MHB Solving a Complex Logical Equivalence in CNF Form

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on converting the logical expression (p ↔ q) → r into conjunctive normal form (CNF). Initial attempts using logical equivalences and De Morgan's rules were unsuccessful. A participant shared a useful transformation involving exclusive OR (XOR) and demonstrated how to express the negation of p ↔ q in terms of conjunctions and disjunctions. The final expression derived was (¬p ∨ ¬q ∨ r)(p ∨ q ∨ r), highlighting the application of distributive properties. The conversation emphasizes the complexity of translating logical statements into CNF while exploring various logical notations and transformations.
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.
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...