Boolean Equation Equivalence Problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter jomanscool2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Equivalence
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the equivalence of the Boolean equations (p∨q)∧(¬q∨r) and (p∧r)∨((p∧(¬q∧¬r))∨(¬p∧(q∧r))). The user initially attempted a brute force method involving extensive distribution, resulting in a lengthy solution. They are seeking guidance on incorporating "not p" into their proof and are encouraged to explicitly state the properties of Boolean logic used at each step to simplify the process. The discussion highlights the importance of utilizing all ten properties of Boolean logic for an effective proof.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Boolean logic properties
  • Familiarity with truth tables
  • Experience with logical equivalences and manipulations
  • Proficiency in symbolic logic notation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the ten properties of Boolean logic in detail
  • Practice constructing truth tables for complex Boolean expressions
  • Learn techniques for simplifying Boolean expressions using laws of logic
  • Explore common proof strategies in symbolic logic
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in mathematics or computer science, particularly those focused on logic, digital circuit design, or Boolean algebra proofs.

jomanscool2
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Part a was to prove the equivalence of the two equations using a truth table. Done.
Part b is to prove the equation using the 10 properties of boolean logic, as seen in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_logic#Properties"

We are trying to prove:
(p∨q)∧(¬q∨r) ⇔ (p∧r)∨((p∧(¬q∧¬r))∨(¬p∧(q∧r))).

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



I have done one solution, which was basically a brute force attempt at the problem including lots of distribution over and over again. It was over two pages long and about 40 steps. Not ideal, and not full credit for the problem either. My current attempt I am just in need of a way to 'legally' add in a "not p" into the second term of the first line in the second block of expressions. The first block is working from the longer equation to the short one, and the other block is from the shorter to the longer, trying to meet in the middle.

I have no idea if this will lead to a solution, but I am being hopeful!

(p∧r)∨((p∧(¬q∧¬r))∨(¬p∧(q∧r)))
(p∧(r∨(¬q∧¬r)))∨(¬p∧(q∧r))
(p∧((r∨¬r)∧(r∨¬q)))∨(¬p∧(q∧r))
(p∧(T_0∧(r∨¬q)))∨(¬p∧(q∧r))
(p∧(r∨¬q))∨(¬p∧(q∧r ))

(p∧(r∨¬q))∨(q∧r)
(p∧(r∨¬q))∨(F_0∨(q∧r))
(p∧(r∨¬q))∨((q∧¬q)∨(q∧r))
(p∧(r∨¬q))∨(q∧(r∨¬q))
(p∨q)∧(r∨¬q)

I am just wondering if anyone has any suggestions on how to get that last step on the proof I just posted, or any guidance of another short (half a page typed) proofs for this equation.

Edit: the half that contains the difference is not equal on a truth table, meaning it cannot be directly converted. If I were to connect those two equations, I believe that the entire equation would have to be manipulated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Start by posting which properties you're using in each stage. You'll quickly see that you're only using about 4 and dropping out two key properties that'll go a long way towards getting you to a solution.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K