Formal Proof
The laws may be proven directly using truth tables; "1" represents true, "0" represents false.
First we prove: ¬(p ∨ q) ⇔ (¬p) ∧ (¬q).
| p | q | p ∨ q | ¬(p ∨ q) | ¬p | ¬q | (¬p) ∧ (¬q) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Since the values in the 4th and last columns are the same for all rows (which cover all possible truth value assignments to the variables), we can conclude that the two expressions are logically equivalent.
Now we prove ¬(p ∧ q) ⇔ (¬p) ∨ (¬q) by the same method:
| p | q | p ∧ q | ¬(p ∧ q) | ¬p | ¬q | (¬p) ∨ (¬q) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Read more about this topic: De Morgan's Laws
Famous quotes containing the words formal and/or proof:
“True variety is in that plenitude of real and unexpected elements, in the branch charged with blue flowers thrusting itself, against all expectations, from the springtime hedge which seems already too full, while the purely formal imitation of variety ... is but void and uniformity, that is, that which is most opposed to variety....”
—Marcel Proust (1871–1922)
“The thing with Catholicism, the same as all religions, is that it teaches what should be, which seems rather incorrect. This is “what should be.” Now, if you’re taught to live up to a “what should be” that never existed—only an occult superstition, no proof of this “should be”Mthen you can sit on a jury and indict easily, you can cast the first stone, you can burn Adolf Eichmann, like that!”
—Lenny Bruce (1925–1966)