Difference between revisions of "Talk:Logical graph"
Jon Awbrey (talk | contribs) (→Logical Equivalence Problem: caps) |
Jon Awbrey (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
==Logical Equivalence Problem== | ==Logical Equivalence Problem== | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Problem=== | ||
* [http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=6513648 Problem posted by Mike1234 on the Discrete Math List at the Math Forum]. | * [http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=6513648 Problem posted by Mike1234 on the Discrete Math List at the Math Forum]. | ||
− | * [http://mathforum.org/kb/plaintext.jspa?messageID=6514666 Solution posted by Jon Awbrey, working | + | ===Solution=== |
+ | |||
+ | * [http://mathforum.org/kb/plaintext.jspa?messageID=6514666 Solution posted by Jon Awbrey, working in the medium of logical graphs]. | ||
<pre> | <pre> | ||
Line 73: | Line 77: | ||
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o | o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o | ||
+ | </pre> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Discussion=== | ||
+ | |||
+ | o12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)[[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)o12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)[[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)o12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)[[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)o12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)[[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)o12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)[[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)o12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)[[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)o | ||
+ | |||
+ | Back to the initial problem: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Show that ~(p <=> q) is equivalent to (~q) <=> p | ||
+ | |||
+ | We can translate this into logical graphs by supposing that we | ||
+ | have to express everything in terms of negation and conjunction, | ||
+ | using parentheses for negation -- that is, "(x)" for "not x" -- | ||
+ | and simple concatenation for conjunction -- "xyz" or "x y z" | ||
+ | for "x and y and z". | ||
+ | |||
+ | In this form of representation, for historical reasons called | ||
+ | the "existential interpretation" of logical graphs, we have | ||
+ | the following expressions for basic logical operations: | ||
+ | |||
+ | The disjunction "x or y" is written "((x)(y))". | ||
+ | |||
+ | This corresponds to the logical graph: | ||
+ | |||
+ | x y | ||
+ | o o | ||
+ | \ / | ||
+ | o | ||
+ | | | ||
+ | O | ||
+ | |||
+ | The disjunction "x or y or z" is written "((x)(y)(z))". | ||
+ | |||
+ | This corresponds to the logical graph: | ||
+ | |||
+ | x y z | ||
+ | o o o | ||
+ | \|/ | ||
+ | o | ||
+ | | | ||
+ | O | ||
+ | |||
+ | Etc. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The implication "x => y" is written "(x (y)), | ||
+ | which can be read "not x without y" if that | ||
+ | helps to remember the form of expression. | ||
+ | |||
+ | This corresponds to the logical graph: | ||
+ | |||
+ | y o | ||
+ | | | ||
+ | x o | ||
+ | | | ||
+ | O | ||
+ | |||
+ | Thus, the equivalence "x <=> y" has to be written somewhat | ||
+ | inefficiently as a conjunction of to and fro implications: | ||
+ | "(x (y))(y (x))". | ||
+ | |||
+ | This corresponds to the logical graph: | ||
+ | |||
+ | y o o x | ||
+ | | | | ||
+ | x o o y | ||
+ | \ / | ||
+ | O | ||
+ | |||
+ | Putting all the pieces together, the problem given | ||
+ | amounts to proving the following equation, expressed | ||
+ | in parse string and logical graph forms, respectively: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Show that ~(p <=> q) is equivalent to (~q) <=> p | ||
+ | |||
+ | q o o p q o | ||
+ | | | | | ||
+ | p o o q o o p | ||
+ | \ / | | | ||
+ | o p o o--o q | ||
+ | | \ / | ||
+ | O = O | ||
+ | |||
+ | ( (p (q)) (q (p)) ) = (p ( (q) )) ((p)(q)) | ||
+ | |||
+ | No kidding ... | ||
+ | |||
+ | o12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)[[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)o12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)[[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)o12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)[[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)o12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)[[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)o12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)[[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)o12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)[[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)o | ||
</pre> | </pre> |
Revision as of 20:30, 2 December 2008
Notes & Queries
- Jon Awbrey 20:20, 1 February 2008 (PST)
Place for Discussion
\(\ldots\)
Logical Equivalence Problem
Problem
Solution
Date: 30 Nov 2008, 2:00 AM Author: Jon Awbrey Subject: Re: logical equivalence problem o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o required to show: ~(p <=> q) is equivalent to (~q) <=> p in logical graphs, the required equivalence looks like this: q o o p q o | | | p o o q o o p \ / | | o p o o--o q | \ / @ = @ we have a theorem that says: y o xy o | | x @ = x @ see: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Logical_graph#C2.__Generation_theorem applying this twice to the left hand side of the required equation: q o o p pq o o pq | | | | p o o q p o o q \ / \ / o o | | @ = @ by collection, the reverse of distribution, we get: p q o o pq \ / o o \ / @ but this is the same result that we get from one application of double negation to the right hand side of the required equation. QED Jon Awbrey PS. I will copy this to the Inquiry List: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ since I know it preserves the trees. o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Discussion
o12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)Jon Awbrey 12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)o12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)Jon Awbrey 12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)o12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)Jon Awbrey 12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)o12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)Jon Awbrey 12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)o12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)Jon Awbrey 12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)o12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)Jon Awbrey 12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)o
Back to the initial problem:
- Show that ~(p <=> q) is equivalent to (~q) <=> p
We can translate this into logical graphs by supposing that we have to express everything in terms of negation and conjunction, using parentheses for negation -- that is, "(x)" for "not x" -- and simple concatenation for conjunction -- "xyz" or "x y z" for "x and y and z".
In this form of representation, for historical reasons called the "existential interpretation" of logical graphs, we have the following expressions for basic logical operations:
The disjunction "x or y" is written "((x)(y))".
This corresponds to the logical graph:
x y o o \ / o | O
The disjunction "x or y or z" is written "((x)(y)(z))".
This corresponds to the logical graph:
x y z o o o \|/ o | O
Etc.
The implication "x => y" is written "(x (y)), which can be read "not x without y" if that helps to remember the form of expression.
This corresponds to the logical graph:
y o | x o | O
Thus, the equivalence "x <=> y" has to be written somewhat inefficiently as a conjunction of to and fro implications: "(x (y))(y (x))".
This corresponds to the logical graph:
y o o x | | x o o y \ / O
Putting all the pieces together, the problem given amounts to proving the following equation, expressed in parse string and logical graph forms, respectively:
- Show that ~(p <=> q) is equivalent to (~q) <=> p
q o o p q o | | | p o o q o o p \ / | | o p o o--o q | \ / O = O
( (p (q)) (q (p)) ) = (p ( (q) )) ((p)(q))
No kidding ...
o12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)Jon Awbrey 12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)o12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)Jon Awbrey 12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)o12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)Jon Awbrey 12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)o12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)Jon Awbrey 12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)o12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)Jon Awbrey 12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)o12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)Jon Awbrey 12:30, 2 December 2008 (PST)o