Solving a Complex Logical Equivalence in CNF Form

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around transforming the logical expression (p ↔ q) → r into conjunctive normal form (CNF). Participants explore various logical equivalences and transformations, including the application of De Morgan's laws and distribution rules, while seeking assistance in completing the conversion process.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the initial expression and outlines their attempts to convert it into CNF using logical equivalences.
  • Another participant shares a transformation involving the negation of the biconditional and discusses the properties of exclusive OR (XOR) in relation to the expression.
  • A third participant acknowledges progress on the transformation but expresses confusion regarding the integration of the results with the disjunction involving r.
  • The second participant clarifies their approach to replacing the negation of the biconditional with a specific expression, indicating a step in the transformation process.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the final form of the CNF or the specific steps needed to complete the transformation. There is ongoing confusion and clarification regarding the integration of different parts of the expression.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the use of different notations and transformations, which may lead to misunderstandings. The discussion includes unresolved steps in the conversion process and varying interpretations of logical equivalences.

Yankel
Messages
390
Reaction score
0
Hello all,

I am trying to bring this:

(p \iff q ) \implies r

into a CNF form. I have started with the logical equivalences:

(p \implies q) = \lnot p\lor q
(p \iff q) = (p \land q)\lor (\lnot p \land \lnot q)

and then I have applied De Morgan's rules and the distribution rules, but unsuccessfully. I do know that every statement has a CNF. Can you please assist me with finding it?

Thank you in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yankel said:
and then I have applied De Morgan's rules and the distribution rules, but unsuccessfully.
Did your paper burst into flames? :D Sorry, I'll show myself out.

In working with big Boolean formulas I find the following notations useful: conjunction is dropped and $$\neg p$$ is written as $$\bar{p}$$. Note that
\[
\overline{p\leftrightarrow q}=\overline{pq\lor\bar{p}\bar{q}}=\overline{pq}\overline{\bar{p}\bar{q}}=(\bar{p}\lor\bar{q})(p\lor q)=p\bar{q}\lor\bar{p}q
\]
In the last equality I used distributivity and the facts that $p\bar{p}=0$ and $p\lor0=p$. For the future you may note that $p\bar{q}\lor\bar{p}q$ is called "exclusive OR" or XOR. It is the negation of $\leftrightarrow$ and is often denoted by $\oplus$. It is a very nice connective because together with $\land$ it behaves exactly as addition and multiplication modulo 2. Also, every function is represented using only $\oplus$, $\land$ and 1; this is called the algebraic normal form.

So,
\[
(p\leftrightarrow q)\to r=\overline{p\leftrightarrow q}\lor r=(\bar{p}\lor\bar{q})(p\lor q)\lor r=(\bar{p}\lor\bar{q}\lor r)(p\lor q\lor r).
\]
The last equality uses distributivity of $\lor$ over $\land$: $pq\lor r=(p\lor r)(q\lor r)$.
 
Thank you.

I managed to do the first part of your calculation. The problem remains in the second part.

You (and I) got that the negation of p \iff q is in DNF form. But when you went back and put the result together with \lor r, you put it differently. This is the part I miss here, can you please explain?
 
Yankel said:
But when you went back and put the result together with \lor r, you put it differently. This is the part I miss here, can you please explain?
I replaced $$\overline{p\leftrightarrow q}$$ with $$(\bar{p}\lor\bar{q})(p\lor q)$$, which is the second last expression in the first line of formulas in my previous post.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K