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)
“If we view our children as stupid, naughty, disturbed, or guilty of their misdeeds, they will learn to behold themselves as foolish, faulty, or shameful specimens of humanity. They will regard us as judges from whom they wish to hide, and they will interpret everything we say as further proof of their unworthiness. If we view them as innocent, or at least merely ignorant, they will gain understanding from their experiences, and they will continue to regard us as wise partners.”
—Polly Berrien Berends (20th century)