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
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on strategies for finding a well-formed formula (wff) from a truth table in propositional logic. The primary method involves forming conjunctions of atomic propositions for rows where the wff evaluates to true and then disjoining these conjunctions. An alternative method is to create conjunctions for rows where the wff is false, negate the result, and simplify using techniques such as De Morgan's laws. The discussion clarifies the use of symbols, specifically that "^" represents logical conjunction and "-" denotes negation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of propositional logic and truth tables
  • Familiarity with logical connectives such as conjunction (^) and negation (-)
  • Knowledge of simplification techniques in logic, including De Morgan's laws
  • Ability to manipulate well-formed formulas (wff) in logical expressions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the process of constructing truth tables for various logical expressions
  • Learn about logical equivalences and how to apply them for simplification
  • Explore advanced topics in propositional logic, such as normal forms (CNF and DNF)
  • Investigate the use of software tools for automated logic simplification and truth table generation
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for students of logic, educators teaching propositional logic, and anyone interested in improving their skills in logical reasoning and formula manipulation.

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