Help Needed: Proving Logical Equivalence of (C -> A) and (!C -> B)

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter flying2000
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Work
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the logical equivalence of the expressions (C -> A) and (!C -> B) with the expression (A and C) or (!C and B). Participants utilized a logic calculator to verify the equivalence but encountered difficulties in eliminating terms. The correct formulation of the second expression is confirmed as ((A & C) v (~C & B)), which is logically equivalent to the first expression. The final canonical form derived is ~CB + AC, demonstrating the equivalence definitively.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of propositional logic
  • Familiarity with logical equivalences
  • Knowledge of truth tables
  • Experience with logic calculators or software tools
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of logical equivalence in propositional logic
  • Learn to construct and analyze truth tables for complex expressions
  • Explore canonical forms and their applications in logic
  • Practice using logic calculators for verifying logical statements
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics, logic enthusiasts, and anyone involved in formal reasoning or computer science who seeks to deepen their understanding of logical equivalences and propositional logic.

flying2000
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
1) (C -> A) and (!C -> B)
2) (A and C) or (!C and B)

I use the logic calculator and found these two formulas are logical equivalent, but I spend 2 hours there and still can't prove it because I can't eliminate one of the three items.

Can anyone help me?

Thanks in advance!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
flying2000 said:
1) (C -> A) and (!C -> B)
2) (A and C) or (!C or B)

I use the logic calculator and found these two formulas are logical equivalent, but I spend 2 hours there and still can't prove it because I can't eliminate one of the three items.

Can anyone help me?

Thanks in advance!

((C -> A) & (~C -> B)) <-> ((A & C) v (~C v B)), is not valid.

It fails if A=B=C=false.
 
sorry, man, I made a mistake here,
the second one should be:
((A & C) v (~C & B)), it should be equivalent.


Owen Holden said:
((C -> A) & (~C -> B)) <-> ((A & C) v (~C v B)), is not valid.

It fails if A=B=C=false.
 
(C -> A) :: A v ~C
(~C -> B) :: C v B
So ((C -> A) & (~C -> B)) :: (A v ~C) & (C v B)
:: ((A v ~C) & C) v ((A v ~C) & B)
:: ((A & C) v (~C & C)) v ((A & B) v (~C & B))
:: (A & C) v (A & B) v (~C & B)
:: AC + AB + ~CB (change of notation)

I expanded it out into canonical form and combined terms:

:: AC(B + ~B) + AB(C + ~C) + ~CB(A + ~A)
:: ACB + AC~B + ~CBA + ~CB~A + ABC + AB~C
:: ABC + AC~B + ~CBA + ~CB~A
:: ~CB + AC
 
Last edited:
Thank you so much!

U r so helpful, man. thanx!

BicycleTree said:
(C -> A) :: A v ~C
(~C -> B) :: C v B
So ((C -> A) & (~C -> B)) :: (A v ~C) & (C v B)
:: ((A v ~C) & C) v ((A v ~C) & B)
:: ((A & C) v (~C & C)) v ((A & B) v (~C & B))
:: (A & C) v (A & B) v (~C & B)
:: AC + AB + ~CB (change of notation)

I expanded it out into canonical form and combined terms:

:: AC(B + ~B) + AB(C + ~C) + ~CB(A + ~A)
:: ACB + AC~B + ~CBA + ~CB~A + ABC + AB~C
:: ABC + AC~B + ~CBA + ~CB~A
:: ~CB + AC
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
801
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K