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

  • Thread starter Thread starter flying2000
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Work
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around proving the logical equivalence of the expressions (C -> A) and (!C -> B) with (A and C) or (!C and B). Initially, there was confusion regarding the validity of the equivalence, particularly when all variables A, B, and C are false. After further analysis, it was clarified that the correct form should be ((A & C) v (~C & B)). The participants engaged in expanding the expressions into canonical form and combining terms to demonstrate the equivalence. Ultimately, the logical equivalence was confirmed through detailed logical manipulation and notation changes.
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
 
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
Back
Top