I Understanding Absorption Laws (Boolean Algebras)

  • I
  • 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
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...
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.