Reduce the following Boolean equation.

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the reduction of a Boolean equation, specifically the expression $$f(w,x,y,z) = (x + z) * (x + \bar{z}) * (x + \bar{y})$$. Participants explore the simplification process, questioning the validity of proposed reductions and the application of Boolean algebra rules.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that the expression can be simplified to $$(x)(\bar{y})$$, but another counters that this simplification does not hold true for all variable assignments.
  • A detailed step-by-step simplification is provided by one participant, leading to the conclusion that the expression simplifies to $$x$$.
  • Confusion arises regarding the application of distributive laws in Boolean algebra, with requests for clarification on specific steps in the simplification process.
  • Participants discuss the proper application of distributivity of disjunction over conjunction, with examples provided to illustrate the concept.
  • One participant acknowledges their misunderstanding and expresses gratitude for the clarification received during the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus on the initial proposed simplification, as participants express differing views on the correctness of the reduction. The discussion includes both agreement on the final simplification to $$x$$ and ongoing confusion regarding the steps involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of understanding the rules of Boolean algebra, particularly the distributive property, and how it applies to the simplification process. Some steps in the mathematical reasoning remain unclear to certain participants.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for individuals studying Boolean algebra, particularly those interested in simplification techniques and the application of algebraic laws in logic expressions.

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
1K