Logical Form and Logical

Equivalence
Logical Form and Logical Equivalence
The central concept of deductive logic is the concept of
argument form. An argument is a sequence of statements
aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.

The assertion at the end of the sequence is called the

conclusion, and the preceding statements are called
premises.

To have confidence in the conclusion that you draw from

an argument, you must be sure that the premises are
acceptable on their own merits or follow from other
statements that are known to be true.
2

Example 1 – Identifying Logical Form

Fill in the blanks below so that argument (b) has the same
form as argument (a). Then represent the common form of
the arguments using letters to stand for component
sentences.

a. If Jane is a math major or Jane is a computer science

major, then Jane will take Math 150. Jane is a computer
science major. Therefore, Jane will take Math 150.

b. If logic is easy or , then .

 I will study hard.
Therefore, I will get an A in this course.

Example 1 –

Solution 1. I (will) study

hard.

2. I will get an A in this course.

Common form: If p or q, then

r. q.
Therefore, r.

Statements

5
Statements
Most of the definitions of formal logic have been developed
so that they agree with the natural or intuitive logic used by
people who have been educated to think clearly and use
language carefully.

The differences that exist between formal and intuitive logic

are necessary to avoid ambiguity and obtain consistency.

In any mathematical theory, new terms are defined by

using those that have been previously defined. However,
this process has to start somewhere. A few initial terms
necessarily remain undefined.
 6

Statements
In logic, the words sentence, true, and false are the
initial undefined terms.

7
 Compound Statements

Compound Statements
We now introduce three symbols that are used to build
more complicated logical expressions out of simpler ones.

The symbol ~ denotes not, ∧ denotes and, and ∨ denotes or.

Given a statement p, the sentence “~p” is read “not p” or “It is
not the case that p” and is called the negation of p. In some
computer languages the symbol is used in place of ~.

Compound Statements
Given another statement q, the sentence “p ∧ q” is read
“p and q” and is called the conjunction of p and q.
The sentence “p ∨ q” is read “p or q” and is called the
disjunction of p and q.

In expressions that include the symbol ~ as well as ∧ or

∨, the order of operations specifies that ~ is performed
first.

For instance, ~p ∧ q = (~p) ∧ q.

10

Compound Statements
In logical expressions, as in ordinary algebraic expressions,
the order of operations can be overridden through the use
of parentheses.

Thus ~(p ∧ q) represents the negation of the

conjunction of p and q.

In this, as in most treatments of logic, the symbols ∧ and

∨ are considered coequal in order of operation, and an
expression such as p ∧ q ∨ r is considered ambiguous.

This expression must be written as either (p ∧ q) ∨ r

or p ∧ (q ∨ r) to have meaning.
11
Example 2 – Translating from English to Symbols: But and Neither-Nor
Write each of the following sentences symbolically, letting
h = “It is hot” and s = “It is sunny.”
a. It is not hot but it is sunny.
b. It is neither hot nor sunny.

Solution:
a. The given sentence is equivalent to “It is not hot and it is
sunny,” which can be written symbolically as ~h ∧ s.

b. To say it is neither hot nor sunny means that it is not hot

and it is not sunny. Therefore, the given sentence can be
written symbolically as ~h ∧ ~s.
12
 Truth Values

13

Truth Values
In Example 2 we built compound sentences out of
component statements and the terms not, and, and or.

If such sentences are to be statements, however, they must

have well-defined truth values—they must be either true
or false.

We now define such compound sentences as statements

by specifying their truth values in terms of the statements
that compose them.

14

Truth Values
The negation of a statement is a statement that exactly
expresses what it would mean for the statement to be
false.
The truth values for negation are summarized in a truth table.

Truth Table for ~p

15

Truth Values
The truth values for conjunction can also be summarized in
a truth table.

Truth Table for p ∧ q

16

Truth Values
Here is the truth table for disjunction:

Truth Table for p ∨ q

17

Evaluating the Truth of More

 General Compound
Statements

18
Evaluating the Truth of More General Compound
Statements

Now that truth values have been assigned to ~p, p ∧

q, and p ∨ q, consider the question of assigning truth
values to more complicated expressions such as ~p
∨ q, (p ∨ q) ∧ ~(p ∧ q), and (p ∧ q) ∨ r. Such
 expressions are called statement forms (or
propositional forms).

19
Evaluating the Truth of More General Compound Statements

To compute the truth values for a statement form, follow

rules similar to those used to evaluate algebraic
expressions.
For each combination of truth values for the statement
variables, first evaluate the expressions within the
innermost parentheses, then evaluate the expressions
within the next innermost set of parentheses, and so forth
until you have the truth values for the complete
expression.

20

Example 4 – Truth Table for Exclusive Or

Construct the truth table for the statement form

(p ∨ q) ∧ ~(p ∧ q).

Note that when or is used in its exclusive sense, the

statement “p or q” means “p or q but not both” or “p or q
and not both p and q,” which translates into symbols as
(p ∨ q) ∧ ~(p ∧ q).

This is sometimes abbreviated

21

Example 4 – Solution
Set up columns labeled p, q, p ∨ q, p ∧ q, ~(p ∧ q),
and (p ∨ q) ∧ ~(p ∧ q).

Truth Table for Exclusive Or: (p ∨ q) ∧ ~( p ∧ q)

Fill in the p and q columns with all the logically possible

combinations of T’s and F’s. Then use the truth tables for
∨ and ∧ to fill in the p ∨ q and p ∧ q columns with the
appropriate truth values.
22

Example 4 – Solution
Next fill in the ~(p ∧ q) column Finally, fill in the (p ∨ q) ∧ ~(p
by taking the opposites of the ∧ q) column by considering
truth values for p ∧ q. the truth table for an and
statement together with the
computed truth values for p ∨ q
For example, the entry for ~(p
and ~(p ∧ q).
∧ q) in the first row is F
because in the first row the
cont’d
truth value of p ∧ q is T.
 23

Example 4 – Solution
cont’d

The entry in the second row is T because both components

are true in this row.

Truth Table for Exclusive Or: (p ∨ q) ∧ ~( p ∧ q)

24
 Logical Equivalence

25

Logical Equivalence
The statements

6 is greater than 2 and 2 is less than 6

are two different ways of saying the same thing. Why?

Because of the definition of the phrases greater than and
less than. By contrast, although the statements

(1) Dogs bark and cats meow

and
(2) Cats meow and dogs bark
are also two different ways of saying the same thing, the
reason has nothing to do with the definition of the words.
26

Logical Equivalence
It has to do with the logical form of the statements.

Any two statements whose logical forms are related in the

same way as (1) and (2) would either both be true or both
be false.

You can see this by examining the following truth table,

where the statement variables p and q are substituted for
the component statements “Dogs bark” and “Cats meow,”
respectively.

27

Logical Equivalence
The table shows that for each combination of truth values
for p and q, p ∧ q is true when, and only when, q ∧ p is
true.
In such a case, the statement
forms are called logically
equivalent, and we say
that (1) and (2) are
logically equivalent
statements.

28

Logical Equivalence
Testing Whether Two Statement Forms P and Q Are
Logically Equivalent

1. Construct a truth table with one column for the truth

values of P and another column for the truth values of
Q.

29
Logical Equivalence
2. Check each combination of truth values of the
statement variables to see whether the truth value of P
is the same as the truth value of Q.

a. If in each row the truth value of P is the same as the

truth value of Q, then P and Q are logically
equivalent.

b. If in some row P has a different truth value from

Q, then P and Q are not logically equivalent.
 30
Example 6 – Double Negative Property: ∼(∼p) ≡ p

Construct a truth table to show that the negation of the

negation of a statement is logically equivalent to the
statement, annotating the table with a sentence of
explanation.

Solution:
 31

Logical Equivalence
There are two ways to show that statement forms P and Q
are not logically equivalent. As indicated previously, one is
to use a truth table to find rows for which their truth values
differ.
The other way is to find concrete statements for each of the
two forms, one of which is true and the other of which is
false.

The next example illustrates both of these ways.

32

Example 7 – Showing Nonequivalence

Show that the statement forms ~(p ∧ q) and ~p ∧ ~q are not
logically equivalent.
Solution:
a. This method uses a truth table annotated with a
sentence of explanation.

33

Example 7 – cont’d
Solution
b. This method uses an example to show that ~(p ∧ q) and
~p ∧ ~q are not logically equivalent. Let p be the
statement “0 < 1” and let q be the statement “1 < 0.”

Then

which is true.

On the other hand,

which is false.
34
Example 7 – cont’d
Solution
This example shows that there are concrete statements
you can substitute for p and q to make one of the
statement forms true and the other false.

Therefore, the statement forms are not logically

equivalent.
 35

Logical Equivalence
The two logical equivalences are known as De
Morgan’s laws of logic in honor of Augustus De
Morgan, who was the first to state them in formal
mathematical terms.
 36

Logical Equivalence
Symbolically we can represent the two logic equivalences
as:

and
 37

Example 9 – Applying De Morgan’s Laws

Write negations for each of the following statements: a.

John is 6 feet tall and he weighs at least 200 pounds.
b. The bus was late or Tom’s watch was slow.
Solution:
a. John is not 6 feet tall or he weighs less than 200

pounds. b. The bus was not late and Tom’s watch was not

slow.

Since the statement “neither p nor q” means the same as

“~p and ~q,” an alternative answer for (b) is “Neither was
the bus late nor was Tom’s watch slow.”
38

Example 11 – A Cautionary Example

According to De Morgan’s laws, the negation of
p: Jim is tall and Jim is thin
is ~p: Jim is not tall or Jim is not thin

because the negation of an and statement is the or statement

in which the two components are negated.

Unfortunately, a potentially confusing aspect of the English

language can arise when you are taking negations of this
kind. Note that statement p can be written more compactly
as p′: Jim is tall and thin.

39
 Doesn’t that violate De
Example 11 – A
Cautionary Morgan’s laws?
Example
Actually no violation occurs.
When it is so written, another The reason is that in formal
way to negate it is ~(p′): Jim is logic the words and and or are
not tall and thin. allowed only between
complete statements, not
between sentence fragments.
But in this form the negation
cont’d
looks like an and statement.
 40

Example 11 – A Cautionary
 apply De Morgan’s laws, you
Example must have complete

One lesson to be learned from cont’d

this example is that when you

statements on either side of each and and on either side

of each or.
 41

Tautologies and Contradictions

 42

Tautologies and Contradictions

 According to this definition, the truth of a tautological
statement and the falsity of a contradictory statement are
due to the logical structure of the statements themselves
and are independent of the meanings of the statements.

43
Example 13 – Logical Equivalence Involving Tautologies and Contradictions
If t is a tautology and c is a contradiction, show that
p ∧ t ≡ p and p ∧ c ≡ c.

Solution:

44

Summary of Logical Equivalences

 45

Summary of Logical Equivalences

Knowledge of logically equivalent statements is very useful
for constructing arguments.

It often happens that it is difficult to see how a conclusion

follows from one form of a statement, whereas it is easy to
see how it follows from a logically equivalent form of the
statement.

46

Summary of Logical Equivalences

A number of logical equivalences are summarized in
Theorem 2.1.1 for future reference.
 4
7

Example 14 – Simplifying Statement Forms

 Use Theorem 2.1.1 to verify the logical
equivalence

Solution:
Use the laws of Theorem 2.1.1 to replace sections of the
statement form on the left by logically equivalent
expressions.

Each time you do this, you obtain a logically equivalent

statement form.

48
 Example 14 – Solution cont’d
Continue making replacements until you obtain the
statement form on the right.
49