Undergrad Understanding Absorption Laws (Boolean Algebras)

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathrookie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logic
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding the absorption law in Boolean algebra, specifically the expression a ∨ (a ∧ b). The original poster struggles to derive the conclusion a from their steps, particularly in obtaining the expression a ∧ (⊤ ∨ b). Other participants suggest using the distribution law to simplify the equation correctly. They also recommend utilizing a truth table to verify the equality of the expressions. The conversation highlights the importance of correctly applying Boolean algebra laws to reach the desired result.
mathrookie
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
I cannot apply distribution law
I can't understand how absorption law is obtained. I get following steps.##a∨(a∧𝑏) = (a∧⊤)∨(a∧𝑏)##
##=(a∨a)∧(a∨b)∧(⊤∨a)∧(⊤∨b)##
then,

I come up with ##=a∧(a∨b)∧⊤∧⊤## so ##=a∧(a∨b)##

But, I cannot get ##a∧(⊤∨𝑏)##, as shown on here, therefore ##a##.

Can you help me? I cannot obtain ##a∧(⊤∨𝑏)## Some people say in other answers in different questions, it is obtained by distribution law. However, what I got by this is the first equation.
[1]: https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Absorption_Laws_(Boolean_Algebras)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mathrookie said:
TL;DR Summary: I cannot apply distribution law

I can't understand how absorption law is obtained. I get following steps.##a∨(a∧𝑏) = (a∧⊤)∨(a∧𝑏)##
##=(a∨a)∧(a∨b)∧(⊤∨a)∧(⊤∨b)##
Your expression above doesn't help.
Follow the logic in your link to get this:
##a ∨ (a∧𝑏) = (a∧⊤)∨(a∧𝑏)##
##= a ∧ (T ∨ b) ## ∧ distributes over ∨
## = a ∧ T = a## T ∨ b = T
Edited to fix earlier typo.
mathrookie said:
then,

I come up with ##=a∧(a∨b)∧⊤∧⊤## so ##=a∧(a∨b)##

But, I cannot get
##a∧(⊤∨𝑏)##, as shown on here, therefore ##a##.

Can you help me? I cannot obtain
##a∧(⊤∨𝑏)## Some people say in other answers in different questions, it is obtained by distribution law. However, what I got by this is the first equation.
[1]: https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Absorption_Laws_(Boolean_Algebras)
 
Last edited:
Mark44 said:
Your expression above doesn't help.
Follow the logic in your link to get this:
##a ∨ (a∧𝑏) = (a∧⊤)∨(a∧𝑏)##
##= a ∧ (T ∧ b) ## ∧ distributes over ∨
## = a ∧ T = a## T ∨ b = T
Slight typo here, should be ##a\wedge(\top\vee b)##
OP, you can also use a truth table to see that the two expressions must be equal to a.
 
TeethWhitener said:
Slight typo here, should be ##a\wedge(\top\vee b)##
Right. I've fixed it in my post.
 
  • Like
Likes TeethWhitener
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K