Reduce the following Boolean equation.

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter shamieh
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Boolean equation $$f(w,x,y,z) = (x + z) * (x + \bar{z}) * (x + \bar{y})$$ simplifies definitively to $$x$$. The simplification process utilizes the distributive properties of Boolean algebra, specifically the distributivity of disjunction over conjunction. Key steps include recognizing that $$z\bar{z} = 0$$ and applying the identity $$1 + \bar{y} = 1$$. This discussion clarifies common misconceptions about the application of distributive laws in Boolean expressions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Boolean algebra principles
  • Familiarity with distributive laws in Boolean expressions
  • Knowledge of simplification techniques for Boolean equations
  • Experience with logical operators (AND, OR, NOT)
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Boolean algebra simplification techniques in-depth
  • Learn about the application of distributive laws in Boolean expressions
  • Explore the use of Karnaugh maps for visual simplification
  • Investigate advanced Boolean algebra concepts like consensus theorem
USEFUL FOR

Students, educators, and professionals in computer science, electrical engineering, and anyone involved in digital logic design or Boolean algebra simplification.

shamieh
Messages
538
Reaction score
0
Is this correct?

The following Boolean equation can be reduced any farther than it already is? Write out the simplified formula.

$$$f$(w,x,y,z) = (x + z) * (x + \bar{z}) * (x + \bar{y})$$

My answer: $$(x)(\bar{y})$$ ?
 
Technology news on Phys.org
shamieh said:
$$$f$(w,x,y,z) = (x + z) * (x + \bar{z}) * (x + \bar{y})$$

My answer: $$(x)(\bar{y})$$ ?
No, the first expression is true when x = y = z = 1, but the second expression is false.

We have\[\begin{align*}(x + z)(x + \bar{z})(x + \bar{y}) &= (x+z\bar{z})(x+\bar{y})&& \text{by distributivity of disjunction over conjunction}\\ &=x(x+\bar{y})&& \text{since }z\bar{z}=0\\ &=x+x\bar{y}&& \text{by distributivity of conjunction over disjunction}\\ &=x(1+\bar{y})&&\text{since } x=x\cdot1\\ &=x\cdot1&&\text{since }1+\bar{y}=1\\ &=x\end{align*}\]
 
When you say

$$(x + z)(x + \bar{z})(x + \bar{y}) = (x + z\bar{z})(x + \bar{y}) $$
<-- How are you getting this result? I am confused.

Are you saying: $$(xx + x\bar{z} + xz + z\bar{z})$$ <-- This is just FOILing the first two. What about the one in the last parenthesis? Can you please show details because I am very confused.

Or are you saying

$$xx + xz! + xx + xy! + xz + zz! + xz + zy!$$ ?
 
$(x+z)(x+\bar{z})=(x+z\bar{z})$ is distributivity of disjunction over conjunction, which I described in a https://driven2services.com/staging/mh/index.php?posts/30680/.
 
oh wait I see.

(x + z)(x + z!)(x + y!)

so:

(xx + zz!)(x + y!) = x(x + y!) = then Factor x(1 + y!) and 1 +y! = 1 thus x*1=x. Wow I had to stare at it for a couple minutes. Thanks for the Help, sorry for the hassle lol.
 
shamieh said:
(x + z)(x + z!)(x + y!)

so:

(xx + zz!)(x + y!)
You are writing (x + z)(x + z!) = (xx + zz!) as if you multiplied the first terms (i.e., x and x) and then the second terms (i.e., z and z!) in the two sets of parentheses. There is no law that allows you to do this. Please take a minute to read my description of distributivity of disjunction over conjunction in the other thread and be sure you understand why it is called distributivity and how the two types of distributivity in Boolean algebra are similar.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
You are writing (x + z)(x + z!) = (xx + zz!) as if you multiplied the first terms (i.e., x and x) and then the second terms (i.e., z and z!) in the two sets of parentheses. There is no law that allows you to do this. Please take a minute to read my description of distributivity of disjunction over conjunction in the other thread and be sure you understand why it is called distributivity and how the two types of distributivity in Boolean algebra are similar.

You aren't multiplying x and x together but you ARE multiplying z and $$\bar{z}$$ to get $$z\bar{z} = 0 $$ correct? If that is was you are doing then I made a mistake and understand how to do it now, if something else is going on then I will need to re-read the definition.

- - - Updated - - -

like for example if i had $$(a + b)(a + \bar{b})(a + c) $$

i would get by, disjunc over conjunc.

$$(a + b\bar{b})(a + c) = a(a + c) = a(1 + c) = a (1+c = 1) = a(1) = a$$
 
shamieh said:
You aren't multiplying x and x together but you ARE multiplying z and $$\bar{z}$$ to get $$z\bar{z} = 0 $$ correct?
Yes.

In general, distributivity of some operator % over some other operator # says the following:

x % (y # z) = (x % y) # (x % z).

If % is disjunction (+) and # is multiplication (*), then this amounts to

x + (y * z) = (x + y) * (x + z),

or

x + yz = (x + y)(x + z).

In the right-hand side, one term in both sets of parentheses is the same: x. The other two terms (y and z) are multiplied and the result is added to x to produce the left-hand side.
 
Great Explanation! Thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
925