Simple Discrete Structures problem

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Firestrider
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Discrete Structures
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on simplifying and negating the logical structure of the bi-conditional implication W <--> S in discrete structures. The user successfully applies DeMorgan's Law and the simplification of implication to reach the expression ~[(W --> S) ^ (S --> W)]. The goal is to demonstrate that W <--> S is equivalent to W XOR S. The user seeks clarification on the negation process and its implications in logical expressions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of bi-conditional implications in logic
  • Familiarity with DeMorgan's Law
  • Knowledge of simplification of implications
  • Basic concepts of logical negation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of bi-conditional implications in propositional logic
  • Learn about logical equivalences and their applications
  • Explore the concept of exclusive OR (XOR) in logical expressions
  • Review advanced techniques in logical simplification and negation
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for students studying discrete structures, particularly those tackling logical expressions and implications. It is also useful for educators and anyone looking to deepen their understanding of logical negation and simplification techniques.

Firestrider
Messages
104
Reaction score
0
OK this is the first assignment I have in this class and I can't figure out how to negate and simplify the logical structure of W <--> S (bi-conditional implication)

I got this so far:

~[(W --> S) ^ (S --> W)] by Definition
~(W --> S) v ~(S --> W) by DeMorgan's Law
~(~W v S) v ~(~S v W) by Simplification of Implication

I just don't know where to go to from here. I know the end result would make W <--> S equivalent to W (XOR) S.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why the "~"? I would start with (W--> S)^(S-->W).

Now remember that A-->B is the same as Bv(~A).
 
Well the problem says to find the simplified negation, so I thought that meant to negate then simplify. So I negated the whole thing with ~
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K