INTRODUCTION TO BOOLEAN ALGEBRA

Binary Number System

It is a number system consisting of only two digits 0 and 1. It is also called the base 2
number system. All the numbers in this system are expressed in 0s and 1s.
Example: Decimal number (6)10 is written as (110)2 in binary.

Given A = 1010 H, we, have a binary constant and variable

(i). Binary Constant - binary value that will not change is called a binary constant.
(ii). Binary Variable - binary variable is a symbolic name assigned to a
binary value. Example: A

Basic Logical Operation

Following are the basic logical operation.
(i). OR operation (+)
(ii). AND operation (.)
(iii). NOT operation (')
The Logical OR operation (+)
Logical OR operation of two Boolean variables A and B is written as X = A + B It is
also called logical addition.
The following table contains the input and output of the logical OR operation.
Truth table

Every statement (in mathematic/logic) is either True or False. This is called the Law
of the Excluded Middle. A statement in sentential logic is built from simple
statements using the logical connectives ˄(conjunction), ˅(disjunction),
→(implication/condition), ↔(equivalent/biconditional) and ̚. (negation).

The truth or falsity of a statement built with these connectives depends on the truth or
falsity of its components. For example, the compound statement P → (Q ˅ ̚ R) is built
using the logical connectives →, ˅ and ̚. The truth or falsity of P → (Q ˅ ̚ R) depends
on the truth or falsity of P, Q, and R.

A truth table shows how the truth or falsity of a compound statement depends on
the truth or falsity of the simple statements from which it's constructed.

For example1, the compound statement P,

We can conclude that If P is true, its negation ̚ P is false. If P is false, then negation ̚ P
is false is true as illustrated.

For example2, the conjunction of compound statement P AND Q

P ˄ Q should be true when both P and Q are true otherwise false as illustrated.

For example3, the disjunction of compound statement P OR Q

P ˅ Q is true if either P is true or Q is true (or both --- remember that we're using

"or" in the inclusive sense). It's only false if both P and Q are false.

For example4, the logical implication of compound statement P implies Q (P→Q)

Given two prepositional statement P = Get an A (in exam)

& Q = I’ll give you a dollar

We can rewrite this using if… then statement as "If you get an A, then I'll give you a
dollar."

The statement will be true if I keep my promise and false if I don't.

1. Suppose it's true that you get an A and it's true that I give you a dollar. Since
I kept my promise, the implication is true. This corresponds to the first line in
the table.
2. Suppose it's true that you get an A but it's false that I give you a dollar. Since
I didn't keep my promise, the implication is false. This corresponds to the
second line in the table.
3. What if it's false that you get an A? Whether or not I give you a dollar, I haven't
broken my promise. Thus, the implication can't be false, so (since this is a two-
valued logic) it must be true. This explains the last two lines of the table.

For example4, the logical equivalence of compound (P↔Q)

(P↔Q means that P and Q are equivalent. So the double implication is true if P and

Q are both true or if P and Q are both false; otherwise, the double implication is false.

Remark. (a) You should remember --- or be able to construct --- the truth tables for
the logical connectives. You'll use these tables to construct tables for more
complicated sentences. It's easier to demonstrate what to do than to describe it in
words, so you'll see the procedure worked out in the examples.

Remark. (b) When you're constructing a truth table, you have to consider all possible
assignments of True (T) and False (F) to the component statements. For example,
suppose the component statements are P, Q, and R. Each of these statements can be

either true or false, so there is 23=8 possibilities. E.g.

When you're listing the possibilities, you should assign truth values to the component
statements in a systematic way to avoid duplication or omission. The easiest approach
is to use lexicographic ordering. Thus, for a compound statement with three
components P, Q, and R, I would list the possibilities as above.

Example. Construct a truth table for the formula .

First, I list all the alternatives for P and Q.

Next, in the third column, I list the values of based on the values of P. I use the
truth table for negation: When P is true is false, and when P is false, is true.

In the fourth column, I list the values for . Check for yourself that it is only
false ("F") if P is true ("T") and Q is false ("F").

The fifth column gives the values for my compound expression . It is

an "and" of (the third column) and (the fourth column). An "and" is true
only if both parts of the "and" are true; otherwise, it is false. So I look at the third and
fourth columns; if both are true ("T"), I put T in the fifth column, otherwise I put F.
A tautology is a formula which is "always true" --- that is, it is true for every
assignment of truth values to its simple components. You can think of a tautology as
a rule of logic.

The opposite of a tautology is a contradiction, a formula which is "always false". In

other words, a contradiction is false for every assignment of truth values to its simple
components.

Example. Show that is a tautology.

I construct the truth table for and show that the formula is always
true.

The last column contains only T's. Therefore, the formula is a tautology.

Example. Construct a truth table for .

You can see that constructing truth tables for statements with lots of connectives or
lots of simple statements is pretty tedious and error-prone. While there might be some
applications of this (e.g. to digital circuits), at some point the best thing would be to
write a program to construct truth tables (and this has surely been done).

The point here is to understand how the truth value of a complex statement depends
on the truth values of its simple statements and its logical connectives. In most work,
mathematicians don't normally use statements which are very complicated from a
logical point of view.

Example. (a) Suppose that P is false and is true. Tell whether Q is true, false,
or its truth value can't be determined.

(b) Suppose that is false. Tell whether Q is true, false, or its truth value
can't be determined.

(a) Since is true, either P is true or is true. Since P is false, must be

true. Hence, Q must be false.

(b) An if-then statement is false when the "if" part is true and the "then" part is false.
Since is false, is true. An "and" statement is true only when
both parts are true. In particular, must be true, so Q is false.

Example. Suppose

" " is true.

" " is false.

"Calvin Butterball has purple socks" is true.

Determine the truth value of the statement

For simplicity, let

P=" ".

Q=" ".

R = "Calvin Butterball has purple socks".

I want to determine the truth value of . Since I was given specific

truth values for P, Q, and R, I set up a truth table with a single row using the given
values for P, Q, and R:

Therefore, the statement is true.

Example. Determine the truth value of the statement

The statement " " is false. You can't tell whether the statement "Ichabod
Xerxes eats chocolate cupcakes" is true or false --- but it doesn't matter. If the "if" part
of an "if-then" statement is false, then the "if-then" statement is true. (Check the truth
table for if you're not sure about this!) So the given statement must be true.
Two statements X and Y are logically equivalent if is a tautology. Another
way to say this is: For each assignment of truth values to the simple statements which
make up X and Y, the statements X and Y have identical truth values.

From a practical point of view, you can replace a statement in a proof by any logically
equivalent statement.

To test whether X and Y are logically equivalent, you could set up a truth table to test
whether is a tautology --- that is, whether "has all T's in its column".
However, it's easier to set up a table containing X and Y and then check whether the
columns for X and for Y are the same.

Example. Show that and are logically equivalent.

Since the columns for and are identical, the two statements are
logically equivalent. This tautology is called Conditional Disjunction. You can use
this equivalence to replace a conditional by a disjunction.

There are an infinite number of tautologies and logical equivalences; I've listed a few
below; a more extensive list is given at the end of this section.

When a tautology has the form of a biconditional, the two statements which make up
the biconditional are logically equivalent. Hence, you can replace one side with the
other without changing the logical meaning.
You will often need to negate a mathematical statement. To see how to do this, we'll
begin by showing how to negate symbolic statements.

Example. Write down the negation of the following statements, simplifying so that
only simple statements are negated.

(a)

(b)

(a) I negate the given statement, then simplify using logical equivalences. I've given
the names of the logical equivalences on the right so you can see which ones I used.

(b)

I showed that and are logically equivalent in an earlier example.

In the following examples, we'll negate statements written in words. This is more
typical of what you'll need to do in mathematics. The idea is to convert the word-
statement to a symbolic statement, then use logical equivalences as we did in the last
example.

Example. Use DeMorgan's Law to write the negation of the following statement,
simplifying so that only simple statements are negated:

"Calvin is not home or Bonzo is at the movies."

Let C be the statement "Calvin is home" and let B be the statement "Bonzo is at the
moves". The given statement is . I'm supposed to negate the statement, then
simplify:
The result is "Calvin is home and Bonzo is not at the movies".

Example. Use DeMorgan's Law to write the negation of the following statement,
simplifying so that only simple statements are negated:

"If Phoebe buys a pizza, then Calvin buys popcorn."

Let P be the statement "Phoebe buys a pizza" and let C be the statement "Calvin buys
popcorn". The given statement is . To simplify the negation, I'll use
the Conditional Disjunction tautology which says

That is, I can replace with (or vice versa).

Here, then, is the negation and simplification:

The result is "Phoebe buys the pizza and Calvin doesn't buy popcorn".

Next, we'll apply our work on truth tables and negating statements to problems
involving constructing the converse, inverse, and contrapositive of an "if-then"
statement.

Example. Replace the following statement with its contrapositive:

"If x and y are rational, then is rational."

By the contrapositive equivalence, this statement is the same as "If is not

rational, then it is not the case that both x and y are rational".

This answer is correct as it stands, but we can express it in a slightly better way which
removes some of the explicit negations. Most people find a positive statement easier
to comprehend than a negative statement.
By definition, a real number is irrational if it is not rational. So I could replace the
"if" part of the contrapositive with " is irrational".

The "then" part of the contrapositive is the negation of an "and" statement. You could
restate it as "It's not the case that both x is rational and y is rational". (The word "both"
ensures that the negation applies to the whole "and" statement, not just to "x is
rational".)

By DeMorgan's Law, this is equivalent to: "x is not rational or y is not rational".
Alternatively, I could say: "x is irrational or y is irrational".

Putting everything together, I could express the contrapositive as: "If is

irrational, then either x is irrational or y is irrational".

(As usual, I added the word "either" to make it clear that the "then" part is the whole
"or" statement.)

Example. Show that the inverse and the converse of a conditional are logically
equivalent.

Let be the conditional. The inverse is . The converse is .

I could show that the inverse and converse are equivalent by constructing a truth table
for . I'll use some known tautologies instead.

Start with :

Remember that I can replace a statement with one that is logically equivalent. For
example, in the last step I replaced with Q, because the two statements are
equivalent by Double negation.

Example. Suppose x is a real number. Consider the statement

"If , then ."

Construct the converse, the inverse, and the contrapositive. Determine the truth or
falsity of the four statements --- the original statement, the converse, the inverse, and
the contrapositive --- using your knowledge of algebra.

The converse is "If , then ".

The inverse is "If , then ".

The contrapositive is "If , then ".

The original statement is false: , but . Since the original statement is

eqiuivalent to the contrapositive, the contrapositive must be false as well.

The converse is true. The inverse is logically equivalent to the converse, so the inverse
is true as well.

\newpage

\centerline{\bigssbold List of Tautologies}

 CONDITIONAL STSTAEMENTS-and other forms
Let’s first take a look at a basic statement, which can be either true or false, but never
both. For example, a declarative statement pronounces a fact, like “the Sun is hot.” We
know this is a statement because the Sun cannot be both hot and not hot at the same time.
This declarative statement could also be referred to as a proposition.
Two independent statements can be related to each other in a logic structure called
a conditional statement. The first statement is presented with “if,” and is referred to as
the hypothesis. The second statement is linked with “then”, and is known as
the conclusion. The notation associated with conditional statements typically uses the
variable 𝑝 for the hypothesis statement, and 𝑞 for the conclusion.
𝑝→𝑞

In words, this would be read as, “If 𝑝, then 𝑞.”

When the hypothesis and conclusion are identified in a statement, three other statements
can be derived:

1. The converse statement is notated as 𝑞→𝑝 (if 𝑞, then 𝑝). The original
statements switch positions in the original “if-then” statement.
2. The inverse statement assumes the opposite of each of the original
statements and is notated ∼𝑝→∼𝑞 (if not 𝑝, then not 𝑞).
3. The contrapositive statement is a combination of the previous two. The
positions of p𝑝 and q𝑞 of the original statement are switched, and then the
opposite of each is considered: ∼𝑞→∼𝑝 (if not 𝑞, then not 𝑝).
An example will help to make sense of this new terminology and notation. Let’s start
with a conditional statement and turn it into our three other statements.

Conditional statement: “If it is raining, then the grass is wet.”

The first step is to identify the hypothesis and conclusion statements. Conditional
statements make this pretty easy, as the hypothesis follows if and the conclusion
follows then. The hypothesis is it is raining and the conclusion is grass is wet.
Hypothesis, 𝑝: it is raining
Conclusion, 𝑞: grass is wet

Now we can use the definitions that we introduced earlier to create the three other
statements.

• Our converse statement would be: “If the grass is wet, then it is raining.”
• Our inverse statement would be: “If it is NOT raining, then the grass is
NOT wet.”
 • Our contrapositive statement would be: “If the grass is NOT wet, then it
is NOT raining.”
You may be wondering why we would want to go through the trouble of rearranging and
considering the “opposite” of the hypothesis and conclusion statements. How is this
helpful? The key is in the relationship between the statements. If we know that a
statement is true (or false), then we can assume that another is also true (or false). The
statements that are related in this way are considered logically equivalent.

For example, consider the statement, “If it is raining, then the grass is wet” to be TRUE.
Then you can assume that the contrapositive statement, “If the grass is NOT wet, then it
is NOT raining” is also TRUE.

Likewise, the converse statement, “If the grass is wet, then it is raining” is logically
equivalent to the inverse statement, “If it is NOT raining, then the grass is NOT wet.”

These relationships are particularly helpful in math courses when you are asked to prove
theorems based on definitions that are already known. Much of that work is beyond the
scope of this video, but the following examples will help to illustrate the relationships of
logically equivalent statements.

Here is a typical example of a TRUE statement that would be made in a geometry class
based on the definition of congruent angles:
Two angles with equal measure are congruent.

As you can see, this is not a conditional statement, but we can rewrite it in the “if-then”
structure to identify the hypothesis and conclusion statements as follows:

If two angles have the same measure, then the two angles are congruent.

Now we have a hypothesis and a conclusion.

Hypothesis: “Two angles have the same measure”

Conclusion: “Two angles are congruent”

Because the conditional statement and the contrapositive are logically equivalent, we can
assume the following to be TRUE:

If the two angles are NOT congruent, then the two angles do NOT have the same
measure.

It follows that the converse statement, “If two angles are congruent, then the two angles
have the same measure,” is logically equivalent to the inverse statement, “If two angles
do NOT have the same measure, then they are NOT congruent.”

Here is another example of a TRUE statement:

A square is a rectangle.

The conditional statement would be “If a figure is a square, then it is a rectangle,” which
gives us our hypothesis and conclusion.

Hypothesis: a figure is a square

Conclusion: the figure is a rectangle

Because the contrapositive statement is logically equivalent, we can assume that “If the
figure is NOT a rectangle, then the figure is NOT a square” is also a TRUE statement.

However, the converse statement can be disproved.

Converse: “If the figure is a rectangle, then it is a square.”

As can be seen in the diagram above, squares are a type of rectangle and a rectangle is a
type of polygon. However, a square is a special type of rectangle that has four sides of
equal length. Not all rectangles have four equal sides like a square, so our converse
statement is FALSE.
Accordingly, the inverse statement is also FALSE because they are logically equivalent:

If the figure is NOT a square, then it is NOT a rectangle.

In summary, the original statement is logically equivalent to the contrapositive, and the
converse statement is logically equivalent to the inverse.

That is a lot to take in! Let’s end this video with an example for you to process how to
analyze a statement to write the converse, inverse, and contrapositive statements.