CvSU Vision Soldiers Hills IV, Molino VI, COSC 50 LEARNING MODULES

premier universityin historic Cavite ed for excellence in City of Bacoor, Cavite

the ent of morally upright and competitive individuals. CvSU Mission
�� (046) 476 - 5029
Cavite State University shall provide
www.cvsu.edu.ph excellent, equitable and relevant educational
opportunities in the arts, science and technology through
Republic of the Philippines
quality instruction and relevant research and development
activities.
CAVITE STATE UNIVERSITY Bacoor
It shall produce professional, skilled and
City Campus
DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER STUDIES

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY COSC 50: DISCREET STRUCTURES 1

First Semester, AY 2022 – 2023

Prepared by: MIRISA S. MUNDO

EMMANUEL ORAPA
ANLISSA S. TORRES
AIDA M. PENSON
INSTRUCTORS
 1
Module 3

Lesson 1 Material Equivalence

Two propositions are materially equivalent if and only if they have the same truth value
for every assignment of truth values to the atomic propositions. That is, they have the same
truth values on every row of a truth table.

The truth table below demonstrates that “¬S → R” and “S v R” are materially equivalent.
R S ¬S ¬S → R SvR

T T F T T

T F T T T

F T F T T

F F T F F

If you look at the truth values under the main operators of each sentence, you can see that their
truth values are identical on every row. That means the two statements are materially
equivalent and can be used interchangeably, as far as propositional logic goes.

Let’s demonstrate material equivalence with another example. We have seen that we can
translate “neither nor” statements as a conjunction of two negations. So, a statement of the
form, “neither P nor Q” can be translated:

¬P ⋅¬Q

But another way of translating statements of this form is as a negation of a disjunction, like

this: ¬ (P v Q)

We can prove these two statements are materially equivalent with a truth table (below).
P Q ¬P ¬Q (P v Q) ¬P ⋅ ¬Q ¬ (P v Q)
T T F F T F F

T F F T T F F

F T T F T F F

F F T T F T T

2
Again, as you can see from the truth table, the truth values under
the main operators of each sentence are identical on every row
(i.e., for every assignment of truth values to the atomic
propositions). In fact, there is a fifth truth functional connective
called “material equivalence” orthe “biconditional” that is
defined as true when the atomic propositions share the same truth
value, and false when the truth values different. Although we will
not be relying on the biconditional, I provide the truth table for
it below. The biconditional is represented using thesymbol “≡”
which is called a “tribar.”
P Q P≡Q

T T T

T F F

F T F

F F T

Some common ways of expressing the biconditional in English are with the phrases “if and
only if” and “just in case.” If you have been paying close attention (or do from now on out) you
will see me use the phrase “if and only if” often. It is most commonly used when one is giving a
definition, such as the definition of validity and also in defining the “material equivalence” in
this very section. It makes sense that the biconditional would be used in this way since when we
define something we are laying down an equivalent way of saying it.

Exercise
Construct a truth table to determine whether the following pairs of statements are materially equivalent.

1. A → B and ¬A ˅ B
2. ¬ (A �� B) and ¬A ˅ ¬B
3. A → B and ~B → ¬A
4. A ˅ ¬B and B → A
5. B → A and A → B
6. ¬ (A → B) and A �� ¬B
7. A ˅ B and ¬A �� ¬B
8. A ˅ (B �� C) and (A v B) �� (A ˅ C)
9. (A ˅ B) �� C and A ˅ (B �� C)
10. ¬ (A ˅ B) and ¬A ˅ B

Lesson 2 Logical Equivalence

Two statements P and Q are logically equivalent if any of the following two

conditions hold − • The truth tables of each statement have the same truth values

(materially equivalent). • The bi-conditional statement P↔Q is a tautology.

Example − Prove ¬(P∨Q) and [(¬P)��(¬Q)] are equivalent

 3
P Q P∨Q ¬ (P ∨ Q) ¬P ¬Q [(¬ P) �� (¬
Q)]

Testing by 1stmethod (Matching truth table)

 4
T T T F F F F

T F T F F T F

F T T F T F F

F F F T T T T

Here, we can see the truth values of ¬(P∨Q) and [(¬P)��(¬Q)] are same, hence the
statements are equivalent.

Testing by 2nd method (Bi-conditionality)

P Q ¬ (P ∨ Q ) [(¬ P) �� (¬ Q)] [¬ (P ∨ Q)] ↔ [(¬ P ) �� (¬ Q)]

T T F F T

T F F F T

F T F F T

F F T T T

As [¬(P∨Q)] ↔ [(¬P)��(¬Q)] is a tautology, the statements are

equivalent. Testing Logical Equivalence:

Testing Whether Two Statement Forms P and Q are Logically Equivalent

1. Construct a truth table with one column P and another column for Q.
2. Check each combination of truth values of the statement variables to see whether the
truth value of P is the same as truth value of Q.
a. If in every 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.

Inverse, Converse, and Contra-positive

Implication / if-then (→) is also called a conditional statement. It has two parts −

• Hypothesis, antecedent or premise: P

• Conclusion or consequent: Q
As mentioned earlier, it is denoted as P→Q.

It can be associated with 3 variants.

 • Converse: Q→P
• Inverse: ¬P→¬Q

5
• Contrapositive: ¬Q→¬P

Example of Conditional Statement − “If you do your homework, you will not
be punished.” Here, "you do your homework" is the hypothesis, P, and
"you will not be punished" is the conclusion, Q.
Inverse − An inverse of the conditional statement is the negation of
both the hypothesis and the conclusion. If the statement is “If P,
then Q”, the inverse will be “If not P, then not Q”. Thus the inverse of
P→Q is ¬P→¬Q.
Example − The inverse of “If you do your homework, you will not be
punished” is “If you do not do your homework, you will be punished.”
Converse − The converse of the conditional statement is computed by
interchanging the hypothesis and the conclusion. If the statement is
“If P, then Q”, the converse will be “If Q, then P”. The converse of
P→Q is Q→P.
Example − The converse of "If you do your homework, you will not be
punished" is "If you will not be punished, you do your homework”.
Contra-positive − The contra-positive of the conditional is computed by
interchanging the hypothesis and the conclusion of the inverse
statement. If the statement is “If p, then q”, the contra-positive
will be “If not Q, then not P”. The contra-positive of P→Q is ¬Q→¬P.
Example − The Contra-positive of " If you do your homework, you will
not be punished” is "If you are punished, you did not do your
homework”.

Lesson 3 Testing For Argument Validity

Recall that in mathematics and logic, an ARGUMENT is not a dispute. It is a sequence

of statements ending in a conclusion.

Example:

If Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal.

Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

In logic, we focus on whether an argument is valid or not – i.e., whether the conclusion
follows necessarily from the preceding statements.

Are they valid arguments?

Consider the following:

6
(1) If Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

(2) If Scoopy is a man, then Scoopy is mortal.

Scoopy is mortal.
Therefore, Scoopy is a man.

(3) If you see Tom, then you see Jerry.

You see Tom.
Therefore, you see Jerry.

Observe: arguments 1 and 3 follow the same logic.

The content of a statement or argument can be represented in a logical form by the use
of statement variables. For example:
If Socrates is a man, then Socrates is P→
mortal. Q

Socrates is a man. P

Therefore, Socrates is mortal. ∴Q

An argument form is valid if, no matter what statements are substituted for the premises
statement variables, if the premises are all true, then the conclusion is also true. The truth of
the conclusion must follow necessarily from the truth of the premises.

To determine an argument's validity:

• Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.

• Createa truth table showing the values of the premises and conclusion. •
Locate the rows in which the premises are all true (the critical rows). •
For each critical row, determine if the conclusion is also true.

If the conclusion is true for each critical row, then the argument form is valid. But if even one
of the critical rows contains a false conclusion, the argument is invalid.

Example:
P→Q ˅ ¬R
Q→P �� R

P→R premises conclusion

7
P Q R ¬R Q ˅ ¬R P �� P → Q ˅ ¬R Q→P P→R
R �� R

T T T F T T T T T

T T F T T F T F

T F T F F T F T

T F F T T F T T F

F T T F T F T F

F T F T T F T F

F F T F F F T T T

F F F T T F T T T

Shaded rows are the critical rows. Notice that one of the rows show a situation where
the premises are true and the conclusion is false. Hence, this form of argument is
invalid.
8