Results 1 to 12 of 12
Like Tree8Thanks
  • 1 Post By Plato
  • 1 Post By romsek
  • 1 Post By romsek
  • 1 Post By Plato
  • 1 Post By Hartlw
  • 1 Post By Hartlw
  • 1 Post By romsek
  • 1 Post By Hartlw

Math Help - Truth Tables

  1. #1
    Newbie
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    From
    Trinidad
    Posts
    17

    Truth Tables

    I think I understand how
    (P Λ Q) ≡ ¨ (P ↓ Q) and
    (P Λ Q) ≡ ¨P ↓ ¨Q.

    However I can’t seem to make sense of
    ¨ (P ↓ Q) ≡ (P ↓ Q) ↓ (P ↓ Q) and
    ¨P ↓ ¨Q ≡ (P ↓ P) ↓ (Q ↓ Q).

    Please help.
    Thanks
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,605
    Thanks
    1574
    Awards
    1

    Re: Truth Tables

    Quote Originally Posted by Gayelle View Post
    I think I understand how
    (P Λ Q) ≡ ¨ (P ↓ Q) and
    (P Λ Q) ≡ ¨P ↓ ¨Q.
    However I canít seem to make sense of
    ¨ (P ↓ Q) ≡ (P ↓ Q) ↓ (P ↓ Q) and
    ¨P ↓ ¨Q ≡ (P ↓ P) ↓ (Q ↓ Q).
    The chief difficulty here is that almost no one agrees on notation.
    Although it was invented in the 1880's by CS Pierce, still today there is a disagreement.
    Here is the way I learned it from C.I. Copi. He called IT Stroke and dagger.
    $\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}P&{}&Q&{}&{}&{P|Q}\\\hline T&{}&T&{}&{}&F\\T&{}&F&{}&{}&T\\F&{}&T&{}&{}&T\\F& {}&F&{}&{}&T\end{array}$ and $\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}P&{}&Q&{}&{}&{P \downarrow q} \\ \hline T&{}&T&{}&{}&F\\T&{}&F&{}&{}&F\\F&{}&T&{}&{}&F\\F& {}&F&{}&{}&T\end{array}$

    Willard Quine (the greatest American logician of the 20th century) calls it alternative denial.
    Last edited by Plato; March 17th 2014 at 02:56 AM.
    Thanks from Gayelle
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    From
    California
    Posts
    2,227
    Thanks
    851

    Re: Truth Tables

    Quote Originally Posted by Gayelle View Post
    I think I understand how
    (P Λ Q) ≡ ¨ (P ↓ Q) and
    (P Λ Q) ≡ ¨P ↓ ¨Q.

    However I canít seem to make sense of
    ¨ (P ↓ Q) ≡ (P ↓ Q) ↓ (P ↓ Q) and
    ¨P ↓ ¨Q ≡ (P ↓ P) ↓ (Q ↓ Q).

    Please help.
    Thanks
    just methodically make the truth tables.

    $\begin{array}{ccccc}
    P &Q &(P \downarrow Q) &\neg (P \downarrow Q)& (P \downarrow Q) \downarrow(P \downarrow Q) \\
    0 &0 &1 &0 &0 \\
    0 &1 &0 &1 &1 \\
    1 &0 &0 &1 &1 \\
    1 &1 &0 &1 &1
    \end{array}$

    you can see the last two columns are identical.

    $\begin{array}{ccddcccc}
    P &Q &(P \downarrow P) &(Q\downarrow Q)& (P \downarrow P) \downarrow(Q\downarrow Q) &\neg P & \neg Q &\neg P \downarrow \neg Q \\
    0 &0 &1 &1 &0 &1 &1 &0\\
    0 &1 &1 &0 &0 &1 &0 &0\\
    1 &0 &0 &1 &0 &0 &1 &0\\
    1 &1 &0 &0 &1 &0 &0 &1\\
    \end{array}$

    you can see the 5th and 8th columns are identical
    Thanks from Gayelle
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Newbie
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    From
    Trinidad
    Posts
    17

    Re: Truth Tables

    Iím sorry, I should have stated that I understood that they are equivalent and I could derive this via truth formulas. However although I know itís correct I canít understand the reasoning. The actual problem in its entirety was: Find formulas using only the connective ↓ that are equivalent to ¨P, P V Q and P Λ Q. I got that (P V Q) ≡ ¨ (P ↓ Q) [Sorry about the error as I originally posted this as (P Λ Q) ≡ ¨ (P ↓ Q)] The reasoning being that saying ďeither P OR Q is trueĒ (P V Q), is the same as saying ďit is not the case that neither P nor Q is trueĒ ¨ (P ↓ Q). I must admit that Iím still havenít completely wrapped my mind around this however how one gets from ¨ (P ↓ Q) to (P ↓ Q) ↓ (P ↓ Q) is to me completely unfathomable (reasoning wise that is). As ¨ (P ↓ Q) ≡ (P ↓ Q) ↓ (P ↓ Q). Hope I better explained myself.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    From
    California
    Posts
    2,227
    Thanks
    851

    Re: Truth Tables

    Quote Originally Posted by Gayelle View Post
    Iím sorry, I should have stated that I understood that they are equivalent and I could derive this via truth formulas. However although I know itís correct I canít understand the reasoning. The actual problem in its entirety was: Find formulas using only the connective ↓ that are equivalent to ¨P, P V Q and P Λ Q. I got that (P V Q) ≡ ¨ (P ↓ Q) [Sorry about the error as I originally posted this as (P Λ Q) ≡ ¨ (P ↓ Q)] The reasoning being that saying ďeither P OR Q is trueĒ (P V Q), is the same as saying ďit is not the case that neither P nor Q is trueĒ ¨ (P ↓ Q). I must admit that Iím still havenít completely wrapped my mind around this however how one gets from ¨ (P ↓ Q) to (P ↓ Q) ↓ (P ↓ Q) is to me completely unfathomable (reasoning wise that is). As ¨ (P ↓ Q) ≡ (P ↓ Q) ↓ (P ↓ Q). Hope I better explained myself.
    There's nothing I can write down that's going to help you internalize these relationships. You just have to work them out yourself to get that lightbulb to come on.
    Thanks from Gayelle
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Newbie
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    From
    Trinidad
    Posts
    17

    Re: Truth Tables

    Quote Originally Posted by romsek View Post
    There's nothing I can write down that's going to help you internalize these relationships. You just have to work them out yourself to get that lightbulb to come on.
    So I take it that there is no way to reason ¨ (P ↓ Q) ≡ (P ↓ Q) ↓ (P ↓ Q) or ¨P ↓ ¨Q ≡ (P ↓ P) ↓ (Q ↓ Q). If so then thank you.

    You see I recently started doing this and had the impression that it all could be somehow ďreasonedĒ hence I thought I was missing something as I could not put into words how one got from ¨ (P ↓ Q) to (P ↓ Q) ↓ (P ↓ Q) or ¨P ↓ ¨Q to (P ↓ P) ↓ (Q ↓ Q). I have already derived it myself via tinkering with the truth tables itís the rationalizing into words that I canít get.

    Thanks
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,605
    Thanks
    1574
    Awards
    1

    Re: Truth Tables

    Quote Originally Posted by Gayelle View Post
    So I take it that there is no way to reason ¨ (P ↓ Q) ≡ (P ↓ Q) ↓ (P ↓ Q) or ¨P ↓ ¨Q ≡ (P ↓ P) ↓ (Q ↓ Q). If so then thank you. You see I recently started doing this and had the impression that it all could be somehow ďreasonedĒ hence I thought I was missing something as I could not put into words how one got from ¨ (P ↓ Q) to (P ↓ Q) ↓ (P ↓ Q) or ¨P ↓ ¨Q to (P ↓ P) ↓ (Q ↓ Q). I have already derived it myself via tinkering with the truth tables itís the rationalizing into words that I canít get.
    As I wrote in my reply, the function is of great interest to professional logicians.
    It turns out that all other logical functions can be written with the stroke,  \downarrow , alone.

    Quine called it the alternate denial, neither P nor Q is true.
    So \neg P \equiv \left( {P \downarrow P} \right) we have replaced not.

    As for your questions above, those were just worked out as part of the replacement program.
    If you have access to a good library Mathematical Logic by Quine, 1947 has a discussion.
    Thanks from Gayelle
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    Banned
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    961
    Thanks
    98

    Re: Truth Tables

    Quote Originally Posted by Plato View Post
    As I wrote in my reply, the function is of great interest to professional logicians.
    It turns out that all other logical functions can be written with the stroke,  \downarrow , alone.

    Quine called it the alternate denial, neither P nor Q is true.
    So \neg P \equiv \left( {P \downarrow P} \right) we have replaced not
    .
    Absent reason, so what?

    You could take appropriate combinations of existing symbols, give them new symbols, then replace the old symbols in symbolic formulas with the new symbols.

    So what?
    Thanks from Gayelle
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    Banned
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    961
    Thanks
    98

    Re: Truth Tables

    But there is an advantage to expressing combinations of logic symbols in terms of others when taking into account the capabilities of digital logic circuits. For example, I believe all truth tables can be expressed using only “and” “or” and “not.”

    If the dagger provides such an advantage, or potential advantage, that is certainly a reason.
    Thanks from Gayelle
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    From
    California
    Posts
    2,227
    Thanks
    851

    Re: Truth Tables

    Quote Originally Posted by Hartlw View Post
    Absent reason, so what?

    You could take appropriate combinations of existing symbols, give them new symbols, then replace the old symbols in symbolic formulas with the new symbols.

    So what?
    Are you asking Plato to justify the history of logic? That's a tall request for anyone.
    Thanks from Gayelle
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #11
    Newbie
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    From
    Trinidad
    Posts
    17

    Re: Truth Tables

    Quote Originally Posted by Plato View Post
    As I wrote in my reply, the function is of great interest to professional logicians. It turns out that all other logical functions can be written with the stroke,  \downarrow , alone. Quine called it the alternate denial, neither P nor Q is true. So \neg P \equiv \left( {P \downarrow P} \right) we have replaced not. As for your questions above, those were just worked out as part of the replacement program. If you have access to a good library Mathematical Logic by Quine, 1947 has a discussion.
    Thanks for the info. I tough I was missing something, however you've all helped clear that up .


    Thanks again!
    Last edited by Gayelle; March 17th 2014 at 10:35 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  12. #12
    Banned
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    961
    Thanks
    98

    Formal Logic

    Formal Logic

    1) If temp is below 32F then water freezes.
    2) If A then B.
    3) A→B

    By convention motivated by 1)
    A B A→B
    T T T
    F T T
    T F F
    F F T

    Beyond that are more definitions, rules, and symbol manipulation.
    Thanks from Gayelle
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Truth Tables
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: November 8th 2009, 05:15 PM
  2. truth tables
    Posted in the Math Topics Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 18th 2008, 07:17 PM
  3. Truth Tables
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 11th 2008, 01:30 PM
  4. help with truth tables
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 3rd 2006, 04:23 PM
  5. truth tables
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 11th 2006, 06:47 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum