What is the Equivalence of Biconditional Connectives?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Herricane
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on proving the equivalence of the biconditional connective P <-> Q to the expression (P ^ Q) V (¬P ^ ¬Q). Participants explore various logical equivalences and transformations, including the use of implications and contrapositive laws. One user suggests creating a truth table for simplicity, while others emphasize the importance of using formal laws for the proof. There is confusion regarding the application of the distributive law in the context of the problem. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the challenges of manipulating logical expressions without resorting to truth tables.
Herricane
Messages
61
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



Show that P <-> Q is equivalent to (P ^ Q) V (¬P ^ ¬Q)

Homework Equations



P <-> Q is equivalent to (P -> Q) ^ (Q -> P)
P -> Q is equivalent to ¬p V Q
P -> Q is equivalent to ¬(P ^ ¬Q)
p -> Q is equivalent to ¬Q -> ¬P

The Attempt at a Solution



P <-> Q
(P -> Q) ^ (Q -> P)
(¬P V Q) ^ (¬Q V P)

I stuck I can't use the distributive law because I don't have one that is common to both parts.

P <-> Q
(P -> Q) ^ (Q ->P)
(¬Q -> ¬P)^(Q -> P) contrapositve law
(Q v ¬P) ^ (¬Q V P)
again I can't use the distributive law

Can anyone give my any hints?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why not just make a truth table? It only has 4 rows.
 
I was thinking of doing that, but I just thought there was a way to do it with the laws.
 
If the problem is to use the laws, don't you have to use the laws?

Why can't you use distribution? Distribute the whole left (or right) conjunct.

(¬P V Q) ^ (¬Q V P)
((¬P V Q) ^ ¬Q) V ((¬P V Q) ^ P)

And use it again.

((¬P ^ ¬Q) V (Q ^ ¬Q)) V ((¬P ^ P) V (Q ^ P))

What's wrong with (Q ^ ¬Q)?
 
I picked up this problem from the Schaum's series book titled "College Mathematics" by Ayres/Schmidt. It is a solved problem in the book. But what surprised me was that the solution to this problem was given in one line without any explanation. I could, therefore, not understand how the given one-line solution was reached. The one-line solution in the book says: The equation is ##x \cos{\omega} +y \sin{\omega} - 5 = 0##, ##\omega## being the parameter. From my side, the only thing I could...
Back
Top