conjunction, disjunction, nor material conditional has an equivalent form constructed from the other four logical connectives.