Finding the WFF of a Truth Table: Strategies Explained

AI Thread Summary
To find a well-formed formula (wff) from a truth table, identify rows where the wff evaluates to true and create a conjunction of atomic propositions that are true, while negating those that are false. Combine these conjunctions using disjunction to form the complete wff. The discussion clarifies that the symbols used, such as "^" for conjunction and "-" for negation, can be interchanged with "&" and "~" respectively, and emphasizes that grouping with parentheses is not strictly necessary for clarity. Simplification techniques are suggested, such as recognizing patterns in the truth values to shorten the wff. Additionally, an alternative method for constructing a wff involves focusing on rows where the wff is false, using negation to derive the final expression.
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
40
Views
8K
Replies
12
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top