De Morgan Rules - Logical statements

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rules
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving de Morgan's rules for set complements, specifically in the context of subsets of a set \(X\). Participants explore whether to use logical properties or to demonstrate the properties directly through set membership arguments.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents three logical properties and questions their relevance to proving de Morgan's rules for set complements.
  • Another participant suggests that the logical properties presented are unrelated to the task at hand, proposing that the relevant logical properties are the standard de Morgan's laws for logical statements.
  • There is a suggestion to prove the desired properties using logical properties or through direct set membership arguments, with uncertainty expressed about the best approach.
  • A participant proposes using characteristic functions of subsets and Boolean operations to establish the equivalence of the set properties, indicating that de Morgan's laws can be applied in this context.
  • Another participant expresses a preference for proving the set properties directly as shown, outlining a step-by-step approach to demonstrate the equivalences.
  • Participants discuss the structure of the proofs, with one providing detailed steps for proving the equivalences of the set complements.
  • One participant confirms that the outlined approach to proving the properties is acceptable.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether to use logical properties or direct set membership arguments to prove de Morgan's rules. Multiple approaches are discussed, and uncertainty remains regarding the best method to employ.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying levels of familiarity with the logical properties and their application to set theory, leading to different proposed methods for proof. There is also a reliance on definitions of characteristic functions and Boolean operations that may not be universally agreed upon.

mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! 😊

I have proven the following properties:
(i) $(a\Rightarrow b)\iff (\neg b\Rightarrow \neg a)$
(ii) $[(a\Rightarrow b)\land (b\Rightarrow c)]\Rightarrow (a\Rightarrow c)$
(iii) $[a\land (a\Rightarrow b)]\Rightarrow b$

At the second part of the exercise we have to show the de Morgan rules:
- $C_X(A\cup B)=(C_XA)\cap (C_XB)$
- $C_X(A\cap B)=(C_XA)\cup (C_XB)$
where $A,B$ are subsets of $X$ and $C_X$ is the complement in $X$. Is the first part relevant, i.e. do we have to use the first part to show these rules? Or is this not possible and we have to show that as usual taking an element of the lft set and showing that it is in the right set and also other way around?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hey mathmari!

Those first properties seem unrelated.
The relevant logical properties would be $\lnot({a\land b})=\lnot a \lor \lnot b$ respectively $\lnot({a\lor b})=\lnot a \land \lnot b$, but that is not what you have in the first part. 🤔
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
Those first properties seem unrelated.
The relevant logical properties would be $\lnot({a\land b})=\lnot a \lor \lnot b$ respectively $\lnot({a\lor b})=\lnot a \land \lnot b$, but that is not what you have in the first part. 🤔

Ok... Do you suggest to show the desired properties using logical properties or to show that $y\in C_X(A\cup B)\iff y\in (C_XA)\cap (C_XB)$ ? :unsure:
 
When you are proving the equivalence using the second option you'll be using de Morgan's logical laws implicitly anyway, so you can as well prove the equality of characteristic functions and use these laws explicitly.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
When you are proving the equivalence using the second option you'll be using de Morgan's logical laws implicitly anyway, so you can as well prove the equality of characteristic functions and use these laws explicitly.

So you mean to show that $\neg (a\land b)=\neg a\lor \neg b$ and $\neg (a\lor b)=\neg a\land \neg b$ ? Or have I misunderstood that?

If you mean this, do we show that using a truth table?

:unsure:
 
I wrote about using de Morgan's law for logic, not about proving them.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
I wrote about using de Morgan's law for logic, not about proving them.

I got stuck right now. What exactly do you mean?
 
Consider characteristic functions of subsets of $X$. Suppose that the codomain of those functions, whether it is $\{0,1\}$ or {true, false}, is equipped with Boolean operations $\land$, $\lor$, $\neg$, etc. Then if $x\in X$, $A\subseteq X$ and $\chi_A$ is the characteristic function of $A$, we have $x\in A\iff \chi_A(x)=1$ (or true) by definition. Next express the correspondence between operations on sets and operations on their characteristic functions. Then instead of proving equality of sets we can prove equality of their characteristic functions. And for that we can use laws of Boolean algebra, such as de Morgan's laws.
 
mathmari said:
Ok... Do you suggest to show the desired properties using logical properties or to show that $y\in C_X(A\cup B)\iff y\in (C_XA)\cap (C_XB)$ ? :unsure:
I'd prefer to show the set properties exactly as shown.
That is, suppose $y\in C_X(A\cup B)$ and show $\implies$. After that, show $\Longleftarrow$.
 
  • #10
Klaas van Aarsen said:
I'd prefer to show the set properties exactly as shown.
That is, suppose $y\in C_X(A\cup B)$ and show $\implies$. After that, show $\Longleftarrow$.

So do we have the following?

\begin{align*}y\in C_X(A\cup B) &\iff y\in X \ \text{ and } \ y\notin A\cup B \\ & \iff y\in X \ \text{ and } \ y\notin A \ \text{ and } \ y\notin B \\ & \iff \left (y\in X \ \text{ and } \ y\notin A\right ) \ \text{ and } \ \left (y\in X \ \text{ and } \ y\notin B \right ) \\ & \iff y\in C_XA \ \text{ and } \ y\in C_XB \\ & \iff y\in (C_XA)\cap ( C_XB )\end{align*}

\begin{align*}y\in C_X(A\cap B) &\iff y\in X \ \text{ and } \ y\notin A\cap B \\ & \iff y\in X \ \text{ and } \ \left (y\notin A \ \text{ or } \ y\notin B \right ) \\ & \iff \left (y\in X \ \text{ and } \ y\notin A\right ) \ \text{ or } \ \left (y\in X \ \text{ and } \ y\notin B \right ) \\ & \iff y\in C_XA \ \text{ or } \ y\in C_XB \\ & \iff y\in (C_XA)\cup ( C_XB )\end{align*}

:unsure:
 
  • #11
Yes, you can do that.
 
  • #12
Ok! Thank you! (Star)
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K