Distributivity Theorem in Boolean Algebra

SpaceDomain
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Hello. I am wondering if the distributivity theorem works for factoring out more than a single term.

Distributivity Theorem:
BC + BD = B(C + D)

But can I do this:
[ tex ] ABC + ABD = AB(C + D) [ /tex ]

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, essentially your just using X(Y+Z)=XY+XZ with X=AB, Y=C and Z=D...
 
Awesome. Thanks.
 
Okay, so I am using this concept in the following problem but am getting stuck.

I am trying to simplify the following expression (A' is the complement of A) :

Y= A'B'C' + A'B'C + A'BC + AB'C + ABC

Y= A'B'(C' + C) + AB'C + A'BC + ABC

Y= A'B' + A'BC + AB'C + ABC

Y = A'B' + AB'C + BC(A + A')

Y = A'B' + AB'C + BC

Y = A'B' + C(AB' + B)

Y = A'B' + C(A + B)

Y = A'B' + CA + CBBut when I work out a Karnaugh Map I get Y = A'B' + C

How does CA + CB reduce to C?
 
SpaceDomain said:
Okay, so I am using this concept in the following problem but am getting stuck.

I am trying to simplify the following expression (A' is the complement of A) :

Y= A'B'C' + A'B'C + A'BC + AB'C + ABC

Y= A'B'(C' + C) + AB'C + A'BC + ABC

Y= A'B' + A'BC + AB'C + ABC

Y = A'B' + AB'C + BC(A + A')

Y = A'B' + AB'C + BC

Stop here. Now continue as

Y=A'B'+A'B'C+AB'C+BC
 
Okay, I'll try that.

But is there a way to simplify:
A'B' + CA + CB

to A'B' + C?

Or can you just get stuck when simplifying Boolean expressions?

Because when I work out the K-map on:
A'B' + CA + CB

I end up with:
A'B' + C.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top