What is the Equivalence of Biconditional Connectives?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Herricane
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the equivalence of biconditional connectives in propositional logic, specifically showing that P <-> Q is equivalent to (P ^ Q) V (¬P ^ ¬Q). Participants are exploring logical laws and equivalences related to this statement.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to manipulate the expression using logical equivalences but encounters difficulties with the distributive law. Some participants suggest creating a truth table as an alternative approach, while others emphasize the necessity of using logical laws as per the problem's requirements.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants exploring different methods to approach the problem. There is a mix of suggestions regarding the use of truth tables versus logical laws, and some participants are questioning the application of the distributive law in their reasoning.

Contextual Notes

Participants are operating under the constraint of needing to use logical laws rather than alternative methods like truth tables, which has led to discussions about the validity of certain steps in their reasoning.

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)?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
3K