Finding the WFF of a Truth Table: Strategies Explained

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter E92M3
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Table Truth table
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around strategies for deriving a well-formed formula (wff) from a truth table in the context of logic. Participants explore methods for constructing wffs based on the truth values of propositions, as well as simplification techniques for the resulting expressions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses difficulty in deriving a wff from a truth table and seeks general strategies.
  • Another participant outlines a method for constructing a wff by forming conjunctions of atomic propositions that are true or false in each row of the truth table, followed by disjunction of these conjunctions.
  • A question arises regarding the notation used, specifically the meaning of "^" and the structure of wffs, with a participant suggesting that parentheses are necessary for clarity.
  • A clarification is provided that the notation used is standard, and that the associative property of conjunction allows for the omission of parentheses without ambiguity.
  • A participant inquires about methods for simplifying the derived wff, prompting a discussion on identifying common patterns in the expressions.
  • Another participant suggests an alternative method for finding a wff by focusing on rows where the wff evaluates to false, proposing to negate the conjunction of the atomic propositions in those rows.
  • De Morgan's laws and alternative connective expressions are mentioned as tools for further simplification of wffs.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on a single method for deriving wffs, as multiple strategies and notational preferences are presented. There is also some debate regarding the necessity of parentheses in wff expressions.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions about notation and the structure of logical expressions may not be universally accepted, and the discussion reflects varying levels of familiarity with logical conventions.

E92M3
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
Hi, I'm new to logic. I can fill in a truth table if given a wff but can't do it the other way around. What is the general strategy in finding the wff of a truth table?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There might be more than 1 wff for a given truth-table, but here's how to find one:

For each row where the wff must evaluate to true, form the sentence P1 ^ P2 ^ ... ^ -Q1 ^ -Q2 ^ ... where P1, P2, ... are the atomic propositions set to true in that row, and Q1, Q2, ... those set to false. Then take all these sentences and "or" them, e.g.:


P Q R wff
T T T T -----> P ^ Q ^ R
T T F F
T F T T -----> P^ -Q ^ R
F T T F
T F F F
F T F T -----> -P ^ Q ^ -R
F F T F
F F F T -----> -P ^ -Q ^ -R

Then we get (P ^ Q ^ R) V (P^ -Q ^ R) V (-P ^ Q ^ -R) V (-P ^ -Q ^ -R)

Hopefully you can see why this works.
 
But what do you mean by "^"? is it &? How can you have (P^Q^R)? I Thought this can't be a wff. Shouldn't it be like ((P^Q)^R) since two two place connective will require two sets of breckets. Also does -Q mean ~Q?
 
Yes, that's what I mean, ^ is &, - is ~.

Note that (A & B) & C = A & (B & C) for all valuations, so A & B & C is unambiguous, semantically speaking. But if you wish, you can put brackets to make it a syntactically correct wff (it's the same story with the or's).
 
Then how can I shorten those wff to make them cleaner?
 
Well, for example in

(P ^ Q ^ R) V (P^ -Q ^ R) V (-P ^ Q ^ -R) V (-P ^ -Q ^ -R)

you can see that whenever P and R are true, the sentence will be true (the truth value of Q doesn't matter). It's the same whenever -P and -R are true. So I can shorten this as:

(P ^ R) V (-P ^ -R)

Those are the kind of simplifications that you can hope for when dealing with these things.

Edit:

Another way to find wff, is: for each row where the wff must be false, "and" the atomic sentences (negating them if false), "or" all the sentences you obtain, then finally negate the sentence you get. This is preferable if you have more occurrences of true than false, for example

P Q wff
T T T
T F T
F T F
F F T

you get -(-P ^ Q).

You can always try to play with De Morgan's laws to simplify the expressions. You can also try expressing things with other conectives e.g. -(-P ^ Q) = -P -> -Q
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K