UTT- Boolean Algebra Equivalence

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on demonstrating the equivalence of two Boolean expressions algebraically without using a truth table. Participants simplify both sides of the equation, ultimately expressing them in disjunctive normal form (DNF) to show their equivalence. They suggest using Karnaugh maps for smaller variable sets while acknowledging that complexity increases with more variables. A strategy mentioned includes expanding terms before minimizing, which can help in finding equivalent forms. The conversation emphasizes the importance of transforming expressions to prove their equality effectively.
Ithryndil
Messages
142
Reaction score
0
Ok, I am having a difficult time with the following problem. I am to show that the two sides are equal.

x1'x3 + x1x2x3' +x1'x2+x1x2' = x2'x3+x1x3'+x2x3'+x1'x2x3

For the LHS I can simplify it to:
x2(x1'+x1x3') + x1'x3 + x1x2'
x2x1' + x2x3' + x1'x3 + x1x2'
x1'x3 + x2x3' + x1x2'

For the RHS I can simplify to:
x2(x3' + x1'x3) + x2'x3 + x1x3'
x2x3' + x2x1' + x2'x3 + x1x3'
x1'x3 + x1'x2 + x2x3

At this point I am stuck. I know that both sides should be equal. I have to do this algebraically, so using a truth table is out of it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In order to show two Boolean expressions to be equal, it suffices to show they can be transformed into equivalent forms. The most rudimentary way is to find their complete-sum-of-products form (aka disjunctive normal form DNF).

When the number of variable is small, a Karnaugh map is also useful.

Removing the distraction of subscripts by letting x = x1, y = x2, and z = x3:

You need to show that x'z + xyz' + x'y + xy' = y'z + xz' + yz' + x'yz.

When finding the "completed" version of a fundamental product recall that

ab = ab(1) = ab(c + c') = abc + abc'

and then delete extra identical summands.

Or show that both expressions have the same Karnaugh map.

\begin{array}{c|c|c|c|c}<br /> &amp; yz &amp; yz&#039; &amp; y&#039;z&#039; &amp; y&#039;z \\<br /> \hline<br /> x &amp; &amp; \checkmark &amp; \checkmark &amp; \checkmark \\<br /> x&#039; &amp; \checkmark &amp; \checkmark &amp; &amp; \checkmark \\<br /> \end{array}<br />

When the number of variables increases things get more difficult.

--Elucidus
 
I hope this isn't too late.
Also, I agree with ELUCIDUS about removing subscripts and making it easier, so I'll use his.

Hint:
You don't always have to minimize first. You can start out by expanding terms, such as:

X'Z = X'YZ + X'Y'Z
Then you can re-combine terms, then minimize. Try it!~

KM
 
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
6K
Replies
8
Views
6K
Back
Top