Help Needed: Proving Logical Equivalence of (C -> A) and (!C -> B)

  • Thread starter flying2000
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Work
In summary, the formulas (C -> A) and (!C -> B) and (A and C) or (!C and B) are logically equivalent and can be simplified to ~CB + AC. However, it may take some time and effort to prove this using a logic calculator.
  • #1
flying2000
40
0
1) (C -> A) and (!C -> B)
2) (A and C) or (!C and B)

I use the logic calculator and found these two formulas are logical equivalent, but I spend 2 hours there and still can't prove it because I can't eliminate one of the three items.

Can anyone help me?

Thanks in advance!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
flying2000 said:
1) (C -> A) and (!C -> B)
2) (A and C) or (!C or B)

I use the logic calculator and found these two formulas are logical equivalent, but I spend 2 hours there and still can't prove it because I can't eliminate one of the three items.

Can anyone help me?

Thanks in advance!

((C -> A) & (~C -> B)) <-> ((A & C) v (~C v B)), is not valid.

It fails if A=B=C=false.
 
  • #3
sorry, man, I made a mistake here,
the second one should be:
((A & C) v (~C & B)), it should be equivalent.


Owen Holden said:
((C -> A) & (~C -> B)) <-> ((A & C) v (~C v B)), is not valid.

It fails if A=B=C=false.
 
  • #4
(C -> A) :: A v ~C
(~C -> B) :: C v B
So ((C -> A) & (~C -> B)) :: (A v ~C) & (C v B)
:: ((A v ~C) & C) v ((A v ~C) & B)
:: ((A & C) v (~C & C)) v ((A & B) v (~C & B))
:: (A & C) v (A & B) v (~C & B)
:: AC + AB + ~CB (change of notation)

I expanded it out into canonical form and combined terms:

:: AC(B + ~B) + AB(C + ~C) + ~CB(A + ~A)
:: ACB + AC~B + ~CBA + ~CB~A + ABC + AB~C
:: ABC + AC~B + ~CBA + ~CB~A
:: ~CB + AC
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Thank you so much!

U r so helpful, man. thanx!

BicycleTree said:
(C -> A) :: A v ~C
(~C -> B) :: C v B
So ((C -> A) & (~C -> B)) :: (A v ~C) & (C v B)
:: ((A v ~C) & C) v ((A v ~C) & B)
:: ((A & C) v (~C & C)) v ((A & B) v (~C & B))
:: (A & C) v (A & B) v (~C & B)
:: AC + AB + ~CB (change of notation)

I expanded it out into canonical form and combined terms:

:: AC(B + ~B) + AB(C + ~C) + ~CB(A + ~A)
:: ACB + AC~B + ~CBA + ~CB~A + ABC + AB~C
:: ABC + AC~B + ~CBA + ~CB~A
:: ~CB + AC
 

1. What is the definition of logical equivalence?

Logical equivalence refers to two statements or propositions having the same truth value in all possible scenarios. In other words, if one statement is true, the other must also be true and if one is false, the other must also be false.

2. How can I prove the logical equivalence of two statements?

There are several methods to prove logical equivalence, including truth tables, logical equivalences laws, and algebraic manipulations. In this case, you can use the truth table method to show that both statements have the same truth values in all possible scenarios.

3. What is the significance of proving logical equivalence?

Proving logical equivalence is important in logic and mathematics as it helps to simplify complex statements and identify patterns between them. It also allows for the substitution of one statement for another without changing the overall validity of an argument.

4. Can you provide an example of proving logical equivalence?

Sure, let's take the example of proving the logical equivalence of (A ∧ B) and !(A → !B). We can use a truth table to show that both statements have the same truth values in all possible scenarios, thus proving their logical equivalence.

5. How does proving logical equivalence relate to conditional statements?

Proving logical equivalence can be particularly useful when dealing with conditional statements, such as (C → A) and (!C → B). In this case, if we can show that both statements are logically equivalent, we can conclude that they have the same truth values in all possible scenarios, regardless of the value of the conditional statement C.

Similar threads

  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
6
Views
335
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
9
Views
569
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
6
Views
1K
Back
Top