MHB Simplifying Logical Expressions [SOLVED]

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on simplifying logical expressions using DeMorgan's Law and the Distributive Property. The original expression, NOT(a < 20 AND (b < 10 OR b > 10)), is simplified to a >= 20 OR b = 10 after applying DeMorgan's Law and the Distributive Law correctly. Participants clarify that after the first application of DeMorgan's Law, it is necessary to convert NOT(b < 10 OR b > 10) into (NOT b < 10) AND (NOT b > 10) before using distributivity. The conversation concludes with insights on the subjective nature of simplification in logical expressions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of DeMorgan's Law in logic
  • Familiarity with the Distributive Property
  • Basic knowledge of logical connectives (AND, OR, NOT)
  • Ability to interpret and manipulate logical expressions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study advanced applications of DeMorgan's Law in complex logical expressions
  • Explore the implications of logical expression simplification in programming languages
  • Learn about the precedence of logical operators and its impact on expression evaluation
  • Investigate different definitions and metrics of simplification in logic
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics, computer science professionals, and anyone interested in logical reasoning and expression simplification techniques.

Valtham
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
[SOLVED] Simplifying Expressions

Hello all I am a bit confused about the laws I am learning about right now and attempted some of my own exercises to understand them a bit.

I have the problem NOT(a < 20 AND (b < 10 OR b > 10)) and I need to simplify it.

From my understanding I can use DeMorgan's Law which then gives me the expression NOT a < 20 OR NOT(b < 10 OR b > 10). I can then use the Distributive Property to create the expression (NOT a < 20 OR NOT b < 10) AND (NOT a < 20 OR NOT b > 10).

What I am confused about is after I use DeMorgan's Law the first time is it correct to use the Distributive Law next? Or should I have used DeMorgan's Law again?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Valtham said:
What I am confused about is after I use DeMorgan's Law the first time is it correct to use the Distributive Law next? Or should I have used DeMorgan's Law again?
You can't use the distributive law immediately after the first De Morgan's law. Distributivity requires that the expression has both a disjunction and a conjunction. So, first you need to convert NOT(b < 10 OR b > 10) into (NOT b < 10) AND (NOT b > 10) and then use distributivity. You indeed get (NOT a < 20 OR NOT b < 10) AND (NOT a < 20 OR NOT b > 10).

If < denoted the regular order, then I believe the simplest form of this is expression is a >= 20 OR b = 10.
 
Thanks for the reply. Makes total sense that I would have to use DeMorgan's Law again. I can see how you get a >= 20 OR b = 10, but what if the expression had been (NOT a < 20 AND NOT (b <= 10 OR b >= 15)). Using that expression the "simplified" version would be a >= 20 OR b >= 10 AND b <= 15. To me that expression hardly seems simplified, and all we did was remove the "NOT" connectives pretty much. What does "simplifying an expression" mean exactly? We weren't really given a precise definition other than an example that removes as many variables and connectives as possible.
 
Valtham said:
what if the expression had been (NOT a < 20 AND NOT (b <= 10 OR b >= 15)). Using that expression the "simplified" version would be a >= 20 OR b >= 10 AND b <= 15.
It should say, "... b > 10 AND b < 15." Also, usually AND is considered to have higher priority than OR, so omitting parentheses is OK, but unless this is an explicit convention in your course, it may still make sense to put parentheses around b > 10 AND b < 15 to remove any ambiguity.

Valtham said:
To me that expression hardly seems simplified, and all we did was remove the "NOT" connectives pretty much. What does "simplifying an expression" mean exactly? We weren't really given a precise definition other than an example that removes as many variables and connectives as possible.
There are different measures with respect to which simplification can be defined. Here the answer has 2 connectives vs 4 in the original expression, so in this sense it is simpler. On the other hand, the number of atomic propositions is the same. Informally, for me it is a little easier to understand a >= 20 than NOT a < 20. Also, b > 10 AND b < 15 is often abbreviated as 10 < b < 15, which makes it even simpler.
 
If there are an infinite number of natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and... then that must mean that there are not only infinite infinities, but an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K